Cupertino City Council
April 1, 2026

Wednesday, April 1, 2026
5:30 PM

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Special Meeting Non-Televised Closed Session (5:30) and Televised Open Session (6:30)
10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber and via Teleconference
City Council

KITTY MOORE, MAYOR

LIANG CHAO, VICE MAYOR
J.R. FRUEN, COUNCILMEMBER

SHEILA MOHAN, COUNCILMEMBER
R "RAY" WANG, COUNCILMEMBER

IN PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE MEETING
For more information: (408) 777-3200 | www.cupertino.gov AGENDA
1 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
1 of 2331
City Council Agenda April 1, 2026

IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION OPTIONS TO OBSERVE:

Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following ways:
1) Attend in person at Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue. 2) Tune to Comcast Channel 26 and AT&T U-Verse Channel 99 on your TV. 3) Watch a live stream online at www.Cupertino.gov/youtube and www.Cupertino.org/webcast
4) Attend in person at a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code 54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda.

OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT:

Members of the public wishing to address the City Council may do so in the following ways:
1) Appear in person for Closed Session in City Hall, Conference Room C or for Open Session in Cupertino Community Hall.

A. During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the agenda, and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment period for each agendized item.

B. Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card. While completion of Speaker Cards is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments, it is helpful for the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon.

C. Speakers must wait to be called, then proceed to the lectern/podium and speak into the microphone when recognized by the Mayor.

D. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Mayor may reduce the speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item. A speaker representing a group between 2 and 5 members of the public in attendance may have up to 2 minutes per group member to speak, up to 10 minutes maximum.

E. Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect any personal devices at the lectern/podium. However, speakers that wish to share a document (e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may do so in one of the following ways:
a) At the overhead projector at the podium, or
b) E-mail the document to [email protected] by 3:00 p.m. and staff will advance the slides/share the documents during your oral comment.
2) Written Communications as follows:

2 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
2 of 2331
City Council Agenda April 1, 2026
A. E-mail comments to the City Council for Closed Session or Open Session at [email protected] as follows:
a. E-mail comments must be received by 4:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting in order to be forwarded to the City Council before the meeting.
b. Emailed comments received following agenda publication but prior to, or during, the meeting, will be posted to the City’s website after the meeting. c. These e-mail comments will also be received by each City Councilmember, the City Manager, and the City Clerk’s Office. Comments on non-agenda items sent to any other email address will be included upon the sender's request.

B. Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: City Council, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
3) Open Session Teleconference in one of the following ways:

A. Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register in advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_0AcTWr6MQaakCjLV1qI1Vg a) Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.
b) Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once recognized, speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak.
c) Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully: One can directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in their internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date browser, such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.

Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.

B. By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join the meeting as follows:
a) Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 832 3800 9200 b) To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6 c) Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone number.

C. Via an H.323/SIP room system:

Join from an H.323/SIP room system:

H.323:
144.195.19.161 (US West)
206.247.11.121 (US East)
Meeting ID: 832 3800 9200

3 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
3 of 2331
City Council Agenda April 1, 2026
SIP: [email protected]
D. Online via the teleconferencing device (Audio and Video) being used to provide access to the meeting from a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code 54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda. a) Speakers are required to notify the City Clerk via email to [email protected] prior to noon on the date of the meeting during which they plan to participate and comment from the remote location noticed to ensure the City Clerk is prepared to accept their comment. b) If the teleconferencing device malfunctions impeding access to the meeting from the remote location, the speaker may alternatively participate via the other options for remote participation provided above.

NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Wednesday, April 01, 2026, commencing at 5:30 p.m. in City Hall, Conference Room C, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, and 6:30 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014 and via teleconference. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting."

SPECIAL MEETING
ROLL CALL - 5:30 PM
10300 Torre Avenue, Conference Room C

CLOSED SESSION

1. Subject: Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(c) and 54956.9(d)(2): (1 case)

2. Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(c) and 54956.9(d)(1): Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety v. City of Cupertino, Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 26CV488611 RECESS

OPEN SESSION
CALL TO ORDER - 6:30 PM
10350 Torre Avenue and via Teleconference

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

4 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
4 of 2331
City Council Agenda April 1, 2026

ROLL CALL

CLOSED SESSION REPORT

POSTPONEMENTS AND ORDERS OF THE DAY

PUBLIC HEARINGS
Government Code Section 65103.5 limits the distribution of copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects. Members of the public wishing to view plans that cannot otherwise be distributed under Govt. Code Section 65103.5 may make an appointment with the Planning Division to view them at City Hall by sending an email to [email protected]. Plans will also be made available digitally during the hearing to consider the proposal.

3. Subject: Consider a Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 28. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive; APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -004). (Continued from March 17, 2026)
Recommended Action: 1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss (SB 166); and

3. Approve the following permits:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 26-029 approving Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-009) (Attachment A);
b. Adopt Resolution No. 26-030 approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-015) (Attachment B); and
c. Adopt Resolution No. 26-031 approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044) (Attachment C).

5 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
5 of 2331
City Council Agenda April 1, 2026
Staff Report (031726)
A - Draft Resolution for TM-2024-009
B - Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-015
C - Draft Resolution for TR-2024-044
D - Applicable Standards Matrix
E - AB 130 CEQA Exemption Memo
F - Alternative Means and Methods Request Approval
G - County Fire Review Letter
H - Geotechnical Report
I - Geotechnical Report Peer Review
J - Biological Report.pdf
K – Biological Report Peer Review
L – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
M – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
N – Phase I and Phase II ESA Applicant Review
O – Phase I and II ESA Peer Review
P - Underground Storage Tank Closure Report
Q - Public Comments (2-25-2026 to 3-10-2026)
R - Public Comments (01-01-2024 to 02-24-2026)
S – Final Transportation Study
T – Project Site Plan
U - Supplemental Report (031726) and Project Plan Set.pdf

4. Subject: Conduct public hearing pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section

2.08.096 to hear Petitions for Reconsideration filed on behalf of the Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety, including: (1) Petition for Reconsideration, dated February 27, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the February 3, 2026 City Council meeting pursuant to the Mary Avenue Villas Project, including (i) CEQA Exemption Determination, (ii) Resolution No 26-016, regarding Architectural and Site Approval Permit, and (iii) Resolution No. 26-018, regarding the Disposition and Development Agreement; and (2) Petition for Reconsideration, dated March 13, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting pursuant to the Mary Avenue Villas Project, including (i) Resolution No. 26-024, regarding the vacation of public right-of-way, and (ii) Resolution No. 26-025, regarding the surplus land act exemption.

Recommended Action: 1. Find that the Petition for Reconsideration, dated February 27, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the February 3, 2026 City Council meeting, failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096; and

2. Find that Petition for Reconsideration, dated March 13, 2026, pertaining to actions taken at the March 3, 2026 City Council meeting, failed to satisfy any of the grounds for reconsideration required pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section 2.08.096; and

3. Adopt Draft Resolution No. 26-032 (Attachment 3); and

4. Adopt Draft Resolution No. 26-033 (Attachment 4)

6 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
6 of 2331
City Council Agenda April 1, 2026
Responses to Petitions for Reconsideration
1 - Petition for Reconsideration of City Council Approvals of Mary Avenue Villas Project (February 27 , 2026)
2 - Petition for Reconsideration of City Council Resolutions (March 13, 2026) 3 - Draft Resolution Denying Petition for Reconsideration dated 2.27.26 4 - Draft Resolution Denying Petition for Reconsideration dated 3.13.26 A – Minutes Dated February 3, 2026
B – Transcript Dated February 3, 2026
C – Agenda dated July 15, 2025 (Including staff reports and attachments) D – Agenda dated February 3, 2026 (Including staff reports and attachments) E – Staff Presentation (020326)
F – Staff Report Dated December 2, 2025
G – Supplemental Report Dated February 3, 2026
H – CC Resolution No. 26-018 Approving DDA
I – Informational Memo Dated August 28, 2025
J – Staff Report dated April 15, 2025
K – Excerpt of Supplemental Report dated September 4, 2025 L - Agenda dated March 3, 2026 (Including staff reports and attachments) M – Staff Presentation regarding Mary Avenue property Exempt Surplus Land (030326) N - Staff Presentation regarding Vacating a Portion of Public Right-of-Way on Mary Avenue (030326) O – Minutes dated March 3, 2026
P - CC Resolution No. 26-016 approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2025-006) Q - CC Resolution No. 26-024 approving the vacation of a portion of public right-of-way located along the westerly boundary of Mary Ave (APN 326-27-053)
R - CC Resolution No. 26-025 declaring the Mary Avenue property (APN 326-37-053) to be exempt surplus land pursuant to the provision of the Surplus Land Act

ADJOURNMENT
Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements: Individuals who influence or attempt to influence legislative or administrative action may be required by the City of Cupertino’s lobbying ordinance (Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 2.100) to register and report lobbying activity. Persons whose communications regarding any legislative or administrative are solely limited to appearing at or submitting testimony for any public meeting held by the City are not required to register as lobbyists.

For more information about the lobbying ordinance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014; telephone (408) 777-3223; email [email protected]; and website: www.cupertino.org/lobbyist.

The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law.

Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to

7 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
7 of 2331
City Council Agenda April 1, 2026
http://www.cupertino.org/cityclerk for a reconsideration petition form.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours; and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the City web site.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section

2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made publicly available on the City website.

8 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
8 of 2331

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14986 Agenda Date: 4/1/2026
Agenda #: 1.

Subject: Conference with legal counsel - anticipated litigation; California Government Code Sections 54954.5 (c) and 54956.9(d)(2): (1 case)
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/27/2026
powered by Legistar™ 9
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
9 of 2331

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14995 Agenda Date: 4/1/2026
Agenda #: 2.

Subject: Conference with legal counsel - existing litigation; California Government Code Sections 54954.5(c) and 54956.9(d)(1): Garden Gate Coalition for Mary Avenue Safety v. City of Cupertino, Santa Clara Superior Court, Case No. 26CV488611
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/27/2026
powered by Legistar™ 10
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
10 of 2331

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-14975 Agenda Date: 4/1/2026
Agenda #: 3.

Subject: Consider a Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 28. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No (s): TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive; APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -004). (Continued from March 17, 2026)

1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss (SB 166); and

3. Approve the following permits:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 26-029 approving Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-009) (Attachment A); b. Adopt Resolution No. 26-030 approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-015) (Attachment B); and
c. Adopt Resolution No. 26-031 approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044) (Attachment C).

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 3/27/2026
powered by Legistar™ 11
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
11 of 2331

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308
CUPERTINO.GOV

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 17, 2026
Subject
Consider a Tentative Map, Architectural and Site Approval, and Tree Removal Permit for the construction of a 51-unit townhome condominium development on Housing Element Priority Housing Sites 25 through 281. The project utilizes Senate Bill 330 and provisions of State Density Bonus law. (Application No(s): TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015, TR-2024-044; Applicant:

SummerHill Homes, LLC; Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive; APNs: 356- 06-001, -002, -003, and -004).

Recommended Action

1. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

2. Make the required findings of No Net Loss (SB 166); and

3. Approve the following permits:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Tentative Final Map (TM-2024-009) (Attachment A);
b. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Architectural & Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-015) (Attachment B); and
c. Adopt Resolution No. 26-XXX approving Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044) (Attachment C).

Executive Summary
This report outlines a project proposed by SummerHill Homes, LLC, for a 51-unit townhome development located across four existing residential properties. The report covers the applicable State laws, including the Housing Accountability Act, Housing Crisis Act, No Net Loss law, and Density Bonus law, and local standards applicable to the project. Finally, the report summarizes the findings necessary for the Council to take action on the project.

Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the project, as proposed, because the project and its conditions of approval support the findings for approval of the proposed project, consistent with Chapters 14.18, 18.28, 19.56, 19.156, and 19.168 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. 1 Previously identified as Sites 29 through 32 in City Council Resolution 24-039 but later renumerated to 25 through 28 following a revision to the site list removing previous sites 13 through 16.
12 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
12 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 2
Discussion
Project Data
General Plan Land Use
Designation
Residential – Medium High Density with a minimum
density of 20.01 du/ac and maximum density of 35 du/ac
Zoning Designation R-3/TH
Lot Area 2.56 acres (gross), 2.51 acres (net)
Allowed/Required Proposed
Minimum Density 20.01 units per acre 20.35 units per acre Maximum Density 35 units per acre Height of Structures
Up to 30 feet, measured
from natural grade to top
of roof.

Building 1: 37’
Building 2: 39’-3”
Building 3: 40’-7”
Building 4: 39’-3”
Building 5: 40’-1”
Building 6: 37’-6”
Building 7: 38’-9”
Building 8: 39’-5”
Building 9: 37’-11”
Building 10: 38’-3”
(Waiver Requested)
Allowed/Required Proposed
Setbacks (from property lines before project development) Front (All Floors) 20’ 20’
Interior Sides (All
Floors)
6’*
*Additional 10 feet for third
floors more than one story
higher than any adjacent
primary residential structures.
10’
The project site is located
adjacent to properties with
two story structures.

Street Sides (All Floors) 12’ 3’-7” (Waiver Requested)
Rear (All Floors) 15’ 22’-11”
Maximum Lot Coverage 55% of net lot area 49,629 sq. ft. or 45.5% Maximum Floor Area
Ratio
85% of net lot area 148,473 sq. ft. or 136%
(Waiver Requested)
Parking 1 space per unit (51 spaces) 102 spaces
Usable Open Space
Private 60 square feet per unit and no
dimension less than 6 feet
Minimum of 60 square feet
per unit. (Waiver requested
for reduced dimensions)
13 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
13 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 3
Background
On December 18, 2024, the City
received an application to
redevelop the properties
located at 10857, 10867, 10877,
and 10887 Linda Vista Drive.

The 2.51 net-acre property is
bounded by Linda Vista Drive,
with single family uses across
the street, to the east, a singlefamily residence and the Cupertino Hills Swim and Racquet Club to the north, single family homes to the south, and the Stevens Creek trail, connecting McClellan Ranch Park and Linda Vista Park, and Deep Cliff Golf Course to the west. Four single-family residences built between 1947 and 1957 are currently located onsite, one on each existing lot. Evulich Court, a public, unpaved road, goes through the center of the property and will be expanded as part of this project. (See Figure 1) The project site was designated as a Priority Housing Site with the City’s 2024 6th Cycle Housing Element update in May 2024.3 The sites were first identified as potential Priority Housing Sites at the January 25, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, the first of an estimated 10 meetings to discuss the Housing Inventory Site list.4 5 The Housing Element revised the zoning designation 2 The applicable General Plan can be found online at
https://records.cupertino.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1125907&dbid=0&repo=CityofCupertino&_gl=1 *k60mdd*_ga*OTc5OTgwMjc4LjE3NDQ3Mzc0NDM.*_ga_NCY1KGMD5Y*czE3NzA2NjU5NTMkbzMw NSRnMSR0MTc3MDY2NTk2MCRqNTMkbDAkaDA.
3 Housing Element available online at: www.cupertino.gov/gp. See Table B4-9 in Appendix B. 4 A list of Housing Element meetings can be found online at www.cupertino.gov/housingelement. 5 The site was originally recommended a minimum density of 30 units per acre by the Planning Commission, but, upon the request of the property owner, was reduced to a minimum density of 20 units per acre by the City Council.

Project Consistency with:

General Plan2 Consistent under state density bonus law.

Zoning Consistent under SB 330 and state density bonus law.

Density bonus waivers requested for height, street side setbacks, private open space dimensions, and park land
dedication requirements
Note: Since the project utilizes the provisions of SB 330 (as discussed later in the report) the development standards, regulations and fees applicable at the time of submittal of a SB 330 preliminary application apply.

Figure 1: Site Location Linda Vista Dr
Hyannisport Dr
Monta Vista High
School
Deep Cliff
Golf Course
High SchoolKennedy Junior
14 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
14 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 4
for this site from R1-7.5, Single Family Residential, to R-3/TH, Multiple Family Residential with a Townhome Combining Designation.

Due to the requirements of State law, the project site is subject to the development standards of the General Plan and the City’s Municipal Code, including the Multiple Family “R-3,” and Townhome “TH” zoning designations, as they were in October of 20246, when the SB 330 Preliminary Application was received. The “R-3” zoning designation is detailed in Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.36 Multiple-Family Residential Zones. The “R-3” zoning designation is intended to provide regulations for permitting medium, medium-high, and high density multiple-family residential uses. These regulations are intended to guide future development and ensure a healthy functional environment for future residents living within the proposed development and between the proposed development and adjoining neighborhood parcels. The R-3 zoning district may be combined with the TH zoning district in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 19.46. The “TH” zoning designation is intended to modify the regulations of the multiple-family residential (R-3 and R-4) zoning districts to permit townhome development in those districts, primarily in conjunction with multiple-family development, and to establish specific townhome development standards. Projects utilizing the City’s allowance for townhome development within the “TH” designation must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.46 and, where this chapter is silent, development must adhere to Multifamily (R-3) zoning regulations.

Generally, the proposed project consists of 51 townhome-styled condominiums. Review of the project is limited by several State laws including the Housing Accountability Act, the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330), and Density Bonus Law.

Housing Accountability Act
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA), codified in Government Code § 65589.5, prohibits cities from disapproving, or adding conditions of approval that would render infeasible a housing development project unless the proposal is found to be in violation of an objective general plan or zoning standard,7 or the project will result in a specific adverse impact to public health and safety. While changes to the project may be applied by the decision-making, or hearing, body to further applicable City goals, policies, and strategies – any changes required by the decisionmaking, or hearing, body that are not based on objective standards may not result in making the project, as proposed, infeasible or reduce the number of housing units.

As this project consists exclusively of residential units, it is considered a “housing development project” under the HAA.

Housing Crisis Act (a.k.a. “SB 330” or “HCA”)
Adopted in 2019 under Senate Bill 330, and amended in 2021 by Senate Bill 8, the HCA broadly aims to address actions that would decrease or delay the approval and development of new housing by requiring the timely processing of permits. Among many components, the law 6 Chapter 19.48 (fences) was amended in 2025, but the code changes do not weigh on the project as proposed.
7 Unless otherwise waived or reduced through use of the Density Bonus law, discussed further below. 15 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
15 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 5
includes a provision to allow applicants to vest, or "lock-in" fees, ordinances, policies, and standards that were in effect at the time of submittal of an SB 330 preliminary application to the City. Only the limited information specified in State law is required for the submittal of an SB 330 preliminary application. Further, the law prohibits the City from conducting more than five hearings in connection with the approval of a housing development project.

This project is governed by an SB 330 preliminary application submitted on October 9, 2024 and, in accordance with the requirements of the HCA, the project was reviewed under the requirements in effect at that time. A complete list of the standards included in the review is provided as Attachment D.

Density Bonus Law
California’s Density Bonus Law (DBL), codified in CA Government Code § 65915-65918, aims to promote and facilitate the creation of affordable units in new housing projects by allowing:
• A density "bonus" that allows for an increase to a property’s base density8; • Unlimited waivers to development standards that would physically preclude the construction of the project, as designed9;
• Concessions that modify development standards in order to achieve an identifiable and actual cost reduction10; and
• Reduced parking standards11.

It is important to note that, while qualifying projects may increase their density beyond what is allowed by city standards, an applicant may conversely elect to simply utilize the available waivers, concessions, or the reduced parking standards, without requesting a density bonus, as is the case with the subject project.

As proposed, the project includes a request for 5 waivers and one concession from applicable standards of the General Plan and Zoning Code. These requests are discussed later in this report.

Project Proposal
The project applicant, SummerHill Homes, LLC, is proposing a 51-unit townhome condominium development. The project consists of ten buildings, each three stories in height, with individual units ranging in size from 2,356 square feet to 2,779 square feet. As required by the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Program, ten of the units will be allocated as affordable housing units for sale to median- and moderate-income households. 8 I.e., more market rate units than allowed by the density, as determined by the specific percentage and level of affordability of the affordable units included in a project. 9 I.e., modifications or elimination of any development standard 10 Specified number of incentives as identified in state law based on the level of affordability and percentage of affordable units
11 Parking standards identified in state law by project type, proximity of transit facilities, affordability level of the development (or affordable units) and/or number of bedrooms 16 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
16 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 6
The project also includes the removal and replacement of 35 trees, 8 of which are considered protected specimen trees12. Based on the scope of work, the City has required the following permits: Architectural and Site Approval, Tree Removal, and a Vesting Tentative Map. Based on State Density Bonus Law, the applicant is requesting density bonus waivers, as described later in this report.

Architecture and Site Design
The project includes ten buildings with three to six units each, oriented parallel to Linda Vista Drive (see Figure 2 for Site Plan13). The project proposes primary access to the site from the existing cul-de-sac, Evulich Court. There will be two new driveway entrances along the northern side of the street for access
to buildings 2, 3, 4, and 5 ,
two new driveway
entrances along the
southern side of the street
for access to buildings 7, 8,
9, and 10, and a single
driveway access point at the
terminus of Evulich Ct. for
access to buildings 1 and 6
proposed along the western
edge of the property. The
homes fronting Linda Vista
will incorporate front
porches and entryways
facing the street, with
garage access at the rear.

Two paseos are planned
between Buildings 3 and 4
and between Buildings 8 and 9.

The applicant has proposed a “Contemporary Spanish” style development with stucco exteriors and trim, concrete tile roofing, and metal accents. The design also incorporates trellis elements on some of the rear elevations. The landscape design incorporates trees and decorative planting throughout the site, as well as common outdoor spaces with recreational features including 12 Chapter 14.00 of the Cupertino Municipal Code defines a protected tree as 1) Heritage trees in all zoning districts, 2) All mature specimen trees on private property (see Appendix A). 3) Approved development trees(s), and 4) Approved privacy protection planting in R-1 zoning districts. 13 Due to limitations of Government Code § 65103.5, the distribution of copyrighted material associated with the review of development projects is limited. Plans have been emailed under separate cover to allow the Commissioners and Councilmembers to review the proposed plans. Commissioners and Councilmembers cannot share plans with outside parties, including community members. The public is able to make an appointment with the Planning Division to view these plans at City Hall.

Figure 2: Site Plan
N
17 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
17 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 7
seating, tables, and a grill. The project also includes a public art installation in the form of a small plaza at the corner of Evulich Court and Linda Vista Drive.

Analysis
General Plan Compliance
The proposed project consists of a residential development consistent with the subject site’s General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential – Medium High Density. The General Plan designation requires a minimum density of 20.01 dwelling units per acre and allows a maximum density of 35 dwelling units per acre, which equates to a minimum of 51 units and a maximum of 88 units for the 2.51-acre site. The 51 units proposed are at the minimum required General Plan density.

Staff has evaluated the project’s consistency with the General Plan and concludes that, based on the conformance with the General Plan Land Use designation for the site, the general alignment of design with General Plan requirements, and the absence of environmental impacts as analyzed in the Notice of Exemption memo (see Environmental Review section of this Staff Report), the proposed project supports several of the City’s General Plan goals, as outlined below. A complete list of the standards included in staff’s review is provided in Attachment D. • Policy LU-2.2: Pedestrian-Oriented Public Spaces. Require developments to incorporate pedestrian-scaled elements along the street and within the development such as parks, plazas, active uses along the street, active uses, entries, outdoor dining & public art. • Strategy LU-3.3.9: Entrances. In multi-family projects where residential uses may front on streets, require pedestrian-scaled elements such as entries, stoops, and porches along the street.
• Policy LU-11.1: Connectivity. Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new developments and community facilities. Review existing neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for students to walk and bike to schools, parks, and community facilities such as the library.
• Strategy LU-27.6.1: Provision of Outdoor Areas. Provide outdoor areas, both passive and active, and generous landscaping to enhance the surroundings for multi-family residents.

Allow public access to the common outdoor areas whenever possible. • Policy INF 2.4.2 Development. Require undergrounding of all utility lines in new developments and highly encourage undergrounding in remodels or redevelopment of major projects.
• Strategy HE-2.3.7: Density Bonus Ordinance. The City will encourage use of density bonuses and incentives, as applicable, for housing developments which include:
o At least 10 percent of the housing units in a for-sale common interest development are restricted to moderate income residents.
18 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
18 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 8
Fire Hazard Severity Zoning Designation
The project site was included in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update as a Priority Housing Site and was rezoned, as required by the California Department of Housing and Urban Development (HCD), from R1-7.5 to R3/TH through this update in July 2024. At the time of the property’s rezoning, the site was located in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) and the City’s Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area (WUIFA). An assessment of the potential wildfire impacts of rezoning this site, along with others included in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update, was outlined in the Update’s Environmental Assessment14. This assessment indicated that the rezoning would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to wildfire, as future development of these properties in the Very High FHSZ or WUIFA would be subject to State and local regulations, required to undergo separate CEQA review, and have to identify wildfire impacts and appropriate mitigation measures.

In February of 2025, after the property was rezoned and the proposed project application was submitted, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“CALFire”) released updated FHSZ Maps15. These maps identified areas with moderate, high, and very high FHSZ, which have been established according to the anticipated severity of fire hazards in those areas.

The updated map for Cupertino, adopted by the City in June 2025, identifies this project site as located in a Very High FHSZ.

With this change in the FHSZ designation, the proposed project was reviewed under State and local regulations applicable to Very High FHSZ areas. Additionally, under the project’s proposed CEQA exemption (see discussion below), a project within a Very High FHSZ is required to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)16.

This provision of California law states that sites in Very High FHSZs are not disqualified from the CEQA exemption, so long as, they have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or State fire mitigation measures applicable to the development, including, but not limited to, standards established under all of the following or their successor provisions:
14 The City’s Housing Element adoption was the subject of a lawsuit and the City entered into a Stipulated Judgement dated January 8, 2024, which exempted the City’s actions related to the adoption of the Housing Element Update from CEQA, under State law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65759, these actions are fully described and analyzed in an Environmental Assessment which was incorporated into the General Plan as Appendix G and can be found here:
https://www.cupertino.gov/files/assets/city/v/2/departments/documents/communitydevelopment/planning/general-plan/current-gp-documents/cupgp_appendix_g_2024update_9-30- 2024_reduced_size.pdf
15 Updated Fire Hazard Severity Map, adopted by Cupertino City Council in June of 2025: https://links1.govdelivery.com/CL0/http:%2F%2Fwww.cupertino.gov%2Ffirehazardseverityzonemap%3Futm_mediu m=email%26utm_source=govdelivery/1/010001958258d33f-a1b6e4e4-cea8-43a9-9a57-7d00460c17a6- 000000/tZr5a_yMGWzuZNdeGCpAzt0G-BUqah5UksE9D0zovkA=395
16 Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6): https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect65913-4/#:~:text=(6)%20The%20development,under%20conservation%20easement 19 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
19 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 9
(i) Section 4291 of the Public Resources Code17 or Section 5118218, as applicable. (ii) Section 4290 of the Public Resources Code.19
(iii) Chapter 7A of the California Building Code20 (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).

The Santa Clara County Fire Department has found that the project has demonstrated consistency with these requirements. For more details, please see the attached CEQA Exemption Memorandum (Attachment E), Fire Department Alternative Means and Methods Request (AMMR) approval (Attachment F), and the Fire Department’s project review approval letter (Attachment G).

It should also be noted that under state law, a project specific evacuation study is not required to be prepared as part of the project’s CEQA review, and the City does not have any adopted objective standards pertaining to evacuation in the event of a major fire or other environmental emergency. As a result, an evacuation study has not been required or reviewed by the Fire Department or the City.

Tree Removal and Replacement
The proposal includes the removal and replacement of 8 protected, mature specimen trees within the construction footprint of the development. Protected trees within the construction footprint include seven oak trees and one deodar cedar. An arborist report was prepared for the applicant by HortScience Bartlett Consulting and was peer reviewed by the City’s third-party consultant, West Coast Arborists. The arborist report and peer review concluded that the 8 trees proposed for removal are within the construction footprint and could, therefore, not be preserved or otherwise adequately and feasibly protected during construction.

The City’s requirements for tree replacement, consistent with Cupertino Municipal Code Section

14.18.160 (A), are as follows:

Diameter of Trunk
of Removed Tree
# of Trees Proposed
for Removal
Replacement Tree Size
Required
Replacement Trees
Required
Greater than 12
inches and up to 24
inches
8 Two 24" box trees or
One 36" box tree
16 (24” box trees)
or
8 (36” box trees)
The applicant proposes to replace the 8 protected trees with on-site trees, varying in size between 24-inch box and 36-inch box trees and of various species, in compliance with the Municipal Code.

A total of 50 new trees will be provided on site, including replacements for the 8 protected trees 17 Public Resources Code Section 4291: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-4/part2/chapter-3/section-4291/ 18 Public Resources Code Section 51182: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/government-code/gov-sect-51182/ 19 Public Resources Code Section 4290: https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-prc/division-4/part2/chapter-2/section-4290/ 20 California Building Code Chapter 71: https://up.codes/viewer/california/ca-building-code2022/chapter/7A/sfm-materials-and-construction-methods-for-exterior-wildfire-exposure#7A 20 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
20 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 10
being removed. The project has been conditioned to ensure that the replacement trees are a native or non-native species, as approved by the City’s third-party consulting arborist.

All trees on-site will be considered protected, and a condition of approval has been included to require that an agreement be executed to ensure the ongoing preservation, maintenance, and protection of the new trees by future property owners. Additionally, the project includes the addition of 27 new street trees along Evulich Court and Linda Vista Drive.

Vesting Tentative Map
The application for the Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) proposes to subdivide the existing lot to create a condominium subdivision. The approval of a vesting tentative map confers a vested right upon the applicant to proceed with development in substantial compliance with the city's ordinances, policies, and standards in effect at the date the city determines the application is complete (March 19, 2025).

Public Art
In accordance with Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.148, the project incorporates a proposed public art plaza at the southern corner of the intersection of Evulich Court and Linda Vista Drive. While details have not been included in this permit application, staff will review the public art proposal when an application for public artwork is received. Once submitted, the application will be presented to the Arts and Culture Commission for review and approval. The applicant is required to submit an application for the artwork prior to certificates of occupancy being granted for any of the units and must install the public art prior to certificates of occupancy being issued on more than 50% of the units. A condition of approval has been included to require the maintenance of any public artwork incorporated into the project. Any proposal to change the approved artwork, or removal thereof in the future, would require additional public review and approval by the Arts and Culture Commission.

Park Land Dedication (Quimby Act)
Under Cupertino Municipal Code Section 13.08.050(A) developments of more than 50 units must provide park land on site and/or pay an in-lieu fee for the required park land dedication. The project would be required to provide approximately 0.36 acres of park area or an in-lieu of dedication fee, based on Municipal Code Chapter 13.08 requirements. However, the four existing residences were built prior to the establishment of the Quimby Act in 1965 and are therefore applied as a credit to the total parkland area required or the payment of in-lieu fees on site, as applicable. Based on the property size, project size, the provision of a small private open space area on site, and the location of the property within a quarter mile of existing park facilities21, staff is recommending the payment of an in-lieu fee rather than requiring a dedication of onsite park land.

In line with staff’s recommendation, the applicant requests to pay an in-lieu fee instead of providing park land. Thus, the project is conditioned to pay a parkland in-lieu fee of $1,998,000 21 Deep Cliff Golf Course and Linda Vista Park are adjacent to the project site. 21 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
21 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 11
for the net new 37 market rate units.22 As this request is consistent with staff’s recommendation and conditions of approval, a waiver of the park land requirement is not required. However, per the City’s BMR Program, the in-lieu of park land dedication fees for the BMR units are waived.

In accordance with General Plan requirements, including General Plan Policy LU-11.1, the applicant has also proposed a pedestrian connection between the project property and the adjacent Linda Vista Trail. The applicant is requesting that the cost to construct the trail connection, not to exceed $377,00023, the estimated construction cost of the trail connection improvements, be applied to the required in-lieu fee, reducing the required fee to $1,621,000.

A condition of approval has been included to indicate that a pedestrian and bicycle trail connection, as depicted on the Trail Connection Exhibit in the project’s plan set, will be added to the project contingent upon the City Council authorizing a credit to the project’s in-lieu Parkland Dedication Fees equal to the verified cost to design and construct the trail connection, not to exceed $377,000. The Planning Commission reviewed this request and recommended that the City Council approve this request (as further described in the Planning Commission section below).

Affordable Units
Cupertino Affordable Housing Requirements
Under the City’s BMR requirements, the project must provide at least 20% or 10.2 of the 51 forsale units as below-market rate units. The project, as proposed, includes 10 below-market rate units and payment of an in-lieu fee for the fractional unit. As required by the City’s BMR Housing Program, five of the units will be allocated as affordable housing units for sale to median-income households (100-120% of Area Median Income) and the other five will be allocated as affordable for sale to moderate-income households (80-100% of Area Median Income). A condition of approval has been included to require that, prior to occupancy, the applicant record a regulatory agreement with the City requiring the designated ten BMR units to be for-sale to median and moderate income households and remain affordable for 99 years.

Density Bonus - Affordability Requirements
The State of California’s Density Bonus Law, codified at California Government Code Section 65915, requires local governments to grant residential developers additional density and other development incentives when they include a specified percentage of affordable housing units in a project. To qualify, a developer must dedicate a minimum share of the project’s base units to lower-income households.

Additionally, the law includes a replacement housing requirement that applies when a proposed density bonus project is on a site that, within the five years preceding application, contains or 22 Due to the SB 330 nature of the project, the Park Fees payable are those in effect as of October of 2024.

Additionally, this number reflects the reduction of four existing market rate units on the site, in accordance with Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 13.08. 23 Estimated costs to be verified prior to issuance of any grading, building, or tree removal permit associated with the trail connection’s construction. If the verified costs are less than the credited amount, the applicant shall pay the difference to the City.
22 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
22 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 12
contained rental units subject to a recorded affordability covenant, rent or price control ordinance, or occupied by lower-income households. In order to qualify for a density bonus and related incentives, the developer must replace those existing units (Government Code Section 65915(c)(3)).24 Under Density Bonus Law, “replacement” means providing at least the same number of units of equivalent size that are affordable to and occupied by households in the same or lower income category as those previously on the site.

On February 11, 2026, the City received an email indicating that one of the existing units may be currently rented by a lower-income household. While the applicant had previously indicated that the replacement requirements of Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) were met by the project, the project has been conditioned to verify the tenant’s income and to ensure that, should the tenant be a lower-income household, the affordability of the units be modified to meet the replacement requirements of Government Code Section 65915(c)(3).

Density Bonus - Waiver Requests
The project is eligible for Density Bonus waivers and concessions consistent with the City of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter (CMC) 19.56 Density Bonus and State Density Bonus Law.

The project includes requests for one concession and five waivers.

Section 19.56.070 of the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance (“Findings") requires that, before approving an application which includes a request for a density bonus, waivers, or reduction in parking standards, the decision-making body must determine that the proposal is consistent with State Density Bonus Law by making the following findings25, as applicable:

1. That the housing development is eligible for the density bonus requested and any incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions in parking standards requested.

2. That the development standard(s) for which the waiver(s) are requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives or concessions permitted, if a waiver is not requested.

Under State law, the City may not deny a waiver of a development standard that would physically preclude the construction of the project as it is designed, unless the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, or would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

Waivers Requested
As a density bonus project, the applicant may submit to the City proposals for an unlimited number of waivers, or reduction of development standards, that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the project as proposed and designed (Government Code Section 65915(e)). It should be noted that under State Density Bonus Law, a city may not 24 These replacement requirements are incorporated into the City’s General Plan under Strategy HE1.3.11. 25 Government Code Section 65915 (d)(4): The city, county, or city and county shall bear the burden of proof for the denial of a requested concession or incentive. 23 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
23 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 13
deny a proposed project based on the theory that another project, with a similar number of units, might be designed differently and accommodated without waivers of development standards.

The project requires five waivers as follows:

1. 30-Foot Height Limitation (Municipal Code Section 19.46.070 (C)) Cupertino’s Municipal Code requires that developments have a maximum height of 30 feet, as measured from the natural grade to the top of a building’s roof. Additionally, General Plan Strategy LU-3.3.10 indicates that buildings above 30 feet in height should be allowed only when the buildings abut an arterial or major collector, or if allowed by State law. The applicant has requested a waiver to increase the height allowed for all ten proposed buildings, as follows:

Building No. Maximum Height
1 37’
2 39’-3”
3 40’-7”
4 39’-3”
5 40’-1”
6 37’-6”
7 38’-9”
8 39’-5”
9 37’-11”
10 38’-3”
Imposing the 30-foot height restriction would result in changing the height and design of the buildings, which is not consistent with the project, as proposed.

2. 12-Foot Streetside Setback (Municipal Code Section 19.46.070 (D) (2) (b)) Cupertino’s Municipal Code requires that townhome developments have a minimum streetside setback of 12 feet. The applicant has requested a waiver to allow the following reductions in streetside setbacks along Evulich Court:

Setback from Property Line
Building Required Proposed
3, 4, 5 12’ 3’-7”
8, 9, 10 12’ 4’-9”
2 12’ 6’-1”
7 12’ 7’-10”
This waiver would not result in the reduction to any landscape strips or sidewalk areas along Evulich Court. Additionally, Evulich Court will provide access exclusively to the proposed development and therefore, this reduced setback along Evulich Court would not result in a visual impact on the neighbor pattern of streetside yard setbacks. Imposing these side setback requirements would, however, result in the elimination of units, reduced floor areas of units, 24 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
24 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 14
or a substantial change to the design of the buildings, which is not consistent with the project as proposed by the applicant.

3. 85% Maximum Floor Area (Municipal Code Section 19.46.070 (B)) Cupertino’s Municipal Code limits the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) for townhome developments to 85% of the net lot area. In this instance, based on the area of the project site, the allowable floor area would be 92,786 square feet. The applicant, however, is requesting a waiver to allow for 148,473 square feet, or a 136% FAR. The applicant states that imposing the maximum FAR requirement would result in the elimination of units, the reduced floor areas of units, or a substantial change to the design of the buildings, which is not consistent with the project as proposed by the applicant.

4. Private Outdoor Space Clearance (Municipal Code Section 19.36.070 (D)) Cupertino’s Municipal Code requires that at least 60 square feet of private outdoor space be provided for each proposed residential unit. It also requires that no single dimension of the outdoor space be less than six feet in width or length. While the proposal includes at least 60 square feet of private outdoor space for each unit, the applicant has requested a waiver to allow for a reduction in the minimum dimensions required from six feet (6’) to four feet sixinches (4’6”) for unit type 1, five feet, six inches (5’6”) for unit type 2, and five feet, five inches (5’5”) for unit type 3. Five of the end units will also be provided with fences private side yard area for additional private open space.

The applicant states that it is not physically possible to comply with the Private Outdoor Space requirement without eliminating units or reducing the floor area of units, which is not consistent with the project as proposed by the applicant.

5. Minimum Parking Space Dimensions (Municipal Code Section 19.124.040) Cupertino’s Municipal Code requires that townhome developments have minimum parking space dimensions of 9’-6” by 20’. The applicant is requesting a waiver to allow for a reduced length of the parking spaces from 20’ to 18’-6”. The applicant states that imposing the parking space dimension requirements would result in the elimination of units, the reduced floor areas of units, or a substantial change to the design of the buildings, which is not consistent with the project proposed by the applicant.

Concessions Requested
As a density bonus project with at least 10% of the proposed units reserved for sale to moderateincome households26, the applicant may submit to the City a requests for one concession.

Concessions allow an applicant to deviate from development regulations when such regulations have the potential to make the project economically infeasible to build. The applicant has requested a concession as follows:
26 The project proposes a mix of moderate- and median-income units, has required by the City’s BMR standards. State law does not specify allowances for median-income units, however, median-income units have a higher income restriction than moderate-income units and are therefore counted towards the moderate-income unit total for the purposes of concession allowances. 25 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
25 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 15

1. BMR Unit Mix
As described below, the project is required to be consistent with the objective standards of the City’s BMR Manual. The BMR Manual requires that BMR units be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type. The applicant has requested a concession to allow for development of BMR units that are of one single type, not otherwise reflected in the market rate unit mix.

The developer proposes four model types, three of which are designated as market-rate units (Types 2, 3, and 3ALT) and one that is designated as the BMR unit (Type 1). The Type 1 layout will be used exclusively for the BMR units, and no market-rate units will utilize this configuration. All model types include four bedrooms, however Type 1 units have a tandem garage and an overall smaller footprint.

The applicant has indicated that designating alternative plan types as BMR units would impose a substantial burden and materially impair the financial feasibility of the Project.

These impacts would be inconsistent with the project as proposed and would prevent the stated objectives of the project.

Compliance with BMR Unit Comparability & Dispersion Requirements The BMR Manual requires that the BMR Units:
 Shall be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance and overall quality of construction.  Size should be generally representative of the unit sizes within the market-rate portion of residential project.
 Interior features and finishes in affordable units shall be durable, of good quality and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing.

The following table demonstrates the proposed unit mix within the eight buildings by income level, type, and size:

Number of Units Number of Bedrooms Average Unit Size
BMR Units 10 4 2,356 square feet
Market-Rate Units 41 4 2,727 square feet
The proposed market-rate and BMR units are four-bedroom units. The market-rate units have an average unit size of 2,727 square feet per unit while the BMR units have an average unit size of 2,356 square feet per unit, an approximately fourteen percent difference in the average unit size.

The BMR units are dispersed throughout the property, with four units in Building 2, two units in Buildings 3 two units in Building 4, and two units in Building 5. Six buildings are proposed without BMR units - Buildings 1, and 6 through 10. There is no indication on the plans that the exterior finishes of the BMR units will be any different from the market rate units. As such, it is expected that they will be of the same quality; however, as allowed in the BMR manual, the affordable units may have different interior finishes.

No Net Loss Discussion (SB 166)
Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law) requires the City to ensure development opportunities remain available to accommodate the City’s regional housing need allocation 26 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
26 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 16
(RHNA), especially for lower- and moderate- income households, by maintaining adequate sites to accommodate the unmet RHNA for each income category. In May 2024, the City adopted new Priority Housing Sites as part of the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. The Priority Housing Sites are forecast to provide the units necessary to meet the City’s RHNA for each income category. The City calculated the number of proposed units, by RHNA affordability categories, that are expected to be developed on each of these sites, resulting in the estimated unit counts shown in the table below. As noted previously, the project site consists of four contiguous lots listed as Priority Housing Sites (for the purposes of this report the term Priority Housing Site refers to all four parcels) in the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element and the City is required to evaluate the project’s impacts on expected housing production under Government Code Section 65863.

Under No Net Loss Law, at the time of project approval, the decision body must make the following findings:

1. That the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the jurisdiction’s remaining RHNA for the planning period, by income category.

2. A quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the Housing Element, to accommodate that need by income level.

In the event the City is unable to make the findings of No Net Loss, the City must either concurrently with, or within 180 days of, approval of a housing development project at a lower density or different mix of housing affordability, identify another Priority Housing Site or increase the density of an existing Priority Housing Site to ensure that sites are available to accommodate its RHNA.

As of the City’s December 16, 2025 City Council meeting, at which the redevelopment of the United Furniture site was approved, the City has been unable to make the findings of No Net Loss and, pursuant to SB 166, is required to identify additional sites to accommodate its RHNA within 180 days from project approval.

As indicated in the table below, this project contributes to an increase in the total deficit from fourteen (14) Moderate income units to twenty-two (22) units since the Housing Element estimated eighteen (18) Moderate (the” Moderate “designation, as used in the Housing Element, includes both Moderate- and Median-income units) units and 31 Lower income units would be developed on Priority Housing Sites 29-32. Consistent with the City’s minimum BMR requirements, the project includes only 10 Moderate and zero Lower Income units, resulting in a shortfall of 8 Moderate income units and 31 Lower Income units. While the City is unable to identify additional sites to accommodate its RHNA concurrently with this project’s approval, it is working toward being compliant with State law in a timely manner.

The table below quantifies the remaining unmet need for the 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023- 2031 RHNA, by income level, and the remaining capacity across all Priority Housing Sites by comparing the projected number of units at this Priority Housing Site with the actual number of units proposed by the subject project.
27 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
27 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 17

Income Category
Lower Income Moderate (80-
120% AMI)
Above
Moderate
(>120% AMI) (30-80% AMI)*
6th Cycle RHNA Requirement 1,880 755 1,953
Units Projected – all Sites 2,037 847 2,997
Projected Surplus – all Sites 157 92 1,044
SummerHill (Fontana's, etc.)
Projected 59 24 62
Actual 0 12 47
Change -59 -12 -15
Toll Brother's (United Furniture)
Projected 0 93 70
Actual 0 11 44
Change 0 -82 -26
Dividend Homes (20085 & 20111
Stevens Creek Blvd)
Projected 45 18 47
Actual 0 6 30
Change -45 -12 -17
Mary Avenue Villas (Charities
Housing)
Projected 40 0 0
Actual 40 0 0
Change 0 0 0
Vallco Town Center/The Rise
Projected 581 0 1,321
Actual 232 0 1,137
Change -349 0 -184
Units Projected – remaining sites 1,312 712 1,497
Projected Surplus – remaining sites -296 -14 802
SummerHill Evulich (Sites 29-32)
Projected 31 18 35
Proposed 0 10 41
Change -31 -8 +6
Unmet 6th Cycle RHNA 1,608 716 654
Remaining Total Units Projected 1,281 694 1,462
Total Remaining Surplus -327 -22 808
* Includes Very Low- and Low-Income
Other Department/Agency Review
The City’s Building Division, Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division, Sheriff’s Department, Cupertino Sanitary District, and the Santa Clara County Fire Department have reviewed and conditioned the project.

As part of Public Works’ review, a geotechnical report was prepared by the applicant and peer reviewed by the City’s third-party consultant, Cotton Shires & Associates (Attachments H and I). 28 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
28 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 18
The peer review indicated that the project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The geotechnical report recommended and the project incorporates a 25-foot structural setback from the top of the western slope. Recommended conditions from the peer review have been included as conditions of approval for this project.

California Environmental Quality Act
The applicant requested that the development be reviewed in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 130, signed into law and effective on June 30, 2025, and codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66. This law exempts qualifying infill housing development from CEQA review, creating a new statutory exemption. This exemption applies to any required permits, entitlements, or other discretionary approvals for a broad range of housing types. The attached CEQA Exemption Memorandum (Attachment E) demonstrates that the proposed project meets the requirements of PRC Section 21080.66 and is organized as follows:
• Infill Criteria. The project’s consistency with the allowed housing development type defined in PRC Section 21080.66(a), subdivisions (1) through (5) and (8). • Environmental Criteria. The project’s consistency with the individual environmental requirements pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(a), subdivisions (6) and (7). • Tribal Cultural Resources. The project’s consistency with the tribal notification and outreach requirements pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(b). • Hazardous Materials. The project’s consistency with the requirements for the identification and treatment of hazardous materials pursuant to PRC Section 21080.66(c). • Other Requirements. The project’s consistency with the Labor Code requirements and eligibility of a housing development project for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and reduced parking ratios pursuant to PRC Sections 21080.66(d) and (e), respectively.

As analyzed in the attached CEQA Exemption Memorandum, Public Resources Code Section 21080.66, the proposed project meets the criteria for statutory exemption. Accordingly, this document finds that a Notice of Exemption is appropriate for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062. The analysis included review of a biologic report, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments, and an Underground Storage Tank Closure Report.

Each of these reports were subject to third-party review and have been included as Attachments J through P.

Through the compliance review process, the City also participated in tribal consultation, as required under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. This process, detailed in the attached memorandum, generally consisted of City staff consulting with representatives of Tamien Nation to discuss the project, the potential sensitivity of the area from the Tamien Nation’s perspective, and measures that would reduce potential impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources, if present on-site. The tribal consultation period concluded without mutual agreement for alternative conditions having been reached. As such, the project is subject to the standard conditions described in Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (b) (4). 29 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
29 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 19
AB 130 also introduced additional timelines for project processing, including a requirement in Section 65950 of the Government Code that the City must approve or deny a project within thirty days from:
a. The conclusion of the process outlined in subdivision (b) of Section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code.
b. The expiration of the applicable time limit in paragraph (2) of subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5.

As the tribal consultation outlined in subdivision (b) of Section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code concluded on January 4, 2026, the processing deadline would have concluded on February 3, 2026. However, in accordance with Government Code Section 65957 the applicant agreed to a 60-day extension which moved the processing deadline to April 4, 2026.

For all of the reasons described above, staff recommends approval of the project as proposed.

With respect to the requested Density Bonus concessions and waivers, evidence in the record demonstrates that the project meets the standards for granting the concession and waivers under the State Density Bonus Law.

Available Options
Trail Connection Options
Planning Commission’s recommendation (see below) currently anticipates that the applicant will receive a credit for the trail connection offered at the west end of the project site (as described in the Parkland Dedication Section of the staff report above).The Council may choose to deny the applicant’s request for a credit for construction of the trail, forgo the trail connection being offered by the applicant and require payment of $1,998,000 in lieu of parkland dedication fees.

Planning Commission Review
On February 24, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed project. While all 5 Commissioners supported the townhome development, there was a split opinion regarding whether to recommend providing a credit to the project’s in-lieu Parkland Dedication Fees equal to the verified cost to design and construct a trail connection, not to exceed $377,000. Commissioner Rao moved, seconded by Commissioner Scharf, to approve the project without the credit for the trail (with the additional conditions set forth in subjections “a” and “b” below). A substitute motion was made to approve the project with the trail connection credit. By a 3-2 vote (No: Rao, Scharf), the Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution Nos. 2026-08 through 2026-127 recommending that the City Council find all actions exempt from 27 Resolution Nos. 2026-08 through 2026-10 can be found at these links:
2025-08: https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15261917&GUID=6A006740-879B-47E5-96DF6306F383F5CB 2025-09:
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15261922&GUID=C5F37359-285B-4FFE-AC6D331C47FFD680 2025-10:
30 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
30 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 20
CEQA and approve the proposed Architectural and Site Approval, Tentative Final Map, and Tree Removal Permit. The Commission also recommended adding the following conditions of approval to the draft resolutions:
a. Prohibit construction trucks between the hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. for the streets surrounding the project, namely Linda Vista Drive, Hyannisport Drive, Bubb Road, and McClellan Road; and
b. Applicant to consider including privacy shrubs along shared property lines, if the applicant and the neighboring residents find this to be amenable.

The Draft Resolutions have been updated to include these recommendations.

The Commission received comments from twenty-one speakers of the public regarding potential traffic concerns, increased density, neighborhood impacts, privacy intrusion, and fire safety. The applicant responded to provide clarification on some of the items brought up by the public. The Commissioners then sought further clarification regarding the Fire Department’s review of the project and the project’s consistency with the eligibility criteria for a statutory exemption under AB 130. Further deliberation occurred related to the proposed trail connection. Discussion and deliberation concluded with the Commission making a recommendation to approve the project on a 3-2 vote.

Public Outreach and Noticing
The following table is a summary of the noticing done for this project:

Notice of Public Hearing, Site Notice & Legal Ad Agenda  Site Signage (14 days prior to the hearing)
 Legal ad placed in newspaper (at least 10 days prior to the hearing)
 449 public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within ~1,000 feet of the project site (10 days prior to the hearing)  1315 e-notifications were sent to individuals on the City’s enotification mailing lists (7 days prior to the hearing)  Posted on the City’s
official notice bulletin
board (five days prior to
the hearing)
 Posted on the City of
Cupertino’s website (five
days prior to the hearing)
The applicant has completed community outreach to residents and property owners by conducting community meetings in November of 2024 and January of 2026.

Public Comment
At the time of this staff report being published, staff had received three public comments from the public with concerns related to potential fire safety concerns (Attachment Q). Staff and the Planning Commission received comments from project supporters as well as members of the public with concerns related to project’s density, traffic, and fire hazards. These comments have been included as Attachment R. Comments continue to focus on traffic impacts, fire safety, evacuation concerns, and neighborhood and privacy impacts. https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=15261918&GUID=919627FB-777D-4606-9E00- E5A995CD9395
31 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
31 of 2331
TM-2024-009, ASA-2024-015 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 March 17, 2026 TR-2024-044 Linda Vista Drive Page 21
Sustainability Impact
The project was reviewed by the Sustainability Division and the applicant completed the required Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist. The project has been found to be exempt from CEQA through a Statutory Exemption and therefore it is expected that there will be no sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None.

City Council Goal
Housing.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Emi Sugiyama, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Resolution for TM-2024-009
B – Draft Resolution for ASA-2024-015
C – Draft Resolution for TR-2024-044
D – Applicable Standards Matrix
E – AB 130 CEQA Exemption Memorandum
F – Alternative Means and Method Request Approval
G – County Fire Review Letter
H – Geotechnical Report
I – Geotechnical Report Peer Review
J – Biological Report
K – Biological Report Peer Review
L – Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
M – Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
N – Phase I and Phase II ESA Applicant Review
O – Phase I and II ESA Peer Review
P – Underground Storage Tank Closure Report
Q – Public Comments (2-25-2026 to 3-10-2026)
R – Public Comments (01-01-2024 to 2-24-2026)
S – Final Transportation Study
T – Project Site Plan
32 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
32 of 2331
RESOLUTION NO._________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 51 TOWNHOME STYLE CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 8 PROTECTED TREES LOCATED AT 10857, 10867, 10877, AND 10887 LINDA VISTA DRIVE (APNS: 356-06-001, -002, -003, AND -004)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TM-2024-009
Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC
Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive (APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -004)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A TENTATIVE MAP:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Vesting Tentative Map as described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the project is determined to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026 the Planning Commission recommended on a 3-2 vote that the City Council approve the approve the Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2024-009), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2026-08), approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-015) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2026-09), and approve the Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2026-10); and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to receive staff’s presentation and public testimony, and to consider the information contained in the CEQA Exemption Memorandum prepared by David J Powers & Associates, dated February 18, 2026, along with all staff reports, other pertinent documents, and all written and oral statements received prior to and at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the City Council held at least one public hearing in regard to this application; and
33 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
33 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for a Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:
a. That the proposed subdivision map is consistent with the City of Cupertino General Plan.

The subject property is consistent with the General Plan since the property is permitted to have up to 35 dwelling units an acre pursuant to the vesting provisions of SB330 which vested the development standards to those that were in place in October 2024. b. That the design and improvements of the proposed subdivision are consistent with the General Plan.

The off-site improvements are consistent with the City’s General Plan policies related to applicable pedestrian and bicycle safety, with improvements made in accordance with the rightof-way design and the urban canopy within the public right-of-way. The development is required to have a 20-foot setback from the property line fronting Linda Vista Drive and a 12- foot setback from the property line fronting Evulich Court. While the project provides the required setback from Linda Vista Drive, a reduced setback is provided along Evulich Court.

However, state density bonus law requires the City to provide a waiver from local standards and still consider the design consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plan. c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development contemplated under the approved subdivision.

The proposed tentative map is compatible with the adjoining land uses and no physical constraints are present that would conflict with the anticipated land use and development.

Moreover, there are no topographical anomalies that differentiate this property from adjacent properties and the site is not listed within any environmentally sensitive zone for biotic resources. The site is located in a slope instability geologic hazard zone and the project’s geologic and geotechnical reports have been peer reviewed by the City’s third-party consultant.

Recommendations from the peer review have been included as conditions of approval. d. That the site is physically suitable for the intensity of development contemplated under the approved subdivision.

The subject property is physically suitable in size and shape and in conformance to development standards and is configured to accommodate a multi-unit development like the one proposed.
34 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
34 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish and wildlife or their habitat.

The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements will not injure fish and wildlife or their habitat because the site is located in an urbanized area where residential land use is allowed.
f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements associated therewith are not likely to cause serious public health problems.

The proposed subdivision design and improvements will not cause serious public health problems. The proposed development is consistent with the intent of the policies of the General Plan for a development of this density on this site, and the on-site and off-site improvements improve neighborhood walkability through improved sidewalk construction with sizeappropriate driveway curb-cuts and street and private trees planting. g. That the design of the subdivision and its associated improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.

No easement or right-of-way exists currently that would be impeded or conflict with the proposed subdivision. New public access easements will be required to address General Plan Mobility Element Policy M-2.5, as identified on the approved map. These easements shall be maintained to allow for public access through the property.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution beginning on PAGE 4 thereof, and those contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project.

The application for a Vesting Tentative Map, Application No. TM-2024-009, is hereby approved, and that the sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application No. TM-2024-009 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 meeting, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
35 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
35 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled “10857 Linda Vista Drive” dated January 12, 2026 consisting of 105 sheets labeled as, A01– A24, C1.0 – C7.0, L1.1 – L10.1, INT1-INT4, PrSL1, PrSL2, PS-1, and TM1.0, drawn by SDG Architects Inc., R3 Studios, Giacalone Design Services, Inc., Associated Lighting Representatives, Inc., and Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. ASA-2024-015 and TR-2024-044 shall be applicable to this approval.

4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans.

5. PUBLIC ACCESS
Public access easements required for the proposed trail connection to address Mobility Element Policy M-2.5 and Land Use Element Strategy LU-11.1, as identified on the approved map, shall be maintained to allow for public access through the property.

6. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements.

Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.

7. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold 36 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
36 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.

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 37 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
37 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

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.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT

9. STREET IMPROVEMENTS & DEDICATION
Roadway dedication in fee title and street improvements along the project frontage will be required to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Street improvements, grading and drainage plans must be completed and approved prior to Final map approval.

Street improvements may include, but not be limited to, new detached sidewalk, driveways, curb and gutter, remove/replace existing driveway cuts, utility mains/laterals, street tree installations, and street light installation. All improvements must be completed and accepted by the City prior to Building Final Occupancy or Street Improvement Encroachment Permit acceptance whichever comes first.

Additional comments will be provided and shall be incorporated prior to Final Map approval.

10. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
The Public Works Director, or his/her designee, shall have the authority to accept all offers of dedications, easements, quitclaims and other property rights and interests on behalf of the City.

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 Director of Public Works. All improvements must be completed and accepted by the City prior to Building Final Occupancy or Street Improvement Encroachment Permit acceptance whichever comes first.

12. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements (e.g. walkway and bicycle racks, etc.) consistent with the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and 38 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
38 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, and as approved by the Director of Public Works. All improvements must be completed and accepted by the City prior to Building Final Occupancy or Street Improvement Encroachment Permit acceptance whichever comes first.

13. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the Director of Public Works. 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. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the Director of Public Works in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.

15. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and satisfy any requirements from the environmental analysis. Hydrology and pre- and post-development hydraulic calculations based on the 10-year storm event must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible.

All storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping – Flows to Creek” using permanently affixed metal medallions or equivalent, as approved by the Environmental Programs Division.

Additional comments will be provided and shall be incorporated prior to Final Map approval.

16. C.3 REQUIREMENTS
C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 5,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface, collectively over the entire project site. The 39 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
39 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the Director of Public Works.

The project is located in a Hydromodification Management (HM) area and will create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surface. The project must comply with the Post-Construction Hydromodification Management requirements which entail HM projects to demonstrate that post-project runoff does not exceed estimated preproject runoff rates and durations.

The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan and a Storm Water Facilities Operation, Maintenance and Easement Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required.

All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer.

If the Project is subject to (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) and Homeowners Association (HOA), CC&R must also include languages pertaining to the stormwater treatment measures.

17. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, transportation impact fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement and fees shall be executed and paid prior to Final map approval.

Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: Per current fee schedule ($6,203 or 5% of improvement costs)
b. Grading Permit: Per current fee schedule ($5,365 or 6% of improvement costs)
c. Tract Map Fee: Per current fee schedule ($15,013)
d. Storm Drainage Fee: Per current fee schedule ($4,548 per AC + $345 per unit)
40 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
40 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

e. Transportation Impact Fee: Per current fee schedule: ($4,215 per new unit) credit for 4 existing units
f. Encroachment Permit Fee: Per current fee schedule ($3,895 or 5% of improvement costs)
g. Park Fees: Per current fee schedule: ($54,000 per new unit) $1,794,000 for 41 new units, 10 BMR units
waived, credit for 4 existing units
h. Storm Management Plan Fee Per current fee schedule ($2,432) i. Street Tree Fee: By Developer or Per current fee schedule:
$562 per tree
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.

18. FINAL MAP
A final map will be subject to City Council approval and shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits for vertical construction. Existing buildings must be demolished prior to recordation of the final map as building(s) cannot straddle between lot lines.

19. TRANSPORTATION
The Project is subject to the payment of Transportation Impact Fees under City’s Transportation Impact Fee Program (Chapter 14.02 of the Cupertino Municipal Code).

20. PARKS
The residential units are subject to the Park Land Dedication (for units 50 or more) or the payment of parkland fees in-lieu of parkland dedication per Chapter 13.08 and Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The City Council has the ultimate discretion to require parkland dedication or accept park in-lieu fees. (for units 50 or more)
41 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
41 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

The Below Market Rate (BMR) program manual, which was last amended by City Council on July 2, 2024 per Resolution 24-067, authorizes the waiver of park fees for BMR units. Pursuant to Resolution 24-067, parkland dedication in-lieu fees for the 10 BMR units proposed for this project are hereby waived.

21. SURVEYS
A Boundary Survey and a horizontal control plan will be required for all new construction to ensure the proposed building will be set based on the boundary survey and setback requirements.

22. TRASH, RECYCLING AND COMPOST ENCLOSURES
Trash enclosure plans must be designed in accordance with the City’s “Public Works Guidelines posted at www.cupertino.org/nowaste, and to the satisfaction of the Environmental Programs Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is required prior to obtaining a building permit. (CMC 9.18.210 H & K) Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City that indemnifies and holds harmless both the City and the refuse and recycling collection company (Recology) from and against any harm, damage or maintenance that may occur or become necessary to onsite paving stone driveway surfaces.

23. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to Final Map approval. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, landscaping, street trees, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights.

24. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
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. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the Director of Public Works.

25. TRANSFORMERS & CABINETS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to 42 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
42 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department.

26. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company.

27. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans.

28. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance.

29. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans.

30. WORK SCHEDULE
Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project.

31. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City.
43 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
43 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

32. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.

33. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.

34. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant).

35. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed.

36. SAN JOSE WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE
Provide San Jose Water Service Company approval for water connection, service capability and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers prior to Final Map approval.

37. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley.

38. SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance or sign off of street improvement plans for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Map approval.

39. UTILITY EASEMENTS
Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T, and San Jose Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to Final Map approval.
44 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
44 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TM-2024-009 March 17, 2026

CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF

ACCEPTANCE OF ENGINEERING/SURVEYING CONDITIONS
(Section 66474.18 California Government Code)
I hereby certify that the engineering and surveying conditions specified in Section IV. of this Resolution conform to generally accepted engineering practices. ___________________________
Chad Mosley, Director of Public Works
City Engineer CA License 66077
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of March, 2026, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk
________________________
Date
45 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
45 of 2331
RESOLUTION NO._________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING AN ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 51 TOWNHOME STYLE CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 8
PROTECTED TREES LOCATED AT 10857, 10867, 10877, AND 10887 LINDA VISTA DRIVE (APNS: 356-06-001, -002, -003, AND -004)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: ASA-2024-015
Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC
Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive (APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -004)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE APPROVAL:

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino received an application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the project is determined to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026 the Planning Commission recommended on a 3-2 vote that the City Council approve the approve the Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2024-009), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2026-08), approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-015) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2026-09), and approve the Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2026-10); and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to receive staff’s presentation and public testimony, and to consider the information contained in the CEQA Exemption Memorandum prepared by David J Powers & Associates, dated February 18, 2026, along with all staff reports, other pertinent documents, and all written and oral statements received prior to and at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the City Council held at least one public hearing in regard to this application; and
46 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
46 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for an Architectural and Site Approval Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. The proposal, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience;
The project is consistent with the relevant land use designations in the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. It has been designed to be compatible with adjoining land uses, including but not limited to having wider building setbacks from the single-family residences to the south and north of the subject property, as well as providing landscaping along the building frontages to help offset any potential building massing impacts and to ensure compatibility with the existing streetscape. The project is conditioned to comply with the Environmental Protection Standards of Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. In addition, the proposed project is considered statutorily exempt under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(1) because the proposed project would meet the requirements of the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66 (as further documented in the memorandum prepared by the City’s environmental consultant, David J. Powers & Associates). The project has been reviewed by the City’s Building Department and the Santa Clara County Fire Department and must meet all Fire and Building Code requirements, which will be further reviewed prior to issuance of building permits. Therefore, the project will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.

2. The proposal is consistent with the purposes of Chapter 19.168, the General Plan, any specific plan, zoning ordinances, applicable planned development permit, conditional use permits, variances, subdivision maps or other entitlements to use which regulate the subject property including, but not limited to, adherence to the following specific criteria:
a) Abrupt changes in building scale should be avoided. A gradual transition related to height and bulk should be achieved between new and existing buildings.

The proposed project is the redevelopment of four residential properties with four existing single-family residences. The adjacent residences immediately to the north and south of the property are two-story structures with varying design styles. The proposed townhome buildings are approximately 10 to 15 feet taller than the existing two-story residences. The applicant has requested a waiver for the 30-foot height limitation to allow for buildings up to 41 feet in height. Additionally, the townhomes are set back from the public street and 47 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
47 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

have vegetation and trees planted along Linda Vista Drive and Evulich Court for visual screening. Landscaping is also proposed at the perimeter of the property, which will help reduce the apparent mass and bulk of the proposed buildings. b) In order to preserve design harmony between new and existing buildings and in order to preserve and enhance property values, the materials, textures and colors of new buildings should harmonize with adjacent development by being consistent or compatible with design and color schemes, and with the future character of the neighborhood and purposes of the zone in which they are situated. The location, height and materials of walls, fencing, hedges and screen planting should harmonize with adjacent development. Unsightly storage areas, utility installations and unsightly elements of parking lots should be concealed. The planting of ground cover or various types of pavements should be used to prevent dust and erosion, and the unnecessary destruction of existing healthy trees should be avoided.

Lighting for development should be adequate to meet safety requirements as specified by the engineering and building departments, and provide shielding to prevent spill- over light to adjoining property owners.

The design quality of the development is consistent with the high-quality standards encouraged by City Staff. The buildings meet the design qualities of a contemporary Spanish, or Mediterranean style development. The architectural style is consistent throughout the development and is consistent with the design styles that are encouraged through the City’s Single-Family Design Guidelines. Utility installation has been designed to be screened by landscaping and/or incorporated into the building design. The lighting for the development will be reviewed as part of the project construction documents to ensure that they meet safety requirements while avoiding spill-over light to adjacent properties and meet applicable Dark Sky standards. The proposed windows are consistent with the City’s bird-safe ordinance as well.
c) The number, location, color, size, height, lighting and landscaping of outdoor advertising signs and structures shall minimize traffic hazards and shall positively affect the general appearance of the neighborhood and harmonize with adjacent development; and
No signage is proposed as part of this project.
d) With respect to new projects within existing residential neighborhoods, new development should be designed to protect residents from noise, traffic, light and visually intrusive effects by use of buffering, setbacks, landscaping, walls and other appropriate design measures.

The development’s lighting design has been reviewed to ensure that light intrusion onto neighboring properties is avoided and will be further reviewed prior to issuance of building permits to verify lighting requirements are met. The townhome buildings are not expected 48 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
48 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

to result in an incompatible noise intrusion as the development consists of exclusively residential uses within a residential area. Both permanent and temporary noise impacts from the development have been evaluated through an Environmental Noise Assessment that concluded that the project is not expected to exceed any of the City’s adopted sound level thresholds. Further, the project incorporates evergreen trees along the side property lines to provide privacy screening and a larger setback between the buildings closest to the adjacent single-family residential properties. Finally, the project design incorporates the formal expansion of Evulich Court and places all proposed driveways off of the cul-de-sac, thereby reducing the number of driveways exiting directly onto Linda Vista Drive.

3. When a project complies with objective standards, the HAA allows a city to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density only if the city finds both of the following, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record:
a. The project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density; and b. No feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact exists.

The project, as proposed, meets all applicable objective zoning, General Plan, and subdivision standards. Based on the record, including the findings in the Categorical Exemption memorandum, staff does not believe the above findings can be made with respect to the proposed project.

4. The remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need. (Findings required by Government Code Section 65863(b)(2).)
The remaining sites in the housing element inventory are not adequate to meet the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower-income and moderate-income housing need. The Priority Housing sites in the inventory are not adequate to accommodate the City’s share of the regional lower income housing need. Consistent with the City’s BMR requirements, the project includes only 10 Moderate and zero Lower Income units, resulting in a shortfall of 8 Moderate income units and 31 Lower Income units. While the City is unable to identify additional sites to accommodate its RHNA concurrently with this project’s approval, it is working toward being compliant with State law in a timely manner.

5. The applicant has requested Density Bonus concessions and waivers. Pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.56.070, before approving an application that 49 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
49 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

includes a request for density bonus, concession, parking reduction and/or waiver, the decision-making body shall make the following findings, as applicable:
a. That the residential project is eligible for the density bonus and any concessions, parking reductions or waivers requested.

The project includes 10 Below Market Rate (BMR) units or 19.6% of the total number of units proposed. Five of the twelve BMR units will be affordable to median-income households (100-120% of Area Median Income) and the other five will be affordable to moderate-income households (80-100% of Area Median Income) in compliance with the City’s BMR Program. As a density bonus project with at least 10% of units reserved for sale to moderate-income households as defined by state law (80-120% of Area Median Income), the applicant may request up to one concession and an unlimited number of waivers.
b. That any requested concession will result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost based on the financial analysis and documentation provided.

This finding is superseded by the requirements of State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915 which restricts a city’s ability to deny certain requests for concessions to the findings outlined in section 4 below. The project applicant has indicated that the application of requirements to provide a mix of types of BMR units would result in a significant financial burden and may impact the number of units provided.
c. If the density bonus is based all or in part on donation of land, that all requirements included Section 19.56.030C have been met.

No density bonus is proposed; therefore, the finding is not applicable. d. If the density bonus is based all or in part on the inclusion of a childcare facility, that all requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (D) have been met.

No density bonus is proposed; therefore, the finding is not applicable. e. If the density bonus or incentive is based on a condominium conversion, that all the requirements included in Section 19.56.030 (E) have been met.

No density bonus is proposed; therefore, the finding is not applicable. f. If the incentive includes mixed-use development, that all requirements including in Section 19.56.40 (B) (2) have been met.

The project is not a mixed-use development; therefore, the finding is not applicable. g. If a waiver is requested, that that the development standards for which the waivers are requested would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development with the density bonus and incentives or concessions permitted.
50 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
50 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

The development standards for height, setbacks, floor area, parking design, and park land dedication requirements would physically preclude the development as proposed. These development standard limitations could affect the project by the loss of units or unit sizes, which may include those designated as affordable. h. That all the applicable requirements in Section 19.56.040C have been met, if a reduction in off-street parking standards for an eligible housing development is requested.

No reduction in off-street parking requirements is being requested; therefore, the finding is not applicable.

6. Since the above applicable findings can be made, the decision-making body may only deny an application for a waiver or concession if one of the following written findings can be made, supported by substantial evidence:
a. That the incentive or concession, or waiver would have an adverse impact on real property listed in the California Register of Historic Resources; or No property on the site or near it is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources.
b. That the incentive or concession, or waiver would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the residential project unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. For the purpose of this subsection, "specific, adverse impact" means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the application for the residential project was deemed complete; or Both the Fire and Building departments have preliminary reviewed the plans and not found conditions proposed which would create a “specific, adverse impact.” In addition, the project is conditioned to ensure compliance with both Fire and Building Code, prior to issuance of building permits. The project is also conditioned to comply with the Environmental Protection Standards of the Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04. Further, under the CEQA Guidelines section 15332 (Infill Development Projects), the project has been found to be exempt from CEQA as further documented in the memorandum prepared by the City’s environmental consultant, David J. Powers & Associates. Therefore, the proposed development, incorporating the proposed concessions and waivers, is not expected to have a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety or the physical environment. 51 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
51 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

c. That the incentive or concession, or waiver is contrary to state or federal law.

The requested concessions and waivers are not contrary to state or federal law.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution, beginning on PAGE 4 herein, and subject to the conditions contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project.

The application for an Architectural and Site Approval, Application No. ASA-2024-015, is hereby approved, and that the subconclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. ASA-2024-015 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 Meeting, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled “10857 Linda Vista Drive” dated January 12, 2026 consisting of 105 sheets labeled as, A01– A24, C1.0 – C7.0, L1.1 – L10.1, INT1-INT4, PrSL1, PrSL2, PS-1, and TM1.0, drawn by SDG Architects Inc., R3 Studios, Giacalone Design Services, Inc., Associated Lighting Representatives, Inc., and Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. PRIVACY PLANTING
The applicant shall consider the addition of privacy hedges between the proposed units with views as defined under Section 19.28.120 of the Municipal Code and abutting properties, in consultation with staff and the neighbors. Landscape plans may be modified, subject to staff review, to address this consideration.

3. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible to verify all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.
52 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
52 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

4. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TM-2024-009 and TR-2024-044 shall be applicable to this approval.

5. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans.

6. TRAIL CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS
The applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of a pedestrian and bicycle trail connection from the project site to the Stevens Creek Trail. At the time of building permit application, the construction plans shall include a design substantially consistent with the Trail Connection Exhibit subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and City Engineer. The cost of design and construction of the trail connection shall be verified by the City’s thirdparty consultant, at the expense of the applicant.

In-Lieu Fee Credit
The applicant shall receive a pro rata credit toward the in-lieu Parkland Dedication fees for each unit. Credit towards the Parkland in-lieu fees shall not exceed $377,000.

The final credit amount shall be based on verified costs and reconciled accordingly. If the verified costs are less than the credited amount, the applicant shall pay the difference to the City prior to Final Map approval.

Public Access
Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the first residence, the applicant shall grant a public access easement to the City between the public right-of-way and the trail connection, substantially consistent with the Trail Connection Exhibit. The trail connection shall be open from dawn to dusk in accordance with standard park operating hours.

Maintenance
Prior to issuance of the final Building Permit, the developer shall enter into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney.

The Agreement shall, at a minimum, require the property owner (or successor in interest) to:

1. Maintain the trail connection and all associated improvements in a safe, clean, and operable condition at all times.

2. Be responsible for ongoing repair, replacement, and upkeep of all non-standard improvements associated with the trail connection, which may include, but are not limited to: landscaping, irrigation systems, sidewalk, specialty pavers, lighting, 53 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
53 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

signage, striping, furnishings, drainage improvements, and related appurtenances.

3. Promptly repair any damage, deterioration, vandalism, or hazardous condition.

4. Maintain landscaping in a healthy and attractive condition, including regular pruning, weeding, litter removal, irrigation management, and replacement of dead or diseased plant materials.

5. Maintain lighting and other safety features in good working order.

The Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding on all successors and assigns. Failure to maintain the improvements in accordance with the Agreement may result in the City performing necessary maintenance and recovering costs from the property owner, as provided in the Agreement.

Timing of Completion
The trail connection shall be completed prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the 51st unit.

Condition Precedent
If the City Council does not authorize the requested credit to the in-lieu Parkland Dedication Fees, the project shall not be required to provide the pedestrian and bicycle trail connection, and payment of the full in-lieu fee shall satisfy all parkland dedication requirements.

7. COMMON OPEN SPACE
The residential common open space shall provide amenities for passive and/or active recreation, as shown on plans, including but not limited to play structures, barbeque areas, picnic tables etc. and shall not be retained as or converted to only a passive hardscaped or landscaped area.

8. SETBACK AND LANDSCAPE AREAS
Pursuant to the geotechnical peer review, the applicant shall maintain a 25-foot structural setback from the top of the western slope.

Approved setback and landscaped areas shall remain free and clear of any accessory structures that have not been approved as part of this project. This includes any private side yard areas approved as part of this project.

9. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS AND EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. The final building design and exterior treatment plans (including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to 54 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
54 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

issuance of building permits and through an in-field mock-up of colors prior to application to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change.

10. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible to consult with other departments and/or agencies about the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.

11. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
The project is granted approval to construct:
a. 51 townhomes, subject to affordability requirements of Condition #11, with a maximum floor area as identified on approved plans;
b. 102 parking spaces;
c. 51 private bicycle spaces;
d. 12 shared bicycle racks;
e. Landscaping in designated locations with the use of native and drought tolerant plants;
f. Vegetated stormwater treatment facilities with the use of native plants; g. 11,728 square feet of private open space across all units; h. 30,132 square feet of common open space;
i. Screened mechanical equipment; and
j. Three new fences along the northern, southern, and western property lines

12. AFFORDABLE UNITS
The project shall include 5 units affordable to median-income households and 5 units affordable to moderate-income households as determined by the City’s BMR Mitigation Manual, unless modified through the replacement requirements outlined in Condition 12 below.

13. TENANCY VERIFICATION AND REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS
Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit for the project, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the project complies with the replacement housing requirements of California Government Code Section 65915 subsection (c)(3). The applicant shall submit a written replacement housing plan identifying any dwelling units on the project site that, within five (5) years prior to the application for the density bonus, were subject to recorded affordability restrictions, rent or 55 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
55 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

price control ordinances, or occupied by lower- or very low-income households, or otherwise qualify as protected units under state law. The plan shall specify the number, bedroom count, affordability level, and tenure (rental or ownership) of all such units and shall demonstrate that the project replaces those units on a onefor-one basis with units of equivalent size and at the same or lower income category, consistent with state law. Replacement ownership units shall be subject to resale controls and an initial occupancy requirement by income-qualified households at an affordable housing cost, all as defined by state law.

The Applicant shall execute and record an Affordable Housing Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, memorializing the replacement obligations, affordability terms, monitoring requirements, and enforcement provisions prior to issuance of the first building permit. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any market-rate unit until the required replacement units are constructed and made available for occupancy, unless an alternative phasing plan ensuring no net loss of protected units is approved by the Director of Community Development in compliance with state law.

14. DENSITY BONUS WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS
As allowed through the state’s Density Bonus law, the project is granted one concession and five waivers as requested and indicated on the approved project plans as follows:
a. Concession to address different unit type for BMR units; b. Waiver to increase the maximum height of buildings;
c. Waiver for reduced street side and interior side setbacks; d. Waiver to reduce private outdoor space dimensions;
e. Waiver to increase the maximum floor area ratio; and f. Waiver for reduced parking space dimensions.

15. BICYCLE PARKING
The applicant shall provide bicycle parking and bike racks for the proposed project in accordance with the approved plans and with the City’s Parking Regulations under Chapter 19.124 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.

16. BMR UNIT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant shall detail how the following requirements are met:
a. The BMR units shall be comparable to market-rate units in terms of number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance and overall quality of construction.
56 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
56 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

b. The BMR unit size should generally be representative of the unit sizes within the market-rate portion of the residential project.
c. Interior features and finishes in the affordable units shall be durable, of good quality and consistent with the contemporary standards of new housing.

17. BMR AGREEMENT
Prior to the recordation of a final map or issuance of any residential building permit, an affordable housing agreement shall be recorded against the property.

The affordable housing agreement shall include, but not be limited to the following, in compliance with the BMR Housing Mitigation Manual:
a. Total number of BMR units, type, location (site map), square footage, number of bedrooms, and construction scheduling of market-rate and BMR units; b. Provisions to ensure concurrent construction and completion of BMR units and market-rate units;
c. Affordability levels for each BMR unit;
d. Prices for BMR units as provided for in the BMR mitigation manual; e. Provisions for income certification and screening of potential occupants of BMR units;
f. Restriction control mechanisms;
g. Financing of ongoing administrative and monitoring costs; h. Other reasonably required provisions to implement the Affordable Housing Plan.

18. BMR UNIT TERMS OF AFFORDABILITY
Prior to occupancy, the proposed project shall record covenants that require the units to be sold at prices that are affordable to moderate and median levels for a period not less than 99 years from the date of first occupancy of the unit.

19. PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENT
Public art shall be provided for the project in accordance with General Plan Policy 2-66 and the City’s Public Art Ordinance (Chapter 19.148 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). The minimum expenditure for the artwork, including, but not limited to design, fabrication, and installation is one (1) percent of the construction valuation for the first $100 million on construction valuation, or 0.9% of construction valuation for valuation in excess of $100 million. The project pro forma shall be provided to the City to confirm the project budget. The public art plans (including location and design) shall be reviewed by the Fine Arts Commission during the building permit stage, in advance of final occupancy.

Once approved by the Fine Arts Commission, the public artwork shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City prior to final occupancy. 57 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
57 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

In the event the developer or property owner determines that the placement of artwork on a particular property may not be feasible, the developer or property owner may apply to the City for an in-lieu payment alternative as indicated in Chapter 19.148 of the Cupertino Municipal Code, subject to review of the Fine Arts Commission and the City Council. The in lieu payment shall be 1.25% of the construction valuation.

20. PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT
In accordance with the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 19.128, the property owner shall maintain approved public artwork in good condition continuously after its installation, as determined appropriate by the City.

Maintenance shall include all related landscaping, lighting, and upkeep, including the identification plaque. Artwork required or approved cannot be removed, except for required maintenance or repair, unless approved by the City; at which time the City may require replacement or relocation of the artwork. In the event that the artwork is relocated in the public right-of-way, a maintenance agreement with the City shall be required.

21. TRIBAL CONSULTATION CONDITIONS
Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading, or building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that the project complies with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21080.66.

Compliance with this condition shall be ongoing throughout all ground-disturbing and restoration activities.

As requested by a California Native American tribe traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, the Applicant shall retain and fund tribal monitoring during all ground-disturbing activities. The designated tribal monitor shall be selected by the tribe and shall comply with the applicant’s site access and workplace safety requirements. The applicant shall compensate the tribal monitor at a reasonable rate, determined in good faith, that aligns with customary compensation for cultural resource monitoring, taking into account factors such as the scope and duration of the project.

Tribal cultural resources shall be avoided where feasible, in accordance with subdivision (a) of Section 21084.3. In furtherance of this requirement, where feasible, the project applicant shall provide deference to tribal preferences regarding access to spiritual, ceremonial, and burial sites, and incorporate tribal traditional knowledge in the protection and sustainable use of tribal cultural resources and landscapes. 58 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
58 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

All identification, treatment, and documentation of tribal cultural resources shall be conducted in a culturally appropriate manner consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.9.

Prior to permit issuance, the Applicant shall complete a California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) archaeological records search and a tribal cultural records search for the project site and shall submit a Sacred Lands Inventory request to the Native American Heritage Commission.

The project shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, including immediate cessation of work in the event of the discovery of human remains or burial resources and treatment in accordance with applicable law and consultation with the appropriate California Native American tribe.

Where applicable to the environmental context of the site, the applicant shall incorporate tribal ecological knowledge into any habitat restoration or landscape management measures associated with the project.

22. SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN
If any unanticipated structure or evidence of contamination is discovered during construction activities on-site, the project shall halt work in the area of the discovery and a qualified professional shall prepare a Soil Management Plan. The Soil Management Plan (if required) shall be subject to review and approval by the City’s third-party consultant, at the expense of the applicant.

23. GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
a. Structural Plans – Prior to Building Permit issuance, structural plans shall be developed that incorporate the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. b. Geotechnical Plan Review - Prior to Building Permit issuance, the Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, drainage improvements, design parameters for foundations, and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been incorporated.

The Structural Plans and Geotechnical Plan Review shall be submitted to the City for review by the City staff and City Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of building permits.
c. The following shall be performed prior to final (as-built) project approval:
i. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project 59 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
59 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to placement of steel and concrete.
ii. Geotechnical Inspection Final Report - The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final (as-built) project approval.

24. LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION REPORT
The project is subject to all provisions delineated in the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15). A landscape installation audit shall be conducted by a certified landscape professional after the landscaping and irrigation system have been installed. The findings of the assessment shall be consolidated into a landscape installation report.

The landscape installation report shall include but is not limited to: inspection to confirm that the landscaping and irrigation system are installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan, system tune-up, system test with distribution uniformity, reporting overspray or run-off that causes overland flow, and preparation of an irrigation schedule.

The landscape installation report shall include the following statement: “The landscape and irrigation system have been installed as specified in the landscape and irrigation design plan and complies with the criteria of the ordinance and the permit.”

25. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
Per the Landscape Ordinance (CMC, Chapter 14.15), a maintenance schedule shall be established and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his/her designee, either with the landscape application package, with the landscape installation report, or any time before the landscape installation report is submitted.
a. Schedules should take into account water requirements for the plant establishment period and water requirements for established landscapes. b. Maintenance shall include, but not be limited to the following: routine inspection; pressure testing, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system; aerating and de-thatching turf areas; replenishing mulch; fertilizing; pruning; replanting of failed plants; weeding; pest control; and removing obstructions to emission devices.
60 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
60 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

c. Failed plants shall be replaced with the same or functionally equivalent plants that may be size-adjusted as appropriate for the stage of growth of the overall installation. Failing plants shall either be replaced or be revived through appropriate adjustments in water, nutrients, pest control or other factors as recommended by a landscaping professional.

26. RESIDENTIAL SCREENING COVENANT
The property owner shall record a covenant on this property to inform future property owners of the residential screening measures and tree protection requirements consistent with the approved plans and reference these in the Property Owner Association documentation. The precise language will be subject to approval by the Director of Community Development. Proof of recordation must be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to final occupancy of the residence.

27. LANDSCAPE PROJECT SUBMITTAL
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a full Landscape Documentation Package, per sections 14.15.050 A, B, C, and D of the Landscape Ordinance, for projects with landscape area 500 square feet or more or elect to submit a Prescriptive Compliance Application per sections 14.15.040 A, B, and C for projects with landscape area between 500 square feet and 2,500 square feet. The Landscape Documentation Package or Prescriptive Compliance Application shall be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits, and additional requirements per sections 14.15.040 D, E, F, and G or 14.15.050 E, F, G, H, and I will be required to be reviewed and approved prior to final inspections.

28. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS
The applicant shall submit detailed landscape and irrigation plans to be reviewed and approved by Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.

The landscape plan shall include water conservation and pesticide reduction measures in conformance with Chapter 14.15, Landscape Ordinance, and the pesticide control measures referenced in Chapter 9.18, Stormwater Pollution Prevention and Watershed Protection, of the Cupertino Municipal Code.

29. SITE IMPROVEMENTS
All proposed site improvements shall be completed prior to final occupancy of any structures approved in conjunction with the project, unless an alternative phasing plan is approved by the Director of Community Development and City Engineer.

30. EXTERIOR BUILDING MATERIALS/TREATMENTS
61 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
61 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

The final building exterior plan shall closely resemble the details shown on the original approved plans. Final building exterior treatment plan (including but not limited to details on exterior color, materials, architectural treatments, doors, windows, lighting fixtures, and/or embellishments) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits to ensure quality and consistency. Any exterior changes determined to be substantial by the Director of Community Development shall either require a modification to this permit or a new permit based on the extent of the change.

Future changes to the exterior building materials/treatments must be reviewed and approved by the Property Owner’s Association. However, any changes to the building materials that do not match the approved materials shall require an amendment to this permit or a new permit.

31. DARK SKY COMPLIANCE AND/OR BIRD SAFE COMPLIANCE
Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant/property owner shall submit final plans in compliance with the approved lighting plans to comply with development standards of Cupertino Municipal Code Section 19.102.030 Bird-Safe Development Requirements and Section 19.102.040 Outdoor Lighting Requirements. In the event changes are proposed from the approved plans, said changes must be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development or their designee. The applicant shall provide all documentation required to determine compliance with the Municipal Code. The final lighting plan (including a detailed photometric plan) shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to building permit issuance. A report from a licensed lighting engineer may be required to confirm all exterior lighting throughout the site complies with the City’s Ordinance.

32. TRANSFORMERS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department.

33. UTILITY STRUCTURE PLAN
Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall work with staff to provide a detailed utility plan to demonstrate screening or undergrounding of all new 62 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
62 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

utility structures [including, but not limited to backflow preventers (BFP), fire department connections (FDC), post-indicator valves (PIV), and gas meters] to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, Public Works, Fire Department, and applicable utility agencies.

34. GREEN BUILDING
The project shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Green Building Ordinance (Chapter 16.58 of the Cupertino Municipal Code). The applicant shall obtain LEED Silver certification or an alternative reference standard in accordance with the ordinance since the building size is over 50,000 square feet. Third party LEED certification or alternative reference standard is required per the ordinance criteria and costs associated with third-party review shall be paid by the applicant.

35. EQUIPMENT SCREENING
All mechanical and other equipment on the building or on the site shall be screened so they are not visible from public street areas or adjoining developments. The height of the screening shall be taller than the height of the mechanical equipment that it is designed to screen. A line of sight plan may be required to demonstrate that the equipment will not be visible from any public right-of-way. The location of the equipment and necessary screening shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits.

36. TITLE 17 REQUIREMENTS
At the time of application for Building Permits, the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, that the project is and will be consistent with the requirements for construction outlined in Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 17.04.

37. NOISE LEVELS AND ABATEMENT
Project uses and all equipment installed on the site shall comply with the City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance at all times. Installation of any mechanical or other equipment shall be evaluated to determine that the installation meets the City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance. Any documentation or studies required to determine this shall be provided by the applicant as his/her sole expense. Should the project exceed any of the stipulated maximum noise levels outlined in the City’s Community Noise Control Ordinance, an acoustical engineer may be required to submit noise attenuation measures to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development at the applicant’s expense. 63 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
63 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

38. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS
All demolished building and site materials shall be recycled to the maximum extent feasible subject to the Building Official. The applicant shall provide evidence that materials were recycled prior to occupancy.

39. FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading, or building permit, include on all permit plans, the full text of each of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Basic Control Measures from the latest version of BAAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced, to control fugitive dust (i.e., particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10) during demolition, ground disturbing activities and/or construction.

40. VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND EMISSIONS FROM PAINT
Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Applicant shall include a note on all plans where paint specifications or other design specifications are listed, that the project design will incorporate only low-VOC paint (i.e., 50 grams per liter [g/L] or less) for interior and exterior wall architectural coatings.

41. AVOID NESTING BIRDS DURING CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading and building permit, indicate the following on all construction plans:
a. Demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, and tree removal/pruning activities shall be scheduled to be completed prior to nesting season (February 1 through August 31), if feasible.
b. If demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities occur during the nesting season (February 1 and August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted as follows:
i. No more than 7 days prior to the start of demolition, construction, grounddisturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities, in order to identify any active nests with eggs or young birds on the site and surrounding area within 100 feet of construction or tree removal activities. ii. Preconstruction surveys shall be repeated at 14-day intervals until demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities have been initiated in the area, after which surveys can be stopped. As part of the preconstruction survey(s), the surveyor shall inspect all trees and other possible nesting habitats in, and immediately adjacent to, the construction areas for active nests, while ensuring that they do not disturb the nests as follows:
64 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
64 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

1) For projects that require the demolition or construction one singlefamily residence, ground disturbing activities affecting areas of up to 500 square feet, or the removal of up to three trees, the property owner or a tree removal contractor, if necessary, is permitted to conduct the preconstruction surveys to identify if there are any active nests. If any active nests with eggs or young birds are identified, the project applicant shall retain a qualified ornithologist or biologist to identify protective measures.
2) For any other demolition, construction and ground disturbing activity or the removal of four or more trees, a qualified ornithologist or biologist shall be retained by the project applicant to conduct the preconstruction surveys.
iii. If the preconstruction survey does not identify any active nests with eggs or young birds that would be affected by demolition, construction, grounddisturbing or tree removal/pruning activities, no further mitigating action is required. If an active nest containing eggs or young birds is found sufficiently close to work areas to be disturbed by these activities, their locations shall be documented, and the qualified ornithologist or biologist shall identify protective measures to be implemented under their direction until the nests no longer contain eggs or young birds.
iv. Protective measures may include, but are not limited to, establishment of clearly delineated exclusion zones (i.e., demarcated by identifiable fencing, such as orange construction fencing or equivalent) around each nest location as determined by the qualified ornithologist or biologist, taking into account the species of birds nesting, their tolerance for disturbance and proximity to existing development. In general, exclusion zones shall be a minimum of 300 feet for raptors and 75 feet for passerines and other birds.

The active nest within an exclusion zone shall be monitored on a weekly basis throughout the nesting season to identify signs of disturbance and confirm nesting status. The radius of an exclusion zone may be increased by the qualified ornithologist or biologist, if project activities are determined to be adversely affecting the nesting birds. Exclusion zones may be reduced by the qualified ornithologist or biologist only in consultation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The protection measures and buffers shall remain in effect until the young have left the nest and are foraging independently or the nest is no longer active. v. A final report on nesting birds and raptors, including survey methodology, survey date(s), map of identified active nests (if any), and protection measures (if required), shall be prepared by the qualified ornithologist or 65 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
65 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

biologist and submitted to the Director of Community Development or his or her designee, through the appropriate permit review process (e.g., demolition, construction, tree removal, etc.), and be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the start of demolition, construction, ground-disturbing, or tree removal/pruning activities.

42. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit involving soil disturbance, the project applicant shall provide written verification, including the materials provided to contractors and construction crews, to the City confirming that contractors and construction crews have been notified of basic archaeological site indicators, the potential for discovery of archaeological resources, laws pertaining to these resources, and procedures for protecting these resources as follows:
a. Basic archaeological site indicators that may include, but are not limited to, darker than surrounding soils of a friable nature; evidence of fires (ash, charcoal, fire affected rock or earth); concentrations of stone, bone, or shellfish; artifacts of stone, bone, or shellfish; evidence of living surfaces (e.g., floors); and burials, either human or animal.
b. The potential for undiscovered archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources on site.
c. The laws protecting these resources and associated penalties, including, but not limited to, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, Public Resources Code Section 5097, and California Health and Safety Code Section 7050 and Section 7052.
d. The protection procedures to follow should construction crews discover cultural resources during project-related earthwork, include the following:
i. All soil disturbing work within 25 feet of the find shall cease. ii. The project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist to provide and implement a plan for survey, subsurface investigation, as needed, to define the deposit, and assessment of the remainder of the site within the project area to determine whether the resource is significant and would be affected by the project.
iii. Any potential archaeological or tribal cultural resources found during construction activities shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms by a qualified archaeologist. If 66 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
66 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

the resource is a tribal cultural resource, the consulting archaeologist shall consult with the appropriate tribe, as determined by the Native American Heritage Commission, to evaluate the significance of the resource and to recommend appropriate and feasible avoidance, testing, preservation or mitigation measures, in light of factors such as the significance of the find, proposed project design, costs, and other considerations. The archeologist shall perform this evaluation in consultation with the tribe.

43. HUMAN REMAINS AND NATIVE AMERICAN BURIALS
Prior to issuance of the any demolition, grading and building permits that involve soil disturbance, include on plans a note that, during project construction, the project applicant shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. a. In the event of discovering human remains during construction activities, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site within a 100-foot radius of the remains, or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains.
b. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified immediately and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. c. If the Santa Clara County Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours.
d. The NAHC shall attempt to identify descendants (Most Likely Descendant) of the deceased Native American.
e. The Most Likely Descendant has 48 hours following access to the project site to make recommendations or preferences regarding the disposition of the remains. If the Most Likely Descendant does not make recommendations within 48 hours after being allowed access to the project site, the owner shall, with appropriate dignity, reinter the remains in an area of the property secure from further disturbance and provide documentation about this determination and the location of the remains to the NAHC and the City of Cupertino.

Alternatively, if the owner does not accept the Most Likely Descendant’s recommendations, the owner or the descendent may request mediation by the NAHC. Construction shall halt until the mediation has concluded. 67 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
67 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

44. NOISE AND VIBRATION NOTICE
At least 10 days prior to the start of any demolition, ground disturbing, or construction activities, the project applicant/contractor shall send notices of the planned activity by first class mail as follows:
a. For projects on sites that are more than 0.5 acres or four or more residential units the notices shall be sent to off-site businesses and residents within 500 feet of the project site;
b. For projects on sites between 0.25 to 0.5 acres, or two or three residential units (not including Accessory Dwelling Units) notices shall be sent to off-site businesses and residents within 250 feet of the project site; or c. For projects on sites less than 0.25 acres or one residential unit, the notices shall be sent to off-site businesses and residents within 100 feet of the project site.

The notification shall include a brief description of the project, the activities that would occur, the hours when activity would occur, and the construction period’s overall duration. The notification should include the telephone numbers of the contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise or vibration complaint. The City will provide mailing addresses for the Applicant’s use. The project applicant shall provide the City with evidence of mailing of the notice, upon request. If pile driving, see additional noticing requirements below.

45. NOISE DURING CONSTRUCTION
Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, include on plans a note that, during project construction, the project applicant shall incorporate the following measures to reduce noise during construction and demolition activity:
a. The project applicant and contractors shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City’s Planning Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the first permit. The Construction Noise Plan shall demonstrate compliance with daytime and nighttime decibel limits pursuant to Chapter 10.48 (Community Noise Control) of Cupertino Municipal Code.

The details of the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included in the applicable construction documents and implemented by the on-site Construction Manager. Noise reduction measures selected and implemented shall be based on the type of construction equipment used on the site, distance of construction activities from sensitive receptor(s), site terrain, and other features on and surrounding the site (e.g., trees, built environment) and may include, but not be limited to, temporary construction noise attenuation walls, high quality mufflers. During the entire active construction period, the 68 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
68 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

Construction Noise Control Plan shall demonstrate that compliance with the specified noise control requirements for construction equipment and tools will reduce construction noise in compliance with the City’s daytime and nighttime decibel limits.
b. Select haul routes that avoid the greatest amount of sensitive use areas and submit to the City of Cupertino Public Works Department for approval prior to the start of the construction phase.
c. Signs will be posted at the job site entrance(s), within the on-site construction zones, and along queueing lanes (if any) to reinforce the prohibition of unnecessary engine idling. All other equipment will be turned off if not in use for more than 5 minutes.
d. During the entire active construction period and to the extent feasible, the use of noise producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. The construction manager will use smart back-up alarms, which automatically adjust the alarm level based on the background noise level or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and law.

46. EXCESSIVE NOISE AND VIBRATIONS
Per General Plan Policy HS-8.3, construction contractors shall use the best available technology to minimize excessive noise and vibration from construction equipment such as pile drivers, jack hammers, and vibratory rollers during construction.

47. PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
A demolition and construction management plan shall be submitted and reviewed prior to building permit issuance. Prior to commencement of construction activities, the applicant shall arrange for a pre-construction meeting with the pertinent departments (Building, Planning, and Public Works) to review the prepared construction management plan, to ensure that construction complies with the conditions of approval, staging of construction equipment is appropriate, tree protection measures are in place, public access routes are identified, and noise and dust control measures are established. The plan shall include but not be limited to the following:
a. Appropriate construction staging area
b. Hours of construction
c. Compliance with the City noise ordinance
d. Best management practices
69 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
69 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

e. Staging of construction equipment shall not occur within ___ feet of any residential property.
f. Any other measures as determined to be appropriate by the Director of Community Development

48. GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND NOISE LIMITS
The applicant shall indicate compliance with the following grading and construction hours and noise limit requirements on all demolition, construction and grading permits, and in the construction management plan(s), unless otherwise indicated.
a. All grading activities shall be limited to the dry season (April 15 to October 1), unless permitted otherwise by the Director of Public works. b. Construction hours and noise limits shall be compliant with all requirements of Chapter 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
c. Grading, street construction, underground utility and demolition hours for work done more than 750 feet away from residential areas shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Grading, street construction, demolition or underground utility work within 750 feet of residential areas shall not occur on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, and during nighttime period as defined in Section 10.48.053(b) of the Municipal Code.
d. Construction activities shall be limited to Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and Saturday and Sunday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Construction activities are not allowed on holidays as defined in Chapter 10.48 of the Municipal Code.

Nighttime construction is allowed if compliant with nighttime standards of Section 10.48 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.
e. Rules and regulations pertaining to all construction activities and limitations identified in this permit, along with the name and telephone number of an applicant appointed disturbance coordinator, shall be posted in a prominent location at the entrance to the job site.
f. The applicant shall be responsible for educating all contractors and subcontractors of said construction restrictions.

49. BUILDING AND FIRE CODE
The applicant shall apply for and obtain building permits to allow the construction of the approved project. The applicant shall provide information and plans to allow the Building Official and the Fire Marshall or their designee that the proposed plans comply with Building and Fire Codes in effect at the time of application for a building permit.
70 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
70 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

50. PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION
A Property Owner’s Association shall be formed to maintain the common areas of the property. The Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and the Director of Community Development prior to recordation. The following terms shall be incorporated into the Association’s Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions:
• The members/board shall meet at a minimum of once/year • The Association dues shall cover:
o Maintenance of common area on the property in compliance with the approved project conditions of approval, including hardscaping, parking, landscaping and accessory facilities and amenities, such as trash bins/areas, common amenity areas, tree grates, outside trash bins, fences, etc,
o Building and site repair on a regular schedule, or as otherwise necessary, and building renovation and replacement as necessary to ensure that the property is maintained.
o Permits, including tree removal permits, required for maintenance and repair of facilities in the common areas
• Any changes to the exterior of the development must be reviewed by the Property Owner’s Association and changes must be considered in the context of the development as a whole, and not on a unit-by-unit basis. • CC&R’s shall ensure that private open space is kept tidy and free of clutter and visual blight.
• Any changes to the CC&R’s must be reviewed and approved by the City • Disbanding of the Association shall require an amendment to this permit to be reviewed and approved by the original approval authority.

51. TRASH AND DELIVERY ACTIVITIES
A detailed refuse and truck delivery plan shall be prepared by the applicant. The plan shall specify locations of trash facilities, refuse pick up schedules and truck delivery schedules and routes. All trash facilities must be screened and enclosed to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The final plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

52. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, 71 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
71 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.

53. 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), 72 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
72 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

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.

SECTION IV: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT

54. STREET IMPROVEMENTS & DEDICATION
Roadway dedication in fee title and street improvements along the project frontage will be required to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Street improvements, grading and drainage plans must be completed and approved prior to Final map approval.

Street improvements may include, but not be limited to, new detached sidewalk, driveways, curb and gutter, remove/replace existing driveway cuts, utility mains/laterals, street tree installations, and street light installation. All improvements must be completed and accepted by the City prior to Building Final Occupancy or Street Improvement Encroachment Permit acceptance whichever comes first.

Additional comments will be provided and shall be incorporated prior to Final Map approval.

55. ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
The Public Works Director, or his/her designee, shall have the authority to accept all offers of dedications, easements, quitclaims and other property rights and interests on behalf of the City.

56. CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS
Curbs and gutters, sidewalks and related structures shall be installed in accordance with grades and standards as specified by the Director of Public Works. All improvements must be completed and accepted by the City prior to Building Final Occupancy or Street Improvement Encroachment Permit acceptance whichever comes first.

57. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS
Developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle related improvements (e.g. walkway and bicycle racks, etc.) consistent with the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Pedestrian Transportation Guidelines, and as approved by the Director of Public Works. All improvements must be completed and accepted by the City prior to Building Final Occupancy or Street Improvement Encroachment Permit acceptance whichever comes first.

58. STREET LIGHTING INSTALLATION
73 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
73 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

Street lighting shall be installed and shall be as approved by the Director of Public Works. 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.

59. GRADING
Grading shall be as approved and required by the Director of Public Works in accordance with Chapter 16.08 of the Cupertino Municipal Code.

60. DRAINAGE
Drainage shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and satisfy any requirements from the environmental analysis. Hydrology and pre- and post-development hydraulic calculations based on the 10-year storm event must be provided to indicate whether additional storm water control measures are to be constructed or renovated. The storm drain system may include, but is not limited to, subsurface storage of peak stormwater flows (as needed), bioretention basins, vegetated swales, and hydrodynamic separators to reduce the amount of runoff from the site and improve water quality. The storm drain system shall be designed to detain water on-site (e.g., via buried pipes, retention systems or other approved systems and improvements) as necessary to avoid an increase of the ten percent flood water surface elevation to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. Any storm water overflows or surface sheeting should be directed away from neighboring private properties and to the public right of way as much as reasonably possible.

All storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words “No Dumping – Flows to Creek” using permanently affixed metal medallions or equivalent, as approved by the Environmental Programs Division.

Additional comments will be provided and shall be incorporated prior to Final Map approval.

61. C.3 REQUIREMENTS
C.3 regulated improvements are required for all projects creating and/or replacing 5,000 S.F. or more of impervious surface, collectively over the entire project site. The developer shall reserve a minimum of 4% of developable surface area for the placement of low impact development measures, for storm water treatment, unless an alternative storm water treatment plan, that satisfies C.3 requirements, is approved by the Director of Public Works.

The project is located in a Hydromodification Management (HM) area and will create and/or replace one acre or more of impervious surface. The project must comply with the Post-Construction Hydromodification Management requirements which entail 74 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
74 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

HM projects to demonstrate that post-project runoff does not exceed estimated preproject runoff rates and durations.

The developer must include the use and maintenance of site design, source control and storm water treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs), which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. A Storm Water Management Plan and a Storm Water Facilities Operation, Maintenance and Easement Agreement, and certification of ongoing operation and maintenance of treatment BMPs are each required.

All storm water management plans are required to obtain certification from a City approved third party reviewer.

If the Project is subject to (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R) and Homeowners Association (HOA), CC&R must also include languages pertaining to the stormwater treatment measures.

62. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
The project developer shall enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City of Cupertino providing for payment of fees, including but not limited to checking and inspection fees, storm drain fees, transportation impact fees, park dedication fees and fees for under grounding of utilities. Said agreement and fees shall be executed and paid prior to Final map approval.

Fees:
a. Checking & Inspection Fees: Per current fee schedule ($6,203 or 5% of improvement costs)
b. Grading Permit: Per current fee schedule ($5,365 or 6% of improvement costs)
c. Tract Map Fee: Per current fee schedule ($15,013)
d. Storm Drainage Fee: Per current fee schedule ($4,548 per AC + $345 per unit)
e. Transportation Impact Fee: Per current fee schedule: ($4,215 per new unit) credit for 4 existing units
f. Encroachment Permit Fee: Per current fee schedule ($3,895 or 5% of improvement costs)
g. Park Fees: Per current fee schedule: ($54,000 per new unit) $1,794,000 for 41 new units, 10 BMR units
waived, credit for 4 existing units
h. Storm Management Plan Fee Per current fee schedule ($2,432) i. Street Tree Fee: By Developer or Per current fee schedule:
$562 per tree
75 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
75 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

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.

63. FINAL MAP
A final map will be subject to City Council approval and shall be recorded prior to issuance of any building permits for vertical construction. Existing buildings must be demolished prior to recordation of the final map as building(s) cannot straddle between lot lines.

64. TRANSPORTATION
The Project is subject to the payment of Transportation Impact Fees under City’s Transportation Impact Fee Program (Chapter 14.02 of the Cupertino Municipal Code).

65. PARKS
The residential units are subject to the Park Land Dedication (for units 50 or more) or the payment of parkland fees in-lieu of parkland dedication per Chapter 13.08 and Chapter 18.24 of the Cupertino Municipal Code. The City Council has the ultimate discretion to require parkland dedication or accept park in-lieu fees. (for units 50 or more)
The Below Market Rate (BMR) program manual, which was last amended by City Council on July 2, 2024 per Resolution 24-067, authorizes the waiver of park fees for BMR units. Pursuant to Resolution 24-067, parkland dedication in-lieu fees for the 10 BMR units proposed for this project are hereby waived.

66. SURVEYS
A Boundary Survey and a horizontal control plan will be required for all new construction to ensure the proposed building will be set based on the boundary survey and setback requirements.

67. TRASH, RECYCLING AND COMPOST ENCLOSURES
Trash enclosure plans must be designed in accordance with the City’s “Public Works Guidelines posted at www.cupertino.org/nowaste, and to the satisfaction of the 76 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
76 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

Environmental Programs Manager. Clearance by the Public Works Department is required prior to obtaining a building permit. (CMC 9.18.210 H & K) Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City that indemnifies and holds harmless both the City and the refuse and recycling collection company (Recology) from and against any harm, damage or maintenance that may occur or become necessary to onsite paving stone driveway surfaces.

68. OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
Developer shall enter into an Operations & Maintenance Agreement with the City prior to Final Map approval. The Agreement shall include the operation and maintenance for non-standard appurtenances in the public road right-of-way that may include, but is not limited to, landscaping, street trees, sidewalk, pavers, and street lights.

69. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
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. Developer shall submit detailed plans showing utility underground provisions. Said plans shall be subject to prior approval of the affected Utility provider and the Director of Public Works.

70. TRANSFORMERS & CABINETS
Electrical transformers, telephone cabinets and similar equipment shall be placed in underground vaults. The developer must receive written approval from both the Public Works Department and the Community Development Department prior to installation of any above ground equipment. Should above ground equipment be permitted by the City, equipment and enclosures shall be screened with fencing and landscaping such that said equipment is not visible from public street areas, as determined by the Community Development Department.

71. WATER BACKFLOW PREVENTERS
Domestic and Fire Water Backflow preventers and similar above ground equipment shall be placed away from the public right of way and site driveways to a location approved by the Cupertino Planning Department, Santa Clara County Fire Department and the water company.

72. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs), as required by the State Water Resources Control Board, for construction activity, which disturbs soil. BMP plans shall be included in grading and street improvement plans.
77 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
77 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

73. NPDES CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
When and where it is required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the developer must obtain a Notice of Intent (NOI) from the SWRCB, which encompasses preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), use of construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control storm water runoff quality, and BMP inspection and maintenance.

74. EROSION CONTROL PLAN
Developer must provide an approved erosion control plan by a Registered Civil Engineer. This plan should include all erosion control measures used to retain materials on site. Erosion control notes shall be stated on the plans.

75. WORK SCHEDULE
Every 6 months, the developer shall submit a work schedule to the City to show the timetable for all grading/erosion control work in conjunction with this project.

76. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
The developer must submit a traffic control plan by a Registered Traffic Engineer to be approved by the City. The plan shall include a temporary traffic control plan for work in the right of way as well as a routing plan for all vehicles used during construction. All traffic control signs must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of work. The City has adopted Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) standards for all signage and striping work throughout the City.

77. STREET TREES
Street trees shall be planted within the Public Right of Way to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and shall be of a type approved by the City in accordance with Ordinance No. 125.

78. FIRE PROTECTION
Fire sprinklers shall be installed in any new construction to the approval of the City.

79. SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Fire Department prior to issuance of building permits. Clearance should include written approval of the location of any proposed Fire Backflow Preventers, Fire Department Connections and Fire Hydrants (typically Backflow Preventers should be located on private property adjacent to the public right of way, and fire department connections must be located within 100’ of a Fire Hydrant).
78 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
78 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

80. FIRE HYDRANT
Fire hydrants shall be located as required by the City and Santa Clara County Fire Department as needed.

81. SAN JOSE WATER SERVICE COMPANY CLEARANCE
Provide San Jose Water Service Company approval for water connection, service capability and location and layout of water lines and backflow preventers prior to Final Map approval.

82. DEDICATION OF UNDERGROUND WATER RIGHTS
Developer shall “quit claim” to the City all rights to pump, take or otherwise extract water from the underground basin or any underground strata in the Santa Clara Valley.

83. SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance or sign off of street improvement plans for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Map approval.

84. UTILITY EASEMENTS
Clearance approvals from the agencies with easements on the property (including PG&E, AT&T, and San Jose Water Company, and/or equivalent agencies) will be required prior to Final Map approval.

85. TRUCK RESTRICTIONS
In addition to the restrictions of Municipal Code Section 11.32.055, project related truck traffic shall not occur between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. in the morning and the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. in the afternoon Monday through Friday, on the following roadway segments:
i. McClellan Road, between Stelling Road and Linda Vista Drive; ii. Linda Vista Drive;
iii. Bubb Road, between McClellan Road and Columbus Avenue; and iv. Hyannisport Drive, between Bubb Road and Linda Vista Drive.

SECTION V: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE CUPERTINO SANITARY

DISTRICT

1. CUPERTINO SANITARY DISTRICT
A letter of clearance for the project shall be obtained from the Cupertino Sanitary District prior to Final Map approval. The letter shall include their review and approval of any existing sanitary sewer easements to be quitclaimed and the creation of any new sanitary sewer easements.
79 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
79 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX ASA-2024-015 March 17, 2026

2. INSTALLERS AGREEMENT
The property owner shall enter into an Installer’s Agreement with the District for the construction of the proposed sewer infrastructure prior to issuance of Building Permits.

3. PAYMENT OF FEES
The property owner shall pay all required New Lateral, Serer Development, Treatment Plant Capacity, plan check, and permit fees to the District prior to issuance of Building Permits.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of March, 2026, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
________________________
Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk
________________________
Date
80 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
80 of 2331
RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL

APPROVING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 51 TOWNHOME STYLE CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF 8 PROTECTED TREES LOCATED AT 10857, 10867, 10877, AND 10887 LINDA VISTA DRIVE (APNS: 356-06-001, -002, -003, AND -004)
SECTION I: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Application No.: TR-2024-044
Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC
Location: 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive (APNs: 356-06-001, -002, -003, and -004)
SECTION II: FINDINGS FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT:

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino received an application for a Tree Removal Permit as described in Section I of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the project is determined to be statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21080.66 of the Public Resources Code; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2026 the Planning Commission recommended on a 3-2 vote that the City Council approve the approve the Vesting Tentative Map (TM-2024-009), in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2026-08), approve the Architectural and Site Approval Permit (ASA-2024-015) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2026-09), and approve the Tree Removal Permit (TR-2024-044) in substantially similar form to the Resolution presented (Resolution No. 2026-10); and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to receive staff’s presentation and public testimony, and to consider the information contained in the CEQA Exemption Memorandum prepared by David J Powers & Associates, dated February 18, 2026, along with all staff reports, other pertinent documents, and all written and oral statements received prior to and at the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, all necessary public notices having been given as required by the City of Cupertino Municipal Code and the Government Code, and the City Council held at least one public hearing in regard to this application; and
81 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
81 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-044 March 17, 2026

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cupertino is the decision-making body for this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the application for a Tree Removal Permit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows with regard to this application:

1. That the location of the trees restricts the economic enjoyment of the property by severely limiting the use of property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly zoned and situated property, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the approval authority that there are no reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree(s).

To accommodate for the new development’s structures, walkways and internal street network to public open spaces, the existing trees cannot be preserved in their locations. The applicant proposes replacement trees throughout the site in conformance with the Municipal Code Ordinance requirements and proposes to locate the replacement trees where tree coverage is needed, while preserving virtually all the trees that are not within the development area of the project site.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

That after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony and other evidence submitted in this matter, subject to the conditions which are enumerated in this Resolution, beginning on PAGE 2 herein, and subject to the conditions contained in all other Resolutions approved for this Project
The application for a Tree Removal Permit, Application No. TR-2024-044, is hereby approved, and that the sub-conclusions upon which the findings and conditions specified in this Resolution are based are contained in the Public Hearing record concerning Application no. TR-2024-044 as set forth in the Minutes of the City Council Meeting of March 17, 2026 Meeting, and are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION III: CONDITIONS ADMINISTERED BY THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DEPT.

1. APPROVED EXHIBITS
Approval is based on the plan set entitled “10857 Linda Vista Drive” dated January 12, 2026 consisting of 105 sheets labeled as, A01– A24, C1.0 – C7.0, L1.1 – L10.1, INT1-INT4, PrSL1, PrSL2, PS-1, and TM1.0, drawn by SDG Architects Inc., R3 Studios, Giacalone Design Services, Inc., Associated Lighting Representatives, 82 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
82 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-044 March 17, 2026

Inc., and Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc., except as may be amended by conditions in this resolution.

2. ACCURACY OF PROJECT PLANS
The applicant/property owner is responsible for verifying all pertinent property data including but not limited to property boundary locations, building setbacks, property size, building square footage, any relevant easements and/or construction records. Any misrepresentation of any property data may invalidate this approval and may require additional review.

3. CONCURRENT APPROVAL CONDITIONS
The conditions of approval contained in file nos. TM-2024-009 and ASA-2024-015 shall be applicable to this approval.

4. ANNOTATION OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The conditions of approval set forth shall be incorporated into and annotated on the first page of the building plans.

5. TREE REPLACEMENT SIZE
The applicant shall provide adequate tree replacements for trees proposed to be removed in conformance with the replacement guidelines per Cupertino Municipal Code Section 14.18.160. The size of the proposed replacement trees shall be modified as follows to be consistent with the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance unless deemed infeasible by the City’s Consulting Arborist:
a. Diameter of trunk size of removed tree up to 12 inches shall be replaced with one 24-inch box tree;
b. Over 12 inches and up to 36 inches shall be replaced by two 24-inch box tree or one 36-inch box tree; and
c. Over 36 inches shall be replaced with one 36-inch box tree.

6. ARBORIST REVIEW
Prior to building permit issuance, the number, location and species of trees shall be reviewed and approved by the City in consultation with the City’s Consulting Arborist, at the applicant’s cost.

The replacement trees shall be planted prior to the certificate of occupancy for the first unit, unless an alternative phasing plan is approved by the Director of Community Development.. The Applicant shall provide the Department of Community Development adequate documentation, including, but not limited to, photographs, receipts or invoices, to verify that replacement trees have been planted. The City’s consulting arborist shall inspect the trees after planting and a 83 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
83 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-044 March 17, 2026

report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided prior to issuance of final occupancy for any of the residential units.

7. TREE SPECIES SELECTION AND LOCATION
Prior to the planting of any trees on the site, a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. The plan shall demonstrate that tree species have been selected and located to avoid potential damage to buildings, foundations, pavements, utilities, and other hardscape from future root growth.

In selecting tree species, consideration shall be given to the mature height and canopy spread of the tree, as well as the typical growth habits and extent of the root system. Trees shall be located and spaced to ensure adequate separation from structures and infrastructure, having regard to their anticipated mature size.

Suitable species may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• California native species: Western redbud (Cercis occidentalis), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), and, where located well away from buildings and foundations (such as at the far west or east sides of the property), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). • Non-native species: Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), red maple (Acer rubrum), and goldenrain tree (Koelreuteria paniculata).

Smaller-growing species, such as crape myrtle and Chinese pistache, shall be planted in narrower or more constrained planting areas. Larger-growing species, such as coast live oak, red maple, and goldenrain tree, shall be planted only in larger planting areas capable of accommodating their mature size.

8. TREE PLANTING
All new trees shall be installed using native soil, or soil of comparable quality and composition, within the planting pits. Tree planting shall occur during the late autumn to early winter period, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Responsible Authority. Planting at this time is required to minimize drought stress during the warmer months and to promote early root establishment. At the time of planting, each tree shall be thoroughly watered to fully saturate the root ball.

9. IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS
Irrigation during the first year following planting shall be undertaken as follows:
84 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
84 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-044 March 17, 2026

• Subject to average or above-average winter rainfall, additional irrigation may not be required until the onset of spring.
• In the event of below-average winter rainfall, newly planted trees shall be watered twice per month at a rate of approximately 5 gallons per caliper inch of trunk diameter.
• From the onset of spring until the following winter, trees shall be watered twice per month at a rate of approximately 10 gallons per caliper inch of trunk diameter.
• These irrigation requirements apply for the first 12 months following planting.

10. TREE PROTECTION
a. As part of the demolition or building permit drawings, a tree protection plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist for the trees to be retained. In addition, the following measures shall be added, at a minimum, to the protection plan:
• For trees to be retained, chain link fencing and other root protection shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to any project site work. • No parking or vehicle traffic shall be allowed under root zones, unless using buffers approved by the Project Arborist.
• No trenching within the critical root zone area is allowed. If trenching is needed in the vicinity of trees to be retained, the City’s consulting arborist shall be consulted before any trenching or root cutting beneath the dripline of the tree.
• Wood chip mulch shall be evenly spread inside the tree projection fence to a four-inch depth.
• Tree protection conditions shall be posted on the required tree protection barriers.
• Retained trees shall be watered to maintain them in good health. • A covenant on the property shall be recorded that identifies all the protected trees, prior to final occupancy.
b. The tree protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the certified arborist prior to issuance of building permits.
c. The City’s consulting arborist, retained at the applicant’s expense, shall inspect the trees to be retained and the tree protection measures, and shall provide reviews prior to issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. d. A report ascertaining the good health of the trees mentioned above shall be provided by the applicant’s arborist, to be peer reviewed by the City’s Consulting Arborist, prior to issuance of final occupancy. 85 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
85 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-044 March 17, 2026

11. PROTECTED TREES
The applicant and future property owners understand that the replacement trees and all other trees approved with this development may not be removed without the prior approval by the Community Development Department of a Tree Removal Permit and that they shall be responsible for ensuring the proper maintenance and care of the trees. The applicant shall also disclose the location and species of all replacement and development trees on site upon sale of the property.

12. CONSULTATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS
The applicant is responsible for consulting with other departments and/or agencies with regard to the proposed project for additional conditions and requirements. Any misrepresentation of any submitted data may invalidate an approval by the Community Development Department.

13. INDEMNIFICATION
As part of the application, to the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall agree to indemnify, defend with the attorneys of the City’s choice, and hold harmless the City, its City Council, and its officers, employees, and agents (collectively, the “indemnified parties”) from and against any liability, claim, action, cause of action, suit, damages, judgment, lien, levy, or proceeding (collectively referred to as “proceeding”) brought by a third party against one or more of the indemnified parties or one or more of the indemnified parties and the applicant related to any Ordinance, Resolution, or action approving the project, the related entitlements, environmental review documents, finding or determinations, or any other permit or approval authorized for the project. The indemnification shall include but not be limited to damages, fees, and costs awarded against the City, if any, and cost of suit, attorneys’ fees, and other costs, liabilities, and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant, the City, or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding.

The applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. Such attorneys’ fees and costs shall include amounts paid to the City’s outside counsel and shall include City Attorney time and overhead costs and other City staff overhead costs and any costs directly related to the litigation reasonably incurred by City. The applicant shall likewise agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the indemnified parties from and against any damages, attorneys’ fees, or costs awards, including attorneys’ fees awarded under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, assessed or awarded against the indemnified parties. The Applicant shall 86 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
86 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-044 March 17, 2026

cooperate with the City to enter a Reimbursement Agreement to govern any such reimbursement.

The Applicant shall agree to (without limitation) reimburse the City for all costs incurred in additional investigation or study of, or for supplementing, redrafting, revising, or amending, any document (such as an Environmental Impact Report, negative declaration, specific plan, or general plan amendment) if made necessary by proceedings challenging the project approvals and related environmental review, if the applicant desires to continue to pursue the project.

The Applicant shall agree that the City shall have no liability to the Applicant for business interruption, punitive, speculative, or consequential damages.

14. 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.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 17th day of March, 2026, by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
________
Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
87 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
87 of 2331
Resolution No. 2026-XX TR-2024-044 March 17, 2026

ATTEST:
________________________
Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk
________________________
Date
88 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
88 of 2331
Standards Matrix
Cupertino General Plan
Reference General Plan Req. Consistent? Comment
Land Use Element
Land Use Map General Plan Designation: Residential – Medium/ High Density Yes Residential development proposed.

Policy LU-2.2
Require developments to incorporate pedestrian-scaled
elements along the street and within the development such as parks, plazas, active uses along the street, active uses, entries, outdoor dining, and public art.

Yes
Project incorporates entry features along Linda
Vista Drive and the majority of Evulich Court
and will be required to comply with provisions
of Chapter 19.148 of the Municipal Code.

Figure LU-2
(Reso. 24-039)
Minimum Residential Density: 20.01 dwelling units per
acre
Yes 51 units on 2.506 acres (20.35 units per acre)
Figure LU-2
(Reso. 24-039) Maximum Residential Density: 35 dwelling units per acre Yes 51 units on 2.506 acres (20.35 units per acre) Figure LU‐2 Maximum Height: 30 feet measured from natural grade No, Density
Bonus waiver
requested
Density Bonus waiver requested.

Strategy LU-3.3.9
In multi-family projects where residential uses may front on streets, require pedestrian-scaled elements such as
entries, stoops, and porches along the street.

Yes Project incorporates entry features along Linda
Vista Drive.

Strategy LU-3.3.10
Allow construction of buildings taller than 30 feet in
Neighborhoods only if the buildings abut an arterial or major collector or if allowed by State law.

No, Density
Bonus waiver
requested
Density Bonus waiver requested for height in
excess of 30 feet.

Policy LU-3.4 …No visible garages shall be permitted along the street frontage…. Yes No garages visible from Linda Vista Drive.

Strategy LU-3.5.1
… [r]equire new development and other applicable
projects to comply with the adopted ordinance standards, which provide Dark Sky regulations to reduce light
pollution.

Yes, as
conditioned
The project will be conditioned to comply with
the Dark Sky requirements of Chapter 19.102.

Strategy LU-3.6.1
Require new development and other applicable projects to comply with the adopted ordinance standards, which
provide Bird Safe Design regulations to reduce the
potential risk of bird collisions.

Yes
Use of insect screens is proposed as a bird-safe
design measure. The project will be
conditioned to continue to comply with these
requirements at time of Building Permit
application.

Policy LU-4.1
Ensure that the design of streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian and bicycle amenities are consistent with the vision for each Planning Area and Complete Streets policies.

Yes
Design of streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian
and bicycle amenities are consistent with
Public Works requirements.

Strategy LU-4.1.1
Require implementation of sidewalk and streetscape
design standards established in any approved Specific
Plan, Concept Plan, Zoning, or other area plans.

Yes
The project has been designed in accordance
with sidewalk and streetscape design
standards.

Policy LU-11.1
Create pedestrian and bicycle access between new
developments and community facilities. Review existing
neighborhood circulation to improve safety and access for students to walk and bike to schools, parks, and
community facilities such as the library.

Yes, as
conditioned
The project includes a connection between the
proposed development and the existing trail
which would provide pedestrian and bicycle
access between the proposed development and
community facilities.

The applicant has proposed this trail
connection with a request that the City Council
consider the approval of payment of a park
land dedication in-lieu fee with the estimated
cost of the proposed trail connection applied to
this fee up to the amount of $377,000.

The project will be conditioned to maintain the
design of approved plans, including the
proposed trail connection, unless the request
for credit towards the park in-lieu fee is denied.

Strategy LU-27.6.1
Provide outdoor areas, both passive and active, and
generous landscaping to enhance the surroundings for
multi-family residents. Allow public access to the common outdoor areas whenever possible.

Yes
The project includes outdoor seating and tables
and will incorporate bike racks and bicycle
repair stations.

Policy LU-27.8
Protect residential neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light, glare, odors and visually intrusive effects from more
intense development with landscape buffers, site and
building design, setbacks and other appropriate measures Yes
The provided response addresses the site and
building design measures, landscape buffers,
and setbacks to protect residential
neighborhoods from noise, traffic, light, glare,
odors, and visual intrusions.

Housing Element
Strategy HE-1.3.11
Require replacement housing units subject to the
requirements of Government Code, Sections 66300.5,
65583.2, and 65915(c)(3), on all sites in the City when any new development (residential, mixed-use, or
nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lower-income households at any time during the previous five years. This requirement
applies to nonvacant sites and vacant sites with previous Yes
Per applicant, the project will provide
replacement housing units in accordance with
the applicable Government Code Sections.

The project will be conditioned to meet these
requirements.
89 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
89 of 2331
residential uses that have been vacated or demolished.

Policy HE-2.1
Ensure that all new developments, including market-rate residential developments, help mitigate project related impacts on affordable housing needs.

Yes
Below Market Rate (BMR) units and in-lieu fees
proposed in accordance with the City’s BMR
Manual.

Strategy HE-2.3.3
Mitigation includes either the payment of the “Housing
Mitigation” fee or the provision of a Below Market-Rate (BMR) unit or units. Projects of five or more for-sale units must provide on-site BMR units…
For-Sale Residential Developments. Require 20 percent forsale BMR units in all residential developments where the units can be sold individually (including single-family homes, common interest developments, and condominium
conversions) or allow rental BMR units…
BMR Term. Require BMR units to remain affordable for a
minimum of 99 years; enforce the City’s first right of
refusal for BMR units and other means to ensure that BMR units remain affordable. Monitor the affordable for-sale inventory by requiring BMR homeowners to submit proof
of occupancy, such as utility bills, mortgage loan
documentation, homeowner’s insurance, and property tax
bills.

Yes
20% of 51 units requires a total of 10.2 BMR
units. The project provides 10 BMR units and
the payment of an in-lieu fee for the remaining

0.2 units. The project will be conditioned to
meet the requirements for BMR terms and
monitoring.

Strategy HE-4.1.1
Enforce Title 24 requirements for energy conservation and evaluate using some of the other suggestions as identified in the Environmental Resources/Sustainability Element.

Yes
The project will be conditioned to comply with
Title 24 requirements at time of application for
Building Permits.

Mobility Element
Policy M-1.2
Evaluate new development and redevelopment projects
pursuant to the City’s adopted Transportation Study
Guidelines evaluation criteria.

Yes
The provided Traffic Analysis and reviewed by
third-party consultants. Comments from the
peer review have been incorporated into study.

Strategy M-1.2.1
New development and redevelopment projects shall meet
the VMT thresholds and reduction strategies described in the Cupertino Municipal Code.

No, Utilizing
AB 130
The applicant has proposed the use of AB 130
and therefore is not required to complete a
VMT analysis.

Strategy M-2.3.1
Require new development and redevelopment to provide
inter-block connectivity to allow improved access to all sites on the block from secondary streets, access to the street network via controlled intersections, minimize
conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle traffic on primary streets, and convenient access for service vehicles.

Yes
The project incorporates improvements to
Evulich Court, a public road, to serve as the
primary access to the site and proposes the use
of a controlled intersection.

Policy M-2.5
Ensure all new public and private streets are publicly
accessible to improve walkability and reduce impacts on existing streets.

Yes, as
conditioned
The project will be conditioned to provide
public access along Street A and Evulich Court.

This will exclude any paved areas used
exclusively as a driveway to residences, with
no pedestrian access.

Policy M-3.2
Require new development and redevelopment to increase
connectivity through direct and safe pedestrian connection to public amenities, neighborhoods, shopping, and
employment destinations throughout the city.

Yes, as
conditioned
The project incorporates sidewalk
improvements on Evulich Court and Linda
Vista Drive which allows for pedestrian
connection to the neighborhood.

See comment and condition outlined for LU11.1 for additional information related to the proposed trail connection.

Policy M-3.3
Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings and pathways at key locations across physical barriers such as creeks,
highways and road barriers.

Yes
A pedestrian and bicycle crossing (i.e.
crosswalk) has been provided across Evulich
Court at the Linda Vista Drive intersection.

Policy M-3.5 Minimize the number and the width of driveway openings. Yes Buildings have been oriented to make use of a
shared street/drive aisle which reduces the
total number of driveway openings required
along Evulich Court.

Strategy M-3.5.2
Require properties with frontages on major and secondary streets to provide direct pedestrian and vehicular access to driveways from the secondary street.

Yes Access to private shared roads/driveways is
provided from Evulich Court.

Policy M-3.8 Require new development and redevelopment to provide public and private bicycle parking. Yes
Public bicycle parking is provided in a shared
outdoor area and private bicycle parking is
provided in each residence’s garage.

Policy M-4.4
Work with VTA and/or major developments to ensure all
new development projects include amenities to support
public transit including bus stop shelters, space for transit vehicles as appropriate and attractive amenities such as trash receptacles, signage, seating and lighting.

Yes
VTA comments received and addressed.

See comment and condition outlined for LU11.1 for additional information related to the proposed trail connection.

Strategy M-8.2.1
Require new development to include shared amenities that encourage the use of transit, bicycling, or walking as
alternative modes of transportation.

Yes
Proposed shared walkways connect to the
street sidewalk and shared bicycle parking
facilities are provided on site.

Strategy M-8.2.2
Require new development to provide pedestrian pathways
to entrances, and orient buildings and entrances to the street, to encourage pedestrian activity.

Yes
Pedestrian pathways to entrances provided
and connected to Evulich Court. Buildings
along Linda Vista Drive and Evulich Court
have entrances oriented to the street.
90 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
90 of 2331
Strategy M-8.2.4
Require new residential or mixed-use developments to
provide shared bicycle parking and bike repair stations at locations close to entrances.

Yes Bicycle parking and repair stations are
provided.

Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
Strategy ES-4.1.1
Review projects for potential generation of toxic air
contaminants at the time of approval and confer with Bay Area Air Quality Management District on controls needed if impacts are uncertain.

Yes
An Air Quality Assessment has been provided
and was subject to peer review. No uncertain
impacts were identified.

Strategy ES-4.1.2
Require water application to non-polluting dust control measures during demolition and the duration of the
construction period.

Yes The project will be conditioned to comply with
this requirement.

Strategy ES-4.3.2 Prohibit new wood-burning fireplaces, except EPA certified wood stoves as allowed by the Building Code. Yes
Applicant has indicated that no wood stoves
are proposed and the project will be
conditioned to comply with this requirement.

Strategy ES-5.1.2
Ensure that sustainable landscaping design is incorporated in the development of private projects with the inclusion of measures such as tree protection, stormwater treatment, and planting of native, drought tolerant landscaping that is beneficial to the environment.

Yes
The project incorporates stormwater treatment,
tree protection, and drought tolerant and native
landscaping.

Policy ES-5.6
Provide open space linkages within and between
properties for both recreational and wildlife activities, most specifically for the benefit of wildlife that is threatened, endangered or designated as species of special concern.

Yes, as
conditioned
The project incorporates recreational linkages
on the property and that the property is not an
open space linkage for wildlife, as supported
by a biological assessment. Additionally, no
new barriers will be incorporated into the site
which would further restrict any passage of
wildlife.

See comment and condition outlined for LU11.1 for additional information related to the proposed trail connection.

Policy ES-7.1
In public and private development, use Low Impact
Development (LID) principles to manage stormwater by
mimicking natural hydrology, minimizing grading, and
protecting or restoring natural drainage systems.

Yes
Minimal grading and bioretention areas are
proposed to address this standard. A condition
of approval will be included to ensure the
projects compliance with LID principals at time
of application for Building Permits.

Strategy ES-7.1.1
Require topographical information; identification of creeks, streams and drainage areas; and grading plans for both
public and private development proposals to ensure
protection and efficient use of water resources.

Yes Required information provided on civil plans.

Policy ES-7.2 … Use low impact development (LID) designs to treat stormwater or recharge groundwater. Yes
Bioretention areas are proposed to address this
standard. A condition of approval will be
included to ensure the projects compliance with
LID principals at time of application for
Building Permits.

Strategy ES-7.3.1
Require LID designs such as vegetated stormwater
treatment systems and green infrastructure to mitigate
pollutant loads and flows.

Yes
Bioretention areas are proposed to address this
standard. A condition of approval will be
included to ensure the projects compliance with
LID principals at time of application for
Building Permits.

Health and Safety Element
Policy HS-3.2
Involve the Fire Department in the early design stage of all projects requiring public review to assure Fire Department input and modifications as needed.

Yes The Fire Department has reviewed the projects
and provided conditions.

Policy HS-3.7 Require on-site fire suppression materials and equipment. Yes Fire hydrants and fire sprinklers are incorporated to the project design.

Strategy HS-4.2.2
Request County Sheriff review and comment on
development applications for security and public
measures.

Yes County Sheriff review completed.

Policy HS-5.1
Evaluate new development proposals within mapped
potential hazard zones using a formal seismic/geologic
review process. Use Table HS-3 of this Element to
determine the level of review required.

Yes Geologic review and peer review completed.

Strategy HS-5.2.1
Require developers to record a covenant to tell future
residents in high-risk areas about the risk and inform
them that more information is in City Hall records. This is in addition to the State requirement that information on the geological report is recorded on the face of subdivision maps
Yes The project will be conditioned to comply with
this requirement.

Policy HS-8.1
Use the Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise
Environments chart, the Future Noise Contour Map (see
Figure D-1 in Appendix D) and the City Municipal Code
to evaluate land use decisions.

Yes Noise Assessment provided by applicant and
peer reviewed.

Strategy HS-8.2.1 Minimize noise impacts through appropriate building and site design. Yes Noise Assessment provided by applicant and peer reviewed.

Policy HS-8.3 Require construction contractors to use the best available technology to minimize excessive noise and vibration Yes The project will be conditioned to comply with this requirement. 91 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
91 of 2331
from construction equipment such as pile drivers, jack
hammers, and vibratory rollers.

Strategy HS-8.6.1 Modify street design to minimize noise impact to neighbors. Yes
The applicant has indicated that current street
design will minimize noise impacts by located
the street through the middle of the
development.

Infrastructure Element
Strategy INF-1.4.1
Require developers to expand or upgrade existing
infrastructure to increase capacity, or pay their fair share, as appropriate.

Yes
Expansion and upgrade of existing
infrastructure is proposed, based on utility
provider requirements and right of way
development.

Strategy INF-2.4.2 Require undergrounding of all utility lines in new developments. Yes All utility lines to be undergrounded.

Strategy INF-5.1.2
Require developers to pay their fair share of costs for, or in some cases construct, infrastructure upgrades to ensure that service levels are met. – (Wastewater)
Yes
Wastewater expansion and/or upgrades to be
addressed as required by Cupertino Sanitary
District and included in project conditions of
approval.

Policy INF-7.2
Ensure that public and private developments build new
and on-site facilities and/or retrofit existing on-site facilities to meet the City’s waste diversion requirements.

Yes Waste management plan reviewed by the
Environmental Services Division.

Recreation, Parks, and Community Services Element
Strategy RPC-2.2.2 Require major developments to incorporate private open space and recreational facilities. Yes Private open space with passive recreation facilities provided.

Strategy RPC-3.1.1 Maximize the use of native plants and drought-tolerant planting. Yes
Native and drought tolerant plants are
provided throughout the site and all water
treatment areas are proposed with native plans.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Zoning Ordinance (CMC Title 19) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 19.12 Standards
Section 19.12.080 (B)
(1)
An application for a permit shall contain a complete legal description of the subject property and map showing the location of the property for which the permit is sought.

Yes Legal description provided in Title Report and
map provided.

Section 19.12.080 (B)
(2)
An application for a permit shall contain a preliminary title report of the subject property. Yes Preliminary Title Report provided.

Section 19.12.080 (B)
(3)
An application for a permit shall contain the proposed site development plan indicating: the location of all buildings and structures; the location and types of land uses; paved areas, such as roadways, driveways and walkways; and
general landscaping scheme.

Yes Provided through site plans and landscaping
plans.

Section 19.12.080 (B)
(4)
An application for a permit shall contain architectural drawings of the proposed development, building additions or other structures. Drawings shall indicate building
height, colors, materials, window treatment and other
architectural features.

Yes
Architectural drawings indicating height,
colors, materials, window treatments, and other
architectural features provided.

Section 19.12.080 (B)
(5)
An application for a permit shall contain maps showing the locations of buildings. Yes Provided on Site Plans.

Section 19.12.080 (B)
(6)
An application for a permit shall contain renderings
showing building heights and square footages. Yes Renderings provided.

Section 19.12.080 (B)
(7)
An application for a permit shall contain maps showing the precise location of roads, streets, alleys and access points. Yes Site plan showing location of roads, streets, alleys, and access points provided.

Section 19.12.080 (B)
(8) An application for a permit shall contain a traffic analysis. Yes Traffic analysis has been provided and shall be reviewed by the selected CEQA consultant Section 19.12.080 (B)
(9)
An application for a permit shall contain a construction plan. Yes Construction Plan provided.

Section 19.12.080 (B)
(18)
An application for a permit shall contain a grading plan that denotes the location of all nonfruit trees with a trunk diameter as identified in Chapter 14.15, the Protected Tree Ordinance and any special status plant species.

Yes Grading Plan provided.

Section 19.12.110 (F)
Applicants shall install notice(s) on the subject site that is clearly visible and legible from the right-of-way in accord with the requirements of Table 19.12.030. Applicants must install a site notice in the front yard of the subject site.

The notice shall be a weatherproof sign, firmly attached to 5 foot tall posts and shall be at least 4 feet tall and 6 feet wide.

The notice shall be placed at least 14 days prior to the decision/public hearing and shall remain in place until an action has been taken on the application and the appeal period, if any, has passed.

The notice shall contain:
a. The exact address of the property;
b. A brief description of the proposed project, the
Yes
92 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
92 of 2331
content of which shall be at the sole discretion of the City;
c. City contact information for public inquiries;
d. A deadline for the submission of public comments;
e. A color perspective drawing or three-dimensional (3- D) photographic simulation of the proposed project,
in a size deemed appropriate by the Director of
Community Development.

Chapter 19.36 Standards
Section 19.36.070 (D)
Private Outdoor Space:

Minimum Size: 60 square feet per unit
Minimum Clearance: 6 feet clear in any dimension
Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus Waiver requested to allow for a
reduced minimum clearance of less than six
feet.

Section 19.36.070 (F)
New multiple-family development of five or more units
shall include:

1. At least one no-step entry point per building and unit;

2. Interior and exterior doors with 32 inches of clear
passage for each unit; and

3. One bathroom for each unit that is able to be
maneuvered in a wheelchair per Americans with
Disabilities Act standards.

Yes The project will be conditioned to meet these
minimum requirements.

Section 19.36.070 (J)
No parking shall be permitted in a setback area where the lot adjoins property located in a single-family (R-1) zoning district.

Yes No parking is proposed within the setback
areas adjoining the R1 zoning district.

Section 19.36.070 (L)
(1)
Completion/Bonding: Improvement of the common areas
shall be completed by the developer and shall be subject to bonding and other procedures in the same manner as
required for street improvements by Title 18, Subdivision.

Yes
The project will be conditioned to meet this
requirement at the time of application for
Building Permits.

Section 19.36.070 (L)
(2)
Maintenance:
a. Shall be the responsibility of the property owner or homeowners association to which the common areas
are deeded.
b. In the event private roads, driveways, parking areas, walkways, landscaping or buildings are not
maintained to applicable City standards, the City
may, after notice and advertised public hearing, effect the necessary maintenance, with the cost to be a lien
on the property.

Yes
The project will be conditioned to create a
property owner or homeowners association
and to meet these requirements.

Section 19.36.070 (L)
(3)
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions,
where applicable:
a. Shall include a clause to ensure that the CC&R’s shall not be modified unless required to by state law,
without review of the City.
b. Shall be reviewed by the City Attorney, prior to
recordation, to determine its compatibility with the
intent and conditions as set forth herein.

Yes The project will be conditioned to meet these
requirements for CC&Rs.

Section 19.36.070 (L)
(4)
Articles of Incorporation and Other Instruments Related to Homeowners’ Association, where applicable:
a. Shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney.
b. Shall include a clause to indicate that the Association cannot be dissolved without written approval and
authorization from the City.

Yes The project will be conditioned to meet these
requirements for HOAs.

Chapter 19.46 Standards
Section 19.46.060 (B) Maximum Lot or Air Parcel Width for each townhome (measured at front building setback line): 25 feet Yes The proposed air parcel widths range between 17 and 24 feet.

Section 19.46.070 (A) Maximum Lot Coverage – 55% of net lot area prior to development. Yes A total lot coverage of 45.5% is proposed.

Section 19.46.070 (B) Maximum Floor Area Ratio: 85% of net lot area prior to development
Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus Waiver requested to allow for a
floor area of 136%.

Section 19.46.070 (C) Maximum Height: Limited to three stories (not to exceed 30 feet)
Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus Waiver requested to allow for a
maximum height of 40’-7”.

Section 19.36.070 (C)
(1) Front Setback (All Floors): 20’ Yes Front setback exceeding 20 is provided.

Section 19.46.070 (D)
(2) (a)
Interior Side Setback (All Floors): 6’*
*Additional 10 feet for third floors more than one story higher than any adjacent primary residential structures.

Yes
The project site is located adjacent to properties
with two story structures. Six-foot setbacks
provided. Additional setback required.

Section 19.46.070 (D)
(2) (b) Street Side Setback (All Floors): 12’
Density Bonus
Waiver
Requested
Density Bonus Waiver requested to allow for
street side setbacks of 3’-7”.

Section 19.46.070 (D)
(3) Rear Setback (All Floors): 15’ Yes Rear setback of at approximately 23 feet provided. 93 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
93 of 2331
Section 19.46.070 (F) Design Requirements:

1. Townhome design visible from or fronting the public
right of way shall include at least two of the following features:
a. Front Architectural Feature (e.g., stoop, front
porch).
b. Stairway with at least three stairs leading to the
front entrance.
c. Pitched roof with a slope of at least 3:12.

2. Vehicular parking shall not be located along primary frontage.

Yes
Along Linda Vista Drive and Evulich Court,
front architectural features and pitched roof
slope of at least 3:12 are provided. Vehicular
parking is not located along primary frontage
(Linda Vista Drive).

Section 19.46.070 (G) Corner Triangle and Sidewalk Site Triangle shall remain free and clear of all buildings or portions thereof.

Yes No buildings proposed within corner or
sidewalk sight triangles.

Section 19.46.070 (J) Access: No more than two vehicular entries/exits per street frontage between the residential development and the
public right-of-way.

Yes No more than two vehicular entries/exits are
proposed per frontage of Evulich Court.

Chapter 19.48 Standards
Section 19.48.020 (2)
Fences shall be designed in a manner to provide for sight visibility at private and public street intersections (i.e. corner triangles or any sidewalk sight triangle).

Yes No fences are proposed within the required
corner or sidewalk sight triangles.

Section 19.48.020 (5) At no point shall fence height exceed 10 feet without a Fence Exception Yes No fences exceeding 10 feet in height are proposed.

Section 19.48.040 (A)
The following fence materials shall be considered
“Prohibited Materials” for purposes of this Chapter:

1. Unless required by law or regulation of the City,
State or Federal Government, barbed wire, razor
wire, chicken wire and similar small-gauge wire or
mesh product, and/or electrified fencing are
prohibited.

2. Fences made of non-engineered plastic, fabric
membranes, cloth, canvas, plywood, uncoated
cyclone/chain link, and reed or bamboo with sticks
and slats smaller than four inches in width are
prohibited, unless located in areas not visible from
public areas or adjacent properties.

Yes
No prohibited materials are proposed to be
used and the project will be conditioned to
avoid use of these materials in the future.

Section 19.48.040 (B)
Allowed fence materials include, but are not limited to wood, engineered plastic, vinyl coated cyclone/chain link, metal (e.g. wrought iron), brick, block, stone, and other comparable (safe and commercially acceptable) materials intended for fence use.

Yes Proposed fence materials (wood and steel) are
consistent with this requirement.

Section 19.48.040 (C)
Fence material colors shall be natural earth tone and/or vegetation colors including natural hues of brown, green and shades of gray and shall have a reflectivity value of 60 or less.

Yes Proposed fence materials are consistent with
this requirement.

Chapter 19.102 Standards
Section 19.102.030
(A)
All projects that are subject to the bird-safe development requirements shall submit the following:

1. Elevation drawings indicating the bird-safe
treatment and how the proposed treatment meets
the requirements of Section 19.102.030(B) and (D);

2. Cross sections, if required;

3. Other exhibits indicating consideration and
incorporation of the regulations in Section

19.102.030(B), (C), and (D); and

4. Biologist report in support of alternative compliance method pursuant to Section 19.102.030(B)(3), if
proposed.

Yes
Information identified on plans and use of
insect screens is proposed as a bird-safe design
measure. The project will be conditioned to
continue to comply with these requirements at
time of Building Permit application.

Section 19.102.030 (B)

1. Façades of all projects subject to bird-safe development requirements shall have:
a. No more than 10% of the surface area of the façade
be untreated glass between the ground and 60 feet
above ground.
b. No more than 5% of the surface area of the façade
be untreated glass between 60 feet above ground
and up.

2. Standard Compliance Treatments: The Planning
Division may maintain a list of acceptable bird-safe
treatments that may be updated from time to time. The
list may include, but not be limited to, permanent
treatments such as opaque glass, window muntins,
exterior insect screens, exterior netting, or special glass treatments such as fritting to provide visual cues and
reduce the likelihood of bird collisions. Glass
treatments must have high color contrast with the
glass and be applied to the outermost surface. Prior to Yes
Information identified on plans and use of
insect screens is proposed as a bird-safe design
measure. The project will be conditioned to
continue to comply with these requirements at
time of Building Permit application.
94 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
94 of 2331
publication of the list, the Planning Division may
review information available from interest groups,
such as the National Audubon Society.

3. Alternative Compliance Method: Property
owners/applicants may propose an alternate
compliance method recommended by a qualified
biologist to meet the requirements and intent of this
section. The alternate compliance method shall be
peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant, paid for by
the applicant, and subject to the approval of the
Director of Community Development.

Section 19.102.030 (D)
All projects shall:

1. Avoid the funneling of flight paths along buildings
or trees towards a building façade.

2. Avoid use of highly reflective glass or highly
transparent glass.

3. Not include skyways or walkways, balconies,
freestanding walls, or building corners made of
untreated glass or other transparent materials, or
any other design elements that are untreated and
through which trees, landscape areas, water features
or the sky are visible from the exterior or from one
side of the transparent element to the other.

Yes The design meets these bird-safe design
requirements.

Section 19.102.040 (A)
Projects subject to outdoor lighting regulations must
submit the following information:

1. A site plan indicating the location of all outdoor
lighting fixtures.

2. A description of each lighting fixture. This
description may include, but not be limited to,
manufacturer’s catalog cuts and drawings
(including sections if requested), lamp types, and
lumen outputs.

3. Photometric plans, prepared, stamped and signed
by a licensed professional engineer qualified in
outdoor lighting, depicting the location of all
outdoor lighting fixtures and building-mounted
lighting fixtures and a maximum ten-foot by tenfoot grid of both the initial and maintained lighting levels on the site, including any impact on adjacent
properties.

4. The project lighting plan shall indicate how lighting has been coordinated with any associated
landscaping plan to prevent site planning conflicts.

Yes
Photometric plan provided showing that
proposed lighting will not impact adjacent
properties.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(1)
All outdoor lighting shall be fully shielded fixtures,
directed downward to meet the particular need and away
from adjacent properties and rights-of way to avoid light trespass, except:
a. Low-voltage Landscape Lighting: Low-voltage
landscape lighting, such as that used to illuminate
fountains, shrubbery, trees, and walkways, do not
have to be shielded fixtures and may use uplighting,
provided that they use no more than ten (10) watt
incandescent bulb or LED equivalent, or a
maximum of 150 lumens (whichever is less),and not
directed toward the right-of-way.
b. Architectural Features: Uplighting may be used to
highlight special architectural features.
c. Public Art: Alternative lighting standards may be
used to illuminate public art or serve as public art
subject to the review and approval by the Arts and
Culture Commission.
d. Historic Lighting Fixtures: Lighting fixtures that are historic or that exhibit a historical period
appearance, as determined by the Director of
Community Development, need not be fully
shielded.
e. String Lighting: String Lighting may be used in
compliance with Section 19.102.040 (B) (12)
Yes Provided plans indicate use of compliant
lighting.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(2)
a. No exterior light, combination of exterior lights, or activity shall cast light exceeding zero point one (0.1) foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property, with
the illumination level measured at the property line
between the lot on which the light is located and the
adjacent lot, at the point nearest to the light source, except if two adjacent properties are non-residential, or function as a shopping center, and agree to coordinate
Yes, as
Conditioned
The applicant has confirmed that the proposed
private street lighting and development
lighting will comply with these standards.

Public street lighting design will be coordinated
through the Public Works Department.

The project is conditioned to require that all
proposed lighting comply with these
95 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
95 of 2331
lighting.
b. No direct off-site glare from a light source shall be visible above three feet at a public right-of-way.
c. The maximum light intensity on a site shall not exceed a maintained value of ten foot-candles, when
measured at finished grade.
d. Parking lots, sidewalks and other areas accessible to pedestrians and automobiles on properties with four
or more units, mixed-use development, and nonresidential development shall be illuminated with uniform and adequate intensity. Typical standards to
achieve uniform and adequate intensity are:
i. Average horizontal maintained illumination
shall not be more than three foot-candle.
ii. Maximum to minimum ratio should be between
6:1 and 10:1, but shall not be more than 10:1.
e. Critical areas of illumination such as stairways, ramps and main walkways may have a higher illumination.
requirements and that, where necessary,
additional lighting information, including
readings and studies, are provided prior to
Building Permit approval or final inspection.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(3)
All light sources shall have a maintained correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvin or less Yes
The project will be conditioned to require that
light sources have a color temperature of 3,000
Kelvin or less.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(4)
All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be
motion sensor operated by 11:00 p.m. or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later, except for:
a. Critical lighting pursuant to section 2(e) above;
b. Any lighting at building entrances, parking areas,
walkways, and driveways area required to remain
illuminated after 11:00 p.m. by the California
Building Code or state law;
c. Lighting of an appropriate intensity, allowed in
conjunction with uses that are permitted to operate
past 11:00 p.m., with a conditional use permit; and
d. Outdoor solar powered pathway lights that are 25
lumens or less.
e. Lighting that illuminates a pedestrian pathway
(examples include bollard, in-place step, or building
mounted), provided that such lighting is a
maximum height of four (4) feet above the pathway,
fully shielded, and downward directed
Yes
The project will be conditioned to ensure that,
except as outlined in this standard, outdoor
lighting is fully extinguished or be motion
sensor operated by 11:00 p.m.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(5)
Automated control systems, such as motion sensors and
timers, shall be used to meet the outdoor lighting
requirements.
a. Photocells or photocontrols shall be used to
extinguish all outdoor lighting automatically when
sufficient daylight is available.
b. All lighting activated by motion sensors shall
extinguish no more than 10 minutes after activation.
c. Automated controls shall be full programmable and
supported by battery or similar backup
Yes
Proposed outdoor lighting has automated
control systems. A condition of approval will
be added to ensure that future lighting meets
this requirement.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(6)
Security lighting may be provided when necessary to
protect persons and property. When security lighting is utilized only the following standards shall apply:
a. Security lighting shall be controlled by a
programmable motion-sensor device, except where
continuous lighting is required by the California
Building Code. All lighting activated by motion
sensors shall extinguish no more than 10 minutes
after activation. Automated controls shall be fully
programmable and supported by battery or similar
backup.
b. Security lighting shall be downward directed,
shielded, and not be mounted at a height that
exceeds 12 feet, measured from the adjacent grade
to the bottom of the fixture.
c. Floodlights shall not be permitted.
d. Security lights intended to illuminate a perimeter,
such as a fence line, are permitted only if such lights do not result in light trespass.
e. Motion-activated security lights shall not use lamps that exceed 100 watt incandescent bulb or LED
equivalent, or a maximum of 1,600 lumens
(whichever is less)
Yes No security lighting is proposed.

Section 19.102.040 (B)
(7)
a. Lighting fixtures must be of a design that complement building and landscaping design.
b. Lighting fixtures shall be appropriate in height,
Yes Lighting fixtures do not exceed mounting
height requirements and are a standard height.
96 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
96 of 2331
intensity, and scale to the use they are serving.

Chapter 19.124 Standards
Section 19.124.030
(A) (2)
Vehicles may be placed, kept or parked in the front yard, Street side setback area or within 12 feet of a public rightof-way in a rear yard area, provided a minimum clearance of three feet is maintained from any structure.

Yes No parking within setbacks or within 12 feet of
right of way is proposed.

Section 19.124.040 (A) Townhomes – One space per unit (1 covered or garage) of

9.5’ x 20’ Yes Parking provided at the required rate.

Section 19.124.040 (B) If no on-street parking is available, two additional off-street spaces are required. Yes
Street parking is provided on Evulich Court
and additional parking spaces are proposed for
each unit.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Subdivision Ordinance (CMC Title 18) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 18.12 Standards
Section 18.12.020 (A) A tentative map and final map shall be required for all subdivisions of land creating five or more parcels… Yes Vesting Tentative Map (Sheet TM-1) provided.

Chapter 18.16 Standards
Section 18.16.010 The tentative map …shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer or licensed surveyor… Yes TM-1 prepared by civil engineer.

Section 18.16.030 Public utilities and agencies shall certify that the subdivision can be adequately served.

Yes, as
conditioned
Will serve letters provided. Project will be
conditioned to address requirements outlined
in by the Cupertino Sanitary District.

Chapter 18.32 Standards
Section 18.32.030
The frontage of each lot shall be improved to its ultimate adopted geometric section, including street structural
section, curbs, sidewalks, driveway approaches and
transitions.

Yes To be completed in accordance with Public
Works requirements.

Section 18.32.040
Stormwater runoff from the subdivision shall be collected and conveyed by an approved storm drain system. The
storm drain system shall be designed for ultimate
development of the watershed. The storm drain system
shall provide for the protection of abutting and offsite properties that would be adversely affected by any increase in runoff attributed to the development; off-site storm drain improvements may be required to satisfy this
requirement.

Yes
To be completed in accordance with Public
Works requirements. See Public Works draft
conditions.

Section 18.32.050 Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved sanitary sewer system. Yes
Project will be conditioned to address
requirements of Cupertino Sanitary District at
the time of application for Building Permits.

Section 18.32.060 Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by an approved domestic water system. Yes Will serve letter provided.

Section 18.32.070
A. Each unit or lot within the subdivision shall be served by gas (if required), electric, telephone and
cablevision facilities. All utilities within the
subdivision and along peripheral streets shall be
placed underground in accordance with Chapters

14.20 and 14.24, of this code, except those facilities
exempted by the Public Utilities Commission
regulations. Undergrounding shall be required for
overhead lines on both sides of peripheral streets.

B. For subdivisions of five or more parcels, the
subdivider may request that the undergrounding
requirement along peripheral streets be waived by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
may, at its discretion, accept a fee in lieu of the
undergrounding. The amount of fee shall be
determined by the City Engineer and shall be one-half
of the normal cost of undergrounding existing utilities on residential streets. The requirement for
undergrounding or the acceptance of an in-lieu-ofundergrounding fee shall be made a condition of approval of the tentative map.

C. For subdivision of five or more parcels the developer may appeal the undergrounding requirement along
peripheral streets to the City Council. Such appeal
shall be in accordance with Section 18.20.070 of this
title. The appeal shall be accompanied by an estimate
from each utility company for the approximate cost
per lineal foot and total cost to underground its
facilities along the peripheral street.

The developer shall pay all fees as may be charged by
each utility company to make the required estimate.

D. The City Council or City Engineer, as the case may be, Yes
Undergrounding of utilities is proposed, to the
extent feasible. Project will be conditioned to
comply with Public Works requirements for
new utility lines.
97 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
97 of 2331
may, at its discretion, accept a fee in lieu of the
undergrounding of existing facilities along peripheral
streets. The amount of fee shall not be less than the
amount established by the City Engineer for the
normal cost of undergrounding of existing utilities
along residential streets.

E. In-lieu fees shall be deposited in a special
undergrounding account to be used as approved by
the City Council for future undergrounding of
utilities throughout the City.

Section 18.32.110
A. The design of a subdivision for which a tentative map is required, pursuant to Chapter 18.12 of this title,
shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the
subdivision.

B. Examples of passive or natural heating opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and
configuration to permit orientation of a structure in
an east-west alignment for southern exposure.

C. Examples of passive or natural cooling opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and
configuration to permit orientation of a structure to
take advantage of shade or prevailing breezes.

D. In providing for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the design of a subdivision,
consideration shall be given to local climate, to
contour, to configuration of the parcel to be divided,
and to other design and improvement requirements,
and such provision shall not result in reducing
allowable densities or the percentage of a lot which
may be occupied by a building or structure under
applicable planning and zoning in force at the time
the tentative map is filed.

E. The requirements of this section do not apply to
condominium projects or stock cooperatives which
consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing
building when no new structures are added.

F. For the purpose of this section, "feasible" means
capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time taking into account
economic, environmental, social and technological
factors.

Yes
The proposed subdivision has been designed to
provide for future passive or natural heating
and/or cooling opportunities as outlined in
these standards.

Section 18.32.120 (A)
The subdivision shall abut upon or have an approved
access to a public street. Each unit or lot within the
subdivision shall have an approved access to a public or private street. Flag lot access shall be a minimum of twenty feet in width unless approved by the City Engineer.

Yes
The proposed subdivision provides access to a
public street (Linda Vista Drive and Evulich
Court) and each proposed unit has access to a
public or private street.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Environmental Regulation Ordinance (CMC Title 17) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 17.04
Section 17.04.030 (B)
(1)
Compliance with the requirements shall be demonstrated
for all residential projects involving the development of four or more residential units, through submittal and
implementation of a construction management plan and/or permit plans, as applicable, prior to issuance of an approval to the satisfaction of the City.

Yes
Draft construction management plan provided.

Project will be conditioned to meet all
applicable requirements of Title 17.

Section 17.04.040 (B)
(1)
The following standard environmental protection
technical reports are subject to third-party peer review under the direction of the City at the applicant’s cost, prior to the approval of the project.

Retain the services of a qualified environmental consultant with experience preparing Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments (ESAs) to prepare a Phase I ESA in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Standards on Environmental Site Assessments,
ASTM E 1527-13 (ASTM 1527-13) and in accordance with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s)
Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 Code of Federal Regulations 312), published November
2005, as subsequently revised, supplemented, or replaced.

The goal of an ASTM Phase I ESA is to evaluate site
history, existing observable conditions, current site use, and current and former uses of surrounding properties to identify the potential presence of Recognized
Yes ESA peer review completed.
98 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
98 of 2331
Environmental Conditions (RECs) as defined in ASTM E
1527-13, associated with the site. If the Phase I ESA does not identify any RECs, then no further action is needed. If the Phase I ESA identifies RECs, then a Phase II ESA shall be prepared as described in Section B.2.

Section 17.04.040 (C)
Project applicants shall prepare a vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis, which shall include a comparison of
existing VMT and project-generated VMT, for review and
approval prior to project approval, indicating that the project meets the standards in Section 17.08.040 (Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Standards).

No, Utilizing
AB 130
The applicant has proposed the use of AB 130
and therefore is not required to complete a
VMT analysis.

Section 17.04.040 (D)
The project applicant shall provide a vibration study to determine vibration levels due to construction to the City, prior to approval of the project, when the following
activities would occur within the screening distance to buildings or structures:
• pile driving within 100 feet,
• vibratory roller within 25 feet, or
• other heavy equipment (e.g., bulldozer) within 15
feet;
For historical structures:
• pile driving within 135 feet,
• vibratory roller within 40 feet, or
• other heavy equipment within 20 feet
If vibration levels due to construction activities exceeds 0.2 inches per second peak particle velocity (in/sec PPV) at nearby buildings or structures, or 0.12 in/sec PPV at
historical structures, the project shall implement the
following alternative methods/equipment:
a. For pile driving, one of the following options shall be used: caisson drilling (drilled piles), vibratory pile
drivers, oscillating or rotating pile installation
methods, or jetting or partial jetting of piles into
place using a water injection at the tip of the pile.
b. For paving, use a static roller in lieu of a vibratory roller.
c. For grading and earthwork activities, off-road
equipment that shall be limited to 100 horsepower or
less.

Yes Noise Assessment provided by applicant and
peer reviewed.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Building and Construction Regulation Ordinance (CMC Title 16) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 16.08 Standards
Section 16.08.100
The plans shall be prepared and signed by a civil engineer, and soils engineer, licensed by the State. Applicant shall provide all the following information on a site
map/grading plan:

A. A vicinity sketch or other data adequately indicating the site location;
B. Property lines of the site on which the work is to be performed and easements if such are required;
C. Location of any buildings or structures on the
property where the work is to be performed, and the
location of any building, structure, or retaining wall
on adjacent property which is within fifteen feet of
the site;
D. Existing and proposed topography of the site taken
at not more than five-foot contour intervals over the
entire site; ninety percent of the contours shall be
plotted within one contour interval of the true
location;
E. Two contour intervals that extend a minimum of one
hundred feet off-site, or sufficient distance to show
on-site and off-site drainage;
F. Location and graphic representation of all existing
and proposed natural and manmade drainage
facilities;
G. Location and graphic representation of proposed
excavations and fills, of on-site stockpiling of soil
and other earth material, and of on-site disposal;
H. Location of surface runoff, erosion and sediment
control measures required under proposed interim
erosion control plan;
I. Location of existing vegetation types and the
location and type of vegetation to be left
undisturbed;
Yes Tentative Map items provided.
99 CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
99 of 2331
J. Outline of the methods to be used in clearing
vegetation, and in storing and disposing of the
cleared vegetative matter;
K. Detailed plans of all drainage devices, walls,
cribbing, dams, or other protective devices to be
constructed in connection with, or as a part of, the
proposed work, together with a plat or sketch
showing the drainage area and estimated runoff of
the area served by any drains;
L. An estimate of the quantity of excavation and fill
involved;
M. Proposed sequence and schedule of excavation,
filling and other land-disturbing and filling
activities, and soil or earth material storage and
disposal;
N. Such additional technical information as is required to clarify the above;
O. Site cross-sections as required.

Section 16.08.110
The applicant shall provide an interim plan, either
integrated with the site map/grading plan or separately, at the discretion of the Director. However, at least the
location of erosion control measures and erosion control planting shall be shown on the site map/grading plan. The applicant shall provide the following information with
respect to conditions existing on the site during landdisturbing or filling activities or stockpiling of soil:

A. Maximum surface runoff from the site shall be
calculated using a ten year design storm and the City
of Cupertino intensity curves as shown in the master
storm drain plan;
B. The interim plan shall also contain the following
information:

1. A delineation and brief description of the measures
to be undertaken to retain sediment on the site,
including, but not limited to, the designs and
specifications or berms and sediment detention
basins, and a schedule for their maintenance and
upkeep;

2. A delineation and brief description of the surface
runoff and erosion control measures to be
implemented, including, but not limited, to types
and methods of applying mulches, and designs and
specifications for diverters, dikes and drains, and a
schedule for their maintenance and upkeep;

3. A delineation and brief description of the
vegetative measures to be undertaken, including,
but not limited to, seeding methods, and type,
location and extent of preexisting and undisturbed
vegetation types, and a schedule for maintenance
and upkeep;
C. The location of all the measures listed by the applicant under subsection B above, shall be depicted on a site
map;
D. An estimate of the cost of implementing and
maintaining all interim erosion and sediment control
measures must be submitted in a form acceptable to
the Director.

Yes
To be completed in accordance with Public
Works requirements. See Public Works draft
conditions.

Section 16.08.200 (E)

3. All swales or ditches on drainage terraces shall be
graded to provide suitable drainage and designed to
prevent erosion, including a suitable lining as
specified by the Director.

4. Drainage across lot lines caused by grading is
prohibited unless storm drain easements are provided.

Yes
To be completed in accordance with Public
Works requirements. See Public Works draft
conditions.

Section 16.08.200 (G)
(2)
If the retained height of a wall exceeds three feet, then the following restrictions shall apply:
a. Any vertical structural member which resists the
overturning forces imposed by the retained fill shall be constructed of materials other than wood. If, however,
in the opinion of the Director, the use of any wood
members is a hazard, then all components shall be
constructed of materials other than wood.
b. If the retained height of a wall exceeds eight feet, then no wood material may be used in its construction,
unless approved by the City Council.

Yes To be included as a condition of approval.

Chapter 16.58 Standards
100
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
100 of 2331
Section 16.58.230
Greater than 9 Residential Single Family and Multi-Family homes (Verified by a Third Party GPR or LEED
certification as applicable
Alternate Reference Standard: See Section 101.10.2):
• GPR certified at minimum 50 points or
• LEED Silver or
• Alternate Reference Standard per Section 101.10.2
Yes
The project will comply with the Green Point
Rated (GPR) requirements and design will be
subject to peer review at time of Building
Permit review.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Landscape Ordinance (CMC Title 14) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 14.18 Standards
Section 14.18.110 (A)
An application request to remove a mature specimen tree with a single-trunk DBH of twelve inches to twenty-four inches (multi-trunk twenty-four to forty-eight inches
DBH), shall provide the following:
a. A drawing outlining the location of the tree(s) and
proposed tree replacements.
b. A written explanation of why the tree(s) should be
removed.
c. Signature of the property owner and/or
homeowner’s association (where applicable) with
proof of a vote of the homeowner’s association;
d. Permit fee, where applicable.

An application request to remove a heritage tree, privacy planting tree, approved development tree, or mature
specimen tree with single-trunk DBH greater than twentyfour inches or multi-trunk greater than forty-eight inches DBH, require the following in addition to application
requirements a. through d. listed above:
a. Photograph(s) of the tree(s).
b. An arborist report from an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture.
c. Notice and posting per Section 14.18.130.

Other information deemed necessary by the Director of
Community Development to evaluate the tree removal
request.

Yes Tree Removal Application and arborist report
submitted. Peer review completed.

Cupertino Municipal Code – Parks Ordinance (CMC Title 13) Reference Municipal Code Requirement Consistent? City Comment Chapter 13.08 Standards
Section 13.08.050 (A) -
(E)
Where dedication of a park or recreational facility is
required pursuant to this Chapter, land shall be dedicated per the formula below.

Park land dedication (in acres) = (Average number of
persons/DU) x (Park Acreage Standard) x (Number of
Dwelling Units)
The Park Acreage Standard is three acres of property for each one thousand persons.

Table 13.08.050 indicates the average park land dedication required per dwelling unit based on development density per the formula above (Section 13.08.050.A).

Average number of persons/DU shall be determined
pursuant to Table 13.08.050.

The number of dwelling units is calculated consistent with Section 13.08.090.

In-Lieu Fee
Requested
In-Lieu Fee Requested with the request for up
to $377,000 for construction of a proposed trail
connection to be applied to the in-lieu fee.

Section 13.08.050 (F) To satisfy this dedication requirement, the park land must be:

1. Located at ground level and dedicated to the City in fee simple ownership, to the center of the earth;

2. At least one contiguous piece of land of at least 0.27 acres in size, excluding hillsides over a ten (10) percent slope, riparian set back areas and environmental
mitigation areas;

3. At least 0.25 acres of the dedicated land must be
gradable to create a flat area of less than five (5) percent slope in any direction;
In-Lieu Fee
Requested
In-Lieu Fee Requested with the request for up
to $377,000 for construction of a proposed trail
connection to be applied to the in-lieu fee.
101
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
101 of 2331

4. All dedicated land must be at least 50 feet wide in any horizontal dimension and 0.10 acres in contiguous size.

The City Council may waive this requirement when
doing so facilitates the provision of pocket parks or
other desirable park amenities.

5. Located adjacent to a street in order to promote public safety and facilitate policing; and
Setback areas, private yards, and other open areas required by zoning and/or building ordinances or for streets and improvements that do not serve the park exclusively, shall not be included in the computation of dedicated park or recreational acreage.

Section 13.08.080 (A) Where private open space for park and recreational purposes, accessible to all residents in a development, is provided in a proposed development, fifty percent credit shall be given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof, if the approval authority finds that it is in the public interest to do so and that all the standards in Section 13.08.080B are met and findings in Section 13.08.080C can be made.

In-Lieu Fee
Requested
In-Lieu Fee Requested with the request for up
to $377,000 for construction of a proposed trail
connection to be applied to the in-lieu fee.

Section 13.08.090 When dwelling units exist on the property where development is proposed, a credit shall be given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof for the number of units existing. As used
herein, the term "existing" refers to units which exist at the time of approval of the dwelling units or which were
demolished within one year prior to the submittal of an application for development of the dwelling units, for
which previously park land dedication or fees in lieu
thereof have been collected. For credits applicable to
existing units included in proposed subdivisions, see
section 18.24.110.

In-Lieu Fee
Requested
In-Lieu Fee Requested with the request for up
to $377,000 for construction of a proposed trail
connection to be applied to the in-lieu fee.

Cupertino Housing Mitigation Manual
Reference Housing Mitigation Manual Requirement Consistent? City Comment Section 2.3.1 When a development provides Ownership Below-MarketRate (BMR) units, the affordability requirements for units shall be as follows:

1. Fifty percent (50%) of BMR units as median-income and fifty percent (50%) as moderate-income.

Yes
Five median and five moderate income units
provided.

Section 2.3.3 (A) – (C) For projects that propose BMR units, the applicant shall submit an “Affordable Housing Plan,” describing how a
development project will comply with the City's BMR
requirements, with the application for the first approval of the project.

The plan shall identify the BMR units or parcels in the development.

If alternatives are proposed in compliance with Chapter 7, the plan shall identify how the proposal is equivalent to the BMR requirements of Chapter 4.

Yes
Affordable housing plan provided outlining the
required information.

Section 2.3.4 (A) BMR units shall be comparable to market rate units in terms of unit type, number of bedrooms per unit, quality of exterior appearance and overall quality of construction.

No, Density
Bonus
Concession
Proposed
The provided BMR units each utilize the same
unit type and therefore do not comply with this
standard.

A Density Bonus Concession is being requested
to address this standard.

Section 2.3.4 (D) The BMR units shall be dispersed throughout the residential project. Yes Provided designs disperse the BMR units throughout the project site.

Section 4.3 New ownership projects with five or more units or lots shall provide at least 20% of the units or lots as BMR
ownership units or lots per Section 2.3 Yes
20% of the 51 units or 10.2 units will be
provided through a combination of 10 BMR
units and a fractional BMR in-lieu fee for the
remaining 0.2 units.
102
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
102 of 2331
1 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com AB 130 QUALIFICATION MEMORANDUM
Date February 18, 2026
To Emi Sugiyama, Senior Planner ([email protected])
Community Development, City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
From Nick Towstopiat, Project Manager
Kristy Weis, Vice President & Principal Project Manager Subject 10857 Linda Vista Drive Residential Project – AB 130 Qualification I. Background and Purpose
Assembly Bill (AB) 130 exempts qualifying housing projects from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). AB 130 became effective on June 30, 2025 and is codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide substantial evidence documenting whether the proposed project meets the conditions and requirements for a statutory exemption pursuant to AB 130/PRC Section 21080.66.

II. Project Location
The approximately 2.51-net acre project site is an infill site comprised of four parcels located at 10857, 10867, 10877, and 10887 Linda Vista Drive (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers [APNs] 356-06-001, 356-06-002, 356-06-003, and 356-06-004) in an urbanized area in the city of Cupertino. The city of Cupertino is approximately 38 miles southeast of the city and county of San Francisco. Cupertino is on the western edge of Santa Clara County and north of the city of Saratoga, south of the city of Sunnyvale, and west of the city of San José. Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 85 to the east and Stevens Creek Boulevard to the north.

The site currently contains four single-family residences, vacant/undeveloped areas, and four unpaved gravel driveways. Adjacent land uses include recreational uses to the north and west (i.e., Stevens Creek Trail, a golf course, and Cupertino Hills Swim and Racquet Club), and single-family residential uses to the east and south. Additional single-family residential uses are present north of the project site, adjacent to the recreational facilities. A vicinity map with the project site’s location is shown on Figure 1. An aerial photograph of the project site and surrounding land uses is shown on Figure 2.
103
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
103 of 2331
Deep Cliff
Golf Course
Monta Vista
High School
John F. Kennedy
Middle School
Linda Vista Drive
Baxley Court
Hyannisport Drive
Rae Lane
McClellan Road
Linda Vista Drive
Presidio Drive
Fort Baker Drive
Columbus Avenue
Columbus Avenue
ShaƩuck Drive
Rucker Drive
Dryden Avenue
Santa Teresa Drive
Wilkinson Aven ue
La Paloma Dri ve
Castleton Street
Rosario Avenue
Riverside Drive Deep Cliff Drive
Stevens Creek
Linda Vista Drive
Baxley Court
Hyannisport Drive
Rae
La
n
e
McClellanRoad
Linda Vista Drive
Presidio Drive
Fort Baker Drive
Columbus Avenue
Columbus Avenue
Sha
Ʃuck Drive
Rucker Driv
e
Dryden Avenue
Santa Teresa Drive
Wilkinson Avenue
La Paloma
Dri ve
Castleton Street
Rosario Avenue
Riverside Drive Deep Cliff Drive
Stevens Creek
Project Boundary
Base Map: Esri, ArcGIS
0 50 300 400 600 Feet
VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1
2 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 104
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
104 of 2331
Residen
Ɵal
ResidenƟal
ResidenƟal
CuperƟno Hills
Swim & Racquet
Deep Cliff
Golf Course
Stevens Creek Trail Stevens C reek Trail
Baxley Court
Evulich Court
Evulich Court
Linda Vista Drive
Dryden Avenue
S
ShaƩuck Drive
tevens Creek Trail Stevens Creek Trail
Baxley Court
Evulich Court
Evulich Court
Linda Vista Drive
Dryden Avenue
Sha
Ʃuck Drive
Photo Date: Apr. 2024
0 25 100 150 200 Feet
Project Boundary
Aerial Source: Google Earth Pro, Jun. 2, 2025.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH AND SURROUNDING LAND USES FIGURE 2
3 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 105
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
105 of 2331
4 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com III. Project Description
The project site is designated as Priority Housing Sites 29 through 32 in city of Cupertino’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. In May 2024, the site was rezoned from R1-7.5 to R3/TH. The applicant submitted a preliminary application under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) on October 9, 2024, vesting the development standards in effect at that time and limiting the application of new, non-objective design standards. Accordingly, the project is subject to the regulations in place when the preliminary application was submitted.

The proposed project includes the demolition of the existing improvements on-site and construction of a residential development that would include 51 townhouse units across 10, threestory buildings. The project would result in the provision of 10 townhouse units with deedrestrictions at median and moderate levels of income affordability. In addition, the project would result in the completion of the planned improvements to pave the remaining portion of a public street (Evulich Court) in the center of the site that would provide access via five shared driveways leading to the individual townhouse units. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property as condominium units with shared interest in the common areas. To accommodate the proposed project, the applicant would utilizing waivers and incentives allowed under the State Density Bonus law to waive requirements of the General Plan and zoning designations to: increase the maximum height of the buildings, increase the maximum floor area ratio (FAR), reduce the street-side sideyard setback requirement, reduce the minimum size requirements for private outdoor space, and reduce the minimum parking space size. The primary project components are described below.

Primary Project Components
Residential Development
The project proposal includes 51 townhouse condominium units that would be split between 10 residential buildings (Buildings 1 through 10). Each building would be three stories and reach a maximum height of approximately 38 feet above the proposed grade on-site (or approximately 41 feet above the existing grade on-site) and have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.36. The ground floor of each unit would contain a private, two-car garage.

Residential Amenities
The project includes an average of approximately 200 square feet of private usable open space per unit. In addition, the project includes approximately 30,782 square feet of common landscaped area, not including landscaped areas within required setbacks, throughout the site, comprising of landscaped areas in front of each unit and around the perimeter of the site. This common landscaped area also contains two paseos - one between Buildings 3 and 4 and another between Buildings 8 and 9 – with seating and gathering areas. These paseos would be reserved for residents and their guests and would be accessible via pedestrian connections from Evulich Court. 106
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
106 of 2331
5 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Site Access and Parking
The project would result in the removal of all the existing driveways and driveway curb cuts. The project proposes the extension of the paved portion of Evulich Court through the center of the site, which is an area currently dedicated to the city of Cupertino for a public street. Five private driveways would connect to Evulich Court and provide direct access to the private garages on the ground floor of each unit. The private driveways would be 22 feet wide. Evulich Court would have a width of 20 feet adjacent to the intersection with Linda Vista Drive and would expand to a width of 36 feet near the intersections with the private driveways in the interior of the site. The wider portion of the extended segment of Evulich Court would include space for 10 on-street parking stalls. Evulich Court, the public street, would end in a cul-de-sac on the western portion of the site; however, fire trucks and other large vehicles would be able to use the westernmost private driveway to turn around.

The project would include a total of 102 on-site parking spaces, all of which would be located in the private garages of each unit. The private garages would also provide long-term bicycle storage spaces for each unit. The project would also include 12 short-term bicycle parking spaces on racks adjacent to the paseo entrances on Evulich Court. Pedestrian access to the project site would continue to be provided via sidewalks (which would be reconstructed as part of the project, as described below) on Linda Vista Drive. In addition, the project would include the construction of new sidewalks on the extended, paved segment of Evulich Court that would connect to the on-site pedestrian walkways leading to each of the units.

Utility and Right-of-Way Improvements
The proposed project includes the construction of lateral connections from the new buildings to the two new eight-inch water sanitary sewer lines that would be installed in the extended segment of Evulich Court. These new lines would connect with the existing eight-inch water main and eight-inch sanitary sewer main in Linda Vista Drive. The project would also include the construction of an approximately 160-foot extension from the existing 12-inch storm drain main line in Linda Vista Drive to the south allowing for two new lateral connections from the proposed buildings to be made. The project would include the installation of a new fire hydrant on Linda Vista Drive adjacent to the project frontage north of Evulich Court and two new fire hydrants on Evulich Court.

The project would include the demolition and reconstruction of portions of the existing sidewalk on Linda Vista Drive along the site frontage. The project would also include the replacement of an existing streetlight on Linda Vista Drive adjacent to the frontage of the site, south of Evulich Court, retrofit of an existing streetlight on Linda Vista Drive across from the frontage of the site, north of Evulich Court, and installation of two new streetlights on Evulich Court. The project would include the dedication of the portion of the site containing the extended segment of Linda Vista Drive to the city of Cupertino. A conceptual site plan is shown on Figure 3 and the proposed utility improvements are shown below on Figure 4 below.
107
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
107 of 2331
Source: SDG Architects, Inc., January 12, 2026.
0 20 40 60 Feet
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN FIGURE 3
6 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 108
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
108 of 2331
! 0 10 20 40 60 Feet
UTILITY PLAN FIGURE 4
7 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com 109
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
109 of 2331
8 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Landscaping
There are 36 trees on-site, including nine protected trees as defined in Section 14.18.050 of the CMC, and six off-site trees with canopies that hang over the site (five of which are considered protected trees).1 The project proposal includes the removal of 35 trees on-site (including nine protected trees) and planting of 50 on-site replacement trees. No off-site trees would be affected by the project. In addition to the replacement trees, the project would include other landscaping, including shrubs and groundcover. The landscaping would incorporate low to moderate water use plants and California native species.

Stormwater Treatment
The proposed project would result in an increase of impervious area by 66,994 square feet (or 61 percent) compared to existing conditions. To control the amount of stormwater runoff from the site, the project would include approximately 4,900 square feet of bioretention facilities throughout the site where stormwater would be directed.

Green Building and Energy Efficiency Measures
The project would be built in accordance with the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requirements. The project would incorporate green building features, including drought-tolerant landscaping, water-efficient fixtures, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and high-efficiency appliances. The project would be all-electric.

Construction
Project construction activities would include demolition, site preparation, grading and excavation, building construction, architectural coatings, and paving. The total duration of construction on-site would be approximately 39 months; however, there could be overlap in the construction of site improvements (e.g., utility trenching and street improvements) and the proposed buildings which would result in a shorter overall timeline. The project would require excavation at a maximum depth of 10 feet below the ground surface for utility trenching. Construction would require up to 2,500 cubic yards of soil to be exported from the site. Construction materials would be staged onsite. 1 Section 14.18.050 of the CMC defines protected trees as, A) Heritage trees in all zoning districts; B) All mature specimen trees of the following species on private property: 1.Quercus (native oak tree species), including: 1a.

Quercus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak), 1b. Quercus lobata (Valley Oak), 1c. Quercus kelloggii (Black Oak), 1d. Quercus douglasii (Blue Oak), 1e. Quercus wislizeni (Interior Live Oak); 2. Aesculus californica (California Buckeye); 3. Acer macrophyllum (Big Leaf Maple); 4. Cedrus deodara (Deodar Cedar); 5. Cedrus atlantica 'Glauca' (Blue Atlas Cedar);

6. Umbellularia californica (Bay Laurel or California Bay); and 7. Platanus racemosa (Western Sycamore).; C) Approved development trees(s); and D) Approved privacy protection planting in R-1 zoning districts. 110
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
110 of 2331
9 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com IV. AB 130 Qualification
AB 130 includes specific conditions and requirements that must be met for a project to be exempt from CEQA. The project’s conformance with each of the eligibility conditions for housing projects under AB 130 are discussed in detail in Table 1 below. The project’s conformance with each requirement under AB 130 are discussed in detail in Table 2 below.

Table 1: Project Qualification with AB 130 Conditions
Statutory Exemption Condition
Does the Project
Meet this Condition? Analysis
Yes No N/A

1. The project meets the
definition of a “housing
development project”
pursuant to Government
Code Sections 65905.5(b)
and 65589.5(h)(2). [PRC
Section 21080.66(a)]
The project meets the definition of a “housing
development project” pursuant to Government Code
Sections 65905.5(b) and 65589.5(h)(2) as it contains
residential units only.

As noted in Section III. Project Description, the
project consists of the construction of 51 residential
units. Therefore, the project is consistent with this
condition.

2. The project is within the
appropriate maximum lot
size. [PRC Section 21080.66
(a) (1)]
As noted in Section III. Project Description, the
project site is 2.51 acres in size, which is less than the 20-acre maximum lot size condition. Therefore, the
project is consistent with this condition.

3. The project is located in an
incorporated municipality
or urban area. [PRC Section
21080.66 (a) (2)]
The project site is located within the limits of the city of Cupertino, an incorporated municipality.

Therefore, the project is consistent with this section.

4. The project site meets any
of the following criteria for
previous development onand surrounding the site:
▪ The site has been
previously developed with
an urban use;
▪ At least 75 percent of the
perimeter of the site
adjoins parcels developed
with urban uses;
▪ At least 75 percent of the
area within a one-quarter
mile radius of the site is
developed with urban uses;
or
The site currently contains four single-family
residences and an unpaved gravel driveway.

Adjacent land uses include recreational uses to the
north and west, and single-family residential uses to
the east and south. In addition, surrounding land
uses within one-quarter mile of the site are
developed with urban uses. For the reasons
described above, the project meets this condition.
111
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
111 of 2331
10 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Statutory Exemption Condition
Does the Project
Meet this Condition? Analysis
Yes No N/A
▪ At least three sides of the
site are developed with
urban uses and at least
two-thirds of the site’s
perimeter adjoins parcels
that are developed with
urban uses (for sites with
four sides) [PRC Section
21080.66 (a) (3)]

5. The project is consistent
with the existing General
Plan or Zoning for the site,
and any applicable local
coastal program. [PRC
Section 21080.66 (a) (4)]
The project site has a General Plan land use
designation for the site is Residential – Medium/High
Density and a zoning designation of Multi-Family
Residential/Townhome (R3/TH). The TH combining
district allows for construction of townhomes onsite, and the required residential density for the site’s land use designation is between 20.01 to 35
units per acre. The project would result in a
development density of approximately 20.3 dwelling
units per acre, which is consistent with this
requirement and the density requirements
established for this designation in the General Plan.

The project is consistent with the objective design
requirements in the CMC, except that it would utilize
five waivers allowed under the State Density Bonus
law to: increase the maximum height of the
buildings, increase the maximum FAR, reduce the
street-side side-yard setback requirement, reduce
the minimum size requirements for private outdoor
space, and reduce the minimum parking space size.

These waivers and incentives are allowed by law;
therefore, the project would be consistent with the
existing General Plan and Zoning for the site.

The project site is inland and not subject to a local
coastal program.

For the reasons discussed above, the project meets
this condition.

6. The project includes at
least 15 dwelling units per
acre. [PRC Section
21080.66 (a) (5)]
The project site is in a metropolitan county (i.e.,
Santa Clara County). As discussed in Section III.

Project Description, the project would result in a
112
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
112 of 2331
11 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Statutory Exemption Condition
Does the Project
Meet this Condition? Analysis
Yes No N/A
density of approximately 20.3 dwelling units per
acre. Therefore, the project meets this condition.

7. The project is not located
on a site that is any of the
following: an area of the
coastal zone; either prime
farmland or farmland of
statewide importance;
wetlands; within a Very
High Fire Hazard Severity
Zone; a hazardous waste
site included on the
Cortese list; within a
delineated earthquake
fault zone; within a special
flood hazard area; within a
regulatory floodway; lands
identified for conservation;
habitat for protected
species; or lands under a
conservation easement.
[PRC Section 21080.66 (a)
(6)]
The project site is located at 10857, 10867, 10877,
and 10887 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino,
approximately 19 miles from the Pacific Ocean and

8.5 miles from the San Francisco Bay. The proposed
development would not be located in a coastal zone
or subject to a certified local coastal program.

The site is currently developed with a residential use
and is not designated as Prime Farmland or Farmland
of Statewide Importance.2 There are no wetlands onsite.3

The California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE) is responsible for designating
fire hazard severity zones in State Responsibility
Areas and recommending designations for Local
Responsibility Areas. Most of the project site is
located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone,
except for the northeast corner of the site which is in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.
4 Per PRC Section 21080.66 (a) (6), the project must
satisfy the requirements specified in paragraph (6) of
subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 of the
Government Code. A project can be located within a
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone if it adopts fire
hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing
building standards or state fire mitigation measures
applicable to the development.

The project would implement various strategies and
measures to reduce potential risks associated with
wildfire, including:
• Designing the project to comply with
Chapter 7A of the California Building Code,
2 California Department of Conservation. Santa Clara County Important Farmland 2022. Accessed December 9, 2025.
3 United States Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetland Inventory. Accessed December 9, 2025. https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/ 4 CAL FIRE. Santa Clara County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. February 24, 2025. 113
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
113 of 2331
12 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Statutory Exemption Condition
Does the Project
Meet this Condition? Analysis
Yes No N/A
• Installing non-combustible landscaping
material around the perimeter of the site,
• Installing fire sprinklers in each covered
porch and deck area within 30 feet of the
property line, and
• Utilizing exterior building materials with
enhanced fire resistance ratings within 30
feet of the property line.

To accommodate the design of the project, the
project received approval of alternative means or
methods from the Santa Clara County Fire
Department to reduce the typically required 30-foot
setback from adjacent buildings. The Santa Clara
County Fire Department accepted this request after
considering the location of the site and the design
measures proposed by the project to reduce
potential wildfire risk.5 Based on a review of the
project plans and proposed design features, the
Santa Clara County Fire Department has determined
that appropriate fire hazard mitigation measures
have been incorporated by the project.

The site is not: identified as a hazardous site on the
Cortese list;6, 7, 8, 9 or located within an earthquake fault zone,10 special flood hazard area,11 or
regulatory floodway.12 The project site is not
identified for conservation or under a conservation
easement. The Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
boundaries cover a small portion of Cupertino;
5 Santa Clara County Fire Department. Fire Prevention Plan Review Comments. January 27, 2026. 6 California Department of Toxic Substances Control. “EnviroStor Database.” Accessed December 9, 2025. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?myaddress=10857+linda+vista+drive 7 State Water Board. “Geotracker.” Accessed December 9, 2025. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?myaddress=California&from=header&cqid=7253385245 8 State Water Board. “List of solid waste disposal sites identified by Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit.” Accessed December 9, 2025. https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CurrentList.pdf 9 State Water Board. List of “active” CDO and CAO from Waterboard. Accessed December 9, 2025. https://calepa.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SiteCleanup-CorteseList-CDOCAOList.xlsx 10 California Department of Conservation. “Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation.” Accessed December 10, 2025. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/eqzapp/ 11 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map: Number 06085C0216H. May 18, 2009. 12 Ibid. 114
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
114 of 2331
13 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Statutory Exemption Condition
Does the Project
Meet this Condition? Analysis
Yes No N/A
however, the project site is approximately 1.4 miles
west of the boundaries of the plan and is not
covered by the requirements of the Santa Clara
Valley Habitat Plan.
13 The site is partially developed
with urban uses and does not contain any sensitive
habitat (such as wetlands) that would be habitat for
protected species. In addition, a Technical Biological
Report was prepared for the project site which
concluded that there was no habitat for special
status plant species on-site and that the project
would not result in the loss of habitat for special
status animal species.14

8. If demolition is required,
the project only involves
demolition of structure(s)
not placed on a national,
state, or local historic
register. [PRC Section
21080.66 (a) (7)]
The project site, including the existing building onsite, are not listed in the National Register of Historic Places,15 California Register of Historic Properties,16 or the current list of Cupertino historically significant resources.
17 Therefore, the project meets this
condition.

9. The project excludes
Transient Lodging. [PRC
Section 21080.66 (a) (8)]
No hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other
transient lodging such as a residential hotel or shortterm lodging is proposed on the project site. For these reasons, the project meets this condition.
13 Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency. “Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan Geobrowser v2.0.” Accessed December 10, 2025. https://scvha.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=f2268679c2fa49489e3f7d6e8377837e 14 Live Oak Associates, Inc. 10857 Linda Vista Drive Project Technical Biological Report. August 5, 2025. 15 National Parks Service. National Register of Historic Places. Accessed December 10, 2025. 16 California Department of Parks and Recreation. California Historical Resources. Accessed December 10, 2025. 17 City of Cupertino. General Plan Amendment, Housing Element Update, and Associated Rezoning EIR. Table 4.4-2, Cultural Resources in the Project Study Area and Vicinity. 2015. 115
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
115 of 2331
14 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Table 2: Project Conformance with AB 130 Requirements
Statutory Exemption
Requirement
Does the Project Meet
this Condition? Analysis
Yes No N/A

1. Tribal Consultation has
been completed. [PRC
Section 21080.66 (b)]
Sacred Lands File Search
A request for a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search was
submitted to the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) on December 3, 2025. The
results of the SLF search shared by the NAHC on
December 10, 2025, were negative.

Native American Tribal Consultation
The proposed project was deemed complete on
March 19, 2025 and the applicant requested to
process a statutory exemption under AB 130 on
September 12, 2025. On September 25, 2025, the
city of Cupertino notified the 25 tribal contacts
traditionally or culturally affiliated with the project area about the proposed project via certified mail
and/or email. The Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the
San Francisco Bay Area responded with a request
to consult on the project; however, no formal
consultation meeting with the tribe transpired
after repeated outreach attempts by the city of
Cupertino. A response was also received from
representatives of Tamien Nation to initiate the
formal consultation process. A meeting was held
on December 3, 2025 between city of Cupertino
staff and representatives of Tamien Nation to
discuss the project, potential sensitivity of the
area, and measures that would reduce potential
impacts to cultural and tribal cultural resources, if
present on-site. The tribal consultation period
concluded on January 6, 2026 without mutual
agreement for alternative conditions having been
reached. Subsequent to that date, Tamien Nation
provided alternative conditions, but did not
confirm that those conditions were specific to this
project. On February 13, 2026, the city of
Cupertino provided a final notice to Tamien Nation
that the project would be subject to the standard
conditions described below.

As no agreement on alternative conditions was
reached through consultation with Tamien Nation,
the city of Cupertino will require implementation
116
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
116 of 2331
15 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Statutory Exemption
Requirement
Does the Project Meet
this Condition? Analysis
Yes No N/A
of the binding conditions of approval outlined in
PRC Section 21080.66 (b) (4) and the permit
conditions outlined in Chapter 17.04 of the
Cupertino Municipal Code regarding
archaeological educational materials that must be
distributed to contractors and construction crews
prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities.

Therefore, the project meets this condition.

2. A Phase I Environmental
Assessment has been
prepared for the project
or required as a condition
of approval. [PRC Section
21080.66 (c)]
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I
ESA)18 and Limited Phase II Subsurface
Investigation Report (Phase II)19 were completed
for the proposed project on January 10, 2024 and
October 18, 2023, respectively. The Phase I ESA
identified one Recognized Environmental
Condition (REC), which was the presence of
multiple Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) onsite. In addition, one Other Environmental Concern (OEC) was identified regarding the site’s historic
use for agricultural activities which could have
resulted in the remnants of organochlorine
pesticides (OCPs), lead, and arsenic in the shallow
soil on-site.

The Phase II prepared for the project determined
that arsenic and lead were not detected above the
known background level concentrations or
applicable environmental screening limits (ESLs).

Therefore, arsenic and lead concentrations in the
soil on-site were not determined to be a significant
concern. In addition, OCPs were either not
detected above laboratory limits or were detected
below the Residential Direct Exposure ESLs. The
Phase II also sampled the soils for potential
contaminants that would have indicated a past
release from the USTs on-site; however, the Phase
II concluded that there were no signs of a
significant release from the USTs that were
previously utilized on-site.
18 AEI Consultants. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, 10857, 10867, 10877 and 10887 Linda Vista Drive.

January 10, 2024.
19 AEI Consultants. Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation Report, 10857, 10867, 10877 and 10887 Linda Vista Drive. October 18, 2023.
117
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
117 of 2331
16 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Statutory Exemption
Requirement
Does the Project Meet
this Condition? Analysis
Yes No N/A
A peer review of the Phase I ESA and Phase II was
completed on May 30, 2025.20 The peer review
confirmed the applied methodologies in the
reports were appropriate and recommended the
following measures:
1) Documented removal of the two USTs should
be conducted. The formerly abandoned-inplace USTs should be removed and properly disposed of, and the surrounding soils should
be assessed through sampling and analytical
testing.
2) A Soil Management Plan should be developed
to establish response measures for addressing
unknown subsurface conditions encountered
during construction.

Following the conclusion of the Phase I and Phase
II ESAs, the property owner obtained clearances
and permits to remove the two USTs in 2025,
thereby addressing recommendation 1. Based on
the soil sampling conducted after removal of the
USTs were completed, no evidence of prior
petroleum release on-site was found. Therefore,
preparation of the Soil Management Plan as noted
in recommendation 2 would not be necessary.

As a Condition of Approval, if any unanticipated
structure or evidence of contamination is
discovered during construction activities on-site,
the project shall halt work in the area of the
discovery and a qualified professional shall
prepare a Soil Management Plan. The Soil
Management Plan (if required) shall be reviewed
and approved by the city of Cupertino’s third-party
consultant. This would ensure that any potential
contaminants of concern in the soil on-site, if
present, are handled appropriately and risks to
construction workers, future residents on-site, and
the environment are reduced to a less than
significant level and being mitigated to levels
required by current federal and state statutory and
20 Farallon Consulting. Third Party Review – 10857 10867, 10877 and 10887 Linda Vista Drive. May 30, 2025. 118
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
118 of 2331
17 1871 The Alameda, Suite 200 • San José, CA 95126 • Tel: (408) 248-3500 • www.davidjpowers.com Statutory Exemption
Requirement
Does the Project Meet
this Condition? Analysis
Yes No N/A
regulatory standards. For these reasons, the
project meets this condition.

3. The project site is located
more than 500 feet from
a freeway or, if the
project is located within
500 feet of a freeway, the
project includes the
required design
measures. [PRC Section
21080.66 (c) (2)]
The nearest freeway to the project site is State
Route 85, which is located approximately 0.8 miles
(or over 4,200 feet) east of the project site.

Therefore, this requirement is not applicable to
the project.

4. The project does not
contain 100 percent
affordable units or, if the
project contains 100
percent affordable units
or is over 85 feet in
height above grade, the
project will comply with
prevailing wage
requirements. [PRC
Section 21080.66 (d) (1)]
As noted in Section III. Project Description, the
proposed project would include 51 residential
units, 10 (or approximately 20 percent) of which
would be affordable units, with a maximum height
of 38 feet. Therefore, the requirements of this
section do not apply.

V. Conclusion
As documented in Section IV. AB 130 Qualification, with the identified conditions of approval, the project qualifies for a statutorily exemption pursuant to AB 130. Accordingly, this document finds that a Notice of Exemption is appropriate for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15062.
119
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
119 of 2331
120
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
120 of 2331
121
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
121 of 2331
122
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
122 of 2331
123
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
123 of 2331
124
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
124 of 2331

D STREET A STREET B STREET C STREET E STREET LINDA VISTA DRIVE (PUBLIC ROAD)

EVULICH COURT
(PUBLIC ROAD)
BLDG 6
BLDG 1 BLDG 2 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5
BLDG 7
BLDG 8 BLDG 9 BLDG 10
H:\3988-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-033_SETBACK SITE PLAN.DWG

SETBACK SITE PLAN
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2025
0 20 40 60 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

SAN RAMON
WWW.CBANDG.COM

ROSEVILLE
(925) 866-0322
(916) 788-4456
LEGEND

ABBREVIATIONS
125
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
125 of 2331
126
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
126 of 2331
127
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
127 of 2331
381.07810857 Linda Vista Drive Cupertino, CA September 15, 2025 3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450 San Ramon, Ca 94583 650-857-0122 PROJECT DATA A08 WILDFIRE PROTECTION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BEING LOCATED IN A LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA (LRA) VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE. THE PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE SECTION R337, MATERIALS AND METHODS FOR EXTERIOR WILDFIRE EXPOSURE, AS FOLLOWS: 1. EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND EXTERIOR DOORS WITH GLAZING, SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTI-PANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED PANE. (C.R.C. R337.8.2.1) 2. EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING (C.R.C. R337.8.3): A. THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OR CLADDING SHALL BE OF NON-COMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. B. SHALL HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 20 MIN. WHEN TESTED ACCORDING TO NFPA 252. SHALL BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. 3. GARAGE DOORS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF EMBERS FROM ENTERING BY PREVENTING GAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS, AT HTE BOTTOM, SIDES, AND TOPS OF DOORS, FROM EXCEEDING 1/8". gAPS BETWEEN DOORS AND DOOR OPENINGS SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS: A. WEATHER STRIPPING PRODUCTS MADE OF MATERIALS THAT: (A) HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR TENSILE STRENGTH IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D638 AFTER EXPOSURE TO ASTM G155 FOR A PERIOD OF 2,000 HOURS, WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE IN TENSILE STRENGTH VALUES BETWEEN EXPOSED AND NONEXPOSED SAMPLES DO NOT EXCEED 10% AND (B) EXHIBIT A V-2 OR BETTER FLAMMABILITY RATING WHEN TESTED TO UL 94. B. DOOR OVERLAPS ONTO JAMBS AND HEADERS. C. GARAGE DOOR JAMBS AND HEADERS COVERED WITH METAL FLASHING 4. VENTS SHALL RESIST BUILDING IGNITION FROM THE INTRUSION OF BURNING EMBERS AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (C.R.C. R337.6) A. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE OPENINGS THEREIN SHALL BE A MIN. OF 1/16TH INCH AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 1/8TH INCH. B. THE MATERIALS SHALL BE INCOMBUSTIBLE C. THE MATERIALS USED SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT. 5. THE EXTERIOR WALL COVERING OR WALL ASSEMBLY SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING C.R.C. R337.7.3: A. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. B. IGNITION- RESISTANT MATERIAL. C. SAWN LUMBER OR GLUE-LAMINATED WOOD WITH THE SMALLEST MINIMUM NOMINAL DIMENSION OF 4". SAWN OR GLUE-LAMINATED PLANKS SPLINED, TONGUE-AND-GROOVE, OR SET CLOSE TOGETHER AND WELL SPIKED. D. LOG WALL CONSTRUCTION. E. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN ASTM E2707 WITH THE CONDITIONS OF ACCEPTANCE SHOWN IN SECTION R337.7.3.1. F. WALL ASSEMBLIES THAT MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS CRITERIA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEST PROCEDURES FOR A 10-MINUTE DIRECT FLAME CONTACT EXPOSURE TEST SET FORTH IN SFM STANDARD 12-7A-1. EXCEPTIONS: ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE DEEMED TO MEET THE ASSEMBLY PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND INTENT OF THIS SECTION: A. ONE LAYER OF 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM SHEATHING APPLIED BEHIND THE EXTERIOR COVERING OR CLADDING ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE FRAMING. B. THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE EXTERIOR WALL ASSEMBLY DESIGNED FOR EXTERIOR FIRE EXPOSURE INCLUDING ASSEMBLIES USING GYPSUM PANEL AND SHEATHING PRODUCTS LISTED IN THE GYPSUM ASSOCIATION FIRE RESISTIVE FIRE DESIGN MANUAL. 6. DECKING SURFACES SHALL COMPLY WITH C.R.C. R337.9.3. THE WALKING SURFACE MATERIAL OF DECKS, PORCHES, BALCONY AND STAIRS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS: A. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.4 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH ASTM E2632 AND ASTM E2726. B. IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.4.3 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E84 OR UL 723. C. MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4 AND SFM STANDARD 12-7A-5. D. EXTERIOR FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD. E. NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL. F. ANY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM STANDARD 12-7A-4A WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIAL. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL MAY BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD RATING. G. AY MATERIAL THAT COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION R337.9.5 WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E2632 AND WHEN ATTACHED EXTERIOR WALL COVERING IS ALSO COMPOSED OF ONLY NONCOMBUSTIBLE OR IGNITION-RESISTANT MATERIALS. EXCEPTION: WALL MATERIAL SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE OF ANY MATERIAL THAT OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THIS CHAPTER WHEN THE DECKING SURFACE MATERIAL COMPLIES WITH THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS ASTM E84 WITH A CLASS B FLAME SPREAD INDEX. 128
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
128 of 2331
1 FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
PROJECT INFO: PREPARED BY:

FIRE DEPT PLAN REVIEW #: NAME/TITLE:

CITY/COUNTY PROJECT #: EMAIL:

LOCATION: DATE:

PROJECT NAME:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 10 building 51 unit multi-family residential subdivision.

Plans Status:

Plans are APPROVED with conditions.

Plan Review Comments
**1. PRC 4290: This project shall comply with PRC 4290 comments. Exception request to PRC 4290 approved. Non-conforming setbacks to be mitigated through a combination of increased fire separation distance requirements and modified sprinklers systems. See approved Exception Request.
**2. Provide a "Final Fire Protection Plan" at time of building permit submittal. The plan shall identify mitigation measures to address the project's specific wildfire risk and shall include the information required in CFC section 4903.2.1 including plan for maintenance of defensible space, access roads, and fire protection equipment. [CFC section 4903]

3. Fire Department Turnaround: Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1 / D-1. Turnaround A to be installed. See sheet C6.0.

4. Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18.

5. Fire Hydrants Required: Hydrant(s) required within 600 feet of all proposed budlings. -New hydrants are shown on sheet C6. Hydrants shall be installed prior to combustible construction and the minimum fire flow shall be met. -Hydrant authorization shall be approved by San Jose Water. 251740
TM-2024-009 / ASA-2024-015 / TR2024-044
Caleb Flanagan
[email protected]
10857 Linda Vista Dr 1/27/26
Multi-family subdivision
129
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
129 of 2331
2 6. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 1,375 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C102.1. Fire flow detailed on sheet C6.
-Hydraulic analysis provided confirming minimum fire flow.

7. Ground ladder / Emergency Rescue Openings Required: Ground-ladder rescue from second and third floor rooms shall be made possible for fire department operations. Climbing angle of seventy-five degrees shall be demonstrated on the plans and maintained. Landscaping shall not be allowed to interfere with the required access (CFC Sec. 503 and 1031 NFPA 1932 Sec. 5.1.8 through 5.1.9.2). -Shown on sheet A22.

8. Buildings and Facilities Access / Fire Access Roadway: The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 200 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1 and SCCFD A1 Standard].

9. Fire Lane Identification Required: The minimum clear width of fire department access roads shall be 20 feet. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designated and marked as a fire lane as set forth in Section 22500.1 of the California Vehicle Code. -Noted on sheet C6.

10. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.

11. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 6 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1.

This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid.

Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch. 1, 105.3.6]
130
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
130 of 2331
Copyright © 2025 by ENGEO Incorporated. This document
may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means
whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without the express written consent of ENGEO Incorporated.
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA

DESIGN-LEVEL GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

SUBMITTED TO
Mr. Austin Lin
SummerHill Homes
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450
San Ramon, CA 94583

PREPARED BY
ENGEO Incorporated
May 2, 2025
PROJECT NO.
25712.000.001
131
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
131 of 2331

GEOTECHNICAL

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER RESOURCES

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

COASTAL/MARINE GEOTECHNICS
2350 Mission College Boulevard, Suite 800  Santa Clara, CA 95054  (408) 574-4900  [email protected] www.engeo.com
Project No.
25712.000.001
May 2, 2025
Mr. Austin Lin
SummerHill Homes
3000 Executive Parkway, Suite 450
San Ramon, CA 94583
Subject: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Cupertino, California

DESIGN-LEVEL GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
Dear Mr. Lin:

ENGEO prepared this design-level geotechnical report for the 10857 Linda Vista Drive project, as outlined in our agreement dated April 2, 2025. We characterized the subsurface conditions at the site to provide the enclosed geotechnical recommendations for design.

Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to review the project plans and specifications and provide geotechnical testing and observation services during construction. Please let us know when working drawings are nearing completion and we will be glad to discuss these additional services with you.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please call and we will be glad to discuss them with you.

Sincerely,
ENGEO Incorporated
Lauren Loey, PE Robert H. Boeche, CEG
lebl/jtr/rhb/cb
132
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
132 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
i of ii May 2, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

1.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE................................................................................................ 1

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION.................................................................................................... 1

1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................ 1

2.0 FINDINGS ............................................................................................................ 2

2.1 SITE HISTORY .............................................................................................................. 2

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY ........................................................................................ 3

2.2.1 Regional Geology .............................................................................................. 3

2.2.2 Seismicity .......................................................................................................... 3

2.3 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS.............................................................................. 4

2.3.1 ENGEO. 2024a. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration. ...................................... 4

2.3.2 ENGEO. 2024b. Fault Exploration...................................................................... 5

2.4 CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATION ................................................................................. 5

2.5 SURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................... 6

2.6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS........................................................................................ 6

2.7 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS.................................................................................... 6

2.8 LABORATORY TESTING............................................................................................... 6

2.9 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES ..................................................................................... 7

2.9.1 Method of Analysis............................................................................................. 7

2.9.2 Acceptable Factors of Safety.............................................................................. 7

2.9.3 Geometry and Idealized Soil Profiles.................................................................. 7

2.9.4 Results of Analyses............................................................................................ 8

2.10 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS........................................................................................... 8

2.11 DYNAMIC DENSIFICATION SETTLEMENT................................................................... 9

3.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 9

3.1 EXISTING FILL .............................................................................................................. 9

3.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS....................................................................................................... 9

3.2.1 Ground Rupture ............................................................................................... 10

3.2.2 Ground Shaking............................................................................................... 10

3.2.3 Liquefaction ..................................................................................................... 10

3.2.4 Dynamic Densification...................................................................................... 10

3.2.5 Lateral Spreading............................................................................................. 10

3.3 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN....................................................................................... 11

3.4 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL.................................................................................. 11

3.5 STATIC SETTLEMENT ................................................................................................ 12

4.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ...................................................................... 13

5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................. 13

5.1 DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION .................................................................... 13

5.2 EXISTING FILL REMOVAL .......................................................................................... 14

5.3 SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS................................................................................... 14

5.4 ACCEPTABLE FILL...................................................................................................... 14

5.5 FILL PLACEMENT ....................................................................................................... 14 133
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
133 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
ii of ii May 2, 2025

5.5.1 Structural Areas ............................................................................................... 14

5.5.2 Landscape Areas ............................................................................................. 15

5.6 SITE DRAINAGE.......................................................................................................... 15

5.6.1 Surface Drainage............................................................................................. 15

5.6.2 Stormwater Bioretention Areas......................................................................... 15

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS – RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES ........ 16

6.1 POST-TENSIONED MAT FOUNDATIONS................................................................... 16

6.1.1 Slab Moisture Vapor Reduction........................................................................ 17

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS – ANCILLARY STRUCTURES ........... 17

7.1 CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS...................................................................................... 18

7.1.1 Footing Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity ....................................... 18

7.1.2 Foundation Lateral Resistance......................................................................... 18

7.2 HELICAL PILES ........................................................................................................... 18

7.2.1 Construction Considerations ............................................................................ 19

8.0 SLABS-ON-GRADE........................................................................................... 19

8.1 EXTERIOR FLATWORK............................................................................................... 19

8.2 TRENCH BACKFILL..................................................................................................... 19

9.0 RETAINING WALLS.......................................................................................... 20

9.1 LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES...................................................................................... 20

9.2 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE.................................................................................... 20

9.3 BACKFILL .................................................................................................................... 20

9.4 FOUNDATIONS ........................................................................................................... 21

10.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN......................................................................................... 21

10.1 PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS ..................................................................... 21

10.2 RIGID PAVEMENTS..................................................................................................... 21

10.3 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION ............................................... 22

10.4 CUTOFF CURBS ......................................................................................................... 22

11.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ....................................... 22

SELECTED REFERENCES

FIGURES
APPENDIX A – Boring Logs
APPENDIX B – Laboratory Test Data
APPENDIX C – Previous Explorations (ENGEO)
APPENDIX D – Slope Stability Analysis
134
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
134 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 1 May 2, 2025

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
ENGEO prepared this geotechnical report for the design of the 10857 Linda Vista Drive project in Cupertino, California. As outlined in our agreement dated April 4, 2025, you authorized ENGEO to conduct the following scope of services.
• Subsurface field exploration
• Soil laboratory testing
• Data analysis and conclusions
• Report preparation
For our use, we received a preliminary grading plan (Sheet C4.0) and preliminary grading sections (Sheet C4.1) prepared by CBG for SummerHill Homes, dated February 3, 2025.

In 2024, we prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report (ENGEO, 2024a) and a Fault Exploration (ENGEO, 2024b) for the subject site.

This report was prepared for the exclusive use of SummerHill Homes, and its consultants, for design of this project. In the event that any changes are made in the character, design, or layout of the development, we must be contacted to review the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report to evaluate whether modifications are recommended. This document may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means whatsoever, nor may it be quoted or excerpted without our express written consent.

1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The approximately 2½-acre site is identified by the Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 356-06-001, 356-06-002, 356-06-003, and 356-06-004. The site is located at 10857-10887 Linda Vista Drive in Cupertino, California, as shown in the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The site is bounded by the Cupertino Hills Swim and Racquet Club to the north, residential development to the south, Linda Vista Drive to the east, and the Deep Cliff Golf Course to the west. The western boundary of the site sits atop an approximately 2½:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope that is approximately 50 feet in height sloping down towards the Deep Cliff Golf Course.

The site currently consists of four single-family residential homes with five auxiliary structures.

The Site Plan (Figure 2) shows the boundary of the project site and the approximate locations of our explorations.

1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
Based on our conversation with you and our review of the project documents, we understand site improvements will include the following.
• Ten townhome structures with a total of 51 dwelling units up to three stories in height • Underground utilities
• Sidewalks
• Landscaped areas, including bioretention areas
135
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
135 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 2 May 2, 2025
• Paved Streets
• Site walls and retaining walls
Preliminary grading plans show grading will be limited to minor cut and fill (up to 4 feet), with a retaining wall along the western boundary with a maximum retained height of 4 feet. We understand the proposed single-family structures will be at-grade and of conventional wood-frame construction. Structural loading information is not available at the time of this report writing. We assume building loads will be typical for this construction type.

2.0 FINDINGS

2.1 SITE HISTORY
To understand site development history and geomorphology, we reviewed historical aerial photographs and topographic maps. We viewed numerous historical aerial photographs from 1948 through 2025 available on Google Earth, www.historicaerials.com, Environmental Data Resources (EDR), Frame Finder – UCSB Library, and NGMDB (USGS/AASG). We also viewed historical topographic maps dating back to 1897 to understand the site history before aerial photographic coverage was available. Topographic maps show the site’s ground surface between approximately Elevation 400 feet and 375 feet (datum unknown), with no evidence of major topographic changes since early mapping. Our observations are summarized below in chronological order.

At least late 1890s to early 1980s: The topographic maps from 1897 and 1902 show no structures or roads mapped within the site (Exhibit 2.1-1, A - 1897). By the 1948 aerial photograph, structures were still not present within the site, and no roads were visible. The site and surrounding area appear to have been used for agricultural cultivation, specifically orchards (Exhibit 2.1-1, B - 1948). By 1953, two residential structures were built along the northern boundary of the site (10857 and 10867 Linda Vista Drive) (Exhibit 2.1-1, C - 1965). The southern portions of the site are still being utilized for orchards at this time, and other residential houses were developed to the south of the site.
1980s through mid-1990s: The structure at 10887 Linda Vista Drive was built by 1968 and 10877 Linda Vista Drive by 1982 and the orchard within the southern portions of the site was removed (Exhibit 2.1-1, D - 1991). The area surrounding the site continued to be developed with more residential structures (generally to the south, east, and north). Some trees are present within the site in landscaped areas.

Early 1990s to Present: The current site conditions generally remain unchanged from 1991 to present day.
136
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
136 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 3 May 2, 2025
EXHIBIT 2.1-1: Topographic Maps and Aerial Photographs
A - 1897 B - 1948 C - 1965
D -1991 E - 2002 F - 2020

2.2 GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY

2.2.1 Regional Geology
The site is located within the Coast Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Coast Ranges province is typified by a system of northwest-trending, fault-bounded mountain ranges and intervening alluvial valleys. Bedrock in the Coast Ranges consists of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks that range in age from Jurassic to Pleistocene. The present physiography and geology of the Coast Ranges are the result of deformation and deposition along the tectonic boundary between the North American plate and the Pacific plate. Plate boundary fault movements are largely concentrated along the well-known fault zones, which in the area include the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults, as well as other lesser-known faults.

According to regional mapping by Brabb et al. (2000, Figure 3), the site is underlain primarily by Pleistocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits and lies just northeast of the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault zone. Dibblee (2007) mapped the site as being primarily underlain by Quaternary aged older surficial sediments derived from hills to the west comprised of Santa Clara Formation and Franciscan Formation bedrock.

2.2.2 Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay Area contains numerous active faults. An active fault is defined by the California Geologic Survey as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,700 years) (CGS, 2018). Numerous small earthquakes occur every year in the San Francisco Bay Region, and larger earthquakes have been recorded and can be expected 137
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
137 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 4 May 2, 2025
to occur in the future. Figure 4 shows the approximate locations of these faults and significant historic earthquakes recorded within the San Francisco Bay Region. The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. However, the site is located in a Santa Clara County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone (2012, Figure 6) associated with the Monte Vista-Shannon fault.

The site is within a seismically active region. To identify nearby active faults that can generate strong seismic ground shaking at the site, we utilized the USGS Earthquake Hazard Toolbox and the 2018 National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) to perform a disaggregation of the hazard at the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for a 2,475-year return period, with the resulting faults listed below in Table 2.2.2-1.

TABLE 2.2.2-1: Active Faults Capable of Producing Significant Ground Shaking at the Site (Latitude: 37.31014 Longitude: -122.06033)

FAULT NAME

RUPTURE DISTANCE, RRUP MOMENT MAGNITUDE

KILOMETERS MILES (MW)
Monte Vista-Shannon (3) 1.8 1.1 7.2
Monte Vista-Shannon (4) 1.9 1.2 6.7
San Andreas (Peninsula) (2) 6.0 3.7 7.8
San Andreas (Peninsula) (1) 6.4 4.0 7.4
Monte Vista-Shannon (3) 6.7 4.2 6.6
San Andreas (Santa Cruz Mountains) (0) 15.9 9.9 7.2
Hayward (South) (1) 23.0 14.3 7.3
* Based on USGS Earthquake Hazard Toolbox: NSHM Conterminous U.S. 2018 These results represent known fault sources contributing at least 1 percent to the seismic hazard in our disaggregation. The rupture distances (RRUP) and mean moment magnitudes (MW) listed are based on values assigned according to the 2018 NSHM, and the numbers in parentheses after the fault names correspond to fault subsections assigned by the NSHM. Note that the above fault table is not an exhaustive list and other faults in the region may generate seismic shaking at the project site.

The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3) (Field et al, 2015) estimates the 30-year probability for a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake in Northern California at approximately 95 percent, considering the known active seismic sources in the region.

2.3 PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATIONS

2.3.1 ENGEO. 2024a. Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration.

As mentioned in Section 1.1, we previously prepared a preliminary geotechnical exploration at the subject site for the current project. We retained the services of a licensed C-57 contractor operating a truck-mounted cone penetration test (CPT) rig to advance CPTs at the four locations shown in Figure 2. The CPTs were performed in general accordance with ASTM D5778.

Measurements include the tip resistance to penetration of the cone (Qc), the resistance of the friction sleeve (Fs), and pore pressure (U) (Robertson and Campanella, 1988). The CPTs were advanced to practical refusal ranging between approximate depths of 9 feet to 58½ feet below ground surface (bgs). Pore pressure dissipation tests were performed at three CPT locations; none encountered groundwater.
138
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
138 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 5 May 2, 2025
The contractor performed shear-wave velocity (VS) measurements in 1-CPT1 using procedures in general accordance with ASTM D5778 and ASTM D7400. We present the CPT logs and the VS profile in Appendix B.

We incorporated the data from this previous exploration into our analysis and findings of this report.

2.3.2 ENGEO. 2024b. Fault Exploration.

We previously prepared a fault exploration report for the subject property which involved excavating three fault trenches in the southeastern portion of the site to evaluate the potential for surface fault rupture at the site and within the proposed development areas. The trenches were excavated along a roughly east-northeast trend to be perpendicular to the mapped trace of the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault, as shown in Figure 2. The trenches extended to a maximum depth of 10 feet bgs and constituted roughly 280 linear feet of excavation. We encountered older alluvial deposits consistent with the geologic maps and previous studies.

We found no evidence of a surface fault rupture within our trenches across the project site and our study found no evidence to suggest that the Monte Vista-Shannon Fault is present at the site.

We present the trench logs in Appendix B. We incorporated the data from this previous exploration into our analysis and findings of this report.

2.4 CURRENT FIELD EXPLORATION
Our current field exploration included drilling three borings at various locations on the site. We performed our field exploration on April 3, 2025. The approximate locations of our borings are shown in Figure 2.

We estimated the locations of our explorations using consumer-grade global positioning system (GPS) and their proximity to existing site features; therefore, the locations shown should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. We permitted our explorations with Valley Water (formerly Santa Clara Valley Water District).

We retained the services of a drilling subcontractor who provided a crew operating a truck-mounted drill rig to advance the borings using 4-inch-diameter solid-flight-auger and mud rotary drilling methods. We advanced the borings to depths ranging from approximately 30 to 48 feet bgs. A representative of our firm observed the drilling and logged the subsurface conditions at each location.

We obtained soil samples at various depth intervals using either standard penetration test (SPT) samplers with a 2-inch outside diameter (O.D.) split-spoon sampler or California Modified samplers with 2½-inch inside diameter (I.D.) fitted with sampling liners. We advanced the driven samplers with an automatic trip, 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch free fall and recorded the penetration of the sampler in the field as the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 18 inches in 6-inch increments. The boring log shows the number of blows required for the last 1 foot of penetration, or the number of blows per depth of penetration for samples that met driving refusal. We did not adjust the blow counts shown in the boring logs using any energy correction or sample size factors.

The boring logs are presented in Appendix A. The logs depict interpreted subsurface conditions within the borings at the time the exploration was conducted. The stratification lines in our logs 139
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
139 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 6 May 2, 2025
represent the approximate boundaries between soil types and the actual material transitions may be more gradual. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from the conditions noted at these boring locations.

2.5 SURFACE CONDITIONS
There was no appreciable difference at the project site between our current exploration in April 2025 and our previous exploration in August 2024. The surface conditions at the site generally consisted of residential structures and vegetated areas. Site grades range from Elevation 391 in the northeast to Elevation 397 in the southwest (NAVD88). The site is generally flat with a gentle slope from west to east. The western boundary of the site sits atop an approximately 2½:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope that is approximately 50 feet in height.

Approximately 8 feet below the top of the slope is a bench that makes up the existing Stevens Creek Trail. The bench is approximately 8½ feet wide and ranges in elevation from Elevation 388 feet in the south and Elevation 389½ feet in the north as the trail parallels the project site boundary.

Please refer to the Site Plan, Figure 2, for more information on site features.

2.6 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Based on our interpretation of the CPT data, fault trenches, and borings, the subsurface conditions at the site generally consist of loose to medium dense clayey sand and stiff to very stiff lean clay in the upper 3 to 7 feet of the site, underlain by medium dense to very dense poorly graded sand with clay, clayey gravel, and clayey sand with interbedded lenses of very stiff to hard fine-grained material and dense to very dense silty sand to the maximum depth explored of 58½ feet bgs. As noted in the fault evaluation, deposits encountered were consistent with Pleistocene age deposits.

The results of our plasticity index (PI) testing for materials near the ground surface between 1 and 2½ feet yielded PI results ranging from 10 to 11, which indicates low expansion potential.

2.7 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Based on equilibrium pore pressure not being achieved in our CPT pore pressure dissipation tests, we conclude that we did not observe static groundwater in our explorations, which extended to a maximum depth of approximately 58 feet. The Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Cupertino quadrangle reports a historical high groundwater depth of greater than approximately 50 feet below the ground surface for the site (CGS, 2002).

Fluctuations in groundwater levels should be expected during seasonal changes or over a period of years because of precipitation changes, perched zones, and changes in irrigation and drainage patterns.

2.8 LABORATORY TESTING
We performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples to evaluate their engineering properties.

For this project, we performed moisture content, plasticity index, gradation, hydrometer, and soil corrosion potential testing. Moisture content, fines content, and plasticity index results are recorded in the boring logs in Appendix A; other laboratory data is included in Appendix B. 140
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
140 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 7 May 2, 2025

2.9 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

2.9.1 Method of Analysis
Geotechnical evaluation of slope stability involves assessment of the input parameters along with the selected method of analysis. While there are many different methods of stability analysis and numerous available computer programs, we selected the program SLIDE2, by Rocscience.

SLIDE2 is a two-dimensional limit equilibrium program that is widely used in slope stability evaluations. We used Spencer’s Method, which is an iterative solution that satisfies both force and moment equilibrium and assumes all slice side forces have the same inclination. This method is appropriate for both circular and non-circular failure surfaces; for this evaluation, we considered only circular failure surfaces.

In evaluating the stability of slopes under seismic conditions, we used a “pseudostatic” method of analysis. This has been a common method of evaluating the stability of engineered slopes during earthquakes. The pseudostatic method models the effects of transient or pulsating earthquake loading on a potential slide mass by using an equivalent sustained horizontal force that is the product of a seismic coefficient and the weight of the potential slide mass. The slope is first analyzed to establish the minimum factor of safety under static conditions. Once this critical failure surface is located, an additional horizontal force acting in the direction of potential failure is imposed on the sliding mass. This additional force is equal to the soil mass multiplied by a seismic coefficient of horizontal acceleration.

For most pseudostatic stability analyses in the United States, a design seismic coefficient on the order of 0.05 g to 0.15 g has typically been used, where “g” is the ground acceleration expressed in terms of the equivalent acceleration due to Earth’s gravity. Using the procedure outlined in Special Publication 117A (California Geological Survey, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigation Seismic Hazards in California, 2008) and based on the maximum considered earthquake geometric mean peak ground acceleration (PGAm) from the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), a moment magnitude of 7.9 based on an earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, we obtained and used a seismic coefficient (Kh) of 0.34 g for our analysis using the 15-centimeter threshold.

2.9.2 Acceptable Factors of Safety
Based on local geotechnical practice, in our opinion, we recommend that a static factor of safety of 1.5 and a pseudostatic factor of safety of 1.0 be considered adequate for the proposed slopes.

We considered the various levels of conservatism involved in determining the engineering properties of the soil (density, shear strength, unit weight, etc.), the assumptions made in the method of analysis, and potential variations in field conditions.

2.9.3 Geometry and Idealized Soil Profiles
We reviewed the proposed preliminary grading plans to identify critical cross-sections to analyze for slope stability. We selected one cross section (A-A’) at the steepest grade of the adjacent slope. The location of the analyzed Cross Section A-A’ is shown in the Site Plan, Figure 2.

We developed an idealized profile representative of the anticipated subsurface conditions and proposed slope configurations at the cross-section location. For modeling the planned improvements, we referenced the proposed development plan for retaining wall location and building footprints. We applied surcharge loads at the proposed building footing print and roadways based on the development plan. Cross Section A-A’ is shown in Appendix D. 141
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
141 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 8 May 2, 2025
To develop our shear strength parameters, we used the subsurface information obtained from our field exploration, laboratory test results, and engineering judgement. We also referred to shear strength parameters for geologic units presented in the Seismic Hazard Zone report for the Cupertino quadrangle (CGS, 2002). Based on our review of the data and our experience, we selected the following parameters to represent lower-bound shear strengths for the native geologic units used in our slope stability models.

TABLE 2.9.3-1: Strength Parameters for Slope Stability Analysis

MATERIAL UNIT WEIGHT
(pcf)

COHESION
(psf)
PHI
(degrees)
Surficial deposits – Lean Clay and Clayey Sand 120 150 28 Pleistocene Deposits – Poorly Graded Sand with Low
Fines Content 120 100 35
Pleistocene Deposits – Clayey Gravel and Clayey Sand 120 200 38 Pleistocene Deposits – Silt and Lean Clay 120 200 28

2.9.4 Results of Analyses
We performed slope stability analyses for both static and pseudostatic conditions. The results of our analyses are summarized in the table below and are included in Appendix D.

TABLE 2.9.4-1: Summary of Slope Stability Analyses

FACTOR OF SAFETY

LOCATION STATIC PSEUDOSTATIC
(0.31g)
Cross-Section A-A’ 1.5 1.0

2.10 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
According to the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Cupertino Quadrangle (CGS, 2002) the site is not located within a liquefaction hazard zone. However, the CGS (2002) and Santa Clara County (SCC, 2012) Santa Clara County Hazard Zones (SCC, 2012) (Figure 6), identify the property immediately west of the project site as an area that lies within a liquefaction hazard zone, as shown in Figure 5. Note that the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps provide potential liquefaction risks based on general geologic conditions.

Soil liquefaction results from loss of strength during cyclic loading, such as imposed by earthquakes. The soil considered most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine sand below the groundwater table. Empirical evidence indicates that loose silty sand is also potentially liquefiable. When seismic ground shaking occurs, the soil is subjected to cyclic shear stresses that can cause excess hydrostatic pressures to develop. If excess hydrostatic pressures exceed the effective confining stress from the overlying soil, it is said to have liquefied. If the sand consolidates or vents to the surface during and following liquefaction, ground settlement, and surface deformation may occur. In addition to liquefaction of sandy materials, clayey soil can also undergo “cyclic softening” or strength loss as a result of cyclic loading.

We encountered medium dense to very dense sand in our CPTs and borings. Laboratory testing on samples collected from the borings revealed appreciable fines content in the sand. We did not encounter groundwater in our subsurface explorations, and the historic depth to groundwater at 142
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
142 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 9 May 2, 2025
the site is over 50 feet below ground surface (CGS 2002). Therefore, we conclude the risk of liquefaction at the site is low.

2.11 DYNAMIC DENSIFICATION SETTLEMENT
Dynamic densification settlement of loose granular soil above the groundwater table, also called dry-sand settlement, can cause settlement of the ground surface due to earthquake-induced vibrations. Dynamic densification is generally a higher risk for sand or gravel with fines contents less than 15 percent. Our previous CPT-based analysis of potential dynamic densification settlement for sand layers above the groundwater table indicated up to 1 inch of settlement at the site, with most densification settlement occurring within a fine-grained to silty sand lens at depths of approximately 24 to 28 feet below ground surface. However, our boring explorations and laboratory testing revealed the subsurface conditions at these depths at the site have higher fines contents than previously shown in the CPTs. We evaluated the dynamic-densification potential of sandy layers with fines content less than 15 percent using the procedures outlined in Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) and Robertson and Shao (2010). Based on our analysis, we estimate up to ½ inch of dry-sand densification is possible under the maximum considered earthquake (MCEG) seismic event.

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
From a geotechnical engineering viewpoint, in our opinion, the site is suitable for the proposed development, provided the geotechnical recommendations in this report are properly incorporated into the design plans and specifications, and finalized with additional explorations.

The primary geotechnical concerns that could affect development on the site are existing fill, expansive soil, and seismically induced settlement (i.e., dry sand settlement). We summarize our conclusions below.

3.1 EXISTING FILL
Our borings encountered approximately 1½ feet of fill across the site. This depth of fill is consistent with typical depth of disturbance associated with orchards, which were present at the site.

Non-engineered fill is also possible to exist around existing structures and in-place improvements, such as abandoned septic systems.

Existing, non-engineered fill may undergo excessive settlement, especially under new fill or building loads. Without proper documentation of the existing fill placed on the site, we recommend complete removal and recompaction of the existing fill. We anticipate manmade debris within the existing fill can be selectively removed from the material before reuse as engineered fill. We present fill removal recommendations in Section 5.2.

3.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS
Potential seismic hazards resulting from a nearby moderate to major earthquake can generally be classified as primary and secondary. The primary effect is ground rupture, also called surface faulting. The common secondary seismic hazards include ground shaking and liquefaction. Based on site observations, topographic and lithologic data, subsurface data, and regional geology, the risk of regional subsidence or uplift, landslides, tsunamis, or seiches are considered low to negligible at the site.
143
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
143 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 10 May 2, 2025
The following sections present a discussion of select seismic hazards as they apply to the site.

3.2.1 Ground Rupture
The site is located within a Santa Clara County Fault Rupture Hazard Zone, as shown in Figure 6.

According to USGS (2022), the Monte Vista-Shannon fault zone is located less than ¼ mile east and west of the project site. We performed a fault trench study (ENGEO, 2024b) to evaluate possible ground rupture. Based on our findings, the risk of ground rupture within the site is low.

3.2.2 Ground Shaking
An earthquake of moderate to high magnitude generated within the region could cause considerable ground shaking at the site, similar to that which has occurred in past major events.

To mitigate the effects of ground shaking, all structures should be designed using sound engineering judgment and in accordance with the latest edition of the California Building Code (CBC), as a minimum.

Seismic design provisions of current building codes generally prescribe minimum lateral forces, applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of dead and live loads. The code-prescribed lateral forces are generally considered to be substantially smaller than the actual forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Therefore, structures should be able to:
(1) resist minor earthquakes without damage, (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage, but with some non-structural damage, and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural, as well as non-structural damage. Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a well-designed and well-constructed structure will not collapse or cause loss of life in a major earthquake. Section 3.4 presents the 2022 California Building Code design parameters.

3.2.3 Liquefaction
As summarized in Section 2.10, the site does not lie within a liquefaction hazard zone, though the area immediate to the west of our site does.

Considering the granular deposits encountered in our explorations were medium dense to very dense sand and we did not encounter groundwater in our subsurface explorations, the potential for liquefaction at the site is low.

3.2.4 Dynamic Densification
As summarized in Section 2.11, medium dense to very dense granular material was encountered above the design groundwater level. Based on our analyses described in Section 2.11, we estimate potential dynamic densification settlements of up to ½ inch. This densification settlement should be considered in the foundation design provided in Section 6.0.

3.2.5 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a failure within a nearly horizontal soil zone (possibly due to liquefaction) that causes the overlying soil mass to move towards a free face or down a gentle slope. Generally, 144
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
144 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 11 May 2, 2025
the effects of lateral spreading are most significant at the free face or the crest of a slope and diminish with distance from the slope.

The western boundary of the site sits atop an approximately 2½:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope that is approximately 50 feet in height. However, the risk of liquefaction occurring and acting as the mechanism for lateral spread is low. Additionally, our pseudostatic slope stability analysis presented in Section 2.9 meets recommended factors of safety considering approximately 15 cm of deflection. Based on these factors, we conclude the risk of lateral spreading at the project site is low.

3.3 2022 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN
The 2022 CBC utilizes seismic design criteria established in the ASCE/SEI Standard “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures,” (ASCE 7-16). Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and shear-wave velocity measurements at 1-CPT1, we characterized the site as Site Class C. In Table 3.3-1 below, we provide the CBC seismic parameters based on the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS’) Seismic Design Maps for your use.

TABLE 3.3-1: 2022 CBC Seismic Design Parameters, Latitude: 37.31014 Longitude: -122.06033

PARAMETER VALUE
Site Class C
Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SS (g) 2.31 Mapped MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, S1 (g) 0.83 Site Coefficient, Fa 1.2
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.4
MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SMS (g) 2.77 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SM1 (g) 1.16 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods, SDS (g) 1.85 Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-second Period, SD1 (g) 0.78 Mapped MCE Geometric Mean (MCEG) Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA (g) 0.96 Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.2
MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration adjusted for Site Class effects, PGAM (g) 1.15 Long-period transition-period, TL 12 sec

3.4 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL
As part of this study, we obtained representative soil samples and submitted to Cerco Analytical, a qualified analytical lab for determination of pH, resistivity, sulfate, and chloride. The results are included in Appendix B and summarized in the table below.

TABLE 3.4-1: Corrosivity Test Results
SAMPLE

LOCATION
DEPTH
(feet) PH RESISTIVITY (OHMS-CM)

CHLORIDE
(MG/KG)

SULFATE
(MG/KG)
REDOX
(mV)
2-B1 1 7.28 4,800 < 15 < 15 240
2-B2 1.5 7.97 5,900 < 15 <15 240
145
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
145 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 12 May 2, 2025
The 2022 CBC references the 2019 American Concrete Institute Manual, ACI 318-19, Section 19.3.1 for concrete durability requirements. ACI Table 19.3.1.1 provides exposure categories and classes, and Table 19.3.2.1 provides requirements for concrete in contact with soil based upon the exposure class.

In accordance with the criteria presented in ACI Table 19.3.1.1, this soil is categorized as within the F0 freeze-thaw class, S0 sulfate exposure class, W0 moisture/water exposure class, and C0 corrosion class.

Considering a ‘Not Applicable’ sulfate exposure, there is no requirement for cement type or water-cement ratio; however, a minimum concrete compressive strength of 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi) is specified by the building code. For this sulfate range, we recommend Type II cement and a concrete mix design for foundations and building slabs-on-grade that incorporates a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.50. It should be noted, however, that the structural engineering design requirements for concrete may result in more stringent concrete specifications.

As part of their analyses, Cerco Analytical provided brief commentary based on the test results.

The full results are presented in Appendix B. We provide a summary of the commentary below. • Based on the resistivity measurements, the soil from both samples is considered “moderately corrosive” to buried metal piping. All buried iron, steel, cast iron, ductile iron, galvanized steel and dielectric coated steel or iron should be properly protected against corrosion depending upon the critical nature of the structure. All buried metallic pressure piping, such as ductile iron firewater, should be protected against corrosion.
• The reported values of chloride, sulfate, and pH concentrations do not pose a significant impact to metal or concrete.
• The reported value for redox potential is indicative of “slightly corrosive” soil resulting from anaerobic soil conditions.

The recommendations provided are for general reference. If it is desired to investigate this further, we recommend a corrosion consultant be retained to evaluate whether specific corrosion recommendations are advised for the project.

3.5 STATIC SETTLEMENT
Soil may settle in response to new loads induced by new fill, structures, or equipment. This settlement, if it occurs, may occur as immediate (elastic) or long-term consolidation settlement.

The site is primarily underlain by medium dense to very dense sandy soil. We anticipate building loads will apply to an average bearing pressure of up to 1,000 pounds per square foot (psf).

Considering the subsurface conditions and that site grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations in Section 5, we estimate less than ½ inch of elastic settlement due to static loading, with settlement occurring almost immediately upon construction of the building foundations.
146
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
146 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 13 May 2, 2025

4.0 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Our experience and that of our profession clearly indicate that the risk of costly design, construction, and maintenance problems can be significantly lowered by retaining the design geotechnical engineering firm to:

1. Review the final grading and foundation plans and specifications prior to construction to evaluate whether our recommendations have been implemented, and to provide additional or modified recommendations, as needed. This also allows us to check if any changes have occurred in the nature, design, or location of the proposed improvements and provides the opportunity to prepare a written response with updated recommendations.

2. Perform construction monitoring to check the validity of the assumptions we made to prepare this report. Earthwork operations should be performed under the observation of our representative to check that the site is properly prepared, the selected fill materials are satisfactory, and that placement and compaction of the fill have been performed in accordance with our recommendations and the project specifications. Sufficient notification to us prior to earthwork is important.

If we are not retained to perform the services described above, then we are not responsible for any party’s interpretation of our report (and subsequent addenda, letters, and verbal discussions).

5.0 EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
As used in this report, relative compaction refers to the in-place dry unit weight of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry unit weight of the same soil, as determined by the ASTM D1557 laboratory compaction test procedure, latest edition. Compacted soil is not acceptable if it is unstable; it should exhibit only minimal flexing or pumping, as observed by an ENGEO representative. The term “moisture condition” refers to adjusting the moisture content of the soil by either drying if too wet or adding water if too dry. We define “structural areas” as any area sensitive to settlement of compacted soil. These areas include, but are not limited to, building pads, sidewalks, pavement areas, and retaining walls.

5.1 DEMOLITION AND SITE PREPARATION
Site development should commence with the demolition and removal of surface and subsurface improvements that are planned for removal. Areas to be developed should be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious materials, including existing buildings and their associated foundations, slabs, buried utility and irrigation lines, pavements, debris, shrubs, and associated roots. Any existing features extending below the planned finished site grades should be demolished and backfilled with suitable material compacted to the recommendations presented in Section 5.5.

Existing vegetation and their roots should be removed from areas to receive fill or improvements.

Tree roots should be removed down to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing grade. Large vegetation and debris should be separately stockpiled from soil fill. Subject to approval by the landscape architect, stripping’s and organically contaminated soil can also be used in landscape areas. Organically contaminated soil that will be retained for future use in landscape areas should be stockpiled in areas where they will not interfere with grading operations.

All excavations from demolition and stripping below design grades should be cleaned to a firm undisturbed soil surface, as determined by our representative. 147
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
147 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 14 May 2, 2025

5.2 EXISTING FILL REMOVAL
As discussed in previous sections, existing disturbed soil is present at the site from previous site development. At this time, we consider this fill to be undocumented, non-engineered fill.

We recommend existing fill material and any other loose/soft material beneath the proposed improvements be removed to expose native soil conditions and replaced as engineered fill under the observation of our representative. Removal of potential existing fill surrounding below-grade elements, such as existing footings and underground utilities, can likely be achieved during excavation for demolition and removal of the below-grade structures. Our representative should confirm that excavation bottoms within existing fill expose material that is stiff and free of deleterious matter. The base of the subexcavation should be processed, moisture conditioned, and compacted as engineered fill.

5.3 SOIL MOISTURE CONDITIONS
The contractor may encounter excessively over-optimum (wet) soil moisture conditions during winter or spring grading, during or following periods of rain. Wet soil can make proper compaction difficult or impossible.

Wet soil conditions can be mitigated by:

1. Frequent spreading and mixing during warm dry weather,

2. Mixing with drier materials,

3. Mixing with a cement product, or

4. Stabilizing with aggregate or geotextile stabilization fabric, or both.

We should be allowed to evaluate options 3 and 4 and approve the approach prior to implementation.

5.4 ACCEPTABLE FILL
On-site soil is suitable as fill material provided it is processed to remove concentrations of organic material, debris, and rock particles greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Oversized particles should be either removed from the fill or broken down to meet the requirement. Imported fill material should meet the above requirements and have a PI less than 12 with approximately 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. We should be contacted to sample and test the proposed imported fill material at least 10 days prior to delivery to the site. Environmental sampling and testing of potential import soil sources should also be submitted to us for review.

5.5 FILL PLACEMENT

5.5.1 Structural Areas
After removal and recompaction of non-engineered fill, the exposed non-yielding surface of areas to receive fill or to be left at grade should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to provide adequate bonding with the initial lift of fill. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 8 inches or the depth of penetration of the compaction equipment used, whichever is less. The following compaction control requirements should be applied to all fill, including backfill, except for landscape areas.
148
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
148 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 15 May 2, 2025
TABLE 5.5.1-1: Compaction Control Requirements

FILL LOCATION

REQUIRED RELATIVE
COMPACTION*
(%)

MINIMUM

MOISTURE CONTENT
(percentage points above optimum)
General Fill 90 2
Pavement and Flatwork Aggregate Base 95 0

5.5.2 Landscape Areas
The contractor should compact the finished subgrade in landscape areas in accordance with Section 5.5.1, with a minimum relative compaction of 85 percent and at a moisture content of at least 2 percentage points above optimum.

5.6 SITE DRAINAGE

5.6.1 Surface Drainage
The project civil engineer is responsible for designing surface drainage improvements. With regard to geotechnical engineering issues, we recommend that finish grades be sloped away from buildings and pavements to the maximum extent practical. The latest California Building Code Section 1804.4 specifies minimum slopes of 5 percent away from foundations. Where development conditions restrict meeting this slope requirement, we recommend that specific drainage requirements be developed. As a minimum, we recommend the following.

1. Discharge roof downspouts into closed conduits and direct away from foundations to appropriate drainage devices.

2. Do not allow water to pond near foundations, pavements, exterior flatwork, or site walls.

5.6.2 Stormwater Bioretention Areas
If bioretention areas are implemented, we recommend that, when practical, they be planned a minimum of 5 feet away from structural site improvements, such as buildings, streets, retaining walls, and sidewalks/driveways. When this is not practical, bioretention areas located within 5 feet of structural site improvements can either:

1. Be constructed with structural side walls capable of withstanding the loads from the adjacent improvements, or

2. Incorporate filter material compacted to between 85 and 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557, latest edition) and a waterproofing system designed to reduce the potential for moisture transmission into the subgrade soil beneath the adjacent improvement.

In addition, one of the following options should be followed.

1. We recommend that bioretention design incorporate a waterproofing system lining the bioswale excavation and a subdrain, or other storm drain system, to collect and convey water to an approved outlet. The waterproofing system should cover the bioretention area excavation in such a manner as to reduce the potential for moisture transmission beneath the adjacent improvements.
149
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
149 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 16 May 2, 2025

2. Alternatively, and with some risk of movement of adjacent improvements, if infiltration is desired, we recommend the perimeter of the bioretention areas be lined with an HDPE tree root barrier that extends at least 1 foot below the bottom of the bioretention areas/infiltration trenches.

Site improvements located adjacent to bioretention areas that are underlain by baserock, sand, or other imported granular materials, should be designed with a deepened edge that extends to the bottom of the imported material underlying the improvement.

Where adjacent site improvements include buildings greater than three stories, streets steeper than 3 percent, or design elements subject to lateral loads (such as from impact or traffic patterns), additional design considerations may be recommended. If the surface of the bioretention area is depressed, the slope gradient should follow the slope guidelines described in earlier section(s) of this document. In addition, although not recommended, if trees are to be planted within bioretention areas, HDPE Tree Boxes that extend below the bottom of the bioretention system should be installed to reduce potential impact to subdrain systems that may be part of the bioretention area design. For this condition, the waterproofing system should be connected to the HPDE Tree Box with a waterproof seal.

Given the nature of bioretention systems and possible proximity to improvements, we recommend ENGEO be retained to review design plans and provide testing and observation services during the installation of linings, compaction of the filter material, and connection of designed drains.

It should be noted that the contractor is responsible for conducting all excavation and shoring in a manner that does not cause damage to adjacent improvements during construction and future maintenance of the bioretention areas. As with any excavation adjacent to improvements, the contractor should reduce the exposure time such that the improvements are not detrimentally impacted.

6.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS – RESIDENTIAL

STRUCTURES
We developed structural improvement recommendations using data obtained from our field exploration, laboratory test results, and engineering analysis.

Based on our slope stability analysis in Section 2.9, we recommend a 25-foot setback from the top of slope for any residential dwelling units. This setback is visually presented at its approximate location in Figure 2.

6.1 POST-TENSIONED MAT FOUNDATIONS
We recommend that the proposed residential structures be supported on post-tensioned (PT) mat foundations bearing on prepared native soil or engineered fill.

The structural engineer should determine the actual PT mat thickness using the geotechnical recommendations in this report; we defer to the professional judgment of the structural engineer on the necessary mat thickness. We recommend that PT mats have a thickened edge at least 2 inches greater than the mat thickness and that the thickened edge be at least 12 inches wide.

ENGEO should be retained to review the PT mat foundation design. 150
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
150 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 17 May 2, 2025
PT mats may be designed for an average allowable bearing pressure of up to 1,000 psf for dead-plus-live loads with maximum localized bearing pressures of 1,500 psf at column or wall loads. Allowable bearing pressures can be increased by one-third for wind or seismic loads.

Design PT mats using the criteria presented in Table 6.1-1 below.

TABLE 6.1-1: Post-Tensioned Mat Design Recommendations

CONDITION CENTER LIFT EDGE LIFT
Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em (feet) 9.0 5.0
Differential Soil Movement, ym (inches) 0.5 0.7
The above values are based on the procedure presented by the Post-Tensioning Institute “Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive and Stable Soils” (PTI DC10.5-19).

Underlay PT mats with a moisture reduction system as recommended below.

6.1.1 Slab Moisture Vapor Reduction
When buildings are constructed with concrete slab-on-grade, such as post-tensioned mats, water vapor from beneath the slab will migrate through the slab and into the building. This water vapor can be reduced but not stopped. Vapor transmission can negatively affect floor coverings and lead to increased moisture within a building. When water vapor migrating through the slab would be undesirable, we recommend the following to reduce, but not stop, water vapor transmission upward through the slab-on-grade.

1. Install a vapor retarder membrane directly beneath the slab. Seal the vapor retarder at all seams and pipe penetrations. Vapor retarders shall conform to Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E1745, latest edition, “Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs.”

2. Concrete shall have a concrete water-cement ratio of no more than 0.50.

3. Provide inspection and testing during concrete placement to check that the proper concrete and water-cement ratio are used.

4. Moist cure slabs for a minimum of 3 days or use other equivalent curing specific by the structural engineer.

The structural engineer should be consulted as to the use of a layer of clean sand or pea gravel (less than 5 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 Sieve) placed on top of the vapor retarder membrane to assist in concrete curing.

7.0 FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS – ANCILLARY

STRUCTURES
We developed structural improvement recommendations using data obtained from our field exploration, laboratory test results, and engineering analysis.

In general, ancillary structures can be supported on conventional footings or helical piles. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the foundation design. 151
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
151 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 18 May 2, 2025

7.1 CONVENTIONAL FOOTINGS

7.1.1 Footing Dimensions and Allowable Bearing Capacity Provide minimum footing dimensions as follows in Table 7.1.1-1 below.

TABLE 7.1.1-1: Minimum Footing Dimensions
FOOTING TYPE *MINIMUM DEPTH
(inches)

MINIMUM WIDTH
(inches)
Continuous 18 18
Isolated 18 24
*Below lowest adjacent pad grade
Minimum footing depths shown above are taken from lowest adjacent pad grade. Any cold joints between the exterior footing and slab-on-grade should be located at least 4 inches above adjacent exterior grade.

Design foundations recommended above for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,500 psf for dead-plus-live loads. Increase this bearing capacity by one-third for the short-term effects of wind or seismic loading.

The maximum allowable bearing pressure is a net value; the weight of the footing may be neglected for design purposes. Footings located adjacent to utility trenches should have their bearing surfaces below an imaginary 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) plane projected upward from the bottom edge of the trench to the footing.

7.1.2 Foundation Lateral Resistance
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction along the base and by passive pressure along the sides of foundations. The passive pressure is based on an equivalent fluid pressure in pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend the following allowable values for design. • Passive Lateral Pressure: 300 pcf
• Coefficient of Friction: 0.35
The values above are unfactored and an appropriate factor of safety should be included, as necessary, based on the method of analysis and design combination. We recommend half of the passive resistance to be used if both passive pressure and friction are used in combination. The upper 1 foot of soil should be excluded from passive pressure computations unless it is confined by pavement or a concrete slab. Additionally, passive pressure should be ignored where lateral confinement is less than 10 feet to daylight. Based on the proposed wall layout and existing grades of the slope, passive resistance should be ignored at elevations above 389 feet (NAVD88).

Foundations may require deepening to meet these conditions.

7.2 HELICAL PILES
It is our understanding from you that the retaining walls may be supported utilizing helical piles.

However, vertical helical piles will not provide significant lateral load resistance so grade beams or battered piles may be necessary.

Helical piles should be designed according to the soil parameters listed below. 152
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
152 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 19 May 2, 2025
Table 7.2-1: Helical Pier Design Soil Parameters
SOIL MATERIALS UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) FRICTION ANGLE
(degrees)

COHESION
(psf)
Foundation Soils 125 26 0
A minimum length should be determined to ensure helical piles achieve adequate lateral confinement with the adjacent slope to the west. Lateral and axial capacity of the piles should not be considered until 10 feet of lateral confinement from the adjacent slope is achieved. Based on the proposed wall layout and existing grades of the slope, pile capacity should be ignored at elevations above 389 feet (NAVD88).

To achieve lateral resistance within a helical pile system, we recommend that the helical piles are connected to a pile cap. The pile cap may provide an unfactored passive resistance of 300 pcf (as discussed in Section 7.1.2). If additional lateral resistance is necessary, the helical piles may be battered. Lateral resistance from battered piles should be ignored within the active soil pressure zone of the retained soil, which can be considered as an imaginary line starting 5 feet inward from the base of the back of the wall and extending upward into the retained soil at an angle of (45 + φ/2).

7.2.1 Construction Considerations
A contractor experienced in the construction of helical piles should perform the construction. The successful performance of helical wall systems is dependent on proper installation methods. The geotechnical engineer should perform full-time monitoring of helical pile installation and testing.

Localized areas of dense soil should be anticipated during installation, which may make installation difficult or infeasible. Therefore, it may be necessary to predrill helical piles prior to installation. Helical piles must achieve the design embedment length and torque requirements regardless of drilling conditions.

An appropriate testing program should be developed for our approval. The load-testing program should consider alternative soil conditions and methods, such as predrilling, employed during construction.

8.0 SLABS-ON-GRADE

8.1 EXTERIOR FLATWORK
Exterior flatwork includes items such as concrete sidewalks, steps, and outdoor courtyards exposed to foot traffic only. Provide a minimum section of 4 inches of concrete over 4 inches of aggregate base. Compact the aggregate base to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557). Thicken flatwork edges to at least 8 inches to help control moisture variations in the subgrade and place wire mesh or rebar within the middle third of the slab to help control the width and offset of cracks. Construct control and construction joints in accordance with current Portland Cement Association Guidelines.

8.2 TRENCH BACKFILL
Backfill and compact all trenches below building slabs-on-grade and to 5 feet laterally beyond any edge in accordance with Section 5.5.
153
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
153 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 20 May 2, 2025

9.0 RETAINING WALLS

9.1 LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES
Design proposed retaining walls to resist lateral earth pressures from adjoining natural materials and/or backfill and from any surcharge loads. Provided that adequate drainage is included as recommended below, design walls restrained from movement at the top to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pcf. In addition, design restrained walls to resist an additional uniform pressure equivalent to one-half of any surcharge loads applied at the surface.

Design unrestrained retaining walls with adequate drainage to resist an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf plus one-third of any surcharge loads.

The above lateral earth pressures assume level backfill conditions and sufficient drainage behind the walls to prevent any build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration and/or a rise in the groundwater level. If adequate drainage is not provided, we recommend that an additional equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pcf be added to the values recommended above for both restrained and unrestrained walls. Damp-proofing of the walls should be included in areas where wall moisture would be problematic.

Construct a drainage system, as recommended below, to reduce hydrostatic forces behind the retaining wall.

9.2 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE
Construct either graded rock drains or geosynthetic drainage composites behind the retaining walls to reduce hydrostatic lateral forces. For rock drain construction, we recommend two types of rock drain alternatives.

1. A minimum 12-inch-thick layer of Class 2 Permeable Filter Material (Caltrans Specification 68-2.02F) placed directly behind the wall, or

2. A minimum 12-inch-thick layer of washed, crushed rock with 100 percent passing the ¾-inch sieve and less than 5 percent passing the No. 4 sieve. Envelop rock in a minimum 6-ounce, non-woven geotextile filter fabric.

For both types of rock drains:

1. Place the rock drain directly behind the walls of the structure.

2. Extend rock drains from the wall base to within 12 inches of the top of the wall.

3. Place a minimum of 4-inch-diameter perforated pipe (glued joints and end caps) at the base of the wall, inside the rock drain and fabric, with perforations placed down.

4. Place pipe at a gradient at least 1 percent to direct water away from the wall by gravity to a drainage facility.

ENGEO should review and approve geosynthetic composite drainage systems prior to use.

9.3 BACKFILL
Backfill behind retaining walls should be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 5.5.

Use light compaction equipment within 5 feet of the wall face. If heavy compaction equipment is used, the walls should be temporarily braced to avoid excessive wall movement. 154
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
154 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 21 May 2, 2025

9.4 FOUNDATIONS
Site walls may be supported on continuous footings designed in accordance with recommendations presented in Section 7.1, except the minimum embedment depth should be increased to 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade, or helical piers design in accordance with recommendations presented in Section 7.2. Walls along the western site boundary at the top of the slope may be supported on helical piers only.

10.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN

10.1 PRELIMINARY FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
Because of the variable near-surface soil, it is our opinion that a resistance value (R-value) of 5 is applicable for preliminary design. The R-value of the subgrade should be confirmed during site grading. Using estimated traffic indexes (TI) for various pavement loading requirements, we developed the following recommended pavement sections using Topic 633 of the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (including the asphalt factor of safety), presented in the table below.

TABLE 10.1-1: Recommended Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections

TRAFFIC INDEX

SECTION

HOT MIX ASPHALT
(inches)
CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE
(inches)
5 3 10
6 3½ 13
7 4 16
8 5 18
The civil engineer should determine the appropriate traffic indexes based on the estimated traffic loads and frequencies. The minimum pavement section(s) should be confirmed by the civil engineer and local jurisdiction (such as City or County).

Pavement materials and construction should comply with the specifications and requirements of the Standard Specifications by Caltrans, the local jurisdiction, and our compaction recommendations in Section 9.3.

10.2 RIGID PAVEMENTS
Use concrete pavement sections to resist heavy loads and turning forces in areas such as fire lanes or trash enclosures. We recommend the following minimum design sections for rigid pavements. • Use a minimum section of 6 inches of Portland Cement concrete over 4 inches of Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base
• Concrete pavement should have a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 3,500 psi • Provide minimum control joint spacing in accordance with Portland Cement Association Guidelines
Final design of rigid pavement sections and accompanying reinforcement should be performed based on estimated traffic loads and frequencies.
155
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
155 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 22 May 2, 2025

10.3 SUBGRADE AND AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTION
Compact finish subgrade and aggregate base in accordance with Section 5.5. Aggregate base should meet the requirements for ¾-inch maximum Class 2 Aggregate Base in accordance with Section 26-1.02B of the latest Caltrans Standard Specifications.

10.4 CUTOFF CURBS
Saturated pavement subgrade or aggregate base can cause premature failure or increased maintenance of asphalt concrete pavements. This condition often occurs where landscape areas directly abut and drain toward pavements. If desired to install pavement cutoff barriers, they should be considered where pavement areas lie downslope of any landscape areas that are to be sprinklered or irrigated, and should extend to a depth of at least 4 inches below the base rock layer. Cutoff barriers may consist of deepened concrete curbs or deep-root moisture barriers.

If reduced pavement life and greater than normal pavement maintenance are acceptable to the owner, then the cutoff barrier may be eliminated.

11.0 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
This report presents geotechnical recommendations for design of the improvements discussed in Section 1.3 for the 10857 Linda Vista Drive Project. If changes occur in the nature or design of the project, we should be allowed to review this report and provide additional recommendations, if any. It is the responsibility of the owner to transmit the information and recommendations of this report to the appropriate organizations or people involved in design of the project, including but not limited to developers, owners, buyers, architects, engineers, and designers. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are solely professional opinions and are valid for a period of no more than 2 years from the date of report issuance.

We strive to perform our professional services in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices currently employed in the area; there is no warranty, express or implied. There are risks of earth movement and property damages inherent in building on or with earth materials.

We are unable to eliminate all risks; therefore, we are unable to guarantee or warrant the results of our services.

This report is based upon field and other conditions discovered at the time of report preparation.

We developed this report with limited subsurface exploration data. We assumed that our subsurface exploration data are representative of the actual subsurface conditions across the site. Considering possible underground variability of soil and groundwater, additional costs may be required to complete the project. We recommend that the owner establish a contingency fund to cover such costs. If unexpected conditions are encountered, ENGEO must be notified immediately to review these conditions and provide additional and/or modified recommendations, as necessary.

Our services did not include excavation sloping or shoring, soil volume change factors, flood potential, or a geohazard exploration. In addition, our geotechnical exploration did not include work to determine the existence of possible hazardous materials. If any hazardous materials are encountered during construction, the proper regulatory officials must be notified immediately. 156
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
156 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
Page | 23 May 2, 2025
This document must not be subject to unauthorized reuse, that is, reusing without written authorization of ENGEO. Such authorization is essential because it requires ENGEO to evaluate the document’s applicability given new circumstances, not the least of which is passage of time.

Actual field or other conditions will necessitate clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes to ENGEO’s documents. Therefore, ENGEO must be engaged to prepare the necessary clarifications, adjustments, modifications, or other changes before construction activities commence or further activity proceeds. If ENGEO’s scope of services does not include on-site construction observation, or if other persons or entities are retained to provide such services, ENGEO cannot be held responsible for any or all claims arising from or resulting from the performance of such services by other persons or entities, and from any or all claims arising from or resulting from clarifications, adjustments, modifications, discrepancies, or other changes necessary to reflect changed field or other conditions.

We determined the lines designating the interface between layers on the exploration logs using visual observations. The transition between the materials may be abrupt or gradual. The exploration logs contain information concerning samples recovered, indications of the presence of various materials such as clay, sand, silt, rock, existing fill, etc., and observations of groundwater encountered. The field logs also contain our interpretation of the subsurface conditions between sample locations. Therefore, the logs contain both factual and interpretative information. Our recommendations are based on the contents of the final logs, which represent our interpretation of the field logs.
157
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
157 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
May 2, 2025

SELECTED REFERENCES
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM). Annual Book of Standards.

American Concrete Institute (ACI). 2019. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19). ACI Committee 318 Structural Building Code.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). 2016. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-16.

Brabb, E. E., Graymer, R.W., and Jones, D.L., 2000, Geologic Map and Map Database of the Palo Alto 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California, U.S. Geological Survey California Building Code. 2022.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2020. Highway Design Manual.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2002. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Cupertino

7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Santa Clara County, California. Seismic Hazard Zone Report 068.

California Geological Survey (CGS). 2018. Earthquake Fault Zones – A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners / Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California: Special Publication 42 (SP42). Available at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Documents/Publications/SpecialPublications/SP_042.pdf.

CBG Engineers. 2025. Preliminary Grading Plan (C4.0) and Preliminary Grading Sections (C4.1). 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, CA. February 3, 2025.

CLiq. 2023. Geologismiki Geotechnical Software. Version 3.5.2.22.

Dibblee, Thomas W. 2007. Geologic map of the Cupertino San Jose West Quadrangle, Santa Clara County, California, 1:24,000.

ENGEO. 2024a. DRAFT Preliminary Geotechnical Exploration Report, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California. July 3, 2024. Project No. 25712.000.001.

ENGEO. 2024b. Fault Exploration, 10857 Linda Vista Drive, Cupertino, California. September 20, 2024, Revised October 24, 2024. Project No. 25712.000.001.

Field, E.H., and 2014 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities. 2015. UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California’s complex fault system: U.S. Geological Survey 2015–3009, 6 p., https://dx.doi.org/10.3133/fs20153009.

Historical Aerials. Accessed in March 2025 from www.historicaerials.com.

Robertson, P.K. and Shao, L. 2010. Estimation of Seismic Compression in Dry Soils Using the CPT. International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. 18.
158
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
158 of 2331
SummerHill Homes 10857 Linda Vista Drive
25712.000.001 Design-Level Geotechnical Exploration
SELECTED REFERENCES (Continued)
May 2, 2025
Robertson, P. K. and Campanella, R. G. 1988. Guidelines for Geotechnical Design Using CPT and CPTU Data. Civil Engineering Department, University of British Columbia.

Robertson, P. K. 2009. Performance based earthquake design using the CPT, Gregg Drilling and Testing, Inc.

Santa Clara County (SCC). 2012. Geologic Hazard Zones.

Seed, R.B., et al. 2003. Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent Framework, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 2003-06, University of California, Berkeley.

Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). 1999. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (Blue Book).

Tokimatsu, K., & Seed, H. B. 1987. Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking. Journal of geotechnical engineering, 113(8), 861-878.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2022. Interactive U.S. Fault Map. September 27. https://www.usgs.gov/tools/interactive-us-fault-map.

Willis et al. 2015. A next-generation Vs30 map for California based on geology and topography.

Bulletin of the Seismology Society of America.

Youd, T. L. and I. M. Idriss. 2001. Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soil.

Zhang, G. Robertson. P.K, Brachman, R. 2002. Estimating Liquefaction Induced Ground Settlements from the CPT, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: pp 1168-1180. 159
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
159 of 2331

FIGURES
FIGURE 1: Vicinity Map
FIGURE 2: Site Plan
FIGURE 3: Regional Geologic Map
FIGURE 4: Regional Faulting and Seismicity Map
FIGURE 5: Seismic Hazards Zone Report
FIGURE 6: Santa Clara County Geologic Hazards Zone
FIGURE 7: City of Cupertino Geologic Hazards Zone
160
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
160 of 2331
FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO. :

COPYRIGHT @ 2025 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_24000 TO 25999\25712\25712000001\GEOTECH\GEX\10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE.APRX LAYOUT: 01. VICINITY 8.5 X 11 PORTRAIT USER: NCLOUGH
SCALE: AS SHOWN 1 NWC JTR
25712.000.001

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

VICINITY MAP
SITE
SITE

NO SCALE
BASEMAP SOURCE: ENGEO INC, ESRI WORLD TOPO MAP
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
280
101
880
85 DRAFT 161
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
161 of 2331
II
I
I
I
I
&
&
&
1-T1
1-T2 1-T3
1-CPT1
1-CPT3
1-CPT4
1-CPT2
2-B2
2-B1
2-B3
COPYRIGHT @ 2025 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_24000 TO 25999\25712\25712000001\GEOTECH\GEX\10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE.APRX LAYOUT: 02. SITE PLAN 8.5 X11 LANDSCAPE USER: NCLOUGH
SCALE: AS SHOWN 2
FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: NWC CHECKED BY: JTR
PROJECT NO. : 25712.000.001

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

SITE PLAN
BASEMAP SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH MAPPING SERVICE, 2025
0 50 100
FEET

EXPLANATION
──────────────────────────────────────── ALL LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE Project Site
25 Foot Residential Structural Setback From Top of Slope Slope Stability Cross Section
II Fault Trench (ENGEO, 2024)
& Boring (ENGEO, 2025)
Cone Penetration Test (ENGEO, 2024) Linda Vista Drive
A A'
DRAFT 162
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
162 of 2331
COPYRIGHT @ 2025 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR
PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_24000 TO 25999\25712\25712000001\GEOTECH\LINDA VISTA FAULT EVALUATION\25712000001_LINDAVISTAFAULTEVALUATION.APRX LAYOUT: 03. GEOLOGIC 8.5 X 11 PORTRAIT USER: NCLOUGH
3 FIGURE NO. GEOLOGIC MAP
SITE
BASEMAP SOURCE: BRABB,
GRAYMER, AND JONES, 2000
0 2,000 4,000
FEET

EXPLANATION
Contact - Depositional or intrusive
contact, dashed where approximately
located, dotted where concealed
Fault - Dashed where approximately
located, small dashes where inferred,
dotted where concealed, queried where
location is uncertain
Strike and dip of bedding
Qhaf
db
Qpaf
fl
Qhl
Tvq
Tblc
fs
Tmb
af Artificial fill (Historic)
Qhl Natural levee deposits (Holocene)
Landslide deposits
(Holocene and/or Pleistocene) Qls
Qhaf Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Holocene)
Alluvial fan and fluvial deposits
(Pleistocene) Qpaf
Santa Clara Formation
(lower Pleistocene and upper Pliocene) QTsc
Tm Monterey Formation (middle Miocene)
Vaqueros Sandstone
(lower Miocene and Oligocene) Tvq
Mindego Basalt and related volcanic rocks
(Miocene and/or Oligocene) Tmb
Tblc Conglomerate
Tu Unnamed sedimentary rocks (Eocene?)
fs Sandstone
fg Greenstone
fl Limestone
Chert fc
fsr Sheared rock (Melange)
db Diabase and gabbro (Jurassic?)
?
35 DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO. :

SCALE: AS SHOWN

NWC JTR
25712.000.001

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
DRAFT 163
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
163 of 2331

ALAMEDA
COUNTY

AMADOR COUNTY

CALAVERAS
COUNTY
CONTRA
COSTA
COUNTY

FRESNO COUNTY
MADERA
COUNTY

MARIN COUNTY

MARIPOSA
COUNTY

MERCED COUNTY

MONTEREY
COUNTY
NAPA
COUNTY

SACRAMENTO
COUNTY

SAN BENITO
COUNTY
SAN

FRANCISCO
COUNTY

SAN JOAQUIN
COUNTY

SAN MATEO
COUNTY

SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

SANTA CRUZ
COUNTY

SOLANO COUNTY

SONOMA COUNTY

STANISLAUS
COUNTY

TUOLUMNE
COUNTY

YOLO COUNTY
SITE

EXPLANATION
COPYRIGHT @ 2024 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_24000 TO 25999\25712\25712000001\GEOTECH\GEX\10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE.APRX LAYOUT: 04. FAULT&SEISMICITY 11 X 17 LANDSCAPE USER: MHAWKINS ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR 4
FIGURE NO.

DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

SCALE: AS SHOWN
PROJECT NO. : 25712.000.001

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

REGIONAL FAULTING AND SEISMICITY MAP
Project Site

HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS
Magnitude 5-6 Magnitude 6-7 Magnitude 7+ Historic Blind Thrust Fault Zone QUATERNARY FAULTS 2020
Based on time of most recent surface
deformation Historical (<150 Years), Well
Constrained Location Historical (<150 Years), Moderately Constrained Location Historical (<150 Years), Inferred
Location Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years),
Well Constrained Location Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years), Moderately Constrained Location Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years), Inferred Location Latest Quaternary (<15,000 Years),
Inferred Location Late Quaternary (<130,000 Years),
Moderately Constrained Location Late Quaternary (<130,000 Years), Inferred Location Middle And Late Quaternary
(<750,000 Years), Well Constrained
Location Middle And Late Quaternary
(<750,000 Years), Moderately
Constrained Location Middle And Late Quaternary
(<750,000 Years), Inferred Location Undifferentiated Quaternary(<1.6 Million Years), Well Constrained
Location Undifferentiated Quaternary(<1.6
Million Years), Moderately
Constrained Location Undifferentiated Quaternary(<1.6
Million Years), Inferred Location Class B (Various Age), Well Constrained Location Class B (Various Age), Moderately
Constrained Location Class B (Various Age), Inferred
Location
0 7.5 15
MILES
BASE MAP SOURCE:

CITY OF CUPERTINO, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS, ESRI, TOMTOM, GARMIN, SAFEGRAPH, GEOTECHNOLOGIES, INC, METI/NASA, USGS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, EPA, NPS,

USDA, USFWS, CSUMB, ESRI, GARMIN, NATURALVUE, ESRI, GEBCO, GARMIN, NATURALVUE, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS, ESRI, TOMTOM, GARMIN, SAFEGRAPH, FAO, METI/NASA,

USGS, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, EPA, NPS, USFWS
COLOR HILLSHADE IMAGE BASED ON THE NATIONAL ELEVATION DATA SET (NED) AT 30 METER RESOLUTION U.S.G.S. QUATERNARY FAULT DATABASE, 2020
C.G.S. HISTORIC EARTHQUAKE DATABASE NWC
JTR
DRAFT
164
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
164 of 2331
SITE
COPYRIGHT @ 2025 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_24000 TO 25999\25712\25712000001\GEOTECH\GEX\10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE.APRX LAYOUT: 05. SEISMIC HAZARD ZONE MAP 8.5 X 11 PORTRAIT USER: NCLOUGH 5 FIGURE NO. SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP
BASEMAP SOURCE: ESRI MAPPING SERVICE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, CUPERTINO QUADRANGLE, 2002 Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zones
Areas Where The Previous Occurrence Of Landslide
Movement, Or Local Topographic, Geological, Geotechnical And Subsurface Water Conditions Indicate A Potential For Permanent Ground Displacements Such That Mitigation As
Defined In Public Resources Code Section 2693(C) Would
Be Required.

Liquefaction Zones
Areas Where The Historical Occurrence Of Liquefaction, Or Local Geological, Geotechnical And Groundwater Conditions Indicate A Potential For Permanent Ground Displacements Such That Mitigation As Defined In Public Resources Code Section 2693(C) Would Be Required

EXPLANATION
─────────────────────────────────────
0 1,000 2,000
FEET
DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:

PROJECT NO. :

SCALE: AS SHOWN

NWC JTR
25712.000.001

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE
DRAFT 165
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
165 of 2331
SITE

EXPLANATION
────────────────────────────────────────
Project Site
County Fault Rupture Hazard Zones
County Landslide Hazard Zones
County Liquefaction Hazard Zones
6 DRAWN BY: NWC CHECKED BY: JTR
PROJECT NO. : 25712.000.001

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

SANTA CLARA COUNTY GEOLOGIC HAZARD ZONES
BASEMAP SOURCE: ESRI WORLD TOPO MAP; AND SANTA CLARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 2002 0 1,000 2,000
FEET
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_24000 TO 25999\25712\25712000001\GEOTECH\LINDA VISTA FAULT EVALUATION\25712000001_LINDAVISTAFAULTEVALUATION.APRX LAYOUT: 05. SANTA CLARA COUNTY GEOLOGIC HAZARD ZONES 8.5 X 11 PORTRAIT USER: NCLOUGH COPYRIGHT @ 2025 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR
FIGURE NO.

DRAFT 166
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
166 of 2331
7 DRAWN BY: NWC CHECKED BY: JTR
PROJECT NO. : 25712.000.001

CUPERTINO, CALIFORNIA
10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE

CITY OF CUPERTINO GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS MAP
BASEMAP SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH MAPPING
SERVICE 2025; AND, COTTON SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC., 2003 0 500 1,000
FEET

EXPLANATION
────────────────────────────────────────
Project Site
F Fault Rupture (Cotton, Shires & Associates, 2003)
H Hillside (Cotton, Shires & Associates, 2003)
L Liquefaction/Inundation (Cotton, Shires & Associates, 2003) S Slope Instability (Cotton, Shires & Associates, 2003) V Valley Floor (Cotton, Shires & Associates, 2003)
Fault Trace (Hitchcock, 1994)
SCALE: AS SHOWN
PATH: G:\DRAFTING\PROJECTS\_24000 TO 25999\25712\25712000001\GEOTECH\GEX\10857 LINDA VISTA DRIVE.APRX LAYOUT: 07. CITY OF CUPERTINO GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS MAP 8.5 X 11 PORTRAIT USER: NCLOUGH COPYRIGHT @ 2025 BY ENGEO INCORPORATED. THIS DOCUMENT MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, NOR MAY IT BE QUOTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF ENGEO INCORPORATED.

ORIGINAL FIGURE PRINTED IN COLOR
FIGURE NO.

Known Fault (Cotton, Shires & Associates, 2003)
Inferred Fault (Cotton, Shires & Associates, 2003)
Concealed Fault (Cotton, Shires & Associates, 2003)
DRAFT 167
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
167 of 2331

APPENDIX A

KEY TO BORING LOGS

BORING LOGS
168
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
168 of 2331
SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50%
SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMITS 50% OR LESS

DESCRIPTION

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS

SILTS AND CLAYS
200 40 10 4

MAJOR TYPES
GW - Well graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures
SC - Clayey sand, sand-clay mixtures
OL - Low plasticity organic silts and clays
MH - Inorganic silt with high plasticity
CH - Inorganic clay with high plasticity
OH - Highly plastic organic silts and clays
FINE

RELATIVE DENSITY

BLOWS/FOOT

GRAIN SIZES

KEY TO BORING LOGS

MEDIUM COARSE
3" 12"

COBBLES BOULDERS FINE COARSE
PT - Peat and other highly organic soils
ML - Inorganic silt with low to medium plasticity

SAND GRAVEL

LINE TYPES
_ _ _ _ _ _ GROUND-WATER SYMBOLS

MOISTURE CONDITION
GP - Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures

SANDS AND GRAVELS
GM - Silty gravels, gravel-sand and silt mixtures
GC - Clayey gravels, gravel-sand and clay mixtures
SW - Well graded sands, or gravelly sand mixtures
SP - Poorly graded sands or gravelly sand mixtures
CL - Inorganic clay with low to medium plasticity
SILTS
AND
CLAYS

SAMPLER SYMBOLS

CONSISTENCY
U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE SIZE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS SM - Silty sand, sand-silt mixtures
3/4 "

GRAVELS

MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTION

IS LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE
SANDS

MORE THAN HALF

COARSE FRACTION

IS SMALLER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE SIZE

CLEAN GRAVELS WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

GRAVELS WITH OVER
12 % FINES

CLEAN SANDS WITH

LITTLE OR NO FINES

SANDS WITH OVER
12 % FINES COARSE-GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN HALF OF MAT'L LARGER THAN #200 SIEVE THAN #200 SIEVE FINE-GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN HALF OF MAT'L SMALLER

VERY LOOSE
LOOSE

MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE

VERY DENSE
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
OVER 50

VERY SOFT
SOFT

MEDIUM STIFF
STIFF

VERY STIFF
HARD
0-250
250-500
500-1,000
1,000-2,000
2,000-4,000
> 4,000
DRY
MOIST
WET
Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to touch
Damp but no visible water
Visible freewater
Solid - Layer Break
Dashed - Gradational or approximate layer break
Groundwater level during drilling
Stabilized groundwater level
Modified California (3-inch O.D.) Sampler
California (2.5-inch O.D.) Sampler
S.P.T. Split Spoon (2-inch O.D.) Sampler
Shelby Tube
Continuous Core
Bag Samples
Grab Samples
No Recovery
Expect Excellence
NOTES

1. Standard Penetration Tests (S.P.T.) number of blows for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch O.D. (1-3/8-inch I.D.) sampler, assuming 60% hammer efficiency

2. Approximate shear strength measured in field at time of drilling in units of pounds per square foot
(S.P.T.)1 APPROXIMATE SHEAR
STRENGTH (PSF)2
169
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
169 of 2331
170
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
170 of 2331
171
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
171 of 2331
172
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
172 of 2331
173
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
173 of 2331
174
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
174 of 2331
175
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
175 of 2331
176
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
176 of 2331

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TEST DATA
177
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
177 of 2331
= = =
= = =
= = =
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 150 | San Ramon, CA 94583 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 4/25/2025
TESTED BY: Y. Cabrales
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: SummerHill Homes
PROJECT NAME: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
PROJECT NO: 25712.000.001 PH003
PROJECT LOCATION:
* (no specification provided)
Cupertino, CA

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 725.82 g
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30 D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 14

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:
10 2-B1@10'
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

COARSE FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

MEDIUM FINE
14 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in. 1 ½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
178
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
178 of 2331
= = =
= = =
= = =
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 150 | San Ramon, CA 94583 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 4/25/2025
TESTED BY: Y. Cabrales
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: SummerHill Homes
PROJECT NAME: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
PROJECT NO: 25712.000.001 PH003
PROJECT LOCATION:
* (no specification provided)
Cupertino, CA

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
LL = PI =

0.0750 mm

COEFFICIENTS
D90 15.5543 mm D85 12.7000 mm D60 4.5000 mm
D50 2.6207 mm D30 0.5224 mm D15
ASTM D6913, Method A

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
100
95 85
79 61
45 35
28 23
19 17
15 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:
26 2-B1@26'
34 16 17 13
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

COARSE FINE COARSE
5 DEPTH (ft):

MEDIUM FINE
15 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in. 1 ½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
179
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
179 of 2331
= = =
= = =
= = =
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 150 | San Ramon, CA 94583 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 4/25/2025
TESTED BY: Y. Cabrales
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: SummerHill Homes
PROJECT NAME: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
PROJECT NO: 25712.000.001 PH003
PROJECT LOCATION:
* (no specification provided)
Cupertino, CA

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS = CL
D10 Cu Cc
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
USCS: ASTM D2487
LL = 25 PI = 11

COEFFICIENTS
D90 3.5158 mm D85 1.3038 mm D60 0.0864 mm
D50 0.0486 mm D30 0.0120 mm D15
ASTM D422

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200

0.0310 mm.

0.0201 mm.

0.0119 mm.

0.0085 mm.

0.0060 mm.

0.0030 mm.

0.0013 mm.
100.0

98.2 97.3

95.1 91.6

87.0 83.0

79.6 75.4

68.8 63.3

57.6 42.1

35.2 29.9

28.2 25.6

21.2 17.5

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL = 14
SAMPLE ID:
2 2-B2@2

6.6 4.6 7.4 22.0
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

COARSE FINE COARSE

1.8 DEPTH (ft):

MEDIUM FINE

38.1 19.5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in. 1 ½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
180
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
180 of 2331
= = =
= = =
= = =
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 150 | San Ramon, CA 94583 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 4/25/2025
TESTED BY: Y. Cabrales
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: SummerHill Homes
PROJECT NAME: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
PROJECT NO: 25712.000.001 PH003
PROJECT LOCATION:
* (no specification provided)
Cupertino, CA

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS =
D10 Cu Cc
Soak time = 180 min
Dry sample weight = 98.61 g
LL = PI =

COEFFICIENTS
D90 D85 D60
D50 D30 D15
ASTM D1140, Method B

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
#200 27.5

ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL =
SAMPLE ID:

15.5-16
[email protected]'
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

COARSE FINE COARSE
DEPTH (ft):

MEDIUM FINE

27.5 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in. 1 ½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
181
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
181 of 2331
= = =
= = =
= = =
DEPTH (ft):

MEDIUM FINE

33.9 17.9
SAMPLE ID:

1.5-2
[email protected]'

9.3 9.0 11.5 18.4
% FINES

SILT CLAY
% +75mm
% GRAVEL % SAND

COARSE FINE COARSE
ASTM D422

PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT
SIEVE
SIZE

PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*

PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)

SOIL DESCRIPTION
See exploration logs
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200

0.0319 mm.

0.0207 mm.

0.0121 mm.

0.0087 mm.

0.0061 mm.

0.0031 mm.

0.0013 mm.
100.0

98.2 96.5

90.7 81.7

74.7 70.2

65.9 60.6

56.9 51.8

37.4 31.5

27.3 24.8

24.0 19.7

16.1 ATTERBERG LIMITS
PL = 13 LL = 23 PI = 10

COEFFICIENTS
D90 4.4409 mm D85 2.7465 mm D60 0.1416 mm
D50 0.0674 mm D30 0.0171 mm D15
* (no specification provided)
Cupertino, CA

REMARKS

CLASSIFICATION
USCS = CL
D10 Cu Cc
Silt/clay division of 0.002mm used
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
USCS: ASTM D2487
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 150 | San Ramon, CA 94583 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com REPORT DATE: 4/25/2025
TESTED BY: Y. Cabrales
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
CLIENT: SummerHill Homes
PROJECT NAME: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
PROJECT NO: 25712.000.001 PH003
PROJECT LOCATION:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001

PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
6 in.
3 in.
2 in. 1 ½
in.
1 in.
¾ in.
½ in.
⅜ in.
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#140
#200
182
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
182 of 2331
B

MOISTURE-DENSITY DETERMINATION REPORT
ASTM D7263

SAMPLE ID
2-B3
@30'
DEPTH (ft.) 30
MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 19.5

METHOD A OR B
DRY DENSITY (pcf) 109.9
REPORT DATE: 4/25/2025
TESTED BY: Y. Cabrales
CLIENT: SummerHill Homes
PROJECT NAME: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
REVIEWED BY: G. Criste
PROJECT NO: 25712.000.001 PH003
PROJECT LOCATION: Cupertino, CA
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 150 | San Ramon, CA 94583 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (888) 279-2698 | www.engeo.com 183
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
183 of 2331
[email protected]'

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
ASTM D4318
2-B2@2'

SAMPLE ID TEST METHOD REMARKS
2633 Camino Ramon, Suite 150 | San Ramon, CA 94583 | T: (925) 355-9047 | F: (925) 355-9052 | www.engeo.com PROJECT LOCATION:

PROJECT NO:

PROJECT NAME:

CLIENT:

REPORT DATE:

Y. Cabrales
G. Criste
TESTED BY:

REVIEWED BY:
10857 Linda Vista Drive
2-B2@2' 2 See exploration logs 25 14
[email protected]' 1.5-2 See exploration logs 23 13
SAMPLE ID DEPTH (ft) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI
11 10
SummerHill Homes
25712.000.001 PH003
Cupertino, CA
4/25/2025
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
PI: ASTM D4318, Wet Method
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

PLASTICITY INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT
MH or OH
CH or OH
CL-ML ML or OL
CL or OL
Dashed Line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
184
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
184 of 2331
185
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
185 of 2331
186
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
186 of 2331
187
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
187 of 2331

APPENDIX C

PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS (ENGEO)
Cone Penetration Test Report
Trench Logs
188
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
188 of 2331
35(6(17$7,212)6,7(
,19(67,*$7,21 5(68/76
Prepared for:
&RQH7HF -RE 1R

3URMHFW 6WDUW 'DWH

3URMHFW (QG 'DWH

5HOHDVH 'DWH

5HSRUW Prepared by:

ZZZFRQHWHFFRP
ZZZFRQHWHFGDWDVHUYLFHVFRP
‹&RQH7HF*URXSRI&RPSDQLHV$OO5LJKWV5HVHUYHG 10857 Linda Vista Drive
ENGEO, Inc.
24-56-27871
2024-06-20
2024-06-20
2024-06-25
ConeTec, Inc.
506 De Carlo Ave, Richmond, CA 94801
Tel: (510) 357-3677
[email protected]
189
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
189 of 2331
$%2877+,65(3257
7KH HQFORVHG UHSRUW SUHVHQWV WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH VLWH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ SURJUDP FRQGXFWHG E\ IRU
3OHDVHQRWHWKDWWKLVUHSRUWZKLFKDOVRLQFOXGHVDOODFFRPSDQ\LQJGDWDDUHVXEMHFWWRWKHUG3DUW\'LVFODLPHUDQG&OLHQW 'LVFODLPHUWKDWIROORZLQWKHµ/LPLWDWLRQV¶VHFWLRQRIWKLVUHSRUW3OHDVHUHIHUWRWKHOLVWRIDWWDFKHGGRFXPHQWVIROORZLQJWKH WH[WRIWKLVUHSRUW$VLWHPDSWHVWVXPPDULHVDQGWHVWSORWVDUHDOOLQFOXGHGLQWKHERG\RIWKHUHSRUW 3URMHFW
Client
Project
ConeTec Project Number
7HVW7\SHV
$GGLWLRQDO&RPPHQWV
&RQWHQWV
The following listed below are included in the ERG\RIWKLVreport:
- 6LWH0DS
- /LPLWDWLRQVDQG&ORVXUH
- 3URMHFW,QIRUPDWLRQ
- 5HSRUW$SSHQGLFHV
- 6XSSRUWLQJ'RFXPHQWVDQG0DWHULDOV
ConeTec, Inc.

ENGEO, Inc..

ENGEO, Inc.
10857 Linda Vista Drive
24-56-27871
CPTu/SCPTu
None
190
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
190 of 2331
6,7(0$3
ConeTec Job Number:

Client:

Project:

Date:
$OOORFDWLRQVDUHDSSUR[LPDWHXQOHVVRWKHUZLVHVWDWHGLQWKHERG\RIWKHUHSRUW 24-56-27871
ENGEO, Inc.
10857 Linda Vista Drive
2024-06-25
191
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
191 of 2331
/,0,7$7,216
3rd Party Disclaimer
7KH³5HSRUW´UHIHUVWRWKLVUHSRUWWLWOHG

7KH5HSRUWZDVSUHSDUHGE\&RQH7HFIRU

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
WKHUHRI
Client Disclaimer
&RQH7HFZDVUHWDLQHGE\

7KH³5HSRUW´UHIHUVWRWKLVUHSRUWWLWOHG

&RQH7HFZDVUHWDLQHGWRFROOHFWDQGSURYLGHWKHUDZGDWD ³'DWD´
ZKLFKLVLQFOXGHGLQWKH5HSRUW
&RQH7HFKDVFROOHFWHGDQGUHSRUWHGWKH'DWDLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKFXUUHQWLQGXVWU\VWDQGDUGV1RRWKHUZDUUDQW\H[SUHVV RULPSOLHGZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKH'DWDLVPDGHE\&RQH7HF,QRUGHUWRSURSHUO\XQGHUVWDQGWKH'DWDLQFOXGHGLQWKH5HSRUW UHIHUHQFHPXVWEHPDGHWRWKHGRFXPHQWVDFFRPSDQ\LQJDQGRWKHUVRXUFHV UHIHUHQFHGLQWKH5HSRUWLQWKHLUHQWLUHW\ 2WKHUWKDQWKH'DWDWKHFRQWHQWVRIWKH5HSRUW
LQFOXGLQJDQ\,QWHUSUHWDWLRQV
VKRXOGQRWEHUHOLHGXSRQLQDQ\IDVKLRQ
ZLWKRXWLQGHSHQGHQWYHULILFDWLRQDQG&RQH7HFLVLQQRZD\UHVSRQVLEOHIRUDQ\ORVVGDPDJHRUH[SHQVHUHVXOWLQJIURP WKHXVHRIDQGRUUHOLDQFHRQVXFKPDWHULDOE\DQ\SDUW\ &ORVXUH
7KDQN \RX IRU WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR ZRUN RQ WKLV SURMHFW 7KH HTXLSPHQW XVHG DV ZHOO WKH ILHOG SURFHGXUHV IROORZHG DOOFRPSOLHGZLWKFXUUHQWDFFHSWHGEHVWSUDFWLFHVWDQGDUGV 5HSRUWSUHSDUHGE\

10857 Linda Vista Drive
ENGEO, Inc.

ENGEO, Inc.
10857 Linda Vista Drive
Alan Sweeney
Anthony Rasmussen
192
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
192 of 2331

PROJECT INFORMATION
Rig
Description Deployment System Test Type
C02-015 CPT Truck Rig Twin mounted cylinders CPTu/SCPTu Coordinates
Test Type Collection Method EPSG Number
CPTu/SCPTu Consumer Grade GPS 32610 (WGS84 / UTM Zone 10 North)
Piezocones Used for this Project
Cone Description Cone
Number
Cross
Sectional Area
(cm2)
Sleeve
Area
(cm2)
Tip
Capacity
(bar)
Sleeve
Capacity
(bar)
Pore Pressure
Capacity
(bar)
EC1061:T1500F15U35 1061 15 225 1500 15 35
The CPTu summary indicates which cone was used for each sounding.

Cone Penetration Test (CPTu)
Depth reference Depths are referenced to the existing ground surface at the time of each test.

Tip and sleeve data offset 0.1 Meters. This has been accounted for in the CPT data files.

Additional Comments None
193
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
193 of 2331
Calculated Geotechnical Parameters
Additional information
The Normalized Soil Behaviour Type Chart based on Qtn (SBT Qtn) (Robertson, 2009) was used to classify the soil for this project. A detailed set of calculated CPTu parameters have been generated and are provided in Excel format files in the release folder. The CPTu parameter calculations are based on values of corrected tip resistance (qt) sleeve friction (fs) and pore pressure (u2).

Effective stresses are calculated based on unit weights that have been assigned to the individual soil behaviour type zones and the assumed equilibrium pore pressure profile.

Soils were classified as either drained or undrained based on the Qtn Normalized Soil Behaviour Type Chart (Robertson, 2009). Calculations for both drained and undrained parameters were included for materials that classified as silt mixtures (zone 4).
194
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
194 of 2331

REPORT APPENDICES
The appendices listed below are included in the report:
 Cone Penetration Test (CPTu) Summary and Standard CPTu Plots  Advanced Cone Penetration Test Plots with Ic, Su(Nkt), Phi, and N1(60)Ic  Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots
 Pore Pressure Dissipation Test (PPDT) Summary and PPDT Plots  Seismic Cone Penetration Test (SCPTu) Tabular Results  SCPTu Test Plots
 SCPTu Velocity Wave Traces
 Supplementary Documents and Materials
195
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
195 of 2331
Cone Penetration Test (CPTu) Summary and Standard
CPTu Plots
196
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
196 of 2331
Job No: 24-56-27871
Client: ENGEO, Inc.Project: 10857 Linda Vista DriveStart Date: 20-Jun-2024End Date: 20-Jun-2024

CONE PENETRATION TEST SUMMARY
Sounding ID File Name Date Cone
Cone Area
(cm2)
Assumed Phreatic
Surface1
(ft)
Final
Depth
(ft)
Seismic
Intervals
Northing2
(m)
Easting2
(m)
Surface
Elevation³
(ft)
Refer to
Notation
Number
1-CPT1 24-56-27871_SP01 2024-06-20 1061:T1500F15U35 15 >58 58.40 18 4129708 583221 3971-CPT2 24-56-27871_CP02 2024-06-20 1061:T1500F15U35 15 >9 9.27 4129728 583270 394 1-CPT2B 24-56-27871_CP02B 2024-06-20 1061:T1500F15U35 15 >36 36.50 4129727 583269 394 1-CPT3 24-56-27871_CP03 2024-06-20 1061:T1500F15U35 15 >41 41.34 4129668 583245 3971-CPT4 24-56-27871_CP04 2024-06-20 1061:T1500F15U35 15 >44 44.46 4129677 583314 394 Totals 5 Soundings 189.96 ft

1. The phreatic surface is assumed to be beyond the depth of the sounding for the calculated parameters.2. The coordinates were collected using a consumer grade GPS receiver. EPSG number: 32610 (WGS84 / UTM Zone 10 North).3. Elevations taken from Google Earth.

Sheet 1 of 1 197
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
197 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rf (%)
0 50 100
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 08:13
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT1
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 17.800 m / 58.40 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_SP01.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129708m E: 583221m
Organic Soils Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Gravelly Sand to Sand Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Sand Mixtures Clays Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Undefined Ueq(ft)
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line 198
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
198 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rf (%)
0 50 100
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 11:05
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT2
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 2.825 m / 9.27 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_CP02.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129728m E: 583270m
Organic Soils Sands Sand Mixtures Sands
Sands
Sand Mixtures
Ueq(ft)
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line 199
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
199 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rf (%)
0 50 100
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 11:24
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT2B
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 11.125 m / 36.50 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_CP02B.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129727m E: 583269m
Undefined Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands
Sand Mixtures Gravelly Sand to Sand
Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Sands Gravelly Sand to Sand Sands
Undefined
Ueq(ft)
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line 200
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
200 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rf (%)
0 50 100
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 13:10
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT3
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 12.600 m / 41.34 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_CP03.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129668m E: 583245m
Sand Mixtures Sands Sand Mixtures Sands Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sands
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Silt Mixtures
Sands
Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures Sands Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures Sand Mixtures
Sands
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Ueq(ft)
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line 201
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
201 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rf (%)
0 50 100
u (ft)
0 3 6 9
SBT Qtn
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 12:23
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT4
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 13.550 m / 44.45 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_CP04.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129677m E: 583314m
Undefined Sands
Sand Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Sands Sands Sands
Sands
Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Clays
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand Silt Mixtures Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Silt Mixtures Clays Silt Mixtures Clays Sands Sand Mixtures Silt Mixtures Sands Silt Mixtures Sands
Undefined
Ueq(ft)
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line 202
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
202 of 2331
Advanced Cone Penetration Test Plots with Ic, Su(Nkt),
Phi, and N1(60)Ic
203
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
203 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 50 100
u (ft)

0.0 2.0 4.0
Ic (PKR 2009)
20 40 60
Phi (deg)
0 1 2 3 4
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0 50 100 150
N160 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 08:13
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT1
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 17.800 m / 58.40 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_SP01.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt/Ndu: 15.0 / 6.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129708m E: 583221m
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line Su(Ndu) N(60)Ic
204
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
204 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 50 100
u (ft)

0.0 2.0 4.0
Ic (PKR 2009)
20 40 60
Phi (deg)
0 1 2 3 4
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0 50 100 150
N160 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 11:05
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT2
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 2.825 m / 9.27 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_CP02.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt/Ndu: 15.0 / 6.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129728m E: 583270m
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line Su(Ndu) N(60)Ic
205
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
205 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 50 100
u (ft)

0.0 2.0 4.0
Ic (PKR 2009)
20 40 60
Phi (deg)
0 1 2 3 4
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0 50 100 150
N160 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 11:24
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT2B
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 11.125 m / 36.50 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_CP02B.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt/Ndu: 15.0 / 6.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129727m E: 583269m
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line Su(Ndu) N(60)Ic
206
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
206 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 50 100
u (ft)

0.0 2.0 4.0
Ic (PKR 2009)
20 40 60
Phi (deg)
0 1 2 3 4
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0 50 100 150
N160 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 13:10
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT3
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 12.600 m / 41.34 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_CP03.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt/Ndu: 15.0 / 6.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129668m E: 583245m
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line Su(Ndu) N(60)Ic
207
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
207 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)
0 50 100
u (ft)

0.0 2.0 4.0
Ic (PKR 2009)
20 40 60
Phi (deg)
0 1 2 3 4
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0 50 100 150
N160 (Ic RW1998) (bpf)
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 12:23
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT4
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 13.550 m / 44.45 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_CP04.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
Su Nkt/Ndu: 15.0 / 6.0
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129677m E: 583314m
Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Target Depth Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line Su(Ndu) N(60)Ic
208
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
208 of 2331
Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Scatter Plots
209
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
209 of 2331
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 08:13
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT1
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
210
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
210 of 2331
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 11:05
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT2
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
211
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
211 of 2331
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 11:24
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT2B
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
212
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
212 of 2331
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 13:10
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT3
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
213
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
213 of 2331
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 12:23
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT4
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Legend
Sensitive, Fine Grained
Organic Soils
Clays
Silt Mixtures
Sand Mixtures
Sands
Gravelly Sand to Sand
Stiff Sand to Clayey Sand
Very Stiff Fine Grained
Depth Ranges
>0.0 to 5.0 ft
>5.0 to 10.0 ft
>10.0 to 15.0 ft
>15.0 to 20.0 ft
>20.0 to 25.0 ft
>25.0 to 30.0 ft
>30.0 to 35.0 ft
>35.0 to 40.0 ft
>40.0 to 45.0 ft
>45.0 to 50.0 ft
>50.0 ft
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 Qtn,cs = 70
Ic = 2.6

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Qtn Chart (PKR 2009)
Legend
CCS (Cont. sensitive clay like)
CC (Cont. clay like)
TC (Cont. transitional)
SC (Cont. sand like)
CD (Dil. clay like)
TD (Dil. transitional)
SD (Dil. sand like)
CCS CC
TC
SC
CD
TD
SD

0.10 1.0 10.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Fr (%)
Qtn
Modified SBTn (PKR 2016)
Legend
Sensitive Fines
Organic Soil
Clay
Silty Clay
Clayey Silt
Silt
Sandy Silt
Silty Sand/Sand
Sand
Gravelly Sand
Stiff Fine Grained
Cemented Sand
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0

1.0 10.0
100
1000
Rf(%)
qt (bar)
Standard SBT Chart (UBC 1986)
214
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
214 of 2331
Pore Pressure Dissipation Test (PPDT) Summary and
PPDT Plots
215
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
215 of 2331
Job No: 24-56-27871
Client: ENGEO, Inc.

Project: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Start Date: 2024-06-20
End Date: 2024-06-20
CPTu PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION SUMMARY
Sounding ID File Name
Cone Area
(cm2
)
Duration
(s)
Test
Depth
(ft)
Estimated
Equilibrium Pore
Pressure Ueq
(ft)
Calculated
Phreatic Surface
(ft)
Refer to
Notation
Number
1-CPT1 24-57-27871_SP01 15 600 53.97 1
1-CPT2B 24-57-27871_CP02B 15 485 36.50 1
1-CPT3 24-57-27871_CP03 15 390 20.51 1
Totals 25 min

1. Equilibrium pore pressure not achieved.

Sheet 1 of 1 216
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
216 of 2331
0 150 300 450 600
0 10
20 30
40 Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
ENGEO
Job No: 24-57-27871
Date: 06/20/2024 08:13
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT1
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Trace Summary:

Filename: 24-57-27871_SP01.ppd2
Depth: 16.450 m / 53.969 ft
Duration: 600.0 s
u Min: 3.7 ft
u Max: 26.9 ft
u Final: 3.7 ft
217
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
217 of 2331
0 150 300 450 600
0 10
20 30
-10
Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
ENGEO
Job No: 24-57-27871
Date: 06/20/2024 11:24
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT2B
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Trace Summary:

Filename: 24-57-27871_CP02B.ppd2
Depth: 11.125 m / 36.499 ft
Duration: 485.0 s
u Min: -6.7 ft
u Max: 19.0 ft
u Final: -0.1 ft
218
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
218 of 2331
0 100 200 300 400
0 10
20 30
-10
Time (s)
Pore Pressure (ft)
ENGEO
Job No: 24-57-27871
Date: 06/20/2024 12:23
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT4
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35 Area=15 cm²
Trace Summary:

Filename: 24-57-27871_CP04.ppd2
Depth: 6.250 m / 20.505 ft
Duration: 390.0 s
u Min: -2.1 ft
u Max: 25.8 ft
u Final: -2.1 ft
219
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
219 of 2331
Seismic Cone Penetration Test (SCPTu) Tabular Results
220
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
220 of 2331
Job No: 24-56-27871
Client: ENGEO
Project: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding ID: 1-CPT1
Date: 6/20/2024
Seismic Source: Beam
Seismic Offset (ft): 1.97
Source Depth (ft): 0.00
Geophone Offset (ft): 0.66
SCPTu SHEAR WAVE VELOCITY TEST RESULTS - Vs
Tip
Depth
(ft)
Geophone
Depth
(ft)
Ray
Path
(ft)
Ray Path
Difference
(ft)
Travel Time
Interval
(ms)
Interval
Velocity
(ft/s)

2.79 2.13 3.91

6.07 5.41 6.33 2.42 3.01 804

9.35 8.69 9.29 2.96 3.21 923

12.63 11.97 12.42 3.12 2.73 1143

15.91 15.26 15.60 3.19 2.48 1287

19.19 18.54 18.82 3.22 2.39 1347

22.47 21.82 22.06 3.24 2.10 1543

25.75 25.10 25.31 3.25 1.78 1829

29.04 28.38 28.57 3.26 1.78 1834

32.25 31.59 31.76 3.20 1.64 1949

35.60 34.94 35.09 3.33 1.91 1741

38.88 38.22 38.36 3.27 1.90 1721

42.16 41.50 41.63 3.27 1.72 1900

45.44 44.78 44.90 3.27 1.71 1916

48.72 48.06 48.18 3.27 1.71 1916

52.00 51.35 51.45 3.27 1.76 1863

55.28 54.63 54.72 3.27 2.06 1590

58.40 57.74 57.84 3.11 1.65 1886
Sheet 1 of 1 221
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
221 of 2331
SCPTu Test Plots
222
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
222 of 2331
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes. 0 500 1000
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 5.0 10.0
fs (tsf)
0 50 100
u (ft)
0 1250 2500
Vs (ft/s)
ENGEO
Job No: 24-56-27871
Date: 2024-06-20 08:13
Site: 10857 Linda Vista Drive
Sounding: 1-CPT1
Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
Max Depth: 17.800 m / 58.40 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 24-56-27871_SP01.COR
Unit Wt: SBTQtn (PKR2009)
SBT: Robertson, 2009 and 2010
Coords: (UTM Zone 10 North) N: 4129708m E: 583221m
Ueq(ft)
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
Overplot Item: Ueq Assumed Ueq Dissipation, Ueq achieved Dissipation, Ueq not achieved Dissipation, Ueq assumed Hydrostatic Line 223
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
223 of 2331
SCPTu Velocity Wave Traces
224
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
224 of 2331
Job No: 24-56-27871 Client: ENGEO Project: 10857 Linda Vista Drive Analysis: Shear Wave Sounding: 1-CPT1 Filter: 10857 Linda Vist Date: 2024-06-20 Cone: 1061:T1500F15U35
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20
40 60
TIME (ms) DEPTH (ft)
225
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
225 of 2331

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
The documents and materials listed below are included in the report:
 Methodology Statements
 Cone Penetration Digital File Formats
 Description of Methods for Calculated CPTu Geotechnical Parameters  Calibration Records
226
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
226 of 2331
Methodology Statements
227
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
227 of 2331
Cone penetration tests (CPTu) are conducted using an integrated electronic piezocone penetrometer and data acquisition system manufactured by Adara Systems Ltd., a subsidiary of ConeTec.

ConeTec’s piezocone penetrometers are compression type designs in which the tip and friction sleeve load cells are independent and have separate load capacities. The piezocones use strain gauged load cells for tip and sleeve friction and a strain gauged diaphragm type transducer for recording pore pressure. The piezocones also have a platinum resistive temperature device (RTD) for monitoring the temperature of the sensors, an accelerometer type dual axis inclinometer and two geophone sensors for recording seismic signals. All signals are amplified and measured with minimum sixteen-bit resolution down hole within the cone body, and the signals are sent to the surface using a high bandwidth, error corrected digital interface through a shielded cable.

ConeTec penetrometers are manufactured with various tip, friction and pore pressure capacities in both 10 cm2 and 15 cm2
tip base area configurations in order to maximize signal resolution for various soil conditions. The specific piezocone used for each test is described in the CPT summary table. The 15 cm2 penetrometers do not require friction reducers as they have a diameter larger than the deployment rods. The 10 cm2 piezocones use a friction reducer consisting of a rod adapter extension behind the main cone body with an enlarged cross sectional area (typically 44 millimeters diameter over a length of 32 millimeters with tapered leading and trailing edges) located at a distance of 585 millimeters above the cone tip.

The penetrometers are designed with equal end area friction sleeves, a net end area ratio of 0.8 and cone tips with a 60 degree apex angle.

All ConeTec piezocones can record pore pressure at various locations. Unless otherwise noted, the pore pressure filter is located directly behind the cone tip in the “u2” position (ASTM Type 2). The filter is six millimeters thick, made of porous plastic (polyethylene) having an average pore size of 125 microns (90-160 microns). The function of the filter is to allow rapid movements of extremely small volumes of water needed to activate the pressure transducer while preventing soil ingress or blockage.

The piezocone penetrometers are manufactured with dimensions, tolerances and sensor characteristics that are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard. ConeTec’s calibration criteria also meets or exceeds those of the current ASTM D5778 standard. An illustration of the piezocone penetrometer is presented in Figure CPTu.

METHODOLOGY STATEMENTS
CONE PENETRATION TEST (CPTu) - eSeries
228
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
228 of 2331
The ConeTec data acquisition system consists of a Windows based computer, signal interface box, and power supply. The signal interface combines depth increment signals, seismic trigger signals and the downhole digital data. This combined data is then sent to the Windows based computer for collection and presentation. The data is recorded at fixed depth increments using a depth encoder that is either portable or integrated into the rig. The typical recording interval is 2.5 centimeters; custom recording intervals are possible.

The system displays the CPTu data in real time and records the following parameters to a storage media during penetration:
• Depth
• Uncorrected tip resistance (qc)
• Sleeve friction (fs)
• Dynamic pore pressure (u)
• Additional sensors such as resistivity, passive gamma, ultra violet induced fluorescence, if applicable All testing is performed in accordance to ConeTec’s CPTu operating procedures which are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 standard.

Figure CPTu. Piezocone Penetrometer (15 cm2)
229
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
229 of 2331
Prior to the start of a CPTu sounding a suitable cone is selected, the cone and data acquisition system are powered on, the pore pressure system is saturated with silicone oil and the baseline readings are recorded with the cone hanging freely in a vertical position.

The CPTu is conducted at a steady rate of two centimeters per second, within acceptable tolerances. Typically one meter length rods with an outer diameter of 1.5 inches are added to advance the cone to the sounding termination depth. After cone retraction final baselines are recorded.

Additional information pertaining to ConeTec’s cone penetration testing procedures:
• Each filter is saturated in silicone oil under vacuum pressure prior to use • Baseline readings are compared to previous readings
• Soundings are terminated at the client’s target depth or at a depth where an obstruction is encountered, excessive rod flex occurs, excessive inclination occurs, equipment damage is likely to take place, or a dangerous working environment arises
• Differences between initial and final baselines are calculated to ensure zero load offsets have not occurred and to ensure compliance with ASTM standards
The interpretation of piezocone data for this report is based on the corrected tip resistance (qt), sleeve friction (fs) and pore water pressure (u). The interpretation of soil type is based on the correlations developed by Robertson, P.K., 2010. The Soil Behavior Type (SBT) classification chart developed by Robertson, P.K., 2010 is presented in Figure SBT. It should be noted that it is not always possible to accurately identify a soil behavior type based on these parameters. In these situations, experience, judgment and an assessment of other parameters may be used to infer soil behavior type.

Figure SBT. Non-Normalized Soil Behavior Type Classification Chart (SBT) 230
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
230 of 2331
The recorded tip resistance (qc
) is the total force acting on the piezocone tip divided by its base area. The tip resistance is corrected for pore pressure effects and termed corrected tip resistance (qt) according to the following expression presented in Robertson et al. (1986):
qt = qc + (1-a) • u2
where: qt is the corrected tip resistance
qc is the recorded tip resistance
u2 is the recorded dynamic pore pressure behind the tip (u2 position) a is the Net Area Ratio for the piezocone (0.8 for ConeTec probes) The sleeve friction (fs) is the frictional force on the sleeve divided by its surface area. As all ConeTec piezocones have equal end area friction sleeves, pore pressure corrections to the sleeve data are not required.

The dynamic pore pressure (u) is a measure of the pore pressures generated during cone penetration. To record equilibrium pore pressure, the penetration must be stopped to allow the dynamic pore pressures to stabilize. The rate at which this occurs is predominantly a function of the permeability of the soil and the diameter of the cone.

The friction ratio (Rf) is a calculated parameter. It is defined as the ratio of sleeve friction to the tip resistance expressed as a percentage. Generally, saturated cohesive soils have low tip resistance, high friction ratios and generate large excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils have higher tip resistances, lower friction ratios and do not generate significant excess pore water pressure.

For additional information on CPTu interpretations and calculated geotechnical parameters, refer to Robertson et al. (1986), Lunne et al. (1997), Robertson (2009), Mayne (2013, 2014) and Mayne and Peuchen (2012).

REFERENCES
ASTM D5778-20, 2020, “Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520/D5778-20.

Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice”, Blackie Academic and Professional.

Mayne, P.W., 2013, “Evaluating yield stress of soils from laboratory consolidation and in-situ cone penetration tests”, Sound Geotechnical Research to Practice (Holtz Volume) GSP 230, ASCE, Reston/VA: 406-420. DOI: 10.1061/9780784412770.027.

Mayne, P.W. and Peuchen, J., 2012, “Unit weight trends with cone resistance in soft to firm clays”, Geotechnical and Geophysical Site Characterization 4, Vol. 1 (Proc. ISC-4, Pernambuco), CRC Press, London: 903-910.

Mayne, P.W., 2014, “Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests”, CPT’14 Keynote Address, Las Vegas, NV, May 2014.

Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, “Use of Piezometer Cone Data”, Proceedings of InSitu 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia.

Robertson, P.K., 2009, “Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 46: 1337- 1355. DOI: 10.1139/T09-065.

Robertson, P.K., 2010. Soil behavior type from the CPT: an update. 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, CPT’10, Huntington Beach, CA, USA
231
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
231 of 2331
The cone penetration test is halted at specific depths to carry out pore pressure dissipation (PPD) tests, shown in Figure PPD-1. For each dissipation test the cone and rods are decoupled from the rig and the data acquisition system measures and records the variation of the pore pressure (u) with time (t).

Figure PPD-1. Pore pressure dissipation test setup
Pore pressure dissipation data can be interpreted to provide estimates of ground water conditions, permeability, consolidation characteristics and soil behavior.

The typical shapes of dissipation curves shown in Figure PPD-2 are very useful in assessing soil type, drainage, in situ pore pressure and soil properties. A flat curve that stabilizes quickly is typical of a freely draining sand. Undrained soils such as clays will typically show positive excess pore pressure and have long dissipation times. Dilative soils will often exhibit dynamic pore pressures below equilibrium that then rise over time. Overconsolidated fine-grained soils will often exhibit an initial dilatory response where there is an initial rise in pore pressure before reaching a peak and dissipating.

Figure PPD-2. Pore pressure dissipation curve examples

PORE PRESSURE DISSIPATION TEST
In order to interpret the equilibrium pore pressure (ueq) and the apparent phreatic surface, the pore pressure should be monitored until such time as there is no variation in pore pressure with time as shown for each curve in Figure PPD-2. 232
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
232 of 2331
Shear wave velocity (Vs) testing is performed in conjunction with the piezocone penetration test (SCPTu) in order to collect interval velocities. For some projects seismic compression wave velocity (Vp) testing is also performed.

ConeTec’s piezocone penetrometers are manufactured with one horizontally active geophone (28 hertz) and one vertically active geophone (28 hertz). Both geophones are rigidly mounted in the body of the cone penetrometer, 0.2 meters behind the cone tip. The vertically mounted geophone is more sensitive to compression waves.

Shear waves are typically generated by using an impact hammer horizontally striking a beam that is held in place by a normal load. In some instances, an auger source or an imbedded impulsive source may be used for both shear waves and compression waves. The hammer and beam act as a contact trigger that initiates the recording of the seismic wave traces.

For impulsive devices an accelerometer trigger may be used. The traces are recorded in the memory of the cone using a fast analog to digital converter. The seismic trace is then transmitted digitally uphole to a Windows based computer through a signal interface box for recording and analysis. An illustration of the shear wave testing configuration is presented in Figure SCPTu-1.

Figure SCPTu-1. Illustration of the SCPTu system
All testing is performed in accordance to ConeTec’s SCPTu operating procedures which are in general accordance with the current ASTM D5778 and ASTM D7400 standards.

Prior to the start of a SCPTu sounding, the procedures described in the Cone Penetration Test section are followed. In addition, the active axis of the geophone is aligned parallel to the beam (or source) and the horizontal offset between the cone and the source is measured and recorded.

Prior to recording seismic waves at each test depth, cone penetration is stopped and the rods are decoupled from the rig to avoid transmission of rig energy down the rods. Typically, five wave traces for each orientation are recorded for quality control and uncertainty analysis purposes. After reviewing wave traces for consistency the cone is pushed to the next test depth (typically one meter intervals or as requested by the client). Figure SCPTu-2 presents an illustration of a SCPTu test.

For additional information on seismic cone penetration testing refer to Robertson et al. (1986).

SEISMIC CONE PENETRATION TEST (SCPTu) - eSeries
233
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
233 of 2331
Figure SCPTu-2. Illustration of a seismic cone penetration test For the determination of interval travel times the wave traces from all depths are displayed in analysis software.

The results of the interval picks are supplied in the relevant appendix of this report. Standard practice for ConeTec is to record five wave traces for each source direction at each test depth. Outlier impacts are identified in the field and the impacts are repeated. For the final wave trace profile, the traces are stacked in the time domain to display a single average trace.

Calculation of the interval velocities are performed by visually picking a common feature (e.g. the first characteristic peak, trough, or crossover) on all of the recorded wave sets and taking the difference in ray path divided by the time difference between subsequent features. Ray path is defined as the straight line distance from the seismic source to the geophone, accounting for beam offset, source depth and geophone offset from the cone tip.

In some cases, usually for shear wave velocity testing, more than one characteristic marker may be used. If there is an overlap between different sets of characteristic markers, then the average time value for those sets of interval times is applied to the determination of velocity.

Ideally, all depths are used for the determination of the velocity profile. However, an interval may be skipped if there is some ambiguity or quality concern with a particular depth, resulting in a larger interval.

Tabular velocity results and SCPTu plots are presented in the relevant appendix.

For all SCPTu soundings that have achieved a depth of at least 100 feet (30 meters), the average shear wave velocity to a depth of 100 feet (̅vs) has been calculated and provided for all applicable soundings using the following equation presented in ASCE (2010).
234
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
234 of 2331
v̅s=
∑i=1 di
∑
di
vsi
n
i=1
where: v̅s = average shear wave velocity ft/s (m/s)
di = the thickness of any layer between 0 and 100 ft (30 m) vsi = the shear wave velocity in ft/s (m/s)
n ∑i=1 di = the total thickness of all layers between 0 and 100 ft (30 m) Average shear wave velocity, ̅vs is also referenced to Vs100 or Vs30.

The layer travel times refers to the travel times propagating in the vertical direction, not the measured travel times from an offset source.

REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures”, Standard ASCE/ SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil Engineers, ISBN 978-0-7844-1085-1, Reston, Virginia. DOI: 10.1061/9780784412916.

ASTM D5778-20, 2020, “Standard Test Method for Performing Electronic Friction Cone and Piezocone Penetration Testing of Soils”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520/D5778-20.

ASTM D7400/D7400M-19, 2019, “Standard Test Methods for Downhole Seismic Testing”, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. DOI: 10.1520/D7400_D7400M-19.

Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie D and Rice, A., 1986, “Seismic CPT to Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity”, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 8: 791-803. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1986)112:8(791). 235
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
235 of 2331
Cone Penetration Digital File Formats
236
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
236 of 2331
CPT Data Files (COR Extension)
ConeTec CPT data files are stored in ASCII text files that are readable by almost any text editor. ConeTec file names start with the job number (which includes the two digit year number) an underscore as a separating character, followed by two letters based on the type of test and the sounding ID. The last character position is reserved for an identifier letter (such as b, c, d etc) used to uniquely distinguish multiple soundings at the same location. The CPT sounding file has the extension COR. As an example, for job number 21-02-00001 the first CPT sounding will have file name 21-02-00001_CP01.COR The sounding (COR) file consists of the following components:

1. Two lines of header information

2. Data records

3. End of data marker

4. Units information
Header Lines
Line 1: Columns 1-6 may be blank or may indicate the version number of the recording software Columns 7-21 contain the sounding Date and Time (Date is MM:DD:YY) Columns 23-38 contain the sounding Operator
Columns 51-100 contain extended Job Location information Line 2: Columns 1-16 contain the Job Location
Columns 17-32 contain the Cone ID
Columns 33-47 contain the sounding number
Columns 51-100 may contain extended sounding ID information Data Records
The data records contain 4 or more columns of data in floating point format. A comma and spaces separate each data item:

Column 1: Sounding Depth (meters)
Column 2: Tip (qc), recorded in units selected by the operator Column 3: Sleeve (fs), recorded in units selected by the operator Column 4: Dynamic pore pressure (u), recorded in units selected by the operator Column 5: Empty or may contain other requested data such as Gamma, Resistivity or UVIF data End of Data Marker
After the last line of data there is a line containing an ASCII 26 (CTL-Z) character (small rectangular shaped character) followed by a newline (carriage return / line feed). This is used to mark the end of data.

CONE PENETRATION DIGITAL
FILE FORMATS - eSeries
237
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
237 of 2331
Units Information
The last section of the file contains information about the units that were selected for the sounding. A separator bar makes up the first line. The second line contains the type of units used for depth, qc, fs and u. The third line contains the conversion values required for ConeTec’s software to convert the recorded data to an internal set of base units (bar for qc, bar for fs and meters for u). Additional lines intended for internal ConeTec use may appear following the conversion values.

CPT Data Files (XLS Extension)
Excel format files of ConeTec CPT data are also generated from corresponding COR files. The XLS files have the same base file name as the COR file with a -BSC suffix. The information in the file is presented in table format and contains additional information about the sounding such as coordinate information, and tip net area ratio.

The BSCI suffix is given to XLS files which are enhanced versions of the BSC files and include the same data records in addition to inclination data collected for each sounding.

CPT Dissipation Files (XLS Extension)
Pore pressure dissipation files are provided in Excel format and contain each dissipation trace that exceeds a minimum duration (selected during post-processing) formatted column wise within the spreadsheet. The first column (Column A) contains the time in seconds and the second column (Column B) contains the time in minutes. Subsequent columns contain the dissipation trace data. The columns extend to the longest trace of the data set.

Detailed header information is provided at the top of the worksheet. The test depth in meters and feet, the number of points in the trace and the particular units are all presented at the top of each trace column.

CPT Dissipation files have the same naming convention as the CPT sounding files with a “–PPD” suffix.

Data Records
Each file will contain dissipation traces that exceed a minimum duration (selected during post-processing) in a particular column. The dissipation pore pressure values are typically recorded at varying time intervals throughout the trace; rapidly to start and increasing as the duration of the test lengthens. The test depth in meters and feet, the number of points in the trace and the trace number are identified at the top of each trace column.

Cone Type Designations
Cone ID Cone Description Tip Cross
Sect. Area (cm2
)
Tip Capacity
(bar)
Sleeve Area
(cm2)**
Sleeve
Capacity (bar)
Pore Pressure
Capacity (bar)
EC### A15T1500F15U35 15 1500 225 15 35
EC### A15T375F10U35 15 375 225 10 35
EC### A10T1000F10U35 10 1000 150 10 35
### refers to the Cone ID number
**Outer Cylindrical Area
238
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
238 of 2331
Description of Methods for Calculated CPT Geotechnical
Parameters
239
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
239 of 2331

CALCULATED CPT GEOTECHNICAL PARAMETERS
A Detailed Description of the Methods Used in
ConeTec’s CPT Geotechnical Parameter
Calculation and Plotting Software
Revision SZW-Rev 18
Revised February 10, 2023
Prepared by Jim Greig, M.A.Sc, P.Eng (BC, AB, ON)
Limitations
The geotechnical parameter output was prepared specifically for the site and project named in the accompanying report subject to objectives, site conditions and criteria provided to ConeTec by the client. The output may not be relied upon by any other party or for any other site without the express written permission of ConeTec Group (ConeTec) or any of its affiliates. For this project, ConeTec has provided site investigation services, prepared factual data reporting and produced geotechnical parameter calculations consistent with current best practices.

No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made.

To understand the calculations that have been performed and to be able to reproduce the calculated parameters the user is directed to the basic descriptions for the methods in this document and the detailed descriptions and their associated limitations and appropriateness in the technical references cited for each parameter. 240
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
240 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 1 | 19 ConeTec’s Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters as of February 10, 2023.

ConeTec’s CPT parameter calculation and plotting routine provides a tabular output of geotechnical parameters based on current published CPT correlations and is subject to change to reflect the current state of practice.

Due to drainage conditions and the basic assumptions and limitations of the correlations, not all geotechnical parameters provided are considered applicable for all soil types. The results are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully examined for consideration in any geotechnical design. Reference to current literature is strongly recommended. ConeTec does not warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters calculated by the program and does not assume liability for any use of the results in any design or review. For verification purposes we recommend that representative hand calculations be done for any parameter that is critical for design purposes. The end user of the parameter output should also be fully aware of the techniques and the limitations of any method used by the program. The purpose of this document is to inform the user as to which methods were used and to direct the end user to the appropriate technical papers and/or publications for further reference.

The geotechnical parameter output was prepared specifically for the site and project named in the accompanying report subject to objectives, site conditions and criteria provided to ConeTec by the client. The output may not be relied upon by any other party or for any other site without the express written permission of ConeTec Group (ConeTec) or any of its affiliates.

The CPT calculations are based on values of tip resistance, sleeve friction and pore pressures considered at each data point or averaged over a user specified layer thickness (e.g., 0.20 m). Note that qt is the tip resistance corrected for pore pressure effects and qc is the recorded tip resistance. The corrected tip resistance (corrected using u2 pore pressure values) is used for all calculations. Since all ConeTec cones have equal end area friction sleeves pore pressure corrections to sleeve friction, fs, are not performed.

Corrected tip resistance: qt= qc+ (1-a) ٠ u2 (consistent units are required) where: qtis the corrected tip resistance
qcis the recorded tip resistance
u2is the recorded dynamic pore pressure from behind the tip (u2position) a is the Net Area Ratio for the cone (typically 0.80 for ConeTec cones) The total stress calculations are based on soil unit weight values that have been assigned to the Soil Behavior Type (SBT) zones, from a user defined unit weight profile, by using a single uniform value throughout the profile, through unit weight estimation techniques described in various technical papers or from a combination of these methods.

The parameter output files indicate the method(s) used.

Effective vertical overburden stresses are calculated using the total stress and equilibrium pore pressure (ueq or uo) values derived from an assumed hydrostatic distribution of pore pressures below the water table or from a user defined equilibrium pore pressure profile (typically obtained from CPT dissipation tests) or a combination of the two.

For over water projects the stress effects of the column of water above the mudline are taken into account as is the appropriate unit weight of water. How this is done depends on where the instruments are zeroed (i.e. on deck or at the mudline). The parameter output files indicate the method(s) used.

A majority of parameter calculations are derived from or driven by results based on material types as determined by the various soil behavior type charts depicted in Figures 1 through 6. The parameter output files indicate the method(s) used.

The Soil Behavior Type classification chart shown in Figure 1 is the classic non-normalized SBT Chart developed at the University of British Columbia and reported in Robertson, Campanella, Gillespie and Greig (1986). Figure 2 shows the original normalized (linear method) SBTn chart developed by Robertson (1990). The Bq classification charts 241
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
241 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 2 | 19 shown in Figures 3a and 3b incorporate pore pressures into the SBT classification and are based on the methods described in Robertson (1990). Many of these charts have been summarized in Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997).

The Jefferies and Davies SBT chart shown in Figure 3c is based on the techniques discussed in Jefferies and Davies (1993) which introduced the concept of the Soil Behavior Type Index parameter, Ic. Take note that the Ic parameter developed by Robertson and Fear (1995) and Robertson and Wride (1998) is similar in concept but uses a slightly different calculation method than that defined by Jefferies and Davies(1993) as the latter incorporates pore pressure in their technique through the use of the Bq parameter. The normalized Qtn SBT chart shown in Figure 4 is based on the work by Robertson (2009) utilizing a variable stress ratio exponent, n, for normalization based on a slightly modified redefinition and iterative approach for Ic. The boundary curves drawn on the chart are based on the work described in Robertson (2010).

Figure 5 shows a revised 1986 SBT Chart presented to CPT’10 by Robertson (2010b). It is known as the Updated nonnormalized Soil Behavior Chart (also referred to as the Rev SBT Chart (PKR2010) in our output files). This chart was produced to be more in line with all post-1986 Robertson charts having the same 9 soil type zones, a log10 axis for friction ratio, Rf in this case, and a unitless tip resistance axis.

Figure 6 shows a revised behavior based chart by Robertson (2016) depicting contractive-dilative zones. As the zones represent material behavior rather than soil gradation ConeTec has chosen a set of zone colors that are less likely to be confused with material type colors from previous SBT charts. These colors differ from those used by Dr.

Robertson. A green palette was selected for the dilative (desirable) side of the chart and a red palette for the contractive side of the chart.

𝑅𝑓 = (
𝑓𝑠
𝑞𝑡) ∙ 100%
Figure 1. Non-normalized Soil Behavior Type Classification Chart (SBT) Friction Ratio (%), Rf
Cone Bearing (bar), qt
1000
10 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
100
3 1
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 12
11 2
Zone qt / N Soil Behavior Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
sensitive fine grained
organic material
clay
silty clay to clay
clayey silt to silty clay
sandy silt to clayey silt
silty sand to sandy silt
sand to silty sand
sand
gravelly sand to sand
very stiff fine grained *
sand to clayey sand *
* overconsolidated or cemented
2 1
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 4
5 6
1 2
242
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
242 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 3 | 19 Figure 2. Normalized Soil Behavior Type Classification Chart (SBTn) Figure 3a. Alternate Soil Behavior Type Chart (SBT Bq): qt - Bq Normalized Cone Resistance q- t vo 
'vo

0.1 1
100
10 1000
1 10
Normalized Friction Ratio
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 fs
q- x 100% t vo
Zone Normalized Soil Behavior Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 sensitive fine grained
organic material
clay to silty clay
clayey silt to silty clay
silty sand to sandy silt
clean sands to silty sands
gravelly sand to sand
very stiff sand to clayey sand
very stiff fine grained
Fr =
243
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
243 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 4 | 19 Figure 3b. Alternate Soil Behavior Type Charts (SBT Bqn): Qt-Bq Figure 3c. Alternate Soil Behavior Type Charts: Q(1-Bq) - Fr 244
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
244 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 5 | 19 Figure 4. Normalized Soil Behavior Type Chart using Qtn (SBT Qtn) Figure 5. Non-normalized Soil Behavior Type Chart (2010) Zone Normalized Soil Behavior Type
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 sensitive fine grained
organic material
clay to silty clay
clayey silt to silty clay
silty sand to sandy silt
clean sands to silty sands
gravelly sand to sand
very stiff sand to clayey sand
very stiff fine grained
245
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
245 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 6 | 19 Figure 6. Modified SBTn Behavior Based Chart
Details regarding the geotechnical parameter calculations are provided in Tables 1a and 1b. The appropriate references cited are listed in Table 2. Non-liquefaction specific parameters are detailed in Table 1a and liquefaction specific parameters are detailed in Table 1b.

Where methods are based on charts or techniques that are too complex to describe in this summary, we recommend that the user refer to the cited material. Specific limitations for each method are described in the cited material.

Where the results of a calculation/correlation are deemed ‘invalid’ the value will be represented by the text strings “-9999”, “-9999.0”, the value 0.0 (Zero) or an empty cell. Invalid results will occur because of (and not limited to) one or a combination of:

1. Invalid or undefined CPT data (e.g., drilled out section or data gap).

2. Where the calculation method is inappropriate, for example, drained parameters in a material behaving in an undrained manner (and vice versa).

3. Where input values are beyond the range of the referenced charts or specified limitations of the correlation method.

4. Where pre-requisite or intermediate parameter calculations are invalid.

The parameters selected for output from the program are often specific to a particular project. As such, not all of the calculated parameters listed in Tables 1and 1a may be included in the output files delivered with this report.

The output files are typically provided in Microsoft Excel XLS, XLSX or CSV format. The ConeTec software has several options for output depending on the number or types of calculated parameters desired or those specifically contracted for by the client. Each output file is named using the original file base name (from the .COR file) followed 246
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
246 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 7 | 19 by a three or four character indicator of the output set selected (e.g. BSC, TBL, NLI, NL2, IFI, IFI2, IFI3) and possibly followed by an operator selected suffix identifying the characteristics of the particular calculation run.

Table 1a. CPT Parameter Calculation Methods – Non liquefaction Parameters Reference Notes: CK* - Common Knowledge, U* - Unpublished Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
Depth
Mid Layer Depth
(where calculations are done at each point then Mid Layer Depth = Recorded Depth)
[Depth (Layer Top) + Depth (Layer Bottom)]/ 2.0 CK*
Elevation
Elevation of Mid Layer is based on the sounding collar elevation supplied by the client or through a site survey
In Sweden a variation of elevation is used where the elevation increases with depth. We refer to this as inverse elevation.

Elevation = Collar Elevation – Depth
InverseElevation = Collar Elevation + Depth
CK*
N/A
Avg qc Averaged recorded tip value (qc)
=
=
n
i
qc
n
Avgqc
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg qt
Averaged corrected tip (qt) where:
𝑞𝑡 = 𝑞𝑐 + (1 − 𝑎) ∙ 𝑢2
Averaged qt is not calculated using the average qc and averaged u values. Averaged qt is based on the average of the qt values calculated at each data point.
=
=
n
i
qt
n
Avgqt
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point 1
Avg fs
Averaged sleeve friction (fs)
No pore pressure corrections are applied to fs.
=
=
n
i
fs
n
Avgfs
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg Rf
Averaged friction ratio (Rf) where friction ratio is defined as:

𝑅𝑓 = 100% ∙
𝑓𝑠
𝑞𝑡
Avgqt
Avgfs AvgRf %100 =
not an average of individual Rf values
CK*
Avg u Averaged dynamic pore pressure (u)
=
=
n
i
ui n
Avgu
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg Res Averaged Resistivity (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module)
=
=
n
i
i yResistivit n
sAvgR
1 1
e
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg UVIF
Averaged UVIF ultra-violet induced fluorescence (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module)
=
=
n
i
UVIFi n
AvgUVIF
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg Temp Averaged Temperature (this data is not always available) =
=
n
i
i Temperature
n
AvgTemp
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
Avg Gamma Averaged Gamma Counts (this data is not always available since it is a specialized test requiring an additional module) =
=
n
i
Gammai n
AvgGamma
1 1
n=1 when calculations are done at each point
CK*
SBT Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson et al 1986 (often referred to as Robertson and Campanella, 1986) See Figure 1 1, 5 SBTn
Normalized Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson 1990 (linear normalization using Qt, now referred to as Qt1) See Figure 2 2, 5
247
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
247 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 8 | 19 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
SBT-Bq
Non-normalized Soil Behavior type based on non-normalized tip resistance and the Bq parameter
See Figure 3a 1, 2, 5
SBT-Bqn
Normalized Soil Behavior type based on normalized tip
resistance (Qt, now called Qt1) and the Bq parameter
See Figure 3b 2, 5
SBT-JandD Soil Behavior Type as defined by Jeffries and Davies See Figure 3c 7 SBT Qtn
Soil Behavior Type as defined by Robertson (2009) using a variable stress ratio exponent for normalization based on Ic (PKR 2009)
See Figure 4 15
Modified Nonnormalized SBT
Chart
SBT (PKR2010)
This is a revised version of the simple 1986 non-normalized SBT chart (presented at CPT ’10). The revised version has been reduced from 12 zones to 9 zones to be similar to the
normalized Robertson charts. Other updates include a
dimensionless tip resistance normalized to atmospheric
pressure, qt/Pa, on the vertical axis and a log scale for nonnormalized friction ratio, Rf, along the horizontal axis.

See Figure 5 33
Modified SBTn
(contractive
/dilative)
Modified SBTn chart as defined by Robertson (2016) indicating zones of contractive/dilative behavior. Note that ConeTec displays the chart with colors different from Robertson.

ConeTec’s colors were chosen to avoid confusion with soil type descriptions.

See Figure 6 30
Unit Wt.

Unit Weight of soil determined from one of the following user selectable options:
1) uniform value
2) value assigned to each SBT zone
3) value assigned to each SBTn zone
4) value assigned to SBTn zone as determined from Robertson and Wride (1998) based on qc1n
5) values assigned to SBT Qtn zones
6) values based on Robertson updated non-normalized Soil Behavior Type Chart (2010b)
6) Mayne fs (sleeve friction) method
7) Robertson and Cabal 2010 method
8) user supplied unit weight profile
The last option may co-exist with any of the other options.

See references
3, 5, 15,
21, 24,
29, 33
248
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
248 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 9 | 19 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
TStress
v
Total vertical overburden stress at Mid Layer Depth
A layer is defined as the averaging interval specified by the user where depths are reported at their respective mid-layer depth.

For data calculated at each point layers are defined using the recorded depth as the mid-point of the layer. Thus, a layer starts half-way between the previous depth and the current depth unless this is the first point in which case the layer start is at zero depth. The layer bottom is half-way from the current depth to the next depth unless it is the last data point.

Defining layers affects how stresses are calculated since the unit weight attributed to a data point is used throughout the entire layer. This means that to calculate the stresses the total stress at the top and bottom of a layer are required. The stress at mid layer is determined by adding the incremental stress from the layer top to the mid-layer depth. The stress at the layer bottom becomes the stress at the top of the subsequent layer. Stresses are NOT calculated from mid-point to mid-point.

For over-water work the total stress due to the column of water above the mud line is taken into account where appropriate. hi
n
i
i
TStress ==
1 
where I is layer unit weight
hi is layer thickness
CK*
EStress
v
’
Effective vertical overburden stress at mid-layer depth. v’ = v - ueq CK* Equil u
ueq or u0
Equilibrium pore pressures are determined from one of the following user selectable options:
1) hydrostatic below the water table
2) user supplied profile
3) combination of those above
When a user supplied profile is used/provided a linear
interpolation is performed between equilibrium pore pressures defined at specific depths. If the profile values start below the water table then a linear transition from zero pressure at the water table to the first defined pointed is used.

Equilibrium pore pressures may come from dissipation tests, adjacent piezometers or other sources. Occasionally, an extra equilibrium point (“assumed value”) will be provided in the profile that does not come from a recorded value to smooth out any abrupt changes or to deal with material interfaces. These “assumed” values will be indicated on our plots and in tabular summaries.

For the hydrostatic option:
( ) eq w
−= DDu wt 
where ueq is equilibrium pore pressure
w is the unit weight of water
D is the current depth
Dwt is the depth to the water table
CK*
K0 Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0. Ko = (1 – sinΦ’) OCR sinΦ’ 17 Cn
Overburden stress correction factor
used for (N1)60 and older CPT parameters.

Cn = (Pa/v’)0.5
where 0.0 < Cn < 2.0 (user adjustable, typically
ranging from 1.7 to 2.0)
Pa is atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
4, 12
249
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
249 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 10 | 19 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
Cq Overburden stress normalizing factor.

Cq = 1.8 / [0.8 + (v’/Pa)]
where 0.0 < Cq < 2.0 (user adjustable)
Pa is atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
Robertson and Wride define Cq to be the same as
Cn. The Olson definition above is used in the
program.
3, 12
N60
SPT N value at 60% energy calculated from qt/N ratios assigned to each SBT zone. This method has abrupt N value changes at zone boundaries.

See Figure 1 5
(N1)60 SPT N60 value corrected for overburden pressure. (N1)60 = Cn • N60 4 N60Ic
SPT N60 values based on the Ic parameter, as defined by Robertson and Wride 1998 (3), or by Robertson 2009 (15). (qt/Pa)/ N60 = 8.5 (1 – Ic/4.6)
(qt/Pa)/ N60 = 10 (1.1268 – 0.2817Ic)
Pa being atmospheric pressure
3, 5
15, 31
(N1)60Ic
SPT N60 value corrected for overburden pressure (using N60 Ic).

User has 3 options.
1) (N1)60Ic= Cn • (N60 Ic)
2) qc1n/ (N1)60Ic = 8.5 (1 – Ic/4.6)
3) (Qtn)/ (N1)60Ic = 10 (1.1268 – 0.2817Ic)
4 5
15, 31
Su
or Su (Nkt)
Undrained shear strength based on qt
Su factor Nkt is user selectable. N
qt Su
kt
− v
=
1, 5
Su
or Su (Ndu)
or Su (NΔu)
Undrained shear strength based on pore pressure
Su factor NΔu is user selectable. N
uu
Su
u
eq

−
=
2 1, 5
Dr
Relative Density determined from one of the following user selectable options:
1) Ticino Sand
2) Hokksund Sand
3) Schmertmann (1978)
4) Jamiolkowski (1985) - All Sands
5) Jamiolkowski et al (2003) (various compressibilities, Ko) See reference (methods 1 through 4)
Jamiolkowski et al (2003) reference
5 14
PHI

Friction Angle determined from one of the following user selectable options (methods 1 through 4 are for sands and method 5 is for silts and clays):
1) Campanella and Robertson
2) Durgunoglu and Mitchel
3) Janbu
4) Kulhawy and Mayne
5) NTH method (clays and silts)
See appropriate reference
5 5
5 11
23 Delta U/qt
Δu/qt
du/qt
Differential pore pressure ratio
(older parameter used before Bq was established)
qt
u
=
where:
−= uuu eq
and u = dynamic pore pressure
ueq = equilibrium pore pressure
39 250
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
250 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 11 | 19 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
Bq Pore pressure parameter
qt  v
u Bq
−

=
−= uuu eq :where
and u = dynamic pore pressure
ueq = equilibrium pore pressure
1, 2, 5
Net qt
or qtNet
Net tip resistance
(used in many subsequent correlations)
qt − v
36 qe or qE or qE
Effective tip resistance
(using the dynamic pore pressure u2 and not equilibrium pore pressure)
𝑞𝑡 − 𝑢2
36 qeNorm Normalized effective tip resistance

'
2 v
qt − u
36 Qt
or Norm: Qt
or Qt1
Normalized qt for Soil Behavior Type classification as defined by Robertson (1990) using a linear stress normalization. Note this is different from Qtn. This parameter was renamed to Qt1 in Robertson, 2009. Without normalization limits this parameter calculates to very high unrealistic values at low stresses. 

'
v
qt v Qt −
=
2, 5,
15 Fr
or Norm: Fr
Normalized Friction Ratio for Soil Behavior Type classification as defined by Robertson (1990)
qt  v
fs Fr
−
100% =
2, 5
Q(1-Bq)
Q(1-Bq) + 1
Q(1-Bq) grouping as suggested by Jefferies and Davies for their classification chart and the establishment of their Ic parameter.

Later papers added the +1 term to the equation.

𝑄 ⋅ (1 − 𝐵𝑞)
𝑄 ⋅ (1 − 𝐵𝑞) + 1
where Bq is defined as above and Q is the same as
the normalized tip resistance, Qt1, defined above
6, 7,
34 qc1 Normalized tip resistance, qc1, using a fixed stress ratio exponent, n (this method has stress units)
qc1 = qt • (Pa/v’)0.5
where: Pa = atmospheric pressure 21
qc1 (0.5) Normalized tip resistance, qc1, using a fixed stress ratio exponent, n (this method is unit-less)
qc1 (0.5)= (qt/Pa) • (Pa/v’)0.5
where: Pa = atmospheric pressure 5
qc1 (Cn)
Normalized tip resistance, qc1, based on Cn
(this method has stress units) qc1(Cn) = Cn * qt 5, 12
qc1 (Cq)
Normalized tip resistance, qc1, based on Cq
(this method has stress units) qc1 (Cq)= Cq * qt (some papers use qc) 5, 12 qc1n
normalized tip resistance, qc1n, using a variable stress ratio exponent, n (where n=0.0, 0.70, or 1.0)
(this method is unit-less)
qc1n = (qt / Pa)(Pa/v’)n
where: Pa = atm. Pressure and n varies as
described below
3 251
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
251 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 12 | 19 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
Ic
or
Ic (RW1998)
Soil Behavior Type Index as defined by Robertson and Wride (1997, 1998) for estimating grain size characteristics and providing smooth gradational changes across the SBTn chart.

Ic(RW1998) is different from that of Jefferies and Davies (7) and is different from Ic(PKR2009).

Ic = [(3.47 – log10Q)2 + (log10 Fr + 1.22)2]

0.5 Where:
n
v
a
a
v P
P
qt Q 














 −
= ' 

Or
n
v
a
a
nc
P
P
qt qQ 















== 1 ' 
depending on the iteration in determining Ic
And Fr is in percent
Pa = atmospheric pressure
n has the following distinct values:

0.5, 0.75 and 1.0
and is determined in an iterative manner based on
the resulting Ic in each iteration
Note that NCEER replaced 0.75 with 0.70
3, 4, 5
10 Ic (PKR 2009)
Soil Behavior Type Index, Ic (PKR 2009) is based on a variable stress ratio exponent n, which itself is based on Ic (PKR 2009).

An iterative calculation is required to determine Ic (PKR 2009) and its corresponding n (PKR 2009).

Ic (PKR 2009) =
[(3.47 – log10Qtn)
2 + (1.22 + log10Fr)2
]

0.5 15
n (PKR 2009)
Stress ratio exponent n, based on Ic (PKR 2009).

An iterative calculation is required to determine n (PKR 2009) and its corresponding Ic (PKR 2009).
n (PKR 2009) = 0.381 (Ic) + 0.05 (v’/Pa) – 0.15 15
Qtn (PKR 2009)
Normalized tip resistance using a variable stress ratio exponent based on Ic (PKR 2009) and n (PKR 2009). An iterative
calculation is required to determine Qtn (PKR 2009).

Qtn = [(qt - v)/Pa](Pa/v’)
n
where Pa = atmospheric pressure (100 kPa)
n = stress ratio exponent described above
15 FC Apparent fines content (%)
FC=1.75(Ic3.25) - 3.7
FC=100 for Ic > 3.5
FC=0 for Ic < 1.26
FC = 5% if 1.64 < Ic < 2.6 AND Fr<0.5
3 Ic Zone
This parameter is the Soil Behavior Type zone based on the Ic parameter (valid for zones 2 through 7 on SBTn or SBT Qtn charts)
Ic < 1.31 Zone = 7

1.31 < Ic < 2.05 Zone = 6

2.05 < Ic < 2.60 Zone = 5

2.60 < Ic < 2.95 Zone = 4

2.95 < Ic < 3.60 Zone = 3
Ic > 3.60 Zone = 2
3 CD
The contractive / dilative boundary on Robertson’s Modified SBTn (contractive/dilative) Chart shown in Figure 6 above. The boundary is marked as CD = 70 on the chart in the relevant paper. Similar to the Qtn,cs = 70 line in Figure 4.

CD = 70 = (Qtn – 11) ( 1 + 0.06Fr)
17 lower bound of CD = 60:

CD = 60 = (Qtn – 9.5) ( 1 + 0.06Fr)
17 30
252
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
252 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 13 | 19 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
IB
Hyberbolic fit defining the boundary between SBT soil types proposed by Schneider as a better fit than the Ic circles. IB = 32 represents the boundary for most sand like soils. IB = 22 represents the upper boundary for most clay like soils. The region between IB=22 and IB=32 is the “transitional soil” zone.

IB = 100 (Qtn + 10) / (70 + Qtn Fr) 30
State Param
or State
Parameter
or ψ
The state parameter index, ψ, is defined as the difference between the current void ratio, e, and the critical void ratio, ec.

Positive ψ - contractive soil
Negative ψ - dilative soil
This is based on the work by Been and Jefferies (1985) and Plewes, Davies and Jefferies (1992)
This method uses mean normal stresses based on a uniform value of K0 or a calculated K0 using methods described
elsewhere in this document
See reference 6, 8
Yield Stress
σp’
Yield stress is calculated using the following methods
1) General method
2) 1st order approximation using qtNet (clays)
3) 1st order approximation using Δu2 (clays)
4) 1st order approximation using qe (clays)
5) Based on Vs
All stresses in kPa
1) σp’= 0.33·(qt – σv)
m’ (σatm/100)1-m’

where
25 .2/(1 65)
.0 28 1'
c
I
m
+
−=
2) σp’ = 0.33·(qt – σv)
3) σp’ = 0.54· (Δu2) Δu2 = u2 – u0
4) σp’ = 0.60 · (qt – u2)
5) σp’ = (Vs/4.59)1.47
19 20
20 20
18 OCR
OCR(JS1978)
YSR(Mayne2014)
YSR (qtNet)
YSR (deltaU)
YSR (qe)
YSR (Vs)
OCR (PKR2015)
Over Consolidation Ratio based on
1) Schmertmann (1978) method involving a plot
plot of Su/v’ /( Su/v’)NC and OCR
2) based on Yield stresses described above
3) approximate version based on qtNet
4) approximate version based on Δu
5) approximate version based on effective tip, qe
6) approximate version based on shear wave velocity, Vs andv’ 7) based on Qt
1) requires a user defined value for NC Su/Pc’ ratio
2 through 5) based on yield stresses
6) YSR (Vs) = σp’(Vs) / v’
7) OCR = 0.25·(Qt)

1.25 9
19 20
20 20
18 32
Es/qt
Intermediate parameter for calculating Young’s Modulus, E, in sands. It is the Y axis of the reference chart.

Note that Figured 5.59 from reference 5, Lunne, Robertson and Powell, (LRP) has an error. The X axis values are too high by a factor of 10. The plot is based on Baldi's (not Bellotti as cited in Based on Figure 5.59 in the reference 5, 37
253
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
253 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 14 | 19 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
LRP) original Figure 3 where the X axis is:
𝑞𝑐
√𝜎𝑣
′
(both in kPa) with a range of 200 to 3000.

Figure 5.59 from LRP shows a dimensionless form of the
equation, qc1, displaying the same range of values.

Figure 5.59’s X axis uses 𝑞𝑐1 = (
𝑞𝑐
𝑃𝑎
) (
𝑃𝑎
𝜎𝑣
′
)

0.5 The two expressions are not the same: they differ by a factor of √𝑃𝑎
𝑃𝑎
. With Pa taken to be 100 kPa the factor is 1/10.

Substituting typical values of 200 bar (20000 kPa) for qc and 225 kPa for σv’ one gets: 20000 / 15 = 1333.33 for Bellotti’s axis and (200/1)(100/225)0.5 = 200 * (10/15) = 133.3 for LRP’s axis (noting that Pa = 1 bar) showing a factor of 10 difference.

Es or Es
Young’s
Modulus E
Young’s Modulus based on the work done in Italy. There are three types of sands considered in this technique. The user selects the appropriate type for the site from:
a) OC Sands
b) Aged NC Sands
c) Recent NC Sands
Each sand type has a family of curves that depend on mean normal stress. The program calculates mean normal stress and linearly interpolates between the two extremes provided in the Es/qt chart. Es is evaluated for an axial strain of 0.1%.

Mean normal stress is evaluated from:
𝜎𝑚
′ =
1 3
(𝜎𝑣
′ + 𝜎ℎ
′ + 𝜎ℎ′
)
where v’= vertical effective stress
h’= horizontal effective stress
and h = Ko ٠ v
’
with Ko assumed to be 0.5
5 Delta U/TStress
Δu / σv
Differential pore pressure ratio with respect to total stress v
u


=
where:
−= uuu eq
39 Delta U/EStress,
P Value,
Excess Pore
Pressure Ratio
Δu/σv’
Differential pore pressure ratio with respect to effective stress.

Key parameter (P, Normalized Pore Pressure Parameter, Excess Pore Pressure Ratio) in the Winckler et. al. static liquefaction method.
'
v
u


=
where:
−= uuu eq
25, 25a
Su/EStress
Su/σv’
Undrained shear strength ratio with respect to vertical effective overburden stress using the Su (Nkt) method
= Su (Nkt) / v’
9, 23
Vs or Vs
Recorded shear wave velocities (not estimated).

The shear wave velocities are typically collected over 1 m depth intervals. Each data point over the relevant depth range is assigned the same Vs value.
recorded data
27 Vp or Vp
Recorded compression wave (or P wave) velocities (not
estimated). The P wave velocities are typically collected over 1 m depth intervals. Each data point over the relevant depth range is assigned the same Vp value.
recorded data
27 254
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
254 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 15 | 19 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
Vs30
Vs100
The average shear wave velocity of the near surface materials to a depth of 30 m (100 ft). It is based on the sum of all travel times through all layers in the top 30m (100 ft).

Vs100 is the same calculation as Vs30 except down to a depth of 100 feet.

𝑉𝑠30 =
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑡𝑜 30 𝑚
Σ (
𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠
𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑤𝑎𝑣𝑒 𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑖𝑡𝑦)
𝑉𝑠30 =
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟𝑠 𝑡𝑜 30 𝑚
Σ (𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠)
38 Gmax Gmax determined from SCPT shear wave velocities (not estimated values). Note that seismic data (Vs) is collected over set depth intervals (typically 1 meter). Each data point over the test segment is assigned the same Vs value. Since soil density changes with depth, slightly different Gmax values may be calculated over the test depth interval.

Gmax = ρVs
2 where ρ is the mass density of the soil determined
from the estimated unit weights at each test depth
27 qtNet/Gmax
Net tip resistance ratio with respect to the small strain modulus Gmax determined from SCPT shear wave velocities (not
estimated values)
= (qt - v) / Gmax
where Gmax = ρVs
2 and ρ is the mass density of the soil determined
from the estimated unit weights at each test depth
15, 28,
30 qUlt A site specific and client specific parameter for estimating the limiting stress for “crane walk” accessibility
𝑞𝑢𝑙𝑡 = 𝐶𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑊𝑎𝑙𝑘𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 ∙ 𝑆𝑢
Where: CraneWalkFactor is client provided
U*
Estimated Go
Estimated value for small strain shear modulus Go = 0.0188[10(0.55Ic + 1,68)](qt - σv) 15 Estimated E25 Estimated value for Young’s Modulus, E, at a 25% working load E25 = αE (qtNet) where αE = 0.015[10(0.55Ic + 1,68)]
15 kSBT Estimated soil permeability derived from Soil Behavior Type (SBT) Chart Ic values.

For 1.0 < Ic ≤ 3.27:
k = 10(0.952 – 3.04Ic) in m/s
For 3.27 < Ic < 4.0:
k = 10(-4.52 – 1.37Ic) in m/s
35 M or D’
Constrained
Modulus
Constrained Modulus based on
1) Robertson, M
2) Mayne, D’
1) Robertson
M = αM (qt - σv)
Ic > 2.2 (fine grained)
αM = Qt when Qt < 14
αM = 14 when Qt > 14
Ic < 2.2 (coarse grained)
αM = 0.0188 [10(0.55Ic + 1.68))
D’ = αD (qt - σv)
where αD = 5
32 23
255
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
255 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 16 | 19 Table 1b. CPT Parameter Calculation Methods – Liquefaction Parameters Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
KSPT or Ks Equivalent clean sand factor for (N1)60 KSPT = 1 + ((0.75/30) • (FC – 5)) 10 KCPT
or
Kc (RW1998)
Equivalent clean sand correction for qc1N
Kcpt = 1.0 for Ic  1.64
Kcpt = f(Ic) for Ic > 1.64 (see reference)
Kc = – 0.403 Ic
4 + 5.581 Ic3 – 21.63Ic2 + 33.75 Ic – 17.88
3, 10
Kc (PKR 2010) Clean sand equivalent factor to be applied to Qtn Kc = 1.0 for Ic ≤ 1.64
Kc = – 0.403 Ic
4 + 5.581 Ic3 – 21.63Ic2 + 33.75 Ic – 17.88
for Ic > 1.64
16 (N1)60csIc Clean sand equivalent SPT (N1)60Ic. User has 3 options. 1) (N1)60csIc = α + β((N1)60Ic)
2) (N1)60csIc = KSPT * ((N1)60Ic)
3) (qc1ncs)/ (N1)60csIc = 8.5 (1 – Ic/4.6)
FC ≤ 5%: α = 0, β=1.0
FC ≥ 35% α = 5.0, β=1.2
5% < FC < 35% α = exp[1.76 – (190/FC2)]
β = [0.99 + (FC1.5/1000)]
10 10
5 qc1ncs Clean sand equivalent qc1n qc1ncs = qc1n • Kcpt 3 Qtn,cs (PKR
2010)
Clean sand equivalent for Qtn described above
- Qtn being the normalized tip resistance based on a variable stress exponent as defined by Robertson (2009)
Qtn,cs = Qtn · Kc (PKR 2016) 16
Su(Liq)/ESv
or
Su(Liq)/σv’
Liquefied shear strength ratio as defined by Olson and Stark Su(Liq) = 0.03 + 0.0143(qc1)
v’
Note: v’ and sv’ are synonymous
13 Su(Liq)/ESv
or
Su(Liq)/σv’
(PKR 2010)
Liquefied shear strength ratio as defined by Robertson (2010) Su(Liq)
v’
Based on a function involving Qtn,cs
16 Su (Liq)
(PKR 2010)
Liquefied shear strength derived from the liquefied shear strength ratio and effective overburden stress 𝑆𝑢
(𝐿𝑖𝑞) = 𝜎𝑣
′
∙ (
𝑆𝑢(𝐿𝑖𝑞)
𝜎𝑣
′
) 16
Cont/Dilat Tip Contractive / Dilative qc1 Boundary based on (N1)60 (v’)boundary = 9.58 x 10-4[(N1)60]

4.79 qc1 is calculated from specified qt(MPa)/N ratio
13 CRR Cyclic Resistance Ratio (for Magnitude 7.5)
qc1ncs < 50:

CRR7.5 = 0.833 [qc1ncs/1000] + 0.05
50  qc1ncs < 160:

CRR7.5 = 93 [qc1ncs/1000]3 + 0.08
10 Kg or Kg Small strain Stiffness Ratio Factor, Kg
[Gmax/qt]/[qc1n-m]
m = empirical exponent, typically 0.75
26 256
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
256 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 17 | 19 Calculated
Parameter Description Equation Ref
Kg* Revised Kg factor extended to fine grained soils (Robertson).

Kg* = (Go / qn)(Qtn)

0.75 where qn is the net tip resistance = qt -σv
30 SP Distance State Parameter Distance, Winckler static liquefaction method Perpendicular distance on Qtn chart from plotted point to state parameter Ψ = -0.05 curve
25 URS NP Fr Normalized friction ratio point on Ψ = -0.05 curve used in SP distance calculation 25
URS NP Qtn
Normalized tip resistance (Qtn) point on Ψ = -0.05 curve used in SP Distance calculation
25 257
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
257 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 18 | 19 Table 2. References
No. Reference
1 Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, “Use of Piezometer Cone Data”, Proceedings of InSitu 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia. 2 Robertson, P.K., 1990, “Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Volume 27. This includes the discussions and replies.
3 Robertson, P.K. and Wride (Fear), C.E., 1998, “Evaluating cyclic liquefaction potential using the cone penetration test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 35: 442-459. 4 Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1997, “Cyclic Liquefaction and its Evaluation Based on SPT and CPT”, NCEER Workshop Paper, January 22, 1997.
5 Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J. J. M., 1997, “ Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice,” Blackie Academic and Professional.
6 Plewes, H.D., Davies, M.P. and Jefferies, M.G., 1992, “CPT Based Screening Procedure for Evaluating Liquefaction Susceptibility”, 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Toronto, Ontario, October 1992.
7 Jefferies, M.G. and Davies, M.P., 1993, “Use of CPTu to Estimate equivalent N60”, Geotechnical Testing Journal, 16(4): 458-467.
8 Been, K. and Jefferies, M.P., 1985, “A state parameter for sands”, Geotechnique, 35(2), 99-112. 9 Schmertmann, 1978, “Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test Performance and Design”, Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-TS-78-209, U.S. Department of Transportation. 10 Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt Lake City, 1996, chaired by Leslie Youd.
11 Kulhawy, F.H. and Mayne, P.W., 1990, “Manual on Estimating Soil Properties for Foundation Design, Report No. EL-6800”, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA, August 1990, 306 p. 12 Olson, S.M. and Stark, T.D., 2002, “Liquefied strength ratio from liquefied flow failure case histories”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 39: 951-966.
13 Olson, Scott M. and Stark, Timothy D., 2003, “Yield Strength Ratio and Liquefaction Analysis of Slopes and Embankments”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, August 2003. 14 Jamiolkowski, M.B., Lo Presti, D.C.F. and Manassero, M., 2003, “Evaluation of Relative Density and Shear Strength of Sands from CPT and DMT”, Soil Behaviour and Soft Ground Construction, ASCE, GSP N0. 119, 201-238.
15 Robertson, P.K., 2009, “Interpretation of cone penetration tests – a unified approach”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 46: 1337-1355.
16 Robertson, P.K., 2010a, “Evaluation of Flow Liquefaction and Liquefied Strength Using the Cone Penetration Test”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, June 2010. 17 Mayne, P.W. and Kulhawy, F.H., 1982, "Ko-OCR Relationships in Soil", Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, GT6, pp. 851-872.
18 Mayne, P.W., Robertson P.K. and Lunne T., 1998, “Clay stress history evaluated from seismic piezocone tests”, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Site Characterization – ISC ’98, Atlanta Georgia, Volume 2, 1113-1118.
258
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
258 of 2331
Calculated CPT Geotechnical Parameters – Revision SZW-Rev 18 Page 19 | 19 No. Reference
19 Mayne, P.W., 2014, “Generalized CPT Method for Evaluating Yield Stress in Soils”, Geocharacterization for Modeling and Sustainability (GSP 235: Proc. GeoCongress 2014, Atlanta, GA), ASCE, Reston, Virginia:
1336-1346.
20 Mayne, P.W., 2015, “Geocharacterization by In-Situ Testing”, Continuing Education Course, Vancouver, BC, January 6-8, 2015.
21 Robertson, P.K. and Fear, C.E., 1995, “Liquefaction of sands and its evaluation”, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Keynote Lecture IS Tokyo ‘95, Tokyo Japan, 1995.
22 Mayne, P.W., Peuchen, J. and Boumeester, D., 2010, “Soil unit weight estimation from CPTs”, Proceeding of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT ’10), Vol 2, Huntington Beach, California; Omnipress: 169-176.
23 Mayne, P.W., 2007, “NCHRP Synthesis 368 on Cone Penetration Test”, Transportation Research Board, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 118 pages.
24 Mayne, P.W., 2014, “Interpretation of geotechnical parameters from seismic piezocone tests.”, Key note address #2, proceedings, 3rd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT’14, Las Vegas), ISSMGE Technical Committee TC102.
25 Winckler, Christina, Davidson, Richard, Yenne, Lisa, Pilz, Jorgen, 2014, “CPTu-Based State Characterization of Tailings Liquefaction Susceptibility”, Tailings and Mine Waste, 2014. 25a
Winckler, Christina, Davidson, Richard, Yenne, Lisa, Pilz, Jorgen, 2014, “CPTu-Based State Characterization of Tailings Liquefaction Susceptibility”, Powerpoint presentation, Tailings and Mine Waste, 2014. 26 Schneider, J.A. and Moss, R.E.S., 2011, “Linking cyclic stress and cyclic strain based methods for assessment of cyclic liquefaction triggering in sands”, Geotechnique Letters 1, 31-36. 27 Rice, A., 1984, “The Seismic Cone Penetrometer”, M.A.Sc. thesis submitted to the University of British Columbia, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 28 Gillespie, D.G., 1990, “Evaluating Shear Wave Velocity and Pore Pressure Data from the Seismic Cone Penetration Test”, Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of British Columbia, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
29 Robertson, P.K and Cabal, K.L., 2010, “Estimating soil unit weight from CPT”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT ’10), Huntington Beach, California. 30 Robertson, P.K., 2016, “Cone penetration test (CPT)-based soil behaviour type (SBT) classification system – an update”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, July 2016.
31 Robertson, P.K., 2012, “Interpretation of in-situ tests – some insights”, Mitchell Lecture, ISC’4, Recife, Brazil. 32 Robertson, P.K., Cabal, K.L. 2015, “Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering”, 6th Edition.
33 Robertson, P.K., 2010b, “Soil behaviour type from CPT: an update”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT ’10), Huntington Beach, California. 34 Been, K., Romero, S., Obermeyer, J. and Hebeler, G., 2012, “Determining in situ state of sand and silt tailings from the CPT”, Tailings and Mine Waster 2012, 325-333.
35 Robertson, P.K., 2010, “Estimating in-situ soil permeability from CPT & CPTu”, Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing (CPT ’10), Huntington Beach, California. 36 Mayne, P.W., Cargill, E. and Greig, J., 2023, “The Cone Penetration Test: A CPT Design Parameter Manual”, ConeTec Group
37 Baldi, G., Bellotti, R., Ghionna,V., Jamiolkowski, M. and Lo Presti, D. 1989. Modulus of sands from CPTs and DMTs. Proc. Intl. Conf. on Soil Mechanics & Foundation Engineering, Vol. 1 (ICSMFE, Rio de Janeiro), Balkema, Rotterdam: 165–170. www.issmge.org
38 Crow, H.L, Hunter, J.A. and Bobrowsky, P.T., 2012, “National shear wave measurement guidelines for Canadian seismic site assessment”, Proceedings of GeoManitoba 2012, the 65th Canadian Geotechnical Conference.
39 Campanella, R.G., Robertson, P.K., Gillespie, D., 1982, “Cone penetration testing in deltaic soils”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 20: 23-35.
259
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
259 of 2331
Calibration Records
260
CC 04-01-2026 Searchable Packet
260 of 2331
Adara Systems Ltd.
201-8327 Eastlake Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A4W2
Tel: 1-604-273-6013
Calibration Information
Cone Serial Number Model A15 T1500 F15 U35
Date
Technician Performing Signature
Calibration
Calibration Approved By Signature
Lab Condition As Found As Left
Lab Temperature N/A 23˚C
Lab Humidity N/A 27% Reason for Calibration Repair
Cone Information
Tip Stress Limit 1500 bar Tip End Area 15 cm²
Friction Stress Limit 15 bar Friction Surface Area 225 cm² Pressure Limit 35 bar RTD Location Pressure Carrier
X-Inclinometer Limit 30 degrees Geophone X and Z
Y-Inclinometer Limit 30 degrees Temperature Range -20°C to 60°C Baseline Summary: (For Reference Only)
Channel Units As Found As Left
Tip -1.064
Sleeve -0.023
Pressure 1.026
X-Inclinometer -0.013
Y-Inclinometer 0.006
Temperature 23.734
Classified in accordance with ISO 22476-1:2012 Class 1
Classified in accordance with ISO 22476-1:2012 Class 2
Calibrated in general accordance with the ASTM D5778-20 and D7400-08 standards Calibrated with Adara calibration procedure EC_CPTCAL-2.2 Collective uncertainty of the measurement standards conforms to a test uncertainty ratio (TUR) of 3:1 for tip and sleeve measurement and 4:1 for pressure measurement with a confidence level k=2

CERTIFICATE OF CALIBRATION
Vishrut Khunt
Richard Chen
2024-05-08
EC1061
bar
bar
bar
degrees
degrees
˚C
-3.622

1.235
-0.350
-0.100

23.630

0.059