2010050306 - Placer Oaks Road - Desk ItemtpW N OF
.(. ~=I;~V~I~ ~=.
to tps COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: May 3, 2010
MEETING DATE: 5/3/10
ITEM NO:
DESK ITEM
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG CARSON, TOWN MANAGE
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-07-001; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
PD-07-142; AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-07-143. PROJECT
LOCATION: PLACER OAKS ROAD. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:
CUPERTINO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.
REMARKS:
The Town received the attached public comment after the staff report was circulated
(Attachment 14). The neighbor has addressed geological and noise concerns.
Geotechnical studies were prepared for the site which included a liquefaction analysis. The
analysis confirmed liquefaction hazards in the western margin of the site. The study also
determined that the potential for ground rupture and large-scale, seismically-induced land sliding
at the site are low, while the potential for ground subsidence is moderate to low. The proposed
development will not exasperate any geological issues that may be present in the area and in fact,
the work proposed will improve the stability of the slope at the subject site.
As noted in the report to Council, a noise study was prepared for the proposed development and
mitigation measures are required to reduce noise levels.
Attaclunents:
1-13. Previously Submitted.
14. Packet from Rosemary and David Greene (three pages) received May 3, 2010.
WRR:SLB:cgt
PREPARED BY: ~ Wendie R. Rooney, Directo~of Community Development
Reviewed by: ~~Assistant Town Managel-own Attorney
Clerk Administrator Finance -Community Development
N:\DEV \CNCLRPTS\2010\placeroaks.dsk.doc
Reformatted: 5/30/02
t2 o 5~.~~r~ ~~
~ ~ vim(, G~r~~
General Plan Amendment GP-07-001; Planned Development PD-07-142; and Negative
Declaration ND-07-143. Project Location: Placer Oaks Road. Property Owner/Applicant:
Cupertino Development Corporation
. It is REQUIRED by California Environmental Agencies by guidelines and court rulings that
studies are done PRIOR to granting approval for a project that includes a negative declaration
to find IF that issue can be mitigated. (See 2"d column "significant impact' b and c below.)
There has been no geophysical study of the effect of seismic ground shaking and liquefaction
for the site in question on the adjacent homes and surrounding land areas ie existing roadbed in
pictures attached. For example, the home to the left of the property in this project suffered
significant damage in the 1989 earthquake
Potentially
Significant
Potentially hhpact Unlesa~ Lesa Then
Issues-(and Supporting Information Sources) s;gnaicant . Mitigation Slgnfficanr tvo
hn Bet Inco orefed Im aet Ln act
VI. Geology and Soils -Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
Ehe-risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving:
a) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated onthe X
most recent Alquist-I?riolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued' by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of '
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
b) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Landslides? X
e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
~-
®~ 6 G ~ M C
~~~
MAY - 3
row>N of eoc cnros
Cracks in roadbed on Frank Avenue/Placer Oaks Road in front of and adjacent to hillside showing ground
movement toward the hillside edge and following the hillside curve.
Noise
Noise Exiaosure Limits
The amount of hearing loss is dependent on the noise level and duration. Based on this a number of
limits were set out in 1970 by the Ocupational Safety and Health Act for companies working for the
US. These levels are for occupational exposures, and at least s% of workers should expecte damage
compensation! The levels below are guidelines for normal living conditions, not for areas in which ear
protection is provided by an employer.
Levels in excess of 70A dB are believed to impact health. Above 80dBA
exposure is thought to increase aggressive .behaviours and can lead to
mental problems
A set of suggested daily noise exposure limits for nonoccupational noise are:
Limiting Daily sound Quick acoustic scan of acoustic noise levels on site.
Exposure Pressure Level
Time [hours] [dB(A)]
16 7o The noise level exposures measured on the field were
'typically over 75 dBA; however as a heavier stream of
a 7s (traffic passed.on Highway 17 the exposure noise levels
4 80 exceeded 80 db, often peaking towards 90db.
2 85
1 90 Behind heavy tree/bush cover the sound levels reduced
by about 5 dBA.
3o minutes g5
15 minutes 100
Note that the road surface is generally above the site.
<8 minutes los ,On the proposed road site above the highway level the
<4 minutes uo ',sound levels were consistently over 75 dBA.
<2 minutes lls
This data was taken during mid morning when traffic on 17 was very light.