SAN JOSE EAST FOOTHILLS MORATORIUM AREA GEOLOGIC REVlEW PANEL REPORT

March 1994
for;
Ct of San Jose iy
Department of Public Works ~evelo~ment'~ngherin~ Division 801 N. First St~eet, Room 308 San Jose, California 95 1 10

by:
Geologic Review Panel Trinda Bedrossian, CEG Bruce R. Clark, Ph.D., CEG Alan L. Kropp, GE Charles L. Taylor, CEG Julio E. Valera, Ph.D., GE

The East Foothills Moratorium Area consists of the west-facing hills between Penitencia and Berryessa Creeks, an area of steep topographic relief, narrow ridges and deep valleys, and irregular hummocky slopes. The slope topography has been created by a complex combination of landslides, thrust faults, and the erosional terracing effect of ancient streams. The bedrock beneath the hills is composed primarily of Mesozoic (150 65 million years old) and Tertiary (65 2 million years old) sediments. The shallow soil and rock deposits on the face of the slope are generally composed of landslide debris, i.e., weathered and broken bedrock canied downslope by a combination of ancient and youthhl landslides. Along the eastern boundary of much of the Area near the crest of the ridge, the Hayward fault zone has ruptured the terrain, moving the Moratorium Area several miles northwestward relative to the remainder of the range. Three smaller faults, the Berryessa, Crosley, and ClaytontQuimby faults, cross the Moratorium Area downslope from the Hayward fault trace. Their connection with the Hayward fault at depth beneath the Area is suspected, but has not been established. The faults are not obvious in the soil and rock on the face of the slope, and in some areas their precise locations are obscured by more recent landslide activity. We know that the Hayward fault is active, but the activity levels of the smaller faults are not clear.

A large number of previous geologic and geotechnical reports covering projects within the Moratorium Area were reviewed by the Panel. Particularly important was the recent Woodward Clyde Consultants (WCC) report of the Penitencia Water Treatment Plant (PWTP) which documented deep-seated landsliding beneath the plant. City of San Jose project reports covered the development applications in the Old Piedmont Road, Sierra Road, Dorel Drive, and Suncrest Avenue areas. A wide range of investigative approaches and levels of detail were found in these reports. The Panel cited a number of general limitations that were common to many of the reports which impacted our ability to distinguish between alternative interpretations of the geology at the site. As a result, we were not able to confirm the applicants' contentions that either the site was free of geologic hazards, or the hazards has been adequately mitigated. The issues that needed more attention in the reports included: Standards of practice in investigating this type of geologic terrain have changed with time;

All the available geologic information from the region as a whole needs to be used in a comprehensive interpretation of a specific site;
Alternative interpretations need to be discussed and resolved, based on solid geologic evidence; Aerial photographs are an important tool to understanding the geology and should be used as such;

Subsurface geologic information, obtained from deep (and expensive) borings, is critical to the correct interpretation of the site conditions; Slope stability analyses are relevant and should incorporate well-founded site data; Measurements of subsurface slide movements using inclinometers are important and useful to interpretation of nearby sites; The level of seismic hazard for a specific site should be evaluated using probabilistic seismic hazard analysis techniques, which have become widely used in the past few years. The Panel has concluded that the Moratorium Area is affected by a number of large and extensive, deep landslide complexes which generally extend from near the crest of the hills on the east to the valley floor. The area is underlain not by a single massive landslide, but by multiple individual landslides with varying potential for future destructive movement. The actual extent of landsliding may be greater than previously mapped, but local portions of the area might not be underlain by landslide deposits. The landslide deposits are generally deeper than can be practically mitigated at most locations, and they often contain shallower secondary slides. Nearsurface exposures of bedrock on the slopes may have been displaced downslope by the landslides, and therefore may not be reliable indicators of geologic conditions at greater depths. For example, in some places landslides have displaced or concealed some of the locations of potentially active faults, evidence of their most recent activity, and even whether they exist. This complicates the geologist's evaluation of how much of a hazard they may pose. Although major landslides within the Area may have occurred during an earlier geologic period with a different climate, the Panel believes that portions of the landslides can be reactivated in the fbture by seismic events, heavy rainfall or other sources of water, or by other factors disturbing the site, such as human-caused changes in topography, surface drainage, or surface loads. The Panel recommends to the City that it adopt various review measures for proposed construction projects within the Moratorium Area. These are addressed in detail in Section 6.0, Recommendations, and generally include the following : The City should consider the Moratorium Area to be underlain by large, deep landslides unless adequately demonstrated by the applicant that for the site under consideration this is not the case.
All pending and future projects within the Moratorium Area should be re-evaluated by the City on the basis of the Panel's report, a regional perspective of the landslide conditions, available geologic/geotechnical data, and the reports previously submitted for the projects.

The City should provide applicants with guidelines for deep-seated landslides and fault investigations in the Moratorium Area. The geologic and geotechnical evaluations of the stability of all project slopes should consider both static and seismic conditions, be consistent with current professional engineering practice, and be based on documented evidence. The City should consider requiring the applicants to implement a number of procedures to identify additional work that should be performed by the applicant and hisher consultants, and The City should consider permitting various alternative land-use options for the Moratorium Area, especially in areas where deep-seated landslide activity is suspected.

SAN JOSE EAST FOOTHILLS MORATORIUM AREA GEOLOGIC REVIEW PANEL REPORT

I&huhmh
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0

INTRODUCTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 1

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.0 2.1

SCOPEOFWORK.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .

FIELD RECONNAISSANCE BY PANEL.

. . . . . REVIEW OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS . . . . . BASIC CONCEmS OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT . . DEVELOPMENT IN LANDSLIDE AREAS . . . . . LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .
. . . . .

. . . . .
. . . . .

. . . . .
. . . . .

. . . . .

2
2

3 4

5
6

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GEOLOGIC SETTING.

. . . . . BEDROCK AND SURFICIAL UNITS . 2.1.1 Jurassic to Cretaceous Units . . 2.1.2 TertiaryUnits. . . . . . 2.1.3 Quaternary to Holocene Units. .

. 7 . 7 . 7 . 8 . 8
9
11 11

2.2 2.3
2.4

FAULTS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LANDSLIDES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.

PRELIMINARY COMPARISON WlTH LOMA PRIETA INFORMATION.

3.0 3.1

GENERAL REVIEW OF SITE-SPECIFIC REPORTS

PENITENCIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT OLDPIEDMONTROAD AREA 3.2.1 Ambra Property . . 3.2.2 LoBuePropeny . . 3.2.3 Lands of Brancato . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

13

3.2

. . . .
. . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .

16 16 18 18
20 20 23 23

3.3

SIERRA ROAD AREA

3.3.1 Weyhe/Aiassa Project 3.3.2 Abbas Property . 3.3.3 Hong Property. .

. . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

ble of Contents (continuedl

Paee
3.4 3.5

DOREL DRIVEIJASMINE RANCH AREA

. . . . . . . . . . SUNCREST AVENUE PROPERTY . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

24

26 29
29 29 29
30

4.0

RELEVANT ISSUES RELATED TO SITE-SPECIFIC REPORTS .

EVOLUTION OF STANDARD OF PRACTICE

4.1
4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

. . . . . . . . .

COMPREHENSIVETREATMENTOFAVAILABLEDATA RESOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY OF DATA USE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS .

. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION PROGRAM . SLOPESTABILITY . . . . . . . INCLINOMETER MEASUREMENTS . .

FUTURE SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
CONCLUSIONS

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

30
30

31 31 32

4.8

. . . . . . . . .

5.0
5.1
5.2

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LANDSLIDES. . . . . 5.2.1 Extent . . . . . 5.2.2 Depth . . . . . 5.2.3 Bedrock Displacement . 5.2.4 Future Movements.

32

5.3

FAULTS . . . . . .
5.3.1 Benyessa Fault 5.3.2 Crosley Fault .

. . . .

5.4

REVIEW OF PAST STUDIES

RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES.

6.0
7.0

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37
41

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 1. Table 2. Table 3.

Summary of Proposed Major Projects in San Jose East Foothills List of Aerial Photographs Made Available to the Panel Geologic Time Scale page 12

kIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

fol.lows
Figure 1. Location Map - San Jose East Foothills Moratorium Area Figure 2. Maintenance History - San Jose East Foothills Moratorium Area Figure 3. Proposed Developments - the San Jose Foothills Moratorium Area Plate 1. Topographic Map of Moratorium Area (Base Map USGS Calaveras Reservoir Quadrangle: 1:12,000) Landslide Map of Moratorium Area (from Nilsen and Brabb, 1972) Geologic Map of Moratorium Area (from Coyle, 1984) Table 2 Figure 1 Figure 2 in rear pocket

Plate 2.

in rear pocket

Plate 3.

in rear pocket

Table of C o n t m (continuedl

Appendix 1. Review of Previous Regional Geologic Publications and Studies Appendix 2. Geologic Review Panel Scope of Work Appendix 3. An Urgency Ordinance of the City of San Jose Imposing a Six-Month Moratorium On All Development Approval In the Designated East Foothills Area. Appendix 4. San Jose Municipal Code Chapter 17.10 Geologic Hazard Regulations, Part 1- Geologic Hazard Clearance Part 2 - Disclosure to Prospective Buyers

Appendix 5. San Jose Municipal Building Code Chapter 17.04 Excavation and Grading Appendix 6. California Division of Mines and Geology Note 44: Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geologic Reports Appendix 7. State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports Geologic Guidelines for Earthquake and/or Fault Hazard Reports Guidelines for Geophysical Reports Guidelines for Groundwater Investigation Reports

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The San Jose East Foothills Geologic Review Panel's (Panel) report to the City of San Jose (City) presents evaluations, conclusions, and recommendations from the review of existing geologic and geotechnical reports and the available data and information in the San Jose East Foothills. City Ordinance No. 24444 (Appendix 3) imposed a six-month moratorium on all development within a portion of the San Jose East Foothills. The boundary of the "Moratorium Area" (Area) is shown on Figure 1 and Plate 1. The Panel was convened by the City to respond to new data and information concerning the existence and nature of landslide activity contained in the Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) Penitencia Water Treatment Plant (PWTP) report. This report was prepared for the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)and became available in August 1993. Other reports submitted for geologic and geotechnical approval for development in the City's designated "Moratorium Area" were also reviewed by the Panel, in addition to maps, reports and other published information of a regional nature. Seven medium to large projects, and several smaller projects currently proposed, are in various stages of development approval, and are all subject to issuance of a Geologic Hazard Clearance Certificate and an Excavation and Grading Permit (Appendices 4 and 5). The proposed developments are summarized on Table 1 and their locations are shown on Figure 3.
1.1

SCOPEOFWORK

As per the Scope of Work presented in Appendix 2, the five member review Panel, composed of three engineering geologists and two geotechnical engineers, was asked to provide the City with the following: A review and evaluation of the August, 1993 WCC report. A review and evaluation of a number of geologic/geotechnical reports previously submitted to the City for review and issuance of a Geologic Hazard Clearance Certificate and an Excavation and Grading Permit. A field reconnaissance and review of aerial photographs and previously submitted reports covering other portions of the Area in addition to the major proposed development projects, and conclusions regarding the landslide hazards in those areas in light of the WCC PWTP report. Additional insight as to the limits of the Penitencia Creek Landslide (PCLS),the effectiveness of existing subsurface monitoring programs, the general level and limitations of knowledge of the geologic and geotechnical conditions in the East Foothills, and other related issues.

Presentations were made to the Panel by seven geologists and geotechnical engineers who have worked in the Area and written reports which were reviewed by the Panel.
1.2

FIELD RECONNAISSANCE BY PANEL

The Geologic Review Panel conducted a brief half-day, on-the-ground general reconnaissance of the East Foothills and three of the five Panel members participated in a one-hour reconnaissance flight over the area. Ground reconnaissance was limited to travel on paved roads and short walks off these roads. The purpose of the ground reconnaissance was to observe reported problem areas with documented failures firsthand. The field reconnaissance and the flight over the site gave the Panel a general overview of the nature and extent of surficial features and the topography of the East Foothills, including the hummocky terrain, slide bowls and ridges, scarp and benched areas, steep slopes, incised drainages, and significant topographic relief. The Panel observed the locations of existing and proposed residential development, areas of instability, and major reference points such as Alum Rock, Jasmine Ranch, Boulder Drive, Sierra Road, Suncrest Avenue, the PWTP (with locations of monitoring sites, inclinometers, and piezometers), City boundaries, and major drainage courses. On-the-ground observations of roadcuts and rock outcrops throughout the East Foothills gave the Panel an overview of the major geologic bedrock units (e.g., serpentine, Santa Clara Formation, and Berryessa Formation) and their relative structural relationships. Direct observations of distress to improvements in selected areas included pavement cracks, house foundation problems, offset curbs, distressed culverts, retaining walls, seepage, differential settlement, and abandoned housing pads. 13 .
REVIEW OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Aerial photographs from the City, County and California Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) files were made available to the Panel for review (Table 2). Stereoscopic aerial photographs, taken at various scales and lighting conditions, provide a three-dimensional historical perspective of the topography and surficial conditions in a given area. Aerial photographs also enable individual investigators to make independent comparisons and interpretations of surface topographic features which express surficial geology and geomorphology (i.e., offset drainages, tonal changes, lineaments, etc.) with previous mapping done in the area. Careful examination of aerial photographs by experienced personnel can allow detection of even subtle changes in slope conditions over time. The quality of aerial photograph interpretation is limited by the investigator's understanding of a given area and previous experience with interpreting similar geologic features on photographs.

Aerial photographs cannot be used conclusively to determine presence, activity, activity rates, or causal effects and relationships between landslides and faults. However, in an area of known landsliding and active faulting there is commonly a relatively good consensus among individual investigators regarding obvious landslides, surface fault traces, offsets, and tonal features. Early aerial photographs (i.e., 1939-1950) were useful to the Panel in analyzing portions of the East Foothills prior to development, including natural slope conditions and the absence or presence of landslide features at given sites. The Panel members agreed that both black and white and true color photographs showed evidence of probable massive slide areas, scarps, linear features possibly related to faulting, terraces and broken~benched topography, numerous small slides along deeply incised drainages, and the subdivision of larger slide complexes into smaller slides. True color and infrared photographs showed subtle tonal changes related to moisture content and composition of underlying bedrock units (i.e., serpentine, fault-related lineaments) and changes in vegetative cover. The photographs contain abundant evidence of extensive landslide topography throughout the East Foothills and raise the possibility that the limits of landsliding in the area may actually be larger than previously mapped by any one author. The aerial photographs also suggest that landslides commonly disrupt the actual surface expressions of faults, and complicate the evaluation of faulting on hillslopes in portions of the East Foothills.
1.4

BASIC CONCEPTS OF HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT

Living in hillside areas commonly offers unique views of the surrounding landscape, a natural environment of great beauty, and reduced urban congestion. For these reasons development has occurred in many of the hillsides of the Ct of San Jose. Remaining vacant hillsides are under iy consideration for development so that homes providing these benefits can be made available to new owners. Three basic elements required for hillside development are:
1) A satisfactory building area

2) Access via public and private roadways and driveways, and

3) Supporting utility and communication facilities (electric lines, gas lines, telephone cables, storm drains, sewer lines, cable television lines, etc.)

To support long-term, trouble-free development of hillsides where landslides are present, it is necessary to avoid ground instabilities or to provide adequate mitigation measures to protect them from future damage. Maintenance of all engineered improvements is necessary at any developed site. However, the cost of increased maintenance, or repairs of significant distress caused by ground movement, may become intolerable if the movements affect the building site or

the lifeline systems that support it. To safely develop hillsides, the location, areal extent, type and potential for movement of landslides must be established. Small landslides may have relatively minimal impact on structures or facilities unless they occur at a critical location. Other landslides may be so large that they cannot be avoided if an area is to be developed. Therefore, potential impacts must be carefully considered. The likelihood of movement and the rate and distance over which movement may occur, must also be considered. Some landslides may move so slowly that reasonable warnings and or maintenance can be provided for existing facilities prior to serious distress. In contrast, other landslides and debris flows may move so rapidly that serious damage can occur without prior warning. Many methodologies have been used by geotechnical engineers to mitigate landslides. The general conceptual approach to stabilizing landslides is to either increase the strength of the hillside, or reduce the forces causing the instability (or a combination of both). Commonly used techniques include: Mass grading to remove the landslide (and recreate the hillside environment in some cases). Removal of soils from the head of the slide to reduce the driving forces causing the landslide. Placement of large amounts of compacted fill in buttresses at the toe of the slide to provide lateral support for unstable areas. Construction of large retaining walls to increase support of unstable areas, and Installation of surface or subsurface drainage systems to remove water from the landslide mass. In some cases, the costs of mitigating large landslides is simply too great to be feasible and development is not permitted. Site conditions associated with landslides may also preclude mitigation. A common example is the lack of access or space available to implement adequate mitigation measures.
1.5

DEVELOPMENT I LANDSLIDE AREAS N

Many urban areas in California are located in terrain where landslides are present, As hillsides were developed throughout the state, serious damage sometimes resulted. In order to respond to these conditions, many cities adopted ordinances which govern or prohibit developments in areas which may be prone to landsliding. In Northern California, ordinances or special requirements govern development in landslide terrain in the cities of El Cemto, Oakland, and in the town of

Los Gatos, as well as Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. Currently, the City of San Jose has geologic hazard regulations and excavation and grading code for evaluation of landsliding and other geologic hazards through a review and approval process by City staff. In Southern California, large slow-moving landslide complexes are present on the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Some of the geologic conditions in this area are similar to those present in the East San Jose Foothills area. Most recently, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes provided guidelines for permitting development in portions of their existing landslide moratorium area. The geologic character of each of eight zones was established, and guidelines were established governing possible development approaches within these zones. Development of habitable structures requires that applicants demonstrate that the site has a geotechnical safety factor against sliding of at least 1.5 under static conditions and 1.1. during earthquakes. Hillside development in San Jose began in the early sixties with the approval of housing tracts in the San Jose Highlands and other areas. Once completed, homes and streets in a developed tract on Boulder Drive began to exhibit signs of distress, and continued access to these homes required extensive city maintenance of the road and utilities. Closing of the lower portion of Boulder Drive in 1983 is an example of slope failure that affected both private development and the public right-of-way. Utilities for some remaining homes along Boulder Drive are now aboveground, because cost of repairing underground utilities became prohibitive. The locations and level of general maintenance in the San Jose East Foothills Area are shown on Figure 2.
1.6

LIMITATIONS

This report was prepared solely for the use of the City, in response to the Scope of Work jointly agreed to by the City and the Panel members. The contents of the report represent the professional opinions of the Panel members based on the information reviewed. The Panel's conclusions and recommendations are based on data and reports currently available for this Area. The Panel's deliberations and report are not intended as a substitute for a formal technical review of any of the individual properties or submittals, nor has the Panel prepared formal review sheets summarizing all of the specific issues that pertain to specific sites or reports. It is not the intent of the Panel to approve or disapprove of any specific project report. The Panel did not collect or develop any orijzjnal geologic or geotechnical data and conducted no independent geotechnical analyses. These reviews were conducted to provide information to assist City personnel in future project reviews, and to focus attention and clarify the nature of potential geologic and geotechnical hazards in the East Foothills area.

1.7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Members of the Panel would like to extend their appreciation to the City of San Jose. Many individuals answered questions, provided assistance and suggestions, and supplied copies of referenced documents. In particular, Ms. Patricia Gomes, assistant geologist with the City , worked very closely with the Panel, and coordinated and supported all of the Panel's various efforts throughout the duration of the study. Mr. Pier Maggiani, Division Manager of the Public Works Department also provided assistance to the Panel. Their efforts are greatly appreciated. The Panel would also like to extend its gratitude to the various individuals and consultants who made presentations to the Panel. Their input clarified numerous issues and helped us to better understand the complex issues affecting the East Foothills Moratorium Area.

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MAJOR PROJECTS IN SAN JOSE EAST FOOTHILLS

PDC 9 1-4-24 3-6699 Developer: Engineer: Geologist: Owner: Engineer: Geologist: Owner: Engineer: Geologist: Developers: Engineer: Geologist: Davidon Homes MacKay and Somps Jo Crosby & Associates

I)

Planning No. DPW Proj. No. Suncrest Avenue DavidonlSuncrest Planning No. DPW Proj. No. Dorel Drive Jasmine Ranch Planning No. DPW Proj. No. Dorel Drive Planning No. DPW Proj. No. Sierra Road Planning No. DPW Proj. No. Sierra Road

2)

PDC 89-8-110 3-4915

Gl Properties il HMH, Incorporated

Earth Systems Consultants
Robert Simpson Michael R k a r Co. E r h Systems Consultants at

3)

PDC 89-11-144

3-4539

4)

PDC 88-11-120

Gl Properties il
Advance Developers HMH,Incorporated Earth Systems Consultants

3-8 197

5)

PDC 93-517 PI' 93-5-27 3-10206

PDC 90-1-6

Owner.
Engineers:
Geologist: Developer: Engineer: Geologists:

Abbas Hagshenas

A Plus Associated Terra Consultants Inc. Raniel, Ignacio and Hong United Civil and Structural Engineers Co. Associated Terra Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Systems Co. Gill Properties Advanced Developers HMH, Incorporated Erh Systems Consultants at

6)

Planning No. DPW Proj. No.

3-9101

Sierra Road

7)

Planning No.

PDC 93-4-12 PT 93-4-9 1

Developers: Engineer: Geologist:

3-6700 DPW Proj. No. Old Piedmont Road Brancato

*Nole: This list reflects current information from City frles and is not all inclusive.

TABLE 2

LIST OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PANEL

LOCAT ION NO.

DATE
10-12-71 10-12-71 03-06-83 03-06-83 07-08-83 07-08-83 07-08-83 07-08-83 04-25-84 04-25-84 04-25-84 04-25-84 03-11-83 04-15-83 04-15-83 04-15-83 04-15-83 04-15-83 10-12-71 1'0-12-71 06-10-88 06-10-88 06-14-68 06-14-68

SCALE 1-1400 1-1400 1 :7200 1: 7200 1: 9600 1 :9600 1 :9600 1 :9600 1 :12000 1 :12000 1:2400

PHOTO #

East Foothills Infra Red

Boulder Drive Oblique Photos (San Jose Highlands )

1 :2400
-

Sierra Road Piedmont Penitencia Creek Slide Piedmont Road Penitencia Slide Hiahlands
-

1"-1400 ' 1"-2660 ' 11'*2660 '

AV-1006-17-09 AV-1006-16-10 1-210, 883995 1-210, 883995

GS-VBZK GS-VBZK

Boulder Slide
1939 # I s 28454, 55, 56 Alum Rock

San Jose

TABLE 2 - PAGE I OF4

TABLE 2 (cont.) LIST OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PANEL

LOCAT ION

NO.

DATE

SCALE

PHOTO # CIV-346-60 CIV-346-50 CIV-34 6-51 CIV-346-49 GS-HR, 2-15 GS-HR, 2-157 GS-HR, 2-152 GS-HR, 2-153 GS-HR, 2-156 GS-HR, 2-155 GS-HR, 2-98 GS-HR, 2-99 GS-HR, 2-100 GS-HRI 2-102 GS-HR, 2-101 GS-YE' GS-YF, 13-22 3-1 67 3-168 AV-550-16-31 AV-550-16-36 PH1065, 51120 PH1065, 51119 PH1065, 51118 AV-1006-17-11 AV-1006-17-10 AV-1277-15-11 AV-1277-15-09 AV-1277-15-10 AV-1277-15-12 AV-1905-17-03 AV-1905-17-02 AV-1905-17-05 832288, 1-1 832288, 1-2 832403R, 1-1 832403R, 1-2 832403, X1 AV-2569-01-01 AV-2569-01-02 AV-2569-01-03

Boulder Slide 1939 #'s 28454, 55, 56 Alum Rock San Jose (con' t )

TABLE 2 - PAGE 2 OF 4

TABLE 2 (cont.)

AIR PHOTOS I DMG FILES N

NO.

DATE

SCALE

PHOTO

USDA

CIV-284-54 to CIV-284-59 CIV-50, Flgt 176-12, 13,14 166-135, 136 Area 9 Flight 13, Frames 106-

WAC Corp., 520 Conger, Eugene, Or. Pacific Aerial Surveys

14 and 15

1 UNKNOWN

SOURCE 72404042-2-1, 2 and 3 72404042-7-1, 2, 3 and 4

TABLE 2 - PAGE 3 OF 4

TABLE 2 (cont.) SANTA CLARA COUNTY AERIAL, PHOTOS

LOCAT ION
UAg 1055 152.39

NO.

DATE

SCALE

PHOTO

8639

10-14-74

13-106

TABLE 2 - PAGE 4 OF 4

LQGABOON MAP

$AN JOSE EAST FOOTHILLS MORATORIUM AREA

*

FIGURE 1

THE AN JOSE EAST FOOTHILLS MORATORIUM AREA

FIGURE 2

THE AN JOSE EAST FOOTWILLS MORATORIUM AREA

FIGURE 3

2.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING

The Moratorium Area is located in the eastern foothills of the City of San Jose, on the westfacing slopes of the Diablo Range in north central Santa Clara County. The foothills are generally northwest-trending, west-facing hillslope areas underlain by Mesozoic and Tertiary geologic units which form the western limb of the Tularcitos syncline and generally dip to the northeast where the bedrock is in place. The axis of the northwest-plunging Tularcitos syncline crosses the eastern corner of the Moratorium Area. The geology is complicated by numerous mapped faults and what appear to be large, deep-seated landslides with smaller, shallow landslides superimposed throughout the area. The hills in the area are characterized by high relief, narrow valleys and ridges, hummocky slopes with topographic benches, and dissected erosional surfaces (terraces). The major drainages in the East Foothills are generally trellis-like, cutting across the northwest topographic trend, and are approximately equally spaced. Smaller drainage courses often end abruptly or are offset and discontinuous. Plate 1 shows the topography of the area. The following descriptions of the geologic units underlying the Moratorium Area are summarized from the published references which are listed and annotated in Appendix 1. Table 3 presents a geologic time table for the various geologic periods and epochs discussed below. Bedrock and surficial units in the area range in age from Middle Jurassic to Holocene.
2.1 2.1.1

BEDROCK AND SURFICIAL DEPOSITS

Jurassic to Cretaceous Units

Metamorphic Rocks of Franciscan Complex: The most prevalent Franci scan rocks in the Moratorium Area consist of glaucophane bearing schist, actinolite, garnet amphibolite, silica carbonate, and serpentine. Serpentine: Serpentine occurs as a wide sheared zone, characterizing the Berryessa fault zone near Berryessa Creek. It also crops out as isolated or discontinuous exposures on ridgetops, in creek banks and in cutslopes throughout the area. Within the East Foothills, serpentine is in fault contact with other Jurassic to Cretaceous rocks and locally appears to be in fault contact with the Santa Clara Formation. Berryessa Formation: Marine sandstones, shales and conglomerates of the Berryessa Formation are well exposed in beds along Penitencia and Berryessa Creeks, and in blocks of slide debris along Crosley and Sweigert Creeks. Sporadic outcrops are present in minor drainages and in the vicinity of the San Jose Highlands. Unnamed Metamorphic and Volcanic Rocks: These rocks consist of quartz keratophyre (a lenticular body near the west end of Alum Rock Canyon), spilitic greenstone (in the Claitor Way

area and along the ridge southwest from Boulder Drive), and tuff (near San Jose Highlands along Boulder Drive and Sophist Drive).
2.1.2

Tertiary Units

Monterey Group: Interbedded sandstones, cherty shales, and siltstones are mapped east of the Hayward fault in the easternmost portions of the East ~oothills below the crest of the ridge. just The Monterey is the lowermost Tertiary unit and is exposed along the west limb of the Tularcitos syncline. Monterey sandstone beds are exposed along Sierra Road northeast of Roddy Ranch and along the upper reaches of Berryessa Creek. Good exposures of cherty shale, which is generally resistant to erosion, can be found along Penitencia Creek, Sierra Road, and Berryessa Creek. Rocks of the Monterey group are commonly overlain by highly expansive soils. The thickness of the unit is variable, with a maximum thickness of 1968 feet observed near Sierra Road. Briones Formation: Marine sandstones and siltstones of the Briones Formation are mapped in small areas in the northeast projection of the Moratorium Area and along steep slopes of the north wall of Alum Rock Canyon between Sierra Road and Penitencia Creek. The formation varies in thickness between 656 and 2953 feet and contains fossils (pelecypods) indicating a shallow, near shore depositional environment. Contra Costa Group: Non-marine sandstones, conglomerates, and siltstones of the Contra Costa Group are exposed in the core of the Tularcitos syncline in the easternmost portion of the East Foothills. This unit was originally designated Orinda Formation by Crittenden (1951). It generally underlies areas of subdued topography, where conglomerate beds form individual "ribs". Rocks of the Contra Costa Group characteristically weather to green, red, brown or maroon1 purple soils and are thought to have been deposited in fluvial and lacustrine environments (Crittenden, 1951; Dibblee, 1973; Coyle, 1984).
2.1.3

Quaternary to Holocene Units

Santa Clara Formation: Poorly consolidated, interbedded, nonmarine gravels, sands, silt and clay of the Santa Clara Formation blanket landslide-prone slopes in the central portion of the East Foothills. Good exposures of these rocks are present in cut slopes north of San Jose Highlands and along the middle reaches of Benyessa Creek. The Formation is characterized by "badlands" topography as represented in slopes northeast of the intersection of Cropley and Old Piedmont Roads. The thickness of the Santa Clara Formation is estimated to vary from several feet to over 328 feet. Freshwater fossils (gastropods and pelecypods) present in the unit indicate fluvial and lacustrine origins.

Tenace Deposits: Terrace deposits are present overlying the Monterey Group near the mineral springs in Alum Rock Canyon, along the north side of Alum Rock Canyon east of the San Jose Highlands landslide (Coyle, 1984; see Plate 3). and on the north side of Sweigert Creek. Deposits are generally thin and of limited extent. Alluvium and Colluvium: Alluvium is a general term for loose unconsolidated deposits of rock, mineral and soil material accumulated in streams, rivers, lakes and fans at the foot of mountain slopes, all transported by running water. In the East Foothills, alluvium consists of poorly consolidated boulders, cobbles, gravel, sand, silt and clay underlying the Santa Clara Valley floor, along the western boundary of the area and adjacent to Penitencia and Berryessa Creeks. Alluvium is also present in the channels of smaller creeks throughout the East Foothills. Colluvium is a general term for loose, of'ten non-uniform, unconsolidated deposits on a slope, accumulated by downslope movement under the influence of gravity. In the East Foothills, colluvium is represented by slope deposits of unconsolidated gravel, silt, and clay exceeding several feet in thickness. Where alluvium and colluvium are water-saturated or underlain by a shallow groundwater table, these loosely consolidated surficial units are prone to uneven settling of the ground surface by the mechanisms of liquefaction, lateral spreading, lurching, differential settlement, and/or landslide failures, especially during earthquake shaking. Landslide Deposits: Landslide deposits in the East Foothills consist of a mixture of soil, colluvium, slide debris and possibly bedrock that has moved downslope, Some of these deposits may be active while others are stable under the present environment. The deposits generally are composed of angular to subangular fiagments of bedrock in a matrix of clayey sand or sandy clay. Some deposits contain large intact blocks of bedrock surrounded by colluvium and landslide debris. Within the East Foothills, several groups of complex landslides have been mapped (Nilsen and Brabb, 1972; Dibblee, 1973; Coyle, 1984). These are characterized by several coalescing deep-seated landslides upon which relatively shallower landslide failures have occurred. Usually different types of landslide failures are present within each landslide complex. Artificial Fill: Artificial fill is defined as heterogeneous to stratified mixtures of earth materials placed during grading and earthwork activities along roads, building pads, retaining structures, and driveways. The engineering properties of fill vary with the quality of placement and its age.
2.2

FAULTS

The Area is traversed by the active, northwest-trending Hayward fault zone along its eastern boundary and by the smaller subparallel Berryessa, Crosley , and QuimbyiClayton faults (see Plate 3). All of the smaller faults were mapped as subsidiary to the Hayward fault zone (Dibblee, 1973), and all have a general northwest strike. However, faults within the East Foothills lack clear geomorphic expression and evidence of seismic activity, and their exact

locations are locally obscured by landslides (Bryant, 1980; Coyle, 1984). Therefore, it may be difficulteven with subsurface work to resolve the "in-placet' locations of the fault traces. The Hayward fault is a major eastward splay of the seismically active San Andreas fault system. In the East Foothills, the fault appears as a narrow, right-stepping en echelon fault zone, with a generally near-vertical dip and right-lateral, strike-slip displacement. Some vertical displacement is evident in exposures in Alum Rock Canyon (see Plate 3). Although considered active, the surface trace of the fault in the East Foothills southeast of Berryessa Creek is generally obscured by landslides and erosional features, and the exact location of the active fault trace is unknown. The Benyessa fault is characterized by a wide zone of serpentine, silica carbonate and other rocks associated with the Coast Range ophiolite. In most places where the fault is exposed, the serpentine matrix is in contact with the Benyessa Formation on the east. On the west, serpentine is faulted against the Santa Clara Formation. Movement along the fault has been rightlateral strike-slip and reverse oblique along a steep (60-75 degrees) northeast dipping fault plane, suggesting that the Benyessa fault may merge at depth with the Hayward fault to the east. The Bemyessa fault is exposed in the vicinity of Berryessa Creek (656 feet wide), in the north-facing bank of Sierra Creek (787 feet wide), and in the vicinity of Suncrest Avenue where it bifurcates (Plate 3). A northeast trace is found in roadcuts of Sophist Drive along the ridge extending southwest from Boulder Drive, and is marked by scattered exposures downslope towards Penitencia Creek. A southwest trace is exposed in Suncrest Avenue south of Perie Lane. The Crosley fault generally lies to the west of the Berryessa fault zone within the Moratorium Area (Plate 3). It has been characterized as a potentially active reverse to reverse-oblique fault, with a northeast dip. Its sinuous trace follows the base of the west-facing slope of the foothills north of Crosley Creek. Exposures are found in Crosley Creek, where serpentine is thrust over Santa Clara Formation, and in the vicinity of Sweigert Creek where a line of springs and seeps delineates its surface trace. South of Crosley Creek, the fault trace disappears within an area of extensive mapped landslide deposits (Coyle, 1984). The fault terminates to the south near San Jose Hospital, where it presumably joins the main trace of the Hayward fault (Plate 3). In the San Jose Highlands Area, the Crosley fault is found in exposures that are roughly parallel to and on the west side of the Berryessa fault. The QuimbyKlayton fault was mapped by Dibblee (1973) as a high-angle, right-lateral strikeslip to reverse fault, based on the linearity of Dutard Creek and the general location of the mountain front just south of upper Penitencia Creek (Plate 3). Right-lateral offset of pebbles was observed at the mouth of Alum Rock Canyon. The fault has a vertical to near-vertical dip, with little evidence of offset soil, colluvium or alluvium. Much of the trace is concealed beneath landslide debris and alluvium and may merge with the Berryessa or Crosley fault near Suncrest Avenue.

23 .

LANDSLIDES

Landslides have been mapped over a large portion of the Moratorium Area, especially by Nilsen (1972) and Coyle (1984). The studies by Nilsen were in support of a land-use planning effort, to provide basic geologic constraints to fbture use of the East Foothills area. His work was primarily an aerial photo interpretation study, and at a scale that was not sufficiently detailed for site-specific land-use decisions. Nilsen and Brabb (1972) published a more detailed map of a portion of the Moratorium Area at a scale of 1:12,000, relating the damage in the San Jose Highlands and Vista Grande Heights to the presence of landslides (Plate 2). Coyle (1984) mapped numerous landslides and landslide complexes based on aerial photo interpretation, with extensive field checking (Plate 3). He assigned activity levels (active, dormant, static) to the slides based on the freshness of geomorphic features and evidence of recent movements, such as damage to roads or structures. Coyle delineated five coalescing landslide complexes, which he named Alum Rock, San Jose Highlands, Suncrest Drive, RoddyLaBue Ranch, and Benyessa Creek. With the exception of the stream canyons and the highland areas above Penitencia Creek, Coyle mapped most of the surface materials in the Moratorium Area as landslide deposits. He did not conduct any geotechnical analysis of the stability of the deposits.
2.4

PRELIMINARY COMPARISON WITH LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE INFORMATION

Steep slopes and widespread landslide deposits in portions of the Santa Cruz Mountains led to earthquake-triggered landslide damage in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Keefer, 1991; McCrink, in progress). The geologic setting is similar, although not identical, in the East Foothills. Because the Panel felt that the potential for earthquake-triggered landslides in the Moratorium Area was real, we compared the ground crack map from the Lorna Prieta event with previous geologic and landslide mapping of that area, to see how reliable the maps were in identifjlingareas of potential future failures.
A preliminary ground crack map (McCrink, in progress) indicates that renewed movement lr occurred in areas previously mapped as large landslides (Cooper-Clark, 1974; C a k et al., 1989) in the Summit Ridge area during the Lorna Prieta earthquake. Ground cracks were particularly common on steep slopes underlain by Tertiary and younger units between the northwesttrending San Andreas and Zayante fault zones. Although ground displacements occurred outside of areas previously mapped as landslides, most of the observed surface failures were within previously identified landslides, usually either near a scarp or at the toe of the slide. Ground ruptures and landslides were prevalent on dip slopes and along steep slopes adjacent to stream channels.

r
("n [

Similar ground ruptures did not occur in the East Foothills during the Loma Prieta Earthquake, because the Loma Prieta epicenter was more than 20 miles away. However, strong ground shaking similar in intensity to that felt by the Summit Ridge area, is expected in the East Foothills from potential future earthquakes along the Hayward and Calavers faults. Therefore, the hazard is believed to be a real one for the landslide complexes in the Moratorium Area.

TABLE 3 GEOLOGIC TiME SCALE

SYSTEM OR
EMS
PERIODS

SERIES OR EPOCHS

TUlE M MILuON YEARS*

SOME IMPORTANT GEOLOGIC EVENTS IN CALIFORNIA

Continues taultlnp, mountain buildlnq ano lanoslide formation. Mountain bulloing rssoclrted wltn Corn Range Orogany

Quaternary Pliocene

2to3

F01mltlon of nassrvr ancient lrnosliacs

R i n c i ~ abullding 01 coast ana Transverse l Ranges Local movements in Cosn and 1ransversc Ranges

Tertiary Eocene Paleocene

I I " ?I
65

wiaesorcad coastal seas

Cretaceous

auilalnq 01 tne Sietra NcvaOa. Klamatn anc Pan~nsulir Ranges snallow sear

I
I
PALEOZOIC

Triassic Permian Pennsylvanian

225

! 1,

2*
320

1 1
!

Voluntsm ana mountain builoing (extent ununown)

I
I

Devonian Silurian Ordovician

'

I
I

391I - , 440

ROba~ly snallow sea over mucn of California. Cambrian t o Permtan

1
UDlltt Mountain buildinq in Sou?%rn California

I Cambrian
PRECAMBRIAN
*Before the present

1 A
570

o m o t rocks ana Mountrv

5
I

3,600+

30 GENERAL REVIEW OF SITE-SPECIFIC REPORTS . In addition to the published geologic reports covering the Moratorium Area, the Panel reviewed the geotechnical report prepared by WCC (1993) for the Penitencia Water Treatment Plant, and a number of geologic and geotechnical site-specific project reports submitted to the City for Geologic Hazard Clearance for proposed developments within the Moratorium Area. These reviews were conducted to provide information to assist City personnel in evaluating landslide hazards on those properties in light of the WCC report. The locations of the project sites are shown on Figure 3.
31 . PENITENCIA WATER TREATMENT PLANT

A geotechnical study conducted by WCC (1993) evaluated the presence and nature of a deep-seated landslide beneath the PWTP, and assessed the potential risk of future earthquake-induced movement of the landslide. The study consisted in part of a review and compilation of existing information provided by the SCVWD and by investigators on other projects nearby. The report documented downslope movements of surface survey monuments and deep displacements measured by sequential inclinometer readings. The data and information reviewed by WCC included: boring logs surface monument surveys slope inclinometer readings piezometer readings aerial photograph interpretations downhole geophysical measurements reports of other consultants In addition, WCC performed a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the site, and conducted a 2-D dynamic finite element deformation analysis of reactivation of the landslide mass during a postulated Magnitude 7 event on the Hayward fault. Based on their studies, WCC concluded that the PWTP is situated on a large, deep-seated landslide with a basal rupture surface which is essentially horizontal at that location and extends to depths in excess of 200 feet. The PWTP property has experienced, and continues to experience, movement in the downhill direction. The toe of the landslide was placed by WCC downslope and to the west of the site on the basis of subsurface exploration, inclinometer measurements, and the downslope limits of distress to improvements at the ground surface, especially roads and curbs. However, the location of the uphill limits of the landslide and the head scarp were unclear to them from the available data. Their conclusions were generally

consistent with earlier mapping by Coyle (1984) and Wahler (1 982), who had also concluded that the site was located on a large landslide. The WCC report indicates that the PWTP site is located in an area of complex geology. The site is underlain by a thick deposit of the Santa Clara Formation or reworked Santa Clara Formation material. No geologic cross sections were prepared by WCC for the site, primarily because of the lack of distinctive geologic data from the available deep boring logs. However, they did identify the PWTP property as the lower portion of a much larger landslide complex which probably first moved in Pleistocene time, and has been modified since then by erosion and faulting. They further identified landslide terrain as extending from the San Jose valley floor to the crest of the ridge at elevation approximately 1200 feet, well upslope and to the east of their site. The limits of the terrain as delineated in their aerial photo interpretation study were shown on their Figure 16. According to Boddie (pers. communication, 1994). this figure was intended to illustrate the extent of the general landslide terrain in the vicinity of the PWTP, not the extent of the active "Penitencia Creek Landslide." The report states that "the extent of the active portion of the landslide complex beyond the PWTP was not evident on the aerial photographs." For example, it was not clear from the aerial photographs they studied whether morphologic features associated with Dutard Creek and extending northwestward from the bend in that creek are the results of landsliding or of faulting, or whether both processes may have been involved. Section 2-2'(used to establish the boundary conditions for the landslide model) shows the landslide extending uphill across the Quimby fault, the Crosley fault, and a major portion of the Berryessa fault zone. The borehole and inclinometer data used for construction of section 2-2' do nat constrain the location of the slide rupture surface uphill beyond inclinometer 1-22 and boring B-1, nor do they demonstrate that the rupture surface actually crosses the Quimby, Crosley, or Benyessa fault zones. Only one inclinometer (1-16) shows movement uphill of B-1, and this is to the southeast out of the plane of the section. Furthermore, it is conceivable that the movement observed in inclinometer 1-1 9 is a secondary rupture surface branching from the main rupture surface. Between boring B-1 and the upper limits of the Berryessa fault zone, deep boring data are not sufficient to define the subsurface geology, the configuration of the fault zone, or any landslide rupture surface. The slide rupture surface proposed in WCCYs cross section 2-2'continues uphill as a planar slide plane/zone which is inferred by WCC to branch into a lower and an upper slide planelzone. For purposes of their analysis WCC assumed that two steeply inclined surfaces of weakness, representing the possible upslope extent of these two slide plane/zones, exist in the two nearest faults that traverse the hillslope to the east. The two proposed surface locations for the extent of this landslide are: 1) at the Quimby fault for the upper slide plane/zone, and 2) several hundred feet into the Berryessa fault zone for the lower slide planelzone. For purposes of discussion

WCC referred to these steeply inclined surfaces of weaknesses as "head scarps" even though they indicate that "this terminology should not be construed to indicate that distinct scarps are present at the upslope extent of the slide". While WCC identifies a "scarp" on the hillslope east of the PWTP site (Figure 16, composite photointerpretation figure, WCC, 1993), no such feature was identified by the Panel during our review of aerial photographs, or during our ground and aerial reconnaissances. It is the opinion of the Panel that additional subsurface field work would be required to establish the actual upper extent of this landslide, and any physical "head scarp". WCC's review of the 37 inclinometers installed between about the mid-1960's and 1991 and the survey monument data indicate that the landslide movement has been relatively slow over recent years (on the order of 113 to 112 inch per year), but that the movements appeared to accelerate during earthquake events. No evidence was provided to indicate a correlation of landslide movement with rainfall. WCC also performed a probabilistic seismic hazard evaluation of the PWTP site. The peak horizontal ground accelerations were evaluated for a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 and 100 years. Two attenuation relationships were used in the analysis: Joyner and Boore (1988) - for rock and stiff soil sites, and Geomatrix Consultants (Sadigh, 1993) - for rock sites. A log-normal distribution of acceleration attenuation about the median values defined by the standard deviation was conservatively assumed. The results of these analyses showed that the Hayward fault is the dominant source of the potential ground motions at the site due to its high probability of a large event and its proximity to the site. The computed peak horizontal ground accelerations with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 and 100 years were 0.93-0.95g and 1.13g, respectively. Based on these results WCC recommended peak ground accelerations of 9.95g and 1.log to represent motions at the PWTP site with a 10 percent probability of not being exceeded in the next 50 and 100 years, respectively. Results of 2-D dynamic finite element slope deformation analysis conducted by WCC indicated that movements in the range of 1 to 2 feet could be triggered by a Magnitude 7 event on the nearby Hayward fault (based on a mean peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.62g). Simplified deformation analyses using the Makdisi-Seed (1978) and the Newmark (1965) cumulative displacement methods for a similar event gave values of deformation ranging from 1 to 6 feet and 112 to 2 feet, respectively. WCC also concluded that the deep-seated landslide beneath the PWTP site would continue to undergo relatively slow, steady movement in the absence of earthquake shaking. The Panel concluded that the W C C report for the PWTP site was important in several respects:
It documented compelling evidence for active movement of this portion of the Penitencia Creek Landslide, primarily based on the incIi nometer and surface survey monument data.

It confirmed the prevailing opinion of the Panel that the most likely origin of the topography of the Moratorium Area was the downslope movement of large landslide complexes. It strongly suggested that the limits of the current active sliding are not found within the PWTP property. However, there was not enough information available to W C C to establish the limits of sliding, especially upslope from the plant site itself. It provided a probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for the area which is consistent with the current standard of practice, and which demonstrates the probability that buildings in the area will be subjected to strong ground shaking during their usable lives. It demonstrated the importance of analyzing the geotechnical stability conditions at the site in evaluating the level of hazard affecting the property. It provided an estimate of the downslope movements which the slide mass could undergo as a result of a Magnitude 7 earthquake on the nearby Hayward fault. The study was clearly limited by the availability of surface and subsurface geologic and geotechnical information, and its significance for other development projects nearby is affected by the same uncertainties. In the Panel's view, it is imperative that the issue of the limits of active sliding be resolved before additional development occurs in the adjacent properties. Furthermore, the mechanism of sliding and the implications for the static and dynamic stability of similar landslide deposits throughout the Moratorium Area should be evaluated in the City's review process.
3.2

OLD PIEDMONT ROAD AREA

Three projects are located within this area: Ambra, Lo Bue, and Lands of Brancato. A review summary of reports covering each project is presented below.
3.2.1

Ambra Property

Published reports that cover the subject site describe the presence of unconsolidated Santa Clara Formation, serpentine and sandstone of the Franciscan Complex, a trace of the Crosley fault along the west side of the property, sediments associated with the Berryessa Formation, landslide debris, and a landslide on the site (Nilsen, 1972; Dibblee, 1973; and Coyle, 1984). Coyle noted the presence of sheared serpentine in SweigedCropley Creek adjacent to the northern property line. The geologic mapping and the borings drilled on the site indicate that the site is underlain by Franciscan sandstone, Oakland Conglomerate, and serpentine (ESC, 1978a and 1988a,b). The site is located within the area Coyle (1984) refers to as the "Roddy-Lo Bue Ranch Landslide Complex".

The geologic map prepared by Earth Systems Consultants (ESC) in 1978 (ESC, 1978a) showed the Crosley fault as the contact between Franciscan Complex and the Santa Clara Formation, but the materials reported in the trench logs appear to be not Franciscan lithologies but Santa Clara lithologies. Two of the three trenches show a vertical fault while the third shows a plane dipping 50 degrees to the east, into the hill. The results of a subsequent boring on the site (ESC, 1979a) revealed Santa Clara Formation materials below "a combination of residual soil derived from serpentine and very weathered serpentine bedrock" about 50 feet east of the previously identified fault trace. The subsurface conditions in this boring, when compared with the previously reported location of the Crosley fault, indicate a low angle surface (5 degrees to 20 degrees) dipping to the east. A subsequently excavated trench (ESC, 1983a,b) shows what appears to be Santa Clara Formation type material over a sheared siltstone, and the contact is labeled as the Crosley fault with a dip of about 20 degrees to the east (into the hillside).
A soil engineering report was prepared for Lands of Ambra, Tract 7002 by ESC in 1985 (ESC,

1985). The report was specifically intended to address the design and construction of the cut and fill slopes, the retaining walls along Ambra Way, the street section, and the utility trench backfill. No recommendations were presented for grading of individual lots as they were to be done under a separate plan. The 1985 report indicated that highly weathered, plastic soils and rock materials derived from the Franciscan Complex were exposed in the cut slopes. Building setbacks were established to locate all residential units east of the Crosley fault. A pseudo-static slope stability analysis was conducted for the proposed cut slope using an effective horizontal ground acceleration of 0.25g. This resulted in a factor of safety of 1.6. To mitigate the potential for soil creep, the slope gradient was reduced by an eight-foot-wide bench to be placed four feet below the top of the slope.
A supplemental soil report (ESC, 1988a) prepared for four lots in Tract 7002 was based on the

previous geologic studies (ESC, 1978a, 1979a, 1983a,b, and 1985), seven boring drilled in 1988 ranging in depth from 6 to 20 feet, and laboratory test results. The 1988 report indicated that the site will experience ground shaking due to earthquakes on the major fault systems in the Bay Area, and that for a near-source earthquake of Magnitude 7 the site can expect to have an average acceleration of 0.2g for 10 to 12 cycles, with each cycle having a period of about 0.5 seconds. For a distant earthquake of Magnitude 8.3, ESC estimated that the site can expect to have an average ground acceleration of 0.3g for 18 to 20 cycles with each cycle having a period of about 0.7 seconds. Another supplemental soil report (ESC, 1988b) prepared for five lots in Tract 7002 was based on the previous geologic studies (ESC, 1978a, 1979% 1983a,b, and 1985), ten borings drilled in 1990 ranging in depth from 11 to 20 feet, and laboratory test results. The report identified an area of recent bank failure and provided recommendations to mi tigate the condition. Similar seismic criteria as proposed for design of the above four lots on the property were recommended for these five lots.

3.2.2

LoBue Property

Published reports that cover the Lo Bue site noted the presence of unconsolidated Santa Clara Formation type materials, serpentine and sandstone of the Franciscan Complex, trace(s) of the Crosley fault, sediments associated with the Berryessa Formation, landslide debris, and massive landslides in the site vicinity. The site appears to be located north of the large regional landslide area referred to as the "Roddy-LoBue Landslide Complex", but is located adjacent to a smaller landslide complex referred to by Coyle (1984) as the "Berryessa Creek Landslide Complex" and adjacent to historic instability to the northwest on Old Piedmont Road. The Berryessa Creek Landslide Complex is shown by Coyle to extend from Old Piedmont Road into the hillside north and northeast of the site. The geologic map prepared by ESC (1978b) shows the Crosley fault as the contact between Franciscan Complex and the Santa Clara Formation, and the trench logs are so labeled. This same contact relationship is shown on the log of a road cut on the property. However, the description of the materials shown in the trench logs resembles Santa Clara Formation type material on both sides of the fault, rather than Franciscan Complex type material. The soil investigation conducted in 1979 by ESC (1979b) was a compilation of the previous geologic study (ESC, 1978b), 11 new test borings from 10.0 feet to 25.5 feet deep, and soil laboratory tests. The borings penetrated sandy clay, gravely sand, and sandy gravel; clayey silt over weathered shale and sandstone; silty clay over serpentine; and serpentine over weathered shale. A buttress fill was recommended for the uphill portions of the site and for those areas located adjacent to the old quarry site. 323 Lands of Brancato .. Published reports covering the Lands of Brancato site noted the presence of unconsolidated Santa Clara Formation, serpentine and sandstone of the Franciscan Complex, trace(s) of the Crosley fault, sediments associated with the Berryessa Formation, landslide debris, and a deep-seated landslide. The site was mapped by Coyle (1984) as covered by sediments of the Santa Clara Formation and underlain by silica-carbonate rock, and possibly serpentine and sediments of the Berryessa Formation. Active landslides are mapped on and adjacent to the site by both Coyle (1984) and Nilsen and Brabb (1972). Mapping by Dibblee (1973) showed the site to be underlain by the Franciscan Complex, serpentine, some scattered deposits of the Santa Clara Formation, and the Berryessa Formation. According to the mapping by Coyle (1984) the site is located adjacent to, and possibly traversed by traces of the Crosley and Berryessa faults. The site is within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone established along these two faults. Coyle (1984) showed the southern portion of the site to be located within the "Roddy-Lo Bue Ranch Landslide Complex". The northern

portion of the site was shown outside of any mapped landslide complex. The Crosley fault was mapped crossing the site by Burkland in 1977. Trenching conducted across the Crosley fault and mapped on the site by Burkland Associates (1978) indicates thrust movement along a shallow eastward dipping fault plane and reverse fault movement along a steep westward dipping fault plane (up on the west). On the geologic map the fault is shown to be the contact between serpentine and the Santa Clara Formation. Logs of test pits and borings excavated in the southwestern part of the site do not confirm that the fault contact is consistently between serpentine and Santa Clara Formation material. ESC (1978c, 1979c) concluded that the potential for seismically-induced landsliding to occur is moderate to high in the steep areas that are underlain by serpentine on the east and west boundaries. During these studies the western part of the site was assigned a Hazard Zone V (with Zone VI the highest hazard) in which the geologic and seismic hazards are described as moderate to severe. ESC (1986) stated that the evidence developed from aerial photos is inconclusive relative to the ancient "large landslide" mass identified on this site by Coyle (1984). They concluded that there are factors that indicate if a slide does exist it is extremely old. ESC (1986) concluded that the geomorphology of the site can be interpreted as being a "large landslide" mass or equally as well by differential weathering of highly folded, faulted and weathered bedrock, and at this site there is no unique interpretation.

In a 99-1M-foot deep boring ESC, 1988~) major geologic units were identified: three
weathered Franciscan Complex shale and sandstone weathered serpentine, closely fractured, and decomposed Franciscan Complex shale On the geologic map in that report, the deep boring was located in an area identified as serpentine, but serpentine was not encountered above a depth of 60 feet. Computerized stability analyses (ESC, 1988c) were performed for shallow and deep potential failure surfaces along four cross sections. For the analyses of one of these sections, B-B', it was assumed that:
A 20-foot deep shallow failure surface extended from the toe of the topographic slope

east of Old Piedmont Road approximately 100 feet to the east, and
A possible 130-foot deep failure surface extended approximately 550 feet east from the

toe of the topographic slope, still within the proposed development.

The factor of safety calculated for the shallow (20-foot) slip surface using the Corps of Engineers method (1 983) ranged from 1-04for a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.20g to less than 0.90 for a value of 0.50g. For the deep failure surface the calculated factor of safety ranged from a value of 2.4 for a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.20g to 1.2 for 0.50g. A soil investigation conducted in 1991 by ESC (1991a) was based on the previous geologic studies, 16 test borings ranging in depth from 8-1/2 to 21-1/2 feet, and soil laboratory tests. The soil and bedrock units observed in the borings varies across the site; clay underlain by sandstone or conglomerate of the Santa Clara Formation; sandy clay; fill or sandy silty clay with rock fragments; silty clay topsoil over serpentine; silty to sandy clay with gravel over silica carbonate; hard sandy silty clay with gravel and rock fragments; and silty clay over gravel and rock fragments. It was concluded that the near-surface soil had a high soil expansion potential as well as potential soil creep characteristics. Based on the site studies the peak bedrock acceleration beneath the site was estimated to be in the range of 0.458 to 0.70g, with an effective horizontal acceleration in the range of 0.25g to 0.46g (ESC, 1991a). A design-effective horizontal acceleration of 0.4g was recommended for structural design and 0.2g for earthwork and slope design. The 2: 1 (H:V) 26-foot-high cut slope planned for the entrance road was calculated to have a static factor of safety of 2.2, a critical earthquake factor of 0.3, and a factor of safety of 1.5 for a pseudo-static analysis with a horizontal acceleration of 0.2g. Supplemental trenching by ESC (199 1b and 1992) exposed new additional planes that suggested that the fault pattern at the site was different and possibly more complex than was previously interpreted. Based on this new data, ESC modified the location of a portion of the fault trace previously located crossing the southwest part of the site. The resulting fault trace was more sinuous than previously interpreted.
3.3

SIERRA ROAD AREA

Three projects are located in the Sierra Road Area; Weyhe/Aiassa, Abbas, and Hong. A review summary of reports covering each project is presented below.
3.3.1

Weyhe/Aiassa Project

Geologic/geotechnical studies were conducted by ESC for the subject site (primarily for Parcel B which contains lots 17 thru 43). Although numerous investigations were conducted over the years for the subject site, this review only considered the ESC reports dating from October 1989 thru January 1992, and a number of reports prepared by others on the adjoining Lutheran Church property and the property northeast of the church property, including reports by Terratech (1977). Hallenback-McKay (1978), and Terrasearch (1980).

As part of their field investigations during the period 1988-92, ESC excavated and logged a total of 18 trenches ranging between 7 and 12 feet in depth, drilled 28 shallow borings ranging in depth between 14.5 and 31.5 feet, and drilled two deep rotary-wash borings @B-1 and DB-2) to depths of 110 and 122.5 feet. Boring DB-I located on the east parcel was sampled continuously from 30 to 110.5 feet. Boring DB-2 located on Parcel B was sampled continuously from 40 to 101.5 feet. In addition, the following field investigations were also conducted on the Lutheran Church property site, and within the parcel northeast of the church: Terratech, Inc. (1977) excavated six trenches with a total length of nearly 1060 feet and an average depth of 6 feet. They also conducted a magnetometer survey over a total length of about 6700 feet on the Lutheran Church property. Hallenback-McKay (1978) - drilled a total of 5 deep borings within the Lutheran Church property. Terrasearch, Inc. (1980) - drilled 8 borings to depths ranging from 15 feet to 101 feet. The borings were drilled using continuous flight augers. In addition one test pit and four trenches were also excavated and logged. All field work was conducted within the property northeast of the church property. The site is located within a Special Studies Zone established by the City of San Jose in 1983. This zone is not an Alquist - Priolo Special Studies Zone. The regional geology as established by various investigators (Nilsen and Brabb, 1972; Coyle, 1984) showed the site to be located within a large landslide mass complex. Coyle (1 984) designated the slide encompassing the site as "static", which he defined as "relatively stable under current environmental conditions, however, portions could become reactivated". Dibblee (1973) mapped the site as containing landslide debris and many shallow landslides. The studies conducted by ESC for Parcel B of the site concluded that the potential for a deepseated landslide did not exist within Parcel B, and that only one relatively shallow landslide was present within Parcel B and needed to be mitigated. Slope stability analyses conducted by ESC all gave adequate factors of safety under both static and pseudo-static conditions. ESC's studies also concluded that, based on mapping of trench exposures (mainly in T-1 and T-2), a nearly vertical northwest-trending fault of limited width was present within the southeast part of the site and continued onto the adjoining Lutheran Church property. ESC's findings with respect to Parcel B are presented below:

(ESC, 1989) Geologic and seismic hazards at this site are related to the presence of local shallow groundwater, creeping soils and an active fault trace. There is a fault that must be considered to be active crossing the southeastern part of this site. The potential for ground rupture is considered to be high along the trace and in a zone 25 feet on either side of it. The potential is considered to be low elsewhere on the site. The potential for seismically-induced landsliding to occur at this site is generally considered to be low, except on the steep banks of Sierra Creek. There are no geologic or seismic hazards present at this site that would preclude its use as planned, provided the recommendations of this report and those of the soil and foundation reports are implemented during development. (ESC, 1990) No evidence of faulting was found in the excavations made during this supplemental study. Evidence of shallow landsliding was found along most of the western portion of the site. The majority of these deposits are considered old and presently stable, but local active landsliding could occur within the larger mass.

(ESC,1991)
The geotechnical concerns identified with the site are the potential for strong ground shaking due to earthquakes (peak horizontal acceleration ranging between 0.40 and 0.55 g); the existence of a potentially active fault zone on the site; a moderate potential for ground rupture within this fault zone; the existence of an old landslide on the site; high groundwater and springs; and highly expansive soils.
(ESC, 1992)

Supplemental subsurface explorations conducted for this study (Trenches T-15 thru T- 17) did not show any evidence for the presence of a fault. Consultants logging trenches on the site have identified sediments belonging to the Santa Clara Formation, slide debris, and sediments of the Monterey Group. In-place Monterey sediments are located well upslope of the site, and east of the Hayward fault. Rupture surfaces observed in the trenches have been identified at different times as fault surfaces or landslide rupture surfaces.

Some of the studies report that the site is underlain by landslide debris and have reported that the observed planes are land rupture surfaces. Other studies have proposed that the site is underlain by Santa Clara Formation materials, most of the planes observed are associated with a fault, and some land rupture surfaces are observed in trenches at the western limits of the site where a localized landslide exists. The toe of this localized landslide has moved westward over the top soil at the base of the slope (ESC, 1, 1992). 199 The toe of a massive landslide is reported to be present along the north site of Sierra Road and to extend 1/2 to 1 mile uphill, east along Sierra Road (Berlogar, Long and Associates,l978). They reported that this massive landslide, which had been investigated by others (see Burkland & Associates, 1973) and was found to be a composite landslide extending 1/2 to 1 mile uphill to the east, had encroached upon the valley alluvial floor and could be reactivated in the event of severe seismic shaking.
3.3.2 Abbas Property

The Panel did not review any site-specific report for this property. However, a number of reports on the adjacent church property were reviewed by the Panel. Two studies were conducted by Berlogar, Long and Associates (1977 and 1978) for the Berryessa Evangelical Free Church on the north side of Sierra Road. For the 1977 report three soil borings were drilled on the site ranging in depth from 5 to 11-1/2 feet to assess the soil conditions. Sandy and silty clays were reported in the borings. A 310-foot-long north-south oriented exploratory trench was excavated to evaluate an east-west alignment of a suspected fault, which from study of color infrared photography, was projected to cross the site. However, no fault was identified in the trench. In 1978 a 60-foot-long east-west trench was excavated on the site to supplement the previous trenching. This was required after a shear zone had been observed in a trench excavated for a site on the south side of Sierra Road. No evidence for a fault was identified in the trench. As indicated in the previous section, the toe of a massive landslide was mapped in the vicinity of this site.
3.3.3 Hong Property

Investigations by Geotechnical Engineering Systems Co. (GES, 1989), and Associated Terra Consultants, Inc. (ATC, 1989), indicated that the project site may be underlain by a large ancient landslide, greater than 100 feet thick, and a smaller debris slide, less than 15 feet deep. The ancient landslide was concluded to be inactive and reasonably stable under current environmental conditions. The shallow landslide deposit underlying the site was also considered to be relatively stable based on the conditions of the roads and residences upslope of the site, and on results of

static (factor of safety ranging from 3.3 to 4.5) and pseudo-static (factor of safety of 1.4 for a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.40g) slope stability analyses for the shallow landslide (depth of 10 to 15 feet). Shear strengths used in the analyses were based on results of undrained direct shear tests. GES concluded that from a geotechnical engineering standpoint the site was suitable for the proposed development. It should be noted that investigations conducted for the Abbas property located to the east reported the toe of a "massive landslide" in the area.
3.4

DOREL DRIVELJASMINE RANCH AREA

The Dorel Drive and Jasmine Ranch projects are adjacent to each other and are discussed together below. The Jasmine Ranch Parcel is a combination of a number of individual properties which have been consolidated together for the purpose of development. It includes approximately 43 acres located at the northern end of the Dorel Drive cul-de-sac. The property extends upslope from this area to just downslope of Suncrest Avenue. Over the past I5 years, more than 20 studies of different aspects of this property have been performed, mostly by ESC. In the course of their involvement, ESC completed extensive field reconnaissance work, subsurface exploration, evaluation of published data, and laboratory testing of site samples. During the subsurface work, more than 30 test pits and trenches were excavated and logged, over 40 exploratory borings were drilled and logged, and several major roadcuts were logged. In addition, the Dutard Creek area was mapped in cooperation with representatives of the geotechnical consultant JCA for the adjacent Suncrest Avenue Property. The primary concerns identified in these studies were the presence of faults and landslides. The Berryessa and Crosley faults extend along the northern perimeter of the property. Some trench logs and other mapping data suggest that the Crosley fault crosses the extreme northwestern corner of the property. Other studies along the southern rim of the parcel were performed to evaluate whether the Quimby fault extends through this area. A splay of this fault was identified as extending through the southern end of the property (ESC; 1989, 1990a, and 1990b). Because this mapped fault was considered potentially active, setbacks were established for proposed structures from the identified location of the fault. Large landslide complexes were identified at the eastern and western ends of the property. In addition, two smaller landslide deposits were located within the central portion of the site. Criteria were established to repair the smaller landslides and a development layout was established to avoid the larger landslide complexes. ESC concluded that most of the landslides on the property are relatively old, and a charcoal fragment taken from a colluvial area adjacent to one landslide was age-dated at approximately 12,000 years. Some past movement has also

apparently occurred near the southern tip of the property, but ESC concluded that repairs made in the late 1960s had adequately stabilized that area by removing unstable materials. The reports for these projects concluded that the site is suitable from a geotechnical standpoint for the proposed development. General recommendations for site grading and drainage were supplied, as well as detailed specifications for project grading. The slope stability analyses performed by ESC indicated that if the grading recommendations were followed, appropriate factors of safety would be achieved for the project slopes under both static and earthquake conditions. The reports conducted for the Jasmine Ranch Property (ESC; 1989, 1990a, and 1990b) indicate that portions of the site and adjacent areas are underlain by serpentine of the Franciscan Complex, sandstone and conglomerate of the Berryessa Formation, a highly siliceous volcanic rock (quartz keratophy re) referred to as the Alum Rock Rhyolite, unconsolidated sediments of the Santa Clara Formation, two large landslides with the potential for reactivation and some smaller landslides (four identified as active), thick colluvial deposits, areas of active soil creep in sediments of the Berryessa Formation, and possibly traces of the Crosley fault and the Quimby fault. The site is within the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone established along these faults and a 25 foot setback was recommended along the Quimby fault. The subject reports and cross sections demonstrate that portions of the bedrock units at the site are overlain by the younger soil materials associated with the Santa Clara Formation, colluvium deposits, old colluvium-filled swales/channels, known and suspected landslide areas, and slide debris. In general, the younger soil materials are located on sloping bedrock surfaces or in channels or swales sloping downhill. The nature of the contact between the bedrock and these units is not exposed at the ground surface, but in some trenches it appeared to be a rupture surface. Landslides occur within these younger sediments and also appear to involve the Berryessa Formation. In some cases, the geologic cross sections do not show the thicknesses of the geologic units. These materials may be in-place Santa Clara Formation, or colluvial materials which may have been transported downslope under the influence of gravity. Some of the cross sections also do not show the depth of some landslides, or the thickness of the Berryessa Formztion involved in the landslide. At least one boring located in the Santa Clara Formation terminated at some depth on a hard rock identified as possible "rhyolite". The nearest identified outcrop of this formation is hundreds of feet uphill of the boring location, suggesting possible displacement of the rock from above or intrusion of the rock in-place. Reports prepared for the site documented a history of slope instability at numerous locations in the vicinity of the Jasmine Ranch.
A seismic slope stability analysis was performed for a proposed 75-foot high cut slope at the

entry to the site. The top of this cut slope was to be constructed as a buttress fill. Static factors of safety after grading were calculated to be in the range of 2.16 to 2.40. ESC also calculated the seismic coefficient that would be necessary to reduce the factors of safety to unity; these values ranged between 0.37g and 0.40g. Based on these results ESC concluded that the static and seismic factors of safety were satisfactory and met current geotechnical standards in 1990.
3.5

SUNCREST AVENUE PROPERTY

Geologic and geotechnical studies were conducted by Jo Crosby & Associates (JCA) for the 52acre parcel known as the Suncrest Avenue Property. Initially, the investigated property encompassed 88 acres that had been roughly divided into a 52-acre tract on the upper portion of the site, and a 36-acre tract on the lower portion. Numerous investigations had previously been conducted on the property betweeen 1972 and 1984 (it was then known as the Harrison Property). Jo Crosby Associates (JCA) prepared an updated report in 1991 and letter reports dated June 8, 1993 to Mindigo & Associates, and the City of San Jose dated 6/23/93 and 6/30/93 for the 52-acre parcel. The main objectives of JCA's 1991 studies were to establish the following: The relation of the 52-acre parcel to the San Jose Highlands which borders it to the southeast. The possibility of a deep-seated landslide encompassing this parcel, the Penitencia Treatment Plant and residential areas surrounding the parcel. The general stability of the 52-acre parcel, and the possibility of placing restrictions on hture development due to site geology, and Guidelines for the layout and development of the 52 acres within the restraints indicated by JCA's assessment. As part of their overall site evaluation JCA conducted numerous site investigations from 1972 through 1991. A total of 113 trenches were excavated during these investigations ranging in depth from several feet to a maximum of about 15 feet. A total of 58 borings were drilled using various drilling techniques (rotary-wash, continuous flight augers, hollow-stem augers). Borings 1 thru 54 ranged in depth from 10 feet to about 55 feet. Borings CB-A and CB-B were drilled in February-March of 1991 using a 6-inch diameter hollow-stem auger to a depth of 48 feet. These two boreholes were continuously sampled in order to determine whether landslide debris was present. Borings CI-I and CI-2 were drilled in 1988-89 using rotary-wash drilling techniques to depths of 327 feet and 188 feet, respectively, but no samples were taken. Inclinometer casings were inserted into these two boreholes and horizontal movements have been monitored since then.

The northern portion of the 52-acre parcel (approximately two-thirds) is located within a Special Studies Zone established by the City of San Jose in 1983. The lower portion is located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Previous investigators (Nilsen and Brabb, 1972; Dibblee, 1973; Coyle, 1984) have mapped landslide deposits on portions of the site. Nilsen and Brabb (1972) identified a series of active slides on the property, adjoining Dutard Creek, associated with the large landslide complex west of the creek. The 1972 field exploration for the 52-acre site (Crosby & Associates, 1972) included: geologic mapping, twenty test borings 10 to 50 feet deep to obtain undisturbed samples, and nineteen exploration pits up to 15 feet deep to expose the structure of the soil and rock at selected locations. Dibblee (1 973) mapped two slide features that encompass portions of the site. One such feature was identified by JCA as an old landslide complex in the central portion of the property. The other inferred slide located in the northern property was interpreted by JCA to be attributed to reverse faulting. Coyle (1984) designated portions of the site as containing both "static" and ''dormant" landslides. Both the Crosley and Berryessa fault zones were mapped as crossing the site (Dibblee, 1973; Bryant, 1980; and Coyle, 1984). JCA's conclusions, as presented in their 1991 report, are the following: The 52-acre parcel is generally stable and can be developed into lots for single family residences. There are areas that possess geologic hazards and should not be built upon. These are underlain by the potentially active Benyessa fault zone and related systems. Other regions contain active landsliding andlor have questionable slope stability that may be economically infeasible for construction at this time. Several geologic hazards impact the site. These hazards have the potential for surface fault rupturing and strong ground shaking, and future landsliding. The landslides are in the form of debris flows and active slumping. The potential for seismic-induced landsliding of some of the existing active slopes is considered a hazard.
A northwest-trending shear zone with a maximum width of approximately 700 feet is present

on the site. This zone encompasses more than a third of the study area and roughly correlates with the boundary between the Crosley and Berryessa faults mapped on the property by Dibblee (1973). No visible evidence of faulting was noted by JCA on the upper limits of the property above the Berryessa fault zone. Evidence for recent movement of these fault systems was difficult to detect. The closeness of the fault features to the surface,

as close as 6 inches, is suggestive of recent movement. However, the near surface exposure of the fault plane could have been the result of erosion. The fault traces that cross the lower portion of the property are potentially active. Structures for human habitation should be set back from these faults a minimum of 50 feet. The Quimby fault has been mapped by Coyle (1984) near the lower boundary of this parcel and San Jose Highlands. This fault system, however, is sufficiently far away from the proposed residential structures, that no setback is required. The site can expect a 50 percent probability of experiencing a peak ground acceleration of 0.24g. The Acceleration Zone graph projects a peak acceleration of 0.20g during a 50 year return period for the maximum probable event. JCA concluded that, due to the dense soil and bedrock at the site, the potential for liquefaction, ground displacement, ground lurching, differential settlement, or lateral spreading during a seismic event, is nil. Seismic-induced landsliding in some regions is a potential risk. There are several localized shallow landslide areas within the parcel. These are located on moderately steep slopes. A potential for headward migration of the recently mapped landslide at Boring CB-A exists (near Dutard Creek). To minimize this potential a 50-foot set-back for residential structures from the mapped headscarp is recommended. Physical evi-denceof a deep-seated, slow moving landslide could not be substantiated. Two slope indicators (CI-1 and CI-2) installed in January and May 1989 showed no evidence of movement. Survey monuments extending along Suncrest Avenue show no evidence of movement since first surveyed in February 1989. Some control points, first established in January 1984, were re-established in February 1989 and found to show no movement. Suncrest Avenue was constructed about 20 years ago. There is no evidence of movement on Suncrest Avenue within the study area. JCA concluded that deep-seated sliding does not occur on this or the lower adjoining property. Results of slope stability analyses performed on six cross sections assuming saturated conditions gave static factors of safety ranging between 2.8 and 3.3. Pseudo-static analyses using a horizontal seismic coefficient of 0.20g gave factors of safety ranging between 1.3 and 1.5. The up-slope property is steep and therefore susceptible to debris flow activity.

4.0 RELEVANT ISSUES RELATED TO SITE-SPECIFIC REPORTS

In the reviews by the Panel of the site-specific reports summarized in Section 3.0, eight key issues were identified which impacted the Panel's abilities to evaluate the site conditions from the reports. These issues involve the technical approach to collecting and analyzing the available data for the site by the investigators. Not every issue applies to every project, but these issues all arose more than once in the reports. Where they were not adequately considered, additional information is needed to resolve the critical questions.
4.1

EVOLUTION OF STANDARD OF PRACTICE

The standard of practice, investigation techniques, and knowledge of the local geologic conditions change with time. There are numerous relevant examples. Site investigations in landslide terrain are presently conducted at a higher level of detail than they were a decade or more ago, particularly in terms of the degree and extent of the subsurface investigations. Personal computers are now used regularIy to analyze multiple potential landslide rupture surfaces with varying material properties, in order to determine the range of conditions under which a slope might be unstable. As a result of the damage from the heavy rains of January 1982, consultants now study the potential of offsite debris flows to impact a site. Shires and Mack (1992) discussed the recent trend in local practice towards more conservative design guidelines for cut slopes exposing expansive soils. Coyle (1 984) identified large landslide complexes of unknown long-term stability in the Moratorium Area, and called into question some of the fault relationships mapped by earlier workers. This map is now referenced and addressed by consultants working in the East Foothills. Most recently, WCC (1993) documented active movement of a deep-seated landslide at the PWTP. New information and techniques need to be continually incorporated into the consultants efforts working in the East Foothills to best interpret local site conditions and geologic hazards.
4.2

COMPREHENSIVE TREATMENT OF AVAILABLE DATA

A comprehensive treatment of all information available for a particular site is necessary. Consultants need to prepare geologic maps and cross sections that compile data from previous studies, as well as newly obtained data, so interpretations are as complete and consistent with all the data as possible. Previous investigations should be critically evaluated by the consultant if a new model is being proposed, especially if some of the data do not fit the model. The conflicting infomation needs to be presented and thoroughly explained by the consultant.
4.3

RESOLUTION OF COMPLEXITY OF DATA

Resolution of the complexity of the data and the multiple interpretations that can be made at most individual sites needs to be addressed by the consultant. Since the near-surface geologic

conditions at the site are complicated by landslides, faults, erosion terraces, and indistinct surficial geologic units, the consultant needs to search for and use all of the several kinds of geologic data available to assist him. Information from the regional geologic framework is very important in resolving site-specific geologic questions. For example, the regional mapping and aerial photo studies identified geomorphic patterns characteristic of IandsIide terrain affecting most of the East Foothills slopes. Data from deep exploratory borings help the geologist resolve the presence and nature of both shallow and deep landslides, whereas shallow borings and trenches do not commonly contain the necessary critical information. Even then, specialized investigative techniques are required for locating rupture surfaces and sampling the material in which they lie. Field relationships that help resolve whether surface exposures of fault traces are in place or displaced downslope are commonly not present on individual sites, so the interpretation must depend on relationships found at other locations nearby. Finally, the information that allows the geologist to distinguish between a shallow thrust fault and the basal rupture surface of a landslide in a trench may depend on stratigraphic relationships from other locations in other trenches.
4.4

USE OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

Aerial photographs are an important tool in assisting the consultant in interpreting the topographic features of the site and the surrounding terrain. The aerial photographs covering the Moratorium Area illustrate large areas of uneven or disrupted terrain, which is widely believed to be underlain by massive landslide complexes. This issue needs to be addressed by the consultants for each site, and if there are alternative explanations of the photography, they need to be supported by substantive geologic evidence.
4.5

GEOLOGIC EXPLORATION PROGRAM

The depth probed and the procedures used in the geologic exploration program need to be directed by the consultant toward resolving the questions needing interpretation at the site both on a local and regional basis. In general, field explorations are not sufficient unless they include continuous logging and sampling of borings at depths where the alternative interpretations can be appropriately tested, and proved or disproved. Flight auger or hollow-stem auger borings do not easily permit continuous samples to be observed and logged. As a result, critical geologic information about local structure, or the nature of bedding or shear surfaces at depth, is generally not recovered. Continuous sampling using wireline drilling techniques has shown the ability for resolving geologic questions in deeper landslide terrain.
4.6

SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES

Appropriate slope stability analyses need to be performed by the consultant to support his contention that the slopes will be stable under current and future conditions. Analyses should be

based on representative cross sections which are supported at the critical depths by geologic data, especially the location and geometry of deep potential rupture surfaces and the strength properties of slide surface materials. They should incorporate current ground water conditions, and test the sensitivity to potential future ground-water changes. A comprehensive description of the analysis methods and the loading conditions being analyzed should also be included. Standard analyses for earthquake-loading conditions should be incorporated and their appropriateness discussed.
4.7

INCLINOMETER MEASUREMENTS

Inclinometer measurements over time in critical locations may be the only way for the consultant to determine if slide masses are currently moving. The lack of movement does not demonstrate that the site is stable, of course, but understanding regional patterns of movement can be helpful in determining the level of stability in portions of the slope which are not actively moving. In the case of the PWTP site, the results of inclinometer data are a major contribution to understanding the nature of the movements which demonstrate that there are rupture surfaces deep in the slope. Other critical locations in the East Foothills Moratorium Area might also benefit from inclinometer installation and monitoring, particularly if there is other evidence that the areas are actively moving.
4.8

FUTURE SEISMIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT

Future seismic shaking conditions need to be estimated by the consultant using currently accepted deterministic and/or probabilistic seismic hazard analysis methods and up-to-date attenuation data, as appropriate. Since the East Foothills are proximate to the Hayward (0.9 miles) and Calaveras (2.5 miles) faults, we can assume that estimated peak ground motion values will probably be fairly high, and they will need to be taken into account in both the slope stability analyses, and the design parameters for proposed structures. WCC (1993) presented a detailed probabilistic seismic hazards assessment for the PWTP which is representative of the current standard of practice. The analysis and the supporting data are normally submitted for review as a part of the report. In general the peak ground motion values should be reasonably consistent for properties in the same vicinity. In the East Foothills, the existing reports do not reflect a consensus on the ground shaking levels to be expected.

5 0 CONCLUSIONS .
The Panel is confident that the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report, if accepted and followed, will contribute to the City's ability to address current issues within the East Foothills Moratorium Area. The Panel's conclusions and recommendations are based on data and reports currently available for this Area and they will need to be modified as additional data become available, the review process resolves alternative explanations of the data, and the consulting community refines the details of this large ancient landslide complex. The following sources of information were especially important: Published geologic maps and reports which indicate that most of the Moratorium Area is underlain by shallow to deep landslide deposits. Aerial photographs provided by the City, County and DMG which strongly suggest the presence of the previously mapped large-scale landslides and landslide complexes. Observations from a reconnaissance flight over the site and direct observation of geomorphic features related to landsliding, including hummocky terrain, landslide scarps and benches. Damage reports from City historical files and direct observation of pavement cracks, offset curbs, distressed culverts, retaining walls, abandoned housing pads, etc. Logs of borings and trenches, and maps from consultant reports indicating locations of landslide rupture surfaces andlor fault planes, offsets of slope inclinometer casing and surface di splacement/defomation at monitored sites, and relationships between disrupted bedrock in surficial units and in-place bedrock.

51 .

GEOLOGIC ENVIRONMENT

The Panel has made the following conclusions and interpretations of the geologic framework of the Moratorium Area: Numerous geologic hazards exist within the Moratorium Area including landslides, active and potential l y-active surface faults, and the potential for strong ground shaking. For many sites it is our opinion that there is not yet a unique interpretation of the geologic hazards given the proximity to active landslides, the masking of subsurface conditions, and the observed but discontinuous geomorphic features.

Slide morphology is complicated by erosion "terrace" surfaces. Pub1ished data and aerial photo interpretation indicate that at least two to four erosional terraces may be present. These terraces can be confused with landslide benches if not carefully analyzed.
5.2 5.2.1

LANDSLIDES
Extent

The Panel concludes that the San Jose East Foothills Moratorium Area is affected by a number of large and extensive shallow to deep landslides and landslide complexes which generally extend from near the crest of the hills on the east to the valley floor. It is not a single large landslide, but a large area affected by many individual landslides. Some of these landslides may be stable under present conditions, others may be actively moving, and others may be reactivated in the future. Although the exact limits of the "Penitencia Creek Landslide" and other landslides andlor landslide complexes are not well defined, the actual extent of landsliding in the Moratorium Area may be greater than previously mapped. Although some local areas may not be underlain by landslide deposits, their specific locations are not currently known because of the lack of sitespecific data. The valley floor portion of the Moratorium Area may be affected by upslope instability, and a stable zone beyond a setback from the toes of adjacent unstable slopes could be established.
5.2.2

Depth

The Panel concludes that landslides in the Moratorium Area are generally deep, but shallow secondary slides are common. Evidence for deep slides in the Moratorium Area includes: Large-scale topographic features including large deep benches, closed depressions, and other indicators of translational and rotational movement. Inclinometer data contained in the 1993 W C C report indicating movement of a deep-seated large slide beneath the PWTP at depths as much as 200 feet or greater below the ground surface. Geomorphic expression of large-scale downslope movement, such as lobes at the toe(s) of slides, combined with supporting trench and borehole data from consulting reports. Thick zones of chaotic structure in bedrock exposed in canyons of cross-cutting streams that are underlain by monoclinal dipping units within the central portion of the Moratorium Area.
5.2.3

Bedrock Displacement

Near-surface exposures of bedrock on slopes in the Moratorium Area may have been displaced downslope by deep slide movements, and therefore may not be reliable indicators of in-place geologic conditions. This implies that: The current location of sheared serpentine units on the slope may mark the position of either secondary faults subparallel to the Benyessa fault, or exposures of the Berryessa fault itself which have been transported downslope by landslides. In-place Santa Clara Formation deposits may not be distinguishable from blocks of Santa Clara Formation (slide debris) transported downslope by landslides.
5.2.4

Future Movements

The major landslides within the Moratorium Area may have been initiated several tens-ofthousands to several hundred-thousand years ago during a wetter climate than we are presently experiencing, and many of the oldlancient landslides may be stable under the present environment. However, portions of these slides may be reactivated by seismic events, heavy rainfall or other sources of water, or by other factors related to site disturbance such as humancaused changes in topography, drainage, or surface water loads. Based on data currently available, it is not possible to adequately assess the level of risk to any individual site from future landslides in the Moratorium Area with much accuracy. In order to improve the acouracy of the risk assessment, much more subsurface information is needed. This information includes, but is not limited to: accurate and detailed geologic logs of deep borings, long-term data from deep inclinometers, detailed mapping of near-surface geologic deposits and stratigraphic correlation with other units in the region, accurate and detailed geologic crosssections, and a more thorough regional analysis of exposures of fault surfaces and their continuity, both laterally and at depth.
5.3

FAULTS

In some portions of the Moratorium Area, landslides conceal, disrupt andlor possibly displace segments of previously mapped fault traces (especially the Berryessa and Crosley faults). Therefore, there is inconclusive evidence for some fault locations and activity levels. These conclusions are based on: Inconsistencies in fault locations as mapped by previous investigators in the area. Lack of continuity in mapped patterns typically used as indicators of faulting. For example, geologic units such as the serpentine and Santa Clara Formation are disrupted and linear features such as springs and offset drainages are not clearly fault related.

Inconsistent fault attitudes reported, without an explanation of the anomaly. For example, the Crosley fault in some exposures and trenches is reported to dip to the northeast, and in other locations a short distance away is reported to dip in the opposite direction to the southwest. Recent trench log data from near the base of the hillslope suggest that some of the previously mapped or logged "faults" may actually be landslide rupture surfaces, or fault segments displaced by landslides. Information contained in numerous consultant reports, combined with aerial photo interpretation and field review, suggest that at least portions of the Crosley fault may be portions of the Berryessa fault that have moved downslope, or even segments of the Crosley fault that have moved downslope out of their original position.
5.3.1 Berryessa Fault

The Berryessa fault zone as characterized by Coyle (1984) is a wide zone of serpentine, silica-carbonate, and other unusual rock types; it appears to be a nearly continuous subsurface structure through the area from Alum Rock Park north past Benyessa Creek. Portions of the Berryessa fault zone seem to have been disrupted and displaced downslope by landsliding. Localized exposures where the fault zone may have been disrupted by landslides include: the San Jose Highlands, and Dutard CreeWSuncrest Avenue. Major downslope displacements of the fault zone appear to have occurred from the Sierra CreeWSiem Road area northward for over 1,000 feet to a location between SweigertICropley Creek and Benyessa Creek. The fault zone at Benyessa Creek appears to be in place.
5.3.2 Crosley Fault

The location and recency of activity along the Crosley fault are complicated by the likelihood that the Crosley fault trace has been modified by extensive landsliding along much of its total length. Fault investigation reports on file with DMG generally are inconclusive or contradictory with regard to the location and recency of activity of the Crosley fault (Bryant, 1980). The discontinuous nature of geomorphic features within the Crosley fault zone is complicated by landslide features that obliterate or mimic fault features anticipated in a reverse-oblique style of faulting. Shallow exposures of bedrock may not represent conclusive evidence for existence of the Crosley fault. Serpentine and fault traces mapped in Sweigert Creek and in Crosley Creek may be the result of material displaced downslope from the Berryessa fault zone. Bryant

(1980) indicates that no systematic evidence for Holocene active faulting can be found along the Crosley fault, although consultants' reports concerning the zone indicate that identified planes displace the most recent soils.

The variable structural orientation reported for the Crosley fault (low to moderate angle dip to the east, near vertical, and high angle reverse fault dip to the west) is not consistent with the sinuous fault trace of a low angle fault inclined to the northeast at the reported locations. As indicated by Coyle (1984), it is possible that the Crosley fault zone could be a rupture surface associated with deep-seated landsliding along most of its mapped length. If the Crosley thrust fault exists, the low angle northeast planes would be favorably oriented to serve as preferred locations for both deep and shallow landsliding.
5.4

REVIEW OF PAST STUDIES

It is the Panel's opinion that studies of existing sites located within the Moratorium Area generally do not adequately address the presence, or nature, of deep landslides. The shortcomings include the following: Few borings were drilled deep enough to encounter deep-seated landslide rupture surfaces, Where deep borings were drilled, evidence of deep landslides was not conclusive because landslide rupture surfaces are difficult to identify and sample when they have similar geologic material on opposite sides of the rupture surface. The available shallow borings did not penetrate surficial deposits, or resolve the question as to whether Santa Clara Formation beds were in-place or transported by landslides. Geologic cross-sections generally do not explain the subsurface conditions at depths greater than a few tens of feet. Most site studies have not addressed the site in a regional context, i.e., they considered only the local site conditions, rather than the site setting within the regional geologic and tectonic framework. Alternative possibilities or interpretations were not considered and disproved. The results of studies for the PWTP site indicate that deep-seated landsliding is occurring. Based on our study of the Moratorium Area, the Panel concludes that there is a potential for similar instability elsewhere within the Area, and this generally has not been adequately addressed in the existing reports.

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

In support of the conclusions of the Panel, it is recommended that the City modify its review requirements for proposed development projects within the Moratorium Area to reflect the latest information in this geologically complex and potentially hazardous area.

If a site is underlain by landslide deposits, the applicant must adequately demonstrate that the site will not be adversely impacted by future slope movements. The City will need to augment its technical review procedures to ensure that the applicant is providing sufficient subsurface information to adequate depths, and is analyzing the information appropriately, to demonstrate that landsliding will not adversely impact the site in the future. A regional analysis that incorporates the landslide conditions established by the WCC report should be a part of the evaluation of geologic and geotechnical impacts.
6.1 The land within the Moratorium Area should be considered to be underlain by large, deep landslides unless demonstrated by the applicant to be otherwise.

All applicants should be required to review the 1993 WCC report and address the concerns raised in the report with respect to deep landsliding. Applications for development within the Area should be evaluated within that framework. As part of the evaluation process, the City should: Commission a regional study and a new geologic map for the Moratorium Area which will incorporate existing geologic data, results of recent investigations in the area and additional geologic field studies, and which will identify the various critical landslides (both shallow and deep), and potential areas of instability. This map should be prepared at a scale of 1 :6000or larger. Prepare and make available to the applicants an up-to-date historical list and description of damaget'distress to surface improvements identified, observed, or reported by or to the City within the Moratorium Area. Amend the existing geologic hazard ordinance to specifically identifjl this Area. Retain a geotechnical engineer to assist the City's geologists in reviewing applicants' reports. Conduct a series of workshops for developers and their consultants to educate them on the conditions within the Moratorium Area, and the types and quality of the technical information required for the City's review. Establish a blue-ribbon technical board andlor a board of appeals to review reports and resolve differences in technical interpretations between the applicants and the City's technical

reviewers.
6.2 All pending and future projects within the Moratorium Area should be re-evaluated by the City on the basis of this report, a regional perspective of the landslide conditions, available geologic data, and the reports previously submitted for the projects.

The applicant should be required to demonstrate that all slopes affecting the site are stable under the present geologic/geotechnical conditions, the proposed changes, and the occurrence of strong ground shaking from appropriate earthquake sources.
6.3 The City should provide applicants with guidelines for deep-seated landslide and fault

investigations in the Moratorium Area. The geologic investigation for the presence of a landslide should be consistent with the State of California Division of Mines and Geology Note 44, and California State Board of Registration 1993 Guidelines for Geologic Studies (see Appendices 6 and 7). The investigation should include, but not be limited to:
An accurate and complete geologic map of the site and all relevant portions of the adjacent slopes.

Appropriate geologic cross sections of the site and the adjacent slopes, showing accurate topographic relief of the ground surface, and containing geologic information to a depth sufficient to evaluate the stability of the site using current geotechnical analysis methods. A description of all historical damage to surface improvements on and in the vicinity of the sitc (made available by the City), and an evaluation of the impact to the subject site.

A deterministic and/or probabilistic evaluation of the seismicity of the site, taking into consideration the local and regional seismicity of the site (faults, earthquake magnitudes, hypocentral and epicentral distances,etc.). Appropriate values of peak horizontal ground accelerations and other peak ground motion parameters required for seismic analysis should be established.
6.4 The City should require that the geotechnical evaluations of the stability of all relevant slopes consider both static and seismic conditions, be consistent with current professional engineering practice, and be based on documented evidence.

As a minimum the following should be required: The landslide geometry as identified on the geologic cross sections.

Appropriate material properties established on the basis of field and laboratory tests on representative specimens of the materials comprising both the slide mass and potential rupture surface(s). Appropriate ground-water levels within the slide mass for both present and hture conditions. This should be supported by actual field measurements over a period of time. The impact of the proposed development on fbture conditions, and The level of seismic risk acceptable for the site under consideration. The criterion for slope stability under existing and long-term static conditions should be a minimum safety factor of 1.5. For earthquake conditions pseudo-static methods of slope stability analysis may be appropriate depending on the materials comprising the slide geometry. Simplified methods of evaluating cumulative displacements should also be considered for earthquake conditions to establish the value of the yield acceleration for the most critical failure surface, and the range of deformations which may develop during strong ground shaking. Values of displacement obtained from these analyses should only be considered ball-park estimates due to the many assumptions made in the analyses. Considerable judgment is required in these types of analyses.
6.5111 addition to the above requirements, it is recommended that the City consider requiring the applicant to implement the following procedures:

Revision of all geologic/geotechnical reports submitted for a given project into a single comprehensive report summarizing the previous data and addressing the regional perspective. That continuously sampled and logged borings be drilled to depths suficient to penetrate critical slide rupture surface(s). Installation and monitoring of piezometers for a reasonable period of time to establish ground-water level(s) and seasonal fluctuations over time andlor the presence of perched water. In critical areas where deep landsliding is a concern, the City may require the applicant to install and monitor deep inclinometers at appropriate locations on the site for a reasonable period of time (3 to 5 years). The City should also consider the installation of additional inclinometers at critical locations beyond the proposed limits of the individual projects.

6.6 The City should consider permitting various alternative land-use options for the Moratorium Area, especially for an area of suspected deep-seated landslide activity.

These options might include modifications to existing structures, ranching, open space, and golf course facilities designed for low water infiltration. Additional land-use options may be appropriate if it can be demonstrated that landslides will not adversely impact the area of the site under study in the future.

7.0 REFERENCES

Bryant, W.A., 1980, Southeast Segment of the Hayward fault, Cro 1sley fault, Berryessa fault, Quimby fault, Clayton fault, Southeast Segment of the Mission fault, and the Inferred Break of 1868: California Division of Mines and Geology, Fad t Evaluation Report FER- 105, 27 p., Scale 1:24,000, December 19. Clark, J.C., Brabb, E.E., and McLaughlin, R.J., 1989, Geologic Map and Structure Sections of the Laurel 7.5' Quadrangle, Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties, California: Open Fi 1e Map 89-676, U.S. Geological Survey, scale 1:24,000. Cooper, Robert S., and Dwyer, Michael J., 1974, Technical Report, Geotechnical Investigation, City of San Jose's Sphere of Influence: for the City of San Jose, Cooper, Clark and Associates, 185 p. Corps of Engineers, 1983, Seismic Design, Analysis, and Remedial Measures to Improve Stability of Existing Earth Dams, by Marcuson and Franklin. Coyle, John M., 1984, Bedrock and surficial geology of the San Jose - Milpitas Foothills Area, Santa Clara County, California: Thesis to the faculty of the Department of Geology, San Jose State University, 234 p., map scale 1:12,000. Crittenden, Max D., Jr., 1951, Geology of the San Jose-Mount Hamilton Area, California: Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 157,74 p. Di bblee, Thomas W. Jr., 1973, Preliminary Geologic Map of the Calaveras Reservoir Quadrangle, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California: Open File Map 73-58, U. S. Geological Survey, Scale 1:24,000. Greeley, S., Savage, D.E., Ogle, B.A., 1983, Stratigraphy of Upper Tertiary Nonmarine and Rocks of Central Contra Costa Basin, California: In Ingersoll, R.V., and Woodburne, M.D., EOS., Cenozoic Nonmarine Deposits of California and Arizona: Pacific Section Society of Economic Paleontologist and Mineralogist, pp. 11-12. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, Measurement, Characterization, and Prediction of Strong Ground Motion: Specialty Conference on Erathquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, ASCE, pp. 43-102, June.

Keefer, D.K., Grigg, G.B., Harp, E.L., Levine, P., McAneny, C.C., Rakstins, A.A., Spittler, T.E., Weber, G.B., and others, 1991, Geologic Hazards in the Summit Ridge Area of the Santa CNZ Mountains, Santa Cruz County, California, Evaluated in Response to the October 17, 1989, Loma Pneta Earthquake: U. S. Geological Survey, Report of the Technical Advisory Group, Open File Report 9 1-6 18,427 p. Makdisi, F.I.,and Seed, H.B., 1978, Simplified Procedure for Estimating Dam and Embankment Earthquake-Induced Deformations: Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, vol. 104, no. GT7, pp. 849-867, July. McCrink, 1994, Work in Progress, California Division of Mines and Geology. Newmark, N.M., 1965, Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments: Geotechnique, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 139-160, June. Nilsen, Tor M., 1972, Preliminary Photo-interpretation Map of Landslide and other Suficial Deposits of the Mt. Hamilton Quadrangle and Parts of the Mt. Boardman and San Jose Quadrangles, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California: Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map 339, U. S. Geological Survey. Nilsen, Tor M., and Brabb, Earl E., 1972, Preliminary Photo-interpretation and Damage Maps of Landslides and other Surficial Deposits in Northeastern San Jose, Santa Clara County, California: U.S.Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies, Map MF - 361, Scale 1:24,000. Rogers, Thomas H., and Williams, John W., 1974, Potential Seismic Hazards in Santa Clara County California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 107, 39 p., Scale 1:62,500. Sadigh, K., Chang, C.Y., Abrahamson, N.A., Chiou, S.J., and Powers, M.S., 1993, Specification of Long Period Ground Motions; Updated Attenuation Relationships for Rock-Site Conditions and Adjustment Factors for Near-fault Effects: in Applied Technology Council Publication 17- 1, Proceedings of Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active Control, vol. 1, pp. 59-70. Shires, P.O., and Mack, H., 1992, Standard-of-Care for Expansive Soil Design: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Expansive Soils, Dallas, Texas.

Old Piedmont Road Burkland and Associates, 1977, Preliminary Geologic and Seismic Hazard Investigation, Benyessa Development, San Jose, California, October.
, 1978, Supplemental Geologic Investigation, Benyessa Creek Development, San Jose, California, March.
.

Earth Systems Consultants, 1978a, Geologic and Seismic Hazards Investigation, Ambra Property, San Jose, California, December.

, 1978b, Geologic and Seismic Hazards Investigation, Lo Bue Property, San Jose,
California, August.
, 1978c, Geologic Lnvestigation, Berryessa Creek Development, San Jose, California.
I

1979a, Test Boring Results, Ambra Property, San Jose, California, April.

, 1979b, Soil Investigation, Lo Bue Property, San Jose, California, April.

, 1979c, Supplemental Information, Berryessa Creek Development, San Jose, Caiifornia, April.
, 1983a, Site Visit, Ambra Property, San Jose, California, June.

June 3.
A

, 1983b, Supplemental Trenching, Ambra Property, San Jose, California, October.

1985, Soil Engineering Report, Lands of Ambra, Track 7002, San Jose, California,

, 1986, Update of Geologic and Seismic Hazards Reports, Lands of Brancato, San Jose, California, December. , 1988a, Supplemental Soil Report, Lots 5, 8, 13, and 16, Tract 7002, San Jose, California, October.

1988b, Supplemental Soil Report, Five Lots Tract 7002, San Jose, California.

, 1988c, Discussion of Deep Boring, Lands of Brancato, Piedmont Road, San Jose,

California, January.

199 1a, Soil Report, Lands of Brancato, San Jose, California, July.

, 1991b, Supplemental Trenching, Lands of Brancato, San Jose, California, December.

, 1992, Supplemental Trenching 1992, Lands of Brancato, San Jose, Santa Clara County, California, February.

Associated Terra Consultants, Inc., 1989, Geologic Investigation Report, Single Family Residential Development on 0.6-acre Lot, September. Berlogar, Long & Associates, 1977, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Berryessa Evangelical Free Church, Sierra Road, San Jose, California, July 2 1.

, 1978, Supplemental Geological Investigation, Proposed Berryessa Evangelical Free

Church, Sierra Road, San Jose, California, March 2 1. Burkland and Associates, 1973, Slope Stability Investigation, Lands of Estate Homes, L.G. Borge, et. al., San Jose, California, October 3. Earth Systems Consultants, 1989, Geologic and Seismic Hazards Evaluation, WeyheIAiassa Parcels, San Jose, California: for Advance Developers, Inc., Campbell, California, October.
I

--

1990, Supplemental Geotechnical Study, WeyhdAiassa Parcels, San Jose, California: for Advance Developers, Inc., Campbell, California.

1991, Supplemental Geotechnical Exploration, WeyheIAiassa Parcels, San Jose, California: for Advance Developers, Inc., Campbell, California, June.
, 1992, Additional Information, WeyheIAiassa Parcels, San Jose, California, January.

Geotechnical Engineering Systems Co., 1989, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Single-Family Residential Development on 0.6-acre Lot on Sierra Road: for Raniel Property, Inc., December. Hallenback-McKay & Associates, 1978, Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Church Development Site, Sierra Road, San Jose, California, July.

Terrasearch, Inc., 1980, Soil and Geologic Investigation on Proposed Subdivision, Sierra Road, San Jose, California: for Allied Engineering Co., January. Terratech, Inc., 1977, Geologic Investigation, Lands of Benyessa Lutheran Church, San Jose, California: for Reverend Bernard Pankow, October.
porel Drive & Jasmine Ranch

Earth Systems Consultants, 1989, Updated Geologic and Seismic Hazards Investigation, Jasmine Ranch Property, San Jose, California, Consultants Report for W .F. GoodrichlAIT Development Corporation, Los Altos, California, November.

, 1990a, Supplemental Geologic and Soil Suitability Study, Jasmine Ranch, San Jose,
California, Consultants Report for Gill-Vista Enterprises C/O Advance Developers, Palo Alto, California, August.

, 1990b, Supplemental Trenching and Information, Jasmine Ranch, San Jose, California, Consultants Report for Gill-Vista Enterprises C/O Advance Developers, Inc.,
Campbell, California, November.

SuncrW Avenue
Jo Crosby & Associates, 1972, Geologic and Foundation Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Harrison Property, Suncrest Drive, San Jose, California, April 24.

, 1984, Ground Stability Investigation and Report, Hanison Property, Suncrest Drive,
San Jose, California, April 13.
, 1991, Report on the Geotechnical Assessment for the Davidon Homes on the 52acre Suncrest Avenue Property of Davidon Homes, San Jose, California, July 22.
Fenitencia Water Treatment Plan1

Boddie, Paul, 1994, Personal Communications, Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Wahler and Associates, 1982, Engineering and Geological Study, Penitencia Water Treatment Plant: Consultant's Report to the Santa Clara Water District, San Jose, California. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1993a, Penitencia Water Treatment Plant Site Study, San Jose, California, Vol. I of IV, Prepared for Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., August.

1993b, Penitencia Water Treatment Plant Site Study, San Jose, California, Vol I1 of IV, Appendix A - Logs of Borings and Appendix B - Laboratory Test Data, Prepared for Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., August. 1993c, Penitencia Water Treatment Plant Site Study, San Jose, California, Vol 111 of IV, Appendix C - Inclinometer and Piezometer Data, Prepared for Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., August. IV, Appendix D - Survey Data, Appendix E - Seismic Hazard and Methodology, and Appendix F - Geophysical Survey Data, Prepared for Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., August.

,1993d, Penitencia Water Treatment Plant Site Study, San Jose, California, Vol IV of

Peview of Prevlous Rqponal Geologi c P u w o n s and Studia

G.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This section of the groundwater report typically includes interpretive statements bared on professional judgment and It is addresses the specific action that may be required. important that recommendations be clearly and concisely stated and emphasize practical solutions, whenever possible.

V.

SELECTED REFERENCES

The following recent texts contain very extensive reference lists on various aspects of groundwater, as well as being excellent references themselves:
1.

Bower, Herman, 1978, Groundwater Hydrology, McGraw-Hill. Freeze, R. Allan and Cherry, John A., Prentice-Hall.
1979, Groundwater,

2.
3.

Todd, avid K., 1980, Groundwater Hydrology, second edition, John Wiley.

Results of current research on various aspects of groundwater appear in various publications, of which the following are of particular note:
4.

Bulletin of the Association published by the Association. Ground Water, Association. published by

of the

Engineering National

Geologists, Water Well

5.
6.

Ground Water Monitoring Review, published by National Water Well Association. Water Resources Research, published by American Geophysical Union. essential

7.

Publications of various governmental agencies are references, especially from the following agencies:
8.

California Department of Water Resources California Division of Mines and Geology California Water Resources Control Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S.

9.

10.

11.
12.

Geological Survey

APPENDIX 1 REVIEW OF PREVIOUS REGIONAL GEOLOGIC PUBLICATIONS AND STUDIES

The Panel reviewed the following information to define the geologic setting within the East Foothills. Together, these references provide the overall, historical geologic and geomorphic fiamework for the East Foothills; i.e., the regional geologic setting that needs to be considered when evaluating sitespecific reports. Other regional studies may also cover the area but have not been reviewed by the Panel.
A brief overview of each reference is presented, with a summary of the overall conclusions and major

contributions of each to the understanding of the regional geologic setting of the East Foothills:
Crittenden, Max, D., Jr., 1951, Geology of the San Jose-Mount Hamilton Area, California: Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 157, 74 p., map scale 1:62,500.

Area: The area covered in this report is about the size of 15-minute quadrangle and is located in the Coast Ranges about 50 miles southeast of San Francisco on the west slope of the Diablo Range. Purpose: The report contains the first "detailed" geologic field and photointerpretation mapping that includes the East Foothills. Overall Conclusions/Contributions: Crittenden's report summarized early studies in the San Francisco Bay area and identified and mapped stratigraphic units in the East Foothills, including the Oakland Conglomerate, the Orinda Formation and the Alum Rock Rhyolite. These units were later renamed or placed in other Formations in subsequent studies. Crittenden also recognized the Hayward fault and "older" faults of the Hayward fault zone in the vicinity of the East Foothills, and the significance of localized serpentine outcrops as they relate to the various fault zones. In addition, Crittenden identified two old erosional surfaces, the Oak Ridge and Silver Creek, as evidence for two periods of regional uplift. These surfaces are characterized by low, rounded hills and relatively broad, shallow valleys. In the East Foothills, they are represented by northwest trending ridges and isolated summits such as the ridge top along the eastern moratorium boundary and the ridge dividing the two branches of Benyessa Creek. Although Crittenden recognized the presence of landslides in the area, he did not map them in areas where they are difficult to distinguish from underlying rocks. He did note, however, that large areas of Santa Clara Formation have undergone repeated sliding and that an understanding of the composition of individual slides is important to proper interpretation of the geology of the bedrock units. He also identified and mapped the Alum Rock Landslide on the north slope of Alum Rock Canyon, and the landslide area associated with the San Jose Highlands.

Nilsen, Tor M., 1972, Preliminary photointerpretation map of landslide and other surficial deposits of the Mt. Hamilton quadrangle and parts of the Mt. Boardman and San Jose quadrangles, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map 339, map scale 1:62,500.

Area: This map includes hillslopes and mountain areas east of the Santa Clara Valley between Fremont. (north) and San Juan Bautista (south) eastward to San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties. Purpose: The map illustrates the abundance and distribution of landslides and surfrcial deposits in the areas mapped for purposes of land-use planning. Overall Conclusions/Contributions:This reconnaissance-type study from aerial photo interpretation was intended to be used in conjunction with other environmental information (vegetation, slopes, cultural features, etc.) to provide a first stage regional context for interpreting the adequacy of individual site investigations. Although the scale is too small for site specific studies, the legend provides a summary of engineering characteristics and geologic processes associated with each of the mapped units and describes the cumulative effects of such processes. The map does not provide detailed information regarding the composition and type of movement of individual landslide deposits, but the density of landslide deposits can be used as a general indicator of the overall slope stability of a given area. The map should only be used as a general guide and does not eliminate the need for sitespecific studies to predict the probability of future landsliding.
Nilsen, Tor M., and Brabb, Earl E., 1972, Preliminary photointerpretation and damage maps of landslides and other surficial deposits in northeastern San Jose, Santa Clara County, California: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-361, map scale 1 :24,000.

Area: This map covers northeastern San Jose and the East Foothills, south of Benyessa Creek. The map also shows a 1: 1000 scale planimetric blow-up of damage related to landsliding in the San Jose Highlands, Vista Grande Heights, and other portions of the East Foothills between Suncrest Avenue and Penitencia Creek. Purpose: The map was prepared to provide immediately useful information on the location of landslides and distribution of existing landslide damage and potentially unstable slopes, based on aerial photo interpretation field examinations and historic damage reports. Overall Conclusions/Contributi ons: This map delineates landslide and surficial deposits and describes the engineering characteristics of deposits in a similar fashion but in more detail than Nilsen (1972). The focus of the map is on damage to cultural features within landslide deposits. The map also clearly documents the presence of active landslides in the area and provides a summary of the cost of repairs financed by the City of San Jose in the San Jose Highlands area between 1968 and 1971.

Dibblee, Thomas W., Jr., 1973, Preliminary geologic map of the Calaveras Reservoir quadrangle, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, California: U S Geological Survey .. Open-File Map 73-58, map scale 1:24,000.

Area: Mapping covers the entire Calaveras Reservoir USGS quadrangle. Purpose: The map was prepared to update previous geologic mapping in the area. Overall Conclusions/Contributions: This map shows a more complex representation of geologic conditions than was previously recognized in the area. Although the map identifies some specific landslide areas, it does not show the extensive distribution of landslides mapped by Nilsen (1972) and Nilsen and Brabb (1972). Therefore it is difficult to evaluate the relationship between landslides in the area and the underlying bedrock units from this map. Dibblee recognized the extensive fault system along the range front in the vicinity of the East Foothills and was the first investigator to designate the Hayward, Berryessa, Crosley, Clayton, and Quimby faults as part of the Hayward fault zone. Although uncertain of locations of the faults in some places, Dibblee's map was used as the basis for the original Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones maps for this quadrangle issued in 1974.
Cooper, Robert S., and Dwyer, Michael J., 1974, Technical Report, Geotechnical Investigation, City of San Jose's Sphere of Influence, for the City of San Jose: Cooper, Clark & Associates, 185 p., map scale 1:48,000.

Area: Maps in this study cover approximately 340 square miles in the vicinity of San Jose including portions of the Santa Clara Valley, Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and Diablo Range to the east, including slopes within the East Foothills. Purpose The purpose of the study was to evaluate geologic and seismic hazards, recommend mi tigation, and prepare a preliminary Draft Seismic Safety Element for City's General Plan. The maps were intended for preliminary planning and public works purposes. Overall Conclusions1Contributions:This study provides numerous geologic and geologic hazards maps that represent compilations of existing data. The text is written for non-geologists. The report divides landslides into three types: 1) very large; 2) ancient landslide zones; and 3) rapidly moving, and delineates six landslide susceptibility zones that set parameters for planning pre-development site investigations. The report also contains an analysis on ground shaking and divides the area into seven zones based on generalized subsurface earth materials. Discussions of seismically induced ground failure hazards and ground failure potential maps are also provided. The report estimates surface ground accelerations in the area to be between 0.2g and 0.7Sg, with a maximum of 1.0g possible near active faults. The study also identifies weak, erodible and expansive soils and established parameters for predevelopment soil investigations. In addition, it addresses hydrology and groundwater, floodi ndseiche and subsidence potential. Perched groundwater conditions are identified within 25 feet

of the surface, along the eastern and western portions of the large contiguous alluvial deposits in the Santa Clara Valley, and within 10 to 15 feet in alluvium in the valley areas of the hills. These deposits may be prone to ground failure, particularly during strong ground shaking. The report also makes recommendations for a structural hazards abatement policy and Seismic Safety Element planning.
Bryant, William A., 1980, Southeast segment of the Hayward fault, Crosley fault, Berryessa fault, Quimby fault, Clayton Fault, southeast segment of Mission fault, and inferred break of 1868: California Division of Mines and Geology, Fault Evaluation Report FER-105,27 p., map scale 1:24,000.

Area: This report addresses the southern extension of the Hayward fault zone in the Milpitas and Calaveras Reservoir USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles. Purpose: The report and maps were prepared as part of the re-evaluation of individual fault traces within the Hayward fault zone for location and evidence of Holocene offset and zoning for special studies under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act. The original Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones maps issued in 1974 were revised, based on this study, and re-issued in 1982. Overall Conclusions/Contributions: The location of the Hayward fault, on the Calaveras Reservoir Quadrangle for this report, is based almost entirely on Dibblee (1973). Faulting along the Hayward fault is obscured by landsliding along most of the trace. Southeast of Berryessa Creek, the trace cannot be located and geomorphic features allow for landslide interpretation as well as faulting. Bryant found no systematic evidence for Holocene faulting along the Benyessa, Crosley, Clayton or Quimby faults.
Coyle, John M., 1984, Bedrock and surficial geology of the San Jose-Milpitas Foothills area, Santa Clara County, California: San Jose State University, Master of Science Thesis, 234 p., map scale 1:12,000.

Area: This thesis covers 22 square kilometers in the southwestern portion of the Calaveras Reservoir USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle. The area is bounded on the north by Old Calaveras Road, on the east by portions of Felter Road, on the south by Penitencia Creek and on the west by the junction of the foothills slope with the flat alluvial floor of Santa Clara Valley. The map includes most of the East Foothills. Purpose: The thesis was undertaken to provide a better understanding regarding the distribution, size and activity of landslides in the area mapped; the distribution of bedrock formations; and the location of fault traces within the Hayward fault zone. It was also intended to provide a regional study of the foothills of the Diablo Range in light of increased residential hillside development in the area. Overall Conclusions/Contributions: thesis proposes several changes in stratigraphic nomenclature The including identification of the Tertiary Alum Rock Rhyolite as Early Cretaceous or older; reduction of the Oakland Conglomerate to a member within the Berryessa Formation; and elevation of the Orinda Formation to part of the Contra Costa Group. Coyle also recognizes three to four erosional surfaces in

the area, rather than the two identified by Crittenden. Coyle suggests that the Hayward fault may die out in the vicinity of Alum Rock Canyon, questions the locations and existence of the Crosley fault, and suggests that disruption of rock units in the vicinity of the Crosley fault may have been caused by landsliding rather than faulting. Coyle believes there is inconclusive evidence for Holocene activity on the Hayward and Crosley faults and no evidence observed for activity on the Benyessa fault. He suggests the Hayward and Clayton faults should be considered potentially active and that the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) for the Hayward fault is 7.25. Coyle mapped hundreds of landslides based on aerial photo interpretation and extensive field checking. He assigned activity levels (active, dormant, static) to each slide mapped based on geomorphic features and other factors noted in the field (i.e., damage to roads and structures). Coyle delineated five coalescing landslide complexes (Alum Rock, San Jose Highlands, Suncrest Drive, Roddy-LoBue Ranch, Berryessa Creek), each of which is characterized by topographic or geologic conditions set apart from other complexes that provide clues to age and overall activity. The work done for the thesis also documents reports of continued landslide movement in the study area.
Rogers, Thomas H., and Williams, John W., 1974, Potential Seismic Hazards in Santa Clara County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Report 107, map scale 1:62,500.

Area: This report covers all of Santa Clara County. Purpose: The report and accompanying maps were prepared to provide geologic data, interpretation, and recommendations pertinent to development of the Seismic Safety Element of the Santa Clara County General Plan. Overall Conclusions/Contributions: This report is a compilation, evaluation and interpretation of existing data, combined with aerial photo interpretation and limited field inspection of landslides and various geologic units, needed to make various interpretations regarding potential seismic hazards in the county. The six accompanying maps depict the geology, seismicity, thickness of alluvium, and engineering boring data known at the time. The report provides a summary of the seismic history of Santa Clara County and references the possibility of ground rupture, landsliding, groundshaking, and other earthquake-triggered movements that may be applicable within the East Foothills. Maximum bedrock accelerations of up to 0.5g are estimated in the eastern portion of the county. In addition, the report recommends the County develop an adequately trained and funded interdisciplinary staff team (with expertise in seismology, engineering geology, planning, hydrology, architecture, design engineering, structural engineering, and soil engineering) to review geotechnical investigations, with consultants to be used on an "as needed" basis to supplement existing expertise.

APPENDIX 2

GEOLOGIC REVIEW PANEL SCOPE OF W O R K

This scope of work is included in the original agreement with the Panel Members
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), Woodward-Clyde Report (1993)

Review the SCVWD Woodward-Clyde report and perform an evaluation of the internal consistency of the data. Prescnt views and opinions on the logic of the conclusions of the study, including application to the moratorium area based on the evidence presented. Provide details of specific relevance to areas outside of the SCVWD Penitencia Water Treatment Plant (PWTP). Outline the assumptions made in the panel review and the panels' approach in evaluating this report. Geologic and Geotechnical Reports submitted for Development Proposals Review and evaluate Geologic and Geotechnical reports submitted to the City for Geologic Hazard Clearance. These reports include: 1) Suncrest Project 2) Sierra Road Projects 3) Jasmine Ranch Project Provide conclusions regarding landslide hazards and the adequacy of geologic studies for thesc currently proposed developments. in light of the SCVWD Woodward-Clyde report findings. Other Geologic and Geotechnical Reports and Pertinent Data submitted to the City for Review Conduct a field reconnaissance of the moratorium area, and include those observations in your report. Conduct an evaluation of aerial photos provided by the City of the area, and discuss their use and application to the East Foothills area. Provide conclusions regarding landslide hazards and the adequacy of geologic studies for those smaller developments currently proposed, in light of the SCVWD Woodward-Clydc repon findings. Provide conclusions regarding landslide hazards and the adequacy of geologic studies with iy respect IU miscellaneous reports on fde with the C t ,within the moratorium area, in light of thc SCVWD Woodward-Clyde report findings. Summary and Conclusions of Review Panel
Dcfine h e practical limits of the Penitencia Creek Landslide (PCLS).Discuss static

conditions and reactivation potential.

B) Evaluate existing monitoring programs. Determine their effectiveness in characterizing h e

surrounding subsurface conditions. Provide recommendations for any future monitoring programs. C) Provide recommendations for additional studies, if necessary, and present a general scope of work. D) Make recommendations on the limitations of geologic and geotechnical conditions of the East Foothills with respect to proposed and potential development. T i should include hs mitigatible and non-mitigatible slope stability areas in the East Foothills. E) Establish geologic and geotechnical areas of risk and make recommendations on land use in these areas. Outline options for land use and associated geologic and geotechnical risks. F) Provide the panels' best judgment as to the long term application of the recommendations presented in the panel report, detailing the panels' level of confidence in those findings.

An Ureencv Ordinance of the Citv a San Jose ~ o s i a Six-Month Moratorium on All n~ Develo~ment Apnroval in the Desivnated East Foothills Area

. k ~ :glk TBR:
08/06/93

ORDINANCE NO. 24444

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN JOSE IMPOSING A SIX-MONTH MORATORIUM ON ALL DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS IN THE AREA NORTH OF PENITENCIA CREEK TO THE MILPITAS BORDER AND EAST OF PIEDMONT ROAD FROM PENITENCIA CREEK TO THE MILPITAS BORDER

WHEREAS, the area in the East Foothills north of Penitencia Creek to the Milpitas border and east of Piedmont Road from Penitencia Creek to the Milpitas border as shown more specifically on the attached Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as "East Foothills Arean) is a hillside area subject to numerous geologic hazards and is subject to the provisions of the City's geologic hazards ordinance; and WHEREAS, the East Foothills Area has historic problems with landslides and geologic instability; and WHEREAS, residents in the East Foothills Area are concerned that new development will create additional geologic hazards; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara Valley Water district is currently conducting a geotechnical study for the Penitencia Water Treatment Facility entitled " A Technical Memo, Penitencia Water Treatment Plant Site Study" (hereinafter "Studyl1), the results of which have not been released; and WHEREAS, the findings of the Study may call into question any Geologic Hazard Clearance for projects in the East Foothills Area; and WHEREAS, the results of the Study may reveal new geologic hazards and may provide new information a s t o whether geologic hazards can be mitigated; and WHEREAS, the City is in the process of updating its General Plan

Ord. No.

24444

in the General Plan 2020 process; and WHEREAS, the General Plan 2020 process is reviewing development policies, the Urban Service boundary and appropriate development densities in the East Foothills Area in light of geologic hazards and other concerns; and WHEREAS, the City Council anticipates thoughtful discussion on these Hillside policies in the General Plan 2020 process; and WHEREAS, prudence and concern for the safety of current and future residents dictates that new development should not be approved or proceed until the Study has been thoroughly analyzed and the 2020 General Plan adopted; and WHEREAS, development which does not or cannot mitigate geologic hazards creates risks to the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City cannot currently find that geologic hazards in the East Foothills Area are mitigated due to the fact that substantial new information is about to be released by the Water District; and WHEREAS, the Council believes that a six-month development moratorium in the East Foothills Area is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SAN JOSE:

SECTION 1.

A six-month development moratorium is hereby imposed in the East

Foothills Area on all development activity including, but not limited to, all permits and approvals issued and/or approved by the Director

of Planning, Director of Public Works, Building Official, Planning Commission and City Council. This moratorium shall not apply: a. to any permit required for safety reasons or for the

modification of existing structures if the Directors of Planning and Public Works jointly find that the development activity associated with the permit or approval will not increase or aggrevate any risks associated with geologic hazards on the subject site; or b. to any building permit required for new development which has

obtained all other necessary permits and approvals, if after full review and consideration of the Study, the Director of Public Works finds that the Geologic Hazard Clearance associated with the building permit should not be revoked for reasons of public health and safety and that no further geologic review is required.
SECTION 2.

This urgency ordinance is an urgency measure necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and shall become effective immediately upon adoption. The facts constituting such urgency are

that significant new information is about to be released concerning the presence of geologic hazards in the East Foothills Area. Geologic

Hazard Clearances for projects in the East Foothills Area may be adversely affected by information contained in the Study. New

development should be precluded until all significant new information is available and existing data relating to existing geologic setting has been analyzed so that the City can accurately determine that all

Ord. ho. 24444

geologic hazards have been mitigated.

Development in the East

Foothills Area which proceeds before all geologic hazards information is ascertained will adversely impact the safety and welfare of new and existing residents if development occurs and the geologic hazards are not or cannot be mitigated.
The City is currently unable to determine
"\

--

w
_\

if the geologic hazards can be mitigated.

SECTION 3 .
\

This urgency ordinance shall be efiective up to and including February 10. 1994 unless or until this Council adopts a superseding ordinance and said ordinance becomes effective. whichever first occurs. ADOPTED this loth following vote:
AYES : NOES :

7
!

day of

August

-I

1993, by the

"1 !
" )

ALVARADO, BE ALL, COLE, FERNANDES , HEAD, JOHNSON, PANDORI, POWERS; HAMMER FISCAL IN1

ABSENT : SHIRAKAWA

SUSAN HAMMER, Mayor

" 1

ATTEST :

PATRICIA L. o~HEARN. City Clerk

1 Code: C

m 17.1 0 G e o l o e i c a r d

Part 1 Geologic Hazard Clearance Part 2 Disclosure to Prospective Buyers

GEOLOGIC HAZARD REGULATIONS

0 17.08.550

recorded in the ofice of the county recorder of the county of Santa Clara, Each such variance permit shall be reported to the federal insurance administrator by the director as a part of the annual report submitted to such administrator by the city. (Prior code 8946.12; 17.08.470. Ords. 21000, 21493.) 17.08.530 Filing fees for petitions. The petition for a variance permit shall be as set forth in the schedule of fees established by resolution of council. Said fees are required to defray city's cost and expense in conducting the proceedings following such filing. (Prior code 8946.13; 17.08.380. Ords. 21000, 21295.) 17.08.540 Effective date of variance permit. No variance permit shall become effective unless and until the permittee, in writing, on a form which shall have been provided by the city and which shall have been signed and acknowledged by such permittee: A. Has accepted the variance permit; and B. Has agreed to be bound, and to do all the things required of him, as required by the terms, provisions and conditions of such permit, and the provisions of this chapter applicable to such permit. (Prior code 5 8946.14; 17.08.480. Ords. 21000, 21493.) 17.08.550

of, or the federal insurance administration, for any flood damages that result from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. (Ord. 21493.) Chapter 17.10

GEOLOGIC HAZARD REGULATIONS

Parts:
1 Geologic Hazard

Clearance

2 Disclosure to Prospective Purchasers

Part 1

GEOLOGIC HAZARD CLEARANCE

Sections: 17.10.010 Requirement for a certificate of geologic hazard clearance. 17.10.020 Definitions. 17.10.030 Application for certificate of geologic hazard clearance. 17.10.040 Geologic review-. 17.10.050 Erosion control plan. 17.10.060 Issuance of certificate of geologic hazard clearance. 17.10.070 Conditions of geologic has ard clearance. 17.10.080 Denial. 17.10.090 Renewal or direct revocation of a certificate of geologic hazard clearance by the director. 17.10.095 Request for hearing by director of public works. 17.10.098 Direct revocation by city council. 17.10.100 Appeal to the city council. 17.10.105 Independent consultant. 17.10.110 Improvements and facilities. 17.10.120 Consistency with other regulations.

Warning and disclaimer of liability. T h e degree of flood protection required by this chapter is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering considerations. Larger floodscan and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by man-made or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the areas of special flood hazards or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or flood damages. This chapter f shall not create liability on the part o the city of San Jose, any officer or employee thereSupp. No. 8

5 17.10.010

SAN JOSE CODE

17.10.130 Fees. 17.10.140 O b l i g a t i o n t o p r e v e n t hazard. 17.10.150 Violations, 17.10.010 Requirement for a certific a t e of geologic h a z a r d clearance. A certificate of geologic haiard clearance must be obtained from the director of public works, in accordance with this chapter, before any discretionary approval for development, or any grading permit or any building permit may be issued for any property located in a special geologic hazard area. Nothing herein shall be construed to preclude the applicant h m simultaneously f l n applications iig for other discretionary permits. (Ord. 21718.) 17.10.020 Definitions. Where terms are not specifically defined in Chapter 17.10 of this title, the definitions of Chapter 17.04 shall control. A. "Discretionary approval for development" shall mean any approval pursuant to Title 19 or Title 20 of this code. B. "Geologic hazard" shall mean any condition in earth, whether naturally occurring or artificially created, which is dangerous or potentially dangerous to life, limb, property, or improvements due to movement, failure or shifting of earth, or which, in the opinion of the director, may lead to damage to structures which may be located on or adjacent to soils or rocks having such conditions. For purposes of this chapter, such geologic hazards include, but are not l m t d t , fault nrptures; landiie o slides; mudslides and rock falls; ground failure due to earthquake shaking; erosion and sedimentation, and creeping soil. C. "Geologic assessment" shall mean a brief written review of possible geologic hazards present at a site or potentially affecting the site, which review is to be conducted by a certified engineering geSupp. No. 8

ologist or registered civil edeer retained by the applicant. D. "Geologic investigation*'shallmean a a m plete geologic investigation of hazards identified in a geologic assessment, which investigation-is 6 b e conducted by a certified engineering geologist retained by the applicant. E. "Off-site appraisal" shall mean an analysis of geologic hazards identified in the geologic assessment as potentially affecting the site. Such' appraisal is to be conducted by a certified engineering geologist retained by the applicant. The off-site appraisal is intended to be a less intensive review than the on-site geologic investigation. It will ordinarily be limited to a review of information available without conducting a field investigation. F. "Potentially affecting the site" shall mean areas adjacent to and nearby which have a reasonable possibility of directly impacting the site. G. "Repair" shall mean reconstruction of an existing building or structure. Any enlargement of or addition to such a structure shall not be cansidered a repair, for purposes of this chapter. H. "Special geologic hazard area" shall mean any land determined by the director of public works to be in the area identified as very high landslide susceptibility, high or moderatelhigh landslide susceptibility zones on Plates lC, ID, (Landslide Susceptibility) of the "Technical Report, Geological Investigation, City of San Jose's Sphere of Influence," prepared by Cooper, Clark and Associates, dated July 19, 1974, or on the state of California special study zones maps on file in the department of public works. The director of public works may delete areas identified in update studies as not being subject to geologic hazards from inclusion in the special geologic hazard area. (Ord. 21718.)

3280

GEOLOGIC HAZARD REGULATIOSS

5 17.10.050

17.10.030 Application for certificate of

geologic hazard clearance. An application for a certificate of geologic hazard clearance shall be submitted to the director of public works on a form provided by the city. The applicant shall conduct a geologic review a s set forth i n Section 17.10.040.(Ord. 21718.)
17.10.040 Geologic review. The geologic review shall consist of the analysis of the geologic hazards, including all potential seismic hazards, surface ruptures, liquefaction, landsliding and mudsliding. It shall also analyze the potential for erosion and sedimentation. A. The geologic assessment is a preliminary review to identify the existing and potential geologic hazards. It must also assess the potential for erosion and sedimentation. B. Every geologic assessment shall include both a site specific appraisal and an offsite appraisal. The off-site appraisal shall include the potential of the development creating, adding to or affecting an off-site geologic hazard, as well as the potential for existing off-site geologic conditions to pose a substantial threat of geologic hazard to any development which would occur on site. The off-site appraisal shall be limited to areas potentially aEecting the site for which geologic hazard clearance is sought. C. A geologic investigation must be conducted, unless the geologic assessment demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director of public works that there is no significant on-site potential geologic hazard or that recommendations in the geologic assessment fully mitigate any such potential geologic hazard. D The geologic investigation shall include . recommendations for feasible mitigations of all identified geologic hazards. E. The off-site appraisal ordinarily will be limited to information available without
'-l
Supp. No. 8

the necessity of entering private property not owned or controlled by applicant. Where the off-site appraisal requires such entry, the city shall assist applicant in acquiring the right of entry. The city shall use its powers of eminent domain if necessary. The applicant shall secure the payment of all costs to the city for any such assistance requested by applicant prior to any action being taken by the city. F. Every geologic assessment, geologic investigation, and off-site appraisal shall be submitted, by written report, in a form satisfactory to the director of public works. It shall contain the full analysis and all supporting data and be dated and signed by the certified engineering geologist or registered civil engineer. The report shall contain any recommendations for mitigation of p3tential geologic hazards. A geologic review in the form required for environmental clearance, the Subdivision Map Act or any other submittal required by the city shall be deemed to be in form acceptable to the director, so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort. G. All geologic reports submitted as part of the geologic review will be maintained on file by the city and made available for review in the office of the city's engineering geologist. (Ord. 21718.) Erosion control plan. A. Problems of erosion and sedimentation must be assessed as part of "geologic assessment." If any existing or potential problems are identified, an erosion control plan must be prepared and submitted for approval by the director of public works. B. An erosion control plan may, as required by the director, include plans and specifications for plantings, checkdams, sedimentation basins, cribb'i, riprap, or other devices or methods for controlling erosion and sedimentation. Scheduling of instal17.10.050.

17.10.050

SAN JOSE CODE

lation, maintenance and any other special considerations must also be addressed. An erosion control plan, which utilizes vegetation, must take into account any special conditions of soils or climate and should be compatible with vegetation in surrounding areas. (Ord. 21718.) Issuance of certificate of geologic hazard clearance. A. In order to receive a certificate of geologic hazard clearance, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the director of public works that the proposed development is not endangered or potentially endangered by geologic hazards on the site or in the area which may potentially affect the site, nor will it create new hazardous geologic conditions or potentially endanger adjoining lands, and that the proposed improvements, including earthwork, will adequately mitigate the identified geologic hazards. The issuance of a certificate of geologic hazard clearance shall not be understood to mean that the site is free from geologic hazards. Such cIearance shall mean only that based on the information provided, it is the judgment of the director that the geologic hazards have been mitigated to an acceptable degree. B. A certificate of geologic hazard clearance shall be issued for repair of existing structures if it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the director, that the repair will be conducted in a manner which does not create additional or increased geologic hazards. A description of the construction methods to be employed will ordinarily satisfy the requirements of this chapter and the applicant may then be exempted from further geologic review. (Ord. 21718.)
17.10.060.
.
-

Conditions of geologic hazard clearance. The director of public works may impose conditions as a requirement for the certificate of geologic hazard clearance. In addition to incorporating the mitigations identif5ed in the geologic review, such conditions may include, but are not limited to: A. Slope stabilization; B. Surface and subsurface drainage control; C. Off-site improvements to mitigate geologic hazards which potentially affects the site; D. U e restrictions to avoid or mitigate hazs ardous geologic conditions; E. Implementation of an approved erosion control plan; F. A finalreport upon completion of the project signed by a certified engineering geologist. Whenever it is necessary to enter the private property of another in order to fulfill any of the above conditions, the city shall assist the holder of the certificate in acquiring the right of entry. The city shall use its power of eminent domain if necessary. The holder of the certificate shall secure the payment of all costs to the city for any such assistance requested prior to any action being taken by the city. (Ord. 21718.)
17.10.070.

Denial. A. No certificate of geologic hazard clearance, other than for .repairs, pursuant to this section, should be granted if the director finds that the parcel is subject to serious potential geologic hazards that are not mitigated to an acceptable degree or that the long-term stability and'safety of the development and any needed improvements are dependent on the action of others including, but not limited to, neighboring property owners and governmental bodies unless the applicant can provide a means of assuring that such actions will occur.
17.10.080.

Supp. No. 8

GEOLOGIC HAZARD REGULATIONS

4 17.10.098

B. Prior to denying an application for a certificate of geologic hazard clearance, the director of public works shall afford the applicant an opportunity for an informal hearing at which time the applicant can provide testimony and additional evidence. If the director, after considering such testimony and evidence, denies the issuance of the certificate, the applicant may appeal the denial in accordance with Sec(Ord. 21718.)

known to the director, scientific or technological advancement or a change in geologic conditions makes it reasonable to require further geologic review. (Ords. 21718,23124.)

1 7 1 . 9 Renewal o r direct revoca'.000 tion of a certificate of geologic hazard clearance by t h e director. A. A certificate of geologic hazard clearance, issued by the director of public works, may be submitted as part of the application for all discretionary approvals for development, grading permits and building permits. B. The certificate will be in effect for a period of no more than three years from the date of issue unless revoked. At the end of the three-year period, no additional approvals or permits may be granted unless the certificate has been renewed. Nothing herein shall preclude the extension of a building permit which was issued in accordance with this chapter even if such extension occurs after the threeyear period. C. A certificate of geologic hazard clearance may be renewed only after an additional geologic assessment demonstrates, upon reassessment, that the prior review was adequate and that any facts previously unknown to the director, scientific advancement, or change in conditions are considered and that any potential geologic hazards identified a t any time prior to renewal of the clearance can be mitigated to an acceptable degree so that the public health and safety are protected. D. The director of public works may directly revoke a certificate of geologic hazard clearance whenever facts previously unSupp. No. 8

17.10.095 Request for hearing by director of public works. A. As an alternative to direct revocation under Section 17.10.090.D., the director may request a hearing before the city council to determine whether a previously issued geologic clearance should be revoked for reasons of public health and safety. B. If the director requests a direct revocation hearing before the council pursuant to this section, the director shall give notice to the permittee by personal service or certified mail. The notice shall contain the time and date of the direct revocation hearing and shall state the reasons for the director's decision to request a direct revocation hearing. C. The direct revocation hearing shall be held no sooner than ten days after the mailing or service of the notice to the permittee unless the notice contains a statement of urgency in which case the hearing may be held a t the next regularly scheduled meeting of the council. (Ord. 23124.) 17.10.098 Direct revocation by city council. The city council may revoke a geologic hazard clearance if, after a hearing, it makes any one or more of the following findings: A. The clearance was granted in error, was granted on the basis of incorrect or misinterpreted information, or was granted in violation of any law, ordinances or regulatory provision. B. The review upon which the clearance was granted was incomplete and further geologic information is necessary before the clearance can be allowed to remain effective.

5 17.10.098

SAN JOSE CODE

The proposed development is endangered, or potentially endangered, by geologic hazardous which may affect the site and no proposed improvement will adequately mitigate the identified geologic hazards. The proposed development will create new hazardous geologic conditions or potentially endanger adjoining lands and no proposed improvement will adequately mitigate the identified geologic hazards. There is sufficient uncertainty about the geologic safety which makes it reasonable to require further geologic review before the clearance can be allowed to remain effective. Scientific or technological advancement, a change in geologic conditions, or previously unknown facts makes it reasonable to require further geologic review. (Ord. 23124.)
17.10.100

tion of others or, in the case of repairs, that such repairs will be conducted in a manner which does not create additional or increased geologic hazards. D. The city council, in its discretion, may treat an appeal of a revocation by the director as a direct revocation pursuant to Section 17.10.098. (Ords. 21718,23124.) Independent consultant. A. If a permittee or applicant agrees to bear the full cost of the consultant services, the city council may select and retain an independent certified engineering geologist acceptable to the permittee applicant as consultant to provide additional information and analysis. B. The applicant or permittee shall deposit with city a sum of money, adequate to fully cover the cost of the consultant's services prior to the retention of the consultant. C. Nothing herein shall limit the discretion of the city council in considering all information available to it in making the findings set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 23124.)
17.10.105 17.10.1 10 Improvements and facilities.

Appeal t o the city council. The denial of the certificate of geologic hazard clearance, the denial of the renewal of such certificate, the issuance of such certificate with conditions, or the revocation of such certificate shall be personally served on the applicant or be sent to applicant by certsed mail, postage prepaid, at the address given for purposes of such notice on the application. The applicant may appeal the denial or revocation of such certificate of geologic hazard clearance or any condition imposed on such certificate to the city council by filing a written notice of appeal with the director of public works within thirty days of the date the denial, revocation, or conditional certificate was personally served or mailed. The city council shall uphold the decision of the director unless it finds that the potential geologic hazards can be mitigated to an acceptable degree so that the public health and safety are protected and that the long term stability and safety of the development and any needed improvement are not dependent on the ac-

No improvement including, but not limited to, street. sewer, and flood control, in a special geologic hazard area, shall be dedicated to or accepted by the city unless the director of public works makes an express finding that the improvements will not require an exces. sive degree of maintenance and repair cost. The director shall prepare administrative guidelines to be used in making the finding required by this section. Nothing in this provision shall preclude the city from accepting improvements constructed pursuant to an im. provement agreement where such finding was made a t the time of execution of that agree. ment. The maintenance of private improve. ments must be provided for by recorded con. ditions, covenants, and restrictions or by easements. Acceptance of the obligation to maintain

Supp. No. 0

GEOLOGIC HAZARD REGULATIONS

such private improvements shall be a condition of the geologic hazard clearance. (Ord.
21718.)

Part 2

DISCLOSURE TO PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS

Sections:
17.10.160 17.10.170 17.10.160

Consistency with other regulations. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to relieve any person of requirements imposed by other sections of this Code, except that the provisions of this chapter shall take precedence over any less stringent provision of this code with which it is i n conflict. (Ord.
17.10.120 21718.)

Disclosure t o prospcctivc purchasers. Civilaction.

Fees. Fees shall be paid a t the time of application for a geologic hazard clearance, in the amount set forth in the schedule of fees adopted by resolution of the city council. (Ord. 21718.)
17.10.130

Obligation t o prcvent hazard. The owner ol any real property shall take reasonable actions to prevent any natural or artificial geologic condition on such real property from threatening the safety of persons or other propcrty. Whenever the director of pub\ic works determines t h a t any natural or artificial condition on a propcrty may potentially endanger the safety of persons or other properties, the director may issue a notice of hazvdous condition and require that reasonable actions be taken to eliminate the geologic hazard within the time specified in the notice. (Ord. 21718.)
17.10.140 17.10.150

Disclosure t o prospective purchasers. A person who is acting as a n agent for a seller of real property which is located within a special geologic hazard area, or the seller, if acting without an agent, shall provide written notice to any prospective purchaser of the following: The property is located within a special geologic hazard area as defined by Secof tion 17.10.020~ the San Jose Municipal Code. A certificate of geological hazard clearance must be obtained from the director of public works before any discretionary approval for development, or any grading permit or any building permit may be issued for improvements on the property. A site specific geologic review may have been prepared for the property. All reports submitted as part of the geologic review are maintained on file by the city and available for review i n the office of the city's engineering geologist.
17.10.170 Civil action. A civil action against the seller of real p a p -

Violations. Failure to fully comply with 3ny condition of the geologic hazard clearance, violation of :my provision of this chapter. or maintcnnnce of any propcrty within a special geologic hazard area i n such 3 manner that a natural or artificial geologic condition on such real property. which could reasonably be corrected or mad(. Icss dangerous, is allowed to thrcntcn thc public health, safety or welfare, shall be deemed a violation of this chapter. (Ord. 21718.)
Supp. No. 8

erty or the agent of the sellcr of r e d p r ~ p ~ r t y may be instituted by any person who purchases real property in a special geologic hmard area for failure to disclose information as required by this part. Damages shall incluclc actual clamnges, costs, attorneys' fees, and civil penalty of five h u n d r d dollars in nddi-

4 17.10.170

SAN JOSE CODE

tion thercto. Thc court m : a - award punitive d~rnngesin ;z proper case. Sothing in this pl-ovision shall be construed to limit any other right or remedy otherwise available in law to any party. (Ord. 22100.)

Chapter 17.12

CITY OF SAN JOSE FIRE CODEL

Parts: 1 Administrative 2 Definitions and Abbreviations

Supp. No.8

lose

.. .. Munrclbal

CP O ~ $ :

BUILDING CODE

4 17.04.250

32 of the Uniform ~ u i l d i n ~ where' the Code building official finds that the proposed reroofing is suitable for the structural design of the building. (Prior code 9 8121; Ords. 20536, 20372,23321.)
17.04.230 Uniform Building CodeSection 3210 amended-In-

tions and services for building permits in the schedule of fees-established by resolution of council shall be imposed where applicable. (Prior code 8123; Ords. 20536,20572,21031, 21047,21295,23321.1 Reroofing-Section 3212 amended in part, Uniform Building Code. Section 3212 of the Uniform Building Code is hereby amended by the addition of a sentence to the end of the second paragraph of subsection (b) reading as follows: "Thirtypound felt may be omitted if asphalt shingles total three hundred pounds or more per one hundred square feet of roofmg." Prior code 8126; Ords. 20536,20572,23321.) - . .. .. - 17.04.250

spections. Section 3210 of the Uniform Building Code is amended to read as follows: "Section 3210. "When new roof coverings are applied, an in-progress inspection and written approval from the building official shall be obtained prior to continuing the work. When the existing roof cover is to be removed, a substantial proportion of the existing sheathing must be visible at the time of the in-progress inspection. In addition, a final inspection and written approval shall be obtained from the building official on all reroofing when complete. The final inspection may be waived in writing at the discretion of the building official." (Ords. 20536, 20572, 23321.1,. Reroofing-Permit requirements-Fees. A. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to replace or overlay more than twenty-five percent of the existing roof covering on any building regulated by the code, within any twelve-month period, or to cause the same to be done without first obtaining a separate reroofing permit for each building or structure from the building official. Reroofing permits shall be subject to the provisions of Sections 302, 303, 304, and 305. B. A reroofing permit must be obtained from the building oficial by the owner of each building that is to be reroofed prior to . commencement of the work. The fee for such permit shall be as set forth in the schedule of fees established by resolution of council. C. In addition to the permit fee specified above, fees specified for special inspec17.04.240
Supp. No.9

Part 6

EXCAVATION AND GRADING

Sections:
17.04.280

Uniform Building CodeAppendix Chapter 70-

Excavation and grading amended. 17.04290 Purpose and intent. 17.04.300 Scope. 17.04.310 Permits required-Notice of exemption.
17.04.320 17.04.330 17.04.340

Hazards.

Definitions. Grading permit requirements. 17.04.350 Fees. 17.04.360 Bonds. 17.04.370 Designated routes. 17.04.380 Failure to remove material.

17.04.390 17.04.400 1.7.04.410 ~17.04.420 17.04.430 17.04.440 1'7.04.450

Cuts.

m.
Setbacks. Drainage and terracing. Erosion control. Grading inspection. Completion of workFinal reports.

SAN JOSE CODE

17.04.280 Uniform Building CodeAppendix Chapter 70-

Excavation and grading amended. Chapter 70 of the Appendix of the Uniform Building Code is hereby adopted as amended by this part. (Prior code 8127;Ords. 20536, 20586,21031, 21047,21295, 217.19.)
17.04.290 Purpose and intent. The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard life, limb, property, water quality and natural resources, and to promote the public welfare by regulating grading. It is the intent of this chapter to establish uniform engineering standards and procedures for grading, and to allow reasonable deviations from these standards. (Prior code 3 8217;17.04.280. Ord. 21719.1 17.04.300 Scope. This chapter sets forth rules and regulations to control excavation, grading, and earthwork construction, including fills and embankments; establishes the administrative procedure for issuance of permits; and provides for approval of plans, specifications, and inspection of grading construction. Nothing in this chapter shall restrict the city of San Jose from imposing more stringent grading r q i e e t h u g h other ordieurmns nances, permit conditions, and conditions imposed on the approval of tentative subdivision maps. The director shall adopt procedures for implementation of this part. Said procedures shall be on file in the office of the director. (Prior code 8127; 17.04.280.Ord. 21719.)

Permits required-Notice of exemption. No person shall do any grading without first having obtained a grading permit pursuant ta Section 17.04.340 or a notice of exemption from the director. A notice of exemption may be granted for etn projects m e i g any of the following conditions
17.04.310
Supp. No. 9

An excavation below finished grade for basement or footings of a building,retaining wall, or other structures authorized by a valid building permit. This shall not exempt any All made with the material from such excavation nor exempt any excavation having an unsupported height greater than five feet after completion of such structure; 2. Excavations for cemetery graves, swimming pools, wells, tunnels, utiltr ities, s o m drains and sanitary sewers; 3. Refbe disposal sites amtrolled by other regulations; 4. Mining, quarrying, excavating, processing or stockpiling of rock, sand, gravel, aggregate or clay where established and provided for by law, provided such operations do not affect the lateral support or increase the stresses in or the pressure upon any adjacent or contiguous property; 5. Exploratory excavations under the direction of soil engineers or engineering geologists; 6. Grading or temporary stockpiling in an isolated, seIfc0ntained area if there is no danger apparent to private or public property; 7, Any project meeting all of the following conditions: a. No excavation greater than two feet and no embankment greater than three feet; b. No engineered slope steeper than two to one or having a slope distance greater than five feet; c. Earthwork which will not penetrate or disturb any permanent or seasonal spring, or any pennanent, seasonal or perched aquifer and will not obstruct any surface drainage course; d. All embankments for the support of structures are lees than one foot in depth and placed on ter-

'

3260.2

BUILDING CODE

17.04.230

rain having a natural slope of five percent or flatter; and e. The total quantity of either cut or fill does not exceed one hundred fifty cubic yards. 8. Earthwork entirely within public rights-of-way or easements andlor which is authorized and administered by a public agency; 9. The director expressly f n s that project id is of such a nature as to make the procedure under this part unnecessary for the promotion of public welfare and safety. No notice of exemption shall be granted for sites located in special geologic hazard areas .as defined by Section 17.10.020 of Chapter 17.10of this title (Prior code 9 8127; 17.04.280. Ord. 21719.)
'

'Borrow' is earth m t r a acqu&ed from aeil an off-site location for use in grading on a site. 'Civil engine& shall mean an engineer registered as such by the state of California. 'Civil engineering' shall mean the application of the knowledge of the forces of nature, principles of mechanics, and the properties of materials to the evaluation, design

17.04.320

Hazards.

Whenever the director determines that any existing natural geologic condition or any excavation or fill on private property has become a hazard to life and limb, or endangers any property or natural resources, or adversely affects the safety, use or stability of a public way, drainage channel or swale, the owner of the property upon which the excavation or fill is located, or other person or agent in control of said property, upon receipt of notice in writing fiom the director, shall, within the period specified therein, repair or eliminate such natural geologic condition, excavation or fill so as to eliminate the hazard and be in conformance with the requirements of this code. (Prior code 8 8127; 17.04.280. Ord. 21719.)
17.04.330

Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the definitions listed hereunder shall be construed as specified in this section. 'Ae graded' i the surface conditions results ing at completion of grading. 'Bedrock' ie in-place rock. 'Bench' is a relatively level step excavated i t earth m t r a on which ie bbe placed no aeil

Supp. No.9

BUILDING CODE

9 17.04.330

and construction of civil works for the beneficial uses of mankind. 'Compaction' is the densifxation df a fill by mechanical means. 'critical geologic hazards' ate and shall include, but need not be limited to, active faults, extremely weak or expansive soil, creeping soil, and active or incipient landslides. 'Director' shall mean the director of public works of the city of San Jose. Wherever this chapter or the Uniform Building Code specifies building official, for purposes of Part 6 said designation shall mean director. 'Earth material' is any rock, natural soil or fdl andlor any combination thereof. 'Engineering grading' is grading in excess of five thousand cubic yards, and all grading for permanent correction of a landslide, rockslide, mud flow, debris flow, or other failure of earth or rock, and not of an emergency or maintenance nature. 'Engineering geologist' shall mean an engineering geologist registered and certified by the state of California. 'Engineering geology' shall mean the application of geologic knowledge and principles in the investigation and evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil for use in the design of work normally performed by a civil engineer. 'Erosion' is the wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water andlor ice, or the action of gravity on eatth material, 'Excavation' is the mechanical removal of earth material. 'lbishg grade' is the grade prior to grading. 'Ezcplo&orygrading' is grading far the purpose of exploring or determining conditions on a site. 'Export' is the hauling of natural earth materials from the site. 'il is a deposit of earth material placed Fl' by artificial means. 'Finish grade' is the final grade of the site which conforms to the approved plan. 'Geologic hazards' shall mean any condition in earth, whether naturally occurring or
Supp No. I

artificially created, which is dangerous or potentially dangerous to life, property or improvements' due to movement, failure or shifting of earth. For the purposes of this chapter, soil conditions which endanger or potentially endanger life, limb or property, or which, in the opinion of the director, may lead to structural defects in existing or future structures which may be located on or adjacent to soils having such conditions, shall be considered geologic hazards. Such geologic hazards include, but need not be limited to, faults, landslides, mudslides, and rockfalls; ground shah ing, ground movement, or ground failure due to earthquake shaking; flood, tidal, seiche, or tsunami inundation; erosion and sedimentation; subsidence or settlement; and weak, expansive or creeping soil. 'Grade' shall mean the vertical location of the ground surface. 'Grading' is any excavating or filling or combination thereof. 'Import' is the hauling of natural earth materials to the site. 'Key' is a designed, compacted fill .placed in a trench excavated in earth material beneath or at the toe of a fill slope. Zot' is a parcel with a separate number assigned by the assessor, or each quarter-acre of a large parcel. 'Natural resources' include water, mineral commodities and ares, and timber of comrner' cially harvestable quality and quantity. rZegular grading' is grading involving five thousand cubic yards or less or grading of an emergency or maintenance nature and not for permanent correction of a landslide, rockslide, mud flow, debris flow, or other failure of earth or rock. 'Rough grade' is the stage at which the grade approximately conforms to the approved plan, and structure foundation areas are at plan or subbase foundation grade. 'Site' is any lot or parcel of land or contip uous combination thereof, under the same ownership, where grading is performed or permitted.

SAN JOSE CODE

'Slope' is the ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance of an inclined ground surface. 'Soil' is naturally occurring suriicid deposits overlying bedrock. 'Soil engineer' &all mean a civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soil engineering. 'Soil engineering' shall mean the application of the principles of soil mechanics in the investigation, evaluation, design and construction of civil works involving the w e of earth materials and the inspection and testing of the cdnstruction thereof. 'Statement' shall mean a written document prepared by the civil engineer attesting to completion of the work as shown on the asgraded plans and described in the final reports. Trae is a relatively level step constructed erc' in the face of a graded slope surface for drainage and maintenance purposes."
17.04.340

A.
.

B.

C.

D.

E.

Grading permit requirements. Permits Required. No person shall do any grading without first obtaining a grading permit or a notice of exemption pursuant to Section 17.04.310 from the director. A separate permit shall be required for each site and may cover both excavations and fills. Application. To obtain a permit, the applicant shall f r t file an application thereis for in writing on a form furnished for that purpose. Each such application shall conform to piocedures established by the director. Plans and Specifications. Each application shall be accompanied by one set of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soil engineering and engineering geology report unless waived by the director. Information on Plans and Specifications. Plans and specifications shall conform'to the procedures established by the director. Soil Engineering Report. The soil engineering report required by subsection C shall include data regarding the nature,

distribution and strength of existing soils, anclusions and recommendations for graiing procedures and design criteria for corrective measures when necessary, and opinions about the adequacy of sites to be developed by the proposed grading. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the director shall be incorporated in the grading plans and/or specifications. If the site is located in a special geologic hazard area as defined by Section I?.10,020H of Chapter 1 . 0 of this title, 71 the soil engineering report shall be part of the geologic review required by Section 17.10.040. E g n e i g Geology Report. The enginee~ F. n i e r n ing geology report required by subsection C shall include an adequate descriptioo of the geology of the site, including identification of actual and potential geologic hazards, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of geologic conditions on the proposed development, recommendations for mitigation of identified hap ards wherever appropriate, and'opinions and recommendations about the adequacy of sites to be developed by the proposed grading. Recommendations included in the report and approved by the director shall be incorporated in the g m h g plans andlor specifkations. If the site is located in a special geologic hazard area as defined by Section 15.10.020H of Chapter 17.10 of this title, the engineering geology report shall be part of the geologic review required by Section 17.10.040. G Issuance. The application, plans, and spec. . ifications filed by an applicant for a permit shall be checked by the director. Such plans may be reviewed by other departments of the city to check compliance with the laws and ordinances under their jurisdictions. I the director is satisfied that the work f described in an application for permit and the plans and specifications filed
,

Supp. Na 1

BUILDING CODE

0 17.04.340

therewith conforms to the requirements of this code and other pertinent laws and ordinances, and that the fees specified in .Section 17.04.350 have been paid, he shall issue a permit to the applicant. When the director issues the permit, he shall sign and date the plans and such signature shall constitute approval. Such approved plans shall not be changed, modified or altered without authorization from the director, and all work shall be done in accordance with the approved plans. The director may issue a permit allowing part of a grading project to proceed before the entire plans and specifications for the whole grading project have been submitted or approved, provided that adequate site development information and detailed statements have been tiled complying with all pertinent requirements of this code. The holder of such permit shall proceed at his own risk without assurance thatwthe permit for the entire grading project will be granted. H. Disapproval. If, after review of the application and plans and specifications by the city, the director finds the project for which the grading is intended, or the application, or the plans or specifications are.not in compliance with this or any other ordinance or law, he shall not issue the grading permit, and shall so inform the ' applicant in writing, stating the reasons for disapproval, within forty days after the filing of the application. The applicant may resubmit the application when the conditions which led to disapproval of the application have been corrected. No additional plancheck fees shall be charged for such subsequent applications unless, in the opinion of the director, the application or plans and specifications have been so changed as to constitute a new application. If, in the opinion of the director, a new permit application has been filed, new plan-check fees as provided in Section 17.04.350 of this
Supp. Na 1

chapter shall be charged. No additional fees shall be charged. I. Planned Supplemental Reports. Supplemental engineering geology reports or soils reports, or both, may be required at any stage of the grading operation if specified by the director. Upon acceptance of supplemental reports by the director, conclusions, recommendations and design criteria shall be incorporated in revised plans and specifications, and implemented immediately. If the supplemental report indicates a hazardous condition which cannot be mitigated, the grading permit may be revoked. J. Unanticipated Conditions. Supplementa! reports shall be required during the grading period whenever soil or geologic COEditions are encountered which, in the opim ion of the director, deviate significa~tly from the conditions described in the soils report or the engineering geology report. or when modifications are made to the original grading plans which, in the opinion of the director, require supplemental investigation, analysis, or change in engineering design. K. Liability. The'city of San Jose shall not be held liable for any damages or costs incurred by the applicant as a result of the requirements of any supplemental report. L. Distribution of plans. One set of reproducible approved and dated plans and specifications shall be retained by the director for a period of ninety days from the completion of the work covered therein, and one set of reproducible approved and dated plans and specifications shall be returned t the applicant. The applicant shall supo ply reproductions of approved, dated plans to anyone who works on the project. M. Validity. The issuance or granting of every grading permit shall be conditioned upon the approval by the city of any other permit, final map or parcel map, improve. ment plans or improvement contract and.

SANJOSECODE

where applicable, upon the approval of any other agency or regulatory body having jurisdiction over the use or developement of the land to be graded. Nothing in this'chapter shall be deemed the approval of a tentative to map under the provisions of Title 19 of the San Jose Municipal Code or a site development permit, a PD permit or any other permit under the provisions of Title 20 of this code prior to application for or issuance of a grading permit pursuant to this chapter. In cases where the approval of a tentative map or any permit under the aforementioned provisions of said Title 20 includes a preliminary grading plan, no grading pennit shall be issued unless the director determines tbat the provisions, conditions and specifications in such grading permit are in substantial compliance with the intent of said preliminary plan. The issuance or granting of a permit or approval of plans and specifications shall not be construed to be a permit for or an approval of any violation of any of the provisions of this code. No permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code shall be valid, except insofar as the work or use which it authorizes is lawful. The issuance of a permit based upon plans and specifications shall not prevent the director from thereafter requiring the correction of errors in said plans and specifications or from preventing grading opa t i o n s being carried on thereunder when in violation of this code, any other ordinance of the city, or any other applicable
law.

Expiration. The term of every grading permit shall be determined as follows: 1 The term of a grading pennit may be . the same as the term of an improvement contract if: i. The applications for the grading permit and any and all applicable and necessary plans for pubSupp. ~ a ' I

lic improvements have been filed by the applicant so as to enable the city to consider both such applications and such plans, before the issuance of the permit, and ii. The proposed grading was shown on a preliminary grading plan approved by the city as a part of an approved tentative map submitted under the provisions of Title 19, Subdivisions, of the San Jose Municipal Code, a site development permit, a PD permit or other use permit for the land to be graded; provided that the term of such grading permit shall not exceed the "term of applicability" specified in the soil engineering and geology report which is required to be filed pursuant to Section 17.04.340C, or three years, whichever 'is less. 2. If the grading permit is issued without specification of its term, the grading pennit shall expire six months after its issuance, unless the term of such permit has been extended by the director fdr delays beyond the control of the applicant. i. Such extension may be given the form of a new permit with a new term, upon approval of the director, without an additional planchecking fee or grading fee. ][f sub stantial work has not been commenced, only one such extension can be granted. ii. If at any time after the grading work has commenced, the grading project autharized by such permit is suspended or abandoned for a period of six months, the permit shall expire. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so. No fee shall be charged for such permit, provided that no changes have been made or will

BUILDING CODE

4 17.04.360

be made in the original plans or specirications for such work and provided M e r that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year. Upon expiration of the permit without completion of the project, as evidenced by a statement of completion, the permit holder shall leave the site in a safe and nonhazardous condition. 0. Suspension or Revocation. If the director determines that the permit is issued in error, on the basis of incorrect information supplied, or in violation of any law, ordinance, or any of the provisions of this code, or the work being performed does not comply with the permit, or changed conditions or additional information indicates that the grading as permitted could create a hazard, then the director may, in writing, suspend or revoke a permit issued under the provisions of this code. P. Appeal. 1. Any pennittee or applicaqt for a permit shall be given notice setting forth the reasons for any determination to deny, suspend or revoke any grading permit under this part. Said permittee or applicant shall be given the opportunity for a hearing before the director w i t h a reasonable time from said notice. No grading work shall be done on the site pending appeal and any affected permit shall be automatically suspended pending final resolution of the appeal to director. 2. Any final determination of the director under this part may be appealed to the San Jose code enforcement appeals commission. The prohibition on grading work and the suspension of the permit effectuated under subsection 1,above, shall continue pending b a l determination of such an appeal t said commission. o (Prior code B 8127; 17.04.280. Amended and renumbered by Ord. 21719.)
Supp. No. 1

Q. Plans and Specifications. Each application shall be accompanied by one set of plans and specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soil engineering and engineering geology report unless waived by the director.
17.04.350 Fees. A. Plan-checkingfee. Before accepting a set of plans and specifications for checking, the director shall collect a plan-checking fee. Separate building permits and fees shall apply to retaining walls. or major drainage structures. There shall be no separate charge for standard terrace drains and similar facilities. The amount of the plan-checking fee for grading plans shall be as set forth in the schedule of fees established by resolution of council. B. Grading permit fees. A fee for each grading permit shall be collected by the director. The amount of the fee shall be as set iorth in the schedule of fees established by resolution of council.

The fee for. grading permit authorizing

additional or less work than that under a valid permit under Section 17.04;3401 or Section 1 7 0 . 4 5 of t i chapter, shall '.430 hs be the difference between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project, and any excess shall be refunded after acceptance of the project. 17.04.280. Amended (Prior code 1'8127; and renumbered by Ord. 21719.)

Bonds. The director may require bonds in such forms and amounts as may be deemed necessary to assure that the work, if not completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, will be corrected to eliminate hazardous conditions. Required bonds may be included with any other surety bond otherwise required by the city. (Prior code 5 8127;17.04280.Renumbered by Ord.21719.)
17.04.360

9266

4 17.04.370
17.04.370

SAN JOSE CODE

""I

Designated routes. Each grading permit application where the desigri volume of either the export or import of earth material exceeds ten thousand cubic yards shall .be reyiewed by the director of traffic operations. For such permits, the director of traffic operations shall determine and designate those routes which will be allowable for trucks or other equipment of permittee or its contractors or subcontractors, agents, or employees doing work under the grading permit, traveling between the construction site andlor the excavation, landfill or quarry sites. The use of these designated routes shall be a condition of such a grading permit. The use of routes other than the designated routes by permittee or its contractors or subcontractors, agents, or employees doing work under such a grading permit shall be cause for the director to revoke or suspend the grading permit in addition to any other remedy of the city. Prior code 5 8121;17.04.280. Renumbered by Ord. 21719.)
17.04.380. Failure to remove material. In addition to, or in lieu of, any other reml edy the city may have, the director shall have the right to revoke or suspend the grading permit if the permittee or its contractors or subcontractors, agents, or employees doing work under the grading permit refuse to remove or fail to remove promptly any dirt, rock, refuse, or garbage that was dropped, deposited, placed, dumped, or spilled, thrown or has fallen off, or was tracked off any vehicle onto any street, highway, or public property of the city of San Jose by the permittee or its contractors or subcontractors, agents or employees doing work under the grading permit after a notice to permittee from the director to cease and desist from refusing to remove such material or failing to remove such material promptly. (Prior code 8127; 17.04.280. Renumbered by Ord. 21719.)
17.04.390. C t . us A. General. Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering andlor
Supp. No. 1

engineering geology report, cuts shall conform to the provisions of this section. Exceptions from standards established by this code may be permitted by the director. Each such exception requested shall be listed by the engineer on the plans and/or in the specifications. B. Slope. The slope of cut surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use, and shall not exceed two horizontal to one vertical, except as permitted by the director. C. Cut Location. Cut slopes shall not be constructed where the top of the cut intercepts the natural ground surface below a planned or existing fill slope within a horizontal distance equal to one-third of the vertical height of the fill slope above. D. Drainage and Terracing. Drainage and terracing shall be provided as required by Section 17.04.420. (Prior code 5 8127; 17.04.280. Amended and renumbered by Ord. 21719.)
17.04.4Ojl.

Fills.

A. General. Unless otherwise recommended in the approved soil engineering report, fills shall conform to the provisions of this section. Exceptions from standards established by this code may be permitted by the director. Each such exception requested shall be listed by the engineer on the plans andlor in the specifications. fn the absence of an approved soil engineering report these provisions may be waived for minor fills not intended to support structures. B. Fill Location. Fill slopes shall not be constructed on natural slopes steeper than two to one or where the fill slope terminates above a planned er &g cut slope, within a horizontal distance equal t oneo third of the vertical height of the fill. C. Reparation of Ground. The ground surface shall be prepared to receive fill by removing vegetation, noncomplying fill, topsoil and other m t r a s as determined aeil unsuitable by the soil engineer. Where

BUILDING CODE

17.04.410

D.

E.

F.

G.

the slopes are five to one or steeper, fills shall be benched into sound earth material. Fill Material. Only earth materials which have no more than minor amounts of organic substances and have no rock or similar irreduci5le material with a maximum dimension greater than eight inches shall be used, except as permitted by the director. Compaction. All fills shall be compacted according to the recommendations of the soils report. If a soils report has not been made, then the compaction test method and the required relative compaction shall be indicated on the plans andlor in the speciftcations. Slope. The slope of fill surfaces shall be no steeper than is safe for the intended use and, in no event, steeper than two to one, except as permitted by the director. Drainage and terracing. The area above fill slopes and the surfaces of terraces

shall be graded and paved as required by Section 17.04.420. (Prior code O 8127;17.04.280.Amended and renumbered by Ord. 21719.)
17.04.410.

Setbacks.

A. Setbacks. The tops and the toes of cut and fdl slopes shall be set back from property boundaries as far as necessary for safety of the adjacent properties and to prevent damage from water runoff or erosion of the slopes, and shall be set back from structures as far as necessary for adequacy of foundation support and to prevent damage as a result of water run05 or erosion of the slopes. U l s otherwise recommended in the zp nes proved soil engineering andlor engineering geology report and shown on the approved grading plan, setbacks shall be no less than shown in Table No. 1 :

Supp. No.1

SAN JOSE CODE

TABLE NO.1
H@t)
0-3.
a (private)

a (public)

0 0 2 2 5 5 '1-3 2 2 2 5. 5 3-10 3 3 Ha w2 10-30 Hi2 W5 6 3 15 15 30 & over 15 *Dimension "d" is the horizontal distance from the bottom of a structure footing to the face of an adjacent slope.

b 0

c 5

d' 5

Face

Reinfcrced Ccnttete Pav~nq

B. Exceptions. ~ o k d a t i o n setbacks from prop erty lines and slopes of cuts and fills shall not apply with respect to construction of multiple dwelling u i s with common and nt integral foundations with suitably joined and reinforced retaining walls, abutments, piers, columns, and other common structural members. Prior code 1 8127; 17.04.280. Amended and renumbered by Ord. 21719.)
Supp. Na I

17.04.420. Drainage and terracing. A. General. Unless otherwise indicated on the approved grading plan, drainage facilities and terracing shall conform to the provisions of this section. B. Terrace. Terraces at least six feet in width shall be constructed on all slopes having a maximum height of thirty feet or more and shall be established at not more than thirty-foot vertical intervals to control sur-

BUILDING CODE

5 17.04.440

face drainage and debris. Suitable access shall be provided to permit proper cleaning and maintenance, Stvales or ditches on terraces shall have a minimum gradient of two and one-half percent along the ditch and five percent toward the ditch and must be paved with reinforced concrete not less than three inches in thickness or an approved equal paving. A single run of swale or ditch shall not collect runoff from a tributary area exceeding forty thousand square feet (projected) without discharging into a downdrain. Subsurface Drainage. Cut and fill slopes shall be provided with subsurface drainage as necessary for stability. Disposal. All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry waters to the nearest practicable drainageway approved by the director and/or other appropriate jurisdiction as a safe place to deposit such waters. If drainage facilities discharge onto natural ground, riprap or other 'erosion control and energy dissipating devices may be required. At least one percent gradient from building pads toward approved drainage facilities shall be required. (Prior code 9 8127; 17.04.280. Renumbered .by Ord. 21719.)

maintenance in a manner satisfactory to city by means of contracts, deed restrictions, or other instruments approved by city. Other Devices. Check dams, sedimentation basins, cribbing, riprap or other devices or methods to control erosion and sediments shall be employed when necessary to provide safety and protect water quality. Exception. Where cut slopes are not sub. ject to erosion due to the erosion-resistant character of the materials, protection specified under subsection A and B, above, may be omitted, as permitted by the director. Bonding. The director may require bonds in such forms and amounts as may be deemed necessary to assure that the work. if not completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, will be corrected to eliminate hazardous conditions or.protect water quality. (Prior code Q 8127; 17.04.280. Renumbered by Ord. 21719.)

A. General.

1 . 4 4 0 Erosion control. 70.3. A. Slopes. The faces of cut and fill slopes which accept overland or sheet flow or any cut or fill slope of erodible material over three feet in height shall be treated with an approved erosion control treatment immediately following completion of construction when rough p d e has been attained between November 1st and May 31st, or before November 1st if rough grade is attained between May 31st and November 1st. An approved erosion control plan may include effective planting or other erosion control devices and may require

'

1 . 4 4 0 Grading inspection. 70.4. Al grading operations for which l a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the director. The director may also require special inspection and testing during the course of the work, as set forth in Section 17.04.440B. B. Special Inspection and Testing. 1 Engineered grading. When, during the . course of the work, the director so requires, the engineering geologist shall inspect the work for geological matters including, but not limited to, the adequacy of the natural ground for receiving fills, the stability of cut slopes, and the need for subdrains or . other groundwater drainage devices; the soils engineer shall inspect the work for elements including, but not limited to,. the preparation of the

Supp. No. 1

SAN JOSE CODE

ground to receive fills, the adequacy of testing for required compactiqn, the stability of all finish slopes, and the design of buttress fills; incorporating, where required, criteria supplied by the engineering geologist; and the civil engineer shall inspect the work for elements within his area of technical specialty including, but not limited to, the proper establishment of line, grade and drainage. The engineering and soil engineer shall report their findings to the civil engineer, who shall ensure that all concerns warranting change in the engineering criteria for the work are acted upon immediately, and he shall so report to the director. The director or his authorized representative may inspect the work when a statement of completion is required, or at any other time as he deems necessary. 2. Regular grading. When, during the course of the work, the director so requires, a testing agency shall be called upon to test and inspect the work for matters including, but not limited to, the adequacy of cleared areas and benches to receive fill, and the compaction of fills. If the director has cause to believe that geologic hazards m a y be involved, the work shall be requhed to conform to the provisions of.section 17.04.440 B1 .. C. Notification of Noncompliance. If, in the course of fuifilhg their responsibiity under this chapter, the civil engineer, the soil engineer, the engineering geologist, andfor . the testing agency find that the work is not being done in conformance with this chapter or the approved grading plans

and specifications, the discrepancies shall be reported immediately in writing to the person in charge of the grading work and to the director. Recommendations for corrective measures, if necessary, shall be submitted. Failure to implement corrective measures immediately is grounds for suspension or revocation of the grading permit. D. Transfer of Responsibility. If during the course of the work either the civil engineer, the soil engineer, the engineering geologist or the testing agency of record is changed, the work shall be stopped until the replacement has agreed to accept the responsibility within the area of his technical competence for a statement of the completion of the work. (Prior code 8 8127; 17.04.280. Amended and renumbered by Ord. 21719.)

17.04k50. Completion of work-Fiaal reports. Upon completion of the work, the director may require the applicant t o submit a final report. T i final report shall conform'to prohs cedures established by the director. (Prior code 8127;17.04280. Amended and renumbered by Ord. 2171s.)

Chapter 17.06

ENFORCEMENT IN SAN JOSE-' CUPERTINO MUNICIPAL REORGANIZED TERRlTORY

Parts: 1 General 2 San Jose Officials-Enforcement i Cupertino Reorganized Temn tory 3 Cupektino Official in Reorganized Territory

Supp. No. 1

Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geologic Reports

&
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF MINES AND GEOLOGY

DMG NOTE 44

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC REPORTS

The following guidelines are required for engineering geologic reports submitted to the Department of Public Works. County of Vcntura. This information was originally printed in CALIFORNIA GEOLOGY, November 1974. These guidelines are an example of "state-of-the-an" and all the elements should be considered during the preparation and review of geologic reports. Item V was provided by the Southern California Section, Association of Engineering Geologists. the State Building Safety Board. and the California Division of Mines and Geology. report should be accompanied by one or more appropriately positioned structure sections. F. The locations of test holes and other specific sources of subsurface information should be indicated in the text of the repon or, ktter, on the map and any KCtions that are submitted with the report. recording of direct observations. the basis for such interpretations should be clearly stated. The following checklist may be useful as a general, though not necessarily complete, guide for descriptions: A. Eedmck-igneous, sedimentary, metamorphic types. 1. Idcntirtcation as to rock type (gran itc, silty-sandstone mica-schist). 2. Relative age, and where possible, correlation with named formations (Rincon formation, Vaqueros sandstone). 3. Distribution. 4. Dimension features (thickness, outcrop breadth, vertical extent). 5. Physical characteristics (color, grain size, nature of suatiftcation, foliation. or schistosily, hardness, mherencc) 6. Special physical or chemical features (calcareous or siliceous cement, concretions, m i n d deposits, alteration other than weathering). 7. Distribution and extent of weather zones; significant differences between ok fresh and weathered r c 8. Response to natural surface and near-surface prowses (raveling, gullying. mass movements). B. Structural features-stmtification. foliation, schiitosity, folds, zones of contortion or crushing, joints, shear tones, faults. 1. Occurrence and distribution. 2 Dimensional characteristics. . 3. Orientation, and shifts in orieniation. 4. Relative ages (where peninent). 5. Special effects upon the bedrock. (Describe the conditions of planar surface.) 6. Specific features of faults (zones of gouge and breccia, nature of offsets, timing of movements); are faults active in either the geological sense or the historical sense? C. Sutlicial (unconsolidated) deposits --artificial (manmade fill, topsoil.

It. GENERAL INFORMATION

Each report should include definite statements concerning the following matters: A. Location and size of subject area, and its general setting with respect to major geographic and geologic features. B. Who did the geologic mapping upon which the report is based, and when the mapping was done. C Any other kin& of investigations made by the geologists and, where pcrtinmt, teasans for doing such work. D. Topography and drainage in the subject area. E Abundance, distribution. and general nature of exposuresofeanh materials within the area. F. Nature and source of available subsurface information. Suitable explanations should provide any technical reviewer with the means for assessing the f probable reliability o such data. (Subsurface relationships can be variously determined or inferred. for example, by projection of surface features from adjacent areas, by the use of test-hole logs, and by interpretation of geophysical data,and it is evident that different sources of such information can differ markedly from one another in degree of detail and reliability according to the method u&) s.

I.

GEOLOGIC MAPPING

A. Each repon must be a product of independent geologic mapping of the subject area at an appropriate scale and in suficicnt detail to yield a maximum return of pertinent data In connection with this objective, i t may be necersary for the geologist to extend hi mapping into adjacent areas. B. All mapping should be done on a base with satisfactory horizontal and vertical control--in general a detailed topographic map. The nature and source of the base map should be specifically indicated. For subdivisions, the base map should be the same as that to be used for the tentative map or grading plan. C. Mapping by the geologist should reflect careful attention to the lithology, structural elements, and t hru-dimensiond distribution of the earth materials exposed or inferred within the a m In most hillside areas these materials will include both bedrock and surficial deposits. A clear distinction should be made between obsemed and inferred featurs and relationships. D A detailed large-scale map normal. ly will be required for a report on a tract. as well as for a report on a smaller arca in which the geologic relationships arc not simple. E Where three-dimensional relationships are significant but cannot be described satisfactorily in words alone, !he

111.

GEOLOGIC
DESCRIPTIONS

The repon should contain brief but complete descriptions of all natural materials and structural featurs recognized or inferred within the subject area. Where interpretations are added to the

CORDON K. VAN VLECK, Secretary THE RESOURCES AGENCY

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor S A E O CALIFORNIA TT F

RANDALL M.WARD. Director DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

stream-laid alluvium, beach sands and gravels. residual debris, lake and pond sediments. swamp accumulations, dune sands, marine and nonmarine terrace deposirs, talus accumulations, creep and slope-wash materials, various kinds of slump and slide debris. I. Distribution, occurrence, and relative age; relationships with present topography. 2. Identification of materials as to general type. 3. Dimensional characteristics (thickness. variations in thickntss. shape). 4. Surface expression and correlation with features such as terraces, dunes, undrained depressions, anomalous protuberances. 5. Physical or chemical features (moisture content. mineral deposits, content of expansible clay minerals, alteration, cracks and fmures, fractures). 6. Physical characteristics (color, grain size. hardness, compactness, coherence. cementation). 7. Distribution and extent of weathered zones; significant differences between fresh and weathered material. 8. Response to natural surface and near-surface proceoss (raveling, gullying, subsidence, creep, slope washing, slumping. and sliding). D. Drainage--surface water and groundwater. 1. Distribution and occurrence (streams, ponds. swamps, springs, seeps, subsurface basins). 2. Relations to topography. 3. Relations to geologic features (previous strata, fractures, faults). 4. Sources and permanence. 5. Variations in amounts of water (intermittent spring and steps, floods). 6. Evidence for earlier occurrence of water at localities now dry (vegetation, mineral deposits, historic records). 7. The effect of water on the properties of the in-place materials.

displaced or tilted reference features. historic records and measurements). 4. Slump and slide mas= in bedrock and/or surfrcial deposits; distribution. geometric characteristics, correlation with topographic and geologic features. age. and rates of movement. 5. Deposits related to reccnt floods (talus aprons, debris ridges, canyon-bottom trash). 6. Active faults and their recent effects upon topography and drainage.

C. Proposed masses of fill. I. General evaluation of planning with respect to canyon-filling and sidehiil masses of fill. 2. Comment on suitability of existing natural materials for fill. 3. Recommendationsfor positioning of fill masses, provision Tor underdrainage, buttressing, special protection against erosion.

IV. BEARING OF GEOLOGIC FACTORS UPON INTENDED LAND USE

Treatment of this genual topic, whether presented as a separate section or integrated in some manner with the gcologic ducriptions, nonndly constitutes the principal contribution of the repon. It involves both (1) the effocts of geologic features upon the proposed grading, construction, and land use, and (2) the effects of these proposed modifications upon future geological processes in the
arm

D. Recommendations for subsurface testing and exploration. I. Cuts and test holes needed for additional geologic information. 2. Program of subsurface exploration and testing. based upon geologic considerations, that is most likely to provide data needed by the &Is engineer.

E Special recommendation:
1. Areas to be left as natural ground. 2. Removal or buttressing of existing

The following checklist includes the topics that ordinarily should be considered in submitting discussion, oonclusions, and recommendations in the geologic reports: A. General compatibility of natural features with proposed land we: Is it basically reasonable to develop the subject area? 1. Topography. 2. Lateral stability of earth materials. 3. Problems of f o d inundation, erolo sion. and deposition. 4. Problems caused by features or conditions in adjacent properties. 5. Other general problems.

slide masses. 3. mood protection. 4. Protection from wave erosion along shorelines. 5. Problems of groundwater circulation. 6. Position of structures with respect to active faults.

V.

SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS

The following published guidelines should be considered when preparing seismic information. I.. DMG NOTE 42. Guidelines to Ocologic/Seismic Repons (formerly DM0 NOTE 37). 2. DMG NOTE 43, Guidelines for Determining the Maximum Cdible and the Maximum Probsble Eanh quakes.

E Features of special significance (if not already included in foregoing dcscriplions). 1. Features reprenting accelerated erosion (cliff re-entrants, badlands, advancing gully heads). 2. Features indicating subsidence of settlement (fissures. scarplets, offset reference features, historic records and measuremenu). 3. Features indicating creep (fissures. scarplets, distinctive patterns ofcracks and/or vegetation, topographicbulges.

B. Proposed cuts. 1. Prediction of what materials and structural features will be encountend. 2. Prediction of stability based on geologic factors. 3. Problems of excavation (unusually hard or massive rock. excessive flow of groundwater). 4. Recommendations for reorientation or repositioning of cuts, reduction of cut slopes. development of compound cut slopes, special stripping above daylight lines, buttressing, protection against erosion. handling of seepage water, setbacks for structures above cuts.

VI.

DOCUMENTATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. The report should consider as the minimum requirement, Chapter 70, Uniform Building Code (1973). Refer to California Administrative Code. Title 25, Section 1090, Excavation and Grading. B. All material in the report should be relevant to the purpose of the report. C. All statements should be documented by rcfemces or by accurate field observations. D. Aerial photos (originals or suitable copies) should bt included to document any discussion on landslides and faults. E. The method(s) of field analysis should be discussed in a lucid manner.

Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Re orts Geologic Guidelines for Earthquake and or Fault Hazard Reports Guidelines for Geophysical Reports Guidelines for Groundwater Investigation Reports

STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR GEOLOGISTS AND GEOPHYSlClSTS

t :it1 1.~11lwr .
A

400 R

..a.

STREET. SUITE 4060.SACRAMENTO. C A 9581 4 TELEPHONE (9161 4457'920

GUIDELINES FOR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC REPORTS

General xnformation

These Board guidelines describe the scope of work normally done and suggest a format for reports. They do not include complete listings of techniques or topics, nor should all techniques described be used or all topics listed be dealt with in every pro ject

These guidelines are informational and are not regulations. Language used has been carefully gleaned of mandatory requirements. The guidelines have no force of law and do not set standards of practice. To be enforceable the guidelines would have to be adopted as regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. On January 23, 1986, the Board passed the following resolution: nThe Guidelines have been adopted as useful information Not having been adopted as regulations in documents. accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Guidelines are not legally enforceable.'@ These guidelines have their roots in eight California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) notes, which were published in California Geology during 1973-75. The four guidelines which evolved through the Professional Affairs Committee for the Board of Registration from 1983 to 1989 are: Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports. Geologic ~uidelinesfor Earthquake and/or Fault Hazard Reports. Guidelines for Geophysical Reports. Guidelines for Groundwater Investigation Reports. The first two were consolidated and expanded from the CDMG notes. The second two are new.

(Rev. 11/93)

11.

INTRODUCTION

These guidelines have been prepared by the Professional Affairs Committee of the State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists to assist those involved in preparing and reviewing engineering geologic reports. The guidelines present general procedures suggested for use by geologists carrying out engineering geologic studies and, while they do not constitute a complete listing of all techniques for such studies, they do include most major topics. In the broad sense, nearly all engineering projects requiring geologic input are also engineering geology projects. Most of these involve identifying and evaluating geologic hazards, using the various exploration tools available today, as applicable, and developing appropriate mitigation measures, if necessary. Projects may include on-land and offshore structures, excavations such as pits (quarries) and wells, buried tanks, and disposal sites for hazardous, designated, and nonhazardous wastes. Groundwater and its relationship to other site characteristics is an integral part of engineering geology. Additionally, past uses of a site are becoming increasingly important in evaluating its applicability for a new use. Engineering geology reports would be expected to be prepared by or under the direct supervision of a certified engineering geologist. Clear descriptions of work and unambiguous presentations of results are encouraged. If the report falls within the scope of the Act*, If such it must be signed by the responsible professional(s). reports include significant geophysical information, they should be cosigned by a registered geophysicist, or the signed geophysical report may be appended to the geological report. It is important that reports that present conclusions or recommendations based in part on field sampling or field or laboratory testing include the test results with adequate descriptions of the methods employed, and with specific reference to standard sampling, preservation, and testing methods, where appropriate. Where necessary, technical terms will need to be defined. The following is a suggested guide or format for engineering geologic reports. These reports may be prepared for projects ranging in size from a single lot to a master plan for large acreage, in scope from a single family residence to large engineering structures, and for sites in all manner of geologic terrain. Because of this diversity, the order, format, and scope of the reports is flexible to allow tailoring to the geologic conditions and intended use of the site. The format is intended to be relatively complete; not all items will be applicable to small projects or low-risk sites. In addition, some items may be covered in separate reports by geotechnical engineers, geophysicists, or structural engineers.

Business and Professions Code, Chapter 12.5.

SUGGESTED CONTENT FOR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC REPORTS

Puroose and Scope of the Investiuation, including a brief description of proposed or existing site use; may also include a description of limitations of the work and authorization to perform the work.
R c may include reference to geologic province and location with respect to major structural features.

( i e ; t including information on geologic

units, landforms, graded and filled areas, vegetation, existing structures, etc., that may affect the choice of investigative methods and the interpretation-of data. Description of the Investiuation
A.

Review of the regional and site geology, and land-use history, based primarily on existing maps and technical literature. Geologic hazards that could affect the planned use of the site.
a.

Significant historic earthquakes in the region. Fault traces that may affect the site. Is t h e site within a special studies (fault) zone? Secondary earthquake effects, such as ground breakage in the vicinity of the site and liquefaction. Regional effects, such as subsidence, uplift, etc. Landslides or other earth movements at the site and vicinity. Soil properties such as high moisture content, low density, swelling, etc.

b.

c.

d. e. f.

Other geologic conditions that could affect the planned use of the site. a.
b.

Soil thickness, types, and relationship to bedrock. Excavatability of rock materials. Depth to and characteristics of groundwater.

c.

Conditions imposed on the site by past uses, such as buried objects, contaminated soils and groundwater, etc.

B.

Intecpretation of aerial photographs and other remotely sensed images relative to topography, vegetation, or any other features related to geologic hazards and past site use. Surface investigation.
1.

C.

Mapping of the site geology and vicinity; identification and description of geologic units, soil and rock types, and features that could be related to geologic hazards and the proposed use of the site. Evaluation of surface-water conditions, including qua1ity;flood potential in relation to site conditions.

2.

D.

Subsurface investigation.,
1.

Trenching and any other excavation (with appropriate logging and documentation) t o permit detailed and direct observation of continuously exposed geologic units and features. Borings drilled, test pits excavated, and groundwater monitoring wells installed to permit the collection of data needed to evaluate the depth and types of materials and groundwater. Data points sufficient in number and adequately spaced will permit valid correlations and interpretations. Geophysical surveys conducted t o facilitate the evaluation of the types of site materials and their physical properties, groundwater conditions, and any other pertinent site conditions. The types of equipment and techniques used, such as seismic refraction, magnetic, electric resistivity, seismic reflection, and gravity, and the name of the geophysicist responsible for the work.

2.

3.

E.

Special methods (used when special conditions permit or critical structures demand a more intensive investigation).
1.
2.

Aerial reconnaissance overflights, photography. etc.

including

special

Geodetic measurements, radiometric analysis, age dating,

V.

R e s u l t s of I n v e s t i c r a t i o n : describe the results of the investigation outlined in Section IV above. Conclusions relative to intended land use or development (many revealed in conjunction with the soil engineering study). Include a statement of the degree of confidence in and limitations o f the data and conclusions.

VI.

Presence or absence of active or potentially active faulting at the site or in the vicinity, and the potential for renewed fault activity. Effects on the site from ground shaking. Potential for secondary effects from earthquakes, such as ground cracking and liquefaction. Potential for subsidence or other regional effects.
The presence of creep or landsliding; and possible future movements.

Soil and rock conditions, such as swelling soils that could affect site use. The presence of and possible effects from any other soil and rock defects. Excavation methods. Presence of contamination or any other man-imposed condition. Potential for earthquake-induced flooding, including tsunamis and seiches. Potential for volcanic hazards. Conformance with state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements. VII. Recommendations
A.

Effect of fault locations on proposed structures at the site. Federal, state, or local law may dictate minimum standards. Placement of structures to best take advantage of geologic conditions. Methodology for excavating and moving materials. Means of correcting site defects, such as buttressing landslides, installing special drainage devices, etc. Correcting contamination or other man-induced site defects. Other recommendations as appropriate f.or the proposed project,

B.
C.

D.
E.

F.

VIII. References
A.

Literature and records cited and reviewed. Aerial photographs or images interpreted, listing the type,

B.

scale, source, and index numbers, etc.

C.

Compiled data, maps, or plates included or referenced. Other sources of information including well records, personal comrnunications, or other data sources.

D.

1%.

Illustrations

A.

~ocation map to identify the site locality, features, or major regional geologic features.

geographic

B.

Site development map, at an appropriate scale, to show the site boundaries, existing and proposed structures, graded areas, streets, and locations of exploratory trenches, borings, wells, geophysical traverses, and other data. Geologic map to show the areal distribution of geologic units, faults and other structures, geomorphic features, aerial photo features noted, along with surface water bodies and springs. The geologic map may be combined with the location and site development maps. Geologic cross sections illustrating appropriate geologic features. significant or

C.

D.
E.
f.

Logs of exploratory trenches and borings to show the details of observed features and conditions. Geophysical data and the geologic interpretations of those data. Other, as appropriate.

G.
X.

Su~portinu Data Not Already ProvidedL such as non-confidential water well data (including bore-hole logs).
Siunature and Redstration Professional(s) (RG, CEG, PE) Number
of

XI.

the

Resbonsible

SELECTED REFERENCES

Alfors, J.T., et al., 1973. California: Bulletin 198.

Urban Geology Master

Plan for

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1973. Geologic and Seismic Reports. DMG Note 37.

Guidelines to

, 1975. Recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maximum Credible and the Maximum Probable Earthquakes. DMG Note 43.
Recommended Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geologic Reports. DMG Note 44.
1975.

, 1975.
Reports.

Checklist DMG Note 48.

for

the Review of Geologic/Seismic

1975.

Fault Rupture.

Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface DMG Note 49.

Geophysics Study Committee of the National Research Council, 1986. Active Tectonics, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 226 p. Hart, E..W. 1985. Fault Hazard Zones in California. DMG Special (Information on state law and Publication 42 (revised yearly). zoning program regulating development near hazardous faults). Hunt, Roy E. 1984. Geotechnical Enaineerina Investiaation Manual. McGraw-Hill Book Company. International Conference of Building Officials, 1985. Buildina Code. Whittier, California. Uniform

Krynine, Dimitri P., and Judd, William R. 1957. Principles of Enuineerina Gzoloav and Geotechnics. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Leggett, Robert F., and Karrow, Paul F. 1983. Handbook of Geoloav in Civil Enuineerinu. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Wesson, R.L., Helley, E.J., Lajoie, K.R., and Wentworth, C.M. 1975. Faults and Future Earthquakes. Studies for Seismic Zonation of U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 9 4 1 - A , pp. A5-A30.

t h e
Ziony, J.I., Faulting; A of Faults. 1973, Rome,

Wentworth, C.M., and Buchanan, J.M., 1973. Recency of Widely Applicable Criterion for Assessing the Activity Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, June Italy, pp. 1680-1683.

Results of current research on various aspects of engineering geology appear in various publications, of which the following are of particular note: Bulletin of the Association published by the Association. Ground Water, Association. published
by

of the

Engineering National

Geologists, Water Well

International Association of Engineering Geologists (several publications) Water Resources Research, published by American Geophysical Union.

Publications of various governmental agencies are references, especially from the following agencies: California Department of Water Resources California Division of Mines and Geology California Water Resources Control Board
U.S.. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Geological Survey

essential

W 9
\

STATE OF CA;lFOicNlA .-STATE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY 5uud

O.p.rrum.1

I
a l

PETE WILSON Lor rrnn,

STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR GEOLOGISTS AND GEOPHYSICISTS

400 R STREET. SUITE 4060. SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 TELEPHONE. (916) 445-1920

I -

( 111-1 !l t K T

:(

:UX~ fi 1

GEOLOGIC GUIDELINES FOR EARTHQUAKE AND/OR FAULT HAZARD REPORTS

I .
F
\

General ~nforrnation These Board guidelines describe the scope af work normally done and suggest a format' for reports. They do not include complete listings of techniques or topics, nor should all techniques described be used or all topics listed be dealt with in every project. These guidelines are informational and are not regulations. Language used has been carefully gleaned of mandatory requirements. The guidelines have no force of law and do not set standards of To be enforceable the guidelines would have to be practice. adopted as regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. On January 23, 1986, the Board passed the following resolution: "The Guidelines have been adopted as useful information documents. Not having been adopted as regulations in accordance with the Administrative procedure Act, the Guidelines are not legally enforceable."

r r
L

rI"
I
\

These guidelines have their roots in eight California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) notes, which were published in California Geology during 1973-75. The four guidelines which evolved through the Professional Affairs Committee for the Board of Registration from 1983 to 1989 are: Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports. Geologic ~uidelinesfor Earthquake and/or Fault Hazard Reports. Guidelines for Geophysical Reports. Guidelines for Groundwater Investigation Reports. The first two were consolidated and expanded from the CDMG notes. The second two are new.

-t

r"

(Rev. 11/93)

XI.

INTRODUCTION

These guidelines are prepared by the Professional Affairs Committee of the State Board of Registration for Geologists and Geophysicists to assist those involved in the preparation and review of earthquake and fault hazard reports. The guidelines describe the general procedures used by geologists carrying out earthquake and fault hazard studies and, while they do not constitute a complete listing of all techniques in such studies, they do attempt to include all major topics. The investigation of sites for potential earthquake hazards, including possible surface fault rupture, is a difficult geologic task. The professLona1 performing or supervising each investigation has a responsibility to determine what is appropriate and necessary in each case, and so does the professional who reviews each report. Many active faults are complex, consisting of multiple breaks. Yet the evidence for identifying active fault traces is generally subtle or obscure and the distinction between recently active and long-inactive faults may be difficult to make. Because of the complexity of evaluating surface and near-surface faults and because of the infinite variety of site conditions, no single investigative method will be the best at every site; indeed, the most useful technique at one site may be inappropriate for another site. Geologic reports prepared using these guidelines would be expected to be done by or under the direct supervision of registered geologists. Clear descriptions of work and unambiguous presentations of results are encouraged. If the report falls within the scope of the A c t * , the report must be signed by the responsible professional(s). It is important that reports that present conclusions or recommendations based in part on 'field sampling or field or laboratory testing of samples include the test results with adequate descriptions of the methods employed, and with specific reference to standard sampling and testing methods, where appropriate. Where necessary, technical terms (such as active fault, maximum credible earthquake, etc.) will need to be -. defined. The following is a suggested guide or format for earthquake and fault hazard reports. These reports may be prepared for projects ranging in size from a single lot to a master plan for large acreage, in scope from a single family residence to large engineered structures, and from sites located on an active fault to sites a substantial distance from the nearest known active fault. Because of this wide variation, flexibility in the order, format, and scope of the reports will allow tailoring to the seismic and geologic conditions and intended use of the site. The format is intended to be relatively complete, and not all items will be

Business and Professions Code,'Chapter

12.5.

applicable to small projects or low risk sites. In addition, some items may be covered in separate reports by geotechnical engineers, geophysicists, or structural engineers.
111. SUGGESTED CONTENT FOR GEOLOGIC REPORTS ON EARTHOUAKES AND FAULT HAZARDS

Purpose and scope of the investigation including a brief description of proposed site use. Regional geologic setting. Site description and conditions, including information on geologic units, landforms, graded and filled areas, vegetation, existing structures, etc., that nay affect the choice of investigative methods and the .interpretation of data. Description of the investigation. Review of the region's seismic or earthquake history, based primarily on existing maps and technical literature. (a) Significant earthquakes during historic time and epicenter locations and magnitudes in the vicinity of the site.
(b)

Location of fault traces that may affect the site, including maps of fault breaks and a discussion of the tectonics and other relationships of significance to the proposed construction.

(c) Location and chronology of other earthquake-induced features such as lurching, settlement and liquefaction, accompanied by:
(1) Map (2)

showing the location of these features relative t o the proposed project. .. Description of the disturbed zone for each feature. Estimate of the amount of disturbance relative to bedrock and surficial materials.

(3)

Interpretation of aerial photographs and other remotely sensed images relative to fault-related topography, vegetation, and soil contrasts, and other lineaments of possible fault origin. . Surface investigation. (a) Mapping of geologic units and structures, topographic fegtures, deformation of man made structures, etc., both on and beyond the site (sag

ponds, spring alignments, offset bedding and man made features, disrupted drainage systems, offset ridges, faceted spurs, dissected alluvial fans, scarps, landslide alignments, vegetation patterns). Review of local groundwater data (water-level fluctuations, groundwater impediments, water quality variations, or anomalies indicating possible faults)

Description of the distribution, depth, thickness, and nature of the various earth materials, including groundwater, which'may affect the seismic response and damage potential at the site.
4.

Subsurface investigation. Trenching and any other excavating (with appropriate logging and documentation) to permit the detailed and direct observation of continuously exposed geologic units and features. This would include trenching done across any known active faults and suspicious zones to determine the location and recency of movement, the width of disturbance, the physical condition of fault zone materials, the type of displacement, the geometry of fault features, and recurrence interval, if known. Borings drilled and test pits excavated to permit the collection of data needed to evaluate the depth and types of materials and groundwater and to Data points verify fault-plane geometry. sufficient in number and adequately spaced will permit valid correlations and interpretations. Geophysical surveys conducted to facilitate the evaluation of the types of site.materials and their physical properties, groundwater conditions, and fault displacements, including a description of the types of equipment and techniques used, such as seismic refraction, magnetic, electrical resistivity, seismic reflection, and gravity.

5.

Other special methods (used when special conditions permit or critical structures demand a more intensive investigation).

(a) Aerial reconnaissance special photography.

(b)

overflights,

including

Geodetic and strain measurements, microseismicity monitoring, or other monitoring techniques. analysis
(e-q.,

(c) Radiometric

cI4 ,

K-Ar) ,

stratigraphic correlation (fossils, mineralogy), soil profile development, paleomagnetism, or other age-dating techniques to identify the age of faulted or unfaulted units or surfaces.

E.

Conclusions regarding areas of high risk and potential hazards relative to the intended land use or development (many revealed in conjunction with the soil engineering study) and a statement of the degree of confidence in, and limitations of, the data and conclusions.
1.

Presence or absence (including location and age) of active or potentially active faults on or adjacent to the site or in the-region of the site if they could affect it (through ground shaking). Types and probability of, or relative potential for, future surface displacement within or 'immediately adjacent to the site, including the direction of relative displacement and the maximum possible displacement. Secondary effects, such as: liquefaction of sediments and soils, shallow ground rupture, settlement of soils, earthquake-induced landslides, and lurching. Estimates of maximum probable earthquake, maximum credible earthquake, or other definitions of earthquakes if required by statute or regulation for the specific type of project.

2.

3.

4.

F.

Recommendations.
1 .

Effect of fault locations on proposed structures at the site. Federal, state and local law may dictate minimum standards. Risk evaluations, if proposed development. appropriate, relative to the

2.
3.

Other recommendations as appropriate for the proposed -. project

References
1.
2.

Literature and records cited and reviewed. Aerial photographs or images interpreted, listing the type, scale, source, index numbers, etc. Compiled data, maps, or plates included or referenced. Other sources of information, including well records, personal communications, or other data sources.

3.

4.

H.

Illustrations.

1.

~ocationmap to identify the site locality, significant faults, fault strain and/or creep, geographic features, seismic epicenters, and other pertinent data. Site development map, at an appropriate scale, to show the site boundaries, existing and proposed structures, graded areas, streets, exploratory trenches, borings, geophysical traverses, and other data. Geologic map to show the distribution of geologic units (if more than one), faults and other structures, geomorphic features, aerial photo lineaments, and springs. The geologic map m a y be combined with the location and site development maps. Geologic cross-sections illustrating displacement and/or rupture, if needed to provide a three-dimensional picture. Logs of exploratory trenches and borings to show the details of observed features and conditions. Geophysical data and the geologic interpretations of those data.
'

2.

3.

4.

5.
6.

I. J.

Supporting data not already provided, such as water well data.

Signature

and

registration

number

of

the

responsible

professional(s).
IV. SELECTED REFERENCES

Association of Engineering Geologists, 1973. Geology and earthquake hazards--planners guide to the seismic safety element, AEG, Southern California Section (See Section 11 on Evaluating the problem). California Division of Mines and Geology, 1973. geologic and seismic reports, CDMG. Note 37. Guidelines to

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975. Recommended guidelines for determining the maximum credible and the maximum probable earthquakes, CDMG Note 43.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975. Recommended guidelines for preparing engineering geologic reports, CDMG Note
44.

California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975. Checklists for the review of geologic/seismic reports, CDMG Note 48. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1975. Guidelines for evaluating the hazard of surface fault rupture, CDMG Note 49. Geophysics Study Committee of the- National Research Council, 1986.

Active Tectonics, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,

266 p .

Hart, E. W. 1975. Fault hazard zones in California, CDMG Special (Information on 'state law and Publication 42 (revised yearly). zoning program regulating development near hazardous faults). International Conference of Building Officials, 1985. Building Code. Whittier, California. Uniform

Joint Committee of Seismic Safety, California Legislature, 1974. Meeting the earthquake challenge, CDMG Special Publication 45. Scholl, R. E. (project manager) , 1986. . Reducing earthquake hazards: Lessons learned'from earthquakes. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Publication 86-02, 208 p. Schwartz, D. P., 1987. Earthquakes of tlie Holocene. Geophysics, v. 25, no. 6, p. 1197-1202. Reviews of

Schwartz, D. P., and Coppersmith, K. J., 1984. Fault behavior and characteristic earthquakes: Examples from the Wasatch and San Andreas fault zones. Zournal of Geophysical Research, v. 89, no. 0 7 , p. 5681-5698, Sherard, J. L., Cluff, L S., and Allen, C. R. 1974. Potential . active faults In dam foundations. Geotechniaue, v. 24, no. 3, pp. 367-428, Institute of Civil Engineers, London. Microzonation for surface faulting. In Slemmons, D. B. 1972. Proceedinqs, International Conference on Microzonation, October 30-November 3 , 1972, Seattle, Washington, pp. 348-361. Slemmons, D. B. 1977. State of the Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazard in the United States. Report 6 Faults and Earthquake U. S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station Magnitude. Miscellaneous Report F-73-1.

Fault activity and its Taylor, C. L., and Cluff, L. S. 1973. significance assessed by exploratory excavation. In Proceedinus, Conference on Tectonic Problems of the San Andreas Fault System, September, 1973, Stanford University Publication, Geological Sciences, v. XIII, p. 239-247. Wallace, R. E., 1975. Profiles and ages of yound fault scarps, north-central Nevada. Geological Society of America Bull., v. 88, no. 9, p. 1267-1281.

Wesson, R. L., Helley, E, J., Lajoie, K. R., and Wentworth, C. M. 1975. Faults and future earthquakes. In studies for Seismic Zonation of the San Francisco Bay Region, U. S. ~eologicalSurvey Professional Paper 941-A, pp. AS-A30. Ziony, J. I., Wentworth, C. M:, and Buchanan, J. M. 1973. Recency of faulting; A widely applxcable criterion for assessing the activity of faults, Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, June 1973, Rome, r t a l y , pp. 1680-1683.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA..-ST*TE AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY PETE WILSON Gurrrnor

Suud

r' .a
(.O~I~SIIIIICT
P -

krnorm o.puvmo(

STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR GEOLOGISTS AND GEOPHYSICISTS

400 R STREET. SUrrE 4060. SACRAMENTO, CA 958 14 TELEPHONE: (916) 445- 1920

:ulitiJx

GUIDELINES FOR GEOPHYSICAL REPORTS

General Information These Board guidelines describe the scope of work normally done and suggest a format for reports. They do not include complete listings of techniques or topics, nor should all techniques described be used or all top%cs listed be dealt with in every proj ect

These guidelines are informational and are not regulations. Language used has been carefully gleaned of mandatory requirements. The guidelines have no force of law and do not set standards of practice. To be enforceable the guidelines would have to be adopted as regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. On January 23, 1986, the Board passed the following resolution: "The Guidelines have been adopted as useful information documents. Not having been adopted as regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Guidelines are not legally enforceable." These guidelines have their roots in eight California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) notes, which were published in California Geology during 1973-75. The four guidelines which evolved through the Professional Affairs Committee for the Board of Registration from 1983 to 1989 are: ~uidelines' for Engineering Geologic Reports. Geologic ~uidelinesfor Earthquake and/or Fault Hazard Reports. Guidelines for Geophysical Reports. .Guidelines for Groundwater Investigation Reports.
The first two were consolidated and expanded from the CDMG notes. The second two are new.

(Rev. 11/93)

11.

Introduction
These guidelines are prepared by the Professional Affairs Committee, State Board of Registration for. Geologists and Geophysicists, to assist those involved in the preparation of geophysical reports. The guidelines represent the general procedures used in the application of geophysical methods to engineering geology and in related areas of geophysical exploration. It will be helpful to consider the items described below when planning the field and laboratory work and writing the reports. The guidelines are applicable within the context of protecting the public's health and safety, especially where the geophysical work is related to projects concerning ground water, geologic or environmental hazards, or construction. These guidelines are not intended or designed for projects related to mineral or energy exploration. Information on the purpose and scope of the survey may appropriately be included in the report. There may be constraints on the nature of the geophysical survey, such as constraints on accessibility, or constraints on funds available, or constraints inherent in the geophysical methods used. Such constraints can be clearly identified in the introduction to the report. If the geophysical report is appended to another report, the geophysical report can indicate how it might properly be used. The report customarily includes all basic data. Although they may survey. judgment complete these guidelines are intended to be relatively complete, not include certain items that night develop in specific Consequently, the geophysicist will rely on professional in providing pertinent information to make the report as as possible.

111. Responsibility of Siqnator to Geo~hysicalReports

~nterpretat'ionof geophysical data usually involves a knowledge of both geological and geophysical principles, and of the limitations of the geophysical methods, data collected, assumptions, and ambiguities of interpretation. Geophysical reports which fall within the scope of the Act (Chapter 12.5 of the Business and Professions Code) must be done by or under the direct supervision of a registered geophysicist, who then indicates responsibility for the work by signing the report. For many projects, geophysical work constitutes a portion of the total investigation. Other registered or certified professionals are involved and, in such cases, the final report may be signed by a geologist, engineering geologist, or civil engineer. Reports subject to the Act, and which contain interpretations or conclusions based on geophysical d-ata, should include the signature of the registered geophysicist. That signature indicates responsibility for only the geophysical portion of the final

r
r
I

report. ~lternatively, the signed geophysical report may be appended to the geological (or engineering) report.

IV.

General Information

Reports commonly include definite statements on: Purpose for which report was prepared and limitations placed on .investigation. Location and size of subject area to be investigated. Type of geophysical survey or surveys.
.-

Type, make, and model" of geophysical instrument and sensitivity of instruments; limitations of instruments or methods with respect to the survey. Who did the geophysical survey and when survey was done. Nature and source of available surface and subsurface geological, engineering, and/or geophysical information published and unpublished. Suitable explanations will provide any technical reviewer with the means to assess the of the published and unpublished data. reliability (Subsurface relationships can be determined or inferred, for example, by interpretation of the geophysical data, by projection of geological or geophysical data from adjacent It is evident that areas, and by use of borehole logs. different source of information can differ markedly from one another in degree, detail and/or reliability according to the method used and according to the source of information). Brief but complete descriptions of all natural materials If the within the subject area (rocks, soils, etc.) , geophysical report is t o be independent of a geologic or engineering geologic report, it may include adequate descriptions of geologic materials, structures, etc. (see Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports), with an explanation of the source of these data. If the geophysical report is part of a geologic or engineering geologic report, such descriptions need nc* .ko.--repeated in the section pertaining to ~o,ophys'ics. i~mitations which may influence the quality of the geophysical These may include sources of interference within or near the subject area (e.g., magnetic storms, pipelines, electric lines, buildings, truck traffic, wind noise, etc.). Specific local interference may be shown on the survey map. The report would also include a discussion of the extent to which the data and interpretations might be influenced by these factors,
data.

V.

survey-specific ~nformation
Reports generally contain the following: Illustrations of geophysical results and pertinent data at an appropriate scale and in sufficient detail to allow adequate evaluation.

A discussion of how the survey has been tied with existing data (e.g., by extension of survey into adjacent areas).
Geologic and/or topographic base maps of suitable scale, with the nature and source of the base 'maps clearly identified. For larger-scale surveys, U.S.G.S. ,topographic maps are a preferred source. .. .. Maps on which survey lines and/or locations for recordings are clearly identified and tied to established survey points, or to permanent landmarks if established survey points are not available. Locations of samples collected for laboratory tests or measurements may be shown on the same or comparable maps. An appendix which includes pertinent field data, reduction of data, and the calculations employed. Also pertinent are references to computer reduction of data and/or modeling (including as applicable: the program name, where developed, program modifications, and type of computer used). Where field data are printed directly from the instrument on a paper record, such records need not be submitted, so long as the report includes those values used in the analysis, and a reference is made to the place where these data are stored. An explanation of any range of values that is recorded at a station, with a rationale for the selection of the value that is used in the analysis and interpretations. Correlation of geophysical values with geologic materials.
A description of supplemental laboratory tests or measurements, if utilized, including methods, resulting data, and reasons why the work was done. When such work is done by other professionals, their---signatureswill be included as appropriate, to indicate their-responsibilities.

Cross-sections based on the where subsurface geologic or engineering information is available and/or where such information has been projected into the plane of the cross sections. Cross-sections will also show the topography and the locations where data were collected, if these locations lie along the line of the cross-section, or where the locations have been projected into the plane of the cross-section. If subsurface geologic or engineering information is not available, a clear statement explaining its absence.

-d--. m W s h o w i n g geophysical a t a
-

11.

A discussion of the reliability of the geophysical interpretation, including alternative interpretations where applicable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT:

Dr. David Cumrnings

STATE

3 C&JCORNIA :

. S i C i E AND CONSUMER SERVICES AGENCY

PETE WILSON

h,rrrriru

STATE BOARD OF REGISTRATION FOR GEOLOGISTS AND GEOPHYSICISTS

400

R STREET. SUITE 4060. SACRAMENTO.

TELEPHONE. (916) 445-1920

CA

95814

GUIDELINES FOR GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION REPORTS

I .

General Information

These Board guidelines describe the scope of work normally done and suggest a format for reports. They do not include complete listings of techniques or topics, nor should all techniques described be used or all topics listed be dealt with in every project

These guidelines are informational and are not regulations. Language used has been carefully gleaned of mandatory requirements. The guidelines have no force of law and do not set standards of practice. To be enforceable the guidelines would have to be adopted as regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. On January 23, 1986, the Board passed the following resolution: "The Guidelines have been adopted as useful information documents. Not having been adopted as regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, the Guidelines are not legally enforceable." These guidelines have their roots in eight California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) notes, which were publish-:d in California Geology during 1973-75. The four guidelines which evolved through the Professional Affairs Committee for the Board of Registration from 1983 to 1989 are: Guidelines for Engineering Geologic Reports. Geologic Guidelines for Earthquake and/or Fault Hazard Reports. Guidelines for Geophysical Reports. Guidelines for Groundwater Investigation Reports. The first two were consolidated and expanded from the CDMG notes. The second two are new.

(Rev. 11/93)

INTRODUCTION

These guidelines are prepared by the Professional Affairs Committee of the State Board of Registration for ~eologistsand Geophysicists to assist those involved in the preparation and review of groundwater reports. The guidelines present the general procedures used by geologists carrying out groundwater investigations and, while they do not constitute a complete listing of all techniques for such studies, they do attempt to include all major topics. Individual reports may include the topics discussed in this outline as appropriate. Purposes of investigations vary and may require that portions of these guidelines be either omitted or dealt with very briefly. Availability of funds is a limiting factor in a Site or areal conditions may great many investigations. The necessitate variations in applications of the guidelines. professional performing or supervising each investigation has a responsibility t o determine what is appropriate and necessary in each case, and so does the professional who reviews each report.

All geologiczl, geophysical, and related engineering work which falls within the scope of the Act*, must be supervised by adequately qualified, appropriately registered and certified professionals. It is important that the report clearly describes the work performed, unambiguously presents the results, and be signed by the responsible professional(s). Reports that present conclusions or recommendations based in part on field sampling, field testing, or laboratory testing of samples need to include adequate descriptions of methods employed with specific reference to standard sampling and testing methods where appropriate. Generally, physical testing of earth materials and analysis of the data derived is performed by or under the direct supervision of a soils engineer. Chemical testing is perf0rmed.b~ a laboratory certified by the California Department of Health Services.
.

Federal, state,' and local governmental agencies are involved in groundwater projects as planners, owner/aperators, and regulators. An intricate network of laws, both statutory and regulatory, governs such diverse considerations as rights to surface and groundwater; design and construction of waste disposal sites; water well and monitoring well design, construction, and abandonment; disposal of mining and animal (feedlot) wastes; and sewage disposal. Any groundwater quality or quantity problem involves an inherent risk of future litigation because of possible adverse impacts to adjacent or regional properties (water level changes, water quality changes, contaminant plume migration, etc).

Business and Professions Code, Chapter 12.5.

Groundwater contamination studies include investigations of hazardous and nonhazardous waste disposal facilities (for both liquid and solid waste) and remedial investigations of chemical spills and leaking underground tanks and pipelines. Professionals engaged in such studies are expected to be cognizant of the hydrogeological and chemical environment, the requirements for chain-of-custody documentation, vadose zone and groundwater monitoring procedures, health and safety requirements, and other applicable laws and regulations. Dewatering for construction may require groundwater extraction methods such as wellpoint systems, freezing, and electro-osmosis. Projects like these carry a high risk of later litigation because of unrecognized potential adverse effects to nearby users and property damage due to hydrocompaction. IV.
REPORT CONTENT

The content of a report is influenced by a variety of factors including the purpose of the work and of the report, client requirements, standards set forth in regulations or law, internal standards of the organization preparing the report, and confidentiality requirements. A. Introduction The introduction presents a clear and complete statement of the purpose of the report and the work, including limitations regarding the scope, level of study, and methods used. The introduction may include the location of the project and introduce a location map, showing where the site is in relation to landmarks, topographic features, etc. The time frame of the work and statements regarding authorization and confidentiality requirements also may be included. The introduction may include a summary of the investigators' findings, conclusions, and possibly recommendations.
8.

Methods

In groundwater studies the existing data base is of primary importance because original investigations may not be part of the scope. The data base nay include published and unpublished reports, maps, aerial photographs, well logs, historic water levelslwater quality and interviews with agency representatives and It is important that each members of the public. reference source be clearly identified, and the factual bases be presented for different interpretations of conditions that each source describes.
2.

Ex~lorationMethods
A11

new

investigations--well

canvasses,

geochemical

studies, borings, sampling, test wells, and geophysical surveys-and methods of performing the investigations need to be described, along with their limitations. Physical and chemical soil and water tests would be documented and referenced.
Data Analysis

It is important that methods of reducing and interpreting data from borings, test wells, geophysical surveys, and physical and chemical soil and water tests be explained and appropriate illustrations and references provided.

The type of model, "its purpose and limitations, data used, justification for data not used, and parameters modeled would be presented. The computer system, its capacity, and software used with references may be noted. Most data may be displayed on tables or illustrations.
Description of H~droueolouicSystem

A description of the hydrogeologic system typically includes the following information:

1 .
2.

Reuional Structure Reuional Stratiuraahy Water-Bearina Units Thickness; depth; extent;. characteristics such as lithology, permeability (transmissivity), storage, specific yield, gradient, and confinement; and significance within the hydrogeologic environment.

3.

4 .

Non-Water-Bearina Units Thickness; depth; extent; characteristics permeability and restricting qualities. such as

Hydrogeologic data can be illustrated in many ways, including cross sections and contour maps correlating data such as water levels and gradients.
5.

Hvdralouic Balance (for basin studies or for s~ecific aroundwater units1

a .

Svstem Inflow Precipitation, surface inflow, inflow, percolation, imports, subsurface wastewaters. Svstem Outflow Surface runoff, subsurface outflow, consump'tive use (direct, evaporation, evapotranspiration), exports, wastewaters.

b .

Hydrologic balance, in part, pertains to long-term availability of water to the groundwater system (recharge). The nature of precipitation, its amount, seasonal variation, and intensity; and the percolation characteristics of near-surface soils, loss of storage space due to hydrocompaction and stream courses, are assessed in evaluating recharge.

D.

Groundwater Use and Development

The amount and nature of groundwater use is typically compared to the storage, recharge, and distribution of use among domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses. Trends relating to demand and change of use would ,be discussed. Groundwater is supplied by wells and sometimes by springs. For springs, data on flow and characteristics would be tabulated. For wells, their number, depth, size, pumpage, drilling and construction methods, date of drilling, and availability of pump tests, lithologic logs, and geophysical data would be covered. Typically, well information is displayed in tabular form.

It is recommended that location maps of wells and springs be prepared. Well logs may be confidential and their publication may require approval by public agencies and/or well owners.
Many groundwater supply projects require a discussion of the relationships between groundwater, surface water, and conjunctive use. Groundwater use can cause a variety of undesirable results. Most of these results relate to userst health and safety. Intensive use can negatively affect groundwater availability or can cause ground subsidence, water quality changes due to sea water intrusion or inducing of poor quality or contaminated water into the groundwater system, loss of vegetation, and other problems. Artificial recharge can cause rising groundwater levels with harmful or beneficial effects. Groundwater use could be beneficial to some land uses by lowering high groundwater levels. The report would consider the various effects of groundwater use and development. E.
Water Oualitv

The standards of water quality vary widely for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses. Health issues involving water quality are of particular importance when standards of professional practice are considered.
1 .

Bioloaical Oualitv Biological quality, such as coliform content, etc., is of particular concern as a health consideration for drinking
water.

2.

Mineral Oualitv

Common ions, general groundwater type, pH, temperature, total dissolved solids and hardness, and certain minerals (such as boron, fluoride, nitrate, and nuisance and toxic metals) are generally noted in a discussion of the mineral quality of water. Water quality data may be displayed in var'ious forms using tables, special diagrams, and contour maps of equal concentrations.
3.

Broundwater Contaminants
Investigation of groundwater contamination depends on detailed knowledge 6f the hydrogeology of the site and the physical and chemical behavior of the contaminants. A study may involve the definition of contaminant plumes, their mobility, and relative importance, particularly with regard t o existing water supplies. Physical and chemical behavior of the contaminants, such as solubility and density, are generally considered in the design of an appropriate monitoring program. The hydrogeologic framework will identify possible contaminant migratipn paths, rates of contaminant transport, and the possibility of communication between aquifers. The fate of contaminants in the hydrogeologic system is typically addressed. Such parameters as attenuation, dispersion, transformation, and effects on physical conditions (e.g., permeability) would be fully discussed. Groundwater sampling and analytical protocols need to be specifically tailored for the types of contaminants involved. Groundwater contamination studies may require the evaluation of remedial action and cleanup options. Such options might include plume monitoring, extraction with surface treatment, physical or hydraulic containment, injection well(s), or biological control. Cleariup programs often involve combinations of the above.

F.

Groundwater Manaqement

Recommended methods and techniques of groundwater management may be presented as a result of the investigation, as follows:

Controlled pumping to eliminate or reduce overdraft or protect water quality; Conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater; Artificial recharge; and Water quality control measures.

G.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This section of the groundwater report typically includes interpretive statements based on professional judgment and addresses the specific action that may be required. It is important that recommendations be clearly and concisely stated and emphasize practical solutions, whenever possible.
SELECTED REFERENCES

The following recent texts contain very extensive reference lists on various aspects of groundwater, as well as being excellent references themselves:
1.

Bower, Herman, 1978,

round water Hydrology, McGraw-Hill.

1979, Groundwater,

2.
3.

Freeze, R. Allan and Cherry, John A., Prentice-Hall.

Todd, David K., 1980, Groundwater Hydrology, second edition, John Wiley.

Results of current research on various aspects of groundwater appear in various publications, of which the following are of particular note:
4.
5.
6.

~ulletin of the Association published by the Association. Ground Water, Association. published by

of
the

Engineering National

Geologists, Water Well

Ground Water Monitoring Review, published by National Water Well Association. Water Resources Research, published by American Geophysical Union. essential

7.

Publications of various governmental agencies are references, especially from the following agencies:
8. 9. 10.
11.
12.

California Department of Water Resources California Division of Mines and Geology California Water Resources Control Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S.

Geological Survey

Nunc*.,.ow: w q a n i z a t i o n s and individuals provided review and comments f wr ir+a:w guidelines, i n c l ~ 5 i r l g%?5ert S . Fard , James M. Parsons, ?ex.;.--?'i! ~nimoto Robert T. Bean, and F1aa;c C . Kresse. ,

,,: