02-08-2022 - PC Agenda AssembledREGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING City of Campbell, California
Register in advance for this webinar: www.campbellca.gov/PCSignup After registration, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. During the registration process, you will be asked if you would like to speak on any of the agenda items. Please provide detail on the items you would like to discuss.
February 8, 2022 7:30 p.m. City Hall, Council Chambers
AGENDA
NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of the public to follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Services', and the County of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID-19. Additional
information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City's website at www.campbellca.gov. This Regular Planning Commission meeting will be conducted in person as well as via
telecommunication (Zoom) and is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act. This Regular Planning Commission meeting will also be live streamed on Channel 26, the City's
website and on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting but not participate. Those members of the public wishing to provide public comment at this meeting virtually are asked to register in advance at www.campbellca.gov/PCSignup. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting via Zoom. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person at Campbell City Hall - Council Chambers. If attending in person, face coverings and physical distancing will be required until further notice. Public comment for the Planning Commission meetings will be accepted via email at planning@campbellca.gov by 5 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the PC. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate
in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number. ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES January 20, 2022 COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS ORAL REQUESTS
This is the point on the agenda where members of the public may address the Commission on items of concern to the Community that are not listed on the agenda this evening. People may speak up to 5 minutes on any matter concerning the Commission.
Planning Commission Agenda for February 8, 2022 Page 2 of 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PLN-2021-201
Public Hearing to consider the application of Susan Chen for a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of four single-family homes; a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the creation of five lots (four residential and one common lot); and a
Parking Modification Permit to allow two of the required assigned parking spaces (unit specific), to be provided as guest parking spaces on property located at 1323 Elam Avenue. This application is intended to reinstate previous approvals for a Planned
Development Permit (PLN2017-101), Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2017-102), and Parking Modification Permit (PLN2017-338) which expired. REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ADJOURNMENT Adjourn to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 22, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. This meeting will be in person for the members of the Planning Commission at Campbell City
Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA. Members of the public are still allowed to participate remotely by Zoom or attend in person (as space allows while maintaining on-going face covering and social distancing).
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistance devices are
available for meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at ClerksOffice@campbellca.gov or (408) 866-2117.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Planning Commission Minutes
6:30 P.M. THURSDAY JANUARY 20, 2022 SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
The Special Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, January 20, 2022, was called to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA, by Chair Ching and the following proceedings were had, to wit:
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Chair: Stuart Ching Commissioner: Adam Buchbinder Commissioner: Matt Kamkar
Commissioner: Michael Krey
Commissioner: Andrew Rivlin Commissioner: Alan Zisser Commissioners Absent: Chair: Maggie Ostrowski
Staff Present: Community Development Director: Rob Eastwood Senior Planner: Stephen Rose City Attorney: William Seligmann
Interim Recording Andrea Sanders
Secretary: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Upon motion by Commissioner Krey, seconded by Commissioner Kamkar, the Planning Commission action minutes of the meeting of December 14, 2021, were approved as submitted. (6-0-1; Commissioner Ostrowski was absent)
COMMUNICATIONS/AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS
Campbell Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 20, 2022 Page 2
Community Development Director Rob Eastwood noted the Desk Item issued with updated maps and public comment emails that were presented to the Commission prior to the
meeting.
ORAL REQUESTS
None
OLD BUSINESS Chair Ching asked if there were any disclosures from the Commission.
There were none.
Chair Ching read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN-2021-12
Review the prioritized Housing Opportunity Sites and provide a
recommendation to the City Council on which sites should be
included in “Campbell’s Plan for Housing” and the City’s Envision Campbell General Plan Update and provide feedback on key principles to guide which Housing Opportunity Sites should be designated for mixed-use development.
Director Eastwood discussed the meeting recommended action is to review and provide the City Council direction on which sites should be included in “Campbell’s Plan for Housing” and provide feedback regarding mixed-use sites.
Director Eastwood introduced his staff, Senior Planner, Stephen Rose and Consultants from M-Group David Hogan, Geoff Bradley, Christabel Mendoza, and Mary-Ann Matheou. Director Eastwood, Senior Planner Rose and M-Group consultants presented the staff report.
Chair Ching asked if there were Commission questions for staff. In response to questions from Commissioner Rivlin, staff confirmed that the Corporation Yard moving to the Campbell Technology Park is a consideration.
In response to questions from Commissioner Krey, a table is included in the report expressing the interest of property owners with Tier 1 sites with a plus-one or point being given to property owners who expressed interest; mixed-use site designations would still apply to the unit count; and staff feels that they can reach more than the 15% minimum of
affordable housing units. In response to questions from Commissioner Zisser, the Corporation Yard is approximately 3 acres large; it is assumed that all sites could be considered for affordable housing; and probability estimates on the inventory ratio of sites developed under the previous/current
Campbell Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 20, 2022 Page 3
housing element is 26% with the proposed housing element showing approximately 29% of the sites would need to develop. If a portion of the Fourth Street Garage could be used it would be subject to negotiations with the property owners who were involved in the
original financing of the parking.
In response to questions from Commissioner Buchbinder, development on sites not included on the opportunity site list can still count toward the City RHNA numbers. Regarding the Winchester site with the neighboring church parking lot, if a portion of that
was used as part of a larger project, that portion would be assigned its relative density
allocation, separately as part of policy development, future discussions include an affordable housing overlay. Commissioner Buchbinder thanked staff for their good outreach efforts and getting property
owners involved.
In response to questions from Commissioner Ching, Tier 1 densities were determined by looking at the light rail.
Chair Ching opened the public comment period.
Sarah Chaffin previously submitted a letter of interest in building on S. Bascom sites and thanked the city for including those in the Tier 1 sites. She also expressed interest in building affordable housing as well asking for consideration of including the contiguous
properties of 1627, 1645, 1639 and 1657 S. Bascom Ave.
Kelly Snider stated that the owners of 600 E. Hamilton (formerly Fry’s) were interested in redeveloping to housing. She cautioned the Commission that 3 of the Tier 1 sites are included in this area and could potentially cause issues with developers coming forward
with projects for 720 units or higher.
Raja Pallela asked if rezoning would be part of the General Plan and will this rezone be limited to only those on the opportunity. Senior Planner Rose stated they would like to implement as many zoning map amendments as possible within the next year.
Dennis Randall expressed appreciation to staff for the cogent process. Representing ownership of the Hickory Pit, Shell station and Montebello market, he echoed what public speaker Snider stated and felt the large sites (Fry’s) were more appropriate for mixed-use projects which would promote more walkability. Density provides more public space due to
building higher, more units, rooftop amenities.
Kevin Krewell HOA vice president of Cottage Place development expressed concerns with losing some of the character of Campbell if developments go too high. Spoke to the Technology Park having a flyover walkway would improve the appeal and access to
downtown.
Tim Pasquinelli owner of Campbell Technology Park asked why the Park was listed differently as the other sites. Director Eastwood stated it does have an existing city
Campbell Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 20, 2022 Page 4
agreement that commits it to a non-housing use for the next eight years and they would like to leave it as an opportunity to do a land swap and possibly move the corporation yard.
Rick and Desirae Ortega property owners of 68 and 70 S. 3rd Street asked to have their properties considered for mixed-use occupancy. Chair Ching asked staff to follow up with his request.
The Commission recessed at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened at 7:08 p.m. The Commission discussed the following site selections maps: Central Campbell Map
The Commission expressed support for the Central Campbell Map. Commissioner Zisser expressed support for the rating and tier process. He had mixed feelings about moving the Corporation Yard next to a city park and residential area but
would be more supportive if the access point was through Cristich Lane. He expressed concerns with the amount of traffic that could occur in this area and thought the area should be limited to 30 units. Commissioner Rivlin was supportive of relocating the Corporation Yard however using the
Technology Park as a Tier 1 site for housing opportunities was preferable. He would like to see access to high density closer to the light rail station. He stated that properties south of East Campbell should be included in tier 1 sites. Commissioners Krey, Buchbinder and Kamkar were supportive of moving the Corporation
Yard and developing the Technology Park. Commissioner Kamkar was supportive of more mixed-use options. Commissioner Buchbinder believed the city could go higher than 30 an acre at the
Technology Park and encouraged up zoning and development there. Chair Ching would be in favor of mandated mixed-use in the larger development areas such as the Fry’s site and Technology Park.
East Campbell Map Commissioner Krey was supportive of the sites on this map. Had traffic concerns with the area around the Fry’s site and Staples site.
Commissioner Zisser stated concerns of higher density in the Pruneyard area. Commissioner Rivlin is supportive of the Pruneyard site if there were parking garages appropriately built.
Campbell Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 20, 2022 Page 5
Commissioner Buchbinder stated the southeast corner of Bascom and Hamilton should be up to 75 an acre as well as site 17 and the Hickory Pit site and encouraged the city to provide incentives for developers to create more units at these sites. He was hopeful to see
redevelopment at the Elephant Bar site.
Commissioner Ching spoke on the Fry’s area and welcomed high density to the maximum with developers investing in the infrastructure to make it safe. He also stated the same for the Pruneyard infrastructure.
North Campbell Map The Commission had consensus in support of this map.
Commissioner Zisser had no issues with this map and was supportive of site 56 being
redeveloped. Commissioner Rivlin would like the Home Church to be considered.
Commissioner Buchbinder recognized the height concern on the north side of Campbell
east of downtown however suggested doing something higher that 45 units an acre, potentially up to 60. Northwest Campbell Map
The Commission had consensus in support of this map. Commissioner Buchbinder thinks it would be reasonable to up the density across from Penny Lane on Hamilton.
West Campbell Map The Commission had consensus in support of this map.
Commissioner Krey was happy to see that property owners for 207 wanted to develop on that site. South Campbell Map
The Commission had consensus in support of this map. Commissioner Buchbinder understood that the limited sites on this map was due to the lack of services in this area and wished that could be improved.
Senior Planner Rose presented information on Mixed-use Development discussions stating
considerations for properties should be based on density, larger sites, pedestrian-oriented and offsetting the loss (or lack) of services. Mixed-Use Discussions
Campbell Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – January 20, 2022 Page 6
Commissioner Kamkar envisions bigger units for families. He also spoke about convertible space that could be commercial when appropriate or converted to residential when necessary. He felt it important to distinguish
Commissioner Zisser stated main corridors should default to mixed-use. Director Eastwood clarified that mandating mixed-use can leave ground floor vacancies and can create barriers with HCD.
Commissioner Krey believed that a commercial component is what the developments really need. He is hesitant to create mixed-use on the small sites. Commissioner Buchbinder was in favor of offering incentives to developers for mixed-use
rather than just requiring it from the beginning. In relation to height Commissioner
Buchbinder agreed with Commissioner Kamkar stating if we want to have more spacious homes and higher densities, we need to build higher. Commissioner Ching was in favor of mixed-use. He noted that having a higher density
would also require a quality development for the community. He also commented on the
financial benefits of mixed-use regarding City sales tax. Director Eastwood provided next steps to the commission stating staff would return in February/March on additional Plan for Housing/General Plan Update input; development
for Plan for Housing policies and programs; affordable housing program/overlay zone; and
starting the preparation of the EIR for the General Plan Update. ADJOURNMENT
The Special Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m. to the next Regular
Planning Commission Meeting on Tuesday, February 8, 2022 (as the January 25, 2022, Regular PC meeting has been cancelled), at City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA.
PREPARED BY: Andrea Sanders, Interim Recording Secretary
ITEM NO. 1
CITY OF CAMPBELL ∙ PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report ∙ February 8, 2022 Project Number(s): PLN-2021-201
Public Hearing to consider the application of Susan Chen for a Planned Development Permit to allow the construction of four single-family
homes; a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow the creation of five lots
(four residential and one common lot); and a Parking Modification Permit to allow two of the required assigned parking spaces (unit specific), to be provided as guest parking spaces on property located at 1323 Elam Avenue. This application is intended to reinstate previous
approvals for a Planned Development Permit (PLN2017-101),
Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2017-102), and Parking Modification Permit (PLN2017-338) which expired.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution, recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Permit for the construction of four single-family homes;
2. Adopt a Resolution, recommending that the City Council approve a Tentative Subdivision
Map to allow for the creation of five lots (four single-family and one commonly owned lot);
and
3. Adopt a Resolution, recommending that the City Council approve a Parking Modification Permit to allow for two of the required assigned parking spaces (unit specific), to be provided as guest parking spaces.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Development proposals are subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as codified in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The level of review required under CEQA is generally commensurate with the scale and complexity of the proposed
development. Minor projects, as identified in CEQA, may be deemed exempt from formal environmental review, if they will not result in any potential significant environmental impacts. On February 6, 2018, the City Council adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the previous project (reference Attachment F – Previous CEQA Documents) and approved an associated
Zoning Map Amendment to change the zoning of the property from R-M (Multiple-Family Residential) to P-D (Planned Development). The project may now be found Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 (Class 32) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects which are found consistent with all applicable general plan policies and zoning regulations, are under five acres in size, and substantially surrounded by urban uses.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – February 8, 2022 Page 2 of 9 PLN-2021-201 ~ 1323 Elam Avenue
The project qualifies for the exemption on the basis the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species (i.e., wetland), the project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, or air/water quality, and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services as documented by the project materials and further substantiated by the previously adopted
Mitigated Negative Declaration. There are also no substantive changes to the project and/or changes to the surrounding area of the project since it was last approved. Accordingly, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Council finding the project Categorically Exempt under CEQA. PROJECT DATA General Plan Land Use: Low-Medium Density Res. (6-13 units/gr. acre) Existing Zoning: P-D (Planned Development) Gross Lot Area: 20,027 square feet (including 2,250 sq. ft. of R.O.W.) Existing Net Lot Area: 18,152 square-feet
Proposed Net Lot Area: Lot 1: 3,269 square feet Lot 2: 2,556 square feet Lot 3: 2,554 square feet
Lot 4: 2,578 square feet Lot 5: 6,821 square feet (common lot; Lot “A” where noted on plans) Total Net Lot Area: 17,778 square feet1 Proposed Density: 8.71 units/gr. acre (4 units / 0.459 gross acres)
Maximum Density Allowed: 13.0 units/gr. acre Building Height: 27 Feet
Parking: Provided Minimum Required2
12 spaces (8 covered/8 assigned) 12 spaces (8 covered/10 assigned)
Surrounding Uses: North: Apartment Community (R-2 Zoning) South: Single-Family Residential (R-1-6 Zoning) East: Single-Family Residential (R-M & P-D Zoning) West: Single-Family Residential (P-D Zoning)
1 After 5-foot dedication. 2 The project is required 2 ½ parking spaces per unit, plus ½ space as guest parking. As the project would provide two of the required ‘assigned’ spaces as uncovered guest parking a parking modification permit is required.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – February 8, 2022 Page 3 of 9 PLN-2021-201 ~ 1323 Elam Avenue
BACKGROUND
On February 6, 2018, the City Council unanimously adopted Ordinance 2229, and CC Resolutions 12278-12281 approving the previous project. The permits were approved for two-years and expired February 6, 20203.
As the City does not have special procedures for the reinstatement of an expired permit, the applicant submitted new applications for reconsideration of the project. As the project is in substantial conformance with the original application (i.e., site and architectural design), and none of the standards or codes have changed in such a manner to impact the project, staff has expedited
review of the project by holding the City’s Site and Architectural Review Committee (“SARC”) meeting and Planning Commission meeting on the same date (February 8, 2022). Comments provided by the SARC will be summarized at the Planning Commission meeting as part of the staff presentation. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Location: The project site consists of a single parcel located on the north side of Elam Avenue between Inwood Drive and San Tomas Aquino Road. The 18,152 square foot (net area) lot is currently developed with one single-family residence that will be demolished as part of the proposed subdivision. Abutting land uses include single-family homes to the east and west, an
apartment community to the north, and single-family homes across Elam Avenue to the south. Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant’s request includes a Tentative Subdivision Map to create four single-family lots and one commonly owned lot, a Planned Development Permit for the approval of site configuration and architectural design for four two-story single-family homes, and a
Parking Modification Permit to allow for two of the required assigned parking spaces (unit specific), to be provided as guest parking spaces. ANALYSIS
General Plan / Land Use: The Campbell General Plan represents the City’s long-term vision for
the community and is intended to guide decision-making regarding the City’s physical and economic growth. In this regard, the General Plan provides policies applicable to land use and development and organizes the City into a framework of distinct land use designations (i.e., commercial, residential, industrial, etc.), as codified by the General Plan Land Use Map.
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Low to Medium Density Residential (6-13 units per gross acre). The proposed project would be developed at a density of 8.71 units per gross acre, which is within the density range allowed for the site. STANDARDS & REGULATIONS
Zoning District: The project site is zoned P-D (Planned Development). The P-D zoning district allows for flexibility of site standards (lot coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks, etc.) when consistent with site characteristics, particularly related to the development’s design and provision
3 While AB 1561 provided for an 18-month extension of housing entitlements that were in effect March 4, 2020, and set to expire prior to December 31, 2021, the approval was not in effect on March 4, 2020, having expired one-month previously, and therefore did not qualify for the extension.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – February 8, 2022 Page 4 of 9 PLN-2021-201 ~ 1323 Elam Avenue
of open space. Development within the P-D Zoning District must also be consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use designation as well as applicable General Plan goals, policies, and strategies.
San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan: The project is subject to review under the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan (STANP). This plan was created to ensure that new development would respect the neighborhood character and built environment. The project would comply with all applicable standards of the STANP, and the proposed colors, materials, and building forms (roof shapes etc.), as well was the standards specific to the “low-medium density” range of the project
(see discussion on “Zoning District”) and would be compatible with the neighborhood (see discussion on “Site and Architectural Design and Neighborhood Compatibility”). Housing Accountability Act: As a housing development project proposing more than one residential unit, the proposal may not be denied or conditioned to reduce its density under the
Housing Accountability Act (HAA) unless: 1) the proposal is found to be in violation of an objective general plan/zoning standard; or 2) the project will result in a specific adverse impact to public health and safety. While changes to the project may be requested to further applicable goals, policies and strategies – changes not based on objective standards must be limited to avoid rendering the project infeasible or reduce the number of units. As an example, while the decision-
making body may not deny a project because of its proposed paint color, it still retains the authority to condition such a change. Accordingly, when forming recommendations, the Planning Commission should consider if the requested change is consistent with the HAA and request clarification from staff where appropriate. ANALYSIS
Considerations in Review of Applications
In review of any Planned Development Permit application, the Zoning Code directs advisory and decision-making bodies to consider certain design and operational elements of the proposal in rendering a decision. The following identifies the compliance of the application with these
considerations:
Planned Development Permit Considerations:
A. Considerations relating to site circulation, traffic congestion, and traffic safety:
The site has been designed such that a single driveway would serve all four homes,
promoting greater open space and fewer curb-cuts on the street. The driveway is wide
enough to accommodate two-way onsite traffic and provides a fire truck-turnaround onsite that complies with standard specifications. With only four (4) units onsite, the project would generate peak hour trips well below the thresholds4 to require a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) or to result in any appreciable impact to traffic congestion.
B. Considerations relating to landscaping:
4 The Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines published by the Santa Clara County Transportation Authority do not require the preparation of a Transportation Impact Analysis for projects expected to generate fewer than 100 a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – February 8, 2022 Page 5 of 9 PLN-2021-201 ~ 1323 Elam Avenue
The project site will remove and replace all onsite landscaping with water-efficient groundcover, shrubs, and trees. The applicant is proposing to plant seventeen (17) new trees as part of a comprehensive landscaping plan that would also include a combination of new shrubs and groundcover. No trees are onsite or proposed to be removed.
C. Considerations relating to structure and site layout:
The project’s design is sensitive to the neighborhood in terms of height (two-stories, under 27-feet tall), massing (detached single-family homes with offset second-stories), and colors (earth tones; beige, grey, light brown). In terms of materials, the project has proposed a combination of board and batten (vertical and horizontal) and shingle (fiber cement) for siding, and
composition shingle for roofing. The design includes covered porches, rafter tails, banding, and cross-gable/hip roof designs. The entry way of ‘Unit 1’ is oriented toward the public street, so as not to ‘wall off’ the subdivision from the neighborhood. Each home has been designed so that the garage does not dominate the facade.
Findings for Approval
To grant a land use approval, the decision-making body must affirmatively establish that the project meets codified findings for approval. Findings establish the evidentiary basis for a City's decision to grant or deny a land use permit and to impose conditions of approval as necessary to establish the findings.5 Different land use permit applications (e.g., Planned Development Permit,
Parking Modification Permit, etc.) have different findings for approval. The following analysis identifies each of the applicable findings in italics and how the proposed project satisfies them.
Planned Development Permit Findings
A. The proposed development or uses clearly would result in a more desirable environment and use of land than would be possible under any other zoning district classification.
The project site is zoned P-D (Planned Development). The P-D zoning district allows for flexibility of site standards (lot coverage, floor area ratio, setbacks, etc.) when consistent with site characteristics, particularly related to the development’s design and provision of open space. Development within the P-D Zoning District must also be consistent with the applicable General Plan land use designation, goals, policies, and strategies, area plan
requirements, and design guidelines (the project site is not subject to an area plan or design guidelines).
As the P-D zoning district is the only zoning district that supports the creation of a private street as proposed by the project, which provides for the development of detached single-
family homes which may be found compatible with the neighborhood, the P-D zoning
classification may be found appropriate and the project consistent with its intended purpose.
5The following link provides a March 5, 2020 League of California Cities Planning Commissioner PowerPoint presentation on findings: https://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/Education-and-Events-Section/Planners-Institute/2020-Session-Materials/How-to-Prepare-Findings-and-Conditions-of-Approval
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – February 8, 2022 Page 6 of 9 PLN-2021-201 ~ 1323 Elam Avenue
B. The proposed development would be compatible with the general plan and will aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area.
The General Plan Land Use Element provides policies which may be taken into consideration by the Planning Commission in its review of the land use appropriateness of
the proposed project. These policies speak to the need to protect the integrity of established neighborhoods and be thoughtful in the site planning and design process as follows:
Policy LUT-3.1: Variety of Residential Densities: Provide land use categories for and maintenance of a variety of residential densities to offer existing and future residents of all income levels, age groups and special needs sufficient opportunities and choices for locating in Campbell.
Policy LUT-5.2: Residential Neighborhoods: Maintain safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly residential neighborhoods with identifiable centers and consistent development patterns and a range of public and private services.
Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in
historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics.
Policy LUT-7.2n: Consistency With Plans: Ensure that new development and substantial remodeling projects are consistent with Specific Plans, Area Plans, City Standard Details, and adopted Streetscape Standards to create a cohesive design.
Strategy LUT-9.3e: Building Materials: Encourage the use of long-lasting, high quality building materials on all buildings to ensure the long-term quality of the built environment.
Strategy LUT-17.1b: Landscaping: Ensure that new developments provide new tree plantings, shrubs, greenery and other landscaping materials, and preserve existing trees and shrubs.
As the proposal is consistent with the low-medium density land use designation (see ‘Project Data’), and may be found to further the aforementioned policies, the development may be found compatible with the General Plan and to aid in the harmonious development
of the immediate area.
C. The proposed development will not result in allowing more residential units than would be allowed by other residential zoning districts which are consistent with the general plan.
In context of the Housing Accountability Act, this finding is no longer relevant. The proposal may not be denied or conditioned to reduce its density under the Housing
Accountability Act (HAA) unless: 1) the proposal is found to be in violation of an objective general plan/zoning standard; or 2) the project will result in a specific adverse impact to public health and safety.
This notwithstanding, the project complies will all objective development standards and
falls within the density ranged called for by the Low-Medium Density Residential land use
designation (8.71 per gr. acre proposed; 6-13 units per gr. acre allowed).
D. The proposed development would not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or of the city as a whole.
The Planned Development Permit process facilitates review of potential impacts to health,
safety, or welfare of the neighborhood and City at large. Conditions of Approval may be
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – February 8, 2022 Page 7 of 9 PLN-2021-201 ~ 1323 Elam Avenue
incorporated into the project Resolutions (reference Attachments A to C) to lessen potential or identified project impacts. The project complies with all applicable development standards and policies and no detrimental impacts to health, safety, or welfare have been identified that will not be addressed by the Conditions of Approval.
Tentative Subdivision Map Findings: A. The proposed map is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, any policy or guideline implementing the general plan, and all other applicable provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code.
The project may be found consistent with the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan in that it serves to provide for residential use at the planned for density, and standards of the San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan and Planned Development zoning district. The project was duly noticed and processed in accordance with all other applicable provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code.
B. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development.
The project site is relatively flat requiring minimal grading to accommodate the type and density and housing development proposed and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services as documented by the project materials and further substantiated by the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
C. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
The site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species (i.e., wetland), the project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, or air/water quality, as
documented by the project materials and further substantiated by the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration.
D. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems.
There are no known issues with the design or layout of the subdivision (i.e., provides a
two-way driveway with an onsite fire truck turnaround) or the type of improvements proposed that will cause serious public health problems.
E. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or that alternative easements for access will be provided, and that these will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
As conditions of approval on the map, the City shall secure all easements and land dedications necessary to serve the property. The project will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large nor shall it diminish any easements that may exist that have
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – February 8, 2022 Page 8 of 9 PLN-2021-201 ~ 1323 Elam Avenue
been acquired by the public at large for access through or for use of the property within the proposed subdivision.
F. The design of the subdivision shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive and natural heating and cooling features in accordance with Government Code
Section 66473.1.
In response to this finding, the Government Code provides two examples. Responses to each example are provided below.
• Examples of passive or natural heating opportunities in subdivision design, include
design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure in an east-
west alignment for southern exposure.
The project has been designed such that every unit has a south facing exposure and with more active living rooms and/or kitchens on a southern exposure. The rear patio of each unit also provides for an unobstructed southern exposure (as opposed
to being located on the north side of the building in shade), which also provides
more opportunities for their use during the day, and for more days during the year.
• Examples of passive or natural cooling opportunities in subdivision design include design of lot size and configuration to permit orientation of a structure to take
advantage of shade or prevailing breezes.
The project has been designed with adequate separation between units to take advantage of prevailing breezes and would provide seventeen (17) new trees onsite to serve the four units for shade.
G. Water will be available and sufficient to serve a proposed subdivision in accordance with
Government Code Section 66473.7.
Not applicable. For the purposes of this finding, the term subdivision applies to residential developments of more than 500 dwelling units or a project that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system’s existing service connections. The project, which includes only four units, is well below the threshold of
significance to require such an evaluation and is therefore presumed to have available and
adequate water service.
Parking Modification Permit Findings: Pursuant to Section 21.28.040 (Table 3) of the Campbell Municipal Code (CMC), small lot single-family dwellings are required to provide 2½ parking spaces per unit, 2 of which must be covered, plus ½ space designated for guest parking per unit.
For the four units proposed, this equates to a parking requirement of 8 covered parking spaces
with additional 2 spaces provided for units and two spaces provided for guest parking spaces for a total of 12 required parking spaces. As proposed, the project provides 12 parking spaces (8 covered and 4 uncovered spaces) as summarized in the table below:
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – February 8, 2022 Page 9 of 9 PLN-2021-201 ~ 1323 Elam Avenue
Covered/Assigned Uncovered/Assigned Uncovered/Guest Total
Required 8 2 2 12 Proposed 8 0 4 12
Difference N/A -2 +2 0
While the project provides 12 parking spaces where 12 parking spaces are required, the proposal
technically requires review and approval of a Parking Modification Permit to allow for two assigned parking spaces (i.e., unit specific), to be provided as guest parking spaces instead. In consideration of the applicant’s request, the following findings must be affirmatively established: A. Due to the unique nature and circumstances of the project, or special development
features, the anticipated number of parking spaces necessary to serve the use or structure
is less than that required by the applicable off-street parking standards and would be satisfied by the proposed number of parking spaces.
The project would provide the same number of parking spaces but allocate them in a way that would best serve the use. As each unit would still retain two dedicated parking spaces
per unit, sharing the remaining spaces as unassigned ‘guest parking’ is anticipated to result in a more functional shared use of space.
B. Conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project to ensure the long-term adequacy of the provided off-street parking.
The driveway and guest parking spaces shall be constructed of durable permeable pavers
as a condition of approval. The project shall require the formation of a Homeowners Association to ensure the long-term maintenance of buildings and property, including the off-street parking spaces.
C. Approval of the parking modification permit will further the purpose of Campbell Municipal Code Chapter 21.28 (Parking and Loading).
The purpose of Chapter 21.28 is to “…ensure that adequate off-street parking and loading spaces are provided for each type of land use in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, support alternative transportation solutions, improve the urban form of the community and protect the public safety”. By allowing for uncovered spaces to be shared, available parking will be better shared among the units onsite which is safer and helps retain areas
offsite for alternative transportation solutions and not vehicle parking which can detract from the “urban form of the community”.
Site and Architectural Review Committee: As the project is in substantial conformance with the original application, staff has expedited review of the project by holding the City’s Site and Architectural Review Committee (“SARC”) meeting and Planning Commission meeting on the
same date (February 8, 2022). Comments provided by the SARC will be summarized at the Planning Commission meeting as part of the staff presentation.
Staff Report ~ Planning Commission Meeting – February 8, 2022 Page 10 of 9 PLN-2021-201 ~ 1323 Elam Avenue
FISCAL IMPACTS
In addition to the entitlement application fees already paid, and permits fees required for building permit and off-site improvement review, the developer will contribute over $24,000 in Park Impact Fees. ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the proposed project subject to additional and/or modified Conditions of Approval. 2. Continue for further review. 3. Deny the proposed project.
Prepared by:
Stephen Rose, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Rob Eastwood, Community Development Director
Attachments: A. Resolution Recommending Approval of a Planned Development Permit B. Resolution Recommending Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map C. Resolution Recommending Approval of a Parking Modification Permit
D. Location Map
E. Project Plans F. Prior CEQA Documents
Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE APPROVAL OF SITE CONFIGURATION, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, AND TO CREATE LOTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1323 ELAM AVENUE. FILE
NUMBER: PLN-2021-201 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to the recommended approval of a Planned Development Permit: Environmental Finding
1. The project may be found Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects which are found consistent with all applicable general plan policies, zoning regulations, are under five acres in size, and substantially surrounded by urban uses. Further, the project qualifies for the exemption on the basis the site has no value as habitat for endangered,
rare, or threatened species (i.e., wetland), the project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, or air/water quality, and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Evidentiary Findings
1. The proposed project ("project") includes a Planned Development for the approval of site configuration and architectural design for four two-story single-family homes, Tentative Subdivision Map to create four single-family lots and one commonly owned lot, and Parking Modification Permit to allow for two of the required assigned/uncovered
parking spaces, to be provided as uncovered guest parking. 2. The project site consists of a single parcel (18,152 sq. ft. net / 20,027 sq. ft. gross) located on the north side of Elam Avenue between Inwood Drive and San Tomas Aquino Road.
3. The 18,152 square foot lot is currently developed with one single-family residence that will be demolished as part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Abutting land uses include single-family homes to the east and west, an apartment
community to the north, and single-family homes across Elam Avenue to the south. 5. The proposed subdivision will require a 5-foot dedication along Elam Avenue, which will reduce the net lot area of the property from 18,152 square-feet to 17,778 square feet.
6. The project site is zoned P-D (Planned Development).
Planning Commission Resolution No. PLN-2021-201 -1323 Elam Avenue Recommending Approval of a Planned Development Permit
Page 2 of 4
7. The project site is designated Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 Units / Gr. Acre) as shown on the Campbell General Plan Map.
8. The proposed residential land use, at a density of 8.71 units/gr. acre, is consistent with
the allowable land use and maximum density permitted by the Low-Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation. 9. The proposed Planned Development Permit may be approved concurrently, and
subject to a Planned Development Permit, and Parking Modification Permit.
10. The project would be consistent with the following General Plan policies and strategies:
Policy LUT-3.1: Variety of Residential Densities: Provide land use categories for
and maintenance of a variety of residential densities to offer existing and future residents of all income levels, age groups and special needs sufficient opportunities and choices for locating in Campbell.
Policy LUT-5.2: Residential Neighborhoods: Maintain safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly residential neighborhoods with identifiable centers and consistent development patterns and a range of public and private services.
Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential
development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics.
Strategy LUT-9.3e: Building Materials: Encourage the use of long-lasting, high quality building materials on all buildings to ensure the long-term quality of the built environment.
Strategy LUT-17.1b:Landscaping: Ensure that new developments provide new tree plantings, shrubs, greenery and other landscaping materials,
and preserve existing trees and shrubs.
11. The project proposes four two-story detached single-family residences. 12. The project’s floor area ratio (inclusive of the common lot) is approximately 48%.
13. The project’s lot coverage (inclusive of the common lot) is approximately 31%. 14. The project’s maximum building height would be approximately 27-feet. 15. The project proposes 12 parking spaces comprised of 8 covered/assigned and 4
uncovered/guest, where 12 parking spaces comprised of 8 covered/assigned, 2
Planning Commission Resolution No. PLN-2021-201 -1323 Elam Avenue Recommending Approval of a Planned Development Permit
Page 3 of 4
uncovered/assigned & 2 uncovered/guest are required which is allowed with the approval of a Parking Modification Permit.
16. There are no responsible agencies or trustee agencies responsible for resources
affected by the project. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:
Planned Development Permit Findings (CMC Sec. 21.12.030.H.6):
1. The proposed development will clearly result in a more desirable environment and use of the land than would be possible under any other zoning district classification; 2. The proposed development will be compatible with the General Plan of the City and will
aid in the harmonious development of the immediate area; 3. The proposed development will not result in allowing more residential units than would be allowed by other residential zoning districts, which are consistent with the General Plan designation of the property;
4. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the neighborhood or the City as a whole; 5. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions
of Approval and the impacts of the project; 6. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees imposed upon the project and the type of development project;
7. No substantial evidence has been presented from which a reasonable argument could be made that shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required conditions of approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment; Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
8. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects and under Section 15304
of CEQA, pertaining to alterations which do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees; 9. No substantial evidence has been presented from which a reasonable argument could
be made that shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required
Conditions of Approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and
10. There are no unusual circumstances that would prevent the project from qualifying as Categorically Exempt per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Planning Commission Resolution No. PLN-2021-201 -1323 Elam Avenue Recommending Approval of a Planned Development Permit
Page 4 of 4
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a Planned Development Permit for the Project located at 1323 Elam Avenue, subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit “A”). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of February, 2022, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners:
ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED:
Stuart Ching, Chair ATTEST:
Rob Eastwood, Secretary
EXHIBIT A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planned Development Permit (PLN-2021-201) Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works
Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance
with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this
development and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division 1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Planned Development Permit for the
approval of site configuration, architectural design and to create lots which do not have
frontage on a public street, in conjunction with and subject to a Tentative Subdivision Map, and Parking Modification Permit on property located at 1323 Elam Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the project plans dated November 5, 2021, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval herein.
2. Planning Final Required: Planning Division clearance is required prior to Building Permit final. 3. Permit Expiration: The Planned Development Permit is valid for a period of two years
from the date of final City Council approval. A building permit must be obtained within
this two-year period or the Planned Development Permit shall be void. 4. Tract Map: The Planned Development Permit approval is contingent upon recordation of the Tract Map to divide the subject property. The Tract Map shall be recorded prior to
the issuance of building or grading permits.
5. Plan Revisions: Prior to building permit submittal, the project plans shall be updated to reflect the following revisions: a. A note indicating that the fence between adjoining properties shall be eight feet tall
good neighbor fence (matching appearance/treatment on both sides) with a similar
appearance similar to that of adjoining properties (vertical wood slat). 6. Indemnity: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director, the applicant shall enter into an agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney to indemnify and
defend the City of Campbell, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from any and
all actions, liabilities, losses, and torts, including attorney’s fees arising out of or connected unto any challenge to the decision of the City Council on this application. Such agreement shall be executed within the 30 days of the Community Development Director's decision to require it.
7. Water Efficient Landscape Standards: As a new construction project with a total project landscape area greater than 2,500 square feet, this project is subject to the updated California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). This
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval PLN-2021-201 – 1323 Elam Avenue - Planned Development Permit Page 2 of 7
document is available at: http://www.cityofcampbell.com/DocumentCenter/View/176 or on the Planning Division’s Zoning and Land Use webpage through www.cityofcampbell.com. The building permit application submittal shall demonstrate compliance with the applicable MWELO and landscaping requirements and shall include
the following: a. A Landscape Documentation Package prepared by an authorized and licensed professional demonstrating compliance with the full MWELO requirements with the following required elements:
1) Project Information per Section 492.3.
2) Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet per Section 492.4 (Appendix B of the MWELO).
i. Include the worksheet within the plan set AND
ii. Provide a separate 8.5x11 hard copy or pdf via email to the project planner.
3) Soil Management Report per Section 492.5 (unless significant mass grading is planned, in which case the report shall be submitted prior to permit final).
4) Landscape Design Plan per Section 492.6.
5) Irrigation Design Plan per Section 492.7.
6) Grading Design Plan per Section 492.8.
Note that a Soil Management Report (if not submitted as part of the Landscape Documentation Package) and Certificate of Completion will be required prior to permit final.
b. A completed Landscape Information Form.
c. A note on the Cover Sheet in minimum 1/2” high lettering stating “Planning Final Required. The new landscaping indicated on the plans must be installed prior to final inspection. Changes to the landscaping plan require Planning approval.” 8. Utility Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: The applicant shall submit a plan prior to
installation of the underground PG&E utility (transformer) boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow preventers, indicating the location and color/material of the boxes for approval by the Community Development Director. Utility boxes at a minimum will be painted/treated to match the predominant backdrop, and indicating that to the extent feasible that utilities will be placed in the driveway and/or in front of each unit (i.e. water
meter boxes) to avoid a bank of meters from being placed along Elam Avenue which may otherwise detract from the single-family look of the project and neighborhood. 9. Pad Certification: Following site grading and prior to preparation of individual building pad forms, the following improvements shall be certified by a licensed land surveyor and
reviewed by the Community Development Director to determine consistency with the approved plan (grade, pad and drainage).
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval PLN-2021-201 – 1323 Elam Avenue - Planned Development Permit Page 3 of 7
10. Residential Address Identification: The applicant shall submit a detail sheet showing uniform residential address identification material type and location on the building wall for review and approval by the Community Development prior to the issuance of Building
Permits. In order to obtain approval, numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new
and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Additionally, number material and color is required to contrast with their background.
11. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris, and weeds until the time that actual construction commences. Any vacant existing structures shall be secured, by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property (California Fire Code, 2013 Edition).
12. Stormwater and Grading Requirements: The project shall comply with City stormwater and grading requirements (CMC Sec. 20.80.020, 21.16.100, and 14.02), as more specifically itemized in the Public Works Department Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map.
13. Construction Activity: The following standards shall apply to construction of the project:
• Construction Hours (CMC 18.04.052): 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.
• Construction Noise (CMC 18.04.052): 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 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.
• Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public
street prior to issuance of building permits. Building Division 14. Permits Required: A building permit application shall be required for each proposed 4
(4) new single-family residences. The building permit shall include Electrical/Plumbing/Mechanical fees when such work is part of the permit.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval PLN-2021-201 – 1323 Elam Avenue - Planned Development Permit Page 4 of 7
15. Plan Preparation: This project requires plans prepared under the direction and oversight of a California licensed Engineer or Architect. Plans submitted for building permits shall be “wet stamped” and signed by the qualifying professional person.
16. Construction Plans: The Conditions of Approval shall be stated in full on the cover sheet of construction plans submitted for building permit. 17. Size of Plans: The minimum size of construction plans submitted for building permits shall be 24 inches by 36 inches.
18. Soils Report: Two copies of a current soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
19. Site Plan: Application for building permit shall include a competent site plan that identifies property and proposed structures with dimensions and elevations as appropriate. Site plan shall also include site drainage details. Elevation bench marks shall be called out at all locations that are identified as “natural grade” and those that are
“finished grade” and intended for use to determine the height of the proposed structure. 20. Foundation Inspections: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector upon foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the
soils report and the building pad elevation and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. pad elevation
b. finish floor elevation (first floor) c. foundation corner locations
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval PLN-2021-201 – 1323 Elam Avenue - Planned Development Permit Page 5 of 7
21. Special Inspections: When a special inspection is required by C.B.C. Chapter 17, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permits, in
accordance with C.B.C Appendix 1, Section 106. Please obtain City of Campbell
Special Inspection forms from the Building Inspection Division Counter. 22. Non-Point Source Pollution Control: The City of Campbell standard Santa Clara Valley Non-point Source Pollution Control Program specification sheet shall be part of plan
submittal. The specification sheet (size 24” X 36”) is available at the Building Division
service counter. 23. Approvals Required: The project requires the following agency approval prior to issuance of the building permit:
a. West Valley Sanitation District (378-2407) b. Santa Clara County Fire Department (378-4010) c. San Jose Water Company (408) 279-7900 (Customer Service) d. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Demolitions Only) e. School District:
i. Campbell Union School District (378-3405) ii. Campbell Union High School District (371-0960) iii. Moreland School District (379-1370) iv. Cambrian School District (377-2103)
Note: To determine your district, contact the offices identified above. Obtain the School
District payment form from the City Building Division, after the Division has approved the
building permit application. 24. P.G. & E.: The applicant is advised to contact P.G. &E. as early as possible in the approval process. Service installations, changes and/or relocations may require
substantial scheduling time and can cause significant delays in the approval process. The applicant should also consult with P.G. & E. concerning utility easements, distribution pole locations and required conductor clearances. 25. California Green Building Code: This project is subject to the mandatory requirements
for new residential structures (Chapter 4) under the California Green Building Code, 2013 edition. 26. Construction Fencing: This project shall be properly enclosed with construction fencing to prevent unauthorized access to the site during construction. The construction site
shall be secured to prevent vandalism and/or theft during hours when no work is being done. All protected trees shall be fenced to prevent damage to root systems. 27. Build it Green: Applicant shall complete and submit a “Build it Green” inventory of the proposed new single family project prior to issuance of building permit.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval PLN-2021-201 – 1323 Elam Avenue - Planned Development Permit Page 6 of 7
28. Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems: This project shall comply with Section R313 of the California Residential building Code 2013 edition, and be equipped with a complying Fire Sprinkler system.
29. Storm Water Requirements: Storm water run-off from impervious surface created by this permitted project shall be directed to vegetated areas on the project parcel. Storm water shall not drain onto neighboring parcels.
30. Title 24 Energy Compliance: California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms shall be blue-lined on the construction plans. 8½ X 11 calculations shall be submitted as well.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
31. Limited Review: Review is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may
include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable
construction permits. 32. Public Easement: The public easement between House #4 and the turnaround shall not be obstructed at any time. Addition clarification notes shall be added during building permit phrase.
33. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As noted on Sheet A-0.01) An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet.
Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans,
calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by CBLMC. Sprinkler plans to be noted as a deferred submittal for each of the residential plan sets.
34. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turnaround Required: (As noted on Sheet A-1.11) Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. No parking shall occur within the turnaround. Turnaround to be delineated with red curbing, striping or with signage in accordance with
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval PLN-2021-201 – 1323 Elam Avenue - Planned Development Permit Page 7 of 7
SCCFD A-6 Standard and incorporated with the “Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Roadway Required” comment below. 35. Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Roadway Required: (As noted on Sheet 5) Provide an
access roadway with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 42 feet outside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Surface shall be capable of supporting 75K pounds. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications Sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503.
36. Construction Site Fire Safety: (As noted on Sheet A-0.01) All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
37. Address Identification: (As noted on Sheet A-0.01) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire
code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other
sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1. 38. Water Supply Requirements: (As noted on Sheet A-0.01) Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the
responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of
causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.
39. Violation of Fire Code: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or
alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]
Attachment B RESOLUTION NO. BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP TO CREATE FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS AND ONE COMMONLY-OWNED LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1323 ELAM AVENUE.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed. The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to the recommended approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map:
Environmental Finding 1. The project may be found Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects which
are found consistent with all applicable general plan policies, zoning regulations, are under five acres in size, and substantially surrounded by urban uses. Further, the project qualifies for the exemption on the basis the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species (i.e., wetland), the project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, or air/water quality, and can be
adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Evidentiary Findings 1. The proposed project ("project") includes a Planned Development for the approval of
site configuration and architectural design for four two-story single-family homes, Tentative Subdivision Map to create four single-family lots and one commonly owned lot, and Parking Modification Permit to allow for two of the required assigned/uncovered parking spaces, to be provided as uncovered guest parking.
2. The project site consists of a single parcel (18,152 sq. ft. net / 20,027 sq. ft. gross) located on the north side of Elam Avenue between Inwood Drive and San Tomas Aquino Road. 3. The 18,152 square foot lot is currently developed with one single-family residence that
will be demolished as part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Abutting land uses include single-family homes to the east and west, an apartment community to the north, and single-family homes across Elam Avenue to the south.
5. The proposed subdivision will require a 5-foot dedication along Elam Avenue, which will reduce the net lot area of the property from 18,152 square-feet to 17,776.90 square feet.
6. The project site is zoned P-D (Planned Development).
Planning Commission Resolution No. Recommending Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map – 1323 Elam Ave. Page 2 of 3
7. The project site is designated Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 Units / Gr. Acre) as shown on the Campbell General Plan Map. 8. The proposed residential land use, at a density of 8.71 units/gr. acre, is consistent
with the allowable land use and maximum density permitted by the Low-Medium Density Residential General Plan land use designation. 9. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map may be approved concurrently, and subject to a Planned Development Permit, and Zoning Map Amendment.
10. The proposed Tentative Subdivision Map will allow creation of privately held parcels for fee title ownership as well as a common parcel to be improved with a private roadway, guest parking spaces, fire truck access, and landscaping.
11. The Tentative Subdivision Map has been distributed to local agencies, including Pacific Gas and Electric, West Valley Sanitation District, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Santa Clara Valley Water District. As of the writing of this staff report, none of these agencies raised any concerns about providing services to the proposed lots.
12. The provisions of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions are necessary to ensure the long-term property maintenance and continued architectural integrity of the project. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that: 1. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project.
2. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fees imposed upon the project and the type of development project. Tentative Subdivision Map Findings (Gov. Code Section 66473):
3. The proposed map is consistent with the general plan, any applicable specific plan, any policy or guideline implementing the general plan, and all other applicable provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code.
4. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type and density of development.
5. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not cause serious public health problems.
Planning Commission Resolution No. Recommending Approval of a Tentative Subdivision Map – 1323 Elam Ave. Page 3 of 3
7. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision or that alternative easements for access will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.
8. The design of the subdivision shall provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive and natural heating and cooling features in accordance with Government Code Section 66473.
9. Water will be available and sufficient to serve a proposed subdivision (less than 500 dwelling units) in accordance with Government Code Section 66473.7.
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
1. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects and under Section 15304 of CEQA, pertaining to alterations which do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees;
2. No substantial evidence has been presented from which a reasonable argument could be made that shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required Conditions of Approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and
3. There are no unusual circumstances that would prevent the project from qualifying as Categorically Exempt per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission approves a Tentative Subdivision Map for the Project located at 1323 Elam Avenue, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit “A”). PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of February, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
APPROVED: Stuart Ching, Chair
ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary
EXHIBIT A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Tentative Subdivision Map Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works
Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance
with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this
development and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Tentative Subdivision Map to subdivide a
parcel into four developable parcels and one common lot, subject to approval of a Planned Development Permit and Parking Modification Permit, on property located at 1323 Elam Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the project plans dated November 5, 2021, except as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval herein.
2. Approval Expiration: The Tentative Subdivision Map approval is valid for a period of two years from the date of final City Council approval unless an extension is granted prior to the expiration date. Recordation of a Tract Map must occur within this two-year period.
3. Tract Map: The Planned Development Permit approval is contingent upon recordation of
the Tract Map to divide the subject property. The Tract Map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. 4. Indemnity: If determined necessary by the Community Development Director, the
applicant shall enter into an agreement satisfactory to the City Attorney to indemnify and
defend the City of Campbell, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from any and all actions, liabilities, losses, and torts, including attorney’s fees arising out of or connected unto any challenge to the decision of the City Council on this application. Such agreement shall be executed within the 30 days of the Community Development
Director's decision to require it.
5. Planned Development Permit: The Tentative Subdivision Map is contingent upon approval of the Planned Development Permit and Parking Modification Permit. A Tract Map may not be recorded if the Planned Development Permit or Parking Modification
Permit expires or is revoked by the City Council.
6. Park Impact Fee: A park impact fee is due upon development of the site, based on the development density ranging from 6 < 13 Units per Gross Acre (Low/Medium Density), less credit for one legally constructed unit. Prior to recordation of the Tract Map, 75% of
this fee is due. The remaining 25% is due prior to issuance of a certificate of building
occupancy. This fee is subject to change and the fee in effect at the time of payment shall be the fee due.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Page 2 of 9
7. Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&R’s): Prior to issuance of recordation of the Tract Map, the applicant shall submit for review and approval by the City a copy of the draft CC&R’s which shall include the following:
a. Formation of a Homeowner’s Association to ensure the long-term maintenance of
buildings and property.
b. Continued architectural controls to ensure the architectural integrity of the project.
c. Definition of common areas to be maintained and provision of maintenance for these areas.
d. Provision which shall define the rights of use, allowable landscape or open space
improvements.
e. Provision of a funding mechanism to ensure maintenance and upkeep of common areas.
f. Provision to provide ongoing maintenance of the required private roadways,
landscaping, and sound walls as necessary. Graffiti removal from sound walls and
fences within a reasonable period of time.
g. Provision that requires ongoing maintenance of the landscaped park strip and tree wells in the public right of way. This includes, but is not limited to: trees, lawn, plantings, irrigation, etc. Trees shall not be pruned in a manner that would not allow
the tree to grow to a mature height.
h. Provision for regular monitoring and maintenance of the stormwater system, in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations.
i. Provision for regular monitoring and maintenance of the private sanitary system as described by the designing engineering, and as approved by the City Engineer.
j. Provision for the availability of interior garage space for the parking of vehicles at all times.
k. Provision to prohibit the use of outside parking spaces for storage purposes, including boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles.
l. Provision to prohibit vehicle washing, and vehicle repair and maintenance activities in
the project site, including, but not limited to garages and common parking areas.
m. Provision that requires that all landscaping, including but not limited infiltration plantings, be maintained as depicted on the final landscaping plan.
n. Provision guaranteeing equal access to all common facilities and amenities by all residents (renters and homeowners) of the project.
8. Compliance with Other Regulations: The applicant shall comply with other state, county, and city ordinances that pertain to the proposed project.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Page 3 of 9
9. Equal Access: As codified within the project's CC&Rs, the Home Owners Association shall maintain equal access to all common facilities and amenities for all residents (renters and homeowners) of the project.
10. Utility Boxes and Back-Flow Preventers: The applicant shall submit a plan prior to installation of the underground PG&E utility (transformer) boxes and San Jose Water Company back-flow preventers, indicating the location and color/material of the boxes for approval by the Community Development Director.
11. Pad Certification: Following site grading and prior to preparation of individual building pad forms, the following improvements shall be certified by a licensed land surveyor and reviewed by the Community Development Director to determine consistency with the approved plan (grade, pad and drainage).
12. Residential Address Identification: The applicant shall submit a detail sheet showing
uniform residential address identification material type and location on the building wall for review and approval by the Community Development prior to the issuance of Building Permits. In order to obtain approval, numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the
street or road fronting the property. Additionally, number material and color is required to contrast with their background. 13. Property Maintenance: The property is to be maintained free of any combustible trash, debris, and weeds until the time that actual construction commences. Any vacant
existing structures shall be secured, by having windows boarded up and doors sealed shut, or be demolished or removed from the property (California Fire Code, 2013 Edition). 14. Stormwater and Grading Requirements: The project shall comply with City stormwater
and grading requirements (CMC Sec. 20.80.020, 21.16.100, and 14.02), as more specifically itemized in the Public Works Department Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Subdivision Map. 15. Construction Activity: The following standards shall apply to construction of the project:
• Construction Hours (CMC 18.04.052): 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.
• Construction Noise (CMC 18.04.052): 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 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.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Page 4 of 9
• Contractor Contact Information Posting: The project site shall be posted with the name and contact number of the lead contractor in a location visible from the public
street prior to issuance of building permits. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 16. Construction Drawings: The applicant shall submit the required Tract Map, Street
Improvement Plans, and Grading and Drainage Plans directly to the Public Works Department prior to, or concurrent with the Building permit application. Said application shall include the following: a. Response Letter: Upon submittal of the required plans, the applicant shall
provide an itemized response letter verifying that all the Public Works Conditions of Approval have been met or addressed.
b. Submittal Requirements: The checklist for the various plans required for submittal can be found on the City’s Website at: CityServices►PublicWorks►Engineering►Land Development►Documents, (or use
this link: http://www.cityofcampbell.com/206/Documents). See instructions on:
i. Checklist for Tract Map; ii. Checklist for Grading and Drainage; iii. Checklist for Street Improvement Plans; iv. Upon submittal of the Final Map, a joint trench plan is required (location of
the electrical power pole and all utility boxes will not be allowed in the sidewalk area).
17. Final Map: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the project, the applicant shall submit a Final Map for review by the City and recordation, upon approval
by the City Council, pay various fees/deposits and submit the map in a digital format acceptable to the City. See instructions on “Checklist for Tract Maps” on the City’s website. 18. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): Provide a copy of the CC&Rs at the
time of submittal review of the Final Map. CC&Rs to be reviewed by the City Attorney and Community Development Director and CC&Rs. Maintenance of the stormwater treatment facilities and the storm drain lateral connection to the City’s storm sewer system shall be part of the CC&Rs (that includes the proposed site design measure using permeable pavers). Recordation of CC&Rs will occur at time of Final Map
recordation. 19. Preliminary Title Report: Upon submittal of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide a current (within the past 6 months) Preliminary Title Report.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Page 5 of 9
20. Right-of-Way for Public Street Purposes: Upon recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall fully complete the process to cause additional right-of-way to be granted in fee for public street purposes along the Elam Avenue frontage to accommodate a 30-ft half street in fee, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall
submit the necessary documents for approval by the City Engineer process the submittal
with City staff’s comments and fully complete the right-of-way process. The applicant shall cause all documents to be prepared by a registered civil engineer/land surveyor, as necessary, for the City’s review and recordation.
21. Public Service Easement: Upon recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall grant a 5-ft Public Service Easement on private property contiguous with the public right-of-way along the Elam Avenue frontage, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall cause all documents to be prepared by a registered civil engineer/land surveyor, as necessary, for the City’s review and recordation. Private utilities such as the
PG&E joint trench shall be located so as not to interfere with the future public street trees root system. 22. Private Easements: Upon recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall cause private easements to be recorded for private utilities, private storm drains, reciprocal ingress
and egress, emergency vehicles, etc. 23. Monumentation for Final Map: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall provide a cash deposit (100% of the monument estimate) for setting all monuments shown on the map. Monuments shall be set per section 20.76.010 of the Campbell
Municipal Code including but not limited to setting permanent pipe monuments (three-fourths inch galvanized steel pipe two feet long approximately six inches below finished grade) at each boundary of all lot corners within the subdivision (a total of 14 boundary points), along the exterior boundary lines at intervals of approximately five hundred feet and at all beginning of curves and ending of curves on property lines, and monument
boxes (Quantity 2) at intersections of all street monument line tangents. 24. Demolition: Prior to recording of the Final Map the applicant shall obtain a demolition permit and remove any nonconforming structures.
25. Soils Report: Upon submittal of the Final Map, applicant shall provide a soils report prepared by a registered geotechnical or civil engineer. 26. Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies based on a ten-year storm frequency, prepare an engineered
grading and drainage plan, and pay fees required to obtain necessary grading permits. Prior to occupancy, the design engineer shall provide written certification that the development has been built per the engineered grading and drainage plans.
a. Grading plans must also include side and rear yard topography extending a sufficient distance beyond property line (20’ minimum) to determine that proposed grading will
not impede existing drainage patterns.
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Page 6 of 9
b. Identify the location of overland release to the public storm system/public right of way. 27. Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall pay the
required Storm Drain Area fee. 28. Park Impact Fee: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, 75% of this fee is due the remaining 25% is due prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy of Building Occupancy.
29. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, Santa Clara Valley Water District requirements, and the Campbell Municipal Code regarding stormwater pollution
prevention. The primary objectives are to improve the quality and reduce the quantity of
stormwater runoff to the bay.
Resources to achieve these objectives include Stormwater Best Management Practices
Handbook for New Development and Redevelopment (“CA BMP Handbook”) by the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2003; Start at the Source: A
Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection (“Start at the Source”) by the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), 1999; and Using
Site Design Techniques to Meet Development Standards for Stormwater Quality: A
Companion Document to Start at the Source (“Using Site Design Techniques”) by BASMAA, 2003.
30. Utilities: All on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 21.18.140 of the Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall comply with all plan submittals, permitting, and fee requirements of the serving utility companies.
Utility locations shall not cause damage to any existing street trees. Where there are utility conflicts due to established tree roots or where a new tree will be installed, alternate locations for utilities shall be explored. Include utility trench details where necessary.
31. Water Meter(s) and Sewer Cleanout(s): Proposed water meter(s) and sewer cleanout(s) shall be relocated or installed on private property behind the public right-of-way line. 32. Utility Coordination Plan: Prior to issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant
shall submit a utility coordination plan and schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation and/or abandonment of all utilities. The plan shall clearly show the location and size of all existing utilities and the associated main lines; indicate which utilities and services are to remain; which utilities and services are to be abandoned, and where new
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Page 7 of 9
utilities and services will be installed. Joint trenches for new utilities shall be used whenever possible. 33. Joint Trench Plan: Upon submittal of the Final Map, a joint trench plan is required
showing the location of the electrical power pole and all utility boxes associated with it. No utility boxes will be allowed in the sidewalk area. All vaults, boxes transformers must be undergrounded. No above ground equipment shall be installed. 34. Pavement Restoration: Based on the utility coordination plan, the applicant shall
prepare a pavement restoration plan for approval by the City Engineer prior to any utility installation or abandonment. Streets that have been reconstructed or overlaid within the previous five years will require boring and jacking for all new utility installations Elam Avenue has not been reconstructed or overlaid in the last 5 years. The pavement restoration plan shall indicate how the street pavement shall be restored following the
installation or abandonment of all utilities necessary for the project.
35. Street Improvement Agreements / Plans / Encroachment Permit / Fees / Deposits: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement, cause plans for public street improvements to be prepared by a registered
civil engineer, pay various fees and deposits, post security and provide insurance necessary to obtain an encroachment permit for construction of the standard public street improvements, as required by the City Engineer. The plans shall include the following, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer:
c. Show location of all existing utilities within the new and existing public right of
way.
d. Relocation of all existing utilities including utility boxes, covers, poles, etc. outside of sidewalk area. No utility boxes, covers, etc. will be allowed in the sidewalk area. Place all new utility equipment, boxes, covers, poles serving the development, in Lot “A” (Common Area).
e. Removal of existing street section to crown of Elam Avenue roadway.
f. Installation of City approved street trees and irrigation at 30 feet on center. Park strip ground cover shall be no mow (fine fescue and hair grass Deschampsia) turf.
g. Installation of City standard curb, gutter, 5ft park strip and 4ft-6in sidewalk and an ADA compliant driveway approach per Detail D-16.1, Multi-Residential Driveway.
h. Installation of engineered structural pavement section to centerline, as required by the City Engineer.
i. Installation of asphalt concrete overlay per street pavement restoration plan for utility installation and/or abandonment, as required by the City Engineer.
j. A Type 15 Caltrans (LED) Street Light to be installed along the Elam Avenue
frontage (a photometric plan will be required at the time of construction plan review to determine exact location of the street light).
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Page 8 of 9
k. Installation of streetlights, conduits, conductors and related facilities in accordance with the City of Campbell’s Street Lighting Policies.
l. Installation of traffic control, stripes and signs.
m. Construction of conforms to existing public and private improvements, as
necessary.
n. Submit final plans in a digital format acceptable to the City. 36. Street Improvements Completed for Occupancy and Building Permit Final: Prior to allowing occupancy and/or final building permit signoff for any and/or all buildings, the
applicant shall have the required street improvements and pavement restoration
installed and accepted by the City, and the design engineer shall submit as-built drawings to the City. 37. Maintenance of Landscaping: Owner(s), current and future, are required to maintain the
landscaped park strip and tree wells in the public right of way. This includes, but is not limited to: trees, lawn, plantings, irrigation, etc. Trees shall not be pruned in a manner that would not allow the tree to grow to a mature height. 38. Utility Encroachment Permit: Separate encroachment permits for the installation of
utilities to serve the development will be required (including water, sewer, gas, electric, etc.). Applicant shall apply for and pay all necessary fees for utility permits for sanitary sewer, gas, water, electric and all other utility work. 39. Additional Street Improvements: Should it be discovered after the approval process that
new utility main lines, extra utility work or other work is required to service the development, and should those facilities or other work affect any public improvements, the City may add conditions to the development/project/permit, at the discretion of the City Engineer, to restore pavement or other public improvements to the satisfaction of the City.
40. Other Design Comments that will be required during the full design process:
o. This project is not a C.3 Regulated project because the applicant is proposing to reduce the impervious surfaces by installing permeable pavers and has demonstrated that the total impervious areas are less than 10,000 square feet.
The type of permeable pavers used must meet the C.3 Stormwater Handbook Design Guidelines by SCVURPPP, Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program.
p. The applicant must provide observation well(s) to help facilitate periodic inspections on the installation of permeable pavers. The observation well(s) will
be required to be installed in or outside the permeable pavement area. The observation well(s) should be located at the lowest elevation.
q. The City has reservations on the proposal of the overall design of the driveway
Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval Tentative Subdivision Map Page 9 of 9
(site design measure to reduce impervious surfaces on the project) and therefore will review this mixed material method of pervious and non-pervious sections in depth at the time of project submittal. The civil engineer will be required to provide more information on how this system will work in unison and demonstrate
that it meets the C.3 intent, and provide a maintenance plan relating to this design.
r. The City will not allow a connection to the back of the public storm drain inlet from an on-site junction box as shown on the plans. A connection will be required to the public storm main system. During construction design review, a profile detail
will also be required. Connection to the City’s Storm Drain systems requires minimum 12” RCP pipe from an on-site junction box to the storm drain main system. Add a note identifying this lateral connection is privately owned and therefore maintenance is part of the HOA. A storm drain manhole in the public right of way will be required at interception. The profile information must have the
existing storm manhole inverts.
s. Parking areas adjacent to the buildings and foundation areas shall not be made of pervious pavement. Replace any pervious areas with impervious material and drain away from the buildings. Pervious areas adjacent to all buildings shall slope away at 5% for at least 10-ft.
t. Impervious areas in the drive isle may need to be reduced to offset the replaced permeable pavement in the parking areas.
u. Water meter BFPs, underground transformers/vaults (no above ground) must be placed on private property; the location should be coordinated between the Fire Dept. and the Planning Dept.
v. The City will allow for the current stormwater design scenario to connect to the City Storm Drain System; however a soils report should include tests showing infiltration rates so that if the soils are good, the City will require redesign to infiltrate into the soil instead.
w. All topsoil adjacent to the permeable pavers must be below the flush curb
(minimum 6’’) so that top soil does not sheet flow over into the permeable pavers.
x. All perimeter walls acting as a retainer shall be made using masonry or concrete.
Attachment C
RESOLUTION NO.
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL APPROVING A PARKING MODIFICATION PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR TWO ASSIGNED PARKING SPACES (I.E. UNIT SPECIFIC) TO BE PROVIDED AS GUEST PARKING SPACES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1323 ELAM AVENUE. FILE NUMBER: PLN-2021-201 After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to the recommended approval of a Parking Modification Permit: Environmental Finding
1. The project may be found Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects which are found consistent with all applicable general plan policies, zoning regulations, are under five acres in size, and substantially surrounded by urban uses. Further, the project qualifies for the exemption on the basis the site has no value as habitat for
endangered, rare, or threatened species (i.e., wetland), the project will not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, or air/water quality, and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Evidentiary Findings
1. The proposed project ("project") includes a Planned Development for the approval of site configuration and architectural design for four two-story single-family homes, Tentative Subdivision Map to create four single-family lots and one commonly owned lot, and Parking Modification Permit to allow for two of the required
assigned/uncovered parking spaces, to be provided as uncovered guest parking. 2. The project site consists of a single parcel (18,152 sq. ft. net / 20,027 sq. ft. gross) located on the north side of Elam Avenue between Inwood Drive and San Tomas Aquino Road.
3. The 18,152 square foot lot is currently developed with one single-family residence that will be demolished as part of the proposed subdivision. 4. Abutting land uses include single-family homes to the east and west, an apartment
community to the north, and single-family homes across Elam Avenue to the south.
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 4 1323 Elam Avenue – Recommending Approval of a Parking Modification Permit
5. The proposed subdivision will require a 5-foot dedication along Elam Avenue, which
will reduce the net lot area of the property from 18,152 square-feet to 17,778 square
feet. 6. The project site is zoned P-D (Planned Development).
7. The project site is designated Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 Units / Gr. Acre) as shown on the Campbell General Plan Map. 8. The proposed residential land use, at a density of 8.71 units/gr. acre, is consistent with the allowable land use and maximum density permitted by the Low-Medium
Density Residential General Plan land use designation. 9. The proposed Parking Modification Permit may be approved concurrently, and subject to a Planned Development Permit, and Tentative Subdivision Map.
10. The project would be consistent with the following General Plan policies and strategies: Policy LUT-3.1: Variety of Residential Densities: Provide land use categories for and maintenance of a variety of residential densities to offer
existing and future residents of all income levels, age groups and special needs sufficient opportunities and choices for locating in Campbell.
Policy LUT-5.2: Residential Neighborhoods: Maintain safe, attractive, pedestrian friendly residential neighborhoods with identifiable
centers and consistent development patterns and a range of public and private services.
Strategy LUT-5.2a: Neighborhood Compatibility: Promote new residential development and substantial additions that are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development
pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics.
Strategy LUT-9.3e: Building Materials: Encourage the use of long-lasting, high quality building materials on all buildings to ensure the long-
term quality of the built environment.
Strategy LUT-17.1b:Landscaping: Ensure that new developments provide new tree plantings, shrubs, greenery and other landscaping materials, and preserve existing trees and shrubs.
11. The project proposes 12 parking spaces comprised of 8 covered/assigned and 4 uncovered/guest, where 12 parking spaces comprised of 8 covered/assigned, 2
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 4 1323 Elam Avenue – Recommending Approval of a Parking Modification Permit
uncovered/assigned & 2 uncovered/guest are required which is allowed with the
approval of a Parking Modification Permit.
12. The distribution of parking spaces by type results in a more functional shared use of space for the four units and a more consistent single-family residential look and feel than would otherwise be achieved by assigning additional spaces to each unit.
Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that:
1. Due to the unique nature and circumstances of the project, or special development features, the anticipated number of parking spaces necessary to serve the use or structure is less than that required by the applicable off-street parking standards, and
would be satisfied by the proposed number of parking spaces. 2. Conditions of approval have been incorporated into the project to ensure the long-term adequacy of the provided off-street parking.
3. Approval of the parking modification permit will further the purpose of Campbell Municipal Code Chapter 21.28 (Parking and Loading). 4. There is a reasonable relationship and a rough proportionality between the Conditions of Approval and the impacts of the project.
Environmental Findings (CMC Sec. 21.38.050):
1. The project is Categorically Exempt under Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pertaining to In-Fill Development Projects and under Section 15304 of CEQA, pertaining to alterations which do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees;
2. No substantial evidence has been presented from which a reasonable argument could be made that shows that the project, as currently presented and subject to the required Conditions of Approval, will have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and
3. There are no unusual circumstances that would prevent the project from qualifying as
Categorically Exempt per Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves a Parking Modification Permit to allow for two assigned parking spaces to be provided as guest parking spaces, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval (attached Exhibit A).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of February, 2022, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners:
ABSTAIN: Commissioners:
Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 4 1323 Elam Avenue – Recommending Approval of a Parking Modification Permit
APPROVED: Stuart Ching, Chair
ATTEST: Rob Eastwood, Secretary
EXHIBIT A
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Parking Modification Permit
Where approval by the Director of Community Development, City Engineer, Public Works Director, City Attorney or Fire Department is required, that review shall be for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval, adopted policies and guidelines, ordinances, laws and regulations and accepted engineering practices for the item under review. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all
applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division
1. Approved Project: Approval is granted for a Parking Modification Permit to allow to allow for two assigned parking spaces (i.e., unit specific), to be provided as guest parking spaces, in conjunction with and subject to a Planned Development and Tentative Subdivision Map, on property located at 1323 Elam Avenue. The project shall substantially conform to the Project Plans dated November 5, 2021, except as
may be modified by the Conditions of Approval herein. 2. Planning Final Required: Planning Division clearance is required prior to Building Permit final.
3. Approval Expiration: The Parking Modification Permit approval is valid for a period of two years from the date of final City Council approval unless an extension is granted prior to the expiration date. A building permit must be obtained within this two-year period or the Parking Modification Permit shall be void.
4. Parking: Prior to occupancy, twelve residential parking spaces shall be provided, comprised of 8 covered/assigned spaces and 4 uncovered/guest parking spaces. Uncovered parking spaces shall be adequately striped in the locations shown on the Project Plans, and employ signage to indicate adequate signage to signify the total number and availability to guests of all units at all times, as well as wheel stops firmly
secured to the ground, to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development.
47 This map is based on GIS Information and reflects the most current
information at the time of this printing. The map is intended for reference
purposes only and the City and its staff is not responsible for errors.
1323 Elam Avenue - Location Map
564Campbell IT, GIS Services
94
1:WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere
Feet
940
Scale
EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS
EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WTJOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANJOINT TRENCH SECTIONS AND DETAILSJOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE TITLE SHEETJOINT TRENCH GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILSSHEET NO. DESCRIPTIONJOINT TRENCH DETAILS21 - 22201718194NEW FULL SERVICE COMPLETIONS (ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE AND CATV)SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.560 L.F. OF JOINT TRENCH SHALL BE INSTALLEDWITH THIS JOINT TRENCH PLAN SETEX GASJTSVCEEUGETOHGASEUOHDESCRIPTION:BY:DATE:STATUS:A = APPROVEDxANS= APPROVED NOT SIGNEDxNA= NOT APPROVEDxF= FIRST SUBMITTALxSS= SECOND SUBMITTALxR= RECEIVEDELAM AVENUECROCKETT AVENUESOUTH SAN THOMAS AQUINO ROADHARRIET DRIVE CROCKETT AVENUEWESTMONT ELAM AVENUEAPPROVED FOR SUBMITTALHAIDER KAMMOONAHQUALIFIED APPLICANT DESIGN ENGINEERANTHONY RICE (916) 760-3658E - PM# 35148762 / G - PM# 35148344ANTHONY RICE3/31/2020HOWARD PROCKBENJAMIN LOPEZ10/22/202010/28/2020JAN WEXNER1724
1824
1924
SECTION MSECTION M6SECTION PSECTION TSECTION SSECTION U2024
EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SSEX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX WT EX WT EX WTEX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT
WTWTWTWTSSSSSS SS
SS SS
SS SS
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDEX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSD SD SD SD SD SDSDSD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDEX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WTWTWT
WTWTWTSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTSSSSSSJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTSVC SVC SVC SVC
SVC SVC SVC SVC JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTGASJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT JT JTTUG
T
UG
T
U
G
TUGTUGTUGGASGASEX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GASEX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHMATCHLINEMATCHLINE
2124
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHMATCHLINE MATCHLINE
2224
731 SFOPEN SPACE624 SFOPEN SPACE788 SFOPEN SPACEPORCH (73 SF)PORCH (73 SF)PORCH (152 SF)24" X 24" STEPSTONE PAVERSW/ DYMONDIA BETWEENUNITS(2) 24" BOXQUERCUS SUBERADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONROSMARINUS O. 'BLUESPIRES' PRIVACY HEDGEPROPERTY LINE(1) 15 GAL. LAGERSTROEMIA'NATCHEZ'731 SFOPEN SPACE(1) 15 GAL. MAGNOLIAGRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'(N) PROPERTY LINE POST DEDICATION± 5' ROW TO BE DEDICATED IN FEEAGAPANTHUS ORIENTALISGUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING HOUSE 2HOUSE 1HOUSE 318'X20' GARAGE(2 CAR)18'X20' GARAGE(2 CAR)18'X20' GARAGE(2 CAR)(E) UTILITY EASEMENT(N) CITY DEDICATIONMULCH(N) PUBLIC SERVICEEASEMENT12"X12" PERVIOUS PAVERSBY PACIFIC INTERLOCKPAVINGSTONE INC.6"X12" PERVIOUS PAVERS BYPACIFIC INTERLOCKPAVINGSTONE INC.CIP CONCRETE PAVEMENT(2) 24" BOXQUERCUS AGRIFOLIANATURAL FORMLOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA15' SETBACK15' SETBACK(E) PROPERTY LINE15' SETBACKPROPOSED LOCATION OF (4)MAIL BOXESDISTICTIS BUCCINATORIAVINE ON FENCEDISTICTIS BUCCINATORIAVINE ON FENCE(3) CALANDRINIA GRANDIFLORA(1) 15 GAL. CERCIS CANADIENSIS'FOREST PANSY'(1) 15 GAL. MAGNOLIAGRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'PITTOSPORUM TOBIRAPRIVACY HEDGE(1) 15 GAL. CERCISC. 'FOREST PANSY'(2) 15 GAL. TRISTANIA LAURINA(3) 15 GAL. PODOCARPUS(1) 15 GAL. MAGNOLIAGRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'(2) 15 GAL. CERCISC.'FOREST PANSY'PITTOSPORUM TOBIRAPRIVACY HEDGE(1) 15 GAL. MAGNOLIAGRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'(2) 15 GAL. TRISTANIA LAURINA(3) 15 GAL. PODOCARPUSPITTOSPORUM TOBIRAPRIVACY HEDGE(4) 15 GAL. ARBUTUSUNEDO(1) 15 GAL. TRISTANIA LAURINAOPENSPACEMULCHPOROUS GRASS PAVER WITHDYMONDIA GROUNDCOVERPOROUS GRASS PAVER WITHDYMONDIA GROUNDCOVERPOROUS GRASS PAVERWITH DYMONDIAGROUNDCOVERPORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (133 SF)GUESTPARKING(3) AGAVA ATTENUATAMULCHMULCHMULCHMULCH(3) AGAVA ATTENUATA(1) 15 GAL. LAGERSTROEMIA'NATCHEZ'(7) CALANDRINIA GRANDIFLORA(1) 15 GAL. TRISTANIA LAURINA1323 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:12.20.18 BUILDING SUBMITTALPROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY:REY MAPALODATE:231PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANSCALE: 3/32 " = 1'-0"ON-SITELANDSCAPEPLAN23 OF 24SHEET:
PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)HOUSE 2HOUSE 1HOUSE 3HOUSE 4BACKFLOW PREVENTER PERSTANDARD DETAIL BKーRPPINSTALL (1)-1" WATERSERVICE PER DISTRICTSTANDARDS$'-$&E17 %U,/',1*$33 /O&$7,O1$'-$&E17 %U,/',1*$33 /O&$7,O1$'-$&E17 %U,/',1*$33 /O&$7,O1$'-$&E17 %U,/',1*$33 /O&$7,O1$'-$&E17 %U,/',1*$33 /O&$7,O135O3E57< /,1EHOUSE 2HOUSE 1HOUSE 3HOUSE 4 E U7,/,7< E$SE0E17 1 &,7< 'E',&$7,O1 E 35O3E57< /,1E1323 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:12.20.18 BUILDING SUBMITTALPROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY:REY MAPALODATE:24ON-SITELANDSCAPEPLAN2PROPOSED HYDROZONE PLANSCALE: 116 " = 1'-0"1PROPOSED IRRIGATION PLANSCALE: 116 " = 1'-0"24 OF 24SHEET:
EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS
EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WTJOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANJOINT TRENCH SECTIONS AND DETAILSJOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE TITLE SHEETJOINT TRENCH GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILSSHEET NO. DESCRIPTIONJOINT TRENCH DETAILS11 - 12107894NEW FULL SERVICE COMPLETIONS (ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE AND CATV)SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.560 L.F. OF JOINT TRENCH SHALL BE INSTALLEDWITH THIS JOINT TRENCH PLAN SETEX GASJTSVCEEUGETOHGASEUOHDESCRIPTION:BY:DATE:STATUS:A = APPROVEDxANS= APPROVED NOT SIGNEDxNA= NOT APPROVEDxF= FIRST SUBMITTALxSS= SECOND SUBMITTALxR= RECEIVEDELAM AVENUECROCKETT AVENUESOUTH SAN THOMAS AQUINO ROADHARRIET DRIVE CROCKETT AVENUEWESTMONT ELAM AVENUEAPPROVED FOR SUBMITTALHAIDER KAMMOONAHQUALIFIED APPLICANT DESIGN ENGINEERANTHONY RICE (916) 760-3658E - PM# 35148762 / G - PM# 35148344ANTHONY RICE3/31/2020HOWARD PROCKBENJAMIN LOPEZ10/22/202010/28/2020JAN WEXNER71712/11/2020STREET LIGHTING SITE PLANSTREET LIGHTING GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS1513 - 14
817
917
SECTION MSECTION M6SECTION PSECTION TSECTION SSECTION U1017
EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SSEX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS
WTWTWTWTSSSSSS SS
SS SS
SS SS
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDEX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSD SD SD SD SD SDSDSD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDEX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WTWTWT
WTWTWTSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTSSSSSSSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTSVC SVC SVC SVC
SVC SVC SVC SVC JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTGASJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT JT JTTUG
T
UG
T
U
G
TUGTUGTUGGASGASEX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GASEX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHMATCHLINEMATCHLINE
1117
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHMATCHLINE MATCHLINE
1217
ESLSL1317
1417
EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SSEX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX WT EX WT EX WTEX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT
WTWTWTWTSSSSSS SS
SS SS
SS SS
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD SD
SD SD SD SD SD SD SDSDSDSDSDSDEX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SSSS
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSD SD SD SD SD SDSDSD
SDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDEX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WTWTWT
WTWTWTSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTWTSSSSSSSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSD SD SD SD SD SD
JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTSVC SVC SVC SVC
SVC SVC SVC SVC JTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTGASJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJT JT JTTUG
T
UG
T
U
G
TUGTUGTUGGASGASEX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GASEX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOHOHEUOHEUOHEUOHEUOH
1517
731 SFOPEN SPACE624 SFOPEN SPACE788 SFOPEN SPACEPORCH (73 SF)PORCH (73 SF)PORCH (152 SF)24" X 24" STEPSTONEPAVERS W/ DYMONDIABETWEEN UNITSADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONROSMARINUS O. 'BLUESPIRES' PRIVACY HEDGEPROPERTY LINE(1) 15 GAL. LAGERSTROEMIA'NATCHEZ'731 SFOPEN SPACE(1) 15 GAL. MAGNOLIAGRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'(N) PROPERTY LINE POST DEDICATION± 5' ROW TO BE DEDICATED IN FEEAGAPANTHUS ORIENTALISGUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING HOUSE 2HOUSE 1HOUSE 318'X20' GARAGE(2 CAR)18'X20' GARAGE(2 CAR)18'X20' GARAGE(2 CAR)(E) UTILITY EASEMENT(N) CITY DEDICATIONMULCH(N) PUBLIC SERVICEEASEMENT12"X12" PERVIOUS PAVERSBY PACIFIC INTERLOCKPAVINGSTONE INC.6"X12" PERVIOUS PAVERS BYPACIFIC INTERLOCKPAVINGSTONE INC.CIP CONCRETE PAVEMENT(2)24" BOXQUERCUSSUBER"CORK OAK"LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA(2)24" BOXQUERCUS AGRIFOLIANATURAL FORM15' SETBACK15' SETBACK(E) PROPERTY LINE15' SETBACKPROPOSED LOCATION OF (4)MAIL BOXESDISTICTIS BUCCINATORIAVINE ON FENCEDISTICTIS BUCCINATORIAVINE ON FENCE(3) CALANDRINIA GRANDIFLORA(1) 15 GAL. CERCIS CANADIENSIS'FOREST PANSY'(1) 15 GAL. MAGNOLIAGRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'PITTOSPORUM TOBIRAPRIVACY HEDGE(1) 15 GAL. CERCISC. 'FOREST PANSY'(2) 15 GAL. TRISTANIA LAURINA(3) 15 GAL. PODOCARPUS(1) 15 GAL. MAGNOLIAGRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'(2) 15 GAL. CERCISC. 'FOREST PANSY'PITTOSPORUM TOBIRAPRIVACY HEDGE(1) 15 GAL. MAGNOLIAGRANDIFLORA 'ST. MARY'(2) 15 GAL. TRISTANIA LAURINA(3) 15 GAL. PODOCARPUSPITTOSPORUM TOBIRAPRIVACY HEDGE(4) 15 GAL. ARBUTUSUNEDO(1) 15 GAL. TRISTANIA LAURINAOPENSPACEMULCHPOROUS GRASS PAVER WITHDYMONDIA GROUNDCOVERPOROUS GRASS PAVER WITHDYMONDIA GROUNDCOVERPOROUS GRASS PAVERWITH DYMONDIAGROUNDCOVERPORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (133 SF)GUESTPARKING(3) AGAVA ATTENUATAMULCHMULCHMULCHMULCH(3) AGAVA ATTENUATA(1) 15 GAL. LAGERSTROEMIA'NATCHEZ'(7) CALANDRINIA GRANDIFLORA(1) 15 GAL. TRISTANIA LAURINA1323 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:12.20.18 BUILDING SUBMITTAL08-13-21 PLAN CHECK COMMENTSPROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY:REY MAPALODATE:161PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANSCALE: 332 1
-0OFF-SITELANDSCAPEPLAN16 OF 17SHEET:All on-site landscaping to be per approved on-site improvement permit BLD2019-00823
PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)HOUSE 2HOUSE 1HOUSE 3HOUSE 4BACKFLOW PREVENTER PERSTANDARD DETAIL BKーRPPINSTALL (1)-1" WATERSERVICE PER DISTRICTSTANDARDSADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDINGAPP. LOCATIONPROPERTY LINEHOUSE 2HOUSE 1HOUSE 3HOUSE 4(E) UTILITY EASEMENT(N) CITY DEDICATION(E) PROPERTY LINE1323 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:12.20.18 BUILDING SUBMITTAL08-13-21 PLAN CHECK COMMENTSPROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY:REY MAPALODATE:17OFF-SITELANDSCAPEPLAN2PROPOSED HYDRO=ONE PLANSCALE: 116 1
-01PROPOSED IRRI*ATION PLANSCALE: 116 1
-017 OF 17SHEET:All on-site landscaping to be per approved on-site improvement permit BLD2019-00823
X XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
15'-0"PL SETBACK HOUSE 118'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (121 SF)HOUSE 218'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 318'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)
25'-6"GARAGE TO PL (TYP)624 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE788 SF OPEN SPACE23'-11 1/2"BLDG TO PL (TYP)1'-7"GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
20'-0"DRIVWAY WIDTH, TYP23'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 1ST FLOOR26'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 2ND FLOOR 15'-2" PROPOSEDSIDE SETBACK15'-0" PROPOSEDREAR SETABACK
15
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)X2,163 SF ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 1COVER SHEETBLOCK DIAGRAMA-0.01CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 1.working hours: no work shall commence on the job site prior to 7:00a.m. nor continue later than 7:00 p.m., monday through friday, 9:00a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m. saturdy and 10:00 a.m. - 6:00pm on sunday and holidays.2.general contractor shall verify all underground utility locationsprior to excavation, trenching, or grading of any kind. generalcontractor shall coordinate with applicable utility companies whenrerouting electrical, telephone, cable tv, gas, water, sanitary sewerservices, or any other utility. g. c. shall maintain all electrical andcommunication systems in house at all times.3.all work is to be performed in accordance with all governing codes,ordinances, and regulations. g. c. shall become familiar with all cityof campbell aspects of working. general contractor shall beresponsible for coordination and execution of the work shown orimplied in the construction documents and is responsible forconstruction means, methods, and procedures.4.general contractor shall coordinate all facets of his work and alltrades involved to avoid conflict in the location, installation, andconstruction of all items of work as indicated on the constructiondocuments. if any work is to be installed by the owner directly,allowances for the owner's work must be made. coordinate witharchitect / owner.5.general contractor shall leave the job site "broom clean" at the endof each working day. all materials shall be stored in a neat and safeplace to avoid accidents, for construction and for the owner.6.in case of any discrepancy in the contract documents, consult thearchitect before proceeding.7.no dimensions shall be taken by scaling from the drawings. detailstake precedence over general sections or floor plans. if dimensionsmust be clarified, consult the architect. refer to the cover sheet fordimensioning standards.8.verify all dimensions on the job site prior to ordering ormanufacturing.9.general contractor shall review all architectural drawings beforeframing. coordinate recessed light fixture locations, shafts, andhvac ductwork prior to framing. it is imperative that framing memberlocations do not conflict with locations of recessed light fixtures. ifconflict exists, notify architect.10.general contractor shall install all appliances specified and allnew equipment according to manufacturer's instructions. allguarantees, instruction booklets, and information regarding newequipment shall be handed directly to the owner in one manilaenvelope at the time of substantial completion. contractor shallverify that every piece of equipment and every appliance is in perfectworking order and that information about all warranties andguarantees is made known to the owner.11.the installer of each major unit of work is required to inspect thesubstrate and conditions to receive work and shall report allunsatisfactory conditions to the general contractor and not proceeduntil satisfactory conditions are attained.12.for mounting heights not clearly outlined in the plans or schedules,coordinate with the architect. architect shall confirm all electricaldevice and light fixture locations before contractor pulls wire.13.provide solid blocking as necessary for wall mounted shelves,fixtures, and fittings, even when work is to be done by owner directly.review scope of work and locations from interior elevations andcoordinate with owner/architect.14.all fastening devices to be concealed, unless otherwise shown.15.weather-strip all exterior doors and windows.16.caulk or otherwise seal around all openings to limit infiltration,including but not limited to: exterior joints around windows anddoor frames, between sole plates and floors and between exteriorwall panels.17.general contractor shall verify that all work on the exterior of theproject is watertight. all joints exposed to the elements shall betested for water tightness prior to substantial completion.1.water meter may be upgraded / upsized to 1" radio read per city'sapproval fire sprinkler system design plan2.new sewer cleanout per city's standard detail 15a per available city'sutility block map. please field verify the existing sewer beforeinstallation.3.remove the existing driveway approach and reconstruct a new drivewayapproach per current city's standard requirements and not complywith ada requirements.4.city street tree in park-strip1- ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDINGPERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THEPLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT AREVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS PRIORTO PERFORMING THE WORK. 2-the roof will comply with cool roof requirements of the 2016c.e.c. 110.8 2016 3-automatic residential fire sprinkler system will be installed per crcsec 313.2. as adopted and amended by cupmc. nfpa 13d 2016editionstandard. plans to be deferred to cmv residential fire sprinklersystem requirements (see city website under 'fire handouts') coordinatewater meter and water main sizes with approved fire sprinkler shopdrawings. min " 1-1/2meter " 1-1/2& service line unless hydrauliccalculations prove existing adequate). 4-finished roofing material shall be installed and completed prior toframe inspection.5-installation instructions for all listed equipment shall be providedto the building inspector at rough inspection 2016. (cmc 303.1and 2016cpc )310.46-property line survey will be completed by a licensed surveyor andprovided to the building inspector prior to foundation inspection.7-building height verification will be completed by a licensed surveyorand provided to the building inspector prior to framing inspection.8-completed cf2r-ltg-01-e form must be provided to the city buildinginspector, prior to final inspection.9-the building must provide the homeowner with a luminaires schedule(as required in title 24california code of regulations part (10-103 1b) that includes a list of lamps installed in the luminaires.10-The soil engineer shall be retained to provide observation, compaction, and testing services during the grading and foundationphase ofconstruction to verify elements of the soils report. Site visitreports shall be submitted to the Building Department Inspector ofRecord (IOR) 11-This project will require that a surveyor approve the foundationforms in terms of setback accuracy and floor level heights prior toplacing concrete. Language for the letter must be as written as perCampbell’s surveyor handoutavailable through the BuildingDepartment.1)this project shall comply with california fire code (cfc), 2016 city ofcampbell municipal code (cupmc) & california code of regulations(ccr).2)all construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of thecfc chapter 33 and our standard detail and specification si-7. per cfcchp.333)potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination causedby fire protection water supplies. per 2010 cfc sec. 903.3.5 andhealth and safety code 13114.7.4)approved building numbers shall be placed in a position that is plainlylegible and visible from the street fronting the property. per cfc sec.505.1.A-0.01 COVERSHEETA-1.01 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC MAP/DEMOLITION PLANA-1.11 PROPOSED SITE PLANA-2.01 HOUSE 1 1ST FLOOR PLANA-2.11 HOUSE 1 2ND FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLANA-3.01 HOUSE 1 FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS / DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULEA-3.11 HOUSE 1 RIGHT & LEFT ELEVATIONSA-4.01 HOUSE 1 SECTIONSA-5.01 TYPICAL DETAILS1323 ELAM AVE., CAMPBELL, CA 9500840-30-90-046NEW 2-STORY 4 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES WITHATTACHED GARAGERESIDENTIAL (0-4.4 DU/AC)R-M-PDR-3UTYPE V-B2-STORYFLATGENERAL INFORMATIONPROJECT INFORMATIONVICINITY MAPSHEET INDEXARCHITECTURALNOTESGENERAL NOTESADDITIONAL NOTESPUBLIC WORKS NOTESSTRUCTURALFIRE DEPARTMENT NOTESPROPERTY ADDRESS:A.P.N.:DESCRIPTION OF WORK:LAND USE:ZONING:OCCUPANCY GROUP:GARAGE OCCUPANCY GROUP:TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:STORIES:AVERAGE SLOPE:CIVIL1 TITLE SHEET2 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP3 DEMOLITION PLAN4 OVERALL SITE PLAN5 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN6 UTILITY PLAN7 IMPERVIOUS AREA PLAN8 STORM DRAIN PLAN9 STORMWATER SECTIONS10 DETAILS11 DETAILS12 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS13 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS14 EROSION CONTROL PLAN15 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS16 BUILDING FOR A CLEAN BAYLANDSCAPINGL-2 OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANTITLE 24T-24.1 ENERGY CALCULATIONST-24.2 ENERGY CALCULATIONSFLOOR CALCULATIONPROPOSED FLOOR AREA:FIRST FLOOR 860 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOOR 924 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING AREA 1,784 SQ. FT.GARAGE 379 SQ. FT.TOTAL BUILDING AREA 2,163 SQ. FT.MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 40%PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 31%NET LOT AREA 17,777 SQ.FT.BLDG. HEIGHT (PROPOSED GRADE) +/- 27'-0"BLDG. HEIGHT (AVG. NAT. GRADE) +/- 26'-6 1/2"OPEN SPACE 624 SQ. FT.YANHUA RESIDENCEH O U S E 1A.divert a minimum of 65%of the construction & demolition waste forrecycle or reuse per cgbsc 4.408.1B.please provide a copy of the operation and maintenance manual tothe building occupant or owner addressing items 1through 10insection 4.410.1C.automatic irrigation systems controllers installed at the time offinal inspection shall be weather based 94.304.1D.duct systems are sized, designed, and equipment is selected persection 4.507.2hvac system installers must be trained andcertified and special inspectors employed by the enforcing agencymust be qualified.E.protect annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits atexterior wall against the passage of rodents 94.406.1F.cover duct openings and other related air distribution componentopenings during construction 4.504.1G.adhesives, sealants and caulks shall be complaint with voc andother toxic compounds during construction 4.504.2.1H.paint, stain and other coating shall be compliant with voc limits4.504.2.2I.aerosol paints and coatings shall be compliant with productweighted mir limits for roc and other toxic compounds . 4.504.2.3documentation shall be provided to verify complianceJ.carpet systems shall be compliant with voc limits .4.504.3K.minimum 80%of floor area receiving resilient flooring shall complywith the voc-emission limits per sections 4.504.4L.particleboard, medium density fiberboard (mdf) and hardwoodplywood used in interior finish system shall comply with lowformaldehyde emission standards 4.504.5M.install capillary break and vapor retarded at slab on gradefoundation 4.505.2N.check moister content of building materials used in wall and floorframing before enclosure 4.505.3O.project modeled with compliance with cool roof and pipe insulations- all lines.P.hers verification required for the hvac -distribution systems and iaq(indoor air quality). provide evidence of third party verification(hers) to project building inspector, prior to final inspection.Thisbuilding incorporates features that require field testing and/orverification by a ceRtified rater under the supervision of aCEC.aprroved HERSQ.exhaust fans in bahrooms will be energy star compliant, terminateoutside the building, and will be controlled by a humidity controlcapable of adjustment between a relative humidity range of 50percent to 80percent per cgbsc 4.506.1R.Per Cal Green , 4.504there shall be no use of products includingmaterials, paints, solvents, primers, caulks, or glues that exceedsCalifornia’s limit on Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) on thisproject.2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEnC)2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CGBSC) AND THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ORDINANCESAPPLICABLE CODESCALGREEN NOTES1S GENERAL NOTES2S FOUNDATION PLAN3S 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN4S ROOF + CEILING FRAMING PLANS5S FOUNDATION DETAILS6S HARDY FRAME DETAILS7S FRAMING DETAILS8S FRAMING DETAILS9S FRAMING DETAILSAN AUTOMATED RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BEINSTALLED IN THE (N) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PER CRC R313.2CONTACT CITY OF CAMPBELL UTILITIES & SUBMIT A UTILITY APPLICATIONWHICH INCLUDES 40 GPM FOR FIRE SPRINKLER DEMAND. WATER METERSIZE NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVALOF PROJECT.FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE APPROVED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.FIRE SPRINKLER NOTESLOT SIZE: 4,167 SQ. FT.0-1.0BLOCK DIAGRAMSCALE: 1/16 " 1'-0"L-1 ON-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANON-SITE GRADING & DRANAGE PLANSOFF-SITE GRADING & DRANAGE PLANS1 TITLE SHEET2 DEMOLITION PLAN3 STREET PLAN AND PROFILE4 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN5 CITY DETAILS6 STREET LIGHT ELECTRICAL DETAILS7 BUILDING FOR A CLEAN BAYUTILITYJT1 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE TITLE SHEETJT2 JOINT TRENCH GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILSJT3 JOINT TRENCH DETAILSJT4 JOINT TRENCH SECTIONS AND DETAILSJT5 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANJT6 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANMEP1 HOUSE 1 1ST FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLANMEP2 HOUSE 1 2ND FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLANELECTRICAL1323Waste Management StatementConstruction wash-out water from concrete, mortar, tile, taping, andpainting shall be done in a portable containment pool or in a linedevaporative pit. Wash-out shall not enter the storm water system. Trash piles shall not be located in the front yard or visible from thestreet. Trash piles shall not contain: paints, solvents, glues, tapingcompound, food products, or easily recycle-able discardssuch as bottles, cans, plastics, or paper. Remaining trash shall belimited to concrete, wood, drywall, roofing, and assorted metals andshall be covered with a waterproof tarp. Trash shall be separated atan approved bay area disposal site such as Guadalupe Recycling. Alltrash is to be quickly hauled off site. Retain the receipt and keepwith the permit documents, proof of recycle and disposal of the jobsite trash will be checked periodically and prior to final inspection. Or call West Valley Collection and Recycling 283-9250) 408(willdeliver a roll-off debris box and sort the trash off siteL-4 OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-3 ON-SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
X XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX30'-0"(N) CITY DEDICATION15'-0"PL SETBACK
15
'
-
0
"
P
L
S
E
T
B
A
C
K+/- 5' ROW TO BE DEDICATED IN FEE15'-0"ROW / PL SETBACK(E) UTILITY EASEMENT(N) CITY DEDICATION(N) PROPERTY LINE POST DEDICATION(E) PROPERTY LINE PRE DEDICATIONHOUSE 118'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (121 SF)HOUSE 218'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 318'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)FIRE TURNAROUNDPAINTED RED CURB25'-6"GARAGE TO PL (TYP)624 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE788 SF OPEN SPACE23'-11 1/2"BLDG TO PL (TYP)1'-7"GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
NO PARKING SIGN FORFIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND5'-0"ADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATION(N) PUBLICSERVICEEASEMENTPROPOSED LOCATION OF (4) MAIL BOXESW/ FLOOR MOUNTED POSTMAILBOX TO BE 41" - 45" ABOVE FLOORFINISH TO BOTTOM OF BOX OR POINT OFMAIL ENTRY.BOX TO MEET POSTMASTER GENERAL'SSEAL OF APPROVAL.15'-0"42" TALL FENCE20'-0"DRIVWAY WIDTH, TYP
25' BACKUP DISTANCE FORGUEST PARKINGLOCATION OF SIGN FOR GUESTPARKING TOW AWAY NOTICE23'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 1ST FLOOR
26'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 2ND FLOOR 15'-2" PROPOSEDSIDE SETBACK15'-0" PROPOSEDREAR SETABACK
1
5
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)XGUESTPARKING ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163A-1.111-1PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 3/32 1
-0HOUSE1PROPOSEDSITE PLANSITE NOTES:ALL DIMENSIONS AND SETBACK POINTS NEED TO BECHECKED BEFORE THE ADDITION TAKES PLACE. PLEASEVERIFY ALL SETBACKS FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THEPROPERTY TO THE <E> HOUSE AND <N> ADDITIONSPRI0R TO DIGGING NEW FOUNDATION AND POURING OFTHE CONCRETE OR FORM WORK SETUP. IF THE SETBACKAT THE SITE DOES NOT MATCH UP TO THE DRAWING ORIS OVER THE ALLOWABLE SETBACK PLEASE CONTACTTHE PROJECT ARCHITECT FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE ONTHE PROJECT.SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWNON THE APPROVED SITE IMPROVEMENT / GRADING &DRAINAGE PLAN ( BLD 2019-00823 )1323
FRIDGE36" ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 11ST FLOORPLANA-2.012-1HOUSE 1 1ST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"THRESHOLD NOTE:ATTIC ACCESS NOTE:1323
ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 12ND FLOORPLAN &ROOF PLANA-2.112-2HOUSE 1 2ND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2-3HOUSE 1 ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1323
HOUSE 1FRONT (SOUTH)& REAR (NORTH)ELEVATIONSdoor & windowschedulesegress windowsA-3.01 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163 3-1HOUSE 1FRONT (SOUTH) ELEVATION3-2HOUSE 1 REAR (NORTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3-3HOUSE 1 DOOR SCHEDULE3-4HOUSE 1 GENERAL WINDOW SCHEDULE3-5EGRESS WINDOWS1323
22341HOUSE 1LEFT (WEST) &RIGHT (EAST)ELEVATIONSA-3.11 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM40859901633-7HOUSE 1 LEFT (WEST) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3-6HOUSE 1 RIGHT (EAST) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1323
10'
11'-1"
TOP PLATE
SEND FLOOR FLOOR FINISH
9'
TOP PLATE
27'
BUILDING HEIGHT
HOUSE 1CROSSSECTIONSA-4.01 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163B-BHOUSE 1 CROSS SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"A-AHOUSE 1 CROSS SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1323
X XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
15'-0"PL SETBACK 15'-0"ROW / PL SETBACKHOUSE 118'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (121 SF)HOUSE 218'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 318'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)
25'-6"GARAGE TO PL (TYP)624 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE788 SF OPEN SPACE23'-11 1/2"BLDG TO PL (TYP)1'-7"GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING5'-0"(N) PUBLICSERVICE20'-0"DRIVWAY WIDTH, TYP23'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 1ST FLOOR26'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 2ND FLOOR 15'-2" PROPOSEDSIDE SETBACK15'-0" PROPOSEDREAR SETABACK
15
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)X2,072 SF ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 2COVER SHEETA-0.021.working hours: no work shall commence on the job site prior to 7:00a.m. nor continue later than 7:00 p.m., monday through friday, 9:00a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m. saturdy and 10:00 a.m. - 6:00pm on sunday and holidays.2.general contractor shall verify all underground utility locationsprior to excavation, trenching, or grading of any kind. generalcontractor shall coordinate with applicable utility companies whenrerouting electrical, telephone, cable tv, gas, water, sanitary sewerservices, or any other utility. g. c. shall maintain all electrical andcommunication systems in house at all times.3.all work is to be performed in accordance with all governing codes,ordinances, and regulations. g. c. shall become familiar with all cityof campbell aspects of working. general contractor shall beresponsible for coordination and execution of the work shown orimplied in the construction documents and is responsible forconstruction means, methods, and procedures.4.general contractor shall coordinate all facets of his work and alltrades involved to avoid conflict in the location, installation, andconstruction of all items of work as indicated on the constructiondocuments. if any work is to be installed by the owner directly,allowances for the owner's work must be made. coordinate witharchitect / owner.5.general contractor shall leave the job site "broom clean" at the endof each working day. all materials shall be stored in a neat and safeplace to avoid accidents, for construction and for the owner.6.in case of any discrepancy in the contract documents, consult thearchitect before proceeding.7.no dimensions shall be taken by scaling from the drawings. detailstake precedence over general sections or floor plans. if dimensionsmust be clarified, consult the architect. refer to the cover sheet fordimensioning standards.8.verify all dimensions on the job site prior to ordering ormanufacturing.9.general contractor shall review all architectural drawings beforeframing. coordinate recessed light fixture locations, shafts, andhvac ductwork prior to framing. it is imperative that framing memberlocations do not conflict with locations of recessed light fixtures. ifconflict exists, notify architect.10.general contractor shall install all appliances specified and allnew equipment according to manufacturer's instructions. allguarantees, instruction booklets, and information regarding newequipment shall be handed directly to the owner in one manilaenvelope at the time of substantial completion. contractor shallverify that every piece of equipment and every appliance is in perfectworking order and that information about all warranties andguarantees is made known to the owner.11.the installer of each major unit of work is required to inspect thesubstrate and conditions to receive work and shall report allunsatisfactory conditions to the general contractor and not proceeduntil satisfactory conditions are attained.12.for mounting heights not clearly outlined in the plans or schedules,coordinate with the architect. architect shall confirm all electricaldevice and light fixture locations before contractor pulls wire.13.provide solid blocking as necessary for wall mounted shelves,fixtures, and fittings, even when work is to be done by owner directly.review scope of work and locations from interior elevations andcoordinate with owner/architect.14.all fastening devices to be concealed, unless otherwise shown.15.weather-strip all exterior doors and windows.16.caulk or otherwise seal around all openings to limit infiltration,including but not limited to: exterior joints around windows anddoor frames, between sole plates and floors and between exteriorwall panels.17.general contractor shall verify that all work on the exterior of theproject is watertight. all joints exposed to the elements shall betested for water tightness prior to substantial completion.1.water meter may be upgraded / upsized to 1" radio read per city'sapproval fire sprinkler system design plan2.new sewer cleanout per city's standard detail 15a per available city'sutility block map. please field verify the existing sewer beforeinstallation.3.remove the existing driveway approach and reconstruct a new drivewayapproach per current city's standard requirements and not complywith ada requirements.4.city street tree in park-strip1- ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDINGPERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THEPLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT AREVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS PRIORTO PERFORMING THE WORK.2-the roof will comply with cool roof requirements of the 2016c.e.c. 110.8 20163-automatic residential fire sprinkler system will be installed per crcsec 313.2. as adopted and amended by cupmc. nfpa 13d 2016editionstandard. plans to be deferred to cmv residential fire sprinklersystem requirements (see city website under 'fire handouts') coordinatewater meter and water main sizes with approved fire sprinkler shopdrawings. min " 1-1/2meter " 1-1/2& service line unless hydrauliccalculations prove existing adequate). 4-finished roofing material shall be installed and completed prior toframe inspection.5-installation instructions for all listed equipment shall be providedto the building inspector at rough inspection 2016. (cmc 303.1and 2016cpc )310.46-property line survey will be completed by a licensed surveyor andprovided to the building inspector prior to foundation inspection.7-building height verification will be completed by a licensed surveyorand provided to the building inspector prior to framing inspection.8-completed cf2r-ltg-01-e form must be provided to the city buildinginspector, prior to final inspection.9-the building must provide the homeowner with a luminaires schedule(as required in title 24california code of regulations part (10-103 1b) that includes a list of lamps installed in the luminaires.10-The soil engineer shall be retained to provide observation, compaction, and testing services during the grading and foundationphase ofconstruction to verify elements of the soils report. Site visitreports shall be submitted to the Building Department Inspector ofRecord (IOR) 11-This project will require that a surveyor approve the foundationforms in terms of setback accuracy and floor level heights prior toplacing concrete. Language for the letter must be as written as perCampbell’s surveyor handoutavailable through the BuildingDepartment.1)this project shall comply with california fire code (cfc), 2016 city ofcampbell municipal code (cupmc) & california code of regulations(ccr).2)all construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of thecfc chapter 33 and our standard detail and specification si-7. per cfcchp.333)potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination causedby fire protection water supplies. per 2010 cfc sec. 903.3.5 andhealth and safety code 13114.7.4)approved building numbers shall be placed in a position that is plainlylegible and visible from the street fronting the property. per cfc sec.505.1.1325 ELAM AVE., CAMPBELL, CA 9500840-30-90-046NEW 2-STORY 4 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES WITHATTACHED GARAGERESIDENTIAL (0-4.4 DU/AC)R1-7.5R-3UTYPE V-B2-STORYFLATGENERAL INFORMATIONPROJECT INFORMATIONVICINITY MAPSHEET INDEXNOTESGENERAL NOTESADDITIONAL NOTESPUBLIC WORKS NOTESFIRE DEPARTMENT NOTESPROPERTY ADDRESS:A.P.N.:DESCRIPTION OF WORK:LAND USE:ZONING:OCCUPANCY GROUP:GARAGE OCCUPANCY GROUP:TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:STORIES:AVERAGE SLOPE:2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEnC)2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CGBSC) AND THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ORDINANCESAPPLICABLE CODESCALGREEN NOTESPROPOSED FLOOR AREA:FIRST FLOOR 913 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOOR 780 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING AREA 1,693 SQ. FT.GARAGE 379 SQ. FT.TOTAL BUILDING AREA 2,072 SQ. FT.MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 40%PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 31%NET LOT AREA 17,777 SQ.FT.BLDG.HEIGHT (PROPOSED GRADE) +/- 26'-0"BLDG.HEIGHT (AVG. NAT. GRADE) +/- 25'-9"OPEN SPACE 731 SQ. FT.CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA YANHUA RESIDENCEH O U S E 2FLOOR CALCULATIONLOT SIZE: 3,629 SQ. FT.0-2.0BLOCK DIAGRAMSCALE: 1/16 " 1'-0"AN AUTOMATED RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BEINSTALLED IN THE (N) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PER CRC R313.2CONTACT CITY OF CAMPBELL UTILITIES & SUBMIT A UTILITY APPLICATIONWHICH INCLUDES 40 GPM FOR FIRE SPRINKLER DEMAND. WATER METERSIZE NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVALOF PROJECT.FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE APPROVED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.FIRE SPRINKLER NOTESA-0.02 COVERSHEETA-1.02 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC MAP/DEMOLITION PLANA-1.12 PROPOSED SITE PLANA-2.02 HOUSE 1 1ST FLOOR PLANA-2.12 HOUSE 1 2ND FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLANA-3.02 HOUSE 1 FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS / DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULEA-3.12 HOUSE 1 RIGHT & LEFT ELEVATIONSA-4.02 HOUSE 1 SECTIONSA-5.02 TYPICAL DETAILSARCHITECTURALSTRUCTURALCIVIL1 TITLE SHEET2 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP3 DEMOLITION PLAN4 OVERALL SITE PLAN5 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN6 UTILITY PLAN7 IMPERVIOUS AREA PLAN8 STORM DRAIN PLAN9 STORMWATER SECTIONS10 DETAILS11 DETAILS12 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS13 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS14 EROSION CONTROL PLAN15 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS16 BUILDING FOR A CLEAN BAYTITLE 24T-24.1 ENERGY CALCULATIONST-24.2 ENERGY CALCULATIONS1S GENERAL NOTES2S FOUNDATION PLAN3S 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN4S ROOF + CEILING FRAMING PLANS5S FOUNDATION DETAILS6S HARDY FRAME DETAILS7S FRAMING DETAILS8S FRAMING DETAILS9S FRAMING DETAILSON-SITE GRADING & DRANAGE PLANSOFF-SITE GRADING & DRANAGE PLANS1 TITLE SHEET2 DEMOLITION PLAN3 STREET PLAN AND PROFILE4 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN5 CITY DETAILS6 STREET LIGHT ELECTRICAL DETAILS7 BUILDING FOR A CLEAN BAYUTILITYJT1 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE TITLE SHEETJT2 JOINT TRENCH GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILSJT3 JOINT TRENCH DETAILSJT4 JOINT TRENCH SECTIONS AND DETAILSJT5 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANJT6 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANMEP1 HOUSE 2 1ST FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLANMEP2 HOUSE 2 2ND FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLANELECTRICAL1325Waste Management StatementConstruction wash-out water from concrete, mortar, tile, taping, andpainting shall be done in a portable containment pool or in a linedevaporative pit. Wash-out shall not enter the storm water system. Trash piles shall not be located in the front yard or visible from thestreet. Trash piles shall not contain: paints, solvents, glues, tapingcompound, food products, or easily recycle-able discardssuch as bottles, cans, plastics, or paper. Remaining trash shall belimited to concrete, wood, drywall, roofing, and assorted metals andshall be covered with a waterproof tarp. Trash shall be separated atan approved bay area disposal site such as Guadalupe Recycling. Alltrash is to be quickly hauled off site. Retain the receipt and keepwith the permit documents, proof of recycle and disposal of the jobsite trash will be checked periodically and prior to final inspection. Or call West Valley Collection and Recycling 283-9250) 408(willdeliver a roll-off debris box and sort the trash off siteA.divert a minimum of 65%of the construction & demolition waste forrecycle or reuse per cgbsc 4.408.1B.please provide a copy of the operation and maintenance manual tothe building occupant or owner addressing items 1through 10insection 4.410.1C.automatic irrigation systems controllers installed at the time offinal inspection shall be weather based 94.304.1D.duct systems are sized, designed, and equipment is selected persection 4.507.2hvac system installers must be trained andcertified and special inspectors employed by the enforcing agencymust be qualified.E.protect annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits atexterior wall against the passage of rodents 94.406.1F.cover duct openings and other related air distribution componentopenings during construction 4.504.1G.adhesives, sealants and caulks shall be complaint with voc andother toxic compounds during construction 4.504.2.1H.paint, stain and other coating shall be compliant with voc limits4.504.2.2I.aerosol paints and coatings shall be compliant with productweighted mir limits for roc and other toxic compounds . 4.504.2.3documentation shall be provided to verify complianceJ.carpet systems shall be compliant with voc limits .4.504.3K.minimum 80%of floor area receiving resilient flooring shall complywith the voc-emission limits per sections 4.504.4L.particleboard, medium density fiberboard (mdf) and hardwoodplywood used in interior finish system shall comply with lowformaldehyde emission standards 4.504.5M.install capillary break and vapor retarded at slab on gradefoundation 4.505.2N.check moister content of building materials used in wall and floorframing before enclosure 4.505.3O.project modeled with compliance with cool roof and pipe insulations- all lines.P.hers verification required for hvac -distribution systems and iaq(indoor air quality). provide evidence of third party verification(hers) to project building inspector, prior to final inspection.Thisbuilding incorporates features that require field testing and/orverification by a ceRtified rater under the supervision of aCEC.aprroved HERSQ.exhaust fans in bahrooms will be energy star compliant, terminateoutside the building, and will be controlled by a humidity controlcapable of adjustment between a relative humidity range of 50percent to 80percent per cgbsc 4.506.1R.Per Cal Green , 4.504there shall be no use of products includingmaterials, paints, solvents, primers, caulks, or glues that exceedsCalifornia’s limit on Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) on thisproject.LANDSCAPINGL-2 OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-1 ON-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-4 OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-3 ON-SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
X XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX30'-0"(N) CITY DEDICATION15'-0"PL SETBACK
15
'
-
0
"
P
L
S
E
T
B
A
C
K+/- 5' ROW TO BE DEDICATED IN FEE15'-0"ROW / PL SETBACK(E) UTILITY EASEMENT(N) CITY DEDICATION(N) PROPERTY LINE POST DEDICATION(E) PROPERTY LINE PRE DEDICATIONHOUSE 118'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (121 SF)HOUSE 218'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 318'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)FIRE TURNAROUNDPAINTED RED CURB25'-6"GARAGE TO PL (TYP)624 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE788 SF OPEN SPACE23'-11 1/2"BLDG TO PL (TYP)1'-7"GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
NO PARKING SIGN FORFIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND5'-0"ADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATION(N) PUBLICSERVICEEASEMENTPROPOSED LOCATION OF (4) MAIL BOXESW/ FLOOR MOUNTED POSTMAILBOX TO BE 41" - 45" ABOVE FLOORFINISH TO BOTTOM OF BOX OR POINT OFMAIL ENTRY.BOX TO MEET POSTMASTER GENERAL'SSEAL OF APPROVAL.15'-0"42" TALL FENCE20'-0"DRIVWAY WIDTH, TYP
25' BACKUP DISTANCE FORGUEST PARKINGLOCATION OF SIGN FOR GUESTPARKING TOW AWAY NOTICE23'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 1ST FLOOR
26'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 2ND FLOOR 15'-2" PROPOSEDSIDE SETBACK15'-0" PROPOSEDREAR SETABACK
1
5
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)XGUESTPARKING ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163A-1.121-2PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 332 1
-0HOUSE 2PROPOSEDSITE PLANSITE NOTES:ALL DIMENSIONS AND SETBACK POINTS NEED TO BECHECKED BEFORE THE ADDITION TAKES PLACE. PLEASEVERIFY ALL SETBACKS FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THEPROPERTY TO THE <E> HOUSE AND <N> ADDITIONSPRI0R TO DIGGING NEW FOUNDATION AND POURING OFTHE CONCRETE OR FORM WORK SETUP. IF THE SETBACKAT THE SITE DOES NOT MATCH UP TO THE DRAWING ORIS OVER THE ALLOWABLE SETBACK PLEASE CONTACTTHE PROJECT ARCHITECT FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE ONTHE PROJECT.1325
FRIDGE36" ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 21ST FLOORPLANA-2.022-4HOUSE 2 1ST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"THRESHOLD NOTE:ATTIC ACCESS NOTE:1325 2
ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 22ND FLOORPLAN &ROOF PLANA-2.122-5HOUSE 2 2ND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2-6HOUSE 2 ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1325 2
HOUSE 2FRONT (EAST) &REAR (WEST)ELEVATIONSdoor & windowschedulesegress windowsA-3.02 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163 3-8HOUSE 2 FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION3-9HOUSE 2 REAR (WEST) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3-10HOUSE 2 DOOR SCHEDULE3-11HOUSE 2 GENERAL WINDOW SCHEDULE3-12EGRESS WINDOWS1325
HOUSE 2RIGHT (NORTH)LEFT (SOUTH)ELEVATIONSA-3.12 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM40859901633-14HOUSE 2 LEFT (SOUTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3-13HOUSE 2 RIGHT (NORTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1325
HOUSE 2CROSSSECTIONSA-4.02 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163D-DHOUSE 2 CROSS SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"C-CHOUSE 2 CROSS SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1325
X XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
15'-0"PL SETBACK 15'-0"ROW / PL SETBACKHOUSE 118'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (121 SF)HOUSE 218'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 318'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)
25'-6"GARAGE TO PL (TYP)624 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE788 SF OPEN SPACE23'-11 1/2"BLDG TO PL (TYP)1'-7"GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING5'-0"(N) PUBLICSERVICE20'-0"DRIVWAY WIDTH, TYP23'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 1ST FLOOR26'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 2ND FLOOR 15'-2" PROPOSEDSIDE SETBACK15'-0" PROPOSEDREAR SETABACK
15'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)X2,072 SF ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 3COVER SHEETA-0.031.working hours: no work shall commence on the job site prior to 7:00a.m. nor continue later than 7:00 p.m., monday through friday, 9:00a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m. saturdy and 10:00 a.m. - 6:00pm on sunday and holidays.2.general contractor shall verify all underground utility locationsprior to excavation, trenching, or grading of any kind. generalcontractor shall coordinate with applicable utility companies whenrerouting electrical, telephone, cable tv, gas, water, sanitary sewerservices, or any other utility. g. c. shall maintain all electrical andcommunication systems in house at all times.3.all work is to be performed in accordance with all governing codes,ordinances, and regulations. g. c. shall become familiar with all cityof campbell aspects of working. general contractor shall beresponsible for coordination and execution of the work shown orimplied in the construction documents and is responsible forconstruction means, methods, and procedures.4.general contractor shall coordinate all facets of his work and alltrades involved to avoid conflict in the location, installation, andconstruction of all items of work as indicated on the constructiondocuments. if any work is to be installed by the owner directly,allowances for the owner's work must be made. coordinate witharchitect / owner.5.general contractor shall leave the job site "broom clean" at the endof each working day. all materials shall be stored in a neat and safeplace to avoid accidents, for construction and for the owner.6.in case of any discrepancy in the contract documents, consult thearchitect before proceeding.7.no dimensions shall be taken by scaling from the drawings. detailstake precedence over general sections or floor plans. if dimensionsmust be clarified, consult the architect. refer to the cover sheet fordimensioning standards.8.verify all dimensions on the job site prior to ordering ormanufacturing.9.general contractor shall review all architectural drawings beforeframing. coordinate recessed light fixture locations, shafts, andhvac ductwork prior to framing. it is imperative that framing memberlocations do not conflict with locations of recessed light fixtures. ifconflict exists, notify architect.10.general contractor shall install all appliances specified and allnew equipment according to manufacturer's instructions. allguarantees, instruction booklets, and information regarding newequipment shall be handed directly to the owner in one manilaenvelope at the time of substantial completion. contractor shallverify that every piece of equipment and every appliance is in perfectworking order and that information about all warranties andguarantees is made known to the owner.11.the installer of each major unit of work is required to inspect thesubstrate and conditions to receive work and shall report allunsatisfactory conditions to the general contractor and not proceeduntil satisfactory conditions are attained.12.for mounting heights not clearly outlined in the plans or schedules,coordinate with the architect. architect shall confirm all electricaldevice and light fixture locations before contractor pulls wire.13.provide solid blocking as necessary for wall mounted shelves,fixtures, and fittings, even when work is to be done by owner directly.review scope of work and locations from interior elevations andcoordinate with owner/architect.14.all fastening devices to be concealed, unless otherwise shown.15.weather-strip all exterior doors and windows.16.caulk or otherwise seal around all openings to limit infiltration,including but not limited to: exterior joints around windows anddoor frames, between sole plates and floors and between exteriorwall panels.17.general contractor shall verify that all work on the exterior of theproject is watertight. all joints exposed to the elements shall betested for water tightness prior to substantial completion.1.water meter may be upgraded / upsized to 1" radio read per city'sapproval fire sprinkler system design plan2.new sewer cleanout per city's standard detail 15a per available city'sutility block map. please field verify the existing sewer beforeinstallation.3.remove the existing driveway approach and reconstruct a new drivewayapproach per current city's standard requirements and not complywith ada requirements.4.city street tree in park-strip1- ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDINGPERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THEPLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT AREVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS PRIORTO PERFORMING THE WORK. 2-the roof will comply with cool roof requirements of the 2016c.e.c. 110.8 2016 3-automatic residential fire sprinkler system will be installed per crcsec 313.2. as adopted and amended by cupmc. nfpa 13d 2016editionstandard. plans to be deferred to cmv residential fire sprinklersystem requirements (see city website under 'fire handouts') coordinatewater meter and water main sizes with approved fire sprinkler shopdrawings. min " 1-1/2meter " 1-1/2& service line unless hydrauliccalculations prove existing adequate). 4-finished roofing material shall be installed and completed prior toframe inspection. 5-installation instructions for all listed equipment shall be providedto the building inspector at rough inspection 2016. (cmc 303.1and 2016cpc )310.4 6-property line survey will be completed by a licensed surveyor andprovided to the building inspector prior to foundation inspection. 7-building height verification will be completed by a licensed surveyorand provided to the building inspector prior to framing inspection. 8-completed cf2r-ltg-01-e form must be provided to the city buildinginspector, prior to final inspection. 9-the building must provide the homeowner with a luminaires schedule(as required in title 24california code of regulations part (10-103 1b) that includes a list of lamps installed in the luminaires.10-The soil engineer shall be retained to provide observation, compaction, and testing services during the grading and foundationphase ofconstruction to verify elements of the soils report. Site visitreports shall be submitted to the Building Department Inspector ofRecord (IOR) 11-This project will require that a surveyor approve the foundationforms in terms of setback accuracy and floor level heights prior toplacing concrete. Language for the letter must be as written as perCampbell’s surveyor handoutavailable through the BuildingDepartment.1)this project shall comply with california fire code (cfc), 2016 city ofcampbell municipal code (cupmc) & california code of regulations(ccr).2)all construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of thecfc chapter 33 and our standard detail and specification si-7. per cfcchp.333)potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination causedby fire protection water supplies. per 2010 cfc sec. 903.3.5 andhealth and safety code 13114.7.4)approved building numbers shall be placed in a position that is plainlylegible and visible from the street fronting the property. per cfc sec.505.1.1327 ELAM AVE., CAMPBELL, CA 9500840-30-90-046NEW 2-STORY 4 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES WITHATTACHED GARAGERESIDENTIAL (0-4.4 DU/AC)R1-7.5R-3UTYPE V-B2-STORYFLATGENERAL INFORMATIONPROJECT INFORMATIONVICINITY MAPSHEET INDEXNOTESGENERAL NOTESADDITIONAL NOTESPUBLIC WORKS NOTESFIRE DEPARTMENT NOTESPROPERTY ADDRESS:A.P.N.:DESCRIPTION OF WORK:LAND USE:ZONING:OCCUPANCY GROUP:GARAGE OCCUPANCY GROUP:TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:STORIES:AVERAGE SLOPE:LOT SIZE: 3,629 SQ. FT.2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEnC)2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CGBSC) AND THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ORDINANCESAPPLICABLE CODESCALGREEN NOTESCAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA YANHUA RESIDENCEH O U S E 3PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:FIRST FLOOR 913 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOOR 780 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING AREA 1,693 SQ. FT.GARAGE 379 SQ. FT.TOTAL BUILDING AREA 2,072 SQ. FT.MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 40%PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 31%NET LOT AREA 17,777 SQ.FT.BLDG.HEIGHT (PROPOSED GRADE) +/- 26'-0"BLDG.HEIGHT (AVG. NAT. GRADE) +/- 26'-3"OPEN SPACE 731 SQ. FT.FLOOR CALCULATIONAN AUTOMATED RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BEINSTALLED IN THE (N) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PER CRC R313.2CONTACT CITY OF CAMPBELL UTILITIES & SUBMIT A UTILITY APPLICATIONWHICH INCLUDES 40 GPM FOR FIRE SPRINKLER DEMAND. WATER METERSIZE NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVALOF PROJECT.FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE APPROVED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.FIRE SPRINKLER NOTES0-3.0BLOCK DIAGRAMSCALE: 1/16 " 1'-0"A-0.03 COVERSHEETA-1.03 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC MAP/DEMOLITION PLANA-1.13 PROPOSED SITE PLANA-2.03 HOUSE 1 1ST FLOOR PLANA-2.13 HOUSE 1 2ND FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLANA-3.03 HOUSE 1 FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS / DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULEA-3.13 HOUSE 1 RIGHT & LEFT ELEVATIONSA-4.03 HOUSE 1 SECTIONSA-5.03 TYPICAL DETAILSARCHITECTURALSTRUCTURALCIVIL1 TITLE SHEET2 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP3 DEMOLITION PLAN4 OVERALL SITE PLAN5 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN6 UTILITY PLAN7 IMPERVIOUS AREA PLAN8 STORM DRAIN PLAN9 STORMWATER SECTIONS10 DETAILS11 DETAILS12 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS13 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS14 EROSION CONTROL PLAN15 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS16 BUILDING FOR A CLEAN BAYTITLE 24T-24.1 ENERGY CALCULATIONST-24.2 ENERGY CALCULATIONS1S GENERAL NOTES2S FOUNDATION PLAN3S 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN4S ROOF + CEILING FRAMING PLANS5S FOUNDATION DETAILS6S HARDY FRAME DETAILS7S FRAMING DETAILS8S FRAMING DETAILS9S FRAMING DETAILSON-SITE GRADING & DRANAGE PLANSOFF-SITE GRADING & DRANAGE PLANS1 TITLE SHEET2 DEMOLITION PLAN3 STREET PLAN AND PROFILE4 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN5 CITY DETAILS6 STREET LIGHT ELECTRICAL DETAILS7 BUILDING FOR A CLEAN BAYUTILITYJT1 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE TITLE SHEETJT2 JOINT TRENCH GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILSJT3 JOINT TRENCH DETAILSJT4 JOINT TRENCH SECTIONS AND DETAILSJT5 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANJT6 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANMEP1 HOUSE 3 1ST FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLANMEP2 HOUSE 3 2ND FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLANELECTRICAL1327Waste Management StatementConstruction wash-out water from concrete, mortar, tile, taping, andpainting shall be done in a portable containment pool or in a linedevaporative pit. Wash-out shall not enter the storm water system. Trash piles shall not be located in the front yard or visible from thestreet. Trash piles shall not contain: paints, solvents, glues, tapingcompound, food products, or easily recycle-able discardssuch as bottles, cans, plastics, or paper. Remaining trash shall belimited to concrete, wood, drywall, roofing, and assorted metals andshall be covered with a waterproof tarp. Trash shall be separated atan approved bay area disposal site such as Guadalupe Recycling. Alltrash is to be quickly hauled off site. Retain the receipt and keepwith the permit documents, proof of recycle and disposal of the jobsite trash will be checked periodically and prior to final inspection. Or call West Valley Collection and Recycling 283-9250) 408(willdeliver a roll-off debris box and sort the trash off siteA.divert a minimum of 65%of the construction & demolition waste forrecycle or reuse per cgbsc 4.408.1B.please provide a copy of the operation and maintenance manual tothe building occupant or owner addressing items 1through 10insection 4.410.1C.automatic irrigation systems controllers installed at the time offinal inspection shall be weather based 94.304.1D.duct systems are sized, designed, and equipment is selected persection 4.507.2hvac system installers must be trained andcertified and special inspectors employed by the enforcing agencymust be qualified.E.protect annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits atexterior wall against the passage of rodents 94.406.1F.cover duct openings and other related air distribution componentopenings during construction 4.504.1G.adhesives, sealants and caulks shall be complaint with voc andother toxic compounds during construction 4.504.2.1H.paint, stain and other coating shall be compliant with voc limits4.504.2.2I.aerosol paints and coatings shall be compliant with productweighted mir limits for roc and other toxic compounds . 4.504.2.3documentation shall be provided to verify complianceJ.carpet systems shall be compliant with voc limits .4.504.3K.minimum 80%of floor area receiving resilient flooring shall complywith the voc-emission limits per sections 4.504.4L.particleboard, medium density fiberboard (mdf) and hardwoodplywood used in interior finish system shall comply with lowformaldehyde emission standards 4.504.5M.install capillary break and vapor retarded at slab on gradefoundation 4.505.2N.check moister content of building materials used in wall and floorframing before enclosure 4.505.3O.project modeled with compliance with cool roof and pipe insulations- all lines.P.hers verification required for the hvac -distribution systems and iaq(indoor air quality). provide evidence of third party verification(hers) to project building inspector, prior to final inspection.Thisbuilding incorporates features that require field testing and/orverification by a ceRtified rater under the supervision of aCEC.aprroved HERSQ.exhaust fans in bahrooms will be energy star compliant, terminateoutside the building, and will be controlled by a humidity controlcapable of adjustment between a relative humidity range of 50percent to 80percent per cgbsc 4.506.1R.Per Cal Green , 4.504there shall be no use of products includingmaterials, paints, solvents, primers, caulks, or glues that exceedsCalifornia’s limit on Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) on thisproject.LANDSCAPINGL-2 OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-1 ON-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-4 OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-3 ON-SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
X XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX30'-0"(N) CITY DEDICATION15'-0"PL SETBACK
15
'
-
0
"
P
L
S
E
T
B
A
C
K+/- 5' ROW TO BE DEDICATED IN FEE15'-0"ROW / PL SETBACK(E) UTILITY EASEMENT(N) CITY DEDICATION(N) PROPERTY LINE POST DEDICATION(E) PROPERTY LINE PRE DEDICATIONHOUSE 118'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (121 SF)HOUSE 218'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 318'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)FIRE TURNAROUNDPAINTED RED CURB25'-6"GARAGE TO PL (TYP)624 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE788 SF OPEN SPACE23'-11 1/2"BLDG TO PL (TYP)1'-7"GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
NO PARKING SIGN FORFIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND5'-0"ADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATION(N) PUBLICSERVICEEASEMENTPROPOSED LOCATION OF (4) MAIL BOXESW/ FLOOR MOUNTED POSTMAILBOX TO BE 41" - 45" ABOVE FLOORFINISH TO BOTTOM OF BOX OR POINT OFMAIL ENTRY.BOX TO MEET POSTMASTER GENERAL'SSEAL OF APPROVAL.15'-0"42" TALL FENCE20'-0"DRIVWAY WIDTH, TYP
25' BACKUP DISTANCE FORGUEST PARKINGLOCATION OF SIGN FOR GUESTPARKING TOW AWAY NOTICE23'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 1ST FLOOR
26'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 2ND FLOOR 15'-2" PROPOSEDSIDE SETBACK15'-0" PROPOSEDREAR SETABACK
1
5
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)XGUESTPARKING ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163A-1.131-3PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 332 1
-0HOUSE 3PROPOSEDSITE PLANSITE NOTES:ALL DIMENSIONS AND SETBACK POINTS NEED TO BECHECKED BEFORE THE ADDITION TAKES PLACE. PLEASEVERIFY ALL SETBACKS FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THEPROPERTY TO THE <E> HOUSE AND <N> ADDITIONSPRI0R TO DIGGING NEW FOUNDATION AND POURING OFTHE CONCRETE OR FORM WORK SETUP. IF THE SETBACKAT THE SITE DOES NOT MATCH UP TO THE DRAWING ORIS OVER THE ALLOWABLE SETBACK PLEASE CONTACTTHE PROJECT ARCHITECT FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE ONTHE PROJECT.1327
FIRST FLOOR -1,332 SFFRIDGE36" ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 31ST FLOORPLANA-2.032-7HOUSE 3 1ST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"THRESHOLD NOTE:ATTIC ACCESS NOTE:1327
SECOND FLOOR - 828 SF ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 32ND FLOORPLAN &ROOF PLANA-2.132-8HOUSE 3 2ND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2-9HOUSE 3 ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1327
HOUSE 3FRONT (EAST) &REAR (WEST)ELEVATIONSdoor & windowschedulesegress windowsA-3.03 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163 3-15HOUSE 3 FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION3-16HOUSE 3 REAR (WEST) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3-17HOUSE 3 DOOR SCHEDULE3-18HOUSE 3 GENERAL WINDOW SCHEDULE3-19EGRESS WINDOWS1327
HOUSE 3RIGHT (NORTH)LEFT (SOUTH)ELEVATIONSA-3.13 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM40859901633-21HOUSE 3 RIGHT (NORTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3-20HOUSE 3 LEFT (SOUTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1327
HOUSE 3CROSSSECTIONSA-4.03 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163F-FHOUSE 3 CROSS SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"E-EHOUSE 3 CROSS SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1327
X XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
15'
-
0
"
P
L
S
E
T
B
A
C
K 15'-0"ROW / PL SETBACKHOUSE 118'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (121 SF)HOUSE 218'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 318'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)
25'-6"GARAGE TO PL (TYP)624 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE788 SF OPEN SPACE23'-11 1/2"BLDG TO PL (TYP)1'-7"GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING5'-0"(N) PUBLIC20'-0"DRIVWAY WIDTH, TYP23'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 1ST FLOOR26'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 2ND FLOOR 15'-2" PROPOSEDSIDE SETBACK15'-0" PROPOSEDREAR SETABACK
15'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)X2,045 SF ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 4COVER SHEETA-0.041.working hours: no work shall commence on the job site prior to 7:00a.m. nor continue later than 7:00 p.m., monday through friday, 9:00a.m. nor continue later than 6:00 p.m. saturdy and 10:00 a.m. - 6:00pm on sunday and holidays.2.general contractor shall verify all underground utility locationsprior to excavation, trenching, or grading of any kind. generalcontractor shall coordinate with applicable utility companies whenrerouting electrical, telephone, cable tv, gas, water, sanitary sewerservices, or any other utility. g. c. shall maintain all electrical andcommunication systems in house at all times.3.all work is to be performed in accordance with all governing codes,ordinances, and regulations. g. c. shall become familiar with all cityof campbell aspects of working. general contractor shall beresponsible for coordination and execution of the work shown orimplied in the construction documents and is responsible forconstruction means, methods, and procedures.4.general contractor shall coordinate all facets of his work and alltrades involved to avoid conflict in the location, installation, andconstruction of all items of work as indicated on the constructiondocuments. if any work is to be installed by the owner directly,allowances for the owner's work must be made. coordinate witharchitect / owner.5.general contractor shall leave the job site "broom clean" at the endof each working day. all materials shall be stored in a neat and safeplace to avoid accidents, for construction and for the owner.6.in case of any discrepancy in the contract documents, consult thearchitect before proceeding.7.no dimensions shall be taken by scaling from the drawings. detailstake precedence over general sections or floor plans. if dimensionsmust be clarified, consult the architect. refer to the cover sheet fordimensioning standards.8.verify all dimensions on the job site prior to ordering ormanufacturing.9.general contractor shall review all architectural drawings beforeframing. coordinate recessed light fixture locations, shafts, andhvac ductwork prior to framing. it is imperative that framing memberlocations do not conflict with locations of recessed light fixtures. ifconflict exists, notify architect.10.general contractor shall install all appliances specified and allnew equipment according to manufacturer's instructions. allguarantees, instruction booklets, and information regarding newequipment shall be handed directly to the owner in one manilaenvelope at the time of substantial completion. contractor shallverify that every piece of equipment and every appliance is in perfectworking order and that information about all warranties andguarantees is made known to the owner.11.the installer of each major unit of work is required to inspect thesubstrate and conditions to receive work and shall report allunsatisfactory conditions to the general contractor and not proceeduntil satisfactory conditions are attained.12.for mounting heights not clearly outlined in the plans or schedules,coordinate with the architect. architect shall confirm all electricaldevice and light fixture locations before contractor pulls wire.13.provide solid blocking as necessary for wall mounted shelves,fixtures, and fittings, even when work is to be done by owner directly.review scope of work and locations from interior elevations andcoordinate with owner/architect.14.all fastening devices to be concealed, unless otherwise shown.15.weather-strip all exterior doors and windows.16.caulk or otherwise seal around all openings to limit infiltration,including but not limited to: exterior joints around windows anddoor frames, between sole plates and floors and between exteriorwall panels.17.general contractor shall verify that all work on the exterior of theproject is watertight. all joints exposed to the elements shall betested for water tightness prior to substantial completion.1.water meter may be upgraded / upsized to 1" radio read per city'sapproval fire sprinkler system design plan2.new sewer cleanout per city's standard detail 15a per available city'sutility block map. please field verify the existing sewer beforeinstallation.3.remove the existing driveway approach and reconstruct a new drivewayapproach per current city's standard requirements and not complywith ada requirements.4.city street tree in park-strip1- ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDINGPERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THEPLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT AREVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS PRIORTO PERFORMING THE WORK. 2-the roof will comply with cool roof requirements of the 2016c.e.c. 110.8 2016 3-automatic residential fire sprinkler system will be installed per crcsec 313.2. as adopted and amended by cupmc. nfpa 13d 2016editionstandard. plans to be deferred to cmv residential fire sprinklersystem requirements (see city website under 'fire handouts') coordinatewater meter and water main sizes with approved fire sprinkler shopdrawings. min " 1-1/2meter " 1-1/2& service line unless hydrauliccalculations prove existing adequate). 4-finished roofing material shall be installed and completed prior toframe inspection. 5-installation instructions for all listed equipment shall be providedto the building inspector at rough inspection 2016. (cmc 303.1and 2016cpc )310.4 6-property line survey will be completed by a licensed surveyor andprovided to the building inspector prior to foundation inspection. 7-building height verification will be completed by a licensed surveyorand provided to the building inspector prior to framing inspection. 8-completed cf2r-ltg-01-e form must be provided to the city buildinginspector, prior to final inspection. 9-the building must provide the homeowner with a luminaires schedule(as required in title 24california code of regulations part (10-103 1b) that includes a list of lamps installed in the luminaires. 10-The soil engineer shall be retained to provide observation, compaction, and testing services during the grading and foundationphase ofconstruction to verify elements of the soils report. Site visitreports shall be submitted to the Building Department Inspector ofRecord (IOR) 11-This project will require that a surveyor approve the foundationforms in terms of setback accuracy and floor level heights prior toplacing concrete. Language for the letter must be as written as perCampbell’s surveyor handoutavailable through the BuildingDepartment.1)this project shall comply with california fire code (cfc), 2016 city ofcampbell municipal code (cupmc) & california code of regulations(ccr).2)all construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of thecfc chapter 33 and our standard detail and specification si-7. per cfcchp.333)potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination causedby fire protection water supplies. per 2010 cfc sec. 903.3.5 andhealth and safety code 13114.7.4)approved building numbers shall be placed in a position that is plainlylegible and visible from the street fronting the property. per cfc sec.505.1.1329 ELAM AVE., CAMPBELL, CA 9500840-30-90-046NEW 2-STORY 4 SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES WITHATTACHED GARAGERESIDENTIAL (0-4.4 DU/AC)R1-7.5R-3UTYPE V-B2-STORYFLATGENERAL INFORMATIONPROJECT INFORMATIONVICINITY MAPSHEET INDEXNOTESGENERAL NOTESADDITIONAL NOTESPUBLIC WORKS NOTESFIRE DEPARTMENT NOTESPROPERTY ADDRESS:A.P.N.:DESCRIPTION OF WORK:LAND USE:ZONING:OCCUPANCY GROUP:GARAGE OCCUPANCY GROUP:TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:STORIES:AVERAGE SLOPE:LOT SIZE: 5,981 SQ. FT.2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC)2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC)2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC)2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEnC)2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CGBSC) AND THE CITY OF CAMPBELL ORDINANCESAPPLICABLE CODESCALGREEN NOTESCAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA YANHUA RESIDENCEH O U S E 4PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:FIRST FLOOR 896 SQ. FT.SECOND FLOOR 770 SQ. FT.TOTAL LIVING AREA 1,666 SQ. FT.GARAGE 379 SQ. FT.TOTAL BUILDING AREA 2,045 SQ. FT.MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 40%PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 31%NET LOT AREA 17,777 SQ.FT.BLDG.HEIGHT (PROPOSED GRADE) +/- 26'-0"BLDG.HEIGHT (AVG. NAT. GRADE) +/- 26'-9"OPEN SPACE 788 SQ. FT.FLOOR CALCULATION1-4.5BLOCK DIAGRAMSCALE: 1/16 " 1'-0"AN AUTOMATED RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BEINSTALLED IN THE (N) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS PER CRC R313.2CONTACT CITY OF CAMPBELL UTILITIES & SUBMIT A UTILITY APPLICATIONWHICH INCLUDES 40 GPM FOR FIRE SPRINKLER DEMAND. WATER METERSIZE NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVALOF PROJECT.FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM TO BE APPROVED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.FIRE SPRINKLER NOTESA-0.04 COVERSHEETA-1.04 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC MAP/DEMOLITION PLANA-1.14 PROPOSED SITE PLANA-2.04 HOUSE 1 1ST FLOOR PLANA-2.14 HOUSE 1 2ND FLOOR PLAN & ROOF PLANA-3.04 HOUSE 1 FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS / DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULEA-3.14 HOUSE 1 RIGHT & LEFT ELEVATIONSA-4.04 HOUSE 1 SECTIONSA-5.04 TYPICAL DETAILSARCHITECTURALSTRUCTURALCIVIL1 TITLE SHEET2 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP3 DEMOLITION PLAN4 OVERALL SITE PLAN5 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN6 UTILITY PLAN7 IMPERVIOUS AREA PLAN8 STORM DRAIN PLAN9 STORMWATER SECTIONS10 DETAILS11 DETAILS12 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS13 GRADING SPECIFICATIONS14 EROSION CONTROL PLAN15 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS16 BUILDING FOR A CLEAN BAYTITLE 24T-24.1 ENERGY CALCULATIONST-24.2 ENERGY CALCULATIONS1S GENERAL NOTES2S FOUNDATION PLAN3S 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN4S ROOF + CEILING FRAMING PLANS5S FOUNDATION DETAILS6S HARDY FRAME DETAILS7S FRAMING DETAILS8S FRAMING DETAILS9S FRAMING DETAILSON-SITE GRADING & DRANAGE PLANSOFF-SITE GRADING & DRANAGE PLANS1 TITLE SHEET2 DEMOLITION PLAN3 STREET PLAN AND PROFILE4 HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN5 CITY DETAILS6 STREET LIGHT ELECTRICAL DETAILS7 BUILDING FOR A CLEAN BAYUTILITYJT1 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE TITLE SHEETJT2 JOINT TRENCH GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILSJT3 JOINT TRENCH DETAILSJT4 JOINT TRENCH SECTIONS AND DETAILSJT5 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANJT6 JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLANMEP1 HOUSE 4 1ST FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLANMEP2 HOUSE 4 2ND FLOOR ELECTRICAL PLANELECTRICAL1329Waste Management StatementConstruction wash-out water from concrete, mortar, tile, taping, andpainting shall be done in a portable containment pool or in a linedevaporative pit. Wash-out shall not enter the storm water system. Trash piles shall not be located in the front yard or visible from thestreet. Trash piles shall not contain: paints, solvents, glues, tapingcompound, food products, or easily recycle-able discardssuch as bottles, cans, plastics, or paper. Remaining trash shall belimited to concrete, wood, drywall, roofing, and assorted metals andshall be covered with a waterproof tarp. Trash shall be separated atan approved bay area disposal site such as Guadalupe Recycling. Alltrash is to be quickly hauled off site. Retain the receipt and keepwith the permit documents, proof of recycle and disposal of the jobsite trash will be checked periodically and prior to final inspection. Or call West Valley Collection and Recycling 283-9250) 408(willdeliver a roll-off debris box and sort the trash off siteA.divert a minimum of 65%of the construction & demolition waste forrecycle or reuse per cgbsc 4.408.1B.please provide a copy of the operation and maintenance manual tothe building occupant or owner addressing items 1through 10insection 4.410.1C.automatic irrigation systems controllers installed at the time offinal inspection shall be weather based 94.304.1D.duct systems are sized, designed, and equipment is selected persection 4.507.2hvac system installers must be trained andcertified and special inspectors employed by the enforcing agencymust be qualified.E.protect annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits atexterior wall against the passage of rodents 94.406.1F.cover duct openings and other related air distribution componentopenings during construction 4.504.1G.adhesives, sealants and caulks shall be complaint with voc andother toxic compounds during construction 4.504.2.1H.paint, stain and other coating shall be compliant with voc limits4.504.2.2I.aerosol paints and coatings shall be compliant with productweighted mir limits for roc and other toxic compounds . 4.504.2.3documentation shall be provided to verify complianceJ.carpet systems shall be compliant with voc limits .4.504.3K.minimum 80%of floor area receiving resilient flooring shall complywith the voc-emission limits per sections 4.504.4L.particleboard, medium density fiberboard (mdf) and hardwoodplywood used in interior finish system shall comply with lowformaldehyde emission standards 4.504.5M.install capillary break and vapor retarded at slab on gradefoundation 4.505.2N.check moister content of building materials used in wall and floorframing before enclosure 4.505.3O.project modeled with compliance with cool roof and pipe insulations- all lines.P.hers verification required for the hvac -distribution systems, andiaq (indoor air quality). provide evidence of third party verification(hers) to project building inspector, prior to final inspection.Thisbuilding incorporates features that require field testing and/orverification by a ceRtified rater under the supervision of aCEC.aprroved HERSQ.exhaust fans in bahrooms will be energy star compliant, terminateoutside the building, and will be controlled by a humidity controlcapable of adjustment between a relative humidity range of 50percent to 80percent per cgbsc 4.506.1R.Per Cal Green , 4.504there shall be no use of products includingmaterials, paints, solvents, primers, caulks, or glues that exceedsCalifornia’s limit on Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) on thisproject.LANDSCAPINGL-2 OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-1 ON-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-4 OFF-SITE LANDSCAPE PLANL-3 ON-SITE LANDSCAPE PLAN
X XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX30'-0"(N) CITY DEDICATION15'-0"PL SETBACK
15
'
-
0
"
P
L
S
E
T
B
A
C
K+/- 5' ROW TO BE DEDICATED IN FEE15'-0"ROW / PL SETBACK(E) UTILITY EASEMENT(N) CITY DEDICATION(N) PROPERTY LINE POST DEDICATION(E) PROPERTY LINE PRE DEDICATIONHOUSE 118'x20' GARAGE(2 CAR)PORCH (121 SF)HOUSE 218'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 318'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)PORCH (73 SF)HOUSE 418'x20' GARAGE
(2 CAR)FIRE TURNAROUNDPAINTED RED CURB25'-6"GARAGE TO PL (TYP)624 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE731 SF OPEN SPACE788 SF OPEN SPACE23'-11 1/2"BLDG TO PL (TYP)1'-7"GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
NO PARKING SIGN FORFIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND5'-0"ADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APP. LOCATIONADJACENT BUILDING APPROXIMATE LOCATION(N) PUBLICSERVICEEASEMENTPROPOSED LOCATION OF (4) MAIL BOXESW/ FLOOR MOUNTED POSTMAILBOX TO BE 41" - 45" ABOVE FLOORFINISH TO BOTTOM OF BOX OR POINT OFMAIL ENTRY.BOX TO MEET POSTMASTER GENERAL'SSEAL OF APPROVAL.15'-0"42" TALL FENCE20'-0"DRIVWAY WIDTH, TYP
25' BACKUP DISTANCE FORGUEST PARKINGLOCATION OF SIGN FOR GUESTPARKING TOW AWAY NOTICE23'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 1ST FLOOR
26'-0" PROPOSED SETBACK 2ND FLOOR 15'-2" PROPOSEDSIDE SETBACK15'-0" PROPOSEDREAR SETABACK
1
5
'
-
0
"
P
R
O
P
O
S
E
D
SI
D
E
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
GUEST PARKING
PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (133 SF)PORCH (102 SF)XGUESTPARKING ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163A-1.141-4PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 332 1
-0HOUSE 4PROPOSEDSITE PLANSITE NOTES:ALL DIMENSIONS AND SETBACK POINTS NEED TO BECHECKED BEFORE THE ADDITION TAKES PLACE. PLEASEVERIFY ALL SETBACKS FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THEPROPERTY TO THE <E> HOUSE AND <N> ADDITIONSPRI0R TO DIGGING NEW FOUNDATION AND POURING OFTHE CONCRETE OR FORM WORK SETUP. IF THE SETBACKAT THE SITE DOES NOT MATCH UP TO THE DRAWING ORIS OVER THE ALLOWABLE SETBACK PLEASE CONTACTTHE PROJECT ARCHITECT FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE ONTHE PROJECT.1329
FRIDGE36" ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 41ST FLOORPLANA-2.042-10HOUSE 4 1ST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"THRESHOLD NOTE:ATTIC ACCESS NOTE:1329
SECOND FLOOR - 828 SF ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163HOUSE 42ND FLOORPLAN &ROOF PLANA-2.142-11HOUSE 4 2ND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2-12HOUSE 4 ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1329
HOUSE 4front (east)& rear (west)elevationsdoor & windowschedulesegress windowsA-3.04 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163 3-22HOUSE 4 FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION3-23HOUSE 4 REAR (WEST) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3-24HOUSE 4 DOOR SCHEDULE3-25HOUSE 4 GENERAL WINDOW SCHEDULE3-26EGRESS WINDOWS1329
HOUSE 4RIGHT (NORTH)LEFT (SOUTH)ELEVATIONSA-3.14 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM40859901633-28HOUSE 4 LEFT (SOUTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3-27HOUSE 4 RIGHT (NORTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1329
HOUSE 4CROSSSECTIONSA-4.04 ELAM AVE.CAMPBELL, CA 95008RESIDENCEYANHUA1 3 2 3 E L A M A V E. C A M P B E L L, CA 95008
Y A N H U A R E S I D E N C EREVISIONS:PROJECT NO:DRAFTED BY: REY MAPALODATE: 10/27/21THE MAJESTIC TRUST
JILLZHU1830@GMAIL.COM4085990163H-HHOUSE 4 CROSS SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"G-GHOUSE 4 CROSS SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1329
NOTICE OF INTENT INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
Notice is hereby given of the intent of the Campbell Planning Commission to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092(b)(1) for the 1323 Elam Avenue Subdivision,
which includes applications for a Planned Development Permit (PLN2017-101) for the approval of site
configuration, architectural design and to create lots which do not have frontage on a public street, Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2017-102) to create four single family lots and one commonly owned lot, Zoning Map Amendment (PLN2015-100) to change the zoning from R-M (Multiple-Family Residential) to P-D
(Planned Development), Parking Modification Permit (PLN2017-338) to allow for two of the required
assigned/uncovered parking spaces, to be provided as uncovered guest parking pursuant to Public Resources
Code Section 21092(b)(1), for property located at 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA.
The project site consists of a single parcel located on the north side of Elam Avenue between Inwood Drive
and San Tomas Aquino Road. The 18,152 square foot (net area) lot is currently developed with one single-
family residence that will be demolished as part of the proposed subdivision. Abutting land uses include single-family homes to the east and west, an apartment community to the north, and single-family homes across Elam Avenue to the south.
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, Community Development Department staff 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 Campbell Planning Commission. The California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) requires this notice to disclose whether any listed toxic sites are present at the location. The project
location does not contain a toxic site pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. All interested parties are invited and encouraged to submit comments in writing regarding the draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration and/or attend the below described public hearings. The public review period for the draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration begins on November 17, 2017 and ends on December 7, 2017. Any comments must be submitted in writing, including email, to the Community Development Department by 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2017. The Initial Study and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development Department, City Hall, 70 North First Street, Campbell,
CA or online at http://www.cityofcampbell.com/501/Public-Notices under ' Environmental Notices'.
The Campbell Planning Commission will consider the project and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration at a
public hearing to be held on December 12, 2017. The meeting will be held at 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, in
the City Hall City Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, CA.
Please be advised that if you challenge the decision on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell prior to the public
hearings. Questions and written comments may be addressed to Stephen Rose, Associate Planner at (408) 866-
2142 or by email at stephenr@cityofcampbell.com.
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
DRAFT
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: 1323 Elam Avenue Subdivision
File Number(s): Planned Development Permit (PLN2017-101) | Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2017-102) | Zoning Map Amendment (PLN2017-100) | CEQA Review
(PLN2017-103) | Parking Modification Permit (PLN2017-338)
Project Address: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell CA 95008 Project Sponsor: Gordana LLC (Attn: Gordana Pavlovic)
602 Hawthorn Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (408) 307-2897 Existing Zoning: R-M (Multiple-Family Residential)
Proposed Zoning: P-D (Planned Development)
General Plan Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units/gr. acre) Lead Agency: City of Campbell, Community Development Department
70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
Contact Person: Stephen Rose, Associate Planner (408) 866-2142 | stephenr@cityofcampbell.com Date Posted: November 16, 2017
Other public agencies whose approval is required: None Surrounding Land Uses / General Plan / Zoning: North: Apartments / Medium Den. Res. / R-2 (Multiple-Family Residential)
South: / Low-Medium Den. Res. / R-1-6 (Single Family Residential
East: Single-Family Residential / Low-Medium Den. Res. & Med. Den. Res./ P-D (Planned Development) & Medium Density Residential
Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ 1323 Elam Avenue Page 2 of 4
West: Single-Family Residential / Low-Medium Den. Res. / P-D (Planned Development) Project Description: The project is an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow subdivision
of the project site into four single-family residential parcels, ranging from approximately 2,045 to 2,163 square feet in area. The project also includes a common lot consisting of a single private street and
driveway for the subdivision, which would take access from Elam Avenue to the south. The private street
will be 20 feet wide with an additional 2 foot wide landscape buffer (porous grass pavers) on the east side of the drive aisle. The development will include construction of four two-story single-family residences at a maximum height of 26-feet, 9-inches from natural grade (27-feet from proposed grade) and an average
floor area ratio of 47% for the entire development.
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:
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the
BAAQMD Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and
equipment movement on unpaved project sites: a. All active construction areas shall be watered twice daily or more often if necessary. Increased
watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles-per-hour.
b. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads and parking and staging areas at construction sites.
c. Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any other materials that can be windblown. Trucks transporting these materials shall be covered.
d. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. e. Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excavating, exposed portions of the Site shall be watered,
landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered as soon as possible.
f. Installation of sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
g. Replanting of vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible after completion of construction. h. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at
all access points. i. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. j. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of
Campbell regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ 1323 Elam Avenue Page 3 of 4
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 GEO-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the
Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 2, 2016 prepared by Kristofer T. Korth, P.E. (No. 82838) and Andrew D. Murray, P.E. (No. C44562) of Murray Engineers. Such recommendations shall be incorporated into the project’s final engineering design to
minimize the damage from seismic shaking, unsuitable fill, and other geological deficiencies.
The project shall use standard engineering techniques and conform to the requirements of the
International Building Code to reduce the potential for seismic damage and risk to future occupants.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a qualified contractor
shall asses the property for presence of Lead-based paint (LBP) and Asbestos containing
building materials (ACBM), and if present, prepare a plan, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, to properly manage and dispose of such materials.
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Windows must have a minimum STC rating of 20 dB, which is
met by standard openable double-glazed thermal windows, with two 1/8" lights separated by
a 1/2" air space and with good weather seals. For better reduction of loud vehicle noise, an STC performance of 30 STC is recommended, but not required.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Outside doors, such as for front entrances or patios, particularly
for Unit 1, should meet a tested STC rating of 20 to 30 to match the overall sound
transmission mitigation criteria. Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Mitigation of outside noise is based upon windows that are
closed in order to provide the required noise protection. Therefore, all units must have a
ventilation system that provides a habitable interior air quality environment with the windows
closed, regardless of outside temperature. In addition, noise levels produced by heating and air conditioning units for the project must not themselves create a noise problem for any of the residential units associated with the project or adjacent properties.
Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Good noise design must be implemented by good field
construction practices or the design performance will not be achieved. This includes minimizing all penetrations of and connections between party wall and floor/ceiling assemblies, and acoustical sealant around any necessary penetrations.
Mitigation Measure NOI-5: A six to seven-foot solid wood property line fences and gates
shall be required to protect back yard activity areas, which will provide the required outdoor activity area noise reduction.
Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ 1323 Elam Avenue Page 4 of 4
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
Any person may file a written protest of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration before 5:00 p.m. on December 7, 2017. 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.
November 16, 2017
Signature Date
Stephen Rose, Associate Planner
City of Campbell
Printed Name Agency
Encl: Initial Study Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
INITIAL STUDY
1323 Elam Avenue Subdivision
An environmental evaluation
prepared in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act
Prepared by
Stephen Rose
Associate Planner
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
Planning Division
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Public Review Period
November 17, 2017 – December 7, 2017
Project Overview Page No. 2
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
Project Title: 1323 Elam Avenue Subdivision File Number(s): Planned Development Permit (PLN2017-101) Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2017-102)
Zoning Map Amendment (PLN2017-100) CEQA Review (PLN2017-103) Parking Modification Permit (PLN2017-338)
Project Address: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell CA 95008
Project Sponsor: Gordana LLC (Attn: Gordana Pavlovic)
602 Hawthorn Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(408) 307-2897
Existing Zoning: R-M (Multiple-Family Residential) Proposed Zoning: P-D (Planned Development)
General Plan Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units/gr. acre)
Lead Agency: City of Campbell, Community Development Department 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
Contact Person: Stephen Rose, Associate Planner (408) 866-2142 | stephenr@cityofcampbell.com Date Posted: November 16, 2017
Project Location and Surrounding Land Use: The project site consists of a single parcel located on the north side of Elam Avenue between Inwood Drive and San Tomas Aquino Road. The 18,152
square foot (net area) lot is currently developed with one single-family residence that will be
demolished as part of the proposed subdivision. Abutting land uses include single-family homes to
the east and west, an apartment community to the north, and single-family homes across Elam Avenue to the south. The City of Campbell Zoning Map classifies the project site as R-M (Multiple-Family Residential). The corresponding General Plan Land Use Designation is Low-Medium Density Residential (6-13 units/gr. acre).
Project Description: The project is an application for a Tentative Subdivision Map to allow
subdivision of the project site into four single-family residential parcels, ranging from approximately 2,045 to 2,163 square feet in area. The project also includes a common lot consisting of a single
private street and driveway for the subdivision, which would take access from Elam Avenue to the
south. The private street will be 20 feet wide with an additional 2 foot wide landscape buffer (porous
grass pavers) on the east side of the drive aisle. The development will include construction of four two-story single-family residences at a maximum height of 26-feet, 9-inches from natural grade (27-feet from proposed grade) and an average floor area ratio of 47% for the entire development.
Project Overview Page No. 3
Project Data
Gross Lot Area: 20,026.90 square feet (including 2,250 sq. ft. of R.O.W.)
Existing Net Lot Area: 18,152 square-feet Proposed Net Lot Area (after 5-foot dedication):
Lot 1: 3,267.68 square feet
Lot 2: 2,556.84 square feet
Lot 3: 2,556.84 square feet
Lot 4: 2,579.68 square feet Lot 5: 6,815.86 square feet (common lot; Lot “A” where noted on plans)
Total Net Lot Area: 17,776.90 square feet
Proposed Density: 8.71 units/gr. acre (4 units / 0.459 gross acres)
Maximum Density Allowed: 13.0 units/gr. acre
Building Height: Less than 27 Feet
Parking: Provided Minimum Required
12 spaces (8 covered/8 assigned) 12 spaces (8 covered/10 assigned)
Note: Minor changes to the project data is expected to occur as part of the project review process. Parking modification permit required for proposed parking arrangement.
Project Entitlements: Required land use entitlements for the proposed project include a Planned
Development Permit (PLN2017-101) for the approval of site configuration, architectural design
and to create lots which do not have frontage on a public street, Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2017-102) to create four single family lots and one commonly owned lot, Zoning Map Amendment (PLN2015-100) to change the zoning from R-M (Multiple-Family Residential) to P-
D (Planned Development), Parking Modification Permit (PLN2017-338) to allow for two of the
required assigned/uncovered parking spaces, to be provided as uncovered guest parking.
Other public agencies whose approval is required: None
Project Exhibits – Location Map Page No. 4
Project Location
Figure 1: Regional Setting
Figure 2: Project Site
Project Address: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell CA 95008
Project Exhibits – Existing Site Configuration Page No. 5
Existing Site Configuration
Project Overview Page No. 6
Preliminary Vesting 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 Landscaping Plan Page No. 10
Preliminary Landscaping Plan
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Overview Page No. 11
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 impacts of the project, as well as a recommended mitigation measures, are summarized in Section III:
Recommendation and Determination.
1. Aesthetics
2. Agriculture Resources 3. Air Quality 4. Biological Resources
5. Cultural Resources
6. Geology/Soils
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 8. Hazards & Hazardous Materials 9. Hydrology/Water Quality
10. Land Use/Planning
11. Mineral Resources
12. Noise 13. Population/Housing 14. Public Services
15. Recreation
16. Transportation/Traffic
17. Utilities/Service System 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Aesthetics Page No. 12
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) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
(d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Discussion:
(a to c): The project will alter the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings through
demolition of existing structures and eventual development of a four-unit planned residential
development. 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): Currently, the project site has very limited lighting associated with the existing single-family
residence. New site lighting is anticipated to include down-lit fixtures for new residences and lighting
fixtures along the new public pathway. 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—the project would not result in new sources of substantial light or glare.
Mitigation Measures(s): None Required.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Agricultural Resources Page No. 13
2. AGRICULTURAL 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) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Discussion:
(a to c): The project site had historically been used for agricultural production, but is no longer used
for, nor zoned for farmland 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. 14
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) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
(c) 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)?
(d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
(e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Discussion:
(a): The proposed project consists of four (4) single-family residences and would not increase regional population growth or cause changes in vehicle travel that would affect implementation of the Bay Area
2017 Final Clean Air Plan (CAP). Based on BAAQMD criteria (see Enclosure 2) air quality will not be
significantly impacted.
(b & c): The BAAQMD's 2017 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD, May 2017) make recommendations for
evaluation of activities that could impact air quality, including use of thresholds of significance and
screening criteria developed by the BAAQMD (BAAQMD, May 2017). The BAAQMD screening levels
are based on project size for air pollutant emissions. The applicable land use category from the
BAAQMD's screening criteria tables for the project is "single-family." For operational impacts from criteria pollutants, the screening size is 325 dwelling units. For construction impacts, the screening size is
114 units. The project, which consists of four (4) single-family residential units, is well below the
BAAQMD significance thresholds for such uses and, therefore, the project would have a less than-
significant air quality impact.
Construction activities would generate dust and equipment exhaust on a temporary basis. The BAAQMD
identifies best management practices for all projects to limit air quality impacts during construction. The
short-term air quality effects during project construction would be avoided with implementation of the
measures prescribed by the BAAQMD (see AIR-1).
(d): The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups
(e.g., children, the elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. These land uses
can include residences, hospitals, schools, child-care centers, retirement centers, convalescent homes, and
medical clinics. The nearest off-site sensitive receptors include the occupants of multi-unit residential
buildings located directly adjacent / proximate to the west, north and east; and the single-family residences across Elam Avenue to the south. Further, an initial air quality screening was performed in
August 2017 using BAAQMD online tools and sources and the BAAQMD Significance Determination
Flowchart (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017, Figure 1-2, General Steps for Determining
Significance of Air Quality Impacts). A total of six (6) potential sources were identified. Five (5)
potential roadway sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the Site, as follows: • Roadway: Elam Avenue.
• Roadway: Westmont Avenue.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 15
• Roadway: Harriet Avenue.
• Roadway: W. San Tomas Aquino Road.
• Roadway: S. San Tomas Aquino Road.
These roadway sources are all significantly below the following BAAQMD’s Thresholds of Significance (BAAQMD, May 2017) for Cancer Risk of 100 in a million; PM2.5 of 0.8 μg/m3 and
Hazard Index of 10 (see Enclosure 2 of Exhibit 5). Therefore, there are no significant impacts and no
further analysis is needed of the roadway sources.
One (1) potential stationary source was identified, Elite Cleaners (dry cleaner), 128 San Tomas Aquino Road, Campbell, CA. BAAQMD Plant # 3209. However, this stationary source was shut down in 2012
(and was located more than 1,000 feet from the Site).
Further, in consideration of ambient air quality conditions, the project site is located outside of an
‘impacted area’ as identified in the BAAQMD CARE (Community Air Risk Evaluation) Program Report and therefore does not require further analysis to reduce potential health impacts to future residents.
(e): No element of construction or normal activities associated with single-family residences would
result in creation of objectionable odors.
Mitigation Measure(s):
AIR – 1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD Best
Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction
activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during
soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also during vehicle and equipment movement on
unpaved project sites:
a. All active construction areas shall be watered twice daily or more often if necessary. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles-per-hour.
b. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads and parking and staging areas at construction sites. c. Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any other materials that can be windblown. Trucks
transporting these materials shall be covered. d. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum
street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
e. Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excavating, exposed portions of the Site shall be watered, landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered as soon as possible.
f. Installation of sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. g. Replanting of vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible after completion of construction.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 16
h. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points. i. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s
specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation. j. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Campbell
regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The
BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Biological Resource Page No. 17
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?
Discussion:
(a to d): According to the California Natural Diversity Database and the City’s General Plan, no
species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species, or habitat for such species are known to occupy the project site.
(e) The applicant shall be required to provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan which conforms
to the City’s Water Efficient Landscaping Standards (WELS). The landscaping will be designed to
minimize irrigation and runoff, and promote surface infiltration where appropriate. The project is not
proposing the removal of any trees. The applicant has proposed to install twenty-one (21) new 15-gallon trees1 as part of a comprehensive landscaping plan that would also include a combination of
new shrubs and groundcover. Therefore, the project will incur a less than significant impact.
(f): No adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or approved local,
regional or state habitat conservation plans apply to the project or the project site.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
1 Not including three 24-inch box trees in the public right of way. The San Tomas Area Neighborhood Plan requires at least one tree for every 2,000 square feet of net lot area (17,777 / 2,000 = 8.8 ~ 9 trees required).
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Cultural Resource Page No. 18
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?
Discussion:
(a): The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project identified the historic of use of the property as agricultural production (orchards) and the most recent use as a house which was
constructed circa 1945 (the original sewer connection permit was issued in 1960). Previous known
uses would be associated with indigenous populations with no recorded records. As a result, no
archaeological or other cultural resources are known to exist on the project site. If archaeological, paleontological, or cultural resources or human remains are discovered, a standard City Condition of Approval will require proper handling of any discovered archeological or paleontological resources,
per General Plan Strategy CNR-1.1b.
Archaeological Resources: In accordance with CEQA and the State Public Resources Code, require the
discontinuation of all work in the immediate vicinity and the preparation of a resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a licensed archaeologist if archaeological resources are found on any sites within the City.
Should human remains be discovered during excavation or construction, such remains shall be handled
pursuant to § 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code and § 5097.94 of the California Public
Resources Code. Specifically, 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 Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether remains are Native American in origin and take such actions as required by law.
Mitigation Measures(s):
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.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Geology and Soils Page No. 19
6. 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 Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), 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?
Discussion:
(a): 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 concluded that the potential for liquefaction of the
site is low, and that while the northerly portion of the project site is located in an area of “historic
occurrence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical, and ground water conditions indicate potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in PRCS 2693 (c) would be
required” the site would be suitable for the proposed improvements with the implementation of the
proposed mitigation measures. Most notably, Unit 4 will be required to be built on a drilled pier and
grade beam foundation, instead of being built on conventional spread footing foundations.
(b): The project does not involve any grading, which would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Geology and Soils Page No. 20
(c): 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.
(d): A Geotechnical Investigation report prepared for this project evaluated the geotechnical conditions of the site. The review included four CPTs and 3 soil probes were advanced in the area of the proposed
improvements to a maximum depth of approximately 30 feet. Based on the results of the investigation
the subject site was determined to be geotechnical 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): The project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
(f): 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):
GEO – 1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 2, 2016 prepared by Kristofer T. Korth, P.E. (No. 82838) and Andrew D. Murray, P.E. (No. C44562) of Murray Engineers. Such recommendations shall be incorporated into the project’s
final engineering design to minimize the damage from seismic shaking, unsuitable fill, and other
geological deficiencies. The project shall use standard engineering techniques and conform to the
requirements of the International Building Code to reduce the potential for seismic damage and risk to future occupants.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Page No. 21
7. 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?
Discussion:
(a): The BAAQMD thresholds of significance and screening criteria also apply to greenhouse gases.
For greenhouse gas impacts, the screening size for single-family residences is 56 dwelling units. The
project, which consists of four (4) single-family residential units, is well below the BAAQMD greenhouse gases threshold of significance for single-family residential land use, and thus the project would have a less-than-significant air quality impact with regards to greenhouse gases.
(b): The City of Campbell has not adopted a Climate Action Plan or any comparable policy or
regulation pertaining to the reduction or monitoring of greenhouse gases.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page No. 22
8. 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?
Discussion:
(a and b): No routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials would be associated with the
project. A slight hazardous potential would exist during the demolition of the existing home (which
was built in 1979 and therefore may have lead or asbestos) and project construction when materials
and construction equipment are at the site; however, long-term hazard risk is very low. With
incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 , which requires qualified contractors assess the presence of the lead and asbestos in order to property manage and dispose of such materials, the project would
not 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.
Hazard risks during construction would be regulated by the City’s standard conditions of approval and
will be required to be performed in accordance with state and federal hazardous materials regulations and current Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for construction activities. The use of toxic chemicals
for landscaping (pesticides, herbicides, etc.) will not be above what is generally required for landscape
maintenance and is not considered significant.
(c): The project site is within ½ mile of the Good Soil Baptist Church (which offers Sunday School),
located southwest of the project site. However, the operation of the project will not include hazardous emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances. Further, as discussed in
Section 3 (Air Quality), construction and demolition related air pollutants that may constitute a hazard are
regulated through Best Management Practices as required by City Ordinances and reiterated through
Mitigation Measure AIR – 1.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Page No. 23
(d): The project site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (available at
http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm) 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/).
(e to f): The project site is not located within the Santa Clara County Airport Land Use Commission
jurisdiction, within two miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
(g): The project would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Sufficient
emergency access and emergency services staff would be provided for the project site in compliance with the State of California Building Code Standards and requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire and Health Departments.
(h): The project site is not located near any wildland areas and would not cause an increase in wildland
fire hazard.
Mitigation Measure(s):
HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a qualified contractor shall assess the property for presence of Lead-based paint (LBP) and Asbestos containing building materials (ACBM), and if
present, prepare a plan, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, to properly manage and dispose of
such materials.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hydrology and Water Quality Page No. 24
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
(a) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
(b) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
(c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
(d) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of
stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm?
(e) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas?
(f) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
(h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal
Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
(i) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
(j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or
dam?
(k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
(l) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities?
(m) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction activities?
(n) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials
handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas?
(o) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters?
(p) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Discussion:
(a and b): 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. No violations of any water quality standards are expected from the project. The
project would not directly deplete groundwater supplies (no wells) or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge (the project is evaluated for the 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.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Hydrology and Water Quality Page No. 25
(c to g): 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.
(h and i): The entire Project site is located in Flood Zone X, according to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Flood Zone X is defined as an areas
determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.
(j and k): 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 is only
would not expose any additional people or structures to a new significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding. 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.
(l): As discussed in Section 3 (Air Quality), construction and demolition activities are regulated
through Best Management Practices as required by City ordinances and reiterated by Mitigation
Measure AIR – 1, which is designed to limit air and water contamination related to construction activity. With the implementation of this measure, as well as Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 which
requires qualified contractors assess the presence of the lead and asbestos in order to property manage
and dispose of such materials, the project would not 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.
(n): The project will not include uses that would include vehicle fueling, waste handling, hazardous
material storage, or other outdoor work areas that could result in the potential discharge of stormwater
pollutants.
(o and p): The Project had been reviewed for compliance with Provision C.3 of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and had been determined to be below the required thresholds
to trigger pollution prevention measures. Furthermore, as the project site does not include any material
storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance, waste handling, hazardous
materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks, or other outdoor work areas, the project would not violate any water quality standards as it would not result in the potential for stormwater
pollutants.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Land Use and Planning Page No. 26
10. 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?
Discussion:
(a): 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): The Campbell General Plan Land Use Element Diagram and Campbell Zoning Map designate the
project site as Medium Density Residential (less than 6-13 units/gr. acre) and R-M (Multiple-Family Residential), respectively. The Project would result in the creation of four residential parcels, and a
common lot, at an approximate density 8.71 units per gross acre and rezone the property to P-D
(Planned Development) which allows for residential development within this density range. As such,
the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the City of Campbell General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance.
(c): 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. 27
11. 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?
Discussion:
(a to b): No known mineral resources are present at the project site.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Noise Page No. 28
12. 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?
Discussion:
(a to b): 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.
To verify compliance, an acoustical study was conducted for the site which determined that based upon
site noise measurements, present and anticipated future traffic volumes, and traffic noise modeling, a
worst-case Design Noise Level for Unit 1 (closest to Elam Avenue) is 63 dBA, and that because of the
location and site orientation, traffic noise impacts would be less at the other three properties (Units 2 through 4). The report goes on to state that although these sites have relatively low CNEL, to better
mitigate peak noise incidents from traffic, such as trucks and motorcycles, an additional 12 dBA of
protection is recommended, but not required. Based on the results of the investigation the subject site
would satisfy the noise requirements for the proposed development, with the incorporation of
Mitigation Measures NOI-1 through NOI-5.
(c): Single-Family residences are classified as sensitive receptors of noise, and to this extent do not
themselves generate noise of any appreciable level. As such, the project would not result in increase in ambient noise within the vicinity of the project site.
(d): Construction of single-family residences that will eventually result from the project will
temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. However, future construction is
governed by CMC Sec. 18.04.052, which limits construction activity from 8 AM to 5 PM., Monday through Friday, 9 AM to 4 PM on Saturday, and prohibits construction on Sunday or National
Holidays. Additionally, loud environmentally disruptive noise over 50 dBA (e.g., air compressors
without mufflers, continuously running motors or generators, loud playing musical instruments or
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Noise Page No. 29
radios) is prohibited. As such, temporary ambient noise level increases associated with construction
will be less than significant.
(e and f): 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):
NOI-1: Windows must have a minimum STC rating of 20 dB, which is met by standard
openable double-glazed thermal windows, with two 1/8" lights separated by a 1/2" air
space and with good weather seals. For better reduction of loud vehicle noise, an STC performance of 30 STC is recommended, but not required.
NOI-2: Outside doors, such as for front entrances or patios, particularly for Unit 1,
should meet a tested STC rating of 20 to 30 to match the overall sound transmission
mitigation criteria. NOI-3: Mitigation of outside noise is based upon windows that are closed in order to
provide the required noise protection. Therefore, all units must have a ventilation system
that provides a habitable interior air quality environment with the windows closed,
regardless of outside temperature. In addition, noise levels produced by heating and air conditioning units for the project must not themselves create a noise problem for any of the residential units associated with the project or adjacent properties.
NOI-4: Good noise design must be implemented by good field construction practices or
the design performance will not be achieved. This includes minimizing all penetrations of and connections between party wall and floor/ceiling assemblies, and acoustical sealant
around any necessary penetrations.
NOI-5: A 6 to 7-foot solid wood property line fences and gates shall be required to
protect back yard activity areas, which will provide the required outdoor activity area noise reduction.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Population and Housing Page No. 30
13. 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?
Discussion:
(a): The project will eventually result in the construction of four single-family residential units on a property identified by the Campbell General Plan Housing Element as being suitable and appropriate
for housing. The introduction of four single-family residences 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 and c): The project will require the demolition of the existing residence that has been vacated, and
build four new residential units. Therefore the Project will not result in the displacement of any 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. 31
14. 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?
Discussion:
(a): 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 of an existing unit.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Recreation Page No. 32
15. 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?
Discussion:
(a): Residents of the project are likely to access Jack Fisher Park located roughly half a mile south of
the project site, or San Tomas Park located roughly half a mile north of the project site. Due to the
limited scope and scale of the project, only a nominal increase in the use of City and regional parks and
other recreational facilities can be expected as a result of the project.
(b): The project does not any include recreational facilities.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Transportation and Traffic Page No. 33
16. TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC
Issues Would the project:
Potentially Significant Impact
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant Impact
No Impact
(a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
(b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
(c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
(d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e. g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
(f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
(g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Discussion:
(a and b): A trip generation analysis based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, prepared by the City Traffic Engineer anticipates that the project (net) would
result in a an average of 27 daily trips, including 2 AM peak hour (7:00 – 9:00) outbound trips and 2
PM peak hour (4:00 – 6:00) inbound trips. This nominal increase in trips would not result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at area intersections.
Net Project Trips
Land Use Qty. Units AM Peak PM Peak
Total Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound ADT ITE CODE
Existing Unit
(1 Removed) -1 DU -1 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -9 210
Proposed Unit
(5 Added) 4 DU 3 1 2 4 3 1 38 210
Net Trips 3 DU 2 1 1 3 2 1 27 10th Ed.
(c): The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks.
(d): The proposed public roadway is designed consistent with public roadway standards for residential
streets as determined by the City Engineer and would not result in hazards due to a design features or incompatible uses.
(e): 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
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Transportation and Traffic Page No. 34
City’s department review committee process and will again review the access routes during review of
construction drawings.
(f): Anticipated single-family development will be subject to the City’s parking standard of three spaces per unit (2-designated, 1 guest), which will result in adequate parking capacity (12 parking spaces for 4 residential units).
(g): The project site is not in vicinity of any light-rail or comparable bus rapid transit (BRT) line (the
closest bus stops occur near Burrows Road and Hacienda Avenue to the south), 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.
Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Utilities and Service Systems Page No. 35
17. 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.
Discussion:
(a and b): 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): 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 9 (Hydrology and Water Quality) and will not require expansion
or construction of new stormwater treatment facilities.
(d): 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.
(e): 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 to g): 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 – Air Quality Page No. 36
18. 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?
Discussion:
(a): 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): 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): 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.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Air Quality Page No. 37
III. RECOMMENDATION and DETERMINATION
Recommendation: On the basis of this initial evaluation, the following measures are recommended to
reduce potentially significant effects on the environment to a less than significant level:
1. Aesthetics: None Required
2. Agricultural Resources: None Required
3. Air Quality:
AIR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD
Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction activities within the project area. These measures will reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but
also during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved project sites:
a. All active construction areas shall be watered twice daily or more often if necessary.
Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles-per-hour.
b. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads and parking and staging areas at construction sites. c. Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any other materials that can be windblown.
Trucks transporting these materials shall be covered.
d. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited. e. Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excavating, exposed portions of the Site shall be watered, landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered as soon as possible.
f. Installation of sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
g. Replanting of vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible after completion of
construction. h. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access points. i. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. j. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of
Campbell regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Mandatory Findings of Significance Page No. 38
4. Biological Resources: None Required
5. Cultural Resources:
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.
6. Geology and Soils:
GEO-1: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the Geotechnical
Investigation, dated August 2, 2016 prepared by Kristofer T. Korth, P.E. (No. 82838) and Andrew D. Murray, P.E. (No. C44562) of Murray Engineers. Such recommendations shall be incorporated into the project’s final engineering design to minimize the damage
from seismic shaking, unsuitable fill, and other geological deficiencies. The project shall
use standard engineering techniques and conform to the requirements of the International
Building Code to reduce the potential for seismic damage and risk to future occupants.
7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: None Required
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials:
HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a qualified contractor shall asses the
property for presence of Lead-based paint (LBP) and Asbestos containing building
materials (ACBM), and if present, prepare a plan, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, to properly manage and dispose of such materials.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality: None Required
10. Land Use and Planning: None Required
11. Mineral Resources: None Required
12. Noise:
NOI-1: Windows must have a minimum STC rating of 20 dB, which is met by standard
openable double-glazed thermal windows, with two 1/8" lights separated by a 1/2" air
space and with good weather seals. For better reduction of loud vehicle noise, an STC
performance of 30 STC is recommended, but not required.
NOI-2: Outside doors, such as for front entrances or patios, particularly for Unit 1, should meet a tested STC rating of 20 to 30 to match the overall sound transmission
mitigation criteria.
NOI-3: Mitigation of outside noise is based upon windows that are closed in order to
provide the required noise protection. Therefore, all units must have a ventilation system
that provides a habitable interior air quality environment with the windows closed,
Recommendation and Determination Page No. 39
regardless of outside temperature. In addition, noise levels produced by heating and air
conditioning units for the project must not themselves create a noise problem for any of
the residential units associated with the project or adjacent properties.
NOI-4: Good noise design must be implemented by good field construction practices or the design performance will not be achieved. This includes minimizing all penetrations of and connections between party wall and floor/ceiling assemblies, and acoustical sealant
around any necessary penetrations.
NOI-5: A six to seven-foot solid wood property line fences and gates shall be required to
protect back yard activity areas, which will provide the required outdoor activity area
noise reduction.
13. Population and Housing: None Required
14. Public Services: None Required
15. Recreation: None Required
16. Transportation and Traffic: None Required
17. Utilities and Service Systems: None Required
18. Mandatory Findings of Significance: None Required
Recommendation and Determination Page No. 40
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.
Stephen Rose PROJECT PLANNER
Associate Planner
TITLE
City of Campbell
AGENCY
_____________________________ November 16, 2017
SIGNATURE DATE
Environmental Impact Evaluation – Reference Materials Page No. 41
IV. REFERENCE MATERIALS
Exhibits (May be viewed at http://www.cityofcampbell.com/General/PublicNotices.htm):
1. Geotechnical Investigation by Murray Engineers Inc., dated August 2, 2016.
2. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by IRC Environmental Consulting, dated
November 15, 2016.
3. Noise Environmental Evaluation & Design Recommendations by Stan Shelly of
Environmental Consulting Services, dated November 18, 2016
4. Will Serve Letters (WVSD, Campbell Union School District, PG&E, & San Jose Water)
5. Air Quality Screening Evaluation by IRC Environmental Consulting, dated September 11,
2017
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 Resource Control Board: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed online)
6. State of California, Seismic Hazard Zones Map, San Jose West Quadrangle, February 7,
2002. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp (accessed online)
7. California Natural Diversity Database, 2000.
8. CEQA Guidelines, 2017 version. http://www.califaep.org/images/ceqa/statute-guidelines/2017/CEQA_Handbook_2017_with_covers.pdf (accessed online)
9. City of Campbell General Plan.
10. City of Campbell Zoning Code.
EXHIBIT 1
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
THIS REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR
YAN HUA ZHU
1830 GUINDA STREET
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303
JULY 2016
935 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024 110 Tiburon Boulevard, Mill Valley, CA 94941
August 2, 2016
Project No. 2534-1R1
Yan Hua Zhu
1830 Guinda Street
Palo Alto, 94303
RE: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION,
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
1323 ELAM AVENUE,
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are pleased to present the results of our geotechnical investigation relating to the 4-lot
residential development and associated improvements on the property at 1323 Elam Avenue
in Campbell, California. This report summarizes the results of our field, laboratory, geologic
and engineering evaluations, and presents conclusions and recommendations concerning the
geologic and geotechnical engineering aspects of the project.
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our
review and approval of the project plans and our observation and testing of the geotechnical
aspects of the construction.
If you have any questions concerning our investigation, please call.
Sincerely,
MURRAY ENGINEERS, INC.
Kristofer T. Korth, P.E. Andrew D. Murray, P.E.
Senior Engineer Principal Engineer
AK:KTK:AM
Copies: Addressee (2)
Gordana Design Studio LLC (4)
Attn: Gordana Pavlovic
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Cover Page
Letter of Transmittal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
Project Description .................................................................................................1
Scope of Services ....................................................................................................1
GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC CONDITIONS ....................................................................2
Geologic Overview .................................................................................................2
Faulting & Seismicity ..............................................................................................2
HISTORIC CHANNEL BACKFILL EVALUATION ..................................................3
SITE EXPLORATION & RECONNAISSANCE .........................................................3
Exploration Program ..............................................................................................3
Cone Penetration Tests ...........................................................................................4
Site Description ......................................................................................................5
Subsurface ..............................................................................................................5
Groundwater ..........................................................................................................6
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ..............................................................6
Seismic-Induced Liquefaction Settlement ................................................................7
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................9
Geologic Hazards ...................................................................................................9
RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................10
2013 CBC EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETERS ......................................11
FOUNDATIONS ................................................................................................11
Drilled Pier & Grade Beam ..........................................................................11
Spread Footings ...........................................................................................12
CONCRETE SLABS ...........................................................................................13
Structural Slabs .............................................................................................14
Slabs-on-Grade ............................................................................................14
Vapor Retarder Considerations ....................................................................15
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS ..................................................................................15
Asphaltic Concrete .......................................................................................15
Sand Set Pavers or Flagstones ......................................................................16
EARTHWORK ....................................................................................................16
Clearing & Site Preparation ..........................................................................16
Material for Fill ............................................................................................16
Compaction ..................................................................................................17
Final Slopes ..................................................................................................17
Temporary Slopes & Trench Excavations ....................................................18
SITE DRAINAGE ..............................................................................................18
REQUIRED FUTURE SERVICES .............................................................................18
Plan Review ..........................................................................................................18
Construction Observation Services .......................................................................19
LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................19
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................21
Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
APPENDIX A – SITE FIGURES
Figure A-1 – Vicinity Map
Figure A-2 – Site Plan
Figure A-3 – Vicinity Geologic Map
Figure A-4 – State Seismic Hazard Zones Map
APPENDIX B – SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION – SOIL PROBE
Figure B-1 – Log of Soil Probe SP-1
Figure B-2 – Log of Soil Probe SP-2
Figure B-3 – Log of Soil Probe SP-3
Figure B-4 – Key to Soil Probe Log
Figure B-5 – Unified Soil Classification System
APPENDIX C – FIELD INVESTIGATION (CONE PENETRATION TESTS)
Figure C-1 – Log of CPT-1
Figure C-2 – Log of CPT-2
Figure C-3 – Log of CPT-3
Figure C-4 – Log of CPT-4
APPENDIX D – SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTS
Figure D-1 – Liquid & Plastic Limits Test Report
APPENDIX E – SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation relating to the 4-unit
residential development and associated improvements on the property at 1323 Elam Avenue
in Campbell, California. The project location is indicated on the Vicinity Map, Figure A-1.
The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the local geologic conditions and hazards,
evaluate and review the subsurface conditions on the site in the area of the proposed
improvements, and to provide geotechnical design criteria and recommendations for the
project.
Project Description
The approximately 0.44-acre property is located on the north side of Elam Avenue in a fully
developed residential area of Campbell. Based on the most recent architectural site plan, we
understand the project will consist of subdividing the 0.44-acre property to create 5 lots, and
constructing a total of four detached, two-story single-family residences at the site. Each
new residence will have an approximately 1,500 square-foot footprint and will include an
attached, two-car garage. No basements are planned. Additional site improvements will
include a new shared driveway to the east of the planned new residences; the driveway will
include a fire truck turnaround and will be constructed with a permeable driveway surface.
The existing site improvements will be demolished prior to construction. We anticipate
structural loads associated with the planned improvements will be relatively light and typical
of residential construction. The approximate layout of the existing and proposed
improvements is shown on Figure A-2, Site Plan; we have labeled the four planned
residences as Units 1-4 (starting with Unit 1 on the south side) on the referenced site plan.
Scope of Services
We performed the following services in accordance with our agreement with you dated
April 28, 2016 (executed May 4, 2016):
Reviewed geologic and seismic conditions in the site vicinity and commented on the
geologic hazards that could potentially impact the site and the proposed residences
and associated improvements
Performed a reconnaissance of the site in the area of the proposed improvements
Explored the site subsurface conditions by advancing and logging four cone
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 2
penetration tests and 3 soil probes in the area of the proposed improvements
Performed laboratory testing on selected soil samples for soil classification and to
evaluate engineering properties of the subsurface materials
Performed engineering geologic analyses to evaluate the potential impacts of
geologic hazards on the proposed improvements
Performed geotechnical engineering evaluations and analyses, including seismic-
induced liquefaction settlement and static consolidation potential at the site, to
develop geotechnical engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements
Prepared this report containing a summary of our investigation and our engineering
geologic and geotechnical conclusions and recommendations
GEOLOGIC & SEISMIC CONDITIONS
Geologic Overview
The subject property is located on the western margin of the Santa Clara Valley, a broad,
sediment-filled basin bounded on the southwest by the Santa Cruz Mountains and on the
northeast by the Diablo Mountain range. According to the USGS topographic map (Palo
Alto Quadrangle) of the area, which is reproduced in the Vicinity Map, Figure A-1, the site is
situated at an approximate elevation of 250 feet above mean sea level. According to the
Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 x 60-Minute Quadrangle (Wentworth and
others, 1999), the site is underlain by alluvial fan deposits (Qpf). The alluvial fan deposits
are generally described as Upper Pleistocene (approximately 130,000 to 11,000 years old) tan
to reddish brown gravelly and crudely bedded, clast supported deposits consisting of cobble-
sized clasts in a clayey and sandy matrix. The relevant portion of the geologic map is
included as Figure A-3, Vicinity Geologic Map.
According to the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the San Jose West
Quadrangle (2002), the site is located in an area where historical occurrences of earthquake-
induced liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions indicate
potential for permanent earthquake-induced ground displacements such that mitigation as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) may be required. A copy of the relevant
portion of this map is presented on the State Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Figure A-4.
Faulting & Seismicity
Geologists and seismologists recognize the San Francisco Bay Area as one of the most active
seismic regions in the United States. There are three major faults that trend in a northwest
direction through the Bay Area, which have generated about 12 earthquakes per century
large enough to cause significant structural damage. The faults causing these earthquakes are
part of the San Andreas fault system that extends for at least 700 miles along the California
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 3
Coast, and includes the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults. The San Andreas fault
is located approximately 5.8 miles southwest of the site. The Hayward and Calaveras faults
are located approximately 11.8 and 14.4 miles northeast of the site, respectively. In addition,
the potentially active Monte Vista-Shannon fault zone is located approximately 1.4 miles
southwest of the site.
Seismologic and geologic experts convened by the U.S. Geological Survey, California
Geological Survey, and the Southern California Earthquake Center conclude that there is a
63 percent probability for at least one “large” earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or larger in the
Bay Area before the year 2038. The northern portion of the San Andreas fault is estimated
to have a 21 percent probability of producing a magnitude 6.7 or larger earthquake by the
year 2038 (2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008).
HISTORIC CHANNEL BACKFILL EVALUATION
Based on a review of historic topographic maps of the site and correspondence with Santa
Clara Valley Water District and Public Works of Campbell, we established that Smith Creek
ran through the northern portion of the site and was backfilled sometime between 1961 and
1968 and redirected 270 feet west of the site. During that time period, the creek was
relocated further to the west in a concrete channel that is owned and operated by SCVWD.
A topographic map generated by the U.S. Geological Survey (1981, revised in 1968) showed
the presence of a creek running through the northern portion of the property and was used
as a basis for depicting the liquefaction hazard zone in our site plan. The referenced
topographic map provided an approximate location and rough location of the creek before it
was diverted during that time period. We note that the depth of the old channel was not
documented. Due to the limited photos and location of the site, the area of the creek
channel was approximated directly from regional topographic maps.
SITE EXPLORATION & RECONNAISSANCE
Exploration Program
A site reconnaissance was performed by our staff geologist on May 3, 2016. Our subsurface
exploration was performed on May 25, 2016 and included four cone penetration tests (CPT)
to the maximum depth of approximately 30 feet and three soil probes to the maximum
depth of 22 feet at the locations shown on Figure A-2, Site Plan. The CPT and soil probe
were approximately determined by measuring distance from building corners using a tape
measure and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the mapping
technique used.
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 4
Soil Probe
The soil probes were advanced by direct push methods using a Geoprobe 6625CPT track-
mounted rig equipped with a pneumatic hammer and a dual-tube soil sampling system. Soil
samples were collected continuously over the full depth of the probe in 1.4-inch (outside
diameter) by 4-foot long clear plastic liners.
The computed SPT (N60) blow count data, which is presented on the probe logs, was derived
from the cone penetration data using methods described in the Cone Penetration Test
section below. Because the CPT data is collected in 15-centimeter intervals is not practical
to present on conventional soil probe log in its entirety, we have taken the average computed
SPT (N60) blow count value for each 2-foot depth interval and presented it on the probe log
at the center of the averaged 2-foot interval. In addition, we calculated the dry density by
dividing the average unit weight (wet density) value for each 2-foot depth interval computed
from the CPT data by our laboratory water contents and presented them on the probe logs
at the center of the averaged 2-foot interval. The logs of our probes are presented in
Appendix B as Figure B-1 through B-3. Also included in Appendix B is Figure B-4, Key to
Soil Probe Log; and Figure B-5, Unified Soil Classification System.
Cone Penetration Tests
Cone penetration testing (CPT) is a subsurface exploration method (ASTM Test Method D-
5778) whereby soil characteristics are measured using an integrated electronic cone system
hydraulically pushed into the ground. The cone device measures cone bearing (qc), sleeve
friction (fs) and pore water pressure (u2) at 2-centimeter intervals during penetration and
correlates this information on a log in graphic form. The measurements were developed
using a 100MPa capacity cone with a tip area of 10 cm2 and a friction sleeve area of 150 cm2.
Tip resistance of the cone is corrected using a net area factor of 0.58 for the cone tip and net
area factor of 0.014 for the friction sleeve. The cone also contains a sintered brass porous
filter element located directly behind the cone tip for measurement of pore water pressure.
Soil classification and behavior type can be estimated from empirical relationships between
qc, fs, and u2. Generally, cohesive soils (silts and clays) have a higher friction ratio due to
small cone bearing pressure and generate large excess pore water pressures, while
cohesionless soils (sands and gravels) have a low friction ratio due to large cone bearing
pressure and generate very little excess pore water pressures. This information can also be
used to develop SPT (N60) corrected blow count data for interpretation of relative density by
correlating empirical relationships between qc and the soil behavior type index (Ic). The logs
of our CPTs are presented in Appendix C as Figures C-1 through C-4.
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 5
Site Description
The approximately 0.44-acre, relatively flat property is located on the north side of Elam
Avenue in a fully developed residential neighborhood in Campbell. The trapezoid-shaped
property measures approximately 290 feet along its longest edge by 70 feet wide. The
property is bound by Elam Avenue to the south and residential properties on all other sides.
A single-story residence with a detached garage is located in the southern portion of the site.
An unused greenhouse structure is located in the rear of the building. Concrete patios are
located in the front and rear of the residence. A brick paver patio is located at the rear of the
residence.
The site is accessed by an unpaved driveway extending north from the western end of the
property and leads to the garage. A wood-fenced fire truck access road extends along the
eastern length of the property. The remaining portion of the site is sparsely vegetated with
lawn, bushes, shrubs, and small trees.
Drainage across the property is generally characterized as uncontrolled sheet flow to the
southwest interrupted by the building pad.
Subsurface
Four CPTs and 3 soil probes were advanced in the area of the proposed improvements to a
maximum depth of approximately 30 feet. The locations of the CPTs and soil probes are
shown on Figure A-2. In general, the CPTs and exploratory borings encountered
predominantly fine-grained alluvium consisting of clays and silts interbedded with layers of
coarse-grained alluvium consisting of sands and gravels. A relatively consistent coarse-
grained unit was encountered across most of the site at depths of approximately 4 to 18 feet
deep, consisting of very dense silty sand to clayey sand with gravel. The fine-grained
alluvium encountered is predominantly very stiff to hard.
The logs of the soil probes are presented in Appendix B and logs of the CPTs are presented
in Appendix C. We note that soil interpretation shown on the CPT logs is based on
correlations developed by Robertson and others (1986). We note that it is not always
possible to clearly identify a soil type based on this methodology.
Atterberg Limits testing on a sample of surficial alluvium from Boring B-3 at depths of 0 to
2 feet yielded a plasticity index of 10 percent and a liquid limit of 23 percent, indicating that
this material has a low potential for expansion (see Figure D-1, Liquid & Plastic Limits Test
Report).
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 6
Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any of our soil probes or CPTs at the time of drilling.
We note that fluctuations in the level of groundwater can occur due to variations in rainfall,
temperature, landscaping, and other factors that may not have been evident at the time our
observations were made.
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
As shown on Figure A-4, the site is located within a zone designated as potentially
susceptible to earthquake-induced liquefaction. Liquefaction is a soil softening response, by
which an increase in the excess pore water pressure results in partial to full loss of soil shear
strength. In order for liquefaction to occur, the following four factors are required: 1)
saturated soil or soil situated below the groundwater table; 2) undrained loading (strong
ground shaking), such as by earthquake; 3) contractive soil response during shear loading,
which is often the case for a soil which is initially in a loose or uncompacted state; and 4)
susceptible soil type; such as clean, uniformly graded sands, non-plastic silts, or gravels.
Structures situated above temporarily liquefied soils may sink or tilt, potentially resulting in
significant structural damage.
To evaluate the potential for liquefaction at the site and its impact on the proposed
improvements, we performed analyses using the subsurface information developed from the
CPT and soil probe combined with ground acceleration values associated with a design-level
earthquake to develop an estimate of the potential magnitude of liquefaction-induced total
and differential settlements, as well as anticipated seismic-induced settlement above the
groundwater table. Our analyses were performed using the computer program CLiq
(v.1.7.6.49), which calculates a factor of safety (FS) against soil liquefaction by comparing the
cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), the ratio of the resistance of the soil to liquefaction during
cyclic shaking, to the cyclic stress ratio (CSR), and the seismic loading that would be likely to
result from a design level earthquake at the study location. If the factor of safety for a soil
layer is less than 1.0, it is more likely that the soil layer may liquefy during a moderate to large
seismic event.
The CRR during a design-level earthquake is a function of groundwater level, earthquake
magnitude, soil density, and the depth of the layer being evaluated. For the purpose of our
liquefaction and seismic-induced settlement analyses, we considered a design groundwater
level at a depth of 15 feet below the existing ground surface. According to the State Seismic
Hazard Zone Report of the Palo Alto Quadrangle (California Geological Survey, 2002), the
estimated peak ground acceleration in alluvial conditions in the site vicinity is approximately
0.57 g for a 10% exceedance in 50 years based on a predominant earthquake magnitude of
7.9 Mw. The soil density values were estimated based on the CPT data in accordance with
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 7
methods described in Lunne and others (1997). CLiq calculates CRR using the 2010
Robertson method (modified from the 1998 Robertson & Wride procedure), which
incorporates the CPT cone tip resistance, sleeve friction, soil behavior type index, IC,
described in the Cone Penetration Test section above, and calculated shear stresses of the
soil. The fines content is calculated by the program based on the CPT data using the
Modified Robertson method.
Seismic-Induced Liquefaction Settlement
CLiq was used to evaluate magnitude of anticipated seismic-induced soil settlement. The
program calculates liquefaction-induced and other seismic-induced settlement by dividing
the subsurface soils into thin layers and calculating settlement for each layer. The settlement
in each layer is calculated by multiplying the volumetric strain (qualified by the CSR) by the
thickness of each layer. Seismic-induced settlements are calculated by CLiq based on the
methods developed by Zhang, et al. (2002) for liquefaction-related settlement and Robertson
& Lisheng (2010) for settlement in dry sands (above the groundwater table).
Our analysis is based on soil layers identified in four cone penetration tests and three
confirmatory soil probe as having a relatively low potential for liquefaction as a result of a
design-level earthquake. The site is potentially liquefiable as a result of a design-level
earthquake. Based on these results, the CLiq program calculated up to approximately 2.5
inch of total seismic-induced liquefaction settlement based on the subsurface data collected
at our CPT location. We estimate that differential settlement will be on the order of
approximately half of the total estimate seismic-induced settlements and therefore, our
findings indicate that there is a potential for roughly 1.3-inch of seismic-induced differential
settlement to occur across the planned improvement area. The detailed results of our CLiq
liquefaction settlement analysis are presented as Appendix E. As shown in Appendix E, it
appears that the soil layers in our CPT identified by our analysis did not show significant
potential for liquefaction-induced settlement in general.
Liquefaction Potential Index (LPI)
CLiq was also utilized to calculate the liquefaction potential index (LPI) with depth at the
CPT. LPI was originally developed in Japan by Iwasaki (1978) as a probabilistic approach to
estimate the potential of liquefaction to cause foundation damage at a given site, and
establishes a correlation between thickness of the liquefied layer, proximity of the liquefied
layer, and amount by which the factor of safety against liquefaction (calculated as described
above) is less than 1.0. LPI predicts the liquefaction performance of the soil profile to a
depth of 20 meters (65.6 feet) and provides an estimate of the severity of liquefaction, in
relation to surface manifestations such as sand boils, ground cracking, and lateral spreading.
LPI ranges from 0 at sites with no liquefaction potential to 100 for sites where the calculated
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 8
factor of safety is equal to zero over the full 20-meter depth. Based on compiled case
histories, Iwasaki (1982) concluded that significant liquefaction is likely at sites with LPI
greater than 15, while unlikely when LPI is less than 5. Toprak & Holzer (in press)
correlated instances of liquefaction surface manifestations from the 1989 Loma Prieta,
California earthquake and concluded that sand boils and lateral spreading, respectively, tend
to occur where LPI is equal to or greater than 5 and 12. Additionally, a table correlating LPI
with anticipated level of liquefaction severity based on case histories compiled by various
authors is presented as Table 1 below.
Table 1. LPI Correlation to Liquefaction Severity*
LPI
Iwasaki et al.
(1982)
Luna & Frost
(1998) MERM (2003)
LPI = 0 Very Low Little to none None
0<LPI<5 Low Minor Low
5<LPI<15 High Moderate Medium
15<LPI Very High Major High
*Table 1 from Assessment of Liquefaction Potential Index for Mumbai City (Dixit, et. al., 2012)
The cumulative LPI calculated by CLiq over the full depth explored of CPT -3 resulted in an
overall LPI average of 5 which correlates to a low severity/risk of seismic-induced
liquefaction at the site. CPT-1, 2, and 4 were shown not to be liquefiable to the full depth
explored.
We note that the methods of analysis used to estimate total and differential settlements do
not take into account the capping layer effects of the relatively stiff and very dense, non-
liquefiable soils overlying the potentially liquefiable soil layers. Specifically, for liquefaction-
induced sand boils or fissures to occur, the pore water pressures induced within the liquefied
strata must exert enough force to break through these overlying layers. Based on empirical
design curves developed by Youd and Garris (1995), which relate the overburden thickness
verses cumulative thickness of liquefiable zones, their data show that the potential for
liquefaction diminishes significantly when the cumulative thickness of liquefiable zones
become less than the overburden thickness. Based on this argument, a capping layer of non-
liquefiable material equal or greater in thickness than the total thickness of potentially
liquefiable layers may be adequate enough to prevent the occurrence of ground surface
rupture at the surface. Based on our subsurface information, in general, the subject site
should have a sufficiently thick (approximatley16 feet) very dense or hard, non-liquefiable
layer above the potentially liquefiable layers to partially mitigate the potential for
liquefaction-induced settlement during a large magnitude earthquake. Furthermore, to our
knowledge, no historical evidence of seismic induced ground deformation has been
documented at this site (Knudsen et al., 2000).
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 9
CONCLUSIONS
From a geotechnical perspective, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed
improvements provided that the recommendations contained in this report are implemented
in the design and construction of the project. In our opinion, the primary geotechnical
constraints to the proposed improvements is the potential for differential compaction of
historic channel backfill in the northern portion of the site, the potential for strong ground
shaking at the site during a moderate to large earthquake on the San Andreas fault or one of
the other nearby active faults.
Based on our investigation, the site appears to be blanketed by predominantly stiff to hard
fine-grained alluvial soils with layers of very dense coarse-grained alluvial soils to the depth
explored of 22 feet. In our opinion, the underlying competent alluvial soils should provide
adequate support for the proposed new foundations.
Geologic Hazards
As part of our investigation, we evaluated the potential for geologic hazards to impact the
site and the proposed improvements. The results of our review are presented below:
Fault Rupture – Based on our site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, and
review of published maps, it is our opinion that no known active or potentially active
faults cross the subject property. Therefore, in our opinion the potential for fault
rupture to occur at the site is relatively low.
Ground Shaking – As noted in the Seismicity section above, moderate to large
earthquakes are probable along several active faults in the greater Bay Area.
Therefore, strong to violent ground shaking should be expected at some time during
the design life of the proposed residence and associated improvements. The
proposed residence and associated improvements should be designed in accordance
with current earthquake resistant standards, including the 2013 California Building
Code (CBC) guidelines and the design parameters presented in this report. It should
be clearly understood that these guidelines and parameters will not prevent damage
to structures; rather they are intended to prevent catastrophic collapse.
Differential Compaction – During moderate and large earthquakes, soft or loose,
natural or fill soils can settle, often unevenly across a site. Because the alluvial soils
encountered during our subsurface investigations are generally stiff to hard and very
dense, in our opinion, the potential for differential compaction impacting the
planned building improvements is relatively low. We note that there is an unknown
potential for settlement of the historic channel backfill in the northern portion of the
site. However, differential compaction of this material should not impact the planned
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 10
residences, provided that they are designed and constructed in accordance with the
recommendations contained herein, the risk of this potential hazard significantly
impacting the structural integrity of the planned building foundation improvements
is low.
Liquefaction – Please refer to the Liquefaction Analysis & Findings section of our
report for more detailed information regarding this geologic hazard. In summary,
based on our findings presented in the above liquefaction analysis section, in our
opinion, the potential for earthquake-induced liquefaction, and liquefaction-related
distress significantly impacting the planned improvements is relatively low provided
the recommendations contained in this report are implemented in design and
construction.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In our opinion, the planned southern three residences (Units 1, 2, and 3) and associated
attached garages may be supported on continuous spread footings gaining support in the
underlying competent alluvial soils. Due to the suspected presence of historic creek channel
backfill in the northern portion of the site, we recommend supporting the northernmost
residence (Unit 4) on drilled pier and grade beam foundations gaining supported in the
underlying competent alluvial soils, beneath any historic backfill. The northernmost
residence (Unit 4) should not be supported on spread footings. The southern three
residences (Units 1 through 3) may be supported either on drilled pier and grade beam
foundations or on conventional spread footing foundations; in our opinion, drilled pier and
grade beam foundations will perform slightly better than spread footing foundations.
Nonetheless, based on our subsurface investigation we anticipate that spread footing
foundations can be expected to perform reasonably well at this site for the three
southernmost residences (Units 1 through 3). Concrete slabs-on-grade may be utilized for
interior floors and garage floors at the southern three residences (Units 1 through 3) if the
residences will be supported on spread footing foundations. Concrete slabs-on-grade should
not be used for the northernmost residence (Unit 4) or for the southern three residences
(Units 1 through 3) if they are to be supported on spread footing foundations. Interior floor
slabs and garage slabs for Unit 4 and any other pier-supported residences should be designed
as structural slabs supported on drilled pier and grade beam foundations. Exterior concrete
slabs-on-grade and flexible pavements should be constructed over a section of select
granular fill. Detailed foundation, grading, and drainage recommendations and geotechnical
design criteria are presented below.
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 11
2013 CBC EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PARAMETERS
We have developed site-specific earthquake design parameters based on the procedures
described in Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the 2013 California Building Code (California
Building Standards Commission, 2013). These procedures utilize State standardized spectral
acceleration values for maximum considered earthquake ground motion taking into account
historical seismicity, available paleoseismic data, and activity rates along known fault traces,
as well as site-specified soil and bedrock response characteristics. Contour maps of Class B
bedrock horizontal spectral acceleration values for the State of California are included as
figures in Chapter 16 of the 2013 CBC, representing both short (0.2 seconds) and long (1.0
second) periods of spectral response and taking into account 5 percent of critical damping.
The U.S. Geological Survey (2014) has prepared an online seismic design value application
tool, based on the 2010 ASCE with a July 2013 CBC errata, for public use, that allows for
site-specific adjustments of these acceleration values for different subsurface conditions,
which are defined by site classes. Given representative latitude of 37.2744 and longitude
of -121.9732 in accordance with guidelines presented in the 2013 CBC, the following seismic
design parameters will apply for this site:
Site Class D – Soil Profile Name: Stiff Soil (Table 1613.5.2)
Mapped Spectral Accelerations for 0.2 second Period: SS= 2.072 g (Site Class B)
Mapped Spectral Accelerations for a 1-second Period: S1= 0.720 g (Site Class B)
Design Spectral Accelerations for 0.2 second Period: SDS= 1.381 g (Site Class D)
Design Spectral Accelerations for a 1-second Period: SD1= 0.720 g (Site Class D)
FOUNDATIONS
Drilled Pier & Grade Beam
Due to its proximity to the approximated mapped area of the backfilled creek channel, we
recommend the northernmost residence (Unit 4), its attached garage and any accessory
structures including attached porches, balconies and/or overhangs located in the vicinity of
the approximate area of the mapped backfill (see Figure A-2) be supported on drilled,
reinforced, cast-in-place, concrete friction pier and grade beam foundations. If desired, the
three southernmost residences may also be supported on drilled pier and grade beam
foundations. Any interior floor slabs for Unit 4 should be designed as structural slabs also
supported on drilled piers.
Drilled piers should be at least 16 inches in diameter, should extend at least 12 feet below
bottom of grade beam elevation or foundation grade, and be embedded at least 8 feet into
competent alluvium beneath any fill. Please note, that these are recommended minimum
pier dimensions and that other structural criterion, such as the need to resist lateral forces,
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 12
may force the pier design depths to be greater. In general, drilled piers should be spaced no
closer than about three pier-diameters, center-to-center.
The piers should be designed to resist dead plus live loads using an allowable skin friction
value of 450 pounds per square foot with a one-third increase allowed for transient loads,
including wind and seismic forces. The upper 2 feet of the soil, as measured from bottom of
grade beam, and any point-bearing resistance should be neglected for support of vertical
loads.
Lateral loads may be resisted by passive earth pressure based upon an equivalent fluid
pressure of 300 pounds per cubic foot, acting on 1.5 times the projected area of the pier
below a depth of 1.5 feet from the bottom of the grade beams. Passive resistance of the soil
within the upper 1.5 feet of the pier should be neglected. The structural engineer should
determine pier reinforcing, as necessary, based on structural requirements.
The bottoms of the pier excavations should be substantially free of loose cuttings and soil
slough prior to the installation of reinforcing steel and the placement of concrete. In
addition, any significant amounts of accumulated water in the pier excavations should be
pumped out prior to placing concrete or displaced using the tremie method when placing
concrete. A representative of Murray Engineers, Inc. should observe the pier excavations to
evaluate whether the piers are founded in the supportive material and whether the pier
excavations are properly prepared. The pier depths recommended above may require
adjustment, if differing conditions are encountered during excavation. Concrete should be
cast as soon as practical after pier drilling to limit the potential for delays due to the
possibility of soil caving. The foundation contractor should be prepared to provide steel
casing if caving soils are encountered.
Grade beams should be incorporated between piers as required by the structural engineer.
Perimeter foundations should extend at least 6 inches below the crawlspace grade or bottom
of slab subgrade to mitigate the potential for infiltration of surface runoff under the at-grade
portions of the structures. Grade beam reinforcing should be determined by the project
structural engineer based on the preceding design criteria and structural requirements.
Based on our engineering judgment, thirty-year differential foundation movement due to
static loads is not expected to exceed approximately ½-inch across any 20-foot span of the
pier-supported improvements.
Spread Footings
The three southernmost residences (Units 1-3) associated attached garages may be supported
on conventional spread footings bearing in the underlying competent alluvium. Continuous
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 13
footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and isolated footings should be a
minimum of 18 inches square. New spread footings should extend at least 30 inches below
lowest final adjacent exterior grade and 24 inches below the interior crawlspace grade or
bottom of slab, whichever is deeper.
We recommend that the footings be designed using an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000
pounds per square foot for dead plus live loads, with a one-third increase allowed for total
loads including wind and seismic forces. The weight of the footings may be neglected for
design purposes.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting subgrade
using a friction coefficient of 0.30 for concrete formed on undisturbed soil. In addition to
the preceding frictional resistance, lateral resistance may be provided by passive pressures
acting against foundations poured neat in excavations using an equivalent fluid pressure of
300 pounds per cubic foot below a depth of 1 foot below lowest adjacent grade.
Any footings located adjacent to utility trenches or other footings should bear below a 1:1
plane extended upward from the bottom edge of the utility trench or footing. Footing
reinforcing should be established by the project structural engineer to provide structural
continuity and to span local irregularities based on the preceding design criteria and
structural design criteria.
The footing excavations should be free of all loose soil, prior to placing reinforcing steel and
concrete. Our representative should observe the footing excavations prior to placing
concrete forms and reinforcing steel to see that they are founded in competent bearing
materials and have been properly cleaned. In addition, any loose soil in the footing
excavations resulting from the placement of forms and reinforcing steel should be removed
prior to placing concrete.
Based on our engineering judgment, thirty-year differential foundation movement due to
static loads is not expected to exceed approximately 1-inch across any 20-foot span of the
new footing-supported portions of the improvements.
CONCRETE SLABS
We anticipate that concrete slabs may be used for the at-grade interior floors, garage floors,
driveway, patios, and walkways. In general, slabs-on-grade may be used for the driveway and
exterior patios and walkways. It should be anticipated that some degree of differential slab
movement and cracking could occur due to seasonal expansive soil movement. If slight slab
movement and cracking is unacceptable, then we suggest that these hardscape features be
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 14
designed and constructed as structural slabs supported on drilled piers. We recommend unit
4 be designed and constructed with structural slabs. Slabs-on-grade for units 1~3 is
acceptable. In our opinion, the use of structural slabs would best serve to reduce cracking of
slab surfaces. Detailed recommendations are presented in the following sections of the
report.
Structural Slabs
Structural slabs for unit 4 should be supported on drilled foundations designed in
accordance with the recommendations provided above.
Where slab surface moisture would be a significant concern, such as interior and garage
floors, we recommend that the slabs be underlain by a vapor retarder consisting of a highly
durable membrane not less than 15 mils thick (such as Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier by Stego
Industries, LLC or equivalent), underlain by a capillary break consisting of 4 inches of ½- to
¾-inch crushed rock. Please also refer to the Vapor Retarder Considerations section below
for additional information. Please note that these recommendations do not comprise a
specification for “waterproofing.” For greater protection against concrete dampness, we
recommend that a waterproofing consultant be retained.
Slabs-on-Grade
Slabs-on-grade for the garages and driveway for homes 1 thru 3 should be underlain by at
least 12 inches of select granular fill, such as Class 2 aggregate baserock. Slabs-on-grade for
exterior, patios and walkways should be underlain by at least 8 inches of select granular fill.
The preceding recommendations are intended to mitigate significant slab movement and
cracking. We note that minor slab movement or localized cracking of slabs may occur.
Prior to placement of the select granular fill, the subgrade soils should be scarified and
moisture conditioned, as necessary, to a depth of approximately 6 inches and recompacted in
accordance with the Compaction section of this report. In addition, if highly expansive
subgrade soils are encountered, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of approximately
12 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 3 percent over optimum moisture content, and
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Because of the potentially expansive
nature of the surficial soil, over-compaction of this material should be avoided. In our
opinion, these recommendations should mitigate the potential for significant heave, but will
not eliminate this potential.
In general, the garage and exterior slabs-on-grade should be designed as “free-floating” slabs,
structurally isolated from adjacent foundations. Exterior slabs-on-grade should be provided
with control joints at spacing of not more than about 10 feet. The project structural
engineer should provide slab reinforcing based on anticipated use and loading.
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 15
Select granular fill should be compacted in accordance with the Compaction section of this
report. Where slab surface moisture would be a significant concern, such as for the garage
floor slabs, we recommend that the slabs be underlain by a vapor retarder consisting of a
highly durable membrane not less than 15 mils thick (such as Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier by
Stego Industries, LLC or equivalent), underlain by a capillary break consisting of 4 inches of
½- to ¾-inch crushed rock. The capillary break may be considered the equivalent thickness
as the upper 4 inches of select granular fill recommended above. Please also refer to the
Vapor Retarder Considerations section below for additional information. Please note that
these recommendations do not comprise a specification for “waterproofing.” For greater
protection against concrete dampness, we recommend that a waterproofing consultant be
retained.
Vapor Retarder Considerations
Based on our understanding, two opposing schools of thought currently prevail concerning
protection of the vapor retarder during construction. Some believe that 2 inches of sand
should be placed above the vapor retarder to protect it from damage during construction
and also to provide a small reservoir of moisture (when slightly wetted just prior to concrete
placement) to benefit the concrete curing process. Still others believe that protection of the
vapor retarder and/or curing of concrete are not as critical design considerations when
compared to the possibility of entrapment of moisture in the sand above the vapor retarder
and below the slab. The presence of moisture in the sand could lead to post-construction
absorption of the trapped moisture through the slab and result in mold or mildew forming at
the upper surface of the slab.
We understand that recent trends are to use a highly durable vapor retarder membrane (at
least 10 mils thick) without the protective sand covering for interior slabs surfaced with floor
coverings including, but not limited to, carpet, wood, or glued tiles and linoleum. However,
it is also noted that several special considerations are required to reduce the potential for
concrete edge curling if sand will not be used, including slightly higher placement of
reinforcement steel and a water-cement ratio not exceeding 0.5 (Holland and Walker, 1998).
We recommend that you consult with other members of your design team, such as your
structural engineer, architect, and waterproofing consultant for further guidance on this
matter.
FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS
Asphaltic Concrete
We anticipate that asphaltic concrete pavement may be used for the new driveway. At a
minimum, we recommend that the proposed asphalt driveway surface be at least 2.5 inches
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 16
thick and that it be underlain by at least 12 inches of imported Class 2 aggregate baserock
(R-value of 78). If soft subgrade conditions are encountered at subgrade elevation along the
driveway, it may be advisable to increase the thickness of the select granular fill. Prior to
placement of the select granular fill, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a depth of
approximately 6 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned (as necessary), and recompacted in
accordance with the Compaction section of this report.
Sand Set Pavers or Flagstones
We anticipate that sand-set pavers or flagstones may be used for exterior hardscape. We
generally recommend that they be placed in accordance with the manufacturer’s
recommendations. At a minimum, we also generally recommend that pavers be underlain by
at least 12 inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate baserock for vehicular loads and at least 8
inches of compacted Class 2 aggregate baserock for pedestrian loads. A representative from
our office should observe the subgrade conditions of the hardscape prior to placement of
baserock. Prior to placement of the baserock, the subgrade soils should be scarified and
moisture conditioned to a depth of at least 6 to 12 inches, as necessary, and compacted in
accordance with the Compaction section of this report.
EARTHWORK
A minor amount of earthwork is anticipated as part of the proposed construction, including
foundation excavations, subgrade preparation beneath hardscape, placement and
compaction of engineered fill, and backfill in utility trenches. Earthwork should be
performed in accordance with the following recommendations.
Clearing & Site Preparation
Initially, the proposed improvement areas should be cleared of obstructions, including
existing foundations, flatwork, utilities, and trees not designated to remain. Holes or
depressions resulting from the removal of underground obstructions below proposed
subgrade levels, such as existing foundations and root balls, should be backfilled with
engineered fill, placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations provided
below. After clearing, the proposed improvement areas should be adequately stripped to
remove surface vegetation and organic-laden topsoil. The stripped material should be used
as engineered fill; however, it may be stockpiled and used for landscaping purposes.
Material for Fill
All on-site soils below the stripped layer having an organic content of less than 3 percent
organic material by volume (ASTM D 2974) may be suitable for use as engineered fill
contingent upon review by our firm. In general, fill material should not contain rocks or
pieces larger than 6 inches in greatest dimension, and should contain no more than 15
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 17
percent larger than 2.5 inches. Any required imported fill should be predominantly granular
material or low plasticity material with a plasticity index of less than approximately 15
percent. Any proposed fill for import should be approved by Murray Engineers, Inc. prior
to importing to the site. Our approval process may require index testing to establish the
expansive potential of the soil; therefore, it is important that we receive samples of any
proposed import material at least 3 days prior to planned importing. Class 2 aggregate
baserock should meet the specifications outlined in the Caltrans Standard Specifications,
latest edition.
Compaction
Prior to placing engineered fill, the subgrade soil should be scarified and compacted, as
necessary. Material used for fill should be placed in uniform lifts, no more than 8-inches in
uncompacted thickness. The fill material should be moisture conditioned, as necessary, and
compacted in accordance with the specifications listed in Table 1 below. The relative
compaction and moisture content specified in Table 1 are relative to ASTM D 1557 (latest
edition). Compacted lifts should be firm and non-yielding under the weight of compaction
equipment prior to the placement of successive lifts.
Table 5. Compaction Specifications
Fill Element Relative
Compaction*
Moisture Content*
General fill for raising of site grades, driveway, channel
backfill and patios (for fills up to 4 feet thick)
90 percent Near optimum
For fills greater than 4 feet thick 93 percent
(entire fill)
Near optimum
Upper 6 inches of relatively non-expansive subgrade
beneath hardscape
90 percent Near optimum
Upper 12 inches of relatively expansive subgrade beneath
hardscape
90 percent >3% over optimum
Aggregate baserock under hardscape 95 percent Near optimum
½- to ¾-inch Crushed Rock - Compact with at least 3
passes of a vibratory plate with lift-thickness < 12 inches.
see note at left Not critical
Backfill of utility trenches using on-site soil 90 percent Near optimum
Backfill of utility trenches using imported sand 90 percent Near optimum
*Relative to ASTM D 1557, latest edition.
Final Slopes
In general, any proposed cut slopes in the surficial soil and any proposed fill slopes should
have gradients no steeper than approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). In general, new fill
slopes should be over-filled and then cut back to proposed final slope gradients. All graded
surfaces or areas disturbed by construction should be revegetated prior to the onset of the
rainy season following construction to mitigate excessive soil erosion. If vegetation is not
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 18
established, other erosion control provision should be employed. Ground cover, once
established should be properly maintained to provide long-term erosion control.
Temporary Slopes & Trench Excavations
The contractor should be responsible for all temporary slopes and trenches excavated at the
site and design and construction of any required safety cuts or shoring. Safety cuts and
shoring should be provided in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal safety
regulations, including the current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards. Because of
the potential for variable soil conditions, field modifications of temporary cut slopes may be
required. Unstable materials encountered on the slopes during the excavation should be
trimmed off, even if this requires cutting the slope back at flatter inclinations.
SITE DRAINAGE
Roof run-off, rain, or irrigation water should not be allowed to pond near structures, exterior
hardscape, or pavement areas. The proposed residences and attached garages should be
provided with roof gutters and downspouts. Water collected in the gutters should not be
allowed to discharge freely onto the ground surface adjacent to the foundations and should
be conveyed away from the structures via splash blocks or via buried closed conduits and
routed to a suitable discharge outlet. The finished grades should be designed to drain
surface water away from the proposed structures, slabs, pavement areas, and yard areas to
suitable discharge points. The ground surface should have positive gradient away from the
structures. Where such surface gradients are difficult to achieve, we recommend that area
drains or surface drainage swales be installed to collect surface water and convey it to a
suitable discharge location away from the structures.
We recommend that annual maintenance of the surface drainage systems be performed.
This maintenance should include inspection and testing to make sure that roof gutters and
downspouts are in good working order and do not leak; inspection and flushing of area
drains to make sure that they are free of debris and are in good working order; and
inspection of surface drainage outfall locations to verify that introduced water flows freely
through the discharge pipes and that no excessive erosion has occurred. If erosion is
detected, this office should be contacted to evaluate its extent and to provide mitigation.
REQUIRED FUTURE SERVICES
Plan Review
To better assure conformance of the final design documents with the recommendations
contained in this report, and to better comply with the building department’s requirements,
Murray Engineers, Inc. must review the completed project plans prior to construction. The
plans should be made available for our review as soon as possible after completion so that
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 19
we can better assist in keeping your project schedule on track. We recommend that the
following note be added to the architectural, structural, and civil plans:
All earthwork and site drainage, including pier drilling, spread footing excavations,
preparation of subgrade beneath hardscape, placement and compaction of
engineered fill, and installation of site drainage should be performed in accordance
with the geotechnical report prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc., dated August 2,
2016. Murray Engineers, Inc. should be provided at least 48 hours advance
notification of any earthwork operations and should be present to observe and test,
as necessary, the earthwork, foundation, and drainage installation phases of the
project.
Construction Observation Services
Murray Engineers, Inc. should observe and test (as necessary) the earthwork and foundation
phases of construction in order to a) confirm that subsurface conditions exposed during
construction are substantially the same as those interpolated from our limited subsurface
exploration, on which the analysis and design were based; b) evaluate compliance with the
geotechnical design concepts, specifications, and recommendations; and c) allow design
changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated. The
recommendations in this report are based on limited subsurface information. The nature
and extent of variation across the site may not become evident until construction. If
variations are exposed during construction, it may be necessary to re-evaluate our
recommendation.
LIMITATIONS
This report has been prepared for the sole use of Yan Hua Zhu specifically for developing
geotechnical design criteria relating to subdivision and development of the new residences
and associated improvements, as discussed above, at 1323 Elam Avenue in Campbell,
California. The opinions presented in this report are based upon information obtained from
borings at widely separated locations, site reconnaissance, review of field data made available
to us, and upon local experience and engineering judgment, and have been formulated in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that exist in the San
Francisco Bay Area at the time this report was prepared. Further, our recommendations are
based on the assumption that soil and geologic conditions at or between borings do not
deviate substantially from those encountered. In addition, geotechnical issues may arise that
are not apparent at this time. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made or should be
inferred. We are not responsible for data provided by others.
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 20
The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that we will be
retained to provide the Future Services described above in order to evaluate compliance with
our recommendations. If we are not retained for these services, Murray Engineers, Inc.
cannot assume any responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during or after
construction as a result of misuse or misinterpretation of Murray Engineers, Inc.’s report by
others. Furthermore, if another geotechnical consultant is retained for follow-up service to
this report, Murray Engineers, Inc. will at that time cease to be the Engineer-of-Record.
The opinions presented in this report are valid as of the present date for the property
evaluated. Changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time,
whether due to natural processes or the works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In
addition, changes in applicable standards of practice can occur, whether from legislation or
the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the opinions presented in this report may be
invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is
subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years, nor should it be
used, or is it applicable, for any property other than that evaluated.
Zhu Residential Development – 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell Geotechnical Investigation
Page 21
REFERENCES
2007 Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2008, The Uniform California
Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 2007-1437; California Geological Survey Special Report 203214; Southern California
Earthquake Center Contribution #1138
ASTM International, 2012, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 2012, Section Four,
Construction, Volume 04.08, Soil and Rock (I): D 420-D 5876: ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1809 p.
Bowles, Joseph, E., 1996, Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., New York, 1175 p.
California Building Standards Commission, 2013, 2013 California Building Code, California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2: California Building Standards
Commission, Sacramento, CA, 770 p.
California Geological Survey, 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards
in California: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 117A
California Geological Survey, 1968, San Jose West, San Jose 15’ Quadrangle, Official Map,
Released 1961, Photorevised in 1968:
Dixit, J., Dewaikar, D.M., Jangid, R.S., 2012, Assessment of Liquefaction Potential Index for
Mumbai City, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay,
Mumbai-400 076, India, Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences
Wentworth, C.M., M. C. Blake, Jr., R. J. McLaughlin, and R. W. Graymer, 1999, Preliminary
Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 x 60-Minute Quadrangle, California: A Digital Database:
U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 98-795.
Geologismiki Geotechnical Software, 2006, Cliq v.1.7.6.49
Holland, Jerry A., and Wayne Walker, 1998, Controlling Curling and Cracking in Floors to
Receive Coverings, Publication #C980603: The Aberdeen Group, 2 p.
Lunne, T. Robertson, P.K., and Powell, J.J.M., 1997, Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical
Practice, Spon Press, New York, 312 p.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2014, Earthquake Hazards Program, U.S. Seismic Design Maps,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php, accessed May 26, 2016.
Youd, L.T., and Garris, C.T., 1995, Liquefaction-Induced Ground-Surface Disruption, ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 11, pp. 805-809
..............
.....
.
..
....
.
.
.
...
..
.
..
....
.
.
...
.
.
.
...
.
.
.
..
..
.
...
.
..
..
.
.
....
.
...
..
..
.
.
.....
.
...
.
.
...
....
.....
.
..
.
...
....
.
.
...
.
.
.
..
.
....
.
.
.
.
.
.....
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
...
.
.
.
.
.
...
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
...
.
.
....
.
...
...
.
.
...
..
..
.
.
.
.
..
....
.
..
.
.
.
.
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..
..
.
..
.........
......
.
...
.
...
...
...
....
.
..
...
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
........
.
..
....
...
.
.
.
.
...
.
....
..........
.....
.......
...
.
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
...
.
.
.
..
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
..
..
..
....
.
.
..
..
.
......
...
..
...
.
.....
..
.
...
.
.
.
...
..
.
.
...
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.450275300
2
5
0
2
2
5
375 25022
5
225
35075
400350375
35040032
5
275
175
4
25
325
400250250325
325
37537527525
0
300275375
275
300 200275
200
3002
0
0
400400400 200¬«17
¬«85
¬«85CASTRO DRSTEINWAY AVE
ELWOOD DR
VANDERBILT DR
BICKNELL RDRE
W LATIMER AVE
BUDD AVE
CAPRI DRELMWOOD DR
MONTREAL DR
BISMARCK DR
PARK
W
EST
DR
RHONDA DR
GOLFLINKSDRN1STSTWHITE OAKS RDW HACIENDA AVEFALLBROOKAVE
COL U SAWAYWEDGEWOOD AVE
SOBEY RD
HOLMESAVEVALERIE DR
SPRINGFIELD DR
MORE AVEGLEASON AV E
RATIMBERCOVEDRWHITEOMARIA WAYVIRGINIA AVEROOKA RDLA DR
PASEOCERRO
LEMOYNE WAY
LARI
NCONADADRRADOYKA DRLEXINGTYO R KTON WAY CAWESTON DRKENNETH AVEOAKKCEN T U R Y DR
WHITWOOD LN
GRAVES AVE
LOST OAKS DR
E LATIMER
SU
CADILLAC DR
VILLARITA DRSMITH AVE
SOBRATO DRPASEOPRESADAN 3RD STC
O
L
O
M
B
O
D
R
COLLEEN
WAYMCCOY AVE
LOVELL AVEVALLEJODRABBEY LNVILLANOVA RDDRIFTWOOD D RDELLAVETHERESA AVEHAPPWI
MBLEDONDR WALNUT DRACAPULCO DR
BUCKNAM AVE
SHELLEY AV
LASSEN AVE
STOCKBRIDGEDW SUNNYOAKS AVE
GALE DR
BUCKNALL RD DARRYL DRREDDINGBRENTON ACAMROSE AVECIR
HAZEL AVE
W RINCON AVEFLORA AWO
ODBANK
WAY
WALDO RD
NORWICH WAY
ALEX DR
NORTHLAWN D RENSENADADRS I L A C C IDRKEI T H DRSOUTHWOODDRM ONTCLAIR RD
GRANADA
WA YCASITASBULEVARW PARR AVE
LONGFELLOWAVECOUNTRYLN
KINGS TONWAY
A LBRIGHTWAY
SPALO SANTO DRLATIME
R
AVE
OL
D
ADOBERDVASO NAAVEHARRIET
AVESARATOWESTMONT AVE
W CAMPBELL AVE
HARRIETAVEALLENDALE AVE
W HACIENDAAVE
COX AVE
KNOWLES DR
SBASCOMAVELARKAVE
POLLARD RD SWINCHESTERBLVDWINCHESTERBLVDW HAMILTON AVE
LAWRENCEEXPYCAM
D
S
A
N
T
OMASEXPYSARATOGAAVEHAMILTON AVE
SanTomas Aquinas Cr
SobeyCrLosGato s Cr
SanTomasAquinasCrWildcatCr
LosGatosCreekSARATOGA
CAMPBELL
LOS
GATOS
Monte
Sereno
Vasona
Junction
San Tomas
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2016
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
N
FIGURE A-1
Base: USGS Topographic Map, San Jose West, 7.5 Minute Series, 2015. Scale: 1 inch = 2,000 feet.
SITE
202020'-00-0-0"020-0FFFROFRRORONRONONTONTTTFROONT S SESESETBSETBTBACTBAACACKACKCKCK SSETBACCK15'-0"18'X20'20' GARAGEE(2 CARCA GARAGE)AGMAX. BUILDINGHEIGHT 28'REAR SETBACK1/2 OF BUILDINGHEIGHT= 14'ACK SETBAAA20'200'020' FIFFIREFRREREE FIRE TTTRUTRRUCKRUUCCKCKKTRUCKKACACCCECCCESSCEESSSSSACCCESS20' FIRE TRUCK ACCESSOPEN SPACE - 2,748 SFF262626'-6'226'00000 7/77/8"7/888""7/8"26'-266'-1"6'-11""26'-1"NEW 5'-0" WALKWAYYPERMEABLE SURFACE DRIVE14'-0"NEW 5'-0" WALKWAYY1,161,7 SF LIVINGVI SPACECE FOOT PRINRIT +360 SF GARAGEGATOTATAL 1,527 SFSF FOOTPRINTRIN2222FIRE TRUCK TURNAROUND18'X20' GARAGEG(2 CARAR GARAGE)GE)1119'-0"9'-0"1,111,14 SF LIVINGVIN SPACECE FOOT PRINRINT +360 SF GARAGEARTOTATAL 1,474 SFF FOOTPRINTRIN20'-0"20'-0"20'0"15'-0"5'-0"5'-0"20'-0"20'-020'-0"5'-0"5'-0BACKBACBACSIDE SETBACKPROPERTY LINE237.44'GNINIOJDAGNIDLIUBETAMIXORPPANNOITACOLGNINIOJDAGNIDLIUBETAMIXORPPANOITACOL30'-0"'-PROPERTY LINE 75.00'UTILITY EASEMENNTTNTEMEGNINIOJDAGNIDLIUBETAMIXORPPANOITACOLPRO PERTY LINE 103.70'ADJOINING BUILDING AP PRO XIMAT E LOCATION
20'-0"20'-0"20-0"PROPERTY LINE 300.57'SIDE SETBACKVARIES18'X20'1 GARAGEAR(2 CAR GARAGE) G18'X20' GARAGEG(2 CARAR GARAGE)E)14'-0"0"00'-0"0-0"20'-202220"0'-201,134 SF1,1 LIVINGVIN SPACEE FOOT PRINRINT +360 SF3 GARAGEARTOTAALL 1,494 SFF FOOTPRINTIN0"00'-0"0-030'-30330"0'-320'-0"11100 SFS LIVINGG S360 SF60 GARAGEAGTOTAL 1,4701, SF FOOTPROO333320'-0"20'0"20'-0"4449'-0"20'-0"9'-0"MAXHEIGHT 28'SIDE SETBACK 1/2 CKOF BUILDINGHEIGHT = 14' SETBAC5'-0"CPT-2CPT-2CPT-23330'-300'-0"0-00"030'-0"GSPACE FOOSOOTPRINTT++PRINTSP-1SP-2SP-21Outline of (E) Residence to be Removed (Solid)2Outline of (E) Garage to be Removed (Dashed)3Area of (E) Hardscape to be Removed (Hatched)4Outline of Proposed 4-Lot Subdivision (Solid)5Area of Proposed Driveway (Stippled)5KEY NOTESCPT-1CPT-1CPT-1SP-2CPT-3CPT-3CPT-4CPT-4SP-3SP-3CPT-4SP-3SP-1CPT-1Approximate Location of Soil Probe by Murray Engineers, Inc., May 6, 2016Approximate Location of CPTApproximate areas where historical occurence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical andgroundwater conditions indicate potential for permanent ground displacements (See Figure A-4)Approximate area of creek channel backfilled between 1961 & 1968, according to the San JoseWest Quadrangle released in 1961 and photorevised in 1968Base: Site Plan by Gordana Design Studio, dated June 27, 2016Approximate Scale: 1 inch = 20 feetLEGENDCPT-3133244SITE PLAN 1JULY 2016FIGURE A-2PROJECT NO.2534-1R1ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIAN
UNIT 1UNIT 2UNIT 3 UNIT 4
SITE
JULY 2016
Legend & Selected Map Symbols
Qpf
Fault, dashed where approximately located,
dotted where concealed, queried where
uncertain
Contact
?
Alluvial Fan Deposits (Pleistocene)
QTsc Santa Clara Formation
(Pleistocene and Pliocene)
Qhf2 Older Alluvial Fan Deposits (Holocene)
Base: Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 x 60 Minute Quadrangle, California, Wentworth et. al., 1999.
Approximate Scale (Digitally Enlarged): 1 inch = 2,000 feet
VICINITY
GEOLOGIC MAP
N
FIGURE A-3
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
N
LEGEND
Areas where previous occurence of landslide movement, or local topographic, geological, geotechnical and
subsurface water conditions indicate a potential forpermanent ground displacements such that mitigation as
defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693 (c) would be required
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
JULY 2016
Areas where historical occurence of liquefaction, or local geological, geotechnical and groundwater conditions
indicate potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources
Code Section 2693 (c) would be required
Base: the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone Map, San Jose West Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Series, 2002.
Scale is 1 inch = 2,000 feet.
SITE
STATE SEISMIC
HAZARD ZONES MAP
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE A-4
V:\BORINGS\Zhu - 2534-1.bgs [123 Murray 24, WC, DD, Soil Probe.tpl]FIGURE B-1
LOG OF
JULY 2016
Date(s)Drilled May 6, 2016
DrillingMethod Direct Push
Drill Rig Type Geoprobe
Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered ATD
BoreholeBackfill Grout
Logged By AK
Drill Bit Size/Type N/A
DrillingContractor CPT Inc.
SamplingMethod(s)Dual Tube Sampler with 1.4" plastic liner
Location Southwest corner of the proposed units
Checked By DY
Total Depth of Borehole 22 feet bgs
Approximate Surface Elevation 228 feet
HammerData pneumatic
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
BORING SP-1
204
209
214
219
224 Elevation, feet 0
5
10
15
20 Depth, feetCalculated SPT(N60) BlowCounts basedon qc (CPT)]RelativeConsistencyUSCS SymbolMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Water Content,%Dry Density(PCF)Very Stiff ML SANDY SILT, dark brown, homogeneous, low plasticity fines, fine-grained sand, trace rootlets, moist (Alluvium)
Very Dense SM SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown to olive brown, heterogeneous, 20-40% subangular gravel, slightly moist to
moist (Alluvium)
Percent Fines=14% (sample from 14 to 18 feet)
SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown, heterogeneous, 20-40% gravels, moist
CL SANDY CLAY, yellowish brown, homogeneous, low to medium plasticity, fine-to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel,
moist (Alluvium)
Bottom of Boring at 22 feet bgs
14 104
8 111
9
13
13
16
18
37
11174
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
V:\BORINGS\Zhu - 2534-1.bgs [123 Murray 24, WC, DD, Soil Probe.tpl]FIGURE B-2
LOG OF
JULY 2016
Date(s)Drilled May 6, 2016
DrillingMethod Direct Push
Drill Rig Type Geoprobe
Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered ATD
BoreholeBackfill Grout
Logged By AK
Drill Bit Size/Type N/A
DrillingContractor CPT Inc.
SamplingMethod(s)Dual Tube Sampler with 1.4" plastic liner
Location Western wall of proposed units
Checked By DY
Total Depth of Borehole 20 feet bgs
Approximate Surface Elevation 228 feet
HammerData pneumatic
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
BORING SP-2
204
209
214
219
224 Elevation, feet 0
5
10
15
20 Depth, feetCalculated SPT(N60) BlowCounts basedon qc (CPT)]RelativeConsistencyUSCS SymbolMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Water Content,%Dry Density(PCF)Very Stiff CL LEAN CLAY, dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown, homogeneous, trace fine-grained sand, moist (Alluvium)
PI=10%; LL=23% (sample from 0 to 4 feet)
Very Dense SM SILTY SAND, yellowish brown to olive brown, homogeneous, fine- to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel, moist to
very moist
Very Dense SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown to olive brown, heterogeneous, medium to coarse grained sand, low plasticity
fines, 20-40% gravel, moist (Alluvium)
Percent Fines=15% (sample from 14 to 18 feet)
Hard CL SANDY CLAY, yellowish brown, homogeneous, low to medium plasticity, fine-to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel,
moist (Alluvium)
Bottom of Boring at 20 feet bgs
13
10
18
15
14
16
8 101
102
111
106
103
105
104104
108
105
105
8
25
72
90
54
77
68
73
52
52
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
V:\BORINGS\Zhu - 2534-1.bgs [123 Murray 24, WC, DD, Soil Probe.tpl]FIGURE B-3
LOG OF
JULY 2016
Date(s)Drilled May 6, 2016
DrillingMethod Direct Push
Drill Rig Type Geoprobe
Groundwater Level and Date Measured Not Encountered ATD
BoreholeBackfill Grout
Logged By AK
Drill Bit Size/Type N/A
DrillingContractor CPT Inc.
SamplingMethod(s)Dual Tube Sampler with 1.4" plastic liner
Location Southwest corner of the proposed units
Checked By DY
Total Depth of Borehole 22 feet bgs
Approximate Surface Elevation 228 feet
HammerData pneumatic
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
BORING SP-3
204
209
214
219
224 Elevation, feet 0
5
10
15
20 Depth, feetCalculated SPT(N60) BlowCounts basedon qc (CPT)]RelativeConsistencyUSCS SymbolMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Water Content,%Dry Density(PCF)Stiff to Hard CL LEAN CLAY, dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown, homogeneous, trace fine-grained sand, moist (Alluvium)
Very Dense SM SILTY SAND, yellowish brown to olive brown, homogeneous, fine- to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel, moist
(Alluvium)
SC CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL, yellowish brown to olive brown, heterogeneous, medium to coarse grained sand, low platicity
fines, 20-40% gravel, moist (Alluvium)
CL SANDY CLAY, yellowish brown, homogeneous, low to medium plasticity, fine-to coarse-grained sand, trace subangular gravel,
moist (Alluvium)
Bottom of Boring at 22 feet bgs
12
38
92
83
96
171
14 101
12
105
9 112
109
10
110
107
11
14
14
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
V:\BORINGS\Zhu - 2534-1.bgs [123 Murray 24, WC, DD, Soil Probe.tpl]FIGURE B-4
KEY TOSOIL PROBE LOGS
JULY 2016 PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
1 Elevation, feet: Elevation (MSL, feet)
2 Depth, feet: Depth in feet below the ground surface.
3 Calculated SPT (N60) Blow Counts based on qc (CPT)]: Reported SPT (N60) values derived from empirical relationships between measured cone penetration test (CPT) tip resistance (qc) and measured N values. CPT data recorded for this site are included in Appendix C.
4 Relative Consistency: Relative consistency of the subsurface material.
5 USCS Symbol: USCS symbol of the subsurface material.
6 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION: Description of material encountered. May include consistency, moisture, color, and other descriptive text.
7 Water Content, %: Water content of the soil sample, expressed as percentage of dry weight of sample.
8 Dry Density (PCF): Dry weight per unit volume of soil sample measured in laboratory in pounds per cubic foot.
FIELD AND LABORATORY TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CHEM:Chemical tests to assess corrosivityCOMP:Compaction testCONS:One-dimensional consolidation testLL:Liquid Limit, percentPI:Plasticity Index, percent
SA: Sieve analysis (percent passing No. 200 Sieve)UC:Unconfined compressive strength test, Qu, in ksfWA: Wash sieve (percent passing No. 200 Sieve)
TYPICAL MATERIAL GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
Sandstone
Well graded GRAVEL (GW)
Poorly graded GRAVEL (GP)
Well graded GRAVEL with Silt (GW-GM)
Well graded GRAVEL with Clay (GW-GC)
Poorly graded GRAVEL with Silt (GP-GM)
Poorly graded GRAVEL with Clay (GP-GC)
Silty GRAVEL (GM)
Clayey GRAVEL (GC)
Well graded SAND (SW)
Poorly graded SAND (SP)
Well graded SAND with Silt (SW-SM)
Well graded SAND with Clay (SW-SC)
Poorly graded SAND with Silt (SP-SM)
Poorly graded SAND with Clay (SP-SC)
Silty SAND (SM)
Clayey SAND (SC)
SILT, SILT w/SAND, SANDY SILT (ML)
Lean CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL)
SILT, SILT w/SAND, SANDY SILT (MH)
Fat CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CH)
SILT, SILT with SAND, SANDY SILT (ML-MH)
Lean-Fat CLAY, CLAY w/SAND, SANDY CLAY (CL-CH)
SILTY CLAY (CL-ML)
Lean CLAY/PEAT (CL-OL)
Fat CLAY/SILT (CH-MH)
Fat CLAY/PEAT (CH-OH)
Silty SAND to Sandy SILT (SM-ML)
Silty SAND to Sandy SILT (SM-MH)
Clayey SAND to Sandy CLAY (SC-CL)
Clayey SAND to Sandy CLAY (SC-CH)
SILT to CLAY (CL/ML)
Silty to Clayey SAND (SC/SM)
TYPICAL SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
2 inch-OD Unlined Split Spoon (SPT)
2.5 inch-OD Unlined Split Spoon
3 inch-OD Unlined Split Spoon
Shelby Tube (thin-walled, fixed head)
Grab Sample
Bulk Sample
Pitcher Sample
Other Sampler
OTHER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
Water level (at time of drilling, ATD)
Water level (after waiting a given time)
Minor change in material properties within a stratum
Inferred or gradational contact between strata
?Queried contact between strata
GENERAL NOTES
1.Soil classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Descriptions and stratum lines are interpretive, and actual lithologic changes may be gradual. Field descriptions may have been modified to reflect results of lab tests.
2.Descriptions on these logs apply only at the specific boring locations and at the time the borings were advanced. They are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. Elevation, feet1 Depth, feet2 Calculated SPT(N60) BlowCounts basedon qc (CPT)]3 RelativeConsistency4 USCS Symbol5
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
6 Water Content,%7 Dry Density(PCF)8
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
PRIMARY DIVISIONS
RELATIV E DENSITY
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
BLOWS/FOOT*
0 to 4
4 to 10
10 to 30
30 to 50
OVER 50
STRENGTH^
0 to 0.25
0.25 to 0.5
0.5 to 1
1 to 2
2 to 4
OVER 4
BLOWS/FOOT*
0 to 2
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 16
16 to 32
OVER 32
SILT & CLAY
VERY SOFT
SOFT
MEDIUM STIFF
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
SAND & GRAVEL
VERY LOOSE
LOOSE
MEDIUM DENSE
DENSE
VERY DENSE
SILT AND CLAY
Liquid limit <50%
CLEAN GRAVEL
(<5% Fines)
CLEAN SAND
(<5% Fines)
SANDwithFINES
GRAVELwithFINES
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
(>50% Fines)
SILT & CLAYBOULDERSCOBBLESGRAVEL
EVEIS SEIRES DRADNATS .S.USGNINEPO EVEIS
ENIFESRAOCENIFESRAOCMEDIUM
SAND
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
(<50% Fines)
GRAVEL
SAND
SILT AND CLAY
Liquid limit >50%
SOILTYPE
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
Pt
Well graded gravel, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.
Poorly graded gravel or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines.
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
Well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines.
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines.
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines.
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines.
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, with slight plasticity.
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, lean clays.
Organic silts and organic clays of low plasticity.
Inorganic silt, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soil.
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts.
Peat and other highly organic soils.
SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GRAIN SIZE S
CONSISTENCY
12"3"3/4"4 10 40 200
^
Classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System; fines refer to soil passing a No. 200 sieve.
*Standard penetration test (SPT) resistance using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch outside diameter split spoon sampler; blow counts for the 3.0-inch O.D. and 2.5-inch O.D. samplers have been corrected for sampler size to SPT values using conversion factors of 0.65 and 0.77, respectively.
Shear strength in tons/sq. ft. as estimated by SPT resistance, field and laboratory tests, and/or visual observation.
UNIFIED SOILCLASSIFICATIONSYSTEM
FIGURE B-5JULY 2016PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
APPENDIX C
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION – CONE PENERATION TESTS
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE C-1CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-1The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.0 200 40005101520253035qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 2.5 5.0fs (tsf)0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0Ic0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0Su (Nkt) (tsf)0 50 100 1500N1(60) (bpf)Murray Engineers IncJob No: 16-56024Date:05:06:16 08:12Site:1323 Elam AveSounding:CPT-01Cone:447:T1500F15U500Max Depth: 2.300 m / 7.55 ftDepth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ftAvg Int: Every PointFile:16-56024_CP01.CORUnit Wt: SBT ZonesSu Nkt: 15.0SBT:Robertson and Campanella, 1986Coords:UTM 10 N N: 4125783 E: 591028 Page No: 1 of 1RefusalRefusalRefusalRefusalRefusalN(60) (bpf)(see Figure C-7, Key to Soil Behavior Types) JULY 2016ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE C-2CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-2The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.0 200 40005101520253035qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 2.5 5.0fs (tsf)0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0Ic0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0Su (Nkt) (tsf)0 50 100 1500N1(60) (bpf)Murray Engineers IncJob No: 16-56024Date:05:06:16 08:55Site:1323 Elam AveSounding:CPT-02Cone:447:T1500F15U500Max Depth: 2.500 m / 8.20 ftDepth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ftAvg Int: Every PointFile:16-56024_CP02.CORUnit Wt: SBT ZonesSu Nkt: 15.0SBT:Robertson and Campanella, 1986Coords:UTM 10 N N: 4125803 E: 591035 Page No: 1 of 1RefusalRefusalRefusalRefusalRefusalN(60) (bpf)(see Figure C-7, Key to Soil Behavior Types) JULY 2016ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE C-3CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-3The reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.0 200 40005101520253035qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 2.5 5.0fs (tsf)0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0Ic0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0Su (Nkt) (tsf)0 50 100 1500N1(60) (bpf)Murray Engineers IncJob No: 16-56024Date:05:06:16 09:23Site:1323 Elam AveSounding:CPT-03Cone:447:T1500F15U500Max Depth: 9.350 m / 30.68 ftDepth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ftAvg Int: Every PointFile:16-56024_CP03.CORUnit Wt: SBT ZonesSu Nkt: 15.0SBT:Robertson and Campanella, 1986Coords:UTM 10 N N: 4125818 E: 591027 Page No: 1 of 1RefusalRefusalRefusalRefusalRefusalN(60) (bpf)(see Figure C-7, Key to Soil Behavior Types) JULY 2016ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1JULY 2016FIGURE C-4CONE PENETRATION TEST CPT-4ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT1323 ELAM AVENUECAMPBELL, CALIFORNIAThe reported coordinates were acquired from consumer grade GPS equipment and are only approximate locations. The coordinates should not be used for design purposes.0 200 40005101520253035qt (tsf)Depth (feet)0.0 2.5 5.0fs (tsf)0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0Ic0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0Su (Nkt) (tsf)0 50 100 1500N1(60) (bpf)Murray Engineers IncJob No: 16-56024Date:05:06:16 10:00Site:1323 Elam AveSounding:CPT-04Cone:447:T1500F15U500Max Depth: 3.500 m / 11.48 ftDepth Inc: 0.025 m / 0.082 ftAvg Int: Every PointFile:16-56024_CP04.CORUnit Wt: SBT ZonesSu Nkt: 15.0SBT:Robertson and Campanella, 1986Coords:UTM 10 N N: 4125841 E: 591051 Page No: 1 of 1RefusalRefusalRefusalRefusalRefusalN(60) (bpf)(see Figure C-7, Key to Soil Behavior Types)
.
APPENDIX D
LABORATORY TESTS
Samples from the subsurface exploration were selected for tests to evaluate the physical and
engineering properties of the soils. The tests performed are briefly described below.
Natural moisture content was determined for most samples recovered from the soil probe in
accordance with ASTM D2216. This test determines the moisture content representative of
field conditions at the time the samples were collected. The results are presented on the soil
probe log at the appropriate sample depths.
The Atterberg Limits were determined on one sample in accordance with ASTM D 4318.
The Atterberg limits are the moisture content within which the soil is workable or plastic.
The results of this test are presented in Figure D-1 and on the soil probe log, at the
appropriate sample depth.
Tested By: DY
Murray Engineers, Inc.
Palo Alto, CA
Client:
Project:
Project No.: Figure
Yan Hua Zhu
1323 ELAM AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
2534-1
SYMBOL SOURCE
NATURAL
USCSSAMPLE DEPTH WATER PLASTIC LIQUID PLASTICITY
NO. CONTENT LIMIT LIMIT INDEX
(%) (%) (%) (%)
SOIL DATAPLASTICITY INDEX0
10
20
30
40
50
60
LIQUID LIMIT0102030405060708090100110
CL-ML CL or OLCH or OHML or OL MH or OH
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
47
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
SP-2 1 0' to 4' 13.4 13 23 10 CL
JULY 2016
ZHU RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1323 ELAM AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
LIQUID & PLASTICLIMITS TEST REPORT
PROJECT NO. 2534-1R1 FIGURE D-1
APPENDIX E
SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES
GeoLogismiki
Geotechnical Engineers
Merarhias 56
http://www.geologismiki.gr
Overall vertical settlements report
Project title : Zhu
Location : Campbell
CLiq v.1.7.6.49 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software 1
Project file: M:\Cliq\Zhu\ZHU_LIQ_KK_GW15FT_UPDATEDPARAMETERS.clq
EXHIBIT 2
PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com
IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South Fourth Street, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 313 - 9376 ircenvironmental@gmail.com
PHASE I
ENVIRONMENTAL
SITE ASSESSMENT
REPORT
1323 Elam Avenue
Campbell, California
November 15, 2016
Project Number 3343
Prepared For
Yanhua Zhu
c/o Gordana Design Studio
602 Hawthorne Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Prepared By
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
430 South 4th Street
San Jose, California 95112-5730
(408) 313 - 9376
ircenvironmental@gmail.com
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com
IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South 4th Street, San Jose, CA 95112-5730 (408) 313 - 9376 ircenvironmental@gmail.com
November 15, 2016
Project Number 3343
Yanhua Zhu
c/o Gordana Design Studio
602 Hawthorne Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Via email to: design@gordana.net
Attn: Gordana Paylovic
Subject: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT REPORT
SITE: 1323 ELAM AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA 95008-4439
SANTA CLARA COUNTY ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER
(APN): 403-09-046 (Book 403, Page 09, Parcel 046)
Dear Ms. Paylovic:
IRC is pleased to present the accompanying final report of the Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the subject Site.
IRC appreciates the opportunity to have been of service. Should you have any questions
or require additional information or services please contact me at (408) 313 - 9376 or ircenvironmental@gmail.com.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Berman Project Manager
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC (IRC)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS 1
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 3
2.1 Purpose ................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Scope of Services ................................................................................ 3
2.3 Limitations ............................................................................................ 4
3.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 5
3.1 Topography .......................................................................................... 5
3.2 Regional Geology ................................................................................. 5
4.0 LAND USE HISTORY 7
4.1 Historical Topographic Maps ................................................................ 7
4.2 Review of Aerial Photographs .............................................................. 7
4.3 Historical Fire Insurance Maps ............................................................. 8
4.4 City Directories ..................................................................................... 8
4.5 User Provided Data, Data From Non-Public Sources,
Questionnaire, Interviews ..................................................................... 8
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 10
5.1 Site Description and General Observations ....................................... 10
5.2 Additional Non-Scope Services .......................................................... 10
5.3 Adjoining and Neighboring Properties Description ............................. 10
6.0 RECORDS AND CORRESPONDENCE REVIEW 12
6.1 Federal and State Records Sources .................................................. 12
6.2 Contamination Migration .................................................................... 13
6.3 Summary of Radius Map Report Findings .......................................... 14
6.4 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations ....................... 14
6.5 Summary of State and Local Agency Records and Correspondence 14
6.6 Data Gaps and Data Failure ............................................................... 16
7.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS 17
8.0 REFERENCES 18
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION & VICINITY MAP, TOPOGRAPHIC BASE
FIGURE 2 SUBJECT SITE AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES,
GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE
FIGURE 3 SUBJECT SITE, GOOGLE EARTH IMAGE
FIGURE 4 SUBJECT SITE FEATURES
TABLES
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH REVIEWS
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF CITY DIRECTORIES REVIEWS
PHTOGRAPHS
PHOTOGRAPHS SITE PHOTOGRAPHS (SUBJECT PROPERTY)
APPENDICES (ON CD)
APPENDIX A STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
APPENDIX B HISTORICAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS
APPENDIX C CITY DIRECTORIES
APPENDIX D AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX E SANBORN MAPS
APPENDIX F ENVIRONMENTAL LIEN SEARCH
APPENDIX G RADIUS MAP REPORT
APPENDIX H PHYSICAL SETTINGS MAPS
APPENDIX I WATER WELL REPORT
APPENDIX J OIL & GAS REPORT
APPENDIX K GOOGLE EARTH HISTORICAL IMAGES, SUBJECT
PROPERTY, 2007 - 2016
APPENDIX L WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
IRC Environmental Consulting (IRC) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) of the property located at address 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, California (referred to
hereinafter as the Site, subject Site, or subject property). This Site assessment was prepared
for Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio) in November 2016.
This assessment included visual survey of the Site, exterior inspection of immediately adjacent
properties, review of historical documentation, review of local agency files specific to the Site,
and a review of regulatory databases that identify nearby sites of potential environmental
concern. The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the Site for real and potential
environmental impairments, or risks of impairments, that may represent existing or potential
financial and legal liabilities to Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio) and / or their agents.
Based on our review of available records, site inspection, and / or interviews, no Recognized
Environmental Conditions (RECs) were identified. Business Environmental Risks and Non-
Scope Considerations were identified. See below for details.
Findings, Opinions
Subject Property, Location, Description, Current Uses
The subject property is identified as Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number 403-09-046,
and is associated with 1323 Elam Avenue, Santa Clara County, in the City of Campbell,
California. The subject property consists of one +/- 0.46 acre parcel of land developed with one
existing single-family residence, proximate to Elam Avenue, and a detached garage. The majority
of the land area of the subject property consists of a large undeveloped back yard. Most of the
subject property is unpaved. At the time of the Site inspection the house on the subject property
was occupied by a tenant.
Subject Property, Historical Uses
Review of available information indicated that the subject property was primarily undeveloped or
agricultural (orchards) by the 1930s and likely remained mostly agricultural into the 1950s. The
house on the subject property was constructed circa 1945 and the original sewer connection
permit was issued in 1960. The subject property was annexed to the City of Campbell in 1961.
Adjacent Properties, Historical and Current Uses
Adjoining / surrounding properties were primarily undeveloped / agricultural (orchards) by the
1930s and were mostly all developed by the 1960s to 1980s, primarily for residential use.
Subject Property, Potential Concerns Originating from Onsite
No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) originating from onsite were identified.
Potential Business Environmental Risks and Non-Scope Considerations were identified (see
below). City of Campbell Code Enforcement indicated the following in November 2016. "There
was one previous code enforcement case where RVs were reported parked in the rear yard of
the subject property, which may have been a source of contamination. There is no information
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 2
whether this was verified or not, however. The case does not appear to have been
investigated, and from the aerials it appears there is no violation at this time, as no RV is
visible." Historical Google Earth™ aerial images (dated 04-15-2013 and 02-13-2014) indicated
what appeared to be a recreational vehicle (RV) proximate to the east property boundary. An
online search in November 2016 of City of Campbell permits found listed case number
COD201200060 with description "Full sized RV is parked in backyard". No evidence of RVs,
automotive or vehicle storage in the back yard was found during the November 2016 Site
inspection.
Adjoining / Nearby Properties, Potential Concerns
No Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) originating from adjoining / nearby sites were
identified. There is a small commercial retail center on the southwest corner of Elam Avenue
and San Tomas Aquino Road approximately 300 to 500 feet east - southeast of the subject
property. The city directories listed "San Tomas Cleaners" for the year 1970 at address 1256
Elam Avenue (this address is associated with the small commercial center at Elam Avenue and
San Tomas Aquino Road). No other information was found while conducting this Phase I ESA
regarding a possible dry cleaner at this location. In our opinion additional information, had it
been available, would not likely have lead to identification of a recognized environmental
condition (REC) for the subject property.
Business Environmental Risk
The subject property and immediately adjoining properties were historically (or currently)
agricultural (orchards) or rural and it is possible that residual pesticides or other potentially
hazardous substances associated with agricultural or rural use might remain in the subject
property soils and subsurface.
Non-Scope Considerations
Given the age of the structures on the subject property (circa 1945-1960) it is possible that
Asbestos Containing Building Materials (ACBM) may have been used in construction and /
or Lead-Based Paint (LBP) may have been used on painted surfaces.
The residence on the subject property was built circa 1945 and the original sewer connection
permit was issued in 1960. It is unknown although likely that there was a functioning septic
system on the subject property prior to 1960, and assuming there was at one time a septic
system, it is unknown whether or not it was ever removed.
Conclusions
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in
conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Standard Practice E 1527 of 1323 Elam
Avenue in the City of Campbell, California, the property. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this
practice are described in Section 2.0 of this report. This assessment has revealed no evidence
of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. However, the following
should be considered: Potential Business Environmental Risks and Non-Scope Considerations
were identified (see above).
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 3
2.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This report presents the results, conclusions, and recommendations from the Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the property located at 1323 Elam Avenue in the City of
Campbell, California (hereinafter referred to as the “Site”, “subject Site”, or “subject property”).
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to conduct an environmental assessment that would
address real and potential environmental impairments, or risks of impairments, that may represent
financial and legal liabilities to Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio) and / or their agents.
IRC assumes the purpose of this ESA is to qualify for Landowner Liability Protections (LLP) to
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability, to
understand potential environmental conditions that could materially impact the operation of the
business(es) associated with the parcel(s) of commercial real estate, and / or for other purposes
associated with business environmental risk. We understand the City of Campbell is requiring this
Phase I ESA as part of their re-development requirements; there is a plan to demolish the one
existing single-family residence and detached garage and re-develop the subject property with
four single-family residences (we were not informed of any other purpose).
2.2 Scope of Services
The Scope of Services for the performance of this Phase I ESA included the following tasks:
Research and review available geologic and hydrogeologic information concerning the
Site and its environment.
Review available historical documentation of the property to determine what activities have
occurred at the Site and immediately adjacent sites since the Site’s first developed use or
since 1940 (whichever is earlier).
Generally survey current uses of immediately adjacent properties.
Inspect the Site to determine current on-Site activities and past uses.
Review available files / records, request public records, submit an inquiry to, and or obtain
online information from the following state or local regulatory agencies for the subject Site
address(es):
State / Regional Water Quality Control Board (S/RWQCB)
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH)
Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD)
West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD)
City of Campbell (COC)
Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office (SCCAO)
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 4
Acquire a review of federal, state and county publications (radius report) to identify the
Site and nearby sites (if any) included on more than 50 databases, including (but not
limited to) the following databases or current equivalents:
National Priority List (NPL)
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAInfo)
Region 9, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS)
RCRA Treatment, Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facilities
Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS)
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) sites
Registered underground storage tank (UST) sites
Review available reports concerning on-going investigations at nearby agency-listed
sites.
Prepare this report in general accordance with the document entitled Standard Practice
for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessments Process
(The American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM], E 1527-13).
2.3 Limitations
Assessments are performed on subject property identification information (street addresses and
parcel numbers) provided by the client / user at the initiation and authorization of the work. The
conclusions of this report are based solely on the Scope of Services outlined above, and on the
sources of information referenced in this report. Any additional information that becomes
available concerning this Site should be submitted to IRC Environmental Consulting so that our
conclusions may be reviewed and modified, if necessary. Conducting environmental sampling
(i.e. soil, groundwater, vapor / air, building materials) is outside the scope of this Phase 1 ESA.
Other Non-scope considerations outside the scope of this Phase 1 ESA include, but are not
limited to, considerations such as the following: screening for the possibility of vapor intrusion into
buildings or structures, indoor air quality, asbestos containing building materials, lead-based paint,
mold, radon, and wetlands. Note regarding potential vapor intrusion / indoor air quality; the
possibility of / potential for subsurface contaminant migration via subsurface vapor, along with
potential contaminant migration in subsurface soil and groundwater, are considered as part of this
Phase I ESA.
The accompanying report presents a description of the work performed by IRC Environmental
Consulting and was prepared using guidelines presented in the document entitled, Standard
Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process
(The American Society for Testing and Materials [ASTM], E 1527-13). Note that all limitations in
ASTM E 1527-13 apply, such as those in sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.4 (and other sections), and
user’s responsibilities in ASTM E 1527-13 apply (section 6). It should be noted that this report
has been prepared to generally accepted industry standards and may need to be modified to
meet specific lender requirements.
This document has been prepared according to generally accepted practices. No other
warranty, either expressed or implied as to the methods, results, conclusions or
recommendations is made. The user is notified that uncertainty is not eliminated, assessments
are not exhaustive, reasonable time and cost constraints and other limitations are inherent,
certain conditions may not be detected during an assessment of this type, and no level of
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 5
assessment can guarantee that a site is completely free of hazardous substances. This
assessment was based on a specific scope of work with a defined budget, was not intended to
be comprehensive, identify all potential concerns, or eliminate the possibility of any
environmental impacts to the subject property. The results of all assessments are subject to
differing professional interpretations and opinions, the conclusions of others may differ. If you
wish to reduce the level of uncertainty associated with this study, we should be contacted for
additional consultation. Regulatory agency environmental regulations, priorities, and
enforcement change over time and tend to get stricter / more conservative; potential impacts
previously unknown or of little concern, such as but not limited to vapor intrusion, tend to become
more important environmental regulatory concerns over time.
The findings, analysis, opinions, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are
based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our assessment and review of practically
reviewable information relevant to the site conditions that was reasonably available and
ascertainable at the time of this assessment. Changes in the information or data gained from
any of these sources could result in changes in our conclusions or recommendations. If such
changes do occur, we should be advised so that we can review our report in light of those
changes. This assessment and report are for the sole use of the client, reliance upon the
information in this report by others is solely at their own risk. Nothing in this report shall be
construed as a legal opinion, this assessment / report may be based in part upon verbal or
written information possessed by the client / user or other non-public privately owned
information, and all of IRC Environmental Consulting LLC’s Standard Terms and Conditions
and Limitations apply at all times to this report and all reports by IRC Environmental Consulting.
3.0 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
3.1 Topography
The Site's physical location was researched employing the current United States Geological
Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map section relevant to the Site. The 7.5-
Minute Map has an approximate scale of 1 inch to 24,000 inches, and shows physical features
such as wetlands, water bodies, railways and roadways, mines, wells, and buildings. The physical
and natural features illustrated on the topographic map serve as areas of visual emphasis to note
when conducting the on-Site visit.
The San Jose West Quadrangle Topographic Map (dated 1961, photo-revised in 1980) shows no
physical features that would likely environmentally impact the Site. The map reveals no storage
tanks, mines, or wells in the immediate area. This topographic map shows the elevation of the Site
to be approximately 220 feet above mean sea level with an approximate northeasterly topographic
gradient direction. San Tomas Aquinas Creek lies approximately 0.2 to 0.25 miles north of the
subject property. Note that the referenced topographic map was revised in 2012; however, due to
minimal detail in the 2012 map, the 1980 map was used.
3.2 Regional Geology
The site is located within the central region of the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, which
extends from the Oregon border south to the Transverse Ranges. The general topography is
characterized by subparallel, northwest trending mountain ranges and intervening valleys. The
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 6
region has undergone a complex geologic history of sedimentation, volcanic activity, folding,
faulting, uplift and erosion. The Santa Cruz Mountains are located to the west of the site; the
relatively flat-lying, alluviated San Francisco Bay Plain is situated to the east of the site.
Based on Wentworth et al (1999), the site is located on Upper Pleistocene age “Alluvial Fan
Deposits”, map unit Qpf. The alluvial fan deposits (Qpf) consist primarily of clast supported
gravel with a clayey and sandy matrix. Based on Rogers and Williams (1974), alluvium is
approximately 100 feet thick in the site vicinity.
In addition, soils and geology in the vicinity of the subject property are included in Appendix H,
Physical Settings Maps. The geology map / report in Appendix H includes the following
information from the United States Geological Survey (USGS):
Geology Symbol: Q; Unit Name: Quaternary Alluvium and Marine Deposits;
Unit Description: Alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits, unconsolidated and semi-
consolidated. Mostly non-marine, but includes marine deposits near the coast; and
Rocktype/s: Alluvium; Terrace; Lake Or Marine Deposit (Non-Glacial).
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 7
4.0 LAND USE HISTORY
A review of readily available, standard historical sources (as defined in ASTM E 1527-13) was
performed to assist in establishing any significant past uses of the Site and immediately adjacent
properties. The review attempted (to the extent of readily available sources) to encompass the
years since the first obvious developed use of the Site, or since 1940, whichever is earlier. The
following subsections present a summary of our findings from our review of each source.
Review of available building and fire department records, city directories, historical aerial
photographs, historical topographic maps, interviews and / or other information indicated that
the subject property was primarily undeveloped or agricultural (orchards) by the 1930s and likely
remained mostly agricultural into the 1950s. The house on the subject property was constructed
circa 1945 (based on county records) and the original sewer connection permit was issued in
1960. Adjoining / surrounding properties were primarily undeveloped / agricultural (orchards) by
the 1930s and were mostly all developed by the 1960s to 1980s, primarily for residential use.
4.1 Historical Topographic Maps
Historical Topographic Maps from 1899, 1953, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1980 and 2012 were reviewed.
The Topographic Maps from 1968, 1973, and 1980 were photo revised from the 1961 map. The
scale, resolution and or quality of the 1899 map was inadequate to reliably determine the location /
details in the vicinity of the subject property. The 1953 map appeared to show the vicinity of the
subject property as agricultural (orchards). The 1961 through 2012 maps showed the subject
property and vicinity as within the area of urban / suburban development. Historical Topographic
Maps are presented in Appendix B.
4.2 Review of Aerial Photographs
Historical aerial photographs supplied by GeoSearch were reviewed to help evaluate past land
uses on the Site and surrounding properties. In addition, the photographs were reviewed for
evidence of hazardous materials and features that may have impacted the Site and general
vicinity. These features may have included, but were not limited to, landfills, ponds, pits, staining
or distressed vegetation, aboveground storage tanks, lagoons, exterior storage of hazardous
materials, and general land use practices.
Aerial photographs taken in 1939, 1948, 1956, 1960, 1970, 1982, 1987, 1993, 2003 and 2014
were reviewed (Appendix D). A summary of the aerial photography review is provided in Table 1
in the Tables section. Limited additional useable information was obtained from the aerial
photography review, partially due to the general poor quality of the 1970, 1982, 1987 and 2003
photographs and partially because some of the same information was obtained from the historical
topographic maps. The 1939, 1948, and 1956 photographs show the subject property and
adjoining properties as undeveloped, agricultural (orchards) and / or single family residential on
large lots. The house on the subject property did not appear evident on the 1939 photograph; it
was difficult to discern whether or not structures appeared on the subject property in the 1948,
1956 and 1960 photographs.
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 8
Historical Google Earth™ Aerial Images
Historical Google Earth™ aerial images from 2007 to 2016 (Appendix K) were also reviewed. No
significant information was obtained from the Google Earth™ images. Based on the Google
Earth™ images most of the subject property is unpaved. Occasional vehicles were observed in
the back yard area including what appears to be a recreational vehicle (RV) proximate to the east
property boundary (images dated 04-15-2013, 02-13-2014). Possible piles of debris / garbage
were observed in at least one image (10-31-2011) and what looks to be curved (earthen ?) ramps
appear at the back of the subject property (02-23-2014).
4.3 Historical Fire Insurance Maps
Fire Insurance Maps (FIM) / fire maps produced by the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company for
major cities and towns depict structures, building materials, uses, USTs, gas lines, etc. These
maps were typically produced beginning prior to 1900 and were often updated into the 1970s.
These maps are valuable sources of information in determining prior usage, provided the site's
location is within city limits as they were defined in the early to mid-1900s. The results of the FIM /
Sanborn Map search are presented in Appendix E. The subject Site at 1323 Elam Avenue did not
have FIM / Sanborn map coverage, indicating that there was no urban development at the site
during the period of coverage.
4.4 City Directories
City directories have been published for major cities and towns across the United States since
the 19th century. City directories published in the 20th century also included a street index for
each street address during a given year. City directories are a valuable source of historical
information with regard to Site tenancy and use. IRC reviewed city directories as provided by
GeoSearch for the subject Site address(es) (Appendix C).
Information is provided in Table 2, in the Tables section, for those years where city directory
information for the subject property (and adjoining and nearby properties) was found. For the
subject property the city directories appeared to list the names of property owner / occupants
sporadically from circa 1970 to 2016. City directory listings generally indicated residential uses
on adjoining and nearby properties beginning in 1970.
There is a small commercial retail center on the southwest corner of Elam Avenue and San
Tomas Aquino Road approximately 300 to 500 feet east - southeast of the subject property.
The city directories listed "San Tomas Cleaners" for the year 1970 at address 1256 Elam
Avenue (this address is associated with the small commercial center at Elam Avenue and San
Tomas Aquino Road). No other information was found while conducting this Phase I ESA
regarding a possible dry cleaner at this location.
4.5 User Provided Data, Data from Non-Public Sources, Questionnaire, Interviews
During this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment no previous reports on the subject Site
property of significant relevance to the performance of this Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment were made available for our review by Site contacts, potential users of this Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment, or other non-public sources of information. The representative
of the users did provide three drawings showing the existing structures and planned new
development of four new single-family residences on the subject property. In addition, a letter
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 9
from the City of Campbell regarding redevelopment of the Site was provided (City of Campbell,
October 7, 2016).
Questionnaire
IRC’s standard Phase I assessment Questionnaire, which includes questions in accordance with
the ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13, was sent to Ms. Gordana Paylovic, the representative of
Yanhua Zhu, the current owner of the subject property. Ms. Paylovic forwarded the
questionnaire to Yvonne Yang, the Real Estate Agent for Yanhua Zhu. Mr. Berman of IRC
spoke with Ms. Yang by telephone; Ms. Yang provided the following information. The subject
property was vacant and unoccupied when it was purchased by the current owner about a year
ago. The current property owner rented out the subject property; the current tenant has
occupied the site for about a year. Neither Ms. Yang nor the current property owner have any
information about the prior history, development, occupancy and use of the subject property.
Therefore a questionnaire was not completed
Interviews
During the site inspection on November 11, 2016, Mr. Berman of IRC conducted a brief in-person
interview with the tenant. The tenant confirmed the information provided by the real estate agent;
See Questionnaire above. Although the tenant was only at the subject property for about a year
and knew nothing of the prior history, she thought it may have been used for equestrian purposes.
Various county and city public agencies were contacted by email and telephone in November
2016, see section 6.5.
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 10
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
Benjamin Berman of IRC Environmental Consulting, conducted a Site visit and inspection on
November 11, 2016. Mr. Berman was unaccompanied during the Site inspection. All
observations are valid as of the date of the Site inspection.
5.1 Site Description and General Observations
A Site Location & Vicinity Map (on topographic base, Figure 1), Subject Site and Adjacent
Properties – Google Earth Image™ (Figure 2), Subject Site – Google Earth Image™ (Figure 3),
and Subject Site Features (Figure 4) are provided in the Figures section of this report. Site
photographs are provided in the Photographs section of this report. Figure 4 shows the
approximate locations and directions of the photographs.
The Site is identified as Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number 403-09-046, and is
associated with 1323 Elam Avenue, Santa Clara County, in the City of Campbell, California.
The subject property consists of one +/- 0.46 acre parcel of land developed with one existing
single-family residence, proximate to Elam Avenue, and a detached garage. The majority of the
land area of the subject property consists of a large undeveloped back lot yard. Most of the
subject property is unpaved. At the time of the Site inspection the house on the subject property
was occupied by a tenant. The user should note that much of the ground surface of the subject
property was not visible due to vegetation.
Exterior Observations (see Figure 4 and Photographic Notes / Photographs)
No items of concern were observed on exterior areas of the subject property.
Interior Observations
No items of concern were observed inside the house and detached garage.
5.2 Additional Non-Scope Services
No additional non-scope services were performed as part of this Phase I ESA and no detailed
observations / investigation of non-scope conditions was made. However, with regards to Non-
Scope Considerations, the following should be noted with regards to Asbestos Containing
Building Materials (ACBM) and Lead-Based Paint (LBP). Given the age of the residence and
detached garage on the subject property (circa 1945 to 1960) it is possible that ACBM may
have been used in construction and / or LBP may have been used on painted surfaces.
5.3 Adjoining and Neighboring Properties Description
See Figure 2, Subject Site and Adjacent Properties. IRC performed a limited visual inspection
of immediately adjoining properties to evaluate their potential environmental significance to the
Site. The properties immediately adjoining and surrounding the subject property consisted entirely
of residential uses. However, at least two adjoining properties on the south side of Elam Avenue
(east and west sides of Crockett Avenue, Figure 2) consisted of large lots with smaller and older
single family residences (similar to the subject property) compared to the adjoining properties to
the east, north and west and most of the other properties in the surrounding neighborhood.
These properties may have had past and or current agricultural and other uses associated with
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 11
rural sites (chickens and a tractor were observed on one of these sites). A large undeveloped
property is located approximately 300 feet west southwest of the subject property on the south
side of Elam Avenue and on the west side of Smith Creek; this site may also be associated with
past and or current agricultural / rural uses.
No readily observable features (such as the presence of currently existing gasoline service
stations or dry cleaners) of likely or potential environmental concern to the subject property were
observed during the site inspection on any of these immediately adjoining properties; the user is
cautioned that some potential concerns (such as, but not limited to, past uses and subsurface
impacts) cannot be identified from offsite / exterior observations.
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 12
6.0 RECORDS AND CORRESPONDENCE REVIEW
To further evaluate potential sources of contamination originating from on and/or off-site
sources, a review of published agency documents, agency files, and other pertinent documents
was performed. Generally, information regarding potential off-site sources is obtained from
federal and state agency listings, while local agencies offer more site-specific information.
6.1 Federal and State Records Sources
IRC Environmental Consulting contracted with GeoSearch for the performance of an
environmental database search to identify agency-listed sites of potential environmental
significance located within a one-mile radius of the Site. The GeoSearch Radius Map report is
presented in Appendix G. The GeoSearch radius report identifies sites on more than 50
databases including all or most of the following or equivalent / current categories:
NPL: National Priority List (Federal Superfund Sites)
CERCLIS/NFRAP: EPA State Superfund Sites
CORRACTS: EPA Corrective action facilities
RCRA GEN: Small and large quantity generators of hazardous waste
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Sites
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
TRIS: Toxic Release Inventory System
TSCA: Toxic Substance Control Act
FTTS: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act/TSCA
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking System
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES: Mines Master Index File
FINDS: Facility Index System
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
CAL-SITES: Potential or confirmed hazardous release properties
REF: Unconfirmed Properties Referred to Another Agency
LUST: Sites with Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
SWLF/State Landfill: Permitted solid waste State landfills, incinerators, or transfer stations
DEED: Deed restriction sites
CORTESE: Hazardous Waste Substance Sites
TOXIC Pits: Toxic pits cleanup facilities
UST/AST: Registered Underground or Aboveground Storage Tank Sites
CHMIRS: California Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
CA WDS: Waste Discharge System
CA SLIC: Statewide Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups
SWEEPS UST: Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System
NOTIFY 65: Proposition 65 Records
DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaner related facilities with EPA ID numbers
HAZNET: Facility and Manifest Data
EMI: Emissions Inventory Data
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 13
6.2 Contamination Migration
Fuel Leak Attenuation
In fuel leak cases, research conducted at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
indicates that attenuation and degradation play major roles in reducing hydrocarbon
contamination in groundwater to non-detectable levels within several hundred feet of the
contaminant source. Moreover, this research indicates that in over 90% of the petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination cases, groundwater contaminant plumes do not extend more than
250-feet from the source; however, a gasoline additive called Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
(MTBE) has been found to be more mobile in groundwater compared to gasoline and gasoline
break-down products. Findings indicate that MTBE is highly soluble in water and moves easily
through soil particles and into groundwater where it may spread over a distance greater than
250 feet. MTBE will transfer to groundwater from gasoline leaking from USTs, pipelines, car
emissions into the atmosphere, and other components of gasoline vapor distribution. MTBE has
been an additive to gasoline since approximately 1985.
Toxic-Leak Attenuation
In the case of toxic substances in the groundwater, namely the more mobile Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs), detectable levels may extend several thousand feet or more from the
source. In most VOC groundwater plume cases, however, attenuation will act to reduce the
contamination to non-detectable levels within one-half mile of the source.
Groundwater Flow
Site-specific information on groundwater flow direction, depth and quality can only be confirmed
through the installation and survey of a minimum of three on-Site or near Site groundwater-
monitoring wells for measuring depth to groundwater. No indication was found that
groundwater monitoring wells ever existed on the subject Site or adjoining sites. A search of
the California State Water Quality Control Board's (SWQCB) GeoTracker online data base did
not find any sites proximate to the subject property with groundwater monitoring wells.
Shallow regional groundwater (aquifers or water bearing zones nearest to the ground surface)
flow directions can typically be assumed to follow topographic gradients. The San Jose West
Quadrangle Topographic Map (dated 1961, photo-revised in 1980) shows an approximate
topographic gradient direction to the northeast in the vicinity of the subject property. It should be
noted that groundwater flow directions and depths are variable and subject to site-specific
influences, such as groundwater pumping, and perched / seasonal groundwater may occur.
The depth to the first encountered water bearing zones in much of the Campbell area is known to
be relatively deep compared to other nearby areas (such as San Jose). An online search of the
California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Water Data Library indicated Depth to Water
(DTW) levels in the area were generally found to be on the order of 60 to 100 feet and deeper
(DWR, November 5, 2016). However, shallower “perched” zones of limited lateral extent may
occur. In addition, ground water levels tend to vary from season to season and from year to
year.
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 14
6.3 Summary of Radius Map Report Findings
The GeoSearch Radius Map Report is presented in Appendix G. The subject property was not
identified in any database searches in the GeoSearch Radius Report. No immediately adjoining
properties were identified in any database searches in the GeoSearch Radius Report. A review
of the radius report indicated only four leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites in the
surrounding area. The nearest are two sites located at 880 and 900 San Tomas Aquino Road,
Campbell, respectively, approximately 400 to 600 feet east to east southeast of the subject
property. Two additional LUST sites are located at 1255 Hacienda Avenue and 1181 Abbott
Avenue, Campbell, approximately 0.30 to 0.35 miles south southeast and southwest of the
subject property, respectively. All four LUST sites were closed in the 1990s (no further action
required by the state and local oversight agencies).
IRC concludes that based on the media affected (e.g. soil only), the substance released (e.g.
petroleum hydrocarbons), distances from the subject Site, the age of the releases, the
regulatory / cleanup status, the inferred down / cross gradient orientation (with regards to
groundwater flow) relative to the subject Site, and / or other potential ‘de minimus’ condition
(ASTM, November 1, 2005 [Section 1.1.1]), the likelihood that the subject Site is impacted at
levels of regulatory concern by these listed sites is low. These former offsite releases have not
been determined to be a Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) for the subject
property.
6.4 Environmental Liens and Activity and Use Limitations
An environmental lien search provided by GeoSearch indicated environmental liens for the
subject Site were “Not Found”. The lien search report can be found in Appendix F.
6.5 Summary of State and Local Agency Records and Correspondence
During the review of standard environmental records, IRC Environmental Consulting used the
following information sources:
State / Regional Water Quality Control Board (S/RWQCB)
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH)
Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD)
West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD)
City of Campbell (COC)
Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office (SCCAO)
Synopses of records and correspondence reviewed for the Site at the following agencies are
presented below:
State / Regional Water Quality Control Board (S/RWQCB) / GeoTracker
IRC Environmental Consulting searched the S/RWQCB GeoTracker online files on November
5, 2016, for information regarding Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) and
hazardous materials spills or other potential concerns that may significantly adversely affect the
subsurface of the subject Site. No records were found for the subject property or any
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 15
immediately adjoining properties. No additional items indicating potential significant
environmental concerns for the subject property were identified from S/RWQCB reviews.
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
IRC contacted the SCVWD by email on November 2, 2016 to inquire if there are any records
indicating the existence of wells on the subject property; the SCVWD indicated that there are no
registered wells on those addresses (parcels). During the Site inspection no wells were
observed on the subject property.
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH)
IRC submitted an email request to SCCDEH for public records for the subject property on
November 2, 2016; the SCCDEH indicated by email that they do not have records for the
subject property.
Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD)
City of Campbell fire department activities and records, notably for those functions covering
areas such as hazardous materials (hazmat) and underground storage tank (UST) regulation,
are typically handled by the SCCFD or SCCDEH (see above). IRC submitted a request to
SCCFD for public records by email for the subject property on November 2, 2016. SCCFD
indicated by email that they do not have records for the subject property.
West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD)
IRC submitted a request for public records to WVSD by email for the subject property on
November 2, 2016. The WVSD provided information by email (presented in Appendix L). The
WVSD indicated the following. County records indicate the house was built in 1945. The
original sewer connection permit for the subject property was issued on January 6, 1960 to
address 957 Elam Avenue, under assessor's parcel number (APN) 403-09-046 (same as
current APN). The WVSD does not know if this parcel was previously discharging into a septic
system; however, based on the data above it is assumed that a septic system was used prior
to 1960 (circa 1945 to 1960).
City of Campbell (COC)
On November 5, 2016, IRC performed an online records / building permits review for the
subject property. Online available information is very limited, consisting of a simple list in table
format with two columns, Case Number (permit, document number) on the left and a very brief
description on the right; the actual permits / documents are not available for viewing online.
Nothing was found for the subject property indicating a potential significant environmental
concern for the subject property.
On November 2, 2016, IRC sent email requests for public records to the following City of
Campbell staff: Daniel Fama, Senior Planner (for subject property redevelopment); Charlotte
Andeen, Code Enforcement Officer; Bill Helms, Environmental Compliance; Stephen Rose,
Planner; Kathleen Overman, Permit Technician, Building Division; and Roger Storz, Public
Works Land Development. The following information was received by email from Charlotte
Andeen. "There was one previous code enforcement case where RVs were reported parked in
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 16
the rear yard of the subject property, which may have been a source of contamination. There
is no information whether this was verified or not, however. The case does not appear to have
been investigated, and from the aerials it appears there is no violation at this time, as no RV is
visible." (see section 4.2, Review of Aerial Photographs, Historical Google Earth™ Aerial
Images)
On November 9, 2016, Benjamin Berman of IRC performed a walk-in file review at the COC offices.
Building permit records on microfiche for the subject property address were searched. In addition,
inquires were submitted with the Planning Department. No city documents (building permits,
drawings) were found for the subject property. A clerk at the building permits counter indicated that
the subject property was annexed to the City of Campbell in 1961.
Santa Clara County Assessor's Office (SCCAO)
An assessor’s map for the subject property (APN 403-09-046) was obtained online on
November 2, 2016, from the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office.
6.6 Data Gaps and Data Failure
Significant data gaps / data failure were not identified. There is a small commercial retail center
on the southwest corner of Elam Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road approximately 300 to
500 feet east - southeast of the subject property. The city directories listed "San Tomas
Cleaners" for the year 1970 at address 1256 Elam Avenue (this address is associated with the
small commercial center at Elam Avenue and San Tomas Aquino Road). No other information
was found while conducting this Phase I ESA regarding a possible dry cleaner at this location.
In our opinion additional information, had it been available, would not likely have lead to
identification of a recognized environmental condition (REC) for the subject property.
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 17
7.0 SIGNATURES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
The conclusions of this report are based solely on the Scope of Services outlined and the
referenced sources of information. Any additional information that becomes available
concerning this report should be submitted to IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC so that our
conclusions may be reviewed and modified, if necessary. No soil, groundwater, vapor, or
building material samples were collected or analyzed as part of this assessment. This report
was prepared in November 2016 for the sole use of Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio)
and / or their agents. We further understand that Yanhua Zhu (c/o Gordana Design Studio)
intends to submit a copy of this report to the City of Campbell.
Prepared by:
Benjamin Berman
Project Manager
Environmental Professional
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
The text of this report was reviewed by David F. Hoexter, Consulting Engineering Geologist. As
per ASTM E 1527-13 Section 12.13, we declare that, to the best of our professional knowledge
and belief, we meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 312.10 of 40 CFR
312. We have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess
a property of the nature, history, and setting of the property. We have developed and performed
the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40
CFR Part 312.
Project Number 3343 November 15, 2016
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
IRC Page 18
8.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Health Services, California Public Water Supply Branch. 1990. Status
Report, AB1803 Small System Program Summary of Results.
California Department of Water Resources (DWR). November 5, 2016 (date data accessed on
the web). (http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/). Search of DWR's online Water Data
Library, under zip code 95008 (City of Campbell area), Groundwater Levels, Circa 2011 to
2016.
City of Campbell, Community Development Department. October 7, 2016. Letter with
attachments, from Daniel Fama, Senior Planner, to Gordana Paylovic (on behalf of the property
owner) . File No. PRE2016-05, Address: 1323 Elam Ave., Preliminary Application.
GeoSearch. November 3, 2016. Radius Report and various other Phase I ESA reference
documents (GeoVantage Package) presented in the appendices of the final Phase I ESA report
for the subject property. GeoSearch Order # 77239.
Gianessi, L.P., and M. Phillips. 1994. Pesticide Use in U.S. Apple Orchards: A Short History.
National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy Discussion Paper PS-94-2.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB). February 2016.
Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), Tier 1 and Summary Tables, from the internet.
Rogers, T.H., and Williams, J.W., 1974, Potential Seismic Hazards in Santa Clara County,
California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report No. 107.
State of California, Division of Oil and Gas. 1989. Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Fields in California
Map W3-10.
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). November 1, 2005. Standard
Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Process. Designation: E 1527-13.
United States Geological Survey. 1961, photorevised 1980. San Jose West Quadrangle,
California, 7.5-Minute Series, Topographic Map.
Wentworth, C. M, Blake, M.C., McLaughlin, R.J, and Graymer, R.W, 1999, Preliminary
Geologic Map of the San Jose 30 X 60 Minute Quadrangle, California, USGS Open-File Report
98-795, Scale 1:100,000.
FIGURES
TABLES
Table 1, Summary of Aerial Photograph Reviews Page 1 of 1
Table 1, Summary of Aerial Photograph Reviews
1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA
Year Site Use Site Observations
1939 Undeveloped or
Agricultural
The subject property and immediately adjacent properties appear mostly as
undeveloped or agricultural fields (orchards). Occasional structures, inferred to
be single-family residences, appear on some immediately adjoining / surrounding properties.
1948
Residential or
Agricultural
The subject property and most immediately adjacent properties appear as large
lot, rural single family residential and / or agricultural fields (orchards). It is not discernible whether or not there are structures on the subject property. A
subdivision housing tract of single family residential appears to the south of the
subject property and another subdivision, partially still under construction, appears to the north.
1956 Residential or
Agricultural ?
Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate
identification of development and activities. However, the photograph, to the extent it is legible, generally appears similar to the previous photograph.
1960 Residential or Agricultural ?
Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate
identification of development and activities. However, the photograph, to the extent it is legible, generally appears similar to the previous photograph.
Possibly one or more structures on the subject property?
1970 Unknown Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate identification of development and activities.
1982 Unknown Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate
identification of development and activities.
1987 Unknown Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate identification of development and activities.
1993 Residential
A single family residence appears on the subject property proximate to Elam Avenue. Residential (likely multi-unit) appears to the immediate north and single family residential appears to the immediate south. Large lot, single
family residential appears to the immediate west and east of the subject property.
2003 Unknown Photograph is of insufficient quality, resolution, and / or scale to allow adequate
identification of development and activities.
2014 Residential
A single family residence appears on the subject property proximate to Elam Avenue. Residential (likely multi-unit) appears to the immediate north and
single family residential appears to the immediate south. Residential, single
family or multi-unit, appears to the immediate west and east of the subject property.
Table 2, Summary of City Directories Review Page 1 of 1
Table 2, Summary of City Directories Review
1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA
Year City Directory Listing
Subject Property: 1323 Elam Avenue
1970 LAMBS JAS
1975, 1980,
1985 ALFORD MAX
1990-91, 1995-96 NO CURRENT LISTING
2001-02, 2006 ALFORD JAMES
2011 ADDRESS NOT LISTED
2016 ZHU YANHUA
Nearby Property (~300 to 500 ft East-Southeast of Subject Property): 1256 Elam Avenue
1970 SAN TOMAS CLEANERS
General Comments Regarding Nearby / Surrounding Sites
The City Directory listings for most nearby / surrounding sites appear to indicate mostly residential uses.
GeoSearch Note: "No coverage available for Campbell prior to 1970"
PHOTOGRAPHS
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 1 of 9 Campbell, California Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016
Photograph No. 1
Photograph No. 2
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 2 of 9 Campbell, California Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016
Photograph No. 3
Photograph No. 4
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 3 of 9 Campbell, California Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016
Photograph No. 5
Photograph No. 6
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 4 of 9 Campbell, California Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016
Photograph No. 7
Photograph No. 8
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 5 of 9 Campbell, California Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016
Photograph No. 9
Photograph No. 10
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 6 of 9 Campbell, California Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016
Photograph No. 11
Photograph No. 12
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 7 of 9 Campbell, California Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016
Photograph No. 13
Photograph No. 14
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 8 of 9 Campbell, California Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016
Photograph No. 15
Photograph No. 16
Project Number 3343 November 2016
Site Location: 1323 Elam Avenue Photographs, Page 9 of 9 Campbell, California Date of Site Visit: November 11, 2016
Photograph No. 17
Photograph No. 18
APPENDICIES
NOTE: ALL
APPENDICIES
ARE ON CD
EXHIBIT 3
NOISE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION & DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Environmental Consulting Services 18488 Prospect Road – Suite 1, Saratoga, CA 95070
Phone: (408) 257-1045 stanshell99@toast.net
___________________________________________________________________________________________
November 18, 2016 Ms. Gordana Pavlovic Gordana Design Studio Palo Alto, CA Re: Noise Environment Evaluation and Design Recommendations, 1323 Elam Avenue Quad Residential Project, APN 40-30-90-46, Campbell, CA Dear Ms. Pavlovic,
I have reviewed the acoustical aspects of the noise environment at the project site in Campbell and the subject project design. This report presents the results of the noise study, which includes on-site noise monitoring, projection of future CNEL (Ldn) noise levels at the project site, and a description of architectural details required to meet Campbell and CA residential noise performance criteria.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION [1]
The proposed project includes four 2-story single-family residences, each with an interior space of about 2200 square feet, including a 2-car garage, an extra parking space and a driveway providing access from Elam Avenue. The total size of the project site is 20,027 square feet. The project area is a residential neighborhood, with residences adjacent on both sides and at the north end of the property. There is an existing residence and garage on the site that will be demolished.
The primary source of noise at the project site is traffic on Elam Avenue, a low-volume 2-lane neighborhood street. The nearest arterial traffic is on the Route 85 Freeway 0.75 miles to the southwest, Campbell Avenue 0.8 miles north, and San Tomas Expressway 0.9 miles east, none of which contribute significantly to local ambient noise levels under most conditions. Typical vehicle passby noise levels on Elam are 55-70 dBA at 40 feet. Trucks, motorcycles, and poorly-muffled vehicles produce peak levels 5 to 15 dBA higher on passby. Small aircraft overflights create sporadic noise incidents of 45 to 55 dBA.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This study evaluates the noise suitability of this location for residential use, and also provides architectural and site design recommendations to provide acceptable exterior and interior noise environments for the proposed new residences.
Based upon site noise measurements, present and anticipated future traffic volumes, and traffic noise modeling, a worst-case Design Noise Level for Unit 1 closest to Elam Avenue is 63 dBA. Because of the location and site orientation, traffic noise impacts are less at the other three properties. The Design Noise Level is the outdoor CNEL/Ldn noise level that the project structures must mitigate to meet City and California standards for interior noise. Although these sites have relatively low CNEL, to better mitigate peak noise incidents from traffic, such as trucks and motorcycles, an additional 12 dBA of protection is recommended, but not required, so a Design Noise Level of 75 dBA is recommended for the design, to provide noise protection for a high quality interior environment.
A long-term interior noise level not exceeding 45 Ldn/CNEL due to exterior sources must be
provided. For this project the minimum building shell noise transmission loss of 15 dB would be
required. With the recommended additional peak noise incident protection to a Design Noise Level
of 75 dB, all elements of the building shell should provide a minimum 30 dB transmission loss,
which is typically provided by good quality building materials, windows and doors.
1323 Elam Avenue Residential Project Noise Study - Campbell Page 2 of 4
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
To meet Campbell criteria to provide adequate noise protection for outdoor activity areas such as
back yards, good quality fences and gates should be erected.
These considerations are explained in more detail in the Recommendations to Meet Noise Criteria section.
NOISE MONITORING AND DESIGN NOISE LEVEL ANALYSIS
Field noise measurements on site were made during the afternoon commute period of November 16, 2015 with a CEL-440 Precision Noise Meter and Analyzer, calibrated with a B & K Model 4230 Sound Level
Calibrator. The measurement location was chosen to represent the worst-case exposure of the Lot 1 structure closest to Elam Avenue. Measurements were made at a 5 foot height at the following location:
at the future residence setback on Lot 1, approximately 40 feet from the nearest lane of
Elam Avenue
Description of Existing Noise Levels
Noise levels were measured and are reported using percentile noise descriptors: L90 (the background noise level exceeded 90 % of the time), L50 (the median noise level exceeded 50% of the time), L1 (the peak level exceeded 1% of the time), and Leq (the average energy-equivalent noise level). Measured noise levels are presented in Exhibit 1 following. The Ldn noise levels were computed as the long-term average of Leq using the typical daily traffic distribution in the area, using a validated National Cooperative Highway Research Program model [2], with standard weighted penalties for nighttime hours.
EXHIBIT 1
EXISTING NOISE LEVELS (dBA)
1323 Elam Avenue Residential Project– Campbell
Location L90 L50 Leq L1 Ldn/
CNEL
Lot 1 building setback 39 44 57 67 59
Noise levels at the project location are generated by a several low speed vehicle trips per minute on Elam Avenue during normal daytime periods. Note that because the other three properties are completely surrounded by adjacent residential structures on all sides, they would have much less exposure to Elam traffic noise by 5-10 dBA.
In addition to traffic noise sources, the project has typical types of other neighborhood noise sources, such as garbage pickup that can occur once or twice a week, intermittent overflying small aircraft, as well as sporadic yard maintenance and emergency vehicle sirens.
Anticipated Future Project Noise Levels
The Design Noise Level (DNL) is the outdoor noise levels anticipated within the next ten years (2026) for the units experiencing the highest noise exposure—the Ldn/CNEL noise level that the building structures must mitigate. Future DNL noise levels on site are estimated by estimating changes in traffic levels in 2026. Traffic on streets in most Bay Area residential areas that are already built out, such as Campbell, do not change significantly, since there are few new sources of traffic growth in established neighborhoods. Hence, future traffic volumes would not be expected to increase more than 1-2 % per year on Elam Avenue, which would lead to a maximum increase of 22% by the year 2026. This could generate a maximum increase of 1- 2 dB over present CNEL noise levels at the project site. In addition, noise levels for second floors can be 2 dB higher than ground-floor noise levels because of reflection from the road surface to the upper floors. So worst-case future project noise levels at the unit next the street would be no more
than 63 dB CNEL (existing CNEL noise levels of 59 plus up to 4 dBA for traffic growth plus the upper floor correction). Hence the outdoor Design Noise Level to which the project unit nearest Elam Avenue would be
exposed would be no more than 63 dBA CNEL by year 2026.
1323 Elam Avenue Residential Project Noise Study - Campbell Page 3 of 4
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
Although analysis shows that the worst-case overall long term average CNEL exposure to be 63 dBA, additional protection against peak noise incidents higher than 63 dBA are recommended. For example, typical vehicle passby noise levels are 55-65 dBA at 40 feet, and trucks, motorcycles, and poorly-muffled
vehicles produce peak levels 5 to 15 dBA higher on passby.. Therefore, meeting an interior Design Noise Level of 75 dB is recommended, which is discussed in more detail in the following sections.
CALIFORNIA AND CAMPBELL NOISE PROTECTION STANDARDS
California Building Code (CBC) sound transmission standards [3] require that new residential developments provide an interior Ldn/CNEL noise level of 45 dBA or less due to exterior noise sources.
The Campbell General Plan Noise Element [4] has the same interior noise protection standards for residential developments as the CBC described in the previous paragraph, and also specifies protection for outdoor activity areas, such as backyards and balconies:
“New residential development shall conform to a traffic-related noise exposure of
60 dBA CNEL for outdoor noise in noise-sensitive outdoor activity areas and 45
dBA CNEL for indoor noise.”
Interior Noise Protection Criteria
As described in the previous section, assuming a worst-case noise level for architectural design
purposes of 75 dBA, a minimum noise reduction of at least 30 dB should be provided by the elements of the building shell to reach the interior level of 45 dBA. The transmission loss of architectural building
elements is designated by Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for wall elements and by Impact Insulation Class (IIC) ratings for floor/ceiling assemblies, both of which are methods of estimating the
inherent ability to attenuate noise transmission.
Standard wood and gypsum exterior wall constructions have STC ratings of 40 dBA or more. Standard hollow-core doors and openable single pane windows typically are rated at 22-25 STC. Typical dual-layer thermal pane windows are typically rated at 26-30 dB STC. Except for actual cracks and openings in a structure, doors and windows are usually the weakest elements in the design and construction of a good sound-rated building, and usually reduce the overall protection provided by the more substantial wall structures.
Outdoor Noise Protection Criteria
Worst-case outdoor activity noise levels of 58-63 dBA CNEL could occur in the unprotected back yard of Lot 1, since it is the closest to Elam Avenue and has a narrow direct noise path to the roadway. However, with a standard 6-7 foot tall property line fence and gate, most high level traffic noise incidents would also be reduced below the 60 dBA level in this back yard. And of course back yards in Lots 2, 3 and 4 would be protected to an even lower noise level due to being fully surrounded by other 2-story residential
structures on all sides.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO MEET NOISE CRITERIA
Interior Noise Measures
Following are recommendations for meeting the primary criteria for good residential noise insulation design by the development:
1. WINDOWS. Windows must have a minimum STC rating of 20 dB, which is met by standard openable double-glazed thermal windows, with two 1/8" lights separated by a 1/2" air space and with good weather seals. For better reduction of loud vehicle noise, an STC performance of 30 STC is recommended, but not required. Many high-quality double-glazed thermal windows are available with this noise performance level.
1323 Elam Avenue Residential Project Noise Study - Campbell Page 4 of 4
Environmental Consulting Services * * * Saratoga
2. EXTERIOR DOORS Outside doors, such as for front entrances or patios, particularly for Unit 1, should meet a tested STC rating of 20 to 30 to match the overall sound transmission mitigation criteria.
3. VENTILATION. Mitigation of outside noise is based upon windows that are closed in order to provide the required noise protection. Therefore, all units must have a ventilation system that provides a habitable interior air quality environment with the windows closed, regardless of outside temperature. In addition, noise levels produced by heating and air conditioning units for the project must not themselves create a noise problem for any of the residential units associated with the project or adjacent properties.
4. GENERAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. Good noise design must be implemented by good field construction practices or the design performance will not be achieved. This includes minimizing all penetrations of and connections between party wall and floor/ceiling assemblies, and acoustical sealant around any necessary penetrations.
Outdoor Noise Measures
Erect standard 6-7 foot solid wood property line fences and gates to protect back yard activity areas, which will provide the required outdoor activity area noise reduction.
If I may be of further assistance on this project, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Respectfully submitted,
Stan Shelly
H. Stanton Shelly
Acoustical Consultant Board Certified Member (1982), Institute of Noise Control Engineering
REFERENCES
1. Project Drawing Set 1323 Elam St _161027 (2016.014_A1-A2); Gordana Design Studio, Palo Alto, CA; Sept 2016.
2. Highway Noise - A Design Guide for Highway Engineers, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1971 (model enhanced and field validated by ECS).
3. “Sound Transmission”, Section 1207 of California Building Code; 2013.
4. Noise Element, Campbell General Plan, Campbell Planning Division; 2001.
EXHIBIT 4
WILL SERVE LETTERS
1
Dena Yancy
From:Sheri Alves
Sent:Tuesday, June 20, 2017 1:54 PM
To:Ask Us
Cc:Dena Yancy
Subject:RE: Property located at: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Completed
Great,
Thank you for your response.
Best Regards,
Sheri Alves, Civil Administrative Assistant
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc.
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
Phone: 510‐887‐4086 x. 167 Email: salves@leabraze.com
Roseville/Sacramento Region
3017 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95661
Phone: 916‐966‐1338
San Francisco Bay Area Region
2495 Industrial Parkway West
Hayward, CA 94545
Dublin Office
7567 Amador Valley Blvd., Suite 210
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925‐452‐2362
www.leabraze.com
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you
may not use, copy or disclose any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e‐mail and delete
the message.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Ask Us [mailto:aus@campbellusd.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2017 12:29 PM
To: Sheri Alves <salves@leabraze.com>
Subject: Re: Property located at: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell
Hello Sheri.
That address does fall within our school district boundaries, according to the county assessor’s office.
Here’s he link: https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/all‐situs‐search?SFrom=all&SType=rp&STab=apn&apnValue=40309046
Sincerely,
2
Marla Sanchez Marketing Communications Campbell Union School District 155 N. Third Street, Campbell CA 95008 408-341-7254
(emergencies - 408-410-5972)
@campbellusd
FB: Campbell Union School District (official)
From: Sheri Alves <salves@leabraze.com>
Date: Thursday, June 15, 2017 at 11:56 AM
To: Ask Us <aus@campbellusd.org>
Cc: Dena Yancy <dyancy@leabraze.com>
Subject: Re: Property located at: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell
To Whom It May Concern;
Our firm is preparing a lot subdivision tentative map for planning approval for the address:
1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell.
We are required by the city planning department to provide confirmation that you service this
property and it is within your school district.
Can you please send an email stating the above information is true?
Please provide this information by the end of business day tomorrow it would be greatly
appreciated.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter in advance.
Best Regards,
Sheri Alves, Civil Administrative Assistant
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc. Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
Phone: 510-887-4086 x. 167 Email: salves@leabraze.com Roseville/Sacramento Region
3017 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300 Roseville, CA 95661
Phone: 916-966-1338 San Francisco Bay Area Region
2495 Industrial Parkway West Hayward, CA 94545
Dublin Office
7567 Amador Valley Blvd., Suite 210
Dublin, CA 94568 Phone: 925-452-2362
www.leabraze.com
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 10900 N Blaney Ave
Customer Service Planning & Local Design Services Cupertino, CA 95014
Central Coast Region / DeAnza Division Phone: 408/725-2181
6/15/17
Dena Yancy
Lea & Braze Engineering
2495 Industrial Parkway West
Hayward, CA 94545
RE: 1323 Elam Ave, Campbell
Dear Dena,
PG&E will serve the above referenced property with gas and/or electric service, provided The
Applicant meets all requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Gas and
Electric Tariffs, PG&E Engineering Standards, PG&E Requirements for Service Manual (“The
Greenbook”, www.pge.com/greenbook), and pays to PG&E all necessary payments as
determined by PG&E and allowed by the CPUC Tariffs.
New gas and electric services must be installed according to PG&E’s Gas and Electric Service
Requirements Manual (The Greenbook, www.pge.com/greenbook), PG&E Engineering
Standards, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Gas or Electric Tariffs. PG&E
Engineering is scheduled when your information is complete and approved, and is subject to
available time, resources, and other priority or previously scheduled work. Contracts are prepared
after Engineering is completed and approved. Construction is scheduled when all documents and
any necessary payments have been received and processed by PG&E, your service requirements
and locations are complete and have been inspected by the authority having jurisdiction, and is
subject to available time, resources, and previously scheduled, priority, or emergency work.
Please discuss this information with your project team. If you have any questions, please call me
at (408) 725-3300, or you may email me at JMNL@pge.com.
Sincerely,
Joe Novielli
Joe Novielli
Senior New Business Representative
Service Planning
1
Dena Yancy
From:Waleed Alzori
Sent:Friday, June 09, 2017 8:08 AM
To:Wanda Folk
Cc:Dena Yancy; Ryan Barton; Sheri Alves
Subject:2161131 Zhu Subdivision
Attachments:01 2161131 TM - C-1.0.pdf
Good morning,
Our firm is preparing a five lot subdivision tentative map for planning approval located at 1323 Elam Avenue Campbell,
CA. We wanted to the get confirmation that you will be able to provide service to the property “Will Serve”.
Respectfully,
Waleed Alzori, Civil Drafter
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
Phone: 510‐887‐4086 x.138 Email: WAlzori@leabraze.com
Roseville/Sacramento Region
3017 Douglas Blvd., Suite 300
Roseville, CA 95661
Phone: 916‐966‐1338
San Francisco Bay Area Region
2495 Industrial Parkway West
Hayward, CA 94545
Dublin Office
7567 Amador Valley Blvd., Suite 210
Dublin, CA 94568
Phone: 925‐452‐2362
www.leabraze.com
EXHIBIT 5
AIR QUALITY SCREENING EVALUATION
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com
IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South Fourth Street, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 313 - 9376 ircenvironmental@gmail.com
AIR QUALITY SCREENING EVALUATION
1323 ELAM AVENUE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
September 11, 2017
Project Number 3376
Prepared For
STOA International, Inc
991 West Hedding Street, # 103
San Jose, CA 95126
c/o Warren Design
Prepared By
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
430 South 4th Street
San Jose, California 95112-5730
(408) 313 - 9376
ircenvironmental@gmail.com
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com
IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South 4th Street, San Jose, CA 95112-5730 (408) 313 - 9376 ircenvironmental@gmail.com
September 11, 2017
Project Number 3376
Yanhua Zhu
c/o Gordana Design Studio
602 Hawthorne Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Via email to: design@gordana.net
Attn: Gordana Paylovic
Subject: AIR QUALITY SCREENING EVALUATION
SITE: 1323 ELAM AVENUE
CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA
Dear Ms. Paylovic:
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC (IRC) is pleased to present the enclosed Air Quality
Screening Evaluation prepared for the subject Site.
IRC appreciates the opportunity to have been of service. Should you have any questions or require additional information or services please contact me at (408) 313 - 9376 or
ircenvironmental@gmail.com.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Berman
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC (IRC)
CC:
Stephan Rose, City of Campbell, via email to: stephenr@cityofcampbell.com.
Daniel Fama, City of Campbell, via email to: danielf@cityofcampbell.com
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
www.irc-enviro.com
IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South Fourth Street, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 313 - 9376 ircenvironmental@gmail.com
CONTENTS & ENCLOSURES
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Site Setting
3.0 Would the Project Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the
Applicable Air Quality Plan?
4.0 Would the Project Violate any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially
to an Existing or Projected Air Quality Violation?
5.0 Would the Project Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of any
Criteria Pollutant for which the Project Region is Classified as Non-Attainment
Under an Applicable Federal or State Ambient Air Quality Standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
6.0 Would the Project Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Concentrations of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC)?
7.0 Would the Project Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number
of People?
8.0 Would the Project Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant effect on the environment?
9.0 Would the Project Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
10.0 Closing
11.0 Limitations
12.0 References
ENCLOSURES
Enclosure 1, Figures:
• Figure 1, Site Location & Vicinity (Topographic Map)
• Figure 2, Site & Adjacent Properties (Google Earth image)
Enclosure 2, Air Quality Screening using BAAQMD online tools, various backup
information including the following:
• Identified Stationary Sources and Roadways within 1,000 feet (see Google Earth image
showing identified stationary and roadway sources), and
• Risk Screening and Cumulative Impacts analysis of identified sources.
Enclosure 3, IRC Standard Limitations
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017
Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 1 of 5
1.0 Introduction
Refer to Figures 1 and 2 (Enclosure 1). The following two paragraphs were obtained from a report of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the Site (IRC, November 15, 2016).
Site Location and Description
The Site is identified as Santa Clara County Assessor's Parcel Number 403-09-046, and is associated with
1323 Elam Avenue, Santa Clara County, in the City of Campbell, California. Based on available information, the Site address was previously 957 Elam Avenue. The Site consists of one +/- 0.46 acre parcel of land
developed with one existing single-family residence, proximate to Elam Avenue, and a detached garage. The
majority of the land area of the subject property consists of a large undeveloped back yard. Most of the subject property is unpaved.
Site Historical and Current Uses
Review of available information indicated that the Site was primarily undeveloped or agricultural (orchards) by the 1930s and likely remained mostly undeveloped or agricultural into the 1950s. The house on the Site was constructed circa 1945 and the original sewer connection permit was issued in 1960. The Site was annexed to
the City of Campbell in 1961. At the time of the Site inspection (November 2016) the single-family residence on
the Site was occupied by a tenant.
Planned Re-development of the Site
There is a plan to demolish the one existing single-family residence and detached garage and re-develop the
Site with four single-family residences. Purpose, City of Campbell Requirement for Air Quality Analysis
The City of Campbell (COC) has various site development review and permit requirements, including an
Environmental Review ("Initial Study") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
CEQA Environmental Reviews vary depending on site specific conditions and typically consider several areas of potential concern, among them air quality. This letter report addresses City of Campbell
requirements for the Site with regards to air quality.
2.0 Site Setting
The project is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the local agency authorized to regulate stationary air quality sources in the Bay Area.
The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act mandate the control and reduction of specific air
pollutants. Under these Acts, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board have established ambient air quality standards for specific criteria pollutants, designed to protect public health and welfare. Criteria pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10), sulfur dioxide (S02), lead (Pb) and ozone (03).
BAAQMD, along with other regional agencies, develop plans to reduce air pollutant emissions. BAAQMD
adopted and implements the Bay Area Final 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) (BAAQMD, April 19, 2017). The
2017 CAP is a multi-pollutant air quality plan that addresses four categories of air pollutants, as follows: • Ground-level ozone and the key ozone precursor pollutants (reactive organic gases and NOx),
• Particulate Matter (PM), primarily PM2.5 (fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic
resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less), as well as the precursors to secondary PM2.5, and PM10 (respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10
micrometers or less),
• Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC), and
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017
Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 2 of 5
• Greenhouse gases (GHG).
The BAAQMD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive population groups are located,
including residences, schools, childcare centers, convalescent homes, and medical facilities. The project is located in a multi-unit residential area (Figure 2, Enclosure 1); the nearest sensitive receptors are
occupants of multi-unit residential buildings located directly adjacent / proximate to the Site to the west,
north and east; there are single-family residence to the south on the south side of Elam Avenue.
The project, being four single-family residences (planned higher density compared to the existing use of
one single-family residence) is in accordance with the type of residential development preferred in the 2017
CAP, notably by being more energy efficient (per residential unit) and providing opportunities for alternative transportation compared to single-family residential development in more suburban areas (in this case by increasing density by going from one to four single family residences). An initial air quality screening was
performed in August 2017 using BAAQMD online tools and sources and the BAAQMD Significance
Determination Flowchart (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, May 2017, Figure 1-2, General Steps for Determining Significance of Air Quality Impacts). Six (6) potential sources were identified within 1,000 feet
of the Site (see Enclosure 2).
3.0 Would the Project Conflict with or Obstruct Implementation of the Applicable Air Quality Plan?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of four (4) single-family residences and
would not increase regional population growth or cause changes in vehicle travel that would affect implementation of the Bay Area 2017 Final Clean Air Plan (CAP). Based on BAAQMD criteria (see
Enclosure 2) air quality will not be significantly impacted.
4.0 Would the Project Violate any Air Quality Standard or Contribute Substantially to an Existing or
Projected Air Quality Violation?
Less Than Significant Impact. The BAAQMD's 2017 CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD, May 2017) make
recommendations for evaluation of activities that could impact air quality, including use of thresholds of significance and screening criteria developed by the BAAQMD (BAAQMD, May 2017). The BAAQMD screening levels are based on project size for air pollutant emissions. The applicable land use category
from the BAAQMD's screening criteria tables for the project is "single-family." For operational impacts from
criteria pollutants, the screening size is 325 dwelling units. For construction impacts, the screening size is 114 units. The project, which consists of four (4) single-family residential units, is well below the BAAQMD
significance thresholds for such uses and, therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant air
quality impact.
Construction activities would generate dust and equipment exhaust on a temporary basis. The BAAQMD
identifies best management practices for all projects to limit air quality impacts during construction. The
short-term air quality effects during project construction would be avoided with implementation of the measures prescribed by the BAAQMD. It is recommended that the project proponent and / or contractor
implement the standard conditions presented below.
Standard Conditions: The project should be developed in conformance with the following standard BAAQMD dust control measures, appropriately modified as needed for the specific project (considering that the planned project is relatively small and many of the standard conditions below are more applicable to
much larger projects), to reduce dustfall emissions:
• All active construction areas shall be watered twice daily or more often if necessary. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles-per-hour.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads and
parking and staging areas at construction sites.
• Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any other materials that can be windblown. Trucks transporting these materials shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017
Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 3 of 5
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excavating, exposed portions of the Site shall be watered,
landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered as soon as possible.
• Installation of sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replanting of vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible after completion of construction.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum
idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Campbell regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
5.0 Would the Project Result in a Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of any Criteria Pollutant
for which the Project Region is Classified as Non-Attainment Under an Applicable Federal or
State Ambient Air Quality Standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Less Than Significant Impact. See above
6.0 Would the Project Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Concentrations of Toxic Air
Contaminants (TAC)?
Less Than Significant Impact. An Air Quality Screening for the project Site was conducted using
BAAQMD Online Tools & Sources (http://www.baaqmd.gov/). See Enclosure 2. Five (5) potential roadway
sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the Site, as follows:
• Roadway: Elam Avenue.
• Roadway: Westmont Avenue.
• Roadway: Harriet Avenue.
• Roadway: W. San Tomas Aquino Road.
• Roadway: S. San Tomas Aquino Road. These are all significantly below the following BAAQMD’s Thresholds of Significance (BAAQMD, May 2017)
for Cancer Risk of 100 in a million; PM2.5 of 0.8 μg/m3 and Hazard Index of 10 (see Enclosure 2).
Therefore, there are no significant impacts and no further analysis is needed. One (1) potential stationary source was identified, Elite Cleaners (dry cleaner), 128 San Tomas Aquino Road, Campbell, CA. BAAQMD
Plant # 3209. However, this stationary source was shut down in 2012 (and was located more than 1,000 feet
from the Site). 7.0 Would the Project Create Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People? Less Than Significant Impact. The project is a residential project in a residential neighborhood, and is therefore not anticipated to emit objectionable odors. See the Standard Conditions above (section 4.0) for a
list of actions recommended during construction to reduce construction period impacts.
8.0 Would the project Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant effect on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact. See section 4.0 above. The BAAQMD thresholds of significance and
screening criteria also apply to greenhouse gases. For greenhouse gas impacts, the screening size for
single-family residences is 56 dwelling units. The project, which consists of four (4) single-family residential units, is well below the BAAQMD greenhouse gases threshold of significance for single-family residential
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017
Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 4 of 5
land use, and thus the project would have a less-than-significant air quality impact with regards to greenhouse gases.
9.0 Would the project Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact. See section 8.0 above.
10.0 Closing
No significant sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the Site and therefore no significant impacts to the future occupants of the planned new development are anticipated. Based on the information presented herein
and the BAAQMD and other sources of information consulted, no significant new sources are anticipated from
the planned new project (neither during construction nor post construction). Should you have any questions or require supplemental information or services, please do not hesitate to contact Benjamin Berman of IRC at (408) 313 - 9376 or ircenvironmental@gmail.com.
Prepared By:
Benjamin Berman, IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
11.0 Limitations
IRC's Standard Limitations (Enclosure 3) apply to the contents of this document and the work performed by
IRC. The information presented in this document is based on review of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) sources, communications with BAAQMD staff, and communications with City of Campbell
staff. No additional information about the planned development with regards to air quality was provided by the
project developers. No site specific sampling, monitoring or other onsite or near site studies with regards to air quality were performed. No site visit or site inspection with regards to air quality was performed.
12.0 References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). (Adopted) April 19, 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan
(CAP).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). May 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Table 2-1. Air Quality CEQA Thresholds of Significance. (including Risk and Hazards
for new sources and receptors)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Accessed online in August 2017. 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).
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). August - September 2017. Email and Telephone correspondence with Ms. Alison Kirk, BAAQMD Senior Environmental Planner, Air Quality.
City of Campbell (COC). July 31, 2017. Letter. From Stephan Rose, Associate Planner, Community
Development Department. Addressed To: Gordana LLC. Re: File No(s): PLN2017-100 to 103; Address:
1323 Elam Avenue; Application(s): Zone Change (PLN2017-100) to allow the property to be rezoned from
R-M to P-D, a Planned Development Permit (PLN2017-101) for the approval of site configuration and
architectural design for four new townhomes, a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2017-102) to create four
Project No. 3376 September 11, 2017
Air Quality Screening Evaluation, Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA Page 5 of 5
individually owned lots and one common lot, and CEQA Review (PLN2017-103) for review of the project in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Status: Incomplete #2 (Draft // Planning Division Comments Only). Page 3 of 4, Plan Revision 3, Environmental Review Documents, third bullet, Air Quality Analysis.
City of Campbell (COC). August 30, 2017. Email received from Matthew Jue, Traffic Engineer, City of Campbell, Public Works Department. Information was provided regarding estimated
vehicles per day for various roadway.
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC (IRC). November 15, 2016. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, 1323 Elam Avenue, Santa Clara County, Campbell, California. IRC Project No. 3343.
ENCLOSURE 1
ENCLOSURE 2
Project No. 3376 September 2017
BAAQMD, Air Quality Screening, 1323 Elam Ave., Campbell, CA Page 1 of 2
Air Quality Screening using BAAQMD Online Tools & Sources
Site: 1323 Elam Avenue, Campbell, CA. Link to webpages: http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-
climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools
Stationary Sources identified
The BAAQMD online Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool was used on August 30, 2017 to search
for stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the Site. Only one potential stationary source was identified
within approximately 1,000 feet of the site:
• Elite Cleaners (dry cleaner), 128 San Tomas Aquino Road, Campbell, CA. BAAQMD Plant # 3209.
However, this source appears to be incorrectly located on the BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Analysis Tool. Google Earth indicates it is approximately 4,000 feet north of the Site. Based on telephone and email communications with Alison Kirk at the BAAMQD on September 11, 2017, the Elite Cleaners was
shut down in 2012. Stationary Sources, Risks
There are no risks from stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the Site. The one source identified above, BAAQMD Plant # 3209 (Elite Cleaners), was shut down in 2012. Regardless, this source was significantly
greater than 1,000 feet away from the Site. Even if this source was not incorrectly located, it is shown as approximately 1,000 ft + from the Site (in its incorrect location). The analysis tool listed the following for this
source that was shut down in 2012:
• Cancer Risk per Million: 30.4.
• Chronic Hazard Index: 0.081.
• PM2.5 Concentration: 0.0 (not applicable).
The above identified source was shut down in 2012. Nonetheless, the above cancer risk and hazard index have not been adjusted for distance from the Site. The distance is ~1,000 feet (if the source was correctly
located) or ~ 4,000 feet (if the source was incorrectly located, which appears to be the case), respectively, from the Site. Impacts, including PM2.5, cancer and hazard risks can be expected to diminish with increased distance away from the sources of emissions. The BAAQMD has online tools for adjusting
PM2.5, cancer and hazard risks for distance, for gasoline stations and diesel generators (PM2.5 does not apply to the Elite Cleaners identified source). No BAAQMD online distance adjustment tools were found for other types of stationary sources (in this case, dry cleaners). The cancer risk and chronic hazard index
values listed above would be expected to be significantly lower if adjusted for the distance between the identified stationary source (which was shut down in 2012) and the Site.
Highway and Roadway Sources identified
The BAAQMD online Highway Screening Analysis Tool was used on August 30, 2017 to search for
designated highway sources within 1,000 feet of the Site; none were found. Designated Highways were all more than 1,000 feet from the site. The closest designated highway, Highway 85, is approximately 4,000
feet southwest of the Site.
On August 30, 2017, Google Earth was used to identify roadways within 1,000 feet of the Site and to
determine approximate distance from the roadways to the Site. Five potential roadway sources were identified within 1,000 feet of the site:
• Elam Ave between Harriet Ave and S. San Tomas Aquino Rd.; ~10 feet south of the Site.
• Westmont Ave between Harriet Ave and S. San Tomas Aquino Rd.; ~750 feet south of the Site.
• Harriet Ave between W. San Tomas Aquino Rd and Westmont Ave.; ~900 feet west of the Site.
• W. San Tomas Aquino Rd between Harriet Ave and S. San Tomas Aquino Rd.; ~900 feet north of the
Site.
Project No. 3376 September 2017
BAAQMD, Air Quality Screening, 1323 Elam Ave., Campbell, CA Page 2 of 2
• S. San Tomas Aquino Rd between W. San Tomas Aquino Rd and Westmont Ave.; ~475 feet east of the
Site. The table, "Santa Clara County, PM2.5 Concentrations and Cancer Risks Generated from Surface Streets"
(December 2011) is available online from BAAQMD at: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/CEQA/County%20Surface%20Street
%20Screening%20Tables%20Dec%202011.ashx?la=en. The table requires identifying major roadways
with at least 10,000 average annual daily traffic (AADT) within 1,000 ft. of a site. Alternatively, the BAAQMD has a Roadway Screening Analysis Calculator (dated 04/16/2015) available online at:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/plans-and-climate/california-environmental-quality-act-ceqa/ceqa-tools. The
instructions for the online roadway calculator recommends that the analysis be used for roadways with 10,000 AADT and above.
The estimated vehicles per day for the five roadways identified above, obtained by email from the City of Campbell on August 30, 2017, are presented below.
1. Elam Avenue east of Harriet Avenue: estimated 2,000 vehicles per day (no recent data) 2. Harriet Avenue north of Westmont Avenue: 6,067 vehicles per day
3. Westmont Avenue west of San Tomas Aquino Road: 5,408 vehicles per day 4. West San Tomas Aquino Road east of Harriet Avenue: 2,894 vehicles per day 5. San Tomas Aquino Road north of Westmont Avenue: 4,467 vehicles per day.
Highway and Roadway Sources, Risks
No highway sources were identified. Based on data obtained from the City of Campbell, all five identified roadways have estimated vehicles per day significantly below 10,000 AADT and therefore by inference
would be below the applicable BAAQMD’s Thresholds of Significance1: Cancer Risk: 100 in a million;
PM2.5: 0.8 µg/m3; Hazard Index: 10. Therefore there are no significant impacts with regards to the five identified roadways and no further analysis is needed.
Cumulative Impacts, All Identified Sources
The one identified stationary source (Elite Cleaners, Plant # 3209) was shut down in 2012. Nonetheless,
the identified stationary source had a BAAQMD listed Cancer Risk of 30.4 per Million and a Chronic Hazard Index of 0.081 (not adjusted for distance). These are well below the BAAQMD’s Threshold of Significance
Cancer Risk and Hazard Index of 100 in a million and 10, respectively. The five roadways were all bellow the 10,000 AADT threshold. Based on all six of the identified sources described above, consisting of the one stationary source shut down in 2012 and five roadways, all were below applicable Thresholds of
Significance and therefore by inference cumulative impacts from the six identified sources are less than significant.
1Source: California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines, BAAQMD, May 2017; from Table 1. Threshold of Significance for Local Community Risk and Hazard Impacts. (Cumulative Impacts, New
Receptor).
Identified Stationary Sources & Roadways within 1,000 Feet of Site
Source: BAAQMD, Google Earth Image, Image Date 2016-11-02 S San Tomas Aquino Rd
ENCLOSURE 3
IRC Environmental Consulting, LLC
IRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, LLC 430 South 4th Street, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 313-9376, ircenvironmental@gmail.com
LIMITATIONS
This document has been prepared according to generally accepted practices. No other warranty, either expressed or implied as to the methods, results, conclusions or
recommendations is made. The user is notified that uncertainty is not eliminated,
assessments are not exhaustive, reasonable time and cost constraints and other limitations
are inherent, certain conditions may not be detected during an assessment of this type, and
no level of assessment can guarantee that a site is completely free of hazardous substances. This assessment was based on a specific scope of work with a defined budget,
was not intended to be comprehensive, identify all potential concerns, or eliminate the
possibility of any environmental impacts to the subject property. Sampling is inherently
limited; each sample point is at a specific lateral location and vertical depth or height;
conditions may differ away from any specific sample point.
The results of all assessments are subject to differing professional interpretations and
opinions, the conclusions of others may differ. If you wish to reduce the level of uncertainty
associated with this study, we should be contacted for additional consultation. Regulatory
agency environmental regulations, priorities, and enforcement change over time and tend to get stricter / more conservative; potential impacts previously unknown or of little concern,
such as but not limited to vapor intrusion, tend to become more important environmental
regulatory concerns over time. Work not performed under the regulatory oversight of any
local, state, or federal regulatory oversight agency is not intended to meet specific public
agency requirements.
The findings, analysis, opinions, conclusions and recommendations contained in this
document are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our assessment,
sample results and review of practically reviewable information relevant to the site
conditions that was reasonably available and ascertainable at the time of this assessment. Changes in the information or data gained from any of these sources could result in
changes in our opinions, conclusions or recommendations. If such changes do occur, we
should be advised so that we can review our document in light of those changes. This
assessment and document are for the sole use of the client unless indicated otherwise.
Unless indicated otherwise, reliance upon the information in this document by others is solely at their own risk. Nothing in this document shall be construed as a legal opinion.
This assessment / document may be based in part upon verbal or written information
possessed by the client / user or other non-public privately-owned information. All of IRC
Environmental Consulting, LLC’s (IRC) Standard Terms and Conditions and Limitations
apply at all times to this document and all documents by IRC.
CITY OF CAMPBELL Community Development Department
DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Phase Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Air Quality - AIR
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: The project applicant shall
ensure that construction plans include the BAAQMD
Best Management Practices for fugitive dust control. The following will be required for all construction
activities within the project area. These measures will
reduce fugitive dust emissions primarily during soil movement, grading and demolition activities, but also
during vehicle and equipment movement on unpaved
project sites: a. All active construction areas shall be watered twice
daily or more often if necessary. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles-per-hour.
b. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads
and parking and staging areas at construction sites.
c. Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand, and any other materials that can be windblown. Trucks
transporting these materials shall be covered. d. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
e. Subsequent to clearing, grading, or excavating,
exposed portions of the Site shall be watered, landscaped, treated with soil stabilizers, or covered
Site Preparation
and Construction
City of
Campbell
Public
Works
Department
and
Building
Division
Periodic
Compliance
Report
Page 2 of 4
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Phase Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
as soon as possible.
f. Installation of sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. g. Replanting of vegetation in disturbed areas as soon
as possible after completion of construction. h. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to five minutes. Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers
at all access points.
i. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall
be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to
operation. j. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of
Campbell regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48
hours. The BAAQMD’s phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Cultural Resources – CUL
Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If archaeological or paleontological
resources are encountered during excavation or construction, construction personnel shall be instructed to immediately
suspend all activity in the immediate vicinity of the suspected
resources and the 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
Site Preparation
and Construction
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Periodic
Compliance
Report
Page 3 of 4
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Phase Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
any on-site construction activity.
Cultural Resources – GEO
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: The applicant shall comply with the
recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation, dated August 2, 2016 prepared by Kristofer T. Korth, P.E. (No. 82838)
and Andrew D. Murray, P.E. (No. C44562) of Murray Engineers.
Such recommendations shall be incorporated into the project’s final engineering design to minimize the damage from seismic
shaking, unsuitable fill, and other geological deficiencies. The
project shall use standard engineering techniques and conform to the requirements of the International Building Code to reduce the
potential for seismic damage and risk to future occupants.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance
Statement
by
Geotechnical
Consultant
Hazards and Hazardous Materials - HAZ
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a qualified contractor shall asses the property for
presence of Lead-based paint (LBP) and Asbestos containing building materials (ACBM), and if present, prepare a plan, to the
satisfaction of the Building Official, to properly manage and
dispose of such materials.
Prior to Issuance of
Demolition Permit
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Qualified
Contractor
Noise - NOI
Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Windows must have a minimum
STC rating of 20 dB, which is met by standard openable double-glazed thermal windows, with two 1/8" lights separated by a 1/2" air space and with good weather seals. For better reduction of
loud vehicle noise, an STC performance of 30 STC is recommended, but not required.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Outside doors, such as for front entrances or patios, particularly for Unit 1, should meet a tested
STC rating of 20 to 30 to match the overall sound transmission mitigation criteria.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit
& Review of
Installed Materials
Prior to Final
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance
Page 4 of 4
Mitigation Measure Monitoring Phase Enforcement
Agency
Monitoring
Agency
Action
Indicating
Compliance
Verification of
Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant
Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Mitigation of outside noise is based upon windows that are closed in order to provide the required
noise protection. Therefore, all units must have a ventilation
system that provides a habitable interior air quality environment with the windows closed, regardless of outside temperature. In
addition, noise levels produced by heating and air conditioning
units for the project must not themselves create a noise problem for any of the residential units associated with the project or
adjacent properties.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit &
Review of Installed
Materials Prior to
Final
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant
Mitigation Measure NOI-4: Good noise design must be implemented by good field construction practices or the design performance will not be achieved. This includes minimizing all
penetrations of and connections between party wall and floor/ceiling assemblies, and acoustical sealant around any
necessary penetrations.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit &
Review of Installed
Materials Prior to
Final
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Assessment
Report by
Structural
Engineer or
Compliance
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant
Mitigation Measure NOI-5: A six to seven-foot solid wood
property line fences and gates shall be required to protect back yard activity areas, which will provide the required outdoor
activity area noise reduction.
Prior to Issuance of
Building Permit &
Review of
Installation Prior to
Final
City of
Campbell
Building
Division
Shown on
Landscape
Plans or
Compliance
Statement
by
Acoustical
Consultant