Campbell City Council
April 5, 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)

APPENDIX A – SITE FIGURES
Figure A-1 – Vicinity Map
Figure A-2 – Site Plan
Figure A-3 – Vicinity Geologic Map
Figure A-4 – State Seismic Hazard Zones Map

APPENDIX B – SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION – SOIL PROBE
Figure B-1 – Log of Soil Probe SP-1
Figure B-2 – Log of Soil Probe SP-2
Figure B-3 – Log of Soil Probe SP-3
Figure B-4 – Key to Soil Probe Log
Figure B-5 – Unified Soil Classification System

APPENDIX C – FIELD INVESTIGATION (CONE PENETRATION TESTS) Figure C-1 – Log of CPT-1
Figure C-2 – Log of CPT-2
Figure C-3 – Log of CPT-3
Figure C-4 – Log of CPT-4

APPENDIX D – SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS
Figure D-1 – Liquid & Plastic Limits Test Report

APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

10.d
Packet Pg. 365
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of our geotec hnical investigation relating to the 4-unit residential development and associated improvements on the property at 1323 Elam Avenue in Campbell, California. The project location is indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure A-1.

The purpose of our investigation was to evalua te the local geologic conditions and hazards, evaluate and review the subsurface conditions on the site in the area of the proposed improvements, and to provide geotechnical design criteria and recommendations for the project.

Project Description

The approximately 0.44-acre property is located on the north side of Elam Avenue in a fully developed residential area of Campbell. Based on the most recent architectural site plan, we understand the project will consist of subdividing the 0.44-acre property to create 5 lots, and constructing a total of four detached, two-story single-family residences at the site. Each new residence will have an approximately 1, 500 square-foot footprint and will include an attached, two-car garage. No basements are pl anned. Additional site improvements will include a new shared driveway to the east of the planned new residences; the driveway will include a fire truck turnaround and will be c onstructed with a permeable driveway surface.

The existing site improvements will be demolis hed prior to constructi on. We anticipate structural loads associated with the planned improvements will be relatively light and typical of residential construction. The approxim ate layout of the existing and proposed improvements is shown on Figure A-2, Si te Plan; we have labeled the four planned residences as Units 1-4 (starting with Unit 1 on the south side) on the referenced site plan.

Scope of Services

We performed the following services in accordance with our agreement with you dated April 28, 2016 (executed May 4, 2016):

Reviewed geologic and seismic conditions in the site vicinity and commented on the geologic hazards that could potentially im pact the site and the proposed residences and associated improvements
Performed a reconnaissance of the site in the area of the proposed improvements Explored the site subsurface conditions by advancing and logging four cone

10.d
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

penetration tests and 3 soil probes in the area of the proposed improvements Performed laboratory testing on selected so il samples for soil classification and to evaluate engineering properties of the subsurface materials Performed engineering geologic analyses to evaluate the potential impacts of geologic hazards on the proposed improvements

Performed geotechnical engineering evaluations and analyses, including seismic- induced liquefaction settlement and static consolidation potential at the site, to develop geotechnical engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements

Prepared this report containing a summary of our investigation and our engineering geologic and geotechnical conclusions and recommendations

GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC CONDITIONS

Geologic Overview

The subject property is located on the western margin of the Santa Clara Valley, a broad, sediment-filled basin bounded on the southwes t by the Santa Cruz Mountains and on the northeast by the Diablo Mountain range. According to the USGS topographic map (Palo Alto Quadrangle) of the area, which is reproduced in the Vicinity Map, Figure A-1, the site is situated at an approximate elevation of 250 feet above mean sea level. According to the Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 x 60-Minute Quadrangle (Wentworth and others, 1999), the site is underlain by alluvial fan deposits (Qpf). The alluvial fan deposits are generally described as Upper Pleistocene (approximately 130,000 to 11,000 years old) tan to reddish brown gravelly and crudely bedded, clast supported deposits consisting of cobble- sized clasts in a clayey and sandy matrix. The relevant portion of the geologic map is included as Figure A-3, Vicinity Geologic Map.

According to the State of California Seismi c Hazard Zones Map for the San Jose West Quadrangle (2002), the site is located in an ar ea where historical occurrences of earthquake- induced liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate potential for permanent earthquake-induced gr ound displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) may be required. A copy of the relevant portion of this map is presented on the State Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Figure A-4.

Faulting & Seismicity

Geologists and seismologists recognize the San Francisco Bay Area as one of the most active seismic regions in the United States. There ar e three major faults that trend in a northwest direction through the Bay Area, which have ge nerated about 12 earthquakes per century large enough to cause significant structural damage. The faults causing these earthquakes are part of the San Andreas fault system that exten ds for at least 700 miles along the California

10.d
Packet Pg. 367
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

Coast, and includes the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 5.8 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras faults are located approximately 11.8 and 14.4 miles northeast of the site, respectively. In addition, the potentially active Monte Vista-Shannon faul t zone is located approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the site.

Seismologic and geologic experts convened by the U.S. Geological Survey, California Geological Survey, and the Southern California Earthquake Center conclude that there is a 63 percent probability for at least one “large” earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or larger in the Bay Area before the year 2038. The northern portion of the San Andreas fault is estimated to have a 21 percent probability of producing a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake by the year 2038 (2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008).

HISTORIC CHANNEL BACKFILL EVALUATION

Based on a review of historic topographic maps of the site and correspondence with Santa Clara Valley Water District and Public Works of Campbell, we established that Smith Creek ran through the northern portion of the site an d was backfilled sometime between 1961 and 1968 and redirected 270 feet west of the site. During that time period, the creek was relocated further to the west in a concrete channel that is owned and operated by SCVWD.

A topographic map generated by the U.S. Geolog ical Survey (1981, revised in 1968) showed the presence of a creek running through th e northern portion of the property and was used as a basis for depicting the liquefaction hazard zone in our site plan. The referenced topographic map provided an approximate location and rough location of the creek before it was diverted during that time period. We not e that the depth of the old channel was not documented. Due to the limited photos and lo cation of the site, the area of the creek channel was approximated directly from regional topographic maps.

SITE EXPLORATION & RECONNAISSANCE

Exploration Program

A site reconnaissance was performed by our st aff geologist on May 3, 2016. Our subsurface exploration was performed on May 25, 2016 and included four cone penetration tests (CPT) to the maximum depth of approximately 30 feet and three soil probes to the maximum depth of 22 feet at the locations shown on Fi gure A-2, Site Plan. The CPT and soil probe were approximately determined by measuring distance from building corners using a tape measure and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the mapping technique used.

10.d
Packet Pg. 368
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

Soil Probe

The soil probes were advanced by direct push methods using a Geoprobe 6625CPT track- mounted rig equipped with a pneumatic hammer and a dual-tube soil sa mpling system. Soil samples were collected continuously over the fu ll depth of the probe in 1.4-inch (outside diameter) by 4-foot long clear plastic liners.

The computed SPT (N
60) blow count data, which is presented on the probe logs, was derived from the cone penetration data using methods described in the Cone Penetration Test section below. Because the CPT data is collected in 15-centimeter intervals is not practical to present on conventional soil probe log in its entirety, we have taken the average computed SPT (N60) blow count value for each 2-foot depth interval and presented it on the probe log at the center of the averaged 2-foot interval. In addition, we calculated the dry density by dividing the average unit weight (wet density) value for each 2-foot depth interval computed from the CPT data by our laboratory water contents and presented them on the probe logs at the center of the averaged 2-foot interval. The logs of our probes are presented in Appendix B as Figure B-1 through B-3. Also in cluded in Appendix B is Figure B-4, Key to Soil Probe Log; and Figure B-5, Unified Soil Classification System.

Cone Penetration Tests

Cone penetration testing (CPT) is a subsurface exploration method (ASTM Test Method D- 5778) whereby soil characteristics are measured using an integrated electronic cone system hydraulically pushed into the ground. The cone device measures cone bearing (q c), sleeve friction (f s) and pore water pressure (u 2) at 2-centimeter intervals during penetration and correlates this information on a log in gra phic form. The measurements were developed using a 100MPa capacity cone with a tip area of 10 cm2 and a friction sleeve area of 150 cm2.

Tip resistance of the cone is corrected using a net area factor of 0.58 for the cone tip and net area factor of 0.014 for the friction sleeve. Th e cone also contains a sintered brass porous filter element located directly behind the cone tip for measurement of pore water pressure.

Soil classification and behavior type can be es timated from empirical relationships between qc, fs, and u 2. Generally, cohesive soils (silts and clay s) have a higher friction ratio due to small cone bearing pressure and generate large excess pore water pressures, while cohesionless soils (sands and gravels) have a low friction ratio due to large cone bearing pressure and generate very little excess pore water pressures. This information can also be used to develop SPT (N60) corrected blow count data for interpretation of relative density by correlating empirical relationships between qc and the soil behavior type index (I c). The logs of our CPTs are presented in Appendix C as Figures C-1 through C-4.

10.d
Packet Pg. 369
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

Site Description

The approximately 0.44-acre, relatively flat pr operty is located on the north side of Elam Avenue in a fully developed residential neighborhood in Campbell. The trapezoid-shaped property measures approximately 290 feet alon g its longest edge by 70 feet wide. The property is bound by Elam Avenue to the sout h and residential properties on all other sides.

A single-story residence with a detached garage is located in the southern portion of the site.

An unused greenhouse structure is located in the rear of the building. Concrete patios are located in the front and rear of the residence. A brick paver patio is located at the rear of the residence.

The site is accessed by an unpaved driveway extending north from the western end of the property and leads to the garage. A wood-fenced fire truck access road extends along the eastern length of the property. The remaining portion of the site is sp arsely vegetated with lawn, bushes, shrubs, and small trees.

Drainage across the property is generally characterized as uncontrolled sheet flow to the southwest interrupted by the building pad.

Subsurface

Four CPTs and 3 soil probes were advanced in th e area of the proposed improvements to a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet. The locations of the CPTs and soil probes are shown on Figure A-2. In general, the CPTs and exploratory borings encountered predominantly fine-grained alluvium consisting of clays and silts interbedded with layers of coarse-grained alluvium consisting of sands and gravels. A relatively consistent coarse- grained unit was encountered across most of the site at depths of approximately 4 to 18 feet deep, consisting of very dense silty sand to clayey sand with gravel. The fine-grained alluvium encountered is predominantly very stiff to hard.

The logs of the soil probes are presented in Appendix B and logs of the CPTs are presented in Appendix C. We note th at soil interpretation shown on the CPT logs is based on correlations developed by Robertson and others (1986). We note that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based on this methodology.

Atterberg Limits testing on a sample of surficial alluvium from Boring B-3 at depths of 0 to 2 feet yielded a plasticity index of 10 percent and a liquid limit of 23 percent, indicating that this material has a low potential for expansion (see Figure D-1, Liquid & Plastic Limits Test Report).

10.d
Packet Pg. 370
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

Groundwater

Groundwater was not encountered in any of our soil probes or CPTs at the time of drilling.

We note that fluctuations in the level of ground water can occur due to variations in rainfall, temperature, landscaping, and other factors that may not have been evident at the time our observations were made.

LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

As shown on Figure A-4, the site is located within a zone designated as potentially susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Liquefaction is a soil softening response, by which an increase in the excess pore water pressu re results in partial to full loss of soil shear strength. In order for liquefaction to occur, the following four factors are required: 1) saturated soil or soil situated below the grou ndwater table; 2) undrained loading (strong ground shaking), such as by earthquake; 3) c ontractive soil response during shear loading, which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or uncompacted state; and 4) susceptible soil type; such as clean, uniformly gr aded sands, non-plastic silts, or gravels.

Structures situated above temporarily liquefied soil s may sink or tilt, potentially resulting in significant structural damage.

To evaluate the potential for liquefaction at the site and its impact on the proposed improvements, we performed analyses using the subsurface information developed from the CPT and soil probe combined with ground acceleration values associated with a design-level earthquake to develop an estimate of the potential magnitude of liquefaction-induced total and differential settlements, as well as antici pated seismic-induced settlement above the groundwater table. Our analyses were pe rformed using the computer program CLiq (v.1.7.6.49), which calculates a factor of safety (FS) against soil liquefaction by comparing the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), the ratio of the resistance of the soil to liquefaction during cyclic shaking, to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR), and the seismic loading that would be likely to result from a design level earthquake at the stud y location. If the factor of safety for a soil layer is less than 1.0, it is more likely that the soil layer may liquefy during a moderate to large seismic event.

The CRR during a design-level earthquake is a function of groundwater level, earthquake magnitude, soil density, and the depth of the layer being evaluated. For the purpose of our liquefaction and seismic-induced settlement an alyses, we considered a design groundwater level at a depth of 15 feet below the existing ground surface. According to the State Seismic Hazard Zone Report of the Palo Alto Quadrang le (California Geological Survey, 2002), the estimated peak ground acceleration in alluvial conditions in th e site vicinity is approximately

0.57 g for a 10% exceedance in 50 years based on a predominant earthquake magnitude of

7.9 Mw. The soil density values were estimated based on the CPT data in accordance with

10.d
Packet Pg. 371
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

methods described in Lunne and others (199 7). CLiq calculates CRR using the 2010 Robertson method (modified from the 19 98 Robertson & Wride procedure), which incorporates the CPT cone tip resistance, sleeve friction, soil behavior type index, I C, described in the Cone Penetration Test section above, and calculated shear stresses of the soil. The fines content is calculated by the program based on the CPT data using the Modified Robertson method.

Seismic-Induced Liquefaction Settlement

CLiq was used to evaluate magnitude of antici pated seismic-induced soil settlement. The program calculates liquefaction-induced and ot her seismic-induced settlement by dividing the subsurface soils into thin layers and calculating settlement for each layer. The settlement in each layer is calculated by multiplying the volumetric strain (qualified by the CSR) by the thickness of each layer. Seismic-induced settl ements are calculated by CLiq based on the methods developed by Zhang, et al. (2002) for liquefaction-related settlement and Robertson & Lisheng (2010) for settlement in dry sands (above the groundwater table).

Our analysis is based on soil layers identified in four cone penetration tests and three confirmatory soil probe as having a relatively low potential for liquefaction as a result of a design-level earthquake. The site is potentially liquefiable as a result of a design-level earthquake. Based on these results, the CLiq program calculated up to approximately 2.5 inch of total seismic-induced liquefaction sett lement based on the subsurface data collected at our CPT location. We estimate that differential settlement will be on the order of approximately half of the total estimate seis mic-induced settlements and therefore, our findings indicate that there is a potential for roughly 1.3-inch of seis mic-induced differential settlement to occur across the planned improvem ent area. The detailed results of our CLiq liquefaction settlement analysis are presented as Appendix E. As shown in Appendix E, it appears that the soil layers in our CPT identified by our analysis did not show significant potential for liquefaction-induced settlement in general.

Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI)

CLiq was also utilized to calculate the liquefa ction potential index (LPI) with depth at the CPT. LPI was originally developed in Japan by Iwasaki (1978) as a probabilistic approach to estimate the potential of liquefaction to ca use foundation damage at a given site, and establishes a correlation between thickness of th e liquefied layer, proximity of the liquefied layer, and amount by which the factor of saf ety against liquefaction (calculated as described above) is less than 1.0. LPI predicts the li quefaction performance of the soil profile to a depth of 20 meters (65.6 feet) and provides an estimate of the severity of liquefaction, in relation to surface manifestations such as sand bo ils, ground cracking, and lateral spreading.

LPI ranges from 0 at sites with no liquefaction potential to 100 for sites where the calculated

10.d
Packet Pg. 372
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

factor of safety is equal to zero over the full 20-meter depth. Based on compiled case histories, Iwasaki (1982) concluded that sign ificant liquefaction is lik ely at sites with LPI greater than 15, while unlikely when LPI is less than 5. Toprak & Holzer (in press) correlated instances of liquefaction surface ma nifestations from the 1989 Loma Prieta, California earthquake and concluded that sand boils and lateral spreading, respectively, tend to occur where LPI is equal to or greater than 5 and 12. Additionally, a table correlating LPI with anticipated level of liquefaction severity based on case histories compiled by various authors is presented as Table 1 below.

Table 1. LPI Correlation to Liquefaction Severity*
LPI
Iwasaki et al.
(1982)
Luna & Frost
(1998) MERM (2003)
LPI = 0 Very Low Little to none None
0<LPI<5 Low Minor Low
5<LPI<15 High Moderate Medium
15<LPI Very High Major High
*Table 1 from Assessment of Liquefaction Potential Index for Mumbai City (Dixit, et. al., 2012)

The cumulative LPI calculated by CLiq over the full depth explored of CPT -3 resulted in an overall LPI average of 5 which correlates to a low severity/risk of seismic-induced liquefaction at the site. CPT-1, 2, and 4 were shown not to be liquefiable to the full depth explored.

We note that the methods of analysis used to estimate total and differential settlements do not take into account the capping layer effects of the relatively stiff and very dense, non- liquefiable soils overlying the potentially liquefi able soil layers. Specifically, for liquefaction- induced sand boils or fissures to occur, the pore water pressures induced within the liquefied strata must exert enough force to break thro ugh these overlying layers. Based on empirical design curves developed by Youd and Garris (1995), which relate the overburden thickness verses cumulative thickness of liquefiable z ones, their data show that the potential for liquefaction diminishes significantly when the cumulative thickness of liquefiable zones become less than the overburden thickness. Based on this argument, a capping layer of non- liquefiable material equal or greater in thickness than the total thickness of potentially liquefiable layers may be adequate enough to prevent the occurrence of ground surface rupture at the surface. Based on our subsurface information, in general, the subject site should have a sufficiently thick (approximatley16 feet) very dense or hard, non-liquefiable layer above the potentially liquefiable layer s to partially mitigate the potential for liquefaction-induced settlement during a large magnitude earthquake. Furthermore, to our knowledge, no historical evidence of seismic induced ground deformation has been documented at this site (Knudsen et al., 2000).

10.d
Packet Pg. 373
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

CONCLUSIONS

From a geotechnical perspective, it is our opini on that the site is suitable for the proposed improvements provided that the recommendations contained in this report are implemented in the design and construction of the project. In our opinion, the primary geotechnical constraints to the proposed improvements is the potential for differential compaction of historic channel backfill in the northern portion of the site, the potenti al for strong ground shaking at the site during a moderate to large earthquake on the San Andreas fault or one of the other nearby active faults.

Based on our investigation, the site appears to be blanketed by predominantly stiff to hard fine-grained alluvial soils with layers of very dense coarse-grained alluvial soils to the depth explored of 22 feet. In our opinion, the underl ying competent alluvial soils should provide adequate support for the proposed new foundations.

Geologic Hazards

As part of our investigation, we evaluated the potential for geologic hazards to impact the site and the proposed improvements. The results of our review are presented below:

Fault Rupture – Based on our site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, and review of published maps, it is our opinion that no known active or potentially active faults cross the subject property. Therefor e, in our opinion the potential for fault rupture to occur at the site is relatively low.

Ground Shaking – As noted in the Seismicity section above, moderate to large earthquakes are probable along several acti ve faults in the greater Bay Area.

Therefore, strong to violent ground shakin g should be expected at some time during the design life of the proposed reside nce and associated improvements. The proposed residence and associated improvemen ts should be designed in accordance with current earthquake resistant standard s, including the 2013 California Building Code (CBC) guidelines and the design parameters presented in this report. It should be clearly understood that these guidelin es and parameters will not prevent damage to structures; rather they are intended to prevent catastrophic collapse.

Differential Compaction – During moderate and large earthquakes, soft or loose, natural or fill soils can settle, often uneven ly across a site. Because the alluvial soils encountered during our subsurface investigati ons are generally stiff to hard and very dense, in our opinion, the potential for differential compaction impacting the planned building improvements is relatively low. We note that there is an unknown potential for settlement of the historic channel backfill in the northern portion of the site. However, differential compaction of this material should not impact the planned

10.d
Packet Pg. 374
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

residences, provided that they are designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained herein, the risk of this potential hazard significantly impacting the structural integrity of the planned building foundation improvements is low.

Liquefaction – Please refer to the Liquefaction Analysis & Findings section of our report for more detailed information regard ing this geologic hazard. In summary, based on our findings presented in the above liquefaction analysis section, in our opinion, the potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction, and liquefaction-related distress significantly impacting the planned improvements is relatively low provided the recommendations contained in this report are implemented in design and construction.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In our opinion, the planned southern three re sidences (Units 1, 2, and 3) and associated attached garages may be supported on continuo us spread footings gaining support in the underlying competent alluvial soils. Due to th e suspected presence of historic creek channel backfill in the northern portion of the site, we recommend supporting the northernmost residence (Unit 4) on drilled pier and grade beam foundations gaining supported in the underlying competent alluvial soils, beneath any historic backfill. The northernmost residence (Unit 4) should not be supported on spread footings. The southern three residences (Units 1 through 3) may be su pported either on drilled pier and grade beam foundations or on conventional spread footing foundations; in our opinion, drilled pier and grade beam foundations will perform slightly better than spread footing foundations.

Nonetheless, based on our subsurface investig ation we anticipate that spread footing foundations can be expected to perform reasonably well at this site for the three southernmost residences (Units 1 through 3) . Concrete slabs-on-grade may be utilized for interior floors and garage floors at the southern three residences (Units 1 through 3) if the residences will be supported on spread footing foundations. Concrete slabs-on-grade should not be used for the northernmost residence (Unit 4) or for the southern three residences (Units 1 through 3) if they are to be supported on spread footing foundations. Interior floor slabs and garage slabs for Unit 4 and any other pier-supported residences should be designed as structural slabs supported on drilled pier an d grade beam foundations. Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade and flexible pavements should be constructed over a section of select granular fill. Detailed foundation, grading, and drainage recommendations and geotechnical design criteria are presented below.

10.d
Packet Pg. 375
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

2013 CBC EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETERS

We have developed site-specific earthquake design parameters based on the procedures described in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of th e 2013 California Build ing Code (California Building Standards Commission, 2013). These pr ocedures utilize State standardized spectral acceleration values for maximum considered ea rthquake ground motion taking into account historical seismicity, available paleoseismic da ta, and activity rates along known fault traces, as well as site-specified soil and bedrock response characteristics. Contour maps of Class B bedrock horizontal spectral acceleration values for the State of California are included as figures in Chapter 16 of the 2013 CBC, repres enting both short (0.2 seconds) and long (1.0 second) periods of spectral response and taking in to account 5 percent of critical damping.

The U.S. Geological Survey (2014) has prepared an online seismic design value application tool, based on the 2010 ASCE with a July 2013 CBC errata, for public use, that allows for site-specific adjustments of these accelerati on values for different subsurface conditions, which are defined by site classes. Given repr esentative latitude of 37.2744 and longitude of -121.9732 in accordance with guidelines presented in the 2013 CBC, the following seismic design parameters will apply for this site:

Site Class D – Soil Profile Name: Stiff Soil (Table 1613.5.2) Mapped Spectral Accelerations for 0.2 second Period: S S= 2.072 g (Site Class B) Mapped Spectral Accelerations for a 1-second Period: S 1= 0.720 g (Site Class B) Design Spectral Accelerations for 0.2 second Period: S DS= 1.381 g (Site Class D) Design Spectral Accelerations for a 1-second Period: S D1= 0.720 g (Site Class D)

FOUNDATIONS

Drilled Pier & Grade Beam

Due to its proximity to the approximated ma pped area of the backfilled creek channel, we recommend the northernmost residence (Unit 4) , its attached garage and any accessory structures including attached porches, balconies and/or overhangs located in the vicinity of the approximate area of the mapped backfill (see Figure A-2) be supported on drilled, reinforced, cast-in-place, concrete friction pier and grade beam foundations. If desired, the three southernmost residences may also be supported on drilled pier and grade beam foundations. Any interior floor slabs for Unit 4 should be designed as structural slabs also supported on drilled piers.

Drilled piers should be at least 16 inches in diameter, should extend at least 12 feet below bottom of grade beam elevation or foundation gr ade, and be embedded at least 8 feet into competent alluvium beneath any fill. Please note, that these are recommended minimum pier dimensions and that other structural criter ion, such as the need to resist lateral forces,

10.d
Packet Pg. 376
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

may force the pier design depths to be greater. In general, drilled piers should be spaced no closer than about three pier-diameters, center-to-center.

The piers should be designed to resist dead pl us live loads using an allowable skin friction value of 450 pounds per square foot with a one-third increase allowed for transient loads, including wind and seismic forces. The upper 2 feet of the soil, as measured from bottom of grade beam, and any point-bearing resistance should be neglected for support of vertical loads.

Lateral loads may be resisted by passive ea rth pressure based upon an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot, acting on 1.5 times the projected area of the pier below a depth of 1.5 feet from the bottom of the grade beams. Passive resistance of the soil within the upper 1.5 feet of the pier should be neglected. The structural engineer should determine pier reinforcing, as necessary, based on structural requirements.

The bottoms of the pier excavations should be substantially free of loose cuttings and soil slough prior to the installation of reinforcin g steel and the placement of concrete. In addition, any significant amounts of accumulate d water in the pier excavations should be pumped out prior to placing concrete or displaced using the tremie method when placing concrete. A representative of Murray Engineers, Inc. should observe the pier excavations to evaluate whether the piers are founded in th e supportive material and whether the pier excavations are properly prepared. The pi er depths recommended above may require adjustment, if differing conditions are encoun tered during excavation. Concrete should be cast as soon as practical after pier drilling to limit the potential for delays due to the possibility of soil caving. The foundation cont ractor should be prepared to provide steel casing if caving soils are encountered.

Grade beams should be incorporated between piers as required by the structural engineer.

Perimeter foundations should extend at least 6 inches below the crawlspace grade or bottom of slab subgrade to mitigate the potential for infiltration of surface runoff under the at-grade portions of the structures. Grade beam rein forcing should be determined by the project structural engineer based on the preceding design criteria and structural requirements.

Based on our engineering judgment, thirty-year differential foundation movement due to static loads is not expected to exceed approx imately ½-inch across any 20-foot span of the pier-supported improvements.

Spread Footings

The three southernmost residences (Units 1-3) associated attached garages may be supported on conventional spread footings bearing in the underlying competent alluvium. Continuous

10.d
Packet Pg. 377
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and isolated footings should be a minimum of 18 inches square. New spread footings should extend at least 30 inches below lowest final adjacent exterior grade and 24 in ches below the interior crawlspace grade or bottom of slab, whichever is deeper.

We recommend that the footings be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads, with a one-third increase allowed for total loads including wind and seismic forces. The weight of the footings may be neglected for design purposes.

Lateral loads may be resisted by friction b etween the footings and the supporting subgrade using a friction coefficient of 0.30 for concrete formed on undisturbed soil. In addition to the preceding frictional resistance, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pressures acting against foundations poured neat in excava tions using an equivalent fluid pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot below a depth of 1 foot below lowest adjacent grade.

Any footings located adjacent to utility trenches or other footings should bear below a 1:1 plane extended upward from the bottom edge of the utility trench or footing. Footing reinforcing should be established by the pr oject structural engineer to provide structural continuity and to span local irregularities based on the preceding design criteria and structural design criteria.

The footing excavations should be free of all loose soil, prior to placing reinforcing steel and concrete. Our representative should observe the footing excavations prior to placing concrete forms and reinforcing steel to see that they are founded in competent bearing materials and have been properly cleaned. In addition, any loose soil in the footing excavations resulting from the placement of forms and reinforcing steel should be removed prior to placing concrete.

Based on our engineering judgment, thirty-year differential foundation movement due to static loads is not expected to exceed approx imately 1-inch across any 20-foot span of the new footing-supported portions of the improvements.

CONCRETE SLABS

We anticipate that concrete slabs may be used for the at-grade interior floors, garage floors, driveway, patios, and walkways. In general, sl abs-on-grade may be used for the driveway and exterior patios and walkways. It should be an ticipated that some degree of differential slab movement and cracking could occur due to seasonal expansive soil movement. If slight slab movement and cracking is unacceptable, then we suggest that these hardscape features be

10.d
Packet Pg. 378
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

designed and constructed as structural slabs supported on drilled piers. We recommend unit 4 be designed and constructed with structural slabs. Slabs-on-grade for units 1~3 is acceptable. In our opinion, the use of structural slabs would best serve to reduce cracking of slab surfaces. Detailed recommendations are presented in the following sections of the report.

Structural Slabs

Structural slabs for unit 4 should be supported on drilled foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations provided above.

Where slab surface moisture would be a signif icant concern, such as interior and garage floors, we recommend that the slabs be underlain by a vapor retarder consisting of a highly durable membrane not less than 15 mils thick (such as Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier by Stego Industries, LLC or equivalent), underlain by a ca pillary break consisting of 4 inches of ½- to ¾-inch crushed rock. Please also refer to the Vapor Retarder Considerations section below for additional information. Please note that these recommendations do not comprise a specification for “waterproofing.” For greater protection against concrete dampness, we recommend that a waterproofing consultant be retained.

Slabs-on-Grade

Slabs-on-grade for the garages and driveway for homes 1 thru 3 should be underlain by at least 12 inches of select granular fill, such as Class 2 aggregate baserock. Slabs-on-grade for exterior, patios and walkways should be underlain by at least 8 inches of select granular fill.

The preceding recommendations are intended to mitigate significant slab movement and cracking. We note that minor slab movement or localized cracking of slabs may occur.

Prior to placement of the select granular fill , the subgrade soils should be scarified and moisture conditioned, as necessary, to a depth of approximately 6 inches and recompacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this report. In addition, if highly expansive subgrade soils are encountered, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of approximately 12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent over optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Because of the potentially expansive nature of the surficial soil, over-compaction of this material should be avoided. In our opinion, these recommendations should mitigate th e potential for significant heave, but will not eliminate this potential.

In general, the garage and exterior slabs-on-grade should be designed as “free-floating” slabs, structurally isolated from adjacent foundations. Exterior slabs-on-grade should be provided with control joints at spacing of not more than about 10 feet. The project structural engineer should provide slab reinforcing based on anticipated use and loading.

10.d
Packet Pg. 379
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

Select granular fill should be compacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this report. Where slab surface moisture would be a significant concern, such as for the garage floor slabs, we recommend that the slabs be un derlain by a vapor retarder consisting of a highly durable membrane not less than 15 mils thick (such as Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier by Stego Industries, LLC or equivalent), underlain by a capillary break consisting of 4 inches of ½- to ¾-inch crushed rock. The capillary brea k may be considered the equivalent thickness as the upper 4 inches of select granular fill r ecommended above. Please also refer to the Vapor Retarder Considerations section below fo r additional information. Please note that these recommendations do not comprise a sp ecification for “waterproofing.” For greater protection against concrete dampness, we recommend that a waterproofing consultant be retained.

Vapor Retarder Considerations

Based on our understanding, two opposing school s of thought currently prevail concerning protection of the vapor retarder during constru ction. Some believe that 2 inches of sand should be placed above the vapor retarder to protect it from damage during construction and also to provide a small reservoir of moisture (when slightly wetted just prior to concrete placement) to benefit the concrete curing proce ss. Still others believe that protection of the vapor retarder and/or curing of concrete are no t as critical design considerations when compared to the possibility of entrapment of mo isture in the sand above the vapor retarder and below the slab. The presence of moisture in the sand could lead to post-construction absorption of the trapped moisture through the slab and result in mold or mildew forming at the upper surface of the slab.

We understand that recent trends are to use a highly durable vapor retarder membrane (at least 10 mils thick) without the protective sand covering for interior slabs surfaced with floor coverings including, but not limited to, carpet, wood, or glued tiles and linoleum. However, it is also noted that several special consider ations are required to reduce the potential for concrete edge curling if sand will not be use d, including slightly higher placement of reinforcement steel and a water-cement ratio not exceeding 0.5 (Holland and Walker, 1998).

We recommend that you consult with other members of your design team, such as your structural engineer, architect, and waterproofin g consultant for further guidance on this matter.

FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

Asphaltic Concrete

We anticipate that asphaltic concrete paveme nt may be used for the new driveway. At a minimum, we recommend that the proposed aspha lt driveway surface be at least 2.5 inches

10.d
Packet Pg. 380
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

thick and that it be underlain by at least 12 inches of impor ted Class 2 aggregate baserock (R-value of 78). If soft subgrade conditions are encountered at subgrade elevation along the driveway, it may be advisable to increase the th ickness of the select gran ular fill. Prior to placement of the select granular fill, the subgr ade soils should be scarified to a depth of approximately 6 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned (as necessary), and recompacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this report.

Sand Set Pavers or Flagstones

We anticipate that sand-set pavers or flagst ones may be used for exterior hardscape. We generally recommend that they be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. At a minimum, we also generally recommend that pavers be underlain by at least 12 inches of compacted Class 2 aggreg ate baserock for vehicular loads and at least 8 inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate baserock for pedestrian loads. A representative from our office should observe the subgrade conditions of the hardscape prior to placement of baserock. Prior to placement of the baserock, the subgrade soils should be scarified and moisture conditioned to a depth of at least 6 to 12 inches, as necessary, and compacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this report.

EARTHWORK

A minor amount of earthwork is anticipated as part of the proposed construction, including foundation excavations, subgrade preparation beneath hardscape, placement and compaction of engineered fill, and backfill in utility trenches. Earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations.

Clearing & Site Preparation

Initially, the proposed improvement areas shou ld be cleared of obstructions, including existing foundations, flatwork, utilities, and trees not designated to remain. Holes or depressions resulting from the removal of underground obstructions below proposed subgrade levels, such as existing foundations and root balls, should be backfilled with engineered fill, placed and compacted in a ccordance with the recommendations provided below. After clearing, the proposed improvem ent areas should be adequately stripped to remove surface vegetation and organic-laden t opsoil. The stripped material should be used as engineered fill; however, it may be stockpiled and used for landscaping purposes.

Material for Fill

All on-site soils below the stripped layer having an organic content of less than 3 percent organic material by volume (ASTM D 2974) ma y be suitable for use as engineered fill contingent upon review by our firm. In genera l, fill material should not contain rocks or pieces larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, and should contain no more than 15

10.d
Packet Pg. 381
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

percent larger than 2.5 inches. Any required imported fill should be predominantly granular material or low plasticity material with a pl asticity index of less than approximately 15 percent. Any proposed fill for import should be approved by Murray Engineers, Inc. prior to importing to the site. Our approval pro cess may require index testing to establish the expansive potential of the soil; therefore, it is important that we receive samples of any proposed import material at least 3 days prio r to planned importing. Class 2 aggregate baserock should meet the specifications outlined in the Caltrans Standard Specifications, latest edition.

Compaction

Prior to placing engineered fill, the subgrade soil should be scarified and compacted, as necessary. Material used for fill should be placed in uniform lifts, no more than 8-inches in uncompacted thickness. The fill material should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, and compacted in accordance with the specificati ons listed in Table 1 below. The relative compaction and moisture content specified in Table 1 are relative to ASTM D 1557 (latest edition). Compacted lifts should be firm an d non-yielding under the weight of compaction equipment prior to the placement of successive lifts.

Table 5. Compaction Specifications

Fill Element Relative
Compaction*
Moisture Content*
General fill for raising of site grades, driveway, channel backfill and patios (for fills up to 4 feet thick)
90 percent Near optimum
For fills greater than 4 feet thick 93 percent
(entire fill)
Near optimum
Upper 6 inches of relatively non-expansive subgrade
beneath hardscape
90 percent Near optimum
Upper 12 inches of relatively expansive subgrade beneath hardscape
90 percent >3% over optimum
Aggregate baserock under hardscape 95 percent Near optimum ½- to ¾-inch Crushed Rock - Compact with at least 3
passes of a vibratory plate with lift-thickness < 12 inches. see note at left Not critical
Backfill of utility trenches using on-site soil 90 percent Near optimum Backfill of utility trenches using imported sand 90 percent Near optimum *Relative to ASTM D 1557, latest edition.

Final Slopes

In general, any proposed cut slopes in the surficial soil and any proposed fill slopes should have gradients no steeper than approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). In general, new fill slopes should be over-filled and then cut back to proposed final slope gradients. All graded surfaces or areas disturbed by construction shou ld be revegetated prior to the onset of the rainy season following construction to mitigate excessive soil erosion. If vegetation is not

10.d
Packet Pg. 382
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

established, other erosion control provision should be employed. Ground cover, once established should be properly maintained to provide long-term erosion control.

Temporary Slopes & Trench Excavations

The contractor should be responsible for all temporary slopes and trenches excavated at the site and design and construction of any require d safety cuts or shorin g. Safety cuts and shoring should be provided in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal safety regulations, including the current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Because of the potential for variable soil conditions, fiel d modifications of temporary cut slopes may be required. Unstable materials encountered on the slopes during the excavation should be trimmed off, even if this requires cutting the slope back at flatter inclinations.

SITE DRAINAGE

Roof run-off, rain, or irrigation water should not be allowed to pond near structures, exterior hardscape, or pavement areas. The proposed residences and attached garages should be provided with roof gutters and downspouts. Water collected in the gutters should not be allowed to discharge freely onto the ground surface adjacent to the foundations and should be conveyed away from the structures via splash blocks or via buried closed conduits and routed to a suitable discharge outlet. The finished grades should be designed to drain surface water away from the proposed structures, slabs, pavement areas, and yard areas to suitable discharge points. The ground surface s hould have positive gradient away from the structures. Where such surface gradients are di fficult to achieve, we recommend that area drains or surface drainage swales be installed to collect surface water and convey it to a suitable discharge location away from the structures.

We recommend that annual maintenance of the surface drainage systems be performed.

This maintenance should include inspection and testing to make sure that roof gutters and downspouts are in good working order and do not leak; inspection and flushing of area drains to make sure that they are free of de bris and are in good working order; and inspection of surface drainage outfall locations to verify that introduced water flows freely through the discharge pipes and that no excessi ve erosion has occurred. If erosion is detected, this office should be contacted to evaluate its extent and to provide mitigation.

REQUIRED FUTURE SERVICES

Plan Review

To better assure conformance of the final design documents with the recommendations contained in this report, and to better comply with the building department’s requirements, Murray Engineers, Inc. must review the comple ted project plans prior to construction. The plans should be made available for our review as soon as possible after completion so that

10.d
Packet Pg. 383
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

we can better assist in keeping your project schedule on track. We recommend that the following note be added to the architectural, structural, and civil plans:

All earthwork and site drainage, including pier drilling, spread footing excavations, preparation of subgrade beneath hardscape, placement and compaction of engineered fill, and installation of site dr ainage should be performed in accordance with the geotechnical report prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc., dated August 2, 2 0 1 6 . M u r r a y E n g i n e e r s , I n c . s h o u l d be provided at least 48 hours advance notification of any earthwork operations and should be present to observe and test, as necessary, the earthwork, foundation, and drainage installation phases of the project.

Construction Observation Services

Murray Engineers, Inc. should observe and tes t (as necessary) the earthwork and foundation phases of construction in order to a) confirm that subsurface conditions exposed during construction are substantially the same as those interpolated from our limited subsurface exploration, on which the analysis and design were based; b) evaluate compliance with the geotechnical design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and c) allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The recommendations in this report are based on li mited subsurface information. The nature and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If variations are exposed during construction, it may be necessary to re-evaluate our recommendation.

LIMITATIONS

This report has been prepared for the sole use of Yan Hua Zhu specifically for developing geotechnical design criteria relating to subdi vision and development of the new residences and associated improvements, as discussed a bove, at 1323 Elam Avenue in Campbell, California. The opinions presented in this report are based upon information obtained from borings at widely separated locations, site reconnaissance, review of field data made available to us, and upon local experience and engineering judgment, and have been formulated in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the San Francisco Bay Area at the time this report wa s prepared. Further, our recommendations are based on the assumption that soil and geologic conditions at or between borings do not deviate substantially from those encountered. In addition, geotechnical issues may arise that are not apparent at this time. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made or should be inferred. We are not responsible for data provided by others.

10.d
Packet Pg. 384
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

The recommendations provided in this repor t are based on the assumption that we will be retained to provide the Future Services described above in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations. If we are not retained for these services, Murray Engineers, Inc. cannot assume any responsibility for any potential claims that may ar ise during or after construction as a result of misuse or misinterpr etation of Murray Engineers, Inc.’s report by others. Furthermore, if another geotechnical c onsultant is retained for follow-up service to this report, Murray Engineers, Inc. will at that time cease to be the Engineer-of-Record.

The opinions presented in this report are valid as of the present date for the property evaluated. Changes in the c ondition of a property can occu r with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable standards of pr actice can occur, whether from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the opinions presented in this report may be invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outsid e of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years, nor should it be used, or is it applicable, for any property other than that evaluated.

10.d
Packet Pg. 385
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotech nical Investigation

REFERENCES

2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008, The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCE RF 2): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437; California Geological Surv ey Special Report 203214; Southern California Earthquake Center Contribution #1138

ASTM International, 2012, An nual Book of ASTM Standards, 2012, Section Four, Construction, Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock (I): D 420-D 5876: ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1809 p.

Bowles, Joseph, E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York, 1175 p.

California Building Standards Commission, 2013, 2013 Californ ia Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2: California Building Standards Commission, Sacramento, CA, 770 p.

California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 117A

California Geological Survey, 1968, San Jose We st, San Jose 15’ Quadrangle, Official Map, Released 1961, Photorevised in 1968:

Dixit, J., Dewaikar, D.M., Jangid, R.S., 2012, As sessment of Liquefaction Potential Index for Mumbai City, Department of Civil Engineerin g, Indian Inst itute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai-400 076, India, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences

Wentworth, C.M., M. C. Blake, Jr., R. J. McLa ughlin, and R. W. Graymer, 1999, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 x 60-Minute Quadrangle, California: A Digital Database:

U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 98-795.

Geologismiki Geotechnical Software, 2006, Cliq v.1.7.6.49

Holland, Jerry A., and Wayne Walker, 1998, Cont rolling Curling and Cracking in Floors to Receive Coverings, Publication #C980603: The Aberdeen Group, 2 p.

Lunne, T. Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M., 1997, Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice, Spon Press, New York, 312 p.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2014, Earthquake Hazards Program, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php, accessed May 26, 2016.

Youd, L.T., and Garris, C.T., 1995, Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 11, pp. 805-809

10.d
Packet Pg. 386
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
.... .. ... .. .. .
. ...
.
.
..
. . .
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
. .
. .. .
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
..
.
.. .
.
.
.
. .
.
.
. . ..
.
. ..
. .
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
..
....
..
.
.
.
.
. .
.
...
.
...
.
.
...
.
.
.
. .
.
. ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
. .
...
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. .
.
.
.. ..
.
. ..
. ..
.
.
...
. .
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ..
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
... .. . .
... .... .. . ...
.. .. .
.
. .
. .
.
.
.
.. ..
.
.
... .
.
.
.
. .
. .
.
..
.
.
. .
..
.
.
.
.
...
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. .
.
... . .
.
. .
.
.. ..
..
.. .
.. .
. .
. .
. ..
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. .....
. .
. ...
.. ..
. ...
. .
.
.
. .
.
.
..
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
..
.
..
.
. ..
..
.
. .
..
.
.
. ...
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
. .
. ..
..
.
.
...
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
. .. .. ...... . . ...
..
. .
.
..
.. .... . ..
. .. .. .
.
.. .
.
...
.. .
.
..
... .
.
. .
...
.
. .
.
.
.
. .
.
..
.
. .. ..
.
..
.
. ..
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
. .. .
.
. .. . . ....
.. .
..
.. ...
. .
.. .
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
. .
..
. .
. ..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
...
.
. .
..
.. .
.
.. ...
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
. . .
..
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
450
275
300
250
225
375
250
225
225
350
75 400
350
375
350
400
325
275
175
425
325
400
250
250
325
325
375
375
275
250
300
275
375
275
300
200
275
200
300
200
400400
400
200
¬«17
¬«85
¬«85

CASTRO DR

STEINWAY AVE

ELWOOD DR

VANDER BILT DR

BICKNE LL RD
R
E

W LATIMER AVE

BUDD AVE
CAPRI
DR

ELMWOOD DR

MONTREAL DR

BISMARCK DRPARKWESTDR

RHONDA DR
GOLF
LINKS
DR
N1 S TS T

WHITE OAKS RD

W HACIENDA AVE

FALLBROOK AVE
COLUSA
W
AY

WEDGEWOOD AVE

SOBEY RD
HOLM
ES
AVE

VALERI E DR

SPRINGFIELD DR

MORE AVE

GLEASON AVE
RA

TIMBERCOVEDR

WHITE O

MARIA WAY

VIRGINIA AVE
RO
OKA RD
LA DR
PA
SEO
CERRO

LEMOYNE WAY
LA

RINCONADA
DR

RADOYKA DR
LEXING
T

YORKTON WAY
CA

WESTON DR

KENNETH AVE
OAK
K

C EN TURY DR

WHITWOOD LN

GRAVES AVE

LOST OAKS DR

E LATIMER
SU

CADILLAC DR

VILLARITA DR

SMITH AVE

SOBRATO DR
PASEO

PRESADA
N 3RD ST

COLOMBO DR

COLLEENW
AY

MCCOY AVE

LOVELL AVE

VALLEJODR
ABB
EY L
N

VILLANOVA
RD

DRIFTWOOD D R
DELL
AV
E

THERESA AVE
HAPP
W

IMBLEDON
DR
WALNUT
DR

ACAPULCO DR

BUCKNAM AVE

SHELLEY A V

LASSEN AVE

STOCKBRI
DGE
D

W SUNNYOAKS AVE

GALE DR

BUCKNALL RD

DARRYL DR

REDDIN G
BRENTO
N
A

CAMROSE A
VE
CIR

HAZEL AVE

W RINCON AVE
FLORA
A
WOO
DBANKW
AY

WALDO RD

NORWICH WAY

ALEX DR

NORTHLAWN DR

ENSENADADR

SILACCI DR

KE ITH DR

SOUTHWOODDR

MONTCLAIR RD

G RANADA WA YCASITAS

BULEVAR

W PARR AVE

LONGFELLOW
AVE

COUNTRY LN

KINGSTON WAY

A LBRIGHT WAY
S

PALO SAN TO DR
LATIM
ER
AVE
OLD
ADOBE
RD

VAS ONA
AVE

HARRIET A
VE
SARATO

WESTMONT AVE

W CAMPBELL AVE

HARRIET
AVE

ALLENDALE AVE

W HACIENDA AVE

COX AVE

KNOWLES DR

SBASCOM
AVE

LARK AVE

POLLARD RD

SWINCHESTERBLVD

WINCHESTERBLVD

W HAMILTON AVE
LAW
RENCE
EXPY
CAMD

SANTOMASEXPY

SARATOGAAVE

HAMILTON AVE
San Tomas Aquinas Cr
Sobey
Cr
LosGatos Cr
San
Tom
asAquinasCr
Wildcat Cr
LosGatosCreek

SARATOGA

CAMPBELL
LOS
GATOS
Monte
Sereno
Vasona
Junction
San Tomas

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2016

VICINITY MAP
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
N
FIGURE A-1
Base: USGS Topographic Map, San Jose West, 7.5 Minute Series, 2015. Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet.

SITE

10.d
Packet Pg. 387
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
202020'-00-0-0"0 20-0

FFFROFRRORONRONONTONTTT FROONT S SESESETBSETBTBACTBAACACKACKCKCK SSETBACCK 15'-0"
18'X20'20' GARAGEE
(2 CARCA GARAGE)AG
MAX. BUILDING
HEIGHT 28'

REAR SETBACK
1/2 OF BUILDING
HEIGHT= 14'ACK SETBAAA
20'200'020' FIFFIREFRREREE FIRE TTTRUTRRUCKRUUCCKCKK TRUCKKACACCCECCCESSCEESSSSS ACCCESS 20' FIRE TRUCK ACCESS
OPEN SPACE - 2,748 SFF
262626'-6'226'00000 7/77/8"7/888"" 7/8"
26'-266'-1"6'-11"" 26'-1"
NEW 5'-0" WALKWAYY

PERMEABLE SURFACE DRIVE
14'-0"
NEW 5'-0" WALKWAYY
1,161, 7 SF LIVINGVI SPACECE FOOT PRINRI T +
360 SF GARAGEGA
TOTATAL 1,527 SFSF FOOTPRINTRIN
2222

FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND
18'X20' GARAGEG
(2 CARAR GARAGE)GE)111
9'-0"
9'-0"
1,111,1 4 SF LIVINGVIN SPACECE FOOT PRINRINT +
360 SF GARAGEAR
TOTATAL 1,474 SFF FOOTPRINTRIN
20'-0"20'-0" 20'0"
15'-0"
5'-0"
5'-0"
20'-0"20'-020'-0"
5'-0"5'-0

BACKBACBAC
SID

E SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE 237.44'

GNINIOJDA

GNIDLIUB
ETA

MIXORPPA

NNOITACOL

GNINIOJDA

GNIDLIUB
ETA

MIXORPPA

NOITACOL
30'-
0"'-
PROPERTY LINE 75.00'
UTILIT

Y EASEMEN
NTTNT
EME

GNINIOJDA

GNIDLIUB
ETA

MIXORPPA

NOITACOL
PRO
PERTY
LIN
E 10

3.70'

ADJOINING
BU
ILD
ING
AP
PRO
XIMAT

E LOCATI
ON
20'-0"20'-0" 20-0"
PROPERTY LINE 300.57'
SIDE

SETBACKVARIES
18'X20'1 GARAGEAR
(2 CAR GARAGE) G
18'X20' GARAGEG
(2 CARAR GARAGE)E)
14'-0"
0"00'-0"0 -0"20'-20222 0"0'-20
1,134 SF1,1 LIVINGVIN SPACEE FOOT PRINRINT +
360 SF3 GARAGEAR
TOTAALL 1,494 SFF FOOTPRINTIN
0"00'-0"0- 030'-3033 0"0'-3
20'-0"
11100 SFS LIVINGG S
360 SF60 GARAGEAG
TOTAL 1,4701, SF FOOTPROO
3333
20'-0"20'0" 20'-0"
444
9'-0"
20'-0"
9'-0"
MAX
HEIGHT
28'
SIDE
SETBA
CK
1/2
CK
OF

BUILDINGHEI
GHT
= 14'
SETBAC
5'-0"
CPT-2CPT-2CPT-2
3330'-300'-0"0-00"0 30'-0"
G SPACE FOOS OOT PRINTT ++
PRINT
SP-1
SP-2SP-2
1 Outline of (E) Residence to be Removed (Solid)
2 Outline of (E) Garage to be Removed (Dashed)
3 Area of (E) Hardscape to be Removed (Hatched)
4 Outline of Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision (Solid)
5 Area of Proposed Driveway (Stippled)
5 KEY NOTES
CPT-1CPT-1CPT-1
SP-2
CPT-3CPT-3
CPT-4CPT-4
SP-3SP-3
CPT-4
SP-3
SP-1
CPT-1
Approximate Location of Soil Probe by Murray Engineers, Inc., May 6, 2016 Approximate Location of CPT
Approximate areas where historical occurence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate potential for permanent ground displacements (See Figure A-4) Approximate area of creek channel backfilled between 1961 & 1968, according to the San Jose West Quadrangle released in 1961 and photorevised in 1968 Base: Site Plan by Gordana Design Studio, dated June 27, 2016 Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 20 feet
LEGEND
CPT-3
1 33
2 44
SITE PLAN 1
JULY 2016 FIGURE A-2PROJECT NO.
2534-1R1

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
N
UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT 4

10.d
Packet Pg. 388
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
SITE

JULY 2016
Legend & Selected Map Symbols
Qpf
Fault, dashed where approximately located,
dotted where concealed, queried where
uncertain
Contact
?
Alluvial Fan Deposits (Pleistocene)
QTsc Santa Clara Formation
(Pleistocene and Pliocene)
Qhf2 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits (Holocene)
Base: Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, California, Wentworth et. al., 1999.

Approximate Scale (Digitally Enlarged): 1 inch = 2,000 feet

VICINITY

GEOLOGIC MAP
N
FIGURE A-3

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1

10.d
Packet Pg. 389
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
N
LEGEND
Areas where previous occurence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential forpermanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693 (c) would be requiredZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2016
Areas where historical occurence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693 (c) would be required
Base: the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, San Jose West Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, 2002.

Scale is 1 inch = 2,000 feet.

SITE

STATE SEISMIC

HAZARD ZONES MAP
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE A-4

10.d
Packet Pg. 390
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
V:\BORINGS\Zhu - 2534-1.bgs [123 Murray 24, WC, DD, Soil Probe.tpl] FIGURE B-1
LOG OF
JULY 2016
Date(s)
Drilled May 6, 2016
Drilling
Method Direct Push
Drill Rig
Type Geoprobe
Groundwater Level
and Date Measured Not Encountered ATD
Borehole
Backfill Grout
Logged By AK
Drill Bit
Size/Type N/A
Drilling
Contractor CPT Inc.

Sampling
Method(s)
Dual Tube Sampler with 1.4"
plastic liner
Location Southwest corner of the proposed units
Checked By DY
Total Depth
of Borehole 22 feet bgs
Approximate
Surface Elevation 228 feet
Hammer
Data pneumatic
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
BORING SP-1
204
209
214
219
224
Elevation, feet
0 5
10 15
20 Depth, feet
Calculated SPT
(N60) Blow
Counts based
on qc (CPT)]
Relative
Consistency
USCS Symbol

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Water Content,
%
Dry Density
(PCF)
Very Stiff ML SANDY SILT, dark brown, homogeneous, low plasticity fines, fine-grained sand, trace rootlets, moist (Alluvium)
Very
Dense
SM SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown to olive brown, heterogeneous, 20-40% subangular gravel, slightly moist to moist (Alluvium)
Percent Fines=14% (sample from 14 to 18 feet)
SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown,
heterogeneous, 20-40% gravels, moist
CL SANDY CLAY, yellowish brown, homogeneous, low to medium plasticity, fine-to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel, moist (Alluvium)
Bottom of Boring at 22 feet bgs
14 104
8 111
9 13
13 16
18 37
11174

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

10.d
Packet Pg. 391
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
V:\BORINGS\Zhu - 2534-1.bgs [123 Murray 24, WC, DD, Soil Probe.tpl] FIGURE B-2
LOG OF
JULY 2016
Date(s)
Drilled May 6, 2016
Drilling
Method Direct Push
Drill Rig
Type Geoprobe
Groundwater Level
and Date Measured Not Encountered ATD
Borehole
Backfill Grout
Logged By AK
Drill Bit
Size/Type N/A
Drilling
Contractor CPT Inc.

Sampling
Method(s)
Dual Tube Sampler with 1.4"
plastic liner
Location Western wall of proposed units
Checked By DY
Total Depth
of Borehole 20 feet bgs
Approximate
Surface Elevation 228 feet
Hammer
Data pneumatic
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
BORING SP-2
204
209
214
219
224
Elevation, feet
0 5
10 15
20 Depth, feet
Calculated SPT
(N60) Blow
Counts based
on qc (CPT)]
Relative
Consistency
USCS Symbol

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Water Content,
%
Dry Density
(PCF)
Very Stiff CL LEAN CLAY, dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown, homogeneous, trace fine-grained sand, moist (Alluvium)
PI=10%; LL=23% (sample from 0 to 4 feet)
Very
Dense
SM SILTY SAND, yellowish brown to olive brown, homogeneous, fine- to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel, moist to very moist
Very
Dense
SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown to olive brown, heterogeneous, medium to coarse grained sand, low plasticity fines, 20-40% gravel, moist (Alluvium)
Percent Fines=15% (sample from 14 to 18 feet)
Hard CL SANDY CLAY, yellowish brown, homogeneous, low to medium plasticity, fine-to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel, moist (Alluvium)
Bottom of Boring at 20 feet bgs
13 10
18 15
14 16
8 101
102
111
106
103
105
104104
108
105
105
8 25
72 90
54 77
68 73
52 52

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

10.d
Packet Pg. 392
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
V:\BORINGS\Zhu - 2534-1.bgs [123 Murray 24, WC, DD, Soil Probe.tpl] FIGURE B-3
LOG OF
JULY 2016
Date(s)
Drilled May 6, 2016
Drilling
Method Direct Push
Drill Rig
Type Geoprobe
Groundwater Level
and Date Measured Not Encountered ATD
Borehole
Backfill Grout
Logged By AK
Drill Bit
Size/Type N/A
Drilling
Contractor CPT Inc.

Sampling
Method(s)
Dual Tube Sampler with 1.4"
plastic liner
Location Southwest corner of the proposed units
Checked By DY
Total Depth
of Borehole 22 feet bgs
Approximate
Surface Elevation 228 feet
Hammer
Data pneumatic
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
BORING SP-3
204
209
214
219
224
Elevation, feet
0 5
10 15
20 Depth, feet
Calculated SPT
(N60) Blow
Counts based
on qc (CPT)]
Relative
Consistency
USCS Symbol

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Water Content,
%
Dry Density
(PCF)
Stiff to
Hard
CL LEAN CLAY, dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown,
homogeneous, trace fine-grained sand, moist (Alluvium)
Very
Dense
SM SILTY SAND, yellowish brown to olive brown, homogeneous, fine- to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel, moist (Alluvium)
SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown to olive brown, heterogeneous, medium to coarse grained sand, low platicity fines, 20-40% gravel, moist (Alluvium)
CL SANDY CLAY, yellowish brown, homogeneous, low to medium plasticity, fine-to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel, moist (Alluvium)
Bottom of Boring at 22 feet bgs
12 38
92 83
96 171
14 101
12 105
9 112
109
10 110
107
11 14
14 ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

10.d
Packet Pg. 393
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
V:\BORINGS\Zhu - 2534-1.bgs [123 Murray 24, WC, DD, Soil Probe.tpl] FIGURE B-4
KEY TO

SOIL PROBE LOGS
JULY 2016 PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1

COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
1 Elevation, feet: Elevation (MSL, feet)
2 Depth, feet: Depth in feet below the ground surface.
3 Calculated SPT (N60) Blow Counts based on qc (CPT)]:

Reported SPT (N60) values derived from
empirical relationships between measured
cone penetration test (CPT) tip resistance
(qc) and measured N values. CPT data
recorded for this site are included in
Appendix C.
4 Relative Consistency: Relative consistency of the
subsurface material.
5 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material.
6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material
encountered. May include consistency, moisture,
color, and other descriptive text.
7 Water Content, %: Water content of the soil sample,
expressed as percentage of dry weight of sample.
8 Dry Density (PCF): Dry weight per unit volume of soil sample measured in laboratory in pounds per cubic foot.

FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CHEM: Chemical tests to assess corrosivity
COMP: Compaction test
CONS: One-dimensional consolidation test
LL: Liquid Limit, percent
PI: Plasticity Index, percent
SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve)
UC: Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksf
WA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve)

TYPICAL MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
Sandstone
Well graded GRAVEL (GW)
Poorly graded GRAVEL (GP)
Well graded GRAVEL with Silt (GW-GM)
Well graded GRAVEL with Clay (GW-GC)
Poorly graded GRAVEL with Silt (GP-GM)
Poorly graded GRAVEL with Clay (GP-GC)
Silty GRAVEL (GM)
Clayey GRAVEL (GC)
Well graded SAND (SW)
Poorly graded SAND (SP)
Well graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM)
Well graded SAND with Clay (SW-SC)
Poorly graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM)
Poorly graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC)
Silty SAND (SM)
Clayey SAND (SC)
SILT, SILT w/SAND, SANDY SILT (ML)
Lean CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL)
SILT, SILT w/SAND, SANDY SILT (MH)
Fat CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CH)
SILT, SILT with SAND, SANDY SILT (ML-MH)
Lean-Fat CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL-CH)

SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Lean CLAY/PEAT (CL-OL)
Fat CLAY/SILT (CH-MH)
Fat CLAY/PEAT (CH-OH)
Silty SAND to Sandy SILT (SM-ML)
Silty SAND to Sandy SILT (SM-MH)
Clayey SAND to Sandy CLAY (SC-CL)
Clayey SAND to Sandy CLAY (SC-CH)
SILT to CLAY (CL/ML)
Silty to Clayey SAND (SC/SM)

TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
2 inch-OD Unlined Split
Spoon (SPT)

2.5 inch-OD Unlined Split
Spoon
3 inch-OD Unlined Split
Spoon
Shelby Tube (thin-walled,
fixed head)
Grab Sample
Bulk Sample
Pitcher Sample
Other Sampler

OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
Water level (at time of drilling, ATD)
Water level (after waiting a given time)
Minor change in material properties within
a stratum
Inferred or gradational contact between
strata
? Queried contact between strata

GENERAL NOTES

1. Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests.

2. Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times.

Elevation, feet
1 Depth, feet
2 Calculated SPT
(N60) Blow
Counts based
on qc (CPT)]
3 Relative
Consistency
4 USCS Symbol
5 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
6 Water Content,
%
7 Dry Density
(PCF)
8 ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

10.d
Packet Pg. 394
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

PR IMARY DI VI SION S

RELA TIV E DE NSI TY

HIGH LY ORGANI C SOI LS
BLO WS/FOOT *
0 to 4
4 to 10
10 to 3 0
30 to 5 0
OVER 50
STRENGTH ^
0 to 0.2 5

0.25 to 0.5

0.5 to 1
1 to 2
2 to 4
OVER 4
BLOW S/FOOT *
0 to 2
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 1 6
16 to 32
OVER 32

SILT & CLAY

VERY SOF T
SOF T

MEDIUM S TIFF
STIFF

VERY STIFF
HARD

SAND & GRAVEL

VERY LOOS E
LOOS E

MEDIUM D ENSE
DENSE

VERY DENSE

SILT AND CL AY
Liquid limit < 50%

CLE AN G RAVEL
(<5% Fine s)

CLE AN SAN D
(<5% Fine s)
SAN D
wit h
FIN ES
GRAVEL
wit h
FIN ES
FIN E

GRAIN ED
SOI LS
(>50% Fines)

SILT & CLAYBOULDERS COBBLES
GRAVEL
EVEIS SEIRES DRADNATS .S.USGNINEPO EVEIS

ENIFESRAOCENIFESRAOC MEDIUM
SAND
COARSE

GRAIN ED
SOI LS
(<50% Fines)
GRAVEL
SAN D

SILT AND CL AY
Liquid limit >50%
SOIL
TYPE
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
Pt
Well graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.

Poorly graded gravel or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.

Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.

Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.

Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.

Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines.

Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.

Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.

Inorganic silts and very fine sands, with slight plasticity.

Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, lean clays.

Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity.

Inorganic silt, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soil.

Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.

Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts.

Peat and other highly organic soils.

SEC ON DARY DIVI SION S

GR AIN SI ZES

CON SISTENCY
12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200
^
Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System; fines refer to soil passing a No. 200 sieve. *Standard penetration test (SPT) resistance using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler; blow counts for the 3.0-inch O.D. and 2.5-inch O.D. samplers have been corrected for sampler size to SPT values using conversion factors of 0.65 and 0.77, respectively.

Shear strength in tons/sq. ft. as estimated by SPT resistance, field and laboratory tests, and/or visual observation.

UNIFIED SOIL

CLASSIFICATION
SYSTEM
FIGURE B-5JULY 2016PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

10.d
Packet Pg. 395
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

APPENDIX C

SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION – CONE PENERATION TESTS

10.d
Packet Pg. 396
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE C-1
CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-1
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates sh ould not be used for design purposes. 0 200 400
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Ic

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0 50 100 1500
N1(60) (bpf)
Murray Engineers Inc
Job No: 16-56024
Date: 05:06:16 08:12
Site: 1323 Elam Ave
Sounding: CPT-01
Cone: 447:T1500F15U500
Max Depth: 2.300 m / 7.55 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 16-56024_CP01.COR
Unit Wt: SBT Zones
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson and Campanella, 1986
Coords: UTM 10 N N: 4125783 E: 591028
Page No: 1 of 1
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
N(60) (bpf)
(see Figure C-7, Key to Soil Behavior Types)
JULY 2016

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

10.d
Packet Pg. 397
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE C-2
CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-2
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates sh ould not be used for design purposes. 0 200 400
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Ic

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0 50 100 1500
N1(60) (bpf)
Murray Engineers Inc
Job No: 16-56024
Date: 05:06:16 08:55
Site: 1323 Elam Ave
Sounding: CPT-02
Cone: 447:T1500F15U500
Max Depth: 2.500 m / 8.20 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 16-56024_CP02.COR
Unit Wt: SBT Zones
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson and Campanella, 1986
Coords: UTM 10 N N: 4125803 E: 591035
Page No: 1 of 1
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
N(60) (bpf)
(see Figure C-7, Key to Soil Behavior Types)
JULY 2016

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

10.d
Packet Pg. 398
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE C-3
CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-3
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates sh ould not be used for design purposes. 0 200 400
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Ic

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0 50 100 1500
N1(60) (bpf)
Murray Engineers Inc
Job No: 16-56024
Date: 05:06:16 09:23
Site: 1323 Elam Ave
Sounding: CPT-03
Cone: 447:T1500F15U500
Max Depth: 9.350 m / 30.68 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 16-56024_CP03.COR
Unit Wt: SBT Zones
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson and Campanella, 1986
Coords: UTM 10 N N: 4125818 E: 591027
Page No: 1 of 1
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
N(60) (bpf)
(see Figure C-7, Key to Soil Behavior Types)
JULY 2016

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

10.d
Packet Pg. 399
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 JULY 2016 FIGURE C-4
CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-4

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates sh ould not be used for design purposes. 0 200 400
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
qt (tsf)
Depth (feet)

0.0 2.5 5.0
fs (tsf)

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Ic

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Su (Nkt) (tsf)
0 50 100 1500
N1(60) (bpf)
Murray Engineers Inc
Job No: 16-56024
Date: 05:06:16 10:00
Site: 1323 Elam Ave
Sounding: CPT-04
Cone: 447:T1500F15U500
Max Depth: 3.500 m / 11.48 ft
Depth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ft
Avg Int: Every Point
File: 16-56024_CP04.COR
Unit Wt: SBT Zones
Su Nkt: 15.0
SBT: Robertson and Campanella, 1986
Coords: UTM 10 N N: 4125841 E: 591051
Page No: 1 of 1
Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal Refusal
N(60) (bpf)
(see Figure C-7, Key to Soil Behavior Types)

10.d
Packet Pg. 400
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

.

APPENDIX D

LABORATORY TESTS

Samples from the subsurface exploration were se lected for tests to evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests performed are briefly described below.

Natural moisture content was determined for most samples recovered from the soil probe in accordance with ASTM D2216. This test determ ines the moisture content representative of field conditions at the time the samples were collected. The results are presented on the soil probe log at the appropriate sample depths.

The Atterberg Limits were determined on one sa mple in accordance with ASTM D 4318.

The Atterberg limits are the moistu re content within which the soil is workable or plastic.

The results of this test are presented in Fi gure D-1 and on the soil probe log, at the appropriate sample depth.

10.d
Packet Pg. 401
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Tested By: DY
Murray Engineers, Inc.

Palo Alto, CA
Client:

Project:

Project No.: Figure
Yan Hua Zhu
1323 ELAM AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
2534-1

SYMBOL SOURCE

NATURAL

USCSSAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY
NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
(%) (%) (%) (%)

SOIL DATA

PLASTICITY INDEX
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 LIQUID LIMIT
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
CL-ML
CL or OL
CH or OH
ML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
4 7

LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
SP-2 1 0' to 4' 13.4 13 23 10 CL
JULY 2016

ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

LIQUID & PLASTIC

LIMITS TEST REPORT

PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE D-1

10.d
Packet Pg. 402
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

APPENDIX E

SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES

10.d
Packet Pg. 403
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Overall vertical settlements report
Project title : Zhu
Location : Campbell
CLiq v.1.7.6.49 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 1 Project file: M:\Cliq\Zhu\ZHU_LIQ_KK_GW15FT_UPDATEDPARAMETERS.clq

10.d
Packet Pg. 404
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

EXHIBIT 2

PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT

10.d
Packet Pg. 405
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com

IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South Fourth Street, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 313 - 9376 [email protected]

PHASE I

ENVIRONMENTAL

SITE ASSESSMENT
REPORT

1323 Elam Avenue
Campbell, California

November 15, 2016

Project Number 3343

Prepared For

Yanhua Zhu
c/o Gordana Design Studio
602 Hawthorne Ave.

Palo Alto, CA 94301

Prepared By

IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
430 South 4th Street
San Jose, California 95112-5730
(408) 313 - 9376
[email protected]

10.d
Packet Pg. 406
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com

IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South 4th Street, San Jose, CA 95112-5730 (408) 313 - 9376 [email protected]

November 15, 2016
Project Number 3343

Yanhua Zhu
c/o Gordana Design Studio
602 Hawthorne Ave.

Palo Alto, CA 94301
Via email to: [email protected]

Attn: Gordana Paylovic

Subject: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT SITE: 1323 ELAM AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4439
SANTA CLARA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
(APN): 403-09-046 (Book 403, Page 09, Parcel 046)

Dear Ms. Paylovic:

IRC is pleased to present the accompanying final report of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the subject Site.

IRC appreciates the opportunity to have been of service. Should you have any questions or require additional information or services please contact me at (408) 313 - 9376 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Benjamin Berman
Project Manager
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC (IRC)

10.d
Packet Pg. 407
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 1

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 3

2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Scope of Services ................................................................................ 3

2.3 Limitations ............................................................................................ 4

3.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 5

3.1 Topography .......................................................................................... 5

3.2 Regional Geology ................................................................................. 5

4.0 LAND USE HISTORY 7

4.1 Historical Topographic Maps ................................................................ 7

4.2 Review of Aerial Photographs .............................................................. 7

4.3 Historical Fire Insurance Maps ............................................................. 8

4.4 City Directories ..................................................................................... 8

4.5 User Provided Data, Data From Non-Public Sources,
Questionnaire, Interviews ..................................................................... 8

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 10

5.1 Site Description and General Observations ....................................... 10

5.2 Additional Non-Scope Services .......................................................... 10

5.3 Adjoining and Neighboring Properties Description ............................. 10

6.0 RECORDS AND CORRESPONDENCE REVIEW 12

6.1 Federal and State Records Sources .................................................. 12

6.2 Contamination Migration .................................................................... 13

6.3 Summary of Radius Map Report Findings .......................................... 14

6.4 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations ....................... 14

6.5 Summary of State and Local Agency Records and Correspondence 14

6.6 Data Gaps and Data Failure ............................................................... 16

7.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS 17

8.0 REFERENCES 18

FIGURES

FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION & VICINITY MAP, TOPOGRAPHIC BASE

FIGURE 2 SUBJECT SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES,

GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE

FIGURE 3 SUBJECT SITE, GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE

FIGURE 4 SUBJECT SITE FEATURES

10.d
Packet Pg. 408
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

TABLES

TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEWS

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF CITY DIRECTORIES REVIEWS

PHTOGRAPHS

PHOTOGRAPHS SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (SUBJECT PROPERTY)

APPENDICES (ON CD)

APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

APPENDIX B HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS

APPENDIX C CITY DIRECTORIES

APPENDIX D AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS

APPENDIX E SANBORN MAPS

APPENDIX F ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN SEARCH

APPENDIX G RADIUS MAP REPORT

APPENDIX H PHYSICAL SETTINGS MAPS

APPENDIX I WATER WELL REPORT

APPENDIX J OIL & GAS REPORT

APPENDIX K GOOGLE EARTH HISTORICAL IMAGES, SUBJECT PROPERTY, 2007 - 2016

APPENDIX L WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT

10.d
Packet Pg. 409
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
IRC Environmental Consulting (IRC) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the property located at address 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, California (referred to hereinafter as the Site, subject Site, or subject property). This Site assessment was prepared for Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio) in November 2016.

This assessment included visual survey of the Site, exterior inspection of immediately adjacent properties, review of historical documentation, review of local agency files specific to the Site, and a review of regulatory databases that identify nearby sites of potential environmental concern. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the Site for real and potential environmental impairments, or risks of impairments, that may represent existing or potential financial and legal liabilities to Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio) and / or their agents.

Based on our review of available records, site inspection, and / or interviews, no Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified. Business Environmental Risks and Non- Scope Considerations were identified. See below for details.

Findings, Opinions

Subject Property, Location, Description, Current Uses

The subject property is identified as Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number 403-09-046, and is associated with 1323 Elam Avenue, Santa Clara County, in the City of Campbell, California. The subject property consists of one +/- 0.46 acre parcel of land developed with one existing single-family residence, proximate to Elam Avenue, and a detached garage. The majority of the land area of the subject property consists of a large undeveloped back yard. Most of the subject property is unpaved. At the time of the Site inspection the house on the subject property was occupied by a tenant.

Subject Property, Historical Uses

Review of available information indicated that the subject property was primarily undeveloped or agricultural (orchards) by the 1930s and likely remained mostly agricultural into the 1950s. The house on the subject property was constructed circa 1945 and the original sewer connection permit was issued in 1960. The subject property was annexed to the City of Campbell in 1961.

Adjacent Properties, Historical and Current Uses

Adjoining / surrounding properties were primarily undeveloped / agricultural (orchards) by the 1930s and were mostly all developed by the 1960s to 1980s, primarily for residential use.

Subject Property, Potential Concerns Originating from Onsite

No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) originating from onsite were identified.

Potential Business Environmental Risks and Non-Scope Considerations were identified (see below). City of Campbell Code Enforcement indicated the following in November 2016. "There was one previous code enforcement case where RVs were reported parked in the rear yard of the subject property, which may have been a source of contamination. There is no information

10.d
Packet Pg. 410
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 2
whether this was verified or not, however. The case does not appear to have been investigated, and from the aerials it appears there is no violation at this time, as no RV is visible." Historical Google Earth™ aerial images (dated 04-15-2013 and 02-13-2014) indicated what appeared to be a recreational vehicle (RV) proximate to the east property boundary. An online search in November 2016 of City of Campbell permits found listed case number COD201200060 with description "Full sized RV is parked in backyard". No evidence of RVs, automotive or vehicle storage in the back yard was found during the November 2016 Site inspection.

Adjoining / Nearby Properties, Potential Concerns

No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) originating from adjoining / nearby sites were identified. There is a small commercial retail center on the southwest corner of Elam Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road approximately 300 to 500 feet east - southeast of the subject property. The city directories listed "San Tomas Cleaners" for the year 1970 at address 1256 Elam Avenue (this address is associated with the small commercial center at Elam Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road). No other information was found while conducting this Phase I ESA regarding a possible dry cleaner at this location. In our opinion additional information, had it been available, would not likely have lead to identification of a recognized environmental condition (REC) for the subject property.

Business Environmental Risk

The subject property and immediately adjoining properties were historically (or currently) agricultural (orchards) or rural and it is possible that residual pesticides or other potentially hazardous substances associated with agricultural or rural use might remain in the subject property soils and subsurface.

Non-Scope Considerations

 Given the age of the structures on the subject property (circa 1945-1960) it is possible that Asbestos Containing Building Materials (ACBM) may have been used in construction and / or Lead-Based Paint (LBP) may have been used on painted surfaces.

 The residence on the subject property was built circa 1945 and the original sewer connection permit was issued in 1960. It is unknown although likely that there was a functioning septic system on the subject property prior to 1960, and assuming there was at one time a septic system, it is unknown whether or not it was ever removed.

Conclusions

IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527 of 1323 Elam Avenue in the City of Campbell, California, the property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. However, the following should be considered: Potential Business Environmental Risks and Non-Scope Considerations were identified (see above).

10.d
Packet Pg. 411
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 3

2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results, conclusions, and recommendations from the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at 1323 Elam Avenue in the City of Campbell, California (hereinafter referred to as the “Site”, “subject Site”, or “subject property”).

2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to conduct an environmental assessment that would address real and potential environmental impairments, or risks of impairments, that may represent financial and legal liabilities to Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio) and / or their agents.

IRC assumes the purpose of this ESA is to qualify for Landowner Liability Protections (LLP) to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability, to understand potential environmental conditions that could materially impact the operation of the business(es) associated with the parcel(s) of commercial real estate, and / or for other purposes associated with business environmental risk. We understand the City of Campbell is requiring this Phase I ESA as part of their re-development requirements; there is a plan to demolish the one existing single-family residence and detached garage and re-develop the subject property with four single-family residences (we were not informed of any other purpose).

2.2 Scope of Services
The Scope of Services for the performance of this Phase I ESA included the following tasks:

 Research and review available geologic and hydrogeologic information concerning the Site and its environment.

 Review available historical documentation of the property to determine what activities have occurred at the Site and immediately adjacent sites since the Site’s first developed use or since 1940 (whichever is earlier).

 Generally survey current uses of immediately adjacent properties.

 Inspect the Site to determine current on-Site activities and past uses.

 Review available files / records, request public records, submit an inquiry to, and or obtain online information from the following state or local regulatory agencies for the subject Site address(es):

 State / Regional Water Quality Control Board (S/RWQCB)  Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH)  Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD)
 West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD)
 City of Campbell (COC)
 Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office (SCCAO)

10.d
Packet Pg. 412
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 4
 Acquire a review of federal, state and county publications (radius report) to identify the Site and nearby sites (if any) included on more than 50 databases, including (but not limited to) the following databases or current equivalents:
 National Priority List (NPL)
 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAInfo)
 Region 9, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
 RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facilities  Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
 Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) sites
 Registered underground storage tank (UST) sites

 Review available reports concerning on-going investigations at nearby agency-listed sites.

 Prepare this report in general accordance with the document entitled Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Process (The American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM], E 1527-13).

2.3 Limitations
Assessments are performed on subject property identification information (street addresses and parcel numbers) provided by the client / user at the initiation and authorization of the work. The conclusions of this report are based solely on the Scope of Services outlined above, and on the sources of information referenced in this report. Any additional information that becomes available concerning this Site should be submitted to IRC Environmental Consulting so that our conclusions may be reviewed and modified, if necessary. Conducting environmental sampling (i.e. soil, groundwater, vapor / air, building materials) is outside the scope of this Phase 1 ESA.

Other Non-scope considerations outside the scope of this Phase 1 ESA include, but are not limited to, considerations such as the following: screening for the possibility of vapor intrusion into buildings or structures, indoor air quality, asbestos containing building materials, lead-based paint, mold, radon, and wetlands. Note regarding potential vapor intrusion / indoor air quality; the possibility of / potential for subsurface contaminant migration via subsurface vapor, along with potential contaminant migration in subsurface soil and groundwater, are considered as part of this Phase I ESA.

The accompanying report presents a description of the work performed by IRC Environmental Consulting and was prepared using guidelines presented in the document entitled, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process (The American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM], E 1527-13). Note that all limitations in ASTM E 1527-13 apply, such as those in sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.4 (and other sections), and user’s responsibilities in ASTM E 1527-13 apply (section 6). It should be noted that this report has been prepared to generally accepted industry standards and may need to be modified to meet specific lender requirements.

This document has been prepared according to generally accepted practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied as to the methods, results, conclusions or recommendations is made. The user is notified that uncertainty is not eliminated, assessments are not exhaustive, reasonable time and cost constraints and other limitations are inherent, certain conditions may not be detected during an assessment of this type, and no level of

10.d
Packet Pg. 413
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 5
assessment can guarantee that a site is completely free of hazardous substances. This assessment was based on a specific scope of work with a defined budget, was not intended to be comprehensive, identify all potential concerns, or eliminate the possibility of any environmental impacts to the subject property. The results of all assessments are subject to differing professional interpretations and opinions, the conclusions of others may differ. If you wish to reduce the level of uncertainty associated with this study, we should be contacted for additional consultation. Regulatory agency environmental regulations, priorities, and enforcement change over time and tend to get stricter / more conservative; potential impacts previously unknown or of little concern, such as but not limited to vapor intrusion, tend to become more important environmental regulatory concerns over time.

The findings, analysis, opinions, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our assessment and review of practically reviewable information relevant to the site conditions that was reasonably available and ascertainable at the time of this assessment. Changes in the information or data gained from any of these sources could result in changes in our conclusions or recommendations. If such changes do occur, we should be advised so that we can review our report in light of those changes. This assessment and report are for the sole use of the client, reliance upon the information in this report by others is solely at their own risk. Nothing in this report shall be construed as a legal opinion, this assessment / report may be based in part upon verbal or written information possessed by the client / user or other non-public privately owned information, and all of IRC Environmental Consulting LLC’s Standard Terms and Conditions and Limitations apply at all times to this report and all reports by IRC Environmental Consulting.

3.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

3.1 Topography
The Site's physical location was researched employing the current United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map section relevant to the Site. The 7.5- Minute Map has an approximate scale of 1 inch to 24,000 inches, and shows physical features such as wetlands, water bodies, railways and roadways, mines, wells, and buildings. The physical and natural features illustrated on the topographic map serve as areas of visual emphasis to note when conducting the on-Site visit.

The San Jose West Quadrangle Topographic Map (dated 1961, photo-revised in 1980) shows no physical features that would likely environmentally impact the Site. The map reveals no storage tanks, mines, or wells in the immediate area. This topographic map shows the elevation of the Site to be approximately 220 feet above mean sea level with an approximate northeasterly topographic gradient direction. San Tomas Aquinas Creek lies approximately 0.2 to 0.25 miles north of the subject property. Note that the referenced topographic map was revised in 2012; however, due to minimal detail in the 2012 map, the 1980 map was used.

3.2 Regional Geology
The site is located within the central region of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, which extends from the Oregon border south to the Transverse Ranges. The general topography is characterized by subparallel, northwest trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. The

10.d
Packet Pg. 414
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 6
region has undergone a complex geologic history of sedimentation, volcanic activity, folding, faulting, uplift and erosion. The Santa Cruz Mountains are located to the west of the site; the relatively flat-lying, alluviated San Francisco Bay Plain is situated to the east of the site.

Based on Wentworth et al (1999), the site is located on Upper Pleistocene age “Alluvial Fan Deposits”, map unit Qpf. The alluvial fan deposits (Qpf) consist primarily of clast supported gravel with a clayey and sandy matrix. Based on Rogers and Williams (1974), alluvium is approximately 100 feet thick in the site vicinity.

In addition, soils and geology in the vicinity of the subject property are included in Appendix H, Physical Settings Maps. The geology map / report in Appendix H includes the following information from the United States Geological Survey (USGS):

 Geology Symbol: Q; Unit Name: Quaternary Alluvium and Marine Deposits;  Unit Description: Alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits, unconsolidated and semi- consolidated. Mostly non-marine, but includes marine deposits near the coast; and  Rocktype/s: Alluvium; Terrace; Lake Or Marine Deposit (Non-Glacial).

10.d
Packet Pg. 415
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 7

4.0 LAND USE HISTORY
A review of readily available, standard historical sources (as defined in ASTM E 1527-13) was performed to assist in establishing any significant past uses of the Site and immediately adjacent properties. The review attempted (to the extent of readily available sources) to encompass the years since the first obvious developed use of the Site, or since 1940, whichever is earlier. The following subsections present a summary of our findings from our review of each source.

Review of available building and fire department records, city directories, historical aerial photographs, historical topographic maps, interviews and / or other information indicated that the subject property was primarily undeveloped or agricultural (orchards) by the 1930s and likely remained mostly agricultural into the 1950s. The house on the subject property was constructed circa 1945 (based on county records) and the original sewer connection permit was issued in 1960. Adjoining / surrounding properties were primarily undeveloped / agricultural (orchards) by the 1930s and were mostly all developed by the 1960s to 1980s, primarily for residential use.

4.1 Historical Topographic Maps
Historical Topographic Maps from 1899, 1953, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1980 and 2012 were reviewed.

The Topographic Maps from 1968, 1973, and 1980 were photo revised from the 1961 map. The scale, resolution and or quality of the 1899 map was inadequate to reliably determine the location / details in the vicinity of the subject property. The 1953 map appeared to show the vicinity of the subject property as agricultural (orchards). The 1961 through 2012 maps showed the subject property and vicinity as within the area of urban / suburban development. Historical Topographic Maps are presented in Appendix B.

4.2 Review of Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs supplied by GeoSearch were reviewed to help evaluate past land uses on the Site and surrounding properties. In addition, the photographs were reviewed for evidence of hazardous materials and features that may have impacted the Site and general vicinity. These features may have included, but were not limited to, landfills, ponds, pits, staining or distressed vegetation, aboveground storage tanks, lagoons, exterior storage of hazardous materials, and general land use practices.

Aerial photographs taken in 1939, 1948, 1956, 1960, 1970, 1982, 1987, 1993, 2003 and 2014 were reviewed (Appendix D). A summary of the aerial photography review is provided in Table 1 in the Tables section. Limited additional useable information was obtained from the aerial photography review, partially due to the general poor quality of the 1970, 1982, 1987 and 2003 photographs and partially because some of the same information was obtained from the historical topographic maps. The 1939, 1948, and 1956 photographs show the subject property and adjoining properties as undeveloped, agricultural (orchards) and / or single family residential on large lots. The house on the subject property did not appear evident on the 1939 photograph; it was difficult to discern whether or not structures appeared on the subject property in the 1948, 1956 and 1960 photographs.

10.d
Packet Pg. 416
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 8

Historical Google Earth™ Aerial Images

Historical Google Earth™ aerial images from 2007 to 2016 (Appendix K) were also reviewed. No significant information was obtained from the Google Earth™ images. Based on the Google Earth™ images most of the subject property is unpaved. Occasional vehicles were observed in the back yard area including what appears to be a recreational vehicle (RV) proximate to the east property boundary (images dated 04-15-2013, 02-13-2014). Possible piles of debris / garbage were observed in at least one image (10-31-2011) and what looks to be curved (earthen ?) ramps appear at the back of the subject property (02-23-2014).

4.3 Historical Fire Insurance Maps
Fire Insurance Maps (FIM) / fire maps produced by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company for major cities and towns depict structures, building materials, uses, USTs, gas lines, etc. These maps were typically produced beginning prior to 1900 and were often updated into the 1970s.

These maps are valuable sources of information in determining prior usage, provided the site's location is within city limits as they were defined in the early to mid-1900s. The results of the FIM / Sanborn Map search are presented in Appendix E. The subject Site at 1323 Elam Avenue did not have FIM / Sanborn map coverage, indicating that there was no urban development at the site during the period of coverage.

4.4 City Directories
City directories have been published for major cities and towns across the United States since the 19 th century. City directories published in the 20 th century also included a street index for each street address during a given year. City directories are a valuable source of historical information with regard to Site tenancy and use. IRC reviewed city directories as provided by GeoSearch for the subject Site address(es) (Appendix C).

Information is provided in Table 2, in the Tables section, for those years where city directory information for the subject property (and adjoining and nearby properties) was found. For the subject property the city directories appeared to list the names of property owner / occupants sporadically from circa 1970 to 2016. City directory listings generally indicated residential uses on adjoining and nearby properties beginning in 1970.

There is a small commercial retail center on the southwest corner of Elam Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road approximately 300 to 500 feet east - southeast of the subject property.

The city directories listed "San Tomas Cleaners" for the year 1970 at address 1256 Elam Avenue (this address is associated with the small commercial center at Elam Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road). No other information was found while conducting this Phase I ESA regarding a possible dry cleaner at this location.

4.5 User Provided Data, Data from Non-Public Sources, Questionnaire, Interviews During this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment no previous reports on the subject Site property of significant relevance to the performance of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment were made available for our review by Site contacts, potential users of this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, or other non-public sources of information. The representative of the users did provide three drawings showing the existing structures and planned new development of four new single-family residences on the subject property. In addition, a letter

10.d
Packet Pg. 417
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 9
from the City of Campbell regarding redevelopment of the Site was provided (City of Campbell, October 7, 2016).

Questionnaire

IRC’s standard Phase I assessment Questionnaire, which includes questions in accordance with the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13, was sent to Ms. Gordana Paylovic, the representative of Yanhua Zhu, the current owner of the subject property. Ms. Paylovic forwarded the questionnaire to Yvonne Yang, the Real Estate Agent for Yanhua Zhu. Mr. Berman of IRC spoke with Ms. Yang by telephone; Ms. Yang provided the following information. The subject property was vacant and unoccupied when it was purchased by the current owner about a year ago. The current property owner rented out the subject property; the current tenant has occupied the site for about a year. Neither Ms. Yang nor the current property owner have any information about the prior history, development, occupancy and use of the subject property.

Therefore a questionnaire was not completed

Interviews

During the site inspection on November 11, 2016, Mr. Berman of IRC conducted a brief in-person interview with the tenant. The tenant confirmed the information provided by the real estate agent; See Questionnaire above. Although the tenant was only at the subject property for about a year and knew nothing of the prior history, she thought it may have been used for equestrian purposes.

Various county and city public agencies were contacted by email and telephone in November 2016, see section 6.5.

10.d
Packet Pg. 418
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 10

5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE

Benjamin Berman of IRC Environmental Consulting, conducted a Site visit and inspection on November 11, 2016. Mr. Berman was unaccompanied during the Site inspection. All observations are valid as of the date of the Site inspection.

5.1 Site Description and General Observations
A Site Location & Vicinity Map (on topographic base, Figure 1), Subject Site and Adjacent Properties – Google Earth Image™ (Figure 2), Subject Site – Google Earth Image™ (Figure 3), and Subject Site Features (Figure 4) are provided in the Figures section of this report. Site photographs are provided in the Photographs section of this report. Figure 4 shows the approximate locations and directions of the photographs.

The Site is identified as Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number 403-09-046, and is associated with 1323 Elam Avenue, Santa Clara County, in the City of Campbell, California.

The subject property consists of one +/- 0.46 acre parcel of land developed with one existing single-family residence, proximate to Elam Avenue, and a detached garage. The majority of the land area of the subject property consists of a large undeveloped back lot yard. Most of the subject property is unpaved. At the time of the Site inspection the house on the subject property was occupied by a tenant. The user should note that much of the ground surface of the subject property was not visible due to vegetation.

Exterior Observations (see Figure 4 and Photographic Notes / Photographs)

 No items of concern were observed on exterior areas of the subject property.

Interior Observations

 No items of concern were observed inside the house and detached garage.

5.2 Additional Non-Scope Services
No additional non-scope services were performed as part of this Phase I ESA and no detailed observations / investigation of non-scope conditions was made. However, with regards to Non- Scope Considerations, the following should be noted with regards to Asbestos Containing Building Materials (ACBM) and Lead-Based Paint (LBP). Given the age of the residence and detached garage on the subject property (circa 1945 to 1960) it is possible that ACBM may have been used in construction and / or LBP may have been used on painted surfaces.

5.3 Adjoining and Neighboring Properties Description
See Figure 2, Subject Site and Adjacent Properties. IRC performed a limited visual inspection of immediately adjoining properties to evaluate their potential environmental significance to the Site. The properties immediately adjoining and surrounding the subject property consisted entirely of residential uses. However, at least two adjoining properties on the south side of Elam Avenue (east and west sides of Crockett Avenue, Figure 2) consisted of large lots with smaller and older single family residences (similar to the subject property) compared to the adjoining properties to the east, north and west and most of the other properties in the surrounding neighborhood.

These properties may have had past and or current agricultural and other uses associated with

10.d
Packet Pg. 419
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 11
rural sites (chickens and a tractor were observed on one of these sites). A large undeveloped property is located approximately 300 feet west southwest of the subject property on the south side of Elam Avenue and on the west side of Smith Creek; this site may also be associated with past and or current agricultural / rural uses.

No readily observable features (such as the presence of currently existing gasoline service stations or dry cleaners) of likely or potential environmental concern to the subject property were observed during the site inspection on any of these immediately adjoining properties; the user is cautioned that some potential concerns (such as, but not limited to, past uses and subsurface impacts) cannot be identified from offsite / exterior observations.

10.d
Packet Pg. 420
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 12

6.0 RECORDS AND CORRESPONDENCE REVIEW
To further evaluate potential sources of contamination originating from on and/or off-site sources, a review of published agency documents, agency files, and other pertinent documents was performed. Generally, information regarding potential off-site sources is obtained from federal and state agency listings, while local agencies offer more site-specific information.

6.1 Federal and State Records Sources
IRC Environmental Consulting contracted with GeoSearch for the performance of an environmental database search to identify agency-listed sites of potential environmental significance located within a one-mile radius of the Site. The GeoSearch Radius Map report is presented in Appendix G. The GeoSearch radius report identifies sites on more than 50 databases including all or most of the following or equivalent / current categories:

NPL: National Priority List (Federal Superfund Sites)
CERCLIS/NFRAP: EPA State Superfund Sites
CORRACTS: EPA Corrective action facilities
RCRA GEN: Small and large quantity generators of hazardous waste ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Sites
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System TRIS: Toxic Release Inventory System
TSCA: Toxic Substance Control Act
FTTS: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act /TSCA SSTS: Section 7 Tracking System
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES: Mines Master Index File
FINDS: Facility Index System
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
CAL-SITES: Potential or confirmed hazardous release properties REF: Unconfirmed Properties Referred to Another Agency LUST: Sites with Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
SWLF/State Landfill: Permitted solid waste State landfills, incinerators, or transfer stations DEED: Deed restriction sites
CORTESE: Hazardous Waste Substance Sites
TOXIC Pits: Toxic pits cleanup facilities
UST/AST: Registered Underground or Aboveground Storage Tank Sites CHMIRS: California Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System CA WDS: Waste Discharge System
CA SLIC: Statewide Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups SWEEPS UST: Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System NOTIFY 65: Proposition 65 Records
DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaner related facilities with EPA ID numbers HAZNET: Facility and Manifest Data
EMI: Emissions Inventory Data

10.d
Packet Pg. 421
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 13

6.2 Contamination Migration
Fuel Leak Attenuation

In fuel leak cases, research conducted at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) indicates that attenuation and degradation play major roles in reducing hydrocarbon contamination in groundwater to non-detectable levels within several hundred feet of the contaminant source. Moreover, this research indicates that in over 90% of the petroleum hydrocarbon contamination cases, groundwater contaminant plumes do not extend more than 250-feet from the source; however, a gasoline additive called Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) has been found to be more mobile in groundwater compared to gasoline and gasoline break-down products. Findings indicate that MTBE is highly soluble in water and moves easily through soil particles and into groundwater where it may spread over a distance greater than 250 feet. MTBE will transfer to groundwater from gasoline leaking from USTs, pipelines, car emissions into the atmosphere, and other components of gasoline vapor distribution. MTBE has been an additive to gasoline since approximately 1985.

Toxic-Leak Attenuation

In the case of toxic substances in the groundwater, namely the more mobile Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), detectable levels may extend several thousand feet or more from the source. In most VOC groundwater plume cases, however, attenuation will act to reduce the contamination to non-detectable levels within one-half mile of the source.

Groundwater Flow

Site-specific information on groundwater flow direction, depth and quality can only be confirmed through the installation and survey of a minimum of three on-Site or near Site groundwater- monitoring wells for measuring depth to groundwater. No indication was found that groundwater monitoring wells ever existed on the subject Site or adjoining sites. A search of the California State Water Quality Control Board's (SWQCB) GeoTracker online data base did not find any sites proximate to the subject property with groundwater monitoring wells.

Shallow regional groundwater (aquifers or water bearing zones nearest to the ground surface) flow directions can typically be assumed to follow topographic gradients. The San Jose West Quadrangle Topographic Map (dated 1961, photo-revised in 1980) shows an approximate topographic gradient direction to the northeast in the vicinity of the subject property. It should be noted that groundwater flow directions and depths are variable and subject to site-specific influences, such as groundwater pumping, and perched / seasonal groundwater may occur.

The depth to the first encountered water bearing zones in much of the Campbell area is known to be relatively deep compared to other nearby areas (such as San Jose). An online search of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Water Data Library indicated Depth to Water (DTW) levels in the area were generally found to be on the order of 60 to 100 feet and deeper (DWR, November 5, 2016). However, shallower “perched” zones of limited lateral extent may occur. In addition, ground water levels tend to vary from season to season and from year to year.

10.d
Packet Pg. 422
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 14

6.3 Summary of Radius Map Report Findings

The GeoSearch Radius Map Report is presented in Appendix G. The subject property was not identified in any database searches in the GeoSearch Radius Report. No immediately adjoining properties were identified in any database searches in the GeoSearch Radius Report. A review of the radius report indicated only four leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites in the surrounding area. The nearest are two sites located at 880 and 900 San Tomas Aquino Road, Campbell, respectively, approximately 400 to 600 feet east to east southeast of the subject property. Two additional LUST sites are located at 1255 Hacienda Avenue and 1181 Abbott Avenue, Campbell, approximately 0.30 to 0.35 miles south southeast and southwest of the subject property, respectively. All four LUST sites were closed in the 1990s (no further action required by the state and local oversight agencies).

IRC concludes that based on the media affected (e.g. soil only), the substance released (e.g. petroleum hydrocarbons), distances from the subject Site, the age of the releases, the regulatory / cleanup status, the inferred down / cross gradient orientation (with regards to groundwater flow) relative to the subject Site, and / or other potential ‘de minimus’ condition (ASTM, November 1, 2005 [Section 1.1.1]), the likelihood that the subject Site is impacted at levels of regulatory concern by these listed sites is low. These former offsite releases have not been determined to be a Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) for the subject property.

6.4 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations An environmental lien search provided by GeoSearch indicated environmental liens for the subject Site were “Not Found”. The lien search report can be found in Appendix F.

6.5 Summary of State and Local Agency Records and Correspondence During the review of standard environmental records, IRC Environmental Consulting used the following information sources:

 State / Regional Water Quality Control Board (S/RWQCB)  Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH)  Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD)
 West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD)
 City of Campbell (COC)
 Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office (SCCAO)

Synopses of records and correspondence reviewed for the Site at the following agencies are presented below:

State / Regional Water Quality Control Board (S/RWQCB) / GeoTracker

IRC Environmental Consulting searched the S/RWQCB GeoTracker online files on November 5, 2016, for information regarding Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) and hazardous materials spills or other potential concerns that may significantly adversely affect the subsurface of the subject Site. No records were found for the subject property or any

10.d
Packet Pg. 423
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 15
immediately adjoining properties. No additional items indicating potential significant environmental concerns for the subject property were identified from S/RWQCB reviews.

Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)

IRC contacted the SCVWD by email on November 2, 2016 to inquire if there are any records indicating the existence of wells on the subject property; the SCVWD indicated that there are no registered wells on those addresses (parcels). During the Site inspection no wells were observed on the subject property.

Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH)

IRC submitted an email request to SCCDEH for public records for the subject property on November 2, 2016; the SCCDEH indicated by email that they do not have records for the subject property.

Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD)

City of Campbell fire department activities and records, notably for those functions covering areas such as hazardous materials (hazmat) and underground storage tank (UST) regulation, are typically handled by the SCCFD or SCCDEH (see above). IRC submitted a request to SCCFD for public records by email for the subject property on November 2, 2016. SCCFD indicated by email that they do not have records for the subject property.

West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD)

IRC submitted a request for public records to WVSD by email for the subject property on November 2, 2016. The WVSD provided information by email (presented in Appendix L). The WVSD indicated the following. County records indicate the house was built in 1945. The original sewer connection permit for the subject property was issued on January 6, 1960 to address 957 Elam Avenue, under assessor's parcel number (APN) 403-09-046 (same as current APN). The WVSD does not know if this parcel was previously discharging into a septic system; however, based on the data above it is assumed that a septic system was used prior to 1960 (circa 1945 to 1960).

City of Campbell (COC)

On November 5, 2016, IRC performed an online records / building permits review for the subject property. Online available information is very limited, consisting of a simple list in table format with two columns, Case Number (permit, document number) on the left and a very brief description on the right; the actual permits / documents are not available for viewing online.

Nothing was found for the subject property indicating a potential significant environmental concern for the subject property.

On November 2, 2016, IRC sent email requests for public records to the following City of Campbell staff: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner (for subject property redevelopment); Charlotte Andeen, Code Enforcement Officer; Bill Helms, Environmental Compliance; Stephen Rose, Planner; Kathleen Overman, Permit Technician, Building Division; and Roger Storz, Public Works Land Development. The following information was received by email from Charlotte Andeen. "There was one previous code enforcement case where RVs were reported parked in

10.d
Packet Pg. 424
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 16
the rear yard of the subject property, which may have been a source of contamination. There is no information whether this was verified or not, however. The case does not appear to have been investigated, and from the aerials it appears there is no violation at this time, as no RV is visible." (see section 4.2, Review of Aerial Photographs, Historical Google Earth™ Aerial Images)

On November 9, 2016, Benjamin Berman of IRC performed a walk-in file review at the COC offices.

Building permit records on microfiche for the subject property address were searched. In addition, inquires were submitted with the Planning Department. No city documents (building permits, drawings) were found for the subject property. A clerk at the building permits counter indicated that the subject property was annexed to the City of Campbell in 1961.

Santa Clara County Assessor's Office (SCCAO)

An assessor’s map for the subject property (APN 403-09-046) was obtained online on November 2, 2016, from the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office.

6.6 Data Gaps and Data Failure
Significant data gaps / data failure were not identified. There is a small commercial retail center on the southwest corner of Elam Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road approximately 300 to 500 feet east - southeast of the subject property. The city directories listed "San Tomas Cleaners" for the year 1970 at address 1256 Elam Avenue (this address is associated with the small commercial center at Elam Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road). No other information was found while conducting this Phase I ESA regarding a possible dry cleaner at this location.

In our opinion additional information, had it been available, would not likely have lead to identification of a recognized environmental condition (REC) for the subject property.

10.d
Packet Pg. 425
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 17

7.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
The conclusions of this report are based solely on the Scope of Services outlined and the referenced sources of information. Any additional information that becomes available concerning this report should be submitted to IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC so that our conclusions may be reviewed and modified, if necessary. No soil, groundwater, vapor, or building material samples were collected or analyzed as part of this assessment. This report was prepared in November 2016 for the sole use of Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio) and / or their agents. We further understand that Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio) intends to submit a copy of this report to the City of Campbell.

Prepared by:

Benjamin Berman
Project Manager
Environmental Professional
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC

The text of this report was reviewed by David F. Hoexter, Consulting Engineering Geologist. As per ASTM E 1527-13 Section 12.13, we declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 312.10 of 40 CFR 312. We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the property. We have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.

10.d
Packet Pg. 426
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ IRC Page 18

8.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Health Services, California Public Water Supply Branch. 1990. Status Report, AB1803 Small System Program Summary of Results.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). November 5, 2016 (date data accessed on the web). ( http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/
). Search of DWR's online Water Data
Library, under zip code 95008 (City of Campbell area), Groundwater Levels, Circa 2011 to 2016.

City of Campbell, Community Development Department. October 7, 2016. Letter with attachments, from Daniel Fama, Senior Planner, to Gordana Paylovic (on behalf of the property owner) . File No. PRE2016-05, Address: 1323 Elam Ave., Preliminary Application .

GeoSearch. November 3, 2016. Radius Report
and various other Phase I ESA reference
documents (GeoVantage Package) presented in the appendices of the final Phase I ESA report for the subject property. GeoSearch Order # 77239.

Gianessi, L.P., and M. Phillips. 1994. Pesticide Use in U.S. Apple Orchards: A Short History .

National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy Discussion Paper PS-94-2.

Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). February 2016.

Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), Tier 1 and Summary Tables , from the internet.

Rogers, T.H., and Williams, J.W., 1974, Potential Seismic Hazards in Santa Clara County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report No. 107.

State of California, Division of Oil and Gas. 1989. Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Fields in California Map W3-10.

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). November 1, 2005. Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Designation: E 1527-13.

United States Geological Survey. 1961, photorevised 1980. San Jose West Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series, Topographic Map.

Wentworth, C. M, Blake, M.C., McLaughlin, R.J, and Graymer, R.W, 1999, Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 X 60 Minute Quadrangle, California, USGS Open-File Report 98-795, Scale 1:100,000.

10.d
Packet Pg. 427
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

FIGURES

10.d
Packet Pg. 428
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

10.d
Packet Pg. 429
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

10.d
Packet Pg. 430
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

10.d
Packet Pg. 431
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

10.d
Packet Pg. 432
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
TABLES

10.d
Packet Pg. 433
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Table 1, Summary of Aerial Photograph Reviews Page 1 of 1

Table 1, Summary of Aerial Photograph Reviews
1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA

Year Site Use Site Observations
1939 Undeveloped or
Agricultural
The subject property and immediately adjacent properties appear mostly as undeveloped or agricultural fields (orchards). Occasional structures, inferred to be single -family residences, appear on some immediately adjoining / surrounding properties.
1948

Residential or
Agricultural

The subject property and most immediately adjacent properties appear as large lot, rural single family residential and / or agricultural fields (orchards). It is not discernible whether or not there are structures on the subject property. A subdivision housing tract of single family residential appears to the south of the subject property and another subdivision, partially still under construction, appears to the north.
1956 Residential or
Agricultural ?
Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate identification of development and activities. However, the photograph , to the extent it is legible, generally appears similar to the previous photograph. 1960 Residential or
Agricultural ?
Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate identification of development and activiti es. However, the photograph , to the extent it is legible, g enerally appears similar to the previous photograph.

Possibly one or more structures on the subject property? 1970 Unknown Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate identification of development and activities.
1982 Unknown Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate identification of development and activities.
1987 Unknown Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate identification of development and activities.
1993 Residential
A single family residence appears on the subject property proximate to Elam Avenue. Residential (likely mult i-unit) appears to the immediate north and single family residential appears to the immediate south. L arge lot, single family residential appears to the immediate west and east of the subject property.
2003 Unknown Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate identification of development and activities.
2014 Residential
A single family residence appears on the subject property proximate to Elam Avenue. Residential (likely multi -unit) appears to the immediate north and single family residential appears to the immediate south. R esidential, single family or multi -unit, appears to the immediate west and east of the subject property.

10.d
Packet Pg. 434
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Table 2, Summary of City Directories Review Page 1 of 1

Table 2, Summary of City Directories Review
1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA

Year City Directory Listing
Subject Property: 1323 Elam Avenue
1970 LAMBS JAS
1975, 1980,
1985 ALFORD MAX
1990-91, 1995-
96 NO CURRENT LISTING
2001-02, 2006 ALFORD JAMES
2011 ADDRESS NOT LISTED
2016 ZHU YANHUA
Nearby Property (~300 to 500 ft East-Southeast of Subject Property): 1256 Elam Avenue 1970 SAN TOMAS CLEANERS
General Comments Regarding Nearby / Surrounding Sites
The City Directory listings for most nearby / surrounding sites appear to indicate mostly residential uses.

GeoSearch Note: "No coverage available for Campbell prior to 1970"

10.d
Packet Pg. 435
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

PHOTOGRAPHS

10.d
Packet Pg. 436
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 1 of 9 Campbell, California
Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016

Photograph No. 1

Photograph No. 2

10.d
Packet Pg. 437
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 2 of 9 Campbell, California
Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016

Photograph No. 3

Photograph No. 4

10.d
Packet Pg. 438
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 3 of 9 Campbell, California
Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016

Photograph No. 5

Photograph No. 6

10.d
Packet Pg. 439
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 4 of 9 Campbell, California
Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016

Photograph No. 7

Photograph No. 8

10.d
Packet Pg. 440
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 5 of 9 Campbell, California
Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016

Photograph No. 9

Photograph No. 10

10.d
Packet Pg. 441
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 6 of 9 Campbell, California
Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016

Photograph No. 11

Photograph No. 12

10.d
Packet Pg. 442
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 7 of 9 Campbell, California
Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016

Photograph No. 13

Photograph No. 14

10.d
Packet Pg. 443
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 8 of 9 Campbell, California
Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016

Photograph No. 15

Photograph No. 16

10.d
Packet Pg. 444
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 9 of 9 Campbell, California
Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016

Photograph No. 17

Photograph No. 18

10.d
Packet Pg. 445
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

APPENDICIES
NOTE: ALL

APPENDICIES

ARE ON CD

10.d
Packet Pg. 446
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

EXHIBIT 3

NOISE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION & DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

10.d
Packet Pg. 447
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
_______________________________________________________________ ____________________________

Environmental Consulting Services 18488 Prospect Road – Suite 1, Saratoga, CA 95070 Phone: (408) 257-1045 [email protected] _______________________________________________________________ ____________________________

November 18, 2016

Ms. Gordana Pavlovic
Gordana Design Studio
Palo Alto, CA

Re: Noise Environment Evaluation and Design Recommendations, 1323 Elam Avenue Quad Residential Project, APN 40-30-90-46, Campbell, CA

Dear Ms. Pavlovic,
I have reviewed the acoustical aspects of the noise environment at the project site in Campbell and the subject project design. This report presents the results of the noise study, which includes on-site noise monitoring, projection of future CNEL (Ldn) noise levels at the project site, and a description of architectural details required to meet Campbell and CA residential noise performance criteria.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION [1]
The proposed project includes four 2-story single-family residences, each with an interior space of about 2200 square feet, including a 2-car garage, an extra parking space and a driveway providing access from Elam Avenue. The total size of the project site is 20,027 square feet. The project area is a residential neighborhood, with residences adjacent on both sides and at the north end of the property. There is an existing residence and garage on the site that will be demolished.

The primary source of noise at the project site is traffic on Elam Avenue, a low-volume 2-lane neighborhood street. The nearest arterial traffic is on the Route 85 Freeway 0.75 miles to the southwest, Campbell Avenue 0.8 miles north, and San Tomas Expressway 0.9 miles east, none of which contribute significantly to local ambient noise levels under most conditions. Typical vehicle passby noise levels on Elam are 55-70 dBA at 40 feet. Trucks, motorcycles, and poorly-muffled vehicles produce peak levels 5 to 15 dBA higher on passby. Small aircraft overflights create sporadic noise incidents of 45 to 55 dBA.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This study evaluates the noise suitability of this location for residential use, and also provides architectural and site design recommendations to provide acceptable exterior and interior noise environments for the proposed new residences.

Based upon site noise measurements, present and anticipated future traffic volumes, and traffic noise modeling, a worst-case Design Noise Level for Unit 1 closest to Elam Avenue is 63 dBA. Because of the location and site orientation, traffic noise impacts are less at the other three properties. The Design Noise Level is the outdoor CNEL/Ldn noise level that the project structures must mitigate to meet City and California standards for interior noise. Although these sites have relatively low CNEL, to better mitigate peak noise incidents from traffic, such as trucks and motorcycles, an additional 12 dBA of protection is recommended, but not required, so a Design Noise Level of 75 dBA is recommended for the design, to provide noise protection for a high quality interior environment.  A long-term interior noise level not exceeding 45 Ldn/CNEL due to exterior sources must be provided. For this project the minimum building shell noise transmission loss of 15 dB would be required. With the recommended additional peak noise incident protection to a Design Noise Level of 75 dB, all elements of the building shell should provide a minimum 30 dB transmission loss, which is typically provided by good quality building materials, windows and doors.

10.d
Packet Pg. 448
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
1323 Elam Avenue Residential Project Noise Study - Campbell P age 2 of 4 Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
 To meet Campbell criteria to provide adequate noise protection for outdoor activity areas such as back yards, good quality fences and gates should be erected.

These considerations are explained in more detail in the Recommendations to Meet Noise Criteria section.

NOISE MONITORING AND DESIGN NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
Field noise measurements on site were made during the afternoon commute period of November 16, 2015 with a CEL-440 Precision Noise Meter and Analyzer, calibrated with a B & K Model 4230 Sound Level Calibrator. The measurement location was chosen to represent the worst-case exposure of the Lot 1 structure closest to Elam Avenue. Measurements were made at a 5 foot height at the following location:
 at the future residence setba ck on Lot 1, approximately 40 feet from the nearest lane of Elam Avenue
Description of Existing Noise Levels
Noise levels were measured and are reported using percentile noise descriptors: L90 (the background noise level exceeded 90 % of the time), L50 (the median noise level exceeded 50% of the time), L1 (the peak level exceeded 1% of the time), and Leq (the average energy-equivalent noise level).

Measured noise levels are presented in Exhibit 1 following. The Ldn noise levels were computed as the long-term average of Leq using the typical daily traffic distribution in the area, using a validated National Cooperative Highway Research Program model [2], with standard weighted penalties for nighttime hours.

EXHIBIT 1
EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (dBA)
1323 Elam Avenue Residential Project– Campbell

Location L90 L 50 Leq L 1 L dn/
CNEL
Lot 1 building setback 39 44 57 67 59

Noise levels at the project location are generated by a several low speed vehicle trips per minute on Elam Avenue during normal daytime periods. Note that because the other three properties are completely surrounded by adjacent residential structures on all sides, they would have much less exposure to Elam traffic noise by 5-10 dBA.

In addition to traffic noise sources, the project has typical types of other neighborhood noise sources, such as garbage pickup that can occur once or twice a week, intermittent overflying small aircraft, as well as sporadic yard maintenance and emergency vehicle sirens.

Anticipated Future Project Noise Levels
The Design Noise Level (DNL) is the outdoor noise levels anticipated within the next ten years (2026) for the units experiencing the highest noise exposure—the Ldn/CNEL noise level that the building structures must mitigate. Future DNL noise levels on site are estimated by estimating changes in traffic levels in 2026. Traffic on streets in most Bay Area residential areas that are already built out, such as Campbell, do not change significantly, since there are few new sources of traffic growth in established neighborhoods. Hence, future traffic volumes would not be expected to increase more than 1-2 % per year on Elam Avenue, which would lead to a maximum increase of 22% by the year 2026. This could generate a maximum increase of 1- 2 dB over present CNEL noise levels at the project site. In addition, noise levels for second floors can be 2 dB higher than ground-floor noise levels because of reflection from the road surface to the upper floors. So worst-case future project noise levels at the unit next the street would be no more than 63 dB CNEL (existing CNEL noise levels of 59 plus up to 4 dBA for traffic growth plus the upper floor correction). Hence the outdoor Design Noise Level to which the project unit nearest Elam Avenue would be exposed would be no more than 63 dBA CNEL by year 2026.

10.d
Packet Pg. 449
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
1323 Elam Avenue Residential Project Noise Study - Campbell P age 3 of 4 Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
Although analysis shows that the worst-case overall long term average CNEL exposure to be 63 dBA, additional protection against peak noise incidents higher than 63 dBA are recommended. For example, typical vehicle passby noise levels are 55-65 dBA at 40 feet, and trucks, motorcycles, and poorly-muffled vehicles produce peak levels 5 to 15 dBA higher on passby.. Therefore, meeting an interior Design Noise Level of 75 dB is recommended, which is discussed in more detail in the following sections.

CALIFORNIA AND CAMPBELL NOISE PROTECTION STANDARDS
California Building Code (CBC) sound transmission standards [3] require that new residential developments provide an interior Ldn/CNEL noise level of 45 dBA or less due to exterior noise sources.

The Campbell General Plan Noise Element [4] has the same interior noise protection standards for residential developments as the CBC described in the previous paragraph, and also specifies protection for outdoor activity areas, such as backyards and balconies:
“New residential development shall conform to a traffic-related noise exposure of 60 dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA CNEL for indoor noise.”
Interior Noise Protection Criteria
As described in the previous section, assuming a worst-case noise level for architectural design purposes of 75 dBA, a minimum noise reduction of at least 30 dB should be provided by the elements of the building shell to reach the interior level of 45 dBA. The transmission loss of architectural building elements is designated by Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for wall elements and by Impact Insulation Class (IIC) ratings for floor/ceiling assemblies, both of which are methods of estimating the inherent ability to attenuate noise transmission.

Standard wood and gypsum exterior wall constructions have STC ratings of 40 dBA or more.

Standard hollow-core doors and openable single pane windows typically are rated at 22-25 STC. Typical dual-layer thermal pane windows are typically rated at 26-30 dB STC. Except for actual cracks and openings in a structure, doors and windows are usually the weakest elements in the design and construction of a good sound-rated building, and usually reduce the overall protection provided by the more substantial wall structures.

Outdoor Noise Protection Criteria
Worst-case outdoor activity noise levels of 58-63 dBA CNEL could occur in the unprotected back yard of Lot 1, since it is the closest to Elam Avenue and has a narrow direct noise path to the roadway.

However, with a standard 6-7 foot tall property line fence and gate, most high level traffic noise incidents would also be reduced below the 60 dBA level in this back yard. And of course back yards in Lots 2, 3 and 4 would be protected to an even lower noise level due to being fully surrounded by other 2-story residential structures on all sides.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO MEET NOISE CRITERIA
Interior Noise Measures
Following are recommendations for meeting the primary criteria for good residential noise insulation design by the development:

1. WINDOWS. Windows must have a minimum STC rating of 20 dB, which is met by standard openable double-glazed thermal windows, with two 1/8" lights separated by a 1/2" air space and with good weather seals. For better reduction of loud vehicle noise, an STC performance of 30 STC is recommended, but not required. Many high-quality double-glazed thermal windows are available with this noise performance level.

10.d
Packet Pg. 450
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
1323 Elam Avenue Residential Project Noise Study - Campbell P age 4 of 4 Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga

2. EXTERIOR DOORS Outside doors, such as for front entrances or patios, particularly for Unit 1, should meet a tested STC rating of 20 to 30 to match the overall sound transmission mitigation criteria.

3. VENTILATION. Mitigation of outside noise is based upon windows that are closed in order to provide the required noise protection. Therefore, all units must have a ventilation system that provides a habitable interior air quality environment with the windows closed, regardless of outside temperature.

In addition, noise levels produced by heating and air conditioning units for the project must not themselves create a noise problem for any of the residential units associated with the project or adjacent properties.

4. GENERAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. Good noise design must be implemented by good field construction practices or the design performance will not be achieved.

This includes minimizing all penetrations of and connections between party wall and floor/ceiling assemblies, and acoustical sealant around any necessary penetrations.

Outdoor Noise Measures
 Erect standard 6-7 foot solid wood property line fences and gates to protect back yard activity areas, which will provide the required outdoor activity area noise reduction.

If I may be of further assistance on this project, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Respectfully submitted,

Stan Shelly
H. Stanton Shelly
Acoustical Consultant
Board Certified Member (1982),
Institute of Noise Control Engineering

REFERENCES

1. Project Drawing Set 1323 Elam St _161027 (2016.014_A1-A2); Gordana Design Studio, Palo Alto, CA; Sept 2016.

2. Highway Noise - A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1971 (model enhanced and field validated by ECS).

3. “Sound Transmission”, Section 1207 of California Building Code; 2013.

4. Noise Element, Campbell General Plan, Campbell Planning Div ision; 2001.

10.d
Packet Pg. 451
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

EXHIBIT 4

WILL SERVE LETTERS

10.d
Packet Pg. 452
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

10.d
Packet Pg. 453
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

10.d
Packet Pg. 454
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
1 Dena Yancy
From: Sheri Alves
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:54 PM
To: Ask Us
Cc: Dena Yancy
Subject: RE: Property located at: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Great,
Thank you for your response.

Best Regards,
Sheri Alves, Civil Administrative Assistant
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc.

Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
Phone: 510‐887‐4086 x. 167  Email: [email protected]
Roseville/Sacramento Region
3017 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95661
Phone: 916‐966‐1338
San Francisco Bay Area Region
2495 Industrial Parkway West
Hayward, CA 94545
Dublin Office
7567 Amador Valley Blvd., Suite 210
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925‐452‐2362
www.leabraze.com

IMPORTANT NOTICE:   This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged information.  If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose any information contained in the message.  If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e‐mail and delete the message.
 Please consider the environment before printing this email.

From: Ask Us [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:29 PM
To: Sheri Alves <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Property located at: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell

Hello Sheri.

That address does fall within our school district boundaries, according to the county assessor’s office.

Here’s he link: https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/all‐situs‐search?SFrom=all&SType=rp&STab=apn&apnValue=40309046

Sincerely,

10.d
Packet Pg. 455
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
2 Marla Sanchez
Marketing Communications
Campbell Union School District
155 N. Third Street, Campbell CA 95008
408-341-7254
(emergencies - 408-410-5972)

@campbellusd
FB: Campbell Union School District (official)

From: Sheri Alves <[email protected]>
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:56 AM
To: Ask Us <[email protected]>
Cc: Dena Yancy <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Property located at: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell

To Whom It May Concern;

Our firm is preparing a lot subdivision tentative map for planning approval for the address:
1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell.

We are required by the city planning department to provide confirmation that you service this property and it is within your school district.

Can you please send an email stating the above information is true?

Please provide this information by the end of business day tomorrow it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter in advance.

Best Regards,
Sheri Alves, Civil Administrative Assistant
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc.

Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
Phone: 510-887-4086 x. 167 Email: [email protected]
Roseville/Sacramento Region
3017 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95661
Phone: 916-966-1338
San Francisco Bay Area Region
2495 Industrial Parkway West
Hayward, CA 94545
Dublin Office
7567 Amador Valley Blvd., Suite 210
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925-452-2362
www.leabraze.com

10.d
Packet Pg. 456
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 10900 N Blaney Ave Customer Service Planning & Local Design Services Cupertino, CA 95014 Central Coast Region / DeAnza Division Phone: 408/725-2181

6/15/17

Dena Yancy
Lea & Braze Engineering
2495 Industrial Parkway West
Hayward, CA 94545

RE: 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell

Dear Dena,

PG&E will serve the above referenced property with gas and/or electric service, provided The Applicant meets all requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Gas and Electric Tariffs, PG&E Engineering Standards, PG&E Requirements for Service Manual (“The Greenbook”, www.pge.com/greenbook), and pays to PG&E all necessary payments as determined by PG&E and allowed by the CPUC Tariffs.

New gas and electric services must be installed according to PG&E’s Gas and Electric Service Requirements Manual (The Greenbook, www.pge.com/greenbook), PG&E Engineering Standards, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Gas or Electric Tariffs. PG&E Engineering is scheduled when your information is complete and approved, and is subject to available time, resources, and other priority or previously scheduled work. Contracts are prepared after Engineering is completed and approved. Construction is scheduled when all documents and any necessary payments have been received and processed by PG&E, your service requirements and locations are complete and have been inspected by the authority having jurisdiction, and is subject to available time, resources, and previously scheduled, priority, or emergency work.

Please discuss this information with your project team. If you have any questions, please call me at (408) 725-3300, or you may email me at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Joe Novielli

Joe Novielli
Senior New Business Representative
Service Planning

10.d
Packet Pg. 457
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
1 Dena Yancy
From: Waleed Alzori
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 8:08 AM
To: Wanda Folk
Cc: Dena Yancy; Ryan Barton; Sheri Alves
Subject: 2161131 Zhu Subdivision
Attachments: 01 2161131 TM - C-1.0.pdf
Good morning,

Our firm is preparing a five lot subdivision tentative map for planning approval located at 1323 Elam Avenue Campbell, CA.  We wanted to the get confirmation that you will be able to provide service to the property “Will Serve”.

Respectfully,

Waleed Alzori, Civil Drafter
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
Phone: 510‐887‐4086 x.138 Email: [email protected]
Roseville/Sacramento Region
3017 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95661
Phone: 916‐966‐1338
San Francisco Bay Area Region
2495 Industrial Parkway West
Hayward, CA 94545
Dublin Office
7567 Amador Valley Blvd., Suite 210
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925‐452‐2362
www.leabraze.com

10.d
Packet Pg. 458
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

EXHIBIT 5

AIR QUALITY SCREENING EVALUATION

10.d
Packet Pg. 459
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com

IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South Fourth Street, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 313 - 9376 [email protected]

AIR QUALITY SCREENING EVALUATION

1323 ELAM AVENUE

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

September 11, 2017

Project Number 3376

Prepared For

STOA International, Inc
991 West Hedding Street, # 103
San Jose, CA 95126
c/o Warren Design

Prepared By

IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
430 South 4th Street
San Jose, California 95112-5730
(408) 313 - 9376
[email protected]

10.d
Packet Pg. 460
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com

IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South 4th Street, San Jose, CA 95112-5730 (408) 313 - 9376 [email protected]

September 11, 2017
Project Number 3376

Yanhua Zhu
c/o Gordana Design Studio
602 Hawthorne Ave.

Palo Alto, CA 94301
Via email to: [email protected]

Attn: Gordana Paylovic

Subject: AIR QUALITY SCREENING EVALUATION
SITE: 1323 ELAM AVENUE

CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA

Dear Ms. Paylovic:

IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC ( IRC) is pleased to present the enclosed Air Quality Screening Evaluation prepared for the subject Site.

IRC appreciates the opportunity to have been of service. Should you have any questions or require additional information or services please contact me at (408) 313 - 9376 or [email protected]
.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Berman
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC (IRC)

CC:

Stephan Rose, City of Campbell, via email to: [email protected] .

Daniel Fama, City of Campbell, via email to: [email protected]

10.d
Packet Pg. 461
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com

IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South Fourth Street, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 313 - 9376 [email protected]

CONTENTS & ENCLOSURES

CONTENTS

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Site Setting

3.0 Would the Project Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan?

4.0 Would the Project Violate any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation?

5.0 Would the Project Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of any Criteria Pollutant for which the Project Region is Classified as Non-Attainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

6.0 Would the Project Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Concentrations of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)?

7.0 Would the Project Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People?

8.0 Would the Project Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment?

9.0 Would the Project Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

10.0 Closing

11.0 Limitations

12.0 References

ENCLOSURES

Enclosure 1, Figures:
• Figure 1, Site Location & Vicinity (Topographic Map)
• Figure 2, Site & Adjacent Properties (Google Earth image)

Enclosure 2 , Air Quality Screening using BAAQMD online tools, various backup information including the following:
• Identified Stationary Sources and Roadways within 1,000 feet (see Google Earth image showing identified stationary and roadway sources), and • Risk Screening and Cumulative Impacts analysis of identified sources.

Enclosure 3, IRC Standard Limitations

10.d
Packet Pg. 462
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017

Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 1 of 5

1.0 Introduction
Refer to Figures 1 and 2 (Enclosure 1). The following two paragraphs were obtained from a report of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Site (IRC, November 15, 2016).

Site Location and Description

The Site is identified as Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number 403- 09-046, and is associated with 1323 Elam Avenue, Santa Clara County, in the City of Campbell, California. Based on available information, the Site address was previously 957 Elam Avenue. T he Site consists of one +/ - 0.46 acre parcel of land developed with one existing single-family residence, proximate to Elam Avenue, and a detached garage. The majority of the land area of the subject property consists of a large undeveloped back yard. Most of the subject property is unpaved.

Site Historical and Current Uses

Review of available information indicated that the Site was primarily undeveloped or agricultural (orchards) by the 1930s and likely remained mostly undeveloped or agricultural into the 1950s. The house on the Site was constructed circa 1945 and the original sewer connection permit was issued in 1960.

The Site was annexed to
the City of Campbell in 1961. At the time of the Site inspection (November 2016) the single-family residence on the Site was occupied by a tenant.

Planned Re-development of the Site

There is a plan to demolish the one existing single-family residence and detached garage and re-develop the Site with four single-family residences.

Purpose, City of Campbell Requirement for Air Quality Analysis

The City of Campbell (COC) has various site development review and permit requirements, including an Environmental Review ("Initial Study") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

CEQA Environmental Reviews vary depending on site specific conditions and typically consider several areas of potential concern, among them air quality. This letter report addresses City of Campbell requirements for the Site with regards to air quality.

2.0 Site Setting
The project is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the local agency authorized to regulate stationary air quality sources in the Bay Area.

The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Cl ean Air Act mandate the control and reduction of specific air pollutants. Under these Acts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants, des igned to protect public health and welfare. Criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), sulfur dioxide (S02), lead (Pb) and ozone (03).

BAAQMD, along with other regional agencies, develop plans to reduce air pollutant emissions. BAAQMD adopted and implements the Bay Area Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) (BAAQMD, April 19, 2017) . The 2017 CAP is a multi-pollutant air quality plan that addresses four categories of air pollutants, as follows:

• Ground-level ozone and the key ozone precursor pollutants (reactive organic gases and NOx), • Particulate Matter (PM), primarily PM2.5 (fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less), as well as the precursors to secondary PM2.5, and PM10 (respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less),
• Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC), and

10.d
Packet Pg. 463
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017

Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 2 of 5 • Greenhouse gases (GHG).

The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive population groups are located, including residences, schools, childcare centers, convalescent homes, and medical facilities. The project is located in a multi -unit residential area (Figure 2, Enclosure 1) ; the nearest sensitive receptors are occupants of multi- unit residential buildings located directly adjacent / proximate to the S ite to the west, north and east; there are single-family residence to the south on the south side of Elam Avenue.

The project, being four single- family residences (planned higher density compared to the existing use of one single-family residence) is in accordance with the type of residential development preferred in the 2017 CAP, notably by being more energy efficient (per residential unit) and providing opportunities for alternative transportation compared to single- family residential development in more suburban areas (in this case by increasing density by going from one to four single family residences) . An initial air quality screening was performed in August 2017 using BAAQMD online tools and sources and the BAAQMD Significance Determination Flowchart ( BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017, Figure 1-2 , General Steps for Determining Significance of Air Quality Impacts ). Six (6) potential sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the Site (see Enclosure 2).

3.0 Would the Project Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan?

Less Than Significant Impact . The proposed project consists of four (4) single-family residences and would not increase regional population growth or cause changes in vehicle travel that would affect implementation of the Bay Area 2017 Final Clean Air Plan (CAP). Based on BAAQMD criteria (see Enclosure 2) air quality will not be significantly impacted.

4.0 Would the Project Violate any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation?

Less Than Significant Impact . The BAAQMD's 2017 CEQA Guidelines ( BAAQMD, May 2017) make recommendations for evaluation of activities that could impact air quality, including use of thresholds of significance and screening criteria developed by the BAAQMD (BAAQMD, May 201 7). The BAAQMD screening levels are based on project size for air pollutant emissions. The applicable land use category from the BAAQMD's screening criteria tables for the project is " single-family." For operational impacts from criteria pollutants, the screening size is 325 dwelling units. For construction impacts, the screening size is 114 units. The project, which consists of four (4) single-family residential units, is well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds for such uses and, therefore, the project would have a less -than-significant air quality impact.

Construction activities would generate dust and equipment exhaust on a temporary basis. The BAAQMD identifies best management practices for all projects to limit air quality impacts during construction. The short-term air quality effects during project construction would be avoided with implementation of the measures prescribed by the BAAQMD. It is recommended that the project proponent and / or contractor implement the standard conditions presented below.

Standard Conditions: The project should be developed in conformance with the following standard BAAQMD dust control measures, appropriately modified as needed for the specific project (considering that the planned project is relatively small and many of the standard conditions below are more applicable to much larger projects), to reduce dustfall emissions:
• All active construction areas shall be watered twice daily or more often if necessary. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles-per-hour. • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non- toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads and parking and staging areas at construction sites.
• Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any other materials that can be windblown. Trucks transporting these materials shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power

10.d
Packet Pg. 464
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017

Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 3 of 5 vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excavating, exposed portions of the Site shall be watered, landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered as soon as possible. • Installation of sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replanting of vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible after completion of construction. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Campbell regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

5.0 Would the Project Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of any Criteria Pollutant for which the Project Region is Classified as Non-Attainment Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Less Than Significant Impact. See above

6.0 Would the Project Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Concentrations of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)?

Less Than Significant Impact . An Air Quality Screening for the project S ite was conducted using BAAQMD Online Tools & Sources ( http://www.baaqmd.gov/). See Enclosure 2. Five (5) potential roadway sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the Site, as follows:
• Roadway: Elam Avenue.
• Roadway: Westmont Avenue.
• Roadway: Harriet Avenue.
• Roadway: W. San Tomas Aquino Road.
• Roadway: S. San Tomas Aquino Road.

These are all significantly below the following BAAQMD’s Thresholds of Significance (BAAQMD, May 2017) for Cancer Risk of 100 in a million; PM2.5 of 0.8 μg/m3 and Hazard Index of 10 (see Enclosure 2).

Therefore, there are no significant impacts and no further analysis is needed. One (1) potential stationary source was identified, Elite Cleaners (dry cleaner), 128 San Tomas Aquino Road, Campbell, CA. BAAQMD Plant # 3209. However, this stationary source was shut down in 2012 (and was located more than 1,000 feet from the Site).

7.0 Would the Project Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People?

Less Than Significant Impact . The project is a residential project in a residential neighborhood, and is therefore not anticipated to emit objectionable odors. See the Standard Conditions above (section 4.0) for a list of actions recommended during construction to reduce construction period impacts.

8.0 Would the project Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment?

Less Than Significant Impact . See section 4.0 above. The BAAQMD thresholds of significance and screening criteria also apply to greenhouse gases . For greenhouse gas impacts, the screening size for single-family residences is 56 dwelling units. The project, which consists of four (4) single-family residential units, is well below the BAAQMD greenhouse gases threshold of significance for single-family residential

10.d
Packet Pg. 465
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017

Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 4 of 5 land use, and thus the project would have a less -than-significant air quality impact with regards to greenhouse gases.

9.0 Would the project Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Less Than Significant Impact. See section 8.0 above.

10.0 Closing

No significant sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the Site and therefore no significant impacts to the future occupants of the planned new development are anticipated. Based on the information presented herein and the BAAQMD and other sources of information consulted, no significant new sources are anticipated from the planned new project (neither during construction nor post construction). Should you have any questions or require supplemental information or services, please do not hesitate to contact Benjamin Berman of IRC at (408) 313 - 9376 or [email protected]
.

Prepared By:

Benjamin Berman, IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC

11.0 Limitations

IRC's Standard Limitations (Enclosure 3) apply to the contents of this document and the work performed by IRC. The information presented in this document is based on review of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) sources, communications with BAAQMD staff, and communications with City of Campbell staff. No additional information about the planned development with regards to air quality was provided by the project developers. No site specific sampling, monitoring or other onsite or near site studies with regards to air quality were performed. No site visit or site inspection with regards to air quality was performed.

12.0 References

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). (Adopted) April 19, 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). May 2017 . California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Table 2-1. Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance. (including Risk and Hazards for new sources and receptors)

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Accessed online in August 2017. T ools and Methodologies, BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Risks and Hazards Analysis Tools . ( various online risks and hazards screening analysis tools) (Primary Webpage [with links to various online screening tools]:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools (accessed online).

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). August - September 2017. Email and Telephone correspondence with Ms. Alison Kirk, BAAQMD Senior Environmental Planner, Air Quality.

City of Campbell (COC). July 31 , 2017 . Letter. F rom Stephan Rose, Associate Planner, Community Development Department. Addressed To: Gordana LLC . Re: File No(s) : PLN2017-100 to 103; Address:
1323 Elam Avenue; Application(s): Zone Change (PLN2017-100) to allow the property to be rezoned from R-M to P -D, a Planned Development Permit (PLN2017- 101) for the approval of site configuration and architectural design for four new townhomes, a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2017- 102) to create four

10.d
Packet Pg. 466
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017

Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 5 of 5 individually owned lots and one common lot, and CEQA Review (PLN2017- 103) for review of the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Status: Incomplete #2 (Draft // Planning Division Comments Only). Page 3 of 4, Plan Revision 3, Environmental Review Documents, third bullet, Air Quality Analysis.

City of Campbell (COC). August 30, 2017. Email received from Matthew Jue, Traffic Engineer , City of Campbell, Public Works Department . Information was provided regarding estimated vehicles per day for various roadway.

IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC (IRC). November 15, 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1323 Elam Avenue, Santa Clara County, Campbell, California. IRC Project No. 3343.

10.d
Packet Pg. 467
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
ENCLOSURE 1

10.d
Packet Pg. 468
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

10.d
Packet Pg. 469
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

10.d
Packet Pg. 470
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
ENCLOSURE 2

10.d
Packet Pg. 471
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project No. 3376 September 2017

BAAQMD, Air Quality Screening, 1323 Elam Ave., Campbell, CA Page 1 of 2

Air Quality Screening using BAAQMD Online Tools & Sources Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA. Link to webpages: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and- climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools

Stationary Sources identified

The BAAQMD online Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool was used on August 30, 2017 to search for stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the Site. Only one potential stationary source w as identified within approximately 1,000 feet of the site:

• Elite Cleaners (dry cleaner), 128 San Tomas Aquino Road, Campbell, CA. BAAQMD Plant # 3209.

However, this source appears to be incorrectly located on the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. Google Earth indicates it is approximately 4,000 feet north of the Site. Based on telephone and email communications with Alison Kirk at the BAAMQD on September 11, 2017, the Elite Cleaners was shut down in 2012.

Stationary Sources, Risks

There are no risks from stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the Site. The one source identified above, BAAQMD Plant # 3209 (Elite Cleaners), was shut down in 2012. Regardless, this source was significantly greater than 1,000 feet away from the Site. Even if this source w as not incorrectly located, it is shown as approximately 1,000 ft + from the Site (in its incorrect location). The analysis tool listed the following for this source that was shut down in 2012:
• Cancer Risk per Million: 30.4.
• Chronic Hazard Index: 0.081.
• PM2.5 Concentration: 0.0 (not applicable).

The above identified source was shut down in 2012. Nonetheless, the above cancer risk and hazard index have not been adjusted for distance from the Site. The distance is ~1 ,000 feet (if the source was correct ly located) or ~ 4,000 feet (if the source was incorrectly located, which appears to be the case), respectively, from the Site. Impacts, including PM2.5, cancer and hazard risks can be expected to diminish with increased distance away from the sources of emissions. The BAAQMD has online tools for adjusting PM2.5, cancer and hazard risks for distance, for gasoline stations and diesel generators (PM2.5 does not apply to the Elite Cleaners identified source). No BAAQMD online distance adjustment tools were found for other types of stationary sources (in this case, dry cleaners). The cancer risk and chronic hazard index values listed above would be expected to be significantly lower if adjusted for the distance between the identified stationary source (which was shut down in 2012) and the Site.

Highway and Roadway Sources identified

The BAAQMD online Highway Screening Analysis Tool was used on August 30, 2017 to search for designated highway sources within 1,000 feet of the Site; none were found. Designated Highways were all more than 1,000 feet from the site. The closest designated highway, Highway 85, is approximately 4,000 feet southwest of the Site.

On August 30, 2017, Google Earth was used to identify roadways within 1,000 feet of the Site and to determine approximate distance from the roadways to the Site. Five potential roadway sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the site:
• Elam Ave between Harriet Ave and S. San Tomas Aquino Rd.; ~10 feet south of the Site. • Westmont Ave between Harriet Ave and S. San Tomas Aquino Rd.; ~750 feet south of the Site. • Harriet Ave between W. San Tomas Aquino Rd and Westmont Ave.; ~900 feet west of the Site. • W. San Tomas Aquino Rd between Harriet Ave and S. San Tomas Aquino Rd. ; ~900 feet north of the Site.

10.d
Packet Pg. 472
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Project No. 3376 September 2017

BAAQMD, Air Quality Screening, 1323 Elam Ave., Campbell, CA Page 2 of 2

• S. San Tomas Aquino Rd between W. San Tomas Aquino Rd and Westmont Ave.; ~475 feet east of the Site.

The table, "Santa Clara County, PM2.5 Concentrations and Cancer Risks Generated from Surface Streets" (December 2011) is available online from BAAQMD at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/County%20Surface%20Street %20Screening%20Tables%20Dec%202011.ashx?la=en. The table requires identifying m ajor roadways with at least 10,000 average annual daily traffic (AADT) within 1,000 ft. of a site. Alternatively, the BAAQMD has a Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator (dated 04/16/2015) available online at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. The instructions for the online roadway calculator recommends that the analysis be used for roadways with 10,000 AADT and above.

The estimated vehicles per day for the five roadways identified above, obtained by email from the City of Campbell on August 30, 2017, are presented below.

1. Elam Avenue east of Harriet Avenue: estimated 2,000 vehicles per day (no recent data)

2. Harriet Avenue north of Westmont Avenue: 6,067 vehicles per day

3. Westmont Avenue west of San Tomas Aquino Road: 5,408 vehicles per day

4. West San Tomas Aquino Road east of Harriet Avenue: 2,894 vehicles per day

5. San Tomas Aquino Road north of Westmont Avenue: 4,467 vehicles per day.

Highway and Roadway Sources, Risks

No highway sources were identified. Based on data obtained from the City of Cam pbell, all five identified roadways have estimated vehicles per day significantly below 10,000 AADT and therefore by inference would be below the applicable BAAQMD’s Thresholds of Significance 1: Cancer Risk: 100 in a million;
PM2.5: 0.8 µg/m 3; Hazard Index: 10. Therefore there are no significant impacts with regards to the five identified roadways and no further analysis is needed.

Cumulative Impacts, All Identified Sources

The one identified stationary source (Elite Cleaners, Plant # 3209) was shut down in 2012. Nonetheless, the identified stationary source had a BAAQMD listed Cancer Risk of 30.4 per Million and a Chronic Hazard Index of 0.081 (not adjusted for distance). These are well below the BAAQMD’s Threshold of Significance Cancer Risk and Hazard Index of 100 in a million and 10, respectively. The five roadways were all bellow the 10,000 AADT threshold. Based on all six of the identified sources described above, consisting of the one stationary source shut down in 2012 and five roadways, all were below applicable Thresholds of Significance and therefore by inference cumulative impacts from the six identified sources are less than significant.

1Source: California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines , BAAQMD, May 201 7; from Table 1.

Threshold of Significance for Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts. (Cumulative Impacts, New Receptor).

10.d
Packet Pg. 473
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
Ident
ified Stationary Sources & Roadways within 1,000 Feet of Site Source: BAAQMD, Google Earth Image, Image Date 2016-11-02 S San Tomas Aquino Rd

10.d
Packet Pg. 474
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
ENCLOSURE 3

10.d
Packet Pg. 475
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South 4th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 313-9376, [email protected]

LIMITATIONS

This document has been prepared according to generally accepted practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied as to the methods, results, conclusions or recommendations is made. The user is notified that uncertainty is not eliminated, assessments are not exhaustive, reasonable time and cost constraints and other limitations are inherent, certain conditions may not be detected during an assessment of this type, and no level of assessment can guarantee that a site is completely free of hazardous substances. This assessment was based on a specific scope of work with a defined budget, was not intended to be comprehensive, identify all potential concerns, or eliminate the possibility of any environmental impacts to the subject property . Sampling is inherently limited; each sample point is at a specific lateral location and vertical depth or height; conditions may differ away from any specific sample point.

The results of all assessments are subject to differing professional interpretations and opinions, the conclusions of others may differ. If you wish to reduce the level of uncertainty associated with this study, we should be contacted for additional consultation. Regulatory agency environmental regulations, priorities, and enforcement change over time and tend to get stricter / more conservative; potential impacts previously unknown or of little concern, such as but not limited to vapor intrusion, tend to become more important environmental regulatory concerns over time. W ork not performed under the regulatory oversight of any local, state, or federal regulatory oversight agency is not intended to meet specific public agency requirements.

The findings, analysis, opinions, conclusions and recommendations contained in this document are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our assessment , sample results and review of practically reviewable information relevant to the site conditions that was reasonably available and ascertainable at the time of this assessment.

Changes in the information or data gained from any of these sources could result in changes in our opinions, conclusions or recommendations. If such changes do occur, we should be advised so that we can review our document in light of those changes. This assessment and document are for the sole use of the client unless indicated otherwise.

Unless indicated otherwise, reliance upon the information in this document by others is solely at their own risk. Nothing in this document shall be construed as a legal opinion.

This assessment / document may be based in part upon verbal or written information possessed by the client / user or other non- public privately-owned information. All of IRC Environmental Consulting , LLC ’s (IRC) Standard Terms and Conditions and Limitations apply at all times to this document and all documents by IRC.

10.d
Packet Pg. 476
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department

DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Phase Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Air Quality - AIR
Mitigation Measure AIR -1: The project applicant shall
ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD
Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control.

The following will be required for all construction
activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil
movement, grading and demolition activities, but also
during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved
project sites:
a. All active construction areas shall be watered twice daily or more often if necessary. Increased
watering frequency shall be required whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 miles-per-hour.
b. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-
toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads
and parking and staging areas at construction sites.
c. Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any
other materials that can be windblown. Trucks
transporting these materials shall be covered.
d. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent
public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The
use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
e. Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excavating,
exposed portions of the Site shall be watered,
landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered
Site Preparation
and Construction

City of
Campbell

Public
Works
Department
and
Building
Division

Periodic
Compliance
Report

10.d
Packet Pg. 477
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

Mitigation Measure Monitoring Phase Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
as soon as possible.
f. Installation of sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
g. Replanting of vegetation in disturbed areas as soon
as possible after completion of construction.
h. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting
equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear
signage shall be provided for construction workers
at all access points.
i. All construction equipment shall be maintained
and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall
be checked by a certified mechanic and determined
to be running in proper condition prior to
operation.
j. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone
number and person to contact at the City of
Campbell regarding dust complaints. This person
shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable
regulations.

Cultural Resources – CUL
Mitigation Measure CUL -1: If archaeological or paleontological resources are encountered during excavation or construction, construction personnel shall be instructed to immediately suspend all activity in the immediate vicinity of the suspected resources and the C ity and a licensed archeologist or
paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the situation. A licensed archeologist or paleontologist shall be retained to inspect the discovery and make any necessary recommendations to evaluate the find under current CEQA guidelines prior to the submittal of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to the City for review and approval prior to the continuation of Site Preparation
and Construction

City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Periodic
Compliance
Report

10.d
Packet Pg. 478
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

Mitigation Measure Monitoring Phase Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
any on-site construction activity.

Cultural Resources – GEO
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 2, 2016 prepared by Kristofer T. Korth, P.E. (No. 82838) and Andrew D. Murray, P.E. (No. C44562) of Murray Engineers.

Such recommendations shall be incorporated into the project’s final engineering design to minimize the damage from seismic shaking, unsuitable fill, and other geological deficiencies. The project shall use standard engineering techniques and conform to the requirements of the International Building Code to reduce the potential for seismic damage and risk to future occupants.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance
Statement
by
Geotechnical
Consultant

Hazards and Hazardous Materials - HAZ
Mitigation Measure HAZ -1: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a qualified contractor shall asses the property for presence of Lead -based paint (LBP) and Asbestos containing building materials (ACBM), and if present, prepare a plan, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, to properly manage and dispose of such materials.

Prior to Issuance of
Demolition Permit
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Qualified
Contractor

Noise - NOI
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Windows must have a minimum
STC rating of 20 dB, which is met by standard openable double - glazed thermal windows, with two 1/8" lights separated by a 1/2" air space and with good weather seals. For better reduction of loud vehicle noise, an STC performance of 30 STC is
recommended, but not required.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Outside doors, such as for front entrances or patios, particularly for Unit 1, should meet a tested STC rating of 20 to 30 to match the overall sound transmission mitigation criteria.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
& Review of
Installed Materials
Prior to Final
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance

10.d
Packet Pg. 479
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)

Mitigation Measure Monitoring Phase Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant
Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Mitigation of outside noise is based upon windows that are closed in order to provide the required noise protection. Therefore, all units must have a ventilation system that provides a habitable interior air quality environment with the windows closed, r egardless of outside temperature. In addition, noise levels produced by heating and air conditioning units for the project must not themselves create a noise problem for any of the residential units associated with the project or adjacent properties.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit &
Review of Installed
Materials Prior to
Final
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant

Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Good noise design mu st be
implemented by good field construction practices or the design performance will not be achieved. This includes minimizing all penetrations of and connections between party wall and
floor/ceiling assemblies, and acoustical sealant around any necessary penetrations.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit &
Review of Installed
Materials Prior to
Final
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant

Mitigation Measure NOI-5: A six to seven -foot solid wood property line fences and gates shall be required to protect back yard activity areas, which will provide the required outdoor activity area noise reduction.

Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit &
Review of
Installation Prior to
Final
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Shown on
Landscape
Plans or
Compliance
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant

10.d
Packet Pg. 480
Attachment: Prior CEQA Documents (1323 Elam Avenue)
1 Stephen Rose
Subject: RE: 1323 Elam Ave., PC meeting Feb 8 (tonight) From: Stephen Rose
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:30 PM
To: Charles and Amy Schulz <[email protected]>
Cc: Planning Division <[email protected]>; Randy Sweet <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 1323 Elam Ave., PC meeting Feb 8 (tonight)

Hi Charles,
Thanks for your email. I’m sorry to hear about the past maintenance issues with the property but will look to address your concerns with our Code Enforcement Officer, Randy Sweet (cc’ed), going forward. Separately, I can confirm the project has been surveyed for accurate property lines and we carried forward the previous condition of approval requiring an 8-foot tall ‘good neighbor’ fence between properties resulting from the prior Council action/direction. The specific condition of approval addressing the fence was folded into the P-D (Planned Development) permit resolution as Condition of Approval #5 (screenshot below for ease of reference):

For your benefit, this item will be held before both the Site and Architectural Review Committee and Planning Commission tonight – if you are available to attend the SARC meeting, we can nail down more specifics on the fence at that meeting.

Best,
Stephen Rose
Senior Planner, Housing Coordinator
City of Campbell | Community Development Department
(408) 866-2142 (call or text)

Book an Appointment with a Planner here.

Apply for Planning and Building Permits here.

10.e
Packet Pg. 481
Attachment: Desk Item, February 8, 2022 (1323 Elam Avenue) 2 From: Charles and Amy Schulz <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:14 PM
To: Planning Division <[email protected]>
Subject: 1323 Elam Ave., PC meeting Feb 8 (tonight)
Concerns
Charles Schulz, I live at 1315 Elam, right next to 1323. 3 concerns:

1. Fence

2. Property line

3. Property maintenance until development
Fence
City Council minutes for February 6, 2018 https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Minutes/_02062018- 1683 page 5-6, contains an amendment regarding fences.

The original plans from 2017 involve replacing the existing fences on the East running along my house and the 3 houses behind me, since there will be a driveway and other reinforcements needed. At the 2018 City Council meeting I and another neighbor commented on the fence -- we're OK with the plans as long as the replacement is consistent in size and look with our existing fences.

So, I want to make sure that amendment is carried forward for this renewed application.

Property line
Because of the way my house development was done, and the previous 1323 owner not allowing an existing fence to be replaced, our fences were installed entirely on our properties. The 1323 existing fence was eventually removed. Some years ago, when the new fences along 1323 needed replacement -- due to the wrong trees planted too close at 1323, which were also removed, the 1323 owner refused to participate because the fences were technically on our property.

So, I'd like to make sure the replacement fence is done along the property line:
 to have our little bit of property back
 but also, to avoid any possible argument in the future over fence maintenance sharing responsibilities I do see that a wooden stake is marking the property corner next to me, from a recent survey, so I assume but would like to confirm that the intention is to place the new fence correctly.

Property is not being maintained until development
1323 has been vacant since August 2021, and has become a public nuisance, hazard, and target for dumping. I have just yesterday submitted a code complaint for garbage being dumped in the front yard (washing machine, chairs, bags), vandalism (window broken with rocks), and overgrown weeds.

Overgrown weeds as fire hazard have been a problem every year with the current owner, and never is handled until I submit a code complaint each year. Usually, I wait until they are ~6 ft tall and going brown to see if they are ever going to deal with it. But since there are other issues I submitted it now.

While vacant how do we insure the property is maintained and monitored until development? I have attached some pictures submitted with the code complaint.

Thanks,
Charles Schulz
1315 Elam Ave., Campbell

10.e
Packet Pg. 482
Attachment: Desk Item, February 8, 2022 (1323 Elam Avenue) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Code Enforcement Program Enhancements

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council provide policy direction on recommended Code Enforcement Program enhancements, including authorization for code amendments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report provides Council with an overview of the Code Enforcement Program and identifies three recommended program enhancements to increase the effectiveness of code enforcement actions tha t will preserve community character and prevent blight within the City of Campbell.

1. Institute a Community Restitution Fund – A Community Restitution Fund would be a special revenue fund that collects all code enforcement violation fees received on an an nual basis for use in addressing non -recoverable costs associated with abating open code cases and funding other actions that prevent blight and support code enforcement actions. Any unspent funds would be returned to the general fund annually.

2. Authorize use of a Compliance Agreement – A Compliance Agreement is a tool that can be used by Code Enforcement Staff and the City Attorney’s Office to more effectively ensure open code violations are resolved. Under a Compliance Agreement, individuals with open violations enter into a legally binding commitment to abate the violation on a prescribed schedule. In exchange, the individual is protected from further fines and code enforcement actions as long as they meet the prescribed schedule.

3. Modification of Cod e Enforcement Fees – The Department proposes to restructure the code enforcement fees to reduce building violation fees when individuals quickly apply for permits to resolve violations. This restructuring provides a clear financial incentive to violators to quickly obtain permits to resolve open violations.

DISCUSSION
Item: 11
Category: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
11 Packet Pg. 483
Code Enforcement Program Enhancements Page 2 of 5
Campbell’s Code Enforcement Program is managed within the Community Development Department and principally acts to address and resolve violations of Campbell’s Municipal Code with respec t to land use, building and other related areas, including illegal construction, dumping, storage of vehicles, graffiti, and operation of businesses without land use approvals.

The Code Enforcement unit is staffed by one full -time Code Enforcement Officer and has used extra help support from outside consultants to help close outstanding cases (often referenced as the “backlog”). Code enforcement actions are also supported by the City Attorney’s Office, especially when the City needs to initiate legal acti on to address code violations. The Code Enforcement unit uses a variety of tools, including warnings, citations, and administrative fines to compel individuals with violations to quickly act and resolve open cases. The provisions authorizing the use of t hese tools are found in Campbell’s Municipal Code under Chapters 6.10 - Nuisance Abatement and Administrative Penalties, and Chapter 21.70 – Enforcement.

Among jurisdictions within Santa Clara County, Campbell has one of the highest code enforcement case closure rates, which i s the total number of new code cases that are closed (abated) within one calendar year. Between 2018 and 2020, more than 80% of open code cases in Campbell were closed in the same calendar year. While the Code Enforcement unit has ac hieved success in addressing most code violations, it has identified three program enhancements that can improve program effectiveness in resolving code violations while reducing blight and improving the community character of Campbell’s neighborhoods.

Community Restitution Fund
A Community Restitution Fund acts as a special revenue fund that collects all fines and fees received in the Code Enforcement program on an annual basis for funding actions necessary to address or prevent code violations where cost s may be non -recoverable from other sources. The types of actions the Community Restitution fund could support include (a) actions by the City to correct open violations, when warranted, such as a nuisance abatement, (b) funding neighborhood clean-up and waste disposal activities to prevent illegal dumping, and (c) assisting tenants displaced by unsafe housing conditions. These are described further below:

Correction of Open Violations - The Code Enforcement unit has encountered several situations where outstanding violations have impacted community and neighborhood character and the use of code enforcement tools such as warnings, citations, and fines, have not been effective in resolving the violation.

For example, a house within a neighborhood may fal l into disrepair, creating visual blight resulting from broken windows, uncompleted construction, and illegal storage. The property owner may be absent and unresponsive in addressing the violations. In these instances, the City could declare the violation a nuisance, and following the procedures under the Municipal Code could abate the violation using funds from the Community Restitution fund to hire a contractor to quickly correct the violation, resolving its impact on the neighborhood. 11 Packet Pg. 484
Code Enforcement Program Enhancements Page 3 of 5
Following the aba tement, the City could place a lien on the property to achieve repayment for the costs expended on the abatement.

Funding of Trash Clean Ups and Waste disposal actions – Many code enforcement violations are often associated with illegal dumping of trash, furniture, and other household items in the public right of way or on vacant property. Many Campbell residents may resort to illegal dumping as they do not have direct access to waste disposal services or are not aware of locations or methods to support waste disposal. In order to help prevent illegal dumping, the Community Restitution Fund can fund actions and activities that expand waste disposal services within neighborhoods. In coordination with West Valley Collection and Recycling and neighborhood gr oups, the funding can provide trash clean up services and dumpsters in neighborhoods to help prevent illegal dumping. Code Enforcement Staff can track data regarding dumping to identify which neighborhoods would best benefit from these services.

Tenant Relocation Assistance – The Code Enforcement unit has encountered several instances where illegal construction or other actions ha ve created unsafe living conditions in housing occupied by renters. In order to protect the safety of the tenants, the Code E nforcement unit, working with the Building Official, must issue a notice to vacate, which could result in the displacement of residents and leaving them unhoused. Funding from the Community Restitution Fund can be used, in coordination with community serv ice providers, including the County Office of Supportive Housing, to provide relocation services to these tenants.

If authorized, the Community Restitution Fund would be created as part of the F iscal Year 2023 budget as a Special Revenue Fund. The Cod e Enforcement unit would use funds received in the Community Restitution Fund on an annual basis to support the actions described above. Any unspent funds would be deposited into the General Fund on an annual basis. Based on the amount of code enforcemen t fines collected by the City within the last several fiscal years, it is estimated that the Community Restitution Fund would collect approximately $20,000 per year.

Compliance Agreement
The Code Enforcement unit has identified several open code cases w here the responsible party is slow to take the necessary actions to abate a violation in response to issuance of warnings, citations, and administrative fines. This often occurs when a business owner starts or expands business operations without first obt aining land use approvals and then applies for permits after a violation is issued. Often, the responsible party will take only the minimum actions necessary to continue the land use approval process while still operating a business without the correct ap provals. In situations such as these, the use of a Compliance Agreement can be very effective in requiring an applicant to adhere to a specified schedule to obtain the proper permits and approvals.

Under a Compliance Agreement, the responsible party with open violations enters into a legally binding agreement with the City to follow a specified schedule that includes 11 Packet Pg. 485
Code Enforcement Program Enhancements Page 4 of 5
milestones and actions necessary to abate or correct the open violation. In exchange, the responsible party is shielded from ongoing admin istrative fines and other code enforcement actions. If the responsible party fails to adhere to the agreed upon schedule, the City may identify a breach of the Compliance Agreement and take legal actions, if necessary.

When used following the initial a pplication of compounding administrative fines, Compliance Agreements can serve as an extremely effective tool in ensuring that violators maintain a schedule to obtain the correct permits and / or take actions to correct the violation.

Staff is requesti ng Council authorize the Community Development Department to amend Campbell’s Municipal Code to authorize the use of Compliance Agreements.

Restructure of violation fees to encourage rapid code compliance Under Campbell’s existing Master Fee Schedule, any application for Building Permits to abate a violation is charged double (200%) the normal fee amount.

The Department is proposing to modify this fee structure to create a financial incentive for individuals with open violations who quickly apply for and obtain building permits.

Under this restructured approach, building violation fees would be reduced if the responsible party applies for permits within a specified time frame. If the responsible party fails to meet this deadline, the double fees would apply.

Following Council direction, the Community Development Department would return with the applicable fee adjustments as part of the Council’s annual consideration of fees.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

If authorized, the creation of a Community Restitution Fund will divert approximately $20,000 in code enforcement fees from the General Fund into a special revenue fund for use in code enforcement actions, on an annual basis. Any unspent funds in the Community Restitution fund would be returned to the annual fund at the end of the fiscal year. Code Enforcement revenue represents less than 0.04% of the City’s general fund revenue.

It is unknown the exact fiscal impact on code enforcement fee revenue that will result from implementation of Compliance Agreemen ts and the proposed restructuring of the violation fees. As the approval of Compliance Agreements will shield individuals from the application from violation fees (in exchange for an agreement to complete abatement), this may decrease code enforcement fee revenue. The change in code enforcement fee revenue resulting from the restructuring of violation fees will depend upon the behavior of individuals responding to the modified fees. As the reduction in fees for quick submittals is intended to incentivize individuals to quickly apply for permits, this could result in a decrease in fee revenue.

ALTERNATIVES
11 Packet Pg. 486
Code Enforcement Program Enhancements Page 5 of 5
11 Packet Pg. 487
Provide other direction to staff for consideration.

Prepared by:

Randy Sweet, Code Enforcement Officer
Reviewed by:

Rob Eastwood, Community
Development Director
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Code Enforcement Process

Code Enforcement Process
The following are the steps the Code Enforcement Unit follows to respond to and address complaints and documented violations.

Step #1
New Code Enforcement Complaint (Case) is received
• City receives complaint from Reporting Party (RP) by in -office visit, phone call, mail, on-line form (MGO) or email contact.
• The Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) replies to RP and forwards complaint form on to Admin who enters case into database to secure case number, searches property owner info, researches database to see i f there are current or recently closed cases for this address and creates a working case file for CEO. • Assign to Code Enforcement Officer.

Step #2
Code Enforcement Officer conducts initial inspection
• Verifies complaint
• Secures photos and documentation

IF A VIOLATION IS CONFIRMED:

Step #3
• First Notification:
• Verbal warning – stop by and speak in person with someone on property • Warning Notice (checklist form) that is mailed to property owner • Notice of Non-Compliance (letter) that is mailed to property owner • Follow up inspection
• If violation is abated – case is closed.
• If violation is not abated –

Step #4
• Notice of Intent to Cite (letter is mailed to property owner) warning that citation will be issue next
• Follow up inspection
• If violation is abated – case is closed.
• If violation is not abated -

Step #5
• Issue Administrative Citation (letter with form and fine imposed) • Request to Appeal Admin Citation
• Property Owner can dispute violation and can file an appeal • Property Owner can file a hardship request to not pay the fine • Unpaid and unappealed citations sent to collections agency

Step #6
If the code case remains unresolved, the Code Enforcement Officer can take additional enforcement procedures, if needed.
• Citation Past Due & Notice of Lien
• Notice of Hearing for Special Assessment/Lien

11.a
Packet Pg. 488
Attachment: Code Enforcement Process (Code Enforcement Program Enhancements) • Record w/County

Step #7
Closing Code Cases once Abated – Last Steps
• Follow up inspections required to confirm violation(s) fully abated • Call Reporting Party and provide status update
• Code case working (paper) file is closed and scanned for permanent retention

11.a
Packet Pg. 489
Attachment: Code Enforcement Process (Code Enforcement Program Enhancements) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Receive an Update on Business License Processes, Systems, and Recommended Improvements and Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Ag reement with Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates (HdL) for Business License Software in an Amount Not to Exceed $85,900 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates (HdL) for Business License Software in an amount not to exceed $85,900.

BACKGROUND
As part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Adopted Budget, Finance staff was tasked with a Workplan item titled:

Evaluate Bu siness License systems and operations, develop improvements to better serve the business community, and collaborate with the Economic Development Division to improve data usefulness and report capabilities so as to enhance timely understanding of the City’ s business climate [Council Priority – Financial Recovery and Operational Need]
A similar Workplan item was also included as part of the FY 2020 and FY 2021 Adopted Budgets, but due to limited staff capacity at those times, it could not be started until F Y 2022.

Additionally, and consistent with the aforementioned Work plan item, the FY 2022 Adopted Budget includes an appropriation of $60,900 to upgrade the City’s Business License Systems. As such, t he following discussion will summarize a recent review of business license processes and systems performed by staff , provide recommendations for improvement, and request authorization from the City Council to enter into an agreement to purchase and implement a new business license software system.

DISCUSSION
Review of Business License Processes and Systems
Item: 12
Category: UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
12 Packet Pg. 490
Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements Page 2 of 9

Section 5.01.008 of the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC) requires every business that operates within Campbell to obtain a business license; whether they have a physical location within Campbell or not. Bus iness licensing provides a means in which local municipalities not only generate revenue, but also ensure that all businesses adhere to local regulations, laws, and land use restrictions. There are approximately 5,600 active businesses registered within t he City’s business license system. Of these businesses, approximately 4,300 have physical locations in -town and 1,300 have physical locations out-of-town, but conduct some business within Campbell.

The City’s business license process, similar to most loc al municipalities and due to its fiscal nature, is managed by the Finance Department with significant support provided by the Community Development, Police, and Fire Departments in reviewing and approving new applications (when appropriate), changes of add ress or ownership, and business use modifications. For reference, a typical business license application goes through the process shown in Chart A below and can be completed in as little as 1 week or in some cases up to 5 weeks ; depending on the complexit y and completeness of the application submitted and timeliness of business in paying for an approved application.

Chart A – Current Business License Process

12 Packet Pg. 491
Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements Page 3 of 9

The City’s current business license process as presented in Chart A is largely a paper - based p rocess in which applicants complete and return a hard copy application by traditional mail, or at a walk -up counter; though applicants may also download a PDF version of the application online. The application is then manually routed to the required City departments in paper form for comments and approvals. While payments for applications and renewals have also been traditionally mailed in or brought to the Finance counter, since the onset of the COVID -19 pandemic, the City has also allowed for over -the-phone credit and debit card payments, drop box check payments and applications, and scanned submittals of applications via e -mail. However, within the City’s current business license software, there are no capabilities for online fillable applications, electronic approval queues, or online credit card, debit card, and e -check payment of business license application and renewals. For reference, the City 12 Packet Pg. 492
Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements Page 4 of 9 processes business licenses through its eFinancePLUS Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system provided b y CentralSquare Technologies. eFinancePlus is used by the City to not only process business licensing, but also to perform accounting, purchasing, accounts payable, accounts receivable, human resources, payroll, and other related functions. The City has u sed eFinancePlus in various versions since 2005 and it lacks several modern features that would be expected from today’s ERPs. These modern and lacking features include not only online business license applications, renewals, payments, and electronic approval queues, but also robust reporting, easy capture of e- mail addresses, and integration with the City’s project management permit and GIS systems. The use of eFinancePLUS significantly slows down processing and approval of business license applications, payments, and renewals and also leaves little time for more high value compliance and collection functions which could boost City revenues.

The limitations identified above have always been significant deficiencies within the City’s business license syste ms and processes, but the shortcomings have only been exacerbated by the COVID -19 pandemic, County health orders, and the need to serve most all customers remotely so as to keep the community and staff safe and healthy.

Although City Hall has recently re-opened its doors to the public and returned to in - person services, many of these process and system deficiencies still remain. As such, staff has identified the following as opportunities for significant improvement within the business license process; mo st of which would require the implementation of an enhanced and modern business license software:

1. Online and fillable business license application ; mobile browser compatibility preferred

2. Electronic workflow and approval queue s; allowing simultaneous revie w and approval from all City departments and divisions

3. Robust data collection and reporting capabilities ; for obtaining important business specific information (e.g., e -mail addresses) and collaboration with internal stakeholders such as Economic Development

4. Online payment to include credit card, debit card, and ACH/e -Check options

5. Streamlined monthly renewal process

6. Ability to identify businesses operating in Campbell without a business license

Review of Business License Software Systems and Recommended Selection

With the goal of realizing the opportunities for improvement noted above, staff evaluated three business license software systems : Accela, MyGovernmentOnline (MGO), and HdL Companies. A fourth provider (Progressive Solutions ) was contacted , but was unresponsive and eliminated from consideration.

Accela was chosen for review since it has a fully developed business license software system used by a number of public agencies nation wide. MGO was chosen for review since it also provides the City wi th its online project management permit software used 12 Packet Pg. 493
Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements Page 5 of 9 by Planning, Building, and Public Works . HdL was chosen for review since it is the industry leader in business license software; providing business license software and services to over 500 local government clients across the nation and in California.

During its review process, staff identified key system features that would be beneficial to the City and evaluated and compared the three companies to determine sufficiency (or insufficiency) and best in class. This comparison is summarized in Chart B below:

Chart B – Comparison of Business License Software Systems Evaluated Features
Online Application
Mobile Browser Capability
Workflow and Approval Queues
Data Collection and Reporting
E-mail Address Collection
Online Payments (credit card and ACH)
Streamlined renewal process
Customer support
Legislative Updates
Business License Knowledge Resource
Software Updates for new requirements
Data Migration
Connection to GIS
Link to CDTFA Database
Link to CSLB Database
Reconciliation with California FTB
Public Search for Business License
Legend Best available
Available
Not available or insufficient
Accela MGO HdL

While MGO is by far the cheapest of the three business license alternatives evaluated (estimated at $3,600 annually ) and is alrea dy integrated with the City’s GIS system, staff did not feel it was nearly as robust as the other offerings, met all the City’s business licensing needs, it was not developed and tested enough as a product.

Furthermore, and the MGO business license module is only installed in approximately 12 Packet Pg. 494
Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements Page 6 of 9 20 public agencies nationwide; with none in California. Staff felt that this was too big a risk and thus, eliminated MGO from consideration.

Accela, while robust, was eliminated from consideration due to its long-term cost and the fact that the City previously attempted to implement its permit management software through a third-party company called Tidemark with poor success. Tidemark has since been acquired by Accela , with its staff now assist ing in the implementation of Accela’s business license software.

In cont rast, and as shown in Chart B, HdL provides a very robust business license software system; a system that has been successfully implemented and tested in over 500 public agencies nationwide and in California. Additionally, HdL’s business licensing program was developed by former public sector business licensing employees who are experts in their field . T hat is very evident in the system they have developed and the knowledge that they provide. Thus, staff r ecommends that the City enter in an agreement with HdL for a new business license software and requests Council approval of such.

In addition to being a robust, developed, and tested system, HdL’s business licensing software also provides the following detailed features will be of benefit to staff and the business community alike:

• Online business license applications with ability to customize fields to meet City needs and capture full contact information including e-mail addresses; • Online application an d renewal payment options through credit card, debit card, or ACH/e-Check;
• Electronic approval queues for department review, comment, and approval which can be tracked and followed up on timely as necessary;
• Direct linkage to the Contractors State License Board (CSLB) database so that licenses for contractors can be verified easily at time of business license application;
• Direct linkage to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) database so that staff can easily identify and follow u p with businesses that have a Seller’s permit within Campbell, but not a business license; • Reconciliation of local business license data to California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to find unlicensed businesses within City limits
• Easy communications to selected businesses as needed through auto-generated standard or customizable letters and e-mails;
• Robust reporting of businesses by selected criteria for collaboration with Economic Development or other City purposes; and
• Cloud-based access so that all systems are secure, backed up, meet Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS), and require no additional hardware investment by the City for servers.
• Synergy with sales and property tax data , analysis, and reporting; which the City already contracts for with HdL.
12 Packet Pg. 495
Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements Page 7 of 9 • Discovery and compliance assistance service to City staff in the future if need or desire arises.
• Ability to customize (for an added fee) to connect to City’s GIS system. • Quarterly legislative updates on new laws pass ed by the State Legislatu re that may affect the City’s business licensing process
• Periodic updates to the business license system to reflect new laws or data collection requirements
• As an industry leader, ability to be a knowledgeable resource to City staff on all business license related issues as needed

Staff estimates that average internal processing times could be reduced by 25% due to a more efficient system and that significant time could be reduced in receiving payments once applications are approved due to e-mail billing and online payment options. Staff’s goal is to receive all payments within one week of application approval and send out licenses immediately after. The current process can again take up to 5 weeks depending on the responsiveness of the business.

Cost Comparison of Systems Evaluated

One-time implementation costs for the HdL business license software are $49,000 and include data conversion, implementation, and training costs. It is estimated that implementation could take 60 to 90 days to complete once started, but staff is currently allowing 120 days to ensure proper testing, training, implementation, and integration with the City’s GIS system . Please note that integration into the City’s GIS would cost an additional $25,000 and bring the total one -time implementation costs to $74,000.

While this is an added expense, full integration into the City’s GIS system is highly desirable so that the business license system receives address data that was pre - verified through significant Planning staff time and s o that the GIS system has an extra layer of critical business specific data. Ongoing annual costs (due at time of “Go Live”) are initially $11,900 and would increase annually based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Please see Attachment B for a draft copy of the proposed agreement with HdL.

Implementation costs of $49,000 and first -year license costs of $11,900 are again currently included in the FY 2022 Adopted Budget and no further appropriation is being requested in FY 2022. GIS integration costs of $25,000 are not in the FY 2022 Adopted Budget, but will be programmed into the FY 2023 Proposed Budget if Council approves the agreement with HdL. GIS integration work will commence and be payable in FY 2023. Total first -year costs for HdL (implemen tation, GIS integration, and first -year license fee) would equal $85,900. While first year costs only are shown, it is likely that the City would renew a contract with HdL annually and pay annual license costs, if the agreement with HdL is approved.

For comparison purposes, one -time implementation , GIS integration, and on -going annual license costs for the three companies evaluated are shown in Table A below over a three-year period:

12 Packet Pg. 496
Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements Page 8 of 9 Table A – Cost Comparison (3 Years)
Accela MGO HdL
Implementation $47,866 $0 $49,000
GIS Integration $10,000 $0 $25,000
Annual License* (x3) $66,000 $10,800 $35,700
Total 3-Year Cost $123,866 $10,800 $109,700

*Annual License Fee $22,000 $3,600 $11,900

And lastly, please note that in the FY 2021 Proposed Budget, staff recommended outsourcing most all of the business license functions performed by the Finance Department as a means to increase ongoing City revenue and repurpose staff to other essential functions. In this previously proposed scenario, which was not approved by City Council, a company like HdL would handle most all of the business license duties currently performed by Finance staff . In contrast, under the current proposal before Council, Finance staff would retain all those functions, have access to a vastly superior software system and process, and receive much needed support from HdL for business license compliance and collection services. The City would retain customer service responsibilities, but be supported by experts at HdL as needed so as t o enhance responsiveness and proficiency. This should be a win for businesses applying for and renewing their business licenses, City staff in all departments, and the City in general as it relates to an expected increase in revenue. In addition, the HdL business license software also has the capability to add other licensing processes such as animal licensing in the future if the City so chooses.

FISCAL IMPACT

One-time implementation costs for the HdL business license software are $49,000 and include data conversion, implementation, and training costs. Customization costs to integrate with the City’s GIS system would equal $25,000 ; bringing the one-time total to $74,000. Ongoing annual costs (due at time of “Go Live”) are initially $11,900 and would increase annually based upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Thus, a one - year contract would total $85,900 (implementation, GIS integration , and first -year license fee). Implementation costs of $49,000 are currently a budgeted item for the City in FY 2022. Annual costs of $11,900 are also a budgeted item for the City in FY 2022 ; and will be added to future budgets if approved. Customization costs of $25,000 are an unbudgeted item, but will be programmed into the Proposed Budget for FY 2023 if the agreement with HdL is approved.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Direct staff to not implement a new business license software system with HdL.

This alternative would result in existing processes and systems remaining unchanged, but staff would look for opportunities for improv ement with no associated costs wherever possible.

12 Packet Pg. 497
Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements Page 9 of 9

2. Direct staff to not implement a new business license software system with HdL and instead enter into agreement with Accela or MGO or incorporate business license features as part of a future acquisition of a new ERP. Staff does not recommend this alternative since other business license software programs are not as robust as HdL, an ERP migration will be a lengthy process and may not include a robust business licensing module, and HdL is the industry leade r in business license software; with most of its product team having worked in business licensing operations for local governments. Even if a new ERP were procured in the future, the HdL system would likely remain and be connected to the new ERP since it i s very robust and used by numerous local government clients with great satisfaction and success.

3. Provide staff with other direction.

Prepared by:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Resolution
b. HdL Agreement
12 Packet Pg. 498

RESOLUTION NO.________________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AUTHORIZING

THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH HINDERLITER, DE

LLAMAS AND ASSOOCIATES (HDL) FOR BUSINESS LICENSE SOFTWARE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $85,900

WHEREAS, as part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Adopted Budget, Finance staff has been tasked with a Work Plan item titled “ Evaluate Business License systems and operations, develop improvements to better serve the business community, and collaborate with the Economic Development Division to improve data usefulness and report capabilities so as to enhance timely understanding o f the City’s business climate [Council Priority – Financial Recovery and Operational Need]”; and

WHEREAS staff has identified several deficiencies in its current business license systems and processes that have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic; and

WHEREAS, to address the se deficiencies, over a one -year period, staff evaluated three business license software systems provided by Accela, MyGovernmentOnline (MGO), and HdL Companies; and

WHEREAS, HdL was determined to be the more robust system and better able to meet all the City’s current and future business licensing needs; and

WHEREAS, in its extensive experience supervising business licensing operations, staff has not found a close competitor to the HdL business license software in terms of quality, utility, and, robustness; and

WHEREAS, staff recommends entering into a contract for the HdL Prime Business License Software cloud-based system; and

WHEREAS, anticipated implementation costs of $49,000 and first year license costs of $11,900 are currently budgeted in FY 2022; and

WHEREAS, anticipated customization costs of $ 25,000 to intergrate to the City’s GIS systems are not currently budgeted and will be programmed into the FY 2023 Proposed Budget; and

12.a
Packet Pg. 499
Attachment: Resolution (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements)

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Campbell authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with Hinderliter, De Llamas and Associates (HdL) for Business License Software not to exceed $85,900.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of _______, 2022 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

APPROVED:

Paul Resnikoff, Mayor

ATTEST:

Dusty Christopherson, City Clerk

12.a
Packet Pg. 500
Attachment: Resolution (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -1-

C ITY OF CAMPBELL

CO NSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into at Campbell, California on the 6th day of April, 2022, by and between the CITY OF CAMPBELL (hereinafter referred to as "City") and HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS AND ASSOCIATES (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant").

W
HEREAS, City desires to enforce it business license ordinance to ensure that all persons and organizations doing business within the City are licensed; and W
HEREAS, Consultant has the programs , equipment and personnel required to deliver the services referenced herein;
N
OW, THEREFORE, in consideration of each other's mutual promises, Consultant and City agree as follows:

1. DUT

IES OF CONSULTANT

1.1 Consultant agree s to perform services as set forth in Exhibit A - Scope of Services, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and which shall be interpreted together and in harmony with this Agreement. In the event of any conflict between Exhibit A and this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern, control, and take precedence.

1.2 Consultant’s project manager will meet with the City’s project coordinator prior to commencement of the project to establish a clear understanding of the working relationships, authorities, and management philosophy of City as it relates to this Agreement.

1.3 Consultant, working with the City, will gather available existing information concerning the project, and shall review documents as necessary for compliance with the project’s objectives.

1.4 In performance of this Agreement by Consultant, time will be of the essence.

1.5 Notwithstanding Section 1.4, Consultant shall not be responsible for delay caused by activities or factors beyond Consultant’s reasonable control, including delays or by reason of strikes, work slow-downs or stoppages, or acts of God.

1.6 Consultant agrees to perform this Agreement in accordance with the highest degree of skill and expertise exercised by members of Consultant’s profession working on similar projects under similar circumstances.

1.7 Consultant shall cooperate in good faith with City in all aspects of the performance of this Agreement.

12.b
Packet Pg. 501
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -2-

1.8 In the course of the performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall act in the City’s best interest as it relates to the project.

1.9 All activities of Consultant, its employees, subcontractors and/or agents will be carried out in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

1.10 The designated project manager for Consul tant shall be George Bonnin. The Consultant’s project manager shall have all the necessary authority to direct technical and professional work within the scope of the Agreement and shall serve as the principal point of contact with th e City and the City’s project coordina tor. The authorized principal of Consultant executing this Agreement for the Consultant shall have authority to make decisions regarding changes in services, termination and other mat ters related to the performance of this agreement on behalf of Consultant.

1.11 The Consultant (and its employees, agents, representatives, and subconsultants), in the performance of this Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as office rs or officials or employees or agents of the City. The City shall not direct the work and means for accomplishment of the services and work to be performed hereunder. The City, however, retains the right to require that work performed by Consultant meet specific stan dards consistent with the requirements of this Agr eement without regard to the manner and means of accomplishment thereof. Subcontractors shall assume all of the rights, obligations and liabilities, applicable to it as an independent contract or hereunder. Consultant represent s and warrants that it (i) is fully experienced and properly qualified to perform the class of work and services provided for herein, (ii) has the financial capability and shall finance its own operations required for the performance of the work and services and (iii) is properly equipped and organized to perform the work and services in a competent, timely and proper manner in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement. Consultant agrees to comply with AB5, codified at Labor Code section 2750.3, a nd shall indemnify, defend and hold ha rmless the City, its officers, officials, directors, agents representatives, volunteers, and employees against any claim or liability, including attorneys’ fees and costs, arising in any manner related to this Agreemen t that an employee, agent or others under Consultant’s supervision or control was misclassified.

1.12 This Agreement contains provisions that permit mut ually acceptable changes in the scope, character or complexity of the work if such changes become desira ble or necessary as the work progresses. Adjustments to the basis of payment and to the time for performance of the work, if any, shall be established by a written contract amendment (approved and execu ted by the City) to accommodate the changes in work.

2. DUTIES OF CITY

2.1 City shall furn ish to Consultant all available and pertinent data and information requested by Consultant to facilitate the prepa ration of the documents called for in this Agreement. Consultant shall be entitled to reasonably rely on accuracy and completeness of such information, provided that Consultant shall make any additional investigation reasonably necessary to confirm such information and provide City prompt written notice of any known or discovered defects in such data and information.

12.b
Packet Pg. 502
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -3-

2.2 City shall provide contract administration services. City shall notify Consultant of required administrative procedures and shall name representatives, if any, authorized t o act in its behalf.

2.3 City shall review documents submitted by Consultant and shall render decisions pertaining thereto as promptly as reasonably possible.

3. COMPENSATION

3.1 For the full performance o f the services described herein by Consultant, City agrees to compensate Consultant for all services and direct costs associated with the performance of the project in an amount not to exceed $85,900, as follows:
a. Once each month, Consultant shall submit for payment by City, an itemized invoi ce for services performed during the previous billing period. The invoice shall describe the services rendered and the title of the item of work, and shall list labor hours by personnel classification.

Said invoice shall be based on all labor and direct expense charges made for work performed on the project. L abor charges shall be in accordance with the f ee schedule found in Exhibit B of this Agreement. City shall pay Consultant for services rendered and approved by the City within 30 days from the date the itemized invoice is received by the City, subject to the maximum not to exceed amount specified above and the City’s right to object. b. Direct costs are those outside costs i ncurred on or directly for the project, and substantiated with invoices for the charges. Direct expenses include printing, reproduction, and delivery charges.

3.2 If Consultant incurs other costs which are not specifically covered by the terms of this Agr eement, but which are nec essary for performance of Consultant’s duties, Cit y may approve payment for said costs if authorized in writing by the City in advance.

3.3 City may order chang es in the scope or character of services in writing, including decreasing the amount of Consult ant’s services. In the event that the work is decr eased, Consultant is entitled to full compensation for all services performed and expenses incurred prior to receipt of notice of change. Under no conditions shall Consultant make any changes to the work, either as additions or deductions, without the prior written order of the City. In the event, that the City determines that a change to the work or services from that specified in this Agreement is required, the contract time and/or actual costs reimbursab le by the City for the project may be adjusted by contract amendment or change order to accommodate the ch anged work. The maximum not to exceed total amount specified in this Article 3 (Compensation) shall not be exceeded, unless authorized by written cont ract amendment or change order, approved and execu ted by the City. Consultant shall obtain prior written approval for a revised fee schedule from the City before exceeding such fee schedule. Only City’s authorized representative(s) is authorized to approve changes to this Agreement on behalf of City.

3.4 In no event, will the Consultant be reimbursed for any cos ts or expenses at any rates that exceed the rates for set forth in the fee schedule found in Exhibit B.

12.b
Packet Pg. 503
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -4-

3.5 Consultant agrees that the payments to Consultant specified in this Article 3 (Compensation) will constitute full and complete compensation for all obligations assumed by Consultant under this Agreement. Where conflicts regarding compensation may occur, the provisions of this section apply.

4. SUBCONSULTANTS

4.1 Consultant may not subcontract any services required under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City.

4.2 Consultant shall be responsible to City for the perfor mance of any and all subconsultants who perform work under this contract, and any acts of negligence or misconduct on their part. Consultant is solely responsible for all payments due to subconsultants.

4.3 Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all of the requirements stated herein, including naming the City of Campbell , its officers, officials, directors, ag ents representatives, volunteers, and employees as additional insureds. Any modification to the insurance requirements for subcontractors must be agreed to by the City in writing.

4.4 If at any time, the City determines any subcontractor is incompetent or unqualified, Consultant will be notified and will be ex pected to immediately cancel the subcontract.

5. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS
All original drawings, documents, papers, data, materials, photographs, negatives and other work products prepared by the Consultant and/or its subconsultants in the performance of the services encompassed in this Agreement (whether in printed or electronic format) (“project-related documents and materials”) shall be the property of the City and may be used on this project without the consent of the Consultant or its subcontractors. City acknowledges that such drawings, documents, and other items are instruments of professional services intended for use only on the subject project. Consultant agrees that all copyrights which arise from creation of the Project-related documents and materials pursuant to this Agreement shall be vested in the City and waives and relinquishes all claims to copyright or other intellectual property rights in favor of the City. Any project-related documents and materials related to this Agreement shall be confidential, not to be used by the Consultant on other projects or disclosed to any third party, except by agreement in writing by the City, or except as otherwise provided herein. Upon the completion or termination of this Agreement for any reason, the City shall be entitled to receive, and Consultant shall promptly provide to the City upon request, all finished and unfinished project-related documents and materials, produced or gathered by or on behalf of Consultant that

12.b
Packet Pg. 504
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -5-
are in Consultant’s possession, custody or control. Consultant may retain copies of said documents and materials for its files. In the event of termination, any dispute regarding compensation or damages shall not hinder, prevent, or otherwise impact the City’s right to promptly receive and use such documents and materials which are the sole and exclusive property of the City.

6. T

ERMINATION

6.1 N otwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, City may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, in its sole discretion, by giving notice in writing to Consultant not less than 90 calendar days prior to an effective termination date. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall have the righ t and obligation to immediately assemble the work then in progress for the purpose of completing the work and turning over all materials and documents to City.

6.2 I n the event of such termination, Consultant shall be compensated for all work and services performed to the point of termination in accor dance with the payment provisions set forth in Section 3.1, unless the termination is for cause, in which event Consultant need be compensated only to the extent required by law.

6.3 Upon notice of termination by City , the Consultant will immediately act to not incur any additional obligations, costs or expenses, except as may be reasonably necessary to terminate its activities. All finished or unfinished work or documents procured or produced under the Agr eement wi ll become property of the City upon the t ermination date. In the event of Consultant’s failure to perform pursuant to the Agreement, the City reserves the right to obtain services elsewhere and Consultant will be liable for the difference between the prices set forth in the terminated Agreement and the actual cost to the City. Termination of the Agreement pursuant to this paragraph shall not relieve the Consultant of any liability to City for additional costs, expenses, or damages sustained by City due to failure of the Consultant to perform pursuant to the Agreement. City may withhold any payments to Consultant for the purpose of set off until such time as the exact amount of damages due City from Consultant is determined. After the effective date of termin ation, Consultant will have no further cl aims against the City under the Agreement. No other compensation will be payab le for anticipated profit on unperformed services.

7. AUDIT AND INSPECTION
Consultant shall permit authorized representatives of City to inspect and audit all data and records relating to its performance under this Agreement for a period of three years fo llowing acceptance of the final study.

8. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
Consultant agrees to refrain from discriminatory employment practices on the basis of race, religious creed, col or, sex, national origin, handicap, sexual orientation, marital status , medical condition, disability, ancestry, organizational affiliation, military or veteran status, or

12.b
Packet Pg. 505
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -6-
any other consideration made unlawful by local, State or Federal law , of any employee of, or applicant for employment with, s uch Consultant or subc ontractor. City requires Consultant to comply with all applicable Federal and State and local equal employment opportunity laws and regulations.

9. INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

9.1 With respect to any design professional services provided by Consultant, the Consultant agrees to indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, and employees to the fullest extent allowed by law from any and all claims, actions, causes of action, damages, liabilities and losses, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, except for any claims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages or liabilities proximately caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City. City shall not be liable for acts of Consultant in performing services described herein. Notwithstanding anything in this paragraph to the contrary, any defense costs charged to the design professional under this paragraph shall not exceed the design professional’s proportionate percentage of fault, except:

a. That in the event one or more de fendants is unable to pay its share of defense costs due to bankruptcy or dissolution of the business, the design professional shall meet and confer with the other parties regarding unpaid defense costs in good faith effort to agree on the allocat ion of those costs amongst the parties; and

b. Where a project -specific general liability policy i nsures all project particip ants for general liability exposures on a primary basis and also covers all design professionals for their legal liability aris ing out of their professional services on a prima ry basis, then there shall be no limitation on the d esign professional's duty to provide a defense and cover the City's cost of defense.

With respect to all matters other than those covered by the foregoing paragraph, Consultant agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) and hold harmless the City, its officers, officials, directors, agents representatives, volunteers, and employees to the fullest extent allowed by law fr om and against any and all claims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities and costs of every nature , including att orneys’ fees and costs (collectively, “Losses”) including but not limited to all claims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, liabilities for property damage, bodily injury, or death, and all costs of defendin g any claim, caused by or arising out of, or al leged to have been caused by or a rise out of, in whole or in part, Consultant’s performance under this Agreement, except for any claims, actions, causes of action, losses, damages, costs or l iabilities proximately caused by the sole negligence or will ful misconduct of City . City shall not be liable for acts of Consultant in performing services described herein.

In no event shall this section be construed to require indemnification by the Consultant to a greater extent than permitted under the publ ic policy of the State of Cali fornia; and in the event that this contract is subject to California Civil Code section 2782(b), the foregoing indemnity provisions shall not apply to any liability for the active negligence of the City.

12.b
Packet Pg. 506
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -7-
The defense and inde mnity provisions obligations of this Agree ment are undertaken in addition to, and shall not in any way be limited by the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement.

The foregoing indemnity pr ovisions are intended to fully allocate the partie s’ risk of liability to third-parties; and there s hall be no rights to indemnity or contribution, in law or equity or otherwise between the parties that are not set forth in this section. Consultant waives all rights to subrogation for any matters covered by the provisions of this section. Consultant’s responsibility for such defense and indemnity obligations as set forth in this section shall survive the termination or completion of this Agreement for the full period of time allowed by law.

9.2 Consultant shall maintai n insura nce conforming to the follo wing specifications to the fullest amount allowed by law for a minimum of three ( 3) years following the termination or completion of this Agreement:

A. T
ypes of Coverage
The policies shall afford the following types of coverage:

1. Commercial General Liability;

2. Automotive;

3. Workers’ Compensation and Employer Liability; and

4. Professional Liability and/or Errors and Omissions
B. Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. For Commercial General Liability: Insurance Services Office (ISO) CGL Form 00 01 11 85; and

2. For Automotive Liability: ISO CA 00 01 06 92 including symbol 1(any auto); and

3. For Workers’ Compensation: insurance as requ ired by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employer's Liability insurance; and

4. For Professional Liability and/or Errors and Omissions: insurance covering negligence committed by or on behalf of Consultant in rendering services to City.

C. Minimum Limits of Insurance
Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:

1. General Liabil ity: $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for

12.b
Packet Pg. 507
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -8-
bodily, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other for m with a ge neral aggregate limit is used, either the gener al aggr egate li mit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single li mit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compe nsation and Employer's Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employer's Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.

The Worker’s C ompensation
policy must be endorsed with a wa iver of s ubrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Consultant and its employees.

4. Professional Liability and/or Errors and Omissions: $1,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 in the annual aggregate.

The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also a pply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the b enefit of City (as agre ed to in thi s Agreement) before the City’s own insurance or self -insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

D. Deductible and Self-Insured Retention
Any deductibles or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved by the City, and shall not reduce the limits of liability. At the option of the Ci ty, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retention as respects th e City, its agents, officers, attorneys, empl oyees, officials and volunteers; or the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses r elated to investigations, claim administration, an d defense expenses. Policies containing any self -insured retention provision shall provide or be endor sed to pr ovide that the self -insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or the City.

E. Other Insurance Provisions
The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

1. General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverage:
a. The City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, officials and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of this Agreement performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, products and completed operations of the Consult ant, premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant . It is a requirement of this Agreement that any availabl e insurance proceeds broader

12.b
Packet Pg. 508
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -9-
than or in exces s of the specifi ed minimum insur ance coverag e requirements and/or limits set forth in this Agreement sha ll be available to the City as an additional insured. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage limits spe cified in this Agreement, or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance pol icy or proceeds available to the named insured, whichever is affords greater coverage. b. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects th e City, its agen ts, officers , attorneys, employees, officials and volunteers. Any insura nce or self -insurance maintained by the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, officials and vol unteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. c. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the pol icies shall not affect coverage provided to the Ci ty, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, officials, and volunteers.
d. The Consultant's insuran ce shall apply s eparately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with resp ect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

2. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Coverage: T he insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City, its agents, officers, attorneys, employees, officials, and volunteers for losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City.

3. All Coverages: Any unintentional fai lure to comply with reporting provisions of t he polici es shal l not affect cov erage provided to the City; and unless otherwise approved by the City, e ach insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party, except after thirty (30) da ys prior written notice by regular mail has been given to the City, or ten (10) days for cancellation for non- payment of premium.

F. Suspension or Cancellation
If any of the coverages required by this Agreement should be suspended, voided, cancelled or r educed in coverage during the te rm of this A greement, Consultant shall immediately notify City and replace such coverage with another policy meeting the requirements of this Agreement.

G. Subcontractors
Consultant agrees that any and all contracts with su bcontractors for performance of any matter under this Agreement shall require the subcontractors to compl y with the same indemnity and insurance requirements set forth in this Agreement to the extent that they a pply to the scope of the subcontractors’ work. Subcontractors are to be bound to contractor and to City in the same

12.b
Packet Pg. 509
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -10-
manner and to the same extent as t he Consultant is bound to City under this Agreeme nt.

Subcontractors shall further agree to include these same provisions with any sub-subcontractor.

A copy of this Agreement will be furnished to the subcontractor on request. The Consultant shall require al l subcontractors to provide a valid certificate of insurance and the required endorsements included in the Agreement prior to commencing any work, and will prov ide proof of compliance to the City.

H. Acceptability of Insurers
Without limiting Consultant' s indemnification provided hereunder, the policies of insurance listed in Article 9.2 of this Agreement are to be issued by an issuer with a current A.M. Best Rating of A:V and who is authorized to transact business in the State of California, unless otherwise approved by the City.

I. Verification of Coverage
Consultant shall furnish the City with endorsements a nd certificates of insurance evidencing coverage required by this clause. The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person a uthorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates are to be on forms acceptable to the City. Where required by statue, forms approved by the Insurance Commissioner are to be submitted. All certificates are to be received and approved by the City before work commences.

J. Special Risks/Circumstances
City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prio r experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances and provide notice to Consultant.

10. MISCELLANEOUS

10.1 This Agreement shall be binding on the heirs, executors, assigns and successors of Consultant.

10.2 Neither party may assign this Agreement, or any portion hereof, without the prior written consent of the other.

10.3 This Agreement shall not be construed to alter, affect, or waive any lien or stop notice rights, which Consultant may have for the performance of servic es pursuant to this Agreement.

10.4 Neither party’s waiver of any term, condit ion or covenant, or breach of any term, condition or covenant shall be construed as the waiver of any other term, condition or covenant or waiver of the breach of any other term, condition or covenant.

10.5 This Agreement contains the entire Agreement betw een City and Consultant relating to the project an d the provision of services to the project. Any prior agreements,

12.b
Packet Pg. 510
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -11-
promises, negotiations, or representations not expre ssly set f orth i n this Agreement are of no force or effect. Subsequent modifications to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both City and Consultant.

10.6 If any term, condition or covenant of this Agreement is held by a court of competent ju risdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforce able, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall be valid and binding on City and Consultant.

10.7 This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance wi th the laws of the State of California.

10.8 All changes or amendments to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by all parties.

10.9 The initial contract term shall commence upon execution of the contract by the City and shall be for a one year period, unless terminated sooner in accordance with the contract.

Any extension of the Agreement shall be mutually agreed upon in writing and shall require an amendment to the Agreement signed by both parties.

10.10 Consultant owes the City a duty of undivided loyalty in performing the work and services under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the obligation to refrain from having economic interests and/or p articipating in activities that conf lict with the City’s interests in respect to the work and/or services and project. The Consultant shall li st current clients who may have a financial interes t in the outcome of this Agreement. The Consultant hereby certifies that it does not now have, nor shall it acquire any financial or business inter est that would conflict with the performance of services u nder this agreement. Consultant shall not make or participate in making or i n any way atte mpt to use Consultant’s position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a direct or indirect financial in terest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement.

Consultant wi ll immediately advise the City if Consultant learns of a financial interes t of Consultant's during the term of this Agreement.

10.11 City is a public agency subject to the disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act (“CPRA”). If Consultant’s proprietary information is contained in documents or information submitted to City, and Consultant claims that such inf ormation falls within one or more CPRA exemptions, Consult ant m ust clearly mark such information “Confidentia l and Proprietary,” and identify the speci fic lines containing the information. In the event of a request for such information, City will make best efforts to provide notice to Consultant prior to such disclosure. If Consultant contends that any documents are exemp t from the CPRA a nd wishes to prevent disclosure, it is required to obtain a protective order, injunctive relief or other appropriate remedy from a court of law in Santa Clara County before the Ci ty is required to respond to the CPRA request. If C onsultant fails to obtain such remedy w ithin the time the City is required to respond to the CPRA request, City may disclose the requested informat ion without any liability to Consultant. Consultant furthe r agrees that it shall defend, indemnify and hold C ity harmless against any c laim, action or litigation (including but not limited to all judgments, costs, and attorney’s fees) that may result from denial by City of a CPRA request for information arising

12.b
Packet Pg. 511
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -12-
from any representation, or any action (or inaction), by the Consultant.

10.12 Neither par ty hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligation hereunder to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented or delayed by an act of God, natural disaster, pandemic, a cts of terrorism, war, or other peril, which is beyond the reasonable control of the affected party and without the negligence of the respective Parties. Each party hereto shall give notice promptly to the other of the nature and extent of any Force Majeur e claimed to delay, hinder or prevent perfo rmance of the services under this Agreement. Each Party will, however, make all reasonable efforts to r emove or eliminate such a cause of delay or default and wi ll, upon the cessation of the cause, diligently pursue performance of its obligations in t his Agreement. In the event either party is prevented or delayed in the perfo rmance of its respective obliga tion by reason of such Force Majeure, there may be an equi table adjustment of the schedule and Consultant com pensation based on City’s sole discretion.

10.13 Except as City may specify in writing, Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Consultant shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this A greement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.

10.14 Consultant warrants that Consultant, its subcontractors and/or agents (if any) has/have complied with any and all federal, state, and local licensing requirements

10.15 Each
party acknowledges that it has reviewed th is Agreement and that the normal rule of construction to the effect that any ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement.

10.16 The signatories to this Agreement warrant and represent that each is authorized to execute this Agreement and that their respective signatures serve to l egally obligate their respective representatives, agents, successors and assigns to comply with the provisions of this Agreement.

10.17 This Agreem ent is entered into, and to be performed in Santa Clara County, California, and any action arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be maintained i n a court of appropriate jurisdiction in Santa Clara County, California.

10.18 This Agreement may be executed in counterparts which shall, in the aggregate, be deemed an original but all of which, together, shall constitute one and the same instrument. A scanned, electronic, facsimile or other copy of a party’s signature shall be accepted and valid as an original.

12.b
Packet Pg. 512
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -13-

11. NOTICES
Notices required under this Agreement may be delivered by first class mail addressed to the appropriate party at one of the following addresses:

CITY: City of Campbell
Attention: Will Fuentes
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
C
ONSULTANT: HdL
Attention: George Bonnin
120 S. State College Blvd Suite 200
Brea, CA 92821
[
SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

12.b
Packet Pg. 513
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) -14-
H
aving read and understood the foregoing Agreement, the undersigned parties agree to be bound hereby:

CO

NSULTANT
/s
/ _________________________________
Name: Robert Gray
Title: Director of Tax & Fee Administration

CITY OF CAMPBELL
/s
/ _________________________________
Name: Brian Loventhal
Title: City Manager
A
pproved as to Form
______________________________
C
ity Attorney
E
xhibit A - Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Compensation and Fee Schedule

12.b
Packet Pg. 514
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) Agreement for HdL Services
City of Campbell, CA March 25, 2022
1246612.2 HdL Software, LLC -15-

EXHIBIT A - SCOPE OF SERVICES

1. Prime Software System

1.1. City Management Support - HdL will assist the City in evaluating current policies and procedures in order to enhance operational efficiency. This may include suggestions to redesign forms/reports, implement new processes, or adopt new strategies for improving communication with the business community and other City departments.

1.2. Data Conversion - HdL will convert the City’s existing data. If City is migrating from HdL “Classic” Business License, City will provide a current backup of the existing Microsoft Access or Microsoft SQL Server HdL database. If City is converting from another vendor’s software, the City agrees to provide its current data in ASCII delimited file format, SQL Server backup, or another format agreed upon between HdL and the City; along with a file layout det ailing the content of the file. This data will be required a minimum of two times during the conversion process. The City understands that the second (and any subsequent) data set must be provided in the same format and layout as the first data set. Any inconsistencies between the first and second data sets will result in a delayed installation date and additional charges for conversion.

1.3. Implementation

1.3.1. HdL's responsibilities

1.3.1.1. Project manager - HdL will provide a project manager (PM) to guide the software implementation process. The primary responsibility for the HdL PM is to ensure successful and timely completion of each step of the software implementation schedule. The HdL PM will work closely with the City's designated project manager to define the so ftware implementation schedule, identify City needs and configure the software accordingly, validate the data conversion, provide user training, and generally shepherd the City through the software implementation process.

1.3.1.2. IT support - HdL will provide a d edicated IT staff member to provide IT support during the software implementation process. This individual will provide the necessary instruction and assistance in order to install the software in the City's computing environment, and will provide any needed technical support.

1.3.1.3. Training - HdL will provide software training as defined in the agreed upon software implementation schedule. This generally consists of one (1) training session. The size and participants of each training session will be determin ed by the HdL PM and the City’s designated project manager.

1.3.1.4. User manual - HdL will provide access to a digital copy of the software user manual. The City may use the manual as needed for internal use by City staff.

The user manual contains proprietary and confidential information, and as such is bound by the confidentiality p ortion of this agreement. The user manual may not in any circumstances be distributed to any 3 rd party or any individual that is not a current City staff member responsible for using or maintaining the software.

1.3.2. City's responsibilities

1.3.2.1. Project manager - The City will designate a staff member to serve as the City's project manager (PM). This individual must be intimately involved in the daily business processes which the software will automate, and be empowered to make, or quickly secure from ma nagement, decisions required for the implementation of the software. The primary responsibility for the City PM is to ensure that all City responsibilities during the software implementation are met according to the agreed upon software implementation sch edule. The City PM

12.b
Packet Pg. 515
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) Agreement for HdL Services
City of Campbell, CA March 25, 2022
1246612.2 HdL Software, LLC -16-
will be instrumental in the successful implementation of the software; working closely with the HdL PM to verify data conversion, review and approve reports, establish business rules, and configure all aspects of the software.

1.3.2.2. IT suppor t - The City will designate an IT staff member to work with HdL staff throughout the software implementation process. This individual must be knowledgeable about the City's computing environment and be authorized to manage the SQL Server database and inst all and configure software on the network server and workstations. The primary responsibility of the City’s IT designee is to provide data to HdL for conversion (if required), install the SQL Server database, and install the software in the City's computing environment.

1.3.2.3. Schedule – The default timeline for complete implementation (including “Go Live”) of the software is approximately 60 days from the start of implementation.

When the Agreement is signed by all parties, HdL will immediately work w ith the City to establish a specific implementation schedule.

1.4. Payment Gateway - For online payment functionality HdL’s solutions include built in payment gateway services supporting both credit card and eCheck transactions. If a different payment gateway is required, there will be a development cost of up to $7,500 to establish the custom payment gateway integration.

1.5. Maintenance and Support

1.5.1. Customer Support - HdL will provide customer support by telephone, email and the web during the term of this Agreement . In the United States, no charge support is available as follows: For customer support between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm Pacific time, Monday through Friday, email [email protected] or call the HdL offices at (909) 861 -4335 and ask for sof tware support. For technical support before 8:00 am or after 5:00 pm Pacific time, Monday through Friday (or anytime Saturday), email [email protected] and an HdL staff member will be paged. Please only include your name, agency and contact # in email s to [email protected]. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

1.5.2. Support Policy Regarding Reports - HdL will assist with modifications to reports as needed during the term of this agreement. Typical report modifications require 7 to 10 business days to complete. Very complex reports or reports required in a very short time frame may incur development costs, in which case an estimate will be provided for approval before the work is begun.

1.5.3. Software Upgrades - Except to the extent that upgrades of the software include new modules or features not previously offered as part of the software as of the date hereof, City is entitled to upgrades of the software within the terms of this Agreement. Though rare, additional costs may apply depending on the extent of the upgrade. Potential additional costs include training, consulting, configuration, or other requested services.

1.5.4. Outside Connections to HdL Database - HdL programs rely on the integrity of the database to operate properly. As such, it is critical that any outside connection to the database be implemented with HdL’s full knowledge and participation. Only “read only” connections will be established to the HdL database. No modifications will be made to the HdL database, including database/table design and data content. Any repair work necessary due to violations of the above items will not be covered by the Software Use Fee, and as such will be billable to the client on a time and material basis. T he City shall contact HdL for instructions if any added functionality is required, including reading additional data or writing to the HdL database.

12.b
Packet Pg. 516
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) Agreement for HdL Services
City of Campbell, CA March 25, 2022
1246612.2 HdL Software, LLC -17-

1.6. System Requirements – These system requirements are only applicable if the HdL system will be deployed directly on the City’s equipment. If the City opts to utilize HdL’s hosting services, see the hosting services section for system requirements.

1.6.1. On site deployment – The software and database will be installed on the City’s network on hardware supplied by the City. Any specifications provided below indicate minimum requirements. It is the City’s responsibility to ensure that any hardware used to host the software/database or run the client application meets the specifications dictated by the operating system and any software/services hosted by the hardware. For example, minimum operating system specifications will not be sufficient if the file server is also hosting the City’s email system.

1.6.1.1. Application Server Specifications - The application server will host the HdL Prime web service, which serves as the HdL Prime business layer. The HdL Prime web service uses the Microsoft Windows Server with IIS platform. The following versions are supported: MS Windows Server 2008 or later, with IIS v7.0 or later.

The application server should have at least 200 megabytes of space available.

1.6.1.2. Database Server Specifications - The database server will host all application data. The database server should be dedicated to server related functions.

Using a client’s PC as the d atabase server in a multi -user environment is not supported. HdL Software systems use the Microsoft SQL Server database platform. The following versions are supported: MS SQL Server 2008 R2 or later (SQL Express variants also supported). Any server operating system supported by the selected version of SQL Server is supported as a database server; provided it meets the hardware specifications indicated by both the operating system and the version of SQL Server. The database server should have at least 50 gigabytes of space available to allow for the initial database and growth.

1.6.1.3. Workstation Specifications - The software will be run on the client workstation.

HdL Prime is deployed to the workstation via a click once installer. The Crystal Reports and .NET 4.x runtimes will also need to be installed on the workstation.

The following hardware recommendations are based on user feedback regarding performance levels: Intel Core i3 or equivalent CPU, 4+GB Memory, 1280x1024 screen resolution, MS Windows 7/8/10 operating system.

1.6.1.4. Network Specifications - The software communicates via web services, and is designed to operate efficiently over the network. High -speed local area network connections are always helpful, but Prime will also run without difficulty over slower WAN connections such as T1 or mobile broadband.

1.6.1.5. Printer Specifications - The software is designed to work with laser printers. A PCL compliant laser printer is recommended. Each make and model of printer has different drivers and therefore has sligh tly different results when printing.

We design forms/reports using HP LaserJet printers.

2. Hosting Services – HdL’s hosting services offload the majority of IT concerns to HdL’s hosting team; including system upgrades, hardware and software maintenance, dat abase management, and disaster recovery. The City will be responsible for maintaining its workstations and a reliable internet connection. HdL will handle the rest. Website functionality will be hosted using a City specific sub-domain on HdL’s special purpose hdlgov.com domain.

2.1. System Requirements

2.1.1. Workstation Specifications – Workstations will access the software through a remote application session with HdL’s hosting service. All workstations require 4+GB Memory, 1280x1024 screen resolution, and MS Windows 7/8/10 operating system.

12.b
Packet Pg. 517
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) Agreement for HdL Services
City of Campbell, CA March 25, 2022
1246612.2 HdL Software, LLC -18-

2.1.2. Network Specifications – HdL’s hosted service requires reliable, high speed internet connectivity. High -speed local area network connections are always helpful, but Prime will also run without difficulty over slower WAN connections such as T1 or mobile broadband.

2.1.3. Printer Specifications - The software is designed to work with laser printers. A PCL compliant laser printer is recommended. Each make and model of printer has different drivers and therefore has slightly different results when printing. We design forms/reports using HP LaserJet printers.

3. Payment Processing Services

3.1. Payment Processing - HdL shall provide its Services to support payments remitted to City. HdL shall transmit transactions for authorization and settlement through HdL’s certified payment processor. Funds for tra nsactions processed by HdL hereunder shall be submitted to City’s designated bank account as follows: (i) no more than two (2) business banking days after all Transactions (other than electronic Check Transactions) that are successfully processed prior to 5:00 p.m. ET on each business banking day (e.g., a Transaction authorized at 2:00 p.m. ET on Monday will be submitted on Wednesday; a Transaction successfully processed at 8:00 p.m. ET on Monday will be submitted on Thursday); and (ii) no more than five (5) business banking days for all electronic Check Transactions that are successfully processed prior to 5:00 p.m. ET on each business banking day. HdL makes no representation or warranty as to when funds will be made available by Client’s bank.

3.2. Support - HdL shall provide City with payment processing related customer service as needed.

City shall timely report any problems encountered with the service. HdL shall promptly respond to each report problem based on its severity, the impact on City’s operations and the effect on the service. HdL shall either resolve the problem or provide City with the information needed to enable the City to resolve it.

3.3. Transaction Errors - HdL’s sole responsibility for any Transaction error or reversed Transaction is to determ ine whether the result indicates a problem with HdL’s service and, if necessary, reprocess and resubmit the Transaction without additional charge. In the event that a Transaction is reversed or refunded to any Customer of City, for any reason, HdL may off set such amount against funds remitted to City, or invoice City for such amount, at HdL’s discretion. City shall pay any such invoice within 30 days of receipt.

3.4. Electronic Check Authorization - If City elects to accept electronic Checks as a form of payment, the following subsections apply. For the purpose of this section, “checks” means checks drawn on accounts held in the U.S. (“Check(s)”).

3.4.1. As part of the implementation plan, City shall select risk management controls governing Check acceptance and assumes sole responsibility for the choice of controls.

3.4.2. HdL shall provide confirmation on a submitted ABA number as part of the Service to assist Client with the decision whether to accept a Check and shall route accepted Checks.

3.4.3. City hereby authorizes HdL to debit the City’s financial institution account in the amount of any returned item that is received by HdL.

3.5. City Responsibilities

3.5.1. As a condition to its receipt of the Service, City shall execute and deliver any and all applications, agreements, certification s or other documents required by Networks or other third parties whose consent or approval is necessary for the processing of Transactions. “Network” is an entity or association that operates, under a common service mark, a system which permits participant s to authorize, route, and settle Transactions among themselves, including, for example, networks operated by VISA USA and Mastercard, Inc., NYCE Corporation, American Express, and Discover.

12.b
Packet Pg. 518
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) Agreement for HdL Services
City of Campbell, CA March 25, 2022
1246612.2 HdL Software, LLC -19-

3.5.2. City represents, warrants, and agrees that it does and will compl y with applicable Laws and regulations and Network rules, regulations or operating guidelines. City shall notify HdL in writing as soon as possible in the event a claim is either threatened or filed against City by any governmental organization having jur isdiction over City or a Customer related to the Service. City shall also notify HdL in writing as soon as possible in the event a claim is either threatened or filed against City relating to Transactions or the Services or a fine or other penalty is asse ssed or threatened relating to Transactions or the Services.

3.5.3. City represents, warrants and agrees that it is and will continue to be in full compliance with all applicable requirements of the Client Information Security Program of VISA, the Site Data Prote ction Program of MasterCard, and similar programs of other Networks, and any modifications to such programs that may occur from time to time. Upon the request of HdL, City shall provide HdL with documentation reasonably satisfactory to HdL verifying compliance with this Section.

3.5.4. City hereby grants HdL the full right, power and authority to request, receive and review any Data or records reflected in a Transaction report. City represents and warrants that it has the full right and authority to grant these rights.

3.6. Fees

3.6.1. If a convenience fee will be charged, the City authorizes HdL to collect each convenience fee.

3.6.2. The fees set forth in Exhibit B Payment Schedule do not include expenses, late fees or charges, or taxes, all of which shall be the responsibility o f City. In addition to the charges specified in Exhibit B Payment Schedule, City shall be responsible for (a) all interchange and network provider fees, (b) all dues, fees, fines and assessments established and owed by City to Visa and/or Mastercard, (c) f or all costs and fees associated with changes to ATM protocol caused by City’s conversion to the Services, and (d) any increase in postage charges, provided that any increase in charges resulting from (a) through (d) shall not exceed the actual increase incurred by HdL.

3.6.3. HdL reserves the right to review and adjust all City and convenience fee pricing on an annual basis in June. This adjustment may be consistent with the then most recent ECI adjustment or three percent (3%) whichever is greater. Items that will be conside red in the review of fees may include, but are not limited to: regulatory changes, card association rate adjustments, card association category changes, bank/processor dues and assessments, average consumer payment amounts, and card type utilization.

3.6.4. City agrees to maintain a depository account with a financial institution reasonably acceptable to HdL for the payment of amounts payable hereunder, and hereby authorizes HdL to initiate debit entries to such account for the payment of amounts payable hereunder. City agrees to provide HdL with any and all information necessary for HdL to initiate such debit entries via the Automated Clearing House (ACH) system.

For any amount that is not paid within thirty (30) days after its due date, City shall pay a late fee equal to the lesser of one and one -half percent (1 ½%) per month of the unpaid amount or the maximum interest rate allowed by Law.

12.b
Packet Pg. 519
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) Agreement for HdL Services
City of Campbell, CA March 25, 2022
1246612.2 HdL Software, LLC -20-

EXHIBIT B - COMPENSATION

1. Prime Software System
One Time Project Costs
Item Price Comments
Prime Business License - Software License
Fee
$30,000.00 3 Named Users – HdL Hosted
Prime Web Module Included Must use HdL supported FIS
Global payment gateway. Non-
supported gateways require a
development charge of a
minimum of $5,000.00 +
Specifications.

Implementation 9,500.00 Project management,
installation, configuration, report
design, training, etc.

Data Conversion 7,000.00 Up to 30 hrs. of work. Above
30hrs., time and material
ArcGIS Integration $25,000.00 Develop an integration with ArcGIS using the City's address
locator (geocode) REST API
service for HdL users to make a
call using the address line 1 string
to retrieve full address
components and related parcel
data (i.e. Assessor's Parcel
Number, Zoning, etc.) for any
matches found in the City's GIS
database. Each parcel data field
can be stored in an HdL custom
field with field mappings to be
customizable and setup in the
system by administrators. Service
connection to be secured
through the ArcGIS token-based
authentication
Travel Expenses At Cost At Cost
Finance Data Export - Optional $2,500.00 Basic, end of day file transfer Training Costs – 1 day Included Included
Additional days available at
$2000/day
TOTAL $74,000.00 Total one-time costs

12.b
Packet Pg. 520
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) Agreement for HdL Services
City of Campbell, CA March 25, 2022
1246612.2 HdL Software, LLC -21-
Recurring Costs
Item Price Comments
Prime Software Annual Use Fee $8,900.00 Due at Prime core system “Go Live”. Renewed annually + CPI

1.1. Software License Fee - The license fee includes the use of the software by the specified number of users, software user manual in digital format, and all standard forms and reports. Additional user licenses are available for $1,500 license fee plus $400 annual software use fee.

1.2. Software Use Fee - The software use fee is billed annually, and provides for ongoing customer support and updates to the software. The software use fee shall be adjusted at the beginning of each calendar year by the change in the C onsumer Price Index – West Urban (CPI -WU) as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Each CPI adjustment will not be less than two percent (2%) or greater than ten percent (10%). The software use fee shall also be adjusted to include any amounts paid for any City licenses or permits which were required for this service.

1.3. Implementation - The implementation fee covers all efforts involved for installation and configuration of the software. This includes one session of pre -installation and process evaluation, one session of “go live” training, installation support, design and programming of standard forms and reports, and configuration of the software.

1.4. Data Conversion – Data will be converted from the City provided source files. Includes one (1) conversion when migrating from an HdL system, and two (2) conversions when migrating from another vendor’s system. Additional conversions of the same source data can be performed, upon request, at a cost of $2,500 per conversion. The source files must be provide d in the same format for all conversions, otherwise custom programming costs will apply in order to accommodate the varying data formats. Data conversion includes up to 30 hours of developer time. Any work above 30 hours will be charged at the current developer hourly rate.

1.5. Travel Expenses - Travel and lodging expenses are billed at cost and apply to all meetings; including process, pre -installation, installation, training, and support. HdL is dedicated to conserving public funds, and ensures any travel costs are indeed required and reasonable.

1.6. Parcel Data - HdL Prime includes comprehensive land management functionality. There are three ways to acquire the parcel data.

1.6.1. If the City is a client for HdL property tax services, the parcel data will be provided at no cost.

1.6.2. If the City is not a client for HdL property tax services, the parcel data may be purchased from HdL.

1.6.3. If the City wishes to use any other source of parcel data, HdL can work with the City to create a re-useable import utility. The development of this utility will be billed on a time and material basis. Once the source data has been reviewed, a statement of work will be provided including a cost estimate.

1.7. Customizing Services - The software is a table -driven system and has been develop ed to meet almost all of the needs of a City. However, should the need occur, HdL is available to provide custom enhancements to the software on a pre -determined time and material basis. No work shall be performed without prior written approval of the City.

1.8. Payment Terms and Schedule – Compensation for the contract amount shall be as follows:

1.8.1. One-time project costs and the first year Software Use Fee. 60% shall be due and payable within 30 days of the effective date of the Agreement. 30% within 60 days of the effective date of the

12.b
Packet Pg. 521
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) Agreement for HdL Services
City of Campbell, CA March 25, 2022
1246612.2 HdL Software, LLC -22-
Agreement. 10% within 30 days of full system delivery or first production use of the system, whichever comes first.

1.8.2. Travel Expenses. Travel and lodging expenses are billed at cost as they are incurred. Travel expenses shall be due and payable within 30 days of the billing date.

1.8.3. Annual Software Use Fee. The software use fee will be invoiced each year on the anniversary of the effective date of the Agreement and shall be due and payable within 30 days of the invoice date. The software use fee billing cycle can be prorated as needed should the City desire an alternative billing cycle.

2. Hosting Services - hosting services are billed yearly in advance. Includes software and data hosting and disaster recovery services. Hosting fee may be revised with three (3) months advance notice to City in order to account for changes in market costs related to hosting, such as internet bandwidth, power, and related equipment or service costs. The base fee provides for 3 named user connections to the system.

Service Compensation
Hosting Services (includes 3 named user connections) $3,000.00/year Additional Named User Connections $180.00/user/year

3. Payment Processing Services - HdL will provide City with eCheck, credit and debit card payment processing (merchant) services under a Convenience Fee (taxpayer funded) pricing model . HdL reserves the right to not accept any payment type in situations where doing so may be in violation of the rules and regulations governing that payment type.

Service (Convenience Fee Model) Compensation
Credit and Debit Cards processing 2.9%, Minimum of $2.00 ACH/eCheck processing $1.25 per transaction
Monthly Reporting and Statement Fee Waived
Monthly Hosting and Maintenance $32.51 per month + CPI
ACH and eCheck Returns $0
Chargebacks $0

FEES FOR OPTIONAL LOCAL TAX COMPLIANCE SERVICES

4. Discovery – HdL’s fee for performing discovery services shall be a contingency fee of 40% of the revenues received as a result of the service. This fee applies to monies received for the current tax/license period and any other prior period collected, including mo nies received for taxes, penalties, interest, and fees.

4.1 City Discovery Discount – HdL’s fee for following up on accounts that are identified and confirmed as non -compliant by the City shall be a contingency fee of 25% of the revenues received as a result o f the service. This fee also applies to delinquent business license tax accounts referred by the City as failing to make payment or properly renew an existing license.

4.2 Audit – HdL’s fee for performing Audit services shall be a contingency fee of 40% of th e revenues received as a result of the service. This fee applies to monies received for the current tax/license period and any other prior period collected, including monies received for taxes, penalties, interest, and fees.

12.b
Packet Pg. 522
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) Agreement for HdL Services
City of Campbell, CA March 25, 2022
1246612.2 HdL Software, LLC -23-

4.3 Collection – HdL’s fee for per forming collections services shall be a contingency fee of 25% of the revenues received as a result of the service. This fee applies to monies received for the current tax/license period and any other prior period collected, including monies received for taxes, penalties, interest, and fees.

4.4 Option to waive tax recovery – City may, at its discretion, elect to waive or reduce the tax recovery for a business. Should the City elect to waive all, or a portion of the deficiency identified by HdL, HdL shall be en titled to compensation in the amount of one half (1/2) of the compensation HdL would have otherwise earned on the waived/reduced amount. Deficiencies which are uncollectable due to insolvency or dissolution of the customer, or for deficiencies which are o therwise incapable of collection ( e.g., statute of limitations or other legal defense) shall not be considered a voluntary election to waive by the City, and thus HdL would not be entitled to compensation for these amounts.

4.5 Travel Expenses – Travel and lodging expenses are billed at cost and apply to all meetings , including process, pre -installation, installation, training, and support. HdL is dedicated to conserving public funds and ensures any travel costs are indeed required and reasonable.

4.6 Payment
HdL will provide detailed invoices for all work completed. City will submit payment to HdL within 30 days of receiving the invoice.

12.b
Packet Pg. 523
Attachment: HdL Agreement (Business License Process Update & Recommended Improvements) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Council Committee Reports

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.

DISCUSSION
This is the s ection of the City Council Agenda that allows the City Councilmembers to report on items of interest and the work of City Council Subcommittees.

MAYOR RESNIKOFF:

City Attorney Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Clerk Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Manager Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board (SVACA)
West Valley Clean Water JPA
West Valley Mayors and Managers
West Valley Sanitation District
West Valley Solid Waste Authority JPA

VICE MAYOR BYBEE
Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee City Attorney Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Clerk Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Manager Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
Cities Association of SCC Representative
Downtown Subcommittee
Finance Subcommittee
Friends of the Heritage Theater Liaison
Association of Bay Area Governments (Alt.)
Cities Association Selection Committee & Legislative Action Committee (Alt.) Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board (SVACA) (Alt.) Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee (Alt.) West Valley Mayors and Managers (Alt.)
COUNCILMEMBER GIBBONS:

Association of Bay Area Governments Executive Committee** Item: 13
Category: COUNCIL COMMITTEE

REPORTS
Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
13 Packet Pg. 524
Council Committee Reports Page 2 of 3
Campbell Historical Museum & Ainsley House Foundation Liaison Cities Association of SCC Selection Committee & Legislative Action Committee Education Subcommittee
Legislative Subcommittee
Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors & Executive Committee (SVCE) County Library District JPA Board of Directors (Alt.)
SCC Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (Alt.)

COUNCILWOMAN LANDRY
Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee County Library District JPA Board of Directors
Downtown Subcommittee
Education Subcommittee
Economic Development Subcommittee
Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of SCC**
Santa Clara Valley Water District: County Water Commission Cities Association of Santa Clara County Representative (Alt.) State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (Alt.) West Valley Solid Waste Authority JPA (Alt.)
West Valley Clean Water JPA (Alt.)
COUNCILMEMBER LOPEZ:

Association of Bay Area Governments
Economic Development Subcommittee
Finance Subcommittee
Legislative Subcommittee
SCC Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board
Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee Campbell Historical Museum & Ainsley House Foundation Liaison (Alt.) Friends of the Heritage Theater Liaison (Alt.)
Santa Clara Valley Water District: County Water Commission (Alt.) Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors Executive Committee (Alt.) West Valley Sanitation District (Alt.)
**appointed by other agencies
Prepared by:

Dusty Christopherson, City Clerk
13 Packet Pg. 525
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council

Date: April 5, 2022
From: Dusty Christopherson, City Clerk
Via: Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Subject: Desk Item 10 – Elam Avenue Project Correspondence

Enclosed please find Desk Item 10 – Elam Avenue P roject. This De sk Item includes correspondence received before 3:00 p.m. the day of the meeting . This Desk Item will be added to the public agenda packet online. Any additional public comments will be added to the public agenda packet online following the meeting.

City of Campbell

MEMORANDUM
City Clerk’s Office

Presenter: Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
City Council
April 5, 2022
Item No. 10
1323 Elam Avenue

Project Site | 1323 Elam
❑ P-D (Planned Development)
❑ Low-Medium Density Res. (6-13)
❑ San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan
❑ 18,152 sq. ft. parcel
❑ Existing SFR to be Demolished
2 ❑ Previously approved (unanimous); expired February 6, 2020 ❑ City does not have special procedures for reinstatement; new applications submitted for reconsideration of project
❑ As project is in substantial conformance with original application; staff expedited review by holding SARC/PC on same night Background
3 ❑ Planned Development Permit
▪ Four two-story detached single-family homes
❑ Tentative Subdivision Map
▪ Four residential lots and one common lot
❑ Parking Modification Permit
▪ Two assigned parking spaces as guest
Applicant’s Proposal
4 2
1 3
4 That the City Council take the following action(s):

1. Adopt a Resolution, approving a Planned Development Permit, Tentative Subdivision Map, and Parking Modification Permit for the construction of four single-family homes, the creation of five lots (four single-family and one commonly owned lot), and two of the required assigned parking spaces to be provided as guest parking spaces.

Staff Recommendation
5 6
Questions?
Name
Stephen Rose Senior Planner

Public Feedback
7 ❑ Concerns with maintenance (overgrown weeds, illegal dumping) ❑ Concerns with design (privacy, setbacks, shading, parking) ❑ Concerns with timely completion
❑ Desire for utility undergrounding and pole removal/replacement (Desk Item / Email)
8 Rob Eastwood
-
Community Development Director
City Council
April 5, 2022
Item No. 11
Code Enforcement Enhancements
Campbell's Code Enforcement Program
• Respond to Community Complaints
• Addresses activities that violate Campbell's Municipal Codes
– Illegal Construction
– Operation of a Business without approvals
– Illegal Dumping
– Illegal Storage / Blight
Campbell's Code Enforcement Program
• One FTE Code Enforcement Officer
• Part Time Consultant Support (Case Backlog)
• Past Three Years – over 83% Case Closure Rate
2017 – New Cases: 373, Closed 311 – 83%
2018 – New Cases 441, Closed 372 – 84%
2019 – New Cases 400, Closed 382 – 95%
2020 – New Cases 272, Closed 210 – 77%
Three proposed Program Enhancements
• Compliance Agreement
• Community Restitution Fund
• Fee Adjustments
Compliance Agreement
• Cases in which the City has used all other code
enforcement tools but is unable to abate.
• Compliance Agreement -
– Individual admits to a violation
– Individual agrees to a mutually agreed to schedule to abate violation
– Protection from code enforcement fines, except for cost recovery – Legally binding agreement
Community Restitution Fund
• Unrecoverable costs to address code violations or take actions to prevent blight
– City funded abatement of violation
– Relocation assistance for displaced tenants – unsafe living conditions – Preventive Actions – dumpsters for neighborhoods, trash clean ups • Community Restitution Fund
– Special Revenue Fund – collect code enforcement fees on annual basis – allows quicker funding availabilty for
expenditures - est. $20,000 per year.

Code Enforcement Fee Adjustments
• Current Fee Schedule -
– Double fees for building permits to abate violations
– No pre-built financial incentive to quickly obtain permits. • Proposed Fee Modifications -
– Reduction in fees for permit applications that are submitted quickly after violation is issued.

Holistic Improvements to the
Code Enforcement Program
Quick Abatement
(Reduction of Fees for
quick applications)
Prevention
(Community Restitution Fund)
Closure of Difficult
Cases
(Compliance Agreement)
Next Steps
• Compliance Agreement – return with Ordinance
amendment
• Community Restitution Fund – include in FY 2023
Budget
• Fee Adjustments – to include as part of 4/19 Master Fee Update
10 Questions?
Name
Rob Eastwood CD Director
Randy Sweet Code Enforcement Officer