The URL can be used to link to this page

CEQA Review (Initial Study, MND, MMRP) CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION September 23, 2020 Lead Agency: City of Campbell, 70 N. 1st St., Campbell CA, 95008 Contact Person: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner – (408) 866-2193 / danielf@campbellca.gov Project Title: East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Project Location: 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 (APN: 424-06-119) Note: The project site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List as set forth in Government Code Section 65962.5. Project File No.: PLN-2019-148 Project Description: The proposed project includes the following land use entitlement requests: Zoning Map Amendment: To amend the Campbell Zoning Map to rezone the project site from R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development); Planned Development Permit: To allow construction of 25 two-story single-family homes, five accessory dwelling units (4 detached and one interior), a new private street, and associated site improvements; Tentative Subdivision Map: To create 25 private lots and four common lots, and associated public and private easements; Density Bonus: To allow an 32.5% increase in the allowable density, a reduction in required parking, and provision of two Very Low Income below-market-rate (BMR) units; and Tree Removal Permit: To allow removal of 17 on-site protected trees. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Campbell has prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092(b)(1), for the above described project. The Initial Study prepared by the City was undertaken for the purpose of determining whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of the Initial Study, the Community Development Director has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment due to the incorporation of certain mitigation measures, and therefore, has prepared a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: A 20-day public review period for the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration will commence on September 23, 2020 through October 13, 2020 (concluding at 5:00 PM) for interested individuals and public agencies to submit written comments on the document. Any comments on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration must be submitted to the City in writing at the above address or by email to the project planner at danielf@campbellca.gov before the close of the public review period. Comments may also be received at public hearings on the project. The Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review online at http://www.cityofcampbell.com/501/Public-Notices under 'Environmental Notices'. PUBLIC HEARINGS: The Planning Commission and City Council are tentatively scheduled to consider the proposed project and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration at public hearings to be held on October 13, 2020 and November 17, 2020, respectively. The meetings will be held at 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, via telecommunication in compliance with provisions of the Brown Act and Executive Order N-29-20 issued by Governor Newsom. PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL PAUL KERMOYAN, SECRETARY CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department 70 North First Street • Campbell, CA 95008-1423 • TEL (408) 866-2140 • FAX (408) 866-5140 • E-MAIL planning@cityofcampbell.com MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The Community Development Director has reviewed the proposed project described below to determine whether it could have a significant effect on the environment as a result of the project completion. “Significant effect on the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Project Title: East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Project Address: 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 City File No.: PLN2019-148 Entitlement(s): Zoning Map Amendment: To amend the Campbell Zoning Map to rezone the project site from R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development); Planned Development Permit: To allow construction of 25 two-story single- family homes, five accessory dwelling units (4 detached and one interior), a new private street, and associated site improvements; Tentative Subdivision Map: To create 25 private lots and four common lots, and associated public and private easements; Density Bonus: To allow an 32.5% increase in the allowable density, a reduction in required parking, and provision of two Very Low Income below- market-rate (BMR) units; and Tree Removal Permit: To allow removal of 17 on-site protected trees. Zoning District (E): R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District (P): P-D (Planned Development) General Plan: Low Density Residential (less than 6 units/gr. acre) Project Sponsor: Robson Homes, LLC 2185 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Property Owners: L H Evans Rentals LLC 19731 Almaden Rd San Jose, CA 95120 Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ East Mozart Avenue P-D Subdivision Page 2 of 7 Lead Agency: City of Campbell, Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 Contact Person: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner (408) 866-2193 | danielf@campbellca.gov Date Posted: September 23, 2020 Other public agencies whose approval is required: None Project Location and Surrounding Land Use: The project site consists of an approximately 3-acre parcel assemblage located along E. Mozart Avenue, west of Bascom Avenue and north of Highway 85. The site is within the R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District and is not subject to an area or neighborhood plan. Single-family residences border the site on the north, west, and south (across the street), with a medical office complex located to the east. Project Description: The proposed project is a residential planned development consisting of 23 detached single-family homes, two attached single-family homes (“duet”), and five accessory dwelling units accessed by a new private roadway. The project includes an application for a Zoning Map Amendment to amend the property’s zoning from R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development), a Tentative Subdivision Map to create 25 private lots and four common lots, a Planned Development Permit for general site layout and the architectural design of the proposed residences, a Density Bonus to increase the unit count from 18 to 25 (32.5% bonus), and a Tree Removal Permit to remove 17 protected trees. Finding: The Community Development Director finds that the project described above will not have a significant effect on the environment in that the attached Initial Study identifies one or more potentially significant effects on the environment for which the project proponent, before public release of this draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, has made or agrees to make project revisions that clearly mitigate the effects to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures Included in the Project to Reduce Potentially Significant Environmental Effects to a Less Than Significant Level: Air Quality - AQ Mitigation Measure AQ-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: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. 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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ East Mozart Avenue P-D Subdivision Page 3 of 7 5. All streets, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. 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. 8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with Tier 4 final engines. Biological Resources – BIO Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities should occur outside the nesting season, which generally occurs from February through August, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that habitat removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season, all suitable habitat should be thoroughly surveyed by a qualified biologist for the presence of nesting birds before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) should be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by a qualified biologist. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: To the extent practicable, site demolition should occur outside peak bat activity timeframes when young or overwintering bats may be present, which generally occurs from March through April and August through October, to ensure protection of potentially occurring bats and their roosts on the project site. Additionally, daily restrictions on the timing of any construction activities should be limited to daylight hours to reduce disturbance to roosting (and foraging) bat species. Additionally, a pre-demolition bat survey should be conducted within 30 days of the removal of any structures/buildings or trees. The survey should include a determination on whether active bat roosts are present on or within 50 feet of the project site. If a non-breeding and non-wintering bat colony is found, the individuals shall be evicted under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure their protection and avoid unnecessary harm. If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is found in the buildings or trees on the project site, then the qualified biologist shall establish a suitable construction-free buffer around the location. The construction-free buffer shall remain in place until the qualified biologist determines that the nursery is no longer active. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Construction drawings submitted for building and grading permits, as well as all demolition, grading, and construction activity, shall conform to the tree protection recommendations specified by the 16179 E. Mozart Tree Assessment, dated September 7, 2020, prepared by Walter Levison. Conformance with the specified recommendations during demolition, Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ East Mozart Avenue P-D Subdivision Page 4 of 7 grading, and construction activities shall be the obligation of the applicant's project arborist (PA). The applicant shall sign a mitigation agreement with the City confirming the role of its PA prior to issuance of any permits. Review of construction drawings for compliance with the specified recommendations shall be performed by the City's consulting arborist at the applicant's sole cost (to be paid for in advanced prior to submittal of permit applications). The Community Development Director may also direct the City's consulting arborist to perform independent monitoring of demolition, grading, and construction activity (to be paid for in advance by the applicant). 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 City 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 any on-site construction activity. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly treated. The City and the Santa Clara County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If deemed prehistoric, the Coroner’s office would notify the Native American Heritage Commission who would identify a "Most Likely Descendant (MLD)." The archeological consultant and MLD, in conjunction with the project sponsor, shall formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, removal and reburial on site, or elsewhere. Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner. Geology and Soils – GEO Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation Residential Development, dated December 10, 2019, prepared by Geo‐Logic Associates dba Pacific Geotechnical Engineering. Such recommendations shall be incorporated into the project’s final engineering design to prevent ponding of water in or near the building, ensure the conveyance of storm water away from the building, and avoid the saturation of foundation soils. 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. Hazards and Hazardous Materials – HAZ Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall furnish written confirmation from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health that it has approved and will oversee implementation of the draft Soil Management Plan, prepared by Ramboll US Corporation, dated June 23, 2020. Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ East Mozart Avenue P-D Subdivision Page 5 of 7 Noise - NOI Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The following measures shall be implemented during construction and demolition activity: 1. Schedule: Per section 18.04.052 of the City Municipal Code, construction is limited to between the hours of 8am and 5pm, Monday through Friday, and between 9am and 4pm on Saturdays. Demolition and loud activities should be limited to Monday through Friday. 2. Site Perimeter Barriers: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director upon resident complaints of excessive construction noise, the applicant shall provide sound-rated barriers should be constructed around the northwest and northeast property lines, as shown in Figure 1. This would include 8-ft tall barrier constructed with either two layers of ½-inch thick plywood (joints staggered) and K-rail or other support; or a limp mass barrier material weighing two pounds per square foot such as Kinetics KNM-200B or equivalent. The construction team should work closely with the neighboring residences to monitor any noise complaints received, and incorporate additional measures as feasible on a case by case basis. 3. Stationary Equipment Local Barriers: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director upon resident complaints of excessive construction noise, the applicant shall install localized barriers around stationary equipment such as air compressors that break line-of-sight to neighboring properties. 4. Generators: Locate generators far away from noise-sensitive receivers, as feasible. If necessary, generator noise could be reduced by providing sound-rated enclosures and exhaust mufflers or by providing a local noise barrier. 5. Construction Equipment: Where necessary, provide exhaust mufflers on pneumatic tools. All equipment should be properly maintained. 6. Truck Traffic: Minimize truck idling and require trucks to load and unload materials in the construction areas, as opposed to idling on local streets. If truck staging is required, locate the staging area along major roadways with higher traffic noise levels or away from the noise-sensitive receivers such as East Mozart Avenue. Trucks should be shut off when waiting to enter the site. 7. Methods: Consider means to reduce the use of heavy impact tools and locate these activities away from the property line as feasible. Other methods, including drilling, could be employed if noise levels are found to be excessive. 8. Notification and Confirmation: Notify neighbors of extreme noise generating activities including the estimated duration of the activity, construction hours, and contact information. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The following measures shall be implemented in the construction drawings submitted for a building permit: Window and exterior door STC3 ratings needed to meet the interior DNL 45 dB criteria should be as shown in Figures 2 through 4. Our calculations are based on the following assumptions: • All rooms will have hard-surfaced flooring Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ East Mozart Avenue P-D Subdivision Page 6 of 7 • Ceilings will be minimum 8-feet high throughout the residences • Exterior walls will be equivalent to 3-coat stucco over wood sheathing, wood studs with batt insulation in stud cavities, with at least 1 layer of gypsum board on the interior (approximately STC 45). STC ratings for selected assemblies should be based on laboratory testing performed in accordance with ASTM E-90 and comprise the entire window or door assembly, including the frame. If non-tested assemblies are to be used, an acoustical consultant must review the glazing and frame submittals, and the STC rating of the glass may need to be increased. For reference purposes, a typical one-inch insulated, dual-pane window achieves an STC rating of approximately 28 to 30. Where STC ratings above STC 34 are required, typically at least one pane will need to be laminated, however, this depends on the specific window manufacturer. Because windows must be closed to achieve the interior noise criteria, an alternate means of providing outside air (e.g., fresh-air exchange units, HVAC, Z-ducts, etc.) to habitable residential spaces should be considered for building facades exposed to an exterior DNL of 60 dB or greater. Operable windows are still acceptable provided they are not being relied upon to provide fresh air to the units. This applies to all facades. TRANSPORTATION – TRAN Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: To substantially lessen VMT impacts caused by the proposed project, the following mitigations can be implemented. 1. Wayfinding Signs – Install wayfinding signs at E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue, at the west end of the Mozart Avenue cul-de-sac, and at the foot of the pedestrian-bicycle overpass. These signs would familiarize potential users with the existing pedestrian/bicycle network. 2. Bike Route Signs and Sharrows – Designate E. Mozart Avenue as a bike route and install signs and sharrows. These installations will close the gap between the existing bike lanes along Bascom Avenue and the pedestrian-bicycle overpass. 3. Sidewalks – Install sidewalks along the project frontage to close the existing gap on Mozart Avenue. This will promote walking by project residents and others. 4. Bus Shelter – Install a bus shelter at the bus stop along Bascom Avenue across from E. Mozart Avenue. This is subject to VTA approval but is consistent with VTA’s Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Study. This will encourage new residents and others to use public transit by providing a bench and shade. 5. VTA Transit Passes – Provide introductory VTA Transit Passes to project residents. This can be administered by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). Providing VTA transit passes is intended to encourage residents to try transit and build a habit. 6. Fair Share Contribution – Contribute fair share funding to recently constructed bicycle and pedestrian improvements including the bike lanes on Bascom Avenue between Camden Avenue and SR 85 and ADA-compliant curb ramp upgrades between Camden Avenue and SR 85. Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ East Mozart Avenue P-D Subdivision Page 7 of 7 PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD Any person may file a written protest of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration during the public comment period running from September 23, 2020 to October 13, 2020 (concluding at 5:00 PM). Such protest must be filed at the Community Development Department, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California. The written protest should make a "fair argument" that the project will have one or more significant effects on the environment based on substantial evidence. Daniel Fama PROJECT PLANNER Senior Planner TITLE City of Campbell AGENCY _____________________________ September 15, 2020 SIGNATURE DATE The Initial Study is available for review from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM at the Campbell Community Development Department, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell, CA and online at http://www.cityofcampbell.com/501/Public-Notices under ' Environmental Notices'. INITIAL STUDY East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision An environmental evaluation prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Prepared by Daniel Fama, Senior Planner City of Campbell Community Development Department Planning Division 70 N. First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Public Review Period September 23, 2020 to October 13, 2020 Project Overview Page No. 2 I. PROJECT OVERVIEW Project Title: East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Project Address: 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, CA 95008 City File No.: PLN2019-148 Entitlement(s): Zoning Map Amendment: To amend the Campbell Zoning Map to rezone the project site from R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development); Planned Development Permit: To allow construction of 25 two-story single-family homes, five accessory dwelling units (4 detached and one interior), a new private street, and associated site improvements; Tentative Subdivision Map: To create 25 private lots and four common lots, and associated public and private easements; Density Bonus: To allow an 32.5% increase in the allowable density, a reduction in required parking, and provision of two Very Low Income below-market-rate (BMR) units; and Tree Removal Permit: To allow removal of 17 on-site protected trees. Zoning District (E): R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District (P): P-D (Planned Development) Area Plan: N/A General Plan: Low Density Residential (less than 6 units/gr. acre) Project Sponsor: Robson Homes, LLC 2185 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Property Owners: L H Evans Rentals LLC 19731 Almaden Rd San Jose, CA 95120 Lead Agency: City of Campbell, Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 Contact Person: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner (408) 866-2193 | danielf@campbellca.gov Date Posted: September 16, 2020 Other public agencies whose approval is required: None Project Overview Page No. 3 Project Location and Surrounding Land Use: The project site consists of an approximately 3- acre parcel assemblage located along E. Mozart Avenue, west of Bascom Avenue and north of Highway 85. The site is within the R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning District and is not subject to an area or neighborhood plan. Single-family residences border the site on the north, west, and south (across the street), with a medical office complex located to the east. Project Description: The proposed project is a residential planned development consisting of 23 detached single-family homes, two attached single-family homes (“duet”), and five accessory dwelling units accessed by a new private roadway. The project includes an application for a Zoning Map Amendment to amend the property’s zoning from R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development), a Tentative Subdivision Map to create 25 private lots and four common lots, a Planned Development Permit for general site layout and the architectural design of the proposed residences, a Density Bonus to increase the unit count from 18 to 25 units, and a Tree Removal Permit to remove 17 protected trees. PROJECT DATA Net Lot Area: 2.92 acres Gross Lot Area: 3.15 acres Zoning (existing): R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) Zoning (proposed): P-D (Planned Development) General Plan (no change): Low Density Residential (less than 6 units/gr. acre) Proposed Dwelling Units: 23 detached single-family homes 2 attached single-family homes (i.e., duet) 4 accessory dwelling units (detached) 1 accessory dwelling unit (interior) 30 dwelling units Proposed Density: 7.9 units/gr. acre (excludes ADUs) Allowable (Max) Density: 8.1 units/gr. acre (including Density Bonus) Unit Sizes: Detached Units (23): 2,713 sq. ft. to 3,081 sq. ft. Attached Units (2): 2,443 sq. ft. to 2,527 sq. ft. Detached ADUs (4): 476 sq. ft. Interior ADU (1): 427 sq. ft. Building Coverage: 27% to 57% (per lot range) Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 0.52 to 1.14 (per lot range) Building Heights: 24’-2” to 31’-9” (per lot range) Parking: Provided Minimum Required 71 (50 resident/21 guest) 63 (2 ½ stalls x 25 units) Project Exhibits – Location Map Page No. 4 Location Map Project Exhibits – Existing Site Configuration / Demolition Plan Page No. 5 Existing Site Configuration / Demolition Plan Project Exhibits – Tentative Subdivision Map Page No. 6 Tentative Subdivision Map Project Exhibits – Preliminary Site Plan Page No. 7 Preliminary Site Plan Project Exhibits – Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan Page No. 8 Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan Project Exhibits – Preliminary Stormwater Treatment Plan Page No. 9 Preliminary Stormwater Treatment Plan Project Exhibits – Preliminary Utility Plan Page No. 10 Preliminary Utility Plan Project Exhibits – Preliminary Landscaping Plan Page No. 11 Preliminary Landscaping Plan Environmental Impact Evaluation – Overview Page No. 12 II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION: The following evaluation has been prepared to determine if the proposed project may result in a “significant impact” on the environment. For the purposes of this study, a significant impact means a substantial or potentially substantial change in the physical environment. The following terms used in the evaluation are defined as specified below: "Potentially Significant Impact" means that there is either substantial evidence that an effect may be significant or, due to lack of existing information, may have potential to be a significant effect. "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" means the incorporation of one or more mitigation measures can reduce the effect from potentially significant to a less than significant level. "Less Than Significant Impact" means that there is sufficient evidence available to determine that the effect is less than significant and no mitigation is necessary to reduce the impact to a lesser level. "No Impact" means that the effect does not apply to the proposed project, or clearly will not impact nor be impacted by the project. A description of the proposed mitigation measures and the factual data or evidence used to reach conclusions regarding impact significance follows each section. The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. The recommended mitigation measures are summarized in Section III: Summary of Mitigation Measures. 1. Aesthetics 2. Agricultural and Forest Resources 3. Air Quality 4. Biological Resources 5. Cultural Resources 6. Energy 7. Geology/Soils 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 9. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 10. Hydrology/Water Quality 11. Land Use/Planning 12. Mineral Resources 13. Noise 14. Population/Housing 15. Public Services 16. Recreation 17. Transportation 18. Tribal Cultural Resources 19. Utilities/Service System 20. Wildfire 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance Environmental Impact Evaluation – Aesthetics Page No. 13 1. AESTHETICS Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? (d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (a-c) – No Impact: The project will alter the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings through demolition of existing structures and eventual development of the proposed residential community. However, since the project site, nor any area, roadway or view-corridor in vicinity of the project site, is a recognized scenic vista or scenic resource, these activities will not result in an adverse environmental affect. Further, the project is subject to various policies and strategies of the Campbell General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, intended to facilitate development that improves the visual character of the community through good design and site planning through an iterative design review and approval process which takes into account public input. (d) – Less than Significant Impact: Currently, the project site has very limited lighting associated with the existing single-family residences. New site lighting is anticipated to include down-lit fixtures for the new residences. As all new lighting is subject to the City’s Lighting Design Standards (CMC Sec. 21.18.090)—which requires lighting to be designed and installed so that light rays are not emitted across property lines— such that the project would not result in new sources of substantial light or glare. Compliance with this requirement is reflected in the project's photometric plan (Sheet PE1). Mitigation Measures(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Agricultural and Forestry Resources Page No. 14 2. AGRICULTURE and FORESTRY RESOURCES Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? (b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(9)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (a-e) – No Impact: The project site may have historically been used for agricultural production, but is no longer used for, nor zoned for farmland or timberland, or other agricultural or horticultural purpose. Neither the project site nor surrounding properties contain farmland or support agricultural activity that could be impacted by the project. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 15 3. AIR QUALITY Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The following discussion is excerpted in part from Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment, dated July 2019, prepared by ESA (reference Attachment 1). (a) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Bay Area is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan - Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP updates the 2010 Clean Air Plan to fulfill state ozone planning requirements, and includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]) and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 CAP builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants (BAAQMD, 2017c). BAAQMD recommends that a project’s consistency determination with the applicable air quality plan be made with respect to the following questions. If all the questions are concluded in the affirmative, and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 2017b). 1. Does the project support the primary goals of the air quality plan? The primary goals of the 2017 CAP are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure to pollutants, protect public health within the SFAAB, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate. Any project that would not support these goals would not be considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. The recommended measure for determining project support of these goals is consistency with BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. As indicated in the discussion under checklist question b) below, the Project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant prior to mitigation and would be reduced further with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) and fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Long-term operational emissions would be less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, per BAAQMD guidance, the Project would be considered to support the primary goals of the 2017 CAP. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 16 2. Does the project include applicable control measures from the applicable air quality plan? Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. The 2017 CAP includes a comprehensive strategy of 85 measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source and transportation control measures, the 2017 CAP contains a number of new control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources. BAAQMD encourages project developers to incorporate all feasible measures in the building, energy, transportation, waste, and water sectors into proposed project designs and plan elements. The Project is located in an area well served by public transit. Existing public transit services in the Project area are provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and include bus and light-rail transit (LRT) services connecting all of Santa Clara County. The Project site is less than 3 miles from the Winchester LRT station and Transit Center, which is served by a number of connecting buses and includes a park and ride lot. Local bus service to the Winchester station and other areas is available from the Bascom & Apsis bus stop located 400 feet from the Project site. The Project’s location in an area with access to transit services would serve to reduce vehicle trips. Future residents of the Project could also be expected to take advantage of teleworking opportunities reducing vehicle trips further, but the extent to which teleworking would occur cannot be accurately predicted at this time. The Project features described above ensure consistency of the Project with the transportation sector control measures in the 2017 CAP. The Project would comply with the California Green Building (CalGreen) Code and Title 24 building energy efficiency requirements, and would include energy saving features such as high- efficiency lighting and water heaters. The City, as part of its implementation of the CalGreen residential code requirements, requires a disclosure and certification of construction materials used in building construction for volatile organic compounds (VOC) compliance, water conservation and efficiency. Project homes would include solar panels and would be pre-wired to accommodate electric car chargers in the garage. Additionally, electricity in Campbell is provided by the Community Choice Energy Agency, Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), which automatically enrolls customers in the Carbon Free program which includes electricity generated from renewable and carbon-free sources. These features ensure Project consistency with the control measures in the energy and building sectors of the 2017 CAP. The City requires that a Waste Management Plan (WMP) for demolition and construction be completed and approved to obtain a building permit. Consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Section 6.12, the Project would comply with the WMP’s requirement to salvage, reuse or recycle a minimum of 50 percent of all construction and demolition debris. The Project residences would be served by the West Valley Collection and Recycling services, which provides an unlimited curbside recycling program. The program would facilitate the proper recycling and disposal of waste from the Project residences in accordance with the City’s waste management requirements as well as statewide waste reduction goals. These features ensure Project consistency with the control measures in the waste sector of the 2017 CAP. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 17 The Project would comply with indoor water conservation measures included in the CalGreen Code. The Project would also comply with the City’s Water Conservation requirements through a storm water management plan during construction, a reduction of indoor water use by at least 20% using water saving fixtures or flow restrictors, and use of weather-based automatic irrigation systems to reduce outdoor water use. These features ensure Project consistency with the control measures in the water sector of the 2017 CAP. In summary, existing mechanisms or those included in the Project would be consistent with all of the relevant control measures of the 2017 CAP. 3. Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures in the air quality plan? If approval of a project would not cause the disruption, delay or otherwise hinder the implementation of any air quality plan control measure, the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with the 2017 CAP. As discussed above, the Project would comply with all feasible control measures in the 2017 CAP. Construction and operation of the Project would also not hinder implementation of any other control measures included in the 2017 CAP. (b) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: According to the BAAQMD, no single project can, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. The BAAQMD Guidelines recommend using its quantitative thresholds of significance to determine if an individual project’s emissions would considerably contribute to cumulative air quality impacts in the region. If a project’s emissions exceed the identified significance thresholds, its contribution to cumulative air quality would be considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Alternatively, if a project does not exceed the identified significance thresholds, then the project would not be considered cumulatively considerable and would result in less-than-significant air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 2017b). The Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality of the area has been evaluated below by comparing its construction and operational emissions to the applicable BAAQMD thresholds. The Project would generate criteria pollutants and TACs during short-term construction activities as well as long-term operational criteria pollutant emissions from sources including on-road vehicles, onsite area and energy sources. As the Project consists of development of only residential land uses, once operational, it would not be a source of substantial TACs. Construction Construction of the Project would generate air pollutant emissions from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, vehicle trips hauling materials, and construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Mobile source emissions, primarily NOX, would be generated from the use of construction equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, wheeled loaders, and fork lifts. During the finishing phase, paving operations and the application of asphalt, architectural coatings (i.e., paints and varnishes) and other building materials would release ROG. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these sources and phases, and recognizes that construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 18 CalEEMod was used to quantify construction emissions associated with off-road equipment, paving, architectural coatings, haul trucks associated with demolition, on-road worker vehicle emissions, and vendor delivery trips (see Appendix A). Construction for the Project was assumed to occur from July 2020 through January 2021 to provide a worst-case analysis using a compressed 6-month construction schedule. Average daily emissions would be reduced if the duration of construction is prolonged. Unmitigated construction-related criteria pollutant exhaust emissions for the Project are presented in Table 2-3. The estimated emissions consider the following basic construction phases: demolition; excavation/grading; building construction; asphalt paving; and application of architectural coatings. As shown in Table 2-3, average daily regional emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD daily significance thresholds during construction. Project related demolition, grading, excavation and building construction activities at the project site may cause wind-blown dust that could generate particulate matter into the atmosphere. Fugitive dust includes not only PM10 and PM2.5 but also larger particles that can cause nuisance impacts. For mitigation of fugitive dust emissions, the BAAQMD Guidelines recommend using specific Best Management Practices (BMPs), which has been a practical and effective approach to control fugitive dust emissions. The Guidelines note that individual measures have been shown to reduce fugitive dust by anywhere from 30 percent to more than 90 percent and conclude that projects that implement construction BMPs would reduce fugitive dust emissions to a less than significant level. To ensure implementation of BMPs they are identified herein as Mitigation Measure 2-1. Thus, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-1, the Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to construction emissions. Operation Once the Project residences are occupied, air pollutant emissions would be generated from vehicle trips generated by the Project occupants as well as from on-site area and energy sources (e.g., natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance, use of consumer products such as hairsprays, deodorants, cleaning products, etc.) Project operational emissions were also calculated using the CalEEMod and the results are presented in Table 2-4 below. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 19 Table 2-4 summarizes the average daily mobile, energy, and area emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by Project operation and compares the emissions to BAAQMD thresholds. As shown in Table 2-4, operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations, and thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions. In regards to localized CO concentrations, the BAAQMD has developed screening criteria for local CO impacts. Projects would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met: 1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The proposed Project would generate minimal new traffic trips and would not exceed these screening criteria. Based on the BAAQMD’s criteria, project-related traffic from both projects would not exceed CO standards and therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts. This impact would be considered less than significant on a project-level and cumulative basis. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 20 (c) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The potential for the proposed Project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations are examined separately for the construction and operation phases. Toxic Air Contaminants Construction Construction activities for the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 emissions due to combustion equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and haul truck trips. These emissions could result in elevated concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 at nearby receptors. These elevated concentrations could lead to an increase in the risk of cancer or other health impacts. Consequently, a health risk assessment was performed to determine the extent of increased cancer and non-cancer risks at the maximally exposed receptors. The health risk assessment was based on recommended methodology of the Office of Environmental of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and adopted by the BAAQMD (BAAQMD, 2012b). The cancer risk to nearby residential receptors assumes exposure would occur 8 hours per day, five days per week, to account for the active construction duration. Additionally, cancer risk estimates also incorporate age sensitivity factors and daily breathing rates recommended by OEHHA. This approach factors in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to carcinogens as compared to adults as required by OEHHA. Dispersion modeling predicts the air pollutant concentrations due to emissions from a source at defined receptor point locations. The most current version (18081) of the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) was used in the modeling analysis for this Project. The AERMOD model is a USEPA-approved model that was introduced to incorporate air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources and both simple and complex terrain. The AERMOD model requires numerous inputs, such as meteorological data, source parameters, topographical data, and receptor characteristics. The overall AERMOD modeling parameters are shown in Table 2-5. Construction sources were modeled as an area source for the main construction activities and as a line area source to represent the potential on road haul truck and vendor trips: the source configurations are presented in Table 2-6. Where Project-specific information is not available, ESA used default parameter sets that are designed to produce conservative (i.e., overestimates of) air concentrations (USEPA, 2018). Modeling inputs and results are presented in Appendix B. The maximally exposed receptor would be adjacent residences to the project along Beethoven Lane. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 21 Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 22 Potential health risk at sensitive receptors resulting from construction activities were calculated using the OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines and the results of the AERMOD dispersion model (OEHHA, 2015). Unmitigated project construction maximum cancer risk is shown in Table 2-7 below. The chronic hazard impact and annual PM2.5 concentration from unmitigated project construction are shown in Table 2-8. Appendix C presents the risk equations, calculations, and results. As shown in Table 2-7, the incremental cancer risk at the maximum exposed residential receptor of 20.77 in one million (assuming exposure starting at 3rd trimester) would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million without mitigation. The maximum annual PM2.5 unmitigated concentration is 0.50 µg/m3 which would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. US EPA Certified Tier 4 that greatly reduce DPM emissions through fuel efficiency and emissions controls are now widely available and used throughout California. If Tier 4 engines are utilized during construction DPM emissions, the associated health risks will be greatly reduced. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires construction equipment to be equipped with Tier 4 engines. After mitigation, project construction maximum cancer risk is shown in Table 2-9 below. The chronic hazard impact and annual PM2.5 concentration from mitigated project construction are shown in Table 2-10. Appendix C presents the risk equations, calculations, and results. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 23 As shown in Table 2-9, the incremental cancer risk at the maximum exposed residential receptor of 5.0 in one million (assuming exposure starting at 3rd trimester) would now be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million with mitigation. The maximum annual PM2.5 mitigated concentration is 0.04 µg/m3 which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. The chronic hazard impacts for both the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios are under the BAAQMD threshold of one. The Project health risk impacts would thus be less than significant after mitigation. In terms of other potential construction impacts, unmitigated demolition activities could result in airborne entrainment of asbestos, a TAC, particularly where structures built prior to 1980 would be demolished. However, these materials would be removed in accordance with the procedures specified by Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing) of BAAQMD’s regulations; therefore, with adherence to regulatory requirements, asbestos would not be emitted to any substantial degree during demolition. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would ensure that project-generated fugitive dust during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Operation Unlike ozone and other regional pollutants, TACs are a localized pollution problem. TACs produced at distant locations do not readily combine to create concentrations at any single location that would cause health risks. The BAAQMD’s method for determining health risk requires the review of health risk from permitted sources, railroads, and major streets in the vicinity of a project site (i.e., within 1,000 feet of the proposed new sensitive residential receptors on the project site), then adding the project operational impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded. BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted and Highway TAC emissions Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 24 sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area for estimating health risks to new sensitive receptors from existing permitted sources. Highway 17 is approximately 530 feet and Highway 85 is approximately 430 feet from the project site. Emissions from Bascom Avenue were estimated based on the City’s General Plan and BAAQMD’s Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator (Campbell, 2014) (BAAQMD, 2012d). Details of the emission estimates for Bascom Avenue are given in Appendix D. Unlike for a project level assessment, for the cumulative assessment, the risks from all sources within 1,000 feet of the Project site are summed and compared to the cumulative significance thresholds. The nearby roadway sources can be seen in Figure 1. There are no permitted stationary sources within 1000 feet of the project site. Additionally, there would be no onsite stationary sources of TACs and TAC emissions from Project-generated traffic would be negligible. A summary of the cumulative health impacts is shown in Table 2-11. The cumulative maximally-exposed receptor is assumed to be a proposed residence exposed to maximum risk from all sources, which would be a conservative assessment. As demonstrated in Table 2-11, health impacts on the Project sensitive receptors from existing sources (Highway 17, Highway 85, and Bascom Avenue) in the area would have a cumulative impact less than the BAAQMD thresholds for cancer risk, chronic health hazards, and PM2.5 concentrations. The cumulative cancer risk from all sources within 1,000 feet of proposed sensitive receptors would be approximately 50.77 in one million, which would be below the BAAQMD cumulative threshold of 100 in one million and would be less than significant. The cumulative hazard index from all such sources would be approximately 0.03, which is well below the significance threshold of 10 and would Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 25 be less than significant. The cumulative PM2.5 concentration would be approximately 0.42 µg/m3, which would be below the significance threshold of 0.8 µg/m3 and is considered less than significant. Criteria Air Pollutants The following analysis of air quality impacts considers the potential impacts related to emissions of nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. Although ozone, as a secondary pollutant, would not be directly emitted by the Project, ozone precursors ROG and NOx would be emitted and are therefore, along with particulate matter, the focus of the impact assessment. Given that ozone formation occurs through a complex photo-chemical reaction between NOX and ROG in the atmosphere with the presence of sunlight, the impacts of ozone are typically considered on a basin- wide or regional basis instead of a localized basis. The health-based ambient air quality standards for ozone are established as concentrations of ozone and not as tonnages of their precursor pollutants (i.e., NOX and ROG). It is not necessarily the tonnage of precursor pollutants that causes human health effects, but the concentration of the resulting secondary pollutants which are ozone and particulate matter in this case. Because of the complexity of ozone formation and the non-linear relationship of ozone concentration with its precursor gases, and given the state of atmospheric modeling in use at this time, it is infeasible and not scientifically defensible to convert specific emissions levels of NOX or ROG emitted in a particular area to a particular concentration of ozone in that area. Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, seasonal impacts, and other complex photochemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and occurrence of ozone. Since the Project would not exceed the numeric indicator for ROG and NOX emissions during either construction or operation, it is not likely that Project ROG and NOX emissions could result in an increase in ground-level ozone concentrations in proximity to the Project sites or elsewhere in the air basin and impacts can be considered less than significant. As expressed in the amicus curiae brief submitted for the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case (Friant Ranch Case), the CEQA criteria pollutants significance thresholds from the air districts were set at emission levels tied to the region’s attainment status. These emission levels are indexed to stationary pollution sources permitted by the air district to compel the operator to offset their emissions and they are not intended to be correlated to localized human health impacts. Furthermore, available models today are designed to determine regional, population-wide health impacts, and cannot accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or ROG emissions at a project level. Therefore, it is not scientifically defensible to connect the project- level ROG or NOX emissions to ozone-related health impacts at present. (d) – No Impact: BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. The proposed Project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors; this is a less than significant impact. Also, there are no sources of odor located in the Project area that future occupants of the Project would be exposed to. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to exposure of people of odorous emissions. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 26 Mitigation Measure(s): The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project approval: Mitigation Measure AQ-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: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. 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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All streets, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. 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. 8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with Tier 4 final engines. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resources Page No. 27 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? The following discussion is excerpted in part from Biological Resources Assessment, dated March 2020, prepared by Dudek (reference Attachment 2) and the 16179 E. Mozart Tree Assessment, dated August 14, 2020, prepared by Walter Levison (reference Attachment 3) for this project. (a) – Less than Significant Impact: The biological resources assessment included the approximate 2.93-acre project site, plus a 100-foot buffer around the project site. The entire project site is characterized by an ornamental, orchard, and other non-native species. Several mature oak trees occur throughout the project site. Due to the disturbed condition of the project site and developed nature of the study area, the potential for special-status species is low. Plant Species No plant species listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by either the CDFW or USFWS were detected within the study area during the reconnaissance survey on February 5, 2020. Dudek performed a review of literature, existing documentation, and GIS data to evaluate the potential for special-status plant species to occur within the study area. Each special-status plant species was given a rating of not expected, low, medium, or high based on relative location to known occurrences, vegetation communities, soils, and elevation. Based on the results of the literature review and database searches, 42 special-status plant species were identified as previously occurring within the region. The complete results of the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPAC records searches for special-status plants are included as Appendix A of this report. However, none of these species are expected to occur or have a low potential to occur within the study area based on the soils, current disturbance levels, vegetation communities (habitat) present, elevation ranges, and previous known locations documented within the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC records. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resources Page No. 28 Additionally, there is no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for listed plant species within the study area. Due to the nature of the study area, special-status plant species would unlikely survive with the current amount of disturbance, non-native plant competition, and surrounding development already in place. As a result, direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant. Wildlife Species No wildlife species listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by either the CDFW or USFWS were detected within the study area during the reconnaissance survey on February 5, 2020. Dudek performed a review of literature, existing documentation, and GIS data to evaluate the potential for special-status wildlife species to occur within the study area. Similar to plants, each special-status wildlife species was given a rating of not expected, low, moderate, or high based on relative location to know occurrences, vegetation communities, and elevation. Based on the results of the literature review and database searches, 41 special-status wildlife species were identified as occurring within the region. The complete results of the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC records searches for special-status wildlife are included as Appendix A of this report. However, none of these species are expected or have a low potential to occur within the study area based on the vegetation communities (habitat) present, elevation ranges, and previous known locations documented within the CNDDB and IPaC records. Additionally, there is no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for listed wildlife species within the study area. As a result, direct or indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species would be less than significant. (b) – No Impact: The entire project site is characterized by a disturbed and ornamental land cover. No riparian habitat or other natural vegetation communities considered sensitive are present within the impact footprint. As a result, there would be no impact to riparian or sensitive vegetation communities. (c) – No Impact: No state or federally defined waters of the United States or waters of the state occur within the project site. This includes the absence of federally defined wetlands and other waters (e.g., drainages), and state-defined waters (e.g., streams and riparian extent). Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands would occur. (d) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The proposed project is located within an urban setting surrounded by residential and commercial developments. Due to the matrix of development surrounding the project site, wildlife movement is extremely limited and the proposed project would not constrain natural wildlife movement in its vicinity. However, the study area supports suitable habitat for nesting bird species, as well as bats. Nesting birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3500, and compliance with these regulations is required. Project plans include the removal of existing structures and vegetation considered suitable for nests and roosts. Additionally, indirect impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats from short- term construction-related noise could result in decreased reproductive success or abandonment of an area as nesting or roosting habitat if conducted during the nesting season (i.e., February through August) or near a maternity roost. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and BIO-2 would ensure potential impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats are less than significant. (e) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) was initially retained by City of Campbell planning division to assess twenty-six (26) protected-size trees on and near the above-noted commercial site that is currently being utilized by one or more tree care companies as an office, staging site, and equipment storage area. The forested site is a holdout from 19th or 20th century ranching activities, and contains a large number of mature native coast live Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resources Page No. 29 oak specimens (Quercus agrifolia) as well as numerous smaller diameter fruit orchard trees such as edible plum and edible almond. The following tables summarizes those trees proposed to be removed and retained: The trees proposed to be removed conflict with proposed site improvements and building footprint. However, the project has been designed to save has many quality oak trees as reasonably possible. The City's Consulting Arborist has conducted an extensive review of the trees proposed to be preserved with regard to impacts from the finish grade elevation, tree canopies, foundation exaction and tree wells, pedestrian walkway, storm drain alignment, irrigation piping. With the implementation of provided recommended measures, incorporated as Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the project would not conflict with the City's locally adopted Tree Preservation Ordinance. (f) – No Impact: The proposed project is within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan boundaries, but not within a designated conservation area. The project site does not support habitat for listed species or habitats covered by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. Mitigation Measure(s): The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project approval: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities should occur outside the nesting season, which generally occurs from February through August, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that habitat removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season, all suitable habitat should be thoroughly surveyed by a qualified biologist for the presence of nesting birds before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) should be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by a qualified biologist. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: To the extent practicable, site demolition should occur outside peak bat activity timeframes when young or overwintering bats may be present, which generally occurs from March through April and August through October, to ensure protection of potentially occurring bats and their roosts on the project site. Additionally, daily restrictions on the timing of any construction activities should be limited to daylight hours to reduce disturbance to roosting (and foraging) bat species. Additionally, a pre-demolition bat survey should be conducted within 30 days of the removal of any structures/buildings or trees. The survey should include a determination on whether active bat roosts are present on or within 50 feet of the project site. If a non-breeding and non-wintering bat colony is found, the individuals shall be evicted under the Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resources Page No. 30 direction of a qualified biologist to ensure their protection and avoid unnecessary harm. If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is found in the buildings or trees on the project site, then the qualified biologist shall establish a suitable construction-free buffer around the location. The construction-free buffer shall remain in place until the qualified biologist determines that the nursery is no longer active. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Construction drawings submitted for building and grading permits, as well as all demolition, grading, and construction activity, shall conform to the tree protection recommendations specified by the 16179 E. Mozart Tree Assessment, dated September 7, 2020, prepared by Walter Levison. Conformance with the specified recommendations during demolition, grading, and construction activities shall be the obligation of the applicant's project arborist (PA). The applicant shall sign a mitigation agreement with the City confirming the role of its PA prior to issuance of any permits. Review of construction drawings for compliance with the specified recommendations shall be performed by the City's consulting arborist at the applicant's sole cost (to be paid for in advanced prior to submittal of permit applications). The Community Development Director may also direct the City's consulting arborist to perform independent monitoring of demolition, grading, and construction activity (to be paid for in advance by the applicant). Environmental Impact Evaluation – Cultural Resources Page No. 31 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (a) – No Impact: The project site does not contain known historical resources as defined in §15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. (b-c) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The project site does not contain known archaeological, paleontological, or other cultural resources. However, should any cultural resources be discovered during project construction, the implementation of the Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. (d) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: No human remains are known to exist on the project site. However, should human remains be discovered during excavation or construction, the implementation of the Mitigation Measure CUL-2 would reduce any potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure(s): The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project approval: 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 City 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 any on-site construction activity. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly treated. The City and the Santa Clara County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If deemed prehistoric, the Coroner’s office would notify the Native American Heritage Commission who would identify a "Most Likely Descendant (MLD)." The archeological consultant and MLD, in conjunction with the project sponsor, shall formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, removal and reburial on site, or elsewhere. Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Energy Page No. 32 6. ENERGY Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (b) Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (a) – Less than Significant Impact: During construction activities there would be a temporary increase in the consumption of energy resources for the movement of equipment, soils, and materials (as well as for the assembly of materials); however, the duration of such activity would be limited to construction phases and would be relatively brief compared to the life-cycle of the new residences. As the project result in the construction of multiple-single family homes at the same time, the relative energy consumption on a per-unit basis would be less than the energy consumed to construct the same number of homes individually, due to the consolidation of activities (i.e. grading across multiple homes, consolidated soil hauling and material delivery trips). Further, the extent of grading activities is limited to the extent necessary to resolve drainage activities. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations (e.g., limit engine idling times, require the recycling of construction debris, etc.) would reduce short-term energy demand during the project’s construction to the extent feasible, and project construction would not result in a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. During operation of the residences, there would be no unusual project characteristics or processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy than is used for comparable activities, or the use of equipment that would not conform to current emission standards and related fuel efficiencies. Through compliance with the California Green Building Standards Code and California Green Building Standards (CALGreen), or successor document(s), the homes could be anticipated to use less energy as a result of using more efficient HVAC systems, insulation, water-heating systems, and electrical fixtures than existing/older single-family homes. Further, as the California Green Building Standards require a manual, compact disc, web-based reference or other media providing directions to the owner or occupant operational and maintenance instructions, operation will of the home should continue to avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources for the life cycle of the building. (b) – Less than Significant Impact: State and local agencies regulate the use and consumption of energy through various methods and programs, including the California Green Building Code and CAL Green Building Standards. As a result of the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB32; the California Global Warning Solutions Act of 2006) which seeks to reduce the effects of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions, a majority of the state regulations are intended to reduce energy use and GHG emissions. These include, among others, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6 – Energy Efficiency Standards, and the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11 – California Green Building Standards (CALGreen). Environmental Impact Evaluation – Energy Page No. 33 At the local level, the City of Campbell’s Building Division enforces the applicable requirements of these documents. Accordingly, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Geology and Soils Page No. 34 7. GEOLOGY and SOILS Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Section 1803.5.3 of the California Building Code (2016), creating substantial risks to life or property? (e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? (a) – Less than Significant Impact: The project site is located within the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area. According to maps prepared under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, there are no zoned active faults within the City of Campbell. Therefore, ground rupture is not likely to occur at the site. The nearest major earthquake faults are the Monte Vista Shannon Fault, San Andreas Fault, the Hayward-Rogers Creek Fault and the Calaveras Fault, all of which pose the greatest earthquake threat because of their high quake potential. The project will likely be subjected to at least one moderate to severe earthquake that will cause moderate to severe ground shaking during the useful life of the building. Because construction practices in the State of California—pursuant to the California Building Code—take into account that earthquakes could potentially damage buildings, they are designed to withstand moderate ground-shaking, resulting in a less than significant impact. In regard to liquefaction, the geotechnical evaluation prepared for this project (reference Attachment 4) concluded that the property of liquefaction of the site is low. Lastly, according to the State Seismic Hazard Zones Map, the project site is not located in any hazard zone and therefore does not have the potential for liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslides. (b) – No Impact: Development of the project will require grading that could result in a temporary increase in erosion. This increase in erosion is expected to be relatively minor due to the small size and flatness of the site. Additionally, the project is subject to the mandatory stormwater protection requirements (“best management practices”) of the City’s NPDES permit. (c-d) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: According to the Santa Clara County Geologic Hazard Zones Map, the project site is not geologically unstable and would not pose a risk of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Additionally, the geotechnical evaluation prepared for this project (reference Attachment 4) evaluated the geotechnical conditions of the site. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Energy Page No. 35 The review included four exploratory drill holes to depths between approximately 11 and 49 feet below ground surface (bgs) and four Cone Penetration Test (CPT) probes to depths between approximately 7.4 and 35 feet bgs. Based on the results of the investigation the subject site was determined to be geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1—requiring compliance with all measures identified by the geotechnical report—the project would not be located soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. (e) – No Impact: The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. (f) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: As discussed in Section 5 (Cultural Resources), no unique paleontological resources or unique geological features are known to exist on the project site. However, should such resources exist, their disturbance would be a potentially significant impact. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 will ensure that in such event, treatment of paleontological resources or unique geological features, would be conducted in an appropriate manner as to preserve their integrity. Mitigation Measures(s): The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project approval: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation Residential Development, dated December 10, 2019, prepared by Geo‐Logic Associates dba Pacific Geotechnical Engineering. Such recommendations shall be incorporated into the project’s final engineering design to prevent ponding of water in or near the building, ensure the conveyance of storm water away from the building, and avoid the saturation of foundation soils. 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. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page No. 36 8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment? (b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The following discussion is excerpted in part from Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment, dated July 2019, prepared by ESA (reference Attachment 1). (a) – Less than Significant Impact: BAAQMD requires that both direct and indirect sources of GHG emissions be considered in the analysis. Direct emissions include emissions from construction equipment and vehicles, operational vehicle trips generated by the Project, use of natural gas for onsite water and space heating, and use of fuel in landscaping equipment. Indirect emissions are associated with offsite electricity generation, transport and disposal of solid waste, and water and wastewater transport and treatment. These GHG sources and emissions are detailed below: • Construction Activities. Construction equipment typically use fossil-based fuels (primarily diesel) to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. CH4 is also emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. • Solid Waste Disposal Emissions. When solid waste generated by projects is deposited in landfills, anthropogenic CH4 is generated from the anaerobic breakdown of the organic material in solid waste. • Gas, Electricity, and Water Use. Natural gas use for water and space heating results in the emissions of two GHGs: CH4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 from the combustion of natural gas. CH4 is released prior to initiation of combustion of the natural gas (as before a flame on a stove is sparked), and from the small amount of CH4 that remains not combusted in a natural gas flame. Electricity used on-site can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combustion of fossil fuel. GHG emissions from water and wastewater transport result from the generation of energy required to treat and transport water from its source, and the energy required to treat wastewater and transport it to its treated discharge point. • Motor Vehicle Use. Transportation associated with the project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. However, not all of these emissions would be “new” to the region or state since drivers would likely have relocated from another area. To be conservative, however, all vehicle trips predicted were assumed to be new trips in this analysis. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page No. 37 GHG emissions over the 6-month construction period were estimated using CalEEMod and amortized assuming a 30-year development life after completion of construction. The amortized emissions were added to the Project’s operational emissions for comparison to significance thresholds. Amortized GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project would result in the generation of 6.9 metric tons of CO2e per year over the assumed life of the Project. Project operational emissions as estimated using CalEEMod are shown in Table 3-3 below. Operational emissions include GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and water/wastewater conveyance). Table 3-3 indicates that the total GHG emissions associated with the Project would be below BAAQMD’s GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year. This would represent a cumulatively less-than-significant GHG impact. (b) – Less than Significant Impact: The City of Campbell has not adopted a GHG reduction plan or a climate action plan. However, the City’s current General Plan includes goals and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. The City is in the process of preparing an update to its current General Plan. As part of the General Plan Update, the City will also prepare a Climate Action Plan which will include a range of strategies, measures, and programs that the City and the community may implement to reduce the generation of GHGs within the city and would be used to evaluate impacts of future projects. However, the analysis presented below evaluates consistency of the Project with applicable policies in the current General Plan and control measures in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CAP. Two policies in the City’s current General Plan are applicable to the Project: Policy H-1.2: Green Building and Policy H-1.3: Energy Conservation. Policy H-1.2 encourages the use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing housing. Policy H-1.3 promotes energy efficiency by requiring the City to continue to promote programs and opportunities for improved energy efficiency and weatherization. The City’s General Plan recognizes that conventional building construction, use, and demolition, as well as the manufacture of building materials have multiple impacts on the environment and account for 30 percent of GHG emissions in the United States (City of Campbell, Environmental Impact Evaluation – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page No. 38 2015). Consistent with State regulations, the City encourages green building techniques and implements and enforces the requirements of the CalGreen program in the City. As part of its implementation of the CalGreen residential code requirements, the City requires a disclosure and certification of construction materials used in building construction for volatile organic compounds (VOC) compliance, water conservation and efficiency. The Project would comply with indoor water conservation measures included in the CalGreen Code and the City’s water management requirements through a storm water management plan during construction, a reduction of indoor water use by at least 20% using water saving fixtures or flow restrictors, and use of weather-based automatic irrigation systems to reduce outdoor water use. In addition, consistent with the City’s building code which incorporates the increased energy efficiency requirements of Title 24, the Project would include energy conservation features such as high- efficiency lighting and water heaters. The Project would recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition debris waste tonnage to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance which requires the diversion of 50 percent of construction waste in accordance with the mandate of the California Waste Management Act. Project homes would include solar panels and would be pre-wired to accommodate electric car charges in the garage. Additionally, electricity in Campbell is provided by SVCE, which includes electricity generated from renewable and carbon-free sources. Compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances would ensure consistency with policies in the General Plan that promote reduction of GHGs. Further, as discussed in Chapter 2, Air Quality, the Project would be consistent with applicable control measures in the BAAQMD’s 2017 CAP, which is the planning document prepared by the BAAQMD to reduce GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This would be a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page No. 39 9. HAZARDS and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? (b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The following discussion is excerpted in part from the Draft Soil Management Plan, dated June 23, 2020 (reference Attachment 5) and Regulatory Oversight and Proposed Remedial Activities, dated March 4, 2020, prepared by Ramboll US Corporation (reference Attachment 6). (a-b) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The site was developed by the 1930s with the residence located at 16179 East Mozart Avenue and an adjacent orchard. Additional residences were constructed between the 1940s and 1960s, after which agricultural/orchard operations appear to have generally ceased. Between the 1960s and 1990s, the central portion of the site was used as the storage yard for a paving business. From 2014 to 2019, the central portion of the site was used as the storage yard area for West Valley Arborists, a landscaping business. The surrounding properties were used for agricultural purposes (primarily orchards) from at least 1939 until approximately the 1950s and 1960s, when residential developments began to be constructed in the vicinity of the site. Commercial buildings were constructed to the east of the site in the 1980s to 1990s. The land adjacent to the west of the site was a commercial nursery from approximately the 1970s to the 2000s when the current residences were constructed. Between October 2018 and January 2019, Ramboll conducted a Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) and shallow soil sampling investigation at the site (reference Attachment 7). Multiple soil samples and stepout soil samples were collected in areas of prior agricultural development, around the perimeters of the older structures, and in the locations of a historical vehicle fueling area and former oil drum storage area (see Figure 3). Soil samples were collected from depths ranging between 0.5 and 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page No. 40 Samples were analyzed for California Assessment Manual (CAM17) metals by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 6020, organochlorine pesticides by USEPA Method 8081A, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by USEPA method 8082, total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil (TPH- g,d,mo) by USEPA method 8015B, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by USEPA method 8260B, and/or naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). Results of the soil sampling conducted by Ramboll are discussed in Section 1.6 and summarized in Tables 1 through 4 (Note: Please reference full Draft Soil Management Plan to view these tables). The only detections exceeding regulatory screening criteria1234 for residential land use were select metals (primarily lead and arsenic) and organochlorine pesticides (chlordane and dieldrin). Sample locations with one or more analyte exceeding regulatory screening criteria residential land use are generally located near the perimeter of existing structures at the site, as shown on Figure 4. As part of due diligence in connection with the purchase and redevelopment of the site, two geophysical investigations were conducted at the site between October 2018 and January 2019 by J R Associates. The geophysical investigations revealed the locations of two anomalies at the site, approximately at the locations of samples A1 and A9, respectively (Figure 3). The anomalies were potholed on December 3, 2018 with Ramboll onsite to observe the potholing activities. The anomaly adjacent to sample A1 was suspected to be the former location of a fuel tank associated with a historical fuel pump at the site. Potholing revealed the anomaly in the vicinity of sample A1 to be an approximately eight-feet long, one-inch diameter, abandoned metal pipe. Additional potholing was performed in the vicinity of sample A1 to a depth of six feet bgs to locate a possible buried fuel tank. No evidence of a buried fuel tank was encountered during the potholing and no stained soil or odorous soil was observed by Ramboll field personnel. Potholing in the vicinity of sample A9 in the northeast portion of the site revealed the anomaly to be a two-inch diameter abandoned metal pipe. In May 2020, Ramboll conducted a soil gas investigation to characterize potential vapor intrusion concerns at the site. Two soil gas wells (SV01 and SV02) were installed in the locations of a historical vehicle fueling area and former oil drum storage area and SV03 was installed along the northwestern site boundary (see Figure 3). Soil gas wells installations were also attempted along the northeastern and southeastern site boundaries, but drilling was unsuccessful due to the presence of heaving gravels and cobbles. One ambient air sample was collected in the central portion of the site taken to assess potential ambient air intrusion into the soil vapor samples. Soil gas samples were collected from depths ranging from 2.5 feet bgs to 4.0 feet bgs. Soil gas samples were analyzed for VOCs by EPA method TO-15 and the ambient air sample was analyzed for VOCs by EPA method TO-15 SIM. Results of the soil gas sampling conducted by Ramboll are summarized in Table 5. No detections exceeded regulatory screening criteria for residential land use.5 1 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2018. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, Issue: DTSC recommended methodology for use of U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) in the Human Health Risk Assessment process at hazardous waste sites and permitted facilities. June. 2 Duvergé, Dylan Jacques. 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. 3 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2016. Environmental Screening Levels Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Levels (Table S-1). February (revision 3). 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. November. 5 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2019. Summary of Soil Vapor ESLs: Subslab/Soil Gas Vapor Intrusion: Human Health Risk Levels (Table SG-1). July. Rev 2. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page No. 41 Based on the findings shallow soil investigation at the site, Specifically, results from soil sampling between November 2018 and January 2019 identifying concentrations of lead, arsenic, mercury and organochlorine pesticides (chlordane and dieldrin) above regulatory, screening criteria for residential land use, Ramboll has prepared a draft Soil Management Plan (SMP), for review and approval by the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEP). The SMP provides the following: • A description of the site history and use; • A summary of previous environmental investigations and other information pertinent to subsurface conditions anticipated at the site; • General procedures and requirements in relation to worker and contractor health and safety (site contractors will be responsible for preparing their own site-specific health and safety plan); • General recommendations (e.g. dust control, safe work practices) to be implemented during excavation and grading activities; • Guidance on the identification of suspected contamination or other unanticipated features (i.e., underground tanks or piping), and recommended procedures and notification instructions in the event suspected contamination is encountered (whether in soil or groundwater), or spills occur during excavation and grading; and • Guidance regarding off-site soil disposal and/or evaluation of fill material, proposed for import to the site (if necessary). In addition to summarizing the results and findings of Ramboll’s previous investigations at the site, the SMP also details additional sampling to be performed prior to excavation of the impacted soil. The additional sampling will be performed after the existing structures at the site have been demolished. The sampling will horizontally and vertically delineate the impacted soil and designate the boundaries for the soil excavations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which requires the applicant to secure SCCDEP approval of the SMP and to implement all of its recommendations under the oversight of the SCCDEP, the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials or through a reasonable foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. (c) – No Impact: The project site is not within a quarter-mile of an existing and proposed school. (d) – No Impact: The project site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (available at https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, therefore it would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Further, the site is not listed as a past or present case (or informational item) on the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker website (https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/). Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page No. 42 Mitigation Measure(s): The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project approval: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall furnish written confirmation from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health that it has approved and will oversee implementation of the draft Soil Management Plan, prepared by Ramboll US Corporation, dated June 23, 2020. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hydrology and Water Quality Page No. 43 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?67 (b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area8, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff9; or iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? (d) In a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (a) – No Impact: The project will not violate any water quality standards or substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. The project does not have any of the State Water Board Section 303.(d) list of impaired waterbodies downstream. The project also incorporates water quality control measures detailed in the SCVURPPP Hydromodification Management Plan such as bio-retention areas which will improve water quality by treating it before discharging it into the city storm drain system. (b) – No Impact: The project will be adequately served by existing water supplies, and will be served by the local area water utility as confirmed in written correspondence (“will serve” letter) by the San Jose Water Company (reference Attachment 8). The project would not directly deplete groundwater supplies (no wells) or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge (the project is evaluated for the 6 The evaluation of a project’s compliance with water quality standards should consider the project’s potential effect on water bodies on the Section 303(d) list (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml), as well as the potential for conflict with applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses. 7 The evaluation of a project’s potential to degrade water quality should consider whether a project has the potential to result in a significant impact to surface water quality, marine, fresh, or wetland waters, or to groundwater quality. As with every category of environmental impact, effects must be considered both during and after construction. The evaluation of water quality impacts should include a description of how the project will comply with the requirements of SCVURPPP’s Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit and the State’s Construction General Permit. The description should also include a statement that the project should avoid creation of mosquito larval sources that would subsequently require chemical treatment to protect human and animal health. 8 The evaluation of a project’s effect on drainage patterns should refer to the SCVURPPP Hydromodification Management Plan (2005), where applicable, to assess the significance of altering existing drainage patterns and to develop any mitigation measures. The evaluation of hydromodification effects should also consider any potential for streambed or bank erosion downstream from the project. 9 The evaluation of a project’s potential to create or contribute runoff should consider whether the project meets or exceeds the size thresholds for regulation under Provision C.3 (i.e., projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or 5,000 square feet for certain land uses2). The response to this question will indicate how Provision C.3 requirements will be met. Applicants must address Provision C.3 requirements in environmental documents for projects that meet or exceed the impervious surface thresholds. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hydrology and Water Quality Page No. 44 amount of proposed pervious and impervious area to maintain or improve upon existing conditions) such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. Additionally, the proposed private street, driveways, and lots are designed and graded to direct runoff towards stormwater management facilities that allow treated runoff to infiltrate and recharge the groundwater table. (c) Less than Significant Impact: No significant increase in impervious surface area of the lot would result from the project. However, all additional runoff would be conveyed into the public storm drain system. These changes to the Project site would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area due to the small size of the site. Storm water would be conveyed into the public storm drain system. The course of streams or rivers would not be affected by the proposed Project. The runoff from construction of the proposed Project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or substantially degrade water quality. i. The project will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or -offsite. Surface runoff will be directed to stormwater management facilities. Specifically, the project includes Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP). A series below grade vaults with an area of 1,365 square feet and interior depth of 8 feet will be located at the western corner of the property (Storage area A). Vault configuration results in an effective volume of approximately 10,920 cubic feet and a depth of 8 feet (including 1.1 ft of freeboard above the riser top). The vault will allow infiltration into the native soil through the open bottom. In this manner the proposed HMP will treat and contain stormwater on-site and therefore not exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems, provide substantial additional sources of polluted stormwater runoff, otherwise substantially degrade water quality or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Offsite and downstream, there will be no substantial erosion. The downstream Smith Creek and San Tomas Aquinas Creek are engineered as hardened channels with compacted earthen materials that the SCVURPPP Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) states have low potential for erosion due to increased upstream hydromodification. Additionally, the HMP exempts projects that drain to underground storm drains that discharge directly the bay from HMP hydromodification impacted erosion requirements. Landscaped pervious areas will be either covered with grass and plants or mulch to prevent erosion. Runoff on these areas will infiltrate naturally, or in major storms or be directed to grates connecting to the individual lot bio-retention areas. ii. Based on the impervious areas added, the project accounts for the bio-retention areas for water quality purposes and the proposed underground storm pipes are sized to handle 10-year storm events. Based on this design there is little to no risk of flooding on-site. Additionally, through proper grading there will be no flood-prone impervious areas. All low points created through grading will have drainage leading to bio-retention areas. The bio-retention areas which will collect the treated water to an area where it will be pumped into the city owned storm drain system which flows to the San Francisco Bay. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hydrology and Water Quality Page No. 45 Offsite, there will be no risk of flooding as the public stormwater system is adequately sized to contain 10-year flows. If the site experiences back to back storm events or a higher magnitude storm event (50-year), the site will not flood as the private street is graded positively towards the fronting public street. All in-fill sites are designed to carry runoff from 10-year storm events in pipes & streets are supposed to carry excess runoff over10-year storm event & especially 100-year storm event. iii. The project will not contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing stormwater drainage system nor would it create substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. The runoff from the project site will be pumped into the city owned storm drain system. The city’s storm drain system is designed to accommodate future development. Since this is a residential development, there are no additional sources of pollutants. Any pollutants related to motor vehicles being parked outside will be treated with the first flush in the bio-retention planters proposed along the low side of the private street. These bio-retention planters will trap & treat the pollutants from the site. iv. Not applicable. The site is in a FEMA designated area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X, FIRM 060338). Additionally, the site is positively draining to front and is matching grades along the east, north & west. There are no flood flows to impede from any of these directions. Lastly, a hydrology and water quality analysis prepared by Dudek for this project (reference Attachment 9) found that impacts associated with Project construction and operation on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant because existing permitting requirements and conditions of approval are sufficient to avoid water quality degradation, meet water quality standards and Basin Plan objectives, and prevent adverse effects on beneficial uses. (d) Less than Significant Impact: The project site is located downstream of Lexington Reservoir, in an area defined by the Association of Bay Area Governments as a dam failure inundation area. However, the project would not expose any additional people or structures to a new significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding in consideration that the site is in a FEMA designated area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X, FIRM 06085C0239H). Furthermore, as the project is not modifying flood protection measures or creating a condition where adjacent properties are exposed to a new significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, no additional exposure to water-related hazards is expected as a result of the project construction or operation. Additionally, the PHASE I Environmental Site Assessment Report states that historically, the site was an orchard with low risk of pollutant exposure. (e) No Impact: The project would be fully compliant with the water quality standards of the SCVURPPP and its Hydromodification Management Plan as well as Provision C.3 of the National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project incorporates source control measures and best practices listed in the plan such as bio-retention facilities and minimizing impervious surfaces to maintain or improve upon existing drainage patterns. The bio-retention facilities will treat runoff and their unlined bottoms will allow the treated runoff to infiltrate to the groundwater table. This method of stormwater control is commonly used in the San Francisco Bay Area as retains, treats, and discharges stormwater in a controlled manner to ensure water quality and prevent erosion and flooding. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Land Use and Planning Page No. 46 11. LAND USE and PLANNING Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Physically divide an established community? (b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (a) – No Impact: Projects that have the potential to physically divide an established community typically include construction that would eliminate formal or informal travel ways through a property. No such pathways or other forms of informal access through the project site currently exist. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community. (b) – No Impact: The Campbell General Plan Land Use Element Diagram and Campbell Zoning Map designate the project site as Low Density Residential (less than 6 units/gr. acre) and R-1-6 (Single- Family Residential), respectively. The project would exceed the allowable density through use of State Density Bonus Law, achieving a density of 7.9 units/gr. acre. As such, the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the City of Campbell General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (c) – No Impact: No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans are applicable to the project site. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Mineral Resources Page No. 47 12. MINERAL RESOURCES Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (a-b) – No Impact: No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Noise Page No. 48 13. NOISE Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The following discussion is excerpted in part from Environmental Noise Study, prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates, dated August 4, 2020 for this project (reference Attachment 10). (a-d) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: The City's Noise Ordinance (CMC Sec. 21.16.070.E) provides the following noise exposure standards for new residential development: • Noise from stationary sources. New residential development shall conform to a stationary source noise exposure standard of 65 dBA for exterior noise levels and 45 dBA for interior noise levels. • Traffic-related noise. New residential development shall conform to a traffic-related noise exposure standard of 60 dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA CNEL for indoor noise. As required by CMC Sec. 21.16.070, a Community Noise Assessment was prepared by Charles M. Salter Associates for this project. To quantify the existing noise environment, Salter Associates conducted noise measurements at the site between 25 and 27 June 2019. The noise monitors used for these measurements were RION model NL-52 Type 1 integrating sound level meters. They placed noise monitors at two long-term continuous locations (L1 and L2), as well as three 15-minute spot locations (S1 through S3). Measurement Locations L1 and L2 were chosen to determine the noise levels generated by traffic on East Mozart Avenue vs. traffic on Highways 17 and 85, respectively. Short term measurement locations were chosen to determine how the noise level changed at the various property lines bordering the site. A summary of the long-term and short-term acoustical measurement locations are listed below in Table 1, and shown in the attached Figure 1. The dominant noise source at the site is traffic from Highways 17 and 85. During our measurements, there was activity on site from West Valley Arborists’ trucks currently occupying the space, as well as Geotech performing environmental measurements. These activities have been removed from our measurements. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Noise Page No. 49 The air conditioners in each lot will generate sound power levels of approximately 72 dB5 each, and are shielded by 6-foot tall wooden fencing around each lot’s perimeter. Including a soun d power to sound pressure conversion factor of 15 dB6 at 7 feet, the estimated noise level due to these heat pumps is 57 dB at the nearest property planes, 7 feet to the south (commercial), and 7 feet to the north (residential). This is not expected to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and complies with the City of Campbell exterior Noise Ordinance of not exceeding 65 dBA. PROJECT GENERATED NOISE Mechanical Noise The air conditioners in each lot will generate sound power levels of approximately 72 dB5 each, and are shielded by 6-foot tall wooden fencing around each lot’s perimeter. Including a sound power to sound pressure conversion factor of 15 dB6 at 7 feet, the estimated noise level due to these heat pumps is 57 dB at the nearest property planes, 7 feet to the south (commercial), and 7 feet to the north (residential). This is not expected to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and complies with the City of Campbell exterior Noise Ordinance of not exceeding 65 dBA. Construction Noise The construction phasing of the job will include demolition, site preparation, excavating and grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction equipment could include tractors, loaders, and backhoes during demolition and site preparation, excavators during demolition, excavation, and grading, a rubber tired dozer and scraper during excavation and grading, large equipment such as lifts, saws, and pumps during building construction, and surfacing and paving equipment during paving. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Noise Page No. 50 Due to the close proximity of adjacent properties, construction noise may be audible and create temporary increase in noise levels. The construction noise requirements provided in Mitigation Measure NOI-1 should be implemented to reduce this noise at nearby sensitive receivers. Project-Generated Traffic Noise The project traffic study indicates that up to 27 new PM peak hour trips will be generated by the project. This corresponds to a DNL of approximately 51 dBA at a distance of 20-feet from the roadway centerline7. Existing measured noise levels along E Mozart Avenue at a similar setback are 63 dBA, which is significantly higher. Therefore, project generated traffic noise would not result in a significant increase as compared to existing conditions. PROJECT NOISE EXPOSURE Interior Noise Based on the Progress Plans dated 8 July 2019, which show floor plans and the proposed building elevations, and the Site Plan dated 25 June 2019, interior noise levels may exceed the State Building Code and City of Campbell General Plan requirements. To reduce interior noise levels to meet these requirements, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 should be implemented. Exterior Noise The City of Campbell General Plan policies state that exterior noise levels are to be reduced to CNEL 60 dB at primary outdoor-use areas. Where the outdoor-use areas are completely shielded acoustically from the roadways by the building structures, we estimate that noise levels will be at or below CNEL 60 dB. The project includes an outdoor activity area and tot lot in the middle of the project, which would be considered a “noise sensitive outdoor activity area” per the City’s General Plan. Noise levels at this area are expected to DNL 60 dB or below and no further mitigation is needed. (e-f) – No Impact: The project is not located within the vicinity of an airport land use plan or within two miles of an airport. The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Mitigation Measure(s): The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the project approval: Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The following measures shall be implemented during construction and demolition activity: 1. Schedule: Per section 18.04.052 of the City Municipal Code, construction is limited to between the hours of 8am and 5pm, Monday through Friday, and between 9am and 4pm on Saturdays. Demolition and loud activities should be limited to Monday through Friday. 2. Site Perimeter Barriers: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director upon resident complaints of excessive construction noise, the applicant shall provide sound- rated barriers should be constructed around the northwest and northeast property lines, as shown in Figure 1. This would include 8-ft tall barrier constructed with either two layers of ½- Environmental Impact Evaluation – Noise Page No. 51 inch thick plywood (joints staggered) and K-rail or other support; or a limp mass barrier material weighing two pounds per square foot such as Kinetics KNM-200B or equivalent. The construction team should work closely with the neighboring residences to monitor any noise complaints received, and incorporate additional measures as feasible on a case by case basis. 3. Stationary Equipment Local Barriers: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director upon resident complaints of excessive construction noise, the applicant shall install localized barriers around stationary equipment such as air compressors that break line-of-sight to neighboring properties. 4. Generators: Locate generators far away from noise-sensitive receivers, as feasible. If necessary, generator noise could be reduced by providing sound-rated enclosures and exhaust mufflers or by providing a local noise barrier. 5. Construction Equipment: Where necessary, provide exhaust mufflers on pneumatic tools. All equipment should be properly maintained. 6. Truck Traffic: Minimize truck idling and require trucks to load and unload materials in the construction areas, as opposed to idling on local streets. If truck staging is required, locate the staging area along major roadways with higher traffic noise levels or away from the noise- sensitive receivers such as East Mozart Avenue. Trucks should be shut off when waiting to enter the site. 1. Methods: Consider means to reduce the use of heavy impact tools and locate these activities away from the property line as feasible. Other methods, including drilling, could be employed if noise levels are found to be excessive. 2. Notification and Confirmation: Notify neighbors of extreme noise generating activities including the estimated duration of the activity, construction hours, and contact information. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The following measures shall be implemented in the construction drawings submitted for a building permit: Window and exterior door STC3 ratings needed to meet the interior DNL 45 dB criteria should be as shown in Figures 2 through 4. Our calculations are based on the following assumptions: • All rooms will have hard-surfaced flooring • Ceilings will be minimum 8-feet high throughout the residences • Exterior walls will be equivalent to 3-coat stucco over wood sheathing, wood studs with batt insulation in stud cavities, with at least 1 layer of gypsum board on the interior (approximately STC 45). STC ratings for selected assemblies should be based on laboratory testing performed in accordance with ASTM E-90 and comprise the entire window or door assembly, including the frame. If non- tested assemblies are to be used, an acoustical consultant must review the glazing and frame Environmental Impact Evaluation – Noise Page No. 52 submittals, and the STC rating of the glass may need to be increased. For reference purposes, a typical one-inch insulated, dual-pane window achieves an STC rating of approximately 28 to 30. Where STC ratings above STC 34 are required, typically at least one pane will need to be laminated, however, this depends on the specific window manufacturer. Because windows must be closed to achieve the interior noise criteria, an alternate means of providing outside air (e.g., fresh-air exchange units, HVAC, Z-ducts, etc.) to habitable residential spaces should be considered for building facades exposed to an exterior DNL of 60 dB or greater. Operable windows are still acceptable provided they are not being relied upon to provide fresh air to the units. This applies to all facades. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Population and Housing Page No. 53 14. POPULATION AND HOUSING Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (a) – No Impact: The project will result in the construction of 25 single-family residential units and five accessory dwelling units on a property identified by the Campbell General Plan Housing Element as being suitable and appropriate for housing. The introduction of 25 single-family residences and five accessory dwelling units in a predominantly developed residential neighborhood represents only a nominal increase of population growth. There is no foreseeable indirect population growth associated with the project. The infrastructure provided to service the project site is designed to serve only the proposed residential units. (b-c) – No Impact: The project will require the demolition of the existing residences that have been mostly vacated, and therefore will not result in the displacement of a substantial number of people or housing units, which would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Public Services Page No. 54 15. PUBLIC SERVICES Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire Protection? ii) Police Protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? (a) – Less than Significant Impact: The project will require public services such as fire, police services, schools, open space, and street maintenance, commensurate with the scale of the project. The County Fire District, Campbell Police Department, City stakeholder agencies, and area school districts reviewed the project and determined services could be provided at an acceptable level. Existing parkland is sufficient to serve the residents of the project, as discussed in Section 15 (Recreation) and the developer will be required to pay park fees for the creation of new residential units less a credit for the removal existing units. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Recreation Page No. 55 16. RECREATION Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (a) – Less than Significant Impact: The project would provide private yards for all but one of the proposed new residences. Additionally, 11,500 square-feet of shared open space would be provided within the community. As such, the new residents would be unlikely to use existing regional or neighborhood recreational areas to such an extent that substantial physical deterioration of those facilities would occur. (b) – No Impact: As noted, the project includes on-site recreational facilities. However, these facilities have been fully incorporated into the review of the project and present no possibility to create an adverse physical effect on the environment. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Transportation Page No. 56 17. TRANSPORTATION Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? (b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (d) Result in inadequate emergency access? The following discussion is excerpted in part from Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Report prepared by the TJKM, dated August 20, 2020 for this project (reference Attachment 11). (a) – No Impact: The project site is not in vicinity of any light-rail or comparable bus rapid transit (BRT) line and as a result is not subject to City policies encouraging alternative transporting solutions (e.g., provision of transit-passes, incorporation of bicycle parking, etc.). Additionally, the City’s adopted requirements for alternative transportation solutions per CMC Sec. 21.28.070 require provision bicycle and clean-air vehicle parking only for non-residential development subject to the Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen). The project, therefore, will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. (b) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: Compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 743 will include replacement of LOS with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for purposes of assessing traffic impacts under CEQA beginning in July 2020. Compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 743 will include replacement of LOS with VMT for purposes of assessing traffic impacts under CEQA described in new Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines that will be apply statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. Lead agencies will have discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicles miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or any other measure. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel “attributable to a project”. The City of Campbell has a draft VMT Policy to comply with SB 743. For residential land use projects, “a proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the existing Campbell citywide average VMT per Capita shall be presumed to cause a significant transportation impact.” TJKM utilized the draft Campbell VMT Policy and determined that the project would require mitigation measures to lessen the significance of these impacts. In the opinion of TJKM, implementation of the measures contained in Mitigation Measure TRAN-1 would substantially lessen the significant VMT impacts associated with this project. (c) – No Impact: The proposed private roadway is designed consistent with public roadway standards for residential streets as determined by the County Fire District and would not result in hazards due to a design features or incompatible uses. Further, a signal warrant analysis was conducted to determine if the project would require installation of a new traffic signal at the Mozart/Bascom intersection. The results of the peak hour signal warrant under Existing Plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table Environmental Impact Evaluation – Transportation Page No. 57 5, below. The results show that the intersection of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue does not meet the peak hour warrant in the AM or PM peak hour. (d) – No Impact: The project has been designed to comply with emergency access requirements of the Santa Clara Fire Department. The project plans include an emergency vehicle access plan that illustrates compliance with said standards. The County Fire Department has reviewed the project during the City’s department review committee process and will again review the access routes during review of construction drawings. Mitigation Measure(s): The following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the project approval: Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: To substantially lessen VMT impacts caused by the proposed project, the following mitigations can be implemented. 1. Wayfinding Signs – Install wayfinding signs at E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue, at the west end of the Mozart Avenue cul-de-sac, and at the foot of the pedestrian-bicycle overpass. These signs would familiarize potential users with the existing pedestrian/bicycle network. 2. Bike Route Signs and Sharrows – Designate E. Mozart Avenue as a bike route and install signs and sharrows. These installations will close the gap between the existing bike lanes along Bascom Avenue and the pedestrian-bicycle overpass. 3. Sidewalks – Install sidewalks along the project frontage to close the existing gap on Mozart Avenue. This will promote walking by project residents and others. 4. Bus Shelter – Install a bus shelter at the bus stop along Bascom Avenue across from E. Mozart Avenue. This is subject to VTA approval but is consistent with VTA’s Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Study. This will encourage new residents and others to use public transit by providing a bench and shade. 5. VTA Transit Passes – Provide introductory VTA Transit Passes to project residents. This can be administered by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). Providing VTA transit passes is intended to encourage residents to try transit and build a habit. 6. Fair Share Contribution – Contribute fair share funding to recently constructed bicycle and pedestrian improvements including the bike lanes on Bascom Avenue between Camden Avenue and SR 85 and ADA-compliant curb ramp upgrades between Camden Avenue and SR 85. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Tribal Cultural Resources Page No. 58 18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (a) – Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation: As discussed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (reference Attachment 7) the subject property consists of five single-family residences, and that based on historic aerial photography the subject property was historically used for agricultural purposes (orchard). The project is not listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historic resources, in that: 1) the property is not known to be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of the California; 2) is not known to be associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3) does not embody distinctive characteristics of type, period, region or method of construction or is known to be representative of the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; and 4) is not known to have yielded, or have the potential to yield important prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. In the event any archaeological, paleontological resources, or human burial or skeletal element are encountered during excavation or construction Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 will reduce any potential impact to a prehistory or historical resource to the area (or California Native American Tribe) to a less than significant level. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Utilities and Service Systems Page No. 59 19. UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS Issues Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment or collection facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (f) Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? (g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid wastes. (a-b) – Less than Significant Impact: The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board; require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. The West Valley Sanitation District has provided written correspondence (“will serve” letter) which indicates that the sewer facilities are adequate to support the site. (c) – Less than Significant Impact: The stormwater runoff generated by the project site would be collected and treated on-site in compliance with Provision C.3 of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements as discussed in Section 10 (Hydrology and Water Quality) and will not require expansion or construction of new stormwater treatment facilities. (d) – Less than Significant Impact: The project will be adequately served by the existing water supplies, as confirmed in written correspondence (“will serve” letter) by San Jose Water Company, the local area water utility (reference Attachment 8). (e) – Less than Significant Impact: The project would connect to the existing waste water treatment system, which currently has sufficient capacity to receive the additional waste water generated from the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not impact the ability of the waste water treatment provider (West Valley Sanitation District) to meet its current commitments for service. (f-g) – Less than Significant Impact: Existing capacity at local landfills can accommodate the amount of waste generated as a result of project operation. The project would comply with Federal, State and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Wildfire Page No. 60 20. WILDFIRE Issues If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (a-d) – No Impact: Not applicable. The entire City of Campbell, including the project site, is not located or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as a very high fire hazard severity zone as identified on the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) map. Further, the City of Campbell has not adopted a local ordinance establishing a very high fire hazard severity zone. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Mandatory Findings of Significance Page No. 61 21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Issues Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact (a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) (c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (a) – Less than Significant Impact: Based on the findings of the Initial Study, construction and operation of the project, with mitigation, would not substantially degrade the quality the environment; reduce the habitat, population, or range of species; nor eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory. (b) – Less than Significant Impact: Based on the findings of this Initial Study, the project would not have individual or cumulative environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. (c) – Less than Significant Impact: Based on the findings of the Initial Study, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the project would cause a substantial adverse effect on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Summary of Mitigation Measures Page No. 62 III. SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES 1. Aesthetics: None Required. 2. Agricultural Resources: None Required. 3. Air Quality: Two mitigation measures are required: Mitigation Measure AQ-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: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. 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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All streets, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. 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. 8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with Tier 4 final engines. Summary of Mitigation Measures Page No. 63 4. Biological Resources: Three mitigation measures are required: Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities should occur outside the nesting season, which generally occurs from February through August, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that habitat removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season, all suitable habitat should be thoroughly surveyed by a qualified biologist for the presence of nesting birds before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) should be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by a qualified biologist. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: To the extent practicable, site demolition should occur outside peak bat activity timeframes when young or overwintering bats may be present, which generally occurs from March through April and August through October, to ensure protection of potentially occurring bats and their roosts on the project site. Additionally, daily restrictions on the timing of any construction activities should be limited to daylight hours to reduce disturbance to roosting (and foraging) bat species. Additionally, a pre-demolition bat survey should be conducted within 30 days of the removal of any structures/buildings or trees. The survey should include a determination on whether active bat roosts are present on or within 50 feet of the project site. If a non-breeding and non-wintering bat colony is found, the individuals shall be evicted under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure their protection and avoid unnecessary harm. If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is found in the buildings or trees on the project site, then the qualified biologist shall establish a suitable construction-free buffer around the location. The construction-free buffer shall remain in place until the qualified biologist determines that the nursery is no longer active. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Construction drawings submitted for building and grading permits, as well as all demolition, grading, and construction activity, shall conform to the tree protection recommendations specified by the 16179 E. Mozart Tree Assessment, dated September 7, 2020, prepared by Walter Levison. Conformance with the specified recommendations during demolition, grading, and construction activities shall be the obligation of the applicant's project arborist (PA). The applicant shall sign a mitigation agreement with the City confirming the role of its PA prior to issuance of any permits. Review of construction drawings for compliance with the specified recommendations shall be performed by the City's consulting arborist at the applicant's sole cost (to be paid for in advanced prior to submittal of permit applications). The Community Development Director may also direct the City's consulting arborist to perform independent monitoring of demolition, grading, and construction activity (to be paid for in advance by the applicant). 5. Cultural Resources: Two mitigation measures are required: 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 City 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 Summary of Mitigation Measures Page No. 64 submittal of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program to the City for review and approval prior to the continuation of any on-site construction activity. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly treated. The City and the Santa Clara County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If deemed prehistoric, the Coroner’s office would notify the Native American Heritage Commission who would identify a "Most Likely Descendant (MLD)." The archeological consultant and MLD, in conjunction with the project sponsor, shall formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, removal and reburial on site, or elsewhere. Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner. 6. Energy: None Required. 7. Geology and Soils: One mitigation measure is required: Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation Residential Development, dated December 10, 2019, prepared by Geo‐Logic Associates dba Pacific Geotechnical Engineering. Such recommendations shall be incorporated into the project’s final engineering design to prevent ponding of water in or near the building, ensure the conveyance of storm water away from the building, and avoid the saturation of foundation soils. 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. 8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: None Required. 9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: One mitigation measure is required: Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall furnish written confirmation from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health that it has approved and will oversee implementation of the draft Soil Management Plan, prepared by Ramboll US Corporation, dated June 23, 2020. 10. Hydrology and Water Quality: None Required. 11. Land Use and Planning: None Required. 12. Mineral Resources: None Required. 13. Noise: Two mitigation measures are required: Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The following measures shall be implemented during construction and demolition activity: 1. Schedule: Per section 18.04.052 of the City Municipal Code, construction is limited to between the hours of 8am and 5pm, Monday through Friday, and between 9am and 4pm on Saturdays. Demolition and loud activities should be limited to Monday through Friday. Summary of Mitigation Measures Page No. 65 2. Site Perimeter Barriers: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director upon resident complaints of excessive construction noise, the applicant shall provide sound-rated barriers should be constructed around the northwest and northeast property lines, as shown in Figure 1. This would include 8-ft tall barrier constructed with either two layers of ½-inch thick plywood (joints staggered) and K-rail or other support; or a limp mass barrier material weighing two pounds per square foot such as Kinetics KNM-200B or equivalent. The construction team should work closely with the neighboring residences to monitor any noise complaints received, and incorporate additional measures as feasible on a case by case basis. 3. Stationary Equipment Local Barriers: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director upon resident complaints of excessive construction noise, the applicant shall install localized barriers around stationary equipment such as air compressors that break line-of-sight to neighboring properties. 4. Generators: Locate generators far away from noise-sensitive receivers, as feasible. If necessary, generator noise could be reduced by providing sound-rated enclosures and exhaust mufflers or by providing a local noise barrier. 5. Construction Equipment: Where necessary, provide exhaust mufflers on pneumatic tools. All equipment should be properly maintained. 6. Truck Traffic: Minimize truck idling and require trucks to load and unload materials in the construction areas, as opposed to idling on local streets. If truck staging is required, locate the staging area along major roadways with higher traffic noise levels or away from the noise-sensitive receivers such as East Mozart Avenue. Trucks should be shut off when waiting to enter the site. 7. Methods: Consider means to reduce the use of heavy impact tools and locate these activities away from the property line as feasible. Other methods, including drilling, could be employed if noise levels are found to be excessive. 8. Notification and Confirmation: Notify neighbors of extreme noise generating activities including the estimated duration of the activity, construction hours, and contact information. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The following measures shall be implemented in the construction drawings submitted for a building permit: Window and exterior door STC3 ratings needed to meet the interior DNL 45 dB criteria should be as shown in Figures 2 through 4. Our calculations are based on the following assumptions: • All rooms will have hard-surfaced flooring • Ceilings will be minimum 8-feet high throughout the residences Summary of Mitigation Measures Page No. 66 • Exterior walls will be equivalent to 3-coat stucco over wood sheathing, wood studs with batt insulation in stud cavities, with at least 1 layer of gypsum board on the interior (approximately STC 45). STC ratings for selected assemblies should be based on laboratory testing performed in accordance with ASTM E-90 and comprise the entire window or door assembly, including the frame. If non-tested assemblies are to be used, an acoustical consultant must review the glazing and frame submittals, and the STC rating of the glass may need to be increased. For reference purposes, a typical one-inch insulated, dual-pane window achieves an STC rating of approximately 28 to 30. Where STC ratings above STC 34 are required, typically at least one pane will need to be laminated, however, this depends on the specific window manufacturer. Because windows must be closed to achieve the interior noise criteria, an alternate means of providing outside air (e.g., fresh-air exchange units, HVAC, Z-ducts, etc.) to habitable residential spaces should be considered for building facades exposed to an exterior DNL of 60 dB or greater. Operable windows are still acceptable provided they are not being relied upon to provide fresh air to the units. This applies to all facades. 14. Population and Housing: None Required. 15. Public Services: None Required. 16. Recreation: None Required. 17. Transportation: One mitigation measure is required: Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: To substantially lessen VMT impacts caused by the proposed project, the following mitigations can be implemented. 1. Wayfinding Signs – Install wayfinding signs at E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue, at the west end of the Mozart Avenue cul-de-sac, and at the foot of the pedestrian- bicycle overpass. These signs would familiarize potential users with the existing pedestrian/bicycle network. 2. Bike Route Signs and Sharrows – Designate E. Mozart Avenue as a bike route and install signs and sharrows. These installations will close the gap between the existing bike lanes along Bascom Avenue and the pedestrian-bicycle overpass. 3. Sidewalks – Install sidewalks along the project frontage to close the existing gap on Mozart Avenue. This will promote walking by project residents and others. 4. Bus Shelter – Install a bus shelter at the bus stop along Bascom Avenue across from E. Mozart Avenue. This is subject to VTA approval but is consistent with VTA’s Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Study. This will encourage new residents and others to use public transit by providing a bench and shade. 5. VTA Transit Passes – Provide introductory VTA Transit Passes to project residents. This can be administered by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). Providing VTA transit passes is intended to encourage residents to try transit and build a habit. Summary of Mitigation Measures Page No. 67 6. Fair Share Contribution – Contribute fair share funding to recently constructed bicycle and pedestrian improvements including the bike lanes on Bascom Avenue between Camden Avenue and SR 85 and ADA-compliant curb ramp upgrades between Camden Avenue and SR 85. 18. Tribal Cultural Resources: Reference Mitigation Measure CUL-1 and CUL-2. 19. Utility and Service Systems: None Required. 20. Wildfire: None Required. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance: None Required. Determination Page No. 68 Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation, and incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures into the project design: 1. I find that the project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 2. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 3. I find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 4. I find that the proposed project may have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated impact” on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 5. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Daniel Fama PROJECT PLANNER Senior Planner TITLE City of Campbell AGENCY _____________________________ September 14, 2020 SIGNATURE DATE Encl: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Mitigation Measure Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Verification of Compliance Initials Date Remarks Air Quality - AIR Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Include measures to control dust and exhaust during construction: During any construction period ground disturbance, the applicant shall ensure that the project contractor implement measures to control dust and exhaust. Implementation of the measures recommended by BAAQMD and listed below would reduce the air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction to a less-than-significant level. Additional measures are identified to reduce construction equipment exhaust emissions. The contractor shall implement the following best management practices that are required of all projects: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose Site Preparation and Construction City of Campbell Public Works Department and Building Division Periodic Compliance Report Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Page 2 of 10 material off-site shall be covered. 3. 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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour (mph). 5. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 7. 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. 8. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Page 3 of 10 Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Selection of equipment during construction to minimize emissions. Such equipment selection would include the following: The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off- road equipment used on-site to construct the project would achieve a fleet-wide average 85-percent reduction in DPM exhaust emissions or greater. Specifically, all diesel-powered off-road equipment, larger than 25 horsepower, operating on the site for more than two days continuously shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. EPA NOx and particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 3 engines and this equipment shall include CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters9 or equivalent. Equipment that meets U.S. EPA Tier 4 interim standards or use of equipment that is electrically powered or uses non-diesel fuels would meet this requirement. Biological Resources – BIO Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities should occur outside the nesting season, which generally occurs from February through August, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that habitat removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season, all suitable habitat should be thoroughly surveyed by a qualified biologist for the presence of nesting birds before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) should be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by a qualified biologist. activity timeframes when young or overwintering bats may be present, which generally occurs from March through April Site Preparation and Construction City of Campbell Planning Division Periodic Compliance Report Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Page 4 of 10 and August through October, to ensure protection of potentially occurring bats and their roosts on the project site. Additionally, daily restrictions on the timing of any construction activities should be limited to daylight hours to reduce disturbance to roosting (and foraging) bat species. Additionally, a pre-demolition bat survey should be conducted within 30 days of the removal of any structures/buildings or trees. The survey should include a determination on whether active bat roosts are present on or within 50 feet of the project site. If a non-breeding and non- wintering bat colony is found, the individuals shall be evicted under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure their protection and avoid unnecessary harm. If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is found in the buildings or trees on the project site, then the qualified biologist shall establish a suitable construction-free buffer around the location. The construction-free buffer shall remain in place until the qualified biologist determines that the nursery is no longer active. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Construction drawings submitted for building and grading permits, as well as all demolition, grading, and construction activity, shall conform to the tree protection recommendations specified by the 16179 E. Mozart Tree Assessment, dated September 7, 2020, prepared by Walter Levison. Conformance with the specified recommendations during demolition, grading, and construction activities shall be the obligation of the applicant's project arborist (PA). The applicant shall sign a mitigation agreement with the City confirming the role of its PA prior to issuance of any permits. Review of construction drawings for compliance with the specified recommendations shall be performed by the City's consulting arborist at the applicant's sole cost (to be paid for in advanced prior to submittal of permit applications). The Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Page 5 of 10 Community Development Director may also direct the City's consulting arborist to perform independent monitoring of demolition, grading, and construction activity (to be paid for in advance by the applicant). 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 City 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 any on-site construction activity. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: In the event a human burial or skeletal element is identified during excavation or construction, work in that location shall stop immediately until the find can be properly treated. The City and the Santa Clara County Coroner’s office shall be notified. If deemed prehistoric, the Coroner’s office would notify the Native American Heritage Commission who would identify a "Most Likely Descendant (MLD)." The archeological consultant and MLD, in conjunction with the project sponsor, shall formulate an appropriate treatment plan for the find, which might include, but not be limited to, respectful scientific recording and removal, being left in place, removal and reburial on site, or elsewhere. Associated grave goods are to be treated in the same manner. Site Preparation and Construction City of Campbell Planning Division Periodic Compliance Report Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Page 6 of 10 Geology and Soils – GEO Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation Residential Development, dated December 10, 2019, prepared by Geo‐Logic Associates dba Pacific Geotechnical Engineering. Such recommendations shall be incorporated into the project’s final engineering design to prevent ponding of water in or near the building, ensure the conveyance of storm water away from the building, and avoid the saturation of foundation soils. 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. Site Preparation and Construction City of Campbell Building Division Periodic Compliance Report Hazards and Hazardous Materials - HAZ Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall furnish written confirmation from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health that it has approved and will oversee implementation of the draft Soil Management Plan, prepared by Ramboll US Corporation, dated June 23, 2020. Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit City of Campbell Planning Division Written conformation from SCC Environmental Health Noise - NOI Mitigation Measure NOI-1: The following measures shall be implemented during construction and demolition activity: 1. Schedule: Per section 18.04.052 of the City Municipal Code, construction is limited to between the hours of 8am and 5pm, Monday through Friday, and between 9am and 4pm on Saturdays. Demolition and loud activities should be limited to Monday through Friday. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit and during construction City of Campbell Building and Planning Divisions Assessment Report by Structural Engineer or Compliance Statement by Acoustical Consultant Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Page 7 of 10 2. Site Perimeter Barriers: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director upon resident complaints of excessive construction noise, the applicant shall provide sound-rated barriers should be constructed around the northwest and northeast property lines, as shown in Figure 1. This would include 8-ft tall barrier constructed with either two layers of ½-inch thick plywood (joints staggered) and K-rail or other support; or a limp mass barrier material weighing two pounds per square foot such as Kinetics KNM-200B or equivalent. The construction team should work closely with the neighboring residences to monitor any noise complaints received, and incorporate additional measures as feasible on a case by case basis. 3. Stationary Equipment Local Barriers: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director upon resident complaints of excessive construction noise, the applicant shall install localized barriers around stationary equipment such as air compressors that break line-of- sight to neighboring properties. 4. Generators: Locate generators far away from noise- sensitive receivers, as feasible. If necessary, generator noise could be reduced by providing sound-rated enclosures and exhaust mufflers or by providing a local noise barrier. 5. Construction Equipment: Where necessary, provide exhaust mufflers on pneumatic tools. All equipment should be properly maintained. 6. Truck Traffic: Minimize truck idling and require trucks to load and unload materials in the construction areas, as opposed to idling on local streets. If truck staging is Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Page 8 of 10 required, locate the staging area along major roadways with higher traffic noise levels or away from the noise- sensitive receivers such as East Mozart Avenue. Trucks should be shut off when waiting to enter the site. 7. Methods: Consider means to reduce the use of heavy impact tools and locate these activities away from the property line as feasible. Other methods, including drilling, could be employed if noise levels are found to be excessive. 8. Notification and Confirmation: Notify neighbors of extreme noise generating activities including the estimated duration of the activity, construction hours, and contact information. Mitigation Measure NOI-2: The following measures shall be implemented in the construction drawings submitted for a building permit: Window and exterior door STC3 ratings needed to meet the interior DNL 45 dB criteria should be as shown in Figures 2 through 4. Our calculations are based on the following assumptions: • All rooms will have hard-surfaced flooring • Ceilings will be minimum 8-feet high throughout the residences • Exterior walls will be equivalent to 3-coat stucco over wood sheathing, wood studs with batt insulation in stud cavities, with at least 1 layer of gypsum board on the interior (approximately STC 45). Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Page 9 of 10 STC ratings for selected assemblies should be based on laboratory testing performed in accordance with ASTM E-90 and comprise the entire window or door assembly, including the frame. If non-tested assemblies are to be used, an acoustical consultant must review the glazing and frame submittals, and the STC rating of the glass may need to be increased. For reference purposes, a typical one-inch insulated, dual-pane window achieves an STC rating of approximately 28 to 30. Where STC ratings above STC 34 are required, typically at least one pane will need to be laminated, however, this depends on the specific window manufacturer. Because windows must be closed to achieve the interior noise criteria, an alternate means of providing outside air (e.g., fresh-air exchange units, HVAC, Z-ducts, etc.) to habitable residential spaces should be considered for building facades exposed to an exterior DNL of 60 dB or greater. Operable windows are still acceptable provided they are not being relied upon to provide fresh air to the units. This applies to all facades. Transportation – TRAN Mitigation Measure TRAN-1: To substantially lessen VMT impacts caused by the proposed project, the following mitigations can be implemented. 1. Wayfinding Signs – Install wayfinding signs at E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue, at the west end of the Mozart Avenue cul-de-sac, and at the foot of the pedestrian-bicycle overpass. These signs would familiarize potential users with the existing pedestrian/bicycle network. 2. Bike Route Signs and Sharrows – Designate E. Prior to permit issuance Public Works Department and Planning Division Public Works Department and Planning Division Completion of a Street Improvement Plan Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program – East Mozart Avenue Planned Development Subdivision Page 10 of 10 Mozart Avenue as a bike route and install signs and sharrows. These installations will close the gap between the existing bike lanes along Bascom Avenue and the pedestrian-bicycle overpass. 3. Sidewalks – Install sidewalks along the project frontage to close the existing gap on Mozart Avenue. This will promote walking by project residents and others. 4. Bus Shelter – Install a bus shelter at the bus stop along Bascom Avenue across from E. Mozart Avenue. This is subject to VTA approval but is consistent with VTA’s Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Study. This will encourage new residents and others to use public transit by providing a bench and shade. 5. VTA Transit Passes – Provide introductory VTA Transit Passes to project residents. This can be administered by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). Providing VTA transit passes is intended to encourage residents to try transit and build a habit. 6. Fair Share Contribution – Contribute fair share funding to recently constructed bicycle and pedestrian improvements including the bike lanes on Bascom Avenue between Camden Avenue and SR 85 and ADA-compliant curb ramp upgrades between Camden Avenue and SR 85. Environmental Impact Evaluation – Reference Materials Page No. 69 IV. REFERENCE MATERIALS Attachments (May be viewed at http://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=48): 1. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment, ESA, dated July 2019 2. Biological Resources Assessment, Dudek, dated March 2020 3. 16179 E. Mozart Tree Assessment, Walter Levison Consulting Arborist, dated September 7, 2020 4. Geotechnical Investigation, Geo‐Logic Associates, dated December 10, 2019 5. Draft Soil Management Plan, Ramboll US Corporation, dated June 23, 2020 6. Regulatory Oversight and Proposed Remedial Activities, Ramboll US Corporation, dated March 4, 2020 7. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Shallow Soil Investigation, Ramboll US Corporation, January 2019 8. "Will Serve" Letters 9. Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis, Dudek, dated March 2020 10. Environmental Noise Study, Charles M. Salter Associates, dated September 9, 2020 11. Traffic Impact Analysis, TJKM, dated August 20, 2020 Reference Documents: 1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). (Adopted) April 19, 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP). 2. 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). 3. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Accessed online in November 2017. Tools 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). 4. Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm (accessed online) 5. State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker data management system. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed online) 6. State Water Resource Control Board: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed online) 7. State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, San Jose West Quadrangle, February 7, 2002. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp (accessed online) Environmental Impact Evaluation – Reference Materials Page No. 70 8. California Natural Diversity Database, 2000. 9. CEQA Guidelines, 2019 version. http://califaep.org/docs/CEQA_Handbook_2019.pdf (accessed online) 10. City of Campbell General Plan. 11. City of Campbell Zoning Code. ATTACHMENT 1 AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT , GREENHOUSE GASES, AND HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT 18145 MOZART AVENUE DEVELOPMENT CAMPBELL, SANTA CLARA COUNTY Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment Prepared for July 2019 Robson Homes 2185 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 18145 MOZART AVENUE DEVELOPMENT CAMPBELL, SANTA CLARA COUNTY Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment Prepared for July 2019 Robson Homes 2185 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 180 Grand Avenue Suite 1050 Oakland, CA 94612 510.839.5066 www.esassoc.com Irvine Los Angeles Oakland Orlando Pasadena Petaluma Portland Sacramento San Diego San Francisco Santa Monica Seattle Tampa Woodland Hills 140020.03 OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. 18145 Mozart Avenue Development i ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1, Introduction 1 Project Location and Description 1 Chapter 2, Air Quality Analysis 3 Approach to Analysis 3 Impact Assessment 4 Chapter 3, Greenhouse Gas Analysis 19 Approach to Analysis 20 Impact Assessment 21 Chapter 4, References 25 Appendices Appendix A CalEEMod Model Inputs and Results A-1 Appendix B AERMOD Model Inputs and Results B-1 Appendix C Health Risk Assessment Calculations C-1 Appendix D BAAQMD’s Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator D-1 Figures Figure 1 Project Location 2 Tables Table 2-1 BAAQMD Project-Level Air Quality Thresholds of Significance ......................... 4 Table 2-2 CEQA Guidelines Air Quality Issues Summary ................................................. 5 Table 2-3 Average Daily Construction Emissions .............................................................. 9 Table 2-4 Project Operational Emissions ........................................................................... 9 Table 2-5 Overall AERMOD Modeling Parameters .......................................................... 12 Table 2-6 Source Modeling Parameters for Construction Equipment .............................. 12 Table 2-7 Unmitigated Construction-Related Cancer Risk .............................................. 13 Table 2-8 Unmitigated Construction-Related Health Impacts .......................................... 13 Table 2-9 Mitigated Construction-Related Cancer Risk ................................................... 14 Table 2-10 Mitigated Construction-Related Health Impacts ............................................... 14 Table 2-11 Cumulative Health Impacts .............................................................................. 15 Table 3-1 BAAQMD Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Thresholds of Significance ............ 20 Table 3-2 CEQA Guidelines Greenhouse Gas Issues Summary ..................................... 21 Table 3-3 Project Greenhouse Gas emissions ................................................................ 22 Table of Contents 18145 Mozart Avenue Development ii ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 1 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Robson Homes (Applicant) is proposing to build up to twenty-five single family homes at 18145 Mozart Avenue (Project) in the City of Campbell (City), California. Environmental Science Associates (ESA) has been contracted by the Applicant to prepare this air quality, health risk, and greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment. This report analyzes the air quality, health risk, and GHG impacts that would result from the construction and operation of the Project and provides mitigation measures to reduce any significant impacts. Supporting information is included in the appendices. Project Location and Description The Project is located at 18145 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California, 95032 (see Figure 1). The Project proposes to construct up to twenty-five single family homes on a 2.95-acre site. Project construction is expected to begin in July 2020. For a conservative analysis, a compressed 6-month construction schedule is assumed for analysis with a completion date of January 2021. Most of the Project site is currently vacant with the exception of five single family homes (and free-standing garages to the rear of the homes) along Mozart Avenue. In addition, there are a few scattered containers and trailers belonging to the existing residents, but are not permanent fixtures on the site. All existing structures would be demolished to make way for the Project. At its closest point, the Project’s southern boundary would be approximately 180 feet from the off-ramp and 300 feet from the on-ramp to Highway 85. The Project site’s western boundary is located approximately 500 feet from Highway-17 while South Bascom Avenue runs approximately 400 feet from the eastern boundary of the Project site. Land uses surrounding the Project site are mainly residential and commercial. Existing uses in the Project vicinity include single family homes along E Mozart Avenue, Beethoven Lane, and Kilmer Avenue that surround the Project site to the south, west and north, respectively. Two buildings that house healthcare services are located to the east along South Bascom Avenue and are separated from the Project site by the parking lot for these buildings. 1. Introduction 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 2 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 3 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 CHAPTER 2 Air Quality Analysis The Project site is located in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BAAQMD’s jurisdiction includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties, and the southern portions of Solano and Sonoma counties. Under amendments to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has classified air basins or portions thereof as either "attainment" or "non- attainment" for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been achieved. The California CAA, which is patterned after the federal CAA, also requires areas to be designated as "attainment" or "non-attainment" for the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Thus, areas in California have two sets of attainment designations: one set with respect to the NAAQS and one set with respect to the CAAQS. The SFAAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards, state particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards, and the federal PM2.5 (24-hour) standard (BAAQMD, 2017a). The BAAQMD is the primary agency responsible for assuring both sets of ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area. Approach to Analysis The analysis presented below follows the guidelines and recommendations of the BAAQMD in its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD Guidelines) (BAAQMD, 2017b). Potential air quality impacts are assessed by modeling the estimated daily emissions generated by Project construction and operations using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2016.3.2 and comparing them to the BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds of significance. BAAQMD’s project-level significance thresholds are shown in Table 2-1 below. Sensitive Receptors From an air quality analysis standpoint, sensitive receptors are defined as facilities and land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples include schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. Residential areas are also considered sensitive to poor air quality because people typically stay home for extended periods of time, which results in greater exposure to ambient air quality. 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 4 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 TABLE 2-1 BAAQMD PROJECT-LEVEL AIR QUALITY THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Pollutant Construction-Related Operational-Related Average Daily Emissions, lb/day Average Daily Emissions, lb/day Maximum Annual Emissions, tons/year ROG 54 54 10 NOX 54 54 10 PM10 (exhaust) 82 82 15 PM2.5 (exhaust) 54 54 10 PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) BMPs None Local CO None 9.0 ppm (8-hour average), 20.0 ppm (1-hour average) Risks and Hazards (individual project) Same as operational thresholds Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or increased cancer risk of greater than 10.0 in a million; or increased non-cancer risk of greater than 1.0 hazard index (chronic or acute); or ambient PM2.5 increase of greater than 0.3 µg/m3 annual average Risks and Hazards (cumulative threshold) Same as operational thresholds Compliance with Qualified Community Risk Reduction Plan; or increased cancer risk of greater than 100 in a million from all local sources; or increased non-cancer risk of greater than 10.0 hazard index (chronic or acute) from all local sources; or ambient PM2.5 increase of greater than 0.8 µg/m3 annual average from all local sources NOTES: BMPs = Best Management Practices SOURCE: BAAQMD, 2017b. The Project site is surrounded by sensitive receptors in the form of single family homes to the south, west and north and the healthcare services to the east. Impact Assessment This impact assessment below follows the air quality impacts described within the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist. Table 2-2 presents a summary of the air quality issues and impacts. 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 5 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 TABLE 2-2 CEQA GUIDELINES AIR QUALITY ISSUES SUMMARY Issue Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒ SOURCE: CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Bay Area is the BAAQMD’s 2017 Clean Air Plan - Spare the Air, Cool the Climate (2017 CAP). The 2017 CAP updates the 2010 Clean Air Plan to fulfill state ozone planning requirements, and includes all feasible measures to reduce emissions of ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and nitrogen oxides [NOx]) and reduce transport of ozone and its precursors to neighboring air basins. In addition, the 2017 CAP builds upon and enhances the BAAQMD’s efforts to reduce emissions of fine particulate matter and toxic air contaminants (BAAQMD, 2017c). BAAQMD recommends that a project’s consistency determination with the applicable air quality plan be made with respect to the following questions. If all the questions are concluded in the affirmative, and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with air quality plans prepared for the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 2017b). 1. Does the project support the primary goals of the air quality plan? The primary goals of the 2017 CAP are to attain air quality standards, reduce population exposure to pollutants, protect public health within the SFAAB, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate. Any project that would not support these goals would not be considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. The recommended measure for determining project support of these goals is consistency with BAAQMD-approved CEQA thresholds of significance. Therefore, if a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 6 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 application of all feasible mitigation measures, the project would be considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. As indicated in the discussion under checklist question b) below, the proposed Project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. Criteria air pollutant emissions would be less than significant prior to mitigation and would be reduced further with implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) and fugitive dust emissions from construction activities would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2. Long-term operational emissions would be less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, per BAAQMD guidance, the Project would be considered to support the primary goals of the 2017 CAP. 2. Does the project include applicable control measures from the applicable air quality plan? Projects that incorporate all feasible air quality plan control measures are considered consistent with the 2017 CAP. The 2017 CAP includes a comprehensive strategy of 85 measures aimed at reducing air pollution in the Bay Area. Along with the traditional stationary, area, mobile source and transportation control measures, the 2017 CAP contains a number of new control measures designed to protect the climate and promote mixed use, compact development to reduce vehicle emissions and exposure to pollutants from stationary and mobile sources. BAAQMD encourages project developers to incorporate all feasible measures in the building, energy, transportation, waste, and water sectors into proposed project designs and plan elements. The Project is located in an area well served by public transit. Existing public transit services in the Project area are provided by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), and include bus and light-rail transit (LRT) services connecting all of Santa Clara County. The Project site is less than 3 miles from the Winchester LRT station and Transit Center, which is served by a number of connecting buses and includes a park and ride lot. Local bus service to the Winchester station and other areas is available from the Bascom & Apsis bus stop located 400 feet from the Project site. The Project’s location in an area with access to transit services would serve to reduce vehicle trips. Future residents of the Project could also be expected to take advantage of teleworking opportunities reducing vehicle trips further, but the extent to which teleworking would occur cannot be accurately predicted at this time. The Project features described above ensure consistency of the Project with the transportation sector control measures in the 2017 CAP. The Project would comply with the California Green Building (CalGreen) Code and Title 24 building energy efficiency requirements, and would include energy saving features such as high- efficiency lighting and water heaters. The City, as part of its implementation of the CalGreen residential code requirements, requires a disclosure and certification of construction materials used in building construction for volatile organic compounds (VOC) compliance, water conservation and efficiency. Project homes would include solar panels and would be pre-wired to accommodate electric car chargers in the garage. Additionally, electricity in Campbell is provided by the Community Choice Energy Agency, Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), which 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 7 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 automatically enrolls customers in the Carbon Free program which includes electricity generated from renewable and carbon-free sources. These features ensure Project consistency with the control measures in the energy and building sectors of the 2017 CAP. The City requires that a Waste Management Plan (WMP) for demolition and construction be completed and approved to obtain a building permit. Consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Section 6.12, the Project would comply with the WMP’s requirement to salvage, reuse or recycle a minimum of 50 percent of all construction and demolition debris. The Project residences would be served by the West Valley Collection and Recycling services, which provides an unlimited curbside recycling program. The program would facilitate the proper recycling and disposal of waste from the Project residences in accordance with the City’s waste management requirements as well as statewide waste reduction goals. These features ensure Project consistency with the control measures in the waste sector of the 2017 CAP. The Project would comply with indoor water conservation measures included in the CalGreen Code. The Project would also comply with the City’s Water Conservation requirements through a storm water management plan during construction, a reduction of indoor water use by at least 20% using water saving fixtures or flow restrictors, and use of weather-based automatic irrigation systems to reduce outdoor water use. These features ensure Project consistency with the control measures in the water sector of the 2017 CAP. In summary, existing mechanisms or those included in the Project would be consistent with all of the relevant control measures of the 2017 CAP. 3. Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any control measures in the air quality plan? If approval of a project would not cause the disruption, delay or otherwise hinder the implementation of any air quality plan control measure, the BAAQMD considers the project to be consistent with the 2017 CAP. As discussed above, the Project would comply with all feasible control measures in the 2017 CAP. Construction and operation of the Project would also not hinder implementation of any other control measures included in the 2017 CAP. With all three questions above concluded in the affirmative, the Project would be considered to be consistent with the 2017 CAP. This would be a less than significant impact with mitigation. Mitigation: Mitigation Measures 2-1 and 2-2, described under b) and c) below. Significance After Mitigation: Less Than Significant. b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? (Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated) According to the BAAQMD, no single project can, by itself, result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 8 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 significant adverse air quality impacts. The BAAQMD Guidelines recommend using its quantitative thresholds of significance to determine if an individual project’s emissions would considerably contribute to cumulative air quality impacts in the region. If a project’s emissions exceed the identified significance thresholds, its contribution to cumulative air quality would be considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions. Alternatively, if a project does not exceed the identified significance thresholds, then the project would not be considered cumulatively considerable and would result in less-than-significant air quality impacts (BAAQMD, 2017b). The Project’s contribution to cumulative air quality of the area has been evaluated below by comparing its construction and operational emissions to the applicable BAAQMD thresholds. The Project would generate criteria pollutants and TACs during short-term construction activities as well as long-term operational criteria pollutant emissions from sources including on-road vehicles, onsite area and energy sources. As the Project consists of development of only residential land uses, once operational, it would not be a source of substantial TACs. Construction Construction of the Project would generate air pollutant emissions from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, vehicle trips hauling materials, and construction worker vehicles traveling to and from the project site. Mobile source emissions, primarily NOX, would be generated from the use of construction equipment such as excavators, bulldozers, wheeled loaders, and fork lifts. During the finishing phase, paving operations and the application of asphalt, architectural coatings (i.e., paints and varnishes) and other building materials would release ROG. The assessment of construction air quality impacts considers each of these sources and phases, and recognizes that construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. CalEEMod was used to quantify construction emissions associated with off-road equipment, paving, architectural coatings, haul trucks associated with demolition, on-road worker vehicle emissions, and vendor delivery trips (see Appendix A). Construction for the Project was assumed to occur from July 2020 through January 2021 to provide a worst-case analysis using a compressed 6-month construction schedule. Average daily emissions would be reduced if the duration of construction is prolonged. Unmitigated construction-related criteria pollutant exhaust emissions for the Project are presented in Table 2-3. The estimated emissions consider the following basic construction phases: demolition; excavation/grading; building construction; asphalt paving; and application of architectural coatings. As shown in Table 2-3, average daily regional emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD daily significance thresholds during construction. Project related demolition, grading, excavation and building construction activities at the project site may cause wind-blown dust that could generate particulate matter into the atmosphere. Fugitive dust includes not only PM10 and PM2.5 but also larger particles that can cause nuisance impacts. For mitigation of fugitive dust emissions, the BAAQMD Guidelines recommend using 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 9 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 specific Best Management Practices (BMPs), which has been a practical and effective approach to control fugitive dust emissions. The Guidelines note that individual measures have been shown to reduce fugitive dust by anywhere from 30 percent to more than 90 percent and conclude that projects that implement construction BMPs would reduce fugitive dust emissions to a less than significant level. To ensure implementation of BMPs they are identified herein as Mitigation Measure 2-1. Thus, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure 2-1, the Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to construction emissions. TABLE 2-3 AVERAGE DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Scenario Emissions (pounds per day) ROG NOX PM10 (exhaust) PM2.5 (exhaust) Construction emissions 7.5 16.2 0.8 0.8 BAAQMD significance threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed threshold? No No No No SOURCE: Appendix A Operation Once the Project residences are occupied, air pollutant emissions would be generated from vehicle trips generated by the Project occupants as well as from on-site area and energy sources (e.g., natural gas combustion for space and water heating, landscape maintenance, use of consumer products such as hairsprays, deodorants, cleaning products, etc.) Project operational emissions were also calculated using the CalEEMod and the results are presented in Table 2-4 below. TABLE 2-4 PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS Scenario Pollutant ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 Unmitigated daily operational emissions (pounds per day) 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.4 BAAQMD significance threshold 54 54 82 54 Exceed threshold? No No No No Unmitigated annual operational emissions (tons per year) 0.4 0.3 0.2 <0.1 BAAQMD significance threshold 10 10 15 10 Exceed threshold? No No No No SOURCE: Appendix A Table 2-4 summarizes the average daily mobile, energy, and area emissions of criteria pollutants that would be generated by Project operation and compares the emissions to BAAQMD 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 10 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 thresholds. As shown in Table 2-4, operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 would be well below the BAAQMD significance thresholds during operations, and thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact in relation to regional operational emissions. In regards to localized CO concentrations, the BAAQMD has developed screening criteria for local CO impacts. Projects would result in a less-than-significant impact to localized CO concentrations if the following screening criteria are met: 1. The project is consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. The project traffic would not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The proposed Project would generate minimal new traffic trips and would not exceed these screening criteria. Based on the BAAQMD’s criteria, project-related traffic from both projects would not exceed CO standards and therefore, no further analysis was conducted for CO impacts. This impact would be considered less than significant on a project-level and cumulative basis. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 2-1: 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: 1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. 2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 3. 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. 4. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 5. All streets, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 6. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 11 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 7. 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. 8. A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The potential for the proposed Project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations are examined separately for the construction and operation phases. Toxic Air Contaminants Construction Construction activities for the proposed Project would produce diesel particulate matter (DPM) and PM2.5 emissions due to combustion equipment such as loaders, backhoes, and haul truck trips. These emissions could result in elevated concentrations of DPM and PM2.5 at nearby receptors. These elevated concentrations could lead to an increase in the risk of cancer or other health impacts. Consequently, a health risk assessment was performed to determine the extent of increased cancer and non-cancer risks at the maximally exposed receptors. The health risk assessment was based on recommended methodology of the Office of Environmental of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) and adopted by the BAAQMD (BAAQMD, 2012b). The cancer risk to nearby residential receptors assumes exposure would occur 8 hours per day, five days per week, to account for the active construction duration. Additionally, cancer risk estimates also incorporate age sensitivity factors and daily breathing rates recommended by OEHHA. This approach factors in the increased susceptibility of infants and children to carcinogens as compared to adults as required by OEHHA. Dispersion modeling predicts the air pollutant concentrations due to emissions from a source at defined receptor point locations. The most current version (18081) of the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) was used in the modeling analysis for this Project. The AERMOD model is a USEPA-approved model that was introduced to incorporate air dispersion based on planetary boundary layer turbulence structure and scaling concepts, including treatment of both surface and elevated sources and both simple and complex terrain. The AERMOD model requires numerous inputs, such as meteorological data, source parameters, topographical data, and receptor characteristics. The overall AERMOD modeling parameters are shown in Table 2-5. Construction sources were modeled as an area source for the main construction activities and as a line area source to represent the potential on road haul truck and vendor trips: the source configurations are presented in Table 2-6. Where Project-specific information is not available, ESA used default parameter sets that are designed to produce conservative (i.e., overestimates of) air concentrations (USEPA, 2018). Modeling inputs and results are presented in Appendix B. The maximally exposed receptor would be adjacent residences to the project along Beethoven Lane. 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 12 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 TABLE 2-5 OVERALL AERMOD MODELING PARAMETERS Pathway Description Parameter Control Rural/Urban Rurala Terrain Elevated Model Version AERMOD v 18081 Receptor Receptor Height 1.5 mb Meteorologyc Surface Station N.Y. MINETA SN JO INTL APT (23293) Upper Air Station OAKLAND/WSO AP (23230) MET Years 2009-2014 Base Elevation (MSL) 15.5 m NOTES: a From BAAQMD (2012a). Urban R2 defined as: Dense single/multi-family with less than 30% vegetation. b From BAAQMD (2012a). c From CARB (2015). ABBREVIATIONS: m = meters SOURCES: 1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. Available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approach-may-2012.pdf. Accessed February 2019. 2. California Air Resources Board. 2015. Meteorological Data from Air Districts (Met Station: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport). Available online at https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/metfiles2.htm. Accessed February 2019 TABLE 2-6 SOURCE MODELING PARAMETERS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Source Project Component Source Type Source Dimension Number of Sources Release Height [m]a Initial Vertical Dimension [m]b Off-Road Construction Equipment Residential Development Area 2.95 acre 1 5 1.4 On-Road Construction Equipment Mozart Avenue to Highway 85 Line Area 445.3 m long x 9 m wide 1 2.55 2.37 NOTES: a Release height for off-road construction equipment and on-road operational mobile sources from the CRRP-HRA (BAAQMD, SF DPH & SF Planning, 2012). For on-road construction trucks and operational delivery truck idling at street-level, the release height is equal to 0.5 * top of plume height, which is equal to 1.7 * the vehicle height, which is equal to 3 meters; equation = 0.5 * 1.7 * 3 = 2.55 (USEPA 2012) b Initial vertical dimension for off-road construction equipment and on-road operational mobile sources from the CRRP-HRA (BAAQMD, SF DPH & SF Planning, 2012). Initial vertical dimension for on-road construction trucks and truck idling is equal to the top of the plume height ÷ 2.15 = 1.7 * 3 / 2.15 = 2.37. ABBREVIATIONS: m = meters SOURCES: 1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Haul Road Workgroup Final Report Submission to EPA-OAQPS. March. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/reports/Haul_Road_Workgroup-Final_Report_Package-20120302.pdf. Accessed May 2019. 2. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and San Francisco Planning Department. 2012. The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan: Technical Support Documentation. December. Available at http://www.gsweventcenter.com/Appeal_Response_References/2012_1201_BAAQMD.pdf. Accessed May 2019. 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 13 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 Potential health risk at sensitive receptors resulting from construction activities were calculated using the OEHHA Risk Assessment Guidelines and the results of the AERMOD dispersion model (OEHHA, 2015). Unmitigated project construction maximum cancer risk is shown in Table 2-7 below. The chronic hazard impact and annual PM2.5 concentration from unmitigated project construction are shown in Table 2-8. Appendix C presents the risk equations, calculations, and results. TABLE 2-7 UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CANCER RISK Risk Scenario Maximum Cancer Risk (per million) Off-Site Resident, 3rd Trimester 4.27 Off-Site Resident, Age 0<2 16.50 Off-Site Resident, Total 20.77 BAAQMD significance threshold 10 Exceed threshold? Yes SOURCE: Appendix C TABLE 2-8 UNMITIGATED CONSTRUCTION-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS Scenario Chronic Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Unmitigated Construction 0.33 0.50 BAAQMD significance threshold 1 0.3 Exceed threshold? No Yes SOURCE: Appendix C As shown in Table 2-7, the incremental cancer risk at the maximum exposed residential receptor of 20.77 in one million (assuming exposure starting at 3rd trimester) would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million without mitigation. The maximum annual PM2.5 unmitigated concentration is 0.50 µg/m3 which would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. US EPA Certified Tier 4 that greatly reduce DPM emissions through fuel efficiency and emissions controls are now widely available and used throughout California. If Tier 4 engines are utilized during construction DPM emissions, the associated health risks will be greatly reduced. Mitigation Measure 2-2 requires construction equipment to be equipped with Tier 4 engines. After mitigation, project construction maximum cancer risk is shown in Table 2-9 below. The chronic hazard impact and annual PM2.5 concentration from mitigated project construction are shown in Table 2-10. Appendix C presents the risk equations, calculations, and results. 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 14 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 TABLE 2-9 MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION-RELATED CANCER RISK Risk Scenario Maximum Cancer Risk (per million) Off-Site Resident, 3rd Trimester 0.75 Off-Site Resident, Age 0<2 4.26 Off-Site Resident, Total 5.0 BAAQMD significance threshold 10 Exceed threshold? No SOURCE: Appendix C TABLE 2-10 MITIGATED CONSTRUCTION-RELATED HEALTH IMPACTS Scenario Chronic Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Mitigated Construction 0.03 0.04 BAAQMD significance threshold 1 0.3 Exceed threshold? No No SOURCES: Appendix C As shown in Table 2-9, the incremental cancer risk at the maximum exposed residential receptor of 5.0 in one million (assuming exposure starting at 3rd trimester) would now be below the BAAQMD threshold of 10 in a million with mitigation. The maximum annual PM2.5 mitigated concentration is 0.04 µg/m3 which is below the BAAQMD threshold of 0.3 µg/m3. The chronic hazard impacts for both the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios are under the BAAQMD threshold of one. The Project health risk impacts would thus be less than significant after mitigation. In terms of other potential construction impacts, unmitigated demolition activities could result in airborne entrainment of asbestos, a TAC, particularly where structures built prior to 1980 would be demolished. However, these materials would be removed in accordance with the procedures specified by Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing) of BAAQMD’s regulations; therefore, with adherence to regulatory requirements, asbestos would not be emitted to any substantial degree during demolition. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures 2-1 would ensure that project-generated fugitive dust during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Operation Unlike ozone and other regional pollutants, TACs are a localized pollution problem. TACs produced at distant locations do not readily combine to create concentrations at any single location that would cause health risks. The BAAQMD’s method for determining health risk requires the review of health risk from permitted sources, railroads, and major streets in the 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 15 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 vicinity of a project site (i.e., within 1,000 feet of the proposed new sensitive residential receptors on the project site), then adding the project operational impacts to determine whether the cumulative health risk thresholds are exceeded. BAAQMD has developed a geo-referenced database of permitted and Highway TAC emissions sources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area for estimating health risks to new sensitive receptors from existing permitted sources. Highway 17 is approximately 530 feet and Highway 85 is approximately 430 feet from the project site. Emissions from Bascom Avenue were estimated based on the City’s General Plan and BAAQMD’s Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator (Campbell, 2014) (BAAQMD, 2012d). Details of the emission estimates for Bascom Avenue are given in Appendix D. Unlike for a project level assessment, for the cumulative assessment, the risks from all sources within 1,000 feet of the Project site are summed and compared to the cumulative significance thresholds. The nearby roadway sources can be seen in Figure 1. There are no permitted stationary sources within 1000 feet of the project site. Additionally, there would be no onsite stationary sources of TACs and TAC emissions from Project-generated traffic would be negligible. A summary of the cumulative health impacts is shown in Table 2-11. The cumulative maximally-exposed receptor is assumed to be a proposed residence exposed to maximum risk from all sources, which would be a conservative assessment. TABLE 2-11 CUMULATIVE HEALTH IMPACTS Source Name BAAQMD ID Distance from Project (feet) Cancer Risk (per million) Chronic Hazard Impact PM2.5 Concentration (µg/m3) Highway 171 Link 297 530 31.39 0.023 0.194 Highway 852 Link 299 430 9.92 0.009 0.092 Bascom Avenue3 5564 430 9.46 N/A 0.129 Nearby Permitted Sources 0 0 0 Roadways 50.77 0.032 0.415 Grand Total 50.77 0.032 0.415 BAAQMD Cumulative Significance Threshold 100 10 0.8 Exceeds Threshold? No No No NOTE: There are no stationary sources within 1000 feet of the Project 1 Highway 17 risk estimated from BAAQMD developed geo-referenced database of permitted and Highway TAC emissions for 6-foot height at 500 feet (BAAQMD, 2012c). 2 Highway 85 risk estimated from BAAQMD developed geo-referenced database of permitted and Highway TAC emissions for 6-foot height at 400 feet (BAAQMD, 2012c). 3 Bascom Avenue concentrations and risk based on the assumption of 50,000 annual average daily traffic. The screening tool calculator was used to estimate maximum downwind concentrations and potential health risk at sensitive receptors from the source (BAAQMD, 2012d). Additional information is provided in Appendix D. SOURCES: BAAQMD, 2012c; BAAQMD, 2012d As demonstrated in Table 2-11, health impacts on the Project sensitive receptors from existing sources (Highway 17, Highway 85, and Bascom Avenue) in the area would have a cumulative impact less than the BAAQMD thresholds for cancer risk, chronic health hazards, and PM2.5 concentrations. The cumulative cancer risk from all sources within 1,000 feet of proposed 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 16 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 sensitive receptors would be approximately 50.77 in one million, which would be below the BAAQMD cumulative threshold of 100 in one million and would be less than significant. The cumulative hazard index from all such sources would be approximately 0.03, which is well below the significance threshold of 10 and would be less than significant. The cumulative PM2.5 concentration would be approximately 0.42 µg/m3, which would be below the significance threshold of 0.8 µg/m3 and is considered less than significant. Criteria Air Pollutants The following analysis of air quality impacts considers the potential impacts related to emissions of nonattainment pollutants and their precursors. Although ozone, as a secondary pollutant, would not be directly emitted by the Project, ozone precursors ROG and NOx would be emitted and are therefore, along with particulate matter, the focus of the impact assessment. Given that ozone formation occurs through a complex photo-chemical reaction between NOX and ROG in the atmosphere with the presence of sunlight, the impacts of ozone are typically considered on a basin- wide or regional basis instead of a localized basis. The health-based ambient air quality standards for ozone are established as concentrations of ozone and not as tonnages of their precursor pollutants (i.e., NOX and ROG). It is not necessarily the tonnage of precursor pollutants that causes human health effects, but the concentration of the resulting secondary pollutants which are ozone and particulate matter in this case. Because of the complexity of ozone formation and the non-linear relationship of ozone concentration with its precursor gases, and given the state of atmospheric modeling in use at this time, it is infeasible and not scientifically defensible to convert specific emissions levels of NOX or ROG emitted in a particular area to a particular concentration of ozone in that area. Meteorology, the presence of sunlight, seasonal impacts, and other complex photochemical factors all combine to determine the ultimate concentration and occurrence of ozone. Since the Project would not exceed the numeric indicator for ROG and NOX emissions during either construction or operation, it is not likely that Project ROG and NOX emissions could result in an increase in ground-level ozone concentrations in proximity to the Project sites or elsewhere in the air basin and impacts can be considered less than significant. As expressed in the amicus curiae brief submitted for the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno case (Friant Ranch Case), the CEQA criteria pollutants significance thresholds from the air districts were set at emission levels tied to the region’s attainment status. These emission levels are indexed to stationary pollution sources permitted by the air district to compel the operator to offset their emissions and they are not intended to be correlated to localized human health impacts. Furthermore, available models today are designed to determine regional, population-wide health impacts, and cannot accurately quantify ozone-related health impacts caused by NOX or ROG emissions at a project level. Therefore, it is not scientifically defensible to connect the project- level ROG or NOX emissions to ozone-related health impacts at present. Mitigation Measure 2-2: The project applicant shall ensure that construction contract specifications include a requirement that all off-road diesel-powered construction equipment used for project improvements be equipped with Tier 4 final engines. 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 17 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 d) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (No Impact) BAAQMD has identified typical sources of odor in the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, examples of which include manufacturing plants, rendering plants, coffee roasters, wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, and solid waste transfer stations. The proposed Project would not include uses that have been identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors; this is a less than significant impact. Also, there are no sources of odor located in the Project area that future occupants of the Project would be exposed to. Therefore, there would be no impact with respect to exposure of people of odorous emissions. 2. Air Quality Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 18 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 This page intentionally left blank 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 19 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 CHAPTER 3 Greenhouse Gas Analysis “Global warming” and “global climate change” are the terms used to describe the increase in the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the earth’s atmosphere are known to be the main cause of human-induced climate change. GHGs naturally trap heat by impeding the exit of solar radiation that has hit the earth and is reflected back into space. Some GHGs occur naturally and are necessary for keeping the earth’s surface inhabitable. However, increases in the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere during the last 100 years have decreased the amount of solar radiation that is reflected back into space, intensifying the natural greenhouse effect and resulting in the increase of global average temperature. Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) are the principal GHGs. When concentrations of these gases exceed natural concentrations in the atmosphere, the greenhouse effect may be enhanced. CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally, and are also generated through human activity. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion, whereas the majority of CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Other human-generated GHGs include fluorinated gases such as SFCs, PFCs, and SF6, which have much higher heat-absorption potential than CO2, and are byproducts of certain industrial processes. CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). GWP indicates, on a pound- for-pound basis, how much a gas is predicted to contribute to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2. CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with 100-year GWPs of 25 and 298 times that of CO2, respectively. In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported in terms of pounds or metric tons of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). CO2e is calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N2O have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e, both from residential developments and human activity in general. 3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 20 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 Approach to Analysis With regard to impacts from GHGs, both BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD, 2017b; CAPCOA, 2008); therefore, assessment of significance is based on a determination of whether the GHG emissions from a project represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere. This analysis uses both a quantitative and a qualitative approach. Because the quantifiable thresholds included in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines are based on the its 2009 Justification Report which formulated these thresholds based on AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan reduction targets and strategies developed to reduce GHG emissions statewide, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs (BAAQMD, 2009). Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions. Separate thresholds of significance are established for operational emissions from stationary sources (such as generators, furnaces, and boilers) and non-stationary sources (such as vehicle traffic from land use development). As no threshold has been established for construction-related emissions, GHG emissions over the entire Project construction are amortized over a project life of 30 years and considered with the operational emissions for comparison to thresholds. For non- stationary sources, three separate thresholds have been established, as presented in Table 3-1. TABLE 3-1 BAAQMD PROJECT-LEVEL GREENHOUSE GAS THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Pollutant Construction-Related Operational-Related Average Daily Emissions, lb/day Average Daily Emissions, lb/day Maximum Annual Emissions, tons/year GHGs* None Compliance with Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy; or 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year; or 4.6 metric tons of CO2e per service population per year NOTES: The service population is the sum of residents plus employees expected for a development project. * For projects other than stationary sources. SOURCE: BAAQMD, 2017b. The quantitative threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e is applied to this analysis. If the Project’s operational emissions in combination with the amortized construction emissions would exceed this threshold, it would be considered to lead to a significant impact. GHG emissions resulting from the proposed Project were also estimated using CalEEMod, using assumptions included in Appendix A. CalEEMod defaults were used when Project-specific data was not available. Construction emissions were estimated for equipment and truck exhaust and construction worker vehicles. In regards to operations, vehicle trips assumed default trip rates and 3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 21 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 lengths for urban single family residential uses, which are embedded in CalEEMod. The model makes adjustments for implementation of Pavley vehicle standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standards. Impact Assessment This impact assessment follows the GHG issues described within the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist. Table 3-2 presents a summary of the greenhouse gas issues and impacts. TABLE 3-2 CEQA GUIDELINES GREENHOUSE GAS ISSUES SUMMARY Issue Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ b) Conflict with an adopted plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ SOURCE: CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (Less than Significant) BAAQMD requires that both direct and indirect sources of GHG emissions be considered in the analysis. Direct emissions include emissions from construction equipment and vehicles, operational vehicle trips generated by the Project, use of natural gas for onsite water and space heating, and use of fuel in landscaping equipment. Indirect emissions are associated with offsite electricity generation, transport and disposal of solid waste, and water and wastewater transport and treatment. These GHG sources and emissions are detailed below: • Construction Activities. Construction equipment typically use fossil-based fuels (primarily diesel) to operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. CH4 is also emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. • Solid Waste Disposal Emissions. When solid waste generated by projects is deposited in landfills, anthropogenic CH4 is generated from the anaerobic breakdown of the organic material in solid waste. 3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 22 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 • Gas, Electricity, and Water Use. Natural gas use for water and space heating results in the emissions of two GHGs: CH4 (the major component of natural gas) and CO2 from the combustion of natural gas. CH4 is released prior to initiation of combustion of the natural gas (as before a flame on a stove is sparked), and from the small amount of CH4 that remains not combusted in a natural gas flame. Electricity used on-site can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combustion of fossil fuel. GHG emissions from water and wastewater transport result from the generation of energy required to treat and transport water from its source, and the energy required to treat wastewater and transport it to its treated discharge point. • Motor Vehicle Use. Transportation associated with the project would result in GHG emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. However, not all of these emissions would be “new” to the region or state since drivers would likely have relocated from another area. To be conservative, however, all vehicle trips predicted were assumed to be new trips in this analysis. GHG emissions over the 6-month construction period were estimated using CalEEMod and amortized assuming a 30-year development life after completion of construction. The amortized emissions were added to the Project’s operational emissions for comparison to significance thresholds. Amortized GHG emissions associated with construction of the proposed Project would result in the generation of 6.9 metric tons of CO2e per year over the assumed life of the Project. Project operational emissions as estimated using CalEEMod are shown in Table 3-3 below. Operational emissions include GHG emissions from motor vehicle trips, grid electricity usage, solid waste, and other sources (including area sources, natural gas combustion, and water/wastewater conveyance). TABLE 3-3 PROJECT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Source Emissions, metric tons of CO2e per year Project construction emissions (amortized) 6.9 Project operations1 296.9 Total project GHG emissions (construction and operation) 303.8 BAAQMD GHG threshold2 1,100 Exceeds threshold? No NOTES: 1 Project operational emissions do not take into account reduction in electricity usage from the solar panels on Project residences. Actual emissions would be lower. 2 BAAQMD threshold for projects other than stationary sources. SOURCE: APPENDIX A. Table 3-3 indicates that the total GHG emissions associated with the Project would be below BAAQMD’s GHG threshold of 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year. This would represent a cumulatively less-than-significant GHG impact. 3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 23 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 b) 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) The City of Campbell has not adopted a GHG reduction plan or a climate action plan. However, the City’s current General Plan includes goals and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. The City is in the process of preparing an update to its current General Plan. As part of the General Plan Update, the City will also prepare a Climate Action Plan which will include a range of strategies, measures, and programs that the City and the community may implement to reduce the generation of GHGs within the city and would be used to evaluate impacts of future projects. However, the analysis presented below evaluates consistency of the Project with applicable policies in the current General Plan and control measures in the BAAQMD’s 2010 CAP. Two policies in the City’s current General Plan are applicable to the Project: Policy H-1.2: Green Building and Policy H-1.3: Energy Conservation. Policy H-1.2 encourages the use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing housing. Policy H-1.3 promotes energy efficiency by requiring the City to continue to promote programs and opportunities for improved energy efficiency and weatherization. The City’s General Plan recognizes that conventional building construction, use, and demolition, as well as the manufacture of building materials have multiple impacts on the environment and account for 30 percent of GHG emissions in the United States (City of Campbell, 2015). Consistent with State regulations, the City encourages green building techniques and implements and enforces the requirements of the CalGreen program in the City. As part of its implementation of the CalGreen residential code requirements, the City requires a disclosure and certification of construction materials used in building construction for volatile organic compounds (VOC) compliance, water conservation and efficiency. The Project would comply with indoor water conservation measures included in the CalGreen Code and the City’s water management requirements through a storm water management plan during construction, a reduction of indoor water use by at least 20% using water saving fixtures or flow restrictors, and use of weather-based automatic irrigation systems to reduce outdoor water use. In addition, consistent with the City’s building code which incorporates the increased energy efficiency requirements of Title 24, the Project would include energy conservation features such as high-efficiency lighting and water heaters. The Project would recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of the construction and demolition debris waste tonnage to comply with the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Ordinance which requires the diversion of 50 percent of construction waste in accordance with the mandate of the California Waste Management Act. Project homes would include solar panels and would be pre-wired to accommodate electric car charges in the garage. Additionally, electricity in Campbell is provided by SVCE, which includes electricity generated from renewable and carbon-free sources. Compliance with all applicable codes and ordinances would ensure consistency with policies in the General Plan that promote reduction of GHGs. Further, as discussed in Chapter 2, Air Quality, the Project would be consistent with applicable control measures in the BAAQMD’s 2017 CAP, which is the planning document prepared by the BAAQMD to reduce GHG emissions in the Bay Area. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with any applicable plans, policies, or 3. Greenhouse Gas Analysis 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 24 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This would be a less than significant impact. 500 Sam Cava Lane 25 ESA D140404.01 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Health Risk Assessment November 2016 CHAPTER 4 References Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, October 2009. Available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/revised-draft-ceqa-thresholds-justification-report-oct-2009.pdf?la=en. BAAQMD, 2017a. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, last updated January 5, 2017. Available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/research-and-data/air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status. BAAQMD, 2017b, BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, updated May 2017. Available at http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en BAAQMD, 2017c. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan, April 19, 2017. Available at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-air-plan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012a. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May 2012. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/risk-modeling- approach-may-2012.pdf?la=en. Accessed July 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012b. Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool for Google Earth. Santa Clara County. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/google-earth-layers-may-25-2012/santa_clara_2012.kml?la=en. Accessed July 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012c. Highway Screening Analysis Tool for Google Earth. Santa Clara County at 6-foot height. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/santaclara-6ft.kmz?la=en. Accessed July, 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012d. Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/screeningcalculator_4_16_15-xlsx.xlsx?la=en. Accessed July, 2019. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, San Francisco Department of Public Health, and San Francisco Planning Department. 2012. The San Francisco Community Risk Reduction Plan: Technical Support Documentation. December. Available at http://www.gsweventcenter.com/Appeal_Response_References/2012_1201_BAAQMD.pdf. Accessed July 2019. 4. References 18145 Mozart Avenue Development 26 ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, January 2008. Available: http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf. California Air Resources Board. 2015. Meteorological Data from Air Districts (Met Station: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport). Available online at https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/metfiles2.htm. Accessed July 2019 California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). 2016. California Emissions Estimator Model, version 2016.3.2. Available: http://www.caleemod.com/. City of Campbell, 2015. General Plan – Housing Element, adopted February 17, 2015. Available at: https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2664/General-Plan-2015?bidId= City of Campbell, 2014. General Plan – Land Use and Transportation Element Update, adopted August 19, 2014. Available at: https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/2664/General-Plan-2015?bidId= Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), 2015. Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, February 2015. Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf SCAQMD, Application of the South Coast Air Quality Management District for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party and Brief of Amicus Curiae. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014. SJVAPCD, Application for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Brief of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District in Support of Defendant and Respondent, County of Fresno and Real Party In Interest and Respondent, Friant Ranch, L.P. In the Supreme Court of California. Sierra Club, Revive the San Joaquin, and League of Women Voters of Fresno v. County of Fresno, 2014. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Haul Road Workgroup Final Report Submission to EPA-OAQPS. March. Available at: https://www3.epa.gov/scram001/reports/Haul_Road_Workgroup-Final_Report_Package-20120302.pdf. Accessed July 2019. 18145 Mozart Avenue Development ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 Appendix A CalEEMod Model Inputs and Results 1.1 Land Usage Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 25.00 Dwelling Unit 2.95 62,275.00 72 1.2 Other Project Characteristics Urbanization Climate Zone Urban 4 Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 58 1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data 1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2021Operational Year CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 294 0.029CH4 Intensity (lb/MWhr) 0.006N2O Intensity (lb/MWhr) E Mozart Development Santa Clara County, Annual CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 1 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual Project Characteristics - Based on GHG emission factors for 2016 at https://www.pgecurrents.com/2018/03/26/independent-registry-confirms-record-low-carbon- emissions-for-pge/ Land Use - Project info Construction Phase - Compressed schedule using as much data provided by the applicant Off-road Equipment - Data from applicant Off-road Equipment - Data from applicant Off-road Equipment - Data from applicant Off-road Equipment - Data from applicant Off-road Equipment - Data from applicant Grading - Project area Demolition - Woodstoves - Default number of fireplaces, but all assumed to be gas fired Energy Use - Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - Tier 4 Final used for mitigation Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 5.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 4.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 2 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation NumberOfEquipmentMitigated 0.00 1.00 tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstEquipMitigation Tier No Change Tier 4 Final tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 5.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 220.00 110.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 6.00 10.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 5.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 7/12/2021 1/29/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/14/2021 1/15/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 8/10/2020 8/14/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/28/2021 1/23/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/29/2021 1/24/2021 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 3 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 8/11/2020 8/15/2020 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/15/2021 1/16/2021 tblFireplaces NumberGas 6.25 17.00 tblFireplaces NumberWood 10.75 0.00 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 10.00 2.95 tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 2.95 tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 45,000.00 62,275.00 tblLandUse LotAcreage 8.12 2.95 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.30 0.30 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.31 0.31 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.50 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.46 0.46 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.48 0.48 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Surfacing Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Aerial Lifts tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Bore/Drill Rigs tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Concrete/Industrial Saws tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Pressure Washers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Pumps tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Sweepers/Scrubbers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 4 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Scrapers tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 2.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 3.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 5 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 2.0 Emissions Summary tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 6.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 7.00 8.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment UsageHours 8.00 0.00 tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 641.35 294 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 6 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 2.1 Overall Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.1213 1.1366 1.0886 2.1400e- 003 0.0425 0.0585 0.1010 0.0190 0.0556 0.0746 0.0000 185.9026 185.9026 0.0419 0.0000 186.9500 2021 0.4500 0.1054 0.1135 2.4000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 5.2300e- 003 5.8700e- 003 1.7000e- 004 5.0000e- 003 5.1800e- 003 0.0000 20.3846 20.3846 4.4100e- 003 0.0000 20.4949 Maximum 0.4500 1.1366 1.0886 2.1400e- 003 0.0425 0.0585 0.1010 0.0190 0.0556 0.0746 0.0000 185.9026 185.9026 0.0419 0.0000 186.9500 Unmitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Year tons/yr MT/yr 2020 0.0456 0.3867 1.2224 2.1400e- 003 0.0425 0.0130 0.0555 0.0190 0.0130 0.0320 0.0000 185.9024 185.9024 0.0419 0.0000 186.9498 2021 0.4431 0.0404 0.1322 2.4000e- 004 6.4000e- 004 1.2700e- 003 1.9100e- 003 1.7000e- 004 1.2700e- 003 1.4400e- 003 0.0000 20.3846 20.3846 4.4100e- 003 0.0000 20.4948 Maximum 0.4431 0.3867 1.2224 2.1400e- 003 0.0425 0.0130 0.0555 0.0190 0.0130 0.0320 0.0000 185.9024 185.9024 0.0419 0.0000 186.9498 Mitigated Construction ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 14.44 65.61 -12.68 0.00 0.00 77.65 46.29 0.00 76.49 58.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 7 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2994 4.9400e- 003 0.2455 2.1000e- 004 0.0107 0.0107 0.0107 0.0107 1.2812 2.4255 3.7067 6.3200e- 003 4.0000e- 005 3.8763 Energy 3.9200e- 003 0.0335 0.0143 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 65.7488 65.7488 3.4000e- 003 1.2600e- 003 66.2098 Mobile 0.0590 0.2467 0.6891 2.2700e- 003 0.2028 1.9600e- 003 0.2048 0.0543 1.8400e- 003 0.0561 0.0000 207.4914 207.4914 7.2500e- 003 0.0000 207.6726 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.1385 0.0000 6.1385 0.3628 0.0000 15.2077 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5168 1.6547 2.1714 0.0532 1.2900e- 003 3.8859 Total 0.3623 0.2851 0.9488 2.6900e- 003 0.2028 0.0154 0.2183 0.0543 0.0153 0.0696 7.9364 277.3204 285.2567 0.4330 2.5900e- 003 296.8524 Unmitigated Operational Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 7-1-2020 9-30-2020 0.5918 0.1637 2 10-1-2020 12-31-2020 0.6659 0.2695 3 1-1-2021 3-31-2021 0.4913 0.4200 Highest 0.6659 0.4200 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 8 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 2.2 Overall Operational ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Area 0.2994 4.9400e- 003 0.2455 2.1000e- 004 0.0107 0.0107 0.0107 0.0107 1.2812 2.4255 3.7067 6.3200e- 003 4.0000e- 005 3.8763 Energy 3.9200e- 003 0.0335 0.0143 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 65.7488 65.7488 3.4000e- 003 1.2600e- 003 66.2098 Mobile 0.0590 0.2467 0.6891 2.2700e- 003 0.2028 1.9600e- 003 0.2048 0.0543 1.8400e- 003 0.0561 0.0000 207.4914 207.4914 7.2500e- 003 0.0000 207.6726 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.1385 0.0000 6.1385 0.3628 0.0000 15.2077 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.5168 1.6547 2.1714 0.0532 1.2900e- 003 3.8859 Total 0.3623 0.2851 0.9488 2.6900e- 003 0.2028 0.0154 0.2183 0.0543 0.0153 0.0696 7.9364 277.3204 285.2567 0.4330 2.5900e- 003 296.8524 Mitigated Operational 3.0 Construction Detail Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 9 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual Phase Number Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Week Num Days Phase Description 1 Demolition Demolition 7/1/2020 7/28/2020 5 20 2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 7/29/2020 7/31/2020 5 3 3 Grading Grading 8/1/2020 8/14/2020 5 10 4 Building Construction Building Construction 8/15/2020 1/15/2021 5 110 5 Paving Paving 1/16/2021 1/23/2021 5 5 6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/24/2021 1/29/2021 5 5 OffRoad Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 0.00 9 0.56 Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 0 0.00 81 0.73 Building Construction Generator Sets 0 0.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Cranes 0 0.00 231 0.29 Building Construction Forklifts 1 7.00 89 0.20 Site Preparation Graders 0 0.00 187 0.41 Paving Pavers 0 0.00 130 0.42 Paving Rollers 0 0.00 80 0.38 Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 0 0.00 247 0.40 Residential Indoor: 126,107; Residential Outdoor: 42,036; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft) Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 2.95 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 2.95 Acres of Paving: 0 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 10 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37 Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37 Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 0.00 97 0.37 Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Graders 0 0.00 187 0.41 Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Site Preparation Scrapers 0 0.00 367 0.48 Building Construction Welders 0 0.00 46 0.45 Paving Surfacing Equipment 1 8.00 263 0.30 Building Construction Aerial Lifts 1 8.00 63 0.31 Building Construction Bore/Drill Rigs 1 8.00 221 0.50 Building Construction Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Building Construction Dumpers/Tenders 1 8.00 16 0.38 Building Construction Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Building Construction Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43 Building Construction Pressure Washers 1 8.00 13 0.30 Building Construction Pumps 1 8.00 84 0.74 Building Construction Sweepers/Scrubbers 1 8.00 64 0.46 Grading Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38 Grading Scrapers 1 8.00 367 0.48 Demolition Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38 Trips and VMT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 11 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 3.2900e- 003 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.1100e- 003 0.0906 0.1113 1.7000e- 004 5.0100e- 003 5.0100e- 003 4.6100e- 003 4.6100e- 003 0.0000 14.5764 14.5764 4.7100e- 003 0.0000 14.6943 Total 9.1100e- 003 0.0906 0.1113 1.7000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 5.0100e- 003 8.3000e- 003 5.0000e- 004 4.6100e- 003 5.1100e- 003 0.0000 14.5764 14.5764 4.7100e- 003 0.0000 14.6943 Unmitigated Construction On-Site 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction Use Cleaner Engines for Construction Equipment Phase Name Offroad Equipment Count Worker Trip Number Vendor Trip Number Hauling Trip Number Worker Trip Length Vendor Trip Length Hauling Trip Length Worker Vehicle Class Vendor Vehicle Class Hauling Vehicle Class Architectural Coating 1 2.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 10 9.00 3.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Demolition 4 10.00 0.00 30.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 2 5.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 10.80 7.30 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 12 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.2000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 8.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1441 1.1441 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1454 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.3000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.5000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6802 0.6802 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6806 Total 4.5000e- 004 4.5900e- 003 3.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.8242 1.8242 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8259 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 3.2900e- 003 0.0000 3.2900e- 003 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 2.0400e- 003 8.8300e- 003 0.1256 1.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 0.0000 14.5764 14.5764 4.7100e- 003 0.0000 14.6943 Total 2.0400e- 003 8.8300e- 003 0.1256 1.7000e- 004 3.2900e- 003 2.7000e- 004 3.5600e- 003 5.0000e- 004 2.7000e- 004 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 14.5764 14.5764 4.7100e- 003 0.0000 14.6943 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 13 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.2 Demolition - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 1.2000e- 004 4.3500e- 003 8.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 2.7000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1441 1.1441 5.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.1454 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.3000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.5000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.9000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 8.0000e- 004 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 2.2000e- 004 0.0000 0.6802 0.6802 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6806 Total 4.5000e- 004 4.5900e- 003 3.3900e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.0700e- 003 2.8000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.8242 1.8242 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.8259 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 1.5600e- 003 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 9.4000e- 004 9.4700e- 003 0.0103 1.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 004 6.0000e- 004 5.5000e- 004 5.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.2278 1.2278 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.2378 Total 9.4000e- 004 9.4700e- 003 0.0103 1.0000e- 005 1.5600e- 003 6.0000e- 004 2.1600e- 003 1.7000e- 004 5.5000e- 004 7.2000e- 004 0.0000 1.2278 1.2278 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.2378 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 14 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0816 0.0816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0817 Total 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0816 0.0816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0817 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.5600e- 003 0.0000 1.5600e- 003 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 1.7000e- 004 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 0.0105 1.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.2278 1.2278 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.2378 Total 1.7000e- 004 7.4000e- 004 0.0105 1.0000e- 005 1.5600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 1.5800e- 003 1.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 1.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.2278 1.2278 4.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.2378 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 15 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.3 Site Preparation - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0816 0.0816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0817 Total 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0816 0.0816 0.0000 0.0000 0.0817 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0317 0.0000 0.0317 0.0167 0.0000 0.0167 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0116 0.1278 0.0746 1.4000e- 004 5.6700e- 003 5.6700e- 003 5.2100e- 003 5.2100e- 003 0.0000 12.7201 12.7201 4.1100e- 003 0.0000 12.8230 Total 0.0116 0.1278 0.0746 1.4000e- 004 0.0317 5.6700e- 003 0.0373 0.0167 5.2100e- 003 0.0219 0.0000 12.7201 12.7201 4.1100e- 003 0.0000 12.8230 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 16 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2721 0.2721 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2722 Total 1.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2721 0.2721 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2722 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 0.0317 0.0000 0.0317 0.0167 0.0000 0.0167 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 1.7800e- 003 7.7100e- 003 0.0732 1.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 12.7201 12.7201 4.1100e- 003 0.0000 12.8230 Total 1.7800e- 003 7.7100e- 003 0.0732 1.4000e- 004 0.0317 2.4000e- 004 0.0319 0.0167 2.4000e- 004 0.0170 0.0000 12.7201 12.7201 4.1100e- 003 0.0000 12.8230 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 17 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.4 Grading - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2721 0.2721 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2722 Total 1.3000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 003 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 0.0000 3.2000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2721 0.2721 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.2722 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0969 0.8860 0.8721 1.7200e- 003 0.0471 0.0471 0.0451 0.0451 0.0000 148.2878 148.2878 0.0323 0.0000 149.0964 Total 0.0969 0.8860 0.8721 1.7200e- 003 0.0471 0.0471 0.0451 0.0451 0.0000 148.2878 148.2878 0.0323 0.0000 149.0964 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 18 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.9000e- 004 0.0169 4.5000e- 003 4.0000e- 005 9.8000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 2.8000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.8824 3.8824 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.8869 Worker 1.4800e- 003 1.0600e- 003 0.0112 3.0000e- 005 3.5300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.5600e- 003 9.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.0301 3.0301 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0319 Total 2.0700e- 003 0.0180 0.0157 7.0000e- 005 4.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 004 4.6200e- 003 1.2200e- 003 1.0000e- 004 1.3200e- 003 0.0000 6.9125 6.9125 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 6.9188 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 0.0389 0.3467 0.9927 1.7200e- 003 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0000 148.2876 148.2876 0.0323 0.0000 149.0962 Total 0.0389 0.3467 0.9927 1.7200e- 003 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0123 0.0000 148.2876 148.2876 0.0323 0.0000 149.0962 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 19 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2020 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.9000e- 004 0.0169 4.5000e- 003 4.0000e- 005 9.8000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 1.0600e- 003 2.8000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 3.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.8824 3.8824 1.8000e- 004 0.0000 3.8869 Worker 1.4800e- 003 1.0600e- 003 0.0112 3.0000e- 005 3.5300e- 003 2.0000e- 005 3.5600e- 003 9.4000e- 004 2.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 0.0000 3.0301 3.0301 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0319 Total 2.0700e- 003 0.0180 0.0157 7.0000e- 005 4.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 004 4.6200e- 003 1.2200e- 003 1.0000e- 004 1.3200e- 003 0.0000 6.9125 6.9125 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 6.9188 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9.8400e- 003 0.0888 0.0964 1.9000e- 004 4.5300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 4.3400e- 003 4.3400e- 003 0.0000 16.4881 16.4881 3.5700e- 003 0.0000 16.5772 Total 9.8400e- 003 0.0888 0.0964 1.9000e- 004 4.5300e- 003 4.5300e- 003 4.3400e- 003 4.3400e- 003 0.0000 16.4881 16.4881 3.5700e- 003 0.0000 16.5772 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 20 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e- 005 1.7000e- 003 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4274 0.4274 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4279 Worker 1.5000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1300e- 003 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.3250 0.3250 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3252 Total 2.0000e- 004 1.8100e- 003 1.5800e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 5.1000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7524 0.7524 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7530 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 4.0900e- 003 0.0368 0.1102 1.9000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 1.2100e- 003 1.2100e- 003 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 16.4881 16.4881 3.5700e- 003 0.0000 16.5772 Total 4.0900e- 003 0.0368 0.1102 1.9000e- 004 1.2100e- 003 1.2100e- 003 1.2100e- 003 1.2100e- 003 0.0000 16.4881 16.4881 3.5700e- 003 0.0000 16.5772 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 21 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.5 Building Construction - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 5.0000e- 005 1.7000e- 003 4.5000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4274 0.4274 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.4279 Worker 1.5000e- 004 1.1000e- 004 1.1300e- 003 0.0000 3.9000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.3250 0.3250 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.3252 Total 2.0000e- 004 1.8100e- 003 1.5800e- 003 0.0000 5.0000e- 004 0.0000 5.1000e- 004 1.3000e- 004 0.0000 1.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.7524 0.7524 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.7530 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.6 Paving - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 9.7000e- 004 0.0110 0.0106 3.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3909 2.3909 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.4102 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 9.7000e- 004 0.0110 0.0106 3.0000e- 005 4.6000e- 004 4.6000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 4.2000e- 004 0.0000 2.3909 2.3909 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.4102 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 22 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0821 0.0821 0.0000 0.0000 0.0821 Total 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0821 0.0821 0.0000 0.0000 0.0821 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 3.4000e- 004 1.4500e- 003 0.0154 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.3909 2.3909 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.4102 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 3.4000e- 004 1.4500e- 003 0.0154 3.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 2.3909 2.3909 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 2.4102 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 23 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.6 Paving - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0821 0.0821 0.0000 0.0000 0.0821 Total 4.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 0.0000 1.0000e- 004 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 3.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0821 0.0821 0.0000 0.0000 0.0821 Mitigated Construction Off-Site 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.4384 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 5.5000e- 004 3.8200e- 003 4.5400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6394 Total 0.4389 3.8200e- 003 4.5400e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 2.4000e- 004 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6394 Unmitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 24 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0328 0.0328 0.0000 0.0000 0.0329 Total 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0328 0.0328 0.0000 0.0000 0.0329 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Archit. Coating 0.4384 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 7.0000e- 005 3.2000e- 004 4.5800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6394 Total 0.4385 3.2000e- 004 4.5800e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6383 0.6383 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.6394 Mitigated Construction On-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 25 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile 4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile 3.7 Architectural Coating - 2021 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0328 0.0328 0.0000 0.0000 0.0329 Total 2.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 1.1000e- 004 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 4.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0328 0.0328 0.0000 0.0000 0.0329 Mitigated Construction Off-Site CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 26 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.0590 0.2467 0.6891 2.2700e- 003 0.2028 1.9600e- 003 0.2048 0.0543 1.8400e- 003 0.0561 0.0000 207.4914 207.4914 7.2500e- 003 0.0000 207.6726 Unmitigated 0.0590 0.2467 0.6891 2.2700e- 003 0.2028 1.9600e- 003 0.2048 0.0543 1.8400e- 003 0.0561 0.0000 207.4914 207.4914 7.2500e- 003 0.0000 207.6726 4.2 Trip Summary Information 4.3 Trip Type Information Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT Single Family Housing 238.00 247.75 215.50 545,480 545,480 Total 238.00 247.75 215.50 545,480 545,480 Miles Trip %Trip Purpose % Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Single Family Housing 10.80 4.80 5.70 31.00 15.00 54.00 86 11 3 5.0 Energy Detail 4.4 Fleet Mix Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Single Family Housing 0.607897 0.037434 0.184004 0.107261 0.014919 0.004991 0.012447 0.020659 0.002115 0.001554 0.005334 0.000623 0.000761 Historical Energy Use: N CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 27 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Electricity Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.9732 26.9732 2.6600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 27.2037 Electricity Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 26.9732 26.9732 2.6600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 27.2037 NaturalGas Mitigated 3.9200e- 003 0.0335 0.0143 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 38.7756 38.7756 7.4000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 39.0060 NaturalGas Unmitigated 3.9200e- 003 0.0335 0.0143 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 38.7756 38.7756 7.4000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 39.0060 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Single Family Housing 726627 3.9200e- 003 0.0335 0.0143 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 38.7756 38.7756 7.4000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 39.0060 Total 3.9200e- 003 0.0335 0.0143 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 38.7756 38.7756 7.4000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 39.0060 Unmitigated 5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 28 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas NaturalGa s Use ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr Single Family Housing 726627 3.9200e- 003 0.0335 0.0143 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 38.7756 38.7756 7.4000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 39.0060 Total 3.9200e- 003 0.0335 0.0143 2.1000e- 004 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 2.7100e- 003 0.0000 38.7756 38.7756 7.4000e- 004 7.1000e- 004 39.0060 Mitigated 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Single Family Housing 202264 26.9732 2.6600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 27.2037 Total 26.9732 2.6600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 27.2037 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 29 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 6.1 Mitigation Measures Area 6.0 Area Detail ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category tons/yr MT/yr Mitigated 0.2994 4.9400e- 003 0.2455 2.1000e- 004 0.0107 0.0107 0.0107 0.0107 1.2812 2.4255 3.7067 6.3200e- 003 4.0000e- 005 3.8763 Unmitigated 0.2994 4.9400e- 003 0.2455 2.1000e- 004 0.0107 0.0107 0.0107 0.0107 1.2812 2.4255 3.7067 6.3200e- 003 4.0000e- 005 3.8763 5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity Electricity Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr Single Family Housing 202264 26.9732 2.6600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 27.2037 Total 26.9732 2.6600e- 003 5.5000e- 004 27.2037 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 30 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0438 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.2432 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 6.6700e- 003 2.7900e- 003 0.0594 2.0000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 1.2812 2.1223 3.4034 6.0300e- 003 4.0000e- 005 3.5658 Landscaping 5.6400e- 003 2.1500e- 003 0.1860 1.0000e- 005 1.0300e- 003 1.0300e- 003 1.0300e- 003 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 0.3032 0.3032 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.3106 Total 0.2994 4.9400e- 003 0.2455 2.1000e- 004 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 1.2812 2.4255 3.7067 6.3200e- 003 4.0000e- 005 3.8763 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 31 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 7.1 Mitigation Measures Water 7.0 Water Detail 6.2 Area by SubCategory ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM10 Total Fugitive PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr Architectural Coating 0.0438 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer Products 0.2432 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 6.6700e- 003 2.7900e- 003 0.0594 2.0000e- 004 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 9.7200e- 003 1.2812 2.1223 3.4034 6.0300e- 003 4.0000e- 005 3.5658 Landscaping 5.6400e- 003 2.1500e- 003 0.1860 1.0000e- 005 1.0300e- 003 1.0300e- 003 1.0300e- 003 1.0300e- 003 0.0000 0.3032 0.3032 2.9000e- 004 0.0000 0.3106 Total 0.2994 4.9400e- 003 0.2455 2.1000e- 004 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 0.0108 1.2812 2.4255 3.7067 6.3200e- 003 4.0000e- 005 3.8763 Mitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 32 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Category MT/yr Mitigated 2.1714 0.0532 1.2900e- 003 3.8859 Unmitigated 2.1714 0.0532 1.2900e- 003 3.8859 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Single Family Housing 1.62885 / 1.02688 2.1714 0.0532 1.2900e- 003 3.8859 Total 2.1714 0.0532 1.2900e- 003 3.8859 Unmitigated CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 33 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste 7.2 Water by Land Use Indoor/Out door Use Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use Mgal MT/yr Single Family Housing 1.62885 / 1.02688 2.1714 0.0532 1.2900e- 003 3.8859 Total 2.1714 0.0532 1.2900e- 003 3.8859 Mitigated 8.0 Waste Detail Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e MT/yr Mitigated 6.1385 0.3628 0.0000 15.2077 Unmitigated 6.1385 0.3628 0.0000 15.2077 Category/Year CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 34 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 8.2 Waste by Land Use Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Single Family Housing 30.24 6.1385 0.3628 0.0000 15.2077 Total 6.1385 0.3628 0.0000 15.2077 Unmitigated Waste Disposed Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Land Use tons MT/yr Single Family Housing 30.24 6.1385 0.3628 0.0000 15.2077 Total 6.1385 0.3628 0.0000 15.2077 Mitigated 9.0 Operational Offroad Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 35 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 11.0 Vegetation 10.0 Stationary Equipment Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment Equipment Type Number CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 7/18/2019 8:20 AMPage 36 of 36 E Mozart Development - Santa Clara County, Annual 18145 Mozart Avenue Development ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 Appendix B AERMOD Model Inputs and Results MozartHRA_AERMOD ** **************************************** ** ** AERMOD Input Produced by: ** AERMOD View Ver. 9.6.5 ** Lakes Environmental Software Inc. ** Date: 7/18/2019 ** File: C:\Model\Mozart HRA\MozartHRA_AERMOD\MozartHRA_AERMOD.ADI ** **************************************** ** ** **************************************** ** AERMOD Control Pathway **************************************** ** ** CO STARTING TITLEONE C:\Model\Mozart HRA\MozartHRA_AERMOD\MozartHRA_AERMOD.isc TITLETWO Mozart HRA MODELOPT DFAULT CONC AVERTIME PERIOD POLLUTID PM_10 FLAGPOLE 1.50 RUNORNOT RUN ERRORFIL MozartHRA_AERMOD.err CO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD Source Pathway **************************************** ** ** SO STARTING ** Source Location ** ** Source ID - Type - X Coord. - Y Coord. ** LOCATION CONSTR AREA 592931.622 4123793.783 84.960 ** DESCRSRC maint construction area ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Line Source Represented by Area Sources ** LINE AREA Source ID = HAUL ** DESCRSRC Haul/Vend ** PREFIX ** Length of Side = 9.00 ** Ratio = 10 ** Vertical Dimension = 2.37 ** Emission Rate = 0.0002495237 ** Nodes = 3 Page 1 MozartHRA_AERMOD ** 592844.381, 4123840.925, 84.82, 2.55 ** 593056.596, 4123714.046, 87.27, 2.55 ** 592950.283, 4123546.960, 89.25, 2.55 ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- LOCATION A0000001 AREA 592842.072 4123837.063 84.92 LOCATION A0000002 AREA 592912.810 4123794.770 85.06 LOCATION A0000003 AREA 592983.548 4123752.477 86.66 LOCATION A0000004 AREA 593052.799 4123716.461 87.14 LOCATION A0000005 AREA 593017.361 4123660.766 77.63 LOCATION A0000006 AREA 592981.924 4123605.071 78.94 ** End of LINE AREA Source ID = HAUL ** Source Parameters ** SRCPARAM CONSTR 0.0000820043 5.000 125.200 97.400 -57.500 1.400 ** LINE AREA Source ID = HAUL SRCPARAM A0000001 0.0002495237 2.550 82.417 9.000 30.874 2.370 SRCPARAM A0000002 0.0002495237 2.550 82.417 9.000 30.874 2.370 SRCPARAM A0000003 0.0002495237 2.550 82.417 9.000 30.874 2.370 SRCPARAM A0000004 0.0002495237 2.550 66.014 9.000 122.468 2.370 SRCPARAM A0000005 0.0002495237 2.550 66.014 9.000 122.468 2.370 SRCPARAM A0000006 0.0002495237 2.550 66.014 9.000 122.468 2.370 ** --------------------------------------------------------------------- SRCGROUP CONSTR CONSTR SRCGROUP HAUL A0000001 A0000002 A0000003 A0000004 A0000005 A0000006 SRCGROUP ALL SO FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD Receptor Pathway **************************************** ** ** RE STARTING INCLUDED MozartHRA_AERMOD.rou RE FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD Meteorology Pathway **************************************** ** ** ME STARTING Page 2 MozartHRA_AERMOD SURFFILE 724945.SFC PROFFILE 724945.PFL SURFDATA 23293 2009 UAIRDATA 23230 2009 OAKLAND/WSO_AP PROFBASE 15.5 METERS ME FINISHED ** **************************************** ** AERMOD Output Pathway **************************************** ** ** OU STARTING ** Auto-Generated Plotfiles PLOTFILE PERIOD ALL MozartHRA_AERMOD.AD\PE00GALL.PLT 31 PLOTFILE PERIOD CONSTR MozartHRA_AERMOD.AD\PE00G001.PLT 32 PLOTFILE PERIOD HAUL MozartHRA_AERMOD.AD\PE00G002.PLT 33 SUMMFILE MozartHRA_AERMOD.sum OU FINISHED ** **************************************** ** Project Parameters **************************************** ** PROJCTN CoordinateSystemUTM ** DESCPTN UTM: Universal Transverse Mercator ** DATUM World Geodetic System 1984 ** DTMRGN Global Definition ** UNITS m ** ZONE 10 ** ZONEINX 0 ** Page 3 MozartHRA_AERMOD *** AERMOD - VERSION 18081 *** *** C:\Model\Mozart HRA\MozartHRA_AERMOD\MozartHRA_AERMOD.isc *** 07/18/19 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Mozart HRA *** 11:59:37 PAGE 1 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL RURAL *** MODEL SETUP OPTIONS SUMMARY *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - **Model Is Setup For Calculation of Average CONCentration Values. -- DEPOSITION LOGIC -- **NO GAS DEPOSITION Data Provided. **NO PARTICLE DEPOSITION Data Provided. **Model Uses NO DRY DEPLETION. DRYDPLT = F **Model Uses NO WET DEPLETION. WETDPLT = F **Model Uses RURAL Dispersion Only. **Model Uses Regulatory DEFAULT Options: 1. Stack-tip Downwash. 2. Model Accounts for ELEVated Terrain Effects. 3. Use Calms Processing Routine. 4. Use Missing Data Processing Routine. 5. No Exponential Decay. **Other Options Specified: CCVR_Sub - Meteorological data includes CCVR substitutions TEMP_Sub - Meteorological data includes TEMP substitutions **Model Accepts FLAGPOLE Receptor Heights. **The User Specified a Pollutant Type of: PM_10 **Model Calculates PERIOD Averages Only **This Run Includes: 7 Source(s); 3 Source Group(s); and 434 Receptor(s) with: 0 POINT(s), including 0 POINTCAP(s) and 0 POINTHOR(s) and: 0 VOLUME source(s) and: 7 AREA type source(s) and: 0 LINE source(s) Page 1 MozartHRA_AERMOD and: 0 OPENPIT source(s) and: 0 BUOYANT LINE source(s) with 0 line(s) **Model Set To Continue RUNning After the Setup Testing. **The AERMET Input Meteorological Data Version Date: 14134 **Output Options Selected: Model Outputs Tables of PERIOD Averages by Receptor Model Outputs External File(s) of High Values for Plotting (PLOTFILE Keyword) Model Outputs Separate Summary File of High Ranked Values (SUMMFILE Keyword) **NOTE: The Following Flags May Appear Following CONC Values: c for Calm Hours m for Missing Hours b for Both Calm and Missing Hours **Misc. Inputs: Base Elev. for Pot. Temp. Profile (m MSL) = 15.50 ; Decay Coef. = 0.000 ; Rot. Angle = 0.0 Emission Units = GRAMS/SEC ; Emission Rate Unit Factor = 0.10000E+07 Output Units = MICROGRAMS/M**3 **Approximate Storage Requirements of Model = 3.6 MB of RAM. **Input Runstream File: aermod.inp **Output Print File: aermod.out **Detailed Error/Message File: MozartHRA_AERMOD.err **File for Summary of Results: MozartHRA_AERMOD.sum *** AERMOD - VERSION 18081 *** *** C:\Model\Mozart HRA\MozartHRA_AERMOD\MozartHRA_AERMOD.isc *** 07/18/19 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Mozart HRA *** 11:59:37 PAGE 2 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL RURAL *** METEOROLOGICAL DAYS SELECTED FOR PROCESSING *** (1=YES; 0=NO) Page 2 MozartHRA_AERMOD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 NOTE: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ACTUALLY PROCESSED WILL ALSO DEPEND ON WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE DATA FILE. *** UPPER BOUND OF FIRST THROUGH FIFTH WIND SPEED CATEGORIES *** (METERS/SEC) 1.54, 3.09, 5.14, 8.23, 10.80, *** AERMOD - VERSION 18081 *** *** C:\Model\Mozart HRA\MozartHRA_AERMOD\MozartHRA_AERMOD.isc *** 07/18/19 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Mozart HRA *** 11:59:37 PAGE 3 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL RURAL *** UP TO THE FIRST 24 HOURS OF METEOROLOGICAL DATA *** Surface file: 724945.SFC Met Version: 14134 Profile file: 724945.PFL Surface format: FREE Profile format: FREE Surface station no.: 23293 Upper air station no.: 23230 Page 3 MozartHRA_AERMOD Name: UNKNOWN Name: OAKLAND/WSO_AP Year: 2009 Year: 2009 First 24 hours of scalar data YR MO DY JDY HR H0 U* W* DT/DZ ZICNV ZIMCH M-O LEN Z0 BOWEN ALBEDO REF WS WD HT REF TA HT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 09 01 01 1 01 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 282.5 2.0 09 01 01 1 02 -13.4 0.236 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 275. 89.0 0.32 1.10 1.00 2.36 18. 10.0 282.5 2.0 09 01 01 1 03 -7.9 0.139 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 128. 30.9 0.32 1.10 1.00 1.76 4. 10.0 282.0 2.0 09 01 01 1 04 -12.4 0.217 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 242. 74.8 0.25 1.10 1.00 2.36 73. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 05 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 282.0 2.0 09 01 01 1 06 -9.7 0.170 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 168. 46.1 0.47 1.10 1.00 1.76 342. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 07 -13.5 0.236 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 275. 88.6 0.32 1.10 1.00 2.36 5. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 08 -19.7 0.345 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 486. 189.6 0.47 1.10 0.74 2.86 333. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 09 -8.3 0.363 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 526. 525.4 0.47 1.10 0.39 2.86 327. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 10 8.1 0.382 0.288 0.014 106. 566. -625.1 0.47 1.10 0.27 2.86 351. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 11 17.6 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 189. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 0.23 0.00 0. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 12 23.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 259. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 0.21 0.00 0. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 13 23.9 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 315. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 0.21 0.00 0. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 14 48.5 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 407. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 0.22 0.00 0. 10.0 283.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 15 69.5 0.319 0.953 0.016 453. 433. -42.6 0.32 1.10 0.25 2.36 32. 10.0 283.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 16 24.5 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 460. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 0.33 0.00 0. 10.0 283.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 17 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 0.57 0.00 0. 10.0 283.1 2.0 09 01 01 1 18 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 282.5 2.0 09 01 01 1 19 -24.2 0.212 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 235. 35.9 0.47 1.10 1.00 2.36 324. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 20 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 Page 4 MozartHRA_AERMOD 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 281.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 21 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 22 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 280.9 2.0 09 01 01 1 23 -999.0 -9.000 -9.000 -9.000 -999. -999. -99999.0 0.25 1.10 1.00 0.00 0. 10.0 280.4 2.0 09 01 01 1 24 -9.7 0.170 -9.000 -9.000 -999. 168. 45.7 0.47 1.10 1.00 1.76 310. 10.0 280.4 2.0 First hour of profile data YR MO DY HR HEIGHT F WDIR WSPD AMB_TMP sigmaA sigmaW sigmaV 09 01 01 01 10.0 1 -999. -99.00 282.6 99.0 -99.00 -99.00 F indicates top of profile (=1) or below (=0) *** AERMOD - VERSION 18081 *** *** C:\Model\Mozart HRA\MozartHRA_AERMOD\MozartHRA_AERMOD.isc *** 07/18/19 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Mozart HRA *** 11:59:37 PAGE 4 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL RURAL *** THE SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM PERIOD ( 43872 HRS) RESULTS *** ** CONC OF PM_10 IN MICROGRAMS/M**3 ** NETWORK GROUP ID AVERAGE CONC RECEPTOR (XR, YR, ZELEV, ZHILL, ZFLAG) OF TYPE GRID-ID - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONSTR 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 114.93969 AT ( 592879.91, 4123921.21, 84.25, 84.25, 1.50) DC 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 109.55091 AT ( 592899.91, 4123941.21, 84.33, 84.33, 1.50) DC 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 104.21922 AT ( 592859.91, 4123901.21, 84.18, 84.18, 1.50) DC 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 103.57433 AT ( 592879.91, 4123941.21, 84.06, 84.06, 1.50) DC 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 102.06758 AT ( 592859.91, 4123881.21, 84.81, 84.81, 1.50) DC Page 5 MozartHRA_AERMOD 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 99.42697 AT ( 592859.91, 4123921.21, 84.13, 84.13, 1.50) DC 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 89.98436 AT ( 592859.91, 4123941.21, 84.05, 84.05, 1.50) DC 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 85.05772 AT ( 592899.91, 4123961.21, 84.02, 84.02, 1.50) DC 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 84.40080 AT ( 592879.91, 4123961.21, 84.12, 84.12, 1.50) DC 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 83.50155 AT ( 592839.91, 4123901.21, 84.43, 84.43, 1.50) DC HAUL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 311.60267 AT ( 592999.91, 4123741.21, 86.86, 86.86, 1.50) DC 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 227.93238 AT ( 592959.91, 4123761.21, 85.78, 85.78, 1.50) DC 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 197.04273 AT ( 593019.91, 4123721.21, 87.13, 87.13, 1.50) DC 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 174.90572 AT ( 592919.91, 4123781.21, 85.28, 85.28, 1.50) DC 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 165.67555 AT ( 592859.91, 4123821.21, 84.92, 84.92, 1.50) DC 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 152.79585 AT ( 592979.91, 4123741.21, 86.97, 86.97, 1.50) DC 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 128.05932 AT ( 592939.91, 4123761.21, 85.40, 85.40, 1.50) DC 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 126.60652 AT ( 592999.91, 4123721.21, 87.23, 87.23, 1.50) DC 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 125.24690 AT ( 592879.91, 4123801.21, 85.46, 85.46, 1.50) DC 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 101.45476 AT ( 592959.91, 4123741.21, 86.59, 86.59, 1.50) DC ALL 1ST HIGHEST VALUE IS 354.18738 AT ( 592999.91, 4123741.21, 86.86, 86.86, 1.50) DC 2ND HIGHEST VALUE IS 284.63647 AT ( 592959.91, 4123761.21, 85.78, 85.78, 1.50) DC 3RD HIGHEST VALUE IS 230.41624 AT ( 592919.91, 4123781.21, 85.28, 85.28, 1.50) DC 4TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 229.45268 AT ( 593019.91, 4123721.21, 87.13, 87.13, 1.50) DC 5TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 197.02460 AT ( 592859.91, 4123821.21, 84.92, 84.92, 1.50) DC 6TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 194.22002 AT ( 592979.91, 4123741.21, 86.97, 86.97, 1.50) DC 7TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 176.67322 AT ( 592939.91, 4123761.21, 85.40, 85.40, 1.50) DC 8TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 158.66568 AT ( 592999.91, 4123721.21, 87.23, 87.23, 1.50) DC Page 6 MozartHRA_AERMOD 9TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 157.58863 AT ( 592879.91, 4123801.21, 85.46, 85.46, 1.50) DC 10TH HIGHEST VALUE IS 153.44595 AT ( 592839.91, 4123861.21, 84.85, 84.85, 1.50) DC *** RECEPTOR TYPES: GC = GRIDCART GP = GRIDPOLR DC = DISCCART DP = DISCPOLR *** AERMOD - VERSION 18081 *** *** C:\Model\Mozart HRA\MozartHRA_AERMOD\MozartHRA_AERMOD.isc *** 07/18/19 *** AERMET - VERSION 14134 *** *** Mozart HRA *** 11:59:37 PAGE 5 *** MODELOPTs: RegDFAULT CONC ELEV FLGPOL RURAL *** Message Summary : AERMOD Model Execution *** --------- Summary of Total Messages -------- A Total of 0 Fatal Error Message(s) A Total of 0 Warning Message(s) A Total of 13130 Informational Message(s) A Total of 43872 Hours Were Processed A Total of 11611 Calm Hours Identified A Total of 1519 Missing Hours Identified ( 3.46 Percent) ******** FATAL ERROR MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** ******** WARNING MESSAGES ******** *** NONE *** Page 7 18145 Mozart Avenue Development ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 Appendix C Health Risk Assessment Calculations HRA Calculations Haul Route Information CalEEMod Distance Haul Route 20 miles Vendor Route 7.3 miles AERMOD Distance Modeled Route 0.3 miles Emission Fraction Haul Route 1.4% Vendor Route 3.8% Onsite DPM Emissions per phase Phase Start Date End Date Calendar Days Work Days Onsite Unmitigated(tpy) Onsite Mitigated(tpy) Haul Routes (tpy) Onsite Unmitigated(g/s) Onsite Mitigated(g/s) Haul Routes (g/s) Demo 7/1/2020 7/28/2020 27 20 0.00501 0.00027 0.00001 1.95E-03 1.05E-04 3.89E-06 Site Prep 7/29/2020 7/31/2020 2 3 0.00060 0.00002 0.00000 3.15E-03 1.05E-04 0.00E+00 Grading 8/1/2020 8/14/2020 13 10 0.00567 0.00024 0.00000 4.58E-03 1.94E-04 0.00E+00 Building 8/15/2020 1/15/2021 153 110 0.05163 0.01351 0.00008 3.54E-03 9.27E-04 5.49E-06 Paving 1/16/2021 1/23/2021 7 5 0.00046 0.00004 0.00000 6.90E-04 6.00E-05 0.00E+00 Arch Coat 1/24/2021 1/29/2021 5 5 0.00024 0.00001 0.00000 5.04E-04 2.10E-05 0.00E+00 Onsite PM2.5 (exhaust) Emissions per Year Year Start Date End Date Calendar Days Work Days Onsite Unmitigated (tpy) Onsite Mitigated (tpy) Haul Routes(tpy) Onsite Unmitigated (g/s) Onsite Mitigated (g/s) Haul Routes(g/s) 2020 7/1/2020 12/31/2020 183 132 0.05547 0.01283 0.00009 1.60E-03 3.69E-04 2.59E-062021 1/1/2021 1/29/2021 28 21 0.00500 0.00126 0.00000 1.44E-04 3.62E-05 0.00E+00 AERMOD Out (emission rate = 1 g/s) Main Construction Area Haul/Vendor Routes Demo Site Prep Grading Building Paving Arch Coat Total 2020 2021 592779.91 4123561.21 1.22918 2.79237 2.39E-03 3.87E-03 5.63E-03 4.36E-03 8.48E-04 6.19E-04 1.77E-02 1.96E-03 4.46E-03 592799.91 4123561.21 1.40549 3.13456 2.74E-03 4.43E-03 6.44E-03 4.98E-03 9.70E-04 7.08E-04 2.03E-02 2.24E-03 5.00E-03 592819.91 4123561.21 1.61814 3.46283 3.15E-03 5.10E-03 7.41E-03 5.73E-03 1.12E-03 8.16E-04 2.33E-02 2.58E-03 5.53E-03 592779.91 4123581.21 1.31639 3.57185 2.56E-03 4.15E-03 6.03E-03 4.66E-03 9.08E-04 6.63E-04 1.90E-02 2.10E-03 5.70E-03 592799.91 4123581.21 1.51436 4.14645 2.95E-03 4.77E-03 6.94E-03 5.37E-03 1.04E-03 7.63E-04 2.18E-02 2.42E-03 6.62E-03 593199.91 4123661.21 15.70632 37.7282 3.06E-02 4.95E-02 7.19E-02 5.57E-02 1.08E-02 7.92E-03 2.26E-01 2.51E-02 6.02E-02 593219.91 4123661.21 15.55911 32.76083 3.03E-02 4.90E-02 7.13E-02 5.51E-02 1.07E-02 7.84E-03 2.24E-01 2.48E-02 5.23E-02 593179.91 4123681.21 18.70362 42.74651 3.64E-02 5.89E-02 8.57E-02 6.63E-02 1.29E-02 9.43E-03 2.70E-01 2.98E-02 6.82E-02 593199.91 4123681.21 18.39213 35.74419 3.58E-02 5.79E-02 8.42E-02 6.52E-02 1.27E-02 9.27E-03 2.65E-01 2.94E-02 5.70E-02 593219.91 4123681.21 18.05769 30.34166 3.52E-02 5.69E-02 8.27E-02 6.40E-02 1.25E-02 9.10E-03 2.60E-01 2.88E-02 4.84E-02 593239.91 4123681.21 17.66785 25.96198 3.44E-02 5.57E-02 8.09E-02 6.26E-02 1.22E-02 8.90E-03 2.55E-01 2.82E-02 4.14E-02 593139.91 4123701.21 23.07258 58.1862 4.50E-02 7.27E-02 1.06E-01 8.18E-02 1.59E-02 1.16E-02 3.33E-01 3.68E-02 9.28E-02 593159.91 4123701.21 22.52415 46.12996 4.39E-02 7.09E-02 1.03E-01 7.98E-02 1.55E-02 1.14E-02 3.25E-01 3.59E-02 7.36E-02 593179.91 4123701.21 21.95313 37.65384 4.28E-02 6.92E-02 1.01E-01 7.78E-02 1.51E-02 1.11E-02 3.16E-01 3.50E-02 6.01E-02 593199.91 4123701.21 21.34565 31.41299 4.16E-02 6.72E-02 9.78E-02 7.56E-02 1.47E-02 1.08E-02 3.08E-01 3.41E-02 5.01E-02 593219.91 4123701.21 20.63437 26.38109 4.02E-02 6.50E-02 9.45E-02 7.31E-02 1.42E-02 1.04E-02 2.97E-01 3.29E-02 4.21E-02 593239.91 4123701.21 19.86667 22.4563 3.87E-02 6.26E-02 9.10E-02 7.04E-02 1.37E-02 1.00E-02 2.86E-01 3.17E-02 3.58E-02 593099.91 4123721.21 29.55529 81.53082 5.76E-02 9.31E-02 1.35E-01 1.05E-01 2.04E-02 1.49E-02 4.26E-01 4.72E-02 1.30E-01 593119.91 4123721.21 28.56066 60.48387 5.56E-02 9.00E-02 1.31E-01 1.01E-01 1.97E-02 1.44E-02 4.12E-01 4.56E-02 9.65E-02 593139.91 4123721.21 27.48145 46.79532 5.35E-02 8.66E-02 1.26E-01 9.74E-02 1.90E-02 1.39E-02 3.96E-01 4.39E-02 7.47E-02 593159.91 4123721.21 26.45511 37.91177 5.15E-02 8.33E-02 1.21E-01 9.37E-02 1.83E-02 1.33E-02 3.81E-01 4.22E-02 6.05E-02 593179.91 4123721.21 25.37907 31.34385 4.94E-02 7.99E-02 1.16E-01 8.99E-02 1.75E-02 1.28E-02 3.66E-01 4.05E-02 5.00E-02 593199.91 4123721.21 24.21109 26.1688 4.72E-02 7.63E-02 1.11E-01 8.58E-02 1.67E-02 1.22E-02 3.49E-01 3.86E-02 4.18E-02 593219.91 4123721.21 22.96028 22.00011 4.47E-02 7.23E-02 1.05E-01 8.14E-02 1.58E-02 1.16E-02 3.31E-01 3.66E-02 3.51E-02 593239.91 4123721.21 21.76991 18.97344 4.24E-02 6.86E-02 9.97E-02 7.71E-02 1.50E-02 1.10E-02 3.14E-01 3.47E-02 3.03E-02 593259.91 4123721.21 20.61227 16.66907 4.02E-02 6.49E-02 9.44E-02 7.30E-02 1.42E-02 1.04E-02 2.97E-01 3.29E-02 2.66E-02 592919.91 4123741.21 23.87992 55.56702 4.65E-02 7.52E-02 1.09E-01 8.46E-02 1.65E-02 1.20E-02 3.44E-01 3.81E-02 8.87E-02 592939.91 4123741.21 32.15226 73.87949 6.26E-02 1.01E-01 1.47E-01 1.14E-01 2.22E-02 1.62E-02 4.63E-01 5.13E-02 1.18E-01 592959.91 4123741.21 38.27182 101.45476 7.46E-02 1.21E-01 1.75E-01 1.36E-01 2.64E-02 1.93E-02 5.52E-01 6.11E-02 1.62E-01 592979.91 4123741.21 41.42417 152.79585 8.07E-02 1.30E-01 1.90E-01 1.47E-01 2.86E-02 2.09E-02 5.97E-01 6.61E-02 2.44E-01 592999.91 4123741.21 42.58471 311.60267 8.30E-02 1.34E-01 1.95E-01 1.51E-01 2.94E-02 2.15E-02 6.14E-01 6.80E-02 4.97E-01 593099.91 4123741.21 35.91409 56.23333 7.00E-02 1.13E-01 1.64E-01 1.27E-01 2.48E-02 1.81E-02 5.18E-01 5.73E-02 8.97E-02 593119.91 4123741.21 33.94753 44.50378 6.61E-02 1.07E-01 1.55E-01 1.20E-01 2.34E-02 1.71E-02 4.89E-01 5.42E-02 7.10E-02 593139.91 4123741.21 32.09 36.2794 6.25E-02 1.01E-01 1.47E-01 1.14E-01 2.21E-02 1.62E-02 4.63E-01 5.12E-02 5.79E-02 593159.91 4123741.21 30.19026 29.7976 5.88E-02 9.51E-02 1.38E-01 1.07E-01 2.08E-02 1.52E-02 4.35E-01 4.82E-02 4.75E-02 593179.91 4123741.21 28.33844 24.88031 5.52E-02 8.93E-02 1.30E-01 1.00E-01 1.96E-02 1.43E-02 4.09E-01 4.52E-02 3.97E-02 593199.91 4123741.21 26.72634 21.58074 5.21E-02 8.42E-02 1.22E-01 9.47E-02 1.84E-02 1.35E-02 3.85E-01 4.26E-02 3.44E-02 593219.91 4123741.21 24.92676 18.54718 4.86E-02 7.85E-02 1.14E-01 8.83E-02 1.72E-02 1.26E-02 3.59E-01 3.98E-02 2.96E-02 593239.91 4123741.21 23.24244 16.21639 4.53E-02 7.32E-02 1.06E-01 8.24E-02 1.60E-02 1.17E-02 3.35E-01 3.71E-02 2.59E-02 593259.91 4123741.21 21.59673 14.30607 4.21E-02 6.80E-02 9.89E-02 7.65E-02 1.49E-02 1.09E-02 3.11E-01 3.45E-02 2.28E-02 592899.91 4123761.21 22.45861 59.18506 4.38E-02 7.07E-02 1.03E-01 7.96E-02 1.55E-02 1.13E-02 3.24E-01 3.58E-02 9.44E-02 592919.91 4123761.21 34.78323 84.45817 6.78E-02 1.10E-01 1.59E-01 1.23E-01 2.40E-02 1.75E-02 5.01E-01 5.55E-02 1.35E-01 592939.91 4123761.21 48.61389 128.05932 9.47E-02 1.53E-01 2.23E-01 1.72E-01 3.35E-02 2.45E-02 7.01E-01 7.76E-02 2.04E-01 592959.91 4123761.21 56.70409 227.93238 1.10E-01 1.79E-01 2.60E-01 2.01E-01 3.91E-02 2.86E-02 8.17E-01 9.05E-02 3.64E-01 593119.91 4123761.21 39.04578 32.74153 7.61E-02 1.23E-01 1.79E-01 1.38E-01 2.69E-02 1.97E-02 5.63E-01 6.23E-02 5.22E-02 593139.91 4123761.21 36.03579 27.53117 7.02E-02 1.14E-01 1.65E-01 1.28E-01 2.49E-02 1.82E-02 5.19E-01 5.75E-02 4.39E-02 593159.91 4123761.21 33.26666 23.43017 6.48E-02 1.05E-01 1.52E-01 1.18E-01 2.30E-02 1.68E-02 4.80E-01 5.31E-02 3.74E-02 593179.91 4123761.21 30.74781 20.30931 5.99E-02 9.69E-02 1.41E-01 1.09E-01 2.12E-02 1.55E-02 4.43E-01 4.91E-02 3.24E-02 593199.91 4123761.21 28.37627 17.80583 5.53E-02 8.94E-02 1.30E-01 1.01E-01 1.96E-02 1.43E-02 4.09E-01 4.53E-02 2.84E-02 593219.91 4123761.21 26.10561 15.67132 5.09E-02 8.22E-02 1.20E-01 9.25E-02 1.80E-02 1.32E-02 3.76E-01 4.17E-02 2.50E-02 593239.91 4123761.21 23.9031 13.86185 4.66E-02 7.53E-02 1.09E-01 8.47E-02 1.65E-02 1.20E-02 3.45E-01 3.81E-02 2.21E-02 593259.91 4123761.21 21.84938 12.35986 4.26E-02 6.88E-02 1.00E-01 7.74E-02 1.51E-02 1.10E-02 3.15E-01 3.49E-02 1.97E-02 593279.91 4123761.21 19.91899 11.07221 3.88E-02 6.27E-02 9.12E-02 7.06E-02 1.37E-02 1.00E-02 2.87E-01 3.18E-02 1.77E-02 592879.91 4123781.21 19.72324 63.66262 3.84E-02 6.21E-02 9.03E-02 6.99E-02 1.36E-02 9.94E-03 2.84E-01 3.15E-02 1.02E-01 592899.91 4123781.21 33.74144 100.68637 6.57E-02 1.06E-01 1.55E-01 1.20E-01 2.33E-02 1.70E-02 4.86E-01 5.39E-02 1.61E-01 592919.91 4123781.21 55.51052 174.90572 1.08E-01 1.75E-01 2.54E-01 1.97E-01 3.83E-02 2.80E-02 8.00E-01 8.86E-02 2.79E-01 593119.91 4123781.21 43.29399 24.9169 8.44E-02 1.36E-01 1.98E-01 1.53E-01 2.99E-02 2.18E-02 6.24E-01 6.91E-02 3.98E-02 593139.91 4123781.21 39.08987 21.53647 7.62E-02 1.23E-01 1.79E-01 1.39E-01 2.70E-02 1.97E-02 5.63E-01 6.24E-02 3.44E-02 593159.91 4123781.21 35.46761 19.08902 6.91E-02 1.12E-01 1.62E-01 1.26E-01 2.45E-02 1.79E-02 5.11E-01 5.66E-02 3.05E-02 593179.91 4123781.21 32.06439 16.85226 6.25E-02 1.01E-01 1.47E-01 1.14E-01 2.21E-02 1.62E-02 4.62E-01 5.12E-02 2.69E-02 593199.91 4123781.21 29.02383 14.99904 5.65E-02 9.14E-02 1.33E-01 1.03E-01 2.00E-02 1.46E-02 4.18E-01 4.63E-02 2.39E-02 593219.91 4123781.21 26.20669 13.36277 5.11E-02 8.25E-02 1.20E-01 9.29E-02 1.81E-02 1.32E-02 3.78E-01 4.18E-02 2.13E-02 593239.91 4123781.21 23.59364 11.96596 4.60E-02 7.43E-02 1.08E-01 8.36E-02 1.63E-02 1.19E-02 3.40E-01 3.76E-02 1.91E-02 593259.91 4123781.21 21.19297 10.72663 4.13E-02 6.68E-02 9.71E-02 7.51E-02 1.46E-02 1.07E-02 3.05E-01 3.38E-02 1.71E-02 593279.91 4123781.21 19.09582 9.68952 3.72E-02 6.02E-02 8.74E-02 6.77E-02 1.32E-02 9.62E-03 2.75E-01 3.05E-02 1.55E-02 592859.91 4123801.21 17.84279 66.57523 3.48E-02 5.62E-02 8.17E-02 6.32E-02 1.23E-02 8.99E-03 2.57E-01 2.85E-02 1.06E-01 592879.91 4123801.21 32.34173 125.2469 6.30E-02 1.02E-01 1.48E-01 1.15E-01 2.23E-02 1.63E-02 4.66E-01 5.16E-02 2.00E-01 593139.91 4123801.21 40.59754 17.32551 7.91E-02 1.28E-01 1.86E-01 1.44E-01 2.80E-02 2.05E-02 5.85E-01 6.48E-02 2.76E-02 593159.91 4123801.21 36.03545 15.61644 7.02E-02 1.14E-01 1.65E-01 1.28E-01 2.49E-02 1.82E-02 5.19E-01 5.75E-02 2.49E-02 593179.91 4123801.21 31.99065 14.11102 6.23E-02 1.01E-01 1.47E-01 1.13E-01 2.21E-02 1.61E-02 4.61E-01 5.10E-02 2.25E-02 593199.91 4123801.21 28.31363 12.74987 5.52E-02 8.92E-02 1.30E-01 1.00E-01 1.95E-02 1.43E-02 4.08E-01 4.52E-02 2.03E-02 593219.91 4123801.21 25.04695 11.48452 4.88E-02 7.89E-02 1.15E-01 8.87E-02 1.73E-02 1.26E-02 3.61E-01 4.00E-02 1.83E-02 593239.91 4123801.21 22.39438 10.4736 4.36E-02 7.05E-02 1.03E-01 7.93E-02 1.55E-02 1.13E-02 3.23E-01 3.57E-02 1.67E-02 593259.91 4123801.21 19.88944 9.49393 3.88E-02 6.27E-02 9.11E-02 7.05E-02 1.37E-02 1.00E-02 2.87E-01 3.17E-02 1.51E-02 593279.91 4123801.21 17.82555 8.69108 3.47E-02 5.61E-02 8.16E-02 6.32E-02 1.23E-02 8.98E-03 2.57E-01 2.84E-02 1.39E-02 592839.91 4123821.21 19.63842 61.51853 3.83E-02 6.19E-02 8.99E-02 6.96E-02 1.36E-02 9.90E-03 2.83E-01 3.13E-02 9.82E-02 UTM Easting (m) UTM Northing (m) Output - [ug/m3]/[g/s] Unmitigated DPM ug/m3 PM2.5 ug/m3 MozartHRA_Calculations 1 of 6 592859.91 4123821.21 31.34904 165.67555 6.11E-02 9.87E-02 1.44E-01 1.11E-01 2.16E-02 1.58E-02 4.52E-01 5.00E-02 2.64E-01593159.91 4123821.21 34.65775 12.9976 6.75E-02 1.09E-01 1.59E-01 1.23E-01 2.39E-02 1.75E-02 5.00E-01 5.53E-02 2.07E-02593179.91 4123821.21 30.05086 11.83717 5.85E-02 9.47E-02 1.38E-01 1.06E-01 2.07E-02 1.51E-02 4.33E-01 4.80E-02 1.89E-02593199.91 4123821.21 26.2034 10.8593 5.11E-02 8.25E-02 1.20E-01 9.28E-02 1.81E-02 1.32E-02 3.78E-01 4.18E-02 1.73E-02593219.91 4123821.21 23.01864 10.00811 4.48E-02 7.25E-02 1.05E-01 8.16E-02 1.59E-02 1.16E-02 3.32E-01 3.67E-02 1.60E-02593239.91 4123821.21 20.40156 9.24453 3.97E-02 6.43E-02 9.34E-02 7.23E-02 1.41E-02 1.03E-02 2.94E-01 3.26E-02 1.48E-02593259.91 4123821.21 18.13356 8.51454 3.53E-02 5.71E-02 8.30E-02 6.43E-02 1.25E-02 9.14E-03 2.61E-01 2.89E-02 1.36E-02593279.91 4123821.21 16.16862 7.84822 3.15E-02 5.09E-02 7.40E-02 5.73E-02 1.12E-02 8.15E-03 2.33E-01 2.58E-02 1.25E-02593299.91 4123821.21 14.51203 7.26118 2.83E-02 4.57E-02 6.65E-02 5.14E-02 1.00E-02 7.31E-03 2.09E-01 2.32E-02 1.16E-02592819.91 4123841.21 26.4361 64.22347 5.15E-02 8.33E-02 1.21E-01 9.37E-02 1.82E-02 1.33E-02 3.81E-01 4.22E-02 1.02E-01593099.91 4123841.21 51.46951 15.59101 1.00E-01 1.62E-01 2.36E-01 1.82E-01 3.55E-02 2.59E-02 7.42E-01 8.21E-02 2.49E-02593159.91 4123841.21 31.32287 11.03888 6.10E-02 9.87E-02 1.43E-01 1.11E-01 2.16E-02 1.58E-02 4.52E-01 5.00E-02 1.76E-02593179.91 4123841.21 26.87337 10.12454 5.24E-02 8.46E-02 1.23E-01 9.52E-02 1.85E-02 1.35E-02 3.87E-01 4.29E-02 1.62E-02593199.91 4123841.21 23.38537 9.44019 4.56E-02 7.37E-02 1.07E-01 8.29E-02 1.61E-02 1.18E-02 3.37E-01 3.73E-02 1.51E-02593219.91 4123841.21 20.43997 8.80206 3.98E-02 6.44E-02 9.36E-02 7.24E-02 1.41E-02 1.03E-02 2.95E-01 3.26E-02 1.40E-02593239.91 4123841.21 18.05934 8.2158 3.52E-02 5.69E-02 8.27E-02 6.40E-02 1.25E-02 9.10E-03 2.60E-01 2.88E-02 1.31E-02593259.91 4123841.21 16.07164 7.65495 3.13E-02 5.06E-02 7.36E-02 5.69E-02 1.11E-02 8.10E-03 2.32E-01 2.56E-02 1.22E-02593279.91 4123841.21 14.35815 7.12493 2.80E-02 4.52E-02 6.58E-02 5.09E-02 9.91E-03 7.24E-03 2.07E-01 2.29E-02 1.14E-02593299.91 4123841.21 12.83964 6.60717 2.50E-02 4.04E-02 5.88E-02 4.55E-02 8.86E-03 6.47E-03 1.85E-01 2.05E-02 1.05E-02592799.91 4123861.21 30.61977 48.9735 5.97E-02 9.65E-02 1.40E-01 1.09E-01 2.11E-02 1.54E-02 4.41E-01 4.89E-02 7.81E-02592839.91 4123861.21 64.86616 88.57979 1.26E-01 2.04E-01 2.97E-01 2.30E-01 4.48E-02 3.27E-02 9.35E-01 1.04E-01 1.41E-01593079.91 4123861.21 56.33997 15.67293 1.10E-01 1.77E-01 2.58E-01 2.00E-01 3.89E-02 2.84E-02 8.12E-01 8.99E-02 2.50E-02593099.91 4123861.21 45.96768 13.60957 8.96E-02 1.45E-01 2.11E-01 1.63E-01 3.17E-02 2.32E-02 6.63E-01 7.34E-02 2.17E-02593119.91 4123861.21 37.69521 11.79169 7.34E-02 1.19E-01 1.73E-01 1.34E-01 2.60E-02 1.90E-02 5.43E-01 6.02E-02 1.88E-02593179.91 4123861.21 23.10921 8.88182 4.50E-02 7.28E-02 1.06E-01 8.19E-02 1.59E-02 1.16E-02 3.33E-01 3.69E-02 1.42E-02593199.91 4123861.21 20.11169 8.27276 3.92E-02 6.34E-02 9.21E-02 7.13E-02 1.39E-02 1.01E-02 2.90E-01 3.21E-02 1.32E-02593219.91 4123861.21 17.71498 7.75928 3.45E-02 5.58E-02 8.11E-02 6.28E-02 1.22E-02 8.93E-03 2.55E-01 2.83E-02 1.24E-02593239.91 4123861.21 15.67126 7.31544 3.05E-02 4.94E-02 7.18E-02 5.55E-02 1.08E-02 7.90E-03 2.26E-01 2.50E-02 1.17E-02593259.91 4123861.21 13.91913 6.88759 2.71E-02 4.38E-02 6.37E-02 4.93E-02 9.60E-03 7.02E-03 2.01E-01 2.22E-02 1.10E-02593279.91 4123861.21 12.52886 6.47884 2.44E-02 3.95E-02 5.74E-02 4.44E-02 8.64E-03 6.31E-03 1.81E-01 2.00E-02 1.03E-02593299.91 4123861.21 11.33769 6.08394 2.21E-02 3.57E-02 5.19E-02 4.02E-02 7.82E-03 5.71E-03 1.63E-01 1.81E-02 9.71E-03592799.91 4123881.21 41.13516 44.75637 8.01E-02 1.30E-01 1.88E-01 1.46E-01 2.84E-02 2.07E-02 5.93E-01 6.56E-02 7.14E-02592819.91 4123881.21 57.22754 52.81602 1.11E-01 1.80E-01 2.62E-01 2.03E-01 3.95E-02 2.88E-02 8.25E-01 9.13E-02 8.43E-02592839.91 4123881.21 79.71522 55.22824 1.55E-01 2.51E-01 3.65E-01 2.82E-01 5.50E-02 4.02E-02 1.15E+00 1.27E-01 8.81E-02592859.91 4123881.21 102.06758 51.22628 1.99E-01 3.22E-01 4.67E-01 3.62E-01 7.04E-02 5.14E-02 1.47E+00 1.63E-01 8.17E-02593039.91 4123881.21 77.25769 17.18405 1.51E-01 2.43E-01 3.54E-01 2.74E-01 5.33E-02 3.89E-02 1.11E+00 1.23E-01 2.74E-02593059.91 4123881.21 58.65898 15.52403 1.14E-01 1.85E-01 2.69E-01 2.08E-01 4.05E-02 2.96E-02 8.46E-01 9.36E-02 2.48E-02593079.91 4123881.21 45.99079 13.6211 8.96E-02 1.45E-01 2.11E-01 1.63E-01 3.17E-02 2.32E-02 6.63E-01 7.34E-02 2.17E-02593099.91 4123881.21 36.88496 11.72007 7.19E-02 1.16E-01 1.69E-01 1.31E-01 2.55E-02 1.86E-02 5.32E-01 5.89E-02 1.87E-02593119.91 4123881.21 30.85729 10.50953 6.01E-02 9.72E-02 1.41E-01 1.09E-01 2.13E-02 1.56E-02 4.45E-01 4.92E-02 1.68E-02593139.91 4123881.21 25.83082 9.31359 5.03E-02 8.14E-02 1.18E-01 9.15E-02 1.78E-02 1.30E-02 3.72E-01 4.12E-02 1.49E-02593199.91 4123881.21 16.94038 7.3605 3.30E-02 5.34E-02 7.76E-02 6.00E-02 1.17E-02 8.54E-03 2.44E-01 2.70E-02 1.17E-02593219.91 4123881.21 14.99242 6.91504 2.92E-02 4.72E-02 6.87E-02 5.31E-02 1.03E-02 7.56E-03 2.16E-01 2.39E-02 1.10E-02593239.91 4123881.21 13.35006 6.53736 2.60E-02 4.21E-02 6.11E-02 4.73E-02 9.21E-03 6.73E-03 1.92E-01 2.13E-02 1.04E-02593259.91 4123881.21 12.00548 6.20929 2.34E-02 3.78E-02 5.50E-02 4.25E-02 8.28E-03 6.05E-03 1.73E-01 1.92E-02 9.91E-03593279.91 4123881.21 10.90622 5.90282 2.12E-02 3.44E-02 4.99E-02 3.86E-02 7.53E-03 5.50E-03 1.57E-01 1.74E-02 9.42E-03593299.91 4123881.21 9.93271 5.58975 1.94E-02 3.13E-02 4.55E-02 3.52E-02 6.85E-03 5.01E-03 1.43E-01 1.58E-02 8.92E-03592799.91 4123901.21 48.45184 36.91463 9.44E-02 1.53E-01 2.22E-01 1.72E-01 3.34E-02 2.44E-02 6.98E-01 7.73E-02 5.89E-02592819.91 4123901.21 63.87995 39.38764 1.24E-01 2.01E-01 2.93E-01 2.26E-01 4.41E-02 3.22E-02 9.21E-01 1.02E-01 6.28E-02592839.91 4123901.21 83.50155 39.35511 1.63E-01 2.63E-01 3.82E-01 2.96E-01 5.76E-02 4.21E-02 1.20E+00 1.33E-01 6.28E-02592859.91 4123901.21 104.21922 37.41824 2.03E-01 3.28E-01 4.77E-01 3.69E-01 7.19E-02 5.25E-02 1.50E+00 1.66E-01 5.97E-02593019.91 4123901.21 71.45181 16.12357 1.39E-01 2.25E-01 3.27E-01 2.53E-01 4.93E-02 3.60E-02 1.03E+00 1.14E-01 2.57E-02593039.91 4123901.21 54.12539 14.81005 1.05E-01 1.70E-01 2.48E-01 1.92E-01 3.73E-02 2.73E-02 7.80E-01 8.64E-02 2.36E-02593059.91 4123901.21 42.45075 13.46752 8.27E-02 1.34E-01 1.94E-01 1.50E-01 2.93E-02 2.14E-02 6.12E-01 6.77E-02 2.15E-02593079.91 4123901.21 34.2161 11.91602 6.67E-02 1.08E-01 1.57E-01 1.21E-01 2.36E-02 1.72E-02 4.93E-01 5.46E-02 1.90E-02593099.91 4123901.21 28.57517 10.59394 5.57E-02 9.00E-02 1.31E-01 1.01E-01 1.97E-02 1.44E-02 4.12E-01 4.56E-02 1.69E-02593119.91 4123901.21 24.11622 9.39578 4.70E-02 7.60E-02 1.10E-01 8.54E-02 1.66E-02 1.22E-02 3.48E-01 3.85E-02 1.50E-02593139.91 4123901.21 20.81901 8.44713 4.06E-02 6.56E-02 9.53E-02 7.38E-02 1.44E-02 1.05E-02 3.00E-01 3.32E-02 1.35E-02593199.91 4123901.21 14.20135 6.63443 2.77E-02 4.47E-02 6.50E-02 5.03E-02 9.80E-03 7.16E-03 2.05E-01 2.27E-02 1.06E-02593219.91 4123901.21 12.6635 6.23451 2.47E-02 3.99E-02 5.80E-02 4.49E-02 8.74E-03 6.38E-03 1.83E-01 2.02E-02 9.95E-03593239.91 4123901.21 11.48693 5.90813 2.24E-02 3.62E-02 5.26E-02 4.07E-02 7.93E-03 5.79E-03 1.66E-01 1.83E-02 9.43E-03593259.91 4123901.21 10.42196 5.62731 2.03E-02 3.28E-02 4.77E-02 3.69E-02 7.19E-03 5.25E-03 1.50E-01 1.66E-02 8.98E-03593279.91 4123901.21 9.51692 5.37949 1.85E-02 3.00E-02 4.36E-02 3.37E-02 6.57E-03 4.80E-03 1.37E-01 1.52E-02 8.58E-03593299.91 4123901.21 8.68397 5.12672 1.69E-02 2.74E-02 3.98E-02 3.08E-02 5.99E-03 4.38E-03 1.25E-01 1.39E-02 8.18E-03592799.91 4123921.21 51.76614 29.82141 1.01E-01 1.63E-01 2.37E-01 1.83E-01 3.57E-02 2.61E-02 7.46E-01 8.26E-02 4.76E-02592819.91 4123921.21 65.25637 30.54442 1.27E-01 2.06E-01 2.99E-01 2.31E-01 4.50E-02 3.29E-02 9.41E-01 1.04E-01 4.87E-02592839.91 4123921.21 81.50545 29.97269 1.59E-01 2.57E-01 3.73E-01 2.89E-01 5.62E-02 4.11E-02 1.17E+00 1.30E-01 4.78E-02592859.91 4123921.21 99.42697 28.80001 1.94E-01 3.13E-01 4.55E-01 3.52E-01 6.86E-02 5.01E-02 1.43E+00 1.59E-01 4.60E-02592879.91 4123921.21 114.93969 26.84818 2.24E-01 3.62E-01 5.26E-01 4.07E-01 7.93E-02 5.79E-02 1.66E+00 1.83E-01 4.28E-02592979.91 4123921.21 71.34133 16.71472 1.39E-01 2.25E-01 3.27E-01 2.53E-01 4.92E-02 3.60E-02 1.03E+00 1.14E-01 2.67E-02592999.91 4123921.21 50.86078 15.18949 9.91E-02 1.60E-01 2.33E-01 1.80E-01 3.51E-02 2.56E-02 7.33E-01 8.12E-02 2.42E-02593019.91 4123921.21 41.61269 13.92112 8.11E-02 1.31E-01 1.91E-01 1.47E-01 2.87E-02 2.10E-02 6.00E-01 6.64E-02 2.22E-02593039.91 4123921.21 35.07448 12.80903 6.83E-02 1.10E-01 1.61E-01 1.24E-01 2.42E-02 1.77E-02 5.06E-01 5.60E-02 2.04E-02593059.91 4123921.21 29.88311 11.83833 5.82E-02 9.41E-02 1.37E-01 1.06E-01 2.06E-02 1.51E-02 4.31E-01 4.77E-02 1.89E-02593079.91 4123921.21 25.43226 10.66938 4.96E-02 8.01E-02 1.16E-01 9.01E-02 1.75E-02 1.28E-02 3.67E-01 4.06E-02 1.70E-02593099.91 4123921.21 21.92056 9.5065 4.27E-02 6.90E-02 1.00E-01 7.77E-02 1.51E-02 1.10E-02 3.16E-01 3.50E-02 1.52E-02593119.91 4123921.21 18.97626 8.44796 3.70E-02 5.98E-02 8.69E-02 6.72E-02 1.31E-02 9.56E-03 2.74E-01 3.03E-02 1.35E-02593139.91 4123921.21 16.80024 7.68826 3.27E-02 5.29E-02 7.69E-02 5.95E-02 1.16E-02 8.47E-03 2.42E-01 2.68E-02 1.23E-02593159.91 4123921.21 14.94206 6.99211 2.91E-02 4.71E-02 6.84E-02 5.29E-02 1.03E-02 7.53E-03 2.15E-01 2.38E-02 1.12E-02593219.91 4123921.21 10.90045 5.69701 2.12E-02 3.43E-02 4.99E-02 3.86E-02 7.52E-03 5.49E-03 1.57E-01 1.74E-02 9.09E-03593239.91 4123921.21 9.94558 5.39457 1.94E-02 3.13E-02 4.55E-02 3.52E-02 6.86E-03 5.01E-03 1.43E-01 1.59E-02 8.61E-03593259.91 4123921.21 9.08442 5.12126 1.77E-02 2.86E-02 4.16E-02 3.22E-02 6.27E-03 4.58E-03 1.31E-01 1.45E-02 8.17E-03593279.91 4123921.21 8.35433 4.90935 1.63E-02 2.63E-02 3.83E-02 2.96E-02 5.76E-03 4.21E-03 1.20E-01 1.33E-02 7.83E-03593299.91 4123921.21 7.70763 4.72336 1.50E-02 2.43E-02 3.53E-02 2.73E-02 5.32E-03 3.88E-03 1.11E-01 1.23E-02 7.54E-03592799.91 4123941.21 52.04388 24.46066 1.01E-01 1.64E-01 2.38E-01 1.84E-01 3.59E-02 2.62E-02 7.50E-01 8.30E-02 3.90E-02592819.91 4123941.21 63.14011 24.50686 1.23E-01 1.99E-01 2.89E-01 2.24E-01 4.36E-02 3.18E-02 9.10E-01 1.01E-01 3.91E-02592839.91 4123941.21 75.95226 23.8704 1.48E-01 2.39E-01 3.48E-01 2.69E-01 5.24E-02 3.83E-02 1.09E+00 1.21E-01 3.81E-02592859.91 4123941.21 89.98436 23.04378 1.75E-01 2.83E-01 4.12E-01 3.19E-01 6.21E-02 4.54E-02 1.30E+00 1.44E-01 3.68E-02592879.91 4123941.21 103.57433 21.80923 2.02E-01 3.26E-01 4.74E-01 3.67E-01 7.15E-02 5.22E-02 1.49E+00 1.65E-01 3.48E-02592899.91 4123941.21 109.55091 20.17494 2.13E-01 3.45E-01 5.02E-01 3.88E-01 7.56E-02 5.52E-02 1.58E+00 1.75E-01 3.22E-02592959.91 4123941.21 55.24001 15.44485 1.08E-01 1.74E-01 2.53E-01 1.96E-01 3.81E-02 2.78E-02 7.96E-01 8.81E-02 2.46E-02592979.91 4123941.21 39.38582 14.17238 7.67E-02 1.24E-01 1.80E-01 1.40E-01 2.72E-02 1.99E-02 5.68E-01 6.28E-02 2.26E-02592999.91 4123941.21 30.95542 13.06446 6.03E-02 9.75E-02 1.42E-01 1.10E-01 2.14E-02 1.56E-02 4.46E-01 4.94E-02 2.08E-02593019.91 4123941.21 26.96417 12.10301 5.25E-02 8.49E-02 1.23E-01 9.55E-02 1.86E-02 1.36E-02 3.89E-01 4.30E-02 1.93E-02593039.91 4123941.21 24.39089 11.26938 4.75E-02 7.68E-02 1.12E-01 8.64E-02 1.68E-02 1.23E-02 3.52E-01 3.89E-02 1.80E-02593059.91 4123941.21 21.94334 10.48384 4.28E-02 6.91E-02 1.00E-01 7.78E-02 1.51E-02 1.11E-02 3.16E-01 3.50E-02 1.67E-02593079.91 4123941.21 19.64483 9.55571 3.83E-02 6.19E-02 9.00E-02 6.96E-02 1.36E-02 9.90E-03 2.83E-01 3.13E-02 1.52E-02593099.91 4123941.21 17.60337 8.5921 3.43E-02 5.54E-02 8.06E-02 6.24E-02 1.21E-02 8.87E-03 2.54E-01 2.81E-02 1.37E-02593119.91 4123941.21 15.67678 7.75707 3.05E-02 4.94E-02 7.18E-02 5.55E-02 1.08E-02 7.90E-03 2.26E-01 2.50E-02 1.24E-02593239.91 4123941.21 8.72011 4.96678 1.70E-02 2.75E-02 3.99E-02 3.09E-02 6.02E-03 4.39E-03 1.26E-01 1.39E-02 7.93E-03593259.91 4123941.21 8.04689 4.72791 1.57E-02 2.53E-02 3.69E-02 2.85E-02 5.55E-03 4.06E-03 1.16E-01 1.28E-02 7.54E-03593279.91 4123941.21 7.425 4.52088 1.45E-02 2.34E-02 3.40E-02 2.63E-02 5.12E-03 3.74E-03 1.07E-01 1.18E-02 7.21E-03593299.91 4123941.21 6.88781 4.34868 1.34E-02 2.17E-02 3.15E-02 2.44E-02 4.75E-03 3.47E-03 9.93E-02 1.10E-02 6.94E-03592799.91 4123961.21 49.8171 20.35343 9.71E-02 1.57E-01 2.28E-01 1.77E-01 3.44E-02 2.51E-02 7.18E-01 7.95E-02 3.25E-02592819.91 4123961.21 58.39921 20.18785 1.14E-01 1.84E-01 2.67E-01 2.07E-01 4.03E-02 2.94E-02 8.42E-01 9.32E-02 3.22E-02592839.91 4123961.21 67.62993 19.61938 1.32E-01 2.13E-01 3.10E-01 2.40E-01 4.67E-02 3.41E-02 9.75E-01 1.08E-01 3.13E-02592859.91 4123961.21 76.82014 18.96387 1.50E-01 2.42E-01 3.52E-01 2.72E-01 5.30E-02 3.87E-02 1.11E+00 1.23E-01 3.03E-02592879.91 4123961.21 84.4008 18.11028 1.64E-01 2.66E-01 3.87E-01 2.99E-01 5.82E-02 4.25E-02 1.22E+00 1.35E-01 2.89E-02592899.91 4123961.21 85.05772 16.98529 1.66E-01 2.68E-01 3.90E-01 3.01E-01 5.87E-02 4.29E-02 1.23E+00 1.36E-01 2.71E-02592919.91 4123961.21 68.4125 15.71311 1.33E-01 2.15E-01 3.13E-01 2.42E-01 4.72E-02 3.45E-02 9.86E-01 1.09E-01 2.51E-02592939.91 4123961.21 49.00575 14.42706 9.55E-02 1.54E-01 2.24E-01 1.74E-01 3.38E-02 2.47E-02 7.06E-01 7.82E-02 2.30E-02592959.91 4123961.21 35.73758 13.24937 6.96E-02 1.13E-01 1.64E-01 1.27E-01 2.47E-02 1.80E-02 5.15E-01 5.70E-02 2.11E-02592979.91 4123961.21 26.90405 12.19903 5.24E-02 8.47E-02 1.23E-01 9.53E-02 1.86E-02 1.36E-02 3.88E-01 4.29E-02 1.95E-02 MozartHRA_Calculations 2 of 6 592999.91 4123961.21 21.68232 11.29452 4.22E-02 6.83E-02 9.93E-02 7.68E-02 1.50E-02 1.09E-02 3.13E-01 3.46E-02 1.80E-02593019.91 4123961.21 19.93031 10.63432 3.88E-02 6.28E-02 9.13E-02 7.06E-02 1.38E-02 1.00E-02 2.87E-01 3.18E-02 1.70E-02593039.91 4123961.21 18.4463 10.01937 3.59E-02 5.81E-02 8.45E-02 6.54E-02 1.27E-02 9.30E-03 2.66E-01 2.94E-02 1.60E-02593059.91 4123961.21 17.2058 9.36467 3.35E-02 5.42E-02 7.88E-02 6.10E-02 1.19E-02 8.67E-03 2.48E-01 2.75E-02 1.49E-02593079.91 4123961.21 15.99917 8.59909 3.12E-02 5.04E-02 7.33E-02 5.67E-02 1.10E-02 8.06E-03 2.31E-01 2.55E-02 1.37E-02593099.91 4123961.21 14.64917 7.80801 2.85E-02 4.61E-02 6.71E-02 5.19E-02 1.01E-02 7.38E-03 2.11E-01 2.34E-02 1.25E-02593239.91 4123961.21 7.8255 4.59474 1.52E-02 2.46E-02 3.58E-02 2.77E-02 5.40E-03 3.94E-03 1.13E-01 1.25E-02 7.33E-03593259.91 4123961.21 7.22182 4.38034 1.41E-02 2.27E-02 3.31E-02 2.56E-02 4.98E-03 3.64E-03 1.04E-01 1.15E-02 6.99E-03593279.91 4123961.21 6.71851 4.18822 1.31E-02 2.12E-02 3.08E-02 2.38E-02 4.64E-03 3.39E-03 9.68E-02 1.07E-02 6.68E-03592799.91 4123981.21 45.75911 17.21166 8.92E-02 1.44E-01 2.10E-01 1.62E-01 3.16E-02 2.31E-02 6.60E-01 7.30E-02 2.75E-02592819.91 4123981.21 51.71437 16.94646 1.01E-01 1.63E-01 2.37E-01 1.83E-01 3.57E-02 2.61E-02 7.45E-01 8.25E-02 2.70E-02592839.91 4123981.21 57.32752 16.42041 1.12E-01 1.81E-01 2.63E-01 2.03E-01 3.96E-02 2.89E-02 8.26E-01 9.15E-02 2.62E-02592859.91 4123981.21 61.77299 15.92887 1.20E-01 1.95E-01 2.83E-01 2.19E-01 4.26E-02 3.11E-02 8.90E-01 9.86E-02 2.54E-02592879.91 4123981.21 63.33381 15.34279 1.23E-01 1.99E-01 2.90E-01 2.24E-01 4.37E-02 3.19E-02 9.13E-01 1.01E-01 2.45E-02592899.91 4123981.21 59.13246 14.50998 1.15E-01 1.86E-01 2.71E-01 2.10E-01 4.08E-02 2.98E-02 8.52E-01 9.44E-02 2.32E-02592919.91 4123981.21 48.48576 13.53388 9.45E-02 1.53E-01 2.22E-01 1.72E-01 3.35E-02 2.44E-02 6.99E-01 7.74E-02 2.16E-02592939.91 4123981.21 36.6994 12.52018 7.15E-02 1.16E-01 1.68E-01 1.30E-01 2.53E-02 1.85E-02 5.29E-01 5.86E-02 2.00E-02592959.91 4123981.21 27.43827 11.53726 5.35E-02 8.64E-02 1.26E-01 9.72E-02 1.89E-02 1.38E-02 3.96E-01 4.38E-02 1.84E-02592979.91 4123981.21 21.76043 10.69759 4.24E-02 6.85E-02 9.97E-02 7.71E-02 1.50E-02 1.10E-02 3.14E-01 3.47E-02 1.71E-02592999.91 4123981.21 18.0108 9.98616 3.51E-02 5.67E-02 8.25E-02 6.38E-02 1.24E-02 9.08E-03 2.60E-01 2.87E-02 1.59E-02593019.91 4123981.21 15.73386 9.40992 3.07E-02 4.96E-02 7.21E-02 5.57E-02 1.09E-02 7.93E-03 2.27E-01 2.51E-02 1.50E-02593039.91 4123981.21 14.89999 8.95436 2.90E-02 4.69E-02 6.82E-02 5.28E-02 1.03E-02 7.51E-03 2.15E-01 2.38E-02 1.43E-02593059.91 4123981.21 14.08399 8.42823 2.74E-02 4.44E-02 6.45E-02 4.99E-02 9.72E-03 7.10E-03 2.03E-01 2.25E-02 1.34E-02593079.91 4123981.21 13.3414 7.79347 2.60E-02 4.20E-02 6.11E-02 4.73E-02 9.21E-03 6.72E-03 1.92E-01 2.13E-02 1.24E-02593099.91 4123981.21 12.50148 7.11636 2.44E-02 3.94E-02 5.73E-02 4.43E-02 8.63E-03 6.30E-03 1.80E-01 1.99E-02 1.14E-02592599.91 4124001.21 10.99809 9.65865 2.14E-02 3.46E-02 5.04E-02 3.90E-02 7.59E-03 5.54E-03 1.59E-01 1.76E-02 1.54E-02592799.91 4124001.21 40.57165 14.73502 7.90E-02 1.28E-01 1.86E-01 1.44E-01 2.80E-02 2.04E-02 5.85E-01 6.47E-02 2.35E-02592819.91 4124001.21 44.19975 14.43883 8.61E-02 1.39E-01 2.02E-01 1.57E-01 3.05E-02 2.23E-02 6.37E-01 7.05E-02 2.30E-02592839.91 4124001.21 46.99892 14.01674 9.16E-02 1.48E-01 2.15E-01 1.67E-01 3.24E-02 2.37E-02 6.77E-01 7.50E-02 2.24E-02592859.91 4124001.21 48.24282 13.62958 9.40E-02 1.52E-01 2.21E-01 1.71E-01 3.33E-02 2.43E-02 6.95E-01 7.70E-02 2.17E-02592879.91 4124001.21 47.07553 13.18231 9.17E-02 1.48E-01 2.16E-01 1.67E-01 3.25E-02 2.37E-02 6.79E-01 7.51E-02 2.10E-02592899.91 4124001.21 42.88142 12.55776 8.35E-02 1.35E-01 1.96E-01 1.52E-01 2.96E-02 2.16E-02 6.18E-01 6.84E-02 2.00E-02592919.91 4124001.21 36.30543 11.79938 7.07E-02 1.14E-01 1.66E-01 1.29E-01 2.51E-02 1.83E-02 5.23E-01 5.79E-02 1.88E-02592939.91 4124001.21 29.08211 10.98399 5.67E-02 9.16E-02 1.33E-01 1.03E-01 2.01E-02 1.47E-02 4.19E-01 4.64E-02 1.75E-02592959.91 4124001.21 23.0802 10.20171 4.50E-02 7.27E-02 1.06E-01 8.18E-02 1.59E-02 1.16E-02 3.33E-01 3.68E-02 1.63E-02592979.91 4124001.21 18.28072 9.48109 3.56E-02 5.76E-02 8.37E-02 6.48E-02 1.26E-02 9.21E-03 2.64E-01 2.92E-02 1.51E-02592999.91 4124001.21 15.24087 8.90063 2.97E-02 4.80E-02 6.98E-02 5.40E-02 1.05E-02 7.68E-03 2.20E-01 2.43E-02 1.42E-02593019.91 4124001.21 12.93243 8.40138 2.52E-02 4.07E-02 5.92E-02 4.58E-02 8.92E-03 6.52E-03 1.86E-01 2.06E-02 1.34E-02593039.91 4124001.21 12.49953 8.06462 2.44E-02 3.94E-02 5.72E-02 4.43E-02 8.62E-03 6.30E-03 1.80E-01 1.99E-02 1.29E-02593059.91 4124001.21 11.82723 7.62229 2.30E-02 3.73E-02 5.42E-02 4.19E-02 8.16E-03 5.96E-03 1.70E-01 1.89E-02 1.22E-02593079.91 4124001.21 11.31352 7.08692 2.20E-02 3.56E-02 5.18E-02 4.01E-02 7.81E-03 5.70E-03 1.63E-01 1.81E-02 1.13E-02593099.91 4124001.21 10.80069 6.50937 2.10E-02 3.40E-02 4.95E-02 3.83E-02 7.45E-03 5.44E-03 1.56E-01 1.72E-02 1.04E-02593119.91 4124001.21 10.23151 5.97118 1.99E-02 3.22E-02 4.69E-02 3.63E-02 7.06E-03 5.16E-03 1.47E-01 1.63E-02 9.53E-03592599.91 4124021.21 11.48426 9.31975 2.24E-02 3.62E-02 5.26E-02 4.07E-02 7.92E-03 5.79E-03 1.66E-01 1.83E-02 1.49E-02592819.91 4124021.21 37.06144 12.50312 7.22E-02 1.17E-01 1.70E-01 1.31E-01 2.56E-02 1.87E-02 5.34E-01 5.91E-02 2.00E-02592839.91 4124021.21 38.04166 12.13899 7.41E-02 1.20E-01 1.74E-01 1.35E-01 2.62E-02 1.92E-02 5.48E-01 6.07E-02 1.94E-02592859.91 4124021.21 37.73947 11.82111 7.35E-02 1.19E-01 1.73E-01 1.34E-01 2.60E-02 1.90E-02 5.44E-01 6.02E-02 1.89E-02592879.91 4124021.21 35.91968 11.4694 7.00E-02 1.13E-01 1.64E-01 1.27E-01 2.48E-02 1.81E-02 5.18E-01 5.73E-02 1.83E-02592899.91 4124021.21 32.67797 10.98239 6.37E-02 1.03E-01 1.50E-01 1.16E-01 2.25E-02 1.65E-02 4.71E-01 5.21E-02 1.75E-02592919.91 4124021.21 28.44097 10.38132 5.54E-02 8.96E-02 1.30E-01 1.01E-01 1.96E-02 1.43E-02 4.10E-01 4.54E-02 1.66E-02592939.91 4124021.21 23.34536 9.68717 4.55E-02 7.35E-02 1.07E-01 8.27E-02 1.61E-02 1.18E-02 3.37E-01 3.73E-02 1.55E-02592959.91 4124021.21 19.60521 9.08298 3.82E-02 6.18E-02 8.98E-02 6.95E-02 1.35E-02 9.88E-03 2.83E-01 3.13E-02 1.45E-02592979.91 4124021.21 16.09308 8.50562 3.14E-02 5.07E-02 7.37E-02 5.70E-02 1.11E-02 8.11E-03 2.32E-01 2.57E-02 1.36E-02592999.91 4124021.21 13.2279 8.01057 2.58E-02 4.17E-02 6.06E-02 4.69E-02 9.13E-03 6.67E-03 1.91E-01 2.11E-02 1.28E-02593019.91 4124021.21 11.31147 7.61478 2.20E-02 3.56E-02 5.18E-02 4.01E-02 7.80E-03 5.70E-03 1.63E-01 1.81E-02 1.22E-02593039.91 4124021.21 10.07428 7.24496 1.96E-02 3.17E-02 4.61E-02 3.57E-02 6.95E-03 5.08E-03 1.45E-01 1.61E-02 1.16E-02593059.91 4124021.21 10.10939 6.94218 1.97E-02 3.18E-02 4.63E-02 3.58E-02 6.98E-03 5.10E-03 1.46E-01 1.61E-02 1.11E-02593079.91 4124021.21 9.69368 6.47892 1.89E-02 3.05E-02 4.44E-02 3.43E-02 6.69E-03 4.89E-03 1.40E-01 1.55E-02 1.03E-02593099.91 4124021.21 9.34932 5.97728 1.82E-02 2.94E-02 4.28E-02 3.31E-02 6.45E-03 4.71E-03 1.35E-01 1.49E-02 9.54E-03593119.91 4124021.21 8.99092 5.5035 1.75E-02 2.83E-02 4.12E-02 3.19E-02 6.20E-03 4.53E-03 1.30E-01 1.43E-02 8.78E-03592599.91 4124041.21 11.67025 8.87882 2.27E-02 3.68E-02 5.34E-02 4.14E-02 8.05E-03 5.88E-03 1.68E-01 1.86E-02 1.42E-02592619.91 4124041.21 12.90584 9.32745 2.51E-02 4.07E-02 5.91E-02 4.57E-02 8.90E-03 6.50E-03 1.86E-01 2.06E-02 1.49E-02592819.91 4124041.21 30.8408 10.94668 6.01E-02 9.71E-02 1.41E-01 1.09E-01 2.13E-02 1.55E-02 4.45E-01 4.92E-02 1.75E-02592839.91 4124041.21 30.65625 10.62486 5.97E-02 9.66E-02 1.40E-01 1.09E-01 2.12E-02 1.55E-02 4.42E-01 4.89E-02 1.70E-02592859.91 4124041.21 29.84302 10.35722 5.81E-02 9.40E-02 1.37E-01 1.06E-01 2.06E-02 1.50E-02 4.30E-01 4.76E-02 1.65E-02592879.91 4124041.21 28.22728 10.07978 5.50E-02 8.89E-02 1.29E-01 1.00E-01 1.95E-02 1.42E-02 4.07E-01 4.50E-02 1.61E-02592899.91 4124041.21 25.8819 9.69469 5.04E-02 8.15E-02 1.19E-01 9.17E-02 1.79E-02 1.30E-02 3.73E-01 4.13E-02 1.55E-02592919.91 4124041.21 23.03613 9.20976 4.49E-02 7.26E-02 1.05E-01 8.16E-02 1.59E-02 1.16E-02 3.32E-01 3.68E-02 1.47E-02592939.91 4124041.21 19.41073 8.62409 3.78E-02 6.11E-02 8.89E-02 6.88E-02 1.34E-02 9.78E-03 2.80E-01 3.10E-02 1.38E-02592959.91 4124041.21 16.73342 8.12977 3.26E-02 5.27E-02 7.66E-02 5.93E-02 1.15E-02 8.43E-03 2.41E-01 2.67E-02 1.30E-02592979.91 4124041.21 14.27138 7.68026 2.78E-02 4.50E-02 6.54E-02 5.06E-02 9.85E-03 7.19E-03 2.06E-01 2.28E-02 1.23E-02592999.91 4124041.21 11.82874 7.27622 2.30E-02 3.73E-02 5.42E-02 4.19E-02 8.16E-03 5.96E-03 1.71E-01 1.89E-02 1.16E-02593019.91 4124041.21 10.21895 6.96771 1.99E-02 3.22E-02 4.68E-02 3.62E-02 7.05E-03 5.15E-03 1.47E-01 1.63E-02 1.11E-02593039.91 4124041.21 8.88801 6.63877 1.73E-02 2.80E-02 4.07E-02 3.15E-02 6.13E-03 4.48E-03 1.28E-01 1.42E-02 1.06E-02593059.91 4124041.21 8.38012 6.31496 1.63E-02 2.64E-02 3.84E-02 2.97E-02 5.78E-03 4.22E-03 1.21E-01 1.34E-02 1.01E-02593079.91 4124041.21 8.39065 5.95766 1.63E-02 2.64E-02 3.84E-02 2.97E-02 5.79E-03 4.23E-03 1.21E-01 1.34E-02 9.51E-03593099.91 4124041.21 7.66409 5.44003 1.49E-02 2.41E-02 3.51E-02 2.72E-02 5.29E-03 3.86E-03 1.10E-01 1.22E-02 8.68E-03593119.91 4124041.21 7.47508 5.02563 1.46E-02 2.35E-02 3.42E-02 2.65E-02 5.16E-03 3.77E-03 1.08E-01 1.19E-02 8.02E-03593139.91 4124041.21 7.31523 4.67543 1.43E-02 2.30E-02 3.35E-02 2.59E-02 5.05E-03 3.69E-03 1.05E-01 1.17E-02 7.46E-03593159.91 4124041.21 7.06397 4.37401 1.38E-02 2.23E-02 3.23E-02 2.50E-02 4.87E-03 3.56E-03 1.02E-01 1.13E-02 6.98E-03593179.91 4124041.21 6.79982 4.11539 1.32E-02 2.14E-02 3.11E-02 2.41E-02 4.69E-03 3.43E-03 9.80E-02 1.09E-02 6.57E-03593199.91 4124041.21 6.44095 3.86272 1.25E-02 2.03E-02 2.95E-02 2.28E-02 4.44E-03 3.25E-03 9.28E-02 1.03E-02 6.16E-03592619.91 4124061.21 12.81412 8.76215 2.50E-02 4.04E-02 5.87E-02 4.54E-02 8.84E-03 6.46E-03 1.85E-01 2.04E-02 1.40E-02592639.91 4124061.21 13.92734 9.0307 2.71E-02 4.39E-02 6.38E-02 4.93E-02 9.61E-03 7.02E-03 2.01E-01 2.22E-02 1.44E-02592819.91 4124061.21 25.73169 9.67454 5.01E-02 8.11E-02 1.18E-01 9.12E-02 1.78E-02 1.30E-02 3.71E-01 4.11E-02 1.54E-02592839.91 4124061.21 25.17454 9.39809 4.90E-02 7.93E-02 1.15E-01 8.92E-02 1.74E-02 1.27E-02 3.63E-01 4.02E-02 1.50E-02592859.91 4124061.21 24.07816 9.15689 4.69E-02 7.58E-02 1.10E-01 8.53E-02 1.66E-02 1.21E-02 3.47E-01 3.84E-02 1.46E-02592879.91 4124061.21 22.80034 8.93686 4.44E-02 7.18E-02 1.04E-01 8.08E-02 1.57E-02 1.15E-02 3.29E-01 3.64E-02 1.43E-02592899.91 4124061.21 20.9559 8.6169 4.08E-02 6.60E-02 9.60E-02 7.43E-02 1.45E-02 1.06E-02 3.02E-01 3.34E-02 1.37E-02592919.91 4124061.21 19.04916 8.22241 3.71E-02 6.00E-02 8.72E-02 6.75E-02 1.31E-02 9.60E-03 2.75E-01 3.04E-02 1.31E-02592939.91 4124061.21 16.89688 7.77779 3.29E-02 5.32E-02 7.74E-02 5.99E-02 1.17E-02 8.52E-03 2.44E-01 2.70E-02 1.24E-02592959.91 4124061.21 14.42431 7.31566 2.81E-02 4.54E-02 6.61E-02 5.11E-02 9.95E-03 7.27E-03 2.08E-01 2.30E-02 1.17E-02592979.91 4124061.21 12.64222 6.96723 2.46E-02 3.98E-02 5.79E-02 4.48E-02 8.72E-03 6.37E-03 1.82E-01 2.02E-02 1.11E-02592999.91 4124061.21 10.83851 6.6634 2.11E-02 3.41E-02 4.96E-02 3.84E-02 7.48E-03 5.46E-03 1.56E-01 1.73E-02 1.06E-02593019.91 4124061.21 9.20857 6.39425 1.79E-02 2.90E-02 4.22E-02 3.26E-02 6.35E-03 4.64E-03 1.33E-01 1.47E-02 1.02E-02593039.91 4124061.21 8.05721 6.12999 1.57E-02 2.54E-02 3.69E-02 2.85E-02 5.56E-03 4.06E-03 1.16E-01 1.29E-02 9.78E-03593059.91 4124061.21 7.20926 5.82676 1.40E-02 2.27E-02 3.30E-02 2.55E-02 4.97E-03 3.63E-03 1.04E-01 1.15E-02 9.30E-03593079.91 4124061.21 6.83413 5.46041 1.33E-02 2.15E-02 3.13E-02 2.42E-02 4.72E-03 3.44E-03 9.85E-02 1.09E-02 8.71E-03593099.91 4124061.21 6.85363 5.08006 1.34E-02 2.16E-02 3.14E-02 2.43E-02 4.73E-03 3.45E-03 9.88E-02 1.09E-02 8.11E-03593119.91 4124061.21 6.72968 4.70493 1.31E-02 2.12E-02 3.08E-02 2.38E-02 4.64E-03 3.39E-03 9.70E-02 1.07E-02 7.51E-03593139.91 4124061.21 6.5946 4.37335 1.28E-02 2.08E-02 3.02E-02 2.34E-02 4.55E-03 3.32E-03 9.51E-02 1.05E-02 6.98E-03593159.91 4124061.21 6.39433 4.08876 1.25E-02 2.01E-02 2.93E-02 2.27E-02 4.41E-03 3.22E-03 9.22E-02 1.02E-02 6.52E-03593179.91 4124061.21 6.22031 3.85408 1.21E-02 1.96E-02 2.85E-02 2.20E-02 4.29E-03 3.13E-03 8.97E-02 9.93E-03 6.15E-03593199.91 4124061.21 5.96635 3.63232 1.16E-02 1.88E-02 2.73E-02 2.11E-02 4.12E-03 3.01E-03 8.60E-02 9.52E-03 5.80E-03592819.91 4124081.21 21.44866 8.61451 4.18E-02 6.76E-02 9.82E-02 7.60E-02 1.48E-02 1.08E-02 3.09E-01 3.42E-02 1.37E-02592839.91 4124081.21 20.98487 8.38466 4.09E-02 6.61E-02 9.61E-02 7.44E-02 1.45E-02 1.06E-02 3.02E-01 3.35E-02 1.34E-02592859.91 4124081.21 19.89872 8.17127 3.88E-02 6.27E-02 9.11E-02 7.05E-02 1.37E-02 1.00E-02 2.87E-01 3.18E-02 1.30E-02592879.91 4124081.21 18.66603 7.96686 3.64E-02 5.88E-02 8.55E-02 6.61E-02 1.29E-02 9.41E-03 2.69E-01 2.98E-02 1.27E-02592899.91 4124081.21 17.36997 7.71031 3.38E-02 5.47E-02 7.95E-02 6.15E-02 1.20E-02 8.75E-03 2.50E-01 2.77E-02 1.23E-02592919.91 4124081.21 15.97823 7.37859 3.11E-02 5.03E-02 7.32E-02 5.66E-02 1.10E-02 8.05E-03 2.30E-01 2.55E-02 1.18E-02592939.91 4124081.21 14.62703 7.02717 2.85E-02 4.61E-02 6.70E-02 5.18E-02 1.01E-02 7.37E-03 2.11E-01 2.33E-02 1.12E-02592959.91 4124081.21 12.83855 6.65258 2.50E-02 4.04E-02 5.88E-02 4.55E-02 8.86E-03 6.47E-03 1.85E-01 2.05E-02 1.06E-02592979.91 4124081.21 11.21916 6.37158 2.19E-02 3.53E-02 5.14E-02 3.98E-02 7.74E-03 5.65E-03 1.62E-01 1.79E-02 1.02E-02 MozartHRA_Calculations 3 of 6 592999.91 4124081.21 9.9 6.12373 1.93E-02 3.12E-02 4.53E-02 3.51E-02 6.83E-03 4.99E-03 1.43E-01 1.58E-02 9.77E-03593019.91 4124081.21 8.39561 5.89564 1.64E-02 2.64E-02 3.84E-02 2.97E-02 5.79E-03 4.23E-03 1.21E-01 1.34E-02 9.41E-03593039.91 4124081.21 7.3592 5.67855 1.43E-02 2.32E-02 3.37E-02 2.61E-02 5.08E-03 3.71E-03 1.06E-01 1.17E-02 9.06E-03593059.91 4124081.21 6.57402 5.42448 1.28E-02 2.07E-02 3.01E-02 2.33E-02 4.54E-03 3.31E-03 9.48E-02 1.05E-02 8.66E-03593079.91 4124081.21 6.05783 5.07369 1.18E-02 1.91E-02 2.77E-02 2.15E-02 4.18E-03 3.05E-03 8.73E-02 9.67E-03 8.10E-03593099.91 4124081.21 6.06273 4.74027 1.18E-02 1.91E-02 2.78E-02 2.15E-02 4.18E-03 3.06E-03 8.74E-02 9.67E-03 7.56E-03593119.91 4124081.21 5.88305 4.3872 1.15E-02 1.85E-02 2.69E-02 2.08E-02 4.06E-03 2.96E-03 8.48E-02 9.39E-03 7.00E-03593139.91 4124081.21 5.80415 4.0834 1.13E-02 1.83E-02 2.66E-02 2.06E-02 4.00E-03 2.93E-03 8.37E-02 9.26E-03 6.52E-03593159.91 4124081.21 5.72248 3.82664 1.11E-02 1.80E-02 2.62E-02 2.03E-02 3.95E-03 2.88E-03 8.25E-02 9.13E-03 6.11E-03593179.91 4124081.21 5.57833 3.60389 1.09E-02 1.76E-02 2.55E-02 1.98E-02 3.85E-03 2.81E-03 8.04E-02 8.90E-03 5.75E-03593199.91 4124081.21 5.36963 3.39854 1.05E-02 1.69E-02 2.46E-02 1.90E-02 3.70E-03 2.71E-03 7.74E-02 8.57E-03 5.42E-03592839.91 4124101.21 17.68971 7.53151 3.45E-02 5.57E-02 8.10E-02 6.27E-02 1.22E-02 8.92E-03 2.55E-01 2.82E-02 1.20E-02592859.91 4124101.21 16.76261 7.34782 3.27E-02 5.28E-02 7.68E-02 5.94E-02 1.16E-02 8.45E-03 2.42E-01 2.67E-02 1.17E-02592879.91 4124101.21 15.57673 7.14719 3.03E-02 4.91E-02 7.13E-02 5.52E-02 1.07E-02 7.85E-03 2.25E-01 2.49E-02 1.14E-02592899.91 4124101.21 14.72019 6.9483 2.87E-02 4.64E-02 6.74E-02 5.22E-02 1.02E-02 7.42E-03 2.12E-01 2.35E-02 1.11E-02592919.91 4124101.21 13.78479 6.67835 2.69E-02 4.34E-02 6.31E-02 4.88E-02 9.51E-03 6.95E-03 1.99E-01 2.20E-02 1.07E-02592939.91 4124101.21 12.87762 6.39033 2.51E-02 4.06E-02 5.90E-02 4.56E-02 8.89E-03 6.49E-03 1.86E-01 2.05E-02 1.02E-02592959.91 4124101.21 11.57618 6.08807 2.26E-02 3.65E-02 5.30E-02 4.10E-02 7.99E-03 5.83E-03 1.67E-01 1.85E-02 9.71E-03592979.91 4124101.21 10.06583 5.83003 1.96E-02 3.17E-02 4.61E-02 3.57E-02 6.95E-03 5.07E-03 1.45E-01 1.61E-02 9.30E-03592999.91 4124101.21 8.98521 5.66176 1.75E-02 2.83E-02 4.11E-02 3.18E-02 6.20E-03 4.53E-03 1.30E-01 1.43E-02 9.03E-03593019.91 4124101.21 7.78555 5.49082 1.52E-02 2.45E-02 3.57E-02 2.76E-02 5.37E-03 3.92E-03 1.12E-01 1.24E-02 8.76E-03593039.91 4124101.21 6.77006 5.30007 1.32E-02 2.13E-02 3.10E-02 2.40E-02 4.67E-03 3.41E-03 9.76E-02 1.08E-02 8.46E-03593059.91 4124101.21 6.09112 5.0712 1.19E-02 1.92E-02 2.79E-02 2.16E-02 4.20E-03 3.07E-03 8.78E-02 9.72E-03 8.09E-03593079.91 4124101.21 5.45778 4.73346 1.06E-02 1.72E-02 2.50E-02 1.93E-02 3.77E-03 2.75E-03 7.87E-02 8.71E-03 7.55E-03593099.91 4124101.21 5.35927 4.4291 1.04E-02 1.69E-02 2.45E-02 1.90E-02 3.70E-03 2.70E-03 7.73E-02 8.55E-03 7.07E-03593119.91 4124101.21 5.24149 4.11841 1.02E-02 1.65E-02 2.40E-02 1.86E-02 3.62E-03 2.64E-03 7.56E-02 8.36E-03 6.57E-03593139.91 4124101.21 5.13861 3.83079 1.00E-02 1.62E-02 2.35E-02 1.82E-02 3.55E-03 2.59E-03 7.41E-02 8.20E-03 6.11E-03593159.91 4124101.21 5.02581 3.58003 9.79E-03 1.58E-02 2.30E-02 1.78E-02 3.47E-03 2.53E-03 7.24E-02 8.02E-03 5.71E-03593179.91 4124101.21 4.95756 3.37602 9.66E-03 1.56E-02 2.27E-02 1.76E-02 3.42E-03 2.50E-03 7.15E-02 7.91E-03 5.39E-03593199.91 4124101.21 4.82405 3.20049 9.40E-03 1.52E-02 2.21E-02 1.71E-02 3.33E-03 2.43E-03 6.95E-02 7.70E-03 5.11E-03593219.91 4124101.21 4.70106 3.03159 9.16E-03 1.48E-02 2.15E-02 1.67E-02 3.24E-03 2.37E-03 6.78E-02 7.50E-03 4.84E-03593239.91 4124101.21 4.608 2.87115 8.98E-03 1.45E-02 2.11E-02 1.63E-02 3.18E-03 2.32E-03 6.64E-02 7.35E-03 4.58E-03592839.91 4124121.21 14.92939 6.78977 2.91E-02 4.70E-02 6.84E-02 5.29E-02 1.03E-02 7.52E-03 2.15E-01 2.38E-02 1.08E-02592859.91 4124121.21 14.30403 6.64555 2.79E-02 4.51E-02 6.55E-02 5.07E-02 9.87E-03 7.21E-03 2.06E-01 2.28E-02 1.06E-02592879.91 4124121.21 13.33248 6.46924 2.60E-02 4.20E-02 6.11E-02 4.72E-02 9.20E-03 6.72E-03 1.92E-01 2.13E-02 1.03E-02592899.91 4124121.21 12.50614 6.28969 2.44E-02 3.94E-02 5.73E-02 4.43E-02 8.63E-03 6.30E-03 1.80E-01 2.00E-02 1.00E-02592919.91 4124121.21 11.90856 6.05816 2.32E-02 3.75E-02 5.45E-02 4.22E-02 8.22E-03 6.00E-03 1.72E-01 1.90E-02 9.67E-03592939.91 4124121.21 11.21282 5.81302 2.18E-02 3.53E-02 5.13E-02 3.97E-02 7.74E-03 5.65E-03 1.62E-01 1.79E-02 9.28E-03592959.91 4124121.21 10.40996 5.58555 2.03E-02 3.28E-02 4.77E-02 3.69E-02 7.18E-03 5.25E-03 1.50E-01 1.66E-02 8.91E-03592979.91 4124121.21 9.26323 5.38842 1.80E-02 2.92E-02 4.24E-02 3.28E-02 6.39E-03 4.67E-03 1.34E-01 1.48E-02 8.60E-03592999.91 4124121.21 8.12513 5.21688 1.58E-02 2.56E-02 3.72E-02 2.88E-02 5.61E-03 4.09E-03 1.17E-01 1.30E-02 8.32E-03593019.91 4124121.21 7.28445 5.11488 1.42E-02 2.29E-02 3.34E-02 2.58E-02 5.03E-03 3.67E-03 1.05E-01 1.16E-02 8.16E-03593039.91 4124121.21 6.36214 4.95493 1.24E-02 2.00E-02 2.91E-02 2.25E-02 4.39E-03 3.21E-03 9.17E-02 1.02E-02 7.91E-03593059.91 4124121.21 5.67017 4.74784 1.10E-02 1.79E-02 2.60E-02 2.01E-02 3.91E-03 2.86E-03 8.17E-02 9.05E-03 7.58E-03593079.91 4124121.21 5.11841 4.46745 9.97E-03 1.61E-02 2.34E-02 1.81E-02 3.53E-03 2.58E-03 7.38E-02 8.17E-03 7.13E-03593099.91 4124121.21 4.72173 4.14878 9.20E-03 1.49E-02 2.16E-02 1.67E-02 3.26E-03 2.38E-03 6.81E-02 7.53E-03 6.62E-03593119.91 4124121.21 4.6848 3.87416 9.13E-03 1.48E-02 2.15E-02 1.66E-02 3.23E-03 2.36E-03 6.75E-02 7.48E-03 6.18E-03593139.91 4124121.21 4.54845 3.62048 8.86E-03 1.43E-02 2.08E-02 1.61E-02 3.14E-03 2.29E-03 6.56E-02 7.26E-03 5.78E-03593159.91 4124121.21 4.46632 3.38493 8.70E-03 1.41E-02 2.05E-02 1.58E-02 3.08E-03 2.25E-03 6.44E-02 7.13E-03 5.40E-03593179.91 4124121.21 4.40888 3.18736 8.59E-03 1.39E-02 2.02E-02 1.56E-02 3.04E-03 2.22E-03 6.36E-02 7.04E-03 5.09E-03593199.91 4124121.21 4.32254 3.01116 8.42E-03 1.36E-02 1.98E-02 1.53E-02 2.98E-03 2.18E-03 6.23E-02 6.90E-03 4.80E-03593219.91 4124121.21 4.2459 2.85636 8.27E-03 1.34E-02 1.94E-02 1.50E-02 2.93E-03 2.14E-03 6.12E-02 6.78E-03 4.56E-03592859.91 4124141.21 12.26999 6.03114 2.39E-02 3.86E-02 5.62E-02 4.35E-02 8.47E-03 6.18E-03 1.77E-01 1.96E-02 9.62E-03592879.91 4124141.21 11.66686 5.90299 2.27E-02 3.67E-02 5.34E-02 4.13E-02 8.05E-03 5.88E-03 1.68E-01 1.86E-02 9.42E-03592899.91 4124141.21 10.85353 5.71828 2.11E-02 3.42E-02 4.97E-02 3.85E-02 7.49E-03 5.47E-03 1.56E-01 1.73E-02 9.12E-03592919.91 4124141.21 10.42844 5.54574 2.03E-02 3.28E-02 4.78E-02 3.70E-02 7.20E-03 5.26E-03 1.50E-01 1.66E-02 8.85E-03592939.91 4124141.21 9.92567 5.34275 1.93E-02 3.13E-02 4.55E-02 3.52E-02 6.85E-03 5.00E-03 1.43E-01 1.58E-02 8.53E-03592959.91 4124141.21 9.35939 5.16058 1.82E-02 2.95E-02 4.29E-02 3.32E-02 6.46E-03 4.72E-03 1.35E-01 1.49E-02 8.23E-03592979.91 4124141.21 8.53576 4.9958 1.66E-02 2.69E-02 3.91E-02 3.02E-02 5.89E-03 4.30E-03 1.23E-01 1.36E-02 7.97E-03592999.91 4124141.21 7.46462 4.83818 1.45E-02 2.35E-02 3.42E-02 2.64E-02 5.15E-03 3.76E-03 1.08E-01 1.19E-02 7.72E-03593019.91 4124141.21 6.69223 4.75225 1.30E-02 2.11E-02 3.06E-02 2.37E-02 4.62E-03 3.37E-03 9.65E-02 1.07E-02 7.58E-03593039.91 4124141.21 5.93878 4.6317 1.16E-02 1.87E-02 2.72E-02 2.10E-02 4.10E-03 2.99E-03 8.56E-02 9.48E-03 7.39E-03593059.91 4124141.21 5.28033 4.44793 1.03E-02 1.66E-02 2.42E-02 1.87E-02 3.64E-03 2.66E-03 7.61E-02 8.43E-03 7.10E-03593079.91 4124141.21 4.79419 4.21171 9.34E-03 1.51E-02 2.20E-02 1.70E-02 3.31E-03 2.42E-03 6.91E-02 7.65E-03 6.72E-03593099.91 4124141.21 4.35069 3.91258 8.48E-03 1.37E-02 1.99E-02 1.54E-02 3.00E-03 2.19E-03 6.27E-02 6.94E-03 6.24E-03593119.91 4124141.21 4.19727 3.66194 8.18E-03 1.32E-02 1.92E-02 1.49E-02 2.90E-03 2.12E-03 6.05E-02 6.70E-03 5.84E-03593139.91 4124141.21 4.0783 3.41573 7.95E-03 1.28E-02 1.87E-02 1.45E-02 2.81E-03 2.06E-03 5.88E-02 6.51E-03 5.45E-03593159.91 4124141.21 3.97926 3.19144 7.75E-03 1.25E-02 1.82E-02 1.41E-02 2.75E-03 2.01E-03 5.74E-02 6.35E-03 5.09E-03593179.91 4124141.21 3.94097 3.00789 7.68E-03 1.24E-02 1.80E-02 1.40E-02 2.72E-03 1.99E-03 5.68E-02 6.29E-03 4.80E-03593199.91 4124141.21 3.86262 2.83891 7.53E-03 1.22E-02 1.77E-02 1.37E-02 2.67E-03 1.95E-03 5.57E-02 6.16E-03 4.53E-03592859.91 4124161.21 10.38653 5.45107 2.02E-02 3.27E-02 4.76E-02 3.68E-02 7.17E-03 5.23E-03 1.50E-01 1.66E-02 8.70E-03592879.91 4124161.21 10.16265 5.38579 1.98E-02 3.20E-02 4.65E-02 3.60E-02 7.01E-03 5.12E-03 1.46E-01 1.62E-02 8.59E-03592899.91 4124161.21 9.64826 5.24934 1.88E-02 3.04E-02 4.42E-02 3.42E-02 6.66E-03 4.86E-03 1.39E-01 1.54E-02 8.38E-03592919.91 4124161.21 9.19978 5.07226 1.79E-02 2.90E-02 4.21E-02 3.26E-02 6.35E-03 4.64E-03 1.33E-01 1.47E-02 8.09E-03592939.91 4124161.21 8.8992 4.91474 1.73E-02 2.80E-02 4.08E-02 3.15E-02 6.14E-03 4.49E-03 1.28E-01 1.42E-02 7.84E-03592959.91 4124161.21 8.45859 4.76321 1.65E-02 2.66E-02 3.87E-02 3.00E-02 5.84E-03 4.26E-03 1.22E-01 1.35E-02 7.60E-03592979.91 4124161.21 7.82509 4.63657 1.52E-02 2.46E-02 3.58E-02 2.77E-02 5.40E-03 3.94E-03 1.13E-01 1.25E-02 7.40E-03592999.91 4124161.21 7.02287 4.53105 1.37E-02 2.21E-02 3.22E-02 2.49E-02 4.85E-03 3.54E-03 1.01E-01 1.12E-02 7.23E-03593019.91 4124161.21 6.14925 4.42088 1.20E-02 1.94E-02 2.82E-02 2.18E-02 4.24E-03 3.10E-03 8.86E-02 9.81E-03 7.05E-03593039.91 4124161.21 5.5663 4.34159 1.08E-02 1.75E-02 2.55E-02 1.97E-02 3.84E-03 2.81E-03 8.02E-02 8.88E-03 6.93E-03593059.91 4124161.21 4.98397 4.18748 9.71E-03 1.57E-02 2.28E-02 1.77E-02 3.44E-03 2.51E-03 7.18E-02 7.95E-03 6.68E-03593079.91 4124161.21 4.48132 3.96739 8.73E-03 1.41E-02 2.05E-02 1.59E-02 3.09E-03 2.26E-03 6.46E-02 7.15E-03 6.33E-03593099.91 4124161.21 4.11916 3.71946 8.03E-03 1.30E-02 1.89E-02 1.46E-02 2.84E-03 2.08E-03 5.94E-02 6.57E-03 5.94E-03593119.91 4124161.21 3.77802 3.43932 7.36E-03 1.19E-02 1.73E-02 1.34E-02 2.61E-03 1.90E-03 5.45E-02 6.03E-03 5.49E-03593139.91 4124161.21 3.72462 3.23905 7.26E-03 1.17E-02 1.71E-02 1.32E-02 2.57E-03 1.88E-03 5.37E-02 5.94E-03 5.17E-03593159.91 4124161.21 3.61082 3.02749 7.04E-03 1.14E-02 1.65E-02 1.28E-02 2.49E-03 1.82E-03 5.21E-02 5.76E-03 4.83E-03593179.91 4124161.21 3.55178 2.84962 6.92E-03 1.12E-02 1.63E-02 1.26E-02 2.45E-03 1.79E-03 5.12E-02 5.67E-03 4.55E-03592879.91 4124181.21 8.89547 4.93347 1.73E-02 2.80E-02 4.07E-02 3.15E-02 6.14E-03 4.48E-03 1.28E-01 1.42E-02 7.87E-03592899.91 4124181.21 8.55863 4.81762 1.67E-02 2.70E-02 3.92E-02 3.03E-02 5.91E-03 4.31E-03 1.23E-01 1.37E-02 7.69E-03592919.91 4124181.21 8.20489 4.66148 1.60E-02 2.58E-02 3.76E-02 2.91E-02 5.66E-03 4.14E-03 1.18E-01 1.31E-02 7.44E-03592939.91 4124181.21 8.05802 4.54314 1.57E-02 2.54E-02 3.69E-02 2.86E-02 5.56E-03 4.06E-03 1.16E-01 1.29E-02 7.25E-03592959.91 4124181.21 7.71581 4.41778 1.50E-02 2.43E-02 3.53E-02 2.73E-02 5.32E-03 3.89E-03 1.11E-01 1.23E-02 7.05E-03592979.91 4124181.21 7.15237 4.30827 1.39E-02 2.25E-02 3.28E-02 2.53E-02 4.94E-03 3.60E-03 1.03E-01 1.14E-02 6.87E-03592999.91 4124181.21 6.56289 4.24322 1.28E-02 2.07E-02 3.01E-02 2.33E-02 4.53E-03 3.31E-03 9.46E-02 1.05E-02 6.77E-03593019.91 4124181.21 5.77332 4.14877 1.12E-02 1.82E-02 2.64E-02 2.05E-02 3.98E-03 2.91E-03 8.32E-02 9.21E-03 6.62E-03593039.91 4124181.21 5.21017 4.07411 1.02E-02 1.64E-02 2.39E-02 1.85E-02 3.59E-03 2.63E-03 7.51E-02 8.31E-03 6.50E-03593059.91 4124181.21 4.68958 3.94284 9.14E-03 1.48E-02 2.15E-02 1.66E-02 3.24E-03 2.36E-03 6.76E-02 7.48E-03 6.29E-03593079.91 4124181.21 4.27567 3.76348 8.33E-03 1.35E-02 1.96E-02 1.52E-02 2.95E-03 2.15E-03 6.16E-02 6.82E-03 6.01E-03593099.91 4124181.21 3.8819 3.52792 7.56E-03 1.22E-02 1.78E-02 1.38E-02 2.68E-03 1.96E-03 5.60E-02 6.19E-03 5.63E-03593119.91 4124181.21 3.53502 3.29188 6.89E-03 1.11E-02 1.62E-02 1.25E-02 2.44E-03 1.78E-03 5.10E-02 5.64E-03 5.25E-03593139.91 4124181.21 3.41525 3.07161 6.65E-03 1.08E-02 1.56E-02 1.21E-02 2.36E-03 1.72E-03 4.92E-02 5.45E-03 4.90E-03592879.91 4124201.21 7.61807 4.45607 1.48E-02 2.40E-02 3.49E-02 2.70E-02 5.26E-03 3.84E-03 1.10E-01 1.22E-02 7.11E-03592899.91 4124201.21 7.68589 4.4456 1.50E-02 2.42E-02 3.52E-02 2.72E-02 5.30E-03 3.87E-03 1.11E-01 1.23E-02 7.09E-03592919.91 4124201.21 7.50379 4.32975 1.46E-02 2.36E-02 3.44E-02 2.66E-02 5.18E-03 3.78E-03 1.08E-01 1.20E-02 6.91E-03592939.91 4124201.21 7.21067 4.18807 1.40E-02 2.27E-02 3.30E-02 2.55E-02 4.98E-03 3.63E-03 1.04E-01 1.15E-02 6.68E-03592959.91 4124201.21 7.03445 4.10429 1.37E-02 2.22E-02 3.22E-02 2.49E-02 4.85E-03 3.55E-03 1.01E-01 1.12E-02 6.55E-03592979.91 4124201.21 6.62018 4.02649 1.29E-02 2.09E-02 3.03E-02 2.35E-02 4.57E-03 3.34E-03 9.54E-02 1.06E-02 6.42E-03592999.91 4124201.21 6.09359 3.97316 1.19E-02 1.92E-02 2.79E-02 2.16E-02 4.20E-03 3.07E-03 8.78E-02 9.72E-03 6.34E-03593019.91 4124201.21 5.48796 3.91711 1.07E-02 1.73E-02 2.51E-02 1.94E-02 3.79E-03 2.77E-03 7.91E-02 8.76E-03 6.25E-03593039.91 4124201.21 4.84756 3.834 9.44E-03 1.53E-02 2.22E-02 1.72E-02 3.34E-03 2.44E-03 6.99E-02 7.74E-03 6.12E-03593059.91 4124201.21 4.4364 3.72342 8.64E-03 1.40E-02 2.03E-02 1.57E-02 3.06E-03 2.24E-03 6.40E-02 7.08E-03 5.94E-03593079.91 4124201.21 4.01447 3.55318 7.82E-03 1.26E-02 1.84E-02 1.42E-02 2.77E-03 2.02E-03 5.79E-02 6.41E-03 5.67E-03593099.91 4124201.21 3.65409 3.36708 7.12E-03 1.15E-02 1.67E-02 1.29E-02 2.52E-03 1.84E-03 5.27E-02 5.83E-03 5.37E-03 MozartHRA_Calculations 4 of 6 592899.91 4124221.21 6.9257 4.1104 1.35E-02 2.18E-02 3.17E-02 2.45E-02 4.78E-03 3.49E-03 9.98E-02 1.11E-02 6.56E-03592919.91 4124221.21 6.79554 4.01083 1.32E-02 2.14E-02 3.11E-02 2.41E-02 4.69E-03 3.42E-03 9.80E-02 1.08E-02 6.40E-03592939.91 4124221.21 6.59655 3.89661 1.29E-02 2.08E-02 3.02E-02 2.34E-02 4.55E-03 3.32E-03 9.51E-02 1.05E-02 6.22E-03592959.91 4124221.21 6.42652 3.82161 1.25E-02 2.02E-02 2.94E-02 2.28E-02 4.43E-03 3.24E-03 9.26E-02 1.03E-02 6.10E-03592979.91 4124221.21 6.13143 3.77044 1.19E-02 1.93E-02 2.81E-02 2.17E-02 4.23E-03 3.09E-03 8.84E-02 9.78E-03 6.02E-03592999.91 4124221.21 5.66338 3.7274 1.10E-02 1.78E-02 2.59E-02 2.01E-02 3.91E-03 2.85E-03 8.16E-02 9.04E-03 5.95E-03593019.91 4124221.21 5.17209 3.69328 1.01E-02 1.63E-02 2.37E-02 1.83E-02 3.57E-03 2.61E-03 7.46E-02 8.25E-03 5.89E-03593039.91 4124221.21 4.59404 3.62158 8.95E-03 1.45E-02 2.10E-02 1.63E-02 3.17E-03 2.32E-03 6.62E-02 7.33E-03 5.78E-03593059.91 4124221.21 4.14721 3.51739 8.08E-03 1.31E-02 1.90E-02 1.47E-02 2.86E-03 2.09E-03 5.98E-02 6.62E-03 5.61E-03592899.91 4124241.21 5.93708 3.70695 1.16E-02 1.87E-02 2.72E-02 2.10E-02 4.10E-03 2.99E-03 8.56E-02 9.47E-03 5.92E-03592919.91 4124241.21 6.20966 3.73174 1.21E-02 1.96E-02 2.84E-02 2.20E-02 4.28E-03 3.13E-03 8.95E-02 9.91E-03 5.95E-03592939.91 4124241.21 6.12909 3.65092 1.19E-02 1.93E-02 2.81E-02 2.17E-02 4.23E-03 3.09E-03 8.84E-02 9.78E-03 5.83E-03592959.91 4124241.21 5.87867 3.58468 1.15E-02 1.85E-02 2.69E-02 2.08E-02 4.06E-03 2.96E-03 8.47E-02 9.38E-03 5.72E-03592979.91 4124241.21 5.72916 3.54658 1.12E-02 1.80E-02 2.62E-02 2.03E-02 3.95E-03 2.89E-03 8.26E-02 9.14E-03 5.66E-03592999.91 4124241.21 5.33443 3.51773 1.04E-02 1.68E-02 2.44E-02 1.89E-02 3.68E-03 2.69E-03 7.69E-02 8.51E-03 5.61E-03593019.91 4124241.21 4.83849 3.492 9.43E-03 1.52E-02 2.22E-02 1.71E-02 3.34E-03 2.44E-03 6.97E-02 7.72E-03 5.57E-03592979.91 4123721.21 30.62146 89.8548 5.97E-02 9.65E-02 1.40E-01 1.09E-01 2.11E-02 1.54E-02 4.41E-01 4.89E-02 1.43E-01592999.91 4123721.21 32.05916 126.60652 6.25E-02 1.01E-01 1.47E-01 1.14E-01 2.21E-02 1.62E-02 4.62E-01 5.12E-02 2.02E-01593019.91 4123721.21 32.40994 197.04273 6.32E-02 1.02E-01 1.48E-01 1.15E-01 2.24E-02 1.63E-02 4.67E-01 5.17E-02 3.14E-01 MozartHRA_Calculations 5 of 6 MEISR Phase UTM X UTM Y Unmitigated Mitigated Unmitigated Mitigated Resident Total 592879.91 4123921.21 1.66E+00 1.62E-01 ---- Demo 592879.91 4123921.21 2.24E-01 1.21E-02 ---- Site Prep 592879.91 4123921.21 3.62E-01 1.21E-02 ---- Grading 592879.91 4123921.21 5.26E-01 2.23E-02 ---- Building 592879.91 4123921.21 4.07E-01 1.07E-01 ---- Paving 592879.91 4123921.21 7.93E-02 6.90E-03 ---- Arch Coat 592879.91 4123921.21 5.79E-02 2.41E-03 ---- 2020 592879.91 4123921.21 ----1.83E-01 4.24E-02 2021 592999.91 4123741.21 -- -- 4.97E-01 1.54E-03 Cancer Risk = Dose inhalation × Inhalation CPF × ASF × ED/AT × FAH (Equation 8.2.4 A) Where: Cancer Risk = residential inhalation cancer risk Dose inhalation (mg/kg-day) = CAIR × DBR × A × EF × 10-6 (Equation 5.4.1.1) Inhalation CPF = inhalation cancer potency factor ([mg/kg/day]-1) ASF = age sensitivity factor for a specified age group (unitless) ED = exposure duration for a specified age group (years) AT = averaging time period over which exposure is averaged in days (years) FAH = fraction of time at home (unitless) Where: CAIR = concentration of compound in air in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) DBR = daily breathing rate in liter per kilogram of body weight per day (L/kg-body weight/day) A = inhalation absorption factor (1 for DPM, unitless) EF = exposure frequency in days per year (unitless, days/365 days) 10-6 = micrograms to milligrams conversion, liters to cubic meters conversion Hazard Quotient = Cair / REL (Section 8.3.1) Where: Hazard Quotient = chronic non-cancer hazard CAIR = concentration of compound in air in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) REL = Chronic non-cancer Reference Exposure Level for substance (μg/m3) Dose Inhalation Inputs Unmitigated Mitigated Receptor Type Exposure Scenario Receptor Group Age Phase DBR (L/kg-day)A (unitless)EF (days/year)Demo 2.24E-01 1.21E-02 361 1 0.96 Site Prep 3.62E-01 1.21E-02 361 1 0.96 Grading 5.26E-01 2.23E-02 361 1 0.96 Building 4.07E-01 1.07E-01 361 1 0.96 Building 4.07E-01 1.07E-01 1090 1 0.96 Paving 7.93E-02 6.90E-03 1090 1 0.96 Arch Coat 5.79E-02 2.41E-03 1090 1 0.96 Dose Inhalation Outputs Unmitigated Mitigated Receptor Type Exposure Scenario Receptor Group Age Phase Demo 7.75E-05 4.18E-06Site Prep 1.25E-04 4.18E-06Grading1.82E-04 7.71E-06 Building 1.41E-04 3.69E-05 Building 4.26E-04 1.12E-04 Paving 8.30E-05 7.22E-06 Arch Coat 6.05E-05 2.52E-06 Risk Inputs Receptor Type Exposure Scenario Receptor Group Age Phase CPF (mg/kg-day-1) ASF (unitless) ED (years) AT (years) FAH (unitless) MAF (unitless) Demo 1.1 10 0.07 70.00 0.85 1Site Prep 1.1 10 0.01 70.00 0.85 1Grading 1.1 10 0.04 70.00 0.85 1Building 1.1 10 0.13 70.00 0.85 1Building 1.1 10 0.28 70.00 0.85 1Paving 1.1 10 0.02 70.00 0.85 1Arch Coat 1.1 10 0.01 70.00 0.85 1 Risk Outputs Unmitigated Mitigated Receptor Type Exposure Scenario Receptor Group Age Phase Demo 7.66E-07 4.13E-08 Site Prep 9.17E-08 3.06E-09 Grading 8.67E-07 3.67E-08 Building 2.54E-06 6.65E-07 Building 1.62E-05 4.23E-06 Paving 2.13E-07 1.85E-08 Arch Coat 1.11E-07 4.62E-09 Total Cancer Risk (per million)20.77 5.00 Receptor Type Risk Type Unmitigated Mitigated Chronic HI 0.33 0.03 unitless Annual PM2.5 0.50 0.04 ug/m3 SOURCE: Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for the Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Daily breathing rate for school receptor is based on the OEHHA 95th percentile 8-hour moderate intensity breathing rates (Table 5.8). Fraction of time at home is set to 0.85 for residential since the nearest school has an unmitigated cancer risk of <1 per million, per OEHHA Table 8.4. Inhalation cancer potency factor from Table 7.1 Off-Site Child Resident Construction DPM (ug/m3) CAIR (µg/m3) Off-Site Child Resident Construction 3rd Trimester Off-Site Child Resident Dose inhalation (mg/kg-day) Age 0<2 Off-Site Child Resident Age 0<2 Age 0<2 PM2.5 (ug/m3) 3rd Trimester Construction 3rd Trimester Off-Site Child Resident Construction 3rd Trimester Cancer Risk Age 0<2 MozartHRA_Calculations 6 of 6 18145 Mozart Avenue Development ESA D140020.03 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Health Risk Assessment July 2019 Appendix D BAAQMD’s Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator Bay Area Air Quality Management DistrictRoadway Screening Analysis Calculator County specific tables containing estimates of risk and hazard impacts from roadways in the Bay Area. • Roadway Direction: Select the orientation that best matches the roadway. If the roadway orientation is neither clearly north-south nor east-west, use the highest values predicted from either orientation. • Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT): Enter the annual average daily traffic on the roadway. These data may be collected from the city or the county (if the area is unincorporated). Notes and References listed below the Search Boxes Search Parameters Results County Santa Clara County Roadway Direction EAST-WEST DIRECTIONAL ROADWAY Side of the Roadway PM2.5 annual average Distance from Roadway 430 feet (μg/m3) Cancer Risk 50,000 (per million) . Data for Santa Clara County based on meteorological data collected from San Jose Airport in 1997 Notes and References: 1. Emissions were developed using EMFAC2011 for fleet mix in 2014 assuming 10,000 AADT and includes impacts from diesel and gasoline vehicle exhaust, brake and tire wear, and resuspended dust. 2. Roadways were modeled using CALINE4 air dispersion model assuming a source length of one kilometer. Meteorological data used to estimate the screening values are noted at the bottom of the “Results” box. 3. Cancer risks were estimated for 70 year lifetime exposure starting in 2014 that includes sensitivity values for early life exposures and OEHHA toxicity values adopted in 2013. INSTRUCTIONS: Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT)6.88 0.129 Input the site-specific characteristics of your project by using the drop down menu in the “Search Parameter” box. We recommend that this analysis be used for roadways with 10,000 AADT and above. • County: Select the County where the project is located. The calculator is only applicable for projects within the nine Bay Area counties. • Side of the Roadway: Identify on which side of the roadway the project is located. • Distance from Roadway: Enter the distance in feet from the nearest edge of the roadway to the project site. The calculator estimates values for distances greater than 10 feet and less than 1000 feet. For distances greater than 1000 feet, the user can choose to extrapolate values using a distribution curve or apply 1000 feet values for greater distances. When the user has completed the data entries, the screening level PM2.5 annual average concentration and the cancer risk results will appear in the Results Box on the right. Please note that the roadway tool is not applicable for California State Highways and the District refers the user to the Highway Screening Analysis Tool at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and- Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Tools-and-Methodology.aspx. ATTACHMENT 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Biological Resources Assessment 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Prepared for: City of Campbell Community Development Department 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Contact: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Prepared by: 1630 San Pablo Ave, Suite 300 Oakland, California 94612 MARCH 2020 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 12422 i March 2020 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Analysis Scope and Purpose .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Methods .................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.1.1 Database Review ...................................................................................................................... 3 2.1.2 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1.3 Survey Methods ........................................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2.1 Vegetation Communities .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................................... 4 3 IMPACT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.1 Method of Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Thresholds of Significance ..................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 6 4 MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .............................................................................. 11 5 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 15 APPENDIX A CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC Database Search Results FIGURES 1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................ 17 2 Biological Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 19 TABLES 1 Summary of Protected Tree Removal Replacement Standards ........................................................................ 9 2 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ................................................................................................ 13 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 ii March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12422 1 March 2020 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Proposed Project The 16179 E. Mozart Avenue project in Campbell, CA involves the redevelopment of an approximately 2.93-acre parcel (project site) into 25 single-family homes (Project). The Project would involve the demolition of existing structures on-site, consisting of four single-story homes fronting E. Mozart Avenue and several outbuildings located behind the existing homes (e.g., storage sheds, trailer, containers, carports/garages, etc.). All 25 homes would be 2- to 3-story, 4-bedroom units, ranging in size from 2,443 to 3,783 square feet. The homes would be accessed from a new 20-foot wide driveway teeing off the east side of E. Mozart Avenue, forming an interior loop within the site. The proposed amenities would include a tot lot in one of the open space lots and a stepping stone path between the interior units. Following demolition, grading, and utility installations, construction of the homes is anticipated to occur in two phases. Redevelopment of the project site would require the removal of existing oak (Quercus agrifolia and Quercus ilex), almond (Prunus dulcis), apricot (Prunus dulcis), and other ornamental/fruit trees not identified for preservation under the city’s Tree Protection Regulations (City Code Section 21.32.050.C). The Project would retain 10 existing coast live oaks within 3 open space lots totaling 11,787 square feet, as well as the backyards of several of the outer private lots. The landscape plan includes a landscape strip along E. Mozart Avenue consisting of 5 street trees, and interior landscaping along the footpath, home frontage, and open space lots. The Project proposes 28 onsite trees consisting of a combination of Japanese maple (Acer palmatum), Marina strawberry trees (Arbutus unedo), Muskogee crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia), Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), and valley oak (Quercus lobate). 1.2 Analysis Scope and Purpose This report documents the biological resources assessment conducted by Dudek for the proposed development project located at 16179 Mozart Avenue within the City of Campbell, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this assessment is to document existing biological resources (Figure 2) and assess the potential impacts of the Project on these resources. 1.3 Summary of Findings The biological resources assessment determined this Project will have less-than-significant impact with mitigation to the biological resources present on site. A more detailed explanation of potential impacts and mitigation measures are detailed later in this report. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 2 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12422 3 March 2020 2 Biological Resource Analysis 2.1 Methods The following analysis relies on a biological resources assessment conducted by Dudek on February 5, 2020. The assessment included a review of available relevant literature and data on special-status habitats and species distribution to determine those resources that have the potential for occurrence on the approximate 2.93-acre project site and within approximately 100 feet of the project site (i.e., the study area). This report describes the existing biological resources on the project site and immediately surrounding area in terms of vegetation, plants, wildlife, and wildlife habitats; discuss potential impacts to biological resources that would result from development of the project; and provide mitigation measures to minimize potential impacts to special-status biological resources, if necessary. This report includes a description of the methods used for the assessment and description of the existing conditions followed by the results, which have been provided following the California Environmental Quality Act Environmental Checklist Form for Biological Resources, as requested. 2.1.1 Database Review Appropriate and available biological documentation, surveys, published research and maps were compiled, reviewed, and analyzed. The most recent versions of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB, CDFW 2020), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (Information for Planning and Conservation Report (IPac, USFWS 2020), and the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS 2020) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants were reviewed to identify special-status biological resources present or potentially present for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS 2020) 7.5-minute quadrangle map on which the project site is located (i.e., San Jose West) and the eight surrounding quadrangles (i.e., Cupertino, Castle Rock Ridge, Los Gatos, Santa Teresa Hills, San Jose East, Calaveras Reservoir, Milpitas, and Mountain View). These databases provided information regarding special-status plants, wildlife, and habitats recorded for the study area and vicinity. 2.1.2 Special-Status Species For purposes of this report, special-status species include those plant and wildlife species that are (1) listed as threatened or endangered by either the California or federal Endangered Species Acts, (2) plants that are candidates for listing, and species designated with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1 or 2 by CNPS, (3) wildlife that are candidates for listing and species with a designation from the CDFW of Fully Protected or Species of Concern. Other special-status biological resources include vegetation communities that are considered to support unique stands, are of particular value to special-status plant or wildlife species, or have a rank of S1–S3 on the CDFW’s List of Terrestrial Communities. 2.1.3 Survey Methods Following the literature and data review, Dudek Biologists Ryan Henry and Michelle Leis conducted a reconnaissance-level site visit on February 5, 2020 to confirm current conditions within the study area and included an evaluation of vegetation communities and land covers, habitat assessments for special-status plants and wildlife, nesting resources, and potential jurisdictional aquatic resources (i.e., waters of the U.S./state). The survey was conducted from 0912 to 1015, and weather conditions were favorable, with 30-40% cloud cover, a BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 4 March 2020 temperature that ranged from 43°F to 50°F, and wind speeds from 0 to 5 miles per hour. Vegetation community and land cover mapping was conducted according to the CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG 2009) and List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations, also referred to as the Natural Communities List (CDFG 2010). During the field survey, a general inventory of plant and wildlife species detected by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs was compiled. 2.2 Results 2.2.1 Vegetation Communities Results from the general biological survey determined the project site land cover to be “Parks and Ornamental Plantings” based on the presence of orchard, ruderal and non-native vegetation communities on the project site. Multiple orchard species present on site included almond (Prunus dulcis), peach (Prunus persica), apricot (Prunus dulcis), avocado (Persea Americana), olive (Olea europaea), lemon (Citrus limon) and cherry (Prunus avium). Other tree species located on the project site include coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), holly oak (Quercus ilex), southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), fan palm (Washingtonia filifera), privet (Ligustrum lucidum), Peruvian pepper tree (Schinus molle), silver acacia (Acacia dealbata), stone pine (Pinus pinea), Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), black elderberry (Sambucus nigra) and gooseberry (Phyllanthaceae acidus). Other plant species present on site include sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima), henbit deadnettle (Lamium amplexicaule), Miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), cheeseweed mallow (Malva parviflora), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), curly dock (Rumex crispus), wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum), tree mallow (Lavatera assurgentiflora) and a few other herbaceous species commonly found in heavily disturbed areas. Other non-natural land covers surrounding the project site included urban/developed (residential buildings, streets, pavements, and parking lots). No jurisdictional aquatic resources were identified within the study area. 2.2.2 Wildlife Wildlife species detected within the study area was limited to the following: American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), domestic cat (Felis catus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Eurasian collard dove (Streptopelia decaocto), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronate), California towhee (Melozone crissalis), California scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), ruby crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), and oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus). No active bird nests or bat roosts were observed during the site visit, but the various trees and shrubs within the study area, as well as the abandoned wooden structures (barns and sheds) could support nesting birds and roosting bats. No amphibian, reptile, or fish species were detected within the study area. 12422 5 March 2020 3 Impact Analysis 3.1 Method of Analysis Impacts to special-status vegetation communities, plant and wildlife species, and jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, must be quantified and analyzed to determine whether such impacts are significant under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(b) states that an ironclad definition of “significant” effect is not possible, because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, however, does provide “examples of consequences which may be deemed to be a significant effect on the environment” (14 CCR 15064(e)). These effects include substantial effects on rare or endangered species of animal or plant or the habitat of the species. CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) is also helpful in defining whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The evaluation of whether or not an impact to a particular biological resource is significant must consider both the resource itself and the role of that resource in a regional context. Substantial impacts are those that contribute to, or result in, permanent loss of an important resource, such as a population of a rare plant or animal. Impacts may be important locally because they result in an adverse alteration of existing site conditions but considered not significant because they do not contribute substantially to the permanent loss of that resource regionally. The severity of an impact is the primary determinant of whether or not that impact can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 3.2 Thresholds of Significance The City of Campbell uses the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as the thresholds of significance for projects requiring environmental review under CEQA (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). Therefore, according to Appendix G, a significant impact would occur if development of the Project:  Impact BIO-1. Has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as being a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS  Impact BIO-2. Has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFG or USFWS  Impact BIO-3. Has a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means  Impact BIO-4. Interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites  Impact BIO-5. Conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance  Impact BIO-6. Conflicts with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 6 March 2020 3.3 Impact Analysis Impact BIO-1: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less-Than-Significant Impact. The biological resources assessment included the approximate 2.93-acre project site, plus a 100-foot buffer around the project site. The entire project site is characterized by an ornamental, orchard, and other non-native species. Several mature oak trees occur throughout the project site. Due to the disturbed condition of the project site and developed nature of the study area, the potential for special-status species is low. Plant Species No plant species listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by either the CDFW or USFWS were detected within the study area during the reconnaissance survey on February 5, 2020. Dudek performed a review of literature, existing documentation, and GIS data to evaluate the potential for special-status plant species to occur within the study area. Each special-status plant species was given a rating of not expected, low, medium, or high based on relative location to known occurrences, vegetation communities, soils, and elevation. Based on the results of the literature review and database searches, 42 special-status plant species were identified as previously occurring within the region. The complete results of the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPAC records searches for special-status plants are included as Appendix A of this report. However, none of these species are expected to occur or have a low potential to occur within the study area based on the soils, current disturbance levels, vegetation communities (habitat) present, elevation ranges, and previous known locations documented within the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC records. Additionally, there is no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for listed plant species within the study area. Due to the nature of the study area, special-status plant species would unlikely survive with the current amount of disturbance, non-native plant competition, and surrounding development already in place. As a result, direct or indirect impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant. Wildlife Species No wildlife species listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by either the CDFW or USFWS were detected within the study area during the reconnaissance survey on February 5, 2020. Dudek performed a review of literature, existing documentation, and GIS data to evaluate the potential for special-status wildlife species to occur within the study area. Similar to plants, each special-status wildlife species was given a rating of not expected, low, moderate, or high based on relative location to know occurrences, vegetation communities, and elevation. Based on the results of the literature review and database searches, 41 special-status wildlife species were identified as occurring within the region. The complete results of the CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC records searches for special-status wildlife are included as Appendix A of this report. However, none of these species are expected or have a low potential to occur within the study area based on the vegetation communities (habitat) present, elevation ranges, and previous known locations documented within the CNDDB and IPaC records. Additionally, there is no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat for listed wildlife species within the study area. As a result, direct or indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species would be less than significant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 7 March 2020 Mitigation Measures None required. Impact BIO-2: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The entire project site is characterized by a disturbed and ornamental land cover. No riparian habitat or other natural vegetation communities considered sensitive are present within the impact footprint. As a result, there would be no impact to riparian or sensitive vegetation communities. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact BIO-3: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. No state or federally defined waters of the United States or waters of the state occur within the project site. This includes the absence of federally defined wetlands and other waters (e.g., drainages), and state-defined waters (e.g., streams and riparian extent). Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands would occur. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact BIO-4: Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less-Than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project is located within an urban setting surrounded by residential and commercial developments. Due to the matrix of development surrounding the project site, wildlife movement is extremely limited and the proposed project would not constrain natural wildlife movement in its vicinity. However, the study area supports suitable habitat for nesting bird species, as well as bats. Nesting birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 3500, and compliance with these regulations is required. Project plans include the removal of existing structures and vegetation considered suitable for nests and roosts. Additionally, indirect impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats from short- term construction-related noise could result in decreased reproductive success or abandonment of an area as nesting or roosting habitat if conducted during the nesting season (i.e., February through August) or near a maternity roost. Implementation of MM-BIO-1 and MM-BIO-2 would ensure potential impacts to nesting birds and roosting bats are less than significant. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 8 March 2020 Mitigation Measures MM-BIO-1 Vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities should occur outside the nesting season, which generally occurs from February through August, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that habitat removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season, all suitable habitat should be thoroughly surveyed by a qualified biologist for the presence of nesting birds before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) should be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by a qualified biologist. MM-BIO-2 To the extent practicable, site demolition should occur outside peak bat activity timeframes when young or overwintering bats may be present, which generally occurs from March through April and August through October, to ensure protection of potentially occurring bats and their roosts on the project site. Additionally, daily restrictions on the timing of any construction activities should be limited to daylight hours to reduce disturbance to roosting (and foraging) bat species. Additionally, a pre-demolition bat survey should be conducted within 30 days of the removal of any structures/buildings or trees. The survey should include a determination on whether active bat roosts are present on or within 50 feet of the project site. If a non-breeding and non-wintering bat colony is found, the individuals shall be evicted under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure their protection and avoid unnecessary harm. If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is found in the buildings or trees on the project site, then the qualified biologist shall establish a suitable construction-free buffer around the location. The construction-free buffer shall remain in place until the qualified biologist determines that the nursery is no longer active. Impact Bio-5: Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant Impact. The City of Campbell’s Municipal Code (CMC), Chapter 21.32 protects certain trees on private property and establishes procedures for their protection and management. Section 21.32.050 states: “For trees on all commercial, industrial, multi-family residential, mixed-use, and undeveloped single-family residential properties in all zoning districts, any tree or multi- trunk tree with at least one trunk measuring twelve inches (12) or greater in diameter (thirty-eight [38] inches or greater in circumference), measured four (4) feet above the adjacent grade.” Additionally, protected tree removal on private property is subject to replacement in accordance with CMC Section 21.32.100, and summarized in Table 1. “The minimum number and size of replacement tree(s) shall be based on the number, size, and species of tree(s) requested to be removed. The species of replacement tree(s) shall continue the diversity of trees found in the community. The minimum guidelines for tree replacement are as follows.” BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 9 March 2020 Table 1. Summary of Protected Tree Removal Replacement Standards Trunk Size of Removed Tree (measured at 4 feet above grade) Replacement Ratio Required (per tree removed) Diameter (in inches) Circumference (in inches) Number of replacement trees Minimum Size 12 to 24 38 to 75 1 24 inch box greater than 24 greater than 75 1 36 inch box Heritage Trees 1 48 inch box Acquisition of a tree removal permit is required for trees that meet these conditions in compliance with CMC Section 21.32.070. Trees smaller than the minimum threshold presented in CMC Section 21.32.050, as well as fruit (common to food production) and eucalyptus trees are not subject to the CMC. Redevelopment of the project site would require the removal of several almond, apricot, and other ornamental/fruit trees. Based on the currently proposed landscape plans, a total of 142 ornamental species are proposed for removal on the project site. These ornamental species would not require preservation under the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance (CMC, Section 21.32.050). A total of 25 trees that require protection in compliance with the CMC also occur on the project site, including 24 coast live oaks and 1 coast redwood. The proposed project would retain a total of 10 coast live oak trees and the design has incorporated protective measures to prevent loss of these individuals. However, a total of 14 coast live oak trees (24-inch diameter and less) and 1 coast redwood (24- inch diameter) are proposed for removal on the project site. The proposed landscape plans includes a total of five 36-inch diameter and eighteen 24-inch diameter replacement trees. As a Condition of Approval, the applicant shall be required to submit a final landscaping plan with Building Permit construction documents, which shall specify the exact number, type, size, and location of replacement trees to be planted, in conformance with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Additionally, prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the applicant shall implement the tree protection measures specified by the arborist report prepared for by the project by the City’s consultant. Therefore, the project will incur a less than significant impact and ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance or other local policy or ordinance protecting biological resources. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact BIO-6: Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The proposed project is within the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan boundaries, but not within a designated conservation area. The project site does not support habitat for listed species or habitats covered by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan. As a result, the proposed project would not conflict with the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Measures None required. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 10 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12422 11 March 2020 4 Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program Because the Project would result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources, Table 2 summarizes the following recommended elements to the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 12 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 13 March 2020 Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initial Date Comments Biological Resources MM-BIO-1: Pre-construction Avian Survey. Vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities should occur outside the nesting season, which generally occurs from February through August, to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds. This would ensure that no active nests would be disturbed and that habitat removal could proceed rapidly. If vegetation removal and initial ground-disturbing activities occur during the nesting season, all suitable habitat should be thoroughly surveyed by a qualified biologist for the presence of nesting birds before commencement of clearing. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) should be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete as determined by a qualified biologist. MM-BIO-2: Pre-construction Bat Survey. To the extent practicable, site demolition should occur outside peak bat activity timeframes when young or overwintering bats may be present, which generally occurs from March through April and August through October, to ensure protection of potentially occurring bats and their roosts on the project site. Additionally, daily restrictions on the timing of any construction activities should be limited to daylight hours to reduce disturbance to roosting (and foraging) bat species. Additionally, a pre-demolition bat survey should be conducted within 30 days of the removal of any Site Preparation and Construction City of Campbell Building Division Periodic Compliance Report BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 14 March 2020 Table 2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Measure Mitigation Monitoring Verification of Compliance Monitoring Phase Enforcement Agency Monitoring Agency Action Indicating Compliance Initial Date Comments structures/buildings or trees. The survey should include a determination on whether active bat roosts are present on or within 50 feet of the project site. If a non-breeding and non-wintering bat colony is found, the individuals shall be evicted under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure their protection and avoid unnecessary harm. If a maternity colony or overwintering colony is found in the buildings or trees on the project site, then the qualified biologist shall establish a suitable construction-free buffer around the location. The construction-free buffer shall remain in place until the qualified biologist determines that the nursery is no longer active. 12422 15 March 2020 5 References CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special- Status Native Populations and Natural Communities. November 24. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/ survey_monitor.html. CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Natural Communities List, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Sacramento, California: CDFG. September 2010. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/ natural_communities. asp. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2020. RareFind 5, Version 5.2.14. Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, California: California Natural Diversity Database. Website https://map.dfg.ca.gov/rarefind/view/ RareFind.aspx [accessed February 2020]. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/[accessed February 2020]. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW). 2020. Environmental Conservation Online System, Information for Planning and Conservation Report (online edition). Website http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ [accessed February 2020]. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2020. The National Map Viewer. Web Map Service. Accessed February, 2020. http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 16 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 17 Project Location 16179 Mozart Avenue SOURCE: USGS Topographic MapDate: 2/7/2020 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1242201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Biology\Figure1_ProjectLocation.mxd02,0001,000 Feet Project Boundary FIGURE 1 Gilroy Morgan Hill Los Gatos Saratoga CampbellCupertino LosAltos Hills Santa Clara Sunnyvale SanJose MilpitasMountain View Palo Alto Stanislaus County Alameda County San Mateo County Santa Cruz County San Benito CountyMonterey County SANTA CLARA COUNTY Project Site BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 18 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Biological Resources 16179 Mozart Avenue SOURCE: Bing 2020, County of Santa Clara 2018, CEA 2019Date: 2/7/2020 - Last saved by: tfriesen - Path: Z:\Projects\j1242201\MAPDOC\DOCUMENT\Biology\Figure2_BioResources.mxd0 10050Feet Project Boundary Existing Tree Locations Proposed for protection Proposed for removal FIGURE 2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 20 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Attachment A CNDDB, CNPS, and IPaC Database Search Results Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk ABNKC12040 None None G5 S4 WL Adela oplerella Opler's longhorn moth IILEE0G040 None None G2 S2 Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird ABPBXB0020 None Threatened G2G3 S1S2 SSC Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander AAAAA01180 Threatened Threatened G2G3 S2S3 WL Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck PDBOR01070 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Aneides niger Santa Cruz black salamander AAAAD01070 None None G3 S3 SSC Anniella pulchra northern California legless lizard ARACC01020 None None G3 S3 SSC Anodonta californiensis California floater IMBIV04020 None None G3Q S2? Antrozous pallidus pallid bat AMACC10010 None None G5 S3 SSC Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle ABNKC22010 None None G5 S3 FP Arctostaphylos silvicola Bonny Doon manzanita PDERI041F0 None None G1 S1 1B.2 Ardea alba great egret ABNGA04040 None None G5 S4 Ardea herodias great blue heron ABNGA04010 None None G5 S4 Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk-vetch PDFAB0F8R1 None None G2T1 S1 1B.2 Athene cunicularia burrowing owl ABNSB10010 None None G4 S3 SSC Atriplex depressa brittlescale PDCHE042L0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale PDCHE042M0 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale balsamroot PDAST11061 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Quad IS (San Jose West (3712138) OR San Jose East (3712137) OR Cupertino (3712231) OR Castle Rock Ridge (3712221) OR Los Gatos (3712128) OR Santa Teresa Hills (3712127) OR Calaveras Reservoir (3712147) OR Milpitas (3712148) OR Mountain View (3712241)) Query Criteria: Report Printed on Thursday, February 06, 2020 Page 1 of 6Commercial Version -- Dated February, 1 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 8/1/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Bombus caliginosus obscure bumble bee IIHYM24380 None None G4?S1S2 Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee IIHYM24480 None Candidate Endangered G3G4 S1S2 Bombus occidentalis western bumble bee IIHYM24250 None Candidate Endangered G2G3 S1 Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk ABNKC19070 None Threatened G5 S3 Calasellus californicus An isopod ICMAL34010 None None G2 S2 Calyptridium parryi var. hesseae Santa Cruz Mountains pussypaws PDPOR09052 None None G3G4T2 S2 1B.1 Campanula exigua chaparral harebell PDCAM020A0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon's tarplant PDAST4R0P1 None None G3T1T2 S1S2 1B.1 Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover ABNNB03031 Threatened None G3T3 S2S3 SSC Chlorogalum pomeridianum var. minus dwarf soaproot PMLIL0G042 None None G5T3 S3 1B.2 Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes salty bird's-beak PDSCR0J0C3 None None G4?T2 S2 1B.2 Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana Ben Lomond spineflower PDPGN040M1 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta robust spineflower PDPGN040Q2 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Circus hudsonius northern harrier ABNKC11011 None None G5 S3 SSC Cirsium fontinale var. campylon Mt. Hamilton thistle PDAST2E163 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa Santa Clara red ribbons PDONA050A1 None None G5?T3 S3 4.3 Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellow-billed cuckoo ABNRB02022 Threatened Endangered G5T2T3 S1 Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia PDSCR0H0B0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's big-eared bat AMACC08010 None None G3G4 S2 SSC Coturnicops noveboracensis yellow rail ABNME01010 None None G4 S1S2 SSC Cypseloides niger black swift ABNUA01010 None None G4 S2 SSC Report Printed on Thursday, February 06, 2020 Page 2 of 6Commercial Version -- Dated February, 1 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 8/1/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Dicamptodon ensatus California giant salamander AAAAH01020 None None G3 S2S3 SSC Dipodomys heermanni berkeleyensis Berkeley kangaroo rat AMAFD03061 None None G3G4T1 S1 Dipodomys venustus venustus Santa Cruz kangaroo rat AMAFD03042 None None G4T1 S1 Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood PDTHY03010 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii Santa Clara Valley dudleya PDCRA040Z0 Endangered None G4T2 S2 1B.1 Egretta thula snowy egret ABNGA06030 None None G5 S4 Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite ABNKC06010 None None G5 S3S4 FP Emys marmorata western pond turtle ARAAD02030 None None G3G4 S3 SSC Erethizon dorsatum North American porcupine AMAFJ01010 None None G5 S3 Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Hoover's button-celery PDAPI0Z043 None None G5T1 S1 1B.1 Euphydryas editha bayensis Bay checkerspot butterfly IILEPK4055 Threatened None G5T1 S1 Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale PDCHE041F3 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon ABNKD06071 Delisted Delisted G4T4 S3S4 FP Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary PMLIL0V0C0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Geothlypis trichas sinuosa saltmarsh common yellowthroat ABPBX1201A None None G5T3 S3 SSC Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita PDFAB5Z030 None None G2?S2?1B.1 Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat AMACC05030 None None G5 S4 Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields PDAST5L040 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1 Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus California black rail ABNME03041 None Threatened G3G4T1 S1 FP Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp ICBRA10010 Endangered None G4 S3S4 Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata smooth lessingia PDAST5S062 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 Report Printed on Thursday, February 06, 2020 Page 3 of 6Commercial Version -- Dated February, 1 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 8/1/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow PDMAL0Q0E0 None None G2Q S2 1B.2 Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush-mallow PDMAL0Q0F0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus Alameda whipsnake ARADB21031 Threatened Threatened G4T2 S2 Melospiza melodia pusillula Alameda song sparrow ABPBXA301S None None G5T2?S2S3 SSC Microcina homi Hom's micro-blind harvestman ILARA47020 None None G1 S1 Monolopia gracilens woodland woollythreads PDAST6G010 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Myotis evotis long-eared myotis AMACC01070 None None G5 S3 Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis AMACC01020 None None G5 S4 Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia PDPLM0C0Q0 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Neotoma fuscipes annectens San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat AMAFF08082 None None G5T2T3 S2S3 SSC North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River CARA2623CA None None GNR SNR Northern Coastal Salt Marsh Northern Coastal Salt Marsh CTT52110CA None None G3 S3.2 Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night heron ABNGA11010 None None G5 S4 Oncorhynchus kisutch pop. 4 coho salmon - central California coast ESU AFCHA02034 Endangered Endangered G4 S2? Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 8 steelhead - central California coast DPS AFCHA0209G Threatened None G5T2T3Q S2S3 Pandion haliaetus osprey ABNKC01010 None None G5 S4 WL Pedicularis dudleyi Dudley's lousewort PDSCR1K0D0 None Rare G2 S2 1B.2 Penstemon rattanii var. kleei Santa Cruz Mountains beardtongue PDSCR1L5B1 None None G4T2 S2 1B.2 Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta PDAST6X030 Endangered Endangered G1 S1 1B.1 Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard ARACF12100 None None G3G4 S3S4 SSC Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid PMORC1X050 None None G3 S3 1B.2 Report Printed on Thursday, February 06, 2020 Page 4 of 6Commercial Version -- Dated February, 1 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 8/1/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Plagiobothrys glaber hairless popcornflower PDBOR0V0B0 None None GH SH 1A Progne subis purple martin ABPAU01010 None None G5 S3 SSC Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass PMPOA53110 None None G3 S2 1B.2 Rallus obsoletus obsoletus California Ridgway's rail ABNME05011 Endangered Endangered G5T1 S1 FP Rana boylii foothill yellow-legged frog AAABH01050 None Candidate Threatened G3 S3 SSC Rana draytonii California red-legged frog AAABH01022 Threatened None G2G3 S2S3 SSC Reithrodontomys raviventris salt-marsh harvest mouse AMAFF02040 Endangered Endangered G1G2 S1S2 FP Rynchops niger black skimmer ABNNM14010 None None G5 S2 SSC Sanicula saxatilis rock sanicle PDAPI1Z0H0 None Rare G2 S2 1B.2 Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort PDAST8H060 None None G3 S2 2B.2 Serpentine Bunchgrass Serpentine Bunchgrass CTT42130CA None None G2 S2.2 Sidalcea malachroides maple-leaved checkerbloom PDMAL110E0 None None G3 S3 4.2 Sorex vagrans halicoetes salt-marsh wandering shrew AMABA01071 None None G5T1 S1 SSC Spirinchus thaleichthys longfin smelt AFCHB03010 Candidate Threatened G5 S1 Sternula antillarum browni California least tern ABNNM08103 Endangered Endangered G4T2T3Q S2 FP Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Metcalf Canyon jewelflower PDBRA2G011 Endangered None G2T1 S1 1B.1 Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus most beautiful jewelflower PDBRA2G012 None None G2T2 S2 1B.2 Suaeda californica California seablite PDCHE0P020 Endangered None G1 S1 1B.1 Taxidea taxus American badger AMAJF04010 None None G5 S3 SSC Trifolium buckwestiorum Santa Cruz clover PDFAB402W0 None None G2 S2 1B.1 Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover PDFAB400R5 None None G2 S2 1B.2 Report Printed on Thursday, February 06, 2020 Page 5 of 6Commercial Version -- Dated February, 1 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 8/1/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database Species Element Code Federal Status State Status Global Rank State Rank Rare Plant Rank/CDFW SSC or FP Trimerotropis infantilis Zayante band-winged grasshopper IIORT36030 Endangered None G1 S1 Tryonia imitator mimic tryonia (=California brackishwater snail) IMGASJ7040 None None G2 S2 Record Count: 104 Report Printed on Thursday, February 06, 2020 Page 6 of 6Commercial Version -- Dated February, 1 2020 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Information Expires 8/1/2020 Selected Elements by Scientific Name California Department of Fish and Wildlife California Natural Diversity Database 2/6/2020 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3712241:3712148:3712147:3712231:3712138:3712137:3712221:3712128:3712127#cdisp=1,2,3,4,…1/7 Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants *The database used to provide updates to the Online Inventory is under construction. View updates and changes made since May 2019 here. Plant List 58 matches found. Click on scientific name for details Search Criteria Found in Quads 3712241, 3712148, 3712147, 3712231, 3712138, 3712137, 3712221 3712128 and 3712127; Modify Search Criteria Export to Excel Modify Columns Modify Sort Display Photos Scientific Name Common Name Family Lifeform Blooming Period CA Rare Plant Rank State Rank Global Rank State Listing Status Federal Listing Status Habitats Lowest Elevation Highest Elevation CA Endemic Acanthomintha lanceolata Santa Clara thorn-mint Lamiaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 4.2 S4 G4 • Chaparral(often serpentinite) • Cismontane woodland • Coastal scrub 80 m 1200 m yes Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck Boraginaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 1B.2 S3 G3 • Coastal bluff scrub• Cismontane woodland • Valley and foothill grassland 3 m 500 m yes Androsace elongata ssp. acuta California androsace Primulaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 4.2 S3S4 G5? T3T4 • Chaparral • Cismontanewoodland • Coastal scrub • Meadows and seeps • Pinyon and juniper woodland • Valley and foothill grassland 150 m 1305 m Arabis blepharophylla coastrockcress Brassicaceae perennial herb Feb-May 4.3 S4 G4 • Broadleafed upland forest • Coastal bluff scrub • Coastal prairie • Coastal scrub 3 m 1100 m yes Arctostaphylos silvicola Bonny Doonmanzanita Ericaceae perennial evergreen shrub Jan-Mar 1B.2 S1 G1 • Closed- cone coniferous forest • Chaparral • Lower montane coniferous forest 120 m 600 m yes Astragalus tener var. tener alkali milk- vetch Fabaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 1B.2 S1 G2T1 • Playas • Valley and foothill grassland (adobe clay) 1 m 60 m yes 2/6/2020 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3712241:3712148:3712147:3712231:3712138:3712137:3712221:3712128:3712127#cdisp=1,2,3,4,…2/7 • Vernal pools Atriplex depressa brittlescale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct 1B.2 S2 G2 • Chenopod scrub • Meadows and seeps • Playas • Valley and foothill grassland • Vernal pools 1 m 320 m yes Atriplex minuscula lesser saltscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb May-Oct 1B.1 S2 G2 • Chenopod scrub • Playas • Valley and foothill grassland 15 m 200 m yes Balsamorhiza macrolepis big-scale balsamroot Asteraceae perennial herb Mar-Jun 1B.2 S2 G2 • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Valley and foothill grassland 45 m 1555 m yes Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia Montiaceae annual herb (Jan)Mar-Jun 4.2 S4 G4 • Chaparral • Coastalscrub 10 m 1220 m Calystegia collina ssp. venusta South Coast Range morning-glory Convolvulaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Apr-Jun 4.3 S4 G4T4 • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Valley and foothill grassland 425 m 1490 m yes Campanula exigua chaparral harebell Campanulaceae annual herb May-Jun 1B.2 S2 G2 • Chaparral (rocky, usually serpentinite) 275 m 1250 m yes Centromadia parryi ssp. congdonii Congdon'starplant Asteraceae annual herb May-Oct(Nov)1B.1 S1S2 G3T1T2 • Valley and foothillgrassland (alkaline) 0 m 230 m yes Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre Point Reyes bird's-beak Orobanchaceae annual herb (hemiparasitic)Jun-Oct 1B.2 S2 G4?T2 • Marshes and swamps (coastal salt) 0 m 10 m Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana Ben Lomond spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S1 G2T1 FE • Lower montane coniferousforest (maritimeponderosa pine sandhills) 90 m 610 m yes Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta robust spineflower Polygonaceae annual herb Apr-Sep 1B.1 S1 G2T1 FE • Chaparral (maritime) • Cismontanewoodland (openings)• Coastal dunes • Coastal scrub 3 m 300 m yes Cirsium fontinale var. campylon Mt. Hamilton fountain thistle Asteraceae perennial herb (Feb)Apr-Oct 1B.2 S2 G2T2 • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Valley andfoothill grassland 100 m 890 m yes Clarkia breweri Brewer's clarkia Onagraceae annual herb Apr-Jun 4.2 S4 G4 • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Coastal scrub 215 m 1115 m yes Santa Clara Onagraceae annual herb (Apr)May-4.3 S3 G5?T3 • Chaparral 90 m 1500 m yes 2/6/2020 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3712241:3712148:3712147:3712231:3712138:3712137:3712221:3712128:3712127#cdisp=1,2,3,4,…3/7 Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa red ribbons Jun(Jul)• Cismontane woodland Clarkia lewisii Lewis' clarkia Onagraceae annual herb May-Jul 4.3 S4 G4 •Broadleafed upland forest• Closed- cone coniferous forest • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Coastal scrub 30 m 1195 m yes Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia Plantaginaceae annual herb (Feb)Mar- May 1B.2 S2 G2 • Closed- cone coniferous forest • Coastal scrub 30 m 250 m yes Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper Orchidaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Mar-Aug 4.2 S4 G4 • Lower montaneconiferous forest • North Coast coniferous forest 100 m 2435 m Dirca occidentalis westernleatherwood Thymelaeaceae perennial deciduous shrub Jan-Mar(Apr)1B.2 S2 G2 • Broadleafed upland forest• Closed- cone coniferous forest • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • North Coast coniferous forest • Riparianforest • Riparianwoodland 25 m 425 m yes Dudleya abramsii ssp. setchellii Santa Clara Valley dudleya Crassulaceae perennial herb Apr-Oct 1B.1 S2 G4T2 FE • Cismontane woodland • Valley and foothill grassland 60 m 455 m yes Eriophyllum jepsonii Jepson'swoolly sunflower Asteraceae perennial herb Apr-Jun 4.3 S3 G3 • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Coastal scrub 200 m 1025 m yes Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri Hoover'sbutton-celery Apiaceae annual /perennial herb (Jun)Jul(Aug)1B.1 S1 G5T1 • Vernalpools 3 m 45 m yes Extriplex joaquinana San Joaquin spearscale Chenopodiaceae annual herb Apr-Oct 1B.2 S2 G2 • Chenopod scrub • Meadows and seeps • Playas • Valley and foothill grassland 1 m 835 m yes Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary Liliaceae perennial bulbiferous herb Feb-Apr 1B.2 S2 G2 • Cismontane woodland • Coastal prairie • Coastal scrub • Valley and 3 m 410 m yes 2/6/2020 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3712241:3712148:3712147:3712231:3712138:3712137:3712221:3712128:3712127#cdisp=1,2,3,4,…4/7 foothill grassland Galium andrewsii ssp. gatense phlox-leaf serpentinebedstraw Rubiaceae perennial herb Apr-Jul 4.2 S3 G5T3 • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Lower montane coniferous forest 150 m 1450 m yes Hoita strobilina Loma Prieta hoita Fabaceae perennial herb May-Jul(Aug- Oct)1B.1 S2?G2? • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Riparian woodland 30 m 860 m yes Iris longipetala coast iris Iridaceae perennial rhizomatous herb Mar-May 4.2 S3 G3 • Coastal prairie• Lower montane coniferous forest • Meadows and seeps 0 m 600 m yes Lasthenia conjugens Contra Costa goldfields Asteraceae annual herb Mar-Jun 1B.1 S1 G1 FE • Cismontane woodland• Playas (alkaline) • Valley and foothill grassland • Vernal pools 0 m 470 m yes Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 4.2 S4?G4? • Chaparral •Cismontane woodland• Coastal prairie • Valley and foothill grassland 55 m 1500 m yes Leptosiphon ambiguus serpentineleptosiphon Polemoniaceae annual herb Mar-Jun 4.2 S4 G4 • Cismontanewoodland • Coastalscrub • Valley and foothill grassland 120 m 1130 m yes Leptosiphon grandiflorus large-flowered leptosiphon Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Aug 4.2 S3S4 G3G4 • Coastal bluff scrub • Closed-cone coniferousforest • Cismontane woodland • Coastal dunes • Coastal prairie • Coastal scrub • Valley and foothill grassland 5 m 1220 m yes Lessingia hololeuca woolly- headed lessingia Asteraceae annual herb Jun-Oct 3 S2S3 G3? • Broadleafed upland forest • Coastal scrub • Lower montane coniferous forest• Valley and foothillgrassland 15 m 305 m yes 2/6/2020 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3712241:3712148:3712147:3712231:3712138:3712137:3712221:3712128:3712127#cdisp=1,2,3,4,…5/7 Lessingia micradenia var. glabrata smooth lessingia Asteraceae annual herb (Apr-Jun)Jul- Nov 1B.2 S2 G2T2 • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland• Valley and foothill grassland 120 m 420 m yes Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush- mallow Malvaceae perennial evergreen shrub Apr-Sep 1B.2 S2 G2Q • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland 15 m 355 m yes Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush- mallow Malvaceae perennial evergreen shrub (Apr)May- Sep(Oct)1B.2 S2 G2 • Chaparral • Coastal scrub 10 m 760 m yes Micropus amphibolus Mt. Diablo cottonweed Asteraceae annual herb Mar-May 3.2 S3S4 G3G4 • Broadleafed upland forest • Chaparral• Cismontane woodland • Valley and foothill grassland 45 m 825 m yes Mielichhoferia elongata elongate copper moss Mielichhoferiaceae moss 4.3 S4 G5 • Broadleafed upland forest• Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Coastal scrub • Lower montane coniferous forest • Meadows and seeps • Subalpineconiferous forest 0 m 1960 m Monolopia gracilens woodland woolythreads Asteraceae annual herb (Feb)Mar-Jul 1B.2 S3 G3 • Broadleafed upland forest (openings) • Chaparral (openings) • Cismontane woodland• North Coast coniferous forest (openings) • Valley and foothill grassland 100 m 1200 m yes Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia Polemoniaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S2 G2 • Coastalscrub • Meadows and seeps • Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline) • Vernal pools 3 m 1210 m yes Pentachaeta bellidiflora white-rayed pentachaeta Asteraceae annual herb Mar-May 1B.1 S1 G1 CE FE • Cismontane woodland • Valley and foothill grassland (often serpentinite) 35 m 620 m yes Piperia candida white-flowered rein orchid Orchidaceae perennial herb (Mar)May-Sep 1B.2 S3 G3 •Broadleafed upland forest• Lower montane 30 m 1310 m 2/6/2020 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3712241:3712148:3712147:3712231:3712138:3712137:3712221:3712128:3712127#cdisp=1,2,3,4,…6/7 coniferous forest • North Coastconiferous forest Plagiobothrys chorisianus var. hickmanii Hickman's popcornflower Boraginaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 4.2 S3 G3T3Q • Closed- cone coniferous forest • Chaparral • Coastal scrub• Marshes and swamps • Vernal pools 15 m 185 m yes Plagiobothrys glaber hairless popcornflower Boraginaceae annual herb Mar-May 1A SH GH • Meadows and seeps (alkaline) • Marshes and swamps(coastal salt) 15 m 180 m yes Puccinellia simplex California alkali grass Poaceae annual herb Mar-May 1B.2 S2 G3 • Chenopod scrub • Meadows and seeps • Valley and foothill grassland • Vernalpools 2 m 930 m Sanicula saxatilis rock sanicle Apiaceae perennial herb Apr-May 1B.2 S2 G2 CR • Broadleafed upland forest • Chaparral • Valley and foothill grassland 620 m 1175 m yes Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort Asteraceae annual herb Jan-Apr(May)2B.2 S2 G3 • Chaparral • Cismontane woodland • Coastal scrub 15 m 800 m Sidalcea malachroides maple-leaved checkerbloom Malvaceae perennial herb (Mar)Apr-Aug 4.2 S3 G3 • Broadleafedupland forest • Coastal prairie • Coastal scrub • North Coast coniferous forest • Riparian woodland 0 m 730 m Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus Metcalf Canyon jewelflower Brassicaceae annual herb Apr-Jul 1B.1 S1 G2T1 FE • Valley and foothill grassland (serpentinite) 45 m 800 m yes Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus most beautiful jewelflower Brassicaceae annual herb (Mar)Apr- Sep(Oct)1B.2 S2 G2T2 • Chaparral • Cismontanewoodland • Valley and foothill grassland 95 m 1000 m yes Stuckenia filiformis ssp. alpina slender- leaved pondweed Potamogetonaceae perennial rhizomatous herb (aquatic) May-Jul 2B.2 S2S3 G5T5 • Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater) 300 m 2150 m Suaeda californica California seablite Chenopodiaceae perennial evergreen shrub Jul-Oct 1B.1 S1 G1 FE • Marshes and swamps (coastal salt) 0 m 15 m yes Trifolium buckwestiorum Santa Cruz clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Oct 1B.1 S2 G2 • Broadleafedupland forest 105 m 610 m yes 2/6/2020 CNPS Inventory Results www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3712241:3712148:3712147:3712231:3712138:3712137:3712221:3712128:3712127#cdisp=1,2,3,4,…7/7 Search the Inventory Simple Search Advanced Search Glossary Information About the Inventory About the Rare Plant Program CNPS Home Page About CNPS Join CNPS Contributors The Calflora Database The California Lichen Society California Natural Diversity Database The Jepson Flora Project The Consortium of California Herbaria CalPhotos Questions and Comments rareplants@cnps.org • Cismontane woodland • Coastalprairie Trifolium hydrophilum saline clover Fabaceae annual herb Apr-Jun 1B.2 S2 G2 • Marshes and swamps • Valley and foothill grassland (mesic, alkaline) • Vernalpools 0 m 300 m yes Tropidocarpum capparideum caper-fruited tropidocarpum Brassicaceae annual herb Mar-Apr 1B.1 S1 G1 • Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline hills) 1 m 455 m yes Suggested Citation California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 06 February 2020]. © Copyright 2010-2018 California Native Plant Society. All rights reserved. 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 1/13 IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly aected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Santa Clara County, California Local oce Sacramento Fish And Wildlife Oce  (916) 414-6600  (916) 414-6713 Federal Building 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 2/13 Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population, even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an ocial species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location: Birds 1 2 NAME STATUS 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 3/13 Amphibians Fishes Insects California Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris obsoletus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4240 Endangered California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browni No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8104 Endangered Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467 Threatened NAME STATUS California Red-legged Frog Rana draytonii There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2891 Threatened California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2076 Threatened NAME STATUS Delta Smelt Hypomesus transpacicus There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/321 Threatened Tidewater Goby Eucyclogobius newberryi There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/57 Endangered NAME STATUS Bay Checkerspot Buttery Euphydryas editha bayensis There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2320 Threatened 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 4/13 Flowering Plants Critical habitats Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. Migratory birds San Bruno Eln Buttery Callophrys mossii bayensis There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3394 Endangered NAME STATUS Metcalf Canyon Jewelower Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4186 Endangered Robust Spineower Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9287 Endangered Santa Clara Valley Dudleya Dudleya setchellii No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3207 Endangered Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php 1 2 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 5/13 The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.) Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9637 Breeds Feb 1 to Jul 15 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 6/13 Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Jan 1 to Dec 31 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas sinuosa This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2084 Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9470 Breeds Jan 15 to Jun 10 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680 Breeds Jan 1 to Aug 31 Lawrence's Goldnch Carduelis lawrencei This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9464 Breeds Mar 20 to Sep 20 Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9410 Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 20 Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9656 Breeds Mar 15 to Jul 15 Rufous Hummingbird selasphorus rufus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8002 Breeds elsewhere Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds Feb 20 to Sep 5 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 7/13 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ “Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Eort () Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus clementae This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4243 Breeds Apr 15 to Jul 20 Wrentit Chamaea fasciata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Mar 15 to Aug 10 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 8/13 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Allen's Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Clark's Grebe BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Common Yellowthroat BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 9/13 Costa's Hummingbird BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Golden Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Lawrence's Goldnch BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Nuttall's Woodpecker BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Oak Titmouse BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Rufous Hummingbird BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Song Sparrow BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 10/13 Spotted Towhee BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Wrentit BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 11/13 To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specied. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location”. Please be aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no data” indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 12/13 look for to conrm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be conrmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ “Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds” at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. This location overlaps the following wetlands: FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1Fx FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND PSSC PFOC FRESHWATER POND PUBHh PUBKx 2/6/2020 IPaC: Explore Location https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/N63TM7VVXFBMBIU3OKPFYLMPKU/resources 13/13 Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identied based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classication established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verication work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or classications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such activities. LAKE L1UBHh L1UBKx RIVERINE R5UBFx R4SBC R5UBF A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website ATTACHMENT 3 MOZART TREE ASSESSMENT ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 1 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Assessment of twenty-six (26) protected-size trees at and adjacent to proposed (conceptual) site development at 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Prepared for: Attn: Mr. Daniel Fama, Senior Planner City of Campbell | Community Development Department 70 N. First Street | Campbell, CA 95008 Field Visits: Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) May, 2019 & September, 2020 Report by: WLCA Original: June 20, 2019 Iteration: September 7, 2020 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 2 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Table of Contents 1.0 Assignment & Background ____________________________________________________________ 3 2.0 Summary _________________________________________________________________________ 4 3.0 City of Campbell – What Trees are Protected on Private Lots? ________________________________ 12 4.0 Discussion ________________________________________________________________________ 13 5.0 Recommendations __________________________________________________________________ 16 6.0 Author’s Qualifications _______________________________________________________________ 28 7.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ____________________________________________________ 29 8.0 Certification ________________________________________________________________________ 30 9.0 Digital Images (in clockwise order starting at #501) _________________________________________ 31 10.0 Tree Location and Protection Map Markup Updated 9/7/2020 (WLCA) _________________________ 48 11.0 Protected Tree Preservation Plan, August, 2020 (Robson Homes) ____________________________ 49 12.0 Attached: Excel Tree Data Table Updated 9/7/2020 (WLCA) ________________________________ 49 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 3 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 1.0 Assignment & Background Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) was initially retained by City of Campbell planning division to assess twenty-six (26) protected-size trees on and near the above-noted commercial site that is currently being utilized by one or more tree care companies as an office, staging site, and equipment storage area. The forested site is a holdout from 19th or 20th century ranching activities, and contains a large number of mature native coast live oak specimens (Quercus agrifolia) as well as numerous smaller diameter fruit orchard trees such as edible plum and edible almond. The site is currently proposed to be redeveloped as a planned residential site with single family residences surrounding a U-shaped roadway (see WLCA’s tree map markup attached to this report). The development team retained Richard Gessner of Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC (monarcharborist.com, or “MCA”) as their project arborist or “PA”. Mr. Gessner tagged all site trees with aluminum numbered tags, and prepared an arborist report in December, 2019. The applicant team held a Zoom meeting with Mr. Daniel Fama, Senior Planner, City of Campbell, and Walter Levison, consulting arborist and representative of the City, on June 30, 2020. During this meeting, certain items were agreed upon which allowed the proposed set of plans to be updated to better preserve the root systems of trees being retained in the landscape. Tree data for the 26 study trees are assembled in an Excel table also attached to the end of this report. This table includes standard arboriculture data, plus notes on proposed work impacts on the trees, and detailed discussion of impacts to each tree, in addition to a suggested root protection zone (RPZ) chain link fencing offset distance from the trunk edge of each tree. Diameters were determined using a forestry D-tape which converts actual mainstem circumference to an “average diameter” in inches and tenths of inches, which is the standard method of diameter determination. In some cases, the author visually estimated trunk diameter, such as for trees located off-site that were not accessible. Canopy spreads were estimated visually. Tree heights were vector-determined with a Nikon forestry pro 550 digital hypsometer/rangefinder. Recommendations for tree protection and maintenance are detailed in section 4.0. Tree images archived by WLCA are located in section 8.0, and are provided as additional reference of existing pre-project site conditions. For the 8/14/2020 version of the WLCA arborist report, the author was requested by City of Campbell Staff to: • Review oaks #501, 502, 503, and #504 in the field to re-assess potential impacts related to required vertical and horizontal airspace clearance pruning. • Review the Robson civil set of plans dated 8/4/2020, which were based on a Zoom meeting between Campbell Staff, Walter Levison, Richard Gessner, and members of the Robson team. • Revise the entire WLCA arborist report package to account for updates to the applicant’s civil plan set. Note that certain elements to the plan that were discussed and agreed upon during the Zoom meeting 6/30/2020 between applicant team and WLCA will not be updated until the applicant’s finalized construction set of documents are prepared. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 4 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved For the 9/7/2020 version of the WLCA arborist report: • The author met the Robson team on site on 9/4/2020 along with Mr. Daniel Fama, Senior Planner, City of Campbell, and physically measured tree clearance heights along the edges of the proposed roadway to be constructed between trees #501, 502, 503, and #504. 2.0 Summary 1. RETENTION TREES: Protected-size trees on and off-site which are expected to be retained under the current proposed plan set from the applicant dated 8/4/2020: Nine (9) protected-size oaks #501, 502, 503, 504, 527, 548, 615, 636, and #650. 2. REMOVAL TREES: Per the current proposed plan set, there are seventeen (17) trees to be removed which are protected as specimens measuring 12 inches diameter or greater (for undeveloped lots). See the City tree ordinance1 below in section 3.0 of this report for details: Seventeen (17) trees #507, 509, 510, 511, 512, 529, 534, 537, 592, 616, 620, 625, 626, 628, 643, 657, and #662. 3. IMPACTS: Below is an assessment of expected impacts to the nine (9) protected-size retention trees from proposed site development work, including both below- ground root loss-related impacts, and above-ground pruning-related impacts from vertical airspace and horizontal airspace clearance requirements, in relation to the most current proposed set of plans 3/3/2020. Impacts are expected to be “minor” to “moderate”. Impacts and issues to consider include, but are not limited to the following: 3a. Finish Grade Elevation: The proposed graded fill soil imported to the site will raise the “grade” elevations around each residence footprint. However, certain elements of the proposed site work may still cut below original soil root zone grade within or near to the Critical Root Zones of the oaks. The Robson team has committed to using a post-tensioned slab and cantilever design which allows for some foundation work to extend as a no-dig section of slab, allowing for better root preservation in Lot 4, which is the lot that impacts tree #527 (see detail above right, provided by the Robson team). 1 WLCA communicated with Daniel Fama, Senior Planner, in May, 2020 regarding this matter, during which time Mr. Fama concurred that the four (4) of the trees noted on page 1 Summary of the applicant’s arborist report as trees that “do not qualify” as protected-size trees, are in fact protected-size trees as originally stated in the 2019 WLCA arborist report prepared for City of Campbell Staff. Staff will count these four trees as protected-size tree removals to be mitigated by the applicant. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 3b. Tree Canopies: The nine (9) trees proposed by the applicant to be retained exhibit sprawling, wide canopy live wood and foliage that may be severely damaged during airspace pruning required to achieve horizontal and vertical airspace around roadways, two-story residence exterior sidings, and roof peaks, plus the 5 foot width construction corridors needed to allow construction to proceed as currently proposed. The 8/4/2020 civil set of plans does show that the applicant team has redesigned lot 3 such that it is located further southward than originally proposed, allowing for better preservation of tree #527, and pushed the driveway further northward in the area north of tree #504, allowing for better preservation of that tree’s root system and canopy. WLCA revisited the site on 8/10/2020 and on 9/4/2020 to re-assess the canopies of oaks #501, 502, 503, and #504. The Robson team brought a PVC pole with flagging at 14 feet elevation to use as a measuring tool for airspace clearance assessment (see image at right, showing 14 feet vertical clearance above roadway to be built west of oak #501). Airspace clearance pruning was found to have been recently performed (within roughly the last 10 months), as seen in the digital images archived by WLCA during this site revisits. The following are WLCA’s notes regarding clearance pruning required for these four trees to be preserved and protected in place: TREE CANOPY ANALYSIS / OAKS #501 THROUGH #504 / UPDATED 9/7/2020 Tree Tag # North Quadrant South Quadrant East Quadrant West Quadrant Overall Impression Severity of Remaining Required Pruning to Achieve Minimum Legal Airspace Clearance Objectives 501 Limbs and branches 3 inches to 7 inches diameter each were removed to clear airspace to 15 or 20 feet elevation above grade. Limbs and branches 2 inches to 3 inches diameter each were removed, clearing airspace to +/- 18 feet elevation above grade. Vertical airspace is now clear to approximately 15 feet above grade through removal of limbs as large as 6 inches diameter each. Remaining limbs measuring 7 inches to 10 inches diameter each still extend over the proposed new roadway, at 14 feet elevation above grade, per Robson’s measuring of the distance using a PVC pole with flagging at that height, during our 9/7/2020 site meeting. No further pruning required to achieve legal minimum airspace clearance for roadway. Minor pruning may be required on east side of tree for general walkability. n/a Note that branch endweight and limb endweight reduction pruning will be required to reduce weight loading in the outermost portion of the south side of canopy (i.e. the direction in which the canopy is lopsided). ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 6 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Tree Tag # North Quadrant South Quadrant East Quadrant West Quadrant Overall Impression Severity of Remaining Required Pruning to Achieve Minimum Legal Airspace Clearance Objectives 502 Vertical clearance is currently greater than 14 feet above grade, due to recent pruning that removed branches and limbs measuring 2 inches to 6 inches diameter each. Vertical clearance is currently greater than 14 feet above grade, due to recent pruning that removed branches and limbs measuring 2 inches to 6 inches diameter each. Vertical clearance is currently greater than 14 feet above grade, due to recent pruning that removed branches and limbs measuring 2 inches to 6 inches diameter each. Vertical clearance is currently greater than 14 feet above grade, due to recent pruning that removed branches and limbs measuring 2 inches to 6 inches diameter each. No further pruning required to achieve legal minimum airspace clearance. n/a 503 Vertical clearance is currently greater than 14 feet above grade, due to recent pruning that removed branches and limbs measuring up to 9 inches diameter each. Vertical clearance is currently greater than 14 feet above grade, due to recent pruning that removed branches and limbs measuring up to 9 inches diameter each. Vertical clearance is currently greater than 14 feet above grade, due to recent pruning that removed branches and limbs measuring up to 9 inches diameter each. Vertical clearance is currently greater than 14 feet above grade, due to recent pruning that removed branches and limbs measuring up to 9 inches diameter each. No further pruning required to achieve legal minimum airspace clearance. n/a ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 7 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Tree Tag # North Quadrant South Quadrant East Quadrant West Quadrant Overall Impression Severity of Remaining Required Pruning to Achieve Minimum Legal Airspace Clearance Objectives 504 Branches and limbs measuring between 3 inches and 9 inches diameter each were removed relatively recently. Proposed roadway will be beneath the north side of the canopy and will require a full 14 feet of vertical clearance. However, the existing horizontally- extended limbs in this quadrant of the tree canopy are roughly 14 feet above grade and 11 feet above grade each, with live branches and foliage that hang down to 9 feet above grade elevation. Branches measuring 1 inch diameter each will be removed. (This area of the tree will be within the Root Protection Zone area with no clearance pruning required). This area of the canopy is the proposed walkway, which requires 8 feet minimum vertical airspace clearance. The existing horizontally extended limb on the east side of canopy is 10 feet above existing grade, which means this area likely has enough airspace clearance with no additional pruning required. West side of canopy will be impacted by a new road, which requires 14 feet of vertical airspace clearance. Recent pruning cleared airspace to 14 feet vertical, out to the location of where the Root Protection Zone fence line will be erected (fencing shown on the plans as a black dashed line). However, the section of the west canopy directly over the proposed new roadway west of the RPZ fence exhibits 3 or 4 branches measuring 1 inch diameter each that hang below this elevation and will need to be removed. Only two quadrants of the canopy will require clearance pruning: the outermost portion of the west quadrant, and the north quadrant. This pruning will have a negative impact on the tree, but it is not considered life- threatening in terms of tree survival. Minor. Removal of branches measuring roughly 1 inch diameter each will be required in the west and north canopy quadrants, and will have a minor to moderate negative impact on overall tree health and structure. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 8 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 3c. Foundation Excavation & Tree Wells: The nine trees proposed by the applicant to be retained will be impacted to varying degrees in terms of root damage and/or root loss related to grading fill soil, compaction of fill soil, excavation of proposed perimeter beam footings under each residence, etc. As noted above, the applicant team is committed to use of post- tensioned slabs to reduce root loss damages as much as possible around trees #527 and #548, and has now also revised the tree well detail for the area around tree #650 to better preserve the root system and provide for a drainage mechanism. The original design for the tree well around tree #650 showed a significant depth of cut at close proximity to the trunk for the proposed stone wall (tree well) within the Critical Root Zone area, and did not account for drainage to remove water buildup within the circumferential tree well wall. The Robson team has now revised the tree well design to include an area drain with solid drain pipe for better flood drainage for the tree #650 root zone. The stone wall has also been modified such that the beginning of the dry stack stone starts at the approximate location of the “Critical Root Zone” distance from trunk edge, to further protect the root system of the tree. The Critical Root Zone of oak #650 is calculated at 6 X diameter which is then used as a radial offset for limiting new construction = 6 X 25” = an offset radius of 12.5 feet from trunk edge. Scaling off the applicant’s map sheets, the tree well stone wall does appear to be offset from the trunk such that the closest edge of stone wall material is approximately 11 to 12 feet from trunk edge, which is approximately the CRZ as calculated above by WLCA. See the image at right from landscape plan sheet L2.2 in process of revision by the Robson team as of the date of writing. This snippet was received by WLCA from the Robson team on 8/12/2020, and shows an area drain with storm drain pipe connection, and an offset of the proposed dry stack stone wall itself, to be installed just beyond the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) offset distance from oak #650 trunk edge. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 9 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 3d. Pedestrian Walkway: The original design for the proposed walkway that is to run in a generally north- south orientation was to involve a standard baserock base section cut below grade elevation, potentially severing lateral woody roots extended from trees #501 and #504 (see WLCA’s tree map markup embedded in this report). The applicant team has now committed to revising this design to allow for a no-dig type over-grade installation for the walkway, the design of which has not yet been formalized. WLCA expects the final design to involve use of a biaxial or triaxial geogrid such as Tensar TriAx, etc. laid down over soil surface grade, over which the baserock of the walkway can then be placed without any loss of tree root mass (see below blue-line mockup received by WLCA from the Robson team in August, 2020). The image at right shows a Tensar TriAx TX160 triaxial geogrid being laid down over existing soil grade as an underlayment on a WLCA project in Menlo Park, 2020, just prior to laying down baserock base section and paverstone driveway surface materials. Use of geogrids allows for work to occur directly over root systems of trees, without any loss of those woody root systems. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 10 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 3e. Storm Drain Pipe Routing / Special Installation Specs: The only storm drain routing that appears to be in conflict with an oak being retained is the east-west section of pipe that has been placed south of the chain link Root Protection Zone fence line as delineated by the Robson team and yellow highlighted by WLCA in the snippet at right, snipped from the 8/4/2020 version of the grading and drainage plan sheet C7. This storm drain trench alignment will have a significant impact on the tree #503 root zone if constructed as currently shown. Per WLCA’s discussion with Richard Yee of the Robson team via email on 8/12/2020, Robson is willing to both: a. Relocate the storm drain alignment to along the property line at the south end of Lot 1, which will place it outside the root protection zone fence line of oak #503, such that the edge of the trench will encroach to no closer than approximately 13 linear feet offset from the oak trunk edge, and b. Perform this section of trenching using alternative trenching method(s) such as water or air excavation. Use of Hydrovac water excavation and/or Airspade air excavation will better preserve lateral woody tree roots in the trench, and the storm drain pipe can then theoretically be slipped in between those lateral woody roots without having to cut those roots out (see photo at left, showing what is termed in the pipe installation industry as “pipe slipping” around oak tree roots preserved at a recent WLCA gas pipe installation project in Redwood City, 2020). ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 11 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 3f. Irrigation Piping: WLCA suggests considering eliminating the proposed narrow planting strip that is shown on sheet IR-1.0 at between roughly 11 and 14 feet north of the oak #503 trunk edge, so that all associated rigid irrigation pipe trenching, valve installation, and other controller related equipment is simply deleted from the plan sheet. This would increase the radius of unadulterated root zone north of oak #503 to 13 linear feet: the distance of the proposed new storm drain pipe trench along the Lot 1 property line. As noted above in impact subsection 3e (storm drain pipe routing), the Robson team has agreed to both push the pipe such that the edge of new trench will be approximately 13 feet north of oak #503 trunk edge, and has also agreed to perform this trenching using alternative techniques, such as Hydrovac water excavation and/or Airspade air excavation. If the current proposed irrigation-related equipment were to be installed at 11 feet north of trunk, it would have a significant negative impact on the root zone of oak #503, and nullify some of the benefits achieved by use of the alternative storm drain pipe trenching methods. Therefore, irrigation and plantings in that area should be eliminated from the plans in order to best achieve a reduction of construction-related root zone impacts on the root system of oak #503. Alternatively, the locations of the irrigation equipment northeast of oak #503, and the depth of cut for walkway installation, should all be modified in the final construction set of documents (CD phase). Right: Proposed landscape plan sheet L3.1 version 8/4/2020 is the most current sheet showing the proposed walkway, plantings, and irrigation in the root protection zone area north of oak #503. Note that if the proposed new walkway, landscaping, and irrigation pipe trenching and related irrigation valves/controls are not adjusted or eliminated from the area roughly 6 feet to 13 feet north of the trunk edge of oak #503 as currently shown on this landscape plan, then the oak tree root preservation benefits already achieved by adjusting the storm drain trench farther northward away from the trunk of that tree (per WLCA’s email discussion with Richard Yee, Robson team 8/12/2020) will be lost. Note that per my communications with the Robson team in August, 2020, the storm drain pipe alignment will be pushed slightly northward to the Lot C / Lot 1 property line: an alignment that will be shifted slightly right of (north of) where the (dashed heavy line) pipe alignment is currently shown on the 8/4/2020 landscape plan sheet L3.1 seen on this report page. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 12 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 3.0 City of Campbell – What Trees are Protected on Private Lots? Ordinance Section 21.32.050 The following trees are considered “protected trees” in City of Campbell, and require approval of a tree removal permit, on “commercial, industrial, multi-family, mixed use, and undeveloped single-family residential” lots: a. Specimens of all tree species with at least one (1) mainstem measuring 12 inches diameter or more when measured at 4.0 feet above grade. b. Street trees (all). Ordinance Section 21.32.060 Exceptions to the protected status of all trees measuring 12 inches diameter or greater: a. Fruit trees (assumed to refer only to human-edible fruit-bearing trees such as agricultural trees and home orchard trees) on private lots. b. Eucalyptus (all species) on private lots. Per these definitions, the 26 trees assessed at and adjacent to the subject property are all considered to be “protected trees”. Seventeen (17) protected-size trees are proposed to be removed as a result of the current proposed site plan project layout. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 13 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 4.0 Discussion 4.1 Replacement Trees: Per the City of Campbell tree replacement requirements, all trees measuring 12 to 24 inches diameter (single mainstem) being removed are required to be replaced with site plantings of at least 24” box size on a 1:1 basis. Removals measuring 24.1 inches and greater in diameter (single mainstem) are required to be replaced with site plantings of at least 36” box size on a 1:1 basis. Per these definitions, the removal of an expected seventeen (17) trees will require the installation of at least: • Fourteen (14) 24” box sizes trees on site. • Three (3) 36” box size trees on site. Landscape plan sheet L1.1 proposes the following (per the new 8/4/2020 set of applicant plan sheets): • Acer palmatum ‘Wolff’ (Emperor maple), which is not considered a true canopy replacement species. I would suggest omitting this tree from the proposed plans, and instead install additional specimens of Chinese pistache, and/or one of the other tree species suggested by WLCA below in this section. Applicant proposes six (6) 15-gallon size plantings. • Arbutus ‘Marina’ (Marina strawberry tree), which is a known “problem tree” that is declining or dying in landscapes throughout the San Francisco Bay Area due to various factors such as fungal pathogen(s), as yet unidentified pathogens, poor drainage, girdling roots, etc. I would omit this tree from the proposed plans, and instead install additional specimens of Chinese pistache, and/or one of the other tree species suggested by WLCA below in this section. Applicant proposes five (5) 36” box size plantings. • Lagerstroemia ‘Muskogee’ (Muskogee crape myrtle), which is fine, though not considered a true “canopy replacement” type tree. This is a small size tree at maturity: not anything comparable to a full size oak tree in canopy size. Applicant proposes eleven (11) 24” box size trees. • Pistacia chinensis ‘Keith Davey’ (Keith Davey Chinese pistache), which is fine. This tree is a proven performer in the Bay Area. Applicant proposes five (5) 24” box plantings. • Quercus lobata (valley oak), is an oak resistant to sudden oak death (SOD). This species is considered a sometimes upright, sometimes droopy tree species, depending on the individual genetics of the specimens chosen to be installed. The acorns utilized by nurseries to grow this tree have wide genetic variation due to open pollination of oak trees in the landscape. This results in an extremely varied form for the species that literally ranges from pendulous trees to perfect upright specimens. Applicant proposes one (1) 24” box size planting. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 14 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved PLANTING ADEQUACY: MEETING CITY STANDARDS VS. ACTUAL CANOPY REPLACEMENT The total of 28 specimens being installed by Robson Homes is considered adequate replacement in terms of the ratio and sizes required per City standards. However, the total is not adequate in terms of actual canopy spread achieved when these trees mature to their ultimate size. This is because, as noted above in this report section 4.1, some of the species proposed such as Emperor maple are simply not large canopy type plants, and will max out at roughly 15 feet height and 15 feet canopy diameter at the very most. When compared to the coast live oaks being removed, a single specimen of which can achieve mature canopy dimensions of up to 60 feet height and 80 or 90 feet of canopy spread diameter (in my professional experience), we see a large disparity between existing site tree canopy cover and proposed replacement canopy cover. 4.2 Large Canopy Trees for Mozart Site If the site planting areas have wide airspace available, the following relatively large stature trees have been proven to perform well in Bay Area landscapes, and would be appropriate plantings to replace the coast live oaks lost during demolition of the Mozart site (partial list): • Quercus virginiana (southern live oak) (for more heavily-irrigated sites such as turf lawn areas). Available in the trade. • Quercus rugosa (netleaf oak), available at Devil Mountain Nursery, East Bay, CA. Call their new 2020 chief horticulturalist Mr. David Teuschler for information and consultation. • Quercus engelmannii (Engelmann oak), available at Devil Mountain Nursery, East Bay, CA and/or Brightview nursery. • Platanus ‘Roberts’ (‘Roberts’ sycamore). Beautiful upright form of California sycamore selected for its superior form. Claimed better fungal resistance to anthracnose and powdery mildew than the straight species (not verified). This tree is growing at the main entrance to Apple Campus 2 in Cupertino (aka “Apple Park”), across the street from the visitor’s center. • Platanus ‘Columbia’ (‘Columbia’ plane tree). The only plane tree cultivar that maintains resistance to anthracnose and powdery mildew. Also the only plane tree cultivar that seems to push a nice vertical central leader stem, and maintain upright scaffold limbs. • Olea ‘Swan Hill’ (‘Swan Hill’ fruitless olive). Best fruitless olive known in the trade, but can be somewhat spreading or droopy, depending on the particular form purchased (multi-stem, single stem, etc.). There are other fruitless upright olive named cultivars available in the trade. • Tilia tomentosa (silver linden). Proven performer in Palo Alto, California. For narrow situations where a columnar (fastigiate) form tree is required, then try: • Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca Fastigiata’ (columnar blue Atlas cedar). I have been trying to source this tree in the local wholesale nursery trade, but it appears that the only nurseries currently growing the columnar form are in Oregon. Therefore, the tree would have to be special-ordered and shipped via truck to California. It is the best narrow tree I have seen in years, and is pest resistant, disease resistant, beautiful, narrower than the standard blue atlas cedar, and eventually drought tolerant once established. These cedars do seem to perform better, however, with some amount of regular irrigation. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 15 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 4.3 Cavity Analysis for Oak #502 Tag Number Species WLCA Cavity Analysis 2019 502 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) A cavity opening is present at roughly 15 feet above grade, on the side of the mainstem opposite the lean direction (see images below in this report). The cavity is roughly 10 inches across its face, which is 8% of the total circumference at that height. Using a ladder to assess the cavity closely with a tile probe, the cavity was found to extend roughly 20 total inches through the cross section of the mainstem, with a total mainstem diameter of 38 inches at 15 feet above grade. After subtracting for bark thickness, the actual structural wood radius is 17.5 inches I. assuming that the shell wood wall is intact (not verified), the ratio of shell wall radius to mainstem radius is 7.5”/17.5”, or 43%, which is the “holding wood” ratio. I noted during my assessment of the cavity that the tree is developing very thick woundwood around the cavity area, which indicates that the tree is vigorous with enough reserve energy stores that it can allocate that energy to production of thick wood rolls around the cavity, thereby strengthening the mainstem in that crucial stress area. From the standpoint of biomechanical tree growth and structural stability analysis, this is good physical evidence that the tree’s ability to grow new wood at this stress point may be keeping up with or outstripping the development of fungal-related decay internally inside the cavity hollow. The tree will probably have to be monitored over the very long term to determine if the live wood shell wall thicknesses at 15 feet elevation are increasing or decreasing over time. WLCA suggests that Robson’s project arborist perform follow-up testing using a Resistograph or “RESI” microdrill tracing device (or a non- invasive sonic tomography tool) to verify that the actual shell wood wall contains an average of 7.5 inches thickness of sound live wood tissue at +/-15 feet elevation above grade. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 16 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 5.0 Recommendations 1. Project Arborist / Construction Phase Monitoring & Long Term Oak Management Plan Report: The PA should be an independently-contracted consulting arborist working directly for the applicant’s project team. There can also be a secondary project arborist working independently for Campbell planning division if the City deems this beneficial as a method of independently verifying that tree protection is being maintained properly per the arborist recommendations in this report section 5.0 (e.g. WLCA). It is suggested that a project arborist or “PA” be retained to perform a minimum of 1x/monthly inspections on site to verify that tree protection and tree maintenance recommendations are being adhered to per the pre-construction phase arborist report submitted to City of Campbell planning division. The inspection typically involves an arborist visiting the site, documenting existing conditions with a digital camera, checking soil moisture with a Lincoln soil moisture meter or a soil recovery probe (both of which are used by WLCA), and noting tree condition, tree damages, root zone fencing protection, etc. A written inspection letter is then generated by the PA, to include a site tree location map, digital images of trees and tree protection, notes on existing conditions, and a punchlist of to-do action items (if any). Suggested minimum required classification for the PA: • ISA Certified Arborist and • ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist or ISA Board Certified Master Arborist 1a. Pre-Demo Meeting: The PA shall meet with the general contractor on site prior to start of demolition, to go over tree protection and maintenance requirements outlined in this recommendations section of the arborist report. 1b. Pre-Demo Signoff Inspection: The PA shall revisit the site prior to demolition start, to verify that tree protection measures are all in place on site as per the recommendations section of this arborist report. 1c. The PA shall continue site visits on a minimum of a 1x/monthly basis, after an initial pre-demolition site meeting and pre-demolition fencing and trunk buffer protection signoff inspection. 1d. Post-Project / Oak Tree Management Plan Report WLCA suggests that the project arborist assigned to this project also provide a coast live oak long term management plan report with recommendations for specific pruning and other maintenance for the nine (9) protected-size oaks #501, 502, 503, 504, 527, 548, 615, 636, and #650 being retained. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 17 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 2. Tree Maintenance: All pruning shall be performed by or under full time direct supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist, and shall comply as best possible to all of the most current guidelines outlined in American National Standard ANSI-A300 (Part 1, 2017, Pruning), and the new Best Management Practices (BMP) accompanying companion booklet (Standard Practices / Pruning) Third Edition (2019). Pruning objectives shall be: a. Provide legally-required 14 foot vertical elevation airspace clearance over all proposed roadways, to be achieved by 2/3 reduction of limb lengths or removal of entire limbs at the attachment points at the trunk. Do not prune additionally beyond this minimum required airspace. b. Provide legally-required 8 foot vertical elevation airspace clearance over all proposed walking paths, to be achieved by 2/3 reduction of limb lengths or removal of entire limbs at the attachment points at the trunk. Do not prune additionally beyond this minimum required airspace. c. Reduce branch and limb endweight by removal of the outermost portions of end-heavy lopsided canopies, such as is present on oak #501 at the southmost end of the south quadrant of the canopy. Root Crown Excavation (RCX): For oak #503 hand-dig out excess soil using dull, rounded handtools until the natural buttress root flares are visible (see spec image above right, from Bartlett Tree Research Labs, USA). Through Bolt Bracing: Install one or more through bolt brace rod(s) at roughly 10 feet elevation above grade in oak #527, following the guidelines in ANSI A300 standard for tree support systems: cabling, bracing, and guying, and the accompanying companion publication entitled “Best Management Practices Tree Support Systems: Cabling, Bracing, and Guying (2001). Wood Chip Piles: The Robson team and WLCA noted the presence of various large dimension wood chip piles, near to oak specimens to be retained, during our 9/4/2020 site visit. The piles will need to be moved away from the bases of various trees such as oak #501 ASAP, such that they are offset at least 15 feet offset from the trunk edges of the trees, in order to avoid causing anaerobic soil root zone conditions. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 18 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 3. Minimal Impact Walkways: For finalized construction document versions of the landscape paths (walkways) running beneath the canopies of trees #501, 502, 503, 504, the applicant shall prepare a zero-cut “no dig” or minimal cut type system detail for installation of walkways under the canopies, which will include pinning down a Tensar TriAx triaxial geogrid over existing grade soil, and simply laying baserock/etc. over this geogrid. Use of TriAx as a load-bearing membrane resolves the age-old problem of subbase prep, since walkways built with an underlayment of TriAx are not required to have any subbase excavation or subbase compaction. Maximum allowable total cut below existing soil grade shall be specified as 4 inches depth of cut. Note that this includes the cut for any edging or paver restraint, which means that the walkway edging treatments will need to be set at a maximum of 4 inches total depth below grade as well, and pinned in place using steel pins. See sample image at right showing a walkway being built over a Tensar TriAx geogrid at Stanford in 2019 under WLCA direction. The two walkways in particular that will require this specification are: a. The walkway which extends in a north-south position under the east sides of the canopies of oaks #501 and #504. b. The walkway which will extend in an east-west position under the north side of the canopy of oak #503. 4. Advanced Risk Assessment / Oak #502: Retain a consulting arborist to perform microdrilling with a device such as a Resistograph or RESI, or using a non-invasive sonic tomography device to verify the live sound wood wall thicknesses surrounding the open cavity at roughly 15 feet above grade. Analyze the shell wall thickness findings in accordance with international tree risk assessment standards to determine if the tree is an elevated risk or is within acceptable levels of background moderate risk of failure and impact with ground targets. 5. Post-Tensioned Slab Specifications / Lot 4: Applicant shall include a side cut detail specification in the finalized construction set of documents showing the finalized no-dig type cantilever foundation design that involves use of a post-tensioned slab to minimize excavation in tree root zone of oak #527. The applicant shared a version of the slab detail with WLCA in August, 2020 which indicated a 2 foot cantilever overhang. If feasible, the cantilever should be increased from current- proposed 2 feet of overhang to suggested 4 or 5 feet of overhang, to further reduce the impacts of deep foundation excavation on oak tree root systems by adjusting the footing excavation limits to farther offset distances from oak tree trunk edges. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 19 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 6. Construction Corridor Soil Buffer: Prior to demolition start, install a soil protection buffer over the construction corridor (e.g .5 foot width zone to allow work to proceed between the proposed residence edge of foundation, and the RPZ tree root protection zone fence), to prevent compaction of the tree root system. The buffer shall consist of engineer’s filter fabric (professional grade woven landscape fabric) placed directly over existing soil grade, and overlaid with a 6 inch layer of coarse chipper truck type natural wood chips from tree care operations. Place full sheets of exterior- grade plywood over the wood chip layer, and strap them together using steel screw plates or nailed earthquake strapping (see sample image above right). The construction corridor soil buffer shall be installed between the RPZ fence and the residence foundation footing in Lots 3, 4, 6, 13, 14, and 16. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 20 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 7. Tree Well and Drainage System for oak #650: The finalized construction document set of plans shall contain the version of the side cut detail for tree well and drainage system for around oak #650 shared by the Robson team with WLCA via email on 8/12/2020 (see snippet at right). This version shows a limit of stone material placed at or farther offset than the “Critical Root Zone”, and also shows installation of an area drain that will be connected to the storm drain pipe system to drain out the tree well during natural rainfall events. 8. Parking area and curbwork west of oak #650: Applicant shall consider use of a zero cut depth or minimal cut depth type curb footing for the parking area proposed just west of this tree, in order to avoid unnecessary loss of root system. Applicant shall also consider use of a less than standard depth of cut for the parking stall area west of the tree (e.g. elimination of subbase preparation such as over-excavation and recompaction to 90% Proctor, etc.). See image below, reprinted with permission from International Society of Arboriculture publications. Use of a triaxial or biaxial geogrid as noted above by WLCA in recommendation #3 allows for elimination of all subbase over-excavation or subbase recompaction. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 21 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 9. Trenching for Utilities, Drainage Piping, Irrigation Pipes, Etc.: The applicant’s final construction set of documents shall contain the following adjustments to the current proposed plan sheets: a. Storm Drain Pipe Realignment / Oak #503: Storm drain pipe alignment running east-west in orientation beneath the canopy dripline of oak #503 shall be pushed to the Lot C / Lot 1 joint property line to maximize root retention. b. Storm Drain Pipe Alternative Trenching Methods / Oak #503: The final specification for installation shall note that the excavation for this section of pipe shall be performed using either Airspade air excavation or Hydrovac water excavation to allow roots to remain in the trench, and the pipe then “slipped in between roots”, which is termed in the pipe installation industry as “pipe slipping”. See sample image below. c. For any situation where a trench of any depth below grade is required to be made within 15 feet of the trunk edge of any tree, either redesign the trench such that the offset is increased, or use Hydrovac and/or Airspade air excavation as tree root-friendly methods of excavation such that roots can be retained in the trench, and the pipe(s) installed as planned. See below item #9(d) for specific modification requested by WLCA for the oak #503 area. Right Upper: Image of a high voltage electrical conduit being pulled under root zone of a mature redwood specimen in Santa Clara on a WLCA job in 2014, using a directional bore machine. This type of work is termed “trenchless technology”, “directional bore”, “jack n’ bore”, or “pit to pit bore”. Right Lower: “Pipe slipping” through roots retained through a hand-dug trench on a WLCA site in 2020. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 22 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 9d. Irrigation Pipes / Valves / Controls / North of Oak #503: The final specifications for installation of irrigation piping, controls, valves, etc. that are shown in the area roughly 6 to 11 feet northeast of the trunk edge of oak #503 shall be modified to increase the radius of oak root zone retained north of trunk. WLCA suggests that all irrigation- related excavation in this area shown on sheet L3.1 be either eliminated or somehow modified such that the limit of new excavation is approximately 13 feet north of trunk edge, which will be the new adjusted storm drain pipe trench alignment. Note that the storm drain pipe alignment is to be air-excavated or water-excavated as noted above in item #9(b), which means that the proposed new walkway and irrigation related equipment will cause additional damage to the oak #503 root zone at closer distance from trunk than the storm drain, unless eliminated, modified, or pushed to the north side of the proposed new walkway. See markup below for reference. New Information: The Robson team requests that drip irrigation piping be allowed to be placed over grade for certain wood fence areas to be built near oaks #501 through #504, to allow for landscape screening along the fences. This irrigation is considered “OK”, as long as it is kept to a minimum in terms of output volume over the long term during summer and fall periods. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 23 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 10. Trunk Buffer Wrap Protection: Prior to project commencement, install a trunk buffer around either the lowermost six (6) feet of the trunks, or the area between grade and the lowest scaffold branches, of all trees being retained (see spec image at right). • Wrap an entire roll of orange plastic snow fencing around the lowermost 6 to 8 feet of each single tree. • Stand 2x4 wood boards upright, side by side, around the entire circumference of the trunk. • Affix using duct tape (do not use wires or ropes). • See spec image at right showing the wooden boards correctly mounted against the plastic, such that the wood does not actually touch the trunk at all. 11. Chipper Truck Type Wood Chips: Install a 4-inch thick layer of natural chipper truck type wood chips (not bark chips, not leaves) over the open soil areas from 1 foot out from trunk edge to the canopy driplines of all trees being retained (or the TPZ fence line). This material can be purchased from local landscape supply houses such as Lyngso Garden Supply in San Carlos, CA (see image at right). ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 24 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 12. Temporary Irrigation During Construction: If and when directed to do so by the project arborist, supply all trees being retained with once-monthly supplemental irrigation starting on the date that the existing system is shut down or otherwise inactive. ‘ Water volume: To be determined. The general recommendation is 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter per month for small diameter trees (e.g. 5 inch tree would receive 50 gallons spread out over the month), or roughly 200+ gallons of water per month for larger trees measuring 10 to 30 inches diameter each. Native Oak Note: Given that the trees being retained are native coast live oaks accustomed to a dry summer type irrigation regime, the irrigation recommendation may end up being an infrequent (e.g. once-monthly) heavy soaking, in order to reduce the likelihood of irrigation water causing fungal decay pathogen progression toward the root crowns of the trees. Water application can be made using one or more of the following methods (see sample images below). • Soaker hoses. • Emitter lines. • Flexible piping with high-flow type flood bubblers (e.g. 2 gallon per minute emission rate). • Garden hoses. • Fire truck hoses. • Water trucks. • Tow-behind spray tank apparatus. • On-site water tank with gravity feed. • Over-grade PVC piping with spray heads wired to rebar or other steel stakes. Images at Right: Various methods of providing trees with supplemental irrigation during construction. Water needs to be applied throughout the tree’s entire root system, which can extend 50 or 100 feet out from the trunk in many cases. In other words, do not water only the area directly around the trunk. Instead, thoroughly saturate the soil between the trunk and at least 20 to 30 feet out from trunk, assuming that there is an open soil planting area extending that distance. Contingencies: If on-site water is not yet available, then splice onto an existing irrigation water pipe system on a neighboring lot, and attach a meter to the line to allow for accurate cost reimbursement to the neighbor(s). ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 25 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 13. Chain Link Root Protection Zone Fencing: Fencing protection shall be established prior to arrival of any site plan construction or demolition equipment on site. The protective fencing shall be termed “Root Protection Zone” fencing or “RPZ”, and marked with appropriate signage indicating that the fencing shall not be moved or removed without written authorization from the PA (project arborist). Fencing material shall be chain link steel, minimum 5 feet in height, hung on two-inch diameter iron tube posts pounded 24-inches into the ground at a spacing of no greater than 8 feet on-center. Alternative Method / Chain Link Panels: Wire chain link panels together using steel bailing wire, or use moveable concrete fence panel footings, to set the panels in place as full perimeters. Affix the panels in place such that they cannot be moved, by pounding rebar into the soil at the corners of each fence panel and wiring those bars to the fence corners. (see image at right). Sheet C3 in the applicant’s 8/4/2020 plan set shows a dark black line with “X” notations indicating the proposed exact locations of full perimeter chain link RPZ fencing to remain erected during construction. Images at right show both the pounded iron tube post method, and also the alternative “chain link panel method”. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 26 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 14. Mitigation Plantings: The removal of seventeen (17) protected-size trees will require the installation of at least: • Fourteen (14) 24” box sizes trees on site. • Three (3) 36” box size trees on site. Applicant’s Species Canopy Size It is suggested that the following landscape plan trees shown on the applicant’s L-series of plan sheets be eliminated due to pest/disease susceptibility, or due to non-adequate canopy replacement size: • Japanese maple • ‘Marina’ strawberry tree • ‘Muskogee’ crape myrtle Alternatively, the project team could proceed with the landscape plan as-is, and provide additional mitigation in the form of in-lieu fee payment to City of Campbell specifically designated for funding only “City Park Tree Planting Operations” or similar. This would provide adequate canopy replacement value and adequacy for removal of the 17 protected-size trees from the site, without having to redesign the entire planting plan. An in-lieu fee in the amount of $10,000 to $15,000 would be a reasonable mitigation payment to the City tree planting fund. The following are medium to larger canopy size trees known by the author to perform well in the Bay Area that can be used at this site as alternatives to or in addition to the species and cultivars noted in the applicant’s landscape planting plan: (Sources: Various Wholesale Nurseries) • Quercus virginiana (southern live oak) (for more heavily-irrigated sites such as turf lawn areas). Available in the trade. • Platanus ‘Roberts’ (‘Roberts’ sycamore). Beautiful upright form of California sycamore selected for its superior form. Claimed better fungal resistance to anthracnose and powdery mildew than the straight species (not verified). This tree is growing at the main entrance to Apple Campus 2 in Cupertino (aka “Apple Park”), across the street from the visitor’s center. • Platanus ‘Columbia’ (‘Columbia’ plane tree). The only plane tree cultivar that maintains resistance to anthracnose and powdery mildew. Also the only plane tree cultivar that seems to push a nice vertical central leader stem, and maintain upright scaffold limbs. • Olea ‘Swan Hill’ (‘Swan Hill’ fruitless olive). Best fruitless olive known in the trade. • Tilia tomentosa (silver linden). Proven performer in Palo Alto, California. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 27 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved • Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca Fastigiata’ (columnar blue atlas cedar). I have been trying to source this tree in the local wholesale nursery trade, but it appears that the only nurseries currently growing the columnar form are in Oregon. Therefore, the tree would have to be special-ordered and shipped via truck to California. It is the best narrow tree I have seen in years, and is pest resistant, disease resistant, beautiful, narrower than the standard blue atlas cedar, and eventually drought tolerant once established. These cedars do seem to perform better, however, with some amount of regular irrigation. Above Right: Engelmann oaks (Quercus engelmannii) installed along the North Tantau median by Dave Muffly, Arborist. Engelmann oak may or may not be available in certain specific nurseries as of the date of writing. As of 2020, the only nurseries carrying Engelmann oak are Brightview southern California yard, and Devil Mountain Nursery. Contact Mr. David Teuschler of Devil Mountain Nursery, Brightview Nursery, or Mr. Dave Muffly at www.Oaktopia.org for more information. (Image snipped from Google Street View of Apple Park, Cupertino, CA, USA). ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 28 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 6.0 Author’s Qualifications • Continued education through The American Society of Consulting Arborists, The International Society of Arboriculture (Western Chapter), and various governmental and non-governmental entities. • Contract City Arborist, City of Belmont, California Community Development Department / Planning Division 6/99-6/20 (21 years) • Contract Town Arborist, Town of Los Gatos, California Community Development Department / Planning Division 2015-present • Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (ISA TRAQ Course Graduate, Palo Alto, California) • Millbrae Community Preservation Commission (Tree Board) 2001-2006 • ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 • ASCA Arboriculture Consulting Academy graduate, class of 2000 • Associate Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate and Associates 4/99-8/99 • ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A • Peace Corps Soil and Water Conservation Extension Agent Chiangmai Province, Thailand 1991-1993 • B.A. Environmental Studies/Soil and Water Resources UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 1990 UCSC Chancellor’s Award, 1990 (My full curriculum vitae is available upon request) ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 29 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 7.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: a. information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and b. the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 30 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 8.0 Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 31 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 9.0 Digital Images (in clockwise order starting at #501) WLCA archived digital images of the 26 protected-size study trees in May, 2019, as reference of pre-project conditions. The images are arranged in clockwise order, as if one were walking through the site starting at Mozart Avenue. Additional digital images from WLCA’s follow-up August, 2020 site visit are included at the end of the image sequence, as a reference of current August, 2020 post-pruning status of oaks #501, 502, 503, and #504 on which airspace clearance pruning was recently performed (circa 2020). 501 looking northward, with 504 in the center background 501 lower elevations ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 32 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 502 lower elevations, looking northeastward 502 profile, looking northward Climbing up into 502 to assess the cavity. Close-up of the cavity at +/-15 feet elevation in tree 502. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 33 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 503 503 504 507 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 34 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 509 510 511 512 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 35 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 527, looking north 529 534 534 profile, looking north ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 36 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Mexican fan palm #537 (no image) 548, looking north 650 650 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 37 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 592 at the west corner of the site (east property line fence). 592 profile ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 38 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 628 628 Close-up of the splitout mainstem in 628 626 profile ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 39 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 625 profile 620 profile 620 close-up of split mainstem fork 615 lower elevations, as viewed from 16179. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 40 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 615 Canopy, as viewed from 16179 Mozart. 615 and 616 canopies viewed looking west from 16179 Mozart. 636 636 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 41 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Waste soil that was dumped on 16179 Mozart to the west edge of the canopy dripline of oak #636 being retained. 643 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 42 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 643, lower elevations. The presence of the residence foundation may or may not have contributed to the asymmetrical root system development and resultant leaning trunk. Italian stone pine regularly develops this type of trunk lean on a regular basis. 643 profile ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 43 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 657 Uppermost elevations showing advanced twig decline due to years of droughty soil moisture conditions. 657 lower elevations ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 44 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Post-Pruning Images of Oaks #501, 502, 503, 504. Archived August, 2020 by WLCA Oak #501 as of August, 2020. The Robson team had this tree pruned to remove lower elevation limbs. Endweight reduction pruning of the outermost material from the lopsided south side of canopy will be required. Note that the wood chip pile in this image is too close to trunk edge, and should be moved to farther from the tree as soon as possible to avoid causing an anaerobic root zone condition. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 45 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Oak #502 as of August, 2020 (post-pruning). The tree requires no additional clearance pruning to clear the proposed roadway or other site work elements. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 46 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Oak #503 as of August, 2020 (post-pruning). The tree requires no additional clearance pruning to clear the proposed roadway or other site work elements. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 47 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved Oak #504. Post-pruning as of August, 2020, looking northward. Note the lower elevation limbs that extend northeastward and northward, which will need to be pruned to remove smaller 1 inch diameter live braches to provide the legal 14 foot vertical airspace required for the new road that will pass beneath the north and west quadrants of the existing canopy. The impacts related to this required pruning are expected to be “minor”, though additional impacts from proposed new storm drain trenching (and possibly rigid irrigation pipe trenching to be determined), could potentially increase the level of impact to “moderate” overall. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 48 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 10.0 Tree Location and Protection Map Markup Updated 9/7/2020 (WLCA) ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 49 of 49 Site Address: 16179 E. Mozart Ave., Campbell, CA Version: 9/7/2020 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture  Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved 11.0 Protected Tree Preservation Plan, August, 2020 (Robson Homes) 12.0 Attached: Excel Tree Data Table Updated 9/7/2020 (WLCA) Tree Data 16179 East Mozart Ave.Campbell, CA Tree Disposition REV 9/7/2020 Tree Tag #To be Removed Per Current Site PlanAuthor Recommends Removal Due to Very Poor Condition or Elevated Risk of FailureTrunk 1 (in.)Trunk 2 (in.)Trunk 3 (in.)Adjusted Trunk Diameter Inches @ 48” A.G. (1+2+3)"Protected Trees" in Campbell, CA (Street trees, and all specimens with at least one (1) mainstem measuring 12.0 inches diameter at 4.0 feet above grade, except edible fruit trees)Common NameScientific Name (Genus, species)Height and Canopy Spread (ft.)Health & Structural Ratings (0-100% each) Overall Condition Rating (0-100%)Live Twig Density (Very Poor, Poor, Mod, Good, Exc.)Lopsided Canopy (Direction Noted)Trunk Lean (Direction Noted)Historical Stem Splitout Evidence (Note Elevation)Severely Pruned or Root Pruned in Past (topping, liontailing, shearing, etc.)Buried Root Crown (BRC) or Girdling Roots (GR)Twig, Branch, Limb, Mainstem Decay (Note Elevation)Codominant Mainstems with Severe Bark Inclusion(s) (Note Height)Root Extension Restricted in Planter Soil Moisture Deficit (aka "drought stress")Notes Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Radius (6 X diameter) as a radial offset distance from trunk edgeMaintenance, Protection, and Plan Limits.501 39.3 39.3 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia45/70 85/75 80% Good GoodSee notesMainstems fork at 6 feet elevation, and extend off vertical in multiple directions, hanging down to roughly 15 to 20 feet elevation above grade in the eastern portion of canopy. Tree needs branch length reduction pruning carefully performed per ANSI A300 standards. Robson has agreed to build the proposed new walking path east of this tree using an over-grade no-dig type regime which typically involves laying down an underlayment of Tensar TriAx or other similar robust triaxial or biaxial geogrid, and building up baserock over this geogrid, prior to consructing the path. 20 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 502 38.7 38.7 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia45/60 75/45 60% GoodMod to GoodNorthCavity noted on mainstem at 15 feet elevation on southeast side of stem. May or may not affect stability (TBD). Existing asphalt driveway located west of mainstem, all the way up to mainstem bark, but likely does not contain baserock, which means roots likely extend from the tree outward to a great distance (e.g. 50 feet radius or more). Existing residence is 12 feet east of mainstem, and likely impedes root growth at the footing. Existing neighboring residence is roughly 22 feet northwest of mainstem edge. 19 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 503 28.0 28.0 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia38/45 75/60 67% Good Mod BRC. Needs exca-vationExisting asphalt drive extends up to mainstem bark. Roots likely extend all the way to the existing neighbor residence some 20 feet northwest of the mainstem edge. Roots impeded at the residence footing 6 feet east of the mainstem edge. Tree will need a root crown excavation by an arborist to expose the naturally flaring buttress roots at base of trunk. 14 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 504 22.1 22.1 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia35/45 70/60 68% Good ModSeverely pruned (lion-tailed)Tree has been severely pruned in the past to remove inner live wood and foliage. This is called "lion-tailing". Current revised roadway alignment increased the offset distance of proposed work to +/- 15 feet minimum.Limbs extend with limb wood elevations of 10 to 18 feet above grade. Robson has agreed to build the proposed new walking path east of this tree using an over-grade no-dig type regime which typically involves laying down an underlayment of Tensar TriAx or other similar robust triaxial or biaxial geogrid, and building up baserock over this geogrid, prior to consructing the path. 11 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 507X12.8 12.525.3 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia30/25 40/40 40% Poor Poor West West(See notes)Lower elevations of one of the two codominant mainstems exhibits severe feeding damage from sycamore bark moth larvae. 7 to 10 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist / Cell (415) 203-0990 / walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 1 of 6 Tree Data 16179 East Mozart Ave.Campbell, CA Tree Disposition REV 9/7/2020 Tree Tag #To be Removed Per Current Site PlanAuthor Recommends Removal Due to Very Poor Condition or Elevated Risk of FailureTrunk 1 (in.)Trunk 2 (in.)Trunk 3 (in.)Adjusted Trunk Diameter Inches @ 48” A.G. (1+2+3)"Protected Trees" in Campbell, CA (Street trees, and all specimens with at least one (1) mainstem measuring 12.0 inches diameter at 4.0 feet above grade, except edible fruit trees)Common NameScientific Name (Genus, species)Height and Canopy Spread (ft.)Health & Structural Ratings (0-100% each) Overall Condition Rating (0-100%)Live Twig Density (Very Poor, Poor, Mod, Good, Exc.)Lopsided Canopy (Direction Noted)Trunk Lean (Direction Noted)Historical Stem Splitout Evidence (Note Elevation)Severely Pruned or Root Pruned in Past (topping, liontailing, shearing, etc.)Buried Root Crown (BRC) or Girdling Roots (GR)Twig, Branch, Limb, Mainstem Decay (Note Elevation)Codominant Mainstems with Severe Bark Inclusion(s) (Note Height)Root Extension Restricted in Planter Soil Moisture Deficit (aka "drought stress")Notes Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Radius (6 X diameter) as a radial offset distance from trunk edgeMaintenance, Protection, and Plan Limits.509 X17.017.0 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia37/20 85/65 78% Good GoodBRC. Needs exca-vationNarrow canopy of upward oriented limbs. Root crown not visible under forest leaf litter. 8.5 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 510 X13.213.2 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia30/25 65/45 53% Fair Mod West West(See notes)Extensive sycamore bark moth larvae feeding damage noted. 6.5 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 511 X22.022.0 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia40/40 85/7582% ExcellentGood East EastTwo codominant mainstems fork at 9 feet elevation. The west mainstem is actually a scaffold limb that swept up into a vertical position to compete with the real mainstem. 11 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 512 X15.7 12.9 7.0 35.6 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia40/40 50/60 55% Fair Mod West West(See notes)Three codominant mainstems arise from grade, and may be sprouts arising from a historical cut mother stump. This means that the mainstems may have stability issues related to older decay in the lignotuber area below grade (not verified). 8 to 10 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 527 18.918.9 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia40/45 90/8084% ExcellentGood SouthYes at 10 feet. Limbs extended to south hang down to as low as 10 feet elevation above grade. The bark inclusion fork at 10 feet would need a through-bolt type brace rod to be installed, if the tree were to be retained. Foundation at Lot 4 to be cantilevered system to reduce impact to tree root system. Lot three has been adjusted southward on the July 2020 version of the site plan, in order to further reduce root zone impacts to the tree. 10 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist / Cell (415) 203-0990 / walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 2 of 6 Tree Data 16179 East Mozart Ave.Campbell, CA Tree Disposition REV 9/7/2020 Tree Tag #To be Removed Per Current Site PlanAuthor Recommends Removal Due to Very Poor Condition or Elevated Risk of FailureTrunk 1 (in.)Trunk 2 (in.)Trunk 3 (in.)Adjusted Trunk Diameter Inches @ 48” A.G. (1+2+3)"Protected Trees" in Campbell, CA (Street trees, and all specimens with at least one (1) mainstem measuring 12.0 inches diameter at 4.0 feet above grade, except edible fruit trees)Common NameScientific Name (Genus, species)Height and Canopy Spread (ft.)Health & Structural Ratings (0-100% each) Overall Condition Rating (0-100%)Live Twig Density (Very Poor, Poor, Mod, Good, Exc.)Lopsided Canopy (Direction Noted)Trunk Lean (Direction Noted)Historical Stem Splitout Evidence (Note Elevation)Severely Pruned or Root Pruned in Past (topping, liontailing, shearing, etc.)Buried Root Crown (BRC) or Girdling Roots (GR)Twig, Branch, Limb, Mainstem Decay (Note Elevation)Codominant Mainstems with Severe Bark Inclusion(s) (Note Height)Root Extension Restricted in Planter Soil Moisture Deficit (aka "drought stress")Notes Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Radius (6 X diameter) as a radial offset distance from trunk edgeMaintenance, Protection, and Plan Limits.529 X13.213.2 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia30/30 65/55 60% Fair ModNorth eastNorth east7 feet.See WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 534 X14.514.5 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia32/30 75/65 70% Good Mod South South7 to 8 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 537 X15.015.0 YESMexican fan palmWashingtonia robusta25/10 80/8080% ExcellentGoodEasily retainable, given the current offset of proposed residential development, as long as irrigation pipe trenching and/or other trenching is kept at least 15 feet offset from the trunk edge of this tree. 7.5 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 54835.735.7 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia50/60 80/60 70% Good Good SouthYes. Tree was severely pruned, resulting in formation of canopy holes in upper elevations.Current proposed residence footprint is roughly 25 feet offset from the trunk edge of this very large native oak specimen in good overall condition. Soil protection buffer will be placed over the ground to protect soil between the temporary RPZ construction chain link root zone protection fence line and the new residence. 18 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 592 X19.0 15.034.0 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia35/30 85/60 79% GoodMod to GoodWest and North-WestChain link fence is embedded into the 15 inch diameter stem. The 15" diameter stem is actually a scaffold limb that extends vertically and is now competing for dominance with the actual 19" diameter mainstem. Note that the proposed residence is roughly 9 feet offset from the trunk edge of this tree, which will encroach far into the canopy dripline, and is within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) of 9.5 feet offset radius. This offset distance is not adequate for root zone preservation, and the tree may decline or die as a result. Therefore, it is not clear if this tree should be considered a removal or a retention tree. 9.5 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist / Cell (415) 203-0990 / walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 3 of 6 Tree Data 16179 East Mozart Ave.Campbell, CA Tree Disposition REV 9/7/2020 Tree Tag #To be Removed Per Current Site PlanAuthor Recommends Removal Due to Very Poor Condition or Elevated Risk of FailureTrunk 1 (in.)Trunk 2 (in.)Trunk 3 (in.)Adjusted Trunk Diameter Inches @ 48” A.G. (1+2+3)"Protected Trees" in Campbell, CA (Street trees, and all specimens with at least one (1) mainstem measuring 12.0 inches diameter at 4.0 feet above grade, except edible fruit trees)Common NameScientific Name (Genus, species)Height and Canopy Spread (ft.)Health & Structural Ratings (0-100% each) Overall Condition Rating (0-100%)Live Twig Density (Very Poor, Poor, Mod, Good, Exc.)Lopsided Canopy (Direction Noted)Trunk Lean (Direction Noted)Historical Stem Splitout Evidence (Note Elevation)Severely Pruned or Root Pruned in Past (topping, liontailing, shearing, etc.)Buried Root Crown (BRC) or Girdling Roots (GR)Twig, Branch, Limb, Mainstem Decay (Note Elevation)Codominant Mainstems with Severe Bark Inclusion(s) (Note Height)Root Extension Restricted in Planter Soil Moisture Deficit (aka "drought stress")Notes Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Radius (6 X diameter) as a radial offset distance from trunk edgeMaintenance, Protection, and Plan Limits.61530.030.0 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia30/45 75/65 70% GoodMod to GoodSouth(Likely at least one to two bark inclusion type forks present, though this was not verified)Tree is a neighbor-owned specimen just east of the existing property line fence. WLCA was not able to access the trunk of this tree to verify mainstem diameter or assess the root crown and mainstem unions.15 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 616 X17.717.7 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia35/45 85/65 77% Good Good West WestTree exhibits phototropic lean (following the sun track) to the west. Tree is to be removed per the applicant's plans. 9 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 620 X15.115.1 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia28/28 77/40 49% FairMod to GoodEastYes. See notes. Two codominant mainstems split apart at the lower elevation fork, with the westmost stem failing, leaving 50% of the lower trunk circumference as an open split face (see images by WLCA in the arborist report). This damage downgrades the structural rating and the overall condition rating. The tree conflicts with the current proposed site plan layout. 7.5 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 625 X X 17.517.5 YESCalifornia pepper tree (non-native)Schinus molle35/25 15/2018% Very PoorVery Poor Yes. Decay throughoutThe canopy of this tree consists mainly of dead and dying twigs (see images in the arborist report). The tree is proposed to be removed due to conflicts with proposed new site plan work. WLCA suggests removal of this tree due to its overall condition rating of "very poor". 9 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 626 X22.522.5 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia30/30 90/6580% ExcellentGood South SouthSee notesExtensive bark decay due to feeding by sycamore bark moth larvae in lower 6 feet of trunk bark. Root zone likely extends a significant radius in all directions, including under the antique barn. 11 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist / Cell (415) 203-0990 / walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 4 of 6 Tree Data 16179 East Mozart Ave.Campbell, CA Tree Disposition REV 9/7/2020 Tree Tag #To be Removed Per Current Site PlanAuthor Recommends Removal Due to Very Poor Condition or Elevated Risk of FailureTrunk 1 (in.)Trunk 2 (in.)Trunk 3 (in.)Adjusted Trunk Diameter Inches @ 48” A.G. (1+2+3)"Protected Trees" in Campbell, CA (Street trees, and all specimens with at least one (1) mainstem measuring 12.0 inches diameter at 4.0 feet above grade, except edible fruit trees)Common NameScientific Name (Genus, species)Height and Canopy Spread (ft.)Health & Structural Ratings (0-100% each) Overall Condition Rating (0-100%)Live Twig Density (Very Poor, Poor, Mod, Good, Exc.)Lopsided Canopy (Direction Noted)Trunk Lean (Direction Noted)Historical Stem Splitout Evidence (Note Elevation)Severely Pruned or Root Pruned in Past (topping, liontailing, shearing, etc.)Buried Root Crown (BRC) or Girdling Roots (GR)Twig, Branch, Limb, Mainstem Decay (Note Elevation)Codominant Mainstems with Severe Bark Inclusion(s) (Note Height)Root Extension Restricted in Planter Soil Moisture Deficit (aka "drought stress")Notes Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Radius (6 X diameter) as a radial offset distance from trunk edgeMaintenance, Protection, and Plan Limits.628 X X 23.823.8 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia45/50 70/30 30% Poor Mod North NorthYes. See notes. See notesExtensive feeding damage by sycamore bark moth larvae in lower trunk bark. A fork at the union of two codominant mainstems broke out at 25 to 30 feet elevation above grade, resulting in the removal of a large broken section which comprised at least 30% to 40% of the original canopy. This damage has downgraded the tree significantly, and it is no longer worth retaining as a landscape specimen. 12 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 636 12.4 11.8 9.0 33.3 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia28/35 85/63 75% GoodMod to GoodBark inclusion at zero to 1 foot above grade where three (3) mainstems fork. Waste soil has been dumped to within 11 feet west of the trunk edge, which is within the 13 foot radius canopy dripline on this side of tree (see photos). Branches extend 13 feet west of trunk edge, and foliage hangs down to 4 feet above grade on this side of tree. Est. 10 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 643 X X 17.5 17.5 YES green wattleAcacia decurrens (not 100% verified)35/30 25/1518% Very PoorVery PoorSouth NorthPrevious top pruning at 15 to 20 feet elevation.GR Extensive decay noted in bark and xylem tissues on south side of mainstem (all elevations)WLCA recommends removal of tree. 9 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 650 25.2 25.2 YES coast live oakQuercus agrifolia25/45 80/8080% ExcellentGoodLimbs extend horizontally with foliage hanging down almost to grade elevation, with wood elevation at 9 to 12 feet elevation. Straps affixed to a large diameter limb need to be removed to avoid strangling the tree.Per the Staff/Applicant Zoom meeting June 30, 2020, Robson has agreed to reduce the depth of cut of the dry stack stone wall element (i.e. the "tree well"), in order to reduce root loss impacts related to the stone installation, and also agreed to install a drainage element to deal with water buildup inside the circular tree well, such as a dry well. 12.5 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. 657 X X 24.1 24.1 YEScoast redwoodSequoia sempervirens55/35 25/25 25% PoorVery Poor to PoorXThis tree is experiencing soil moisture deficit, which has resulted in a reduction in the live twig density and live twig extension. Sometimes, coast redwoods can rebound if provided with very heavy, regular irrigation, but more often than not, these redwoods continue to decline and die prematurely when reduced in vigor such that they have an overall condition rating of "very poor". 12 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist / Cell (415) 203-0990 / walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 5 of 6 Tree Data 16179 East Mozart Ave.Campbell, CA Tree Disposition REV 9/7/2020 Tree Tag #To be Removed Per Current Site PlanAuthor Recommends Removal Due to Very Poor Condition or Elevated Risk of FailureTrunk 1 (in.)Trunk 2 (in.)Trunk 3 (in.)Adjusted Trunk Diameter Inches @ 48” A.G. (1+2+3)"Protected Trees" in Campbell, CA (Street trees, and all specimens with at least one (1) mainstem measuring 12.0 inches diameter at 4.0 feet above grade, except edible fruit trees)Common NameScientific Name (Genus, species)Height and Canopy Spread (ft.)Health & Structural Ratings (0-100% each) Overall Condition Rating (0-100%)Live Twig Density (Very Poor, Poor, Mod, Good, Exc.)Lopsided Canopy (Direction Noted)Trunk Lean (Direction Noted)Historical Stem Splitout Evidence (Note Elevation)Severely Pruned or Root Pruned in Past (topping, liontailing, shearing, etc.)Buried Root Crown (BRC) or Girdling Roots (GR)Twig, Branch, Limb, Mainstem Decay (Note Elevation)Codominant Mainstems with Severe Bark Inclusion(s) (Note Height)Root Extension Restricted in Planter Soil Moisture Deficit (aka "drought stress")Notes Critical Root Zone (CRZ) Radius (6 X diameter) as a radial offset distance from trunk edgeMaintenance, Protection, and Plan Limits.662 X29.229.2 YESItalian stone pinePinus pinea40/55 90/60 70% Good GoodSouth eastSouth eastThe existing residence foundation at 16157 E. Mozart Avenue is only 2 to 3 horizontal feet west of the trunk edge of this tree, and is assumed to be impeding root extension growth in that direction. It is possible that this foundation presence is the cause of the tree's lean to the southeast. However, trunk lean on this tree species is completely normal, irrespective of root growth impediments. 15 feetSee WLCA arborist report iteration 9/7/2020 "Recommendations" section for details. NOTES: 1. Only on-site and adjacent neighbor-owned trees with at least one (1) mainstem measuring 12.0 inches diameter or greater when measured at 4.0 feet above grade were included in this study. 2. Tree diameters were determined using a forester's D-tape which converts actual mainstem circumference to an averaged diameter by dividing the circumference by 3.14. Tree heights were shot using a Nikon Forestry Pro 550 hypsometer. Tree canopy dripline spreads were estimated visually. Tree plot locations were surveyor-indicated on the project applicant's surveys.TREE MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION CODES USED IN THE ABOVE TREE DATA TABLE RECOMMENDATIONS BOX AT RIGHT HAND COLUMN: RPZ: Root protection zone fence, chain link, with 2" diameter iron posts driven 24" into the ground, 6 to 8 feet on center max. spacing. Alternative material: chain link fence panels set over concrete block-type footings, with the fence panels wired to steel pins pounded 24 inches into the ground at both ends of each panel. RB: Root buffer consisting of wood chip mulch lain over existing soil as a 12 inch thick layer, overlain with 1 inch or greater plywood strapped together with metal plates. This root buffer or soil buffer should be placed over the entire width of the construction corridor between tree trunks and construction. RP: Root pruning. Prune woody roots measuring greater than or equal to 1 inch diameter by carefully back-digging into the soil around each root using small hand tools until an area is reached where the root is undamaged. Cleanly cut through the root at right angle to the root growth direction, using professional grade pruning equipment and/or a Sawzall with wood pruning blade. Backfill around the cut root immediately (same day), and thoroughly irrigate the area to saturate the uppermost 24 inches of the soil profile. BDRP: Back-dig root pruning: Hand-dig around the broken root, digging horizontally into the open soil root zone until a clean, unbroken, unshattered section of the root is visible. Proceed as per ‘root pruning’. RCX: Root crown excavation. Retain an experienced ISA-Certified arborist to perform careful hand-digging using small trowels or other dull digging tools to uncover currently-buried buttress root flares. Digging shall occur between trunk edge and at least two (2) feet horizontal from trunk edge. The final soil elevation will be at a level such that the tree’s buttress roots visibly flare out from the vertical trunk. TB: Trunk buffer consists of 20-40 wraps of orange plastic snow fencing to create a 2 inch thick buffer over the lowest 8 feet of tree trunk (usually takes at least an entire roll of orange fencing per each tree). Lay 2X4 wood boards vertically, side by side, around the entire circumference of the trunk. Secure buffer using duct tape (not wires). F: Fertilization with slow-release Greenbelt 22-14-14 tree formula, as a soil injection application using a fertilizer injection gun. This brand and formulation is commonly used by reputable tree care companies in the Bay Area. Apply at label rate and injection hole spacing. M: 4-inch thick layer of chipper truck type natural wood chips (example source: Lyngso Garden Supply, self pick-up). Do not use bark chips or shredded redwood bark. W: Irrigate using various methods to be determined through discussion with General Contractor. Irrigation frequency and duration to be determined through discussion and/or per directions in this report. Native oak species typically require 1x/month irrigation, while other tree species tend to prefer 2x/month or 4x/month moderate to heavy irrigation during construction. P: Pruning per specifications noted elsewhere. All pruning must be performed only under direct site supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist, or performed directly by an ISA Certified Arborist, and shall conform to all current ANSI A300 standards. MON: A Project Arborist must be present to monitor specific work as noted for each tree. Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist / Cell (415) 203-0990 / walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT 4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW) 16179 E MOZART AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 10, 2019 PROJECT PA18.1046.00 SUBMITTED TO: Robson Homes 2185 The Alameda, Suite 150 San Jose, CA 95126 PREPARED BY: Geo‐Logic Associates dba Pacific Geotechnical Engineering 16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D Morgan Hill, California 95037 (408) 778‐2818 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 1 1.2 INFORMATION PROVIDED .................................................................................................. 2 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................................... 2 2 SITE INVESTIGATION .......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ............................................................................................... 4 2.1.1 Exploratory Drill Holes ............................................................................................ 4 2.1.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Test Holes .......................................................................... 5 2.1.3 Cone Penetration Test Probes ................................................................................ 5 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................................................ 5 3 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 SURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................ 6 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 6 3.3 GROUNDWATER .................................................................................................................. 7 3.4 FIELD HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING ........................................................................ 7 3.5 VARIATIONS IN SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ........................................................................ 9 4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS ...............................................................................................10 4.1 EARTHQUAKE FAULTING ................................................................................................... 10 4.2 GROUND ACCELERATIONS ................................................................................................ 10 4.3 SEISMICITY ........................................................................................................................ 11 4.4 LIQUEFACTION .................................................................................................................. 11 4.5 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ......................................................................................... 12 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................13 5.1 GROUND RUPTURE ........................................................................................................... 13 5.2 SEISMIC SHAKING .............................................................................................................. 13 5.3 DISKED SOILS ..................................................................................................................... 13 5.4 EXPANSION POTENTIAL OF SURFICIAL SOILS .................................................................... 13 5.5 EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................... 13 5.6 FOUNDATIONS FOR STRUCTURES NEAR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ........ 14 5.7 POTENTIAL IMPACT OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ......................................................................................................................... 14 5.8 POTENTIAL MIGRATION OF COLLECTED STORMWATER TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES 15 5.9 TREE ROOTS IN PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ............................................................................. 15 6 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................16 6.1 EARTHWORK ..................................................................................................................... 16 6.1.1 Site Preparation, Clearing and Stripping ............................................................... 16 6.1.2 Excavation, Temporary Construction Slopes, and Shoring ................................... 16 6.1.3 Over‐excavation and Re‐compaction of Disturbed Soils ...................................... 17 6.1.4 Subgrade Preparation ........................................................................................... 17 6.1.5 Materials for Fill .................................................................................................... 18 6.1.6 Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction ......................................................... 18 6.1.7 Trench Backfill ....................................................................................................... 19 6.1.8 Considerations for Soil Moisture and Seepage Control ........................................ 19 6.1.9 Wet Weather Construction ................................................................................... 19 6.2 FOUNDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 20 6.2.1 General .................................................................................................................. 20 6.2.2 Conventional Continuous and/or Isolated Spread Footing Foundations ............. 20 6.2.3 Post‐tensioned Slabs ............................................................................................. 21 6.2.4 Drilled Pier Foundations ....................................................................................... 22 6.3 CONCRETE SLABS‐ON‐GRADE ........................................................................................... 23 6.3.1 Interior Building Slabs‐on‐grade ........................................................................... 23 6.3.2 Exterior Slabs‐on‐grade ........................................................................................ 23 6.4 RETAINING STRUCTURES .................................................................................................. 24 6.4.1 Lateral Soil Pressures ............................................................................................ 24 6.4.2 Soldier Pile and Lagging Shoring Systems ............................................................. 24 6.4.3 Below‐ground Walls of the Storm Capture Vaults ................................................ 25 6.4.4 Retaining Walls on Individual Lots ........................................................................ 25 6.4.5 Drainage for Retaining Structures ........................................................................ 25 6.5 VEHICLE PAVEMENTS ........................................................................................................ 25 6.6 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE ........................................................................... 26 7 PLAN REVIEW, EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATION OBSERVATION .......................................28 8 LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................29 Figures Figure 1 Site Plan ‐ Proposed Development Figure 2 Site Plan ‐ Existing Site Conditions Figure 3 Post‐tensioned Slab Typical Section Figure 3A Schematic of Foundation in Tree Protection Zone Figures 4A‐4G Groundwater Seepage Analysis Plots Appendix A ‐ Keys to Soil Classification, Drill Hole Logs, and CPT Plots Keys to Soil Classification (Fine and Coarse Grained Soils) Log of Exploratory Drill Holes (DH‐1 through DH‐4) Cone Penetration Test Plots Appendix C – Laboratory Test Data Figures C‐1 to C‐4 Particle Size Analysis Test Reports Figure C‐5 R‐value Test Result CERCO Analytical Test Results 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 1 December 10, 2019 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential development on a 2.93‐acre parcel on the north side of East Mozart Avenue in Campbell, California. The parcel is referenced as the “property,” “site,” or “project site” in this report. The Assessor Parcel Number (APN) of the property is 424‐06‐119 which includes the following addresses: 16151, 16157, 16163, 16179, and 16187 East Mozart Avenue. The approximate location of the project site is shown on the Vicinity Map included with Figures 1 and 2 of this report. Figure 1 shows a layout of the site’s existing conditions. Figure 2 shows a layout of the site’s proposed development. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the project. These findings, conclusions, and recommendations are based on information collected and reviewed during this investigation. The conclusions and recommendations in this report should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other projects without our review. 1.1 Project Description The project site is currently occupied by an operation yard for West Valley Arborists as well as five single‐family residences. The project will involve demolition of the existing structures and improvements on the property, followed by construction of single‐family residences and associated improvements. The residential units will be two‐ or three‐story high, wood frame structures, each with a garage. No swimming pools or basements are planned. Associated improvements will include underground utilities, on‐site roadways, landscaping, and an on‐site stormwater management system. Site development will also require preservation of designated existing trees in nearby utility, roadway, and building locations to comply with the project arborist’s report in the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) and Critical Root Zones (CRZ). Retaining walls, if required on individual lots, are expected for landscaping purposes and up to about 3 feet in height. Our review of the preliminary grading plan prepared by Civil Engineering Associates (CEA), dated November 14, 2019, indicates that fill between approximately 1 and 4 feet thick will be required for construction of the building pads. An underground stormwater management system is proposed in the southwestern portion of the site and will consist of Storm Capture (SC) vaults with invert about 10 feet below ground surface based on preliminary information provided by CEA. This system will be constructed about 11 feet east of the property line with the neighboring 201 and 203 Beethoven Lane properties to the west, and just north of E. Mozart Avenue. The above project descriptions are based on information provided to us. If the actual project differs from those described above, Geo‐Logic Associates (GLA) should be contacted to review 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 2 December 10, 2019 our findings, conclusions, and recommendations and present any necessary modifications to address the different project development schemes. 1.2 Information Provided For this investigation, Robson Homes provided us with the following. 1. Preliminary project development information and site development plans. 2. A set of 2 sheets of drawings titled ”ALTA/NSPS Title Survey, 16179 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California,” prepared by CEA, dated September 28, 2018. 3. A geotechnical investigation report titled “Classics at Mozart Avenue, 16239 Mozart Avenue, Los Gatos, California,” prepared by Lowney Associates, dated September 21, 2004. 4. A set of 17‐sheet of civil design drawings, sheets C1 through C15, TM1, and TM2, prepared by CEA, dated November 14, 2019. 5. A report titled “Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection, E. Mozart, Campbell, CA 95080,” prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists, LLC, dated November 24, 2019. 6. A set of architectural drawings prepared by Robert Hidey Architects (RHA), dated November 27, 2019. 1.3 Purpose and Scope of Services The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to explore subsurface conditions at the project site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed improvements. The following work was performed. 1. Performed a site reconnaissance to observe site surface conditions and to mark locations of our exploration. 2. Reviewed available geologic and geotechnical information pertinent to the site. 3. Notified Underground Service Alert (USA) for underground utility clearance and coordination of our drilling with Robson Homes and the property owner representative. 4. Subcontracted with a private underground locator, Subdynamic Locating Services, to check the proposed exploration locations for presence of underground utilities. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 3 December 10, 2019 5. Explored subsurface conditions by means of four exploratory drill holes to depths between approximately 11 and 49 feet below ground surface (bgs) and four Cone Penetration Test (CPT) probes to depths between approximately 7.4 and 35 feet bgs. 6. Drilled hydraulic conductivity test holes and performed hydraulic conductivity testing in each hole. Refer to Sections 2.1.2 and 3.4 for information on our testing. 7. Collected a bulk sample of the near‐surface soil. 8. Performed laboratory tests on selected soil samples from the drill holes and on the bulk sample to measure pertinent engineering properties of the samples. 9. Performed engineering analysis on the field and laboratory data. 10. Coordinated with the project arborist regarding tree protection. 11. Prepared this geotechnical investigation report. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 4 December 10, 2019 2 SITE INVESTIGATION This investigation consists of a site reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program. The site reconnaissance was to observe existing site surface conditions. The subsurface exploration program was to explore earth conditions at the project site. The observed surface and subsurface site conditions are discussed in Section 3 of this report. 2.1 Subsurface Exploration Our geotechnical subsurface exploration program included four exploratory drill holes (DH‐1 through DH‐4) and four CPT probes (CPT‐1 through CPT‐4) advanced on October 19, 2018. Our three hydraulic conductivity testing programs included six test holes (P‐1 through P‐6) drilled on October 19, 2018, five test holes (P‐7 through P‐11) drilled on June 25, 2019, and ten test holes (P‐12a, P‐12b, P‐14a, P‐14b, P‐15a, P‐15b, P‐16a, P‐16b, P‐17a, and P‐17b) drilled on October 19, 2019. The exploratory drill holes, hydraulic conductivity test holes, and CPT probes were located in the field by referencing to existing site features and pacing; therefore, their locations are approximate. Their approximate locations are shown on Figures 1 and 2 of this report. The drill holes and CPTs were backfilled with cement grout after completion of drilling and testing. 2.1.1 Exploratory Drill Holes The four exploratory drill holes were advanced using a truck‐mounted Mobile B53 drill rig equipped with 8‐inch diameter hollow‐stem augers. The depth of exploration ranged between approximately 11 and 49 feet below ground surface (bgs). In the field, our personnel visually classified the materials encountered and maintained a log of each drill hole. Soil samples were obtained using a 2‐inch outside diameter (O.D.; 1.4‐inch inside diameter, I.D.) split‐barrel sampler (also called a Standard Penetration Test sampler) and a 3‐inch O.D. (2½‐inch I.D.) split‐barrel sampler. Soil samples were obtained by driving the sampler up to 18 inches into the earth material using a 140‐pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler was recorded for each 6‐inch penetration interval. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches, or the penetration interval indicated on the log when harder material was encountered, is shown as blows per foot (blow count) on the drill hole logs. The samplers were driven with an auto hammer in DH‐1 and a downhole safety hammer on a wire winch in DH‐2, DH‐3, and DH‐4. In the field, our personnel visually classified the materials encountered and maintained a log of each drill hole. Visual classification of soils encountered in our drill holes was made in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2487 and D 2488). The results of our laboratory tests were used to refine our field classifications. Two Keys to Soil Classification, one for fine grained soils and one for coarse grained soils, are included in Appendix A, together with the logs of these drill holes. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 5 December 10, 2019 2.1.2 Hydraulic Conductivity Test Holes The hydraulic conductivity test holes were drilled using a truck‐mounted Mobile B53 or Mobile B40 drill rig equipped with 8‐inch diameter hollow‐stem augers. The holes were drilled in three separate occasions due to changes in the site development plan. On October 19, 2018, six test holes (P‐1 through P‐6) were drilled to depths between approximately 8 and 8.8 feet bgs. On June 25, 2019, five test holes (P‐7 through P‐11) were drilled to depths between approximately 10.5 and 11 feet bgs. On October 19, 2019, ten test holes were drilled at five locations. Each location included a pair of test holes, one to a depth of about 10 feet bgs and another to a depth of about 6 feet bgs. The ±10‐foot deep test holes were identified as P‐12a, P‐14a, P‐15a, P‐16a, and P‐17a. The ±6‐foot deep test holes were identified as P‐12b, P‐14b, P‐15b, P‐16b, and P‐17b). After each hole was drilled, a solid, 4‐inch diameter, Schedule 40 PVC casing was installed in the hole. The annular space of each hole was filled with bentonite pellets in the bottom roughly 3 feet and soil above the bentonite. A slip cap at the top of each test hole keeps foreign material from falling into the hole. 2.1.3 Cone Penetration Test Probes The four CPT probes were performed by Middle Earth Geo Testing to depths between approximately 7.4 and 35 feet bgs. These depths are shallower than the planned depths because of high resistance to advancement of the CPT probe. CPT involves pushing a small diameter (15 cm2 cross‐sectional area) steel probe into the ground using a hydraulic jack attached to a truck‐mounted rig. The tip of the probe is instrumented and takes almost continuous measurements (roughly every 1 inch) of tip resistance, side friction resistance, and pore pressure. Graphic presentations of the CPT data are included in Appendix A of this report. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Geotechnical laboratory testing was conducted on selected soil samples collected from our drill holes. These tests included moisture content, dry density, sieve analysis, and percentage passing a No. 200 sieve. An R‐value test was performed on the bulk sample collected from the site. The laboratory test results are presented on the drill hole logs at the corresponding sample depths. Graphic presentations of the results of the sieve analysis and R‐value tests are presented on separate sheets in Appendix B In addition to geotechnical testing, two selected soil samples were sent to CERCO Analytical for corrosivity analysis. A brief report from CERCO Analytical with the corrosivity test results is included in Appendix B. Refer to the CERCO report for their test results and findings. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 6 December 10, 2019 3 FINDINGS 3.1 Surface Conditions The project site is located in a residential neighborhood and on the north side of East Mozart Avenue, with South Bascom Avenue to the east, existing houses and Beethoven Lane to the west, and existing houses to the north. The south and southwestern portions of the site are occupied by single‐family residences and the rest of the site is being used as an operation yard for West Valley Arborists. Existing structures on the site include single‐story residences, carports, canopies, sheds, trailers, and containers. Vegetation consists of lawns, bushes, and isolated trees across the site. Other improvements include paved driveways for the residences and the operation yard, and overhead utility lines. Existing ground surface across the site is essentially flat, with a gentle down gradient from the south to north. 3.2 Subsurface Conditions Subsurface soils encountered at the site consist generally of alluvium. The surficial soil consists mostly of silty sand with gravel. Materials encountered in the four CPT probes are similar in soil behavior type as soils encountered in the drill holes. In hole DH‐1, the surficial soil layer consists of medium dense silty sand with gravel to a depth of roughly 3 feet bgs. This sand is underlain by dense poorly graded gravel with sand to a depth of roughly 7 feet bgs, dense to very dense clayey sand with gravel to a depth of roughly 21.5 feet bgs, dense to very dense poorly graded gravel with sand and clay to a depth of roughly 36.5 feet bgs, very dense clayey gravel with sand to a depth of roughly 40 feet bgs, and very dense clayey sand with gravel to the maximum explored depth of 49 feet. In hole DH‐2, the surficial soil layer consist of medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel to a depth of roughly 4 feet bgs. This sand is underlain by medium dense to very dense clayey sand with gravel to the maximum explored depth of 15 feet. In hole DH‐3, the surficial soil layer consists of medium dense to very dense silty sand with gravel to a depth of roughly 11 feet bgs. This layer of sand is underlain by dense, poorly graded sand with gravel to the maximum explored depth of 15 feet. In hole DH‐4, the surficial soil layer consists of medium dense silty sand with gravel to a depth of roughly 3 feet bgs. This sand is underlain by medium dense poorly graded gravel with sand to a depth of roughly 6 feet bgs, and very dense clayey sand with gravel to the maximum explored depth of 11 feet. In CPT‐1, the interpreted soil behavior type is predominantly clean sand to silty sand to the maximum explored depth of approximately 7.4 feet bgs due to refusal. In CPT‐2, the interpreted soil behavior type is predominantly clean sand to silty sand to the 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 7 December 10, 2019 maximum explored depth of approximately 17.5 feet bgs due to refusal. In CPT‐3, the interpreted soil behavior type is predominantly clean sand to silty sand, with thin lenses of sand to silty sand to clayey sand, to the maximum explored depth of approximately 35 feet due to refusal. In CPT‐4, the interpreted soil behavior type is predominantly clean sand to silty sand to the maximum explored depth of approximately 11.5 feet due to refusal. For a more detailed description of the subsurface soils encountered in our drill holes, refer to the drill hole logs in Appendix A. For a more detailed description of the subsurface soils encountered in our CPT probes, refer to the CPT plots in Appendix A. 3.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in any of the drill holes, hydraulic conductivity test holes, and CPT probes for this investigation, the deepest of which extended to a depth of about 49 feet bgs. Historical high groundwater at the project site was estimated to be about 25 feet based on our review of Plate 1.2, “Depth to historically highest ground water, historical liquefaction sites, and locations of boreholes used in this study, San Jose West 7.5‐minute Quadrangle, California,” Seismic Hazard Zone Report 058, prepared by California Geological Survey, Department of Conservation, 2002. It should be noted that fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to seasonal variations in rainfall and temperature, pumping from wells, regional groundwater recharge program, irrigation, or other factors that were not evident at the time of our investigation. 3.4 Field Hydraulic Conductivity Testing Three rounds of hydraulic conductivity testing were performed. Round 1 included six test holes (P‐1 through P‐6) drilled on October 19, 2018 and testing performed on October 22, 2018. Round 2 included five test holes (P‐7 through P‐11) drilled on June 25, 2019 and testing performed on June 27, 2019. Round 3 included ten test holes (P‐12a, P‐12b, P‐14a, P‐14b, P‐15a, P‐15b, P‐16a, P‐16b, P‐17a, and P‐17b) drilled on October 19, 2019 and testing performed on October 22, 2019. The approximate locations of the test holes are shown on Figures 1 and 2. The test holes were presoaked with water for at least two days prior to testing. The tests were performed following the procedures of ASTM Test D6391, Method B, Field Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity Using Borehole Infiltration. First, water was added to the top of the PVC casing and the standpipe apparatus was attached onto the top of the PVC casing. Water was then added through the standpipe of the test apparatus. The drop of water 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 8 December 10, 2019 level in the standpipe was recorded with time. When the water level in the standpipe became low, water was added. The new initial water level was recorded, and subsequent water level readings in the standpipe were taken over time. The tests were terminated when an apparent stability between subsequent readings was achieved. In holes P‐5 and P‐6, the water level in the PVC casings was dropping relatively fast after we filled the casings for preparation of the hydraulic conductivity testing. Therefore, the tests in holes P‐5 and P‐6 were conducted without the standpipe apparatus. The drop in water level inside the casing was recorded with time and two runs were conducted in each P‐5 and P‐6. Based on our analysis, the estimated vertical hydraulic conductivity values are tabulated below. Please note that hydraulic conductivity of soils will vary with gradation, fines content, and density. The estimated hydraulic conductivity values should be considered to an order of magnitude. Test Hole Location Depth of Hole Below Ground Surface (feet) Field Measured Infiltration Rate (in/hr) P‐1 & P‐2 Center of site 8.7 & 8.3 0.04 to 0.06 P‐3 & P‐4 Northeast area of site 8.8 & 8.5 0.15 to 0.032 P‐5 & P‐6 Front of 16187 E. Mozart Ave. 8 & 8.8 2.4 to 6 P‐7 Behind 16151 E. Mozart Ave. 11 1.15 P‐8 Behind 16151 E. Mozart Ave. 10.7 0.003 P‐9 Inside West Valley yard 10.8 0.8 P‐10 Inside West Valley yard 10.5 1.0 P‐11 Behind 16179 E. Mozart Ave. 11 0.27 P‐12a Driveway at 16179 E Mozart Ave. 9.9 0.5 P‐12b Driveway at 16179 E Mozart Ave. 6.6 0.9 P‐14a Backyard of 16179 E Mozart Ave. 10.2 0.6 P‐14b Backyard of 16179 E Mozart Ave. 6.2 0.3 P‐15a Inside West Valley yard 10.4 0.18 P‐15b Inside West Valley yard 5.8 1.0 P‐16a Inside West Valley yard 10.6 0.5 P‐16b Inside West Valley yard 6.4 1.5 P‐17a Inside West Valley yard 9.8 0.8 P‐17b Inside West Valley yard 6.1 1.1 Test holes P‐5, P‐6, and P‐12 were located near the stormwater management system in the southwestern portion of the site. An averaged field measured infiltration rate of 3 inch per 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 9 December 10, 2019 hour may be considered for this area. This rate does not include a factor of safety for the actual design. 3.5 Variations in Subsurface Conditions Our interpretations of soil and groundwater conditions, as described in this report, are based on information obtained from drill holes and laboratory testing for this study. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on these interpretations. Please realize the site has undergone different phases of development and grading. Therefore, it is likely that undisclosed variations in subsurface conditions exist at the site, particularly old foundations, abandoned utilities and localized areas of deep and loose fill. Careful observations should be made during construction to verify our interpretations. Should variations from our interpretations be found, we should be notified to evaluate whether any revisions should be made to our recommendations. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 10 December 10, 2019 4 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Earthquake Faulting The Greater San Francisco Bay Area is seismically dominated by the active San Andreas Fault system, the tectonic boundary between the northward moving Pacific Plate (west of the fault) and the North American Plate (east of the fault). This movement is distributed across a complex system of generally strike‐slip, right‐lateral, and subparallel faults. Potential sources of significant earthquake ground shaking at the site include several active and potentially active faults in the San Francisco Bay area, as well as faults farther afield. The faults were first compiled on the State’s Fault Activity Map (Jennings, 1974; Jennings and Bryant, 2010). This map has now been integrated into the US Geological Survey’s Quaternary Fault and Fold Database and made available as a .kmz “drape” over Google Earth terrain files. The distance to a seismic source (fault) is defined by the NGA relationships as the closest distance to the seismogenic zone, be it in the subsurface or at the surface; distances may therefore differ from distances measured on the ground surface. The distances shown on the table below are for reference only, as they are horizontal distances from the site to the surface trace of the seismic source, and not necessarily the closest distance to a (dipping) seismogenic zone. These distances were measured using the US Geological Survey’s Quaternary Fault and Fold Database, with major faults listed in approximate order of distance from the site; not all sources are listed in the summary table below. Fault Name Approximate Distance Orientation from Site Monte Vista‐Shannon 1 km Southwest San Andreas 9 km Southwest Sargent 13½ km South/Southeast Hayward (southeast extension) 17 km Northeast Calaveras (central section) 22 km Northeast San Gregorio 34 km Southwest 4.2 Ground Accelerations According to the 2016 and 2019 California Building Codes (CBC) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standards 7‐10 and 7‐16, the spectral response acceleration at any period can be taken as the lesser of the spectral response accelerations from the probabilistic and deterministic ground motion approaches. The Seismic Design Map tool available at the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) was used for this purpose to retrieve seismic design parameter values for design of buildings at the subject site. Two levels of ground motions are considered: Risk‐targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) and Design Earthquake (DE), with both probabilistic and deterministic values defined in terms of maximum‐ direction rather than geometric‐mean, horizontal spectral acceleration. The probabilistic MCER 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 11 December 10, 2019 spectral response accelerations are represented by a 5 percent damped acceleration response spectrum having a 1 percent probability of collapse within a 50‐year period and in the direction of the maximum horizontal response. The probabilistic Design Earthquake (DE) Sa value at any period can be taken as two‐thirds of the MCER Sa value at the same period. The site modified peak ground acceleration (PGAM) was calculated using the Seismic Design Map tool with a site Class C and the latitude and longitude of the site (latitude 37.256833º N, longitude ‐121.952075º W). The calculated PGAM is 0.832g based on ASCE 7‐10 and 1.079g based on ASCE 7‐16. 4.3 Seismicity The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities’ (WGCEP) estimates of the probabilities of major earthquakes are now in their sixth iteration, with the greatest changes in approach being the inclusion of multifold rupture scenarios, in the progressive consideration of more potential seismic sources, the possibility of earthquakes on unrecognized faults, and the inclusion of the notion of fault “readiness”. Current estimates (WGCEP, 2014) for the San Francisco region indicate a 72% probability of a large (magnitude 6.7 or greater) earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area as a whole over the 30‐year period beginning in 2014; this overall probability is greater than the previous (WGCEP, 2007) probability of 63%, due mainly to the inclusion of multi‐fault rupture scenarios. The estimate for the Calaveras fault alone is 14.4% (revised up from the 7% presented by WGCEP, 2007); for the (northern) San Andreas fault alone, 27.4% (revised upward from the WGCEP (2007) value of 21%); and for the Hayward fault, 45.3% (revised upward from the WGCEP (2007) value of 31%). 4.4 Liquefaction Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated granular soils, and certain fine‐grained soils, lose their strength due to the build‐up of excess pore water pressure during cyclic loading, such as that induced by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, clean, loose, fine‐grained sands and non‐plastic silts. Certain gravels, plastic silts, and clays are also susceptible to liquefaction. The primary factors affecting soil liquefaction include: 1) intensity and duration of seismic shaking; 2) soil type; 3) relative density of granular soils; 4) moisture content and plasticity of fine‐grained soils; 5) overburden pressure; and 6) depth to ground water. The project area is located in a Santa Clara County Liquefaction Hazard Zone (County of Santa Clara, October 26, 2012). Geotechnical information from DH‐1 and CPT‐3 of this investigation was used for a site‐specific liquefaction assessment. Our liquefaction assessment was based on a PGA value of 0.832g, earthquake moment magnitude of 7.9, and a groundwater depth of 25 feet bgs. The results of our analysis suggest the potential for liquefaction is generally low, although some of the 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 12 December 10, 2019 granular soils may be susceptible to liquefaction. The potential liquefaction‐induced ground settlement was estimated to be on the order of ½ inch. 4.5 Seismic Design Parameters The following site coefficients and seismic ground motion parameters are developed using the USGS Seismic Design Maps Application, the latitude and longitude of the site, and a Site Class C based on regional USGS information of the site location and subsurface materials encountered in our subsurface exploration. Parameter 2016 CBC/ASCE 7‐10 Value 2019 CBC/ASCE 7‐16 Value Site Class C C Site Coefficient Fa 1.0 1.2 Site Coefficient Fv 1.3 1.4 SS 2.228g 2.178 S1 0.782g 0.781 SMS 2.228g 2.613 SM1 1.016g 1.094 SDS 1.485g 1.742 SD1 0.678g 0.729 PGAM 0.832g 1.079g 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 13 December 10, 2019 5 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION Based on our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion the project site may be developed as discussed in this report, provided our geotechnical recommendations are incorporated in the design and construction of the project. Our opinions, conclusions, and recommendations are based on our understanding of the proposed development, data review, properties of soils encountered in subsurface exploration, laboratory test results, and engineering analyses. Geotechnical considerations for this project are discussed below. 5.1 Ground Rupture The project site is not located in an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Because no active or potentially active faults are known to cross the site, the risk of fault rupture through the project site is low. 5.2 Seismic Shaking The project site is located in an area of high seismicity. Based on general knowledge of the site seismicity, it should be anticipated that, during their useful life, the proposed structures will be subject to at least one severe earthquake (magnitude 7 to 8+) that could cause considerable ground shaking at the site. It is also anticipated that the site will periodically experience small to moderate magnitude earthquakes. 5.3 Disked Soils The surficial soils in the eastern and northern portions of the site have been disked and are loose. The disturbed soils should be over‐excavated and re‐compacted as recommended in this report (see Section 6.1.3). 5.4 Expansion Potential of Surficial Soils The surface and near‐surface soils encountered in our drill holes consist generally of silty sand with gravel. These granular soils have a low expansion potential; therefore, soil expansion should not be a concern at this site. 5.5 Existing Improvements Existing improvements at the site include miscellaneous structures, sheds, trailers, containers, underground utilities, isolated trees, and possibly septic tanks and leach fields. We understand there is no existing water well on the site. Prior to construction, the existing structures and improvements should be removed and the resulting excavations should be properly backfilled with engineered fill under the observation and testing of the project Geotechnical Engineer. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 14 December 10, 2019 5.6 Foundations for Structures Near Stormwater Management Systems Structures that are located within the influence zone of the underground stormwater infiltration systems will require special foundation considerations. For planning purposes, structures located between the infiltration vaults and an imaginary plane projected up at an inclination of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) from the outer bottom corner of the vaults should be evaluated for special foundations. Special foundations may include drilled piers, deepened footing foundations, or other appropriate means as determined by the project geotechnical engineer based on final project design. 5.7 Potential Impact of Stormwater Management System on Neighboring Properties The proposed stormwater management system in the southwestern portion of the site will consist of Storm Capture (SC) vaults located near E. Mozart Avenue to the south and at least 11 feet from the two residential properties to the west (201 and 203 Beethoven Lane). Based on project information provided by the project civil engineer, an excavation of about 10 feet bgs will be required for construction of the system. Temporary construction slopes along the perimeter of the excavation should be constructed per OSHA guidelines (see report Section 6.1.2). Where sloping excavation sidewalls are not possible due to site constraints, such as along the south side of the excavation (E. Mozart Avenue), west side (two neighboring properties), and east side (large oak trees), shoring system will be required during construction of the SC system. Project planning may consider soldier pile and lagging shoring systems designed to resist lateral soil pressures and surcharge loads acting on the shoring systems. Lateral soil pressures are presented in the “Recommendations” section of this report. Surcharge loads will depend on the magnitude and location of the external forces acting behind the shoring systems, and should be evaluated based on final project design specifics. Based on civil Sheet C5 provided to us, the proposed stormwater management system in the southwestern portion of the site would be constructed at least 30 feet from the houses on the neighboring properties to the west. At such distance, these neighboring houses are outside of the influence zone of the proposed stormwater system. We understand future structures which may be constructed on each of the neighboring 201 and 203 Beethoven Lane properties include an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) no closer than 4 feet west of their respective rear property line or a swimming pool no closer than 5 feet from the rear property line. These possible future structures, at 15 feet or more from the SC units, would be outside of the 1.5H:1V influence zone projected from the 10‐foot deep SC units at 11 feet east of the property line. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 15 December 10, 2019 5.8 Potential Migration of Collected Stormwater to Neighboring Properties To evaluate the potential for stormwater in the SC vaults migrating to the neighboring properties to the west, we have performed a seepage analysis using the computer program SEEP/W. SEEP/W is a finite element software for modeling groundwater flow in porous media. Our analysis was based on the following assumptions.  A Storm Capture system with its bottom at 10 feet below ground surface  7 feet of water inside the Storm Capture vaults, applied instantaneously at time zero instead of a gradual increase in actual storm events  Subsurface soil profile consisting of granular sand and gravel from ground surface to 50 feet below ground surface (based on our borings and CPTs performed at the site)  Permeability of 3.5x10‐4 cm/sec (½ inch per hour) for the sand and gravel soils The results of our seepage analysis are graphically shown in the attached Figures 4A through 4G. The graphics show the water pressure head contours with depth and as a function of elapsed time from 3,600 to 259,200 seconds (1 to 72 hours). Figure 4A shows the water pressure head contours at one‐hour elapsed time. Figures 4B through 4G shows the water pressure head contours developing with time, indicating a downward water flow. Because of a water head inside the vaults, the water pressure head contours bulge slightly outside of the SC vaults. The 0‐0.5 foot water pressure head zone is about 4 to 6 feet outside of the limits of the vaults at depths of 15 to 20 feet bgs. Based on our analysis, it is our opinion the potential is low for water inside the SC vaults, at 11 feet from the property line, to significantly affect the neighboring properties to the west (201 and 203 Beethoven Lane). 5.9 Tree Roots in Proposed Driveway The main entrance driveway to the project will be constructed between four large oak trees (#501, #502, #503, and #504 in the arborist report and on the project civil plans) in the southwestern portion of the site. The project civil design will include minimizing cuts and lower compaction on the subgrade soil in the tree root areas to reduce impact on the tree roots. We have provided full‐depth asphalt concrete pavement sections (with no aggregate base) in Section 6.5 of this report where thinner pavement sections are desired. Based on our discussion with the project arborist, 90 percent relative compaction on the pavement subgrade should not significantly impact the tree roots. A geogrid should be placed on the pavement subgrade in the tree root areas as discussed in the arborist report where lower compaction is desired (also see Section 6.5 of this report). 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 16 December 10, 2019 6 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Earthwork 6.1.1 Site Preparation, Clearing and Stripping Prior to grading, construction areas should be cleared of all structures and foundations, obstructions, deleterious materials, abandoned or designated utility lines, designated trees, and other below grade obstacles encountered during the clearing operation. Tree stumps should be grubbed. Roots with diameter of about 1 inch or larger or length of about 3 feet or longer should be removed. Any existing septic tanks and leach fields should be removed. Depressions, excavations, and holes that extend below the planned finish grades should be cleaned and backfilled with engineered fill compacted to the requirements given under the section of "Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction." After clearing, the site should be stripped to sufficient depth to remove vegetation and organic‐ laden topsoil. Stripped material may be stockpiled for use in landscape areas if approved by the project landscape architect; otherwise, it should be removed from the site. For planning purposes, an estimated stripping depth of 3 to 6 inches may be assumed. The actual stripping depth should be determined in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer at the time of construction. 6.1.2 Excavation, Temporary Construction Slopes, and Shoring Excavations are expected for site demolition, removal of loose and disturbed soils, cuts to achieve design grades, and construction of underground utilities, stormwater management systems, shoring, and foundations. The site soils are generally granular with little or no cohesion and excavations will require more extensive bracing or laying back because the granular soils are prone to sudden collapse. Excavations and temporary construction slopes should be constructed in accordance with the current CAL‐OSHA safety standards and local jurisdiction. The stability and safety of excavations, braced or unbraced, is the responsibility of the contractor. Care should be exercised when excavating in the proximity of existing structures and improvements. For excavations with no groundwater or seepage, the on‐site granular soils may be considered as Type C soil in OSHA 29 CFR Part 1926, Appendix A to Subpart P. Contractors are responsible for the design, installation, maintenance, and removal of temporary shoring and bracing systems. The presence of existing structures, pavements, and underground utilities must be incorporated in the design of the shoring and bracing systems. Based on project information provided by the project civil engineer, an excavation of about 10 feet bgs will be required for construction of the SC system. Temporary construction slopes along the perimeter of the excavation should be constructed per OSHA guidelines. Where sloping excavation sidewalls are not possible due to site constraints, such as along the south 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 17 December 10, 2019 side of the excavation (E. Mozart Avenue), west side (two neighboring properties), and east side (large oak trees), shoring system will be required during construction of the SC system. The shoring systems may remain in‐place or be removed after backfill of the SC excavation. The shoring systems may be designed using the parameters given in report Section 6.4. Trench excavations adjacent to existing or proposed foundations should be above an imaginary plane having an inclination of 1½:1 (horizontal to vertical) extending down from the bottom edge of the foundations. 6.1.3 Over‐excavation and Re‐compaction of Disturbed Soils Soils in the eastern and northern portions of the site have been disked and are loose. After site clearing and stripping, the disturbed soils should be over‐excavated to firm ground, estimated to be about 2 to 3 feet below existing ground surface. The soil surface exposed by the over‐ excavation should be properly prepared as recommended below under “Subgrade Preparation.” After the subgrade has been prepared, the excavation may be raised to design grade with engineered fill. 6.1.4 Subgrade Preparation In areas to receive engineered fills, foundations, concrete slabs‐on‐grade, and pavements, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture‐conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations given in the "Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction" section below. In building and concrete slab‐on‐grade areas, subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 5 feet horizontally beyond the limits of the proposed structures and any adjoining flatwork, unless it is restricted by existing improvements. Subgrade preparation should stay outside of the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) and Critical Root Zones (CRZ) recommended by the project arborist. Where buildings will encroach into the TPZ/CRZ (such as for tree #511, #527, #548), refer to Figure 3A of this report for special foundations to span over the underlying soil in the RPZ/CRZ. In pavement areas, subgrade preparation should extend a minimum of 3 feet beyond the back of the curbs or pavements. Prepared soil subgrades should be non‐yielding when proof‐rolled by a fully loaded water truck or similar weight equipment. Moisture conditioning of subgrade soils should consist of adding water if the soils are too dry and allowing the soils to dry if the soils are too wet. After the subgrades are properly prepared, the areas may be raised to design grades by placement of engineered fill. Wet soils should be anticipated during and after rainy months. Where encountered, unstable, wet or soft soil will require processing before compaction can be achieved. If construction schedule does not allow for air‐drying, other means such as lime or cement treatment of the soil or excavation and replacement with suitable material may be considered. Geotextile fabrics may also be used to help stabilize the subgrade. The method to be used should be determined at the time of construction based on the actual site conditions. We recommend 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 18 December 10, 2019 obtaining unit prices for subgrade stabilization during the construction bid process. 6.1.5 Materials for Fill In general, on‐site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by weight, free of deleterious materials or hazardous substances, and meeting the gradation requirements below may be used as engineered fill except where special material (such as capillary break material) is recommended. Engineered fill material should not contain rocks or lumps larger than 3 inches in greatest dimension, should not contain more than 15 percent of the material larger than 1½ inches, and should contain at least 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. In addition to these requirements, import fill should have a low expansion potential as indicated by Plasticity Index of 15 or less (per ASTM D4318), or Expansion Index of less than 20 (per ASTM D4829). All fills should be approved by the project Geotechnical Engineer prior to delivery to the site. At least 5 working days prior to importing to the site, a representative sample of the proposed import fill should be delivered to our laboratory for evaluation. Import fills should be tested and approved for residential use per the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) guidelines. 6.1.6 Engineered Fill Placement and Compaction Engineered fill should be placed in horizontal lifts each not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, moisture conditioned to the required moisture content, and mechanically compacted to the recommendations below. Relative compaction or compaction is defined as the in‐place dry density of the compacted soil divided by the laboratory maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557, latest edition, expressed as a percentage. Moisture conditioning of soils should consist of adding water to the soils if they are too dry and allowing the soils to dry if they are too wet. Engineered fills consisting of on‐site or imported soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction with moisture content between about 1 and 3 percent above the laboratory optimum value. In pavement areas, the upper 8 inches of subgrade soil should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Aggregate base in vehicle pavement areas should be compacted at slightly above the optimum moisture content to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. In TPZ/CRZ designated by the project arborist, the relative compaction of the pavement subgrade may be reduced to 90 percent. In these lower compaction areas, a geogrid consisting of Tensar BX1200, or equivalent, should be placed on the compacted subgrade prior to placement of the aggregate base. The geogrids should extend at least 5 feet beyond the TPZ/CRZ as recommended by the project arborist. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 19 December 10, 2019 6.1.7 Trench Backfill Utility trenches should be backfilled in accordance with the City of Campbell Standard Detail 7 (Method A) or Detail 8 (Method B) unless a different procedure is specified by the utility company. Method A calls for 2‐sack sand‐cement slurry backfill over the pipe bedding material. Method B calls for approved select native or structural backfill over the pipe bedding material. Native backfill is natural soil from the project area. Approval of native soil for use as backfill should be made by the project geotechnical engineer. Bedding material from the bottom of the trench to 12 inches above the top of pipe should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Backfill material above the bedding should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction with at least 95 percent relative compaction for the top 30 inches of backfill below the bottom of the pavement section. Evaluation of relative compaction should be based on ASTM D1557, latest edition. The bedding and backfill materials should be placed in lifts each not exceeding 6 inches in uncompacted thickness. Thicker lifts may be allowed if the contractor can demonstrate that the recommended level of compaction can be achieved with the compaction equipment and procedures used. Compaction should be performed by mechanical means only. Water jetting or flooding to attain compaction of backfill should not be permitted. 6.1.8 Considerations for Soil Moisture and Seepage Control Subgrade soil and engineered fill should be compacted at moisture content meeting our recommendations. Consideration should be given to reducing the potential for water infiltration from the exterior to under the buildings through utility lines crossing the building perimeter. In utility lines crossing beneath perimeter foundations, permeable backfill should be terminated at least 1 foot outside of the perimeter foundation. Impermeable material, such as concrete or clay soil, should be used for the entire trench depth to act as a seepage cutoff. Where concrete slabs or pavements abut against landscaped areas, the base rock layer and subgrade soil should be protected against saturation. Water if allowed to seep into the subgrade soil or pavement section could reduce the service life of the improvements. Methods that may be considered to reduce infiltration of water include: 1) subdrains installed behind curbs and slabs in landscape areas; 2) vertical cut‐offs, such as a deepened curb section, or equivalent, extending at least 2 inches into the subgrade soil; and 3) use of a drip or controlled irrigation system for landscape watering. 6.1.9 Wet Weather Construction If site grading and construction is to be performed during the winter rainy months, the owner and contractors should be fully aware of the potential impact of wet weather. Rainstorms can cause delay to construction and damage to previously completed work by saturating compacted pads or subgrades, or flooding excavations. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 20 December 10, 2019 Earthwork during rainy months will require extra effort and caution by the contractors. The contractors are responsible for protecting their work to avoid damage by rainwater. Standing pools of water should be pumped out immediately. Construction during wet weather conditions should be addressed in the project construction bid documents and/or specifications. We recommend the contractors submit a wet weather construction plan outlining procedures they will employ to protect their work and to minimize damage to their work by rainstorms. 6.2 Foundations 6.2.1 General The proposed residential structures may be supported on conventional continuous and/or isolated spread footing foundations or post‐tensioned slab foundations. General recommendations for design of these foundations are presented below. The Geotechnical Engineer should review the foundation plans and details before construction and observe the foundation excavations during construction to determine if the foundation excavations extend into suitable bearing material. Prior to placement of concrete, foundation excavations should be cleaned of loose soils. If unsuitable soils are encountered in the foundation excavations, the soils should be removed as recommended by our Geotechnical Engineer and replaced with approved material such as compacted engineered fill or lean concrete. Where portions of buildings occur within the TRZ/CRZ defined by the project arborist, special foundations are required such that the building loads are spanned over the TRZ/CRZ without any support from the underlying soil. Refer to Figure 3A of this report for a schematic showing the foundation concept. 6.2.2 Conventional Continuous and/or Isolated Spread Footing Foundations Footings, continuous and isolated, may be used to support the proposed residential structures and site retaining walls. Footings should bear on undisturbed native soil and/or properly compacted engineered fill. Preparation of soil subgrade, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil and engineered fill should be as recommended in the “Earthwork” section of this report. Footings may be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot due to dead plus live loads, with a one‐third increase when including transient loads such as wind or seismic. The footing bottom should extend at least 18 inches below pad grade or lowest adjacent finish grade, whichever provides a deeper embedment. Footings should be at least 12 inches wide. Footings should be reinforced as determined by the project Structural Engineer. Resistance to lateral loads may be developed from a combination of friction between the bottom of foundations and the supporting subgrade, and by passive resistance acting against 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 21 December 10, 2019 the vertical sides of the foundations. Footings bearing on native soil or engineered fill may be designed using an ultimate friction coefficient of 0.35 between the foundations and supporting subgrade, and an ultimate passive resistance of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf, equivalent fluid weight) acting against the embedded sides of the foundations. The passive pressure can be assumed to act starting at the top of the lowest adjacent grade in paved areas. In unpaved areas, the passive pressure can be assumed to act starting at a depth of 1 foot below grade. It should be noted that the passive resistance value discussed above is only applicable where the concrete is placed directly against undisturbed soil or engineered fills. Voids created by the use of forms should be backfilled with property compacted engineered fill or with concrete. Total post‐construction settlement of the foundations is anticipated to be up to about 1 inch, with up to about ½ inch of differential settlement over a distance of about 30 feet. To maintain the desired support, the bottom of footings adjacent to utility trenches or buried structures should be below an imaginary plane having an inclination of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical, extending upward from the bottom edge of the adjacent utility trenches or structures. If the footings are closer than the recommended distance, the project Geotechnical Engineer should be consulted for recommendations. 6.2.3 Post‐tensioned Slabs In lieu of footings, the proposed residential structures may be constructed on post‐tensioned (PT) slab foundations bearing on properly moisture‐conditioned and compacted soil subgrades. Preparation of soil subgrade, moisture conditioning, and compaction of soil and engineered fill should be as recommended in the “Earthwork” section of this report. The following parameters may be used with the 2004 PTI “Design of Post‐Tensioned Slabs‐on‐ Ground, Third Edition” manual for design of the PT slabs. Parameters PT Slabs Constructed on Properly Prepared Subgrade Soil em (center lift) 9 feet em (edge lift) 5.2 feet ym (center lift) 0.25 inch ym (edge lift) 0.5 inch Allowable soil bearing pressure = 2,000 psf for dead plus live loads, with a one‐third increase when including transient loads, such as wind or seismic A deepened edge, minimum 6 inches wide, should be constructed along the perimeter of the PT slabs. The deepened edge should extend to at least 18 inches below the bottom of the PT slabs. The deepened edge can help reduce moisture infiltration to under the PT slabs. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 22 December 10, 2019 Where interior building grades are higher than the exterior grades, the perimeter foundation elements should be designed to resist the lateral soil pressure and surcharge loads acting on the foundations. The bottom of the perimeter foundations should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest finish grades, excluding landscaping soils which are typically not compacted and should not be considered for structural support. We understand the PT slabs will be constructed on 1 to 2 inches of sand over a 15‐mil visqueen vapor barrier over compacted subgrade soil. Sand has been used for protection of the vapor barrier during construction and to allow dissipation of concrete mix water during curing. The use of sand, or equivalent material, should be determined by the project structural engineer or architect. A lower water‐cement ratio (0.45 to 0.50) will help reduce the permeability of the concrete and, hence, vapor transmission through the slabs. Settlements are expected to be primarily elastic. Post construction total and differential settlements of the PT slabs are anticipated to be less than 1 and ½ inch, respectively. 6.2.4 Drilled Pier Foundations Drilled, cast‐in‐place, reinforced concrete piers should be designed to derive their vertical supporting capacity from “skin friction” between the pier shafts and the surrounding earth materials. Piers should have a diameter of 12 inches or greater. Center to center spacing of the piers should be a minimum of 3 pier diameters. Reinforcement in the piers should be determined by the structural engineer. For dead plus live vertical loads, a net allowable adhesion value of 500 pounds per square foot may be assumed along the pier shafts. This value may be increased by one‐third when including transient loads, such as wind or seismic. The upper 1 foot of soil should be ignored in the calculation of vertical load capacity. End bearing capacity should be ignored. Resistance to lateral loads may be calculated based on passive soil pressure acting against the piers. For dead plus live loads, the ultimate passive resistance in soil or engineered fill may be calculated using an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot acting on 1.5 times the pier diameter, for level ground surface in front of the piers in the direction of load application. The upper 1 foot of soil should be ignored in the calculation of passive pressure. For calculating allowable lateral soil resistance, a factor of safety of 1.5 may be assumed under static loading, with 1.15 when including transient seismic or wind loading. It should be noted that passive resistance is only applicable where the concrete is placed directly against undisturbed soil or engineered fill. The presence of granular soils should be considered in the design and construction of the foundation piers because granular soils are prone to caving if the holes are not cased. Steel casing should be provided to keep the pier holes open. If piers extend below groundwater level, concrete should be placed by the “tremie” method to replace the water in the pier holes. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 23 December 10, 2019 6.3 Concrete Slabs‐on‐Grade 6.3.1 Interior Building Slabs‐on‐grade If the buildings are supported on conventional footings, the interior building floors are anticipated to be concrete slabs‐on‐grade. Refer to Figure 3A for special foundation design for buildings within the TRZ/CRZ. Interior building concrete slabs‐on‐grade should be constructed on properly prepared subgrade soil as recommended in the “Earthwork” section of this report. Once the slab subgrade soil has been moisture conditioned and compacted, the soil should not be allowed to dry prior to concrete placement. If the subgrade soil is too dry, the moisture content of the soil should be restored to the recommended value prior to placement of concrete. The project structural engineer should design the slab thickness, reinforcing, and control joint spacing. Slabs that will be covered with moisture sensitive floor coverings or where vapor transmission through the slab is undesirable should be underlain by at least 4 inches of capillary break material such as free draining, ¾‐inch by No. 4 clean crushed rock. A visqueen layer should be placed over the capillary break material. The visqueen should be a high‐quality polymer at least 15 mils thick that is resistant to puncture during slab construction. Laps between sheets and openings should be taped. Typically, the membrane and the slab are separated by 2 inches of sand but this should be determined by the structural engineer and architect. A lower water‐cement ratio (0.45 to 0.50) will also help reduce the permeability of the floor slab. It should be understood that the recommended plastic membrane is not intended to waterproof the concrete slab floor. If waterproofing is desired, the project designers and/or a flooring expert should be contacted. 6.3.2 Exterior Slabs‐on‐grade Exterior concrete slabs‐on‐grade for this project will be limited to driveways and exterior flatwork. These slabs should be constructed on properly moisture conditioned and compacted subgrade soil as recommended in the “Earthwork” section of this report. Soil subgrades should be moistened prior to placement of concrete for the concrete slabs. Design of reinforcement, joint spacing, etc. is the responsibility of the design engineer. If desired, exterior concrete slabs‐on‐grade may be cast free from other adjacent structural elements by using a strip of 1/2‐inch asphalt‐impregnated felt divider material between the slab edges and the adjacent structural elements. Frequent construction or control joints should be provided in all concrete slabs where cracking is objectionable. Continuous reinforcing or dowels at the construction and control joints will also aid in reducing uneven slab movements. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 24 December 10, 2019 6.4 Retaining Structures Retaining structures will include the shoring systems for construction of the stormwater management systems, walls of the Storm Capture vaults, and short retaining walls (exposed height up to about 3 feet) on individual lots. Retaining structures should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure and surcharge forces acting on the walls. Lateral pressures will depend on the degree of movement the walls are allowed (or desired), the type of backfill, the magnitude of external loads, and subsurface drainage provisions. 6.4.1 Lateral Soil Pressures For static loading conditions, retaining structures may be designed using at‐rest or active soil pressure. At‐rest soil pressure should be used where movement at the top of structure is restrained or undesirable. Such movements could cause settlement of backfill and improvements supported on the backfill. Active soil pressure may be used if the top of structure is free to deflect and resulting movement of the backfill is accepted. For seismic design, retaining structures may be designed using active soil pressure plus seismic surcharge. The at‐rest and active soil pressures given below are for level backfill, drained backfill conditions, and backfill consisting of compacted on‐site soil. Condition Lateral Soil Pressure (Equivalent Fluid Weight) for Level Backfill Active 45 pcf At‐rest 55 pcf Seismic Surcharge 25 pcf (inverted triangle for active or at‐rest conditions) Note: To develop active soil pressures, wall movements of about 0.005H to 0.01H may be necessary for cohesive soils, with up to 0.005H for cohesionless soils. Pressures due to static external loads should be added to the soil pressures recommended above in the design of retaining structures. For uniform vertical load at the ground surface, the additional lateral pressure on the structures should be calculated as a uniform pressure equal to the magnitude of the vertical load multiplied by a factor. For level backfill slope, the factor is 0.38 for active soil condition and 0.5 for at‐rest soil condition. For other slope inclinations and other types of surcharge loads, such as vehicle loads, point loads, strip loads, consult our office for specific recommendations. 6.4.2 Soldier Pile and Lagging Shoring Systems The soldier pile and lagging shoring systems should be designed using at‐rest lateral soil pressure plus any applicable surcharge loads per Section 6.4.1 above if movement at the top of structure is undesirable. Soldier piles for the shoring systems may be designed using parameters given in report Section 6.2.4 except as noted below.  The piers should have a diameter of at least 15 inches. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 25 December 10, 2019  The upper portion of the piers above an imaginary plane projecting up at a 45‐degree inclination from the outside bottom corner of the SC units should be ignored in the calculation of vertical and lateral pier capacity. 6.4.3 Below‐ground Walls of the Storm Capture Vaults The below‐ground walls of the Storm Capture vaults may be designed using the parameters given in Section 6.4.1 above. The lateral soil pressures in Section 6.4.1 are based on backfill consisting of compacted native soil. The net allowable soil bearing pressure given in Section 6.2.2 above may be used for design of the walls. 6.4.4 Retaining Walls on Individual Lots Retaining walls on individual lots are expected to have exposed height no higher than about 3 feet. These walls may be designed using the parameters given in Section 6.4.1 above. The walls may be supported on conventional footing or drilled pier foundations, designed using the parameters given in Section 6.2.2 or 6.2.4 above. 6.4.5 Drainage for Retaining Structures To achieve a drained backfill condition, a subsurface drain should be installed behind each retaining structure extending from its bottom to about 1 foot below finished grade. The drain should consist of a 12‐inch minimum wide blanket of drainage material consisting of either Class 2 Permeable material (Caltrans Standard Specifications, Section 68) or clean, 1/2 to 3/4‐inch maximum size crushed rock or gravel. If crushed rock or gravel is used, it should be encapsulated in a geotextile filter fabric, such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent. Filter fabric is optional if Class 2 Permeable material is used. The top 1 foot below finish grade should be backfilled with compacted clayey soil to reduce infiltration of surface water. A 4‐inch minimum diameter, perforated, schedule 40 PVC (or equivalent) pipe should be installed (with perforations facing down) along the base of each wall on a 2‐inch thick bed of drain rock, regardless whether drain rock or pre‐fabricated drainage panel is used. The pipes should be sloped to drain by gravity to a proper collection system and be discharged at a proper outlet as designed by the project Civil Engineer. Backfill against retaining structures should be compacted as discussed in the “Earthwork” Section of this report. Over‐compaction should be avoided because increased compaction effort can result in lateral pressures significantly higher than those recommended above. Backfill placed within 3 feet of the walls should be compacted with hand‐operated equipment. 6.5 Vehicle Pavements Vehicle pavements for this project will be an interior street, primarily serving automobiles and light pickup trucks, with occasional heavy vehicles, such as delivery and garbage trucks. If the 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 26 December 10, 2019 pavements are constructed prior to completion of construction, the pavements will be subject to construction traffic including heavy delivery and concrete trucks. An R‐value of 62 was measured on a bulk sample of soil collected from the site. For design purposes, an R‐value of 40 was used to calculate the pavement sections tabulated below using the Caltrans pavement section design procedures. DESIGN TRAFFIC INDEX HOT MIX ASPHALT (inches) CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE (inches) TOTAL (inches) Regular Pavement Section 5.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 5.5* 3.0 5.0 8.0 6.0 3.5 5.5 9.0 6.5 3.5 7.0 10.5 7.0 4.0 7.0 11.0 Full‐depth Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.5* 6.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 6.5 0.0 6.5 6.5 7.0 0.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 0.0 8.0 * A design traffic index of 5.5 is required by the City of Campbell for on‐site roadways for this project. Pavement sections should be constructed on soil subgrades that have been prepared as outlined in the “Earthwork” section of this report. The upper 8 inches of soil subgrade in pavement areas should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. The full section of aggregate base and aggregate subbase should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Evaluation of relative compaction should be based on ASTM D1557, latest edition. The Class 2 Aggregate Base material should conform to Section 26 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications and the Class 2 Aggregate Subbase material should conform to Section 25 of the Caltrans Standard Specifications. Where designated by the project arborist, the relative compaction of the pavement subgrade in tree root areas may be reduced to 90 percent. In these lower compaction areas, a geogrid consisting of Tensar BX1200, or equivalent, should be placed on the compacted subgrade prior to placement of the aggregate base. The geogrids should extend at least 5 feet beyond the tree root areas as determined by the project arborist. 6.6 Surface and Subsurface Drainage Engineering design of grading and drainage at the site is the responsibility of the project Civil Engineer. We suggest the following for consideration by the project Civil Engineer, as appropriate. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 27 December 10, 2019 Sufficient surface drainage should be provided to direct water away from buildings, foundations, concrete slabs‐on‐grade and pavements, and towards suitable collection and discharge facilities. Ponding of surface water should be avoided by establishing positive drainage away from all improvements. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 28 December 10, 2019 7 PLAN REVIEW, EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATION OBSERVATION Post‐report geotechnical services by Geo‐Logic Associates (GLA), typically consisting of pre‐ construction design consultations and reviews and construction observation and testing services, are necessary for GLA to confirm the recommendations contained in this report. This report is based on limited sampling and investigation, and by those constraints may not have discovered local anomalies or other varying conditions that may exist on the project site. Therefore, this report is only preliminary until GLA can confirm that actual conditions in the ground conform to those anticipated in the report. Accordingly, as an integral part of this report, GLA recommends post‐report, construction related geotechnical services to assist the project team during design and construction of the project. GLA requires that it perform these services if it is to remain as the project Geotechnical Engineer‐of‐record. During design, GLA can provide consultation and supplemental recommendations to assist the project team in design and value engineering, especially if the project design has been modified after completion of our report. It is impossible for us to anticipate every design scenario and use of construction materials during preparation of our report. Therefore, retaining GLA to provide post‐report consultation will help address design changes, answer questions and evaluate alternatives proposed by the project designers and contractors. Prior to issuing project plans and specifications for construction bidding purposes, GLA should review the grading, drainage and foundation plans and the project specifications to determine if the intent of our recommendations has been incorporated in these documents. We have found that such a review process will help reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation of our recommendations which may cause construction delay and additional cost. Construction phase services can include, among other things, the observation and testing during site clearing, stripping, excavation, mass grading, subgrade preparation, fill placement and compaction, backfill compaction, foundation construction and pavement construction activities. Geo‐Logic Associates would be pleased to provide cost proposals for follow‐up geotechnical services. Post‐report geotechnical services may include additional field and laboratory services. 5th DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Geotechnical Investigation 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Project PA18.1046.00 29 December 10, 2019 8 LIMITATIONS In preparing the findings and professional opinions presented in this report, Geo‐Logic Associates (GLA) has endeavored to follow generally accepted principles and practices of the engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering professions in the area and at the time our services were performed. No warranty, express or implied, is provided. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based, in part, on information that has been provided to us. In the event that the general development concept or general location and type of structures are modified, our conclusions and recommendations shall not be considered valid unless we are retained to review such changes and to make any necessary additions or changes to our recommendations. To remain as the project Geotechnical Engineer‐of‐record, GLA must be retained to provide geotechnical services as discussed under the Post‐report Geotechnical Services section of this report. Subsurface exploration is necessarily confined to selected locations and conditions may, and often do, vary between these locations. Should conditions different from those described in this report be encountered during project development, GLA should be consulted to review the conditions and determine whether our recommendations are still valid. Additional exploration, testing, and analysis may be required for such evaluation. Should persons concerned with this project observe geotechnical features or conditions at the site or surrounding areas which are different from those described in this report, those observations should be reported immediately to GLA for evaluation. It is important that the information in this report be made known to the design professionals involved with the project, that our recommendations be incorporated into project drawings and documents, and that the recommendations be carried out during construction by the contractor and subcontractors. It is not the responsibility of GLA to notify the design professionals and the project contractors and subcontractors. The findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this report are applicable only to the specific project development on this specific site. These data should not be used for other projects, sites, or purposes unless they are reviewed by GLA or a qualified geotechnical professional. Report prepared by, Geo‐Logic Associates DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW Chalerm (Beeson) Liang GE 2031 Fs/csl Copies: Robson Homes, Richard Yee (6) PROJECT PA18.1046 FIGURE 1 SITE PLAN (ExisƟng CondiƟons) 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Campbell, California 16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D Morgan Hill, California 95037 Phone (408) 778-2818 Fax (408) 779-6879 Revision: Checked By: Date: November 2019Francesca SenesBeeson LiangNovember 2019 ƌĂŌĞĚ By: Vicinity Map (No Scale)SiteN 0 50 ftEXPLANATION Exploratory drill hole DH-4 Field hydraulic conductivity test hole (P-13 was eliminated)P-17CPT-4Cone penetrometer testB-1Bulck sampleE. Mozart Ave. P-2P-1CPT-4DH-3Beethoven Ln. P-8P-7SiteVicinity Map (no scale)CA-17CA-85Bascom Blvd.Winchester Blvd. San Tomas Expy. Los Gatos Almaden Rd. W. Sunnyoaks Ave. NDH-1DH-2DH-4P-3P-4P-5P-6P-12a & P-12bP-14a & P-14bP-11P-10P-17a &P-17bP-16P-9P-15a &P-15bCPT-3CPT-2CPT-1B-1 PROJECT PA18.1046 FIGURE 2 SITE PLAN (Proposed Development) 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Campbell, California 16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D Morgan Hill, California 95037 Phone (408) 778-2818 Fax (408) 779-6879 Revision: Checked By: Date: November 2019Francesca SenesBeeson LiangNovember 2019 ƌĂŌĞĚ By: Vicinity Map (No Scale)SiteN 050 ftEXPLANATION Exploratory drill hole DH-4 Field hydraulic conductivity test hole (P-13 was eliminated)P-17CPT-4Cone penetrometer testB-1Bulck sampleE. Mozart Ave. SiteVicinity Map (no scale)CA-17CA-85Bascom Blvd.Winchester Blvd. San Tomas Expy. Los Gatos Almaden Rd. W. Sunnyoaks Ave. NDH-1DH-2DH-4DH-3CPT-4P-1P-2P-8P-7P-3P-4P-5P-6P-12a & P12bP-14a & P-14bP-11P-10P-17a & P-17bP-16P-9P-15a &P-15bCPT-3CPT-2CPT-1B-1 PROJECT PA18.1046 FIGURE 3 POST-TENSIONED SLAB TYPICAL SECTION 16179 E MOZART AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D Morgan Hill, California 95037 Phone (408) 778-2818 Fax. (408) 779-6879 Compiled by: Reviewed by: Date: Revision: Foundation Embedment for Post-tensioned Slabs with Differential Grades Post-tensioned slab See detail above for post-tensioned slab subgrade preparation Footing (if required by structural engineer) Perimeter thickened edge designed to retain soil behind Exterior finish grade, slope to drain 18 inch minimum embedment to bottom of thickened edge or required footing Schematic Only – Not to Scale Note: 1. Refer to geotechnical report for detailed recommendations. Subgrade Preparation and Thickened Edge for Post-tensioned Slab Foundations Exterior finish grade, slope to drain Post-tensioned Slab, thickness per structural design 18-inch minimum embedment below bottom of post- tensioned slab 6-inch wide thickened edge Moisture-conditioned and compaction slab subgrade soil per geotechnical report DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY PROJECT PA18.1046 FIGURE 3A SCHEMATIC OF FOUNDATION IN TREE PROTECTION ZONE 16179 E MOZART AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 16055 Caputo Drive, Suite D Morgan Hill, California 95037 Phone (408) 778‐2818 Fax. (408) 779‐6879 Compiled by: Reviewed by: Date: Revision: Post‐tensioned slab See Figure 3 for additional details Footing (if required by structural engineer) Exterior finish grade, slope to drain Building slab within tree protection zone Schematic Only – Not to Scale Note: 1. The above is a schematic of foundation in tree protection zone. Portion of foundation in tree protection zone to be designed with no bearing on foundation soil. Final details to be reviewed, designed, and approved by project arborist and structural engineer. Provide moisture protection to prevent moisture intrusion under post‐ tensioned slab. Provide moisture protection to prevent moisture intrusion under post‐tensioned slab 'LVWDQFHIHHW (OHYDWLRQ(OHYDWLRQIHHW0R]DUW*:0RGHO0R]DUW*:0RGHOBJV]'DWH7LPH300HWKRG7UDQVLHQW/ IW. HFPV&RORU 1DPH 0RGHO 9RO:&)XQFWLRQ .)XQFWLRQ .\ .[ 5DWLR$FWLYDWLRQ3:3SVI6DQGDQG*UDYHO 6DWXUDWHG8QVDWXUDWHG6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV 6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV &RORU 1DPH &DWHJRU\ .LQG 3DUDPHWHUV/RZHU%RXQGDU\+\GUDXOLF :DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDG IW1R)ORZ +\GUDXOLF :DWHU5DWH IWñVHF6WRUPZDWHU6WRUDJH%R[+\GUDXOLF :DWHU7RWDO+HDG IW:DWHULQ%R[IRU+UVIW:DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDGIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIW(ODSVHG7LPHVHF(1 hour)Project PA181046.00 November 11, 2019 Figure 4A 'LVWDQFHIHHW (OHYDWLRQ(OHYDWLRQIHHW0R]DUW*:0RGHO0R]DUW*:0RGHOBJV]'DWH7LPH300HWKRG7UDQVLHQW/ IW. HFPV&RORU 1DPH 0RGHO 9RO:&)XQFWLRQ .)XQFWLRQ .\ .[ 5DWLR$FWLYDWLRQ3:3SVI6DQGDQG*UDYHO 6DWXUDWHG8QVDWXUDWHG6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV 6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV &RORU 1DPH &DWHJRU\ .LQG 3DUDPHWHUV/RZHU%RXQGDU\+\GUDXOLF :DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDG IW1R)ORZ +\GUDXOLF :DWHU5DWH IWñVHF6WRUPZDWHU6WRUDJH%R[+\GUDXOLF :DWHU7RWDO+HDG IW:DWHULQ%R[IRU+UVIW:DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDGIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIW(ODSVHG7LPHVHF(12 hours)Project PA181046.00 November 11, 2019 Figure 4B 'LVWDQFHIHHW (OHYDWLRQ(OHYDWLRQIHHW0R]DUW*:0RGHO0R]DUW*:0RGHOBJV]'DWH7LPH300HWKRG7UDQVLHQW/ IW. HFPV&RORU 1DPH 0RGHO 9RO:&)XQFWLRQ .)XQFWLRQ .\ .[ 5DWLR$FWLYDWLRQ3:3SVI6DQGDQG*UDYHO 6DWXUDWHG8QVDWXUDWHG6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV 6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV &RORU 1DPH &DWHJRU\ .LQG 3DUDPHWHUV/RZHU%RXQGDU\+\GUDXOLF :DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDG IW1R)ORZ +\GUDXOLF :DWHU5DWH IWñVHF6WRUPZDWHU6WRUDJH%R[+\GUDXOLF :DWHU7RWDO+HDG IW:DWHULQ%R[IRU+UVIW:DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDGIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIW(ODSVHG7LPHVHF(24 hours)Project PA181046.00 November 11, 2019 Figure 4C 'LVWDQFHIHHW (OHYDWLRQ(OHYDWLRQIHHW0R]DUW*:0RGHO0R]DUW*:0RGHOBJV]'DWH7LPH300HWKRG7UDQVLHQW/ IW. HFPV&RORU 1DPH 0RGHO 9RO:&)XQFWLRQ .)XQFWLRQ .\ .[ 5DWLR$FWLYDWLRQ3:3SVI6DQGDQG*UDYHO 6DWXUDWHG8QVDWXUDWHG6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV 6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV &RORU 1DPH &DWHJRU\ .LQG 3DUDPHWHUV/RZHU%RXQGDU\+\GUDXOLF :DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDG IW1R)ORZ +\GUDXOLF :DWHU5DWH IWñVHF6WRUPZDWHU6WRUDJH%R[+\GUDXOLF :DWHU7RWDO+HDG IW:DWHULQ%R[IRU+UVIW:DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDGIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIW(ODSVHG7LPHVHF(36 hours)Project PA181046.00 November 11, 2019 Figure 4D 'LVWDQFHIHHW (OHYDWLRQ(OHYDWLRQIHHW0R]DUW*:0RGHO0R]DUW*:0RGHOBJV]'DWH7LPH300HWKRG7UDQVLHQW/ IW. HFPV&RORU 1DPH 0RGHO 9RO:&)XQFWLRQ .)XQFWLRQ .\ .[ 5DWLR$FWLYDWLRQ3:3SVI6DQGDQG*UDYHO 6DWXUDWHG8QVDWXUDWHG6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV 6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV &RORU 1DPH &DWHJRU\ .LQG 3DUDPHWHUV/RZHU%RXQGDU\+\GUDXOLF :DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDG IW1R)ORZ +\GUDXOLF :DWHU5DWH IWñVHF6WRUPZDWHU6WRUDJH%R[+\GUDXOLF :DWHU7RWDO+HDG IW:DWHULQ%R[IRU+UVIW:DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDGIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIW(ODSVHG7LPHVHF(48 hours)Project PA181046.00 November 11, 2019 Figure 4E 'LVWDQFHIHHW (OHYDWLRQ(OHYDWLRQIHHW0R]DUW*:0RGHO0R]DUW*:0RGHOBJV]'DWH7LPH300HWKRG7UDQVLHQW/ IW. HFPV&RORU 1DPH 0RGHO 9RO:&)XQFWLRQ .)XQFWLRQ .\ .[ 5DWLR$FWLYDWLRQ3:3SVI6DQGDQG*UDYHO 6DWXUDWHG8QVDWXUDWHG6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV 6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV &RORU 1DPH &DWHJRU\ .LQG 3DUDPHWHUV/RZHU%RXQGDU\+\GUDXOLF :DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDG IW1R)ORZ +\GUDXOLF :DWHU5DWH IWñVHF6WRUPZDWHU6WRUDJH%R[+\GUDXOLF :DWHU7RWDO+HDG IW:DWHULQ%R[IRU+UVIW:DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDGIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIW(ODSVHG7LPHVHF(60 hours)Project PA181046.00 November 11, 2019 Figure 4F 'LVWDQFHIHHW (OHYDWLRQ(OHYDWLRQIHHW0R]DUW*:0RGHO0R]DUW*:0RGHOBJV]'DWH7LPH300HWKRG7UDQVLHQW/ IW. HFPV&RORU 1DPH 0RGHO 9RO:&)XQFWLRQ .)XQFWLRQ .\ .[ 5DWLR$FWLYDWLRQ3:3SVI6DQGDQG*UDYHO 6DWXUDWHG8QVDWXUDWHG6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV 6DQG*UDYHOZ)LQHV &RORU 1DPH &DWHJRU\ .LQG 3DUDPHWHUV/RZHU%RXQGDU\+\GUDXOLF :DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDG IW1R)ORZ +\GUDXOLF :DWHU5DWH IWñVHF6WRUPZDWHU6WRUDJH%R[+\GUDXOLF :DWHU7RWDO+HDG IW:DWHULQ%R[IRU+UVIW:DWHU3UHVVXUH+HDGIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIWIW(ODSVHG7LPHVHF(72 hours)Project PA181046.00 November 11, 2019 Figure 4G APPENDIX A KEYS TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION, DRILL HOLE LOGS, AND CONE PENETRATION TEST PLOTS KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION - FINE GRAINED SOILS (50% OR MORE IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE) (modified from ASTM D2487 to include fine grained soils with intermediate plasticity) MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS GROUP NAMES SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid Limit less than 35) Low Plasticity Inorganic PI < 4 or plots below “A” line ML Silt, Silt with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Silt, Sandy or Gravelly Silt with Sand or Gravel Inorganic PI > 7 or plots on or above “A” line CL Lean Clay, Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay, Sandy or Gravelly Lean Clay with Sand or Gravel Inorganic PI between 4 and 7 CL-ML Silty Clay, Silty Clay with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Silty Clay, Sandy or Gravelly Silty Clay with Sand or Gravel Organic See footnote 3 OL Organic Silt (below “A” Line) or Organic Clay (on or above “A” Line) (1,2) SILTS AND CLAYS (35 ≤ Liquid Limit < 50) Intermediate Plasticity Inorganic PI < 4 or plots below “A” line MI Silt, Silt with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Silt, Sandy or Gravelly Silt with Sand or Gravel Inorganic PI > 7 or plots on or above “A” line CI Clay, Clay with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Clay, Sandy or Gravelly Clay with Sand or Gravel Organic See footnote 3 OI Organic Silt (below “A” Line) or Organic Clay (on or above “A” Line) (1,2) SILTS AND CLAYS (Liquid Limit 50 or greater) High Plasticity Inorganic PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic Silt, Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt, Sandy or Gravelly Elastic Silt with Sand or Gravel Inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat Clay, Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel, Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay, Sandy or Gravelly Fat Clay with Sand or Gravel Organic See note 3 below OH Organic Silt (below “A” Line) or Organic Clay (on or above “A” Line) (1,2) 1. If soil contains 15% to 29% plus No. 200 material, include “with sand” or “with gravel” to group name, whichever is predominant. 2. If soil contains ≥30% plus No. 200 material, include “sandy” or “gravelly” to group name, whichever is predominant. If soil contains ≥15% of sand or gravel sized material, add “with sand” or “with gravel” to group name. 3. Ratio of liquid limit of oven dried sample to liquid limit of not dried sample is less than 0.75. CONSISTENCY UNCONFINED SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) Plasticity Chart 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 203040 5060 708090100110Plasticity IndexLiquid Limit "U" Line "A" Line CH or OH MH or OHCI or OI MI or OI CL or OL CL-ML ML or OL VERY SOFT < 0.25 < 2 SOFT 0.25 – 0.5 2 – 4 FIRM 0.5 – 1.0 5 – 8 STIFF 1.0 – 2.0 9 – 15 VERY STIFF 2.0 – 4.0 16 – 30 HARD > 4.0 > 30 MOISTURE CRITERIA Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist Damp, but no visible water Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below the water table GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATION – COARSE GRAINED SOILS (MORE THAN 50% IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE) (modified from ASTM D2487 to include fines with intermediate plasticity) MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS GROUP NAMES1 GRAVELS (more than 50% of coarse fraction is larger than No. 4 sieve size) Gravels with less than 5% fines Cu ≥ 4 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 GW Well Graded Gravel, Well Graded Gravel with Sand Cu < 4 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 GP Poorly Graded Gravel, Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Gravels with 5% to 12% fines ML, MI or MH fines GW-GM Well Graded Gravel with Silt, Well Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand GP-GM Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt, Poorly Graded Gravel with Silt and Sand CL, CI or CH fines GW-GC Well Graded Gravel with Clay, Well Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand GP-GC Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay, Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand Gravels with more than 12% fines ML, MI or MH fines GM Silty Gravel, Silty Gravel with Sand CL, CI or CH fines GC Clayey Gravel, Clayey Gravel with Sand CL-ML fines GC-GM Silty Clayey Gravel; Silty, Clayey Gravel with Sand SANDS (50% or more of coarse fraction is smaller than No. 4 sieve size) Sands with less than 5% fines Cu ≥ 6 and 1 ≤ Cc ≤ 3 SW Well Graded Sand, Well Graded Sand with Gravel Cu < 6 and/or 1 > Cc > 3 SP Poorly Graded Sand, Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel Sands with 5% to 12% fines ML, MI or MH fines SW-SM Well Graded Sand with Silt, Well Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel SP-SM Poorly Graded Sand with Silt, Poorly Graded Sand with Silt and Gravel CL, CI or CH fines SW-SC Well Graded Sand with Clay, Well Graded Sand with Clay and Gravel SP-SC Poorly Graded Sand with Clay, Poorly Graded Sand with Clay and Gravel Sands with more than 12% fines ML, MI or MH fines SM Silty Sand, Silty Sand with Gravel CL, CI or CH fines SC Clayey Sand, Clayey Sand with Gravel CL-ML fines SC-SM Silty, Clayey Sand; Silty, Clayey Sand with Gravel US STANDARD SIEVES 3 Inch ¾ Inch No. 4 No. 10 No. 40 No. 200 COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE COBBLES & BOULDERS GRAVELS SANDS SILTS AND CLAYS RELATIVE DENSITY (SANDS AND GRAVELS) STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT) 1. Add “with sand” to group name if material contains 15% or greater of sand-sized particle. Add “with gravel” to group name if material contains 15% or greater of gravel-sized particle. Very Loose 0 - 4 Loose 5 – 10 MOISTURE CRITERIA Medium Dense 11 – 30 Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Dense 31 - 50 Moist Damp, but no visible water Very Dense 50+ Wet Visible free water, usually soi is below the water table GEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY DATE:DH‐ 1 PROJECT NUMBER: LOGGED BY: HOLE ELEVATION: D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split‐spoon X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split‐spoon I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT) S = Slough in sample SOIL TYPEDEPTH (ft)SAMPLEBLOWS PER FOOTPOCKET PEN (tsf)% PASSING #200 SIEVELIQUID LIMITWATER CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEXDRY DENSITY (pcf)FAILURE STRAIN (%)UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf)SM S D D285 GP S D D82 SC S D D155 S I I S I I138 PAGE: DESCRIPTION OF EARTH MATERIALS 51 29 10 9 11 79 17 15 18 16 19 14 12 13 PA18.1046 SAMPLER: 1 of 3GEO‐LOGIC ASSOCIATES 6 7 8 10/19/2018 PROJECT NAME: DRILL RIG: Mobile B53, autohammer 16179 E. Mozart Avenue HOLE DIAMETER: 8" hollow stem auger LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE 20 FS/BL 1 2 Final: ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Initial:GROUND WATER DEPTH: 3 5 4 24 35 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL: Brown (10YR 5/3), moist, medium dense, fine to coarse sand; with mostly fine gravel POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND:Brown (10YR 5/3), moist, dense, fine to coarse gravel; wih fine to coarse sand CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL:Brown (10YR 5/3), moist, very dense; fine to coarse sand, with fine to coarse gravel pale brown (10YR 6/3), moist, dense, gravels are sandstone fragments DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY DATE:DH‐ 1 PROJECT NUMBER: LOGGED BY: HOLE ELEVATION: D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split‐spoon X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split‐spoon I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT) S = Slough in sample SOIL TYPEDEPTH (ft)SAMPLEBLOWS PER FOOTPOCKET PEN (tsf)% PASSING #200 SIEVELIQUID LIMITWATER CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEXDRY DENSITY (pcf)FAILURE STRAIN (%)UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf)SC S I I117 S I I S I I97 GC S I I157 PAGE: ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ 2 of 3 DESCRIPTION OF EARTH MATERIALS 40 35 8" hollow stem auger GEO‐LOGIC ASSOCIATES 36 31 38 39 37 34 33 GP‐ GC SAMPLER: CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL (continued) LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE DRILL RIG: 10/19/2018 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 21 FS/BL Mobile B53, autohammer PA18.104616179 E. Mozart AvenuePROJECT NAME: 24 25 26 27 28 Initial: Final: 46 60 65 63 22 23 29 30 32 HOLE DIAMETER: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND and CLAY: Dark gray (10YR 4/1), moist, dense to very dense; fine to coasre gravel, with fine to coarse sand CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND: Grayish brown (10YR 5/2), moist, very dense; fine to coarse gravel; with fine to coarse sand, gravels are mudstone, weakly cemented sandstone, and crystalline rock fragments very dense, gravels are mudstone and weakly cemented sandstone DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY DATE:DH‐ 1 PROJECT NUMBER: LOGGED BY: HOLE ELEVATION: D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split‐spoon X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split‐spoon I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT) S = Slough in sample SOIL TYPEDEPTH (ft)SAMPLEBLOWS PER FOOTPOCKET PEN (tsf)% PASSING #200 SIEVELIQUID LIMITWATER CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEXDRY DENSITY (pcf)FAILURE STRAIN (%)UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf)SC S I I S I I157 PAGE: PA18.1046 3 of 3 ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ GEO‐LOGIC ASSOCIATES DESCRIPTION OF EARTH MATERIALS 60 58 56 57 59 54 55 52 53 No Groundwater Encountered 50 51 48 49BOTTOM OF HOLE= 49 FEET 46 47 44 45 PROJECT NAME: 16179 E. Mozart Avenue SAMPLER:GROUND WATER DEPTH: 42 Initial: Final: FS/BL HOLE DIAMETER: 8" hollow stem auger 41 DRILL RIG: Mobile B53, autohammer 10/19/2018 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE 63 47 43 CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL: light olive brown (2.5Y 5/4), moist, very dense; fine to coarse sand, with fine to coarse gravel and cobbles brown (10YR 5/3), moist, dense to very dense DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY DATE:DH‐ 2 PROJECT NUMBER: LOGGED BY: HOLE ELEVATION: D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split‐spoon X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split‐spoon I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT) S = Slough in sample SOIL TYPEDEPTH (ft)SAMPLEBLOWS PER FOOTPOCKET PEN (tsf)% PASSING #200 SIEVELIQUID LIMITWATER CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEXDRY DENSITY (pcf)FAILURE STRAIN (%)UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf)SM S D D S SC D D S I I229 S I I PAGE: 20 GEO‐LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 1 18 19 No groundwater Encountered 16 17 51 15BOTTOM OF HOLE = 15 Feet 13 dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2)14 11 12 87 very dense 10 7 8 6 3 9 PA18.1046 DRILL RIG: Mobile B53, downhole hammer FS/BL 2 HOLE DIAMETER: 8" hollow stem auger ‐‐‐ SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: ‐‐‐ Final:‐‐‐ DESCRIPTION OF EARTH MATERIALS 1 10/19/2018 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE PROJECT NAME: 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Initial: 32 37 4 5 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL: Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), moist, medium dense to dense; fine to coarse sand, fine gravel CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL: Brown (10YR 5/3), moist, medium dense to dense; fine to coarse sand and gravel DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY DATE:DH‐ 3 PROJECT NUMBER: LOGGED BY: HOLE ELEVATION: D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split‐spoon X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split‐spoon I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT) S = Slough in sample SOIL TYPEDEPTH (ft)SAMPLEBLOWS PER FOOTPOCKET PEN (tsf)% PASSING #200 SIEVELIQUID LIMITWATER CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEXDRY DENSITY (pcf)FAILURE STRAIN (%)UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf)SM S D D4 S D D5 S I I SP S I I PAGE: 10/19/2018 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE PROJECT NAME: 16179 E. Mozart Avenue SAMPLER:GROUND WATER DEPTH: Initial: DESCRIPTION OF EARTH MATERIALS 1 2 3 4 dense PA18.1046 DRILL RIG: Mobile B53, downhole hammer FS/BL HOLE DIAMETER: 8" hollow stem auger ‐‐‐ ‐‐‐ Final:‐‐‐ 5 6 7 8 9 81 10 14 33 15BOTTOM OF HOLE = 15 FEET 11 12 13 19 20 GEO‐LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 1 No Groundwate Encountered 16 17 18 15 42 POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL: Brown (10YR 4/3), moist, dense; fine to coarse sand, with fine to coarse gravel, gravels are mudstone and sandstone fragments pale brown (10YR 6/3), very dense, some gravels are sandstone fragments SILTY SAND with GRAVEL: Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), moist, medium dense; fine to coarse sand DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY DATE:DH‐ 4 PROJECT NUMBER: LOGGED BY: HOLE ELEVATION: D = 3" OD, 2½" ID Split‐spoon X = 2½" OD, 2" ID Split‐spoon I = Standard Penetrometer (2" OD SPT) S = Slough in sample SOIL TYPEDEPTH (ft)SAMPLEBLOWS PER FOOTPOCKET PEN (tsf)% PASSING #200 SIEVELIQUID LIMITWATER CONTENTPLASTICITY INDEXDRY DENSITY (pcf)FAILURE STRAIN (%)UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (psf)SM S D D275 GP S D D43 SC S I I PAGE: 20 GEO‐LOGIC ASSOCIATES 1 of 1 18 19 16 17 15 13 14 11BOTTOM OF HOLE = 11 FEET No Groundwater Encountered 12 10 7 8 88 6 9 PA18.1046 DRILL RIG: Mobile B53, downhole hammer FS/BL 2 HOLE DIAMETER: 8" hollow stem auger ‐‐‐ SAMPLER: GROUND WATER DEPTH: ‐‐‐ Final:‐‐‐ DESCRIPTION OF EARTH MATERIALS 1 10/19/2018 LOG OF EXPLORATORY DRILL HOLE PROJECT NAME: 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Initial: 25 22 4 5 3 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL:Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), moist, medium dense; fine to coarse sand CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL:Pale brown (10YR 6/3), moist, very dense, fine to coarse sand; with fine to coarse gravel, some gravels are sandstone fragments POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND:Yellowish brown (10YR 5/4), moist, medium dense, fine to coarse gravel; with fine to coarse sand and sandstone fragments DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geo-Logic AssociatesProjectMozart AveOperatorAS-JMFilenameSDF(380).cptJob NumberPA18.1039.PRCone NumberDDG1418GPSHole NumberCPT-01Date and Time10/19/2018 11:46:49 AMMaximum Depth7.87 ftEST GW Depth During Test>7.87 ftNet Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squaredSoil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 700 TIPTSF 0 12 FRICTIONTSF 0 5 Fs/Qt% 0 200 SPT N0121 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*) CPT DATADEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPEDRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geo-Logic AssociatesProjectMozart AveOperatorAS-JMFilenameSDF(381).cptJob NumberPA18.1039.PRCone NumberDDG1418GPSHole NumberCPT-02Date and Time10/19/2018 12:17:38 PMMaximum Depth18.04 ftEST GW Depth During Test>18.04 ftNet Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squaredSoil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 700 TIPTSF 0 12 FRICTIONTSF 0 5 Fs/Qt% 0 200 SPT N0121 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*) CPT DATADEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPEDRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geo-Logic AssociatesProjectMozart AveOperatorAS-JMFilenameSDF(382).cptJob NumberPA18.1039.PRCone NumberDDG1418GPSHole NumberCPT-03Date and Time10/19/2018 12:54:01 PMMaximum Depth35.60 ftEST GW Depth During Test>35.60 ftNet Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squaredSoil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 700 TIPTSF 0 12 FRICTIONTSF 0 5 Fs/Qt% 0 200 SPT N0121 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*) CPT DATADEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPEDRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY Geo-Logic AssociatesProjectMozart AveOperatorAS-JMFilenameSDF(384).cptJob NumberPA18.1039.PRCone NumberDDG1418GPSHole NumberCPT-04ADate and Time10/19/2018 1:58:41 PMMaximum Depth11.65 ftEST GW Depth During Test>11.65 ftNet Area Ratio .8Cone Size 10cm squaredSoil Behavior Referance*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 700 TIPTSF 0 12 FRICTIONTSF 0 5 Fs/Qt% 0 200 SPT N0121 - sensitive fine grained 2 - organic material 3 - clay 4 - silty clay to clay 5 - clayey silt to silty clay 6 - sandy silt to clayey silt 7 - silty sand to sandy silt 8 - sand to silty sand 9 - sand 10 - gravelly sand to sand 11 - very stiff fine grained (*)12 - sand to clayey sand (*) CPT DATADEPTH(ft)SOILBEHAVIORTYPEDRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY APPENDIX B LABORATORY TEST RESULTS DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY 9.5 SAMPLE 0 US STANDARD SIEVES COARSE MEDIUM FINE B-1 DRILL HOLE No. 15.2% HYDROMETER CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL DATE OF TEST --- GRAIN SIZE TEST RESULTS PA18.1046.00PROJECT No.PROJECT NAME 16179 E. Mozart Ave. SIEVE NUMBER 1 FigureGEO-LOGIC ASSOCIATES REMARKS: COBBLES DEPTH (ft) 45.8% SILT & CLAY 11/19/2018 39.0% SOURCE/QUARRY: FINECOARSE GRAVEL SAND DESCRIPTION OF SOIL: SQUARE OPENING (in) 1½ 3/8 4 200 3 3/4 10 20 40 100 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE (mm) RevOct20070 DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY 24-25 SAMPLE 0 US STANDARD SIEVES COARSE MEDIUM FINE B-2 11/19/2018 47.8% SOURCE/QUARRY: FINECOARSE GRAVEL SAND DESCRIPTION OF SOIL: SQUARE OPENING (in)SIEVE NUMBER 1 FigurePACIFIC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REMARKS: COBBLES DEPTH (ft) 41.1% SILT & CLAY 11.1% HYDROMETER POORLY GRADED GRAVEL with SAND and CLAY DATE OF TEST --- GRAIN SIZE TEST RESULTS PA18.1046.00PROJECT No.PROJECT NAME 16179 E. Mozart Ave. DRILL HOLE No. 1½ 3/8 4 200 3 3/4 10 20 40 100 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE (mm) RevOct20070 DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY 39 SAMPLE 0 US STANDARD SIEVES COARSE MEDIUM FINE B-3 HYDROMETER CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND DATE OF TEST --- GRAIN SIZE TEST RESULTS PA18.1046.00PROJECT No.PROJECT NAME 16179 E. Mozart Ave. DRILL HOLE No.1 FigurePACIFIC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REMARKS: COBBLES DEPTH (ft) 39.1% SILT & CLAY 15.0% 11/19/2018 45.9% SOURCE/QUARRY: FINECOARSE GRAVEL SAND DESCRIPTION OF SOIL: SQUARE OPENING (in)SIEVE NUMBER 1½ 3/8 4 200 3 3/4 10 20 40 100 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE (mm) RevOct20070 DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY 9-10 SAMPLE 0 US STANDARD SIEVES COARSE MEDIUM FINE B-4 DRILL HOLE No. 22.0% HYDROMETER CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL DATE OF TEST --- GRAIN SIZE TEST RESULTS PA18.1046PROJECT No.PROJECT NAME 16179 E. Mozart Ave. SIEVE NUMBER 2 FigurePACIFIC GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REMARKS: COBBLES DEPTH (ft) 52.1% SILT & CLAY 11/19/2018 25.9% SOURCE/QUARRY: FINECOARSE GRAVEL SAND DESCRIPTION OF SOIL: SQUARE OPENING (in) 1½ 3/8 4 200 3 3/4 10 20 40 100 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT PERCENT COARSER BY WEIGHT GRAIN SIZE (mm) RevOct20070 DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY 'R' VALUE CA 301 Project Robson Holmes LLC Date: 11/24/18 By: LD Job #: PA18.1046.00 Sample : 16179 Mozart Ave. Soil Type: Brown, Sandy Silt w. Gravel TEST SPECIMEN A B C D Compactor Air Pressure psi 300 350 350 Initial Moisture Content %1.8 1.8 1.8 Water Added ml 155 145 135 Moisture at Compaction % 14.9 14.1 13.3 Sample & Mold Weight gms 3062 3102 3115 Mold Weight gms 2101 2097 2102 Net Sample Weight gms 961 1005 1013 Sample Height in.2.43 2.51 2.488 Dry Density pcf 104.2 106.3 108.9 Pressure lbs 2595 4665 8090 Exudation Pressure psi 207 371 644 Expansion Dial x 0.0001 60 88 109 Expansion Pressure psf 260 381 472 Ph at 1000lbs psi 25 22 18 Ph at 2000lbs psi 48 38 31 Displacement turns 4.5 4.16 3.88 R' Value 56 66 73 Corrected 'R' Value 56 66 73 FINAL 'R' VALUE By Exudation Pressure (@ 300 psi):62 By Epansion Pressure :40 TI =5 Figure B-5 DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY DRAFT FOR CLIENT REVIEW ONLY ATTACHMENT 5 DRAFT SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT Prepared by Ramboll US Corporation Emeryville, California Prepared For: Robson Homes, LLC San Jose, California Project Number 1690010020 Date June 23, 2020 DRAFT SOIL MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSED ROBSON HOMES DEVELOPMENT 16151-16187 EAST MOZART AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Contents i Ramboll CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1 Purpose of SMP 1 Site Setting 1 Site History 2 Site Geology and Hydrogeology 2 Summary of Previous Site Investigations 2 1.5.1 2018-2019 Ramboll Soil Sampling Investigations 2 1.5.2 2018-2019 Geophysical Investigations 3 1.5.3 2020 Ramboll Soil Gas Sampling Investigation 3 Current Environmental Conditions 4 Organization of SMP 5 2. SHALLOW SOIL REMOVAL PLAN 6 Step-out Soil Sampling 6 Soil Excavation and Stockpiling 7 Soil Stockpile Profile Sampling 7 Soil Off-haul and Disposal 7 Reporting 7 3. WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS 8 Site Specific Health and Safe Plan Components 8 3.1.1 Key Personnel/Health and Safety Responsibilities 8 3.1.2 Job Hazard Analysis/Hazard Mitigation 8 3.1.3 Personal Protective Equipment 9 3.1.4 Work Zones and Site Security Measures 9 3.1.5 Decontamination Measures 9 3.1.6 General Safe Work Practices 9 3.1.7 Contingency Plans/Emergency Information 10 3.1.8 Medical Surveillance 10 3.1.9 Construction Safety Measures 10 4. SOIL MANAGEMENT DURING GRADING AND SITE REDEVELOPMENT 11 Dust Control 11 4.1.1 Regulatory Framework 11 4.1.2 General Dust Control Measures 11 Procedures for Soil Inspection and Notifications 12 4.2.1 Documentation 13 4.2.2 Containment 13 4.2.3 Vapor Emission Monitoring 14 4.2.4 Site Investigation and Disposal of Soil 14 4.2.5 Waste Segregation Operations 14 4.2.6 Decontamination Procedures 14 Management of Buried Drums, Tanks or Abandoned Pipes 14 4.3.1 Buried Drum Removal 15 4.3.2 Tank and/or Pipeline Removal 15 Spills 15 Notification of Discovery 16 Off-Site Disposal 16 DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Contents ii Ramboll On-Site Soil Reuse 17 Import Fill 17 Reporting 18 5. REFERENCES 19 FIGURES Figure 1: Site Layout Figure 2: Proposed Site Redevelopment Plans Figure 3: Sample Location Map Figure 4: Sample Location Map - Screening Criteria Exceedances Figure 5: Approximate Soil Excavation Locations Figure 6: Approximate Locations of Soil Delineation Samples TABLES Table 1: Metals in Soil Samples Table 2: Detected Organochlorine Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Soil Samples Table 3: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Table 4: Naturally-Occurring Asbestos in Soil Samples Table 5: Soil Vapor Sampling Results ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Contact Information for Notification Attachment 2: Field Reporting Form Attachment 3: Spill Reporting Form Attachment 4: DTSC’s Information Advisory on Clean Imported Fill Material DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Introduction 1 Ramboll 1. INTRODUCTION On behalf of Robson Homes, LLC (Developer), Ramboll US Corporation has prepared this Soil Management Plan (SMP) related to redevelopment activities at 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue in Campbell, California (the site). The approximately 2.92-acre site is located at 16151, 16157, 16163, 16179, and 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, Santa Clara County, California. The Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) for the site is 424-06-119. The southern portion of the site is developed with five residences and canopy-covered parking areas that face East Mozart Avenue. The central portion of the site is largely undeveloped with two small storage structures that were formerly used as residences, a two-car garage, two covered storage areas, and two shipping containers that were formerly used by West Valley Arborists, a landscaping business (Figure 1). Proposed redevelopment of the site includes 25 single-family homes (Figure 2). Construction will include demolition of on-site structures and grading work across the site. Purpose of SMP The purpose of the SMP is to generally describe the procedures that will be employed when areas of soil with known or potentially-containing concentrations exceeding residential land use regulatory screening criteria are encountered during site redevelopment (primarily demolition and grading) activities. The SMP has been developed to facilitate the redevelopment of the site, by outlining procedures that will be used for identifying, testing, handling, and disposal of soil potentially-containing concentrations above residential land use regulatory screening criteria. Implementing the procedures in this SMP will ensure that soil is handled in a manner that is: 1) protective of human health and the environment; and 2) in accordance with State and local regulations. This SMP summarizes the results of subsurface investigations performed at the site from November 2018 to May 2020. Section 2 of this SMP outlines the procedures for delineating, excavating, and disposing of soil with concentrations of metals and/or organochlorine pesticides exceeding regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. This SMP also provides protocols and guidance that site contractors must follow in the event that soil potentially-containing concentrations exceeding residential land use regulatory screening criteria are encountered during the site demolition, grading, or other redevelopment activities at the site. Contractors and subcontractors performing such work are “Responsible Entities” or “Contractors” obligated to comply with this SMP. Site Setting The site is located in a mixed commercial/residential area. The site is bordered to the north, west, and south (beyond East Mozart Avenue) by single-family residences. The site is bordered to the east by medical offices (Figure 1). According to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), winds in Santa Clara County, which includes the City of Campbell, are predominantly out of the northwest. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Introduction 2 Ramboll Site History The site was developed by the 1930s with the residence located at 16179 East Mozart Avenue and an adjacent orchard. Additional residences were constructed between the 1940s and 1960s, after which agricultural/orchard operations appear to have generally ceased. Between the 1960s and 1990s, the central portion of the site was used as the storage yard for a paving business. From 2014 to 2019, the central portion of the site was used as the storage yard area for West Valley Arborists, a landscaping business. The surrounding properties were used for agricultural purposes (primarily orchards) from at least 1939 until approximately the 1950s and 1960s, when residential developments began to be constructed in the vicinity of the site. Commercial buildings were constructed to the east of the site in the 1980s to 1990s. The land adjacent to the west of the site was a commercial nursery from approximately the 1970s to the 2000s when the current residences were constructed. Site Geology and Hydrogeology Based on a geotechnical investigation at the site in 2018 and soil sampling conducted at the site by Ramboll in 2018 and 2019, soil at the site consists of silty sand with gravel, underlain by various alluvial deposits of clayey sand with gravel, poorly graded gravel with sand, and clayey gravel with sand (Geo-Logic Associates, 2018). During the 2018 geotechnical investigation, borings were advanced to 49 feet below ground surface (bgs). Groundwater has not been encountered during any site investigations. Based on the topographic gradient and the flow direction of nearby Los Gatos Creek, shallow groundwater underneath the site is presumed to flow to the north toward San Francisco Bay. Summary of Previous Site Investigations 1.5.1 2018-2019 Ramboll Soil Sampling Investigations Between October 2018 and January 2019, Ramboll conducted a Phase I Environmental Assessment (ESA) and shallow soil sampling investigation at the site (Ramboll, 2019). Multiple soil samples and stepout soil samples were collected in areas of prior agricultural development, around the perimeters of the older structures, and in the locations of a historical vehicle fueling area and former oil drum storage area (see Figure 3). Soil samples were collected from depths ranging between 0.5 and 10 feet below ground surface (bgs). Samples were analyzed for California Assessment Manual (CAM17) metals by United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 6020, organochlorine pesticides by USEPA Method 8081A, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) by USEPA method 8082, total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil (TPH-g,d,mo) by USEPA method 8015B, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by USEPA method 8260B, and/or naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). Results of the soil sampling conducted by Ramboll are discussed in Section 1.6 and summarized in Tables 1 through 4. The only detections exceeding regulatory screening DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Introduction 3 Ramboll criteria0F1,1F2,2F3,3F4 for residential land use were select metals (primarily lead and arsenic) and organochlorine pesticides (chlordane and dieldrin). Sample locations with one or more analyte exceeding regulatory screening criteria residential land use are generally located near the perimeter of existing structures at the site, as shown on Figure 4. 1.5.2 2018-2019 Geophysical Investigations As part of due diligence in connection with the purchase and redevelopment of the site, two geophysical investigations were conducted at the site between October 2018 and January 2019 by J R Associates. The geophysical investigations revealed the locations of two anomalies at the site, approximately at the locations of samples A1 and A9, respectively (Figure 3). The anomalies were potholed on December 3, 2018 with Ramboll onsite to observe the potholing activities. The anomaly adjacent to sample A1 was suspected to be the former location of a fuel tank associated with a historical fuel pump at the site. Potholing revealed the anomaly in the vicinity of sample A1 to be an approximately eight-feet long, one-inch diameter, abandoned metal pipe. Additional potholing was performed in the vicinity of sample A1 to a depth of six feet bgs to locate a possible buried fuel tank. No evidence of a buried fuel tank was encountered during the potholing and no stained soil or odorous soil was observed by Ramboll field personnel. Potholing in the vicinity of sample A9 in the northeast portion of the site revealed the anomaly to be a two-inch diameter abandoned metal pipe. 1.5.3 2020 Ramboll Soil Gas Sampling Investigation In May 2020, Ramboll conducted a soil gas investigation to characterize potential vapor intrusion concerns at the site. Two soil gas wells (SV01 and SV02) were installed in the locations of a historical vehicle fueling area and former oil drum storage area and SV03 was installed along the northwestern site boundary (see Figure 3). Soil gas wells installations were also attempted along the northeastern and southeastern site boundaries, but drilling was unsuccessful due to the presence of heaving gravels and cobbles. One ambient air sample was collected in the central portion of the site taken to assess potential ambient air intrusion into the soil vapor samples. Soil gas samples were collected from depths ranging from 2.5 feet bgs to 4.0 feet bgs. Soil gas samples were analyzed for VOCs by EPA method TO-15 and the ambient air sample was analyzed for VOCs by EPA method TO-15 SIM. Results of the soil gas sampling conducted by Ramboll are summarized in Table 5. No detections exceeded regulatory screening criteria for residential land use.4F5 1 California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2018. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, Issue: DTSC recommended methodology for use of U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) in the Human Health Risk Assessment process at hazardous waste sites and permitted facilities. June. 2 Duvergé, Dylan Jacques. 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. 3 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2016. Environmental Screening Levels Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Levels (Table S-1). February (revision 3). 4 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. November. 5 San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2019. Summary of Soil Vapor ESLs: Subslab/Soil Gas Vapor Intrusion: Human Health Risk Levels (Table SG-1). July. Rev 2. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Introduction 4 Ramboll Current Environmental Conditions The results of soil sampling identified locations where concentrations of metals (lead, arsenic, and mercury) and organochlorine pesticides (chlordane and dieldrin), collectively referred to as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs), in shallow soil or soil mounds were above environmental regulatory agency screening criteria for residential land use. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results of soil sampling for metals and organochlorine pesticides, respectively. Areas with metals and organochlorine pesticide exceeding regulatory screening criteria for residential land use are described below and designated as Areas 1 through 4 in Figure 4. Additional characterization following building demolition and excavation and offsite disposal of soil with concentrations above screening criteria for residential land use are planned as part of site redevelopment (see Section 2). • AREA 1: Shallow soil in the vicinity of the 16179 East Mozart Avenue house has concentrations of arsenic, lead, chlordane, and dieldrin above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use (11 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg], 80 mg/kg, 0.44 mg/kg, and 0.034 mg/kg, respectively). The initial sample by the 16179 East Mozart Avenue house (BC03) was collected at 0.5 feet bgs and contained arsenic, lead, chlordane, and dieldrin above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. The sample collected at 2.0 feet bgs in the same location did not contain metals or organochlorine pesticides above regulatory screening criteria. However, 13 of the 14 step-out samples (BC03-A through BC03-I, BC03-K, and BC03-L) collected at 0.5 feet bgs in the vicinity of the 16179 East Mozart Avenue house had at least one COPC above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. The approximate horizontal extent of COPC concentrations in shallow soil is shown on Figure 5; however, the presence of the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence prevents further delineation of the horizontal extent. • AREA 2: Sample BC01 collected at 0.5 feet bgs detected concentrations of arsenic and lead above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. The sample collected at 2.0 feet bgs in the same location did not contain metals above regulatory screening criteria, but 3 of the 7 step-out samples (BC01-A, BC01-C, and BC01-G) collected at 0.5 feet bgs in the vicinity of BC01 detected arsenic or lead above regulatory screening criteria. The approximate horizontal extent of arsenic and lead concentrations in shallow soil is unknown to the northeast and southwest of BC01 due to the presence of a large tree and other site structures (see Figure 5). • AREA 3: Sample BC02 collected at 0.5 feet bgs detected lead above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. The sample collected at 2.0 feet bgs in the same location did not contain lead above regulatory screening criteria, and the 3 step- out samples collected at 0.5 feet bgs in the vicinity of BC02 (BC02-A to the northwest, BC02-B to the southwest, and BC02-C to the northeast) did not detect lead above regulatory screening criteria. Due to the presence of structures, the horizontal extent of lead in shallow soil is unknown to the southeast of BC02 (see Figure 5). • AREA 4: Sample BC04 collected at 0.5 feet bgs detected lead above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. The sample collected at 2.0 feet bgs in the same location did not contain lead above regulatory screening criteria, and 1 of the 6 step-out samples collected at 0.5 feet bgs (BC04-D) detected lead above regulatory DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Introduction 5 Ramboll screening criteria. Due to the presence of a structure, the horizontal extent of lead in shallow soil is unknown to the north and south of BC04 (see Figure 5). • Soil Mounds: Several small mounds of soil remain on the site from West Valley Arborists, the landscaping company that formerly occupied the central portion of the site. Samples collected from the three soil mounds (M01 through M03, see Figure 4) had detected concentrations of lead and mercury above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use (80 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg, respectively). Organization of SMP The SMP is organized into the following Sections: • Section 2 - Shallow Soil Removal Plan. This section outlines the protocols for step- out soil delineation sampling, soil excavation, soil stockpile sampling, and soil off-haul and disposal. • Section 3 - Worker Health and Safety Requirements. This section details the required components of the health and safety plan (HASP) to be employed by subcontractors at the site. • Section 4 - Soil Management During Grading and Site Redevelopment. This section details required actions by subcontractors including dust control, soil inspection and notification, spills, management of buried drums, tanks or abandoned pipes, soil reuse and disposal, and reporting. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Shallow Soil Removal Plan 6 Ramboll 2. SHALLOW SOIL REMOVAL PLAN As discussed in Section 1.6, subsurface investigations completed at the site between October 2018 and May 2020 identified five localized areas in shallow soil with COPCs concentrations above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use (hereinafter referred to as “screening criteria”). The objective of the removal plan outlined below is to further delineate soil with concentrations of COPCs above screening criteria, excavate these areas, and off-haul the excavated soil to an appropriate landfill or disposal facility. This work will be performed following the acquisition of the site and demolition of the site houses and structures. The “Environmental Professional” is defined as the environmental consultant hired by Robson Homes to oversee the soil delineation sampling, excavation, and off-haul activities. Step-out Soil Sampling Following building demolition and site clearing, step-out soil borings will be installed approximately 10 feet on-center from soil samples with concentrations of COPCs above screening criteria. These step-out sample locations are shown on Figure 6. All soil borings will be installed with a hand auger and discrete soil samples will be collected at depths of 0.5, and 2.0 feet bgs. Samples will be collected by the Environmental Professional in laboratory-provided containers, stored on ice, and transported to a California state-certified analytical laboratory under chain-of-custody procedures. Initially, only the 0.5 feet bgs samples from the step-out borings closest to the undelineated samples will be analyzed for relevant COPCs, as designated in Figure 6. All other samples will be placed on hold at the laboratory pending results of the initial samples. If necessary, additional samples will be released from hold until all areas have been delineated (i.e., COPC concentrations are less than residential land use regulatory screening criteria) both horizontally and vertically. The below areas require additional step-out soil sampling to delineate areas with COPCs that exceed regulatory screening criteria for residential land use: • AREA 1: Vicinity of 16179 East Mozart Avenue Residence. Step-out soil borings will be advanced to the northwest, north, northeast, and southeast of the former house footprint at 16179 East Mozart Avenue and within the former house footprint (Figure 6). Initial samples will be analyzed for arsenic and lead by EPA Method 6020 and chlordane and dieldrin by USEPA Method 8081A. All other samples will be placed on hold at the laboratory pending results of the initial step-out samples. • AREA 2: Vicinity of Sample BC01. Step-out soil borings will be advanced to the northeast of BC01 to delineate lead and arsenic concentrations in shallow soil. Initial samples will be analyzed for arsenic and lead by EPA Method 6020. All other samples will be placed on hold at the laboratory pending results. • AREA 3: Vicinity of Sample BC02. Step-out soil borings will be advanced to the southeast of BC02 to delineate lead concentrations in shallow soil. Initial samples will be analyzed for lead by EPA Method 6020. All other samples will be placed on hold at the laboratory pending results. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Shallow Soil Removal Plan 7 Ramboll • AREA 4: Vicinity of Sample BC04. Step-out soil borings will be advanced to the north and south of BC04 to delineate lead concentrations in shallow soil. Initial samples will be analyzed for lead by EPA Method 6020. All other samples will be placed on hold at the laboratory pending results. Soil Excavation and Stockpiling The excavation footprints of each area described above will be considered defined once all step-out soil samples in both the horizontal and vertical direction have analytical results that are less than screening criteria for residential land use for the relevant COPCs. The soil from these areas will be excavated and stockpiled under Environmental Professional oversight and in accordance with the protocols outlined in Section 4. The three existing soil mounds will be excavated and stockpiled on top of plastic sheeting and covered by plastic sheeting. The ground surface under the mound footprints will be scraped, and the scraped surficial soil will be added to the stockpile. Soil Stockpile Profile Sampling Following excavation activities, the Environmental Professional will collect soil stockpile characterization samples in accordance with DTSC’s Information Advisory on Clean Imported Fill Material and the protocols outlined in Section 4.6. The samples will be submitted to the analytical laboratory and analyzed for the appropriate analytes as required by disposal facilities. The excavation subcontractor will use the analytical data to get the excavated soil accepted for disposal at an appropriate landfill or soil disposal facility. Soil Off-haul and Disposal The Environmental Professional will oversee the loading of excavated soil by the excavation subcontractor into off-haul trucks as outlined in Section 4.6. The Environmental Professional will keep copies of bills of laden and related soil disposal records for documentation purposes. Reporting At the conclusion of soil excavation and off-haul activities, the Environmental Professional will prepare a closure letter summarizing the step-out soil sampling, excavation, soil stockpile characterization sampling, and off-haul and disposal activities. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Worker Health and Safety Requirements 8 Ramboll 3. WORKER HEALTH AND SAFETY REQUIREMENTS The Developer and its Contractors will be responsible for establishing and maintaining its own appropriate health and safety procedures to minimize worker and public exposure to site contaminants during construction. These procedures will be documented in a site- specific HASP, which will be prepared prior to beginning intrusive site redevelopment activities. The components of the Contractor’s HASP shall be consistent with all applicable California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards and currently available toxicological information. The Contractor and its subcontractors will assure that on-site construction workers have the appropriate level of health and safety training and use the appropriate level of personal protective equipment, as determined in the HASP based upon the evaluated job hazards and relevant monitoring results. To the extent that any construction activities may constitute “clean-up operations” or “hazardous substance removal work” as defined in the Cal/OSHA standards for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER), 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 5192, Contractor will assure that on-site personnel conducting such activities, who may contact chemicals in soil have had training, and are subject to medical surveillance, in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards (“HAZWOPER-trained personnel”). Soil that is visibly stained, discolored, shiny, or oily, or has a noticeable odor, will be handled only by such HAZWOPER-trained personnel until the Environmental Professional(s) (personnel to be determined by the Developer and/or Contractor; for the purposes of the initial development) evaluates the situation (see Section 4) to understand whether the soil contains unacceptable concentrations of contaminants. Site Specific Health and Safe Plan Components The required components of the HASP are outlined below. The HASP should be tailored to current site conditions, current occupational safety and health standards, and task-specific activities then known to the preparer of the HASP. 3.1.1 Key Personnel/Health and Safety Responsibilities This section of the HASP will identify the Contractor’s key personnel by name and will include identification of the Project Manager, the Site Supervisor, Site Safety Officer, and the subcontractors that will be working at the site. The Contractor will provide its employees who will potentially contact soil or previously unidentified soil contamination a copy of the HASP and brief its employees as to its contents. The health and safety responsibilities of each individual worker will be described in this section of the HASP. 3.1.2 Job Hazard Analysis/Hazard Mitigation A description of the hazards associated with the specific construction activities that give rise to contact or potential contact with soil or previously unidentified contamination will be presented in this section of the HASP. The hazards that will be discussed include, at a minimum, chemical, temperature, and explosion hazards, if applicable. As part of the job hazard analysis, the HASP will identify the chemicals likely to be encountered during the construction activities and will present a table indicating the symptoms of exposure and the relevant regulatory exposure limits for each compound (i.e., the Cal/OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit [PEL]). The procedures to mitigate the hazards identified in the job hazard DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Worker Health and Safety Requirements 9 Ramboll analysis will also be presented in this section of the HASP. The use of appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will likely be the principal mitigation procedure. 3.1.3 Personal Protective Equipment This section of the HASP will identify the PPE that will be used to protect workers from the COPCs that may be present in soil. Personal Protective Equipment will be selected based on the COPCs identified at the work site, and the known route(s) of entry into the human body. The primary exposure routes include direct contact with soil and inhalation of dust. Although considered unlikely, certain construction activities, such as the installation of deep utility trenches or foundations, could result in workers coming into direct contact with groundwater. This contact is expected to be minimal, because Cal/OSHA regulations prohibit accumulation of water in open excavations. In the event that excavations are conducted in areas and groundwater is encountered, the HASP will identify any additional PPE required to minimize direct contact with COPCs in water, including water repellent gloves and boots. 3.1.4 Work Zones and Site Security Measures This section of the HASP will identify the specific work zones of the construction site and describe the site security measures, such as the placement of barricades, fencing, access control, and access logs. All workers within the work zone, who will have direct contact with soil, will perform the work in compliance with relevant aspects of the HASP. The support zone will be located outside of the work zone, but within the boundaries of the construction site. All end-of-the day cleanup operations, such as cleaning of truck wheels (for vehicles exiting the construction site that could be tracking contaminated soils off site), and the removal of any PPE, will occur in the support zone. If possible, the support zone will be located in close proximity to the entry and exit point of the construction site. The entire construction site will be fenced to control pedestrian and vehicular entry, except at controlled (gated) points. The fences will remain locked during non-construction hours, and all visitors will be required to sign a visitor log. 3.1.5 Decontamination Measures This section of the HASP will describe the specific procedures that will be used to decontaminate both equipment and personnel that have been performing work in direct contact with soil. Decontamination measures will include cleaning the wheels of all vehicles that have been in contact with soil in the support zone prior to their exiting the site. Additionally, workers will be required to remove any contaminated PPE and place it in a designated area in the support zone prior to leaving the site. 3.1.6 General Safe Work Practices This section of the HASP will discuss the general safe work practices to be followed at the construction site, including entry restrictions, tailgate safety meetings, use of PPE, personal hygiene, hand washing facilities, eating and smoking restrictions, the use of warning signs and barricades, precautions near heavy equipment, confined space entry, and any special precautions that may be specific to the construction site and construction worker. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Worker Health and Safety Requirements 10 Ramboll 3.1.7 Contingency Plans/Emergency Information This section of the HASP will provide information regarding the procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency. The location of specific emergency equipment, such as eyewash stations, first aid kits, and fire extinguishers will be presented, and emergency telephone numbers and contacts will be identified. A map indicating the route to the nearest hospital will also be provided in this section of the HASP. 3.1.8 Medical Surveillance This section of the HASP will describe medical surveillance that would be required for certain workers. To the extent that any construction activities may constitute “clean-up operations” or “hazardous substance removal work” as defined in the Cal/OSHA standards for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, 8 Cal. Code Reg. § 5192, each construction Contractor will assure that its on-site personnel conducting such activities have had training, and are subject to medical surveillance, in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards (“HAZWOPER-trained personnel”). 3.1.9 Construction Safety Measures These procedures include construction safety measures for excavations and require preparation of activity hazard analyses. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Soil Management During Grading and Site Redevelopment 11 Ramboll 4. SOIL MANAGEMENT DURING GRADING AND SITE REDEVELOPMENT During the course of redevelopment activities, if soil is encountered that contains or potentially contains COPCs (such as lead and/or dieldrin) above residential regulatory screening criteria, the following soil management procedures should be implemented as described below. Dust Control Dust control measures will be implemented during construction activities at the site to minimize the generation of dust. It is particularly important to minimize the exposure of on-site construction workers to dust and to prevent dust from migrating off site. Dust generation may be associated with concrete foundation slab and paving removal and processing, excavation and grading activities, truck traffic, ambient wind traversing soil stockpiles, loading of transportation vehicles, and other earthwork. Dust control will be implemented by the general Contractor for the project. 4.1.1 Regulatory Framework All construction projects in San Francisco are required to comply with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) dust control measures. These measures are monitored for compliance by staff and/or special City Engineering and/or Planning inspectors. The measures include the Basic Construction Mitigation Measures and, if necessary, the Additional Construction Mitigation Measures identified in Table 8-1 and 8-2 of the BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines.5F6 4.1.2 General Dust Control Measures Potential sources of dust include demolition activities, construction traffic, site preparation and foundation work, trenching and utility construction activities, material stockpiling, and final site cleanup and grading activities. Dust control measures will be developed and implemented by the Contractor, and may include the following or equivalent measures: • Wetting down areas (two times per day and more as needed) around soil improvement operations, visibly dry disturbed soil surface areas, and visibly dry disturbed unpaved driveways, parking areas, and staging areas to prevent dust from becoming airborne. Watering may be increased during above average temperatures, when activity intensifies or wind speeds increase. • Ensuring appropriate wetting is applied during soil loading and import operations, and using tarpaulins or other effective covers to cover all trucks transporting soil, sand, and other loose material. 6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines. May. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Soil Management During Grading and Site Redevelopment 12 Ramboll • Covering stockpiles of excavated material, backfill material, import material, gravel, sand, road base, and other potentially dust-producing materials with polyethylene plastic sheeting, tarp, or other equivalent cover. • Using dust enclosures, dust curtains, plastic tarps, windbreaks, and dust collectors as necessary to control dust. • Utilizing alternate work methods. • Minimizing drop heights while loading soil into transportation vehicles. • Limiting the maximum on-site speed for vehicles to 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads. • Loading trucks carrying excavated and other non-excavated material so that the material does not extend above the walls or back of the truck bed. • Wet sweeping or vacuuming paved streets, sidewalks, paths, and intersections where work is in progress at least once per day and at the end of the workday during demolition, excavation, and dirt moving activities to reduce particulate emissions. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • Installing wheel washers to clean all trucks and equipment leaving the site. In the case where wheel washers cannot be installed, tires or tracks and spoil trucks will be brushed off before they re-enter City streets to minimize deposition of dust-causing materials. Procedures for Soil Inspection and Notifications During grading and excavation activities, potentially contaminated soil may be identified via observation of any of the following characteristics: • Presence of free product. Free product is defined as a petroleum product (e.g., oil) or chemical in its natural state, un-mixed with water. Free product is often identifiable by the presence of an oily substance or the presence of an oily sheen on soil or water. • Oily or other staining. Oily staining is not consistent in appearance, but often has a black, dark gray, dark brown, or greenish hue. Other unusual staining or soil discoloration (e.g., blue soils) should also be considered potential evidence of contamination. • Petroleum or Chemical Odor. Any petroleum or other chemical odor should be noted regardless of whether a visible sign of oil or staining is encountered. If odorous soil or debris is encountered, the material may be contaminated and should be evaluated as soon as possible by field screening with a photoionization detector (PID) and, if warranted based on the field screening results, sampling for laboratory analysis. Areas exhibiting elevated PID readings above health and safety action levels should not be entered until laboratory data is available to evaluate potential health risks. • Presence of Elevated Metals. Elevated metals in soil may be identified by strong and sometimes bright discoloration. Any chemical or metal odor should be noted regardless of whether a visible sign of elevated metals is encountered. • Presence of Waste Debris. If debris such as concrete, scrap metal, bricks or other garbage is identified, the debris and surrounding soil may be contaminated. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Soil Management During Grading and Site Redevelopment 13 Ramboll Evaluation of whether soil is potentially contaminated should include input from the Environmental Professional. Upon identification and confirmation that soil is potentially contaminated, the following actions should immediately be taken: • Stop work in the area of impact. • Contact the individuals in Attachment 1 to report the finding; leave a message if the individual does not pick up the phone. • Complete the Field Reporting Form (Attachment 2) (see Section 4.2.1 for further information relating to documentation). • Contain the impacted material, as instructed (see Section 4.2.2 for additional information relating to containment of potentially impacted material). • Work should not resume within the area of potential impact until clearance is received from the Environmental Professional. A copy of this SMP will be kept in project construction trailers (or office, as appropriate) for reference and use in the event that potentially contaminated soil is encountered. 4.2.1 Documentation In the event potentially contaminated soil and material are encountered during construction activities, information regarding the characteristics, location, and extent of the soil and material impacts must be collected. This information should be documented as follows: • The approximate location (marked on a site map). • Extent of potential contamination (How large an area of impacts has been identified?). • What indications of potential impacts were observed (Odor? Discoloration? Free product? Waste material?). • If possible, take photographs. 4.2.2 Containment If instructed to do so, the reporting individual should work with the Contractor to contain the potentially-impacted soil and material. The Environmental Professional(s) will evaluate whether potentially-impacted soil and material should be contained based on information provided. The purpose of containment is to ensure that potentially impacted soil does not spread to other portions of the site or mobilize off site in the event of rain. Generally, containment will include one or more of the following steps: • Relocation of impacted soils to a constructed containment cell created using an earthen berm lined with plastic sheeting. Soils placed within containment cells are subsequently covered with plastic sheeting that extends outside the cell and is sufficiently anchored to minimize exposure to wind and rain. • Covering impacted soil and material with plastic sheeting and marking the area “Do Not Disturb.” DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Soil Management During Grading and Site Redevelopment 14 Ramboll • Placement of silt fencing around the area of potential impacts. • In the event that free product is observed, applying oil dry or sorbent cloths to soak up oily material. 4.2.3 Vapor Emission Monitoring Contractor will inspect the integrity of concrete pads, building foundation floors, piping, or other subsurface structures as they are removed, and look for visual and/or olfactory evidence of a release in soil. If visual and/or olfactory evidence of a release in soil is observed, contractor will notify the Environmental Professional. Contractor will monitor the area around the construction site for fugitive vapor emissions with appropriate field screening instrumentation, including use of a PID to screen for VOCs. 4.2.4 Site Investigation and Disposal of Soil If necessary and as requested by the Developer, the Environmental Professional will mobilize to the site to further evaluate the nature and extent of the potential contamination. Further investigation including sampling of the soil and/or excavation may be warranted depending on Site conditions. If necessary, soil will be transported off site for appropriate disposal per Section 4.6. 4.2.5 Waste Segregation Operations If soil is determined following laboratory analysis to contain COPCs and off-site removal of the soil is required, such soil will be segregated and stockpiled in separate containment areas to prevent mixing with non-impacted soil. Soil stockpiles shall be documented (e.g., labeled, identified on a figure or map along with approximate volume estimates) by the Contractor and/or Responsible Entity. Any waste that is determined to be hazardous shall be managed, transported and disposed in accordance with applicable hazardous waste requirements under RCRA (e.g., 90-day limit on site). Information regarding transportation and disposal is presented in Section 4.6. 4.2.6 Decontamination Procedures If soil containing COPCs is identified by the Contractor during excavation/grading activities, the Environmental Professional(s) will develop and oversee appropriate decontamination procedures for the field personnel and equipment that have come into contact with soil containing COPCs. Specific procedures may vary depending on the type of contamination that is identified. Management of Buried Drums, Tanks or Abandoned Pipes If buried drums, USTs, underground hydraulic lifts, or abandoned pipes are encountered during construction, the following actions should immediately be taken: • Stop work in the area where the buried drums, tanks and/or pipelines were identified. • Contact the individuals in Attachment 1 to report the finding; leave a message if the individual does not pick up the phone. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Soil Management During Grading and Site Redevelopment 15 Ramboll • The Contractor or the Environmental Professional(s) should notify the appropriate local, state, and/or federal agency of the discovery if required by applicable regulations. Removal permits may be required for certain features (e.g., USTs, hydraulic lifts). • Mark the location on a site map and take photographs if possible. If potentially contaminated soil is co-located with the drums, tank and/or pipes, then the procedures identified in Section 4.2 with respect to the potentially contaminated soil should be implemented. 4.3.1 Buried Drum Removal Buried drums and their contents shall be removed from the excavation. The drums and contents should be placed in a sealed bin or bermed area that is covered with visqueen or other material to prevent discharge to soil or the atmosphere. Drum contents shall be characterized by the Environmental Professional in accordance with hazardous waste laws and regulations and profiled for off-site disposal as required by the disposal facility. Following characterization, drums and contents shall be transported off site for disposal at an authorized facility in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. 4.3.2 Tank and/or Pipeline Removal If USTs and associated piping systems are discovered during grading and excavation activities, removal shall be performed under appropriate permits and agency oversight. Collection of soil samples is likely to be required, and the Contractor performing the removal shall prepare (or provide the Environmental Professional with appropriate information with which to prepare) a UST removal report. Spills In the event of a release of equipment fuel or other chemical, the Contractor will take the following actions, using appropriately trained personnel and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) as defined by the Contractor’s health and safety plan: Immediately clean up the spill to the extent possible • If possible and appropriate for the situation, place containers under leaking equipment or damaged equipment or containers on secondary containment. • Spills onto hard surfaces can be cleaned up by applying sorbent cloths or quick-dry material to the spill and subsequently containerizing the sorbent material in a rain-proof container, such as a 55-gallon drum. • Spills onto soil can be cleaned up by excavating impacted soils and placing them into rain-proof containers or by creating a bermed, plastic-lined area to contain the impacted soils (see Section 4.2.2). Report the Spill • As soon as possible, following initial spill cleanup, contact the individuals identified in Attachment 1 to report the spill. In addition, the Environmental Professional(s) after consultation with the Responsible Entity or Contractor (as appropriate) should notify the DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Soil Management During Grading and Site Redevelopment 16 Ramboll appropriate local, state, and/or federal agencies of the spill if required by applicable laws or regulations. Document the Spill • Once initial spill response has been conducted, complete the Spill Reporting Form included as Attachment 3 and provide copies of the completed form to the individuals identified in Attachment 1. If possible, take photographs of the spill, spill area, and/or spill response activities. Final Reporting • Following cleanup of the spill, the Environmental Professional(s) will, if requested by Responsible Entity and/or required by applicable laws or regulations, report the results of cleanup activities to the appropriate agencies. Obtain Approval Before Resuming Work • Approval should be obtained from the Environmental Professional(s) before resuming work within the potentially affected area of the site. Notification of Discovery If determined to be required and/or necessary and at the request of and on behalf of the Responsible Entity or Contractor, the Environmental Professional will make the appropriate notifications and report environmental findings to relevant agencies. Examples of such reportable findings may include discovery of significant impacts, free product, USTs, drums, or other subsurface features indicative of a known or potential release to the subsurface. Off-Site Disposal Soil that will be removed from the site for off-site disposal will be characterized prior to transportation off site. Soil samples representative of the volume to be transported off site will be collected in-situ and/or from stockpiles and characterized using an analytical program developed in consideration of off-site disposal facility or third-party acceptance requirements, and the DTSC’s Information Advisory on Clean Imported Fill Material (Attachment 4). The soil to be off-hauled will be accepted by the disposal facility or third party prior to being removed from the site. All water to be removed from the site, including storm water and vehicle wash water will be handled, and if necessary, transported and disposed in accordance with applicable local, state and federal regulations. Contaminated water will not be discharged to the land surface or subsurface of the site. Discharge to the sanitary sewer system is typically subject to the requirements of the local permitting authority (e.g., municipal wastewater agency), and depending on available characterization data, the agency may require additional sampling, on-site pre-treatment, and/or specify other limitations or conditions. The Contractor, on behalf of the Developer, will arrange for transportation of all wastes off site using a permitted, licensed, and insured transportation company, and will be responsible for tracking final soil dispositions at appropriate disposal facilities. The Contractor must obtain approval from the Responsible Entity when identifying a potential disposal facility. Any soil considered Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Soil Management During Grading and Site Redevelopment 17 Ramboll (RCRA) or California (non-RCRA) hazardous waste (hazardous waste) will be tracked using the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest System (USEPA Form 8700-22), as applicable. An appropriate USEPA Generator Identification Number will be recorded on the hazardous waste manifests used to document transport of hazardous waste off site. The hazardous waste transporter, disposal facility, and U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) waste description required for each manifest will be determined on a case-by-case basis. Soil not considered hazardous waste will be tracked using non-hazardous bills of lading. These two systems will be used to comply with appropriate federal, state, and local requirements. The Contractor will be responsible for accurate completion of the hazardous waste manifests and non-hazardous bills of lading. Records of all wastes shipped off site, including manifests and bills of lading, will be maintained by the Contractor and will be provided to the Environmental Professional(s) within a reasonable time, as they are generated, and included in the completion summary or report prepared at the conclusion of the project. On-Site Soil Reuse Soil on site may be moved within site boundaries, and re-used without need for sampling, provided the soil is not obviously impacted (e.g., based on visual or olfactory observations noted above), and is not generated in close proximity (i.e., within 20 feet laterally) of impacted areas. The Environmental Professional shall be consulted and provide approval prior to reusing soil on site. An on-site inspection by the Environmental Professional may be required. If sampling is conducted and soil is proposed for on-site reuse, sample data will be compared to then-current regulatory screening criteria appropriate for the proposed area of reuse (e.g., residential use criteria such as DTSC Screening Levels [SLs], USEPA Regional Screening Levels [RSLs], or SFRWQCB Environmental Screening Levels [ESLs]). Soil that meets residential screening criteria may be reused without restriction. Because health risk based screening criteria for arsenic are typically well below concentrations typically found in native soil in the Bay Area, the comparison criterion for arsenic will be 11 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), which is considered representative of typical Bay Area background concentrations (Duvergé, 2011). Import Fill No backfilling of an area containing potentially contaminated soil will be conducted without prior approval from the Environmental Professional. Evaluation of any imported fill soil for the presence of contaminants must be concluded prior to consideration for use at the site (e.g. as backfill for excavations or trenching, or for raising site elevations). Unless from a documented “clean” import fill source such as a quarry, import fill will be evaluated to confirm the absence of chemical contaminants in accordance with the DTSC Information Advisory on Clean Imported Fill Material (Attachment 4). Requirements for soil generated on site that is proposed for re-use are outlined above. Import fill data will be compared to DTSC SLs, USEPA RSLs, or SFRWQCB Environmental Screening Levels as noted above. As noted above, the comparison criterion for arsenic will be 11 mg/kg. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Soil Management During Grading and Site Redevelopment 18 Ramboll If the source location for the import fill cannot provide appropriate documentation acceptable to the Developer, Contractor, and/or Environmental Professional (e.g., data demonstrating that the soil does not contain unacceptable concentrations of contaminants), evaluation of the material should be conducted before it is transported and placed at the site. Information regarding import fill will be included in the completion summary document prepared at the conclusion of the project. Reporting As discussed in Section 2.5, at the conclusion of soil excavation and off-haul activities, the Environmental Professional will prepare a closure letter summarizing the step-out soil sampling, excavation, soil stockpile characterization sampling, import fill information, off- haul and disposal activities and other activities related to SMP implementation. DRAFT Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Shallow Soil Removal Plan 19 Ramboll 5. REFERENCES Cal/EPA. 2019. HERO HHRA Note Number 3, Issue: DTSC-Modified Screening Levels (DTSC-SLs). April. Duvergé, Dylan Jacques. 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. Thesis submitted to San Francisco State University. December. Geo-Logic Associates. 2018. “Geotechnical Investigation Residential Development 16179 E Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California.” December, 18. Ramboll. 2019. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Shallow Soil Investigation, 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California.” January. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQB). 2019. Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs). January. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2019. Summary of Soil Vapor ESLs: Subslab/Soil Gas Vapor Intrusion: Human Health Risk Levels (Table SG-1). July. Rev 2. Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Ramboll FIGURES Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\1690010020-campbell-layout.mxd (Former Carmen's Nursery) 4 3 12 5 Residential Residential Residential MedicalCenter E MO Z A R T A V E N U E S BASCOM AVENUENORMAN Y . M I N E T A H W YCA 17 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Site Layout16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY: RS DATE: 1/21/2019 FIGURE 1 1690010020 0 140 Feet Legend Approximate SiteBoundary 1 = 16151 East Mozart Ave.2 = 16157 East Mozart Ave.3 = 16163 East Mozart Ave.4 = 16179 East Mozart Ave.5 = 16187 East Mozart Ave. Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\figure_2_20200518.mxd Proposed Site Redevelopment Plans 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California DRAFTED BY: JC DATE: 2020-05-19 FIGURE2 1690010020 Source: Civil Engineering Associates. Mozart Avenue Site Plan. March 3, 2020 Z:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\1690010020-campbell-samploc-3.mxd "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2#* #*#* Ó!µÓ!µÓ!µ!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A !A #*#*#*") (Form e r Ca rm e n's N u rse ry) SV01 SV02 SV03 Am b ie nt Air Residential Residential Residential MedicalCenter E MO Z A R T A V E N U E A9 A8 A7 A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 A1 M3M2 M1 BC04 BC03 BC02 BC01 SB11 SB10 SB09 SB08 SB07 SB06 SB05 SB04 SB03 SB02 SB01 N OA-3 N OA-2 N OA-1 BC04-F BC04-E BC04-DBC04-C BC04-B BC04-A BC03-LBC03-K BC03-J BC03-H BC03-I BC03-G BC03-F BC03-E BC03-D BC03-C BC02-CBC02-B BC02-A BC01-GBC01-F BC01-E BC01-D BC03-B BC03-A BC01-C BC01-B BC01-A Sou rce : Esri, Digita lGlob e , Ge oEye , Ea rth sta r Ge ogra ph ics, CN ES/Airb u s DS, USDA, USGS, Ae roGRID,IGN , a nd th e GIS Use r Com m u nity Sample Location Map16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, CaliforniaDRAFTED BY: RS DATE: 6/8/2020 FIGURE 3 1690010020 0 100 Feet Legend !A Anom a ly or Oth e rAre a of Inte re st SoilSa m ple "2Sh a llow SoilSa m ple - Bu ildingPe rim e te r #*Soil Mou nd Sa m ple Ó!µAsph a lt Ba se RockSa m ple "§)Sh a llow SoilSa m ple – Fie ldSoil Va por W e llLoca tions Approxim a te SiteBou nda ry#*")Am b ie nt Air Sa m ple Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\figure_3-20200527.mxd !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(A9 A8 A7 A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 A1 NOA-3 NOA-2 NOA-1 M3M2 M1 BC04-F BC04-E BC04-DBC04-C BC04-B BC04-A BC04 BC03-L BC03-K BC03-J BC03-HBC03-I BC03-G BC03-F BC03-E BC03-DBC03-C BC03-B BC03-A BC03 BC02-C BC02-B BC02-A BC02 BC01-G BC01-F BC01-E BC01-D BC01-CBC01-B BC01-A BC01 SB11 SB10SB09 SB08 SB07 SB06 SB05 SB04 SB03 SB02 SB01 Sample Location Map - Screening Criteria Exceedances16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY: RS/JC DATE: 5/27/2020 FIGURE 4 1690010020 0 100 Feet LegendSample Location -No Exceedances Sample Location -At least one metal and/orpesticide concentrationexceeds residential screeningcriteria. !( Approximate SiteBoundary !( Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\figure_4-20200527.mxd !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(A9 A8 A7 A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 A1 NOA-3 NOA-2 NOA-1 M3M2 M1 BC04-F BC04-E BC04-DBC04-C BC04-B BC04-A BC04 BC03-L BC03-K BC03-J BC03-HBC03-I BC03-G BC03-F BC03-E BC03-DBC03-C BC03-B BC03-A BC03 BC02-C BC02-B BC02-A BC02 BC01-G BC01-F BC01-E BC01-D BC01-CBC01-B BC01-A BC01 SB11 SB10SB09 SB08 SB07 SB06 SB05 SB04 SB03 SB02 SB01 Approximate Soil Excavation Locations16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY: RS/JC DATE: 5/27/2020 FIGURE 5 1690010020 ?? ? ? Area 2 Area 1 Area 4 Area 3 Legend Approximate ExcavationArea Sample Location -No Exceedances Sample Location -At least one metal and/orpesticide concentrationexceeds residential screeningcriteria. !( !( 0 100 Feet Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\figure_5-20200601.mxd !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(A9 A8 A7 A6 A5 A4A3 A2 A1 NOA-3 NOA-2 NOA-1 M3M2 M1 BC04-F BC04-E BC04-D BC04-C BC04-B BC04-A BC04 BC03-L BC03-K BC03-J BC03-HBC03-I BC03-G BC03-F BC03-E BC03-D BC03-C BC03-B BC03-A BC03 BC02-C BC02-B BC02-A BC02 BC01-G BC01-F BC01-E BC01-D BC01-CBC01-B BC01-A BC01 SB11 SB10SB09 SB08 SB07 SB06 SB05 SB04 SB03 SB02 SB01 Approximate Locations of Soil Delineation Samples16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY: RS/JC DATE: 6/1/2020 FIGURE 6 1690010020 0 100 Feet Soil Delineation Sample Soil Delineation Sample(Placed on Hold PendingResults of Other Samples) LegendSample Location -No Exceedances Sample Location -At least one metal and/orpesticide concentrationexceeds residential screeningcriteria. !( !( Area 2 Area 1 Area 4 Area 3 Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Ramboll TABLES D R A F T Table 1: Metals in Soil Samples SCDC Mozart 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California SampleLocation Sample Depth(feet bgs)Sample Date Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead STLC Lead (mg/L)TCLP Lead (mg/L)Mercury STLC Mercury (mg/L)TCLP Mercury (mg/L)Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc SB01 0.5 11/20/2018 0.52 6.0 150 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 45 10 53 31 ----0.085 ----0.62 55 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 56 91 SB02 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.50 5.3 150 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 53 11 43 12 ----0.061 ----ND<0.50 71 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 56 77 SB03 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.50 5.8 150 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 46 9.5 54 37 ----0.16 ----0.65 52 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 47 83 SB04 0.5 11/20/2018 0.61 6.5 160 ND<0.50 0.32 70 11 39 56 ----0.15 ----0.78 89 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 43 110 SB05 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.50 5.6 150 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 51 9.6 35 21 ----0.086 ----0.65 49 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 49 83 SB06 0.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.50 4.5 130 ND<0.50 0.25 42 10 28 15 ----0.072 ----0.82 63 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 48 66 SB07 0.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.50 7.6 170 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 49 14 54 42 ----0.15 ----0.70 57 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 120 96 SB08 0.5 1/10/2019 0.67 26 130 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 39 9.0 23 6.6 ----ND<0.050 ----ND<0.50 51 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 45 62 SB09 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.50 6.5 130 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 55 8.1 94 13 ----0.055 ----ND<0.50 42 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 56 90 SB10 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.50 6.2 120 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 51 8.7 33 22 ----0.075 ----ND<0.50 62 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 41 69 SB11 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.50 5.1 140 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 51 7.5 35 19 ----ND<0.050 ----ND<0.50 54 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 51 72 0.5 11/20/2018 1.1 12 300 ND<0.50 1.9 120 10 76 560 15 ND<0.10 0.58 ----0.88 56 ND<0.50 0.69 ND<0.50 51 370 2.0 11/30/2018 --4.3 ------------59 ------------------------ BC01-A 0.5 11/30/2018 --21 ------------390 21 0.18 -------------------- BC01-B 0.5 11/30/2018 --11 ------------47 ------------------------ BC01-C 0.5 11/30/2018 --24 ------------98 5.1 ---------------------- BC01-D 0.5 1/10/2019 --5.5 ------------48 ------------------------ BC01-E 0.5 1/10/2019 --5.9 ------------23 ------------------------ BC01-F 0.5 1/10/2019 --7.3 ------------29 ------------------------ BC01-G 0.5 1/10/2019 --15 ------------71 ------------------------ 0.5 11/20/2018 0.84 7.6 170 0.56 0.82 45 9 88 150 3.7 ND<0.10 0.88 ----0.67 47 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 49 150 2.0 11/30/2018 ----------------7.3 ------------------------ BC02-A 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------39 ------------------------ BC02-B 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------29 ------------------------ BC02-C 0.5 1/10/2019 ----------------15 ------------------------ 0.5 11/20/2018 0.89 15 220 ND<0.50 0.80 45 9.3 34 760 --0.62 0.18 ----0.82 46 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 51 470 2.0 11/30/2018 --5.2 ------------20 ---------------------- BC03-A 0.5 11/30/2018 --16 ------------96 4.1 ---------------------- BC03-B 0.5 11/30/2018 --47 ------------140 3.7 ND<0.10 -------------------- BC03-C 0.5 11/30/2018 --14 ------------65 ------------------------ BC03-D 0.5 11/30/2018 --26 ------------350 --0.41 -------------------- BC03-E 0.5 1/10/2019 --33 ------------180 BC03-F 0.5 1/10/2019 --13 ------------130 BC03-G 0.5 1/10/2019 --16 ------------400 BC03-H 0.5 1/10/2019 --6.5 ------------21 BC03-I 0.5 1/10/2019 --18 ------------41 BC03-J 0.5 1/10/2019 --11 ------------44 BC03-K 0.5 1/10/2019 --22 ------------55 BC03-L 0.5 1/10/2019 --30 ------------140 0.5 11/20/2018 3.5 6.2 160 ND<0.50 1.9 43 8.5 50 160 3.7 ND<0.10 0.12 ----0.87 44 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 42 2,900 2.0 11/30/2018 ----------------9.8 ------------------------ BC04-A 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------31 ------------------------ BC04-B 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------7.9 ------------------------ BC04-C 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------51 ------------------------ BC04-D 0.5 1/10/2019 ----------------120 ------------------------ BC04-E 0.5 1/10/2019 ----------------24 ------------------------ BC04-F 0.5 1/10/2019 ----------------14 ------------------------ M01 --11/30/2018 0.80 3.1 88 ND<0.50 1.1 26 5.4 24 96 3.5 --0.095 ----1.2 48 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 20 140 M02 --11/30/2018 0.72 5.2 120 ND<0.50 0.26 56 10 27 28 ----5.9 0.012 ND<0.010 ND<0.50 75 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 39 82 M03 --11/30/2018 3.0 3.5 120 ND<0.50 0.66 27 6.6 21 360 26 0.33 0.11 ----0.71 37 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 26 110 A9 2.0 12/3/2018 ND<0.50 4.0 140 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 39 8.9 21 78 ----ND<0.050 ----0.51 42 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 43 55 31 11 15,000 15 5.2 36,000a 23 3,100 80 ----1b ----390 490 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 USEPA Duvergé USEPA Cal/EPA Cal/EPA Cal/EPA USEPA USEPA Cal/EPA ----Cal/EPA ----USEPA Cal/EPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA TTLC 500 500 10,000 75 100 2,500 8,000 2,500 1,000 20 3,500 2,000 100 500 700 2,400 5,000 10x STLC 150 50 1,000 7.5 10 50 800 250 50 2.0 3,500 200 10 50 70 240 2,500 20x TCLP --100 2,000 --20 100 ----100 4.0 ----20 100 n/a ---- Notes: Only compounds detected above the laboratory reporting limit are included in the table and are shown in bold. All data are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Blue shading denotes detected concentrations in excess of residential screening criteria. Orange shading denotes exceedance above STLC/TCLP value.a = screening value is for Chromium III b = screening value is for Elemental Mercury California Assessment Manual 17 (CAM17) metals analyzed by EPA Method 6020. -- = not analyzed or not available bgs = below ground surface Cal/EPA = California Envrionmental Protection Agency ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit shown USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency Shallow soil samples collected under magnetic anomaly (metal pipe) in northeast corner of site. Shallow soil samples collected in field areas. Shallow soil samples collected near building perimeters. Samples collected from soil mounds. Screening Criteria Source BC01 BC03 BC02 BC04 Residential Screening Criteria STLC Mercury Threshold = 0.2 mg/L TCLP Mercury Threshold = 0.2 mg/L STLC Lead Threshold = 5.0 mg/L TCLP Lead Threshold = 5.0 mg/L United States Evironmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. Nov. Hazardous Waste Screening Criteria Sources: California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2018. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, Issue: DTSC recommended methodology for use of U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) in the Human Health Risk Assessment process at hazardous waste sites and permitted facilities. June. Duvergé, Dylan Jacques. 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. Page 1 of 5 Ramboll D R A F T Table 2: Detected Organochlorine Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Soil Samples SCDC Mozart 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Chlordane (Technical)a-Chlordane g-Chlordane p,p-DDD p,p-DDE p,p-DDT Dieldrin Aroclor1254 Aroclor 1260 SB01 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.050 ND<0.0020 ND<0.0020 ND<0.0020 0.42 0.026 ND<0.0020 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 SB02 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.30 0.013 ND<0.0010 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 SB03 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.050 ND<0.0020 ND<0.0020 ND<0.0020 0.37 0.018 ND<0.0020 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 SB04 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.25 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 0.052 0.017 ND<0.010 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 SB05 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.064 0.0057 ND<0.0010 ND<0.050 0.078 SB06 0.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.022 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.21 ND<0.050SB070.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.025 0.0021 0.0022 0.0013 0.030 0.018 ND<0.0010 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 SB08 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.0059 0.011 0.0030 0.012 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 SB09 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.12 ND<0.0050 ND<0.0050 ND<0.0050 0.036 0.013 ND<0.005 ND<0.25 ND<0.25SB100.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.0028 0.14 0.026 0.0033 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 SB11 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.025 0.0015 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.019 0.0048 ND<0.0010 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 BC01 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<2.5 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 0.28 ND<0.10 ND<5.0 ND<5.0 BC02 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.25 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 0.44 0.15 ND<0.010 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 0.5 11/20/2018 5.3 0.59 0.51 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 0.068 0.11 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 2.0 11/30/2018 0.073 ----------0.0023 ---- BC03-A 0.5 11/30/2018 1.9 ----------0.072 ---- BC03-B 0.5 11/30/2018 0.40 ----------0.039 ---- BC03-C 0.5 11/30/2018 0.38 ----------0.013 ---- BC03-D 0.5 11/30/2018 4.4 ----------0.13 ---- BC03-E 0.5 1/10/2019 1.3 ----------0.86 ---- BC03-F 0.5 1/10/2019 0.21 ----------0.0073 ---- BC03-G 0.5 1/10/2019 1.7 ----------0.021 ---- BC03-H 0.5 1/10/2019 0.78 ----------0.0018 ---- BC03-I 0.5 1/10/2019 0.12 ----------0.0016 ---- BC03-J 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.025 ----------0.0097 ---- BC03-K 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.12 ----------0.013 ---- BC03-L 0.5 1/10/2019 5.4 ----------0.47 ---- BC04 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<1.2 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 0.10 0.083 ND<0.050 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 M01 --11/30/2018 ND<2.5 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<5.0 ND<5.0 M02 --11/30/2018 ND<0.25 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 0.011 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 M03 --11/30/2018 ND<5.0 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<10 ND<10 A9 2.0 12/3/2018 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.0071 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ---- 0.44 ----1.9 2.0 1.9 0.034 0.24 0.24 Cal/EPA ----USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA Notes: Only compounds detected above the laboratory reporting limit are included in the table and are shown in bold. All data are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Blue shading denotes detected concentrations in excess of residential screening level. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) analyzed by EPA Method 8081A. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) analyzed by EPA Method 8082. -- = not analyzed or not available bgs = below ground surface Cal/EPA = California Envrionmental Protection Agency DDE = dichlorodiphenylethylene DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit shown OCP = organochlorinated biphenyls PCB = polychlorinated biphenyls USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2018. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, Issue: DTSC recommended methodology for use of U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) in the Human Health Risk Assessment process at hazardous waste sites and permitted facilities. January. United States Evironmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. May. Screening Criteria Source Sources: Residential Screening Criteria Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) Sample Date Sample Depth (feet bgs) Sample Location BC03 Shallow soil samples collected in field areas. PCBs Shallow soil samples collected near building perimeters. Samples collected from soil mounds. Shallow soil samples collected under magnetic anomaly (metal pipe) in northeast corner of site. Page 2 of 5 Ramboll DRAFT Table 3: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples SCDC Mozart 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California TPH-g TPH-d TPH-mo A1 10.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A2 10.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 1.1 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A3 3.5 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 5.5 ALL ND* A4 3.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 4.2 39 ALL ND* A5 Former Fuel Pump 2.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A6 2.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A7 2.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A8 2.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A9 NE Magnetic Anomaly 2.0 12/3/2018 ND<1.0 2.0 6.0 -- 740 230 11,000 -- Notes: Compounds detected above the laboratory reporting limit are shown in bold. All data are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) analyzed by EPA Method 8015 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analyzed by EPA method 8260 *Reporting limits vary for different samples based on laboratory dilution factors. -- = not analyzed or not available bgs = below ground surface ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit shown RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board TPH-g = total petroleum hydrocarbons gasoline range (C6-C12) TPH-d = total petroleum hydrocarbons diesel range (C10-C23) TPH-mo = total petroleum hydrocarbons motor oil range (C18-C36) VOCsSample ID Sample Depth (feet bgs)Sample Date Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) RWQCB Residential ESL Sources: a San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2016. Environmental Screening Levels Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Levels (Table S-1). February (revision 3) Sample Location Vicinity of Suspected UST Vicinity of Suspected UST Piping Former Oil Drum Storage Page 3 of 5 Ramboll Table 4: Naturally-Occurring Asbestos in Soil Samples SCDC Mozart 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Sample ID Depth Below Ground Surface (feet)Sample Date Visual Estimation Percent Asbestos in Matrix Asbestos Type(s) Detected NOA-1,2,3 0.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.25%ND<0.25%None Notes: Sample NOA-1,2,3 is a composite of samples NOA-1, NOA-2, and NOA-3 NOA analyzed by CARB Method 435 CARB 435 = California Air Resources Board Method 435; June 6, 1991. ID = identification ND = not detected at or above the laboratory limit of quantification shown NOA = Naturally-Occurring Asbestos Page 4 of 5 Ramboll DRAFT Table 5: Soil Vapor Sampling Results SCDC Mozart 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Sample Type Ambient Air Sample Location SV01 SV02 SV03 AA Sample Depth (feet bgs)2.5 2.5 4.0 -- Sample Date 5/27/2020 5/27/2020 5/27/2020 5/27/2020 Acetone 39 14 9.5 NA 1,100,000 Benzene ND<1.6 ND<1.6 ND<1.6 0.18 3.2 2-Butanone (MEK)12 5.6 ND<4.4 NA 170,000 Carbon tetrachloride ND<3.1 ND<3.1 ND<3.1 0.49 16 Chloromethane 2.8 ND<1.0 14 1.0 3,100 1,3-Dichlorobenzene ND<3.0 22 ND<3.0 NA -- Dichlorodifluoromethane (R-12)4.4 3.8 2.7 2.5 -- Freon 113 ND<11 ND<11 ND<11 0.54 -- Methylene Chloride ND<17 ND<17 ND<17 0.43 34 PCE 14 7.3 ND<3.4 ND<0.17 15 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 5.9 ND<2.7 ND<2.7 ND<0.14 35,000 Toluene 3.1 2.3 ND<1.9 0.54 10,000 Trichlorofluoromethane ND<5.6 ND<5.6 ND<5.6 1.4 -- m,p-Xylene ND<8.7 ND<8.7 ND<8.7 0.25 3,500 Notes: All data are reported in micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Only compounds detected above the laboratory reporting limit are included in the table; positive results are shown in bold. -- = not available/applicable bgs = below ground surface NA = not analyzed ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit shown Freon 113 = 1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-Trifluoroethane PCE = Tetrachloroethene Screening Criteria Source: Residential Screening Criteria for Soil Gas Vapor Intrusion Soil Vapor All samples analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by EPA Method TO-15 except sample AA analyzed by EPA TO-15 SIM. San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2019. Summary of Soil Vapor ESLs: Subslab/Soil Gas Vapor Intrusion: Human Health Risk Levels (Table SG-1). July. Rev 2. Page 5 of 5 Ramboll Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Ramboll ATTACHMENT 1 CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NOTIFICATION Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Ramboll NOTIFICATION INFORMATION (UPDATE AS NEEDED) Name (Entity) Responsibilities Contact Details TBD (Robson Homes) On-Site Construction Contact TBD Richard Yee (Robson Homes) Owner Representative C: (408) 761-0354 ryee@robsonhomes.com Jason Kane, PE (Ramboll) Environmental Professional O: (510) 420-2547 C: (949) 291-0340 jpkane@ramboll.com Anne Gates, PE (Ramboll) O: (510) 420-2524 C: (415) 877-0123 agates@ramboll.com Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Ramboll ATTACHMENT 2 FIELD REPORT FORM Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Ramboll Field Reporting Form – Potentially Contaminated Soil Name: Date: Time: General Site Information Location (mark a copy of the attached site map and return with this form): Have photographs been taken: YES / NO If so, please email to Environmental Professional(s) Soil Information Describe the potentially-impacted material (e.g. discoloration/staining, odor, oily sheen, presence of free flowing or floating oil/petroleum, serpentine-containing fill material, etc.) Estimated Extent of Potentially Impacted Soil (ft) (horizontal and vertical): • Estimated horizontal extent (in feet): • Estimated depth below ground surface (in feet): Mitigation Actions Taken Describe any actions that were taken to clean-up the potentially impacted material, to isolate the material, or to mark the area of potential impacts. Groundwater and Surface Water Information If impacts were discovered while excavating, was water encountered? YES / NO If groundwater was encountered, was any sheen or oil visible on the surface of the water? YES / NO Submit this form to _name___________ at the Main construction trailer and to the Environmental Professional(s)at _email and/or fax number______________ Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Ramboll ATTACHMENT 3 SPILL REPORTING FORM Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Ramboll Spill Reporting Form Name: Date: Time: General Site Information Location (mark a copy of the attached site map and return with this form): Have photographs been taken: YES / NO If so, please email to Environmental Professional Spill Information What kind of material was spilled? What is the estimated volume of material spilled (in gallons)? Was the material spilled on a paved (asphalt/concrete) surface or on bare ground? Did any of the spilled material enter storm water or sewer drains, enter drainage ditches, or leave the site? Estimated Extent of the spill-affected area: • Estimated horizontal extent (in feet): • Estimated depth below ground surface (in feet): Mitigation Actions Taken Describe any actions that were taken to clean-up the potentially impacted material, to isolate the material, or to mark the area of potential impacts. Submit this form to _name___________ at the Main construction trailer and to the Environmental Professional(s)at _email and/or fax number______________ Soil Management Plan 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue Campbell, California Ramboll ATTACHMENT 4 DTSC’S INFORMATION ADVISORY ON CLEAN IMPORTED FILL MATERIAL ATTACHMENT 6 REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES March 4, 2020 Ramboll 2200 Powell Street Suite 700 Emeryville, California 94608 USA T +1 510 655 7400 F +1 510 655 9517 www.ramboll.com Mr. Richard Yee Robson Homes 2185 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 RE: REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND PROPOSED REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES 16151 - 16187 E. MOZART AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA Dear Richard: Ramboll US Corporation (Ramboll) has prepared this letter regarding activities related to excavation of shallow soil impacted by metals and organochlorine pesticides as part of redevelopment of the above referenced property in Campbell, California (the “site”). Robson Homes has retained Ramboll to enter the site into a regulatory oversight agreement with Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) and has requested Ramboll prepare this letter to summarize the anticipated remedial actions that will be performed at the site as part of the SCCDEH regulatory oversight process. It is our understanding that Robson Homes will provide this letter to the City of Campbell Planning Division (Planning Division) as a placeholder for the eventual closure report that will detail the remedial actions performed at the site once those actions have been completed. The regulatory oversight process and remedial steps summarized in this letter are subject to change pending review and approval by SCCDEH. BACKGROUND The site is approximately 2.9 acres in size and located at 16151, 16157, 16163, 16179, and 16187 E. Mozart Avenue in Campbell, California (see Figure 1). Ramboll conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and shallow soil investigation at the site in January 20190F1 (the “2019 Ramboll report”). The findings of the ESA and shallow soil investigation identified areas of elevated metals and pesticides in soil. Specifically, results from soil sampling between November 2018 and January 2019 identified concentrations of lead, arsenic, mercury and organochlorine pesticides (chlordane and dieldrin) above regulatory 1 Ramboll. 2109. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Shallow Soil Investigation, 16151-16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California. January. screening criteria for residential land use (see Figure 2). The vertical extent of impacted soil appears to be in the upper 2 feet and are located in the vicinity of the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence and older storage structures located in the central portion of the site. REGULATORY OVERSIGHT Based on the findings of Ramboll’s shallow soil investigation at the site, it is our understanding that the Planning Division is requiring the excavation and off-haul of impacted soil under the regulatory oversight of SCCDEH. However, due to the location of the impacted soil around existing structures the impacted soil cannot be excavated and off-hauled from the site until the structures are demolished. The structures won’t be demolished until the Planning Division approves Robson Homes’ proposed development plans. Due to the sequencing of the aforementioned events, this letter is meant to serve as a placeholder for the eventual closure report that will be prepared by Ramboll for review and approval by SCCDEH. The proposed soil excavation activities described below are the typical approach Ramboll has successfully implemented at similar properties on behalf of Robson Homes and other redevelopment clients in the San Francisco Bay area. At the time of this letter, Ramboll is in the process of initiating the regulatory oversight process with SCCDEH. As such, the activities described below are subject to change pending review and approval by SCCDEH. Soil Management Plan Ramboll will prepare a Soil Management Plan (SMP) or similar work plan for review by SCCDEH to be implemented during grading and excavation activities during site redevelopment. The SMP is expected to include the following elements: • A description of the site history and use; • A summary of previous environmental investigations and other information pertinent to subsurface conditions anticipated at the site; • General procedures and requirements in relation to worker and contractor health and safety (site contractors will be responsible for preparing their own site-specific health and safety plan); • General recommendations (e.g. dust control, safe work practices) to be implemented during excavation and grading activities; • Guidance on the identification of suspected contamination or other unanticipated features (i.e., underground tanks or piping), and recommended procedures and notification instructions in the event suspected contamination is encountered (whether in soil or groundwater), or spills occur during excavation and grading; and • Guidance regarding off-site soil disposal and/or evaluation of fill material, proposed for import to the site (if necessary). In addition to summarizing the results and findings of Ramboll’s previous investigations at the site, the SMP will also detail additional sampling to be performed prior to excavation of the impacted soil. The additional sampling will be performed after the existing structures at the site have been demolished. The sampling will horizontally and vertically delineate the impacted soil and designate the boundaries for the soil excavations. The approximate footprints of the soil excavations are shown on Figure 3 and will be refined after soil sampling results are available. No soil excavation or grading activities will be performed at the site until the SMP has been reviewed and approved by SCCDEH. Impacted Soil Excavations After the soil excavation boundaries have been determined by the additional soil sampling, the impacted soil will be excavated and either directly placed into trucks for off-haul and disposal in accordance with applicable regulatory guidelines or stockpiled at the site. If necessary, soil will be stockpiled on top of plastic and covered by plastic. The soil will be sampled and characterized for waste disposal characterization then off-hauled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory guidelines. The additional soil samples used to delineate the impacted soil will serve as bottom and sidewall confirmation samples for the soil excavations. All metals and organochlorine pesticide concentrations in the confirmation samples will be less than applicable regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. Reporting and Regulatory Closure At the conclusion of site excavation and grading activities, Ramboll will prepare a closure report for review by SCCDEH that documents soil sampling, excavations, and disposal of the impacted soil at the site. Upon review and approval of the closure report by SCCDEH, a copy of the final report and notice of No Further Action from SCCDEH will be provided to the Planning Division. CLOSURE Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions or need further information. Yours Sincerely, Anne Gates, PE Jason Kane, PE Senior Managing Consultant Managing Consultant D +1 510 420 2524 D +1 510 420 2547 agates@ramboll.com jpkane@ramboll.com FIGURES Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\1690010020-campbell-layout.mxd (Former Carmen's Nursery) 4 3 12 5 Residential Residential Residential MedicalCenter E MO Z A R T A V E N U E S BASCOM AVENUENORMAN Y . M I N E T A H W YCA 17 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Site Layout16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY: RS DATE: 1/21/2019 FIGURE 1 1690010020 0 140 Feet Legend Approximate SiteBoundary 1 = 16151 East Mozart Ave.2 = 16157 East Mozart Ave.3 = 16163 East Mozart Ave.4 = 16179 East Mozart Ave.5 = 16187 East Mozart Ave. Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\1690010020-campbell-samploc-4.mxd !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( (Former Carmen's Nursery)Residential Residential Residential MedicalCenter E MO Z A R T A V E N U E A9 A8 A7 A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 A1 M3M2 M1 BC04 BC03 BC02 BC01 SB11 SB10 SB09 SB08 SB07 SB06 SB05 SB04 SB03 SB02 SB01 NOA-3 NOA-2NOA-1 BC04-F BC04-E BC04-DBC04-C BC04-B BC04-A BC03-LBC03-K BC03-J BC03-H BC03-I BC03-G BC03-F BC03-E BC03-D BC03-C BC02-CBC02-B BC02-A BC01-GBC01-F BC01-EBC01-D BC03-B BC03-A BC01-C BC01-B BC01-A Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Sample Location Map - Screening Criteria Exceedances16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY: RS DATE: 1/28/2019 FIGURE 2 1690010020 0 100 Feet Legend Sample Location -No Exceedances Sample Location -At least one metal and/orpesticide concentrationexceeds residential screeningcriteria. !( !( Approximate SiteBoundary Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\1690010020-campbell-samploc-4.mxd!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!((Former Carmen's Nursery)ResidentialResidentialResidentialSurgicalFacilityE MOZART AVENUEA9A8A7A6A5A4A3A2A1M3M2M1BC04BC03BC02BC01SB11SB10SB09SB08SB07SB06SB05SB04SB03SB02SB01NOA-3NOA-2NOA-1BC04-FBC04-EBC04-DBC04-CBC04-BBC04-ABC03-LBC03-KBC03-JBC03-HBC03-IBC03-GBC03-FBC03-EBC03-DBC03-CBC02-CBC02-BBC02-ABC01-GBC01-FBC01-EBC01-DBC03-BBC03-ABC01-CBC01-BBC01-A Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community$SSUR[LPDWH([FDYDWLRQ)RRWSULQW0DS16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, CaliforniaDRAFTED BY: RSDATE: 1/21/2019FIGURE16900100200100FeetLegendSample Location -No ExceedancesSample Location -At least one metal and/orpesticide concentrationexceeds residential screeningcriteria.!(!(Approximate SiteBoundary(!!(((!!!!!((((!!!!!!!(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!((((!!!!!!!((!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(((!!!!!!((((!!!!!!!(!!(!!(((!!!!!((((!!!!!((!!!!((((!!!!!CCA(!((!(!!((!!((!!(!(!!!(!!(!((!!CCA(!A(!!(!!(((!!!!((((!!!!!!!((!!!!!!((((!!!!!!!(((!!!!!((((!!!!!!!((!!!!!!((((!!!!!!!BBBC03-KBC03-KJJ33J0303C0C0BCCC03-JC03-J03 CC03-C3CBC03 CBC03-CBC03-BBC03-B(!!(!!((!!BBBCBCBCIC0C0CBC0BB(!!(!!(!((!!!!((((!!!!!(!!(!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!(!!!!(!!BC0BC0((!!(!(!!!!(!!BC03BC0(!!(!!BBBB(!!((!!!!(!!(!((((!!!!!!!!!((((((((!!!!!!!!!!!!!!((!!!!!((((!!!!!!!(!!BC03BC03BC03-GBC03-GFF3BC03-C0C030BC03BCBBB03BC03-FBBDD3-30303C0C0CBCBC03-DBC03-DBC03-BC03-(!!(!!(!!((!!!!!!(!!!!!!!!BCBC03-A03-A!!(!!!!((((!!!!(!!((!!!((((!!!!(!!(!!!?(!!M(M22MM(!22MM2(!!M3M3(!322(!!M1M111(!!(!!((!!!!!((((!!!!!!!(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!((!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!((!!!!((((((!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(((((((((((!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!((((((!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(((((((((((!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DDD(!!(!!(!!((!!!!(!!!!!((!!((((((!!!!!!!((((!!!!!!!(((((((!!!!!!!!44DD???????(!!(((!!((!!!!(!!(!!(!!(!!!!(!!Approximate Excavation AreaAdditional stepout sampling needed to further delineate impacted soil? ATTACHMENT 7 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION 16151 - 16187 EAST MOZART AVENUE CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Robson Homes, LLC San Jose, CA Prepared By: Ramboll US Corporation Emeryville, CA Date January 2019 Project Number 1690010020 D R A F T D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Environmental Professional Statement Ramboll SIGNATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL STATEMENT I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a site of the nature, history and setting of the subject site. I have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. DRAFT ___________________________________ Anne Gates, P.E. Senior Managing Consultant Ramboll US Corporation 2200 Powell Street, Suite 700 Emeryville, CA D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Contents Ramboll CONTENTS 1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 1 1.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions 1 1.2 Other Findings 1 2. INTRODUCTION 1 2.1 Purpose 1 2.2 Scope of the Assessment 1 2.3 Significant Assumptions 2 2.4 Reliance and General Limitations 3 3. SITE DESCRIPTION 4 3.1 Site Setting 4 3.2 Current Use of the Site 6 3.3 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties 6 4. REVIEW OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES 7 4.1 Environmental Regulatory Database Review 7 4.2 Historical Uses of the Site and Adjacent Properties 9 4.3 Review of Local Agency Information 10 4.4 Previous Environmental Assessments and Activities 12 4.5 Environmental Lien Record Search 12 4.6 User-Provided Information 12 5. SITE RECONNAISSANCE 13 5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions 13 5.2 General Site Setting and Observations 13 6. EXPLORATORY POTHOLING AND SAMPLING ACTIVITIES 16 6.1 Pre-Field Activities 16 6.2 Geophysical Investigation and Exploratory Potholing 16 6.3 Soil Sampling 16 7. FINDINGS, OPINION, AND CONCLUSIONS 23 7.1 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions 23 7.2 Analysis of Data Gaps 24 8. REFERENCES 25 8.1 Documents 25 8.2 Interviews 25 9. ASTM DEFINITIONS 26 D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Contents Ramboll TABLES Table 1: Metals in Soil Samples Table 2: Detected Organochlorine Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Soil Samples Table 3: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples Table 4: Naturally-Occurring Asbestos in Soil Samples FIGURES Figure 1: Site Location Map Figure 2: Site Layout Figure 3: Soil Sample Location Map Figure 4: Sample Location Map – Screening Criteria Exceedances APPENDICES Appendix A: Site Photographs Appendix B: Environmental Database Report Appendix C: Historical Research Documentation C.1: Topographic Maps C.2: Aerial Photographs C.3: Abstract of City Directories C.4: Historical Fire Insurance Maps Appendix D: JR Associates Magnetic Investigation Report Appendix E: Geotechnical Investigation Report Appendix F: Environmental Lien and AUL Search Appendix G: Photograph and Map of Fuel Pump Appendix H: Laboratory Analytical Reports Appendix I: Qualifications of Environmental Professionals D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Summary of Conclusions 1 Ramboll 1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Ramboll US Corporation (“Ramboll”; formerly Ramboll Environ US Corporation) was retained by Robson Homes, LLC (“Robson Homes”) to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the site located at 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue in Campbell, California (herein referred to as the “site”). Ramboll’s assessment was conducted in connection with the purchase of the site. The objective of the Phase I ESA, which was conducted in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM International’s Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process E1527-13 (the “ASTM Standard”), was to identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), as defined in the ASTM Standard (see Section 2.1). 1.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions Ramboll performed a Phase I ESA of the site in conformance with the scope and limitations of the ASTM Standard. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 7.2 of this report. This assessment has revealed the following REC in connection with unrestricted residential use of the site: • Areas of Elevated Metals and Pesticides in Soil. Results from soil sampling between November 2018 and January 2019 identified concentrations of lead, arsenic, mercury and organochlorine pesticides (chlordane and dieldrin) above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use, as discussed in Section 6 of this report. The vertical extent of impacted soil appears to be in the upper 2 feet and are located in the vicinity of the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence and older storage structures located in the central portion of the site. 1.2 Other Findings Although not a considered REC based on currently available information, Ramboll identified the following other findings: • Former Fuel Pump and Oil Drum Storage. An undated hand-drawn map from records provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (Fire Department) depicts four oil drums and a fuel pump located behind a residence presumed to be the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence. In addition, a photograph provided by the site owner depicts a fuel pump located in the central portion of the site behind the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence that appears to correspond with a hand drawn map from the Fire Department. The site owner was unaware if the fuel pump was connected to an aboveground storage tank (AST) or underground storage tank (UST). To find the potential UST, a magnetic investigation and ensuing potholing was conducted in the vicinity of the former fuel pump on behalf of Robson Homes in November 2018. The magnetic investigation and subsequent potholing did not locate the potential UST. No soil staining, odors or other evidence of the potential fuel UST was observed by Ramboll field personnel during the exploratory potholing activities. Soil sampling conducted at and in the vicinity of the former oil drum storage area, former fuel pump location, and suspected UST location did not identify fuel constituents at concentrations above regulatory screening levels. No further investigation is recommended at the time. • Soil Mounds Containing Elevated Metals. Three large soil mounds located on the central portion of the site were dumped at the site by West Valley Arborists, the landscaping company occupying the central portion of the site. Samples collected by Ramboll from the soil mounds D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Summary of Conclusions 2 Ramboll identified concentrations of lead and mercury above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. •Historical Agricultural Operations. Historical aerial photographs dating to 1939 indicate the site was originally developed for cultivation as orchards. Aerial photographs also indicate that additional structures were present on site between the 1950s and 1960s, and that the site was largely devoid of agriculture by the 1950s. Given this historical site use and based on information provided by the site owner as well as information reviewed on GeoTracker for the adjoining property immediately to the west, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals may have been used at the site prior to the 1950’s. Ramboll collected shallow soil samples in the former orchard areas of the site that were analyzed for metals and organochlorine pesticides. All metals and organochlorine pesticide concentrations were below regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. No further investigation is recommended at this time. A discussion of de minimis conditions identified during this review is presented in Section 7 of this report. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Summary of Conclusions 1 Ramboll 2.INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose Ramboll was retained by Robson Homes to conduct a Phase I ESA of the site. Ramboll’s assessment was conducted in connection with the purchase of the site. The purpose of the assessment was to identify RECs, which are defined in the ASTM Standard as: “The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: (1) due to release to the environment; (2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or (3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis conditions are not recognized environmental conditions.” 2.2 Scope of the Assessment Ramboll completed the following tasks, consistent with the ASTM Standard, during its Phase I ESA of the site: •Visits to the site by Jason Kane of Ramboll on September 20 and October 2, 2018 to observe the features of the site and to identify the uses and conditions specified in the ASTM Standard. In addition, Ramboll observed the adjoining properties from the site or adjacent public thoroughfares. Photographs taken during the site visit are included in Appendix A. •Between September and December 2018, interviews with Leann Wilson, the co-owner of the site since 2008. The aforementioned individual is referred to herein as the “site owner”. In addition, in-person and telephone interviews were conducted with the tenants of the houses and landscaping business located at the site, who are referred to herein as “site personnel”. The site owner and site personnel interviewed by Ramboll were identified as having good knowledge of the uses and physical characteristics of the site. •Multiple visits to the site by Ramboll between November 2018 and January 2019 to collect soil samples and observe potholing activities. •A review of information contained in federal and state environmental databases, as obtained from the sources noted below: -A radius report prepared by EDR, Inc. (EDR, see Appendix B), which presents the results of searches of federal and state databases for the subject site, as well as properties near the subject site. The radius searched for each database, as well as the databases themselves, were selected in accordance with the ASTM Standard. -The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA’s) Envirofacts database, which provides site information contained in multiple USEPA regulatory databases. -The USEPA’s Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database, which provides information on sites’ enforcement and compliance history. -The State of California’s Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) GeoTracker online database and the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor online database. •A review of standard historical sources (included as Appendix C) and local agency inquiries, as defined in the ASTM Standard. The following resources were reviewed: D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Summary of Conclusions 2 Ramboll - Readily available historical sources, including (where available) historical topographic maps and aerial photographs, city directories, and Sanborn Maps, to develop a history of the previous uses of the site and surrounding area. - Historical and site-specific information obtained from the following local agencies: City of Campbell Community Development Department’s Planning and Building Divisions, Santa Clara County Department of Planning and Development, Santa Clara County Fire Department (Fire Department), and the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office (Assessor). Ramboll also requested information from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH), but personnel representing and/or databases maintained by these agencies reported having no information pertaining to the site. • A review of physical setting sources, as defined in the ASTM Standard, including: - The current United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map that shows the area on which the site is located. - Geologic, hydrogeologic, or hydrologic sources as provided in the EDR report. • A review of documents pertaining to the site provided by Robson Homes, including: - Magnetic contour maps from geophysical investigations conducted at the site, prepared by JR Associates and dated November 1 and December 2, 2018 (Appendix D). - Geotechnical Investigation, Residential Development, 16179 E Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California, prepared by Geo-Logic Associates and dated December 18, 2018 (Appendix E). • A search for environmental liens or other activity and use limitations (AULs) for the site, provided by EDR (as shown in Appendix F). Ramboll ordered the lien search using the parcel numbers believed to be associated with the site, as obtained from the Assessor and online resources. • A review of any information provided by the user of this assessment, including information consistent with Appendix X3 of the ASTM Standard. Pertinent information, if any, is discussed in the appropriate sections of this report. This assessment was conducted in accordance with the methodology specified in ASTM Standard E1527-13, as agreed upon by Ramboll and Robson Homes in September 2018. 2.3 Significant Assumptions In conducting this review, no significant assumptions were made, except for the following: • Site-specific field measurements or other detailed hydrogeological information was not publicly available or reasonably ascertainable. In the absence of such data, Ramboll has assumed that the flow direction of shallow groundwater beneath the site and in the local vicinity generally mimics surface topography. Therefore, in evaluating potential on-site impacts from off-site sources, those off-site properties not located adjacent to or within one-quarter mile upgradient of the subject site are not considered to represent a significant concern to the subject site. This interpretation is based on the assumption that a hazardous material released to the subsurface generally does not migrate laterally within the unsaturated soil for a significant distance, while a hazardous material may migrate in groundwater in a generally downgradient direction. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Summary of Conclusions 3 Ramboll 2.4 Reliance and General Limitations This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Robson Homes, LLC and affiliated entities including Santa Clara Development Company, Sun Lakes Construction Company of California, and Vesta Real Estate Company Inc., and such other persons or entities whose reliance is explicitly authorized in writing Ramboll. Under the ASTM Standard, this report is considered current only until July 9, 2019 (a period of 180 days from the date of the most recent site visit on January 10, 2019). The conclusions presented in this report represent Ramboll’s best professional judgment based upon the information available and conditions existing as of the date of this report. In performing its assignment, Ramboll must rely upon publicly available information, information provided by the client, and information provided by third parties. Accordingly, the conclusions in this report are valid only to the extent that the information provided to Ramboll was accurate and complete. This review is not intended as legal advice, nor is it an exhaustive review of site conditions or facility compliance. The scope of work for this assessment did not include asbestos or lead-based paint surveys or inspections. Other issues considered outside the scope of the ASTM Standard and this review include radon, lead in drinking water, wetlands, cultural and historic resources, ecological resources, endangered species, and high voltage power lines. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Description 4 Ramboll 3. SITE DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Setting The site is located at 16151, 16157, 16163, 16179, and 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, Santa Clara County, California. The 2.92-acre site is located approximately two miles south of downtown Campbell (Figure 1). According to the Assessor, the assessor’s parcel number (APN) for the site is 424-06-119. The southern portion of the site is developed with five residences and canopy-covered parking areas that face East Mozart Avenue. The central portion of the site is developed with two small storage structures that were formerly used as residences, a two-car garage, two covered storage areas, and two shipping that are used by West Valley Arborists, a landscaping business (Figure 2). The site is accessed from East Mozart Avenue at the southern site boundary. Non-building portions of the site are generally unpaved and sparsely landscaped. There are no on-site surface water bodies. Table A provides an overview of physical setting and utility information for the site. Table A: Physical Setting and Utility Information Conditions Source Description Topography Elevation (above mean sea level) USGS topographic map; Google Earth Ranges from approximately 280 feet along the southern site boundary to approximately 275 feet along the northern site boundary. Topographic Gradient USGS topographic map; visual observations Relatively flat on site, with a gentle downward slope to the north. Regional topography slopes gently downward to the north. Hydrology Surface Water Runoff Visual observations Percolates into the ground surface at unpaved areas throughout the site. Nearest Surface Water Body to the Site USGS topographic map; Google Earth Los Gatos Creek, located approximately one-quarter mile northwest of the site. The creek ultimately joins the Guadalupe River and flows north to discharge to the San Francisco Bay. Flood Plain FEMA*; site owner The site owner reported no known occurrences of flooding at the site. The site is not located within a 100- or 500-year flood zone, although a 500-year flood zone is located approximately 300 feet southwest of the site. Wetlands NWI*; Visual observations There are no federally-designated wetlands on site. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Description 5 Ramboll Table A: Physical Setting and Utility Information Conditions Source Description Geology and Hydrogeology Presumed Direction of Shallow Groundwater Flow USGS topographic map Based on the regional topographic gradient, the flow direction of Los Gatos Creek, and the location of the San Francisco Bay with respect to the site, shallow groundwater underneath the site is presumed to flow to the north. Depth to Groundwater 2018 Geotechnical Report A geotechnical investigation performed at the site in October 2018 by Geo-Logic Associates did not encounter groundwater in any soil borings, the deepest of which extended to a depth of approximately 49 feet below ground surface (bgs). On-site Wells DOGGR; Facility personnel There are no production, monitoring or injection wells on site. The nearest oil and gas wells are located between one-half and one mile south to southwest of from the site; both are plugged and abandoned. Nearest Groundwater Supply Wells EDR database report One private or municipal well that may be used for water supply is located between one-quarter and one-half mile northwest (downgradient) of the site. Geologic Conditions 2018 Geotechnical Report; Visual observations The October 2018 geotechnical investigation at the site reported surficial soils consisting of silty sand with gravel underlain by layers of gravel with sand, clayey gravel with sand, and clayey sand with gravel to a depth of approximately 49 feet bgs. Site Utility Information Heating and Cooling Equipment Site owner Each of the five existing residences is serviced by wall-mounted electric heaters. Electricity Supplier Site owner Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Natural Gas Supplier Site owner PG&E Use of Fuel Oil for Building Heat Site owner No current or former use of fuel oil reported. Water Supplier Site owner San Jose Water Company Sanitary Sewer Site owner The site is not currently connected to the municipal sanitary sewer system. Septic Systems Site owner Each of the five existing residences is serviced by a separate septic system. The garage in the central portion of the site also has a restroom services by a septic system. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Description 6 Ramboll Table A: Physical Setting and Utility Information Conditions Source Description Notes: DOGGR = Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources; FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency; NWI = National Wetlands Inventory *- Source was provided in the EDR database report. 3.2 Current Use of the Site The southern portion of the site has been used for residential purposes since prior to the 1930s. The central portion of the site has been leased by a landscaping business for storage operations since approximately 2014. Two storage containers, canopy-covered parking areas, miscellaneous heavy equipment, and other maintenance-related landscaping materials are stored on site on a temporary basis, although landscaping and vehicle maintenance business operations generally occur off site. Chemical use and storage at the site is generally limited to household cleaning and vehicle maintenance supplies. According to site personnel, no chlorinated solvents are currently used at the site and the use of such chemicals would not be expected based on the nature of current site operations. Similarly, the site owner and site personnel were not aware of any historical use of chlorinated solvents at the site. 3.3 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties The site is in a mixed residential and commercial land use area. Residential areas are located adjacent to the west, north, and south of the site. Based on discussions with site personnel, Ramboll’s visual observations from the site boundary and public rights-of-way, and a limited review of publicly available information, a general determination of the current use of adjacent properties is described in Table B. Table B: Current Use of Adjacent Properties Direction Property/Land Use Ramboll’s Observations North Residential. No apparent exterior manufacturing or chemical storage operations were observed. Residential areas consist of single-family homes. No concerns were noted. East Medical offices. South East Mozart Avenue, beyond which is residential. West Residential. Notes: During the site visit, Ramboll walked or drove by the borders of these properties that are shared with the subject site. Ramboll did not enter the neighboring properties. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Review of Public Records and Other Information Sources 7 Ramboll 4.REVIEW OF PUBLIC RECORDS AND OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES 4.1 Environmental Regulatory Database Review Ramboll contracted with EDR in October 2018 to prepare a summary of listings in federal and state agency databases for the site and facilities within applicable radii of the site, as specified by the ASTM standard.1 A copy of the EDR report is presented in Appendix B. 4.1.1 Database Review for Site Ramboll reviewed the results of the state and federal environmental database searches performed by EDR (see Appendix B) and searched the GeoTracker and EnviroStor online database. The site was not listed on any of the databases searched. 4.1.2 Database Review for Surrounding Properties There are multiple listings in the database report for off-site facilities within applicable ASTM search radii. Several of these listings (i.e., California Environmental Reporting System [CERS] and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA] hazardous waste generators, underground storage tanks [UST], Certified Unified Program Agency [CUPA], Hazardous Waste Information System [HAZNET], Historical Auto Stations, and compliance listings), by themselves, are not necessarily indicative of a contamination concern and, therefore, are not discussed herein and were not further evaluated for purposes of this assessment. A number of properties appear on databases indicating potential contamination concerns (i.e., EnviroStor, GeoTracker, Cleanup Program Site-Spills, Leaks, Investigation, and Cleanup [CPS-SLIC], Leaking Underground Storage Tank [LUST], Superfund Enterprise Management System [SEMS], SWRCB/DTSC/Integrated Waste Board cleanup property [CORTESE], and dry cleaner databases). None of the properties listed on databases indicating a potential contamination concern (within one-quarter of a mile from the site) have open regulatory cases. Of the sites representing a potential contamination concern2, only one was located immediately adjacent to the site, as discussed below: 1 EDR uses the term “radii” to refer to the ASTM terminology “approximate minimum search distance” in the environmental database report. 2 Ramboll’s analysis of adjoining sites was based on observations made during the site reconnaissance (as discussed in Table 2) and location information for off-site listings as presented in the database report. The discussion of adjoining and non-adjoining sites does not include (if applicable) listings for certain databases that are (by themselves) not necessarily indicative of a contamination concern (e.g., compliance listings without indication of a release or chemical mishandling, such as RCRA hazardous waste generators or registered storage tanks). Also, for purposes of this analysis, Ramboll considers as “adjoining” properties that are immediately adjacent, even if separated by a road or other physical barrier. In addition, as noted in Table 1, shallow groundwater beneath the site likely flows to the north. Within this section, Ramboll did not discuss any off-site non-adjoining property that is listed on a database indicative of a contamination concern but for which regulatory closure has been issued, as the issuance of regulatory closure suggests that impacts to the subject site from the noted off-site property are unlikely. Finally, Ramboll did not discuss any off-site non-adjoining property that is presumed to be downgradient or cross-gradient of the site. This analysis was based on the assumption that a hazardous material released to the subsurface generally does not migrate laterally within the unsaturated soil for a significant distance, but a hazardous material can migrate in the groundwater in a generally downgradient direction; however, the direction of groundwater flow may be affected by localized topographic, hydraulic, and hydrogeologic conditions. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Review of Public Records and Other Information Sources 8 Ramboll • Former Carmen’s Nursery. Also known as Carman’s Nursery and Classics at Kilmer Park, and listed with closed status on the EnviroStor database. The case pertains to the approximately 4.3 acre adjoining property to the west, which was used for orchard agriculture from at least the 1930s to 1950s, and as a commercial nursery from 1971 to 2004. Impacts to soil with volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides, and petroleum hydrocarbons were detected during a limited due diligence-related subsurface investigation completed in 2003. The investigation involved the collection of soil samples from nineteen locations (GS-1 to GS-19) throughout the property at 6 inches bgs, and one location (SB-1) at 5, 10, 15, and 19 feet bgs. Although borings were advanced to depths of up to 20 feet bgs, groundwater was not encountered at any of the sampled locations. GS-1 to GS-14 were collected to evaluate the potential for pesticide and arsenic impacts from historical orchard use3, GS-15 and GS-16 were collected from a former soil fumigation area4, GS-17 and GS-18 were collected beneath former aboveground storage tanks (ASTs)5, GS-19 was collected near a former flammable materials storage shed6, and SB-1 samples were collected from the approximate location of a former gasoline underground storage tank (UST) which was used from the 1970s to 1980s7. The former soil fumigation area (with suspected impacts of such fumigants as bromomethane and bromide from periodic soil sterilization processes), former AST and UST areas, and former flammable materials storage area were historically located immediately adjacent to the northwestern subject site boundary (see Figure 2). None of the analyzed constituents were detected above then-applicable regulatory action levels for residential property use (primarily RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels [ESLs], as well as USEPA Preliminary Remediation Goals [PRGs], California Human Health Screening Levels [CHHSLs], and presumed background concentrations). Although, low concentrations of pesticides including dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (20 micrograms per kilogram [µg/kg]), dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) (70 µg/kg), heptachlor epoxide (7.6 µg/kg), and arsenic (5.5 milligrams per kilogram [mg/kg]), as well as fuel-related constituents including TPH-mo (49 mg/kg), toluene (5.5 µg/kg), 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (9.7 µg/kg), and lead (6.5 mg/kg) were identified at the property. Based on the results of the limited investigation, DTSC concluded that no further action was necessary on April 18, 2006, and the property was subsequently redeveloped with residences. As such, because the matter has been granted regulatory closure by the state agency, it is reasonable to assume that the matter was appropriately evaluated in accordance with regulations in place at the time, and that remaining contamination (if any) is localized and unlikely to migrate at significant levels onto the site. Additionally, the property is in the presumed cross-gradient direction from the site and groundwater in the vicinity of site is encountered at approximately 25 to 30 feet bgs, beyond the known area of shallow impacts. Therefore, based on the information reviewed, this matter does not represent a contamination concern for the subject site. 3 GS-1 to GS-14 samples were analyzed for organochlorine pesticides and select samples were analyzed for arsenic. 4 GS-15 and GS-16 samples were analyzed for inorganic bromide and bromomethane. 5 GS-17 and GS-18 samples were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as diesel (TPH-d) and motor oil (TPH-mo) with silica gel cleanup, TPH as gasoline (TPH-g), VOCs including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE). 6 GS-19 samples were not analyzed due to analytical results collected from nearby GS-17 and GS-18. 7 SB-1 samples collected at 10 and 15 feet bgs were analyzed for TPH-d, TPH-mo, and TPH-g, VOCs including BTEX and MTBE, and total lead. Reported tank volumes range from 250 to 350 gallons. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Review of Public Records and Other Information Sources 9 Ramboll The database report indicates that poor or inadequate address information was available for one property located in the vicinity of the site; therefore, the property could not be readily mapped by the third-party provider. Because the location of the property with respect to the subject site could not be evaluated, Ramboll is limited in its ability to express an opinion regarding the potential for impact to the subject site from these properties. It was beyond the scope of this review to accurately locate the property identified by the third-party provider; however, Ramboll verified that it did not appear to be adjacent to the site. 4.2 Historical Uses of the Site and Adjacent Properties 4.2.1 Past Uses of the Site The site was developed by the 1930s with the residence located at 16179 East Mozart Avenue and orchard agriculture. Additional residences were constructed between the 1940s and 1960s, after which agricultural operations appear to have generally ceased. Between the 1960s and 1990s, the central portion of the site was used as the storage yard for a paving business run by the father of the site owner. From 2014 to present, the central portion of the site has been used as the storage yard areas for West Valley Arborists, a landscaping business. A summary of Ramboll’s key observations from the available historical sources is presented in Table C. Table C: Summary of Key Observations from Historical Sources for the Subject Site Historical Source Key Observations Regarding Site History Topographic Maps (1889 to 1899, 1953 to 2012) The site is depicted as undeveloped land on all maps until 1899 and is not mapped again until 1953. On the 1953 through 1973 maps, the site is developed with orchard agriculture. The site along East Mozart Avenue is improved with one smaller nondescript (likely residential) structure on the 1953 map and four structures on the 1968 to 1980 maps. No site details are shown on the 2012 map. No concerns are noted. Aerial Photographs and Satellite Imagery1 (1939 to 2018) On the 1939 photograph, the site is developed with two structures on the western portion of the site that appear to be the current residence located at 16179 East Mozart Avenue and the storage structure located adjacent to the north. All remaining portions of the site are developed with orchards. A small structure appears on the central portion of the site in the 1948 photograph that appears to be the current residence located at 16163 East Mozart Avenue. Orchard agricultural use appears significantly reduced in the 1950 photograph with the exception of the eastern portion of the site. In the 1963 photograph, several additional structures are present including the current residences located at 16151 and 16187 East Mozart Avenue, the current garage located at 16179 East Mozart Avenue, and the current storage structure, garage, and covered storage area located in the central portion of the site. The current residence located at 16157 East Mozart Avenue is first present in the 1974 photograph and the site remains generally unchanged until the 1993 photograph when the large covered storage structure in the central portion of the site first appears. From the 1993 photograph through present day, the site appears generally the same with the exception of the gradual thinning of orchards on the eastern portion of the site. Certain details are difficult to assess due to poor image quality. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Review of Public Records and Other Information Sources 10 Ramboll Table C: Summary of Key Observations from Historical Sources for the Subject Site Historical Source Key Observations Regarding Site History City Directory (1962 to 2014) The site occupants are listed as various individuals from 1970 to 2014, including: Dennis Palmer and Steven Martin (1970), J.W. and/or Lee H. Evans (1970 to 2014), J.G. Geisick, M.J. Bradford, and Paul A. Garratt (1975), John Bolender (1975 to 1985), H.A. Robinson (1980), Warren Cunningham (1992 to 2010), Janet Johansen and Gary Melott (1995), Emily L. Lenocker and C. James (2000), Donna L .Shuster (2005), John L. and/or Charann E. Raquet (2005 to 2014), and Cheri A. Thomas, Gretchen S. Cunningham, and Benjamin D. Raquet (2014). Lien search report According to the EDR Environmental Lien and Activity Use Limitation (AUL) search, the site was last acquired from Leann M. Wilson and Tabitha A. Evans (as tenants-in- common) on January 10, 2013. 1 In addition to aerial photographs provided by EDR, Ramboll viewed historical satellite imagery provided via Google Earth. Printed copies were not obtained, and imagery dates were not independently verified. EDR reported that Sanborn fire insurance map coverage is not available for the site. 4.2.2 Interview with Site Owner and Site Personnel Ramboll conducted interviews with the site owner and site personnel between September and December 2018. According to the interviews, the site was historically developed with orchard agriculture and residences. The site owner and site personnel were not aware of any chemical applications as part of agricultural operations, although the resident at 16179 East Mozart Avenue reported pesticide spraying of the oak trees on that portion of the site. Following the purchase of the site sometime before the late 1910s, relatives of the current owners gradually constructed the five existing residences for use as dwellings. According to the site owner, previous generations of her family also lived in small residences located on the central portion of the site that have since been used for storage of personal possessions. Additional uses of the site have included a family-owned paving business (circa 1960s to 1990s) and a landscaping business operated by West Valley Arborists (circa 2014 to present), both of which have been centrally-located on site. The current owners inherited the site in approximately 2008 and reported that there have been no known hazardous substance releases or prior environmental investigations. Except for six septic systems, no USTs or ASTs for storage of hazardous substances are known to have historically existed on site. However, a photograph provided by the site owner depicts a fuel pump located in the central portion of the site and is included in Appendix G. The site owner reported no further information regarding the fuel pump. 4.2.3 Past Uses of Adjacent Properties The surrounding properties were used for agricultural purposes (primarily orchards) from at least 1939 until approximately the 1950s and 1960s, when residential developments began to be constructed in the vicinity of the site. Commercial buildings were constructed to the east of the site in the 1980s to 1990s. As discussed in Section 4.2.1, the land adjacent to the west of the site was a commercial nursery from approximately the 1970s to the 2000s when the current residences were constructed. 4.3 Review of Local Agency Information Ramboll visited or otherwise contacted local governmental agencies and regulatory bodies for information relating to the site. An overview of the findings of this review is presented in Table D. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Review of Public Records and Other Information Sources 11 Ramboll Table D: Local Agency Information for the Site Agency Contacted / Document Reviewed Information Obtained Santa Clara County Assessor The site is described on the Santa Clara County parcel map as APN 424-06-119. According to the Assessor, the 2.92-acre site is currently owned by L.H. Evans Rentals, LLC and is identified with the primary address of 16179 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California. City of Campbell Planning Division (Planning Division) According to the Planning Division, the site is located within incorporated City of Campbell, California, and was located within unincorporated Santa Clara County prior to the 2000s. No records pertaining to the site were available at the Planning Division office. City of Campbell Building Division (Building Division) Building Division records obtained via EDR included electrical permits for the on-site houses dated 1992 and 1998 (16163 and 16179 East Mozart Avenue). Permits were not listed under other site addresses. No concerns were noted. No records pertaining to the site were available at the Building Division office. Santa Clara County Planning and Development Department Prior to annexation of the site and surrounding properties into the incorporated City of Campbell, the site was within the jurisdiction of Santa Clara County for developmental matters. County building permit records obtained via telephone interview included only an electrical permit dated 1998 (16179 East Mozart Avenue). Records were not available for the other site addresses or for the site APN. No concerns were noted. Santa Clara County Fire Department Ramboll requested records from Fire Department for information regarding soil or groundwater investigations, USTs, LUSTs, hazardous materials inspections, or violations/permits for the site. Fire Department records included an undated hand- drawn map that shows four oil drums and a fuel pump located behind a residence. The digital file was saved under the 16179 East Mozart Avenue address in Fire Department database, although the only identifying information on the map is Mozart Avenue. Also noted in the map is a garage, parking area, and driveway that appear to correspond to the features at the site. Furthermore, the location of the fuel pump in the map appears to correspond with the photograph of a fuel pump that was provided to Ramboll by the site owner, as discussed in Section 4.2.2. A copy of the map is provided in Appendix G. Additional files reviewed at the Fire Department included inspections between 1973 and 1979 of a business at the site called “Lee Harvey Trucking”. No concerns were noted, however the site owner stated that no such business has ever existed at the site. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Ramboll requested records from SCCDEH for information regarding soil or groundwater investigations, USTs, LUSTs, hazardous materials inspections, or violations/permits for the site. SCCDEH reported no records on file for the site addresses. Santa Clara Valley Water District Ramboll requested records from SCVWD and was referred to the SCVWD online database of files prior to 2004, at which time local agency oversight was transferred to SCCDEH. No records related to the site addresses were found on the online database. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Review of Public Records and Other Information Sources 12 Ramboll 4.4 Previous Environmental Assessments and Activities Based on a review of historical site documents and interviews with the site owner and site personnel, no prior Phase I environmental assessments, UST closures, environmental sampling, or remediation activities are known to have been conducted at the site. 4.5 Environmental Lien Record Search A review of EDR Environmental Lien and Activity Use Limitation (AUL) dated October 3, 2018 was conducted to identify environmental liens or AULs imposed by judicial authorities with respect to APN 424-06-119. No environmental liens or AULs were identified. The EDR Environmental Lien Search Report is attached as Appendix F. 4.6 User-Provided Information Ramboll provided Robson Homes with a User Questionnaire (consistent with Appendix X3 of the ASTM Standard) that requested information relating to environmental liens, AULs, specialized knowledge of the site, site value diminution, chain-of-title, or any other commonly known or obvious indications of site contamination, that was not otherwise provided to Ramboll. The user did not provide any information that was not otherwise obtained and reviewed by Ramboll. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 13 Ramboll 5. SITE RECONNAISSANCE 5.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions Ramboll conducted site visits between September 2018 and January 2019. During the site visits, observations of the site were made to evaluate if any RECs, as defined in Chapter 2, are present. Ramboll did not observe the roofs of the buildings due to access and safety constraints. 5.2 General Site Setting and Observations Ramboll made observations concerning all issues specified in Sections 9.4.2 through 9.4.4 of the ASTM E1527-13 Standard. The presence or absence of each issue of environmental interest or concern is noted in Table E. Additional information regarding observed and historical items is provided in the sections following the table. Table E: Summary of Site Reconnaissance Observations Issue ASTM Section Observation Interior and Exterior Issues Current use(s) of the site 9.4.2.1 See Section 3.2 Past use(s) of the site 9.4.2.2 See Section 4.2 Hazardous substances and petroleum products used, treated, stored, disposed of, or generated on the site in connection with identified present or past uses 9.4.2.3 Present and Historically Present (see Section 5.2.1) Storage tanks: Underground storage tanks (fill ports, vent pipes, manholes) Aboveground storage tanks 9.4.2.4 Potentially Historically Present Potentially Historically Present (see Section 5.2.2) Odors (strong, pungent or noxious) 9.4.2.5 Absent Pools of liquid, standing surface water or sumps 9.4.2.6 Absent Drums of hazardous substances or petroleum products (five-gallon, 55-gallon or totes) 9.4.2.7 Present and Historically Present (see Section 5.2.1) Hazardous substance and petroleum product containers (not necessarily in connection with identified uses) 9.4.2.8 Absent Unidentified substance containers suspected of containing hazardous substances or petroleum products 9.4.2.9 Present (see Section 5.2.1) D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 14 Ramboll Table E: Summary of Site Reconnaissance Observations Issue ASTM Section Observation Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) Electrical equipment on-site (e.g., transformers, capacitors) Electrical equipment known or likely to contain PCBs Hydraulic equipment on-site (e.g., elevators, truck dock lifts) Hydraulic equipment known or likely to contain PCBs 9.4.2.10 Absent Absent Absent Absent Interior Issues Heating/cooling systems 9.4.3.1 Present (see Table A) Stains or corrosion on interior floors, walls or ceilings (except for staining from water) 9.4.3.2 Absent Floor drains and interior sumps 9.4.3.3 Absent Exterior Issues Pits, ponds or lagoons on site or adjacent properties 9.4.4.1 Absent Stained soil or pavement 9.4.4.2 Absent Stressed vegetation (from other than insufficient water) 9.4.4.3 Absent On-site solid waste disposal; areas apparently filled or graded by non-natural causes; or mounds or depressions suggesting solid waste disposal 9.4.4.4 Absent Wastewater or other liquid (including storm water) or any discharge into a drain, ditch, underground injection system or stream on or adjacent to the site 9.4.4.5 Absent Wells (including dry wells, irrigation wells, injection wells, abandoned wells, or other wells) 9.4.4.6 Absent Septic systems or cesspools 9.4.4.7 Present (see Section 5.2.3) Notes: Observations noted in this table and discussed further below are based on information obtained during the site visit and from a review of the sources summarized in Section 4. See the ASTM Standard for a detailed description of the issues included in each referenced ASTM section. Per the ASTM Standard, fluorescent light ballasts likely to contain PCBs do not need to be noted. N/A – Not applicable D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 15 Ramboll 5.2.1 Hazardous Material Use and Storage Chemical use and storage at the site is generally limited to household cleaning and vehicle maintenance substances. During Ramboll’s site visits, multiple containers of petroleum products (e.g., oils, greases, fuels), cleaning products, and household paint were in the storage areas (e.g., sheds, shipping containers, and covered storage areas) throughout the improved areas of the site. The size of the containers ranged from 1 quart to 5 gallons. No containers equal to or greater than 55 gallons in size are located on site, and no evidence of release was observed in storage areas. Chemicals are not stored in uncovered exterior areas of the site. An undated hand-drawn map from the Fire Department depicts four oil drums located behind a residence presumed to be the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence. In November 2018, Ramboll performed shallow soil sampling in the reported former oil drum storage area, as discussed in Section 6.3.4. 5.2.2 Former Fuel Pump As discussed in Section 4.2.2, a photograph provided by the site owner depicts a fuel pump located in the central portion of the site behind the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence. The location of the fuel pump appears to correspond with an undated hand-drawn map from the Fire Department that depicts a fuel pump in the same general location. The site owner was unaware if the fuel pump was connected to an AST or UST. In an attempt to verify the existence of a UST, a magnetic investigation and ensuing potholing was conducted in the vicinity of the former fuel pump on behalf of Robson Homes in November 2018. The magnetic investigation and potholing was unable to verify the existence of a UST, as discussed below in Section 6.2. In November 2018, Ramboll performed soil sampling at and in the vicinity of the former fuel pump, as discussed in Section 6.3.4. 5.2.3 Septic System As discussed in Section 4.2, six septic systems are currently in use at the site (one septic system for each residence and one septic system servicing that restroom int eh garage located on the central portion of the site). The site owner and site personnel were not aware of the physical characteristics of the septic systems, including number of septic tanks or the location of associated leach fields; although, personnel reported that no hazardous substances are known to have been disposed of to the systems. A site-wide magnetic investigation conducted on behalf of Robson Homes in November 2018 was unable to verify the existence of the septic tanks. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 16 Ramboll 6. EXPLORATORY POTHOLING AND SAMPLING ACTIVITIES Between November 2018 and January 2019, Ramboll conducted shallow soil sampling at the site. Figure 3 shows the locations of the soil samples and Tables 1 through 4 summarize the results of soil sample analyses. The laboratory analytical reports are provided in Appendix H. The soil sampling analytical results were compared to applicable USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs), Cal/EPA DTSC-modified RSLs, or San Francisco RWQCB (SFRWQCB) ESLs for residential land use. In the case of arsenic, concentrations were compared to naturally-occurring background levels. For simplicity, RSLs, DTSC-modified RSLs, and ESLs for residential land use will herein be referred to as “regulatory screening criteria”. 6.1 Pre-Field Activities Ramboll prepared a site-specific health and safety plan (HASP) and notified Underground Service Alert (USA) of the sampling activities at least two working days prior to the start of intrusive sampling, as required by law. Ramboll contracted with Subdynamic Locating Services to perform utility locating, Penecore Drilling to perform hand augering and drilling activities for soil sample collection, and McCampbell Analytical, Inc. (MAI) to perform soil sample analyses. 6.2 Geophysical Investigation and Exploratory Potholing On behalf of Robson Homes, two geophysical investigations were performed at the site by JR Associates in October and November 2018. A report summarizing the geophysical investigations is attached as Appendix E. The geophysical investigations revealed the locations of two anomalies located in the driveway east of the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence and in the northeast portion of the site, approximately in the locations of samples A1 and A9, respectively (Figure 3). The anomalies were potholed by Galante Brothers, Inc. (Galante), a subcontractor of Robson Homes, on December 3, 2018. Ramboll was on site to observe the potholing activities. The anomaly in the vicinity of sample A1 was suspected to be the location of a UST associated with a former fuel pump at the site, as discussed in Section 5.2.2. Potholing revealed the anomaly in the vicinity of sample A1 to be the result of an approximately eight-feet long, one-inch diameter, abandoned metal pipe. After the pipe was discovered, additional potholing was performed in the vicinity to a depth of six feet bgs to further confirm the presence or absence of a UST. No UST was encountered during the potholing and no stained soil or odorous soil was observed by Ramboll field personnel. Potholing in the vicinity of sample A9 in the northeast portion of the site revealed the anomaly to be the result of a two-inch diameter abandoned metal pipe. Photographs of the anomaly potholing are included in Appendix A. 6.3 Soil Sampling Initial soil sampling was performed on November 20, 2018 and focused on soil in notable areas including areas of prior agricultural development to identify any soil impacts resulting from the use of pesticides and the perimeters of the older structures at the site to identify any soil impacts resulting from the use of lead-based paint and/or pesticides. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 17 Ramboll Additional sampling was performed on November 30, 2018, and January 10, 2019. Based on the results of the initial phase of sampling, step-out samples were collected from shallow soil at the building perimeter locations to determine the limits of extent of the elevated metals and pesticides concentrations in the central and southern portions of the site. Soil samples were collected at and in the vicinity of the former oil drums storage area and former fuel pump (shown on a hand drawn sketch in Fire Department records) located north of the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence. Based on the geophysical investigation, a sample was collected from the anomaly in the northeastern portion of the site. Soil samples were also collected from three soil mounds that were dumped at the site by West Valley Arborists, the landscaping company occupying the central portion of the site, to characterize the chemical concentrations of the soil mounds. Finally, shallow samples beneath asphalt-paved areas in the central portion of the site were collected and analyzed for naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). 6.3.1 Initial Round of Soil Sampling On November 20, 2018, soil samples were collected from locations SB01 through SB05 and BC01 through BC04. The soil sampling locations and depths are described below in Table F and shown on Figure 3. Table F: Soil Sample Location Descriptions Sample Identification Location Description SB01 through SB07 Shallow soil in open field. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 0.5 feet bgs. SB08 Shallow soil in rear of 16163 East Mozart Avenue residence. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 0.5 feet bgs. SB09 Shallow soil in front of 16163 East Mozart Avenue residence. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 0.5 feet bgs. SB10 Shallow soil in rear of 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 0.5 feet bgs. SB11 Shallow soil in rear of 16187 East Mozart Avenue residence. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 0.5 feet bgs. BC01 Shallow soil near storage shed located behind 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 0.5 feet bgs. BC02 Shallow soil behind covered storage area. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 0.5 feet bgs. BC03 Shallow soil on eastern side of 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 0.5 feet bgs. BC04 Shallow soil behind covered storage area. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 0.5 feet bgs. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 18 Ramboll The samples were collected by Ramboll personnel using a hand auger, placed in laboratory-provided glass jars, and submitted to MAI under chain-of-custody procedures. The sample from each location was analyzed for California Assessment Manual (CAM17) metals by USEPA method 6020, organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081A, and PCBs by USEPA method 8082. All metals concentrations were less than regulatory screening criteria for residential land use or, in the case of arsenic, below typical naturally-occurring background levels with the exception of lead at BC01, BC02, and BC03, and arsenic at BC01 and BC03. The lead concentrations of the 0.5 feet bgs samples at BC01, BC02, and BC03 ranged between of 150 and 760 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), exceeding the regulatory screening criteria of 80 mg/kg. The arsenic concentrations of the 0.5 feet bgs samples at BC01 and BC03 were 12 and 15 mg/kg, respectively, exceeding the regulatory screening criteria of 11 mg/kg. The only PCB detected above the laboratory reporting limit was Aroclor 1260, detected in the 0.5 feet bgs sample at SB05 at a concentration of 0.078 mg/kg, below the regulatory screening criteria of 0.24 mg/kg. Organochlorine pesticides were detected in all nine samples. All pesticide concentrations were less than regulatory screening criteria with the exception of chlordane (technical) and dieldrin in the 0.5 feet bgs sample at BC03, which had a chlordane (technical) concentration of 5.3 mg/kg and dieldrin concentration of 0.11 mg/kg, exceeding the regulatory screening criteria of 0.44 mg/kg and 0.034 mg/kg, respectively. Laboratory analytical results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Soil sample locations with at least one metal or organochlorine pesticide concentration exceeding regulatory screening criteria are noted in Figure 4. 6.3.2 First Round of Step-out Soil Sampling On November 30, 2018, step-out soil samples were collected from 0.5 feet bgs at locations BC01-A through BC01-C, BC02-A and BC02-B, BC03-A through BC03-D, and BC04-A through BC04-C. Deeper step-out soil samples were also collected from 2.0 feet bgs at locations BC01 through BC04. In addition, soil samples were collected at 0.5 feet bgs at locations SB06 and SB07 in the field area along the western boundary of the site. No staining or odor was noted in any of the soil samples. All samples were collected by Penecore using a hand auger under the direction of Ramboll field personnel, placed in laboratory-provided glass jars, and submitted to MAI under chain-of-custody procedures. Soil sample locations are shown on Figure 3. The step-out samples at and in the vicinity of BC01 were analyzed for lead and arsenic by USEPA method 6020. Step-out samples at and in the vicinity of BC02 and BC04 were analyzed for lead by USEPA method 6020. Step-out samples at and in the vicinity of BC03 were analyzed for lead and arsenic by USEPA method 6020 and chlordane (technical) and dieldrin by USEPA method 8081A. Samples collected from SB06 and SB07 were analyzed for CAM17 metals by USEPA method 6020, organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081A, and PCBs by USEPA method 8082. Concentrations of arsenic exceeded the regulatory screening criteria of 11 mg/kg at locations BC01-A (21 mg/kg), BC01-C (24 mg/kg), and BC03-A through BC03-D (ranging between 14 and 47 mg/kg). Concentrations of lead exceeded the regulatory screening criteria of 80 mg/kg at locations BC01-A (390 mg/kg), BC01-C (98 mg/kg), BC03-A (96 mg/kg), BC03-B (140 mg/kg), and BC03-D (350 mg/kg). Concentrations of chlordane (technical) exceeded the regulatory screening criteria of 0.44 mg/kg at locations BC03-A (1.9 mg/kg) and BC03-D (4.4 mg/kg). Concentrations of dieldrin exceeded D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 19 Ramboll the regulatory screening criteria of 0.034 mg/kg at locations BC03-A (0.072 mg/kg), BC03-B (0.039 mg/kg), and BC03-D (0.13 mg/kg). None of the 2.0 feet bgs step-out samples collected from BC01 through BC04 or the samples collected from SB06 and SB07 had metals or organochlorine pesticide concentrations exceeding regulatory screening criteria. The only PCB detected above the laboratory reporting limit was Aroclor 1260, detected in the 0.5 feet bgs sample at SB06 at a concentration of 0.21 mg/kg, below the regulatory screening criteria of 0.24 mg/kg. Laboratory analytical results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Soil sample locations with at least one metal or organochlorine pesticide concentration exceeding regulatory screening criteria are noted in Figure 4. 6.3.3 Second Round of Step-out Soil Sampling On January 10, 2019, additional step-out soil samples were collected from 0.5 feet bgs at locations BC01-D through BC01-G, BC02-C, BC03-E through BC03-L, and BC04-D through BC04-F to further delineate elevated metals and/or organochlorine pesticide concentrations. In addition, soil samples were collected at 0.5 feet bgs at locations SB08 through SB11 around the perimeter of the residences located at 16151, 16167, and 16163 East Mozart Avenue, as described above in Table F. No staining or odor was noted in any of the aforementioned soil samples. All samples were collected by Ramboll personnel using a hand auger, placed in laboratory-provided glass jars, and submitted to MAI under chain-of-custody procedures. Soil sample locations are shown on Figure 3. The step-out samples at and in the vicinity of BC01 were analyzed for lead and arsenic by USEPA method 6020. Step-out samples at and in the vicinity of BC02 and BC04 were analyzed for lead by USEPA method 6020. Step-out samples at and in the vicinity of BC03 were analyzed for lead and arsenic by USEPA method 6020 and chlordane (technical) and dieldrin by USEPA method 8081A. Samples collected from SB08 through and SB11 were analyzed for CAM17 metals by USEPA method 6020, organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081A, and PCBs by USEPA method 8082. Concentrations of arsenic exceeded the regulatory screening criteria of 11 mg/kg at locations BC01-G (15 mg/kg), BC03-E (33 mg/kg), BC03-F (13 mg/kg), BC03-G (16 mg/kg), BC03-I (18 mg/kg), BC03- K (22 mg/kg), and BC03-L (30 mg/kg). Concentrations of lead exceeded the regulatory screening criteria of 80 mg/kg at locations BC03-E (180 mg/kg), BC03-F (130 mg/kg), BC03-G (400 mg/kg), BC03-L (140 mg/kg), and BC04-D (120 mg/kg). Concentrations of chlordane (technical) exceeded the regulatory screening criteria of 0.44 mg/kg at locations BC03-E (1.3 mg/kg), BC03-G (1.7 mg/kg), BC03-H (0.78 mg/kg), and BC03-L (5.4 mg/kg). Concentrations of dieldrin exceeded regulatory screening criteria the 0.034 mg/kg at locations BC03-E (0.86 mg/kg) and BC03-L (0.47 mg/kg). None of the 0.5 feet bgs samples collected from SB08 through SB11 had metals or organochlorine pesticide concentrations exceeding regulatory screening criteria. No PCBs were detected above laboratory reporting limits. Laboratory analytical results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Soil sample locations with at least one metal or organochlorine pesticide concentration exceeding regulatory screening criteria are noted in Figure 4. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 20 Ramboll 6.3.4 Soil Sampling in Areas of Concern As discussed in Sections 5.2 and 6.2, an undated hand-drawn map from the Fire Department depicts four oil drums and a fuel pump located behind a residence presumed to be the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence. In addition, a photograph provided by the site owner depicts a fuel pump located in the central portion of the site behind the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence that appears to correspond with the map from the Fire Department. The site owner was unaware if the fuel pump was connected to an AST or UST. In an attempt to verify the existence of a UST, a magnetic investigation and ensuing potholing was conducted in the vicinity of the former fuel pump on behalf of Robson Homes in November 2018. The magnetic investigation and potholing were unable to verify the existence of a UST. No soil staining or odor was observed by Ramboll field personnel during the exploratory potholing activities. On November 30, 2018, Ramboll collected samples A1 through A8 at and in the vicinity of the former oil drums and potential UST location as discussed below in Table G. Table G: Soil Sample Location Descriptions Sample Identification Location Description A1 and A2 Vicinity of suspected UST. No soil staining or odor noted. Samples collected from 10 feet bgs. A3 and A4 Vicinity of suspected UST piping, between the suspected UST location and the former fuel pump location. No soil staining or odor noted. Samples collected from 3.5 and 3.0 feet bgs. A5 Location of former fuel pump. No soil staining or odor noted. Sample collected from 2.0 feet bgs. A6 through A8 Location of former oil drum storage area. No soil staining or odor noted. Samples collected from 2.0 feet bgs. Soil borings A1 through A4 were installed by Penecore using direct push technology (DPT) drilling equipment. Soil borings A4 through A8 were installed by Penecore using a hand auger. Soil cores were withdrawn from the subsurface and screened for VOCs using a photoionization detector (PID). The PID readings did not indicate soil was impacted by VOCs. Samples were collected by Ramboll field personnel using laboratory-provided Encore samplers and glass jars and submitted to MAI under chain-of-custody procedures. Soil sample locations are shown on Figure 3. After soil sampling was complete, all borings were backfilled with neat cement. Samples collected at A1 through A8 were analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline, diesel, and motor oil (TPH-g,d,mo) by USEPA method 8015B and VOCs by USEPA method 8260B. TPH-g was not detected above laboratory reporting limits. The only detections of TPH-d were at A2 (1.1 mg/kg) and A4 (4.2 mg/kg), well below the regulatory screening criteria of 230 mg/kg. The only detections of TPH-mo were at A3 (5.5 mg/kg) and A4 (39 mg/kg), well below the regulatory screening criteria of 1,100 mg/kg. No VOCs were detected above regulatory screening criteria. Laboratory analytical results are summarized in Table 3. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 21 Ramboll 6.3.5 Sampling of Soil Mounds Three large soil mounds located at the central portion of the site were dumped at the site by West Valley Arborists, the landscaping company occupying the central portion of the site. On November 30, 2018, Ramboll personnel collected one soil sample from each soil mound to characterize the chemical concentrations of the soil mounds. Samples were collected with a shovel from a depth of approximately 1 foot below the surface of the soil mound, placed in laboratory-provided glass jars, and submitted to MAI under chain-of-custody procedures. The locations of the soil mound samples are identified as M1 through M3 in Figure 3. The soil mound samples were analyzed for CAM17 metals by USEPA method 6020, organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081, and PCBs by USEPA method 8082. All concentrations of metals were below regulatory screening criteria with the exception of lead in samples M1 (96 mg/kg) and M3 (360 mg/kg) which exceeded the regulatory screening criteria of 80 mg/kg and mercury in sample M2 (5.9 mg/kg) which exceeded the regulatory screening criteria of 1.0 mg/kg. The only pesticide detection above laboratory reporting limits was dieldrin in sample M2 (0.011 mg/kg), below the regulatory screening criteria of 0.034 mg/kg. No PCBs were detected above laboratory reporting limits. Laboratory analytical results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. All three soil mound sample locations had one metal concentration exceeding regulatory screening criteria, as noted in Figure 4. 6.3.6 Magnetic Anomaly Soil Sampling As discussed in Section 6.2, a geophysical investigation performed at the site by JR Associates in November 2018 revealed the location of a magnetic anomaly in the northeast portion of the site. The anomaly was potholed by Galante and was the result of a two-inch diameter abandoned metal pipe. The location of the anomaly is identified as A9 in Figure 3. On December 3, 2018, a sample was collected by Ramboll personnel underneath the metal pipe at a depth of 2.0 feet bgs using a hand auger. The sample was placed in a laboratory-provided glass jar and submitted to MAI under chain-of-custody procedures. Sample A9 was CAM17 metals by USEPA method 6020, organochlorine pesticides by USEPA method 8081A, and TPH-g,d,mo by USEPA method 8015B. All detected metals concentrations were less than regulatory screening criteria. The only pesticide detected was DDE at a concentration of 0.0071 mg/kg, below the regulatory screening criteria of 2.0 mg/kg. TPH-g was not detected above the laboratory reporting limit. TPH-d and TPH-mo were detected at concentrations of 2.0 and 6.0 mg/kg, well below the regulatory screening criteria of 230 and 11,000 mg/kg, respectively. Laboratory analytical results are summarized in Tables 1 through 3. 6.3.7 Hazardous Waste Characterization Analyses As noted above, areas of elevated metals and organochlorine pesticides are present around older structures at the site. In the event soils in these areas were to be excavated and removed from the site, select samples collected in these areas were analyzed for Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLCs) and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) concentrations for comparison to California and federal hazardous waste thresholds, respectively. Multiple samples with lead concentrations exceeding 10 times the STLC concentration for California hazardous waste (10x STLC Pb = 50 mg/kg) and 20 times the TCLP concentration for federal D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Site Reconnaissance 22 Ramboll hazardous waste (20x TLCP Pb = 100 mg/kg) were additionally analyzed, as shown in Table 1. In addition, sample M2 was additionally analyzed for STLC and TCLP mercury due to the mercury concentration exceeding 10 times the STLC concentration for California hazardous waste (10x STLC Hg = 2.0 mg/kg) and 20 times the TCLP concentration for federal hazardous waste (20x TLCP Hg = 4.0 mg/kg). Of the samples analyzed for STLC and/or TCLP lead, samples from locations BC01, BC01-A, BC01-C, and M3 exceeded the STLC threshold for California hazardous waste. None of the samples analyzed for TCLP lead, STLC mercury, or TCLP mercury exceeded California or federal hazardous waste thresholds. STLC and TCLP results are summarized in Table 1. 6.3.8 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Sampling Shallow soil samples beneath asphalt-paved areas in the central portion of the site were collected and analyzed for NOA. The locations are identified as NOA-1, NOA-2, and NOA-3 in Figure 3. The samples were collected by Ramboll personnel using a shovel, placed in plastic zip-lock bags, and submitted to MAI under chain-of-custody procedures. The samples were composited at the laboratory and analyzed as one three-point composite sample and analyzed for NOA by California Air Resources Board (CARB) method 435. No NOA was detected in the composite sample. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Findings, Opinion, and Conclusions 23 Ramboll 7. FINDINGS, OPINION, AND CONCLUSIONS Ramboll performed a Phase I ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of the site between December 2017 and August 2018. The objective of the ESA was to identify RECs, as defined in the ASTM Standard. A list of key definitions presented in the ASTM Standard is provided in Section 9 at the end of this report. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 7.2. 7.1 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions 7.1.1 Recognized Environmental Conditions Ramboll has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527-13 of the site. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 7.2 of this report. This assessment has revealed the following REC in connection with unrestricted residential use of the site: • Areas of Elevated Metals and Pesticides in Soil. Results from soil sampling between November 2018 and January 2019 identified concentrations of lead, arsenic, mercury and organochlorine pesticides (chlordane and dieldrin) above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use, as discussed in Section 6 of this report. The vertical extent of impacted soil appears to be in the upper 2 feet. Impacted soils are located in the vicinity of the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence and older storage structures located in the central portion of the site. 7.1.2 Other Findings Although not a considered REC based on currently available information, Ramboll identified the following other findings: • Former Fuel Pump and Oil Drum Storage. An undated hand-drawn map from records provided by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (Fire Department) depicts four oil drums and a fuel pump located behind a residence presumed to be the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence. In addition, a photograph provided by the site owner depicts a fuel pump located in the central portion of the site behind the 16179 East Mozart Avenue residence that appears to correspond with a hand drawn map from the Fire Department. The site owner was unaware if the fuel pump was connected to an aboveground storage tank (AST) or underground storage tank (UST). To find the potential UST, a magnetic investigation and ensuing potholing was conducted in the vicinity of the former fuel pump on behalf of Robson Homes in November 2018. The magnetic investigation and subsequent potholing did not locate the potential UST. No soil staining, odors or other evidence of the potential fuel UST was observed by Ramboll field personnel during the exploratory potholing activities. Soil sampling conducted at and in the vicinity of the former oil drum storage area, former fuel pump location, and suspected UST location did not identify fuel constituents at concentrations above regulatory screening levels. No further investigation is recommended at the time. • Soil Mounds Containing Elevated Metals. Three large soil mounds located on the central portion of the site were dumped at the site by West Valley Arborists, the landscaping company occupying the central portion of the site. Samples collected by Ramboll from the soil mounds identified concentrations of lead and mercury above regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Findings, Opinion, and Conclusions 24 Ramboll • Historical Agricultural Operations. Historical aerial photographs dating to 1939 indicate the site was originally developed for cultivation as orchards. Aerial photographs also indicate that additional structures were present on site between the 1950s and 1960s, and that the site was largely devoid of agriculture by the 1950s. Given this historical site use and based on information provided by the site owner as well as information reviewed on GeoTracker for the adjoining property immediately to the west, pesticides and other agricultural chemicals may have been used at the site prior to the 1950’s. Ramboll collected shallow soil samples in the former orchard areas of the site that were analyzed for metals and organochlorine pesticides. All metals and organochlorine pesticide concentrations were below regulatory screening criteria for residential land use. No further investigation is recommended at this time. 7.1.3 De Minimis Conditions De minimis conditions are those that do not represent a material risk of harm to public health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Ramboll identified the following de minimis conditions related to the site: • Septic Tanks. As discussed in Sections 4.2 and 5.2.3, six septic systems are currently in use at the site: one for each residence and one for the restroom in the garage located in the central portion of the site. The site owner and site personnel were not aware of the physical characteristics of the systems (e.g., number of associated septic tanks, construction, or number or location of associated leach fields). However, site personnel indicated that only sanitary waste is discharged to the systems. Further, the systems have only historically serviced residential buildings which have not historically housed commercial or industrial operations, no known discharges of hazardous materials to the systems are known to have occurred, and no floor drains are present other than common restroom or kitchen drains. Because of the nature of the reported discharges and the absence of known past releases to the systems, this matter is unlikely to represent a threat to human health or the environment. Thus, Ramboll characterizes this finding as a de minimis condition. 7.2 Analysis of Data Gaps The ASTM Standard defines a data gap as “a lack of or inability to obtain information required by the practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information.” A data gap is only significant if other information obtained during the ESA, or professional experience, raises reasonable concerns and affects the ability of the environmental professional to identify whether a given issue is a REC. The ASTM Standard requires that the ESA report identify and comment on significant data gaps. Limiting conditions and deviations to the ASTM Standard for the assessment are discussed below. • The earliest readily available aerial image that indicates specific site uses is dated 1939 and suggests that at least a portion of the site was already developed for agricultural uses. ASTM defines agricultural site use as a “developed” site use. Due to extended age of the site, it was not possible to interview representatives dating back to the site’s first developed agricultural use. None of the exceptions, deletions, deviations, or site reconnaissance limitations noted above are considered to represent significant data gaps. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION References 25 Ramboll 8. REFERENCES 8.1 Documents EDR. 2018. “Certified Sanborn® Map Report.” October 2. EDR. 2018. “EDR Historical Topographic Map Report.” October 2. EDR. 2018. “The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package.” October 2. EDR. 2018. “The EDR-City Directory Image Report.” October 2. EDR. 2018. “The EDR Radius MapTM Report with GeoCheck®.” October 2. EDR. 2018. “Environmental Lien Search.” October 3. Geo-Logic Associates. 2018. “Geotechnical Investigation, Residential Development, 16179 E Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California.” December 18. 8.2 Interviews Leann Wilson et al. Site owner and residents. September through December 2018. Personal and telephone interviews. D R A F T PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION ASTM Definitions 26 Ramboll 9. ASTM DEFINITIONS The following definitions are presented in the ASTM Standard: REC - Recognized Environmental Condition: The presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property: 1) due to release to the environment; 2) under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or 3) under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. CREC - Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition: A recognized environmental condition resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority, with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls. HREC - Historical Recognized Environmental Condition: A past release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls. De minimis Condition: A condition that generally does not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Data Gap / Significant Data Gap: A lack of or inability to obtain information required by the practice despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. A data gap is significant if other information and/or professional experience raises concerns involving the data gap. Please note that the term “other finding” is not defined by ASTM; rather, Ramboll uses the term to connote areas of contingent risk that are not clearly defined by the ASTM Standard. PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Ramboll TABLES D R A F T Table 1: Metals in Soil Samples SCDC Mozart 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California SampleLocation Sample Depth(feet bgs)Sample Date Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Cobalt Copper Lead STLC Lead (mg/L)TCLP Lead (mg/L)Mercury STLC Mercury (mg/L)TCLP Mercury (mg/L)Molybdenum Nickel Selenium Silver Thallium Vanadium Zinc SB01 0.5 11/20/2018 0.52 6.0 150 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 45 10 53 31 ----0.085 ----0.62 55 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 56 91 SB02 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.50 5.3 150 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 53 11 43 12 ----0.061 ----ND<0.50 71 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 56 77 SB03 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.50 5.8 150 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 46 9.5 54 37 ----0.16 ----0.65 52 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 47 83 SB04 0.5 11/20/2018 0.61 6.5 160 ND<0.50 0.32 70 11 39 56 ----0.15 ----0.78 89 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 43 110 SB05 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.50 5.6 150 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 51 9.6 35 21 ----0.086 ----0.65 49 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 49 83 SB06 0.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.50 4.5 130 ND<0.50 0.25 42 10 28 15 ----0.072 ----0.82 63 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 48 66 SB07 0.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.50 7.6 170 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 49 14 54 42 ----0.15 ----0.70 57 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 120 96 SB08 0.5 1/10/2019 0.67 26 130 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 39 9.0 23 6.6 ----ND<0.050 ----ND<0.50 51 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 45 62 SB09 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.50 6.5 130 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 55 8.1 94 13 ----0.055 ----ND<0.50 42 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 56 90 SB10 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.50 6.2 120 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 51 8.7 33 22 ----0.075 ----ND<0.50 62 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 41 69 SB11 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.50 5.1 140 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 51 7.5 35 19 ----ND<0.050 ----ND<0.50 54 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 51 72 0.5 11/20/2018 1.1 12 300 ND<0.50 1.9 120 10 76 560 15 ND<0.10 0.58 ----0.88 56 ND<0.50 0.69 ND<0.50 51 370 2.0 11/30/2018 --4.3 ------------59 ------------------------ BC01-A 0.5 11/30/2018 --21 ------------390 21 0.18 -------------------- BC01-B 0.5 11/30/2018 --11 ------------47 ------------------------ BC01-C 0.5 11/30/2018 --24 ------------98 5.1 ---------------------- BC01-D 0.5 1/10/2019 --5.5 ------------48 ------------------------ BC01-E 0.5 1/10/2019 --5.9 ------------23 ------------------------ BC01-F 0.5 1/10/2019 --7.3 ------------29 ------------------------ BC01-G 0.5 1/10/2019 --15 ------------71 ------------------------ 0.5 11/20/2018 0.84 7.6 170 0.56 0.82 45 9 88 150 3.7 ND<0.10 0.88 ----0.67 47 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 49 150 2.0 11/30/2018 ----------------7.3 ------------------------ BC02-A 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------39 ------------------------ BC02-B 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------29 ------------------------ BC02-C 0.5 1/10/2019 ----------------15 ------------------------ 0.5 11/20/2018 0.89 15 220 ND<0.50 0.80 45 9.3 34 760 --0.62 0.18 ----0.82 46 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 51 470 2.0 11/30/2018 --5.2 ------------20 ---------------------- BC03-A 0.5 11/30/2018 --16 ------------96 4.1 ---------------------- BC03-B 0.5 11/30/2018 --47 ------------140 3.7 ND<0.10 -------------------- BC03-C 0.5 11/30/2018 --14 ------------65 ------------------------ BC03-D 0.5 11/30/2018 --26 ------------350 --0.41 -------------------- BC03-E 0.5 1/10/2019 --33 ------------180 BC03-F 0.5 1/10/2019 --13 ------------130 BC03-G 0.5 1/10/2019 --16 ------------400 BC03-H 0.5 1/10/2019 --6.5 ------------21 BC03-I 0.5 1/10/2019 --18 ------------41 BC03-J 0.5 1/10/2019 --11 ------------44 BC03-K 0.5 1/10/2019 --22 ------------55 BC03-L 0.5 1/10/2019 --30 ------------140 0.5 11/20/2018 3.5 6.2 160 ND<0.50 1.9 43 8.5 50 160 3.7 ND<0.10 0.12 ----0.87 44 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 42 2,900 2.0 11/30/2018 ----------------9.8 ------------------------ BC04-A 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------31 ------------------------ BC04-B 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------7.9 ------------------------ BC04-C 0.5 11/30/2018 ----------------51 ------------------------ BC04-D 0.5 1/10/2019 ----------------120 ------------------------ BC04-E 0.5 1/10/2019 ----------------24 ------------------------ BC04-F 0.5 1/10/2019 ----------------14 ------------------------ M01 --11/30/2018 0.80 3.1 88 ND<0.50 1.1 26 5.4 24 96 3.5 --0.095 ----1.2 48 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 20 140 M02 --11/30/2018 0.72 5.2 120 ND<0.50 0.26 56 10 27 28 ----5.9 0.012 ND<0.010 ND<0.50 75 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 39 82 M03 --11/30/2018 3.0 3.5 120 ND<0.50 0.66 27 6.6 21 360 26 0.33 0.11 ----0.71 37 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 26 110 A9 2.0 12/3/2018 ND<0.50 4.0 140 ND<0.50 ND<0.25 39 8.9 21 78 ----ND<0.050 ----0.51 42 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 43 55 31 11 15,000 15 5.2 36,000a 23 3,100 80 ----1b ----390 490 390 390 0.78 390 23,000 USEPA Duvergé USEPA Cal/EPA Cal/EPA Cal/EPA USEPA USEPA Cal/EPA ----Cal/EPA ----USEPA Cal/EPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA TTLC 500 500 10,000 75 100 2,500 8,000 2,500 1,000 20 3,500 2,000 100 500 700 2,400 5,000 10x STLC 150 50 1,000 7.5 10 50 800 250 50 2.0 3,500 200 10 50 70 240 2,500 20x TCLP --100 2,000 --20 100 ----100 4.0 ----20 100 n/a ---- Notes: Only compounds detected above the laboratory reporting limit are included in the table and are shown in bold. All data are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Blue shading denotes detected concentrations in excess of residential screening criteria. Orange shading denotes exceedance above STLC/TCLP value.a = screening value is for Chromium III b = screening value is for Elemental Mercury California Assessment Manual 17 (CAM17) metals analyzed by EPA Method 6020. -- = not analyzed or not available bgs = below ground surface Cal/EPA = California Envrionmental Protection Agency ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit shown USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency Shallow soil samples collected under magnetic anomaly (metal pipe) in northeast corner of site. Shallow soil samples collected in field areas. Shallow soil samples collected near building perimeters. Samples collected from soil mounds. Screening Criteria Source BC01 BC03 BC02 BC04 Residential Screening Criteria STLC Mercury Threshold = 0.2 mg/L TCLP Mercury Threshold = 0.2 mg/L STLC Lead Threshold = 5.0 mg/L TCLP Lead Threshold = 5.0 mg/L United States Evironmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. Nov. Hazardous Waste Screening Criteria Sources: California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2018. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, Issue: DTSC recommended methodology for use of U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) in the Human Health Risk Assessment process at hazardous waste sites and permitted facilities. June. Duvergé, Dylan Jacques. 2011. Establishing Background Arsenic in Soil of the Urbanized San Francisco Bay Region. Page 1 of 4 Ramboll D R A F T Table 2: Detected Organochlorine Pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Soil Samples SCDC Mozart 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Chlordane (Technical)a-Chlordane g-Chlordane p,p-DDD p,p-DDE p,p-DDT Dieldrin Aroclor1254 Aroclor 1260 SB01 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.050 ND<0.0020 ND<0.0020 ND<0.0020 0.42 0.026 ND<0.0020 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 SB02 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.30 0.013 ND<0.0010 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 SB03 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.050 ND<0.0020 ND<0.0020 ND<0.0020 0.37 0.018 ND<0.0020 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 SB04 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.25 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 0.052 0.017 ND<0.010 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 SB05 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.064 0.0057 ND<0.0010 ND<0.050 0.078 SB06 0.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.022 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.21 ND<0.050SB070.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.025 0.0021 0.0022 0.0013 0.030 0.018 ND<0.0010 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 SB08 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.0059 0.011 0.0030 0.012 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 SB09 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.12 ND<0.0050 ND<0.0050 ND<0.0050 0.036 0.013 ND<0.005 ND<0.25 ND<0.25SB100.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.0028 0.14 0.026 0.0033 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 SB11 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.025 0.0015 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.019 0.0048 ND<0.0010 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 BC01 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<2.5 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 0.28 ND<0.10 ND<5.0 ND<5.0 BC02 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<0.25 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 0.44 0.15 ND<0.010 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 0.5 11/20/2018 5.3 0.59 0.51 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 0.068 0.11 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 2.0 11/30/2018 0.073 ----------0.0023 ---- BC03-A 0.5 11/30/2018 1.9 ----------0.072 ---- BC03-B 0.5 11/30/2018 0.40 ----------0.039 ---- BC03-C 0.5 11/30/2018 0.38 ----------0.013 ---- BC03-D 0.5 11/30/2018 4.4 ----------0.13 ---- BC03-E 0.5 1/10/2019 1.3 ----------0.86 ---- BC03-F 0.5 1/10/2019 0.21 ----------0.0073 ---- BC03-G 0.5 1/10/2019 1.7 ----------0.021 ---- BC03-H 0.5 1/10/2019 0.78 ----------0.0018 ---- BC03-I 0.5 1/10/2019 0.12 ----------0.0016 ---- BC03-J 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.025 ----------0.0097 ---- BC03-K 0.5 1/10/2019 ND<0.12 ----------0.013 ---- BC03-L 0.5 1/10/2019 5.4 ----------0.47 ---- BC04 0.5 11/20/2018 ND<1.2 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 ND<0.050 0.10 0.083 ND<0.050 ND<2.5 ND<2.5 M01 --11/30/2018 ND<2.5 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<0.10 ND<5.0 ND<5.0 M02 --11/30/2018 ND<0.25 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 ND<0.010 0.011 ND<0.50 ND<0.50 M03 --11/30/2018 ND<5.0 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<0.20 ND<10 ND<10 A9 2.0 12/3/2018 ND<0.025 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 0.0071 ND<0.0010 ND<0.0010 ---- 0.44 ----1.9 2.0 1.9 0.034 0.24 0.24 Cal/EPA ----USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA USEPA Notes: Only compounds detected above the laboratory reporting limit are included in the table and are shown in bold. All data are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Blue shading denotes detected concentrations in excess of residential screening level. Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) analyzed by EPA Method 8081A. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) analyzed by EPA Method 8082. -- = not analyzed or not available bgs = below ground surface Cal/EPA = California Envrionmental Protection Agency DDE = dichlorodiphenylethylene DDT = dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit shown OCP = organochlorinated biphenyls PCB = polychlorinated biphenyls USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA). 2018. Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) Note Number 3, Issue: DTSC recommended methodology for use of U.S. EPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) in the Human Health Risk Assessment process at hazardous waste sites and permitted facilities. January. United States Evironmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2018. Regional Screening Levels for Chemical Contaminants at Superfund Sites. May. Screening Criteria Source Sources: Residential Screening Criteria Organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) Sample Date Sample Depth (feet bgs) Sample Location BC03 Shallow soil samples collected in field areas. PCBs Shallow soil samples collected near building perimeters. Samples collected from soil mounds. Shallow soil samples collected under magnetic anomaly (metal pipe) in northeast corner of site. Page 2 of 4 Ramboll DRAFT Table 3: Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples SCDC Mozart 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California TPH-g TPH-d TPH-mo A1 10.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A2 10.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 1.1 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A3 3.5 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 5.5 ALL ND* A4 3.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 4.2 39 ALL ND* A5 Former Fuel Pump 2.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A6 2.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A7 2.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A8 2.0 11/30/2018 ND<1.0 ND<1.0 ND<5.0 ALL ND* A9 NE Magnetic Anomaly 2.0 12/3/2018 ND<1.0 2.0 6.0 -- 740 230 11,000 -- Notes: Compounds detected above the laboratory reporting limit are shown in bold. All data are reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) analyzed by EPA Method 8015 Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analyzed by EPA method 8260 * Reporting limits vary for different samples based on laboratory dilution factors. -- = not analyzed or not available bgs = below ground surface ND = not detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit shown RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board TPH-g = total petroleum hydrocarbons gasoline range (C6-C12) TPH-d = total petroleum hydrocarbons diesel range (C10-C23) TPH-mo = total petroleum hydrocarbons motor oil range (C18-C36) VOCsSample ID Sample Depth (feet bgs)Sample Date Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) RWQCB Residential ESL Sources: a San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). 2016. Environmental Screening Levels Direct Exposure Human Health Risk Levels (Table S-1). February (revision 3) Sample Location Vicinity of Suspected UST Vicinity of Suspected UST Piping Former Oil Drum Storage Page 3 of 4 Ramboll Table 4: Naturally-Occurring Asbestos in Soil Samples SCDC Mozart 16151 - 16187 East Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California Sample ID Depth Below Ground Surface (feet)Sample Date Visual Estimation Percent Asbestos in Matrix Asbestos Type(s) Detected NOA-1,2,3 0.5 11/30/2018 ND<0.25%ND<0.25%None Notes: Sample NOA-1,2,3 is a composite of samples NOA-1, NOA-2, and NOA-3 NOA analyzed by CARB Method 435 CARB 435 = California Air Resources Board Method 435; June 6, 1991. ID = identification ND = not detected at or above the laboratory limit of quantification shown NOA = Naturally-Occurring Asbestos Page 4 of 4 Ramboll PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SHALLOW SOIL INVESTIGATION Ramboll FIGURES SITE QUADRANGLE KEY MAP 0 0.5 1 SCALE IN MILES Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\1690010020-campbell-locmap.mxdSite Location Map16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY:RS DATE: 1/8/2019 FIGURE1 1690010020 LEGEND:SITE BOUNDARY(APPROXIMATE)0 2,000 4,000 6,000 SCALE IN FEET SITE SOURCE: USGS The National Map: National Boundaries Dataset, National Elevation Dataset, GeographicNames Information System, National Hydrography Dataset, National Land Cover Database, NationalStructures Dataset, and National Transportation Dataset; U.S. Census Bureau - TIGER/Line; HERE Road Data Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\1690010020-campbell-layout.mxd (Former Carmen's Nursery) 4 3 12 5 Residential Residential Residential MedicalCenter E MOZART AVENUE S BASCOM AVENUENORMAN Y. MINETA HWYCA 17 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Site Layout16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY:RS DATE: 1/21/2019 FIGURE2 1690010020 0 140 Feet Legend Approximate SiteBoundary 1 = 16151 East Mozart Ave.2 = 16157 East Mozart Ave.3 = 16163 East Mozart Ave.4 = 16179 East Mozart Ave.5 = 16187 East Mozart Ave. Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\1690010020-campbell-samploc-3.mxd "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "§) "2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2"2#* #*#* Ó!µÓ!µÓ!µ!A!A!A!A!A!A!A!A !A (Former Carmen's Nursery)Residential Residential Residential MedicalCenter E MOZART AVENUE A9 A8 A7 A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 A1 M3M2 M1 BC04 BC03 BC02 BC01 SB11 SB10 SB09 SB08 SB07 SB06 SB05 SB04 SB03 SB02 SB01 NOA-3 NOA-2NOA-1 BC04-F BC04-E BC04-DBC04-C BC04-B BC04-A BC03-LBC03-K BC03-J BC03-H BC03-I BC03-G BC03-F BC03-E BC03-D BC03-C BC02-CBC02-B BC02-A BC01-GBC01-F BC01-EBC01-D BC03-B BC03-A BC01-C BC01-B BC01-A Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Site Layout16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY:RS DATE: 1/28/2019 FIGURE3 1690010020 0 100 Feet Legend !A Anomaly or OtherArea of Interest SoilSample "2Shallow SoilSample - BuildingPerimeter #*Soil Mound Sample Ó!µAsphalt Base RockSample "§)Shallow SoilSample – Field Approximate SiteBoundary Q:\DRAWINGS\1690010020\1690010020-campbell-samploc-4.mxd !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( (Former Carmen's Nursery)Residential Residential Residential MedicalCenter E MOZART AVENUE A9 A8 A7 A6 A5 A4 A3 A2 A1 M3M2 M1 BC04 BC03 BC02 BC01 SB11 SB10 SB09 SB08 SB07 SB06 SB05 SB04 SB03 SB02 SB01 NOA-3 NOA-2NOA-1 BC04-F BC04-E BC04-DBC04-C BC04-B BC04-A BC03-LBC03-K BC03-J BC03-H BC03-I BC03-G BC03-F BC03-E BC03-D BC03-C BC02-CBC02-B BC02-A BC01-GBC01-F BC01-EBC01-D BC03-B BC03-A BC01-C BC01-B BC01-A Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID,IGN, and the GIS User Community Sample Location Map - Screening Criteria Exceedances16151 - 16187 East Mozart AvenueCampbell, California DRAFTED BY:RS DATE: 1/28/2019 FIGURE4 1690010020 0 100 Feet Legend Sample Location -No Exceedances Sample Location -At least one metal and/orpesticide concentrationexceeds residential screeningcriteria. !( !( Approximate SiteBoundary ATTACHMENT 8 "WILL SERVE" LETTERS ATTACHMENT 9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY REPORT Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Prepared for: City of Campbell Community Development Department 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Contact: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner Prepared by: 605 Third Street Encinitas, California 92024 Contact: Dylan Duvergé, P.G. (License No. 9244) MARCH 2020 Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material. 12422 i March 2020 Table of Contents SECTION PAGE NO. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Proposed Project .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Analysis Scope and Purpose .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Surface Water ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1.1 Regional Watersheds................................................................................................................ 1 2.1.2 Local Topography and Drainage .............................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 Preliminary Runoff Estimate .................................................................................................... 3 2.1.4 Receiving Water Quality ............................................................................................................ 3 2.2 Groundwater ........................................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 Hydrologic Hazards ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.1 Flood History ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.3.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency Special Flood Hazard Areas ................................ 6 2.3.3 Other Flood Hazards (Dam Innundation, Sea-Level Rise, Tsunami, and Seiche) ................. 6 3 REGULATORY SETTING ................................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Federal .................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.1.1 Clean Water Act ........................................................................................................................ 7 3.1.2 Federal Antidegradation Policy ................................................................................................ 8 3.1.3 National Flood Insurance Program .......................................................................................... 8 3.2 State Regulations ................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ................................................................................ 8 3.2.2 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin ................................................. 9 3.2.3 General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities ............................................................................................................ 10 3.2.4 San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit ....................... 11 3.2.5 Dam Safety Programs ............................................................................................................ 11 3.2.6 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act ........................................................................ 12 3.3 Local Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 13 3.3.1 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Requirements ............. 13 3.3.2 City of Campbell Stormwater Regulations ............................................................................ 13 3.3.3 City of Campbell General Plan Policies ................................................................................. 13 3.3.4 City of Campbell Municipal Code .......................................................................................... 14 4 IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................... 15 4.1 Method of Analysis .............................................................................................................................. 15 12422 ii March 2020 4.2 Thresholds of Significance .................................................................................................................. 15 4.3 Criteria not Applicable to the Proposed Project ................................................................................. 16 4.4 Impacts Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 16 5 MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................................................................ 24 6 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 25 FIGURES Figure 1 Receiving Waters Map ........................................................................................................................ 27 Figure 2 Existing Conditions Drainage Map...................................................................................................... 29 Figure 3 Flood Hazards ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 4 Proposed Conditions Drainage Map................................................................................................... 33 TABLES Table 1 Watershed Designations by Agency/Source ...................................................................................................... 2 Table 2 Existing Land Cover .............................................................................................................................................. 2 Table 3 CWA Section 303(d) Impariments ....................................................................................................................... 4 Table 4 State and Regional Water Quality-Related Permits and Approvals ................................................................ 10 Table 5 Comparison of Pre- and Post-Project Land Cover ........................................................................................... 19 Table 6 Flow Rates (cubic-feet per second) .................................................................................................................. 20 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 iii March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12422 1 March 2020 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Proposed Project The 16179 E. Mozart Avenue project in Campbell, CA involves the redevelopment of an approximately 2.93-acre parcel (site) into 25 single-family homes (Project). The Project would involve the demolition of existing structures on-site, consisting of four single-story homes fronting E. Mozart Avenue and several outbuildings located behind the existing homes (e.g., storage sheds, trailer, containers, carports/garages, etc.). All 25 homes would be 2- to 3-story, 4-bedroom units, ranging in size from 2,443 to 3,783 square feet. The homes would be accessed from a new 20- foot wide driveway teeing off the east side of E. Mozart Avenue, forming an interior loop within the site. The proposed amenities would include a tot lot in one of the open space lots and a stepping stone path between the interior units. Following demolition, grading, and utility installations, construction of the homes is anticipated to occur in two phases. Redevelopment of the site would require the removal of existing oak, almond, apricot, and other ornamental/fruit trees not identified for preservation under the city’s Tree Protection Regulations (City Code Section 21.32.050.C). The Project would retain 10 existing Coast Live Oaks within 3 open space lots totaling 11,787 square feet, as well as the backyards of several of the outer private lots. The landscape plan includes a landscape strip along E. Mozart Avenue consisting of 5 street trees, and interior landscaping along the footpath, home frontage, and open space lots. The Project proposes 28 onsite trees consisting of a combination of Japanese Maple, Marina Strawberry Trees, Muskogee Crape Myrtle, Keith Davey Chinese Pistache, and Valley Oak. Stormwater management features would consist of maximizing trees/landscaped areas, use of pervious pavement, and use of a hydrodynamic separator (Contech CDS unit or similar) and an infiltration chamber (Oldcastle Precast Storm Capture unit or similar). 1.2 Analysis Scope and Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide the technical background and analysis necessary to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project on hydrology and water quality, in accordance with Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. 1.3 Summary of Findings Review of Project plans, including Hydromodification Management Plan (Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 2019), the grading and drainage plan (CEA 2019a), and Stormwater Management Plan (CEA 2019b), indicate that the Project’s proposed drainage design is feasible and appropriate for site conditions. Impacts associated with Project construction and operation on hydrology and water quality would be less than significant, because existing permitting requirements and conditions of approval are sufficient to avoid water quality degradation, meet water quality standards and Basin Plan objectives, and prevent adverse effects on beneficial uses. No CEQA mitigation measures are required. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 2 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 12422 1 March 2020 2 Physical Setting 2.1 Surface Water 2.1.1 Regional Watersheds The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which administers the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) (Basin Plan) and other water quality programs for the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Basin. The San Francisco Bay region covers approximately 4,603 square miles and includes all or large portions of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma (SFB RWQCB 2017). The majority of freshwater entering the San Francisco Bay is from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, which flow through the Sacramento–San Joaquin River Delta at the eastern end of Suisun Bay to enter the San Francisco Bay. In addition, bayside rivers and streams—including Los Gatos Creek located 0.4 miles northwest of the Project site—contribute freshwater to the San Francisco Bay. Over 90% of annual runoff within the San Francisco Bay region occurs within the winter rainy season between October and April (SFB RWQCB 2017). Table 1 shows the watersheds that encompass the project site as designated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Watershed Boundary Dataset as well as the San Francisco Bay RWQCB Basin Plan. The USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset delineates watersheds according to hydrologic units, which are nested within one another according to the scale of interest. USGS identifies hydrologic units by name and by hydrologic unit code, which gets longer as the watershed boundaries get more detailed. The Basin Plan identifies watersheds in a hierarchical system similar to the USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset, but with somewhat different watershed names and boundaries. These geographic boundaries are likewise watershed based, but are typically referred to as hydrologic units, areas, and subareas, and can sometimes include administrative boundaries. These generally constitute the geographic basis around which many surface water quality problems and goals/objectives are defined in the Basin Plan. The proposed project is within the Santa Clara hydrologic unit (Basin No. 205), and the Guadalupe River hydrologic area (Basin No. 205.40), for which where are no hydrologic subareas defined (SFB RWQCB 2017). The USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset indicates the project site is within the 126-square-mile Los Gatos Creek subwatershed (hydrologic unit code 180500030303) (USGS 2020). Stormwater runoff from the site is discharged to Los Gatos Creek after entering the municipal storm drain system, where it combines with the runoff from the rest of the Los Gatos Creek Subwatershed, shown in Figure 1. Los Gatos Creek is one of the few urban streams in Santa Clara Valley which remains relatively intact. It is both a riparian corridor for plants and wildlife and is part of an intricate system of water resources and flood protection. Eventually streamflow confluences with the Guadalupe River before discharging to the Southern San Francisco Bay (Figure 1). Valley Water (formerly the Santa Clara Valley Water District) operates several percolation ponds that are fed by a surface water diversion (Kirk Dam) on Los Gatos Creek as well as a system of gates at Vasona Lake further upstream. The closest percolation pond to the project site is the Camden Percolation Ponds located on the west side of SR-85. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 2 March 2020 Table 1 Watershed Designations by Agency/Source Agency/Source HUC/Basin No. Analysis Scale Name Size (Sq. Mi.) USGS Watershed Boundary Dataset 180500 Basin San Francisco Bay 5,371 18050003 Subbasin Coyote 720 1805000303 Watershed Guadalupe River-Frontal San Francisco Bay Estuaries 470 180500030303 Subwatershed Los Gatos Creek 126 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) 2 RWQCB Region San Francisco Bay 4,603 205 Hydrologic Unit Santa Clara 839 205.40 Hydrologic Area Guadalupe River 162 Sources: USGS 2020; SFB RWQCB 2017. Notes: HUC = hydrologic unit code; sq. mi. = square miles; USGS = U.S. Geological Survey; RWQCB = San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2.1.2 Local Topography and Drainage Regionally, the proposed project is located on a broad alluvial plain formed by several creeks that emerge out of the eastern flanks of the Santa Cruz Mountains, including Saratoga Creek, Los Gatos Creek, and the Guadalupe River. Locally, the project site is nearly flat, ranging in elevation from 272 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 276 feet amsl with a slight gradient toward the north (CEA 2019a). Under existing conditions, storm runoff is likely to pond in shallow depressions and/or swales, or contribute to runoff conveyed by street curbs to the closest catch basin at the intersection of Beethoven Lane and Mozart Avenue. The property currently consists of pervious, native soil with light vegetation, moderate tree cover, several residences and outbuildings (e.g., a trailer, chicken coop, storage sheds, and garages), and several paved and unpaved driveways that run through the site. Impervious surfaces consist of 10% of the site cover, and site soils consist of silty sand and gravel with an effective infiltration rate of 3 inches/hour (Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 2019). Table 2 shows the land cover that currently exists on the Project site. Table 2 Existing Land Cover Description Square-Feet Acres Percent Pervious Areas Landscape 57,422 1.32 45% Unpaved Driveway 57,422 1.32 45% Subtotal 114,845 2.64 90% Impervious Areas Roof 10,496 0.22 8% Paved Driveway 2,140 0.07 2% Subtotal 12,636 0.29 10% TOTAL 127,481 2.93 100% Source: Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 2019. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 3 March 2020 Valley Water (2020) has mapped urban storm drain catchments as part of implementation of the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) (described further in Section 3.2.4). This data indicates that the Project site is located in the southern part of a 65-acre catchment area that is 52% impervious and which discharges to Los Gatos Creek through 24-inch diameter outfall located downstream of the Kirk Dam/diversion structure (Valley Water 2020). The catchment area is bordered by State Route (SR) 17 on the northwest side, the SR 17 / SR 85 interchange to the south, SR 85 on the southern side, S. Boscom Avenue to the east, and White Oaks Road to the northeast (Valley Water 2020). As shown in Figure 2, local runoff in the southern part of this catchment (including Project site runoff) is carried via E. Mozart Avenue and Beethoven Lane to catch basins and curb inlets connected to the municipal storm drain system. In addition, a small (< 0.2-acre) stormwater basin located adjacent to SR-17 and the Los Gatos Creek Trail entrance intercepts local runoff prior to being directed to the municipal storm drain. The underground storm drain system, which consists of buried reinforced concrete pipes ranging in diameter from 12- to 18-inches, conveys runoff from the local streets and stormwater basin across the Caltrans right-of-way to Los Gatos Creek (Figure 2) (BkF 2005). Stormwater runoff is eventually discharged from a 24-inch stormwater outfall located on the east side of Los Gatos Creek immediately downstream of the Camden Percolation Lake within Los Gatos Creek County Park (Valley Water 2020). 2.1.3 Preliminary Runoff Estimate Because the Project involves the creation and/or replacement of more than 1 acre of impervious surface and is located in a catchment that is less than 65% impervious, the Project is subject to the Hydromodification1 Management Plan (HMP) requirements of the MRP. Accordingly, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (2019) determined the pre-project flow rates for the 2-, 5- and 10-year storm events using the 2013 Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM)2. Inputs to the BAHM included the Project site as one sub-basin, the existing land cover data in Table 2, and a classification of site soils based on geotechnical report results. Based on these inputs, the flow rate from the Project site for the 2-, 5- and 10-year storm events was calculated to be 0.99, 1.40, and 1.66 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively (Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 2019). Given the site’s flat slope, its largely pervious and vegetated land cover, and the lack of any defined drainage channels, the calculated flow is likely to be distributed across multiple flow paths around the Project site and delivered to area street curbs (namely E. Mozart Avenue). 2.1.4 Receiving Water Quality The San Francisco Bay RWQCB, which is responsible for the implementation of state and federal water quality protection statutes, regulations, and policies in the vicinity of the project site, implements the Basin Plan, a master policy document for managing water quality in the region (SFB RWQCB 2017). Several water bodies within the watershed are designated as “water quality-limited” for water quality impairments under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) (Table 2). Being “water quality-limited” means that a water body is “not reasonably expected to attain or maintain water quality standards” without additional regulation. The law requires that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency develop total maximum daily loads3 (TMDLs) for each impaired water body in the nation (described further below in Section 3, Regulatory Setting). The most recently approved Section 303(d) List 1 Hydromodification is a primary contributor to problems related to excessive sediment and altered steam flow dynamics (e.g., flow volumes and velocities), primarily due to impervious surfaces, mass grading, and/or poor road designs (both urban and rural/unpaved). 2 The Bay Area Hydrology Model is a continuous simulation hydrologic model which was created for use in the San Francisco Bay to meet the hydromodification requirements of the MRP. 3 A TMDL specifies the maximum amount of a pollutant a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards. A TMDL may also include a plan for bringing an impaired water body back within standards. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 4 March 2020 of Water Quality Limited Segments, as listed in the 2014/2016 Integrated Report (SWRCB 2020), lists both Los Gatos Creek and the Southern San Francisco Bay as impaired water bodies under Section 303(d) of the CWA. As indicated in Table 3, Los Gatos Creek is identified as impaired for diazinon, and the Southern San Francisco Bay is listed as impaired for a number of pollutants originating from a multitude of urban, agricultural, and industrial/port sources. Diazinon, chlordane, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), dieldrin, and dioxins and furans are compounds that originate from pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and other agricultural chemicals historically used in the Santa Clara Valley. The EPA required manufacturers of pesticide products to phase out Diazinon by the late 1990s and other uses were phased out in the early 2000s. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were once widely used as dielectric and coolant fluids in electrical apparatus and are a persistent organic pollutant that has caused adverse impacts on fish and wildlife. Mercury and selenium are naturally occurring metals that have accumulated at elevated levels in the San Francisco Bay through a combination of mining activities and natural sources. TMDLs have been adopted for diazinon, mercury, and PCBs, and other water quality issues (e.g., trash and suspended/dissolved solids) are being addressed through the provisions of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit. Table 3 CWA Section 303(d) Impariments Name Pollutant/Stressor Potential Sources TMDL Status Year Los Gatos Creek Diazinon Source Unknown Approved 2007 San Francisco Bay (South) Chlordane Source Unknown Scheduled 2013 DDT Source Unknown Scheduled 2013 Dieldrin Source Unknown Scheduled 2013 Dioxins Source Unknown Scheduled 2019 Furans Source Unknown Scheduled 2019 Invasive Species Source Unknown Scheduled 2019 Mercury Source Unknown Approved 2008 PCBs Source Unknown Approved 2010 Selenium Source Unknown Scheduled 2021 Source: SWRCB 2020. Notes: CWA = Clean Water Act; TMDL = total maximum daily load; DDT = Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane; PCBs = polychlorinated biphenyls. 2.2 Groundwater The proposed project is located within the Santa Clara Subbasin (California Department of Water Resources [DWR] Basin No. 2-9.02) of the Santa Clara Valley Groundwater Basin as designated by the DWR (DWR 2019a). The DWR is currently in the process of evaluating and re-prioritizing4 all of the groundwater basins across California. During the first phase of DWR’s basin re-prioritization (finalized in January 2019) the Santa Clara Subbasin was designated a high priority ranking (DWR 2019b). The high-priority designation for the Santa Clara Subbasin is due primarily to the high number of public supply wells, the high population of the Subbasin, the percentage of public water supply sourced from groundwater (48%), and documented impacts including intrusion of seawater into the shallow aquifer and historic long-term decline in groundwater levels (DWR 2019b). The high-priority designation means it is subject 4 DWR’s priority rating is based on estimates of population density, anticipated growth, well density, the amount of irrigated agriculture, the degree to which water demands are met from wells (versus surface water), and the existence of documented impacts (e.g., overdraft) (DWR 2019b). HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 5 March 2020 to the statewide requirements of the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Local public agencies and groundwater sustainability agencies are required to develop and implement groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) or alternatives to GSPs (alternative plans) for groundwater basins designated by DWR as medium and high priority. The SCVWD has prepared an alternative plan that has been designed to be functionally equivalent to a GSP (SCVWD 2016). The City of Campbell receives its water supply from the San Jose Water Company (SJWC). SJWC obtains water from three major sources: groundwater, imported surface water, and local mountain surface water. Groundwater is pumped from over 100 wells that draw water from the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin. Groundwater accounts for approximately 40% of supply. Local surface water accounts for approximately 10% of supply. These sources are often blended together in the distribution system. Consequently, different sources are dispersed to the City from day to day as customer usage changes. According to the alternative plan prepared by Valley Water, the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin is currently in long-term balance, groundwater quality is overall very good (most public supply wells do not require any treatment), and the Subbasin is currently meeting sustainability goals and objectives (SCVWD 2016). Valley Water tracks the status of the basin on an annual basis by measuring conditions against measurable performance criteria (summarized in annual reports), and has committed to taking action should the basin show evidence in the future that it is not achieving sustainable management (SCVWD 2016). Valley Water operates a groundwater monitoring well near the northwestern side of Los Gatos Creek approximately 0.5 miles northwest of the proposed project site (Well No. 08S01W03K013). Based on the groundwater level record of this well, which consists of monthly or quarterly readings between 1963 and the present, the shallowest recorded groundwater level was 14 feet below ground surface (bgs) in 1967, and the deepest recorded groundwater level was 83 feet bgs in 1964. The groundwater level throughout the period of record has remained relatively stable, with an average groundwater level of 29 feet bgs throughout the period. The fall 2019 groundwater level measurement was 25 bgs (DWR 2019a). Additionally, a nested/multi-completion well approximately 1.3 miles downstream of Well No. 08S01W03K013 on the east side of State Route 17 (Well No. 07S01W35L[013-017]) was completed in 2004 and has been monitored monthly for groundwater levels. For the top-screened interval of the well, the shallowest recorded groundwater level was 68 feet bgs in 2004, and the deepest recorded groundwater level was 168 feet bgs in 2014. The groundwater level throughout the period of record has remained relatively stable with highs and lows related to wet and dry periods, with an average groundwater level of 114 feet bgs throughout the period. The Fall 2019 groundwater level measurement at this well was 109 feet bgs (DWR 2019a). Although the closest monitoring well (Well No. 08S01W03K013) is situated about 0.5 miles away from the project site, due to similarities in elevation and geology, it is likely that groundwater beneath the project site exists at similar depths, or deeper, since the site is located further away from Los Gatos Creek than the groundwater level monitoring well. Based on regional groundwater level contours, the groundwater gradient follows the topography along the broad alluvial plain, towards the north-northeast. The aforementioned groundwater monitoring data is consistent with a regional map (i.e., “Santa Clara County Depth to First Groundwater”) provided by Valley Water (2020) which identifies the site as being in a zone where groundwater exists at a depth of 20 to 30 feet below the ground surface. 2.3 Hydrologic Hazards 2.3.1 Flood History Several major flood events have occurred in Santa Clara County, including in 1964, 1967, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2012 and 2017 (SCVWD 2017). These floods have affected different parts of Valley HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 6 March 2020 Water’s service territory, although Morgan Hill, Gilroy, and the communities in the eastern parts of the Santa Clara Valley are generally subject to greater impacts than the City of Campbell. The last regional flood event in 2017 caused the Los Gatos Creek to inundate parts of the Los Gatos Creek Trail but was limited to open space areas and low-lying roads along the creek corridor. Los Gatos Creek was one of the earliest creeks to be dammed, and the construction of Lexington Reservoir and James J. Lenihan Dam in the 1950s greatly reduced the frequency and severity of major flood events ever since. Valley Water (formerly the Santa Clara County Water District) is the primary water resources agency for Santa Clara County, California. It acts not only as the county's water wholesaler, but also as its flood protection agency and is the steward for its streams and creeks, underground aquifers, and district-built reservoirs. Valley Water has made progress in improving the channels as funds became available; as a result, flood damage has been reduced over the years. 2.3.2 Federal Emergency Management Agency Special Flood Hazard Areas Flood zones delineated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps are identified as Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and “other areas of flood hazard.” An SFHA is defined as the area that will be inundated by a flood event having a 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 1% annual-chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood, and is the national standard used by all federal agencies for the purposes of requiring the purchase of flood insurance and regulating new development. FEMA defines “other areas of flood hazard” as including areas with a 0.2% annual chance of flooding (i.e., the 500- year flood zone), and areas with reduced risk due to a levee. SFHAs are considered high-risk flood areas, whereas other areas of flood hazard are considered low- to moderate-risk areas. The development footprint of the proposed project is not within a 100-year flood zone as identified by FEMA (FEMA 2020). As shown in Figure 3, the 100-year floodplain is confined to within the banks of Los Gatos Creek, and the Project site is located within Zone D (i.e., an “area of undetermined flood hazard”). Although FEMA has not determined the flood hazards on the project site, the designation is due to administrative rather than physical boundaries. Areas immediately to the south and east of the Project site, within the City of Los Gatos are zoned by FEMA as being within an area with a 0.2% annual chance of flooding (i.e., the 500-year flood zone) (FEMA 2020). Based on similarities in elevation and the FEMA mapping within the City of Los Gatos, it is possible that the Project area would be designated as being within the 500-year flood zone. 2.3.3 Other Flood Hazards (Dam Innundation, Sea-Level Rise, Tsunami, and Seiche) The project site is not subject to sea-level rise, tsunami inundation, or seiche wave. The preconditions necessary for a project to be at risk of such hazards are that it be located within a reasonable distance and elevation relative to a coastline (for sea-level rise or seiche) or large body of water (for seiche waves). The project is located at an elevation of 275 - 280 feet amsl in elevation and is not adjacent to a large water body subject to seiche. Valley Water’s percolation ponds adjacent to Los Gatos Creek could be subject to seiche waves during a regionally significant earthquake. However, because they exist at a lower elevation and downgradient from the Project site, they would not subject the site to seiche wave hazards. As shown in Figure 3, the Project site is mapped as being within the dry-weather dam inundation zone for the Lenihan Dam and Lexington Reservoir (SCVWD 2016). Based on Valley Water’s modeling, a failure of the dam would result in a flood arrival time of roughly 1 hour, with peak flow depths occurring only 20 minutes thereafter and HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 7 March 2020 maximum flood depths of between 29 and 35 feet (SCVWD 2016). Given the project site is roughly 30 feet above the creek channel, dam failure could result in several feet of flooding on the project site. Lenihan Dam and Lexington Reservoir do not have a history of dam failure; however, these dams are identified as having the potential to inundate habitable portions of the City of Campbell in the unlikely event of dam failure (City of Campbell 2017). 3 Regulatory Setting 3.1 Federal 3.1.1 Clean Water Act The CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq.), as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, is the major federal legislation governing water quality. The objective of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Important sections of the act are as follows: • CWA Sections 303 and 304 provide for water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, the State of California is required to develop a list of impaired water bodies that do not meet water quality standards and objectives. California is required to establish TMDLs for each pollutant/stressor. A TMDL defines how much of a specific pollutant/stressor a given water body can tolerate and still meet relevant water quality standards. The impairments applicable to the project’s receiving waters are described in Section 2.1.4, Physical Setting. • CWA Section 401 (Water Quality Certification) requires an applicant for any federal permit that proposes an activity which may result in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain certification from the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. The development footprint of proposed project does not contain potentially jurisdictional wetlands. • CWA Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting system for the discharge of any pollutant (except for dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine RWQCBs, who have several programs that implement individual and general permits related to construction activities, stormwater runoff quality, and various kinds of non-stormwater discharges. The City operates under an MS4 Permit from the SFB RWQCB and all covered projects in the City are required to comply with the MS4 Permit requirement that addresses stormwater runoff discharges to a water of the United States (i.e., Los Gatos Creek and the southern San Francisco Bay). • CWA Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. This permit program is jointly administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 8 March 2020 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The development footprint of Project does not contain potentially jurisdictional wetlands. Numerous agencies have responsibilities for administration and enforcement of the CWA. At the federal level this includes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the major federal land management agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. At the state level, with the exception of tribal lands, the California Environmental Protection Agency and its sub-agencies, including the SWRCB, have been delegated primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the CWA. 3.1.2 Federal Antidegradation Policy The federal antidegradation policy is designed to protect water quality and water resources. The policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the following primary provisions: (1) existing instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses shall be maintained and protected; (2) where existing water quality is better than necessary to support fishing and swimming conditions, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary for important local economic or social development; and (3) where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national and state parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected. 3.1.3 National Flood Insurance Program The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 established the National Flood Insurance Program to provide flood insurance within communities that were willing to adopt floodplain management programs to mitigate future flood losses. The National Flood Insurance Act also required the identification of all floodplain areas within the United States and the establishment of flood-risk zones within those areas. FEMA is the primary agency responsible for administering programs and coordinating with communities to establish effective floodplain management standards. FEMA is responsible for preparing the Flood Insurance Rate Maps that delineate the areas of known special flood hazards and their risk applicable to the community. The program encourages the adoption and enforcement by local communities of floodplain management ordinances that reduce flood risks. In support of the program, FEMA identifies flood hazard areas throughout the United States on FEMA flood hazard boundary maps. 3.2 State Regulations 3.2.1 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) (codified in the California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.) is the primary water quality control law for California. Whereas the CWA applies to all waters of the United States, the Porter-Cologne Act applies to waters of the state, which includes isolated wetlands and groundwater in addition to federal waters. It is implemented by the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs. In addition to other regulatory responsibilities, the RWQCBs have the authority to conduct, order, and oversee investigation and HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 9 March 2020 cleanup where discharges or threatened discharges of waste to waters of the state5 could cause pollution or nuisance, including impacts to public health and the environment. The act requires a Report of Waste Discharge for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or otherwise) to land or surface waters that may impair a beneficial use of surface or groundwater of the state. California Water Code Section 13260(a) requires that any person discharging waste or proposing to discharge waste, other than to a community sewer system, that could affect the quality of the waters of the state, file a Report of Waste Discharge with the applicable RWQCB. For discharges directly to surface water (waters of the United States), an NPDES permit is required, which is issued under both state and federal law; for other types of discharges, such as waste discharges to land (e.g., spoils disposal and storage), erosion from soil disturbance, or discharges to waters of the state (such as groundwater and isolated wetlands), Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) are required and are issued exclusively under state law. WDRs typically require many of the same best management practices (BMPs) and pollution control technologies as required by NPDES-derived permits. 3.2.2 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin The SWRCB provides state-level coordination of the water quality control program by establishing statewide policies and plans for implementation of state and federal regulations. The nine RWQCBs throughout California adopt and implement basin plans that recognize the unique characteristics of each region with regard to natural water quality, actual and potential beneficial uses, and water quality problems. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the protection of the beneficial uses of waters draining to the San Francisco Bay, including the project site. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives aimed at preserving beneficial uses, and contains implementation programs and policies to achieve those objectives for all waters addressed through the plan (California Water Code Sections 13240–13247) (SFB RWQCB 2017). The beneficial uses for Los Gatos Creek consist of municipal and domestic supply (MUN), freshwater replenishment (FRSH), groundwater recharge (GWR), cold freshwater habitat (COLD), preservation of rare and endangered species (RARE), warm freshwater habitat (WARM), wildlife habitat (WILD), water contact recreation (REC-1), and non-water contact recreation (REC- 2) (SFB RWQCB 2017). Potential beneficial uses consist of fish migration (MIGR) and fish spawning (SPWN) (SFB RWQCB 2017). To enable efficient permitting under both the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act, the SWRCB and the RWQCBs run permit programs that group similar types of activities that have similar threats to water quality. These general permit programs include the NPDES MS4 Permit, the construction general permit, the industrial general permit and other general permits for low-threat discharges. The construction stormwater program, the small MS4 permit program, and the general permit for low-threat discharges are administered by the SWRCB, while other general WDRs are administered by the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. Table 4 lists the water-quality-related permits that would apply to the project, each of which is further described below. General WDRs and NPDES permits contain effluent limitations that may be stricter than basin-wide water quality objectives, because they regulate specific categories of discharge and are designed to limit the cumulative effects of development over broad areas. 5 “Waters of the state” are defined in the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code, Section 13050[e]). HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 10 March 2020 Table 4 State and Regional Water Quality-Related Permits and Approvals Program/Activity Order Number/NPDES Number Permit Name Affected Area Construction Stormwater Program 2009-0009-DWQ/ CAS000002, as amended NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) Statewide Municipal Stormwater Program RWQCB Order No. R2- 2015-0049, as amended Waste Discharge Requirements for Stormwater Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4 Permit) All regulated MS4 systems; new development and redevelopment projects within the City of Campbell Temporary/Low Volume Dewatering1 SWRCB Water Quality Order 2003-0003-DWQ Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges to Land with a Low Threat to Water Quality Statewide Notes: 1 If any dewatering is required. NPDES = National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board; SWRCB = State Water Resources Control Board. 3.2.3 General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities For stormwater discharges associated with construction activity in the State of California, the SWRCB has adopted the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit) (SWRCB Order 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended) to avoid and minimize water quality impacts attributable to such activities. The Construction General Permit applies to all projects in which construction activity disturbs 1 acre or more of soil. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling and excavation. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), which would include and specify water quality BMPs designed to prevent pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters. Routine inspection of all BMPs is required under the provisions of the Construction General Permit, and the SWPPP must be prepared and implemented by qualified individuals as defined by the SWRCB. The project applicant must submit a notice of intent to the SWRCB to be covered by an NPDES permit and must prepare the SWPPP prior to the beginning of construction. Various levels of soil disturbances associated with project construction are anticipated to occur over the majority of project site, which has a net area of 2.93 acres and a gross area (which includes work within the public street ROW) of 3.15 acres. Therefore, the project would require coverage under the Construction General Permit. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 11 March 2020 3.2.4 San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act, municipal stormwater discharges in the City are regulated under the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP), Order No. R2- 2015-0049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, adopted November 18, 2015. The most relevant requirement that pertains to the project is Provision C.3. MRP Provision C.3 addresses post-construction stormwater management requirements for new development and redevelopment projects. Because the project would create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, it is subject to the MRP. Currently, the City requires project applicants to install hydrodynamic devices or other BMPs to remove pollutants such as floating liquids and solids, trash and debris, and coarse sediment from stormwater runoff, and to show the locations of such controls on plans submitted with the building permit application. In addition, the City requires implementation of low impact development (LID) strategies, preventative source controls, and additional stormwater treatment measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharge, as well as prevention of increase in runoff flows. The MRP requires that LID methods shall be the primary mechanism for implementing such controls. The City and Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 requirements require the project to treat 100% of the stormwater runoff with LID treatment measures. The project is also subject to hydromodification requirements per the Santa Clara County C.3 technical guidance document due to the fact that the impervious area added or replaced is more than 1 acre and because the catchment area has less than 65% imperviousness (Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 2019). The purpose of this provision is to place limits on increases in runoff peak flow, duration and volume where such increases may cause increased erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts to beneficial uses. The hydromodification requirements in the MRP and Attachment F can be summarized as follows: • Increases in runoff peak flow, volume, and duration shall be managed for all projects that create and/or replace 1 acre or more of impervious surface; • Post-project runoff rates and durations shall not exceed estimated pre-project rates and durations; • These conditions apply to areas where such increases in runoff flow or volume can cause increased erosion of creek beds and banks (as shown on hydromodification applicability maps). • hydromodification requirements do not apply to projects that discharge to hardened or tidally-influenced portions of channels, where increased discharges present minimal potential for erosion or other impacts to beneficial uses. 3.2.5 Dam Safety Programs Since 1929, the State of California has supervised all non-federal dams in California through the Dam Safety Program under the jurisdiction of the Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). The DSOD came into existence as a direct result of the failure of St. Francis Dam in southern California in 1928, causing the deaths of more than 450 people. The DSOD engineers and engineering geologists review and HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 12 March 2020 approve plans and specifications for the design of dams and oversee their construction to ensure compliance with the approved plans and specifications. Reviews include site geology, seismic setting, site investigations, construction material evaluation, dam stability, hydrology, hydraulics, and structural review of appurtenant structures. In addition, the DSOD engineers inspect over 1,200 dams on a yearly schedule to ensure they are performing and being maintained in a safe manner. Additionally, the Valley Water’s Dam Safety Program recognizes the catastrophic nature of potential dam failure and operates a comprehensive dam safety program to protect the public. The Dam Safety Program includes four main components: 1. Periodic special engineering studies 2. Surveillance and monitoring program 3. Routine inspections and maintenance activities 4. Maintaining emergency response and preparedness plans Through the water district’s dam safety program, it ensures the continued operation of its 10 major dams within the county. The water district also works closely with state and federal regulators, and downstream emergency response partners (City of Campbell 2017). 3.2.6 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act The SGMA is a package of three bills (Assembly Bill 1739, Senate Bill 1168, and Senate Bill 1319) that provides local agencies with a framework for managing groundwater basins in a sustainable manner. The SGMA establishes standards for sustainable groundwater management, roles and responsibilities for local agencies that manage groundwater resources, and priorities and timelines to achieve sustainable groundwater management within 20 years of adoption of a GSP. Central to the SGMA are the identification of critically over-drafted basins and the prioritization of groundwater basins, establishment of groundwater sustainability agencies, and preparation and implementation of GSPs for medium-priority, high-priority and critically overdrafted basins. Groundwater sustainability agencies must be formed by June 30, 2017. GSPs must consider all beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, as well as include measureable objectives and interim milestones that ensure basin sustainability. A basin may be managed by a single GSP or multiple coordinated GSPs. At the state level, DWR has the primary role in the implementation, administration, and oversight of the SGMA, with the SWRCB stepping in should a local agency be found to not be managing groundwater in a sustainable manner. DWR recently approved regulations and guidelines for implementation of the SGMA. Under SGMA Section 10733.6, a local entity (or entities) can pursue an alternative to a GSP provided that certain sustainability objectives are met. An alternative to a GSP may include “[a]n analysis of basin conditions that demonstrates that the basin has operated within its sustainable yield over a period of at least 10 years” (California Water Code Section 10733.6[b][3]). In response to SGMA, Valley Water, which has elected to become the groundwater sustainability agency for the Santa Clara Valley and Llagas Subbasins, prepared the 2016 Groundwater Management Plan to serve as the alternative to a GSP, per the requirements of California Water Code Section 10733.6(b)(3). HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 13 March 2020 3.3 Local Regulations 3.3.1 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Requirements The Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) is an association of 15 municipal agencies in the Santa Clara Valley that discharge stormwater to the lower South San Francisco Bay. Member agencies (Co-permittees) include the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, and Sunnyvale, the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, the County of Santa Clara, and Valley Water. The SCVURPPP and member agencies implement pollution prevention, source control, monitoring and outreach programs aimed at reducing pollutants in stormwater runoff, and protecting water quality and beneficial uses of the San Francisco Bay and Santa Clara Valley creeks and rivers. The SCVURPPP also promotes valuing stormwater as an important resource. The member agencies of the SCVURPPP share a common NPDES permit, i.e., the MRP, to discharge stormwater to the South San Francisco Bay. The SCVURPPP incorporates regulatory, monitoring and outreach measures aimed at reducing pollution in urban runoff to the "maximum extent practicable" to improve the water quality of South San Francisco Bay and the streams of Santa Clara Valley. 3.3.2 City of Campbell Stormwater Regulations In order to comply with Provision C.3 of the MRP, project applicants are required to submit a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) with building plans, to be reviewed and approved by the City of Campbell’s Public Works Department. The SWMP must be prepared under the direction of and certified by a licensed and qualified professional, which includes civil engineers, architects, or landscape architects. Conditions of approval for development projects include the installation and maintenance of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for site design and stormwater treatment, which must be designed per approved numeric sizing criteria. Each development project mandated to implement stormwater treatment will also require a Certification of Engineered Stormwater Treatment for New and Redevelopment Projects. The Certification of Engineered Stormwater Treatment for New and Redevelopment Projects may be obtained at the City’s Public Works Department. Owners of properties with treatment BMPs will also be required to certify ongoing operation and maintenance by filing and recording a covenant submitted to the City. In addition to implementing LID measures, the MRP also includes a provision to mitigate for hydromodification caused by increases in the volume and frequency of runoff discharges to creeks and streams. Generally, projects in highly developed urban areas are less likely to cause hydromodification. Consequently, projects located in catchment/watersheds that are already more than 65 percent impervious are exempt from this requirement. For projects in these areas that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surfaces, flow controls are required so that post-project runoff does not exceed pre-project runoff rates and durations. As noted above, the Project is subject to hydromodification requirements of the MRP (Provision C.3.g). 3.3.3 City of Campbell General Plan Policies The existing City of Campbell General Plan identifies the following policies related to hydrology and water quality: HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 14 March 2020 Open Space, Parks and Public Facilities Element GOAL OSP-9: Properly functioning storm drainage system. Policy OSP-9.1 - Drainage Facilities: Ensure that drainage facilities convey storm runoff without polluting local watercourses. Policy OSP-9.2 - NPDES: Comply with the federal Clean Water Act requirements for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits. Conservation and Natural Resources Element GOAL CNR-5: Promote high-quality drinking, surface and ground water Citywide. Policy CNR-5.1 - Water Quality Enhancement: Enhance the quality of surface water and groundwater resources and prevent their contamination. Health and Safety Element: Flooding Policy HS-5.1: Flood Regulations: Enforce flood regulations during the development review process. 3.3.4 City of Campbell Municipal Code Besides the General Plan, the City of Campbell Municipal Code is the primary tool that guides development in the city. The City’s Municipal Code identifies land use categories, site development regulations, and other general provisions that ensure consistency between the General Plan and proposed development projects. The following four chapters of the City of Campbell’s Municipal Code contain directives pertaining to stormwater: • Chapter 14.02 – Stormwater Pollution Control. The purpose of this chapter is to provide minimum requirements designed to control the discharge of pollutants into the City’s municipal storm drain system and to assure that discharges from the City’s storm drain system comply with applicable provisions of the Federal CWQ and the current NPDES Permit. • Chapter 20.56 – Drainage and Sewer Facilities. Prior to filing a final map or parcel map, the project applicant must pay fees for defraying the costs of constructing planned drainage facilities. • Chapter 20.80 – Environmental Impact and Grading and Erosion Control. Every parcel or tentative map filed with the City is conditional on compliance with requirements for grading and erosion control, including the prevention of sediment or damage to off-site property. • Chapter 21.22 – Flood Damage Prevention. The purpose of this chapter is to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions. A development permit must be obtained and reviewed by the Director of Public Works before new construction, substantial improvements, or development occurs within any area of a special flood hazard area (SFHA). The chapter also contains construction standards that must be implemented within the 100-year floodplain to protect buildings and improvements from flood damage. • Chapter 21.26 – Landscaping Requirements. This chapter implements the California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 by establishing new water-efficient landscaping and irrigation requirements. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 15 March 2020 4 Impact Analysis 4.1 Method of Analysis Impacts with respect to hydrology and water quality are assessed by comparing conditions expected under the proposed project to the existing environmental setting described above. Post-project hydrology is assessed using the HMP, grading and drainage plan, and the stormwater management plan prepared for the proposed project by the applicant’s engineering consultants (Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 2019, CEA 2019a, CEA 2019b). The analysis considers impacts on hydrology, water quality, flooding, and groundwater resources in the context of broader issues and concerns affecting the region. The study area for surface water hydrology is the Los Gatos Creek subwatershed (see Table 1), and the study area for groundwater resources is the Santa Clara Groundwater Subbasin of the Santa Clara Groundwater Basin. Actions required to implement the City’s General Plan policies related to hydrology and water quality, as enforced through the City of Campbell Municipal Code and the development approval process, are considered as components of the project in the evaluation of impacts. 4.2 Thresholds of Significance The City of Campbell uses the questions in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines as the thresholds of significance for projects requiring environmental review under CEQA (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). Therefore, according to Appendix G, a significant impact would occur if development of the Project would: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. • Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: o result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; o substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; o create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or o impede or redirect flood flows. • In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 16 March 2020 4.3 Criteria not Applicable to the Proposed Project Due to the location and characteristics of the proposed project, certain elements of the significance criteria above are not applicable and therefore are not considered potential impacts. These criteria elements are addressed briefly below and are not discussed further in this document. Alteration of a Stream or River The proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river because none are encompassed by the development footprint of the proposed project. Therefore, Impact HYD-3 addresses the potential for alteration of existing drainage patterns through the increases in the rate or volume of runoff from impervious surfaces, but not through modification of the course of a stream or river. Coastal Flooding, Tsunami, or Seiche The preconditions necessary for a project to be at risk of hazards due to coastal flood (as exacerbated by sea-level rise), tsunami, or seiche require a reasonable distance and elevation relative to a coastline (for sea-level rise or seiche) or large body of water (for seiche waves). The project is located at 275 feet amsl in elevation and is not next to a large water body subject to seiche. Therefore, there is no impact (or risk) associated with a coastal flooding, tsunami, or seiche and this issue is not further addressed. 4.4 Impacts Analysis Impact HYD-1: Would the project violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degrade surface or ground water quality? Construction The proposed project would involve approximately 2.93 acres of soil disturbance over the course of the construction phases of the Project, which would include demolition, grading and utility installations, and two phases of home construction. The most intensive soil disturbance would occur during site preparation and earthmoving activities associated with installation of underground utilities, foundation and building pad construction, and road and streetscape construction. During this period, soil erosion may result in discharges of sediment-laden stormwater runoff into nearby receiving waters. As discussed in the setting, existing runoff from the project site may pond on site, run into the City’s storm drain system along E. Mozart Avenue, and eventually (indirectly) flow into Los Gatos Creek. The primary potential pollutant associated with construction activity is sediment (i.e., high turbidity) generated from site preparation and grading activities. Although Los Gatos Creek is not listed under CWA Section 303(d) as impaired for sedimentation/siltation, a measurable increase in sedimentation/siltation from construction activities on the site could temporarily violate Basin Plan objectives, if not properly controlled. In addition to sediment, other pollutants associated with construction activity could include heavy metals, oil/grease, fuels, demolition debris and trash, and other pollutants from accidental spills or releases of refuse, paints, solvents, sanitary wastes, and concrete curing compounds. Without adequate precautions, wind and/or rain events that occur during construction HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 17 March 2020 activities could generate pollutants and/or mobilize sediment such that it contributes to water quality degradation of receiving waters and/or violates Basin Plan objectives. However, standard construction management practices, as required through the Campbell Municipal Code and the statewide Construction General Permit, would substantially minimize construction-related impacts on water quality. Campbell Municipal Code section 20.80.020 (grading and erosion control) requires approval of subdivision maps to be conditioned on implementation of appropriate grading practices and erosion controls, including the prevention of sedimentation or damage to off-site property. As described in Section 3.2.3, the Project is subject to the Construction General Permit, which would require implementation of a SWPPP to address potential construction- related impacts on water quality. The SWPPP must specify the location, type, and maintenance requirements for BMPs necessary to prevent stormwater runoff from carrying construction-related pollutants into the City’s municipal storm drain system, Los Gatos Creek, and/or the underlying groundwater basin. BMPs must be implemented to address potential release of fuels, oil, and/or lubricants from construction vehicles and equipment (e.g., drip pans, secondary containment, washing stations); release of sediment from material stockpiles and other construction- related excavations (e.g., sediment barriers, soil binders); and other construction-related activities with the potential to adversely affect water quality. The number, type, location, and maintenance requirements of BMPs to be implemented as part of the SWPPP depend on site-specific risk factors such as soil erosivity, construction season/duration, and receiving water sensitivity. SWPPPs must be developed and implemented by a Construction General Permit Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD)/Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP). The QSD/QSP is tasked with determining the receiving water risks (including beneficial uses and CWA Section 303d impairments), monitoring site activities that could pose risks to water quality, and developing a comprehensive strategy to control construction-related pollutant loads in site runoff. Based on the review of Appendix 1 of the Construction General Permit (risk determination worksheet)6, the site’s sediment risk is low whereas the receiving water risk (i.e., Los Gatos Creek) is high. This means the SWPPP will need to comply with Risk Level 2 requirements (the Construction General Permit uses a 3-tiered risk spectrum in setting minimum standards for development/implementation of SWPPPs). Minimum standard BMPs include erosion and sediment controls; site management/ housekeeping/waste management; management of non- stormwater discharges; run-on and runoff controls; and BMP inspection, maintenance, and repair activities. A rain event action plan must also be prepared by the QSD/QSP to outline the procedures to prepare the construction site for rain events and minimize the potential release of construction-related contaminants. The following list includes examples of treatment control BMPs commonly employed during construction, although these could vary based on the nature of construction activities, the characteristics of the site, and the existing receiving waters impairments (these features would appear as notes on any final design plans): • Silt fences installed along limits of work and/or the construction site • Stockpile containment (e.g., visqueen, fiber rolls, gravel bags) • Exposed soil stabilization structures (e.g., fiber matrix on slopes and construction access stabilization mechanisms) • Street sweeping 6 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 18 March 2020 • Tire washes for equipment • Runoff control devices (e.g., drainage swales, gravel bag barriers/chevrons, velocity check dams) and slope protection • Drainage system inlet protection • Wind erosion (dust) controls • Tracking controls • Prevention of fluid leaks (inspections and drip pans) from vehicles • Materials pollution management • Proper waste management (e.g., concrete waste management) • Regular inspections and maintenance of BMPs Based on the local groundwater levels described in the setting (i.e., 20 – 30 feet bgs), subsurface excavations and/or utility trenches are not expected to encounter groundwater. Therefore, water quality issues associated with groundwater dewatering discharges are not anticipated. The standard requirements contained in a SWPPP, and enforced through the Campbell Municipal Code Chapter 14.02 (Stormwater Pollution Control) and Chapter 20.80 (Environmental Impact and Grading and Erosion Control), are sufficient to address a project’s potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction. The construction-related impact of the project on water quality would be less than significant, because existing permitting requirements and conditions of approval are sufficient to avoid water quality degradation, meet water quality standards and Basin Plan objectives, and prevent adverse effects on beneficial uses. Operation Constituents found in urban runoff vary because of differences in rainfall intensity and occurrence, geographic features, the land use of a site, and vehicle traffic and percent of impervious surface. In the Santa Clara Valley, there is a natural weather pattern of a long dry period from May to October. During this seasonal dry period, pollutants contributed by vehicle exhaust, vehicle and tire wear, crankcase drippings, spills, and atmospheric fallout accumulate on roadways, driveways, and parking lots within the urban watershed. Precipitation during the wet season (which typically spans from November to April) washes these pollutants into the stormwater runoff, which can result in elevated pollutant concentrations, particularly in the initial wet weather runoff (i.e., “first flush”), but also throughout the wet season. Under existing conditions, the Project site consists of four single-story homes fronting E. Mozart Avenue and several outbuildings located in a large area behind the existing homes with storage sheds, trailers, containers, carports/garages, and other materials/equipment, which is exposed to stormwater and discharged to the municipal storm drain system without any form of retention or treatment. Implementation of the proposed project would include the development of impervious surfaces, including roofs, streetscapes, and structures that—in the absence of adequate design measures—could impede water infiltration and contribute to increased water runoff rates. Increased water runoff rates and/or volumes are a water quality HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 19 March 2020 concern because they can gather potential pollutants such as sediment, metals, nutrients, bacteria, oil, grease, and organic compounds sometimes associated with residential uses (e.g., fluid leaks from parked cars, improper refuse storage, landscaping chemicals, pet waste, etc.). Table 5 provides a comparison of pre- and post-Project land cover, indicating an increase in impervious surface coverage from 10% presently to 53% upon full buildout of the Project. The increase in impervious surface associated with the Project would have been 5% greater, were it not for the use of permeable pavers for residential driveways. Table 5 Comparison of Pre- and Post-Project Land Cover Description Pre-Project Condition in acres (% of total) Post-Project Condition in acres (% of total) Pervious Areas Landscape 1.32 (45%) 1.21 (41%) Unpaved Driveway 1.32 (45%) -- Permeable Pavers -- 0.16 (5%) Subtotal 2.64 (90%) 1.38 (47%) Impervious Areas Roof 0.22 (8%) 0.9 (31%) Paved Driveway 0.07 (2%) -- Roads -- 0.39 (13%) Sidewalks and Streets -- 0.15 (5%) Parking -- 0.12 (4%) Subtotal 0.29 (10%) 1.55 (53%) TOTAL 2.93 2.93 Source: Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 2019. The Project site would be re-graded such that stormwater runoff from all portions of the site would be directed to area drains and curb inlets into the on-site drainage system, which would carry runoff to a southeasterly extension of the municipal storm drain line along E. Mozart Avenue (Figure 4) (CEA 2019b). Water quality design features included in Project plans consist of an inline Continuous Deflection Separation (CDS) Unit (also referred to as a hydrodynamic separator) and a storm capture infiltration chamber designed to retain 10,920 cubic feet, in accordance with MRP requirements (described in Section 3.2.4). The purpose of the CDS unit is to pre-screen flows for floatable, trash and suspended solids. The infiltration chamber was designed based on the infiltration rate of 3 inches/hour determined through geotechnical testing of the project site, and would be 8 feet deep with an area of 1,365 square feet. It would allow infiltration of stormwater generated from Project-related increases in impervious surfaces to recharge the underlying groundwater aquifer. As shown in Figure 4, these features would treat and retain stormwater runoff from all parts of the developed Project site prior to discharge into the municipal storm drain system. In addition to these design features, the Project’s Stormwater Management Plan includes pollutant source control measures consisting of 1) stenciling “no dumping – flows to bay” on all storm inlets, 2) placing splashblocks beneath all roof drains in a location that is away from building foundations and near unpaved areas where practical, and 3) sweeping sidewalks regularly to minimize the accumulation of litter and debris. As part of the Project’s HMP, Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers (2019) determined the mitigated post- project flow rates for the 2-, 5- and 10-year storm events using the BAHM to be 0.47, 1.26, and 1.4 cfs, respectively. Table 6 provides a comparison of pre-Project and mitigated post-Project flow rates, and indicates that flow rates HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 20 March 2020 would decrease relative to pre-project conditions, effectively avoiding hydromodification impacts to receiving waters. Table 6 Flow Rates (cubic-feet per second) Flow Frequency Pre-Project Mitigated Post-Project 2 Year 0.99 0.47 5 Year 1.40 1.26 10 Year 1.66 1.40 Sources: Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers 2019. Review of the Project’s HMP, grading and drainage plan, and the stormwater management plan indicate that the Project’s proposed stormwater design is feasible and effective in meeting the standards, performance criteria and numeric sizing requirements contained in the MS4 Permit, the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook, and Chapter 14.02 of the Campbell Municipal Code (described in Section 3.9.3, Regulatory Setting). These plans would be reviewed and approved by the City of Campbell’s Public Works Department as a condition of tentative map approval, and the applicant would be required to certify appropriate ongoing operation and maintenance of the proposed site design and stormwater treatment BMPs by filing and recording a covenant submitted to the City. Impacts associated with Project operation on water quality would therefore be less than significant, because existing permitting requirements and conditions of approval are sufficient to avoid water quality degradation, meet water quality standards and Basin Plan objectives, and prevent adverse effects on beneficial uses. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact HYD-2: Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The project does not propose any on-site groundwater wells, nor would it indirectly result in the off-site construction of groundwater wells. The regional static groundwater level underlying the proposed project is estimated to be between 20 and 30 feet bgs, based on regional monitoring (DWR 2019a). Therefore, construction excavations are not anticipated to intercept the groundwater table. Although the project would include impervious surfaces that impede groundwater recharge, runoff from those impervious surfaces would be directed to a subsurface infiltration system designed to promote recharge of the underlying aquifer. Therefore, potential impacts to groundwater supplies or to sustainable groundwater management would be limited to the indirect impacts from the water demand for the proposed project. The water demand for the proposed project would be served by SJWC. SJWC has a large 139-square-mile service area consisting of 225,299 municipal connections that serves a population of 983,000 people (SJWC 2016). On average, groundwater consists of one third of the SJWC’s water supply portfolio; for the 5-year period between 2011 and 2015, SJWC has supplied between 12,346 and 18,804 acre-feet of groundwater to its service area (SJWC 2016). The amount of groundwater utilized depends on the availability of local surface water supplies and the amount available for purchase from water wholesalers, which, for the area, consists of Valley Water. Groundwater use increases during drought periods to compensate for the loss of surface water availability. The 2015 Urban HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 21 March 2020 Water Management Plan incorporates land use and population projections in its water supply reliability and water shortage contingency planning. Because the proposed project does not involve a regional population increase sufficient to affect the growth assumptions or methodology of the SJWC’s 2015 UWMP, the available water supply would be sufficient to serve the proposed project (SJWC 2018). Although the Project would change the zoning from R-1-6 (single family residential with a 6,000 square foot lot size minimum) to Planned Development of 25 units, the overall use (residential) remain the same, albeit with a moderate increase in density. However, the increase in water demand associated with the Project is not expected to be substantial, given the use of water efficient fixtures and updated plumbing codes, and implementation of the City’s water-efficient landscape ordinance (Campbell Municipal Code Chapter 21.26). The conclusions of the UWMP regarding the sufficiency of future water supplies and the efficacy of water conservation programs and drought contingency planning would be unaffected by the proposed project. As indicated in Section 2.2, Valley Water monitors the Santa Clara Subbasin for groundwater level trends. On average, groundwater supplies and groundwater levels have remained stable. Given the proposed project would consist of only 25 water supply connections out of SJWC’s 225,299 municipal connections, it would have a negligible and less-than-significant impact with respect to the sustainable management of the groundwater basin. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact HYD-3: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area through the addition of impervious surfaces resulting in erosion or siltation on- or off-site; increasing the rate or amount of surface runoff resulting in flooding on- or off-site; contributing runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows? Alterations to drainage patterns would be limited to increases in the rate and volume of runoff associated with impervious surfaces. As discussed in Impact HYD-1 and shown in Table 5, the project will be developed with approximately 1.55 acres of impervious surfaces, resulting in an impervious percentage of 53% compared to 10% under existing conditions. Increases in the rate and volume of storm runoff can be associated with exceedance of local storm drain capacity, increases in on- or off-site flooding, and/or hydromodification impacts to receiving waters, which include increased bank erosion or contribution of site-related pollutants. Because the project would not alter the course of a stream or river and is not located within the SFHA of Los Gatos Creek, it would not impede or redirect flood flows. Potential impacts associated with increases in the rate and/or volume of runoff produced by the project are addressed below. Substantial Erosion or Siltation On or Off Site As discussed under Impact HYD-1, the proposed project would be constructed to capture, store and infiltrate runoff from the site in a subsurface infiltration system designed to meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit and the SCVPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. Because the increase in runoff produced from site development would be routed underground, there would be a less than significant impact with regard to increased erosion or siltation on or off site. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 22 March 2020 Increases in On- or Off-Site Flooding Because the development footprint of the project is not located within a FEMA SFHA, the project would not result in increases in on- or off-site riverine flooding. However, the project site is located within the dam inundation zone for the Lenihan Dam and Lexington Reservoir (SCVWD 2016). Based on Valley Water’s modeling, a failure of the dam would result in a flood arrival time of roughly 1 hour, with peak flow depths occurring only 20 minutes thereafter and maximum flood depths of between 29 and 35 feet (SCVWD 2016). Given the project site is roughly 30 feet above the creek channel, dam failure could result in several feet of flooding on the project site. The Lexington Reservoir and Elsman Lake are under the jurisdiction of the DSOD. The dams have been assessed for seismic stability and have been deemed capable to withstand the maximum credible earthquake. The probability of dam failure is extremely low and the City of Campbell and Santa Clara County have never been impacted by a major dam failure. Dams in California are continually monitored by various governmental agencies, including the DSOD, which conducts inspections twice a year and reviews all aspects of dam safety. Dam owners are also required to maintain Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) that include procedures for damage assessment and emergency warnings. In addition, Valley Water addresses the possibility of dam failure in its Hazard Mitigation Plan, which also provides emergency response actions (SCVWD 2017). Furthermore, in the extremely unlikely event of a catastrophic flood of this nature, development of the Project as proposed does not increase the severity or extent of the flooding that dam failure would produce relative to off-site properties or the general public. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death in the case of dam failure and impacts are considered to be less than significant. Stormwater Drainage System Capacity As discussed under Impact HYD-1, the proposed project would be constructed with a subsurface infiltration system designed to meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit and the SCVPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook. The underground chambers have a combined 10,920 cubic feet cubic feet of storage capacity, which is sufficient to match (and actually reduces) the pre-Project runoff rate for the 10-year peak flow (Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, 2019). Under existing conditions, runoff from the site is carried untreated and unstored to surface street curbs and eventually to the storm drain along E. Mozart Avenue. For these reasons, the impact of the project on existing stormwater drainage system capacity would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact HYD-4: Would the project release pollutants during flooding? The project site would be subject to flooding only in a highly unlikely, catastrophic scenario as described under Impact HYD-3 (Increases in On- or Off-Site Flooding). Because the project consists of single-family residences (as opposed to industry or businesses that store appreciable quantities of hazardous materials and/or wastes), the risk of releasing pollutants during such flooding would be low. The Project site may store small quantities of household hazardous wastes or e-wastes, but such wastes would be stored in interior/enclosed spaces and would not be released in a catastrophic flood scenario. Similarly, solid waste (i.e., trash bins) would be stored in an HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 23 March 2020 enclosed space that would minimize the risk of release during a dam failure inundation. For these reasons the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact HYD-5: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? As discussed under Impact HYD-1, the project would comply with applicable regulations and permits designed to comply with the Basin Plan. The SWPPP and stormwater management plan to be developed and implemented in compliance with the Campbell Municipal Code, Construction General Permit, and MRP would be effective at meeting water quality objectives of the Basin Plan. As discussed under Impact HYD-2, Valley Water is currently achieving sustainable groundwater management under an alternative GSP submittal (SCVWD 2016). For the reasons discussed therein, the groundwater demand of the project would not have an appreciable impact on sustainable management of groundwater within the Santa Clara Subbasin. Therefore, the impact of the project on water quality and groundwater management plans would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 24 March 2020 5 Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program Because project does not result in significant impacts on hydrology and water quality, no mitigation measures are required. Accordingly, no Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program elements are recommended for hydrology and water quality. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 25 March 2020 6 References BkF. 2005. Plan and Profile, Street Improvement Plans-Off Site, Project Address: E. Mozart Avenue (200-225 Beethover Lane), Tact No. 9679/Enc. Permit No. 2005-00035. Dated 8/4/2005. CEA (Civil Engineering Associates). 2019a. Mozart Avenue Grading and Drainage Plan, Campbell, California. Sheet C7. Dated 11/14/2019. CEA (Civil Engineering Associates). 2019b. Mozart Avenue Stormwater Management Plan, Campbell, California. Sheet C9. Dated 11/14/2019. City of Campbell. 2017. Envision Campbell General Plan Update, Existing Conditions Report. January 2017. https://campbell.generalplan.org/ City of Campbell. 2020. City of Campbell GIS Public Use Viewer. Storm Drain Layer. Available at http://www2.lynxgis.com/campbellpublic accessed 1/2/2020. DWR (California Department of Water Resources). 2019a. SGMA Data Viewer. Water Level Data for Local Well IDs. 08S01W03K013 and 07S01W35L016. Accessed December 23, 2019. https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer. DWR. 2019b. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2018 Basin Prioritization. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR- Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/ Basin-Prioritization/Files/2018-Sustainable-Groundwater-Management-Act-Basin- Prioritization.pdf?la=en&hash=B9F946563AA3E6B338674951A7FFB0D80B037530. FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Administration). 2020. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette. FIRM Map No. 06085C0239H. Accessed 1/16/2020. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=16179%20N.%20MOZART%20AVENUE%2C%20CAM PBELL%2C%20CALIFORNIA#searchresultsanchor. Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers. 2019. Preliminary Mozart Site Hydromodification Analysis. November 19, 2019. SCVWD 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. October 2017. SCVWD (Santa Clara Valley Water District). 2016. Lenihan (Lexinton) Dam Flood Innundation Maps (CA DWR Dam ID# 72-008), Sheet 4. Map (scale 1:2,000). April 2016. SCVWD (Santa Clara Valley Water District). 2016. 2016 Groundwater Management Plan, Santa Clara and Llagas Subbasins. November 2016. SFB RWQCB (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2017. San Francisco Bay Basin (Region 2) Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). May 4, 2017. SJWC (San Jose Water Company). 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. June 2016. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 26 March 2020 SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2020. “Final 2014/2016 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report).” Accessed January 27, 2020. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtm. USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2020. The National Map Viewer. Web Map Service. Accessed January 27, 2020. http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer. Valley Water 2020. Valley Water Open Data. Public platform accessed at http://data-valleywater.opendata.arcgis.com/, on January 27, 2020. Date: 1/2/2020 - Last saved by: dduverge - Path: Z:\Hydro\Projects\12422 Mozart Avenue\MXD\FINAL_MXD\Figure 1 - Receiving Waters.mxd%L Project Site !(^ Receiving Waters Map Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis - 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California SOURCE: USGS National Map (Basemap); Valley Water 2019 0 21 Milesn %L Storm Drain OutfallKirk Dam (Valley WaterFlashboard Diversion toPercolation Ponds)Los Gatos Creek Watershed Guadalupe River Watershed Dowstream ReceivingWaters Storm DrainLos Gatos CreekGuadalupe RiverWaterbodies Lake/ReservoirPercolation PondsSalt PondsSan Francisco BayOther Creeks FIGURE 1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 28 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 1/10/2020 - Last saved by: dduverge - Path: Z:\Hydro\Projects\12422 Mozart Avenue\MXD\FINAL_MXD\Figure 2 - Site Topography and Drainage.mxd"?B!!2 !!2 "?B !!2 !!2 !!2 "?B gW !!2 "?B 280 270 2 6 5 250 255 245 260 250 270265300290280275265260260255280275280275260240 255260 285 255 280 2 8 0280 270 2 5 0 2 8 5 280 275 270270260 245 Existing Conditions Drainage Map Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis - 16179 E. Mozart Avenue, Campbell, California SOURCE: City of Campbell 2019 (Storm Drainage); Valley Water 2019 (Lidar) 0 260130Feetn Project BoundaryIndex Contour (5 foot) Intermediate Contour (1foot)Drainage Direction HMP Storm DrainCatchment AreaMunicipal StormwaterFacilities "?B Catch Basin / Curb Inlet !!2 Manhole gW Outfall Municipal Storm DrainLinesStormwater Basin FIGURE 2 To Los Gatos Creek #####KilmerAvenue E.MozartAvenueBeethovenLane EmersonAvenueLongfellowAvenueHolmesAvenueSBascomAvenue·|}þ ·|}þ 17 85 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 30 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 2/4/2020 - Last saved by: dduverge - Path: Z:\Hydro\Projects\12422 Mozart Avenue\MXD\FINAL_MXD\Figure 3 - Flood Hazards.mxdFlood Hazards Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis - 16179 N. Mozart Avenue SOURCE: FEMA 2020; SCVWD 2016 0 0.250.125 Milesn Project BoundaryFIRM Panels FEMA Special Flood HazardArea (100-Year Flood Zone) Lenihan (Lexington) DamInnundation Zone (Approx.) FIGURE 3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 32 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Date: 1/16/2020 - Last saved by: dduverge - Path: Z:\Hydro\Projects\12422 Mozart Avenue\MXD\FINAL_MXD\Figure 4 - Proposed Conditions Drainage Map.mxdProposed Conditions Drainage Map Hydrology and Water Quality Analysis - 16179 N. Mozart Avenue SOURCE: Shaaf & Wheeler 2019 0 5025FeetnProject BoundaryDrainage Plan Features Storm Drain Pipe Area Drain Pipe !@ Area Drain $1 Inline ContinuousDeflection Separation(CDS) Unit #0 Curb Inlet; Curb inlet !H Manhole ChambermaxxStorage/Infiltration Chamber Pervious Pavement FIGURE 4 Connection toMunicipal StormDrain !(^ Inline CDS Unit Storm Capture Infiltration Chamber13 units (10,920 CFS total volume) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS – 16179 E. MOZART AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 12422 34 March 2020 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT 10 ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE STUDY 16179 East Mozart Avenue Los Gatos, CA Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Prepared for: Richard Yee Robson Homes 2185 The Alameda, Suite 150 San Jose, CA 95126 Email: ryee@robsonhomes.com Prepared by: Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. Alexander K. Salter, PE 130 Sutter Street, Floor 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415.397.0442 Fax: 415.397.0454 Email: asalter@salter-inc.com Salter Project Number: 19-0412 16179 East Mozart Avenue Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Page 2 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes our environmental noise study for the 16179 East Mozart Avenue project in Los Gatos, California. The purpose of the study is to determine the noise environment at the site, compare the measured data with the applicable City and State standards. We have also been asked to evaluate potential noise impacts generated by the project such as traffic, mechanical equipment, and construction noise. This report summarizes the results of our study. The project consists of 25 single-family lots, each with two to three-story structures. The project site is located directly north of East Mozart Avenue and is bordered by existing residential on three sides and medical offices to the east. Highway 17 is approximately 590 feet to the west and Highway 85 is approximately 475 feet to the south. The City of Campbell is the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) on the project. In summary, interior noise levels would be reduced to meet City and State standards by incorporating sound-rated assemblies at exterior building facades. A CEQA analysis has also been performed at the request of the City and is included in the Appendix. This analysis indicates that potential noise impacts created by the project can be mitigated. ACOUSTICAL CRITERIA The City of Campbell establishes guidelines, regulations, and policies designed to limit noise exposure at noise-sensitive land uses. The State of California also limits indoor noise levels in residential units. In addition, the City Environmental (CEQA) Review document received 8 July 2019 requires compliance with State CEQA guidelines, used to determine whether a project will have a significant impact on the existing environment. The applicable criteria are as follows: State of California – California Building Code (CBC) The California Building Code regulates exterior noise insulation for residential uses. Part 1 of the Supplement to the California Building Code, effective 1 July 2015, requires that the indoor noise level in residential units of multi-family dwellings not exceed DNL 45 dB where the exterior noise level is greater than DNL 60 dB. City of Campbell – Noise Section of the General Plan The City of Campbell establishes the following noise goals and policies. To summarize interior noise goals, new residential developments shall conform to a stationary source noise exposure standard of 65 dBA for exterior noise levels and 45 dBA for interior noise levels due to stationary sources, and to a traffic-related noise exposure standard of 60 dBA CNEL1 for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA CNEL for indoor noise. 1 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. CNEL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. CNEL penalizes sound levels by 5 dB during the hours from 7 PM to 10 PM and by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the CNEL and DNL are usually interchangeable. 16179 East Mozart Avenue Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Page 3 Noise Goals and Policies Applicable noise goals and policies contained in the Conservation and Natural Resources Element of the General Plan are as follows: Noise Goal CNR-10: Protect the community, especially sensitive noise receptors such as schools, hospitals and senior facilities, from excessive noise. Policy CNR-10.1: Noise Reduction: Reduce noise levels at the source. Strategy CNR-10.1a: Noise Ordinance: Adopt and strictly enforce a Noise Ordinance that establishes noise standards for various noise-sensitive land uses and for all Zoning Districts. Strategy CNR-10.1b: Minimization of Noise Exposure and Generation: Encourage practices and technologies that minimize noise exposure and noise generation in new development and redevelopment. Strategy CNR-10.1c: Noise and New Development: Evaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development proposals. Noise from Stationary Sources: New residential development shall conform to a stationary source noise exposure standard of 65 dBA for exterior noise levels and 45 dBA for interior noise levels. Acoustical studies shall be required for all new noise-sensitive projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary sources. Where existing stationary noise sources exceed the City’s noise standards, mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise exposure to or below the allowable levels of the Noise Ordinance. Traffic-Related Noise: New residential development shall conform to a traffic-related noise exposure standard of 60 dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA CNEL for indoor noise. New development, which does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard shall not be permitted. Acoustical studies, describing how the Conservation and Natural Resources Element CNR-21 exterior and interior noise standards will be met, shall be required for all new residential developments with a noise exposure greater than 60 dBA CNEL. The studies should also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24, part 2, of the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for multiple-family attached residential projects, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24. Table CNR-2: Traffic-Related Noise Conditions at General Plan Buildout should be used as the basis to initially identify areas with potential excessive noise exposure. Strategy CNR-10.1d: Noise Mitigation Measures: Review and require noise mitigation measures for development projects, including setbacks between uses, earth berms, sound walls, landscaping and site design that shields noise- sensitive uses with non-sensitive structures such as parking lots, utility 16179 East Mozart Avenue Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Page 4 areas and garages, or orients buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources. Strategy CNR-10.1e: Construction Noise Mitigation: Require mitigation measures during construction, including limits on operating times of noise-producing activities (including vehicles). Strategy CNR-10.1f: Sound Walls: In cases where sound walls are used as mitigation, they should be encouraged to help create an attractive setting with features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, pedestrian access (if appropriate) and landscaping. City of Campbell Municipal Code Section 21.16.070 (Noise) of the City’s Municipal Code states the following:  New residential development shall conform to a stationary source noise exposure standard of sixty- five dBA for exterior noise levels and forty-five dBA for interior noise levels.  New residential development shall conform to a traffic-related noise exposure standard of sixty dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and forty-five dBA CNEL for indoor noise. New development that does not and cannot be made to conform to this standard shall not be allowed.  Acoustical studies are required for all new noise-sensitive projects that may be affected by existing noise from stationary sources, including all new residential developments with a noise exposure greater than 60 dBA CNEL.  Where acoustical studies show that existing stationary noise sources exceed, or will exceed maximum allowable noise levels, mitigation shall be identified to reduce noise exposure to or below the allowable levels of this chapter. Mitigation measures may include increased setbacks between uses, earth berms, sound walls, landscaping, and site design that shields noise-sensitive uses with non- sensitive structures, (e.g., parking lots, utility areas and garages), or orientation of buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources. In cases where sound walls are used as mitigation, they should be encouraged to help create an attractive setting with features such as setbacks, changes in alignment, detail and texture, pedestrian access (if appropriate) and landscaping.  Private construction (e.g., construction, alteration or repair activities) between the hours of eight a.m. and five p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of nine a.m. and four p.m. Saturday, in compliance with Section 18.04.052 of the Municipal Code. The community development director may impose further limitations on the hours and day of construction or other measures to mitigate significant noise impacts on sensitive uses.  Powered equipment shall be limited to the hours of eight a.m. and seven p.m. Monday through Friday, and between the hours of nine a.m. and six p.m. Saturday, Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. Section 18.04.052 (Hours of construction – Time and noise limitations) of the City’s Municipal Code states the following:  Construction activity shall be limited to the hours of eight a.m. and five p.m. daily, Monday through Friday. Saturday hours of construction shall be nine a.m. and four p.m. There shall be no construction activity on Sundays or National Holidays.  No loud environmentally disruptive noise over fifty dbs., such as air compressors without mufflers, continuously running motors or generators, loud playing musical instruments or radios will be allowed 16179 East Mozart Avenue Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Page 5 during the authorized hours of construction, Monday through Saturday, where such noise may be a nuisance to adjacent residential neighbors. Such nuisances shall be discontinued.  Exemptions: o Construction activity is permitted for homeowner permits, when the work is being performed by only the owner of the property, provided no construction activity or loud noises are conducted prior to six a.m. or after seven p.m., Monday through Saturday, and prior to eight a.m. or after six p.m. on Sundays or National Holidays. o Where emergency conditions exist, as determined by the building official, construction activity or construction noise may be permitted at any hour or day of the week. Such emergencies shall be completed as rapidly as possible to prevent any disruption to the residential neighborhood. o When the building official determines that construction activity and/or construction noises will not be detrimental to the adjacent neighbors, an exception to the time of work activity may be granted to the general contractor who shall be responsible for controlling the site for loud disruptive noises as described above. Hours of operation shall be determined by the building official on a case-by-case basis. NOISE ENVIRONMENT To quantify the existing noise environment, we conducted noise measurements at the site between 25 and 27 June 2019. The noise monitors used for these measurements were RION model NL-52 Type 1 integrating sound level meters. We placed noise monitors at two long-term continuous locations (L1 and L2), as well as three 15-minute spot locations (S1 through S3). Measurement Locations L1 and L2 were chosen to determine the noise levels generated by traffic on East Mozart Avenue vs. traffic on Highways 17 and 85, respectively. Short term measurement locations were chosen to determine how the noise level changed at the various property lines bordering the site. A summary of the long-term and short-term acoustical measurement locations are listed below in Table 1, and shown in the attached Figure 1. A traffic study has not been provided for this project. For our calculations, we have added 1 decibel to the expected noise levels to account for future traffic increases.2 2 Caltrans assumes a traffic volume increase of three-percent per year, which corresponds to a 1 dB increase over ten years. In the absence of City data, we have used this same formula for the local roads. 16179 East Mozart Avenue Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Page 6 Table 1: Existing Ambient Noise Measurements Monitor Location Height above grade Date / Time Measured Noise Levels L1 Approximately 20 feet from the center of East Mozart Avenue 12-feet 25 to 27 June 2019 63 dB DNL L2 Approximately 350 feet from the center of East Mozart Avenue, 710 feet from the centerline of Highway 17, and 870 feet from the centerline of Highway 85 60 dB DNL S1L* East Property Line: Approximately 920 feet from the centerline of Highway 17, and 755 feet from the centerline of Highway 85 5-feet 27 June 2019 3:45 – 4:00 pm 58 dB DNL S1H* 16-feet 59 dB DNL S2L* North Property Line: Approximately 800 feet from the centerline of Highway 17, and 915 feet from the centerline of Highway 85 5-feet 27 June 2019 4:11-4:24 pm 53 dB DNL S2H* 16-feet 60 dB DNL S3L* West Property Line: Approximately 600 feet from the centerline of Highway 17, and 830 feet from the centerline of Highway 85 5-feet 27 June 2019 4:35-4:50 pm 52 dB DNL S3H* 16-feet 56 dB DNL *Calculated using 15-minute offsets from the long-term monitors The dominant noise source at the site is traffic from Highways 17 and 85. During our measurements, there was activity on site from West Valley Arborists’ trucks currently occupying the space, as well as Geotech performing environmental measurements. These activities have been removed from our measurements. INTERIOR NOISE Based on the Progress Plans dated 8 July 2019, which show floor plans and the proposed building elevations, and the Site Plan dated 25 June 2019, interior noise levels may exceed the State Building Code and City of Campbell General Plan requirements. To reduce interior noise levels to meet these requirements, the following should be incorporated. Window and exterior door STC3 ratings needed to meet the interior DNL 45 dB criteria should be as shown in Figures 2 through 4. Our calculations are based on the following assumptions:  All rooms will have hard-surfaced flooring  Ceilings will be minimum 8-feet high throughout the residences 3 STC (Sound Transmission Class) – A single-number rating defined in ASTM E90 that quantifies the airborne sound insulating performance of a partition under laboratory conditions. Increasing STC ratings correspond to improved airborne sound insulation. 16179 East Mozart Avenue Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Page 7  Exterior walls will be equivalent to 3-coat stucco over wood sheathing, wood studs with batt insulation in stud cavities, with at least 1 layer of gypsum board on the interior (approximately STC 45) STC ratings for selected assemblies should be based on laboratory testing performed in accordance with ASTM E-90 and comprise the entire window or door assembly, including the frame. If non-tested assemblies are to be used, an acoustical consultant must review the glazing and frame submittals, and the STC rating of the glass may need to be increased. For reference purposes, a typical one-inch insulated, dual-pane window achieves an STC rating of approximately 28 to 30. Where STC ratings above STC 34 are required, typically at least one pane will need to be laminated, however, this depends on the specific window manufacturer. Because windows must be closed to achieve the interior noise criteria, an alternate means of providing outside air (e.g., fresh-air exchange units, HVAC, Z-ducts, etc.) to habitable residential spaces should be considered for building facades exposed to an exterior DNL of 60 dB or greater. Operable windows are still acceptable provided they are not being relied upon to provide fresh air to the units. This applies to all facades. EXTERIOR NOISE The City of Campbell General Plan policies state that exterior noise levels are to be reduced to CNEL 60 dB at primary outdoor-use areas. Where the outdoor-use areas are completely shielded acoustically from the roadways by the building structures, we estimate that noise levels will be at or below CNEL 60 dB. The project includes a outdoor activity area and tot lot in the middle of the project, which would be considered a “noise sensitive outdoor activity area” per the City’s General Plan. Noise levels at this area are expected to DNL 60 dB or below and no further mitigation is needed. * * * This concludes our current comments, let us know if you have any questions or comments. 16179 East Mozart Avenue Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Page 8 APPENDIX CEQA ANALYSIS As required by the City of Campbell, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) contains guidelines to evaluate the significance of noise attributable to a proposed project. This would include added traffic noise, mechanical equipment noise, and construction noise. CEQA asks the following applicable questions. Would the project: a) Expose people to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies; b) Expose people to or generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; c) Create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; d) Create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project; e) For projects within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public-use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. CEQA does not define the noise level increase that is considered substantial. Typically, an increase in the day-night average noise level4 (DNL) of 3 dB5 or greater at noise-sensitive receptors would be considered significant when projected noise levels would exceed those considered satisfactory for the affected land use. An increase of 5 dB or greater would be considered significant when projected noise levels would continue to meet those considered satisfactory for the affected land use. Local guidelines (e.g., City Municipal Codes and General Plan would also apply). Items b, e, and f do not apply to the project as vibration is not a significant concern, and there is no airport or airstrip within the vicinity. Furthermore, noise exposure related to future residents of the project pursuant to item a) has been addressed in the main portion of the report above. Remaining items are addressed as follows. Mechanical Noise The air conditioners in each lot will generate sound power levels of approximately 72 dB6 each, and are shielded by 6-foot tall wooden fencing around each lot’s perimeter. Including a sound power to sound 4 DNL (Day-Night Average Sound Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. DNL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the nighttime hours. DNL penalizes sound levels by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the DNL and CNEL are usually interchangeable. DNL is sometimes written as Ldn. 5 dB (Decibel) – A unit that describes the magnitude of a sound with respect to a reference sound level near the threshold of hearing. Decibels are based on a logarithmic scale and therefore cannot be added arithmetically. 6 Sound rating for Carrier Comfort™ Series Air Conditioner <https://www.utcccs-cdn.com/hvac/docs/1010/Public/09/01-824- 106-25.pdf> 16179 East Mozart Avenue Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Page 9 pressure conversion factor of 15 dB7 at 7 feet, the estimated noise level due to these heat pumps is 57 dB at the nearest property planes, which is 7 feet to the south (commercial), and 7 feet to the north (residential). This is not expected to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels and complies with the City of Campbell exterior Noise Ordinance of not exceeding 65 dBA. Mitigation Measures Required: None Construction Noise The construction phasing of the job will include demolition, site preparation, excavating and grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating. Construction equipment could include tractors, loaders, and backhoes during demolition and site preparation, excavators during demolition, excavation, and grading, a rubber tired dozer and scraper during excavation and grading, large equipment such as lifts, saws, and pumps during building construction, and surfacing and paving equipment during paving. Due to the close proximity of adjacent residential properties, construction noise may be audible and create temporary increases in noise levels. Since, noise levels will vary significantly depending on the location and duration of specific construction activities, it is difficult to accurately estimate future construction noise levels that would impact the nearby residences. Therefore, noise measurements can be conducted as needed based on complaints during construction to confirm noise levels and determine if mitigation is required in line with the City’s General Plan Strategy CNR-10.1e. The following construction noise mitigation measures could be implemented to reduce this noise at nearby residential receivers if noise levels prove to exceed the following. Section 21.16.070.E.1 of the City Municipal Code - 65 dBA at the property line Section 18.04.052 of the City Municipal Code – 50 dBA at the property line for air compressors without mufflers, continuously running motors or generators, loud playing musical instruments or radios Increase in the DNL by 3 dB where noise levels would be at or above DNL 60 dB; increase in DNL by 5 dB, where noise levels remain below DNL 60 dB. Potential Mitigation Measures: 1. Schedule and Hours: Per section 18.04.052 of the City Municipal Code, construction is limited to between the hours of 8am and 5pm, Monday through Friday, and between 9am and 4pm on Saturdays. Demolition and loud activities should be limited to Monday through Friday. 2. Site Perimeter Barriers: If needed, provided sound-rated barriers should be constructed around the northwest and northeast property lines, as shown in Figure 1. Since many of the neighboring residences are two-stories and close to the property line, it is impractical to provide barriers tall enough to shield second story windows. We recommend barriers be 8-ft tall and constructed with either two layers of ½-inch thick plywood (joints staggered) and K-rail or other support; or a limp mass barrier material weighing two pounds per square foot such as Kinetics KNM-200B or equivalent. The construction team should work closely with the neighboring residences to monitor any noise complaints received, and incorporate additional measures as feasible on a case by case basis. 7 Laymon Miller – Noise Control for Buildings and Manufacturing Plants, Table 6-3 16179 East Mozart Avenue Environmental Noise Study 4 September 2020 Page 10 3. Stationary Equipment Local Barriers: If needed, provide localized barriers around stationary equipment such as air compressors that break line-of-sight to neighboring properties. 4. Generators: Locate generators far away from noise-sensitive receivers, as feasible. If necessary, generator noise could be reduced by providing sound-rated enclosures and exhaust mufflers or by providing a local noise barrier. 5. Construction Equipment: Where necessary, provide exhaust mufflers on pneumatic tools. All equipment should be properly maintained. 6. Truck Traffic: Minimize truck idling and require trucks to load and unload materials in the construction areas, as opposed to idling on local streets. If truck staging is required, locate the staging area along major roadways with higher traffic noise levels or away from the noise-sensitive receivers such as East Mozart Avenue. Trucks should be shut off when waiting to enter the site. 7. Methods: Consider means to reduce the use of heavy impact tools and locate these activities away from the property line as feasible. Other methods, including drilling, could be employed if noise levels are found to be excessive. 8. Notification and Confirmation: Notify neighbors of extreme noise generating activities including the estimated duration of the activity, construction hours, and contact information. Project-Generated Traffic Noise The project traffic study indicates that up to 27 new PM peak hour trips will be generated by the project. This corresponds to a DNL of approximately 51 dBA at a distance of 20-feet from the roadway centerline8. Existing measured noise levels along E Mozart Avenue at a similar setback are 63 dBA, which is significantly higher. Therefore, project generated traffic noise would not result in a significant increase as compared to existing conditions. Mitigation Measures Required: None 8 Noise level assumes a maximum speed of 25 mph. ATTACHMENT 11 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Traffic Impact Analysis Report 16179 East Mozart Avenue Residential Development August 20, 2020 Campbell, California 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | i Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Project Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Study Area................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1 Study Intersections............................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 Analysis Scenarios .................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Planning Context ......................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 North 40 Development .......................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Good Samaritan Hospital Expansion ................................................................................................................................ 8 2.3 Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Study ....................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Pruneyard Shopping Center Expansion .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.0 Existing Conditions.................................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Existing Setting and Roadway System ...........................................................................................................................10 3.2 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ..............................................................................................................................................10 3.3 Existing Bicycle Facilities......................................................................................................................................................11 3.4 Existing Transit Facilities ......................................................................................................................................................11 3.5 Existing Site Conditions .......................................................................................................................................................13 3.6 Signal Warrant Analysis.......................................................................................................................................................13 4.0 Project Trip Generation, Signal Warrants, and Alternatives ............................................................... 1 6 4.1 Project Trip Generation ........................................................................................................................................................16 4.2 Signal Warrant Analysis – Existing Plus Project ..........................................................................................................17 4.3 E. Mozart Avenue and Bascom Avenue Alternatives ...............................................................................................17 5.0 Additional Analyses ................................................................................................................................... 19 5.1 Parking Analysis ......................................................................................................................................................................19 5.2 Site Access and On-Site Circulation................................................................................................................................19 5.3 Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit impacts .......................................................................................................................20 5.4 Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) ...................................................................................................20 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | ii 5.5 Potential Cut-Through at Medical Office Complex ..................................................................................................22 5.6 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) ............................................................................................................................................22 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 24 Tables Table 1: Existing VTA Service ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Table 2: Vehicle Cut-Through Traffic ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Table 3: Existing Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis ......................................................................................................... 14 Table 4: Project Trip Generation .................................................................................................................................................. 16 Table 5: Existing Plus Project Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis ................................................................................ 17 Table 6: TIRE Index Thresholds based on ADT....................................................................................................................... 21 Table 7: TIRE Analysis – Existing Plus Project ......................................................................................................................... 21 Figures Figure 1: Vicinity Map ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: Project Site Plan ................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 3: Existing Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities .............................................................................................. 12 Figure 4: Existing Traffic Controls and Lane Geometry ...................................................................................................... 15 Appendices Appendix A – Historical Turning Movement Counts Appendix B – Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Signal Warrant Appendix C – Traffic Infusion on Residential Environmental (TIRE) Index Methodology 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of the Focused Traffic Impact Analysis (FTIA) conducted for the proposed 25 single-family homes with 5 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) located at 16179 Mozart Avenue in the City of Campbell. The study area is located in southeast Campbell, bordering the Town of Los Gatos and City of San Jose. The report also includes evaluations and recommendations concerning project site access and on-site circulation for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Additional analysis includes signal warrant analysis and Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) Index. To evaluate the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of traffic from the proposed project, multiple planned developments were reviewed to determine the growth that is likely to occur along Bascom Avenue. TJKM evaluated two intersection alternatives for E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue that would allow left-turns from E. Mozart Avenue onto Bascom Avenue. Project Trip Generation The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 16 weekday a.m. peak hour trips (4 inbound trips, 12 outbound trips), and 23 weekday p.m. peak hour trips (15 inbound trips, 8 outbound trips). Existing Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis The results of the signal warrant analysis shows that the intersection of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue does not meet the MUTCD peak hour warrant during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. Existing plus Project Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis The results of the signal warrant analysis shows that the intersection of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue does not meet the MUTCD peak hour warrant during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue Alternatives One alternative to modify E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue is to signalize the intersection and modify the median to allow left-turns from E. Mozart onto Bascom Avenue. Coordination with the City of San Jose and Caltrans would be required in order to coordinate the signals along the SR 85 ramps. However, signalization may be unlikely due to the limited storage length between the existing southbound stop bar at Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB Ramps and E. Mozart Avenue. Another alternative would be to keep the existing intersection control and just modify the median to allow left-turns onto Bascom Avenue from E. Mozart Avenue. However, the potential queue from southbound Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB Ramps may overflow into E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue and prevent vehicles from making the left-turn onto Bascom Avenue. TJKM recommends not signalizing the intersection nor modifying the median; instead keep the existing intersection configuration of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue due to safety hazards and the close proximity to the Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB Ramps. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 2 Parking The proposed parking supply of 71 spaces is expected to satisfy the anticipated demand of 55 parking spaces. The project would also install a curb and sidewalk that would allow for parking along E. Mozart Avenue. However, to establish adequate sight distance, TJKM recommends installing 15 feet of red curb on both sides of the project driveway. Site Access and On-Site Circulation The proposed vehicular access to the project site is via a 20 foot wide driveway located along E. Mozart Avenue. Sidewalks will be constructed along the project frontage to allow for pedestrian access. Based on a preliminary review of the project site plan, the site access and on-site circulation is considered adequate. Pedestrian Impacts The proposed project will also provide internal walkways and striped crosswalks. The proposed project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian facilities; therefore, the impact to pedestrian facilities is less than significant. Bicycle Impacts The project is does not conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities; therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities is less than significant. Transit Impacts The project site is within walking distance to two VTA bus stops, which can connect users to local and regional locations. Impacts to transit service are expected to be less than significant. Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) Index Based on the initial TIRE Index analysis, the project is expected increase the existing TIRE index by 0.3, resulting in traffic volume increases that will be noticeable to five residences on E. Mozart Avenue. Even with the additional project traffic, E. Mozart Avenue will have sufficient capacity to accommodate existing and project traffic. Potential Cut-Through at Medical Office Complex Motorists can cut through a nearby medical office complex parking lot to save time. TJKM determined this to be a minor problem. However, the following measures could be considered; 1. Install signage that prohibits left-turns into the driveway and right-turns from the driveway, or 2. Close the driveway with traffic barricades or a gate so that vehicles would have to use E. Mozart Avenue to enter or exit the neighborhood. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 3 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) To lessen the significance of VMT impacts, the following proposed mitigations can be implemented. 1. Install wayfinding signs for the existing nearby bike and pedestrian facility 2. Install bike route signs and sharrows along E. Mozart Avenue 3. Construct sidewalks along the project frontage 4. Install a Bus Shelter on Bascom Avenue near the project 5. Provide introductory VTA Transit Passes for initial residents 6. Provide Fair Share contributions for recently completed bike lanes and pedestrian improvements on Bascom Avenue. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of the FTIA for the proposed residential development located at 16179 E. Mozart Avenue in the City of Campbell. 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to develop 25 single-family dwelling units and 5 ADUs on an approximately 3 acre lot. The project also proposed to construct a paved sidewalk along the project frontage on E. Mozart Avenue. The new single-family dwelling units will be constructed after 5 existing homes have been demolished. The project entrance will consist of one 20 foot driveway along E. Mozart Avenue. The project site is located in the southeast Campbell, bordering the Town of Los Gatos and City of San Jose. E. Mozart Avenue is the only access road to the project site, which is located approximately 100 feet north of the signalized intersection of Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB On/Off Ramps. The following section discusses the FTIA Purpose, study intersections, and analysis scenarios. 1.2 PROJECT PURPOSE The purpose of the FTIA is to evaluate the impacts on the transportation infrastructure due to the addition of the traffic from the proposed project. The report also includes evaluations and recommendations concerning project site access and on-site circulation for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, parking supply, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis. 1.3 STUDY AREA The study area is located at 16179 E. Mozart Avenue in City of Campbell. The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated for the intersection discussed below. 1.3.1 STUDY INTERSECTIONS TJKM evaluated traffic conditions at one study intersection during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours for a typical weekday. The study intersection was selected in consultation with the City of Campbell staff. The peak periods were between 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. The study intersection and associated traffic control is as follows: 1. Bascom Avenue/E. Mozart Avenue (One-Way Stop) Figure 1 illustrates the study intersection and the vicinity map of the proposed project. Figure 2 shows the proposed project site plan. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 5 1.4 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS TJKM evaluated the following planned developments and improvements within the Town of Los Gatos and cities of San Jose and Campbell to determine what level of peak hour traffic growth is likely to occur along Bascom Avenue and how that traffic would affect the recommendations for both E. Mozart Avenue and the SR 85 Ramp intersections. TJKM evaluated potential improvements to the intersection of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue. Additional analysis included signal warrant analysis and TIRE Index. N 16179 E. Mozart Avenue 050-019 | 08/13/20 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Beethoven Ln.S Bascom Ave.Ashbrook Cir.Aquila Ave.E M o z a r t A v e . Heca t e C t . Apsi s C t . Lasc a r P l . Lom e n t P l . Brownin g A v e .White Oaks Rd.Kilm e r A v e . Lor e t a L n .Longfellow Ave.Emerson Ave.Kilmer Ave.85 85 85 17 17 Project Site X Study Intersection Project Access LEGEND x 1 N16179 E. Mozart Avenue 050-019 | 08/13/20 Figure 2: Site Plan 0 20 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 8 2.0 PLANNING CONTEXT This chapter discusses relevant planned developments and improvements within the Town of Los Gatos, City of San Jose, and City of Campbell. The following is a list of planned major developments near the project site: x North 40 Development (Town of Los Gatos) x Good Samaritan Hospital Expansion (City of San Jose) x Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Study (VTA) x Pruneyard Shopping Center Expansion (City of Campbell) TJKM used the information provided in these studies to determine what level of peak hour traffic growth is likely to occur along Bascom Avenue and if there are any planned improvements to Bascom Avenue and the SR 85 Ramps near the project site. 2.1 NORTH 40 DEVELOPMENT The North 40 development plans to develop 44 acres of land in the Town of Los Gatos. The project area is bounded by Highway 85, Lark Avenue, Highway 17, and Los Gatos Boulevard. The project site is divided into 3 districts: Lark District, Transition District, and Northern District. The project consists of single-family homes, apartment units, condominium units, a shopping center, a hotel, and medical and general office space. The project is expected to be built in various phases. When the development is built-out, the project will add approximately 58 trips to E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue during the a.m. peak hour, which is a 3% increase in peak hour trips to the intersection. During the p.m. peak hour, the project will add 144 trips to the study intersection, equal to a 6% increase. Based on the North 40 Specific Plan TIA (Fehr & Peers, March 2014), there are no significant impacts nor recommended improvements to the intersections of Bascom Avenue and SR 85 Ramps. 2.2 GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL EXPANSION The Good Samaritan Hospital Expansion Project proposes a total of 475,250 square feet of medical office space to be built on two sites along Samaritan Drive. Project access will be provided by Samaritan Court/Samaritan Drive and various existing driveways. When the hospital expansion is built-out, the project will add 95 peak hour trips to E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue during the a.m. peak hour, which is equal to 5% increase in peak hour trips. In the p.m. peak hour, the project will add 160 trips to the intersection, which is a 7% increase in peak hour trips. Based on the Samaritan Medical Campus Development Plan (Hexagon Transportation Consultants, May 2016), there are no significant impacts nor recommended improvements to the intersections of Bascom Avenue and the SR 85 Ramps. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 9 2.3 BASCOM AVENUE COMPLETE STREETS STUDY The Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Study is joint effort among VTA, the City of San Jose, the City of Campbell, and the County of Santa Clara to identify roadways to implement complete street elements along Bascom Avenue. The study area is the entire length of Bascom Avenue, from SR-85 in the south to Interstate 880 in the north. The project goals are to: 1. Transform Bascom Avenue into a high-quality multimodal corridor that serves all users. 2. Address user needs related to multimodal access, safety and connectivity. 3. Evaluate opportunities to improve transit travel times and amenities 4. Develop conceptual designs for short-and-long-term improvements along the corridor. 5. Coordinate analysis and designs with previous studies and initiatives 6. Help local agencies acquire funding for individual Complete Streets projects. While the Final Plan has not been made publicly available, bike lanes have been installed along both sides of Bascom Avenue near the project vicinity. 2.4 PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER EXPANSION The Pruneyard Shopping Center Expansion Project proposed to develop the following additions to the already existing land uses within The Pruneyard: x 18,600 square feet of retail x 12,000 square feet of retail/office (Option A) or 30,000 square foot fitness center (Option B) x 100,000 square feet of office space with 2-levels of underground parking x Expansion of the existing parking structure x The conversion of 3,000 square feet of retail space into restaurant space The proposed project is not expected to generate trips near the project vicinity, therefore there were no significant impacts nor were improvements recommended for Bascom Avenue and SR 85 Ramp intersections. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 10 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS This section describes existing conditions in the immediate project site vicinity, including roadway facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and available transit service. In addition, existing site conditions were discussed, including the results of the signal warrant analysis. 3.1 EXISTING SETTING AND ROADWAY SYSTEM Regional roadway facilities providing access to the proposed residential development is provided via Highway 17 and Highway 85. Local access to the proposed project is provided via Bascom Avenue and E. Mozart Avenue. Highway 17 is generally a four to six-lane north-south regional state highway that connects San Jose and Santa Cruz. The speed limit is 65 miles per hour (mph). In the project vicinity, Highway 17 primarily consists of mixed-flow lanes. Highway 85 is generally a six-lane east-west regional state highway in Santa Clara County that connects South San Jose to Mountain View. The speed limit is 65 mph. Roadway geometry consists of 2 mixed-flow lanes and 1 carpool lane in both directions in the project vicinity. Bascom Avenue is generally a six-lane north-south city connector street that extends from Samaritan Drive in South San Jose to Interstate 880 near the City limits of San Jose and Santa Clara. Bascom Avenue provides regional access to office complexes, shopping centers, and residential land uses. The speed limit in the study area is 40 mph. E. Mozart Avenue is a two-lane east-west residential street that provides access to southbound Bascom Avenue. The primary land uses along E. Mozart Avenue is a medical office complex and single-family homes. The speed limit is 25 mph. 3.2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Walkability is defined as the ability to travel easily and safely between various origins and destinations without having to rely on automobiles or other motorized travel. The ideal “walkable” community includes wide sidewalks, a mix of land uses such as residential, employment, and shopping opportunities, a limited number of conflict points with vehicle traffic, easy access to transit facilities and services and a network of pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian facilities are comprised of crosswalks, sidewalks, pedestrian signals, and off-street paths, which provide safe and convenient routes for pedestrians to access the destinations such as institutions, businesses, public transportation, and recreation facilities. Currently, there is no existing paved sidewalk along the project frontage. From the project site plan, it appears that the project will construct a new sidewalk to improve the pedestrian facility network. Within the project site, the project will provide a paved walkway. At the intersection of E. Mozart Avenue and South Bascom Avenue, there is a striped crosswalk available. The signalized intersection of Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB On/Off Ramp has striped crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads. The north leg provides a pedestrian median-island refuge for crossing Bascom Avenue. Both sides of Bascom Avenue provide paved sidewalks. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 11 The existing pedestrian facilities in the study area are shown in Figure 3. 3.3 EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES The 2018 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Countywide Bicycle Plan outlines policies and objectives to improve the current active transportation system that includes walking and biking. The various bicycle facilities throughout the county are described below. Existing bicycle facilities are illustrated in Figure 3. x Class I Bike Path: Class I Bike Paths are a completely separate right-of-way designed for the exclusive use of cyclists and pedestrians, with minimal crossings for motorists. In the project vicinity, there is a pedestrian-bicycle overpass that connects E. Mozart Avenue to the Los Gatos Creek County Park. x Class II Bike Lanes: Class II Bicycle Lanes provide dedicated roadway space for bicyclists. Bike lanes are designated using pavement markings, striping, and signs. Class II Bike Lanes are currently present along both sides of Bascom Avenue near the project vicinity. x Class III Bikeways/Bike Routes: Class III Bicycle Routes are streets specifically designated for bicyclists to share with motor vehicle traffic. Bike routes are typically designated using signage and pavement markings. x Class IV Cycle Tracks: Cycle tracks are bike lanes physically separated from motor vehicle traffic by a vertical barrier. The vertical barriers can include an adjacent parking lane, median or raised curb. Cycle tracks can be one-way or two-way. 3.4 EXISTING TRANSIT FACILITIES VTA provides transit service throughout Santa Clara County. The project site is located within walking distance to two bus stops. Table 1 summarizes the existing VTA service and Figure 3 illustrates the existing transit facilities in the study area. Table 1: Existing VTA Service Route From To Weekdays Weekends Operating Hours Headway (minutes) Operating Hours Headway (minutes) 61 Sierra & Piedmont Good Samaritan Hospital 7:15 A.M. – 8:59 P.M. 20-51 minutes 7:15 A.M. – 8:59 P.M. 20-51 minutes Source: VTA Website N 16179 E. Mozart Avenue 050-019 | 08/13/20 Figure 3: Existing Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Facilities Beethoven Ln.S Bascom Ave.Ashbrook Cir.Aquila Ave.E M o z a r t A v e . Hec a t e C t . Apsi s C t . Lasc a r P l . Lom e n t P l . Brownin g A v e .White Oaks Rd.Kilm e r A v e . Lor e t a L n .Longfellow Ave.Emerson Ave.Kilmer Ave.85 85 85 17 17 Project Site X Study Intersection Project Access LEGEND x 1 Bus Stop Sidewalk Gap Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass Route 61 Existing Class II Bike Lane Marked Crosswalk Marked School Crosswalk 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 13 3.5 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Currently, the intersection of Bascom Avenue/E. Mozart Avenue is a right-in/right-out roadway. Figure 4 illustrates the existing intersection geometry. The intersection is immediately adjacent to the Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB On/Off Ramp, resulting in space for one car to queue at the ramp before traffic backs up to E. Mozart Avenue. For vehicles wanting to travel northbound from E. Mozart Avenue, they would have to turn right onto Bascom Avenue and make a U-turn at the intersection of Bascom Avenue/SR 85 SB On/Off Ramp. Vehicles would have approximately 330 feet to merge from the number three lane to the number one lane so that they may be able to use the number one left-turn lane. This maneuver is possible, but it may be difficult during the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. If vehicles fail to U-turn at Bascom Avenue/SR 85 SB On/Off Ramp, the next signalized intersection that vehicles can legally U-turn would be at Los Gatos Boulevard/Enterprise Driveway about 1,500 feet further south. Similarly, vehicles travelling northbound along Bascom Avenue wanting to turn left onto E. Mozart Avenue would have to U-turn at Bascom Avenue/White Oaks Road or U-turn anywhere prior to the intersection along the two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) and proceed southbound to be able to turn right on E. Mozart Avenue. During a public meeting about the project, a comment was made about vehicles cutting through the medical office complex, particularly from the outbound vehicles wanting to travel northbound on Bascom Avenue from E. Mozart Avenue and from the inbound vehicles travelling northbound on Bascom Avenue wanting to turn left onto E. Mozart Avenue. TJKM conducted a field observation during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour to observe the amount of cut-through traffic through the medical office complex. Table 2 summarizes the amount of vehicle cut-through. Table 2: Vehicle Cut-Through Traffic Peak Hour Inbound to E. Mozart Avenue Outbound from E. Mozart Avenue A.M. 0 3 P.M. 2 5 Existing parking supply along E. Mozart Avenue appears to be adequate as parking on both sides of E. Mozart Avenue is allowed. 3.6 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS Traffic signal warrants are a series of standards that provide guidelines for determining if a traffic signal is appropriate. Signal warrant analyses are typically conducted at intersections of uncontrolled major streets and stop sign-controlled minor streets. If one or more signal warrants are met, signalization of the intersection may be appropriate. However, a signal should not be installed if none of the warrants are met, since the installation of signals would increase delays on the previously uncontrolled major street, and may increase the occurrence of particular types of accidents. As stated in the 2014 edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), “An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical characteristics of the location shall be 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 14 performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location. The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants and other factors related to existing operation and safety at the study location.” This Existing Condition analysis did not evaluate the full panoply of warrants for traffic signals, but instead focused on the peak hour warrant. The MUTCD states that, “This (peak hour) signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial complexes, or high- occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of vehicles over a short time.” So the peak hour warrant is being used in this impact analysis study as an “indicator” of the likelihood of an unsignalized intersection warranting a traffic signal in the future. Intersections that exceed the peak hour warrant are considered (for the purposes of this impact analysis) to be likely to meet one or more of the other signal warrants (such as the four-hour or eight-hour warrants). This peak hour analysis is not intended to replace a rigorous and complete traffic signal warrant analysis by the responsible jurisdiction. Even if the Peak Hour Volume Warrant is met, a more detailed signal warrant study is recommended before a signal is installed. The more detailed study should consider volumes during the daily peak hours of roadway traffic, pedestrian traffic, and accident histories. Using historical turning movement count data (2017) for E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue and the expected growth along Bascom Avenue determined from the various Traffic Studies mentioned in Chapter 2, TJKM projected 2020 turning movement volumes using a 1.3% and 1.2% annual growth rate for the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, respectively. The historical turning movement counts for E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue is located in Appendix A. The results of the peak hour warrant under existing conditions are summarized in Table 3. The results show that the study intersection does not meet the MUTCD Peak hour warrant during the a.m. or p.m. peak period. Existing Conditions peak hour signal warrant analysis work sheets are provided in Appendix B. Table 3: Existing Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis Intersection Control Existing Conditions Meets AM Peak Hour? Meets PM Peak Hour? E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue One-Way Stop No No N 16179 E. Mozart Avenue 050-019 | 08/13/20 Figure 4: Existing Traffic Controls and Lane Geometry Beethoven Ln.S Bascom Ave.Ashbrook Cir.Aquila Ave.E Mo z a r t A v e . Hec a t e C t . Apsi s C t . Lasc a r P l . Lom e n t P l . Brownin g A v e .White Oaks Rd.Kilm e r A v e . Lor e t a L n .Longfellow Ave.Emerson Ave.Kilmer Ave.85 85 85 17 17 Project Site X Study Intersection Project Access LEGEND x 1 E. Mozart Ave./Bascom Ave. E. Mozart Ave.Bascom Ave.1 Stop SignSTOP STOP 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 16 4.0 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION, SIGNAL WARRANTS, AND ALTERNATIVES The project trip generation, signal warrant analysis and potential alternatives for E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue are discussed in this chapter. First, the method used to estimate the amount of traffic generated by the project is described. 4.1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TJKM developed estimated project trip generation for the proposed project based on published trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation (10th Edition). TJKM used published trip rates for the ITE land use Single-Family Detached Housing, General Urban/Suburban (ITE Code 210), as this land use most closely matches the proposed development project. For the five ADUs, TJKM used one-half of the trip rates from the Single-Family Detached Housing (ITE Code 210) to estimate trips for that specific land use. Trip credits were applied to the trip generation as 5 existing single-family homes are currently present on site. Table 4 shows the trip generation expected to be generated by the proposed project. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 16 weekday a.m. peak hour trips (4 inbound trips, 12 outbound trips), and 23 weekday p.m. peak hour trips (15 inbound trips, 8 outbound trips). Table 4: Project Trip Generation Proposed Land Uses (ITE Code) Units Daily AM Peak PM Peak Rate In/out % In/out Total Rate In/out % In/out Total Rate Trips Single-Family Detached Housing, General Urban/Suburban (ITE Code 210)¹ 25 DU 9.44 236 0.74 25/75 5/14 19 0.99 63/37 16/9 25 Accessory Dwelling Units 5 ADUs 4.72 24 0.37 25/75 0/1 1 0.50 63/37 2/1 3 Existing Single- Family Detached Housing, General Urban/Suburban (ITE Code 210)1 5 DU 9.44 -47 0.74 25/75 -1/-3 -4 0.99 63/37 -3/-2 -5 Total Net Trips 213 4/12 16 15/8 23 Source - ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (2017). 1Single-Family Detached Housing, General Urban/Suburban (ITE Land Use Code 210) vehicle trip rates are based upon number of dwelling units. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 17 4.2 SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS – EXISTING PLUS PROJECT The results of the peak hour signal warrant under Existing Plus Project Conditions are summarized in Table 5. The results show that the intersection of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue does not meet the peak hour warrant in the a.m. and p.m. peak hour. Existing Conditions peak hour signal warrant analysis work sheets are provided in Appendix B. Table 5: Existing Plus Project Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis Intersection Control Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project Conditions Meets AM Peak Hour? Meets PM Peak Hour? Meets AM Peak Hour? Meets PM Peak Hour? E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue One-Way Stop No No No No 4.3 E. MOZART AVENUE AND BASCOM AVENUE ALTERNATIVES Signalization of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue with Median Modification With the increase in trips originating from E. Mozart Avenue, there will be drivers whose destination requires them to travel northbound along Bascom Avenue. As previously mentioned under Existing Conditions, the quickest way to travel northbound on Bascom Avenue would be to make a U-turn at Bascom Avenue/SR 85 SB Ramps. One potential alternative to decrease the travel time for drivers wanting to travel northbound would be signalize the intersection of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue. It should be noted that the intersection did not meet the peak hour signal warrant under Existing or Existing Plus Project Conditions. Under this alternative, the existing median would need to be modified to allow left-turns from E. Mozart Avenue and left-turns from northbound Bascom Avenue onto E. Mozart Avenue would continue to be prohibited. Coordination with the City of San Jose and Caltrans would be required in order to coordinate the traffic signals between E. Mozart Avenue and the SR 85 NB/SB Ramps. The signalization of the study intersection may be unlikely due to the limited storage length between the existing southbound stop bar at Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB Ramps and E. Mozart Avenue. The storage length is approximately one car length. TJKM does not recommend signalization of this intersection. Existing Intersection Control with Median Modification Another potential alternative would be to keep the existing intersection control and to only modify the median to allow left-turns onto northbound Bascom Avenue from E. Mozart Avenue. Vehicles turning from E. Mozart Avenue will be able to use the provided TWLTL to accelerate and merge into Bascom Avenue. However, the potential queue from southbound Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB Ramps may overflow into E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue and prevent vehicles wanting to travel northbound along Bascom Avenue. Appropriate signage would be required to prohibit left-turns from Bascom Avenue onto E. Mozart Avenue. However due to the potential safety hazards with this alternative, TJKM does not 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 18 recommend modifying the median to allow left turns from E. Mozart Avenue. The existing intersection configuration should be maintained. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 19 5.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES The following sections provide additional analyses of other transportation issues associated with the project site, including: x Parking Analysis x Site access and onsite circulation x Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Impacts x Traffic Infusion on Residential Environmental (TIRE) Index x Reducing Cut-Through Traffic Through Medical Office Complex x Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) The analyses in these sections is based on professional judgment in accordance with the standards and methods employed by traffic engineers. Although operational issues are not considered CEQA impacts, they do describe traffic conditions that are relevant to the project environment. 5.1 PARKING ANALYSIS The proposed project has proposed to construct 25 single-family homes and 5 ADUs. The City of Campbell parking requirement is 2 spaces for each single-family unit. The City parking requirement for the ADUs is one space per unit. The total amount of parking required for the proposed development is 55 parking spaces. Based on the site plan (dated July 26, 2019), 71 parking stalls will be provided. The project would also install a curb and sidewalk that would also allow for parking along E. Mozart Avenue. However, to establish adequate sight distance for vehicles leaving the project’s main driveway, TJKM recommends installing 15 feet of red curb on both sides of the driveway to increase sight distance to approaching traffic. 5.2 SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION Site Access The proposed vehicular access to the project site is via a 20 foot wide driveway located along E. Mozart Avenue. Sidewalks will be constructed along the project frontage to allow for pedestrian access. On-Site Circulation In terms of external access, the project conceptual plan shows the driveways that the proposed project would use. The driveways do not have any turning restrictions and appear to accommodate two-way travel. The proposed internal roadway width is 20 feet, which satisfies aisle width for two-way circulation on low volume private streets. The parking stalls within the project site are a combination of parallel and perpendicular stalls. The project will also develop a paved sidewalk and crosswalks so that pedestrians may be able access the homes located on the inner parcel. Fire Trucks will be able to access the project site through the proposed driveway and there is adequate room for them to circulate through the site. The project should verify that garbage trucks will have 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 20 sufficient room to circulate through the site. Based on a preliminary review of the project site plan, the site access and on-site circulation is considered adequate. 5.3 PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND TRANSIT IMPACTS Pedestrian Access Pedestrian access to the project site will be facilitated by existing sidewalks on E. Mozart Avenue and Bascom Avenue as well as proposed walkways within the project site. Pedestrians may also use the SR-17 overpass that connects E. Mozart Avenue and Los Gatos Creek County Park. There is existing street lighting that is adequate. The proposed development project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian facilities; therefore, the impact to pedestrian facilities is less than significant. Bicycle Access In terms of bicycle access to the project site, there are currently existing Class II bicycle facilities along Bascom Avenue. E. Mozart Avenue does not have any existing bicycle facilities. Bicycles may also use the SR-17 overpass that connects E. Mozart Avenue and Los Gatos Creek County Park. The project does not conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities; therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities is less than significant Transit Access The project site is within walking distance to two VTA bus stops located on Bascom Avenue. The bus stops provide local access and can connect to regional transit stations. The existing pedestrian facilities in the project vicinity provide adequate connectivity for pedestrians to the transit stops. Impacts to transit service are expected to be less than significant. 5.4 TRAFFIC INFUSION ON RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT (TIRE) Residential areas tend to be especially sensitive to traffic because relatively small increases in traffic can impact the livability of the neighborhood. TIRE is the measure of traffic impact on residents along a roadway. The TIRE Index is derived from a theory by D.K. Goodrich, based on work by Professor Appleyard of the University of California at Berkeley, and by Buchanan of the Ministry of Transport, England. TIRE is based on the hypothesis that a given increase in traffic volume has a greater impact on the residential environment along a roadway with a low traffic volume, than along a roadway with a high pre-existing volume. TIRE represents the effect of traffic on the safety and comfort of human activities, such as walking, bicycling, and playing on or near a roadway, and on the freedom to maneuver personal autos in and out of residential driveways. The TIRE index is based on daily traffic conditions and uses average daily traffic (ADT) volumes to determine the amount of daily traffic that could be added to a roadway before residents would perceive the increase in traffic. The amount of daily traffic that can be added before residents would notice directly correlates to the amount of daily traffic already present on the roadway. The TIRE Index scale ranges from 0.0 to 5.0, depending on daily traffic volume. An index of 0.0 represents the least infusion of traffic. An index of 5.0 represents the greatest traffic volume, and thereby the poorest residential environment. A roadway with a TIRE value of 3.0 or greater is considered to exhibit a significantly impaired residential environment, while roadways with a TIRE value below 3.0 are usually more suitable for residential 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 21 activities. The projected difference between a pre and post-project TIRE value is the predicted impact of the project on a residential environment. Any projected change of 0.1 or greater would be noticeable to residents. An increase in index of 0.1 corresponds to an approximate increase in ADT of between 20% and 30%. Appendix C contains a detailed description of the TIRE index methodology. Table 6 provides an abbreviated list of the TIRE Index thresholds for different ADT ranges. The TIRE Index analysis is provided for informational purposes only. Table 6: TIRE Index Thresholds based on ADT Existing Volume Range (Vehicles Per Day) TIRE Index Minimum Daily Traffic Volume Increase to Produce a 0.1 Change in the TIRE Index a 0.2 Change in the TIRE Index 29-35 1.5 +6 +15 36-44 1.6 +8 +20 45-56 1.7 +10 +25 57-70 1.8 +13 +32 71-89 1.9 +17 +41 90-110 2.0 +22 +52 111-140 2.1 +29 +65 141-180 2.2 +40 +80 181-220 2.3 +52 +100 221-280 2.4 +65 +125 281-350 2.5 +79 +160 351-450 2.6 +97 +205 451-560 2.7 +114 +260 561-710 2.8 +140 +330 711-890 2.9 +170 +415 891-1,100 3.0 +220 +520 Source: Goodrich Traffic Group, based on curve shapes found in work by Donald Appleyard at the University of California, Berkeley and in consideration of earlier thoughts by Buchanan of the Ministry of Transport, England. The existing ADT for E. Mozart Avenue was estimated using the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) publication Trip Generation (10th Edition) for the existing 28 homes near the project vicinity. It was determined that there would be 264 daily trips from the existing homes. The results of the TIRE Index analysis for the Existing plus Project are shown in Table 7. Table 7: TIRE Analysis – Existing Plus Project Segment Existing Project Trips1 0.1 Change in TIRE Index ADT TIRE Index Volume Noticeable Change in Traffic E. Mozart Avenue 264 2.4 213 65 Yes 1Project trips are the total net trips generated from the proposed project. Based on the initial TIRE analysis, the project is expected increase the existing volumes of 264 vehicles per day to 477 daily trips. This would change the TIRE index from 2.4 to 2.7, an increase of 0.3. However, the 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 22 resulting traffic volume increases will be noticeable only to five residences on E. Mozart Avenue. It should be noted that E. Mozart Avenue has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional project traffic. 5.5 POTENTIAL CUT-THROUGH AT MEDICAL OFFICE COMPLEX As previously mentioned, there are a few vehicles that use the parking lot for the existing medical office complex as a short cut to travel northbound on Bascom Avenue from E. Mozart Avenue or by inbound vehicles travelling northbound on Bascom Avenue wanting to turn left onto E. Mozart Avenue. Even though cut-through volumes are very low, TJKM suggests consideration of two measures that may deter or prevent vehicles using the parking lot. 1. Installing Signing – The City of Campbell can install R3-1 (right-turn prohibited) and R3-2 (left- turn prohibited) to prohibit vehicles turning right from the parking lot onto E. Mozart Avenue and prohibit vehicles turning left into the parking lot from E. Mozart Avenue. The City may choose to only prohibit the turns during hours the medical offices are open. TJKM observed a low amount of existing residents that are driving through the parking lot. Enforcement of these signs will be necessary in order to deter vehicles from using the parking lot to exit the neighborhood. However, it should be noted that enforcement of such regulations would be a very low priority for enforcement personnel. 2. Closing the Driveway – Alternatively, the driveway along E. Mozart Avenue may be closed altogether with the placement of traffic barricades or a gate during business hours. It should be noted that the City wouldn’t initiate the closure of a private driveway. The closure of the driveway would ensure that vehicles would use E. Mozart Avenue for ingress/egress during the a.m. and p.m. peak periods. Any full or partial closure would likely need to be initiated by the medical office building management. This driveway is very lightly used by the medical office users and employees, so another option is to convert it to emergency uses only. 5.6 VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) Compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 743 will include replacement of LOS with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for purposes of assessing traffic impacts under CEQA beginning in July 2020. Compliance with Senate Bill (SB) 743 will include replacement of LOS with VMT for purposes of assessing traffic impacts under CEQA described in new Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines that will be apply statewide beginning on July 1, 2020. Lead agencies will have discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate a project’s vehicles miles traveled, including whether to express the change in absolute terms, per capita, per household or any other measure. VMT refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel “attributable to a project”. The City of Campbell has a draft VMT Policy to comply with SB 743. For residential land use projects, “a proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the existing Campbell citywide average VMT per Capita shall be presumed to cause a significant transportation impact.” TJKM utilized the draft Campbell VMT Policy and determined that the project would require mitigation measures to lessen the significance of these impacts. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 23 Mitigations To substantially lessen VMT impacts caused by the proposed project, the following mitigations can be implemented. 1. Wayfinding Signs – Install wayfinding signs at E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue, at the west end of the Mozart Avenue cul-de-sac, and at the foot of the pedestrian-bicycle overpass. These signs would familiarize potential users with the existing pedestrian/bicycle network. 2. Bike Route Signs and Sharrows – Designate E. Mozart Avenue as a bike route and install signs and sharrows. These installations will close the gap between the existing bike lanes along Bascom Avenue and the pedestrian-bicycle overpass. 3. Sidewalks – Install sidewalks along the project frontage to close the existing gap on Mozart Avenue. This will promote walking by project residents and others. 4. Bus Shelter – Install a bus shelter at the bus stop along Bascom Avenue across from E. Mozart Avenue. This is subject to VTA approval but is consistent with VTA’s Bascom Avenue Complete Streets Study. This will encourage new residents and others to use public transit by providing a bench and shade. 5. VTA Transit Passes – Provide introductory VTA Transit Passes to project residents. This can be administered by the Homeowner’s Association (HOA). Providing VTA transit passes is intended to encourage residents to try transit and build a habit. 6. Fair Share Contribution – Contribute fair share funding to recently constructed bicycle and pedestrian improvements including the bike lanes on Bascom Avenue between Camden Avenue and SR 85 and ADA-compliant curb ramp upgrades between Camden Avenue and SR 85. It is the opinion of TJKM that the implementation of these measures would substantially lessen the significant VMT impacts associated with this project. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 24 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Project Trip Generation The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 16 weekday a.m. peak hour trips (4 inbound trips, 12 outbound trips), and 23 weekday p.m. peak hour trips (15 inbound trips, 8 outbound trips). Existing Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis The results of the signal warrant analysis shows that the intersection of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue does not meet the MUTCD peak hour warrant during the a.m. or p.m. peak period. Existing plus Project Conditions Signal Warrant Analysis The results of the signal warrant analysis shows that the intersection of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue does not meet the MUTCD peak hour warrant during the a.m. or p.m. peak period. E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue Alternatives One alternative to modify E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue is to signalize the intersection and modify the median to allow left-turns from E. Mozart onto Bascom Avenue. Coordination with the City of San Jose and Caltrans would be required in order to coordinate the signals along the SR 85 ramps. However, signalization may be unlikely due to the limited storage length between the existing southbound stop bar at Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB Ramps and E. Mozart Avenue. Another alternative would be to keep the existing intersection control and just modify the median to allow left-turns onto Bascom Avenue from E. Mozart Avenue. However, the potential queue from southbound Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB Ramps may overflow into E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue and prevent vehicles from making the left-turn onto Bascom Avenue. TJKM recommends not signalizing the intersection nor modifying the median and keeping the existing intersection configuration of E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue due to safety hazards and the close proximity Bascom Avenue/SR 85 NB Ramps. Parking The proposed parking supply of 71 spaces is expected to satisfy the anticipated demand of 55 parking spaces. The project would also install a curb and sidewalk that would allow for parking along E. Mozart Avenue. However, to establish adequate sight distance, TJKM recommends installing 15 feet of red curb on both sides of the project driveway. Site Access and On-Site Circulation The proposed vehicular access to the project site is via a 20 foot wide driveway located along E. Mozart Avenue. Sidewalks will be constructed along the project frontage to allow for pedestrian access. Based on a preliminary review of the project site plan, the site access and on-site circulation is considered adequate. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Page | 25 Pedestrian Impacts The proposed project will also provide internal walkways and striped crosswalks. The proposed project does not conflict with existing and planned pedestrian facilities; therefore, the impact to pedestrian facilities is less than significant. Bicycle Impacts The project is does not conflict with existing and planned bicycle facilities; therefore, the impact to bicycle facilities is less than significant. Transit Impacts The project site is within walking distance to two VTA bus stops, which can connect users to local and regional locations. Impacts to transit service are expected to be less than significant. Traffic Infusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) Index Based on the initial TIRE Index analysis, the project is expected increase the existing TIRE index by 0.3, resulting in traffic volume increases that will be noticeable to five residences on E. Mozart Avenue. Even with the additional project traffic, E. Mozart Avenue will have sufficient capacity to accommodate existing and project traffic. Potential Cut-Through at Medical Office Complex Motorists can cut through a nearby medical office complex parking lot to save time. TJKM determined this to be a minor problem. However, the following measures could be considered; 1. Install signage that prohibits left-turns into the driveway and right-turns from the driveway, or 2. Close the driveway with traffic barricades or a gate so that vehicles would have to use E. Mozart Avenue to enter or exit the neighborhood. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) To lessen the significance of VMT impacts, the following proposed mitigations can be implemented. 1. Install Wayfinding Signs for the existing nearby bike and pedestrian facility 2. Install Bike Route Signs and Sharrows along E. Mozart Avenue 3. Construct Sidewalks along the project frontage 4. Install a Bus Shelter on Bascom Avenue near the project 5. Provide introductory VTA Transit Passes for initial residents 6. Provide Fair Share Contributions for recently completed bike lanes and pedestrian improvements on Bascom Avenue. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Appendix A – Historical Turning Movement Counts ITM Peak Hour Summary Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services Lanes City: AM 19 1114 0 AM NOON 000 NOON PM 15 928 0 PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM Lanes 000 000 000 000 000 12 0 15 Lanes AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM 07540AM NOON 000NOON PM 0 1182 0 PM Lanes AM AM NOON NOON PM PM AM NOON PM AM NOON PM 19 0 15 0 0 0 12 0 15 0 0 0 AM NOON PM AM NOON PM AM AM NOON NOON PM PM Date: 00 730 AM Peak Hour Summary Southbound Approach Project #:5/11/2017 E Mozart Ave 430 PM 19 0 15 S Bascom AveAM Peak Hour Thursday Westbound ApproachLos GatosDay:Eastbound ApproachS Bascom Ave and E Mozart Ave , Los Gatos PM Peak Hour 0 754 0 1182 CONTROL Count Periods AM Start 4:00 PM 17-7420-011 NOON Peak Hour NOON PM 7:00 AM NONE 9:00 AM NONE 1887 0 6:00 PM 754 0 Total Volume Per Leg 0 West Leg 0 End Total Ins & Outs North Leg 1126 0 943 Northbound Approach South Leg East Leg 754 00 1182943 West Leg South Leg 3031 0 East Leg North Leg 2125 0 1880 0 21251182 1133 943 1126 0 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Appendix B – Existing Conditions and Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Signal Warrant Minor Street Volume = 12 (16)VPHMajor Street Volume = 1,179 (977) VPH A signal is not warranted for the A.M. or P.M. Peak Hours Source: CA MUTCD 2014, Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies, Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals, Figure 4C-3 Peak Hour Warrant (Urban Areas) Intersection: E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue, Campbell, CA Scenario: Existing Conditions A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Legend: XX – AM Peak Volume(XX) – PM Peak Volume– A.M.– P.M. Minor Street Volume = 24(24)VPHMajor Street Volume = 1,183 (993) VPH A signal is not warranted for the A.M. or P.M. Peak Hours Source: CA MUTCD 2014, Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies, Part 4 - Highway Traffic Signals, Figure 4C-3 Peak Hour Warrant (Urban Areas) Intersection: E. Mozart Avenue/Bascom Avenue, Campbell, CA Scenario: Existing Plus Project Conditions A.M. & P.M. Peak Hour Legend: XX – AM Peak Volume(XX) – PM Peak Volume– A.M.– P.M. 16179 E. Mozart Avenue Appendix C – Traffic Infusion on Residential Environmental (TIRE) Index Methodology Table 1 TIRE Index Existing Volume Range (Vehicles Per Day)TIRE Index Minimum Daily Traffic Volume Increase to Produce a 0.1 Change in the TIRE Index a 0.2 Change in the TIRE Index 29-35 1.5 +6 +15 36-44 1.6 +8 +20 45-56 1.7 +10 +25 57-70 1.8 +13 +32 71-89 1.9 +17 +41 90-110 2.0 +22 +52 111-140 2.1 +29 +65 141-180 2.2 +40 +80 181-220 2.3 +52 +100 221-280 2.4 +65 +125 281-350 2.5 +79 +160 351-450 2.6 +97 +205 451-560 2.7 +114 +260 561-710 2.8 +140 +330 711-890 2.9 +170 +415 891-1,100 3.0 +220 +520 1,101-1,400 3.1 +290 +650 1,401-1,800 3.2 +380 +800 1,801-2,200 3.3 +500 +1,000 2,201-2,800 3.4 +650 +1,300 2,801-3,500 3.5 +825 +1,700 3,501-4,500 3.6 +1,025 +2,200 4,501-5,600 3.7 +1,250 +2,800 5,601-7,100 3.8 +1,500 +3,500 7,101-8,900 3.9 +1,800 +4,300 8,901-11,000 4.0 +2,300 +5,300 11,001-14,000 4.1 +3,000 +6,500 14,001-18,000 4.2 +4,000 +8,000 18,001-22,00 4.3 +5,200 +10,000 22,001-28,000 4.4 +6,600 +13,000 28,001-35,000 4.5 +8,200 +17,000 35,000-45,000 4.6 +10,000 +22,000 45,001-56,000 4.7 +12,200 +28,000 56,001-71,000 4.8 +14,800 +35,000 71,001-89,000 4.9 +18,00 +43,000 Source: Goodrich Traffic Group, based on curve shapes found in work by Donald Appleyard at the University of California at Berkeley and consideration of earlier thoughts by Buchanan of the Ministry of Transport, England.