HomeMy WebLinkAbout932024 PC Agenda PacketPLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
AGENDA
September 3, 2024
6:00 PM
Email planning@centralpointoregon.gov
to request a Zoom link for virtual participation
www.centralpointoregon.gov
10. Meeting Called to Order
20. Roll Call
30. Correspondence
40. Approval of Minutes
A. Approval of the May 7, 2024 Meeting Minutes
50. Public Appearances
60. Business
A. Grocery Outlet Supermarket
B. Sunnybrook Village Master Plan
C. Sunnybrook Village Tentative Plan
70. Discussion Items
80. Administrative Reviews
90. Miscellaneous
100. Adjournment
Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, foreign
language interpreters or equipment for the hearing impaired must request such
services at least 72 hours prior to the City Council meeting. To make your request,
please contact the City Recorder at 541-423-1015 (voice), or by e-mail to
rachel.neuenschwander@centralpointoregon.gov. Si necesita traductor en espanol
o serviciis de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la caudad
poor favor llame con 72 hora de anticipation al 541-664-3321 ext. 201.
Page 1 of 533
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
MINUTES
May 7, 2024
6:00 PM
Email planning@centralpointoregon.gov
to request a Zoom link for virtual participation
www.centralpointoregon.gov
1 Meeting Called to Order
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM
2 Roll Call
Commissioners Tom Van Voorhees (Chair), Pat Smith, Jim Mock, Alicia Van
Riggs, Robin Stroh, and Don Dixon were present. Also in attendance were
Planning Director Stephanie Powers, Community Planner Justin Gindlesperger,
Parks and Public Works Director Matt Samitore, and Public Works Assistant Cyndi
Weeks.
3 Correspondence
Ms. Powers reported that the City received a letter from an anonymous party
regarding the Pheasant Creek Estates Phase II application. However, legal counsel
advised not distributing and admitting into the record unless the individual identifies
themselves as the author, which would be necessary for the individual to having
standing to appeal.
4 Approval of Minutes
A.Approval of April 02, 2024 Meeting Minutes
Pat Smith made a motion to approve the April 2, 2024 Minutes. Robin
Stroh seconded.
ROLL CALL: Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Robin Stroh, yes; Alicia
Van Riggs, yes; Don Dixon, yes. Motion Passed.
5 Public Appearances
Page 2 of 533
Central Point Planning Commission
May 7, 2024 Meeting
Page 2 of 4
6 Business
A.Sunnybrook Village Master Plan
Chairman Van Voorhees read the Quasi-Judicial meeting rules that apply to all
four (4) quasi-judicial hearings. He noted that he would have to re-read the
statement in the event anyone new joins the meeting.
Community Planner Justin Gindlesperger stated that this was a continued
public hearing. At this time, the applicant is still working on completing a
shallow well report and has requested the public hearing be continued to June
4, 2024.
Don Dixon moved to continue the Sunnybrook Village Master Plan to the June
4, 2024 meeting as necessary to allow the Applicant to supply additional
information. Pat Smith seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Pat Smith, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Alicia Van Riggs, yes; Robin
Stroh, yes; Don Dixon, yes. Motion Passed
B.Sunnybrook Village Tentative Subdivision Plan
Mr. Gindlesperger stated this a continued public hearing being reviewed
concurrently with the Master Plan application. Since the tentative plan must
demonstrate compliance with an approved master plan, the applicant
requested an extension to the June 4, 2024 meeting.
Alicia Van Riggs made a motion to continue the public hearing for the
Sunnybrook Village Tentative Plan application to the June 4, 2024 Planning
Commission meeting. Don Dixon seconded.
ROLL CALL: Pat Smith, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Alicia Van Riggs, yes; Robin
Stroh, yes; Don Dixon, yes. Motion Passed.
C.Pheasant Creek Estates Phase II - Tentative Subdivision Plan
Community Planner Justin Gindlesperger provided an overview of the
tentative plan application for Pheasant Creek Estates Phase II to subdivide 2.5
acres into an 8-lots at 3465 Hanley Road. Pheasant Creek Drive would be
extended to provide access to seven of the properties while one property
would have access off of Diego Court. Sidewalks with a six foot landscape row
with trees will be installed on Pheasant Creek Drive. Water, sewer, and storm-
water utilities are already existing in the area. Vacation of the Diego Court
street plug will go in front of City Council in July.
Gary Whittle, the applicant, introduced himself and offered to answer any
Page 3 of 533
Central Point Planning Commission
May 7, 2024 Meeting
Page 3 of 4
questions that the Planning Commissioners may have.
Mike Williams, the current property owner of what would become lot 35 has
concerns about obtaining a properly worded and signed Deferred Improvement
Agreement for his mortgage lender for approval of this tentative subdivision
plan. He also wanted to know when the street plug vacation would take place.
Neil Olsen addressed the Planning Commission as a citizen. He had questions
and concerns about bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. He was concerned
about deferring sidewalk improvements to a later date.
Alicia Van Riggs made a motion to approve Resolution No. 918, a Resolution
recommending approval of the Pheasant Creek Estates Phase II Tentative
Subdivision Plan application per the Staff Report dated May 7, 2024. Pat Smith
seconded.
ROLL CALL: Pat Smith, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Alicia Van Riggs, yes; Robin
Stroh, yes; Don Dixon, yes. Motion Passed.
D.Housing Authority Partition --Tentative Plan
Planning Director Stephanie Powers provided the staff report for a tentative
partition plan application to divide the 21.12-acre property at 1777 East Pine
Street into two parcels for future development. This property's current owner is
Housing Authority of Jackson County. She provided an overview of the project
site and proposed parcel layout relative to adjacent streets and Bear Creek.
She noted that the site has adjacent utilities that can be extended. However,
there are no land development proposals at this time so the proposed partition
does not include the creation of streets or the extension of utilities.
Ms. Powers highlighted the fact that the City’s Transportation System Plan
identifies the future extension of Gebhard Road through the site connecting
East Pine Street and Beebe Road. She stated that the Public Works
Department Staff Report indicated limited access is available to Proposed
Parcel 2 due to proximity to the Hamrick Road/East Pine Street/Biddle
Intersection. A Traffic Impact Analysis will be needed at the time of future
development to evaluate site access relative to safety, roadway operation and
the need for any mitigation.
Raul Woerner with CSA Planning, Ltd. Identified himself as the applicant’s
agent on the proposed tentative plan. He recapped the application and noted
the objective was to divide the parcel and convey Proposed Parcel 1 for
commercial development. He made himself available for questions.
Don Dixon made a motion to approve Resolution No. 919, a Planning
Commission Resolution Approving a Tentative Plan to divide a 21.12 acre
property at 1777 East Pine Street into two (2) parcels per the corrected Staff
Page 4 of 533
Central Point Planning Commission
May 7, 2024 Meeting
Page 4 of 4
Report. Robin Stroh seconded.
ROLL CALL: Pat Smith, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Alicia Van Riggs, yes; Robin
Stroh, yes; Don Dixon, yes. Motion Approved.
7 Discussion Items
None.
8 Administrative Reviews
None.
9 Miscellaneous
Ms. Powers shared an upcoming event Ride With Leaders on May 18th which is an
approximate 6 mile bike tour of local, county, and state roads in the Central Point
area. Planning Commissioners are invited to participate and need to register in
advance.
Director Powers recognized Don Dixon for his service on the Planning Commission
and reported this would be his last meeting as he is leaving the area for two years.
City staff and Planning Commissioners wished him well on his new adventure.
10 Adjournment
Jim Mock made a Motion to Adjourn. Don Dixon seconded. The meeting was
adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the May 7, 2024, Planning Commission meeting were
approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of _________________, 2024.
_________________________
Tom Van Voorhees
Planning Commission Chair
Page 5 of 533
Staff Report
Grocery Outlet Supermarket
Site Plan and Architectural Review
File No. SPAR-24004
September 3, 2024
Item Summary
Consideration of a proposed approximately 16,000 square foot supermarket building and site
improvements, including parking and landscape areas. The 2.24 acre site is located at 4951
Biddle Road and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 01C, Tax Lot
802.
Applicant/Agent: Dickerhoof Properties, LLC (Darren Dickerhoof)
Staff Source
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner III
Background
The Applicant is requesting Site Plan and Architectural Review approval to construct and
operate an approximately 16,000 square foot supermarket at 4951 Biddle Road near the
intersection of Biddle and Hamrick Road. The purpose the Site Plan and Architectural Review
application is to assure the proposed site and building design are consistent with the land use
and development standards for the City in accordance with CPMC 17.72, Site Plan and
Architectural Review.
Project Description:
Site Design:
The Site Plan (Attachment “A-1”) depicts the location of the structure along with proposed
parking, service and stormwater areas. The Landscape Plan (Attachment “A-2”) depicts
proposed landscape areas along street frontages, around the perimeter of the site and within
the parking lot. There is ample landscaping to comply with, or exceed, landscape standards in
CPMC 17.75.039. In order to mitigate the large surface of the parking area, the applicant is
proposing a pedestrian access to the front of the building from the Biddle Road right-of-way,
shading of 40% of the surface area by the proposed trees at maturity, and a landscape row with
street trees along the private retail street.
Access:
As shown on the Site Plan (Attachment “A-1”), the property fronts Biddle Road and abuts
existing private retail streets on the east and south sides of the project site. The private retail
streets provide access and circulation to the subject property and adjacent properties to the east
and west, limiting conflicts along Biddle Road. The Applicant proposes to access the private
retail streets on the east and south sides, providing access for customers and deliveries.
Page 6 of 533
Building Design:
As depicted on the Building Plans (Attachment “A-3”), the main entrance is oriented north
towards Biddle Road and features a raised parapet, variation in colors and materials, including
front display windows. Maximum building height is 32-feet, below the maximum of 35-feet in the
C-5 zoning district.
Issues
There are two (2) issues relative to this application as follows:
1.Frontage Improvements/Landscaping. Biddle Road is classified as an Urban Minor
Arterial maintained by Jackson County. The right-of-way includes curb, gutter and
sidewalk, with a landscape row between the curb and sidewalk. The Landscape Plan
(Attachment “A-2”) does not include landscaping or irrigation in the landscape row. The
landscape row must be landscaped with ground cover and provide irrigation to proposed
landscaping.
As noted in the Fire District No. 3 Staff Report, dated 08/08/2024, landscaping provided
onsite should include Firewise landscaping principles that include the installation of fire-
resistant plant materials.
Comment: Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1(a) requiring a revised
landscape plan that provides ground cover and irrigation for the landscape row along
Biddle Road.
2.Building Design. Builidng design is used to ensures that buildings do not display
unembellished walls visible from a public street or residential area. As defined in CPMC
17.75.042(A)(5), there are three (3) types of wall faces used to review building design.
As shown on the Building Elevation (Attachment “A-2”), the proposed grocery store
includes Façade Wall Faces towards the north and east and Building Wall Faces to the
south and west. The wall faces to the north, east and south provide architectural
features that provide variation in color, material, and articulation in compliance with this
section. However, the west Building Wall Face lacks ample design features that serve to
break up the wall face into smaller sections.
Comment: Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1(b) requiring revised building
elevations that depict architectural features on the west-oriented Building Wall Face, as
required by CPMC 17.75.042(A)(5)(b).
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
The Planning Commission can approve, approve with conditions or deny the application based
on findings set forth in CPMC 17.72.040. The Site Plan and Architectural Review criteria are
addressed in the Applicant’s Findings dated June 18, 2024 (Attachment “B”) and the Planning
Department Supplemental Findings set forth below. Where there is a conflict between the
Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Findings, the latter shall apply.
Page 7 of 533
CPMC 17.72.040, Site Plan and Architectural Standards
In approving, conditionally approving, or denying any site plan and architectural review
application, the approving authority shall base its decision on compliance with the following
standards:
A. Applicable site plan, landscaping, and architectural design standards as set forth in
Chapter 17.75, Design and Development Standards;
Finding CPMC 17.72.040(A): Based on the Applicant’s Findings in Attachment “B” and
the Planning Department Supplemental Findings for CPMC CPMC 17.75.042(A)(5), the
proposed site plan, landscaping and architectural standards can comply as conditioned.
Conlcusion CPMC 17.72.040(A): Complies as conditioned.
B. City of Central Point Department of Public Works Department Standard Specifications
and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction;
Finding CPMC 17.72.040(B): As demonstrated in the Public Works Staff Report dated
August 13, 2024 (Attachment “C”) and the Jackson County Roads Staff Report dated
August 14, 2024 (Attachment “D”), the proposed site development and public
infrastructure including the street connectivity is consistent with the Public Works
Standard Specifications and Jackson County Standards and Specifications for County
Roads as conditioned. The conditions assure that civil improvement design, construction
timing and implementation remains consistent with the Public Works Standards and
County Road Standards until the project receives final inspection and Certificate of
Occupancy.
Conlcusion CPMC 17.72.040(B): Complies as conditioned.
C. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for
the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable
gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to
fire apparatus.
Finding CPMC 17.72.040(C): As evidenced by FD3’s email dated August 8, 2024
(Attachment “E”), the proposed site development must be consistent with the Oregon
Fire Code. As conditioned, the Applicant will be required to install a fire hydrant if the
building is sprinklered and the location of the FDC is greater than 50-feet from the
nearest hydrant. This condition shall be administered through the building permit
process. The final comment to provide Firewise plants was suggested as a way to
incorporate fire-resistant plants in landscape areas.
Conlcusion CPMC 17.72.040(C): Complies as conditioned.
CPMC 17.75.042 Findings and Conditions
The following design standards are applicable to development in all commercial zoning districts,
and are intended to assure pedestrian scale commercial development that supports and
Page 8 of 533
enhances the small town character of the community. All publicly visible buildings shall comply
with the standards set forth in this section.
A. Massing, Articulation, Transparency, and Entrances
5. Wall Faces. As used in this section there are three types of wall faces. To ensure that
buildings do not display unembellished walls visible from a public street or residential
area the following standards are imposed:
a. Facade Wall Face. Facade wall faces greater than forty feet in length shall be
divided into small units through the use of articulation, which may include offsets,
recesses, staggered walls, stepped walls, pitched or stepped rooflines, overhangs, or
other elements of the building’s mass.
For purposes of complying with the requirements in this subsection facade wall
faces shall consist of a combination of two of the following design features:
i. Changes in plane with a depth of at least twenty-four inches, either horizontally
or vertically, at intervals of not less than twenty feet and not more than forty
feet; or
ii. Changes of color, texture, or material, either horizontally or vertically, at
intervals of not less than twenty feet and not more than one hundred feet; or
iii. A repeating pattern of wall recesses and projections, such as bays, offsets,
reveals or projecting ribs, that has a relief of at least eight inches at intervals of
not less than twenty feet and not more than forty feet.
Finding CPMC 17.75.042(A)(5)(a): The building provides a façade wall face towards
Biddle Road to the north and the private retail street to the east. As depicted on the
Building Elevations (Attachment “A-3”), the façade wall faces divide the length of the
walls into smaller units with the use of colors and materials. The north facing façade
provides a repeating pattern of bays separated by columns, and a change in color and
material horizontally above the main entrance and front window area. The east facing
façade provides a similar pattern of repeating bays and features changes in colors and
materials between the bays,and a raised parapet that emulates the design at the
entrance of the building.
Page 9 of 533
Conclusion CPMC 17.75.042(A)(5)(a): Consistent.
b. Building Wall Face. As applicable each building wall face shall be given architectural
treatment to meet the intent of this section by using three or more of the following:
i. Varying rooflines with one foot or greater changes of height at
least every forty feet;
ii. Transparent windows that comprise at least forty percent of the
visible facade;
iii. Secondary entrances that include glazing and landscape
treatment;
iv. Balconies;
v. Awnings/canopies;
vi. Planted trellises;
vii. Projecting cornices at least twelve inches in height;
viii. Variation in building form and materials demonstrated to meet the
intent of this section.
Finding CPMC 17.75.042(A)(5)(b): A building wall face is not directly oriented towards a
street but is still visible from the public right-of-way. As depicted on the Building
Elevations (Attachment “A-3”), the building provides a building wall face towards the
west and south. The south elevation includes two (2) architectural treatments and
provides a similar design to the east façade face with a repeating pattern bay design
with variation of material and color and an awning towards the side of the wall face. The
west elevation, which includes the area for the proposed loading dock, does not include
treatments listed in this section. As a condition of approval, the south elevation and west
elevation must include at least three (3) or more of the architectural treatments listed
above.
Conclusion CPMC 17.75.042(A)(5)(b): Complies as conditioned.
c.Other Wall Faces. Other wall faces abutting residential areas shall comply with the
requirements for building wall faces. Other wall faces not abutting residential areas
are exempt from this section.
Finding CPMC 17.75.042(A)(5)(c): As depicted on the Site Plan (Attachment “A-1”) the
project site does not abut a residential area.
Conclusion CPMC 17.75.042(A)(5)(c): Not applicable.
Page 10 of 533
Summary Conclusion:
The Site Plan and Architectural Review application to develop 2.24 acres at 4951 Biddle Road
with an approximately 16,000 square foot supermarket/grocery store as been reviewed against
the applicable approval criteria in CPMC 17.72.040 for the C-5 zone and found to comply as
conditioned based on the Applicant’s Findings of Fact in Attachment “B”, the Planning
Department Supplemental Findings presented in this Staff Report dated September 3, 2024 and
Attachments “A-1”, “A-2”, “A-3”, “C”, “D”, “E”, and “F. It is emphasized that if there is any conflict
between the Applicant’s Findings and the Planning Department Supplemental Findings, the
Planning Department Supplemental Findings shall apply.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to building permit issuance for the supermarket/grocery store building, the applicant
shall satisfy the following conditions of approval:
a. Submit revised landscape plan that depicts the landscape row along the Biddle
Road with ground cover and irrigation;
b. Submit revised building elevations that depict west building wall face with at least
three (3) architectural features, as required by CPMC 17.75.042(A)(5)(b);
c. Demonstrate compliance with the Public Works Department Staff Report
(Attachment “D”), including but not limited to:
i. Submit and receive approval for Civil Improvement Plans demonstrating
compliance with Public Works Department Standard Specifications for
public works construction that includes, but is not limited to, the proposed
sidewalks, utilities, and the protection of public infrastructure.
ii. Submit and receive approval for a stormwater management plan
demonstrating compliance with the MS4 Phase II stormwater quality
standards.
iii. Submit and receive approval for an erosion and sediment control permit
(NPDES-1200CN).
iv. Pay all System Development Charges and permit fees.
d. Demonstrate compliance with the Jackson County Roads Department Staff
Report and supplemental comments (Attachment “D”), including but not limited
to:
i. Submit and receive approval for construction plans demonstrating
compliance with the “Standards and Specifications for County Roads” for
public works within the County Roads right-of-way.
ii. Submit and receive approval for a stormwater management plan for any
drainage facilities directed to Jackson County stormwater facilities.
Page 11 of 533
e. Demonstrate compliance with Fire District No. 3 Staff Comments, including:
i. Submit a revised site plan that depicts the location of a new fire hydrant, if
the location of the FDC on the proposed building is greater than 50-feet
from an existing fire hydrant.
ii. Include fire-resistant landscape materials within proposed landscape
areas, as endored by Firewise landscaping principles.
f. Demonstrate compliance with Rogue Valley Sewer Services Staff report,
including obtaining a connection permit and paying all applicable fees.
2. Prior to Public Works Final Inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with
the following:
a. Complete public infrastructure and civil improvements per Civil Improvement
Plans approved by the Public Works Department and a fully executed
development agreement and bond, if applicable. The Engineer-of-Record shall
certify that all improvements were constructed per the approved plans.
b. Complete public infrastructure and civil improvements per construction plans
approved by the Jackson County Roads Department.
c. Complete stormwater management improvements per the Stormwater
Management Plan approved by the Public Works Department. The Engineer-of-
Record shall certify that the construction of the drainage system was constructed
per the approved plans.
d. Record an operations and maintenance agreement for all new stormwater quality
features.
3. Any modifications to the site layout, including but not limited to stormwater quality
treatment facility type and location, shall be subject to review in accordance with CPMC
17.09, Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments
Attachment “A-1” – Master Site Plan
Attachment “A-2” – Landscape Plan
Attachment “A-3” – Building Elevations
Attachment “B” – Applicant’s Findings, dated 06/18/2024
Attachment “C” – Public Works Department Staff Report, dated 08/13/2024
Attachment “D” – Jackson County Roads Staff Report, dated 08/14/2024
Attachment “E” – Fire District No. 3 Staff Report, dated 08/08/2024
Attachment “F” – Rogue Valley Sewer Services Staff Report, dated 08/08/2024
Attachment “G” – Resolution No. 922
Page 12 of 533
Action
Open a public hearing and consider the proposed Site Plan & Architectural Review application
and 1) approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application.
Recommendation
Approve Resolution No. 922, a Resolution recommending approval of the Site Plan &
Architectural Review application for the Grocery Outlet Supermarket development plan.
Recommended Motion
I move to approve Resolution No. 922, a Resolution recommending approval of the Site Plan &
Architectural Review application for the Urgent Medical Care development plan per the Revised
Staff Report dated September 3, 2024.
Page 13 of 533
Page 14 of 533
Page 15 of 533
Page 16 of 533
CENTRAL POINT
OREGON
SITE PLAN & ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
APPLICATION
GROCERY OUTLET
PROPERTY OWNER: RF5 PROPERTIES, LLC
2316 W HILLSIDE DRIVE
CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 97502
APPLICANT: DICKERHOOF PROPERTIES, LLC
PO BOX 1800
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97339
AGENT: RHINE-CROSS GROUP, LLC
112 N. 5TH STREET, SUITE 200
PO BOX 909
KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON 97601
LOCATION: 372W01C TAX LOT 802
ZONING DESIGNATION: THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL (C-5)
PROPERY SIZE: 2.24 ACRES
RHINE-CROSS GROUP, LLC
112 N 5TH STREET - SUITE 200
PO BOX 909
KLAMATH FALLS, OREGON 97601
(541) 851-9405
Page 17 of 533
IN THE MATTER OF A TYPE III APPLICATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF
SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
GROCERY OUTLET
EAST PINE STREET/BIDDLE ROAD, CENTRAL POINT, OR
37S2W01C TAX LOT 802
SECTIONS
1. Application Form
2. Legal Description
3. Written Authority Form Property Owner
4. Written Findings of Fact
5. Site Plan ~ Landscape Plan ~ Elevations
6. Mailing Labels
Page 18 of 533
1)
APPLICATION FORM
RF5 PROPERTIES LLC
LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITE
ALONG EAST PINE / BIDDLE ROAD
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97504
37S2W01C 802
Page 19 of 533
Page 20 of 533
Page 21 of 533
2)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
RF5 PROPERTIES LLC
LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITE
ALONG EAST PINE / BIDDLE ROAD
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97504
37S2W01C 802
Page 22 of 533
Page 23 of 533
Page 24 of 533
Page 25 of 533
3)
WRITTEN AUTHORITY FROM
PROPERTY OWNER
RF5 PROPERTIES LLC
LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITE
ALONG EAST PINE / BIDDLE ROAD
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97504
37S2W01C 802
Page 26 of 533
Page 27 of 533
4)
WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT
RF5 PROPERTIES LLC
LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITE
ALONG EAST PINE / BIDDLE ROAD
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97504
37S2W01C 802
Page 28 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 1
BURDEN OF PROOF GROCERY OUTLET CENTRAL POINT, OREGON
Applicant: Dickerhoof Properties, LLC
PO Box 1800
Corvallis, Oregon 97339
Owner: RF5 Properties, LLC
2316 W Hillside Drive
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Representatives: Rhine-Cross Group, LLC
112 N 5th Street, Suite 200
PO BOX 909
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
Phone: (541) 851-9405
Location: The property is along East Pine Street/Biddle Road
Address: No situs address assigned
Reference Parcel No.: Tax Lot 802 Map No. 37S 2W 01C
Comp. Plan
Designation: Commercial
Zoning Designation: C-5 Zone (Thoroughfare Commercial)
Proposal: Construction of Grocery Outlet
Date: June 18, 2024
112 N. 5th Street, Suite 200
PO Box 909
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601
Page 29 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 2
PROJECT OVERVIEW & DESCRIPTION
The applicant intends construct an approximately +/-16,000 square foot grocery store,
“Grocery Outlet” located along East Pine Street /Biddle Road, Central Point.
The site is currently undeveloped and consists of 2.24 acres. The site is served by Central
Point Water Service, Rogue Valley Sewer Services storm drainage and sanitary sewer.
Other utilities readily available are power, telephone, and cable TV all existing within the
right-of-way of Biddle Road.
The subject property is currently designated C5=Thoroughfare Commercial.
Supermarkets are permitted uses within this zoning and will be referred to the planning
commission for further review, per Section 17.46.030 of the Central Point Municipal Code.
The subject property is relatively flat with existing water and sewer utilities available that
are able to serve the project site. The site is served by Fire District No. 3 with fire hydrants
located around the development site. The site is within the Airport Concern Overlay and
will record a copy of an avigation easement prior to building permits.
This application for site plan improvements must denote compliance with Central Point
Municipal Code (CPMC) 17.05, 17.46, 17.64, 17.72, 17.75, and 17.75 as applicable (Type
III, see Section 17.,05.400.
Page 30 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 3
Table of Contents
PROJECT overview & DESCRIPTION ____________________________________________ 2
CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE (CPMC) __________________________________ 4
CHAPTER 17.05 APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES _ 4 17.05.100 Purpose and applicability of review procedures. _______________________________________ 4
17.05.400 Type III procedure. _______________________________________________________________ 4
CHAPTER 17.46: THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ________________________ 7
17.46.010 Purpose. _______________________________________________________________________ 7 17.46.020 Permitted Uses __________________________________________________________________ 7
17.46.040 Height Regulations ______________________________________________________________ 8 17.46.050 Area, Width, and Yard Requirements ________________________________________________ 8
17.46.060 General Requirements ____________________________________________________________ 8 17.46.070 Signs and Lighting of Premises ____________________________________________________ 9
17.46.080 Off-Street Parking ______________________________________________________________ 10
CHAPTER 17.64 Off-Street Parking and Loading ______________________________________ 10
17.64.010 Purpose ______________________________________________________________________ 10 17.64.030 Off-Street Loading ______________________________________________________________ 10 17.64.040 Off-Street Parking Requirements __________________________________________________ 11 17.64.050 Bicycle Parking ________________________________________________________________ 12
CHAPTER 17.75 Design and Development Standards ___________________________________ 12 17.75.010 Purpose. ______________________________________________________________________ 12 17.75.031 General Connectivity, Circulation and Access Standards _______________________________ 13 17.75.035 Commercial Site Design and Development Standards __________________________________ 14 17.75.039 Off-Street Parking Design and Development Standards ________________________________ 15 17.75.042 Commercial Building Design Standards ____________________________________________ 21
Page 31 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 4
CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE (CPMC)
CHAPTER 17.05 APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW
PROCEDURES
17.05.100 Purpose and applicability of review procedures.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard decision-making procedures that will enable the city, the applicant, and the public to review development permit applications and participate in the local decision-making process in a timely and effective way consistent with the citizen’s involvement element of the comprehensive plan. Table 17.05.1 provides a key to identify the review procedures, applicable regulations, and the approving authority for development permit applications.
B. Applicability of Review Procedures. All development permit applications identified in Table 17.05.1 shall be decided by using the appropriate procedures contained in this chapter. The procedural “type” assigned to each development permit application governs the decision-making process for that permit. There are four “types” of procedures: Type I, II, III, and IV, which are described as follows:
17.05.400 Type III procedure.
A. Pre-Application Conference. A pre-application conference is required for all Type III applications. The requirements and procedures for a pre-application conference are described in Section 17.05.600(C). Findings of Fact: A Pre-Application Conference was held for a Site Plan and Architectural Review June 14, 2024, and application for this project is subject to a Type III Review. B. Application Requirements.
1. Application Forms. Type III applications shall be made on forms provided by the community development director or designee for the land development permit requested.
2. Submittal Requirements. When a Type III application is required, it shall include:
a. A completed application form with required attachments;
b. One copy of a narrative statement (findings and conclusions) that explains how the application satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria and standards in sufficient detail for review and decision-making. Note: Additional information may be required under the specific applicable regulations for each approval as referenced in Table 17.05.1;
c. The required fee; and
d. One set of pre-addressed mailing labels for all real property owners of record who will receive a notice of the application as required in subsection C of this section. The records of the Jackson County assessor’s office are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall produce the notice list using the most current Jackson
Page 32 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 5
County assessor’s real property assessment records to produce the notice list. The city shall mail the notice of application. The failure of a property owner to receive notice as provided in subsection C of this section shall not invalidate such proceedings provided
the city can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given.
Findings of Fact: All application requirements are included within the planning submittal packet and payment will be made upon submittal to the City of Central Point.
C. Notification Requirements.
1. Mailed Notice. The city shall mail the notice of the Type III hearing. Notice of a Type III hearing shall be given by the community development director or designee in the following
manner:
a. At least twenty days before the hearing date, or if two or more hearings are allowed, ten days before the first hearing, notice shall be mailed to:
i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property on the most recent property tax assessment roll that is the subject of the application;
ii. All property owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll within two hundred fifty feet of the site, including tenants of a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park;
iii. Any governmental agency that is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the city. The city may notify other affected agencies. The city shall notify the county road authority, or ODOT, and rail authority when there is a proposed development abutting or within two hundred fifty feet of an affected transportation facility and allow the agency to review, comment on, and
suggest conditions of approval for the application;
iv. Owners of airports in the vicinity shall be notified of a proposed zone change in
accordance with ORS 227.175;
v. Any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the city council and whose boundaries include the property proposed for development;
vi. Any person who submits a written request to receive notice;
vii. At the applicant’s discretion, notice may also be provided to the Department of Land
b. Content of Notice. Notice of a Type III hearing shall be mailed per this subsection C and shall contain the following information:
i. An explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed land use or uses that could be authorized for the property;
Page 33 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 6
ii. The applicable criteria and standards from the zoning and subdivision code and comprehensive plan that apply to the application;
iii. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the
subject property;
iv. The date, time, and location of the public hearing;
v. A statement that the failure to raise an issue in person, or in writing at the hearing, or failure to provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue prior to the close of the final hearing means that an appeal based on that issue cannot be raised at the State Land Use Board of Appeals;
vi. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number and email address where additional information on the application may be obtained;
vii. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or for the applicant, and the applicable criteria and standards can be reviewed at the city of Central Point City Hall at no cost and that copies shall be provided at a reasonable cost;
viii. A statement that a copy of the city’s staff report and recommendation to the
hearings body shall be available for review at no cost at least seven days before the hearing, and that a copy shall be provided on request at a reasonable cost;
ix. A general explanation of the requirements to submit testimony, and the procedure for conducting public hearings; and
x. The following notice:
Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller: The City of Central Point Land Development Code requires that if you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser.
Findings of Fact: The applicant acknowledges the notification requirements and will work
with Central Point Planning as necessary to comply with these mailing notice requirements. c. The community development director or designee shall prepare an affidavit of notice and the affidavit shall be made a part of the file. The affidavit shall state the date that the
notice was mailed to the persons who were sent notice.
Findings of Fact: Applicant acknowledges (c) above and the preparation of an affidavit of notice that will be made part of the file.
2. On-Site Posting. Public notice signs shall be posted on the project site for any Type III land use action according to the following:
Page 34 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 7
a. Contents of Sign. Notice signs shall include a description of the proposed land use action, the date of the public hearing, and the city of Central Point file number for the proposed land use action.
b. Location and Number of Signs. A posted notice sign must be placed on each existing
street frontage of the project site. If a frontage is over six hundred feet long, a notice is required for each six hundred feet or fraction thereof. Notice signs must be posted within ten feet of a property line along the street and must be visible to pedestrians and motorists. Notice signs may not be posted in a public right-of-way unless the land use action specifically pertains to a public right-of-way. If posting must occur in the right-of-way, care should be taken to comply with clear vision area requirements as set forth in Section 17.60.120.
c. Sign Posting Schedule. The required sign(s) shall be posted not later than twenty-one days prior to the first public hearing date of each body that hears the application. Posted signs shall be removed within ten days following the final decision.
d. Affidavit of On-Site Posting. The director or designee shall prepare an affidavit of on-site notice posting and the affidavit shall be made part of the file. The affidavit shall state the date that the notice was posted, the number of notices posted and the name of the
person(s) who posted the notice.
Findings of Fact: Applicant acknowledges the posting requirements and will comply with this as required by the Planning Director or designee as noted above.
CHAPTER 17.46: THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
17.46.010 Purpose.
The C-5 district is intended to provide for commercial and business uses that are most appropriately located along or near major highways or thoroughfares and are largely dependent upon highway visibility and easy vehicular access. (Ord. 1883 (part), 2006; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981).
Findings of Fact: The proposed project and location is within the C-5 District and shall
comply with the applicable codes pertaining to this zoning and district as noted in the application submittal.
17.46.020 Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in the C-5 district:
C. Retail outlets, including but not limited to:
8. Supermarket
Findings of Fact: The proposed project is the construction of a Grocery Outlet which is a permitted use under 17.46.020(C)(8) as noted above.
Page 35 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 8
17.46.040 Height Regulations No building or structure shall exceed thirty-five feet in height in the C-5 district. (Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). Findings of Fact: The proposed new Grocery Outlet does not exceed thirty-five feet in height meeting this criterion.
17.46.050 Area, Width, and Yard Requirements A. Lot Area. No requirements except as necessary to comply with applicable yard and parking and loading requirements. Findings of Fact: The subject property consists of 2.24 acres providing adequate space for parking and loading requirements.
B. Lot Width. The minimum lot width shall be fifty feet. Findings of Fact: The subject property exceeds the minimum 50’ at +/-185 feet meeting this criterion.
C. Lot Depth. The minimum lot depth shall be one hundred feet. Findings of Fact: The subject property exceeds the minimum 100’ at +/-485 feet meeting this criterion. D. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of ten feet and shall be maintained as landscaped
open space. When off-street parking is located in the front yard area, the landscaped strip may be reduced to not less than six feet with planning commission approval of the site plan. Findings of Fact: The front yard exceeds the 10’ minimum with parking located between the store and Biddle Road. The area between the parking lot and road right-of-way is 16.1 feet and is landscaped open space with a bio-swale on the east side. E. Side Yard. The side yard shall be a minimum of five feet, except when abutting structures are proposed with a common wall that complies with the Uniform Building Code. Findings of Fact: Side yard exceeds the minimum of five feet being proposed at ten feet. No common walls are proposed for this project.
F. Rear Yard. No rear yard shall be required in the C-5 district except when the rear lot line abuts property in a residential (R) district and then the rear yard shall be a minimum of twenty feet. Where property in the C-5 district is separated from property in a residential (R) district by a public alley or street, no rear yard setback shall be required. Findings of Fact: Acknowledged, the property does not abut residential zoned lands. G. Lot Coverage. No requirements except as necessary to comply with applicable yard, parking and loading requirements. (Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). Findings of Fact: Acknowledged
17.46.060 General Requirements
A. Uses that are normally permitted in the C-5 district but that are referred to the planning commission for further review, per Section 17.46.030(26), will be processed according to application procedures for conditional use permits. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment or materials shall be used which are found by the planning commission to be harmful to persons living
Page 36 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 9
or working in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinders, dirt, refuse, water-carried waste, noise, vibration, illumination or glare, or are found to involve any hazard of fire or explosion. Findings of Fact: No equipment or materials proposed are harmful to persons living or working in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinders, dirt, refuse, water-carried waste, noise, vibration illumination or glare, or any hazard of fire or explosion.
B. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment or materials shall be used unless in compliance with all applicable state and federal environmental, health and safety regulations. Findings of Fact: All equipment and materials used shall be in compliance with all
applicable state and federal environmental, health and safety regulations.
C. Wherever the side or rear property lines of a parcel in the C-5 district abut parcels in a residential (R) district, a solid wall or fence, vine-covered open fence or compact evergreen hedge six feet in height shall be located on that property line and continuously maintained to ensure effective buffering and visual screening between the two land uses. Where a public alley or street separates the two properties, the barrier or screen shall be placed on the C-5 property at the time of construction and may include driveway and pedestrian openings to the alley or street, as approved by the planning commission. Findings of Fact: N/A, no property lines abut a residential (R) district. D. Whenever feasible, buildings shall be located toward the rear of the lot with parking toward the street in the front yard area for easy access and to minimize traffic noise at the rear of the property, especially when the rear property line abuts a residential (R) district. (Ord. 1684 §46, 1993; Ord. 1615 §44, 1989; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). Findings of Fact: The building is sited at the rear of the lot with parking toward the main street (Biddle Road) for easy access to minimize traffic noise at the rear of the property.
17.46.070 Signs and Lighting of Premises
A. No illuminated sign or lighting standard used for the illumination of premises shall be so designed and installed that its direct rays are toward or parallel to a public street or highway or directed toward any property that lies within a residential (R) district. Findings of Fact: No illuminated signs or lighting are designed to direct rays towards or parallel to a public street or directed toward any property that lies within a residential zone. The property does not abut residential zoning. B. No red, green or amber lights or illuminated signs may be placed in such a location or position that they could be confused with, or may interfere with, any official traffic control device, traffic signal
or directional guide signs. Findings of Fact: Applicant acknowledges (B) above and will comply with this standard. C. Signs in the C-5 district shall be permitted and designed in accordance with Chapter 15.24 and
with Section 17.60.110. (Ord. 1615 §17, 1989; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). Findings of Fact: All proposed signage will be permitted and designed in accordance with Chapter 15.24 and Section 17.60.110.
Page 37 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 10
17.46.080 Off-Street Parking
Off-street parking and loading space shall be provided as required in Chapter 17.64. (Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). Findings of Fact: Proposed off-street parking complies with Chapter 17.64 as noted within this Findings of Fact document.
CHAPTER 17.64 Off-Street Parking and Loading
17.64.010 Purpose
It is the purpose of this chapter, through the management of off-street parking, loading and bicycle spaces, to manage auto dependence and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes in accordance with the policies and strategies of the city’s transportation system plan and state
transportation planning rule requirements for climate-friendly and equitable communities.
The requirements and standards set forth in this chapter are intended to ensure the usefulness of
parking, loading and bicycle facilities; protect the public safety; and mitigate potential adverse impacts on adjacent land uses. (Ord. 2100 § 9 (Exh. A), 2023; Ord. 1946 (part), 2011; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981).
17.64.030 Off-Street Loading
A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide adequate loading areas for commercial and industrial uses to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent streets. Findings of Fact: As shown on the site plan the loading area is placed to avoid interference with the operation of adjacent streets. The recessed loading dock is located away from any streets and on the northwest side of the building away from parking and streets. B. Applicability. The minimum off-street loading requirements in Table 17.64.01 shall apply in all zoning districts with commercial and industrial uses that will require the receipt or distribution of materials or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle. Findings of Fact: The applicant is proposing one (1) loading dock meeting the loading dock criteria as noted in Table 17.64.01. C. Location. 1. Off-street loading facilities shall be located on the same lot or parcel as the structure they are intended to serve. Findings of Fact: Loading dock is located on the same lot as the structure it is intended to serve.
2. Off-street loading areas shall not be placed between a building and street frontage unless the following apply: a. The site has frontage along a public street on two or more sides; b. The off-street loading area is not located on the primary building facade. Findings of Fact: Loading dock is not placed or proposed between the new building and any street frontages.
Page 38 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 11
3. Off-street loading areas shall not be within any required front, side or rear yard setback. Findings of Fact: Proposed loading dock is not within any side or rear setbacks, criterion met. 4. Loading spaces shall not project into any public right-of-way or otherwise interfere with the public use of streets or alleys, sidewalks, or any clear vision triangle. Findings of Fact: Proposed loading dock does not project into any public right-of-way or otherwise interfere with the public use of streets or alleys, sidewalks, or any clear
vision triangle.
TABLE 17.64.01 OFF-STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS
Findings of Fact: The proposed project is proposing a recessed loading dock.
17.64.040 Off-Street Parking Requirements
A. Minimum and Maximum Vehicle Parking Requirements.
1. The minimum and maximum off-street vehicle parking space requirements are set forth in Table 17.64.02 and shall apply to all development unless modified in accordance with
subsection C of this section.
2. Any parking provided to serve a building or use shall include parking spaces accessible to disabled persons in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and subsection D of this section. Accessible spaces provided shall count toward the maximum number of permitted spaces in Table 17.64.02.
3. Land use categories and their associated uses are subject to the definitions in Section 17.08.410 unless otherwise noted. For purposes of this chapter, if there is a conflict between the definitions in Section 17.08.410 and a defined term elsewhere in the code, Section 17.08.410 takes precedence.
Page 39 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 12
Findings of Fact: The maximum allowable parking spaces for 16,400 sf equals 5 spaces per 1,000 sf. Total maximum number of stalls = 82. Applicant is proposing 75 parking spaces which is below the maximum.
17.64.050 Bicycle Parking
A. Purpose. The bicycle parking and storage provisions in this section are intended to provide bicycle parking facilities to accommodate and encourage bicycle travel.
B. Bicycle Parking Standards. Bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with Table 17.64.043, Bicycle Parking Requirements.
TABLE 17.64.043 BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Findings of Fact: Required parking spaces in accordance with Table 17.64.043 retail uses must provide 0.33 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, or a total of 5 bicycle spaces. The proposed development provides 6 bicycle spaces meeting this criterion.
CHAPTER 17.75 Design and Development Standards
17.75.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to set forth clear and objective design and development standards to facilitate the submittal and review of development proposals in a manner that implements the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan to maintain and enhance the city’s small town environment. The standards set forth in this chapter are considered minimums and may be, on a case by case
basis, supplemented by the approving authority as necessary to mitigate impacts on abutting
property that are unique to the proposed development. (Ord. 1946 (part), 2011).
Page 40 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 13
17.75.031 General Connectivity, Circulation and Access Standards
The purpose of this section is to assure that the connectivity and transportation policies of the city’s Transportation System Plan are implemented. In achieving the objective of maintaining and enhancing the city’s small town environment it is the city’s goal to base its development pattern on a general circulation grid using a walkable block system. Blocks may be comprised of public/private street right-of-way, or accessways.
A. Streets and Utilities. The public street and utility standards set forth in the City of Central Point
Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction shall apply to all development within the city. Findings of Fact: No new streets are proposed with this development.
B. Block Standards. The following block standards apply to all development: 1. Block perimeters shall not exceed two thousand feet measured along the public street right-of-way, or outside edges of accessways, or other acknowledged block boundary as described in subsection (B)(4) of this section. 2. Block lengths shall not exceed six hundred feet between through streets or pedestrian accessways, measured along street right-of-way, or the pedestrian accessway. Block dimensions are measured from right-of-way to right-of-way along street frontages. A block’s perimeter is the sum of all sides. 3. Accessways or private/retail streets may be used to meet the block length or perimeter standards of this section, provided they are designed in accordance with this section and are
open to the public at all times.
4. The standards for block perimeters and lengths may be modified to the minimum extent
necessary based on written findings that compliance with the standards are not reasonably practicable or appropriate due to: a. Topographic constraints; b. Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical connection of streets or accessways; c. Major public facilities abutting the property such as railroads and freeways; d. Traffic safety concerns; e. Functional and operational needs to create large commercial building(s); or f. Protection of significant natural resources. Findings of Fact: Applicant shall comply with access standards where required by City of Central Point.
C. Driveway and Property Access Standards. Vehicular access to properties shall be located and constructed in accordance with the standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 320.10.30, Driveway and Property Access. Findings of Fact: Acknowledged
D. Pedestrian Circulation. Attractive access routes for pedestrian travel shall be provided through the public sidewalk system, and where necessary supplemented through the use of pedestrian accessways as required to accomplish the following: 1. Reducing distances between destinations or activity areas such as public sidewalks and building entrances;
Page 41 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 14
Findings of Fact: Pedestrian pathways are provided from Biddle Road south along the property and private drive, providing safe access through the property and along
the new building.
2. Bridging across barriers and obstacles such as fragmented pathway systems, wide streets, heavy vehicular traffic, and changes in level by connecting pedestrian pathways with clearly marked crossings and inviting sidewalk design; Findings of Fact: Applicant shall provide pedestrian pathways with clearly marked crossing bridging across barriers and obstacles such as fragmented pathway systems, wide streets, and heavy vehicular traffic.
3. Integrating signage and lighting system which offers interest and safety for pedestrians; Findings of Fact: The pedestrian pathways shall be lighted offering safety for pedestrians. 4. Connecting parking areas and destinations with retail streets or pedestrian accessways identified through use of distinctive paving materials, pavement striping, grade separation, or landscaping. Findings of Fact: Pedestrian accessways are identified use of the use of distinctive paving materials and grade separation.
E. Accessways, Pedestrian. Pedestrian accessways may be used to meet the block requirements of subsection B of this section. When used pedestrian accessways shall be developed as illustrated in Figure 17.75.01. All landscaped areas next to pedestrian accessways shall be maintained, or plant materials chosen, to maintain a clear sight zone between three and eight feet from the ground level. Trees shall be planted to provide a fifty percent canopy cover over the accessway. Findings of Fact: Pedestrian accessways are not being proposed to meet block requirements, however all proposed landscape areas next to pedestrian accessway shall be maintained for a clear sight zone between three and eight feet from the ground level.
17.75.035 Commercial Site Design and Development Standards
A. Commercial Site Design Standards. The lot area, dimension, set back, and coverage requirements for development within commercial districts shall be subject to the standards set forth in Table 17.75.01.
Page 42 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 15
FINDINGS OF FACT: The proposed Grocery Outlet meets Commercial site development standards as shown in Table 17.75.01. The building height does not exceed 35 feet and does not abut a residential zone.
17.75.039 Off-Street Parking Design and Development Standards
All off-street vehicular parking spaces shall be improved to the following standards:
A. Connectivity. Parking lots for new development shall be designed to provide vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent sites unless as a result of any of the following such connections are not possible: 1. Topographic constraints;
2. Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude a logical connection; 3. Traffic safety concerns; or 4. Protection of significant natural resources. Findings of Fact: The proposed parking lot provides and is designed with vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent sites by way of pedestrian sidewalks and easily accessible vehicle access points on the east and south side of the development to existing streets.
Page 43 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 16
B. Parking Stall Minimum Dimensions. Standard parking spaces shall conform to the following standards and the dimensions in Figure 17.75.03 and Table 17.75.02; provided, that compact parking spaces permitted in accordance with Section 17.64.040(G) shall have the following minimum dimensions:
1. Width--Shall be as provided in column B in Table 17.75.02; 2. Length--Shall reduce column C in Table 17.75.02 by no more than three feet. Findings of Fact: Each parking space provides 18’ x 9.9’ meeting the width and length criterion. C. Access. There shall be adequate provision for ingress and egress to all parking spaces. Findings of Fact: Adequate access if provided by two ingress/egress driveways off of the east private access road and two ingress/egress driveways off of the south private access road.
D. Driveways. Driveway width shall be measured at the driveway’s narrowest point, including the curb cut. The design and construction of driveways shall be as set forth in the Standard Specifications and Public Works Department Standards and Specifications. Findings of Fact: Applicant acknowledges design and construction of driveways and shall follow the standards applicable to private road standards.
E. Improvement of Parking Spaces. 1. When a concrete curb is used as a wheel stop, it may be placed within the parking space up to two feet from the front of a space. In such cases, the area between the wheel stop and landscaping need not be paved, provided it is maintained with appropriate ground cover, or walkway. In no event shall the placement of wheel stops reduce the minimum landscape or walkway width requirements. Findings of Fact: Spaces locate between the concrete curb is provided with areas
maintained with appropriate ground cover and/or walkways.
2. All areas utilized for off-street parking, access and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved and striped to the standards of the city of Central Point for all-weather use and shall be adequately drained, including prevention of the flow of runoff water across sidewalks or other pedestrian areas. Parking areas shall be designed with painted striping or other approved method of delineating the individual spaces, with the exception of lots containing single-family or two-family dwellings. Findings of Fact: All areas utilized for off-street parking, access and maneuvering of
vehicles shall be paved and striped to the standards of the city of Central Point and shall be adequately drained, including prevention of the flow of runoff water across sidewalks or other pedestrian areas. 3. Parking spaces shall be designed so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way shall be necessary, except for one- and two-family
dwellings with frontage on a local street per the city of Central Point street classification map. Findings of Fact: No parking spaces are designed that allow backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other public right-of-way shall be necessary. 4. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking or loading areas shall be so arranged as to direct the light away from adjacent streets or properties.
Page 44 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 17
Findings of Fact: All lighting used for off-street parking or loading areas are arranged as to direct the light away from adjacent streets and properties.
5. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right-of-way line, and a straight line joining the lines through points twenty feet from their intersection. Findings of Fact: Acknowledged
6. Parking spaces located along the outer boundaries of a parking lot shall be contained by a curb or a bumper rail so placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line, a public street, public sidewalk, or a required landscaping area. Findings of Fact: All parking spaces located along the outer boundaries of the parking lot are contained by curbs
7. Parking, loading, or vehicle maneuvering areas shall not be located within the front yard area or side yard area of a corner lot abutting a street in any residential (R) district, nor within any portion of a street setback area that is required to be landscaped in any commercial (C) or industrial (M) district. Findings of Fact: No parking is proposed within any portion of a street setback area that is required to be landscaped.
8. Except as provided in subsection (E)(3) of this section, all uses, including one- and two-family dwellings on arterial and collector streets, shall provide adequate vehicle turnaround and maneuvering area through the use of aisle extensions and/or turnaround spaces as illustrated in Figure 17.75.04 and 17.75.05. Functionally equivalent turnaround and maneuvering designs may be permitted by the approving authority through the site plan and architectural review process. Findings of Fact: Acknowledged F. Limitation on Use of Parking Areas. Parking facilities shall be so designed and maintained as not to constitute a nuisance at any time, and shall be used in such a manner that no hazard to persons or property, or unreasonable impediment to traffic, will result. Findings of Fact: The parking area is designed and will be maintained as not to constitute a nuisance at any time, and shall be used in such a manner that no hazard to persons or property, or unreasonable impediment to traffic will result.
G. Parking/Loading Facility and Street Frontage Landscaping and Screening. Parking lot landscaping shall be used to reinforce pedestrian and vehicular circulation, including parking lot entries, pedestrian accessways, and parking aisles. To achieve this objective the following minimum standards shall apply; however, additional landscaping may be recommended during the site plan and architectural review process (Chapter 17.72). All parking lots shall be landscaped in accordance
with the following standards: Findings of Fact: The proposed parking lot is designed with landscaping in accordance with the following standards as shown on the site plan. The applicant acknowledges that additional landscaping may be recommended during the site plan and architectural review process.
Page 45 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 18
1. Perimeter and Street Frontage Landscaping Requirements. The perimeter and street frontage for all parking facilities shall be landscaped according to the standards set forth in Table 17.75.03. Findings of Fact: As shown on the Landscape Plan, tree and shrub coverage for street frontage is calculated using 4 trees and 20 shrubs per 100 feet meeting this criterion.
2. Terminal and Interior Islands. For parking lots in excess of ten spaces all rows of parking spaces must provide terminal a minimum of six feet in width to protect parked vehicles, provide visibility, confine traffic to aisles and driveways, and provide a minimum of five feet of space for landscaping. In addition, when ten or more vehicles would be parked side-by-side in an abutting configuration, interior landscaped islands a minimum of eight feet wide must be located within the parking row. Location of interior landscape islands may be consolidated subject to the site plan and architectural review approval as necessary to address site constraints or to provide continuous canopy coverage per subsection I of this section.
The minimum number of trees required in the interior landscape area shall be dependent upon
the size and location of the parking lot in relation to the building and public right-of-way. Parking lots greater than or equal to one-half acre shall be subject to the requirements of subsection I of this section for large parking lot design and mitigation. Parking lots less than one-half acre in size shall provide trees at the following minimum ratios: a. Where the parking lot is located between the building and the public right-of-way, one tree for every four spaces; b. Where the parking lot is located to the side of the building and partially abuts the public right-of-way, one tree for every six spaces; c. Where the parking lot is located behind the building and is not visible from the public right-of-way, one tree for every eight spaces. Findings of Fact: The proposed parking does not exceed ten spaces per row. The required landscaping per code section 17.75.039 provides 4 trees and 20 shrubs/100 feet of Arterial
Street Frontage (4x2.34=9.36 trees and 20x2.34=47 shrubs minimum) and is met with the proposed landscaping as shown on the plan. Side perimeter landscaping requirement is 3
Page 46 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 19
trees and 15 shrubs/100 ft of abutting property (3x4.79=14 trees and 15x4.79=72 shrubs) as shown on the landscape plan. Parking lot trees=one tree for every 4 parking spaces
(72x4=18 trees minimum) with the proposed landscape plan meeting this criterion. Total onsite parking area =45,110 sf x 40% = 18,044 sf of shade required. Parking lot trees will provide 750 sf of shade per tree at 15-year maturity. Required number of parking lot trees=18,044/750=24 parking lot trees minimum which is met with the provided landscape plan.
3. Bioswales. The use of bioswales within parking lots is encouraged and may be located within landscape areas subject to site plan and architectural review. The tree planting standards may be reduced in areas dedicated to bioswales subject to site plan and architectural review. Findings of Fact: Bioswales are proposed with this project located at three areas within the project area. H. Bicycle Parking. The amount of bicycle parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 17.64.050 and constructed in accordance with the following standards:
1. Location of Bicycle Parking. Required bicycle parking facilities shall be located on site in
well-lit, secure locations within fifty feet of well-used entrances. Bicycle parking shall have
direct access to both the public right-of-way and to a main entrance of the principal use. Bicycle parking may also be provided inside a building in suitable, secure and accessible locations. Bicycle parking for multiple uses (such as in a commercial center) may be clustered in one or several locations. Findings of Fact: Proposed bicycle parking is located on site and in a well-lit area, secure within fifty feet of the main entrance. The bicycle parking has direct access to public rights-of-way and is clustered in one area meeting the requirements of (H) above.
2. Bicycle Parking Design Standards. All bicycle parking and maneuvering areas shall be constructed to the following minimum design standards: a. Surfacing. Outdoor bicycle parking facilities shall be surfaced in the same manner as a motor vehicle parking area or with a minimum of a three-inch thickness of hard surfacing (i.e., asphalt, concrete, pavers or similar material). This surface will be maintained in a smooth, durable and well-drained condition. Findings of Fact: Surfacing is acknowledged and is provided with this project and shall be maintained in a smooth, durable and well drained condition.
b. Parking Space Dimension Standard. Bicycle parking spaces shall be at least six feet long and two feet wide with minimum overhead clearance of seven feet. Findings of Fact: The six proposed bicycle parking spaces are designed at six feet long and two feet wide with minimum overhead clearance of seven feet. c. Lighting. Lighting shall be provided in a bicycle parking area so that all facilities are
thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks or motor vehicle parking lots
during all hours of use.
Page 47 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 20
Findings of Fact: Lighting is provided at the bicycle parking area so that the facility is thoroughly illuminated and visible from adjacent sidewalks and motor vehicle
parking lots during hours of use.
d. Aisles. A five-foot aisle for bicycle maneuvering shall be provided and maintained beside or between each row of bicycle parking. Findings of Fact: The proposed bicycle maneuvering area provides a minimum of five feet.
e. Signs. Where bicycle parking facilities are not directly visible from the public rights-of-way, entry and directional signs shall be provided to direct bicycles from the public rights-of-way to the bicycle parking facility. Findings of Fact: Acknowledged.
I. Large Parking Lot Design. Large surface parking lots defined as net surface parking areas equal to or greater than one-half acre (twenty-one thousand seven hundred eighty square feet) shall comply with the following. See subsection B of this section for parking stall dimensions.
1. Large Parking Lot Design Standards. Developments must provide the following design features:
a. Pedestrian facilities between building entrances and pedestrian facilities in the adjacent public right-of-way; and
b. Buildings built-up to pedestrian facilities;
c. Trees planted along parking lot driveways, per Section 12.36.100(C), or a minimum of thirty percent tree canopy coverage over parking areas. The tree spacing and species planted must be designed to maintain a continuous canopy, except when interrupted by driveways, drive aisles and other site design considerations. Developments are not
required to provide trees along drive aisles and other site design considerations.
Findings of Fact: The proposed site plan meets a-c above as shown on the site and landscape plans.
2. Large Parking Lot Mitigation. Lots equal to or greater than one-half acre shall install one of the following:
a. Install solar panels with a generation capacity of at least 0.5 kilowatt per new surface
parking space anywhere on the property.
b. Install landscaping for a continuous tree canopy covering at least forty percent of the new parking lot area at maturity, but no more than fifteen years after planting.
c. Any tree canopy plan, including any trees planted along parking lot driveways, shall be created in coordination with the local electric utility, including predesign, design, building, and maintenance phases. The submitted site plan shall demonstrate the following:
Page 48 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 21
i. Conformity with the Central Point approved street tree list;
ii. A shade study indicating the percent of surface pavement shaded at maturity;
iii. Soils and irrigation installed so as to maximize health and chances for survival,
including removal of construction debris and use of structural soils if necessary.
Findings of Fact: The proposed parking mitigation proposes forty percent of tree canopy within 15 years of planting.
3. Public buildings may use green technologies in construction to comply with OAR 330-135-0010. (Ord. 2100 §§ 22--24, 2023; Ord. 2034 §§14, 15, 2017; Ord. 2014 §11, 2015; Ord. 1946 (part), 2011).
17.75.042 Commercial Building Design Standards
The following design standards are applicable to development in all commercial zoning districts, and are intended to assure pedestrian scale commercial development that supports and enhances the small town character of the community. All publicly visible buildings shall comply with the standards set forth in this section.
A. Massing, Articulation, Transparency, and Entrances.
1. Building Massing. The top of the building shall emphasize a distinct profile or outline with elements such as a projecting parapet, cornice, upper level setback, or pitched roofline. Findings of Fact: Building is designed with a distinct entry Façade, two entry awnings and a parapet around the entire structure.
2. Facade Articulation. Facades longer than forty feet and fronts on a street, sidewalk, accessway or residential area shall be divided into small units through the use of articulation, which may include
offsets, recesses, staggered walls, stepped walls, pitched or stepped rooflines, overhangs, or other elements of the building’s mass. Findings of Fact: All proposed facades have vertical columns spaces less than forty feet apart for façade articulation.
For purposes of complying with the requirements in this subsection “facade articulation” shall consist
of a combination of two of the following design features:
Page 49 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 22
a. Changes in plane with a depth of at least twenty-four inches, either horizontally or vertically, at intervals of not less than twenty feet and not more than forty feet; or
b. Changes of color, texture, or material, either horizontally or vertically, at intervals of not
less than twenty feet and not more than one hundred feet; or
c. A repeating pattern of wall recesses and projections, such as bays, offsets, reveals or projecting ribs, that has a relief of at least eight inches.
Findings of Fact: Design features B and C are used for façade articulations. Vertical and horizontal offsets/reveals as well as color changes are proposed.
3. Pedestrian Entrances. For buildings facing a street, a primary pedestrian entrance shall be provided that is easily visible, or easily accessible, from the street right-of-way, or a pedestrian accessway. To ensure that building entrances are clearly visible and identifiable to pedestrians
the principal entry to the building shall be made prominent with canopies or overhangs.
To achieve the objectives of this subsection the design of a primary entrance should incorporate at least three of the following design criteria:
a. For building facades over two hundred feet in length facing a street or accessway provide two or more public building entrances off the street;
b. Architectural details such as arches, friezes, tile work, murals, or moldings;
c. Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscape or seating;
d. Enhanced exterior light fixtures such as wall sconces, light coves with concealed light sources, ground-mounted accent lights, or decorative pedestal lights;
e. Prominent three-dimensional features, such as belfries, chimneys, clock towers, domes, spires, steeples, towers, or turrets; and
f. A repeating pattern of pilasters projecting from the facade wall by a minimum of eight inches or architectural or decorative columns.
Page 50 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 23
Findings of Fact: The pedestrian entrance/façade includes decorative columns, recessed lighting, two awnings, horizontal reveals and an exterior vestibule.
4. Transparency. Transparency (glazing) provides interest for the pedestrian, connects the building exterior and interior, puts eyes on the street/parking, promotes reusability, and provides a human-scale element on building facades. The transparency standard applies to a building’s principal facade. Projects subject to this section shall meet the following glazing requirements:
a. A minimum of forty percent of a facade wall face area, the area from finished ground floor elevation to twelve feet above finished floor elevation, shall be comprised of transparent glazing from windows or doors. Reflective or tinted glass or film is not
permitted on ground floor facade windows. The forty percent minimum transparency requirement may be reduced through the site plan and architectural review process upon demonstration that a proposed alternative design achieves the transparency objectives. See subsection (A)(4)(e) of this section for alternative design solutions. Findings of Fact: The North wall (entry side) is 1336 sf (grade to 12’0”) and has roughly 45% transparent glazing from windows and doors.
c. If a single-story building has a facade taller than twenty feet, the facade area above fifteen feet is subject to the same window requirement as the second floor requirement in subsection (A)(4)(b) of this section. Findings of Fact: The façade and structure is over twenty feet tall. No windows are proposed above 12’0” A.F.F.(See below)
d. Any building wall facade that is built up to an interior mid-block property line is not
required to have glazing on that facade if no prohibitions and no contractual or legal impediments exist that would prevent a building being constructed on the adjacent property up to the wall of the facade. Findings of Fact: Not applicable to this project.
e. Where transparent windows are not provided on at least forty percent of a building wall facade (or portions thereof) to meet the intent of this section, at least three of the following elements shall be incorporated:
Page 51 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 24
i. Masonry (but not flat concrete block); ii. Concrete or masonry plinth at wall base; iii. Belt courses of a different texture and color; iv. Projecting cornice;
v. Projecting awning/canopy (minimum four-foot overhang); vi. Decorative tile work; vii. Trellis containing planting; viii. Artwork of a scale clearly visible from the associated right-of-way; ix. Vertical articulation; x. Lighting fixtures; xi. Recesses or bays; xii. Use of other architectural elements not listed that is demonstrated to meet the intent of this section. Findings of Fact: The pedestrian entrance/façade includes decorative columns, recessed lighting, two awnings, horizontal reveals an exterior vestibule, split face cmu
and stucco finishes.
5. Wall Faces. As used in this section there are three types of wall faces. To ensure that buildings do not display unembellished walls visible from a public street or residential area the following standards are imposed: a. Facade Wall Face. Facade wall faces greater than forty feet in length shall be divided into small units through the use of articulation, which may include offsets, recesses, staggered walls, stepped walls, pitched or stepped rooflines, overhangs, or other elements of the building’s mass. Findings of Fact: All wall faces facing public streets or residential property include decorative columns, or other decorative features spaced no further than forty feet
on center.
For purposes of complying with the requirements in this subsection facade wall faces shall consist of a combination of two of the following design features: i. Changes in plane with a depth of at least twenty-four inches, either horizontally or vertically, at intervals of not less than twenty feet and not more than forty feet; or ii. Changes of color, texture, or material, either horizontally or vertically, at intervals of not less than twenty feet and not more than one hundred feet; or iii. A repeating pattern of wall recesses and projections, such as bays, offsets, reveals or projecting ribs, that has a relief of at least eight inches at intervals of not less than twenty feet and not more than forty feet. Findings of Fact: Color/material changes and projections are the main design features utilized. b. Building Wall Face. As applicable each building wall face shall be given architectural treatment to meet the intent of this section by using three or more of the following: i. Varying rooflines with one foot or greater changes of height at least every forty feet; ii. Transparent windows that comprise at least forty percent of the visible facade; iii. Secondary entrances that include glazing and landscape treatment;
iv. Balconies;
v. Awnings/canopies; vi. Planted trellises;
Page 52 of 533
Grocery Outlet Located Along East Pine Street/Biddle Road ~ Central Point, OR 25
vii. Projecting cornices at least twelve inches in height; viii. Variation in building form and materials demonstrated to meet the intent of this section. Findings of Fact: A signage façade (where occurs), a CMU enclosure (where occurs), awnings and decorative columns are used as architectural features. c. Other Wall Faces. Other wall faces abutting residential areas shall comply with the requirements for building wall faces. Other wall faces not abutting residential areas are exempt from this section. Findings of Fact: No wall faces abut residential areas.
6. Screening of Service Areas and Rooftop Equipment. Publicly visible service areas, loading zones, waste disposal, storage areas, and rooftop equipment (mechanical and communications) shall be fully screened from the ground level of nearby streets and residential
areas within two hundred feet; the following standards apply:
a. Service Areas. i. A six-foot masonry enclosure, decorative metal fence enclosure, a wood enclosure, or other approved materials complementary to adjacent buildings; or ii. A six-foot solid hedge or other plant material screening as approved. Findings of Fact: Rooftop equipment will be screened by the parapet. The trash and recycling will be enclosed with 6+ foot tall CMU walls and gates.
b. Rooftop Equipment.
i. Mechanical equipment shall be screened by extending parapet walls or other roof forms that are integrated with the architecture of the building. Painting of rooftop equipment or erecting fences are not acceptable methods of screening.
ii. Rooftop-mounted voice/data transmission equipment shall be integrated with the design of the roof, rather than being simply attached to the roof-deck.
Findings of Fact: Rooftop equipment will be screened by the parapet.
Page 53 of 533
5)
SITE PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
ELEVATIONS
RF5 PROPERTIES LLC
LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITE
ALONG EAST PINE / BIDDLE ROAD
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97504
37S2W01C 802
Page 54 of 533
NO
PARK
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
GROCERY OUTLET
1
2
1
3
4
5
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
11
12
13
14
15
BIDDLE RD
PVT ACCESS RD
PV
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
D
L=234.03'R=11399.16'
Δ=1°10'35"
L=69.79'R=100.00'
Δ=39°59'07"
L=69.79'R=100.0 0'
Δ=39°59'07"
16
SP01
JOB NO.
SHEET NO.
REVISIONS:
SHEET NAME:
SITEPLAN
RH
I
N
E
-
C
R
O
S
S
G
R
O
U
P
LL
C
11
2
N
5
t
h
S
T
-
S
U
I
T
E
2
0
0
-
P
.
O
.
B
O
X
9
0
9
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
5
4
1
)
8
5
1
-
9
4
0
5
F
a
x
:
(
5
4
1
)
2
7
3
-
9
2
0
0
a
d
m
i
n
@
r
c
-
g
r
p
.
c
o
m
KL
A
M
A
T
H
F
A
L
L
S
,
O
R
E
G
O
N
9
7
6
0
1
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
-
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
-
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
GR
O
U
P
CR-
RH
I
N
E
-
C
R
O
S
S
07-15-2024
DRAWN BY: MDC
CHK'D BY: MDC
2363
DATE: JULY 2024
VICINITY MAP
SITE
SITE DATA & CALCULATIONS
TOTAL PARCEL AREA:97,418 sq.ft.
PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 16,400 sq.ft.
% BUILDING COVERAGE:16.8 %
TOTAL ONSITE PAVED PARKING AREA :45,110 sq.ft.
EXISTING PAVED PRIVATE ROADWAYS:10,233 sq.ft.
TOTAL PAVED AREAS:55,343 sq.ft.
% PAVED COVERAGE:56.8%
TOTAL SIDEWALK AREA:6,180 sq.ft
% SIDEWALK COVERAGE:6.4%
LANDSCAPE:19,495 sq.ft.
LANDSCAPE COVERAGE:20.0%
SITE REQUIREMENTS
(C-5 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT)
Central Point Municipal Code Table 17.75.01
SETBACKS:
FRONT (BIDDLE ROAD)0 ft
SIDE 0 ft *
REAR:0 ft *
* - WHERE C-5 ABUTS A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, THE MINIMUM
REAR SETBACK SHALL BE 10 ft, PLUS 0.5' ADDITIONAL SETBACK
PER 1FT OF BUILDING HEIGHT OVER 20 FEET. ADDITIONALLY
A 6' HIGH WALL OR FENCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON THE
SIDE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE TWO USES. THIS DOES NOT
APPLY TO THIS PROJECT BECASUE THERE IS NO ADJACENT
RESIDENTIALLY ZONE PROPERTIES.
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT:35 ft
SITEPLAN NOTES:
PROPERTY LINE PER PARTITION PLAT P-15-2017
PROPOSED NEW ACCESS DRIVEWAY, WIDTH AS SHOWN
EXISTING ACCESS DRIVEWAY TO BE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT,
WIDTH AS SHOWN.
NEW 5' WIDE SIDEWALK ALONG NORTH-SOUTH PRIVATE ACCESS ROAD.
PROPOSED ASPHALT PARKING AREA 45,110 sq. ft.
POINT OF CONNECTION TO EXISTING POWER, TELEPHONE,
AND COMMUNICATIONS LINE. RUN SERVICE LINES TO
BUILDING IN UNDERGROUND CONDUITS GENERALLY AS SHOWN.
POINT OF CONNECTION TO EXISTING STORM SYSTEM. STORMWATER
TO BE ROUTED TO ONSITE VEGETATED SWALES WITH UNDERGROUND
DETENTION STORAGE AS REQUIRED TO MEET R.V.S.S. STANDARDS.
PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTION TO EXISTING
R.V.S.S. SEWER MAIN.
NEW WATER METER TO BE INSTALLED. NEW FIRE SERVICE WITH NEW
FIRE HYDRANT TO BE CONSTRUCTED PER CITY STANDARDS.
PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO STREET SIDE SIDEWALK
SITE LIGHTING ATTACHED TO BUILDING EXTERIOR AS WELL AS (7)
LIGHT POLE FIXTURES LOCATED IN THE PARKING LOT.
PROPOSED CMU SCREENED TRASH ENCLOSURE
BICYCLE PARKING - PROVIDE (6) SPACES FOR BICYCLE PARKING
RECESSED LOADING DOCK
ON GRADE LOADING AREA
PROPOSED TENANT PYLON SIGN
1
2
3
4
5
CE
N
T
R
A
L
P
O
I
N
T
O
R
E
G
O
N
49
5
1
B
i
d
d
l
e
R
o
a
d
Gr
o
c
e
r
y
O
u
t
l
e
t
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
GROCERY OUTLET
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DI
C
K
E
R
H
O
O
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
(5
4
1
)
7
5
4
-
3
6
3
0
CO
R
V
A
L
L
I
S
,
O
R
9
7
3
3
9
P.
O
.
B
O
X
1
5
8
3
15
16
Page 55 of 533
NO
PARK
I
N
G
NO
PA
R
K
I
N
G
BIDDLE RD
PVT ACCESS RD
PV
T
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
D
LS01
JOB NO.
SHEET NO.
REVISIONS:
SHEET NAME:
PLAN
RH
I
N
E
-
C
R
O
S
S
G
R
O
U
P
LL
C
11
2
N
5
t
h
S
T
-
S
U
I
T
E
2
0
0
-
P
.
O
.
B
O
X
9
0
9
Ph
o
n
e
:
(
5
4
1
)
8
5
1
-
9
4
0
5
F
a
x
:
(
5
4
1
)
2
7
3
-
9
2
0
0
a
d
m
i
n
@
r
c
-
g
r
p
.
c
o
m
KL
A
M
A
T
H
F
A
L
L
S
,
O
R
E
G
O
N
9
7
6
0
1
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
-
S
U
R
V
E
Y
I
N
G
-
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
GR
O
U
P
CR-
RH
I
N
E
-
C
R
O
S
S
07-15-2024
DRAWN BY: MDC
CHK'D BY: MDC
2363
DATE: JULY 2024
LANDSCAPE
CE
N
T
R
A
L
P
O
I
N
T
O
R
E
G
O
N
49
5
1
B
i
d
d
l
e
R
o
a
d
Gr
o
c
e
r
y
O
u
t
l
e
t
LANDSCAPE PLAN
GROCERY OUTLET
DI
C
K
E
R
H
O
O
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
(5
4
1
)
7
5
4
-
3
6
3
0
CO
R
V
A
L
L
I
S
,
O
R
9
7
3
3
9
P.
O
.
B
O
X
1
5
8
3
2
3
1 3-ZONE IRRIGATION CONTROL VALVE BOX.
VALVE BOX TO BE FED BY EXISTING ONSITE
WELL. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN BUILD SYSTEM
INCLUDING PUMPS, CONTROLS, EXPANSION
TANKS, ETC.
INSTALL DRIP CONTROL KIT FOR
COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS.
INSTALL DOUBLE TREE RING DRIPLINE AT
EACH TREE LOCATION, FIRST RING SHALL
BE 12" FROM TRUNK, SECOND RING 24"
(Typ. ALL TREES)
IRRIGATION MAINLINE, PVC SCH
40 PIPE 1-1/2" DIA WITH 3
4" DIA
LATERALS TO SPRINKLER HEADS
DRIP LINE
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PER CODE SECTION 17.75.039:
Street Frontage: 4 Trees and 20 Shrubs/100 ft of Arterial Street Frontage
4x2.34 = 9.36 trees and 20x2.34 = 47 shrubs minimum
Side Perimeter: 3 Trees and 15 Shrubs/100 ft of abutting property
3X4.79 = 14 Trees and 15X4.79 = 72 Shrubs minimum
Parking Lot Trees = One Tree for every 4 parking spaces
72/4 = 18 Trees minimum
DEVELOPMENT PLANTING PROPOSAL CALCULATIONS FOR 40% LOT SHADE COVERAGE:
Total Onsite Parking Area = 45,110 sq.ft. x40% = 18,044 sq.ft. of shade required
Parking Lot Trees will provide approximately 750 sq.ft. of shade per tree at 15yr maturity.
Required number of parking lot trees = 18,044 / 750 = 24 Parking Lot Trees Minimum.
1
2
2
3
3
2
3
Page 56 of 533
1.
2.
CEMENT PLASTER FINISH TO BE LIGHT TEXTURE.
ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED PER LOCAL JURISDICTION
REQUIREMENTS ON A SITE-BY-SITE BASIS.
GENERAL NOTES
FINISH FLOOR
0"
T.O. MASONRY
24' - 8"
T.O. SILL
4' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
10' - 0"
T.O. ENTRY CANOPY
32' - 0"
T.O. SIGN PARAPET
28' - 0"
T.O. TRIM
12' - 0"
FINISH FLOOR
FINISH FLOOR
FINISH FLOOR
0"
0"
0"
T.O. MASONRY
T.O. MASONRY
T.O. MASONRY
24' - 8"
24' - 8"
24' - 8"
T.O. SILL
T.O. SILL
T.O. SILL
4' - 0"
4' - 0"
4' - 0"
B.O. CANOPY
B.O. CANOPY
10' - 0"
10' - 0"
T.O. ENTRY CANOPY
T.O. ENTRY CANOPY
T.O. ENTRY CANOPY
32' - 0"
32' - 0"
32' - 0"
T.O. SIGN PARAPET
T.O. SIGN PARAPET
T.O. SIGN PARAPET
T.O. SIGN PARAPET
28' - 0"
28' - 0"
28' - 0"
28' - 0"
T.O. TRIM
T.O. TRIM
T.O. TRIM
12' - 0"
12' - 0"
12' - 0"
KEYNOTES - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
MARK NOTE
1 TENANT SIGNAGE - UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT - PROVIDED BY GOI
2 EXPOSED PRECISION CMU - SEAL AND PAINT PER SCHEDULE
3 EXPANSION JOINT - SEAL AND PAINT PER SCHEDULE
4 7/8" REINFORCED CEMENT PLASTER - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
5 METAL CONTROL JOINT / REVEAL - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
6 CEMENT PLASTER CORNICE TRIM - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
7 CEMENT PLASTER ACCENT CAP (BAND) - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
8 CEMENT PLASTER PILASTER CAPITOL TRIM - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
9 CEMENT PLASTER PILASTER SILL TRIM - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
10 G.I. PARAPET CAP / FLASHING - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
11 STANDARD PILASTER BASE = CEMENT PLASTER - PAINT PER SCHEDULE; OPTIONAL
PILASTER BASE = STONE VENEER OVER C.P. BROWN COAT (IF NEEDED FOR
PLANNING APPROVAL AESTHETICS - NOTIFY GOI REP)
12 RAISED CONCRETE PROTECTION CURB
13 CONCRETE FILLED PIPE BOLLARD - PAINT SAFETY YELLOW
14 STRUCTURAL CANOPY WITH STEEL SUSPENSION RODS. PAINT P-5. SEE
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
15 STOREFRONT WINDOWS WITH CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAME AND DUAL PANENON TINTED GLAZING
16 STOREFRONT TRANSOM WINDOWS WITH CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM FRAME ANDDUAL PANE NON-TINTED GLAZING
17 HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
18 ROLL-UP DELIVERY DOOR - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
20 WALL PACK LIGHTING FIXTURE - FINISH PER SCHEDULE
21 ELECTRICAL SERVICE CABINETS - PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE
22 ROOF DRAINAGE LEADER. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION &
DETAILS. PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE.
23 SINGLE-PLY ROOFING OVER RIGID INSULATION (SEE ROOF PLAN)
24 TRUCK DOCK RETAINING WALL - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
25 TRUCK DOCK PIPE GUARD RAILING - PAINT PER SCHEDULE
27 TRUCK DOCK BUMPERS AND EDGE OF DOCK LEVELER - REFER TO LOADING DOCK
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE ON SHEET A6-01
28 BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS - TO BE PLACED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO BEPLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. 12" MIN. HIGH CHARACTERS WITH 3/8"
MIN.
STROKE, ON CONTRASTING BACKGROUND AND ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED BYLOCAL FIRE JURISDICTION
29 DOCK SEAL. REFER TO LOADING DOCK EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE ON SHEET A6-01
30 DASHED LINE INDICATES ROOF LINE
31 SEAMLESS DOWNSPOUT AT FRONT ENTRY CANOPY - PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT
SURFACE.
EXTERIOR PAINT SCHEDULE
MARK PAINT NAME
P-5 MFR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS, COLOR: "GROCERY OUTLET RED"
P-6 MFR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS, COLOR: "GROCERY OUTLET SHORELINE"
P-7 MFR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS, COLOR: "GROCERY OUTLET GRAY"
P-8 MFR: SHERWIN WILLIAMS, COLOR: "GROCERY OUTLET CHARCOAL"
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
No
.
JOB NO.
SHEET
DATE:
DRAWN:
SCALE:AS SHOWN
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
CL
I
E
N
T
:
P.
O
.
B
O
X
2
6
4
6
,
C
O
R
V
A
L
L
I
S
,
O
R
9
7
3
3
9
ST
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
TE
L
.
:
(
5
4
1
)
2
2
3
-
5
3
6
0
F
A
X
:
(
5
4
1
)
2
2
3
-
5
2
7
8
77
7
N
E
2
N
D
S
T
.
S
U
I
T
E
2
8
0
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
IN
C
.
A2.0
PS
24-0510
07/12/2024
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
DI
C
K
E
R
H
O
O
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
GR
O
C
E
R
Y
O
U
T
L
E
T
-
S
H
E
L
L
P
A
C
K
A
G
E
49
5
1
B
I
D
D
L
E
R
O
A
D
CE
N
T
R
A
L
P
O
I
N
T
,
O
R
9
7
5
0
2
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
SOUTH ELEVATION
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
A
B
C
D
A2.0
A2.0
A2.0
A2.0
140'-0"
129'-4"
140'-0"
111'-4"18'-0"
EXACT LOCATION
OF EGRESS DOOR
IS TBD
THE WEST WALL FACES THE
HOTEL. ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURES MAY BE ADDED
IF REQUIRED BY CODE.
Page 57 of 533
SALES FLOOR
STOCK ROOM
RE
S
T
R
O
O
M
#
2
RE
S
T
R
O
O
M
#
1
HALLWAY
FR
O
N
T
O
F
F
I
C
E
BA
C
K
O
F
F
I
C
E
BREAK ROOM
TRASH
ENCLOSURE
VESTIBULE
DAIRY/ PRODUCE
COOLERFREEZER
ME
A
T
C
O
O
L
E
R
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DA
T
E
DE
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
No
.
JOB NO.
SHEET
DATE:
DRAWN:
SCALE:AS SHOWN
SH
E
E
T
T
I
T
L
E
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
:
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
:
CL
I
E
N
T
:
P.
O
.
B
O
X
2
6
4
6
,
C
O
R
V
A
L
L
I
S
,
O
R
9
7
3
3
9
ST
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
TE
L
.
:
(
5
4
1
)
2
2
3
-
5
3
6
0
F
A
X
:
(
5
4
1
)
2
2
3
-
5
2
7
8
77
7
N
E
2
N
D
S
T
.
S
U
I
T
E
2
8
0
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
IN
C
.
A1.0
PS
24-0510
07/12/2024
MA
I
N
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
DI
C
K
E
R
H
O
O
F
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
I
E
S
GR
O
C
E
R
Y
O
U
T
L
E
T
-
S
H
E
L
L
P
A
C
K
A
G
E
49
5
1
B
I
D
D
L
E
R
O
A
D
CE
N
T
R
A
L
P
O
I
N
T
,
O
R
9
7
5
0
2
MAIN FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
A
A1.0
111'-4"
11
4
'
-
8
"
25
'
-
4
"
18'-0"
129'-4"
14
0
'
-
0
"
EXACT LOCATION
OF EGRESS DOOR
IS TBD
N
Page 58 of 533
6)
MAILING LABELS
RF5 PROPERTIES LLC
LOCATION OF SUBJECT SITE
ALONG EAST PINE / BIDDLE ROAD
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97504
37S2W01C 802
Page 59 of 533
USF REDDAWAY INC
10990 ROE AVE
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66211
DATAAR LLC
4999 BIDDLE RD
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
RF5 PROPERTIES LLC
2316 W HILLSIDE DRIVE
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
SFP-E LLC
PO BOX 5350
BEND, OR 97708
TAIL LITE PROPERTIES LLC
123 MONTEREY DR
MEDFORD, OR 97504
HURT PAW PROPERTIES LLC
4901 BIDDLE RD
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
HAMRICK CORNERS LLC
PO BOX 970
MEDFORD, OR 97501
CNK FIDELITY LLC ET AL
1060 CRATER LAKE AVE
MEDFORD, OR 97504
DULANY JACK TRUSTEE
6310 HIGHWAY 140
EAGLE POINT, OR 97524
Page 60 of 533
140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT
August 13, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR-24004) application to construct an approximately
16,000 square foot building on approximately 2.24 acres in the C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district,
for use as a Grocery Store - 37S 2W 01C, Tax Lot 802.
Agent: Rhine-Cross Group, LLC
Traffic:
A Traffic Impact Analysis is not required for the Site Plan review for this combined application. The proposed
development will generate less than 750 average daily trips, the threshold for a Traffic Impact Analysis per
320.10.03 – Traffic Impact Analysis Applicability of the Public Works Standards and Specifications. The City uses
the International Transportation Engineers Manual 10th generation, and based on the studies, this development
will generate 432.8 peak-hour trips that can be distributed to three locations: Hamrick Road, Biddle Road, and
Table Rock Road. An impact analysis would only be required if the total ADT was over 750 trips
Existing Infrastructure:
Water: An 8-inch waterline exists on the private street along the south border of the site and the private
street along the east border.
Streets: Private streets border the site to the south and east. Biddle Road, a major arterial street, borders
the site on the north side.
Stormwater: There is a 36-inch storm drain, owned by Jackson County, draining east to west along the north
border of the property.
Background:
This application is for a new Grocery Store adjacent to existing public infrastructure.
Issues:
The applicant must connect to public infrastructure to service the parcel, including water and stormwater. This
site has an existing, partially improved public access approach on the northeast corner to the north-south
private street. Access directly from Biddle Road will not be allowed. Access must be accomplished via the
existing private streets adjacent to the site.
Conditions of Approval:
Prior to building permit issuance and the start of construction, the following conditions shall be satisfied:
Civil Improvement Plan. The applicant shall submit and receive approval of civil improvement plans
demonstrating compliance with Public Works Department Standard Specifications for public works
construction , including but not limited to landscape row, utilities, sidewalks,, access approach and
protection of public infrastructure.
Public Works Department Greg Graves, Const. Servs. Supervisor
Page 61 of 533
a.Landscape Plan. The applicant shall prepare a landscape and irrigation plan to install ground
cover along the Biddle Road frontage.
b.Sidewalks. A private sidewalk is required along the east and south sides of the private streets.
Sidewalk widths shall match the existing sidewalk on the east side of the existing private street.
ADA-compliant ramps are required at the intersection of the two private streets at the site's
southeast corner. In addition, ADA-compliant ramps will be required at all access entrances.
2.Stormwater Management
a. NPDES Stormwater Management Plan - The applicant shall submit to Public Works for review
and approval a stormwater management plan in accordance with the Rogue Valley Stormwater
Quality Design Manual, which requires stormwater quantity and quality treatment of all
proposed impervious surfaces proposed as part of the partition.
b. Civil Improvement Plan Review – The applicant shall submit civil improvement plans for
stormwater infrastructure construction, including but not limited to storm drain lines, detention
facilities, and the proposed outfall.
c. Erosion and Sediment Control – Construction of required improvements will disturb more than
one acre. The applicant shall obtain an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES 1200-C)
from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and provide a copy to the Public Works
Department.
Prior to Public Works final inspection, the following conditions shall be satisfied:
1.PW Standards and Specifications – Applicant shall demonstrate that all Public Works infrastructure
construction complies with the Standards Specifications and Uniform Details for Construction.
Installation of civil improvement, including but not limited to landscaping, irrigation and sidewalks,
shall be installed per approved plans.
2.Stormwater Quality Operations & Maintenance – The Applicant shall record an Operations and
Maintenance Agreement for all new stormwater quality features and provide a copy of the Public
Works Department's recorded document.
Page 62 of 533
Page 63 of 533
Page 64 of 533
Page 65 of 533
Page 66 of 533
Page 67 of 533
August 8, 2024
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Re: PRE 24005 – Grocery Outlet, Map 37 2w 01C 802
Sewer service to the proposed development can be had by connecting to the existing 8 inch sewer main
which crosses the southerly portion of the subject property. The permit for this connection will be
issued by RVSS upon payment of related development fees.
Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this development be subject to the following
conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a connection permit from RVSS and pay all related fees.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Nicholas R Bakke, PE
District Engineer
Page 68 of 533
Planning Commission Resolution No. 922 (09/03/2024)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 922
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR A SUPERMARKET BUILDING ON LANDS
WITHIN THE THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL (C-5) ZONING DISTRICT.
(File No: SPAR-24004)
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a site plan and architectural review application that
includes constructing site access and circulation, building, parking lot and landscape
improvement consisting of commercial property identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s
Map as 37S 2W 1C, Tax Lots 802, Central Point, Oregon; and
WHEREAS, the project site is 2.24-acres located in the Thoroughfare Commercial (C-5) zoning
district; and
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be consistent with the applicable approval criteria
set forth in Title 17, Zoning as conditioned per the Staff Report dated September 3, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point
Planning Commission considered the Applicant’s request for Site Plan and Architectural Review
approval of a supermarket.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: that
Section 1: The City of Central Point Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan and
Architectural Review application File No. SPAR-24004 subject to the conditions in the Staff
Report dated September 3, 2024 (Exhibit 1).
Section 2: This decision is based upon the Planning Department Staff Report dated September
3, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including all attachments thereto.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
3rd day of September, 2024
__________________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Representative
Page 69 of 533
Staff Report
Sunnybrook Village
Master Plan Application
File No. MP-23002
September 3, 2024
Item Summary
Consideration of a Master Plan application for the development of Sunnybrook Village, a 42-lot
subdivision and development in the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) District,
including residential lots, new public streets, stormwater management and public park and open
space. The 7.57-acre site is located at 4630 Hamrick Road and is identified on the Jackson
County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 01BC, Tax Lot 9800.
Applicant: C.A. Galpin, LLC; Agent: Jack Galpin
Associated Files: SUB-23001
Staff Source
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner III
Background
The proposed Sunnybrook Village Master Plan (“Master Plan”) establishes a framework for
a residential development within the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD)
Overlay. As the first master plan in this area of the ETOD, the land use and circulation
patterns established will influence development on surrounding properties.
It is the applicant’s objective to obtain master plan approval to facilitate development of a
residential subdivision. The Master Plan serves as a blueprint to guide future development
of the site. An application for a 36-lot tentative plat (File No. SUB-23001) is being reviewed
concurrently with and is subject to compliance with the Master Plan. Once final plat is
obtained, development of each lot will be reviewed to assure the site development and
architectural features implement the Master Plan instructions.
Discussion:
The Sunnybrook Village Site Plan (Exhibit 5, Attachment “B”) proposes 42 dwelling units on
36 residential lots that will be developed over three (3) phases. The project site is along
Hamrick Road in the eastern portion of the ETOD. The abutting properties in the ETOD to
the north, south and west are undeveloped. Across Hamrick Road to the east, the properties
are developed with single-family residences in the R-1-8 zoning district.
The proposal is within the minimum/maximum density allowed on the site by proposing 42
units on 5.19 net acres – subtracting proposed right-of-way as per Note ‘f’, Table 2, CPMC
17.65.050. The resulting 8.1 units/acre is consistent with the required 6-12 units/acre
required in the LMR zone.
Page 70 of 533
The Master Plan is consistent with housing mix requirements for developments greater than
40 units in the Low Mix Residential (LMR) zoning district by providing primarily detached
single-family housing but also including attached single-family units and duplexes.
Building Design Plans
The Building Design Plans (Exhibit 8, Attachment “B”) propose a northwest craftsman design
that is architecturally consistent with the building design standards in the TOD. The applicant
describes this design as homes with “…steeply pitched roofs, overhanging eaves, and extensive
use of natural materials like wood and stone. The Craftsman style complements the region's
natural beauty, creating a sense of harmony with the environment.”
Transportation and Circulation Plan
Primary access to the Master Plan area is provided from Hamrick Road to the east via proposed
Hartgrave Way, a public street with 60-foot right-of-way width. Additional circulation includes two
(2) full-width minor local streets, a half-width public street to the north, public alleys, and public
sidewalks.
Infrastructure and Utilities
The Utility Plan (Exhibit 2, Attachment “B”) proposes connections to existing utility services in
the area and provides connection to individual lots throughout the development. Stormwater
management is provided for the development, treated onsite before connecting to existing City
of Central Point facilities.
Issues
There are five (5) issues relative to this project as set forth below:
1.Soil Contamination. The Environmental Plan (Exhibit 11, Attachment “B”) includes an
assessment of soil quality on the project site. The Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
concludes that contamination exists in the upper six (6) inches of soil, consistent with
contamination identified on sites used for agriculture, specifically orchards, in the area.
Due to the levels of contamination associated with historical orchard use exceeding risk-
based concentration levels (RBCs) established by the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), soil remediation is required for the project site. The Master
Plan notes that contaminated soils will be removed and replaced with clean fill.
Comment: The ESA acknowledges the Applicant’s proposal to remove contaminated
soils and provides mitigation options for the site. The Applicant is required to assure
timely completion of soil remediation relative to the implementation of the Master Plan.
This will require coordination with the DEQ to assure the remediation is consistent with
state requirements that are designed to protect the environment and human health.
DEQ offers the Independent Clean-up Process (ICP) that is designed to assist with the
clean-up of contaminated sites, providing DEQ oversight and assurances. Staff
recommends Condition of Approval No. 1 requiring the applicant to provide a DEQ
authorized remediation plan in accordance with the ICP requirements and Condition of
Approval No. 2(b) requiring the applicant to submit final authorization that the soil
remediation plan was completed and no further action on the site is required.
Page 71 of 533
2.Shallow Wells. The ETOD is identified as an area with shallow wells providing water
supply to surrounding properties for domestic and agricultural uses. As noted in previous
applications in the ETOD (see File No. 14004), construction of public utilities as part of
the development process may impact the water table and shallow wells within the vicinity
of the project site.
Comment: The application acknowledges three (3) shallow wells on the project site and
multiple wells in the surrounding area. The applicant has provided a water table analysis,
completed by Apex Engineers, dated July 25, 2024 (Exhibit 10, Attachment “B”), that
examines the potential effects on neighboring wells from the development of
Sunnybrook Village. Based on the conclusions of the analysis and the proposed
development plans for Sunnybrook Village, the development is not anticipated to impact
the water table or surrounding wells unless installation of water and sanitary sewer lines
extend below the water table.
Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1(d)(i) requiring the applicant to implement
mitigation actions identified in the APEX Report as necessary to avoid impacts to
surrounding wells. Mitigation plans will be reviewed by the City Engineer during the Civil
Improvement Plan review process prior to approval by the Public Works Department.
3.Agriculture Mitigation. The ETOD is an area of the City that continues agricultural
production with the presence of active farm uses. New developments in the ETOD must
recognize these uses until the ETOD is completely annexed and developed out to urban
uses.
Comment: All development in the ETOD is required to acknowledge the presence of
active farm uses in the area by recording a right-to-farm disclosure statement as a
condition of final plat. Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 2(c) requiring the
applicant to record a right-to-farm disclosure statement prior to final plat of Sunnybrook
Village.
4.Fire Code. The Oregon Fire Code (OFC) provides requirements to developments to
help protect the public from the hazards of fires. As noted in the Fire District No 3 Staff
Report, dated August 13, 2024, Section D-107 of the OFC requires residential single-
and two-family developments with 30 units or more to either install fire sprinklers in each
unit or provide a secondary egress for emergencies. Sunnybrook Village proposes 42
units on 36 lots and proposes a single access/egress at Hamrick Road.
Comment: Based on Fire District #3 comments, Sunnybrook Village can proceed
following one (1) of three (3) options: 1). Install sprinklers in each residential unit; 2).
provide a recorded easement for secondary emergency egress; or 3) partially construct
Sunnybrook Village up to, and including, 30 units until a future development is proposed
on an adjacent property that provides secondary egress.
In an effort to provide housing options that are more affordable, the Applicant proposes
to forego fire sprinkler installation and has elected to follow option no. 3, above. This
approach limits the number of units constructed until secondary emergency
Page 72 of 533
access/egress is provided via a cross-access easement with an adjoining property or an
approved development plan on an adjacent property connects Sunnybrook Village to the
public right-of-way with connectivity to Beebe, Gebhard, and/or Hamrick Road. If the
above options cannot be achieved, retrofit sprinkler systems could be installed to
eliminate the limit on housing. In order to accommodate the Applicant’s proposal, staff
recommends Condition of Approval No. 2(a) and No. 3.
5.Master Plan Timing. A master plan may remain active for a period of ten (10) years,
unless the applicant applies for an extension request. As noted in the Sunnybrook
Village Master Plan (Attachment “A”), the master plan will expire in five (5) years.
However, the applicant anticipates the build out of the three (3) phases of Sunnybrook
Village to occur over a ten (10) year period.
Comment: The applicant provided staff with clarification that the initial expiration of the
master plan was listed in error and Sunnybrook Village Master Plan will remain active for
the full ten (10) year duration. The ten (10) year timeline is documented here, the
tentative plan application (SUB-23001) being reviewed concurrently with this application,
and in the public record for this file. No further action is required at this time.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
The Sunnybrook Village Master Plan has been evaluated against the applicable criteria set
forth in CPMC 17.66 and found to comply as evidenced in the Sunnybrook Village Master
Plan (Attachment “B”), the Planning Department Findings (Attachment “C”) and the Staff
Report dated September 3, 2024.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
Approval of the Master Plan application shall be subject to the following:
1. Prior to issuance of any permits and the start of construction, including but not limited to
site preparation and infrastructure construction, the applicant shall receive approval of a
soil remediation plan from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and
submit a copy to the City of Central Point Planning Department.
a. If soils are to be removed from the site, the applicant must submit an authorized
Solid Waste Authorization Letter (SWLA) for a DEQ-approved disposal site.
b. If any fill is imported to the site, the Applicant shall provide documentation that
the imported fill is consistent with DEQ clean fill requirements.
2. Prior to final plat approval for any phase of the land division, the applicant shall:
a. Provide a revised Tentative Plan that depicts the Phase II/Phase III boundary
relocated to the common property line between Lot 28 and Lot 29 limiting total
units developed in Phase I and Phase II to 30 units;
b. Provide a copy of a “No Further Action’ letter from DEQ indicating that
remediation of on-site contamination is completed;
Page 73 of 533
c. Provide recorded copies of a right-to-farm disclosure, as required by CPMC
17.65.025(A); and,
d. Demonstrate compliance with the conditions listed in the Public Works
Department Staff Report (Attachment “D”), including but not limited to:
i. Submit Civil Improvement Drawings for infrastructure construction,
including but not limited to, streets, landscape row and street trees,
sidewalk, access approach, street lighting, and utilities with necessary
shallow well mitigation.
ii. Submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed demonstrating
compliance with the MS4 Phase II stormwater quality standards.
iii. Obtain a 1200-C permit from DEQ and provide a copy to the Public
Works Department. The proposed development will disturb more than 5
acres and requires an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES
1200-C) from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
iv. Pay all System Development Charges and permit fees.
e. Coordinate with Fire District #3 to plan the location of and install fire lane signs
and fire hydrants in accordance with Fire District #3 comments, dated August 13,
2024 (Attachment “E”).
f. Comply with conditions of approval listed in the Rogue Valley Sewer Staff
Report, dated August 8, 2024 (Attachment “F”)
3. The number of residential units without fire sprinklers shall be limited to 30 units until
such time a secondary egress route is available for emergency access/evacuations. The
non-sprinklered residential unit cap will be removed when one of the following conditions
is met:
a. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase III of Sunnybrook Village, the
Applicant records a cross-access easement across an adjacent property to a
public right-of-way with connectivity to either Beebe, Gebhard and/or Hamrick
Road for emergency egress purposes. The Appliant shall provide documentation
to the Planning Department from Fire District #3 that any emergency access
improvements, such as a drivable surface and signage, are complete; or,
b. An adjacent property is developed with a secondary egress route that provides
street connectivity between Sunnybrook Village and an existing public right-of-
way that provides connectivity to Beebe, Gebhard and/or Hamrick Road; or,
Page 74 of 533
c. The Applicant shall cause all existing residential units in Sunnybrook Village to
be retrofit with fire sprinklers as necessary to comply with the Fire Code.
4. Any modifications to the site design, including but not limited to building designs, street
layout, and density, shall be subject to review in accordance with CPMC 17.09,
Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments
Attachment “A” – Project Location Map
Attachment “B” – Sunnybrook Village Master Plan, July 2024
Exhibit # 1 – Site Analysis Map
Exhibit # 2 – Master Utility Plan Maps
Exhibit # 3 – Adjacent Land Use Plan Map
Exhibit # 4 – Traffic Impact Analysis
Exhibit # 5 – Site Plan
Exhibit # 6 – Park Plan
Exhibit # 7 – Housing Plan Map
Exhibit # 8 – Building Design Illustrations
Exhibit # 9 – Environmental Plan Map
Exhibit #10 – Shallow Well Report
Exhibit #11 – Soil Quality ESA Report
Attachment “C” – Planning Department Findings of Fact
Attachment “D” – Parks and Public Works Staff Report, dated August 21, 2024
Attachment “E” – Fire District #3 Staff Report, dated August 13, 2024
Attachment “F” – Rogue Valley Sewer Services Staff Report, dated February 20, 2024
Attachment “G” – Resolution No. 920
Action
Conduct the public hearing and consider the Master Plan application. The Planning
Commission may 1) approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application.
Recommendation
Approve the Master Plan application for Sunnybrook Village subject to the recommended
conditions of approval set forth in the Staff Report dated September 3, 2024, and the Planning
Department Findings of Fact.
Recommended Motion
I move to approve Resolution No. 920, a Resolution recommending approval of the Sunnybrook
Village Master Plan application per the Staff Report dated September 3, 2024.
Page 75 of 533
Page 76 of 533
Page 77 of 533
Page 78 of 533
Page 79 of 533
Page 80 of 533
Page 81 of 533
Page 82 of 533
Page 83 of 533
Page 84 of 533
Page 85 of 533
Page 86 of 533
Page 87 of 533
Page 88 of 533
Page 89 of 533
Page 90 of 533
Page 91 of 533
Page 92 of 533
Page 93 of 533
Page 94 of 533
Page 95 of 533
Page 96 of 533
Page 97 of 533
Page 98 of 533
Page 99 of 533
Page 100 of 533
Page 101 of 533
Page 102 of 533
Page 103 of 533
Page 104 of 533
Page 105 of 533
Page 106 of 533
Page 107 of 533
Page 108 of 533
Page 109 of 533
Page 110 of 533
Page 111 of 533
Page 112 of 533
Page 113 of 533
Page 114 of 533
Page 115 of 533
Page 116 of 533
Page 117 of 533
Page 118 of 533
Page 119 of 533
Page 120 of 533
Page 121 of 533
Page 122 of 533
Page 123 of 533
Page 124 of 533
Page 125 of 533
Page 126 of 533
Page 127 of 533
Page 128 of 533
Page 129 of 533
Page 130 of 533
Page 131 of 533
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
July 25, 2024
Jack Galpin 744 Cardley Ave, Medford, Oregon 97504
Re: Assessment of Potential Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells Proposed Sunnybrook Development 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 32-24007645
Dear Mr. Galpin:
This letter provides the results of an assessment of shallow wells in the vicinity of the proposed Sunnybrook Development at 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon for Galpin Homes, LLC (Galpin). Apex Companies, LLC (Apex) understands that the City of Central Point requires an evaluation of the potential for impacts to the water levels in domestic wells near the development due to the installation of utilities within the subdivision. The results of the assessment and an evaluation of potential impacts to groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the proposed development of the Site are provided below.
SHALLOW WELL ASSESSMENT
Apex reviewed Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) online files to identify registered wells within 1,000 feet of the proposed Sunnybrook Development. Additionally, Apex reviewed the White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results letter completed for the White Hawk Transit Oriented Development project (Apex, 2016). Sixteen wells were identified as being potentially located within 1,000 feet of the proposed Sunnybrook Development. Table 1 summarizes the information on the identified wells, and Figure 2 shows approximate well locations by parcel. Exact well locations have not been identified, and it is unknown how many of the wells are still in use. OWRD well logs, where available, are included in Attachment A, and Attachment B includes the 2016 White Hawk Development –Well Survey Results letter (Apex, 2016). Three wells were previously identified as potentially being within theproposed Sunnybrook Development area; however, only one well has been located during pre-development surveys.
The well logs in the OWRD database suggest that, in the vicinity of the development, the soil consists of clay to depths of 6 to 12 feet below ground surface (bgs) underlain by sand and gravel to at least 40 to 50 feet bgs in most locations. The top of claystone, siltstone, or sandstone is present in many of the wells at depths ranging from 4 to 60 feet bgs.
Based on the information obtained from the OWRD well logs and the 2016 well survey for White Hawk development, the completed well depths within the vicinity of the proposed development range from 10 to 50 feet bgs, where known. The static water level at the time of drilling reported on the well logs ranges from 4 feet bgs in well 13 (JACK12241) to 41 feet bgs in well 6 (JACK52926), both located to the southwest of the property. At least three of the well logs are for well deepening (well 6, well 9, and well 13), indicating that there is a long-term lowering in the water table in the area and shallow static water levels reported at the time of drilling may no longer be representative of site conditions. The depth to static water in wells drilled since 1990 ranges from 12 to 41 feet bgs and is likely more representative of current conditions.
Page 132 of 533
Jack Galpin, Galpin Homes, LLC July 25, 2024 Well Survey Results, Sunnybrook Development Page 2
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS DURING EXCAVATION AND UTILITY INSTALLATION
Depth to first encountered water for shallow wells in the area appears to be at least 12 feet bgs as described above. Based on the OWRD well logs, it appears that most (if not all) of the wells are sealed to at least 9 feet bgs and are accessing water below that depth.
During development, imported soil will be used to raise the existing grade by 3 to 4 feet. Based on development plans provided by Galpin, utilities will be installed at a maximum depth of 9 feet below existing grade, and in many cases at shallower depths. It is unlikely that the installation of utilities in the subdivision will intercept the water table. In the unlikely event that groundwater is encountered, local groundwater levels could be impacted by the following:
•Dewatering during construction;
•Infiltration into drain lines; or
•Longitudinal flow in trench backfill.
If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water table could be lowered locally and may impact the static water levels in nearby water wells. This effect would be temporary, and conditions would be expected to return to normal within a short period after completion of the dewatering activities.
Long-term, if the storm or sanitary lines leak, infiltration into the lines could potentially lower the water table in the vicinity of the utilities to the base of the lines; however, this effect would likely extend only a few feet from the utility trenches. This potential impact can be addressed through construction methodologies that meet industry performance standards and city codes.
Given the native soil conditions (clay soils in the upper 6 to 12 feet), the trench backfill could potentially be more permeable than the native soil in the areas where the native clay extends below the bottom depth of the utility bedding. Depending on the depth to which the trench penetrates the water table, longitudinal flow could occur along the trench alignment; however, the influence on the shallow water table would likely be limited to only a few feet laterally from the utility trench.
POTENTIAL MITIGATION
The proposed Sunnybrook Development is not expected to impact groundwater levels in local wells, as excavation and development plans provided by Galpin do not include depths that would likely be below the water table. Additionally, the development will be provided with municipal water supply and sewer services and is not anticipated to impact water availability. If installation does extend below the water table, low-permeability plugs can be used to inhibit flow along the trench line. Assuming crushed rock is used for trench backfill, adding 5 percent (dry weight) bentonite to the backfill would be sufficient to reduce the permeability of the backfill. The bentonite plugs should be placed from the bottom of the trench to 1 foot above the water table in the full width of the trench with a minimum length of 5 feet. A plug should be placed at the low end of each main sewer line.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Tess Chadil Steve Misner, R.G. Project Manager Senior Associate Hydrogeologist
Page 133 of 533
Jack Galpin, Galpin Homes, LLC July 25, 2024 Well Survey Results, Sunnybrook Development Page 3
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
ATTACHMENTS
Table 1 – Galpin Homes Well Log Search Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Location of Wells Near Proposed Sunnybrook Development Attachment A – OWRD Well Logs Attachment B – White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results (Apex 2016)
REFERENCES
Apex Companies, LLC, 2016. White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results, Central Point, Oregon. November 16, 2016. “Oregon Water Resources Department Well Report Query.” Well Report Query, Oregon Water Resources Department, apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/well_log/Default.aspx. Accessed 25 July 2024.
Page 134 of 533
Table 1. Galpin Homes Well Log Search
Proposed Sunnybrook Development
4613 Hamrick Road Central Point, Oregon
Map ID Location Tax Lot Street
Number Street Owner Well Log #Well Depth Date
Installed
Static
Water
Level
W-1 372W01 1100 4475 Hamrick Rd Muse JACK 12222 60 1960 25
W-2 372W01 1100 4475 Hamrick Rd Muse JACK 62111 45 2015 12
W-3 372W01 Unk. Unk. Unk. Gebhard JACK 34914 10 Pre 1948 7
W-4 372W01 2500 507 Beebe Rd Beebe JACK 52862 144 1998 12
W-5 372W02 Unk. Unk. Unk. Childress JACK 34915 14 1938 10
W-6 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus JACK52926 204 feet 1999 41
W-7 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus JACK55868
2003 12
W-8 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus JACK52660 59 feet 1998 41
W-9 372W02 3100 600 Beebe Rd Shep. of Valley JACK 30394 90 1990 17
W-10 372W02 Unk. Unk. Beebe Rd Beebe JACK 12262 12 1966 9
W-11 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard Rd Himmelman JACK 33759 100 1994 22
W-12 372W02 2700 718 Beebe Rd Nixon JACK 12239 100 1989 28
W-13 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo JACK12241 60 feet 1983 4
W-14 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo n/a 12 feet Unk. 12
W-15 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo n/a 34 feet 1940 34
W-16 372W01 Unk. 4713 Hamrick Rd Houser JACK 12201 37 1963 12
Notes:
1. See Figure 1 for approximate well location
2. Static water level as measured at time of drilling
Shallow Wells Within 1,000 feet of Proposed Sunnybrook Development
Assessment of Potential Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
Proposed Sunnybrook Development32-24007645
Page 1 of 1
Page 135 of 533
Scale in Feet
0 2,000 4,000
Sams Valley, Oregon
United States Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map
Contour Interval: 20 feet
Scale: 1 inch = 24,000 feet
Date: 2020
SITE
Central Point
OREGON
I:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
G
a
l
p
i
n
H
o
m
e
s
,
L
L
C
\
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
\
3
2
-
2
4
0
0
7
6
4
5
0
1
(
S
i
t
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
d
w
g
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
7
/
2
5
/
2
0
2
4
b
y
J
P
o
o
r
e
Site Location Map
Assessment of Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon
Approved:Drawn:
TCJPApex Companies, LLC
15618 SW 72nd Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Figure
1
Project Number:
July 2024
32-24007645
Page 136 of 533
Beebe Road
Ge
b
h
a
r
d
R
o
a
d
Ha
m
r
i
c
k
R
o
a
d
W-12
[28']
W-9
[17']
W-13
[4']
W-14
[12']
W-15
[34']
W-3
[7']
W-16
[12']
W-5
[10']
W-6 [41']
W-7 [12']
W-8 [41']
W-10
[9']
W-4
[12']
W-2
[12']
W-1
[25']
W-11
[22']
Legend:
Approximate Water Well Location
[Static Water Level] in Feet Below
Ground Surface
Scale in Feet
0 400 800
Location of Wells Near Proposed
Sunnybrook Development
Assessment of Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon
Approved:Drawn:
TCJPApex Companies, LLC
15618 SW 72nd Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Figure
2
Project Number:
July 2024
32-24007645
I:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
G
a
l
p
i
n
H
o
m
e
s
,
L
L
C
\
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
\
3
2
-
2
4
0
0
7
6
4
5
0
2
(
W
e
l
l
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
.
d
w
g
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
7
/
2
5
/
2
0
2
4
b
y
J
P
o
o
r
e
NOTE: Tax lot information from Jackson County
https://gis.jacksoncountyor.gov (2024).
W-12
[28']
Well Survey Area
Proposed
Sunnybrook
Development
Page 137 of 533
Attachment A
OWRD Well Logs
Page 138 of 533
Page 139 of 533
Page 140 of 533
Page 141 of 533
Page 142 of 533
Page 143 of 533
Page 144 of 533
Page 145 of 533
Page 146 of 533
Page 147 of 533
Page 148 of 533
Page 149 of 533
Page 150 of 533
Page 151 of 533
WELL I.D. LABEL# L
START CARD #
Owner Well I.D.First Name
Address
Zip
(1) LAND OWNER
New Well Deepening
Abandonment(complete 5a)
Conversion
(3) DRILL METHOD
Rotary Air Rotary Mud Cable Auger Cable Mud
OtherReverse Rotary
(4) PROPOSED USE Domestic Community
Industrial/ Commericial
Irrigation
Livestock Dewatering
StateCity
STATE OF OREGON
WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT
(as required by ORS 537.765 & OAR 690-205-0210)
Thermal Injection Other
(5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION
Depth of Completed Well ft.
Explosives used: Yes Type Amount
SEAL
Material From To Amt
Other
Backfill placed from ft. to ft. Material
Filter pack from ft. to ft. Material
BORE HOLE
(Attach copy)
Dia From To
Special Standard
(6) CASING/LINER Dia
Shoe Inside Outside Location of shoe(s)
From To Gauge Stl Plstc Wld ThrdCasing Liner
(7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENSMethod
Type Material
Scrn/slot
widthToFrom
# of
slots
Tele/
pipe size
Casing/
Liner
Dia
(8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour
Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr)
Temperature °F Lab analysis
Water quality concerns?
Yes
From Yes (describe below)To Description
(9) LOCATION OF WELL (legal description)
Tax Lot
Lot
Twp Range E/W WM
Sec 1/4 1/4
Lat °'" or DMS or DD
Long °'" or DMS or DD
County N/S
of the
(10) STATIC WATER LEVEL
WATER BEARING ZONES
From To Est Flow SWL(psi)SWL Date
(11) WELL LOG Ground Elevation
Material To
CompletedDate Started
(unbonded) Water Well Constructor Certification
I certify that the work I performed on the construction, deepening, alteration, orabandonment of this well is in compliance with Oregon water supply well
construction standards. Materials used and information reported above are true tothe best of my knowledge and belief.
License Number Date
Signed
(bonded) Water Well Constructor Certification
ORIGINAL - WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENTTHIS REPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF WORK
Depth water was first found
Temp casing Yes From To
Screen
Dia
Other
Tax Map Number
I accept responsibility for the construction, deepening, alteration, or abandonmentwork performed on this well during the construction dates reported above. All work
performed during this time is in compliance with Oregon water supply wellconstruction standards. This report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
License Number Date
Signed
Existing Well / Pre-Alteration
Completed Well
From
Company
Last Name
E D C B AMethodHow was seal placed:
Perf/
Screen
+
Date SWL(psi)
By
Amount Units
sacks/lbs
Slot
length
Perforations
Screens
SWL(ft)+
SWL(ft)+
Size
Contact Info (optional)
Flowing Artesian?
(2a) PRE-ALTERATION Alteration (complete 2a & 10)
(2) TYPE OF WORK
To sacks/lbsAmtFromMaterial
(5a) ABANDONMENT USING UNHYDRATED BENTONITE
Proposed Amount
From+ Dia
TDS amount
Casing:
Seal:
ORIGINAL LOG #
Actual Amount
Street address of well Nearest address
Pump Bailer Air Flowing Artesian
Dry Hole?
Form Version:
ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeTo
Calculated
Calculated
Page 1 of 2
115720
1026408
GLADYS MUSE
4475 HAMMRICK RDCENTRAL POINT OR 97502
45.00
125/14/2015
5/14/2015 5/14/2015
1798 5/14/2015
62111JACK
5/14/2015
GARY NEWMAN (E-filed)
Southern Oregon Well Drilling 541-772-1177
JACKSON 12222
UNDISTURBED
JACKSON 37.00 S 2.00 W
1 SW NW 1100
4475 HAMMRICK RD CENTRAL POINT OREGON 97502
6 0 60
Page 152 of 533
WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT -
continuation page
(6) CASING/LINER
(7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENS
(8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour
(10) STATIC WATER LEVEL
ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeToFrom+ DiaCasing Liner
Material ToFrom
Comments/Remarks
BORE HOLEDiaFromTo
Water Quality Concerns
Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr)
SEAL
Material From To Amt sacks/
lbs
From To Description Amount Units
FILTER PACKFromToMaterial Size
SWL(ft)+SWL(psi)Est FlowToFromSWL Date
(11) WELL LOG
(5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION
(2a) PRE-ALTERATION
Perf/Screen Casing/Liner ScreenDia From To Scrn/slot
width
Slot
length
# ofslots Tele/pipe size
From+ Dia ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeTo
WELL I.D. LABEL# L
START CARD #
ORIGINAL LOG #
To sacks/lbsAmtFromMaterial
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Extended casing by three feet. Casing is now approx eighteen inches above
ground level. We placed five sacks of Bentonite chips around the extended
casing.
115720
10264085/14/2015
62111JACK
12222JACKSON
Page 2 of 2
Page 153 of 533
Attachment B
White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results (Apex 2016)
Page 154 of 533
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
November 16, 2016 John Boyd People’s Bank of Commerce 1311 East Barnett Rd. Medford, Oregon 97504 Re: White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results 718 Beebe Road Central Point, Oregon 2251-00 Dear Mr. Boyd: This letter provides the results of a well survey conducted in the vicinity of the proposed White Hawk Development and updates the evaluation of the potential for impacts to the water levels in wells near the development due to the installation of a proposed storm drain line along Gebhard Road. A preliminary evaluation was provided in a letter to you dated August 24, 2015. Subsequent to that letter, the City of Central Point requested that a survey be performed to identify domestic well owners in the vicinity of the development and, where possible, the construction of the wells (e.g., depth, use, screened interval if screened, etc.) to further evaluate the potential for negative impacts to water levels in wells located within the White Hawk transit oriented development (TOD) from the proposed construction of the storm drain line. The survey was completed between December 2015 and April 2016. The results of the survey and an updated evaluation on the potential impacts of the storm drain line on wells identified in the White Hawk TOD are provided below.
WELL SURVEY
A well survey form was sent to the residents located within the White Hawk TOD; Attachment A shows the boundaries and tax lots within the White Hawk TOD. Well surveys were sent to owners of the 31 tax lots within the White Hawk TOD. The well survey was sent at least two times to each tax lot owner; 11 completed surveys were returned to Apex. Attachment B includes copies of the completed surveys. Table 1 summarizes the results of the survey; two surveys were for property outside of the TOD and were not included on Table 1. Results of the well survey indicated the presence of six wells on five tax lots within the TOD. The location of these wells and the reported depth of the well is shown on Figure 1. Where information on the exact location of the well is not available, the location is approximated by placing it in the center of the tax lot for which the information was obtained. In addition, Apex reviewed Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) online files to identify registered wells in the TOD. Ten well logs for wells located on 6 parcels within the TOD were identified. Attachment C contains the identified well logs and Table 2 summarizes the information on the identified wells, by parcel. Two of the parcels1 with well logs registered by OWRD sent in completed well surveys; the other well logs provided additional information. Additionally, shown on Figure 1 are the locations of wells identified in a report prepared by Don Haggerty, PhD in February 20002.
1 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
2 Haggerty 2000. Report on Groundwater in the Vicinity of Beebe Rd., Jackson County, Oregon. February 28, 2000.
Page 155 of 533
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016 Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 2
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
It is unknown how many of the wells identified in the OWRD database or in the Haggarty report are still in use as only two property owners3 with wells identified in the OWRD database and/or the Haggerty report sent back completed well surveys (parcel owners were sent water well surveys in December 2015, January 2016, and/or March 2017). Additionally, the Haggerty report indicated 3 wells to be present on parcel number 15, but the completed well survey for this parcel indicated just one 50-foot deepwell. Figure 1 shows the updated information from the well survey. Based on the information obtained from the well searches:
• At least six wells are in use in the White Hawk TOD based on the well survey results; the well depths range from 12 to 50 feet, where known.
• An additional 5 to 8 wells were identified from the OWRD w ell log database. Of these, all but two are sealed from ground surface to 20 feet or more. Additionally, the Himmelman well at parcel 30 appears to be 100 feet deep and sealed to 35 feet.
• It is unclear whether the additional wells identified in the OWRD database are still in use.
• The well logs in the OWRD database suggest that, in the vicinity of the development, the soil consists of clay to depths of 8 to 12 feet below grade, underlain be sand and gravel to at least 40 to 50 feet in most locations. Figure 1 shows that most of the wells are more than 100 feet from the proposed stormdrain line to be installed beneath Gebhard Road. However, wells are reported at parcels 3, 5, and 6 (see Figure 1) and the location of the wells are not known so the wells could be closer to the proposed utility.
EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS DURING STORM AND SANITARY LINE INSTALLATION
Depth to first encountered water for shallow wells in the area appears to be about 9 feet below grade, but was historically reported as shallow as 4 feet below grade in some areas. Based on the OWRD well logs, it appears that most (if not all) of the wells are sealed to at least 9 feet below grade and are accessing water below that depth. The proposed storm and sanitary lines may be installed to depths of up to 10 to 12 feet and therefore, may intercept the water table in some areas. Based on this information, installation of the storm and/or sanitary lines could impact groundwater levels (and thereby impact the nearby water wells) from the following:
• Dewatering during construction;
• Infiltration into sewer lines; or
• Longitudinal flow in trench backfill. If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water table would be lowered and these effects could extend to nearby water wells. This effect would be temporary and conditions would be expected to return to normal within a short period after completion of the work. Long-term, if the storm or sanitary lines leak, infiltration into the lines could permanently lower the water table in the vicinity of the utilities to the base of the lines; however, this effect would likely extend only a few feet from the utility trench. This potential impact is addressed by quality control during construction to assure the utility lines are installed in alignment, seals are in place, intact and tested, proper pipe bedding is used, and trench backfill is properly compacted. These conditions assure the lines have a tight seal and meet the required performance standards prior to acceptance by the City.
3 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
Page 156 of 533
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016 Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 3
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If trench backfill is more permeable than native soil, water could flow longitudinally along the trench and discharge to surface water, permanently lowering the water table in the vicinity of the trench. Given the native soil conditions (clay soils in the upper 8 to 12 feet), it is possible that the trench backfill could be more permeable than the native soil in the areas where the native clay extends below the bottom depth of the utility bedding. Depending on the depth to which the trench penetrates the water table, longitudinal flow could occur; however, the influence on the shallow water table would likely extend only a few feet laterally from the utility trench. This localized depression in the water table caused by the trench could be addressed by installing low-permeability plugs at intervals in the trench backfill. Given that dewatering of local wells was reported after a drain trench was installed in Beebe Road in 1998, it is recommended that low permeability trench plugs be installed in future utility trenches dug for the project.
MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION AND MITIGATION OPTIONS
The potential impact of the installation and presence of the proposed storm and sanitary lines was performed in 2015 and is updated herein based on the updated well information obtained from the wells survey:
• Up to 21 wells may be located in the vicinity of the proposed project; it is unclear how many of these wells are still in use, however, at least three wells that are likely in use appear to be located within 100 feet of the proposed installation along Gebhard Road. The proposed utility installation is not expected to impact two of these wells because the wells are 35 and 140 feet deep and access water well below the depth of utility installation. The third well, located on parcel 3 (Figure 1) is of unknown depth. It is also unlikely that the utility installation will impact this well because the utility installations will penetrate only a few feet into the water table, if at all, at this location.
• A 12-foot depth well is reportedly located on parcel 28 that may be within 100 feet of proposed storm and sewer lines to be installed along the eastern development boundary (Figure 1). There is the potential that this well could be impacted by the utility installation, if the line extends into the water table at this location.
• Wells located further than 100 feet from the installation would not be anticipated to be impacted by the utility installation.
• It is also noted that three wells have been deepened over a period of 16 years, indicating that there is a long-term reduction in water level in the area. The following presents mitigation options to address potential concerns:
• Prior to construction of the storm drain line proposed to be placed along Gebhard Road, verify the depth of the well located on parcel 3 and, if the well is less than a total depth of 15 feet, monitor water levels in that well during construction.
• Prior to construction of storm or sewer lines tie-ins to the existing storm or sewer lines beneath Beebe Road, verify the presence of wells located on parcel 10 identified in the Haggerty report that may be located within 100 feet of the tie-ins and are reported to be shallower than 15 feet in depth. If these wells are still present and in use, monitor the water levels during the construction.
• If installation does penetrate the water table, low-permeability plugs can be used to inhibit flow along the trench line. Assuming crushed rock is used for trench backfill, adding 5 percent (dry weight) bentonite to the backfill is sufficient to reduce the permeability of the backfill. The plugs should be placed from the bottom of the trench to 1 foot above the water table the full width of the trench and have a minimum length of 5 feet. A plug should be placed at the low end of each main sewer line.
• In areas where the lines are installed below the water table, particular care needs to be taken to ensure that the lines have a tight seal.
Page 157 of 533
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016 Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 4
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Amanda Spencer, R.G. Principal Hydrogeologist
ATTACHMENTS
Table 1 – Summary of Well Survey Results Table 2 – OWRD Well Survey Results Figure 1 – Location of Wells in the White Hawk TOD Attachment A – White Hawk TOD Attachment B – Completed Surveys Attachment C – OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
cc: Matt Samitore, City of Central Point
Page 158 of 533
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner
Owner Address
(if different from Site
Address)
Date Survey sent Survey
Returned?
Well?Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400
6026 Palmero Cir
Cameron Park, CA 95682 Survey sent 12/15
12/22/2015
1/25/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
2 372W02 500
10 S Oakdale Ave
Medford, OR 97501 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard Karen and Randall Wales Survey sent 12/15 12/28/2015 Y unknown unknown domestic use and yard/gardening
4 372W02 600
1355 Cora Ln
Auburn, CA 95603 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard David & Julie Webb Survey sent 12/15 12/30/2015 Y 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and
yard/gardening/orchard
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Survey not completed but OWRD well
log found dated 5/4/2012 for a 140 foot
well
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
8 372W02D 501
PO Box 996
Medford, OR 97501
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N Undeveloped land
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe James and Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 1/11/2016 Y 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire
abatement
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF WELL SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 159 of 533
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but
OWRD well log identified - See Table 2
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo Survey sent 12/15 12/23/2015 2 wells
1 - 12 feet
2 - 34 feet
1 - Unknown
2 - 1940ish
one well at back of lot used for
irrigation;
second well shared with 523 Beebe for
domestic and irrigation
OWRD well log from 2/17/1983 for a 60
foot well - see Table 2
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard
Steve & Carolyn
Himmelman Survey sent 12/15 1/5/2016 Y 15 feet unknown
hand dug well
domestic use/irrigation/stock watering
OWRD well log found from 10/11/1994
for a 100 foot well
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Note: yellow highlighted: surveys were returned because the post office could not deliver
Page 160 of 533
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner Well Log #Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400 None NA NA
2 372W02 500 None NA NA
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard None unknown unknown
domestic use and yard/gardening well onsite
based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
4 372W02 600 None NA NA
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard None 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and yard/gardening/orchard well
onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia JACK61181 140 feet 5/4/2012
sealed from 0 to 50 feet below grade; screened
from 50 to 140 feet below grade
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke None
8 372W02D 501 None
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
JACK12262
JACK12264
JACK12261
12 feet
66.5 feet
13 feet
1965 and 1966
sealed 0 to 9 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
sealed 0 to 9 feet
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus
JACK52926
JACK55868
JACK52660
204 feet
56 feet
59 feet
1999
2003
1998
sealed 0 to 59?
Sealed 0 to 27 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan None
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe James and Michelle Nistler None
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler None
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder None 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire abatement
well onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner None
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton None
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee None
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse None
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith None
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC None
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe None
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe None
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva None
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin None
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC None
TABLE 2: OWRD SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 161 of 533
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church JACK30394 90 feet 1990 Deepening of an existing well from 68 to 90 feet
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo JACK12241 60 feet 1983
Deepening of an existing well from 35 feet to 60
feet. Sealed from 0 to 35 feet.
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard Steve Himmelman JACK33759 100 feet 1994 sealed 0 to 35 feet
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard None
Page 162 of 533
[15']
[UNK]
[14'][13']
[66.5']
[56']
[59']
[50'][12']
[35']
[140']
[12']
[34']
[90']
[45']
[13']
[11.5']
[UNK]
[97']
[UNK][23'][15']
[204']
[97']
B1 B2
M1 R1
S1
G1
T1G3
F1
C1
F2
F3
R2
M2
Legend:
Base map prepared from a Well Notiofication Area figure by CES NW (12/01/2105).I
Water Well (Based on Returned Survey; Location Approximate)
Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Database Well Location
Water Well (Based on February 2000 Haggerty Report and/or OWRD Database; Existence Not Confirmed)
Depth of Well (UNK = Unknown Depth)Project Number
Location of Wells within White Hawk TOD
2251-00
1
Figure
November 2016
0 500
Approximate Scale in Feet
1,000
Well Survey and Evaluation Letter
White Hawk Development
Central Point, Oregon
Apex Companies, LLC
3015 SW First AvenuePortland, Oregon 97201
[35']
B1
Page 163 of 533
Well Survey Results Letter
Attachment A
White Hawk TOD
Page 164 of 533
OF
SHEET
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
DA
T
E
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
1/
1
2
/
2
0
1
6
1
1
:
4
4
A
M
WH
I
T
E
H
A
W
K
T
O
D
CA
S
E
F
I
L
E
N
O
.
1
4
0
0
4
PE
O
P
L
E
'
S
B
A
N
K
O
F
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
E
13
1
1
B
A
R
N
E
T
T
R
O
A
D
ME
D
F
O
R
D
,
O
R
9
7
0
5
4
(5
4
1
)
7
7
4
-
7
6
5
6
19
1
0
1
19
1
0
-
W
E
L
L
_
N
O
T
I
C
E
_
A
R
E
A
.
D
W
G
WE
L
L
N
O
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
R
E
A
1
12
/
0
1
/
1
5
AR
W
AR
W
BEEBE ROAD
GE
B
H
A
R
D
R
O
A
D
HA
M
R
I
C
K
R
O
A
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
24
25
2627
28
29
30
31
32
Page 165 of 533
Well Survey Results Letter
Attachment B
Completed Surveys
Page 166 of 533
Page 167 of 533
Page 168 of 533
Page 169 of 533
Page 170 of 533
Page 171 of 533
Page 172 of 533
Page 173 of 533
Page 174 of 533
Page 175 of 533
Page 176 of 533
Page 177 of 533
Well Survey Results Letter
Attachment C
OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
Page 178 of 533
Page 179 of 533
Page 180 of 533
Page 181 of 533
Page 182 of 533
Page 183 of 533
Page 184 of 533
Page 185 of 533
Page 186 of 533
Page 187 of 533
Page 188 of 533
JACK 61181
Page 189 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report
4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Prepared by:
Alpine Environmental Consultants, LLC
Mr. Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
White City, Oregon 97503
541.944.4685
jwilliams@alpine-env-llc.com
Prepared for:
CA Galpin
Mr. Jack Galpin
744 Cardley Avenue
Medford, Oregon 97504
April 19, 2024
Page 190 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS III
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Site Description and Background 1
1.2 Focused Phase II ESA Objectives 1
2 FOCUSED PHASE II ESA INVESTIGATION 2
2.1 Pre-Excavation 2
2.2 Shallow Soil Sampling 2
2.3 Soil Laboratory Analyses 3
3 DATA EVALUATION 4
3.1 Total Metals 4
3.2 Organochlorine Pesticides 6
3.3 Organophosphorus Pesticides 6
3.4 Chlorinated Herbicides 7
3.5 Clean Fill Determination 7
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8
5 REFERENCES 11
6 LIMITATIONS 12
7 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS 14
Page 191 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg ii
ATTACHMENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – General Location Map
Figure 2 – Soil Sample Location Map
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Soil Samples Analytical Results - Total Metals
Table 2 - Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides
Table 3 - Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organophosphorus Pesticides
Table 4 - Soil Samples Analytical Results - Chlorinated Herbicides
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 – Historical Aerial Photographs
APPENDIX 2 – Photographic Documentation
APPENDIX 3 - Complete Laboratory Analytical Results
Page 192 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEC Alpine Environmental Consultants, LLC
bgs below ground surface
CMMP Contaminated Media Management Plan
4,4'-DDD 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
4,4'-DDE 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
4,4'-DDT 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
HASP Health and Safety Plan
ICPMS Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
MCPA 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid
NFA No Further Action
PPE personal protective equipment
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
MRL method reporting limit
PPE personal protective equipment
RBCs risk-based concentrations
RBDM Risk-Based Decision Making
REC recognized environmental condition
RSLs regional screening levels
SWLA Solid Waste Letter of Authorization
TL tax lot
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Page 193 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Alpine Environmental Consultants, LLC (AEC) has prepared this report to present the findings of
the Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted at the property identified
as the Map 372W01BC and Taxlot (TL) 9800 and addressed as 4630 Hamrick Road in Central
Point, Oregon (hereinafter referred to as the Site). The Focused Phase II ESA was conducted to
determine if historical agricultural use of the Site, specifically as orchards, has adversely
impacted shallow soil at the Site. The Focused Phase II ESA was conducted for CA Galpin, the
current owner of the Site.
1.1 Site Description and Background
The Site occupies approximately 7.57 acres of undeveloped land. The general location of the
Site is illustrated on Figure 1 and additional details are illustrated on Figure 2. AEC understands
the Site is zone for residential development. The topography at the Site slopes gently to the
west towards Bear Creek, which is located approximately 0.4 miles to the west of the Site.
Based on professional judgment, the groundwater flow direction at the Site is assumed to be to
the west towards Bear Creek.
Personnel from CA Galpin do not have any records indicating the Site was historically used as an
orchard. AEC obtained historical aerial photographs of the Site from the University of Oregon
Map Library and Google Earth to evaluate historical uses of the Site. These aerial photographs
from 1952, 1960, 1967, 1976, 1979, 1994, 20023, 2014, and 2023 are presented in Appendix 1.
These aerial photographs suggest the Site was not historically used as an orchard after 1952,
though it is possible the Site could have been used as an orchard prior to 1952. It should be
noted orchards were historically present to the east and west of the Site. The aerial
photographs show numerous structures present on the Site from 1952 to some date after 2014
and prior to 2023. The structures are suggestive of rural residential development.
1.2 Focused Phase II ESA Objectives
The primary objective of the Focused Phase II ESA was to collect Site-specific shallow soil
quality data to determine if historical agricultural use of the Site as an orchard has adversely
impacted the upper 6 inches of soil at the Site. A secondary objective was to determine if
residual pesticides contamination associated with historical orchard use might be present in
shallow soil at concentrations exceeding generic risk-based concentrations (RBCs) developed by
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation exposure pathway for residential receptors, construction workers, and excavation
workers on the Site.
The Focused Phase II ESA process is presented in Section 2, data evaluation is presented in
Section 3, and conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section 4.
Page 194 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 2
2 FOCUSED PHASE II ESA INVESTIGATION
The Focused Phase II ESA investigation included soil sampling. The Focused Phase II ESA
investigation field work was conducted on April 1, 2024, and a summary of the field methods
and observations is presented in Section 2.1. The analytical results of the soil samples and their
interpretation are included in Section 3. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in
Section 4. The photographic documentation is included in Appendix 2. The complete laboratory
results are included in Appendix 3. The general location of the Site is shown on Figure 1 and
additional Site details, including sample locations, are illustrated on Figure 2. The analytical
results of the discrete and composite soil samples are summarized in Table 1 through Table 4.
2.1 Pre-Excavation
Because only shallow excavation in the upper 6 inches of soil occurred using only hand tool,
AEC did not contact the Utility Notification Center to locate and trace any potential public
underground utilities.
2.2 Shallow Soil Sampling
On April 1, 2024, soil samples were collected by Mr. Toby Shallcross (Project Geologist) of AEC.
Based on the Site’s approximately 7.57-acre layout, AEC divided the Site into eight equal areas
covering approximately 1 acre each and collected a single discrete soil sample from each of
these eight approximately 1-acre areas. The soil sample locations were identified as SS1
through SS8 and these locations are shown on Figure 4. It should be noted that SS3 was located
within 10 feet of the western property line to document potential overspray and/or wind drift
of pesticides from historical orchard use of the adjacent property to the west.
Discrete soil samples representative of the upper 6 inches of soil were collected at each
location using a steel shovel and placed into clean plastic Ziploc bags. The steel shovel was
cleansed prior to each use by scrubbing with a brush and an Alconox solution and rinsed with
de-ionized water. The soil in the ziploc bags was then thoroughly homogenized using gloved
hands. Larger sized material (i.e., gravel greater than approximately ¼ to ½ inch in diameter)
was removed by hand. A total of eight discrete soil samples were collected.
Soil from the eight Ziploc bats was then placed into eight laboratory-provided glass sample jars
and these jars were labeled as SS1 through SS8. An equal volume of soil from the eight plastic
bags was then placed into a decontaminated stainless steel bowl and thoroughly homogenized
to develop a composite soil sample identified as COMP-0.0-0.5. The concept of discrete soil
samples and composite soil samples is documented in DEQ’s Evaluating Residual Pesticides on
Lands Formerly Used for Agricultural Production Guidance of 2006 that was updated in June
2019 (DEQ, June 2019).
Page 195 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 3
After soil sample collection was completed, the holes excavated with a shovel were backfilled
and compacted using the shovel.
2.3 Soil Laboratory Analyses
The eight discrete soil samples and the single composite soil sample were placed in an iced
cooler and submitted to Apex Laboratories, LLC (Apex) of Tigard, Oregon, under standard chain-
of-custody protocol.
The eight discrete soil samples were submitted for analysis of arsenic and lead by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 6020B by inductively coupled plasma and a
mass spectrometer (ICPMS). The rationale for analyzing all eight of the discrete soil samples for
arsenic and lead is that these two metals are most frequently associated with historical orchard
use from application of pesticides formulations containing lead-arsenate. In addition, the cost
of laboratory analyses for arsenic and lead is relatively low (i.e. approximately $50 per sample).
The single composite soil sample was submitted for a much more extensive analytical suite as
follows:
• 17 metals (i.e. antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, nickel, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and
zinc) by USEPA Methods 6020B by ICPMS;
• Organochlorine pesticides by USEPA Method 8081B;
• Organophosphorus pesticides by USEPA Method 8270E; and
• Chlorinated herbicides by USEPA Method 8151A (note that APEX subcontracted the
chlorinated herbicides analysis to Eurofins Environmental Testing of Tustin, California).
The rationale for analyzing the composite soil sample for this extensive suite of constituents is
because these constituents are identified in DEQ’s Evaluating Residual Pesticides on Lands
Formerly Used for Agricultural Production Guidance of 2006 that was updated in June 2019
(DEQ, June 2019) and because the cost of analyzing a single sample for this extensive suite of
constituents in relatively high (i.e. approximately $800 per sample).
Copies of the final analytical laboratory reports are included in Appendix 3. The analytical
results for soil samples are summarized in Table 1 through Table 4. The metals results are
presented in Table 1, the organochlorine pesticides in Table 2, the organophosphorus
pesticides in Table 3, and the chlorinated herbicides in Table 4. In addition to presenting the
analytical results, Table 1 through Table 4 also identify relevant DEQ generic RBCs and Clean Fill
Values for soil. The generic RBCs identified in these tables are consistent with the anticipated
future land use and assume residential receptors, construction workers, and excavation
workers will be present on the Site.
Page 196 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 4
3 DATA EVALUATION
The soil samples analytical results are included in Appendix 3 and summarized in Table 1
through Table 4. The analytical results reported several constituents at concentrations that
exceed the laboratory method reporting limits (MRLs) in several soil samples. These
constituents were further compared to the following screening levels:
• DEQ's relevant generic RBCs, including the following receptors and exposure pathways:
the residential receptors, construction workers, and excavation workers ingestion,
dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathway; the residential receptors
volatilization to outdoor air exposure pathway; and the residential receptors leaching to
groundwater exposure pathway. Risk-based concentrations are referenced from the
June 2023 updated generic tables of the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making (RBDM) for
the Remediation of Contaminated Sites guidance document (DEQ, 2017).
• USEPA's regional screening levels (RSLs) for industrial and worker receptors presented
with target cancer risk of 1E-6 and non-cancer hazard index of 1. The RSLs are
referenced from the May 2022 update to the USEPA Generic Tables.
• Clean Fill Values listed in the DEQ’s Clean Fill Determinations Internal Management
Directive dated February 21, 2019 (DEQ, February 2019). Note that the Clean Fill Values
for metals equal the naturally occurring background concentrations.
• The naturally occurring background concentrations of metals in soil developed for the
Klamath Mountains province, which includes much of Central Point and the Site. The
background concentrations are derived from DEQ’s Technical Report entitled
Development of Oregon Background Metals Concentrations in Soil (DEQ, 2013). The
background concentrations are a type of average defined as the 95 percent upper
predictive limits.
The reported data are summarized in the following paragraphs.
3.1 Total Metals
Based on AEC’s experience working on properties in the Rogue Valley used as orchards, arsenic
and lead associated with the historical application of pesticide formulations containing lead
arsenate is prevalent in shallow soils. The eight discrete soil samples were analyzed for arsenic
and lead and the composite soil sample was analyzed for 17 metals, including arsenic and lead.
Arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, vanadium, and zinc were
reported at concentrations that exceeded the laboratory MRLs in all composite soil samples.
Arsenic and lead were the only metals reported at concentrations above the generic applicable
RBCs.
Page 197 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 5
Arsenic
Arsenic was reported in all eight of the discrete samples and in the composite soil sample at
concentrations ranging from 6.89 to 35.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The reported
concentrations of arsenic exceeded several cleanup levels, as follows:
• All reported concentrations exceeded the generic RBC for the ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation exposure pathway for residential receptors of 0.43 mg/kg.
• With the exception of soil sample SS5, all reported concentrations exceeded the generic
RBC for the ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathway for construction
worker receptors of 15 mg/kg.
• With the exception of soil sample SS5, all reported concentrations of arsenic were above
the naturally occurring background concentration and Clean Fill Value of 12 mg/kg.
While arsenic concentrations exceed the abovementioned RBCs, potential risks to human
health associated with this constituent and exposure pathways can be managed, mitigated,
and/or eliminated from further concern, as follows:
• The generic residential RBC for total arsenic under the soil ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation exposure pathway assumes residential receptors are likely to come into
contact with contaminated soils found in the upper 3 feet of soil. However, AEC
understands CA Galpin’s redevelopment plans will include the scalping of the upper 6
inches of soil at the Site and this soil will either be disposed of off-Site at a quarry under
a DEQ-approved Solid Waste Letter of Authorization (SWLA) and/or the soil be placed
on-Site at a depth greater than 3 feet the future grade. Furthermore, AEC understands
CA Galpin’s redevelopment plans will include the import of 3.5 to 4.5 feet of clean fill.
Placement of this much clean fill constitutes an engineering control that will minimize or
eliminate the exposure of residential receptors to soil containing elevated arsenic
concentrations.
• The generic construction workers RBC for total arsenic under the soil ingestion, dermal
contact, and inhalation exposure pathway assumes construction workers could be
exposed over 1 year to arsenic during construction activities involving the disturbance of
impacted-soils. However, it is unlikely construction workers would be working at the
Site continuously for 1 year. Furthermore, this risk could be easily mitigated with proper
communication to future construction workers requiring dust suppression and/or that
they wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and follow proper
decontamination procedures after working to avoid exposure and health risks. The
procedures documenting proper communication, appropriate PPE, and proper
decontamination could be documented in a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and/or
Contaminated Media Management Plan (CMMP).
• The arsenic concentrations in the upper 6 inches of soil that were tested exceeded the
Clean Fill Value throughout the Site. See Section 3.5 for Clean Fill data evaluation.
Page 198 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 6
Lead
Lead was reported in the eight discrete samples and the single composite soil sample at
concentrations above the laboratory MRL, specifically ranging from 47.4 to 185 mg/kg. All of
the reported concentrations of lead exceeded the generic RBC for the leaching to groundwater
exposure pathway for residential receptors of 30 mg/kg. All of the reported lead concentrations
also exceeded the naturally occurring background concentration and Clean Fill Value of 36
mg/kg (see Section 3.5 for Clean Fill data evaluation).
While the concentrations of lead exceeded the generic RBCs for residential receptors, potential
risks to human health can be managed, mitigated, and/or eliminated from further concern. The
generic residential RBC for total lead under the leaching to groundwater exposure pathway
conservatively assumes that a water supply well is being used or will be used in the future and
that lead could be leached from the shallow soil, impact groundwater, and that future
residential receptors could subsequently be exposed to lead in drinking water. However, the
Site will be serviced with municipal water by the Medford Water Commission. To completely
eliminate the potential risk that leaching lead to groundwater might pose to residential
receptors at the Site, a deed notice could be developed and applied that prohibits the
installation of water supply wells at the Site.
Total metals results are summarized in Table 1.
3.2 Organochlorine Pesticides
Two organochlorine pesticides were reported at concentrations above the laboratory MRLs in
the analyzed composite soil sample. The organochlorine pesticides MRLs were below the
generic applicable RBCs. The organochlorine pesticides results are summarized in Table 2. The
two organochlorine pesticides with reported concentrations include the following:
• 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (4,4'-DDE); and
• 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4'-DDT).
The reported concentration of 4,4’-DDE exceeded DEQ’s Clean Fill Value (see Section 3.5 for
Clean Fill data evaluation).
3.3 Organophosphorus Pesticides
The analytical results reported no organophosphorus pesticides at concentrations above the
laboratory MRLs in the analyzed composite soil samples. There are no established RBCs for
organophosphorus pesticides. The organophosphorus pesticides MRLs were below their
respective Clean Fill Values with the exception of the MRL for dichlorvos. The
organophosphorus pesticides results are summarized in Table 3.
Page 199 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 7
3.4 Chlorinated Herbicides
The analytical results reported no chlorinated herbicides at concentrations above the
laboratory MRLs in the analyzed composite soil sample. The chlorinated herbicides MRLs were
below the generic applicable RBCs with the exception of the MRL for 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic (MCPA), which exceeded the RBC for the leaching to groundwater
exposure pathway for residential receptors. The chlorinated herbicides results are summarized
in Table 4.
3.5 Clean Fill Determination
Based on the analytical results of the eight discrete soil samples and the single composite soil
sample collected at the Site, which are presented in Table 1 through Table 4, the upper 6 inches
of soil at the Site does not qualify as Clean Fill. The constituents reported at concentrations
above the Clean Fill Values (which for metals are equivalent with the naturally occurring
background concentrations of metals) within the upper 6 inches of soil include arsenic, lead,
and 4,4'-DDE.
Should the upper 6 inches of soil at the Site be excavated, handling options include but are not
limited to off-Site disposal at a quarry under a DEQ-approved SWLA or reuse on-Site so long as
the soil is covered with at least 3 feet of clean fill to be protective of future residential
receptors. If soil at depths greater than 6 inches is excavated and is exported off-Site, additional
analytical testing should be completed or the soil should be assumed to be impacted and
handled appropriately.
Page 200 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 8
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Focused Phase II ESA Investigation conducted at the Site included the following the
following:
• The collection of eight discrete soil samples from the upper 6 inches of soil. These
samples were collected from spatially representative locations across the Site.
• The preparation of a single composite soil sample from the eight discrete soil samples.
• The laboratory analyses of all eight discrete soil samples for arsenic and lead by USEPA
Method 8260B and the analysis of the single composite soil sample for 17 metals by
USEPA Method 6020B; organochlorine pesticides by USEPA Method 8081B;
organophosphorus pesticides by USEPA Method 8270E; and chlorinated herbicides by
USEPA Method 8151A.
Based on an evaluation of the analytical results for the eight discrete soil samples and the single
composite soil sample collected from the upper 6 inches at the Site, several exceedances of
screening levels were reported. These included the following:
• Arsenic was reported at concentrations above its respective generic RBC for the
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathway for residential receptors.
• Arsenic was reported at concentration above its respective generic RBC for the
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathway for construction workers.
• Lead was reported at concentrations above the generic RBC for the leaching to
groundwater exposure pathway for residential receptors.
• Arsenic, lead, and 4,4’-DDE were reported at concentrations above the Clean Fill Values
at the Site.
While generic RBCs for residential receptors and construction workers were exceeded for the
aforementioned constituents and exposure pathways, potential risks to human health
associated with these constituents and exposure pathways can be managed, mitigated, and/or
eliminated from further concern, as follows:
• The generic residential RBC for total arsenic under the soil ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation exposure pathway assumes residential receptors are likely to come into
contact with contaminated soils found in the upper 3 feet of soil. However, AEC
understands CA Galpin’s redevelopment plans will include the scalping of the upper 6
inches of soil at the Site and this soil will either be disposed of off-Site at a quarry under
a DEQ-approved Solid Waste Letter of Authorization (SWLA) and/or the soil be placed
on-Site at a depth greater than 3 feet the future grade. Furthermore, AEC understands
CA Galpin’s redevelopment plans will include the import of 3.5 to 4.5 feet of clean fill.
Placement of this much clean fill constitutes an engineering control that will minimize or
eliminate the exposure of residential receptors to soil containing elevated arsenic
concentrations and this thickness of clean fill exceeds DEQ’s requirements of 3 feet of
clean fill.
Page 201 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 9
• The generic construction workers RBC for total arsenic under the soil ingestion, dermal
contact, and inhalation exposure pathway assumes construction workers could be
exposed over 1 year to arsenic during construction activities involving the disturbance of
impacted-soils. However, it is unlikely construction workers would be working at the
Site continuously for 1 year. Furthermore, this risk could be easily mitigated with proper
communication to future construction workers requiring dust suppression and/or that
they wear appropriate PPE and follow proper decontamination procedures after
working to avoid exposure and health risks. The procedures documenting proper
communication, appropriate PPE, and proper decontamination could be documented in
a HASP and/or CMMP.
• The generic residential RBC for total lead under the leaching to groundwater exposure
pathway conservatively assumes that a water supply well is being used or will be used in
the future and that lead could be leached from the shallow soil, impact groundwater,
and that future residential receptors could subsequently be exposed to lead in drinking
water. However, the Site will be serviced with municipal water by the Medford Water
Commission. To completely eliminate the potential risk that leaching lead to
groundwater might pose to residential receptors at the Site, a deed notice could be
developed and applied that prohibits the installation of water supply wells at the Site.
• The upper 6 inches of soil at the Site does not qualify as Clean Fill. Should the upper 6
inches of soil at the Site be excavated, handling options include but are not limited to
off-Site disposal at a quarry under a DEQ-approved SWLA or reuse on-Site so long as the
soil is covered with at least 3 feet of clean fill to be protective of future residential
receptors. If soil at depths greater than 6 inches is excavated and is exported off-Site,
additional analytical testing should be completed or the soil should be assumed to be
impacted and handled appropriately.
While the historical aerial photographs for the Site do not indicate the Site was used as an
orchard after 1952, the available arsenic and lead results suggest the Site was historically used
as an orchard prior to 1952. Based on the exceedances of arsenic, lead, and 4,4’-DDE for various
screening levels described above and accounting for the inherent uncertainties associated with
any subsurface investigation, AEC recommends the following:
• Develop a HASP to inform future construction workers of the contaminants present in
shallow soil at the Site. The HASP should require construction workers to wear
appropriate PPE and to follow proper decontamination procedures subsequent to
working in order to avoid unsafe exposure and health risks. The procedures
documenting proper communication, appropriate PPE, and proper decontamination
could be also documented in a CMMP.
• Consider developing and applying a deed notice that prohibits the installation of wells to
supply water to future residents unless groundwater investigations are conducted prior
to well installation.
• Place 3 or more feet of Clean Fill over the existing grade during redevelopment.
Placement of this much clean fill constitutes an engineering control that will minimize or
eliminate the exposure of residential receptors to soil containing elevated arsenic
concentrations. AEC understands at least 3.5 feet of clean fill will be placed across the
Page 202 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 10
Site during redevelopment, and this thickness will exceed the minimum of 3 feet of
clean fill that DEQ usually requires.
• Consider characterizing soil quality at depths greater than 6 inches to better understand
the vertical extent of contamination. Based on AEC’s extensive experience with
characterizing orchard properties in the Rogue Valley, pesticides concentrations
typically attenuate very rapidly with depth, usually to concentrations below RBCs at
depths of 12 to 18 inches below ground surface. The concentrations of pesticides in the
upper 6 inches of soil at the Site are relatively low compared the concentrations of
pesticides in the upper 6 inches of soil at most other properties in the Rogue Valley
historically used as orchards and it is possible the soil remaining after scalping of the
upper 6 inches of soil will have pesticides concentrations below relevant generic RBCs.
• Should the upper 6 inches of soil at the Site be excavated, handling options include but
are not limited to off-Site disposal at a quarry under a DEQ-approved SWLA or reuse on-
Site so long as the soil is covered with at least 3 feet of clean fill to be protective of
future residential receptors. If soil at depths greater than 6 inches is excavated and is
exported off-Site, additional analytical testing should be completed or the soil should be
assumed to be impacted and handled appropriately.
• It should be noted that per the Clean Fill Determinations Internal Management Directive
(DEQ, 2019), any soil with petroleum-like staining or a petroleum-like odor does not
qualify as Clean Fill and should not be exported from the Site unless it is properly
managed.
Please feel free to contact Jonathan Williams at 541-944-4685 or jwilliams@alpine-env-llc.com
if you have any questions about this Supplemental Investigation report.
Sincerely,
Alpine Environmental Consultants, LLC
Jonathan D. Williams, R.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
Page 203 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 11
5 REFERENCES
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). March 2013. Development of Oregon
Background Metals Concentrations in Soil, Technical report. Land Quality Division, Cleanup
Program. (DEQ, 2013).
Oregon DEQ. October 2017. Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Contaminated
Sites. Updated on October 2, 2017 (DEQ, 2017).
Oregon DEQ. February 21, 2019. Clean Fill Determinations. Internal Management Directive,
Materials Management Division. (DEQ, February 2019).
Oregon DEQ. June 2019. Guidance for Evaluating Residual Pesticides on Lands Formerly Used for
Agricultural Production. Land Quality Division, Cleanup Program. Developed in January 2006
and Updated in June 2019 (DEQ, June 2019).
Page 204 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 12
6 LIMITATIONS
The purpose of an environmental assessment is to reasonably evaluate the potential for or actual
impact of past practices on a given Subject Property area. In performing an environmental
assessment, it is understood that a balance must be struck between a reasonable inquiry into the
environmental issues and an exhaustive analysis of each conceivable issue of potential concern. This
environmental assessment contains professional opinions as to the environmental issues of concern
and/or additional actions, which may be addressed to the property. In rendering its professional
opinion, we warrant that services provided hereunder were performed, within the limits described,
consistent with current generally accepted environmental consulting principles and practices. No
other warranty, express or implied, is made. The following paragraphs discuss the assumptions and
parameters under which such an opinion is rendered.
No investigation is thorough enough to exclude the presence of hazardous materials at a given
Subject Property. If hazardous conditions have not been identified during the assessment, such a
finding should not therefore be construed as a guarantee of the absence of such materials on the
Subject Property, but rather as the result of the services performed within the scope, limitations,
and cost of the work performed.
Any opinions or recommendations presented apply to Subject Property conditions existing when
services were performed. We are unable to report on or accurately predict events that may change
the Subject Property conditions after the described services are performed, whether occurring
naturally or caused by external forces. We assume no responsibility for conditions we were not
authorized to investigate, or conditions not generally recognized as environmentally unacceptable
when services were performed.
Environmental conditions may exist at the Subject Property that cannot be identified by visual
observation. Where the scope of services was limited to observations made during Subject Property
reconnaissance, interviews, review of readily available reports and literature or any combination,
any conclusions or recommendations or both are necessarily based in part on information supplied
by others, the accuracy or sufficiency of which we may not have independently reviewed.
Where subsurface work was performed, our professional opinions are based in part on
interpretation of data from discrete sampling locations that may not represent actual conditions at
unsampled locations.
Except where there is express concern of our client, or where specific environmental contaminants
have been previously reported by others, naturally occurring toxic substances, potential
environmental contaminants inside buildings, or contaminant concentrations that are not of
current environmental concern may not be reflected in this document.
Page 205 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 13
We are not responsible for any potential impact of changes in applicable environmental standards,
practices, or regulations following performance of services, on the conclusions or
recommendations, or both, of the study.
Services hereunder were performed consistent with our agreement and understanding with, and
solely for the use of, our client. Opinions and recommendations are intended for the client,
purpose, Subject Property, location, time frame, and project parameters indicated. We are not
responsible for subsequent separation, detachment, or partial use of this document. Any reliance
on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.
Page 206 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 14
7 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
Mr. Jonathan Williams received a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology, with honors, from
Duke University in 1987. He has over 30 years experience working with geologic and
environmental reports, including Phase I ESAs. Mr. Williams has been a Registered Geologist in
the State of Oregon since 1996, and has 40-hour HAZWOPER training.
Page 207 of 533
FIGURES
Page 208 of 533
0 4,0002,000
SCALE FEET
U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
MEDFORD WEST, OR AND SAMS VALLEY, OR (2020)
SOURCE:
OREGON
Site
DATE:
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Focused Phase II ESA
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon4/8/22
ALPINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LLC
DRAWN BY:SM
SITE
LOCATION
Page 209 of 533
Ha
m
r
i
c
k
R
o
a
d
SS3
Residential
(Former
Orchard)
Agriculture
Central
Point
Cemetery
Agriculture
Parking Lot
SS1
SS5
SS7
SS2
SS6
SS4
SS8
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Soil Sample LocationSS1
Google Earth (2020)SOURCE:
DATE:4/8/24
ALPINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LLC
DRAWN BY:SM
0 240120
SCALE FEET
Figure 2
Soil Sample Location Map
Focused Phase II ESA
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon
Page 210 of 533
TABLES
Page 211 of 533
Table 1. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Total Metals
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs)Date An
t
i
m
o
n
y
(
h
)
Ar
s
e
n
i
c
Ba
r
i
u
m
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m
Ca
d
m
i
u
m
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m
(
I
I
I
)
Co
b
a
l
t
Co
p
p
e
r
Le
a
d
Me
r
c
u
r
y
Mo
l
y
b
d
e
n
u
m
Ni
c
k
e
l
(
i
)
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Sil
v
e
r
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
(
j
)
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m
Zin
c
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 25.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA 115 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 20.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 140 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 35.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 145 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 31.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 135 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 6.89 NA NA NA NA NA NA 47.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 15.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 79.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 30.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 142 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 31.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 185 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 1.20U 26.3 114 0.254 0.241U 14.2 9.15 27.7 120 0.0962U 1.20U 12.0 1.20U 0.241U 0.241U 33.5 39.2
RES. NE 0.43 15,000 160 78 120,000 NE 3,100 400 23 NE 1,500 NE 390 NE NE NE
C. W. NE 15 69,000 700 350 530,000 NE 14,000 800 110 NE 7,000 NE 1,800 NE NE NE
E. W. NE 420 >Max 19,000 9,700 >Max NE 390,000 800 2,900 NE 190,000 NE 49,000 NE NE NE
RES. NE NV NV NV NV NV NE NV NV NV NE NV NE NV NE NE NE
RES. NE * * * * * NE * 30 * NE * NE * NE NE NE
0.59 12 630 1.4 0.52 890 NE 110 36 0.17 NE 630 0.80 0.16 0.31 290 140
RES. NE 0.77 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE 5.50 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE 890 NE 1,600 2,100 NE 420 NE NE NE NE 1,500 NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE 0.68 NE 1,600 2,100 NE 420 NE NE NE NE 1,500 NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 31 39 16,000 160 7.8 120,000 23 3,100 NE NE 390 860 390 390 0.78 390 23,000
RES. NE 330 NE NE 82 NE NE NE NE NE NE 3,600 NE NE 6.6 NE NE
RES. 280,000 21,000 710,000 28,000 14,000 NE 8,500 NE NE 11 2,800,000 20,000 28,000,000 NE NE 140,000 NE
RES. 31 35 15,000 160 7.1 120,000 23 3,100 400 11 390 6,700 390 390 0.78 390 23,000
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
DEQ's clean fill screening levels and background metals in Soil
for Klamath Mountains province (e), (f)
Inhalation US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
g
)
Noncarcinogenic
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Carcinogenic TR
= 1E-06
PARAMETERS Total Metals (mg/kg) U.S. EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
SAMPLING DATA
Page 212 of 533
Table 1. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Total Metals
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Notes:
Data Qualifiers:
Footnotes:
Symbols/Acronyms:
bgs - below ground surface
C. W. - construction worker receptors
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DU - Decision Unit
E. W. - excavation worker receptors
ft - feet
HI - Hazard Index
MDL - Method Detection Limit
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
MRL - Method Reporting Limit
NA - Sample was not analyzed for this analyte.
NE - No RBCs or RSLs are established for this constituent.
NV - The chemical is considered "nonvolatile" for the purposes of the exposure calculations.
RBC - risk-based concentration
RES. - residential receptors
RSLs - Regional Screening Levels
TR - Target Risk
U.R. - urban residential receptors
U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
Analytical data in bold font indicates that the value exceeds the laboratory MRL.
Analytical data highlighted in both orange and blue indicates the value exceeded one or more generic RBCs and RSLs, and the clean fill screening level.
* - Leaching to groundwater RBCs are not provided for inorganic chemicals. If this pathway is of concern, then site-specific leaching tests must be performed.
(e) DEQ’s Background Concentrations in Soil are referenced from the DEQ's Development of Oregon Background Metals Concentrations in Soil technical report dated March 2013. The background concentrations included
in this table are 95% Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) for the Klamath Mountains province, which includes the Central Point area and the Subject Property.
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected ("Non-detect") at or above the MRL/MDL.
(b) This pathway is applicable anytime someone is likely to come into contact with contaminated soil. For the occupational scenario, exposure to contaminated soils should be considered for all contaminants found in the
top three feet of soil.
(c) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone soils are contaminated with volatile compounds.
(d) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone contamination is found overlying an aquifer that is currently used or is reasonably likely to be used in the future for drinking water.
(a) Risk-Based Concentrations are referenced from the July 2023 update to the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites guidance document dated September 2003.
Analytical data highlighted in yellow indicates the value exceeded one or more generic RBCs.
Analytical data highlighted in orange indicates the value exceeded one or more generic RBCs and RSLs.
Analytical data highlighted in both yellow and blue indicates the value exceeded one or more generic RBCs and the clean fill screening level.
Analytical data highlighted in brown indicates the value exceeded one or more RSLs.
(h) The RSLs for antimony are the lowest RSLs listed in the USEPA Generic Tables for the following compounds: metalic antimony, antimony pentoxide, antimony tertroxide, and antimony trioxide.
(j) The RSLs for thallium are the lowest RSLs listed in the USEPA Generic Tables for the following compounds: thallium nitrate, thallium soluble salts, thallium acetate, thallium carbonate, thallium chloride, thallium selenite,
and thallium sulfate.
(i) The RSLs for nickel are the lowest RSLs listed in the USEPA Generic Tables for the following compounds: nickel acetate, nickel carbonate, nickel carbonyl, nickel hydroxide, nickel oxide, nickel refinery dust, nickel
soluble salts, and nickel subsulfide.
(f) Clean Fill Values are referenced from the DEQ's Clean Fill Determinations guidance document dated February 2019.
(g) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are referenced from the May 2022 update to the U.S. EPA Generic Tables.
Page 213 of 533
Table 2. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID
Sample
Location
Depth
(ft bgs) Date Ald
r
i
n
al
p
h
a
-
H
e
x
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
c
y
c
l
o
h
e
x
a
n
e
(a
l
p
h
a
-
B
H
C
)
be
t
a
-
B
H
C
de
l
t
a
-
B
H
C
ga
m
m
a
-
B
H
C
(L
i
n
d
a
n
e
)
cis
-
C
h
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
(C
h
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
R
B
C
s
)
tr
a
n
s
-
C
h
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
(C
h
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
R
B
C
s
)
4,
4
'
-
Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
p
h
e
n
y
l
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
(4
,
4
'
-
D
D
D
)
4,
4
'
-
Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
p
h
e
n
y
l
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
(4
,
4
'
-
D
D
E
)
4,
4
'
-
Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
p
h
e
n
y
l
t
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
(4
,
4
'
-
D
D
T
)
Di
e
l
d
r
i
n
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.0153 C-05 0.00569 C-05 0.00201U, C-05
RES. 0.031 0.086 NE NE 0.49 1.7 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.9 0.034
C. W. 1.1 3.0 NE NE 17 61 61 9.7 66 66 1.2
E. W. 30 83 NE NE 470 1,700 1,700 270 1,800 1,800 33
RES. >Csat NV NE NE NV >Csat >Csat NV >Csat NV NV
RES. 0.023 0.0063 NE NE 0.036 0.45 0.45 1.1 1.6 12 0.010
0.023 0.0063 0.009 NE 0.0095 0.91 0.91 0.0063 0.01 0.01 0.0045
RES. 0.041 0.11 0.39 NE 0.63 NE NE 2.90 2.0 2.0 0.043
RES. NE 0.39 1.40 NE 5.60 NE NE 10.00 NE 24 0.15
RES. 0.98 2,100 7,200 NE 12,000 NE NE 55,000 61 39,000 830
RES. 0.039 0.086 0.30 NE 0.57 NE NE 2.30 2.0 1.90 0.034
RES. 2.30 630 NE NE 0.78 39 39 39 39 39 3.90
RES. NE 2,600 NE NE 8.20 410 410 160 NE 550 16
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 2.30 510 NE NE 0.71 36 36 32 39 37 3.20
Dermal
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Ingestion
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
PARAMETERS Organochlorine Pesticides (mg/kg) U.S. EPA 8081B (ICPMS)
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Carcinogenic TR =
1E-06
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
SAMPLING DATA
Noncarcinogenic
Page 214 of 533
Table 2. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs) Date En
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
I
(E
n
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
a
l
p
h
a
-
b
e
t
a
R
B
C
)
En
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
I
I
(E
n
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
a
l
p
h
a
-
b
e
t
a
R
B
C
)
En
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
S
u
l
f
a
t
e
(E
n
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
a
l
p
h
a
-
b
e
t
a
R
B
C
)
En
d
r
i
n
En
d
r
i
n
A
l
d
e
h
y
d
e
(E
n
d
r
i
n
R
B
C
)
En
d
r
i
n
K
e
t
o
n
e
(E
n
d
r
i
n
R
B
C
)
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r
e
x
p
o
x
i
d
e
Me
t
h
o
x
y
c
h
l
o
r
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
To
x
a
p
h
e
n
e
(T
o
t
a
l
)
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00602U, C-05 0.0602U, C-05 0.0602U, C-05
RES. 380 380 380 19 19 19 0.11 0.055 NE 1.7 0.49
C. W. 1,600 1,600 1,600 80 80 80 4.0 2.0 NE 61 17
E. W. 45,000 45,000 45,000 2,200 2,200 2,200 110 56 NE 1,700 470
RES. >Max >Max >Max NV NV NV 230 >Csat NE >Csat NV
RES. >Csat >Csat >Csat 11 11 11 0.017 0.0042 NE 0.45 0.36
0.64 0.64 0.64 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.017 0.0042 5.1 0.91 0.36
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.15 0.076 NE NE 0.63
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2.20
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE 1.0 0.91 NE NE 12,000
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.13 0.07 NE NE 0.49
RES. 470 470 470 23 23 23 7.80 1.00 390 39 7.0
RES. NE NE NE 99 99 99 NE NE 1,600 410 30
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 470 470 470 19 19 19 7.80 1.0 320 36 5.70
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
Carcinogenic TR =
1E-06
Ingestion
Dermal
SAMPLING DATA
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
PARAMETERS Organochlorine Pesticides (mg/kg) U.S. EPA 8081B (ICPMS)
Noncarcinogenic
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
Inhalation
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Page 215 of 533
Table 2. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and TL 9800
Notes:
Data Qualifiers:
Footnotes:
Symbols/Acronyms:
bgs - below ground surface
C. W. - construction worker receptors
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DU - Decision Unit
E. W. - excavation worker receptors
ft - feet
HI - Hazard Index
LOD - Limit of Detection
LOQ - Limit of Quantitation
MDL - Method Detection Limit
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
MRL - Method Reporting Limit
NA - Sample was not analyzed for this analyte.
NE - No RBCs or RSLs are established for this constituent.
NV - The chemical is considered "nonvolatile" for the purposes of the exposure calculations.
RBC - risk-based concentration
RES. - residential receptors
RSLs - Regional Screening Levels
TR - Target Risk
U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
Analytical data in bold font indicates that the value exceeds the laboratory MRL.
Analytical data highlighted in blue indicates the value exceeded the clean fill screening level.
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected ("Non-detect") at or above the MRL/MDL.
>Max - The constituent RBC for this pathway is greater than 1,000,000 mg/Kg or 1,000,000 mg/L. Therefore, these substances are not expected to pose risks in the scenario shown.
>Csat - The soil RBC exceeds the limit of three-phase equilibrium partitioning. Soil concentrations in excess of this value indicate free product might be present.
(e) Clean Fill Values are referenced from the DEQ's Clean Fill Determinations guidance document dated February 2019.
(f) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are referenced from the May 2022 update to the U.S. EPA Generic Tables.
(b) This pathway is applicable anytime someone is likely to come into contact with contaminated soil. For the occupational scenario, exposure to contaminated soils should be considered for all contaminants found in the
top three feet of soil.
(c) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone soils are contaminated with volatile compounds.
(d) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone contamination is found overlying an aquifer that is currently used or is reasonably likely to be used in the future for drinking water.
(a) Risk-Based Concentrations are referenced from the July 2023 update to the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites guidance document dated September 2003.
C-05 - Extract has undergone a GPC (Gel-Permeation Chromatography) cleanup per EPA 3640A. Reporting levels may be raised due to dilution necessary for cleanup. Sample Final Volume includes the GPC dilution
factor, see the Prep page for details.
Page 216 of 533
Table 3. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organophosphorus Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs)Date Az
i
n
p
h
o
s
m
e
t
h
y
l
(
G
u
t
h
i
o
n
)
Ch
l
o
r
p
y
r
i
f
o
s
Co
u
m
a
p
h
o
s
De
m
e
t
o
n
-
O
,
S
Di
a
z
i
n
o
n
Di
c
h
l
o
r
v
o
s
Di
m
e
t
h
o
a
t
e
Di
s
u
l
f
o
t
o
n
EP
N
Et
h
o
p
r
o
p
Fe
n
s
u
l
f
o
t
h
i
o
n
Fe
n
t
h
i
o
n
Ma
l
a
t
h
i
o
n
Me
r
p
h
o
s
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0646U, R-02 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0810U, R-02
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
C. W. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
E. W. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
1.0 7.2 NE 2.5 3.9 0.0049 0.59 0.056 0.17 NE NE NE 6 2.3
RES. NE NE NE NE NE 2.40 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE 8.50 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE 46,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE 1.90 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES.230 78 NE 3.10 55 39 170 3.10 0.78 NE NE NE 1,600 2.30
RES.990 330 NE 13 230 160 730 13 3.3 NE NE NE 6,600 NE
RES.14,000,000 NE NE NE NE 710,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES.190 63 NE 2.50 44 32 140 2.50 0.63 NE NE NE 1,300 2.30
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Carcinogenic
TR = 1E-06
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Noncarcinogenic
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
PARAMETERS Organophosphorus Pesticides (mg/kg) ALA SOP
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
SAMPLING DATA
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
Page 217 of 533
Table 3. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organophosphorus Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs)Date Me
t
h
y
l
p
a
r
a
t
h
i
o
n
Me
v
i
n
p
h
o
s
(
P
h
o
s
d
r
i
n
)
Mo
n
o
c
r
o
t
o
p
h
o
s
Na
l
e
d
(
D
i
b
r
o
m
)
Pa
r
a
t
h
i
o
n
,
e
t
h
y
l
Ph
o
r
a
t
e
Ro
n
n
e
l
(
F
e
n
c
h
l
o
r
p
h
o
s
)
Su
l
f
o
t
e
p
(T
e
t
r
a
e
t
h
y
l
D
i
t
h
i
o
p
y
r
o
p
h
o
s
p
h
a
t
e
)
Su
l
p
r
o
f
o
s
(
B
o
l
s
t
a
r
)
TE
P
P
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
v
i
n
p
h
o
s
(
R
a
b
o
n
)
To
k
u
t
h
i
o
n
(
P
r
o
t
h
i
o
f
o
s
)
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
n
a
t
e
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.205U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
C. W. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
E. W. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
0.44 NE NE 1.1 26 0.2 220 NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 20.00 NE NE 160 470.00 16 3,900 39 NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 82.00 NE NE NE 2,000.00 66 NE 160 NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 16.00 NE NE 160 380.00 13 3,900 32 NE NE NE NE NENoncarcinogenic
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Carcinogenic
TR = 1E-06
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Noncancer
Child HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
PARAMETERS Organophosphorus Pesticides (mg/kg) ALA SOP
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
SAMPLING DATA
Page 218 of 533
Table 3. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organophosphorus Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Notes:
The laboratory MRL that exceeds a Clean Fill Value is indicated with bold blue font
Data Qualifiers:
R-02 - The Reporting Limit for this analyte has been raised to account for interference from coeluting organic compounds present in the sample.
Footnotes:
Symbols/Acronyms:
bgs - below ground surface
C. W. - construction worker receptors
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DU - Decision Unit
E. W. - excavation worker receptors
ft - feet
HI - Hazard Index
MDL - Method Detection Limit
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
MRL - Method Reporting Limit
NA - Sample was not analyzed for this analyte.
NE - No RBCs or RSLs are established for this constituent.
NV - The chemical is considered "nonvolatile" for the purposes of the exposure calculations.
RBC - risk-based concentration
RES. - residential receptors
RSLs - Regional Screening Levels
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
TR - Target Risk
U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected ("Non-detect") at or above the MRL/MDL.
(b) This pathway is applicable anytime someone is likely to come into contact with contaminated soil. For the occupational scenario, exposure to contaminated soils should be considered for all contaminants found in the
top three feet of soil.
>Max - The constituent RBC for this pathway is greater than 1,000,000 mg/Kg or 1,000,000 mg/L. Therefore, these substances are not expected to pose risks in the scenario shown.
(c) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone soils are contaminated with volatile compounds.
(d) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone contamination is found overlying an aquifer that is currently used or is reasonably likely to be used in the future for drinking water.
(e) Clean Fill Values are referenced from the DEQ's Clean Fill Determinations guidance document dated February 2019.
(f) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are referenced from the May 2022 update to the U.S. EPA Generic Tables.
>Csat - The soil RBC exceeds the limit of three-phase equilibrium partitioning. Soil concentrations in excess of this value indicate free product might be present.
(a) Risk-Based Concentrations are referenced from the July 2023 update to the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites guidance document dated September 2003.
Page 219 of 533
Table 4. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Chlorinated Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs)Date 2,
4
,
5
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
a
c
e
t
i
c
a
c
i
d
(
2
,
4
,
5
-
T)2,
4
,
5
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
p
r
o
p
i
o
n
i
c
a
c
i
d
(2
,
4
,
5
-
T
P
)
(
S
i
l
v
e
x
)
2,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
a
c
e
t
i
c
a
c
i
d
(
2
,
4
-
D
)
4-
(
2
,
4
-
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
)
b
u
t
y
r
i
c
a
c
i
d
(
2
,
4
-
DB
)
Da
l
a
p
o
n
Di
c
a
m
b
a
Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
Di
n
o
s
e
b
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
-
4
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
a
c
e
t
i
c
a
c
i
d
(M
C
P
A
)
Me
t
h
y
l
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
p
r
o
p
i
o
n
i
c
a
c
i
d
(M
C
P
P
)
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.012U 0.012U 0.120U 0.120U, *+ 0.290U, *+ 0.012U 0.120U 0.120U, *+12.0U 12.0U
RES. NE NE 630 NE NE NE NE NE 32 NE
C. W. NE NE 2,700 NE NE NE NE NE 130 NE
E. W. NE NE 74,000 NE NE NE NE NE 3,700 NE
RES. NE NE NV NE NE NE NE NE NV NE
RES. NE NE 2.3 NE NE NE NE NE 0.097 NE
4.1 3.7 2.3 25 7.2 9 NE 7.8 0.097 NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 780 630 780 NE 2,300 2,300 NE 78 39 78
RES. 3,300 2,600 6,600 NE 9,900 9,900 NE 330 160 330
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 630 510 700 NE 1,900 1,900 NE 63 32 63
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Carcinogenic TR
= 1E-06
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Noncarcinogenic
PARAMETERS Chlorinated Herbicides (mg/kg) U.S. EPA 8151A
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
SAMPLING DATA
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
Page 220 of 533
Table 4. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Chlorinated Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Notes:
Data Qualifiers:
Footnotes:
Symbols/Acronyms:
bgs - below ground surface
C. W. - construction worker receptors
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DU - Decision Unit
E. W. - excavation worker receptors
ft - feet
HI - Hazard Index
LOD - Limit of Detection
LOQ - Limit of Quantitation
MDL - Method Detection Limit
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
MRL - Method Reporting Limit
NA - Sample was not analyzed for this analyte.
NE - No RBCs or RSLs are established for this constituent.
NV - The chemical is considered "nonvolatile" for the purposes of the exposure calculations.
RBC - risk-based concentration
RES. - residential receptors
RSLs - Regional Screening Levels
TR - Target Risk
U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
(b) This pathway is applicable anytime someone is likely to come into contact with contaminated soil. For the occupational scenario, exposure to contaminated soils should be considered for all contaminants found in the
top three feet of soil.
The laboratory MRL that exceeds one or more RBCs are indicated with bold blue font.
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected ("Non-detect") at or above the MRL/MDL.
(a) Risk-Based Concentrations are referenced from the July 2023 update to the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites guidance document dated September 2003.
*+ - LCS and/or LCSD is outside acceptance limits, high biased.
>Max - The constituent RBC for this pathway is greater than 1,000,000 mg/Kg or 1,000,000 mg/L. Therefore, these substances are not expected to pose risks in the scenario shown.
(c) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone soils are contaminated with volatile compounds.
(d) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone contamination is found overlying an aquifer that is currently used or is reasonably likely to be used in the future for drinking water.
(e) Clean Fill Values are referenced from the DEQ's Clean Fill Determinations guidance document dated February 2019.
(f) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are referenced from the May 2022 update to the U.S. EPA Generic Tables.
>Csat - The soil RBC exceeds the limit of three-phase equilibrium partitioning. Soil concentrations in excess of this value indicate free product might be present.
Page 221 of 533
APPENDIX 1
Historical Aerial Photographs
Page 222 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1952
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 223 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1960
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 224 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1967
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 225 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1976
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 226 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1979
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 227 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1994
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 228 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 2003
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 229 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 2014
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 230 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 2023
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 980
The Site
Page 231 of 533
APPENDIX 2
Photographic Documentation
Page 232 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA, 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 1
1. SS1.
2. SS1, facing north.
3. SS2.
4. SS2, facing west.
5. SS2.
6. SS3.
Page 233 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA, 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 2
7. SS3, facing southwest.
8. SS4.
9. SS4, facing west.
10. SS5.
11. SS5.
12. SS5, facing south.
Page 234 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA, 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 3
13. SS6.
14. SS6, facing north.
15. SS7.
16. SS7, facing west.
17. SS8.
18. SS8, facing west.
Page 235 of 533
APPENDIX 3
Complete Laboratory Results
Page 236 of 533
Apex Laboratories, LLC
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Jonathan Williams
RE: A4D0820 - 4630 Hamrick Rd. - [none]
Thank you for using Apex Laboratories. We greatly appreciate your business and strive to provide the
highest quality services to the environmental industry.
Enclosed are the results of analyses for work order A4D0820, which was received by the laboratory on
4/2/2024 at 10:30:00AM.
If you have any questions concerning this report or the services we offer, please feel free to contact me by
email at: dthomas@apex-labs.com, or by phone at 503-718-2323.
Please note: All samples will be disposed of within 30 days of sample receipt, unless prior arrangements
have been made.
White City, OR 97503
Cooler Receipt Information
(See Cooler Receipt Form for details)
Acceptable Receipt Temperature is less than, or equal to, 6 degC (not frozen), or received on ice the same day as sampling.
Default Cooler degC 3.3
This Final Report is the official version of the data results for this sample submission, unless superseded
by a subsequent, labeled amended report.
All other deliverables derived from this data, including Electronic Data Deliverables (EDDs), CLP-like
forms, client requested summary sheets, and all other products are considered secondary to this report.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 1 of 28
Page 237 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Client Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received
A4D0820-01 04/01/24 10:05 04/02/24 10:30SS1Soil
A4D0820-02 04/01/24 10:10 04/02/24 10:30SS2Soil
A4D0820-03 04/01/24 10:20 04/02/24 10:30SS3Soil
A4D0820-04 04/01/24 10:00 04/02/24 10:30SS4Soil
A4D0820-05 04/01/24 10:25 04/02/24 10:30SS5Soil
A4D0820-06 04/01/24 09:50 04/02/24 10:30SS6Soil
A4D0820-07 04/01/24 10:30 04/02/24 10:30SS7Soil
A4D0820-08 04/01/24 10:40 04/02/24 10:30SS8Soil
A4D0820-09 04/01/24 13:00 04/02/24 10:30Comp-0.0-0.5 Soil
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 2 of 28
Page 238 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)C-05Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0288
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Aldrin [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201alpha-BHC [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201beta-BHC [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201delta-BHC [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201gamma-BHC (Lindane) [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201cis-Chlordane [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201trans-Chlordane [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.002014,4'-DDD [2C]
EPA 8081Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 14:391---0.002010.01534,4'-DDE [2C]
EPA 8081Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 14:391---0.002010.005694,4'-DDT
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Dieldrin [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endosulfan I [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endosulfan II [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endosulfan sulfate [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endrin [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endrin aldehyde [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endrin ketone [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Heptachlor [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Heptachlor epoxide [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00602Methoxychlor [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.0602Chlordane (Technical) [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.0602Toxaphene (Total) [2C]
EPA 8081BLimits: 42-129 %04/09/24 14:391Recovery: 53 %Surrogate: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr)
EPA 8081B 55-130 %04/09/24 14:391 91 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr)
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 3 of 28
Page 239 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0271
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Chlorpyrifos
R-0204/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0646Coumaphos
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Demeton O
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Demeton S
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Diazinon
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Dichlorvos
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Dimethoate
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Disulfoton
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512EPN
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Ethoprop
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Fensulfothion
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Fenthion
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Malathion
R-0204/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0810Merphos
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Methyl parathion
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Monocrotophos
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Naled (Dibrom)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Parathion, ethyl
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Phorate
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Sulfotep
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Sulprofos (Bolstar)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.205TEPP
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Trichloronate
EPA 8270E OPPsLimits: 10-136 %04/08/24 12:571Recovery: 115 %Surrogate: Tributyl phosphate (Surr)
EPA 8270E OPPs 34-121 %04/08/24 12:571 96 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr)
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 4 of 28
Page 240 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
SS1 (A4D0820-01)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:1810---1.1925.9Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:1810---0.239115Lead
SS2 (A4D0820-02)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:2410---1.2520.3Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:2410---0.251140Lead
SS3 (A4D0820-03)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:3010---1.1635.5Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:3010---0.231145Lead
SS4 (A4D0820-04)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:3510---1.1931.2Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:3510---0.239135Lead
SS5 (A4D0820-05)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:4110---1.086.89Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:4110---0.21547.4Lead
SS6 (A4D0820-06)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:5910---1.1215.3Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:5910---0.22479.2Lead
SS7 (A4D0820-07)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 22:0510---1.2330.5Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 22:0510---0.247142Lead
SS8 (A4D0820-08)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0349
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 5 of 28
Page 241 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
SS8 (A4D0820-08)Matrix: Soil
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:1410---1.1731.3Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:1410---0.234185Lead
Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0349
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---1.20Antimony
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---1.2026.3Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---1.20114Barium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---0.2410.254Beryllium
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---0.241Cadmium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---1.2014.2Chromium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---1.209.15Cobalt
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---2.4127.7Copper
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---0.241120Lead
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---0.0962Mercury
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---1.20Molybdenum
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---4.8112.0Nickel
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---1.20Selenium
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---0.241Silver
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---0.241Thallium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---2.4133.5Vanadium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---4.8139.2Zinc
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 6 of 28
Page 242 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Percent Dry Weight
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
SS1 (A4D0820-01)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0082.9% Solids
SS2 (A4D0820-02)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0088.2% Solids
SS3 (A4D0820-03)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0083.7% Solids
SS4 (A4D0820-04)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0085.5% Solids
SS5 (A4D0820-05)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0090.8% Solids
SS6 (A4D0820-06)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0088.5% Solids
SS7 (A4D0820-07)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0084.5% Solids
SS8 (A4D0820-08)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0086.0% Solids
Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0085.9% Solids
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 7 of 28
Page 243 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0288 - EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)Soil
C-05Blank (24D0288-BLK1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:07
EPA 8081B
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Aldrin
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- alpha-BHC
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- beta-BHC
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- delta-BHC
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- gamma-BHC (Lindane)
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- cis-Chlordane
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- trans-Chlordane
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- 4,4'-DDD
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- 4,4'-DDE
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- 4,4'-DDT
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Dieldrin
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endosulfan I
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endosulfan II
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endosulfan sulfate
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endrin
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endrin aldehyde
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endrin ketone
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Heptachlor
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Heptachlor epoxide
mg/kg wetND0.00600 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Methoxychlor
mg/kg wetND0.0600 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Chlordane (Technical)
mg/kg wetND0.0600 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Toxaphene (Total)
Limits: 42-129 %Surr: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr) Recovery: 73 % Dilution: 1x
55-130 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr) 115 % "
C-05LCS (24D0288-BS1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:23
EPA 8081B
mg/kg wet0.0384 0.00200 45-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 77Aldrin
mg/kg wet0.0427 0.00200 45-137% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 85alpha-BHC
mg/kg wet0.0392 0.00200 50-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 78beta-BHC
mg/kg wet0.0408 0.00200 47-139% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 82delta-BHC
mg/kg wet0.0437 0.00200 49-135% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 87gamma-BHC (Lindane)
mg/kg wet0.0439 0.00200 54-133% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 88cis-Chlordane
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 8 of 28
Page 244 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0288 - EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)Soil
C-05LCS (24D0288-BS1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:23
mg/kg wet0.0424 0.00200 53-135% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 85trans-Chlordane
mg/kg wet0.0496 0.00200 56-139% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 994,4'-DDD
mg/kg wet0.0454 0.00200 56-134% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 914,4'-DDE
mg/kg wet0.0588 0.00200 50-141% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 1184,4'-DDT
mg/kg wet0.0528 0.00200 56-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 106Dieldrin
mg/kg wet0.0465 0.00200 53-132% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 93Endosulfan I
mg/kg wet0.0541 0.00200 53-134% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 108Endosulfan II
mg/kg wet0.0515 0.00200 55-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 103Endosulfan sulfate
mg/kg wet0.0593 0.00200 57-140% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 119Endrin
mg/kg wet0.0426 0.00200 35-137% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 85Endrin aldehyde
mg/kg wet0.0555 0.00200 55-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 111Endrin ketone
mg/kg wet0.0459 0.00200 47-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 92Heptachlor
mg/kg wet0.0459 0.00200 52-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 92Heptachlor epoxide
mg/kg wet0.0621 0.00600 52-143% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 124Methoxychlor
Limits: 42-129 %Surr: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr) Recovery: 74 % Dilution: 1x
55-130 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr) 107 % "
C-05Duplicate (24D0288-DUP1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:56
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
EPA 8081B
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Aldrin
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- alpha-BHC
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- beta-BHC
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- delta-BHC
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- gamma-BHC (Lindane)
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- cis-Chlordane
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- trans-Chlordane
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- 4,4'-DDD
mg/kg dry0.0139 0.00196 --- 10 --- 30%1 --- 0.0153 --- 4,4'-DDE
mg/kg dry0.00522 0.00196 --- 8 --- 30%1 --- 0.00569 --- 4,4'-DDT
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Dieldrin
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endosulfan I
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endosulfan II
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endosulfan sulfate
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 9 of 28
Page 245 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0288 - EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)Soil
C-05Duplicate (24D0288-DUP1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:56
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endrin
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endrin aldehyde
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endrin ketone
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Heptachlor
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Heptachlor epoxide
mg/kg dryND0.00588 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Methoxychlor
mg/kg dryND0.0588 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Chlordane (Technical)
mg/kg dryND0.0588 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Toxaphene (Total)
Limits: 42-129 %Surr: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr) Recovery: 56 % Dilution: 1x
55-130 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr) 90 % "
C-05, PROMatrix Spike (24D0288-MS1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:44
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0833-04RE1)
EPA 8081B
mg/kg dry0.0222 0.00180 45-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 49Aldrin
mg/kg dry0.0220 0.00180 45-137% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 49alpha-BHC
mg/kg dry0.0244 0.00180 50-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 54beta-BHC
mg/kg dry0.0256 0.00180 47-139% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 57delta-BHC
mg/kg dry0.0223 0.00180 49-135% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 49gamma-BHC (Lindane)
mg/kg dry0.0296 0.00180 54-133% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 66cis-Chlordane
mg/kg dry0.0283 0.00180 53-135% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 63trans-Chlordane
mg/kg dry0.0303 0.00180 56-139% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 674,4'-DDD
mg/kg dry0.0331 0.00180 56-134% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 0.00121 714,4'-DDE
mg/kg dry0.0353 0.00180 50-141% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 0.00146 754,4'-DDT
mg/kg dry0.0352 0.00180 56-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 0.00134 75Dieldrin
mg/kg dry0.0298 0.00180 53-132% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 66Endosulfan I
mg/kg dry0.0351 0.00180 53-134% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 78Endosulfan II
mg/kg dry0.0348 0.00180 55-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 77Endosulfan sulfate
mg/kg dry0.0398 0.00180 57-140% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 88Endrin
mg/kg dry0.0259 0.00180 35-137% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 57Endrin aldehyde
mg/kg dry0.0365 0.00180 55-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 81Endrin ketone
mg/kg dry0.0238 0.00180 47-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 53Heptachlor
mg/kg dry0.0283 0.00180 52-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 63Heptachlor epoxide
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 10 of 28
Page 246 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0288 - EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)Soil
C-05, PROMatrix Spike (24D0288-MS1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:44
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0833-04RE1)
mg/kg dry0.0418 0.00541 52-143% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 93Methoxychlor
Limits: 42-129 %Surr: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr) Recovery: 45 % Dilution: 1x
55-130 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr) 79 % "
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 11 of 28
Page 247 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0271 - EPA 3546 Soil
Blank (24D0271-BLK1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 11:11
EPA 8270E OPPs
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Chlorpyrifos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Coumaphos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Demeton O
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Demeton S
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Diazinon
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Dichlorvos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Dimethoate
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Disulfoton
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- EPN
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Ethoprop
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Fensulfothion
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Fenthion
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Malathion
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Merphos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Methyl parathion
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Monocrotophos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Naled (Dibrom)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Parathion, ethyl
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Phorate
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Sulfotep
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Sulprofos (Bolstar)
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- TEPP
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Trichloronate
Limits: 10-136 %Surr: Tributyl phosphate (Surr) Recovery: 103 % Dilution: 1x
34-121 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr) 83 % "
LCS (24D0271-BS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 11:46
EPA 8270E OPPs
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 12 of 28
Page 248 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0271 - EPA 3546 Soil
LCS (24D0271-BS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 11:46
mg/kg wet0.356 0.0500 38-156% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 89Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg wet0.367 0.0500 47-140% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 92Chlorpyrifos
mg/kg wet0.440 0.0500 37-160% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 110Coumaphos
mg/kg wet0.157 0.0500 66-127% --- --- --- 1 0.184 --- 85Demeton O
mg/kg wet0.194 0.0500 70-121% --- --- --- 1 0.194 --- 100Demeton S
mg/kg wet0.409 0.0500 42-134% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 102Diazinon
mg/kg wet0.572 0.0500 39-142% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 143 Q-29Dichlorvos
mg/kg wet0.383 0.0500 16-139% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 96Dimethoate
mg/kg wet0.368 0.0500 28-145% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 92Disulfoton
mg/kg wet0.425 0.0500 44-137% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 106EPN
mg/kg wet0.397 0.0500 47-128% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 99Ethoprop
mg/kg wet0.519 0.0500 27-147% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 130 Q-41Fensulfothion
mg/kg wet0.390 0.0500 44-134% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 98Fenthion
mg/kg wet0.371 0.0500 46-137% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 93Malathion
mg/kg wet0.473 0.0500 66-131% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 118Merphos
mg/kg wet0.394 0.0500 49-138% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 98Methyl parathion
mg/kg wet0.412 0.0500 12-176% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 103Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
mg/kg wet0.474 0.0500 10-153% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 119Monocrotophos
mg/kg wet0.284 0.0500 10-174% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 71 Q-31Naled (Dibrom)
mg/kg wet0.375 0.0500 50-139% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 94Parathion, ethyl
mg/kg wet0.386 0.0500 23-142% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 97Phorate
mg/kg wet0.379 0.0500 45-138% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 95Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
mg/kg wet0.405 0.0500 52-126% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 101Sulfotep
mg/kg wet0.367 0.0500 48-139% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 92Sulprofos (Bolstar)
mg/kg wet0.417 0.200 16-126% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 104TEPP
mg/kg wet0.410 0.0500 54-129% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 102Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
mg/kg wet0.385 0.0500 45-136% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 96Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
mg/kg wet0.367 0.0500 37-140% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 92Trichloronate
Limits: 10-136 %Surr: Tributyl phosphate (Surr) Recovery: 116 % Dilution: 1x
34-121 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr) 90 % "
Duplicate (24D0271-DUP1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 13:33
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
EPA 8270E OPPs
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 13 of 28
Page 249 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0271 - EPA 3546 Soil
Duplicate (24D0271-DUP1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 13:33
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Chlorpyrifos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Coumaphos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Demeton O
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Demeton S
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Diazinon
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Dichlorvos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Dimethoate
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Disulfoton
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- EPN
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Ethoprop
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Fensulfothion
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Fenthion
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Malathion
mg/kg dryND0.0557 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- R-02Merphos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Methyl parathion
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Monocrotophos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Naled (Dibrom)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Parathion, ethyl
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Phorate
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Sulfotep
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Sulprofos (Bolstar)
mg/kg dryND0.203 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- TEPP
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Trichloronate
Limits: 10-136 %Surr: Tributyl phosphate (Surr) Recovery: 113 % Dilution: 1x
34-121 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr) 91 % "
Matrix Spike (24D0271-MS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 14:09
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 14 of 28
Page 250 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0271 - EPA 3546 Soil
Matrix Spike (24D0271-MS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 14:09
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
EPA 8270E OPPs
mg/kg dry0.484 0.0526 38-156% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 115Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg dry0.393 0.0526 47-140% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 93Chlorpyrifos
mg/kg dry0.533 0.0663 37-160% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 127Coumaphos
mg/kg dry0.127 0.0526 66-127% --- --- --- 1 0.194 ND 66Demeton O
mg/kg dry0.228 0.0526 70-121% --- --- --- 1 0.204 ND 112Demeton S
mg/kg dry0.386 0.0526 42-134% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 92Diazinon
mg/kg dry0.650 0.0526 39-142% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 155 Q-01Dichlorvos
mg/kg dry0.397 0.0526 16-139% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 94Dimethoate
mg/kg dry0.367 0.0526 28-145% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 87Disulfoton
mg/kg dry0.515 0.0526 44-137% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 122EPN
mg/kg dry0.407 0.0526 47-128% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 97Ethoprop
mg/kg dry0.676 0.0526 27-147% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 161 Q-01, Q-41Fensulfothion
mg/kg dry0.423 0.0526 44-134% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 101Fenthion
mg/kg dry0.413 0.0526 46-137% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Malathion
mg/kg dry0.493 0.0831 66-131% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 117Merphos
mg/kg dry0.456 0.0526 49-138% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 108Methyl parathion
mg/kg dry0.459 0.0526 12-176% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 109Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
mg/kg dry0.444 0.0526 10-153% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 105Monocrotophos
mg/kg dry0.249 0.0526 10-174% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 59 Q-31Naled (Dibrom)
mg/kg dry0.411 0.0526 50-139% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Parathion, ethyl
mg/kg dry0.386 0.0526 23-142% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 92Phorate
mg/kg dry0.413 0.0526 45-138% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
mg/kg dry0.415 0.0526 52-126% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 99Sulfotep
mg/kg dry0.413 0.0526 48-139% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Sulprofos (Bolstar)
mg/kg dry0.245 0.210 16-126% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 58TEPP
mg/kg dry0.445 0.0526 54-129% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 106Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
mg/kg dry0.412 0.0526 45-136% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
mg/kg dry0.377 0.0526 37-140% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 90Trichloronate
Limits: 10-136 %Surr: Tributyl phosphate (Surr) Recovery: 110 % Dilution: 1x
34-121 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr) 89 % "
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 15 of 28
Page 251 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0293 - EPA 3051A Soil
Blank (24D0293-BLK1)Prepared: 04/08/24 10:12 Analyzed: 04/08/24 19:14
EPA 6020B
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Arsenic
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Lead
LCS (24D0293-BS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 10:12 Analyzed: 04/08/24 19:20
EPA 6020B
mg/kg wet46.2 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 92Arsenic
mg/kg wet53.5 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 107Lead
Duplicate (24D0293-DUP1)Prepared: 04/08/24 10:12 Analyzed: 04/08/24 19:44
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1831-14)
mg/kg dry2.35 1.32 --- 12 --- 20%10 --- 2.09 --- Arsenic
mg/kg dry6.32 0.263 --- 10 --- 20%10 --- 5.72 --- Lead
Matrix Spike (24D0293-MS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 10:12 Analyzed: 04/08/24 19:56
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1831-16)
EPA 6020B
mg/kg dry78.3 1.66 75-125% --- --- --- 10 82.8 3.94 90Arsenic
mg/kg dry92.9 0.331 75-125% --- --- --- 10 82.8 11.5 98Lead
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 16 of 28
Page 252 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0349 - EPA 3051A Soil
Blank (24D0349-BLK1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:46
EPA 6020B
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Antimony
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Arsenic
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Barium
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Beryllium
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Cadmium
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Chromium
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Cobalt
mg/kg wetND2.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Copper
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Lead
mg/kg wetND0.0800 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Mercury
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Molybdenum
mg/kg wetND4.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Nickel
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Selenium
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Silver
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Thallium
mg/kg wetND2.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Vanadium
mg/kg wetND4.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Zinc
LCS (24D0349-BS1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:52
EPA 6020B
mg/kg wet26.0 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 104Antimony
mg/kg wet47.5 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 95Arsenic
mg/kg wet51.9 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 104Barium
mg/kg wet25.4 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 101Beryllium
mg/kg wet51.8 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 104Cadmium
mg/kg wet50.3 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 101Chromium
mg/kg wet51.3 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 103Cobalt
mg/kg wet53.6 2.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 107Copper
mg/kg wet53.6 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 107Lead
mg/kg wet1.01 0.0800 80-120% --- --- --- 10 1.00 --- 101Mercury
mg/kg wet25.7 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 103Molybdenum
mg/kg wet51.2 4.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 102Nickel
mg/kg wet25.7 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 103Selenium
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 17 of 28
Page 253 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0349 - EPA 3051A Soil
LCS (24D0349-BS1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:52
mg/kg wet26.8 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 107Silver
mg/kg wet26.3 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 105Thallium
mg/kg wet47.8 2.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 96Vanadium
mg/kg wet51.4 4.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 103Zinc
Duplicate (24D0349-DUP1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 16:03
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1792-01)
mg/kg dryND1.14 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Antimony
mg/kg dry1.27 1.14 --- 20 --- 20%10 --- 1.56 --- Arsenic
mg/kg dry70.6 1.14 --- 11 --- 20%10 --- 63.2 --- Barium
mg/kg dryND0.228 --- *** --- 20%10 --- 0.171 --- Beryllium
mg/kg dryND0.228 --- *** --- 20%10 --- 0.160 --- Cadmium
mg/kg dry4.63 1.14 --- 26 --- 20%10 --- 5.99 --- Q-05Chromium
mg/kg dry5.25 1.14 --- 17 --- 20%10 --- 6.24 --- Cobalt
mg/kg dry5.82 2.28 --- 17 --- 20%10 --- 6.89 --- Copper
mg/kg dry4.95 0.228 --- 14 --- 20%10 --- 5.68 --- Lead
mg/kg dryND0.0910 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Mercury
mg/kg dryND1.14 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Molybdenum
mg/kg dry6.85 4.55 --- 22 --- 20%10 --- 8.57 --- Q-05Nickel
mg/kg dryND1.14 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Selenium
mg/kg dryND0.228 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Silver
mg/kg dryND0.228 --- *** --- 20%10 --- 0.134 --- Thallium
mg/kg dry12.0 2.28 --- 41 --- 20%10 --- 18.1 --- Q-17Vanadium
mg/kg dry39.7 4.55 --- 13 --- 20%10 --- 45.2 --- Zinc
Matrix Spike (24D0349-MS1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 16:15
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1792-02)
EPA 6020B
mg/kg dry28.3 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 100Antimony
mg/kg dry55.7 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 1.37 95Arsenic
mg/kg dry1411.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 68.1 128 Q-01Barium
mg/kg dry28.4 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 0.155 99Beryllium
mg/kg dry58.4 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 0.156 102Cadmium
mg/kg dry63.8 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 4.76 104Chromium
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 18 of 28
Page 254 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0349 - EPA 3051A Soil
Matrix Spike (24D0349-MS1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 16:15
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1792-02)
mg/kg dry62.4 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 3.89 103Cobalt
mg/kg dry67.4 2.28 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 6.24 108Copper
mg/kg dry62.1 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 4.78 101Lead
mg/kg dry1.09 0.0910 75-125% --- --- --- 10 1.14 ND 96Mercury
mg/kg dry29.5 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 104Molybdenum
mg/kg dry66.9 4.55 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 8.00 103Nickel
mg/kg dry28.7 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 101Selenium
mg/kg dry29.6 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 104Silver
mg/kg dry28.5 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 100Thallium
mg/kg dry65.0 2.28 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 8.40 100Vanadium
mg/kg dry1074.55 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 47.7 104Zinc
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 19 of 28
Page 255 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Percent Dry Weight
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0127 - Total Solids (Dry Weight) - 2022 Soil
CONTDuplicate (24D0127-DUP1)Prepared: 04/03/24 09:13 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0813-01)
%77.0 1.00 --- 1 --- 10%1 --- 76.0 --- % Solids
CONTDuplicate (24D0127-DUP2)Prepared: 04/03/24 09:13 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0813-02)
%82.6 1.00 --- 0.5 --- 10%1 --- 83.0 --- % Solids
Duplicate (24D0127-DUP3)Prepared: 04/03/24 19:24 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0873-01)
%74.2 1.00 --- 0.3 --- 10%1 --- 74.5 --- % Solids
Duplicate (24D0127-DUP4)Prepared: 04/03/24 19:24 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0898-01)
%75.2 1.00 --- 0.03 --- 10%1 --- 75.2 --- % Solids
Duplicate (24D0127-DUP5)Prepared: 04/03/24 19:24 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0907-01)
%76.6 1.00 --- 0.5 --- 10%1 --- 76.2 --- % Solids
Duplicate (24D0127-DUP6)Prepared: 04/03/24 19:24 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0910-01)
%76.6 1.00 --- 0.4 --- 10%1 --- 76.3 --- % Solids
No Client related Batch QC samples analyzed for this batch. See notes page for more information.
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 20 of 28
Page 256 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
SAMPLE PREPARATION INFORMATION
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Prep: EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
Batch: 24D0288
A4D0820-09RE1 Soil 04/01/24 13:00EPA 8081B 04/05/24 05:24 1.7211.61g/10mL 10g/5mL
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Prep: EPA 3546
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
Batch: 24D0271
A4D0820-09RE1 Soil 04/01/24 13:00EPA 8270E OPPs 04/08/24 04:49 0.8811.36g/5mL 10g/5mL
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Prep: EPA 3051A
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
Batch: 24D0293
A4D0820-01 Soil 04/01/24 10:05EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 0.990.505g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-02 Soil 04/01/24 10:10EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 1.110.452g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-03 Soil 04/01/24 10:20EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 0.970.516g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-04 Soil 04/01/24 10:00EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 1.020.49g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-05 Soil 04/01/24 10:25EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 0.980.511g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-06 Soil 04/01/24 09:50EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 0.990.504g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-07 Soil 04/01/24 10:30EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 1.040.479g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
Batch: 24D0349
A4D0820-08 Soil 04/01/24 10:40EPA 6020B 04/09/24 10:15 1.010.497g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-09 Soil 04/01/24 13:00EPA 6020B 04/09/24 10:15 1.030.484g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
Percent Dry Weight
Prep: Total Solids (Dry Weight) - 2022
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
Batch: 24D0127
A4D0820-01 Soil 04/01/24 10:05EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-02 Soil 04/01/24 10:10EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-03 Soil 04/01/24 10:20EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-04 Soil 04/01/24 10:00EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-05 Soil 04/01/24 10:25EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-06 Soil 04/01/24 09:50EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 21 of 28
Page 257 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
SAMPLE PREPARATION INFORMATION
Percent Dry Weight
Prep: Total Solids (Dry Weight) - 2022
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
A4D0820-07 Soil 04/01/24 10:30EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-08 Soil 04/01/24 10:40EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-09 Soil 04/01/24 13:00EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 22 of 28
Page 258 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALIFIER DEFINITIONS
Client Sample and Quality Control (QC) Sample Qualifier Definitions:
Apex Laboratories
C-05 Extract has undergone a GPC (Gel-Permeation Chromatography) cleanup per EPA 3640A. Reporting levels may be raised due to dilution
necessary for cleanup. Sample Final Volume includes the GPC dilution factor, see the Prep page for details.
CONT The Sample Container provided for this analysis was not provided by Apex Laboratories, and has not been verified as part of the Apex
Quality System.
PRO Sample has undergone sample processing prior to extraction and analysis.
Q-01 Spike recovery and/or RPD is outside acceptance limits.
Q-05 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from sample and duplicate concentrations that are below 5 times the reporting level.
Q-17 RPD between original and duplicate sample, or spike duplicates, is outside of established control limits.
Q-29 Recovery for Lab Control Spike (LCS) is above the upper control limit. Data may be biased high.
Q-31 Estimated Results. Recovery of Continuing Calibration Verification sample below lower control limit for this analyte. Results are likely
biased low.
Q-41 Estimated Results. Recovery of Continuing Calibration Verification sample above upper control limit for this analyte. Results are likely
biased high.
R-02 The Reporting Limit for this analyte has been raised to account for interference from coeluting organic compounds present in the sample.
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 23 of 28
Page 259 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
REPORTING NOTES AND CONVENTIONS:
Abbreviations:
DET Analyte DETECTED at or above the detection or reporting limit.
ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the detection or reporting limit.
NR Result Not Reported
RPD Relative Percent Difference. RPDs for Matrix Spikes and Matrix Spike Duplicates are based on concentration, not recovery.
Detection Limits: Limit of Detection (LOD)
Limits of Detection (LODs) are normally set at a level of one half the validated Limit of Quantitation (LOQ).
If no value is listed ('-----'), then the data has not been evaluated below the Reporting Limit.
Reporting Limits: Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)
Validated Limits of Quantitation (LOQs) are reported as the Reporting Limits for all analyses where the LOQ, MRL, PQL or CRL are
requested. The LOQ represents a level at or above the low point of the calibration curve, that has been validated according to Apex
Laboratories' comprehensive LOQ policies and procedures.
Reporting Conventions:
Basis:Results for soil samples are generally reported on a 100% dry weight basis.
The Result Basis is listed following the units as " dry", " wet", or " " (blank) designation.
" dry"Sample results and Reporting Limits are reported on a dry weight basis. (i.e. "ug/kg dry")
See Percent Solids section for details of dry weight analysis.
" wet"Sample results and Reporting Limits for this analysis are normally dry weight corrected, but have not been modified in this case.
" "Results without 'wet' or 'dry' designation are not normally dry weight corrected. These results are considered 'As Received'.
Results for Volatiles analyses on soils and sediments that are reported on a “dry weight” basis include the water miscible solvent (WMS)
correction referenced in the EPA 8000 Method guidance documents. Solid and Liquid samples reported on an “As Received” basis do not have
the WMS correction applied, as dry weight was not performed.
QC Source:
In cases where there is insufficient sample provided for Sample Duplicates and/or Matrix Spikes, a Lab Control Sample Duplicate (LCS Dup)
may be analyzed to demonstrate accuracy and precision of the extraction batch.
Non-Client Batch QC Samples (Duplicates and Matrix Spike/Duplicates) may not be included in this report. Please request a Full QC report if
this data is required.
Miscellaneous Notes:
" --- "QC results are not applicable. For example, % Recoveries for Blanks and Duplicates, % RPD for Blanks, Blank Spikes and Matrix Spikes, etc.
" *** "Used to indicate a possible discrepancy with the Sample and Sample Duplicate results when the %RPD is not available. In this case,
either the Sample or the Sample Duplicate has a reportable result for this analyte, while the other is Non Detect (ND).
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 24 of 28
Page 260 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
REPORTING NOTES AND CONVENTIONS (Cont.):
Blanks:
Standard practice is to evaluate the results from Blank QC Samples down to a level equal to ½ the Reporting Limit (RL).
-For Blank hits falling between ½ the RL and the RL (J flagged hits), the associated sample and QC data will receive a ‘B-02’ qualifier.
-For Blank hits above the RL, the associated sample and QC data will receive a ‘B’ qualifier, per Apex Laboratories' Blank Policy.
For further details, please request a copy of this document.
-Sample results flagged with a 'B' or 'B-02' qualifier are potentially biased high if the sample results are less than ten times the level found in
the blank for inorganic analyses, or less than five times the level found in the blank for organic analyses.
‘B’ and ‘B-02’ qualifications are only applied to sample results detected above the Reporting Level, if results are not reported to the MDL.
Preparation Notes:
Mixed Matrix Samples:
Water Samples:
Water samples containing significant amounts of sediment are decanted or separated prior to extraction, and only the water portion analyzed,
unless otherwise directed by the client.
Soil and Sediment Samples:
Soil and Sediment samples containing significant amounts of water are decanted prior to extraction, and only the solid portion analyzed, unless
otherwise directed by the client.
Sampling and Preservation Notes:
Certain regulatory programs, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), require that activities such as sample filtration
(for dissolved metals, orthophosphate, hexavalent chromium, etc.) and testing of short hold analytes (pH, Dissolved Oxygen, etc.) be performed in
the field (on-site) within a short time window. In addition, sample matrix spikes are required for some analyses, and sufficient volume must be
provided, and billable site specific QC requested, if this is required. All regulatory permits should be reviewed to ensure that these requirements are
being met.
Data users should be aware of which regulations pertain to the samples they submit for testing. If related sample collection activities are not
approved for a particular regulatory program, results should be considered estimates. Apex Laboratories will qualify these analytes according to the
most stringent requirements, however results for samples that are for non-regulatory purposes may be acceptable.
Samples that have been filtered and preserved at Apex Laboratories per client request are listed in the preparation section of the report with the date
and time of filtration listed.
Apex Laboratories maintains detailed records on sample receipt, including client label verification, cooler temperature, sample preservation, hold
time compliance and field filtration. Data is qualified as necessary, and the lack of qualification indicates compliance with required parameters.
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 25 of 28
Page 261 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
LABORATORY ACCREDITATION INFORMATION
ORELAP Certification ID: OR100062 (Primary Accreditation) -
EPA ID: OR01039
All methods and analytes reported from work performed at Apex Laboratories are included on Apex Laboratories' ORELAP
Scope of Certification, with the exception of any analyte(s) listed below:
Apex Laboratories
TNI_IDTNI_IDAnalysis AccreditationAnalyteMatrix
All reported analytes are included in Apex Laboratories' current ORELAP scope.
Subcontracted data falls outside of Apex Laboratories' Scope of Accreditation.
Please see the Subcontract Laboratory report for full details, or contact your Project Manager for more information.
Secondary Accreditations
Apex Laboratories also maintains reciprocal accreditation with non-TNI states (Washington DOE), as well as
other state specific accreditations not listed here.
Subcontract Laboratory Accreditations
Field Testing Parameters
Results for Field Tested data are provded by the client or sampler, and fall outside of Apex Laboratories' Scope of
Accreditation.
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 26 of 28
Page 262 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 27 of 28
Page 263 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 28 of 28
Page 264 of 533
ANALYTICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR
Attn: Mr. Darwin Thomas
Apex Laboratories LLC
6700 SW Sandburg St.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Generated 4/15/2024 5:16:15 PM
JOB DESCRIPTION
A4D0820
JOB NUMBER
570-179253-1
See page two for job notes and contact information.
Tustin CA 92780
2841 Dow Avenue, Suite 100
Eurofins Calscience
Page 1 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 265 of 533
Eurofins Calscience
Eurofins Calscience is a laboratory within Eurofins Environment Testing Southwest, LLC, a company within Eurofins Environment Testing Group of Companies
Job Notes
This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. The results relate only to the
samples tested. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this
page.
The test results in this report relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory and will meet all requirements of the
methodology, with any exceptions noted. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the express written
approval of the laboratory. All questions should be directed to the Eurofins Calscience Project Manager.
Authorization
Generated
4/15/2024 5:16:15 PM
Authorized for release by
Lori Thompson, Project Manager I
Lori.Thompson@et.eurofinsus.com
(657)212-3035
Page 2 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 266 of 533
Table of Contents
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Laboratory Job ID: 570-179253-1
Page 3 of 18 Eurofins Calscience4/15/2024
Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Definitions/Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Case Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Detection Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Client Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Surrogate Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
QC Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
QC Association Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Lab Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Certification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Sample Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Chain of Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Receipt Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 267 of 533
Definitions/Glossary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Qualifiers
GC Semi VOA
Qualifier Description
*+LCS and/or LCSD is outside acceptance limits, high biased.
Qualifier
E Result exceeded calibration range.
J Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value.
p The %RPD between the primary and confirmation column/detector is >40%. The lower value has been reported.
Glossary
These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report.
¤Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis
Abbreviation
%R Percent Recovery
CFL Contains Free Liquid
CFU Colony Forming Unit
CNF Contains No Free Liquid
DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference)
Dil Fac Dilution Factor
DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE)
DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re-analysis, Re-extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample
DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry)
EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin)
LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE)
LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE)
MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level"
MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry)
MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry)
MDL Method Detection Limit
ML Minimum Level (Dioxin)
MPN Most Probable Number
MQL Method Quantitation Limit
NC Not Calculated
ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown)
NEG Negative / Absent
POS Positive / Present
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit
PRES Presumptive
QC Quality Control
RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry)
RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry)
RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points
TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin)
TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin)
TNTC Too Numerous To Count
Eurofins Calscience
Page 4 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 268 of 533
Job Narrative570-179253-1
Analytical test results meet all requirements of the associated regulatory program listed on the Accreditation/Certification SummaryPageunlessotherwisenotedundertheindividualanalysis.Data qualifiers are applied to indicate exceptions.Noncompliant
quality control (QC)is further explained in narrative comments.
·Matrix QC may not be reported if insufficient sample or site-specific QC samples were not submitted.In these situations,to
demonstrate precision and accuracy at a batch level,a LCS/LCSD may be performed,unless otherwise specified in the
method.·Surrogate and/or isotope dilution analyte recoveries (if applicable)which are outside of the QC window are confirmed
unless attributed to a dilution or otherwise noted in the narrative.
Regulated compliance samples (e.g.SDWA,NPDES)must comply with the associated agency requirements/permits.
Receipt
The sample was received on 4/5/2024 9:35 AM.Unless otherwise noted below,the sample arrived in good condition,and,where
required,properly preserved and on ice.The temperature of the cooler at receipt time was 2.6°C.
HerbicidesMethod8151A:Insufficient sample volume was available to perform a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD)associated
with preparation batch 570-427853.The laboratory control sample (LCS)was performed in duplicate (LCSD)to provide precision
data for this batch.
8151A
Method 8151A:The laboratory control sample (LCS)and /or laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD)for preparation batch
570-427853 and analytical batch 570-430104 recovered outside control limits for the following analytes:2,4-DB,Dalapon and
Dinoseb.These analytes were biased high in the LCS and were not detected in the associated samples;therefore,the data have
been reported.
Method 8151A:The continuing calibration verification (CCV)associated with 570-430104 recovered outside the control limits for
2,4-D,Dalapon and Dichlorprop on one column.Results are confirmed on both columns and reported from the passing column
Method 8151A:The method blank for preparation batch 570-427853 contained 2,4-D and 2,4-DB above the reporting limit (RL).
None of the samples associated with this method blank contained the target compound;therefore,re-extraction and/or re-analysis
of samples were not performed.
Method 8151A:The continuing calibration verification (CCV)associated with 570-430104 recovered high and outside the control
limits for 2,4-DB on one column.Results are confirmed on both columns and reported from the passing column.
No additional analytical or quality issues were noted,other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page.
Case Narrative
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job ID: 570-179253-1
Project: A4D0820
Eurofins Calscience
Job ID: 570-179253-1 Eurofins Calscience
Page 5 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 269 of 533
Detection Summary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Client Sample ID: Comp-0.0-0.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-179253-1
No Detections.
Eurofins Calscience
This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results.
Page 6 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 270 of 533
Client Sample Results
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method: SW846 8151A - Herbicides (GC)
Lab Sample ID: 570-179253-1Client Sample ID: Comp-0.0-0.5
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 04/01/24 13:00
Date Received: 04/05/24 09:35
RL MDL
ND 12 4.3 ug/Kg ☼04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1
Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnitDResultQualifier
2,4,5-T
12 8.7 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
120 56 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND2,4-D
120 120 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND *+2,4-DB
290 84 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND *+Dalapon
12 5.5 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼NDDicamba
120 57 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼NDDichlorprop
120 68 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND *+Dinoseb
12000 5700 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼NDMCPA
12000 7700 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼NDMCPP
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid 65 p 20-163 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1
Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifierLimits%Recovery
Eurofins Calscience
Page 7 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 271 of 533
Surrogate Summary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method: 8151A - Herbicides (GC)
Prep Type: Total/NAMatrix: Solid
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID (20-163)
DCPAA1
65 p570-179253-1
Percent Surrogate Recovery (Acceptance Limits)
Comp-0.0-0.5
92 pLCS 570-427853/2-A Lab Control Sample
97LCSD 570-427853/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup
63 pMB 570-427853/1-A Method Blank
Surrogate Legend
DCPAA = 2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid
Eurofins Calscience
Page 8 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 272 of 533
QC Sample Results
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method: 8151A - Herbicides (GC)
Client Sample ID: Method BlankLab Sample ID: MB 570-427853/1-A
Matrix: Solid Prep Type: Total/NA
Analysis Batch: 430104 Prep Batch: 427853
RL MDL
2,4,5-T ND 10 3.7 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1
MB MB
Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedDUnitResultQualifier
ND 7.510 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 12,4,5-TP (Silvex)
129.5 p 49100 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 12,4-D
140.4 p 100100 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 12,4-DB
ND 72250 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1Dalapon
ND 4.710 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1Dicamba
ND 49100 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1Dichlorprop
ND 59100 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1Dinoseb
13220 p 490010000 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1MCPA
7957 J p 660010000 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1MCPP
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid 63 p 20-163 04/12/24 13:20 1
MB MB
Surrogate
04/05/24 16:46
Dil FacPreparedAnalyzedQualifierLimits%Recovery
Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCS 570-427853/2-A
Matrix: Solid Prep Type: Total/NA
Analysis Batch: 430104 Prep Batch: 427853
2,4,5-T 20.0 17.26 ug/Kg 86 26 -180
Analyte
LCS LCS
DUnitResultQualifier %Rec
Spike
Added
%Rec
Limits
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)20.0 20.90 p ug/Kg 105 10 -180
2,4-D 200 321.3 p ug/Kg 161 13 -180
2,4-DB 200 411.0 p *+ug/Kg 206 10 -180
Dalapon 500 896.1 *+ug/Kg 179 10 -176
Dicamba 20.0 23.24 ug/Kg 116 21 -164
Dichlorprop 200 188.0 ug/Kg 94 10 -175
Dinoseb 100 1028 E *+ug/Kg 1028 10 -180
MCPA 20000 29200 p ug/Kg 146 22 -180
MCPP 20000 25060 p ug/Kg 125 18 -180
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid p 20 -163
Surrogate
92
LCS LCS
Qualifier Limits%Recovery
Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample DupLab Sample ID: LCSD 570-427853/3-A
Matrix: Solid Prep Type: Total/NA
Analysis Batch: 430104 Prep Batch: 427853
2,4,5-T 20.0 16.26 ug/Kg 81 26 -180 6 40
Analyte
LCSD LCSD
DUnitResultQualifier %Rec
Spike
Added
%Rec
Limits LimitRPD
RPD
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)20.0 20.96 ug/Kg 105 10 -180 0 40
2,4-D 200 312.3 p ug/Kg 156 13 -180 3 40
2,4-DB 200 334.8 p ug/Kg 167 10 -180 20 40
Dalapon 500 925.3 *+ug/Kg 185 10 -176 3 40
Dicamba 20.0 21.31 ug/Kg 107 21 -164 9 40
Dichlorprop 200 191.8 ug/Kg 96 10 -175 2 40
Dinoseb 100 927.5 E *+ug/Kg 928 10 -180 10 40
MCPA 20000 28760 p ug/Kg 144 22 -180 2 40
MCPP 20000 20760 p ug/Kg 104 18 -180 19 40
Eurofins Calscience
Page 9 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 273 of 533
QC Sample Results
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method: 8151A - Herbicides (GC) (Continued)
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid 20 -163
Surrogate
97
LCSD LCSD
Qualifier Limits%Recovery
Eurofins Calscience
Page 10 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 274 of 533
QC Association Summary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
GC Semi VOA
Prep Batch: 427853
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch
Solid 8151A570-179253-1 Comp-0.0-0.5 Total/NA
Solid 8151AMB 570-427853/1-A Method Blank Total/NA
Solid 8151ALCS 570-427853/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA
Solid 8151ALCSD 570-427853/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA
Analysis Batch: 430104
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch
Solid 8151A 427853570-179253-1 Comp-0.0-0.5 Total/NA
Solid 8151A 427853MB 570-427853/1-A Method Blank Total/NA
Solid 8151A 427853LCS 570-427853/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA
Solid 8151A 427853LCSD 570-427853/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA
Eurofins Calscience
Page 11 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 275 of 533
Lab Chronicle
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job ID: 570-179253-1
Project/Site: A4D0820
Client Sample ID: Comp-0.0-0.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-179253-1
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 04/01/24 13:00
Date Received: 04/05/24 09:35
Prep 8151A JC04/05/24 16:46 EET CAL 4427853
Type
Batch
Method
Batch
Prep Type LabAnalystRun
Prepared
or Analyzed
Initial
Amount Amount
Final Batch
NumberFactor
Dil
Total/NA 49.98 g 5 mL
Analysis 8151A 1 430104 04/12/24 17:25 UJ3K EET CAL 4Total/NA 1 mL 1 mL
GC41Instrument ID:
Laboratory References:
EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494
Eurofins Calscience
Page 12 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 276 of 533
Accreditation/Certification Summary
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job ID: 570-179253-1
Project/Site: A4D0820
Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience
The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report.
Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date
Oregon NELAP 4175 02-03-25
Washington State C916-18 10-11-24
Eurofins Calscience
Page 13 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 277 of 533
Method Summary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method Method Description LaboratoryProtocol
SW8468151AHerbicides (GC)EET CAL 4
SW8468151AExtraction (Herbicides)EET CAL 4
Protocol References:
SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates.
Laboratory References:
EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494
Eurofins Calscience
Page 14 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 278 of 533
Sample Summary
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job ID: 570-179253-1
Project/Site: A4D0820
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received
570-179253-1 Comp-0.0-0.5 Solid 04/01/24 13:00 04/05/24 09:35
Eurofins CalsciencePage 15 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 279 of 533
Page 16 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 280 of 533
Page 17 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 281 of 533
Login Sample Receipt Checklist
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job Number: 570-179253-1
Login Number: 179253
Question Answer Comment
Creator: Vitente, Precy
List Source: Eurofins Calscience
List Number: 1
N/ARadioactivity wasn't checked or is </= background as measured by a survey
meter.
TrueThe cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact.
TrueSample custody seals, if present, are intact.
TrueThe cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or
tampered with.
TrueSamples were received on ice.
TrueCooler Temperature is acceptable.
TrueCooler Temperature is recorded.
TrueCOC is present.
TrueCOC is filled out in ink and legible.
TrueCOC is filled out with all pertinent information.
N/AIs the Field Sampler's name present on COC?Received project as a subcontract.
TrueThere are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC.
TrueSamples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate
HTs)
TrueSample containers have legible labels.
TrueContainers are not broken or leaking.
TrueSample collection date/times are provided.
TrueAppropriate sample containers are used.
TrueSample bottles are completely filled.
TrueSample Preservation Verified.
TrueThere is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested
MS/MSDs
TrueContainers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is
<6mm (1/4").
TrueMultiphasic samples are not present.
TrueSamples do not require splitting or compositing.
N/AResidual Chlorine Checked.
Eurofins Calscience
Page 18 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 282 of 533
Page 1 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No.: MP-23002
Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission
Consideration of the Sunnybrook Village
Eastside Transit Oriented Development
Master Plan
Applicant:) Findings of Fact
CA Galpin LLC ) and
744 Cardley Drive ) Conclusion of Law
Medford OR 97501 )
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
The applicant submitted the Sunnybrook Village Master Plan application for development of a residential
subdivision, including public streets, parks and open space, storm drain facilities and utilities in the
Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) Overlay. The property is zoned Low Mix Residential
(LMR) and is located along Hamrick Road, north of the intersection with Beebe Road.
A master plan application is reviewed as a Type III application. Type III applications are reviewed in
accordance with procedures provided in Section 17.05.400, which provides the basis for decisions upon
standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when appropriate.
Applicable Review Criteria for TOD master plans are set forth in Chapter 17.66, Application Review Process for
the TOD Overlay and include:
1. CPMC 17.65.040 and 17.65.050 relating to the TOD Overlay
2. CPMC 17.66.030 A(3) and 17.66.030 B – Submittal Requirements
3. CPMC 17.67, Design Standards—TOD Overlay;
4. CPMC 17.60, General Regulations unless superseded by Sections 17.65.040 through 17.65.070
5. CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3), Parking Standard, and CPMC 17.64, Off-Street Parking and Loading
6. CPMC 17.70, Historic Preservation Overlay
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The property is located along the west side of Hamrick Road, north of the intersection with Beebe Road,
within the Low Mix Residential (LMR) zoning district of the Eastside Transit Oriented Development
(ETOD) Overlay. It is the Applicant’s objective to obtain master plan approval to facilitate development
of a residential subdivision on the property within the context of existing and planned development in the
ETOD.
The proposed Sunnybrook Village encompasses the 7.57-acre project site. As shown on the Vicinity
Map (Figure 1), abutting properties to the north, south and west are undeveloped. Low-density, single-
family dwellings are located east of the site and Hamrick Road. Sunnybrook Village is the second
master plan contemplated in the ETOD. Willow Bend, formerly known as White Hawk, is located
Page 283 of 533
Page 2 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
over 750-ft to the west. As the first master plan along the eastern portion of the ETOD, Sunnybrook
Village will establish land use and circulation patterns that will influence development on surrounding
properties and circulation throughout the ETOD.
Since Master Plan compliance is required for land divisions greater than two (2) acres, the application for
master plan amendment is accompanied by, and being processed concurrently with, an application for a
Tentative Subdivision Plan (see File No. SUB-23001) that reviews criteria for subdivision design
standards (CPMC 16.10).
Page 284 of 533
Page 3 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Page 285 of 533
Page 4 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Figure 2. Tentative Plan
Page 286 of 533
Page 5 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Figure 3. ETOD Circulation Plan
Page 287 of 533
Page 6 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Figure 4. Park Concept Plan
Page 288 of 533
Page 7 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Figure 5. Building Design Plans
Page 289 of 533
Page 8 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Page 290 of 533
Page 9 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Page 291 of 533
Page 10 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Page 292 of 533
Page 11 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Page 293 of 533
Page 12 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Page 294 of 533
Page 13 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
PART 2 – CHAPTER 17.65
LAND USE AND ZONING REGULATIONS
TOD OVERLAY
The purpose of the Central Point Transit Oriented Development (TOD) overlay is to promote efficient and
sustainable land development and the increased use of transit as required by the Oregon Transportation
Planning Rule. The sections of CPMC 17.65 applicable to the application are:
17.65.025 Special Conditions.
On occasion it may be necessary to impose interim development restrictions on certain TOD overlay
areas. Special conditions will be identified in this section for each TOD overlay.
A. Eastside Transit Oriented Development Overlay (ETOD) Agricultural Mitigation. All
development shall acknowledge the presence of active farm uses within the ETOD area by
recording a right-to-farm disclosure statement as a condition of final plat, transfer of property, or
site plan and architectural review approval. The ETOD agricultural mitigation shall be removed at
such time as the urban growth boundary is incorporated and completely builds out.
B. Eastside Transit Oriented Development Overlay (ETOD) Shallow Wells. Prior to development
within the ETOD, a water table analysis shall be conducted to determine the local water table
depth. Any development impacting the water table will require further analysis to determine the
effect on neighboring wells and the development shall be expected to mitigate that impact.
The ETOD agricultural and shallow wells mitigation shall be removed at such time as the urban growth
boundary is incorporated and parcels within the ETOD are built to urban standards and connected to city
water.
Finding 17.65.025: The project site is located in the ETOD and the Master Plan application
acknowledges the presence of active farm uses nearby. As a condition of approval, the applicant will be
required to record a right-to-farm disclosure prior to final plat.
The application acknowledges three (3) shallow wells on the project site and multiple wells in the
surrounding area. The applicant has provided a water table analysis, completed by Apex Engineers,
dated July 25, 2024, that examines the potential effects on neighboring wells from the development of
Sunnybrook Village. Based on the conclusions of the analysis and the proposed development plans for
Sunnybrook Village, the development is not anticipated to impact the water table or surrounding wells
unless installation of water and sanitary sewer lines extend below the water table. As conditioned in the
Public Works Staff Report dated August 21, 2024, all underground public utilities will be required to
implement the mitigation actions necessary to avoid impacts to shallow wells in the vicinity. These will be
reviewed at the time of Civil Improvement Plan review by the City Engineer prior to the start of any
construction
Conclusion 17.65.025: Complies as conditioned.
17.65.040 Land Use.
Page 295 of 533
Page 14 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Four special zone district categories are applied in the Central Point TOD Overlay. The characteristics of
these zoning districts are summarized in subsections A through D of this section, with specific uses
further defined in Section 17.65.050, Table 1.
A.Residential (TOD).
1. LMR--Low Mix Residential. This is the lowest density residential zone in the district.
Single-family detached residences are intended to be the primary housing type; however,
attached single-family and lower density multifamily housing types are also allowed and
encouraged.
2. MMR--Medium Mix Residential. This medium density residential zone focuses on higher
density forms of residential living. The range of housing types includes higher density
single-family and a variety of multifamily residences. Low impact commercial activities
may also be allowed.
3. HMR--High Mix Residential/Commercial. This is the highest density residential zone
intended to be near the center of the TOD district. High density forms of multifamily
housing are encouraged along with complementary ground floor commercial uses. Low
impact commercial activities may also be allowed. Low density residential uses are not
permitted.
B.Employment (TOD).
1. EC--Employment Commercial. Retail, service, and office uses are primarily intended for
this district. Activities which are oriented and complementary to pedestrian travel and
transit are encouraged. Development is expected to support pedestrian access and transit
use. Automobile oriented activities are generally not included in the list of permitted uses.
Residential uses above ground floor commercial uses are also consistent with the purpose
of this zone.
2. GC--General Commercial. Commercial and industrial uses are primarily intended for this
district. Activities which are oriented and complementary to pedestrian travel and transit
are encouraged. Residential uses above ground floor commercial uses are also consistent
with the purpose of this zone.
C.C--Civic (TOD). Civic uses such as government offices, schools, and community centers are the
primary uses intended in this district. These uses can play an important role in the vitality of the
TOD district.
D.OS--Open Space (TOD). Because the density of development will generally be higher than other
areas in the region, providing open space and recreation opportunities for the residents and
employees in the TOD district becomes very important. This zone is intended to provide a variety
of outdoor and recreation amenities.
Finding 17.65.040: The project site is located in the LMR zone, designated as an area for residential
development. The Master Plan application is accompanied by an application for a tentative subdivision
Page 296 of 533
Page 15 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
plan that incorporates several types of residential uses, including single-family detached and single-
family attached along with multifamily units.
Conclusion 17.65.040: Consistent.
17.65.050 Zoning Regulations
A. Permitted Uses. Permitted uses in Table 1 are shown with a “P.” These uses are allowed if
they comply with the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the same
application and review process as other permitted uses identified in this title.
B. Limited Uses. Limited uses in Table 1 are shown with an “L.” These uses are allowed if
they comply with the specific limitations described in this chapter and the applicable
provisions of this title. They are subject to the same application and review process as
other permitted uses identified in this title.
C. Conditional Uses. Conditional uses in Table 1 are shown with a “C.” These uses are
allowed if they comply with the applicable provisions of this title. They are subject to the
same application and review process as other conditional uses identified in this title.
Finding 17.65.050(A-C): The Master Plan proposes open space/recreation and residential uses,
including housing types (i.e. single-family detached, single-family attached and multi-family units)
that are permitted in the LMR zoning district per CPMC 17.65.050, Table 1.
Conclusion 17.65.050(A-C): Consistent.
D. Density. The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are
specified in Table 2.
E. Dimensional Standards. The dimensional standards for lot size, lot dimensions, building
setbacks, and building height are specified in Table 2.
Finding 17.65.070(D): As shown in Table 1, below, the proposed 36 lot tentative plan on 5.19 acres
(after deducting right-of-way) complies with the density and lot dimension standards in the LMR
zoning district in the TOD Overlay.
Table 1. Applicable Zoning Regulations
Standard LMR-TOD Proposed Tentative Plan
Minimum Density 6 units/ acre
Maximum Density 12 units/acre 8 units/acre
Minimum Lot Area
Attached Row House 2,000 square feet 3,088 square feet
Std Single Family 3,000 square feet 4,131 square feet
Multifamily N/A N/A
Average Lot Area
Attached Row House 2,500 square feet 3,469 square feet
Std Single Family 4,500 square feet 4,561 square feet
Page 297 of 533
Page 16 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Conclusion 17.65.070(D): Consistent.
F. Development Standards.
1. Housing Mix. The required housing mix for the TOD district is shown in Table 2.
2. Accessory Units. Accessory units are allowed as indicated in Table 1. Accessory
units shall meet the following standards:
Finding 17.65.050(F)(1-2): Per Table 2 of CPMC 17.65.050, the proposal for 36 units is required to
provide two housing types. The proposed housing mix includes three housing types: single-family
detached, single-family attached, and multi-family units.
Conclusion 17.65.050(F)(1-2): Consistent.
3. Parking Standards. The off-street parking and loading requirements in
Chapter 17.64 shall apply to the TOD overlay.
Finding 17.65.050(F)(3): As amended by Ordinance 2100, adopted June 6, 2023, Chapter 17.64 does
not impose minimum or maximum parking requirements on residential uses; therefore, parking and
loading requirements are not required for this application.
Conclusion 17.65.070(F)(3): Not applicable.
PART 3 – CHAPTER 17.66
APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE TOD OVERLAY
This chapter describes the review procedures to be followed for development proposed within the
TOD overlay which are identified on the official city zoning map. The sections of CPMC 17.66
applicable to the application are:
CPMC 17.66.030, Application and Review
A. There are four types of applications which are subject to review within the Central Point
TOD overlay.
1. TOD Overlay Master Plan. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. Master plan
approval shall be required for:
Multifamily N/A N/A
Minimum Lot Width
Attached Row House 24-feet 32.7-feet
Std Single Family 50-feet 54-feet
Multifamily N/A N/A
Minimum Lot Depth 50-feet 65-feet
Page 298 of 533
Page 17 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
a.Development or land division applications which involve two or more acres
of land; or
b.Modification to a valid master plan approval which involve one or more of
the following:
i. An increase in dwelling unit density which exceeds five percent of
approved density;
ii. An increase in commercial gross floor area of ten percent or two
thousand square feet, whichever is greater;
iii. A change in the type and location of streets, accessways, and
parking areas where off-site traffic would be affected; or
iv. A modification of a condition imposed as part of the master plan
approval.
2. Site Plan and Architectural Review. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site Plan and
Architectural Review, shall apply to permitted uses and limited uses within the
TOD overlay. For site plan and architectural review applications involving two or
more acres of land, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be
approved prior to, or concurrently with, a site plan and architectural review
application.
3. Land Division. Partitions and subdivisions shall be reviewed as provided in Title
16, Subdivisions. For a land division application involving two or more acres of
land, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to,
or concurrently with, a land division application.
4. Conditional Use. Conditional uses shall be reviewed as provided in Chapter 17.76,
Conditional Use Permits.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A): The Sunnybrook Village Master Plan is for a 36-lot subdivision on a
property of approximately 7.57 acres, with approximately 5.19 acres of net residential area. The
current application is to satisfy the master plan requirements for development and land division
proposals involving two or more acres. The master plan application is processed and reviewed
concurrently with an application for tentative subdivision plan (File No. SUB-23001).
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A): Consistent.
B. Submittal Requirements. A master plan shall include the following elements:
1. Introduction. A written narrative describing:
a.Duration of the master plan;
b.Site location map;
c.Land use and minimum and maximum residential densities proposed;
Page 299 of 533
Page 18 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
d.Identification of other approved master plans within the project area (one
hundred feet).
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(1): The Master Plan provides a written analysis of the
subdivision and project area. The proposed 36-lot subdivision will be completed in three (3)
phases within five (5) years. The Vicinity Map (Figure 2) and ETOD Circulation Map (Figure
3) illustrate the site location of the subject property as it relates to the surrounding
development and adjacent master plans.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B): Consistent.
2. Site Analysis Map. A map and written narrative of the project area addressing site
amenities and challenges on the project site and adjacent lands within one hundred feet
of the project site.
a.Master Utility Plan. A plan and narrative addressing existing and proposed
utilities and utility extensions for water, sanitary sewer, storm water, gas,
electricity, and agricultural irrigation.
b.Adjacent Land Use Plan. A map identifying adjacent land uses and structures
within one hundred feet of the project perimeter and remedies for preservation
of livability of adjacent land uses.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(2): The Master Plan identifies existing and proposed utilities
and adjacent land uses. As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the
Master Plan satisfies the approval criteria for the TOD Corridor and is consistent with the
adjacent land uses.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(2): Consistent
3. Transportation and Circulation Plan. A transportation impact analysis (TIA) identifying
planned transportation facilities, services and networks to be provided concurrently
with the development of the master plan and addressing Section 17.67.040, Circulation
and access standards.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(3): As shown on the ETOD Circulation Map (Figure 3), the
street network and circulation patterns of the project site will continue the established patterns
from an existing master plan to the east. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) for the
proposed development shows no adverse impacts to the surrounding transportation systems.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(3): Consistent.
4. Site Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67.050, Site design standards.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(4): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, including the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the Tentative Plan (Figure 2), the Master
Plan satisfies the approval criteria for site design standards for the TOD Overlay.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(4): Consistent.
Page 300 of 533
Page 19 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
5. Recreation and Open Space Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67.060,
Public parks and open space design standards.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(5): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, including the Park Concept Plan (Figure 4), the Master Plan satisfies the approval
criteria for parks and open space for the TOD Overlay as demonstrated by the findings for
CPMC 17.67.060 set forth herein below.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(5): Consistent.
6. Building Design Plan. A written narrative and illustrations addressing Section
17.67.070, Building design standards.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(6): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth
herein, including the Building Design Plans (Figure 5), the Master Plan satisfies the approval
criteria for building design standards for the TOD Overlay as demonstrated by the findings for
CPMC 17.67.070 set forth herein below.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(6): Consistent
7. Transit Plan. A plan identifying proposed, or future, transit facilities (if any).
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(7): The project site is located in area planned for future transit
services. The Master Plan provides connected pedestrian facilities via the public sidewalk
system and proposes an area for a future transit stop on Hamrick Road adjacent to the project
site.
Conclusion: CPMC 17.66.030(B)(7): Consistent.
8. Environmental Plan. A plan identifying environmental conditions such as wetlands,
flood hazard areas, groundwater conditions, and hazardous sites on and adjacent to the
project site.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B)(8): The site does not contain mapped wetlands, flood hazard
areas, and the riparian area for Bear Creek is not adjacent to or near the project site. The
ETOD, including the project site, has been identified as an area with soil contamination due to
past farming practices and includes shallow groundwater wells. The Master Plan includes
analysis of soil conditions on site and confirms contamination that requires removal prior to
development of the property.
As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth in Part 2 herein, the Master Plan
satisfies the approval criteria for identifying and protecting shallow groundwater wells in the
vicinity of the proposed development.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B)(8): Complies as conditioned.
CPMC 17.66.040 Parks and Open Space
Page 301 of 533
Page 20 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Common park and open space shall be provided for all residential development within a TOD overlay as
per Section 17.67.060.
Finding CPMC 17.66.040: As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 2) and the Park Concept Plan
(Figure 4), common park and open space is included as part of the proposal. As evidenced by the findings
and conclusions set forth herein, the proposed common park and open space areas satisfy the approval
criteria for parks and open space for the TOD Corridor.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.040: Consistent.
CPMC 17.66.050 Application Approval Criteria
A. TOD Overlay Master Plan. A master plan shall be approved when the approval authority finds that
the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
1. Sections 17.65.040 and 17.65.050, relating to the TOD Overlay;
Findings CPMC 17.65.040 and 17.65.050: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set
forth in Part 2 herein, the proposed development satisfies the approval criteria for land use
and zoning standards for the TOD Overlay as conditioned.
Conclusion CPMC 17.65.040 and 17.65.050: Complies as conditioned.
2. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD Overlay;
Findings CPMC 17.67: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth in Part 4
herein, the proposed Master Plan satisfies the approval criteria for design standards for the
TOD Overlay.
Conclusion CPMC 17.67: Consistent.
3. Section 17.65.050(F)(3), Parking Standards, and Chapter 17.64, Off-Street Parking and
Loading;
Findings CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3): As amended by Ordinance 2100, adopted June 6, 2023,
Chapter 17.64 does not impose minimum or maximum parking requirements on residential
uses; therefore, parking and loading requirements are not required for this application.
Conclusion CPMC 17.65.050(F)(3): Not applicable.
B. Site Plan and Architectural Review. A site plan and architectural review application shall be
approved when the approval authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be
shown to be inapplicable:
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(D): The application is for a Master Plan. An application for Tentative
Plan is being processed and reviewed concurrently (see File No. SUB-23001). There is no site
plan application as part of the submittal.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(D): Not applicable.
Page 302 of 533
Page 21 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
C. Land Division. A land division application shall be approved when the approval authority finds
that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
1. The provisions of Title 16, Subdivisions; and
2. The proposed land division complies with the approved TOD district or corridor master
plan for the property, if required; and
3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(C): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the
proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfies the approval criteria.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(C): Consistent.
D. Conditional Use.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(D): The application is for a new Master Plan in the ETOD Overlay. An
application for Tentative Plan is being processed and reviewed concurrently (see File No. SUB-
23001). There are no conditional uses as part of the submittal.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(D): Not applicable.
CPMC 17.66.060 Conditions of approval
The approval authority may apply reasonable conditions of approval to ensure that the applicable
standards of this code are satisfied.
Finding CPMC 17.66.060: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, reasonable
conditions apply to ensure the standards of this code are satisfied.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.060: Consistent.
Page 303 of 533
Page 22 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
PART 4 – CHAPTER 17.67
DESIGN STANDARDS – TOD OVERLAY
The purpose of the Central Point TOD Overlay design standards is to complement and support efficient
and sustainable land development, to reduce auto reliance and to increase transit use as required by the
Oregon Transportation Planning Rule. The sections of CPMC 17.67 applicable to the application are:
CPMC 17.67.040 Circulation and access standards
A. Public Street Standards.
1. Except for specific transportation facilities identified in a TOD overlay master plan, the
street dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of Public
Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works
Construction, Section 300, Street Construction shall apply for all development located
within the TOD overlay which is approved according to the provisions in
Section 17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66.
2. Block perimeters shall not exceed two thousand feet measured along the public street right-
of-way.
3. Block lengths for public streets shall not exceed six hundred feet between through streets,
measured along street right-of-way.
4. Public alleys or major off-street bike/pedestrian pathways, designed as provided in this
chapter, may be used to meet the block length or perimeter standards of this section.
5. The standards for block perimeters and lengths shall be modified to the minimum extent
necessary based on findings that strict compliance with the standards is not reasonably
practicable or appropriate due to:
a. Topographic constraints;
b.Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical
connection of streets or accessways;
c.Railroads;
d.Traffic safety concerns;
e.Functional and operational needs to create a large building; or
f.Protection of significant natural resources.
6. All utility lines shall be underground but utility vault access lids may be located in the
sidewalk area.
7. Connections shall be provided between new streets in a TOD overlay and existing local
and minor collector streets.
Page 304 of 533
Page 23 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Finding 17.67.040(A)(1-7): The public street design and circulation plan provides consistent
block patterns within Sunnybrook Village and continues the major street network pattern
started with the Master Plan for Willow Bend to the west (Figure 3). The access into
Sunnybrook Village is from Hamrick Road, consistent with the Public Works Standards and
Specifications for access and intersection construction. The Master Plan demonstrates future
connections to adjacent properties and circulation patterns throughout the remaining
properties within the ETOD. Once development is completed to the west, as depicted on the
ETOD Circulation Plan (Figure 3), block length along the north street (Denson Street)
measured along the public street right-of-way will be approximately 597-feet and perimeter
block length will be approximately 1,900-feet, where 600-feet and 2,000-feet are the maximum
permitted respectively.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(1-7): Consistent.
8. Pedestrian/Bike Access ways Within Public Street Right-of-Way.
a.Except for specific access way facilities identified in a TOD overlay master plan,
the following access way dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central
Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard
Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction shall apply
for any development located within the TOD overlay which is approved according
to the provisions in Section17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66.
9. Public Off-Street Accessways.
a.Pedestrian accessways and greenways should be provided as needed to supplement
pedestrian routes along public streets.
b.Major off-street pedestrian accessways shall incorporate all of the following design
criteria:
i. The applicable standards in the City of Central Point Department of Public
Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public
Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction;
ii. Minimum ten-foot vertical clearance;
iii. Minimum twenty-foot horizontal barrier clearance for pathway;
iv. Asphalt, concrete, gravel, or wood chip surface as approved by the city,
with a compacted subgrade;
v. Nonskid boardwalks if wetland construction is necessary; and
vi. Minimum one hundred square feet of trailhead area at intersections with
other pedestrian improvements. A trail map sign shall be provided at this
location.
Page 305 of 533
Page 24 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
c.Minor off-street trails shall be a minimum of five feet wide, have a minimum
vertical clearance of eight feet, a minimum two-foot horizontal clearance from edge
of pathway and be constructed of gravel or wood chips, with a compacted
subgrade.
Finding 17.67.040(A)(8-9): The Sunnybrook Village Master Plan does not propose off-street
public accessways for pedestrians or bicycles. All on-street facilities will be constructed in
accordance with the Public Works Standards and Specifications in accordance with the conditions
listed in the Public Works Staff Report dated August 21, 2024.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(8-9): Complies as conditioned.
17.67.050 Site Design Standards.
The following standards and criteria shall be addressed in the master plan, land division, and/or site plan
review process:
A. Adjacent Off-Site Structures and Uses.
1. All off-site structures, including septic systems, drain fields, and domestic wells (within
one hundred feet) shall be identified and addressed in the master plan, land division, or site
plan process in a manner that preserves and enhances the livability and future development
needs of off-site structures and uses consistent with the purpose of the TOD overlay and as
necessary to improve the overall relationship of a development or an individual building to
the surrounding context.
Finding 17.67.050(A)(1): Exhibit 3 identifies adjacent land uses and off-site structures and
Exhibit 10 identifies adjacent domestic wells. An engineering analysis prepared by APEX dated
July 24, 2024 evaluates the potential for short-term and long-term well impacts, identifies the
likelihood of impacts, and recommends mitigation actions that are necessary if utility installation
occurs below the water table. The report’s conclusions state adverse impacts are not expected
and mitigation actions are recommended for utility installation below the water table. As
conditioned in the Public Works Staff Report dated August 21, 2024, all underground public
utilities will be required to implement the mitigation actions necessary to avoid impacts to
shallow wells in the vicinity. These will be reviewed at the time of Civil Improvement Plan review
by the City Engineer prior to the start of any construction.
Conclusion 17.67.050(A)(1): Complies as conditioned.
2. Specific infrastructure facilities identified on site in the master plan, land division, and/or
site plan shall comply with the underground utility standards set forth in the City of Central
Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details
for Public Works Construction, Section 400, Storm Water Sewer System and, more
specifically, Section 420.10.02, Ground Water Control Plan, in order to safeguard the
water resources of adjacent uses.
Finding 17.67.050(A)(2): The Master Utility Plan (Exhibit 2) proposes underground utility
construction. Connections to existing infrastructure will be in accordance with all applicable
Page 306 of 533
Page 25 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
sections of the City of Central Point Department Public Works Standard Specification and
Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction. Underground utilities will also be
subject to the shallow well mitigation design and construction recommendations in the APEX
report dated July 24, 2024 as provided in Finding 17.67.050(A)(1).
Conclusion 17.67.050(A)(2): Consistent.
B. Natural Features.
1. Buildings should be sited to preserve significant trees.
2. Buildings should be sited to avoid or lessen the impact of development on environmentally
critical areas such as steep slopes, wetlands, and stream corridors.
3. Whenever possible, wetlands, groves and natural areas should be maintained as public
preserves and as open space opportunities in neighborhoods.
Finding 17.67.050(B): The site is currently undeveloped and consists largely of a large, open
grass field with large trees dispersed throughout. The trees are not significant, with many
damaged and/or considered hazardous. There are no rock outcroppings, the site does not contain
mapped wetlands or flood hazard areas, and the riparian area for Bear Creek is not adjacent to
or near the project site.
Conclusion 17.67.050(B): Consistent.
C. Topography.
1. Buildings and other site improvements should reflect, rather than obscure, natural
topography.
2. Buildings and parking lots should be designed to fit into hillsides, for instance, reducing
the need for grading and filling.
3. Where neighboring buildings have responded to similar topographic conditions on their
sites in a consistent and positive way, similar treatment for the new structure should be
considered.
Finding 17.67.050(C): The project site is currently undeveloped. Per staff site visits and aerial
imagery, the project site contains some vegetation including a few mature trees, but it primarily
consists of a flat, open grass field. There are no rock outcroppings or wetland areas on the project
site.
Conclusion 17.67.050(C): Consistent.
D. Solar Orientation.
1. The building design, massing and orientation should enhance solar exposure for the
project, taking advantage of the climate of Central Point for sun-tempered design.
2. Where possible, the main elevation should be facing within twenty-five degrees due south.
Page 307 of 533
Page 26 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
3. In residential developments, the location of rooms should be considered in view of solar
exposure, e.g., primary living spaces should be oriented south but a west facing kitchen
should be avoided as it may result in summer overheating.
4. Outdoor spaces should be strategically sited for solar access and the cooling summer
winds.
5. Shadow impacts, particularly in winter on adjacent buildings and outdoor spaces should be
avoided.
Finding 17.67.050(D): The proposal maximizes solar orientation to the greatest extent possible
within the context of the existing and proposed street network and development patterns in the
ETOD.
Conclusion 17.67.050(D): Consistent.
E. Existing Buildings on the Site.
1. Where a new building shares the site with an admirable existing building or is a major
addition to such a building, the design of the new building should be compatible with the
original.
2. New buildings proposed for existing neighborhoods with a well-defined and desirable
character should be compatible with or complement the architectural character and siting
pattern of neighboring buildings.
Finding 17.67.050(E): The project site is currently undeveloped. As evidenced by the findings and
conclusions set forth herein addressing CPMC 17.67.070, the proposed structures satisfy the
approval criteria for building design standards in the TOD Overlay.
Conclusion 17.67.050(E): Consistent.
F. New Prominent Structures. Key public or civic buildings, such as community centers, churches,
schools, libraries, post offices, and museums, should be placed in prominent locations, such as
fronting on public squares or where pedestrian street vistas terminate, in order to serve as
landmarks and to symbolically reinforce their importance.
Finding 17.67.050(F): The proposed development project does not include public or civic
buildings.
Conclusion 17.67.050(F): Not applicable.
G. Views. The massing of individual buildings should be adjusted to preserve important views while
benefiting new and existing occupants and surrounding neighborhoods.
Finding 17.67.050(G): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions for CPMC 17.67.070 set
forth herein, the proposed structures satisfy the approval criteria for building design standards for
the TOD Overlay.
Conclusion 17.67.050(G): Consistent.
Page 308 of 533
Page 27 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
H. Adjoining Uses and Adjacent Services.
1. When more intensive uses, such as neighborhood commercial or multifamily dwellings,
are within or adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods, care should be taken to
minimize the impact of noise, lighting, and traffic on adjacent dwellings.
2. Activity or equipment areas should be strategically located to avoid disturbing adjacent
residents.
3. All on-site service areas, loading zones and outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal
facilities, transformer and utility vaults, and similar activities shall be located in an area not
visible from a street or urban space.
4. Screening shall be provided for activities, areas and equipment that will create noise, such
as loading and vehicle areas, air conditioning units, heat pumps, exhaust fans, and garbage
compactors, to avoid disturbing adjacent residents.
5. Group mailboxes are limited to the number of houses on any given block of development.
Only those boxes serving the units may be located on the block. Multiple units of
mailboxes may be combined within a centrally located building of four walls that meets
the design guidelines for materials, entrance, roof form, windows, etc. The structure must
have lighting both inside and out.
Finding 17.67.050(H): The project site is located in the LMR zoning district within the TOD
Overlay and the proposed 36-lot subdivision is consistent with the zoning regulations in CPMC
17.65.050. The adjacent properties to the north, west and south are undeveloped. As the first
master plan in this portion of the ETOD, Sunnybrook Village will establish land use and
circulation patterns that will influence development on surrounding properties and circulation
throughout the ETOD. Low-density, single-family dwellings are located east of the site; however,
the project location and that development are separated by Hamrick Road.
Conclusion 17.67.050(H): Consistent.
I. Transitions in Density.
1. Higher density, attached dwelling developments shall minimize impact on adjacent
existing lower density, single-family dwelling neighborhoods by adjusting height, massing
and materials and/or by providing adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens.
2. Adequate buffer strips with vegetative screens shall be placed to mitigate the impact of
higher density development on adjacent lower density development.
3. New residential buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development
shall be no higher than thirty-five feet and shall be limited to single-family detached or
attached units, duplexes, triplexes or fourplexes.
4. New commercial buildings within fifty feet of existing low density residential development
shall be no higher than forty-five feet.
Page 309 of 533
Page 28 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
5. Dwelling types in a TOD district or corridor shall be mixed to encourage interaction
among people of varying backgrounds and income levels.
6. Zoning changes should occur midblock, not at the street centerline, to ensure that
compatible building types face along streets and within neighborhoods. When dissimilar
building types face each other across the street because the zoning change is at the street
centerline or more infill housing is desired (for instance, duplexes across the street from
single dwellings), design shall ensure similarity in massing, setback, and character.
7. Density should be increased incrementally, to buffer existing neighborhoods from
incompatible building types or densities. Sequence density, generally, as follows: large lot
single dwelling, small lot single dwelling, duplex, townhomes, courtyard multifamily
apartments, large multifamily apartments, and mixed use buildings.
Finding 17.67.050(I): The proposed development includes single-family attached, single-family
detached and lower density multifamily housing types, consistent with the LMR zoning district
within the TOD overlay. There are no multi-use, high density residential or commercial uses
proposed as part of the development. The low-density single-family development to the east is
located greater than fifty feet from the property boundary of the project site and is separated by
Hamrick Road, an Arterial designated roadway.
Conclusion 17.67.050(I): Consistent.
J. Parking.
1. Parking Lot Location.
a.Off-street surface parking lots shall be located to the side or rear of buildings.
Parking at midblock or behind buildings is preferred.
b.Off-street surface parking lots shall not be located between a front facade of a
building and a public street.
c.If a building adjoins streets or accessways on two or more sides, off-street parking
shall be allowed between the building and the pedestrian route in the following
order of priority:
1st . Accessways;
2nd. Streets that are non-transit streets.
3rd. Streets that are transit streets.
d.Parking lots and garages should not be located within twenty feet of a street corner.
2. Design.
a.All perimeter and interior landscaped areas must have protective curbs along the
edges. Trees must have adequate protection from car doors and bumpers.
Page 310 of 533
Page 29 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
b.A portion of the standard parking space may be landscaped instead of paved. The
landscaped area may be up to two feet in front of the space as measured from a line
parallel to the direction of the bumper of a vehicle using the space. Landscaping
must be ground cover plants. The landscaping does not apply toward any perimeter
or interior parking lot landscaping requirements, but does count toward any overall
site landscaping requirement.
c.In order to control dust and mud, all vehicle areas must be paved.
d.All parking areas must be striped in conformance with the city of Central Point
parking dimension standards.
e.Thoughtful siting of parking and vehicle access should be used to minimize the
impact of automobiles on the pedestrian environment, adjacent properties, and
pedestrian safety.
f.Large parking lots should be divided into smaller areas, using, for example,
landscaping or special parking patterns.
g.Parking should be located in lower or upper building levels or in less visible
portions of site.
3. Additional Standards for LMR, MMR and HMR Zones.
a.When parking must be located to the side of buildings, parking frontage should be
limited to approximately fifty percent of total site frontage.
b.Where possible, alleys should be used to bring the vehicle access to the back of the
site.
c.For parking structures, see Section 17.67.070(H).
Finding 17.67.050(J)(3): The proposed development is a mix of attached single-family, detached
single-family, and lower density multifamily housing types. Parking lots are not proposed as part
of the development. Access to dwellings is provided by front-facing garages or alley-loaded, rear-
facing garages. As evidenced by the findings and conclusions for CPMC 17.67.070 set forth
herein, the proposed structures satisfy the approval criteria for building design standards for the
TOD Overlay.
Conclusion 17.67.050(J): Consistent.
K. Landscaping.
1. Perimeter Screening and Planting.
a.Landscaped buffers should be used to achieve sufficient screening while still
preserving views to allow areas to be watched and guarded by neighbors.
b.Landscaping should be used to screen and buffer unsightly uses and to separate
such incompatible uses as parking areas and waste storage pickup areas.
Page 311 of 533
Page 30 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Finding 17.67.050(K)(1): As conditioned in the Public Works Staff Report, dated August 21,
2024, landscape and irrigation plans are required as part of the civil improvement plans for
landscaping installed in public areas, including but not limited to street trees and the park.
Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(1): Complies as conditioned.
2. Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening.
a.Parking areas shall be screened with landscaping, fences, walls or a combination
thereof.
i. Trees shall be planted on the parking area perimeter and shall be spaced at
thirty feet on center.
ii. Live shrubs and ground cover plants shall be planted in the landscaped area.
iii. Each tree shall be located in a four-foot by four-foot minimum planting
area.
iv. Shrub and ground cover beds shall be three feet wide minimum.
v. Trees and shrubs must be fully protected from potential damage by
vehicles.
b.Surface parking areas shall provide perimeter parking lot landscaping adjacent to a
street that meets one of the following standards:
i. A five-foot-wide planting strip between the right-of-way and the parking
area. The planting strip may be interrupted by pedestrian-accessible and
vehicular accessways. Planting strips shall be planted with an evergreen
hedge. Hedges shall be no less than thirty-six inches and no more than
forty-eight inches in height at maturity. Hedges and other landscaping shall
be planted and maintained to afford adequate sight distance for vehicles
entering and exiting the parking lot;
ii. A solid decorative wall or fence a minimum of thirty-six inches and a
maximum of forty-eight inches in height parallel to and not closer than two
feet from the edge of right-of-way. The area between the wall or fence and
the pedestrian accessway shall be landscaped. The required wall or
screening shall be designed to allow for access to the site and sidewalk by
pedestrians and shall be constructed and maintained to afford adequate sight
distance as described above for vehicles entering and exiting the parking
lot;
iii. A transparent screen or grille forty-eight inches in height parallel to the
edge of right-of-way. A two-foot minimum planting strip shall be located
either inside the screen or between the screen and the edge of right-of-way.
The planting strip shall be planted with a hedge or other landscaping.
Hedges shall be a minimum thirty-six inches and a maximum of forty
inches in height at maturity.
Page 312 of 533
Page 31 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
c.Gaps in a building’s frontage on a pedestrian street that are adjacent to off-street
parking areas and which exceed sixty-five feet in length shall be reduced to no
more than sixty-five feet in length through use of a minimum eight-foot-high
screen wall. The screen wall shall be solid, grille, mesh or lattice that obscures at
least thirty percent of the interior view (e.g., at least thirty percent solid material to
seventy percent transparency).
d.Parking Area Interior Landscaping.
i. Amount of Landscaping. All surface parking areas with more than ten
spaces must provide interior landscaping complying with one or both of the
standards stated below.
(A)Standard 1. Interior landscaping must be provided at the rate of
twenty square feet per stall. At least one tree must be planted for
every two hundred square feet of landscaped area. Ground cover
plants must completely cover the remainder of the landscaped area.
(B)Standard 2. One tree must be provided for every four parking
spaces. If surrounded by cement, the tree planting area must have a
minimum dimension of four feet. If surrounded by asphalt, the tree
planting area must have a minimum dimension of three feet.
ii. Development Standards for Parking Area Interior Landscaping.
(A)All landscaping must comply with applicable standards. Trees and
shrubs must be fully protected from potential damage by vehicles.
(B)Interior parking area landscaping must be dispersed throughout the
parking area. Some trees may be grouped, but the groups must be
dispersed.
(C)Perimeter landscaping may not substitute for interior landscaping.
However, interior landscaping may join perimeter landscaping as
long as it extends four feet or more into the parking area from the
perimeter landscape line.
(D)Parking areas that are thirty feet or less in width may locate their
interior landscaping around the edges of the parking area. Interior
landscaping placed along an edge is in addition to any required
perimeter landscaping.
3. Landscaping Near Buildings. Landscaping shall serve as a screen or buffer to soften the
appearance of structures or uses such as parking lots or large blank walls, or to increase the
attractiveness of common open spaces.
Finding 17.67.050(K)(1-3): As shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2), surface parking areas are not
proposed as part of the development.
Page 313 of 533
Page 32 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(1-3): Not applicable.
4. Service Areas. Service areas, loading zones, waste disposal or storage areas must be fully
screened from public view.
a.Prohibited screening includes chain-link fencing with or without slats.
b.Acceptable screening includes:
i. A six-foot masonry enclosure, decorative metal fence enclosure, a wood
enclosure, or other approved materials complementary to adjacent
buildings; or
ii. A six foot solid hedge or other plant material screening as approved.
Finding 17.67.050(K)(4): As shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2), storage and waste disposal areas
are not proposed as part of the development.
Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(4): Not applicable.
5. Street Trees. Street trees shall be required along both sides of all public streets with a
spacing of twenty feet to forty feet on center depending on the mature width of the tree
crown, and planted a minimum of two feet from the back of curb. Trees in the right-of-way
or sidewalk easements shall be approved according to size, quality, and tree well design, if
applicable, and irrigation shall be required. Tree species shall be chosen from the city of
Central Point approved street tree list.
Finding 17.67.050(K)(5): The Master Plan states the proposed completion of the public streets
within Sunnybrook Village will be designed to comply with the City’s codes including the Public
Works Design Specifications for street construction, including street tree standards. As
conditioned in the Public Works Staff Report, dated August 21, 2024, landscape and irrigation
plans are required as part of the civil improvement plans for the installation of street trees in
accordance with City Street Standards and Specifications. Conclusion 17.67.050(K)(5):
Complies as conditioned.
L. Lighting.
1. Minimum Lighting Levels. Minimum lighting levels shall be provided for public safety in
all urban spaces open to public circulation.
a.A minimum average light level of one and two-tenths foot candles is required for
urban spaces and sidewalks.
b.Metal-halide or lamps with similar color, temperature and efficiency ratings shall
be used for general lighting at building exteriors, parking areas, and urban spaces.
Sodium-based lamp elements are not allowed.
c.Maximum lighting levels should not exceed six foot candles at intersections or one
and one-half foot candles in parking areas.
Page 314 of 533
Page 33 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
2. Fixture Design in Public Rights-of-Way.
a.Pedestrian-scale street lighting shall be provided including all pedestrian streets
along arterials, major collectors, minor collectors and local streets.
b.Pedestrian street lights shall be no taller than twenty feet along arterials and
collectors, and sixteen feet along local streets.
3. On-Site Lighting. Lighting shall be incorporated into the design of a project so that it
reinforces the pedestrian environment, provides continuity to an area, and enhances the
drama and presence of architectural features. Street lighting should be provided along
sidewalks and in medians. Selected street light standards should be appropriately scaled to
the pedestrian environment. Adequate illumination should be provided for building entries,
corners of buildings, courtyards, plazas and walkways.
a.Accessways through surface parking lots shall be well lighted with fixtures no
taller than twenty feet.
b.Locate and design exterior lighting of buildings, signs, walkways, parking lots, and
other areas to avoid casting light on nearby properties.
c.Fixture height and lighting levels shall be commensurate with their intended use
and function and shall assure compatibility with neighboring land uses. Baffles
shall be incorporated to minimize glare and to focus lighting on its intended area.
d.Additional pedestrian-oriented site lighting including step lights, well lights and
bollards shall be provided along all courtyard lanes, alleys and off-street bike and
pedestrian pathways.
e.In addition to lighting streets, sidewalks, and public spaces, additional project
lighting is encouraged to highlight and illuminate building entrances, landscaping,
parks, and special features.
Finding 17.67.050(L): The Master Plan states the proposed completion of the public streets
within Sunnybrook Village will be designed to comply with the City’s codes including the Public
Works Design Specifications for street construction, including electrical street lighting standards.
As conditioned in the Public Works Staff Report, dated August 21, 2024, on-site lighting must be
included on civil improvement plan. These plans will be reviewed by the City Engineer prior to the
start of construction.
Prior to final plat, location and installation shall be identified on as-built plans and verified by the
Public Works Department.
Conclusion 17.67.050(L): Complies as conditioned.
M. Signs.
Page 315 of 533
Page 34 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
1. The provisions of this section are to be used in conjunction with the city sign regulations in
the Central Point Sign Code, Chapter 15.24. The sign requirements in Chapter 15.24 shall
govern in the TOD district and corridor with the exception of the following:
a.The types of signs permitted shall be limited only to those signs described in this
chapter.
b.Decorative exterior murals are allowed and are subject to review and criteria by
planning commission or architectural review committee appointed by city council.
c.Signs that use images and icons to identify store uses and products are encouraged.
d.Projecting signs located to address the pedestrian are encouraged.
2. Sign Requirements. Signs within the TOD district or corridor shall comply with the
standards in Table 17.67.050(1).
a.For ground commercial uses in the HMR district.
b.For residential uses in the HMR district.
c.Scoreboards allowed only as a conditional use within the Civic district.
d.Sidewalk A-frame boards (1) within fixed dimensions and not obstructing public
right-of-way.
e.Temporary commercial banners to promote grand openings, 30 to 60 days per year
maximum with planning permit.
3. Sign Materials. Unless otherwise exempt, or authorized by the planning commission, all
signs must comply with the following design criteria:
a.The base materials for a freestanding sign shall be natural materials including
stone, brick, or aggregate.
b.Building/sign proportionality as referenced in Table 17.67.050(1).
c.Sign illumination shall be limited to external illumination to include conventional
lighting and neon, if neon is applied to the sign plane area. External illumination is
understood to include “back lit” or “halo” lighting. Internally illuminated signs are
prohibited except as provided under Table 17.67.050(1) for scoreboards.
4. Prohibited Signs.
a.Internally illuminated signs;
b.Roof signs;
c.Reader boards;
Page 316 of 533
Page 35 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
d.Flashing signs;
e.Electronic message/image signs on which copy is created through the use of a
pattern of lights in a dot matrix configuration, which may be changed
intermittently;
f.Bench signs;
g.Balloons or streamers.
Finding 17.67.050(M): Signage is not considered or approved as part of this review. Proposed
signs are required to apply for a building permit and must comply with the standards in this
section.
Conclusion 17.67.050(M): Not applicable.
17.67.060 Public Parks and Open Space Design Standards.
A. General. Parks and open spaces shall be provided in the TOD districts and TOD corridors and
shall be designed to accommodate a variety of activities ranging from active play to passive
contemplation for all ages and accessibility.
Finding 17.67.060(A): As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 2), the subdivision includes an
open space area on the north side of the development. The open space area is designed to
accommodate a variety of activities, including active and passive recreation as shown on the
Parks Concept Plan (Figure 4).
Conclusion 17.67.060(A): Consistent.
B. Parks and Open Space Location.
1. Parks and open spaces shall be located within walking distance of all those living, working
and shopping in TOD Districts.
2. Parks and open spaces shall be easily and safely accessed by pedestrians and bicyclists.
3. For security purposes, parks and open spaces shall be visible from nearby residences,
stores or offices.
4. Parks and open spaces shall be available for both passive and active use by people of all
ages.
5. Parks and open spaces in predominantly residential neighborhoods shall be located so that
windows from living areas (kitchens, family rooms, living rooms, but not bedrooms or
bathrooms) of a minimum of four residences face onto it.
Finding CPMC 17.67.060(B): As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 2), the open space is
located on the north side of the subdivision, with access along a proposed north-south street and
an east-west street, within walking distance of the proposed lots, and is easily accessible and
provides visibility from nearby residences.
Page 317 of 533
Page 36 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Conclusion CPMC 17.67.060(C): Consistent.
C. Parks and Open Space Amount and Size.
1. Common open space will vary in size depending on their function and location.
2. The total amount of open space provided in a TOD district or corridor shall be adequate to
meet the needs of those projected (at the time of build out) to live, work, shop and recreate
there.
3. All TOD projects requiring master plans shall be required to reserve, improve and/or
establish parks and open space which, excluding schools and civic plazas, meet or exceed
the following requirements:
a.For single-family detached and attached residences, including duplex units,
townhouses and row houses: four hundred square feet for each dwelling.
b. For multifamily residences, including multistory apartments, garden apartments,
and senior housing: six hundred square feet for each dwelling.
c.Nonresidential development: at least ten percent of the development’s site area
Finding CPMC 17.67.060(C): As shown on the Parks Concept Plan (Figure 4), the proposed
open space area is 29,543 square feet, with 10,133 square feet to be used as storm water
detention. The proposed subdivision is a 36-lot development that requires a minimum of 11,200
square feet of open space.
Conclusion CPMC 17.67.060(C): Consistent.
D. Parks and Open Space Design.
1.Parks and open spaces shall include a combination garbage/recycling bin and a drinking
fountain at a frequency of one combination garbage/recycling bin and one drinking
fountain per site or one combination garbage/recycling bin and one drinking fountain per
two acres, whichever is less, and at least two of the following improvements:
a.Benches or a seating wall;
b.Public art such as a statue;
c. Water feature or decorative fountain;
d.Children’s play structure including swing and slide;
e.Gazebo or picnic shelter;
f.Picnic tables with barbecue;
g.Open or covered outdoor sports court for one or more of the following: tennis,
skateboard, basketball, volleyball, badminton, racquetball, handball/paddleball;
Page 318 of 533
Page 37 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
h.Open or covered outdoor swimming and/or wading pool or play fountain suitable
for children to use; or
i.Outdoor athletic fields for one or more of the following: baseball, softball, Little
League, soccer.
2.All multifamily buildings that exceed twenty-five units and may house children shall
provide at least one children’s play structure on site.
3.For safety and security purposes, parks and open spaces shall be adequately illuminated
Finding 17.67.060(D): As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 2) and the Parks Concept Plan
(Figure 4), the proposed open space area is 29,543 square feet and includes benches, a covered
barbecue area, water fountain and other improvements provided in the open space area to
accommodate a variety of activities, including active and passive recreation.
Conclusion 17.67.060(D): Consistent.
17.67.070 Building Design Standards.
A. General Design Requirements.
1. In recognition of the need to use natural resources carefully and with maximum benefit, the
use of “sustainable design” practices is strongly encouraged. In consideration of the
climate and ecology of the Central Point area, a variety of strategies can be used to
effectively conserve energy and resources:
a. Natural ventilation;
b. Passive heating and cooling;
c. Daylighting;
d. Sun-shading devices for solar control;
e. Water conservation;
f. Appropriate use of building mass and materials; and,
g. Careful integration of landscape and buildings. It is recommended that an
accepted industry standard such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEEDTM
program be used to identify the most effective strategies. (Information on the
LEEDTM program can be obtained from the U.S. Green Building Council’s
website,www.usgbc.org.)
2. All development along pedestrian routes shall be designed to encourage use by pedestrians
by providing a safe, comfortable, and interesting walking environment.
3. Convenient, direct and identifiable building access shall be provided to guide pedestrians
between pedestrian streets, accessways, transit facilities and adjacent buildings.
Page 319 of 533
Page 38 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
4. Adequate operable windows or roof-lights should be provided for ventilation and summer
heat dissipation.
Finding 17.67.070(A): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions for CPMC 17.67.070 set
forth herein, the proposed structures satisfy the approval criteria for building design standards for
the TOD Overlay. The proposed street design and layout provides safe pedestrian environments
for walking and bicycle use between sites and to areas of interest in the vicinity of the proposed
development.
Conclusion 17.67.070(A): Consistent.
B. Architectural Character.
1. General.
a. The architectural characteristics of surrounding buildings, including historic
buildings, should be considered, especially if a consistent pattern is already
established by similar or complementary building articulation, building scale and
proportions, setbacks, architectural style, roof forms, building details and
fenestration patterns, or materials. In some cases, the existing context is not well
defined, or may be undesirable. In such cases, a well-designed new project can
establish a pattern or identity from which future development can take its cues.
b. Certain buildings, because of their size, purpose or location, should be given
prominence and distinct architectural character, reflective of their special function
or position. Examples of these special buildings include theaters, hotels, cultural
centers, and civic buildings.
c. Attention should be paid to the following architectural elements:
i. Building forms and massing;
ii. Building height;
iii. Rooflines and parapet features;
iv. Special building features (e.g. towers, arcades, entries, canopies, signs and
artwork);
v. Window size, orientation and detailing;
vi. Materials and color; and
vii. The building’s relationship to the site, climate topography and surrounding
buildings.
Finding 17.67.070(B)(1): The development proposes to construct single-family detached, single-
family attached, and lower density multifamily residential structures. The building design plans in
the Sunnybrook Village Master Plan depict two-story residential structures that are consistent
Page 320 of 533
Page 39 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
with the building design standards in the section and representative of the development in Central
Point.
Conclusion 17.67.070(B)(1): Consistent.
2. Commercial and High Mix Residential.
a. Buildings shall be built to the sidewalk edge for a minimum of seventy-five
percent of their site’s primary street frontage along collector and arterial streets in
C, EC, GC, and HMR zones unless the use is primarily residential or the activity
that constitutes the request for increased setback is intended to increase pedestrian
activity, i.e., pedestrian plaza or outdoor seating area.
b. Commercial structures and multi-dwellings should be sited and designed to
provide a sensitive transition to adjacent lower density residential structures, with
consideration for the scale, bulk, height, setback, and architectural character of
adjacent single-family dwellings.
c. In multi-dwelling structures, the plan layout, orientation and window treatment of
the building design should not infringe upon the privacy of other adjacent
dwellings.
C.Finding 17.67.070(B)(2): The proposed Master Plan is within the Low Mix Residential zone.
Conclusion 17.67.070(B)(2): Not applicable. Building Entries.
1. General.
a. The orientation of building entries shall:
i. Orient the primary entrance toward the street rather than the parking lot;
ii. Connect the building’s main entrance to the sidewalk with a well-defined
pedestrian walkway.
b. Building facades over two hundred feet in length facing a street shall provide two
or more public building entrances off the street.
c. All entries fronting a pedestrian accessway shall be sheltered with a minimum
four-foot overhang or shelter.
d. An exception to any part of the requirements of this section shall be allowed upon
finding that:
i. The slope of the land between the building and the pedestrian street is
greater than 1:12 for more than twenty feet and that a more accessible
pedestrian route to the building is available from a different side of the
building; or
Page 321 of 533
Page 40 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
ii. The access is to a courtyard or clustered development and identified
pedestrian accessways are provided through a parking lot to directly connect
the building complex to the most appropriate major pedestrian route(s).
Finding 17.67.070(C)(1): The Building Design Plans include exhibits showing the conceptual
building elevations (Figure 5). As shown, the entries to the proposed dwelling units front on public
streets with porches and sidewalks leading from the public right-of-way consistent with building
entry standards.
Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(1): Consistent.
2. Commercial and High Mix Residential.
a. For nonresidential buildings, or nonresidential portions of mixed-use buildings,
main building entrances fronting on pedestrian streets shall remain open during
normal business hours for that building.
b. Nonresidential and mixed-use buildings fronting a pedestrian street shall have at
least one main building entrance oriented to the pedestrian street.
i. Such an entrance shall not require a pedestrian to first pass through a
garage, parking lot, or loading area to gain access to the entrance off or
along the pedestrian street, but the entrance may be through a porch,
breezeway, arcade, antechamber, portico, outdoor plaza, or similar
architectural feature.
ii. If a building has frontage on more than one street, the building shall provide
a main building entrance oriented to at least one of the streets, or a single
entrance at the street intersection.
iii. A building may have more than one main building entrance oriented to a
street, and may have other entrances facing off-street parking and loading
areas.
Finding 17.67.070(C)(2): The proposed development does not include commercial or high mix
residential uses.
Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(2): Not applicable.
3. Residential.
a. The main entrance of each primary structure should face the street the site fronts
on, except on corner lots, where the main entrance may face either of the streets
or be oriented to the corner. For attached dwellings, duplexes, and multi-
dwellings that have more than one main entrance, only one main entrance needs
to meet this guideline. Entrances that face a shared landscaped courtyard are
exempt.
Page 322 of 533
Page 41 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
b. Residential buildings fronting on a street shall have an entrance to the building
opening on to the street.
i. Single-family detached, attached and row house/townhouse residential units
fronting on a pedestrian street shall have separate entries to each dwelling
unit directly from the street.
ii. Ground floor and upper story dwelling units in a multifamily building
fronting a street may share one or more building entries accessible directly
from the street, and shall not be accessed through a side yard except for an
accessory unit to a single-family detached dwelling.
c. The main entrances to houses and buildings should be prominent, interesting, and
pedestrian-accessible. A porch should be provided to shelter the main entrance
and create a transition from outdoor to indoor space.
d. Generally, single-dwelling porches should be at least eight feet wide and five feet
deep and covered by a roof supported by columns or brackets. If the main
entrance is to more than one dwelling unit, the covered area provided by the
porch should be at least twelve feet wide and five feet deep.
e. If the front porch projects out from the building, it should have a roof pitch which
matches the roof pitch of the house. If the porch roof is a deck or balcony, it may
be flat.
f. Building elevation changes are encouraged to make a more prominent entrance.
The maximum elevation for the entrance should not be more than one-half story
in height, or six feet from grade, whichever is less.
g. The front entrance of a multi-dwelling complex should get architectural
emphasis, to create both interest and ease for visual identification.
Finding 17.67.070(C)(3): The proposed dwelling units are oriented towards the adjacent
sidewalks and streets. As shown on the building design plans (Figure 5), the building designs
include front porches, varied roof lines and front windows in accordance with the residential
building entry standards herein.
Conclusion 17.67.070(C)(3): Consistent.
D. Building Facades.
1. General.
a. All building frontages greater than forty feet in length shall break any flat,
monolithic facade by including discernible architectural elements such as, but not
limited to: bay windows, recessed entrances and windows, display windows,
cornices, bases, pilasters, columns or other architectural details or articulation
combined with changes in materials, so as to provide visual interest and a sense of
division, in addition to creating community character and pedestrian scale. The
overall design shall recognize that the simple relief provided by window cutouts or
Page 323 of 533
Page 42 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
sills on an otherwise flat facade, in and of itself, does not meet the requirements of
this subsection.
b. Building designs that result in a street frontage with a uniform and monotonous
design style, roofline or facade treatment should be avoided.
c. Architectural detailing, such as but not limited to, trellis, long overhangs, deep
inset windows, should be incorporated to provide sun-shading from the summer
sun.
d. To balance horizontal features on longer facades, vertical building elements shall
be emphasized.
e. The dominant feature of any building frontage that is visible from a pedestrian
street or public open space shall be the habitable area with its accompanying
windows and doors. Parking lots, garages, and solid wall facades (e.g.,
warehouses) shall not dominate a pedestrian street frontage.
f. Developments shall be designed to encourage informal surveillance of streets and
other public spaces by maximizing sight lines between the buildings and the street.
g. All buildings, of any type, constructed within any TOD district or corridor shall be
constructed with exterior building materials and finishes that are of high quality to
convey permanence and durability.
h. The exterior walls of all building facades along pedestrian routes, including side or
return facades, shall be of suitable durable building materials including the
following: stucco, stone, brick, terra cotta, tile, cedar shakes and shingles, beveled
or ship-lap or other narrow-course horizontal boards or siding, vertical board-and-
batten siding, articulated architectural concrete or concrete masonry units (CMU),
or similar materials which are low maintenance, weather-resistant, abrasion-
resistant, and easy to clean. Prohibited building materials include the following:
plain concrete, plain concrete block, corrugated metal, unarticulated board siding
(e.g., T1-11 siding, plain plywood, sheet pressboard), Exterior Insulated Finish
Systems (EIFS), and similar quality, nondurable materials.
i. All visible building facades along or off a pedestrian route, including side or return
facades, are to be treated as part of the main building elevation and articulated in
the same manner. Continuity of use of the selected approved materials must be
used on these facades.
j. Ground-floor openings in parking structures, except at points of access, must be
covered with grilles, mesh or lattice that obscures at least thirty percent of the
interior view (e.g., at least thirty percent solid material to seventy percent
transparency).
k. Appropriately scaled architectural detailing, such as but not limited to moldings or
cornices, is encouraged at the roofline of commercial building facades, and where
such detailing is present, should be a minimum of at least eight inches wide.
Page 324 of 533
Page 43 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
l. Compatible building designs along a street should be provided through similar
massing (building facade, height and width as well as the space between
buildings) and frontage setbacks.
Finding 17.67.070(D)(1): The façades for development provide architectural detailing and
massing consistent with the requirements of this section. The architectural design for residential
structures is in a Craftsman theme that include durable materials including stone, and traditional
wood style siding, discouraging the use of modern vinyl siding. Structures feature a front porch
that provides a decorative entry into the residence and articulation and pedestrian scale to each
façade. Together these features break up the front façade to avoid flat, monolithic design.
Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(1): Consistent.
2. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial.
a. In areas adjacent to the transit station, sidewalks in front of buildings shall be
covered to at least eight feet from building face to provide protection from sun
and rain by use of elements such as: canopies, arcades, or pergolas. Supports for
these features shall not impede pedestrian traffic.
b. Canopies, overhangs or awnings shall be provided over entrances. Awnings at the
ground level of buildings are encouraged.
c. Awnings within the window bays (either above the main glass or the transom
light) should not obscure or distract from the appearance of significant
architectural features. The color of the awning shall be compatible with its
attached building.
d. Ground floor windows shall meet the following criteria:
i. Darkly tinted windows and mirrored windows that block two-way visibility
are prohibited as ground floor windows.
ii. On the ground floor, buildings shall incorporate large windows, with multi-
pane windows and transom lights above encouraged.
iii. Ground floor building facades must contain unobscured windows for at
least fifty percent of the wall area and seventy-five percent of the wall
length within the first ten to twelve feet of wall height.
iv. Lower windowsills shall not be more than three feet above grade except
where interior floor levels prohibit such placement, in which case the lower
windowsill shall not be more than a maximum of four feet above the
finished exterior grade.
v. Windows shall have vertical emphasis in proportion. Horizontal windows
may be created when a combination of vertical windows is grouped together
or when a horizontal window is divided by mullions.
Page 325 of 533
Page 44 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
Finding 17.67.070(D)(2): The proposed development does not include commercial or high mix
residential uses.
Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(2): Not applicable.
3. Residential.
a. The facades of single-family attached and detached residences (including
duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and row houses) shall comply with
the following standards:
i. No more than forty five percent of the horizontal length of the ground floor
front elevation of a single-family detached or attached dwelling shall be an
attached garage.
ii. Residential building elevations facing a pedestrian route shall not consist of
undifferentiated blank walls, but shall be articulated with architectural
details such as windows, dormers, porch details, balconies or bays.
iii. For any exterior wall which is within twenty feet of and facing onto a street
or public open space and which has an unobstructed view of that pedestrian
street or public open space, at least twenty percent of the ground floor wall
area shall be comprised of either display area, windows, or doorways.
iv. Architectural detailing is encouraged to provide variation among attached
units. Architectural detailing includes but is not limited to the following: the
use of different exterior siding materials or trim, shutters, different window
types or sizes, varying roof lines, balconies or porches, and dormers. The
overall design shall recognize that color variation, in and of itself, does not
meet the requirements of this subsection.
v. Fences or hedges in a front yard shall not exceed three feet in height. Side
yard fencing shall not exceed three feet in height between the front building
facade and the street. Fences beyond the front facade of the building in a
side yard or back yard and along a street, alley, property line, or
bike/pedestrian pathway shall not exceed four feet in height. Fences over
four feet in height are not permitted and hedges or vegetative screens in no
case shall exceed six feet in height.
Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(a): The facades of the single-family residences feature a front porch at
each entry, including attached residences (i.e. duplexes, triplexes and townhouses). Front-loaded
garages shown in Figure 5 are less than forty five percent of the horizontal length of the ground
floor and exterior walls facing pedestrian routes do not consist of blank walls and are consistent
with the requirements of this section.
Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(a): Consistent.
b. The facades of multifamily residences shall comply with the following standards:
Page 326 of 533
Page 45 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
i. Building elevations, including the upper stories, facing a pedestrian route
shall not consist of undifferentiated blank walls, but shall be articulated
with architectural detailing such as windows, balconies, and dormers.
ii. For any exterior wall which is within twenty feet of and facing onto a
pedestrian street or public open space and which has an unobstructed view
of that pedestrian street or public open space, at least twenty percent of the
ground floor wall area shall be comprised of either display area, windows,
or doorways.
iii. Arcades or awnings should be provided over sidewalks where ground floor
retail or commercial exists, to shelter pedestrians from sun and rain.
Finding 17.67.070(D)(3)(b): Multifamily residences included within the proposed development
are consistent with the design of single-family residences and include a front porch at each
entrance, articulated walls and windows. Ground floor retail and commercial uses are not
included as part of the proposed development.
Conclusion 17.67.070(D)(3)(b): Consistent.
E. Roofs.
1. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial.
a. Roof shapes, surface materials, colors, mechanical equipment and other
penthouse functions should be integrated into the total building design. Roof
terraces and gardens are encouraged.
b. When the commercial structure has a flat parapet roof adjacent to pitched roof
residential structures, stepped parapets are encouraged so the appearance is a
gradual transition of rooflines.
Finding 17.67.070(E)(1): The proposed development does not include commercial or high mix
residential uses.
Conclusion 17.67.070(E)(1): Consistent.
2. Residential.
a. Flat roofs with a parapet and cornice are allowed for multifamily residences in all
TOD, LMR, MMR and HMR districts, in which the minimum for sloped roofs is
5:12.
b. Flat roofs with a parapet and cornice are allowed for single-family attached and
detached residences (including duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, and
row houses) in all TOD residential districts, except the LMR zone.
c. For all residences with sloped roofs, the roof slope shall be at least 5:12, and no
more than 12:12. Eaves shall overhang building walls at a minimum twelve
inches deep on all sides (front, back, sides) of a residential structure.
Page 327 of 533
Page 46 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
d. Roof shapes, surface materials, colors, mechanical equipment and other
penthouse functions should be integrated into the total building design. Roof
terraces and gardens are encouraged.
Finding 17.67.070(E)(2): As shown on the building design plans (Figure 5)the proposed
development is designed with sloped, gabled roofs, at least 5:12 and no more than 12:12 and wide
eaves that overhang a minimum of 12-inches on all sides. Proposed roof materials and colors are
consistent with the proposed Craftsman design philosophy that features quality materials and
natural, earth tone colors that blend with the natural landscape.
Conclusion 17.67.070(E)(2): Consistent.
F. Exterior Building Lighting.
1. Commercial and High Mix Residential/Commercial.
a. Lighting of a building facade shall be designed to complement the architectural
design. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building.
i. Primary lights shall address public sidewalks and/or pedestrian plazas
adjacent to the building.
b. No exterior lighting shall be permitted above the second floor of buildings for the
purpose of highlighting the presence of the building if doing so would impact
adjacent residential uses.
Finding 17.67.070(F)(1): The proposed development does not include commercial or high mix
residential uses.
Conclusion 17.67.070(F)(1): Not applicable.
2. Residential.
a. Lighting shall not draw inordinate attention to the building facade.
b. Porch and entry lights are encouraged on all dwellings to create a safe and inviting
pedestrian environment at night.
c. No exterior lighting exceeding one hundred watts per fixture is permitted in any
residential area.
Finding 17.67.070(F)(2): The Master Plan describes the building types and design philosophy for
Sunnybrook Village that are consistent with the TOD residential design standards. As shown on
the Building Design Plans (Figure 5), residential lighting within the proposed development is
provided in a manner that is consistent with this section.
Conclusion 17.67.070(F)(2): Consistent.
G. Service Zones.
Page 328 of 533
Page 47 of 47 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: MP-23002
1. Buildings and sites shall be organized to group the utilitarian functions away from the
public view.
2. Delivery and loading operations, mechanical equipment (HVAC), trash
compacting/collection, and other utility and service functions shall be incorporated into the
overall design of the building(s) and the landscaping.
3. The visual and acoustic impacts of these functions, along with all wall- or ground-mounted
mechanical, electrical and communications equipment, shall be out of view from adjacent
properties and public pedestrian streets.
4. Screening materials and landscape screens shall be architecturally compatible with and not
inferior to the principal materials of the building.
Finding 17.67.050(G)(2): As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 2), service zones, including
storage and waste disposal areas are not proposed as part of the development. Mechanical,
electrical, and communications equipment will be located out of view from adjacent properties
and the public pedestrian streets.
Conclusion 17.67.070(G)(2): Consistent.
PART 5
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
As evidenced in Planning Department Supplemental Findings, the proposed master plan application for
the Sunnybrook Village Master Plan is, as conditioned in the Staff Report dated September 3, 2024, in
compliance with the applicable criteria set forth in Title 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code.
Page 329 of 533
140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT
August 21, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Sunnybrook Village (MP-23002 and SUB-23001)
A proposed 42-unit subdivision along the Hamrick Road frontage. The 7.57-acre site (37S 2W 01BC, Tax Lot
9800) is located within the Low Mixed Residential (LMR) zone and is within the Eastside Transit Oriented
Development (ETOD) overlay.
Agent: Jack Galpin
Traffic:
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a traffic impact analysis for the proposed
subdivision (Sunnybrook Village) within the ETOD overlay at 4630 Hamrick Road. The TIA estimated 372
average daily trips (ADT) from the site at complete build-out. Access is proposed on Hamrick Road via a
proposed new Residential Street (Hartgrave Way).
The proposed connection of Hartgrave Way with Hamrick Road is 691-feet, from the intersection at Beebe
Road. A minimum of 500-feet is required and the intersection distance complies with Table 300-4 of section
300 of the PW standards for new intersection spacing requirements onto an Arterial street. The distance to the
elevated curve just north of the project site along Hamrick Road is approximately 616-feet and provides
adequate sight distance.
The findings of the TIA conclude that the proposed 36-lot/42-unit Sunnybrook Village Master Plan
Development and resulting traffic will not cause adverse effects on the local transportation system.
Existing Infrastructure:
Water: There is an existing 16-inch water line in Hamrick Road
Streets: Hamrick is an improved minor arterial Street.
Stormwater: There is an existing Storm Drain ditch that conveys stormwater along the north border of the
site, flowing east to west.
Background:
The Applicant proposes a 42-unit, single-family residential development along the Hamrick Road Frontage.
Issues:
Existing stormwater conveyance is via an open ditch on the north side of the development, flowing to the
west, eventually tying into City stormwater facilities approximately 1150 feet to the west. Onsite stormwater
runoff shall be treated onsite before it enters the existing ditch as part of phase 1 of the subdivision. The City
has plans to convert the open stormwater ditch to piped.
Conditions of Approval:
Prior to the building permit issuance and the start of construction activities on the site, the following
conditions shall be satisfied:
Public Works Department Gregory Graves, Const. Serv. Supervisor
Page 330 of 533
1. Civil Improvement Plan Review – The Applicant shall submit and receive approval for Civil
Improvement Plans demonstrating compliance with Public Works Department Standard Specifications
for public works construction that includes, but is not limited to, the proposed streets, utilities, and the
protection of public infrastructure.
a. Public Street Construction - Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with City Street Standards
for construction of the proposed public streets, including but not limited to access, sidewalks,
landscape rows and street trees, and street lighting.
i. North Street–Applicant is proposing a half-street on the most northern street. The
pavement width must be a minimum of 20 feet, and on-street parking is not permitted
until full development of the street occurs.
ii. Landscape and Irrigation Plans – Landscaping and irrigation plans are required as part
of civil improvement plans for landscape proposed in the public right-of-way. The
Public Works Department must review and approve plans for public landscape areas.
b. Stormwater Management – The Applicant shall submit and receive approval for a stormwater
management plan demonstrating compliance with the MS4 Phase II stormwater quality
standards
2. Erosion and Sediment Control – The proposed development will disturb more than 5 acres and requires
an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES 1200-C) from the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). The Applicant shall obtain a 1200-C permit from DEQ and provide a copy to the
Public Works Department.
3. Shallow Well Report – The City concurs with the findings and recommendations of the Apex Well
Report. Civil improvement plans must incorporate necessary mitigation actions required for the
installation of underground utilities.
Prior to the final inspection and certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall comply with the following
conditions of approval:
1. PW Standards and Specifications – Applicant shall demonstrate that all Public Works infrastructure
construction is in compliance with the Standards Specifications and Uniform Details for Construction.
2. Stormwater Quality Operations & Maintenance – The Applicant shall record and submit to the Public
Works Department an Operations and Maintenance Manual and Declaration of Covenants for
Operation and Maintenance of the Stormwater Quality Features as required by the Rogue Valley
Stormwater Quality Manual
3. Public Works As-Builts – Provide an accurate and stamped set of as-built drawings.
Page 331 of 533
Inspection Report
CONSULTATION - Land Development/Pre-Construction
Inspection Result
Inspection Status Inspected by Completed at
Completed Mark Northrop 08/13/2024
Address Suite City State Zip
4630 HAMRICK RD --CENTRAL POINT OR 97502
Business Name Building Type
Sunnybrook One Story
Pass/Fail:
Pass
ITEM: Pass/Fail
REMARK:
Comments for Sunnybrook Village
1.Hydrants will need to be added to this development to meet the requirements of the OFC
Appendix C. Depending upon building size and street length from 3 to 6 hydrants may be
required. Please contact FD3 to establish specific locations
2. The right of ways for the streets at 52 feet wide ROW shall be mark with Fire Lane no Parking
on one side. OFC Appendix D103.6
3.The alleys being only 20 foot wide will be designated as required fire department access and
shall be signed a Fire Lane No Parking on both sides. OFC Appendix D103.6
4. Based upon the three phase development plan no temporary turn around will be required.
5.If the development has townhomes that are taller than 30 at the highest level of roof access,
aerial apparatus access may be required. OFC Appendix D105.1
6. Developments where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provide with two
separate and approved access roads. There are two exceptions to this requirement. First is if the
1 / 2
Inspection #JDF-2024-0001061
Page 332 of 533
buildings are installed with an approved sprinkler system or if the there WILL be future
development as determined by the fire code official. Currently no future development is planned
and therefore the buildings will need to meet exception 1 and have sprinklers installed.
Inspection Signatures
Inspector Signature
__________________________
Mark Northrop
--
--
541-831-2749
MarkN@jcfd3.com
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
2 / 2
Inspection #JDF-2024-0001061
Page 333 of 533
February 20, 2024
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Re: SUB‐23001, MP‐23002, Sunnybrook Village, 37S 2W 01BC, Tax Lot 9800
There is an existing 8 inch sewer main just north of the property on the adjacent tax lot. Sewer service
for the proposed development may be had by a sewer main extension from the existing main into the
proposed development.
Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this development be subject to the following
conditions:
1. Construction drawings must be submitted to RVSS for review and approval prior to construction.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Nicholas R. Bakke, PE
District Engineer
Page 334 of 533
Planning Commission Resolution No. 920 (09/03/2024)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 920
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING
A MASTER PLAN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE TOD DISTRICT
TO BE KNOWN AS SUNNYBROOK VILLAGE
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(FILE NO. MP-23002)
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a master plan application for approval of
Sunnybrook Village, a residential development consisting of property identified on the
Jackson County Assessor’s map as 37S 2W 01BC, Tax Lot 9800, Central Point, Oregon;
and
WHEREAS, the project site is located in the Low Mix Residential (LMR) zoning district within
the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay; and
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be consistent with the applicable approval
criteria set forth in Title 17, Zoning as conditioned per the Staff Report dated September 3,
2024; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point
Planning Commission considered the Applicant’s request for Master Plan approval for
Sunnybrook Village.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
Section 1: The City of Central Point Planning Commission hereby approves the Master Plan
application for Sunnybrook Village File No. MP-23002 subject to the conditions in the Staff
Report dated September 3, 2024 (Exhibit 1).
Section 2: This decision is based upon the Planning Department Staff Report dated
September 3, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including all attachments thereto.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
3rd day of September, 2024.
_______________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Representative
Page 335 of 533
Staff Report
Sunnybrook Village
Tentative Subdivision Plan
File No. SUB-23001
September 3, 2024
Item Summary
Consideration of a Tentative Plan application to develop a 36 lot subdivision on 7.57 acres in
the Low Mix Residential (LMR) zoning district in the Eastside Transit Oriented Development
(ETOD) Ovelay. The project site is located at 3630 Hamrick Road and is identified on the
Jackson County Assessor’s Map as 37S 2W 01BC, Tax Lot 9800.
Applicant: CA Galpin, LLC.; Agent: Jack Galpin.
Approval Criteria: CPMC 16.10 (Tentative Plans) and CPMC 17.65, TOD Overlay.
Associated Files: MP-23002
Staff Source
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner III
Background
The Applicant submitted a tentative plan application for Sunnybrook Village to subdivide 7.57
acres into a 36-lot/42-unit ETOD subdivision (Attachment “A-2”). The project site is along
Hamrick Road in the eastern portion of the ETOD. The tentative plan is being reviewed
concurrently with a master plan application (MP-23002) for the subject property. The Master
Plan serves as a blueprint to guide future development of the site. The tentative plan application
initiates the land divison process that subdivides the land in accordance with CPMC 16.10,
Tentative Plans, following the guidance set by the master plan.
Description:
As shown on the Tentative Plan (Attachment “A-2”), Sunnybrook Village will be completed in
three (3) phases. The tentative plan proposes a new street network, with connection to Hamrick
Road. This network will provide circulation within the site, connections to future development on
adjacent sites and circulation throughout the ETOD (Attachment “A-3”).
The proposal is within the minimum/maximum density allowed on the site by proposing 42
units on 5.19 net acres – subtracting proposed right-of-way as per Note ‘f’, Table 2, CPMC
17.65.050. The resulting 8.1 units/acre is consistent with the required 6-12 units/acre
required in the LMR zone. As demonstrated in the Planning Department Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law (Attachment “D”), the proposal meets the lot dimension standards
in the LMR zone.
Page 336 of 533
Utilities are available to the site with sewer main abutting the southwest corner of the project
area. Water is available in the right-of-way of Hamrick Road and will be extended into the
project area. A drainage facility is proposed within the project area, collecting stormwater from
the development and flowing to additional facilities to the north.
Issues
There are five (5) issues relative to this application as follows:
1.Soil Mitigation. The Sunnybrook Village Master Plan sets forth mitigation requirements
to remediate arsenic contamination in the soils on the project site based on findings from
a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (Attachment “B”). Based on the findings of
this assessment, it is recommended the the top six (6) inches of soil be removed from
the site and/or a minimum of three (3) feet of uncontaminated, clean fill material be
imported to the project site.
Comment: The applicant is responsible for the remediation of the site that ensures
proper remediation, consistent with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
standards and requirements that are designed to protect the environment and human
health. Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 1 requiring the applicant to provide
a DEQ authorized remediation plan in accordance with the Independent Cleanup
Process (ICP) requirements and Condition of Approval No. 2(c) requiring the applicant to
submit final authorization that the soil remediation plan was completed and no further
action on the site is required.
2.Shallow Wells. Construction of public utilities as part of the tentative plat process may
impact the water table and shallow wells within the vicinity of the project site. The
applicant submitted a report prepared by APEX dated July 25, 2024 (Attachment “C”)
addressing the potential impacts and necessary mitigation measures.
Comment: Based on the conclusions of the analysis and the proposed development
plans for Sunnybrook Village, the development is not anticipated to impact the water
table or surrounding wells unless installation of water and sanitary sewer lines extend
below the water table.
Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 2(f)(i) requiring the applicant to implement
mitigation actions identified in the APEX Report as necessary to avoid impacts to
surrounding wells. Mitigation plans will be reviewed by the City Engineer during the Civil
Improvement Plan review process prior to approval by the Public Works Department.
3.Agriculture Mitigation. The ETOD is identified as an area of the City that maintains
active farm uses. Urban uses and developments to urban standards may conflict with
agricultural practices. As a requirement to develop in the ETOD developments must
recognize these uses until the ETOD is completely annexed and developed.
Comment: At this time, developments in the ETOD are required to record a right-to-farm
disclosure statement as a condition of final plat. Staff recommends Condition of Approval
Page 337 of 533
No. 2(d) requiring the applicant to record a right-to-farm disclosure statement prior to
final plat of Sunnybrook Village..
4.Fire Code. The Oregon Fire Code (OFC) requires developments of 30 units or more to
provide additional safety measures in the case of a fire emergency. Section D-107 of the
OFC requires residential single- and two-family developments with more than 30 units to
either install fire sprinklers in each unit or provide a secondary egress for emergencies.
Sunnybrook Village proposes 42 units on 36 lots, with a single access/egress at Hamrick
Road.
Comment: The applicant proposes to forego fire sprinkler installation and instead limit
the number of dwelling units constructed until a secondary egress is provided for
emergency access/egress via a cross-access easement with an adjoining property or an
approved development on an adjacent property connects Sunnybrook Village to the
public right-of-way with connectivity to Beebe, Gebhard and/or Hamrick Road. This
would allow them to produce housing options that are more affordable. If the above
options cannot be achieved, retrofit fire sprinkler systems could be installed to eliminate
the limit on housing. To accommodate the Applicant’s proposal, staff recommends
Condition of Approval No. 2(e) and No. 4.
5.Street Names. All street names shall be approved by the City of Central Point and
regional emergency services providers.
Comment: Staff recommends Condition of Approval No. 2(b) requiring the applicant to
provide documentation of approved street name for the proposed public street.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
The Sunnybrook Village Tentative Plan has been evaluated against the applicable criteria
set forth in CPMC 17.66 and CPMC 16.10 and found to comply as evidenced in the
Sunnybrook Village Tentative Plan (Attachment “B”), the Planning Department Findings
(Attachment “D”) and the Staff Report dated September 3, 2024.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to issuance of any permits and the start of construction, including but not limited to
site preparation and infrastructure construction, the applicant shall receive approval of a
soil remediation plan from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and
submit a copy to the City of Central Point Planning Department.
a. If soils are to be removed from the site, the applicant must submit an authorized
Solid Waste Authorization Letter (SWLA) for a DEQ-approved disposal site.
b. If any fill is imported to the site, the Applicant shall provide documentation that
the imported fill is consistent with DEQ clean fill requirements.
2. Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall satisfy the following conditions:
Page 338 of 533
a. Provide documentation from the Jackson County Surveyor’s Office that the name
of the proposed subdivision is unique relative to other approved land divisions in
Jackson County.
b. Provide documentation of approved street names for the proposed public street.
c. Provide a copy of a “No Further Action’ letter from DEQ indicating that
remediation of on-site contamination is completed;
d. Provide recorded copies of a right-to-farm disclosure, as required by CPMC
17.65.025(A);
e. Submit a revised tentative plan that depicts the Phase II/Phase III boundary
relocated to the common property line between Lot 28 and Lot 29, limiting total
units developed in Phase I and Phase II to 30 units.
f. Demonstrate compliance with the conditions listed in the Public Works
Department Staff Report (Attachment “D”), including but not limited to:
i. Submit Civil Improvement Drawings for infrastructure construction,
including but not limited to, streets, landscape row and street trees,
sidewalk, access approach, street lighting, and utilities with necessary
shallow well mitigation.
ii. Submit a stormwater management plan for the proposed demonstrating
compliance with the MS4 Phase II stormwater quality standards.
iii. Obtain a 1200-C permit from DEQ and provide a copy to the Public
Works Department. The proposed development will disturb more than 5
acres and requires an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES
1200-C) from the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
iv. Pay all System Development Charges and permit fees.
g. Coordinate with Fire District #3 to plan the location of and install fire lane signs
and fire hydrants in accordance with Fire District #3 comments, dated August 13,
2024 (Attachment “E”).
h. Comply with conditions of approval listed in the Rogue Valley Sewer Staff
Report, dated August 8, 2024 (Attachment “F”)
3. Prior to Public Works Final Inspection, the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with
the following:
Page 339 of 533
a. Complete public infrastructure and civil improvements per Civil Improvement
Plans approved by the Public Works Department and a fully executed
development agreement and bond, if applicable. The Engineer-of-Record shall
certify that all improvements were constructed per the approved plans.
b. Complete stormwater management improvements per the Stormwater
Management Plan approved by the Public Works Department. The Engineer-of-
Record shall certify that the construction of the drainage system was constructed
per the approved plans.
c. Record an operations and maintenance agreement for all new stormwater quality
features.
4. The number of residential units without fire sprinklers shall be limited to 30 units until
such time a secondary egress route is available for emergency evacuations. The non-
sprinklered residential unit cap will be removed when one of the following conditions is
met :
a. Prior to issuance of building permits for Phase III of Sunnybrook Village, the
Applicant records a cross-access easement across an adjacent property to a
public right-of-way with connectivity to either Beebe, Gebhard and/or Hamrick
Road for emergency egress purposes. The Appliant shall provide documentation
to the Planning Department from Fire District #3 that any emergency access
improvements, such as a drivable surface and signage, are complete; or,
b. An adjacent property is developed with a secondary egress route that provides
street connectivity between Sunnybrook Village and an existing public right-of-
way that provides connectivity to Beebe, Gebhard and/or Hamrick Road.
c. The Applicant shall cause all existing residential units in Sunnybrook Village to
be retrofit with fire sprinklers as necessary to comply with the Fire Code.
5. Any modifications to the site layout, including but not limited to stormwater quality
treatment facility type and location, shall be subject to review in accordance with CPMC
17.09, Modifications to Approved Plans and Conditions of Approval.
Attachments
Attachment “A-1” – Project Location Map
Attachment “A-2” – Tentative Subdivision Plan
Attachment “A-3” – ETOD Conceptual Plan
Attachment “B” – Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, dated April 19, 2024
Attachment “C” – Shallow Well Assessment, dated July 25, 2024
Attachment “D” – Planning Department Findings of Fact
Attachment “E” – Public Works Department Staff Report, dated 08/21/2024
Page 340 of 533
Attachment “F” – Fire District No. 3 Staff Report, dated 08/13/2024
Attachment “G” – Rogue Valley Sewer Services Staff Report, dated 08/08/2024
Attachment “H” – Resolution No. 921
Action
Open a public hearing and consider the proposed Tentative Subdivision Plan application and 1)
approve; 2) approve with revisions; or 3) deny the application.
Recommendation
Approve Resolution No. 921, a Resolution recommending approval of the Sunnybrook Village
Tentative Subdivision Plan application subject to the recommended conditions of approval set
forth in the Staff Report dated September 3, 2024 and the Planning Department Findings of
Fact..
Recommended Motion
I move to approve Resolution No. 921, a Resolution recommending approval of the Sunnybrook
Village Tentative Subdivision Plan application per the Staff Report dated September 3, 2024.
Page 341 of 533
Page 342 of 533
Page 343 of 533
Page 344 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report
4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Prepared by:
Alpine Environmental Consultants, LLC
Mr. Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
White City, Oregon 97503
541.944.4685
jwilliams@alpine-env-llc.com
Prepared for:
CA Galpin
Mr. Jack Galpin
744 Cardley Avenue
Medford, Oregon 97504
April 19, 2024
Page 345 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS III
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Site Description and Background 1
1.2 Focused Phase II ESA Objectives 1
2 FOCUSED PHASE II ESA INVESTIGATION 2
2.1 Pre-Excavation 2
2.2 Shallow Soil Sampling 2
2.3 Soil Laboratory Analyses 3
3 DATA EVALUATION 4
3.1 Total Metals 4
3.2 Organochlorine Pesticides 6
3.3 Organophosphorus Pesticides 6
3.4 Chlorinated Herbicides 7
3.5 Clean Fill Determination 7
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8
5 REFERENCES 11
6 LIMITATIONS 12
7 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS 14
Page 346 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg ii
ATTACHMENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – General Location Map
Figure 2 – Soil Sample Location Map
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Soil Samples Analytical Results - Total Metals
Table 2 - Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides
Table 3 - Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organophosphorus Pesticides
Table 4 - Soil Samples Analytical Results - Chlorinated Herbicides
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1 – Historical Aerial Photographs
APPENDIX 2 – Photographic Documentation
APPENDIX 3 - Complete Laboratory Analytical Results
Page 347 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AEC Alpine Environmental Consultants, LLC
bgs below ground surface
CMMP Contaminated Media Management Plan
4,4'-DDD 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane
4,4'-DDE 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene
4,4'-DDT 4,4'-Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
HASP Health and Safety Plan
ICPMS Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
MCPA 2-methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid
NFA No Further Action
PPE personal protective equipment
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
MRL method reporting limit
PPE personal protective equipment
RBCs risk-based concentrations
RBDM Risk-Based Decision Making
REC recognized environmental condition
RSLs regional screening levels
SWLA Solid Waste Letter of Authorization
TL tax lot
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
Page 348 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Alpine Environmental Consultants, LLC (AEC) has prepared this report to present the findings of
the Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) conducted at the property identified
as the Map 372W01BC and Taxlot (TL) 9800 and addressed as 4630 Hamrick Road in Central
Point, Oregon (hereinafter referred to as the Site). The Focused Phase II ESA was conducted to
determine if historical agricultural use of the Site, specifically as orchards, has adversely
impacted shallow soil at the Site. The Focused Phase II ESA was conducted for CA Galpin, the
current owner of the Site.
1.1 Site Description and Background
The Site occupies approximately 7.57 acres of undeveloped land. The general location of the
Site is illustrated on Figure 1 and additional details are illustrated on Figure 2. AEC understands
the Site is zone for residential development. The topography at the Site slopes gently to the
west towards Bear Creek, which is located approximately 0.4 miles to the west of the Site.
Based on professional judgment, the groundwater flow direction at the Site is assumed to be to
the west towards Bear Creek.
Personnel from CA Galpin do not have any records indicating the Site was historically used as an
orchard. AEC obtained historical aerial photographs of the Site from the University of Oregon
Map Library and Google Earth to evaluate historical uses of the Site. These aerial photographs
from 1952, 1960, 1967, 1976, 1979, 1994, 20023, 2014, and 2023 are presented in Appendix 1.
These aerial photographs suggest the Site was not historically used as an orchard after 1952,
though it is possible the Site could have been used as an orchard prior to 1952. It should be
noted orchards were historically present to the east and west of the Site. The aerial
photographs show numerous structures present on the Site from 1952 to some date after 2014
and prior to 2023. The structures are suggestive of rural residential development.
1.2 Focused Phase II ESA Objectives
The primary objective of the Focused Phase II ESA was to collect Site-specific shallow soil
quality data to determine if historical agricultural use of the Site as an orchard has adversely
impacted the upper 6 inches of soil at the Site. A secondary objective was to determine if
residual pesticides contamination associated with historical orchard use might be present in
shallow soil at concentrations exceeding generic risk-based concentrations (RBCs) developed by
the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for the ingestion, dermal contact, and
inhalation exposure pathway for residential receptors, construction workers, and excavation
workers on the Site.
The Focused Phase II ESA process is presented in Section 2, data evaluation is presented in
Section 3, and conclusions and recommendations are presented in Section 4.
Page 349 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 2
2 FOCUSED PHASE II ESA INVESTIGATION
The Focused Phase II ESA investigation included soil sampling. The Focused Phase II ESA
investigation field work was conducted on April 1, 2024, and a summary of the field methods
and observations is presented in Section 2.1. The analytical results of the soil samples and their
interpretation are included in Section 3. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in
Section 4. The photographic documentation is included in Appendix 2. The complete laboratory
results are included in Appendix 3. The general location of the Site is shown on Figure 1 and
additional Site details, including sample locations, are illustrated on Figure 2. The analytical
results of the discrete and composite soil samples are summarized in Table 1 through Table 4.
2.1 Pre-Excavation
Because only shallow excavation in the upper 6 inches of soil occurred using only hand tool,
AEC did not contact the Utility Notification Center to locate and trace any potential public
underground utilities.
2.2 Shallow Soil Sampling
On April 1, 2024, soil samples were collected by Mr. Toby Shallcross (Project Geologist) of AEC.
Based on the Site’s approximately 7.57-acre layout, AEC divided the Site into eight equal areas
covering approximately 1 acre each and collected a single discrete soil sample from each of
these eight approximately 1-acre areas. The soil sample locations were identified as SS1
through SS8 and these locations are shown on Figure 4. It should be noted that SS3 was located
within 10 feet of the western property line to document potential overspray and/or wind drift
of pesticides from historical orchard use of the adjacent property to the west.
Discrete soil samples representative of the upper 6 inches of soil were collected at each
location using a steel shovel and placed into clean plastic Ziploc bags. The steel shovel was
cleansed prior to each use by scrubbing with a brush and an Alconox solution and rinsed with
de-ionized water. The soil in the ziploc bags was then thoroughly homogenized using gloved
hands. Larger sized material (i.e., gravel greater than approximately ¼ to ½ inch in diameter)
was removed by hand. A total of eight discrete soil samples were collected.
Soil from the eight Ziploc bats was then placed into eight laboratory-provided glass sample jars
and these jars were labeled as SS1 through SS8. An equal volume of soil from the eight plastic
bags was then placed into a decontaminated stainless steel bowl and thoroughly homogenized
to develop a composite soil sample identified as COMP-0.0-0.5. The concept of discrete soil
samples and composite soil samples is documented in DEQ’s Evaluating Residual Pesticides on
Lands Formerly Used for Agricultural Production Guidance of 2006 that was updated in June
2019 (DEQ, June 2019).
Page 350 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 3
After soil sample collection was completed, the holes excavated with a shovel were backfilled
and compacted using the shovel.
2.3 Soil Laboratory Analyses
The eight discrete soil samples and the single composite soil sample were placed in an iced
cooler and submitted to Apex Laboratories, LLC (Apex) of Tigard, Oregon, under standard chain-
of-custody protocol.
The eight discrete soil samples were submitted for analysis of arsenic and lead by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Method 6020B by inductively coupled plasma and a
mass spectrometer (ICPMS). The rationale for analyzing all eight of the discrete soil samples for
arsenic and lead is that these two metals are most frequently associated with historical orchard
use from application of pesticides formulations containing lead-arsenate. In addition, the cost
of laboratory analyses for arsenic and lead is relatively low (i.e. approximately $50 per sample).
The single composite soil sample was submitted for a much more extensive analytical suite as
follows:
• 17 metals (i.e. antimony, arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, nickel, mercury, molybdenum, selenium, silver, thallium, vanadium, and
zinc) by USEPA Methods 6020B by ICPMS;
• Organochlorine pesticides by USEPA Method 8081B;
• Organophosphorus pesticides by USEPA Method 8270E; and
• Chlorinated herbicides by USEPA Method 8151A (note that APEX subcontracted the
chlorinated herbicides analysis to Eurofins Environmental Testing of Tustin, California).
The rationale for analyzing the composite soil sample for this extensive suite of constituents is
because these constituents are identified in DEQ’s Evaluating Residual Pesticides on Lands
Formerly Used for Agricultural Production Guidance of 2006 that was updated in June 2019
(DEQ, June 2019) and because the cost of analyzing a single sample for this extensive suite of
constituents in relatively high (i.e. approximately $800 per sample).
Copies of the final analytical laboratory reports are included in Appendix 3. The analytical
results for soil samples are summarized in Table 1 through Table 4. The metals results are
presented in Table 1, the organochlorine pesticides in Table 2, the organophosphorus
pesticides in Table 3, and the chlorinated herbicides in Table 4. In addition to presenting the
analytical results, Table 1 through Table 4 also identify relevant DEQ generic RBCs and Clean Fill
Values for soil. The generic RBCs identified in these tables are consistent with the anticipated
future land use and assume residential receptors, construction workers, and excavation
workers will be present on the Site.
Page 351 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 4
3 DATA EVALUATION
The soil samples analytical results are included in Appendix 3 and summarized in Table 1
through Table 4. The analytical results reported several constituents at concentrations that
exceed the laboratory method reporting limits (MRLs) in several soil samples. These
constituents were further compared to the following screening levels:
• DEQ's relevant generic RBCs, including the following receptors and exposure pathways:
the residential receptors, construction workers, and excavation workers ingestion,
dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathway; the residential receptors
volatilization to outdoor air exposure pathway; and the residential receptors leaching to
groundwater exposure pathway. Risk-based concentrations are referenced from the
June 2023 updated generic tables of the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making (RBDM) for
the Remediation of Contaminated Sites guidance document (DEQ, 2017).
• USEPA's regional screening levels (RSLs) for industrial and worker receptors presented
with target cancer risk of 1E-6 and non-cancer hazard index of 1. The RSLs are
referenced from the May 2022 update to the USEPA Generic Tables.
• Clean Fill Values listed in the DEQ’s Clean Fill Determinations Internal Management
Directive dated February 21, 2019 (DEQ, February 2019). Note that the Clean Fill Values
for metals equal the naturally occurring background concentrations.
• The naturally occurring background concentrations of metals in soil developed for the
Klamath Mountains province, which includes much of Central Point and the Site. The
background concentrations are derived from DEQ’s Technical Report entitled
Development of Oregon Background Metals Concentrations in Soil (DEQ, 2013). The
background concentrations are a type of average defined as the 95 percent upper
predictive limits.
The reported data are summarized in the following paragraphs.
3.1 Total Metals
Based on AEC’s experience working on properties in the Rogue Valley used as orchards, arsenic
and lead associated with the historical application of pesticide formulations containing lead
arsenate is prevalent in shallow soils. The eight discrete soil samples were analyzed for arsenic
and lead and the composite soil sample was analyzed for 17 metals, including arsenic and lead.
Arsenic, barium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, nickel, vanadium, and zinc were
reported at concentrations that exceeded the laboratory MRLs in all composite soil samples.
Arsenic and lead were the only metals reported at concentrations above the generic applicable
RBCs.
Page 352 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 5
Arsenic
Arsenic was reported in all eight of the discrete samples and in the composite soil sample at
concentrations ranging from 6.89 to 35.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). The reported
concentrations of arsenic exceeded several cleanup levels, as follows:
• All reported concentrations exceeded the generic RBC for the ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation exposure pathway for residential receptors of 0.43 mg/kg.
• With the exception of soil sample SS5, all reported concentrations exceeded the generic
RBC for the ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathway for construction
worker receptors of 15 mg/kg.
• With the exception of soil sample SS5, all reported concentrations of arsenic were above
the naturally occurring background concentration and Clean Fill Value of 12 mg/kg.
While arsenic concentrations exceed the abovementioned RBCs, potential risks to human
health associated with this constituent and exposure pathways can be managed, mitigated,
and/or eliminated from further concern, as follows:
• The generic residential RBC for total arsenic under the soil ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation exposure pathway assumes residential receptors are likely to come into
contact with contaminated soils found in the upper 3 feet of soil. However, AEC
understands CA Galpin’s redevelopment plans will include the scalping of the upper 6
inches of soil at the Site and this soil will either be disposed of off-Site at a quarry under
a DEQ-approved Solid Waste Letter of Authorization (SWLA) and/or the soil be placed
on-Site at a depth greater than 3 feet the future grade. Furthermore, AEC understands
CA Galpin’s redevelopment plans will include the import of 3.5 to 4.5 feet of clean fill.
Placement of this much clean fill constitutes an engineering control that will minimize or
eliminate the exposure of residential receptors to soil containing elevated arsenic
concentrations.
• The generic construction workers RBC for total arsenic under the soil ingestion, dermal
contact, and inhalation exposure pathway assumes construction workers could be
exposed over 1 year to arsenic during construction activities involving the disturbance of
impacted-soils. However, it is unlikely construction workers would be working at the
Site continuously for 1 year. Furthermore, this risk could be easily mitigated with proper
communication to future construction workers requiring dust suppression and/or that
they wear appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and follow proper
decontamination procedures after working to avoid exposure and health risks. The
procedures documenting proper communication, appropriate PPE, and proper
decontamination could be documented in a Health and Safety Plan (HASP) and/or
Contaminated Media Management Plan (CMMP).
• The arsenic concentrations in the upper 6 inches of soil that were tested exceeded the
Clean Fill Value throughout the Site. See Section 3.5 for Clean Fill data evaluation.
Page 353 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 6
Lead
Lead was reported in the eight discrete samples and the single composite soil sample at
concentrations above the laboratory MRL, specifically ranging from 47.4 to 185 mg/kg. All of
the reported concentrations of lead exceeded the generic RBC for the leaching to groundwater
exposure pathway for residential receptors of 30 mg/kg. All of the reported lead concentrations
also exceeded the naturally occurring background concentration and Clean Fill Value of 36
mg/kg (see Section 3.5 for Clean Fill data evaluation).
While the concentrations of lead exceeded the generic RBCs for residential receptors, potential
risks to human health can be managed, mitigated, and/or eliminated from further concern. The
generic residential RBC for total lead under the leaching to groundwater exposure pathway
conservatively assumes that a water supply well is being used or will be used in the future and
that lead could be leached from the shallow soil, impact groundwater, and that future
residential receptors could subsequently be exposed to lead in drinking water. However, the
Site will be serviced with municipal water by the Medford Water Commission. To completely
eliminate the potential risk that leaching lead to groundwater might pose to residential
receptors at the Site, a deed notice could be developed and applied that prohibits the
installation of water supply wells at the Site.
Total metals results are summarized in Table 1.
3.2 Organochlorine Pesticides
Two organochlorine pesticides were reported at concentrations above the laboratory MRLs in
the analyzed composite soil sample. The organochlorine pesticides MRLs were below the
generic applicable RBCs. The organochlorine pesticides results are summarized in Table 2. The
two organochlorine pesticides with reported concentrations include the following:
• 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethene (4,4'-DDE); and
• 4,4'-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (4,4'-DDT).
The reported concentration of 4,4’-DDE exceeded DEQ’s Clean Fill Value (see Section 3.5 for
Clean Fill data evaluation).
3.3 Organophosphorus Pesticides
The analytical results reported no organophosphorus pesticides at concentrations above the
laboratory MRLs in the analyzed composite soil samples. There are no established RBCs for
organophosphorus pesticides. The organophosphorus pesticides MRLs were below their
respective Clean Fill Values with the exception of the MRL for dichlorvos. The
organophosphorus pesticides results are summarized in Table 3.
Page 354 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 7
3.4 Chlorinated Herbicides
The analytical results reported no chlorinated herbicides at concentrations above the
laboratory MRLs in the analyzed composite soil sample. The chlorinated herbicides MRLs were
below the generic applicable RBCs with the exception of the MRL for 2-Methyl-4-
chlorophenoxyacetic (MCPA), which exceeded the RBC for the leaching to groundwater
exposure pathway for residential receptors. The chlorinated herbicides results are summarized
in Table 4.
3.5 Clean Fill Determination
Based on the analytical results of the eight discrete soil samples and the single composite soil
sample collected at the Site, which are presented in Table 1 through Table 4, the upper 6 inches
of soil at the Site does not qualify as Clean Fill. The constituents reported at concentrations
above the Clean Fill Values (which for metals are equivalent with the naturally occurring
background concentrations of metals) within the upper 6 inches of soil include arsenic, lead,
and 4,4'-DDE.
Should the upper 6 inches of soil at the Site be excavated, handling options include but are not
limited to off-Site disposal at a quarry under a DEQ-approved SWLA or reuse on-Site so long as
the soil is covered with at least 3 feet of clean fill to be protective of future residential
receptors. If soil at depths greater than 6 inches is excavated and is exported off-Site, additional
analytical testing should be completed or the soil should be assumed to be impacted and
handled appropriately.
Page 355 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 8
4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Focused Phase II ESA Investigation conducted at the Site included the following the
following:
• The collection of eight discrete soil samples from the upper 6 inches of soil. These
samples were collected from spatially representative locations across the Site.
• The preparation of a single composite soil sample from the eight discrete soil samples.
• The laboratory analyses of all eight discrete soil samples for arsenic and lead by USEPA
Method 8260B and the analysis of the single composite soil sample for 17 metals by
USEPA Method 6020B; organochlorine pesticides by USEPA Method 8081B;
organophosphorus pesticides by USEPA Method 8270E; and chlorinated herbicides by
USEPA Method 8151A.
Based on an evaluation of the analytical results for the eight discrete soil samples and the single
composite soil sample collected from the upper 6 inches at the Site, several exceedances of
screening levels were reported. These included the following:
• Arsenic was reported at concentrations above its respective generic RBC for the
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathway for residential receptors.
• Arsenic was reported at concentration above its respective generic RBC for the
ingestion, dermal contact, and inhalation exposure pathway for construction workers.
• Lead was reported at concentrations above the generic RBC for the leaching to
groundwater exposure pathway for residential receptors.
• Arsenic, lead, and 4,4’-DDE were reported at concentrations above the Clean Fill Values
at the Site.
While generic RBCs for residential receptors and construction workers were exceeded for the
aforementioned constituents and exposure pathways, potential risks to human health
associated with these constituents and exposure pathways can be managed, mitigated, and/or
eliminated from further concern, as follows:
• The generic residential RBC for total arsenic under the soil ingestion, dermal contact,
and inhalation exposure pathway assumes residential receptors are likely to come into
contact with contaminated soils found in the upper 3 feet of soil. However, AEC
understands CA Galpin’s redevelopment plans will include the scalping of the upper 6
inches of soil at the Site and this soil will either be disposed of off-Site at a quarry under
a DEQ-approved Solid Waste Letter of Authorization (SWLA) and/or the soil be placed
on-Site at a depth greater than 3 feet the future grade. Furthermore, AEC understands
CA Galpin’s redevelopment plans will include the import of 3.5 to 4.5 feet of clean fill.
Placement of this much clean fill constitutes an engineering control that will minimize or
eliminate the exposure of residential receptors to soil containing elevated arsenic
concentrations and this thickness of clean fill exceeds DEQ’s requirements of 3 feet of
clean fill.
Page 356 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 9
• The generic construction workers RBC for total arsenic under the soil ingestion, dermal
contact, and inhalation exposure pathway assumes construction workers could be
exposed over 1 year to arsenic during construction activities involving the disturbance of
impacted-soils. However, it is unlikely construction workers would be working at the
Site continuously for 1 year. Furthermore, this risk could be easily mitigated with proper
communication to future construction workers requiring dust suppression and/or that
they wear appropriate PPE and follow proper decontamination procedures after
working to avoid exposure and health risks. The procedures documenting proper
communication, appropriate PPE, and proper decontamination could be documented in
a HASP and/or CMMP.
• The generic residential RBC for total lead under the leaching to groundwater exposure
pathway conservatively assumes that a water supply well is being used or will be used in
the future and that lead could be leached from the shallow soil, impact groundwater,
and that future residential receptors could subsequently be exposed to lead in drinking
water. However, the Site will be serviced with municipal water by the Medford Water
Commission. To completely eliminate the potential risk that leaching lead to
groundwater might pose to residential receptors at the Site, a deed notice could be
developed and applied that prohibits the installation of water supply wells at the Site.
• The upper 6 inches of soil at the Site does not qualify as Clean Fill. Should the upper 6
inches of soil at the Site be excavated, handling options include but are not limited to
off-Site disposal at a quarry under a DEQ-approved SWLA or reuse on-Site so long as the
soil is covered with at least 3 feet of clean fill to be protective of future residential
receptors. If soil at depths greater than 6 inches is excavated and is exported off-Site,
additional analytical testing should be completed or the soil should be assumed to be
impacted and handled appropriately.
While the historical aerial photographs for the Site do not indicate the Site was used as an
orchard after 1952, the available arsenic and lead results suggest the Site was historically used
as an orchard prior to 1952. Based on the exceedances of arsenic, lead, and 4,4’-DDE for various
screening levels described above and accounting for the inherent uncertainties associated with
any subsurface investigation, AEC recommends the following:
• Develop a HASP to inform future construction workers of the contaminants present in
shallow soil at the Site. The HASP should require construction workers to wear
appropriate PPE and to follow proper decontamination procedures subsequent to
working in order to avoid unsafe exposure and health risks. The procedures
documenting proper communication, appropriate PPE, and proper decontamination
could be also documented in a CMMP.
• Consider developing and applying a deed notice that prohibits the installation of wells to
supply water to future residents unless groundwater investigations are conducted prior
to well installation.
• Place 3 or more feet of Clean Fill over the existing grade during redevelopment.
Placement of this much clean fill constitutes an engineering control that will minimize or
eliminate the exposure of residential receptors to soil containing elevated arsenic
concentrations. AEC understands at least 3.5 feet of clean fill will be placed across the
Page 357 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 10
Site during redevelopment, and this thickness will exceed the minimum of 3 feet of
clean fill that DEQ usually requires.
• Consider characterizing soil quality at depths greater than 6 inches to better understand
the vertical extent of contamination. Based on AEC’s extensive experience with
characterizing orchard properties in the Rogue Valley, pesticides concentrations
typically attenuate very rapidly with depth, usually to concentrations below RBCs at
depths of 12 to 18 inches below ground surface. The concentrations of pesticides in the
upper 6 inches of soil at the Site are relatively low compared the concentrations of
pesticides in the upper 6 inches of soil at most other properties in the Rogue Valley
historically used as orchards and it is possible the soil remaining after scalping of the
upper 6 inches of soil will have pesticides concentrations below relevant generic RBCs.
• Should the upper 6 inches of soil at the Site be excavated, handling options include but
are not limited to off-Site disposal at a quarry under a DEQ-approved SWLA or reuse on-
Site so long as the soil is covered with at least 3 feet of clean fill to be protective of
future residential receptors. If soil at depths greater than 6 inches is excavated and is
exported off-Site, additional analytical testing should be completed or the soil should be
assumed to be impacted and handled appropriately.
• It should be noted that per the Clean Fill Determinations Internal Management Directive
(DEQ, 2019), any soil with petroleum-like staining or a petroleum-like odor does not
qualify as Clean Fill and should not be exported from the Site unless it is properly
managed.
Please feel free to contact Jonathan Williams at 541-944-4685 or jwilliams@alpine-env-llc.com
if you have any questions about this Supplemental Investigation report.
Sincerely,
Alpine Environmental Consultants, LLC
Jonathan D. Williams, R.G.
Senior Hydrogeologist
Page 358 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg 11
5 REFERENCES
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). March 2013. Development of Oregon
Background Metals Concentrations in Soil, Technical report. Land Quality Division, Cleanup
Program. (DEQ, 2013).
Oregon DEQ. October 2017. Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Contaminated
Sites. Updated on October 2, 2017 (DEQ, 2017).
Oregon DEQ. February 21, 2019. Clean Fill Determinations. Internal Management Directive,
Materials Management Division. (DEQ, February 2019).
Oregon DEQ. June 2019. Guidance for Evaluating Residual Pesticides on Lands Formerly Used for
Agricultural Production. Land Quality Division, Cleanup Program. Developed in January 2006
and Updated in June 2019 (DEQ, June 2019).
Page 359 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 12
6 LIMITATIONS
The purpose of an environmental assessment is to reasonably evaluate the potential for or actual
impact of past practices on a given Subject Property area. In performing an environmental
assessment, it is understood that a balance must be struck between a reasonable inquiry into the
environmental issues and an exhaustive analysis of each conceivable issue of potential concern. This
environmental assessment contains professional opinions as to the environmental issues of concern
and/or additional actions, which may be addressed to the property. In rendering its professional
opinion, we warrant that services provided hereunder were performed, within the limits described,
consistent with current generally accepted environmental consulting principles and practices. No
other warranty, express or implied, is made. The following paragraphs discuss the assumptions and
parameters under which such an opinion is rendered.
No investigation is thorough enough to exclude the presence of hazardous materials at a given
Subject Property. If hazardous conditions have not been identified during the assessment, such a
finding should not therefore be construed as a guarantee of the absence of such materials on the
Subject Property, but rather as the result of the services performed within the scope, limitations,
and cost of the work performed.
Any opinions or recommendations presented apply to Subject Property conditions existing when
services were performed. We are unable to report on or accurately predict events that may change
the Subject Property conditions after the described services are performed, whether occurring
naturally or caused by external forces. We assume no responsibility for conditions we were not
authorized to investigate, or conditions not generally recognized as environmentally unacceptable
when services were performed.
Environmental conditions may exist at the Subject Property that cannot be identified by visual
observation. Where the scope of services was limited to observations made during Subject Property
reconnaissance, interviews, review of readily available reports and literature or any combination,
any conclusions or recommendations or both are necessarily based in part on information supplied
by others, the accuracy or sufficiency of which we may not have independently reviewed.
Where subsurface work was performed, our professional opinions are based in part on
interpretation of data from discrete sampling locations that may not represent actual conditions at
unsampled locations.
Except where there is express concern of our client, or where specific environmental contaminants
have been previously reported by others, naturally occurring toxic substances, potential
environmental contaminants inside buildings, or contaminant concentrations that are not of
current environmental concern may not be reflected in this document.
Page 360 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 13
We are not responsible for any potential impact of changes in applicable environmental standards,
practices, or regulations following performance of services, on the conclusions or
recommendations, or both, of the study.
Services hereunder were performed consistent with our agreement and understanding with, and
solely for the use of, our client. Opinions and recommendations are intended for the client,
purpose, Subject Property, location, time frame, and project parameters indicated. We are not
responsible for subsequent separation, detachment, or partial use of this document. Any reliance
on this report by a third party shall be at such party’s sole risk.
Page 361 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA Report – 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 14
7 QUALIFICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONALS
Mr. Jonathan Williams received a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology, with honors, from
Duke University in 1987. He has over 30 years experience working with geologic and
environmental reports, including Phase I ESAs. Mr. Williams has been a Registered Geologist in
the State of Oregon since 1996, and has 40-hour HAZWOPER training.
Page 362 of 533
FIGURES
Page 363 of 533
0 4,0002,000
SCALE FEET
U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
MEDFORD WEST, OR AND SAMS VALLEY, OR (2020)
SOURCE:
OREGON
Site
DATE:
Figure 1
Site Location Map
Focused Phase II ESA
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon4/8/22
ALPINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LLC
DRAWN BY:SM
SITE
LOCATION
Page 364 of 533
Ha
m
r
i
c
k
R
o
a
d
SS3
Residential
(Former
Orchard)
Agriculture
Central
Point
Cemetery
Agriculture
Parking Lot
SS1
SS5
SS7
SS2
SS6
SS4
SS8
LEGEND
Approximate Site Boundary
Soil Sample LocationSS1
Google Earth (2020)SOURCE:
DATE:4/8/24
ALPINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LLC
DRAWN BY:SM
0 240120
SCALE FEET
Figure 2
Soil Sample Location Map
Focused Phase II ESA
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon
Page 365 of 533
TABLES
Page 366 of 533
Table 1. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Total Metals
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs)Date An
t
i
m
o
n
y
(
h
)
Ar
s
e
n
i
c
Ba
r
i
u
m
Be
r
y
l
l
i
u
m
Ca
d
m
i
u
m
Ch
r
o
m
i
u
m
(
I
I
I
)
Co
b
a
l
t
Co
p
p
e
r
Le
a
d
Me
r
c
u
r
y
Mo
l
y
b
d
e
n
u
m
Ni
c
k
e
l
(
i
)
Se
l
e
n
i
u
m
Sil
v
e
r
Th
a
l
l
i
u
m
(
j
)
Va
n
a
d
i
u
m
Zin
c
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 25.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA 115 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 20.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 140 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 35.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 145 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 31.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA 135 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 6.89 NA NA NA NA NA NA 47.4 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 15.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 79.2 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 30.5 NA NA NA NA NA NA 142 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA 31.3 NA NA NA NA NA NA 185 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 1.20U 26.3 114 0.254 0.241U 14.2 9.15 27.7 120 0.0962U 1.20U 12.0 1.20U 0.241U 0.241U 33.5 39.2
RES. NE 0.43 15,000 160 78 120,000 NE 3,100 400 23 NE 1,500 NE 390 NE NE NE
C. W. NE 15 69,000 700 350 530,000 NE 14,000 800 110 NE 7,000 NE 1,800 NE NE NE
E. W. NE 420 >Max 19,000 9,700 >Max NE 390,000 800 2,900 NE 190,000 NE 49,000 NE NE NE
RES. NE NV NV NV NV NV NE NV NV NV NE NV NE NV NE NE NE
RES. NE * * * * * NE * 30 * NE * NE * NE NE NE
0.59 12 630 1.4 0.52 890 NE 110 36 0.17 NE 630 0.80 0.16 0.31 290 140
RES. NE 0.77 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE 5.50 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE 890 NE 1,600 2,100 NE 420 NE NE NE NE 1,500 NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE 0.68 NE 1,600 2,100 NE 420 NE NE NE NE 1,500 NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 31 39 16,000 160 7.8 120,000 23 3,100 NE NE 390 860 390 390 0.78 390 23,000
RES. NE 330 NE NE 82 NE NE NE NE NE NE 3,600 NE NE 6.6 NE NE
RES. 280,000 21,000 710,000 28,000 14,000 NE 8,500 NE NE 11 2,800,000 20,000 28,000,000 NE NE 140,000 NE
RES. 31 35 15,000 160 7.1 120,000 23 3,100 400 11 390 6,700 390 390 0.78 390 23,000
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
DEQ's clean fill screening levels and background metals in Soil
for Klamath Mountains province (e), (f)
Inhalation US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
g
)
Noncarcinogenic
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Carcinogenic TR
= 1E-06
PARAMETERS Total Metals (mg/kg) U.S. EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
SAMPLING DATA
Page 367 of 533
Table 1. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Total Metals
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Notes:
Data Qualifiers:
Footnotes:
Symbols/Acronyms:
bgs - below ground surface
C. W. - construction worker receptors
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DU - Decision Unit
E. W. - excavation worker receptors
ft - feet
HI - Hazard Index
MDL - Method Detection Limit
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
MRL - Method Reporting Limit
NA - Sample was not analyzed for this analyte.
NE - No RBCs or RSLs are established for this constituent.
NV - The chemical is considered "nonvolatile" for the purposes of the exposure calculations.
RBC - risk-based concentration
RES. - residential receptors
RSLs - Regional Screening Levels
TR - Target Risk
U.R. - urban residential receptors
U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
Analytical data in bold font indicates that the value exceeds the laboratory MRL.
Analytical data highlighted in both orange and blue indicates the value exceeded one or more generic RBCs and RSLs, and the clean fill screening level.
* - Leaching to groundwater RBCs are not provided for inorganic chemicals. If this pathway is of concern, then site-specific leaching tests must be performed.
(e) DEQ’s Background Concentrations in Soil are referenced from the DEQ's Development of Oregon Background Metals Concentrations in Soil technical report dated March 2013. The background concentrations included
in this table are 95% Upper Prediction Limit (UPL) for the Klamath Mountains province, which includes the Central Point area and the Subject Property.
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected ("Non-detect") at or above the MRL/MDL.
(b) This pathway is applicable anytime someone is likely to come into contact with contaminated soil. For the occupational scenario, exposure to contaminated soils should be considered for all contaminants found in the
top three feet of soil.
(c) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone soils are contaminated with volatile compounds.
(d) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone contamination is found overlying an aquifer that is currently used or is reasonably likely to be used in the future for drinking water.
(a) Risk-Based Concentrations are referenced from the July 2023 update to the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites guidance document dated September 2003.
Analytical data highlighted in yellow indicates the value exceeded one or more generic RBCs.
Analytical data highlighted in orange indicates the value exceeded one or more generic RBCs and RSLs.
Analytical data highlighted in both yellow and blue indicates the value exceeded one or more generic RBCs and the clean fill screening level.
Analytical data highlighted in brown indicates the value exceeded one or more RSLs.
(h) The RSLs for antimony are the lowest RSLs listed in the USEPA Generic Tables for the following compounds: metalic antimony, antimony pentoxide, antimony tertroxide, and antimony trioxide.
(j) The RSLs for thallium are the lowest RSLs listed in the USEPA Generic Tables for the following compounds: thallium nitrate, thallium soluble salts, thallium acetate, thallium carbonate, thallium chloride, thallium selenite,
and thallium sulfate.
(i) The RSLs for nickel are the lowest RSLs listed in the USEPA Generic Tables for the following compounds: nickel acetate, nickel carbonate, nickel carbonyl, nickel hydroxide, nickel oxide, nickel refinery dust, nickel
soluble salts, and nickel subsulfide.
(f) Clean Fill Values are referenced from the DEQ's Clean Fill Determinations guidance document dated February 2019.
(g) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are referenced from the May 2022 update to the U.S. EPA Generic Tables.
Page 368 of 533
Table 2. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID
Sample
Location
Depth
(ft bgs) Date Ald
r
i
n
al
p
h
a
-
H
e
x
a
c
h
l
o
r
o
c
y
c
l
o
h
e
x
a
n
e
(a
l
p
h
a
-
B
H
C
)
be
t
a
-
B
H
C
de
l
t
a
-
B
H
C
ga
m
m
a
-
B
H
C
(L
i
n
d
a
n
e
)
cis
-
C
h
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
(C
h
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
R
B
C
s
)
tr
a
n
s
-
C
h
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
(C
h
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
R
B
C
s
)
4,
4
'
-
Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
p
h
e
n
y
l
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
(4
,
4
'
-
D
D
D
)
4,
4
'
-
Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
p
h
e
n
y
l
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
e
n
e
(4
,
4
'
-
D
D
E
)
4,
4
'
-
Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
d
i
p
h
e
n
y
l
t
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
e
t
h
a
n
e
(4
,
4
'
-
D
D
T
)
Di
e
l
d
r
i
n
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.0153 C-05 0.00569 C-05 0.00201U, C-05
RES. 0.031 0.086 NE NE 0.49 1.7 1.7 2.2 1.8 1.9 0.034
C. W. 1.1 3.0 NE NE 17 61 61 9.7 66 66 1.2
E. W. 30 83 NE NE 470 1,700 1,700 270 1,800 1,800 33
RES. >Csat NV NE NE NV >Csat >Csat NV >Csat NV NV
RES. 0.023 0.0063 NE NE 0.036 0.45 0.45 1.1 1.6 12 0.010
0.023 0.0063 0.009 NE 0.0095 0.91 0.91 0.0063 0.01 0.01 0.0045
RES. 0.041 0.11 0.39 NE 0.63 NE NE 2.90 2.0 2.0 0.043
RES. NE 0.39 1.40 NE 5.60 NE NE 10.00 NE 24 0.15
RES. 0.98 2,100 7,200 NE 12,000 NE NE 55,000 61 39,000 830
RES. 0.039 0.086 0.30 NE 0.57 NE NE 2.30 2.0 1.90 0.034
RES. 2.30 630 NE NE 0.78 39 39 39 39 39 3.90
RES. NE 2,600 NE NE 8.20 410 410 160 NE 550 16
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 2.30 510 NE NE 0.71 36 36 32 39 37 3.20
Dermal
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Ingestion
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
PARAMETERS Organochlorine Pesticides (mg/kg) U.S. EPA 8081B (ICPMS)
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Carcinogenic TR =
1E-06
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
SAMPLING DATA
Noncarcinogenic
Page 369 of 533
Table 2. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs) Date En
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
I
(E
n
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
a
l
p
h
a
-
b
e
t
a
R
B
C
)
En
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
I
I
(E
n
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
a
l
p
h
a
-
b
e
t
a
R
B
C
)
En
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
S
u
l
f
a
t
e
(E
n
d
o
s
u
l
f
a
n
a
l
p
h
a
-
b
e
t
a
R
B
C
)
En
d
r
i
n
En
d
r
i
n
A
l
d
e
h
y
d
e
(E
n
d
r
i
n
R
B
C
)
En
d
r
i
n
K
e
t
o
n
e
(E
n
d
r
i
n
R
B
C
)
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r
He
p
t
a
c
h
l
o
r
e
x
p
o
x
i
d
e
Me
t
h
o
x
y
c
h
l
o
r
Ch
l
o
r
d
a
n
e
To
x
a
p
h
e
n
e
(T
o
t
a
l
)
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00201U, C-05 0.00602U, C-05 0.0602U, C-05 0.0602U, C-05
RES. 380 380 380 19 19 19 0.11 0.055 NE 1.7 0.49
C. W. 1,600 1,600 1,600 80 80 80 4.0 2.0 NE 61 17
E. W. 45,000 45,000 45,000 2,200 2,200 2,200 110 56 NE 1,700 470
RES. >Max >Max >Max NV NV NV 230 >Csat NE >Csat NV
RES. >Csat >Csat >Csat 11 11 11 0.017 0.0042 NE 0.45 0.36
0.64 0.64 0.64 0.0014 0.0014 0.0014 0.017 0.0042 5.1 0.91 0.36
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.15 0.076 NE NE 0.63
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE 2.20
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE 1.0 0.91 NE NE 12,000
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE 0.13 0.07 NE NE 0.49
RES. 470 470 470 23 23 23 7.80 1.00 390 39 7.0
RES. NE NE NE 99 99 99 NE NE 1,600 410 30
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 470 470 470 19 19 19 7.80 1.0 320 36 5.70
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
Carcinogenic TR =
1E-06
Ingestion
Dermal
SAMPLING DATA
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
PARAMETERS Organochlorine Pesticides (mg/kg) U.S. EPA 8081B (ICPMS)
Noncarcinogenic
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
Inhalation
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Page 370 of 533
Table 2. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organochlorine Pesticides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and TL 9800
Notes:
Data Qualifiers:
Footnotes:
Symbols/Acronyms:
bgs - below ground surface
C. W. - construction worker receptors
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DU - Decision Unit
E. W. - excavation worker receptors
ft - feet
HI - Hazard Index
LOD - Limit of Detection
LOQ - Limit of Quantitation
MDL - Method Detection Limit
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
MRL - Method Reporting Limit
NA - Sample was not analyzed for this analyte.
NE - No RBCs or RSLs are established for this constituent.
NV - The chemical is considered "nonvolatile" for the purposes of the exposure calculations.
RBC - risk-based concentration
RES. - residential receptors
RSLs - Regional Screening Levels
TR - Target Risk
U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
Analytical data in bold font indicates that the value exceeds the laboratory MRL.
Analytical data highlighted in blue indicates the value exceeded the clean fill screening level.
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected ("Non-detect") at or above the MRL/MDL.
>Max - The constituent RBC for this pathway is greater than 1,000,000 mg/Kg or 1,000,000 mg/L. Therefore, these substances are not expected to pose risks in the scenario shown.
>Csat - The soil RBC exceeds the limit of three-phase equilibrium partitioning. Soil concentrations in excess of this value indicate free product might be present.
(e) Clean Fill Values are referenced from the DEQ's Clean Fill Determinations guidance document dated February 2019.
(f) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are referenced from the May 2022 update to the U.S. EPA Generic Tables.
(b) This pathway is applicable anytime someone is likely to come into contact with contaminated soil. For the occupational scenario, exposure to contaminated soils should be considered for all contaminants found in the
top three feet of soil.
(c) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone soils are contaminated with volatile compounds.
(d) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone contamination is found overlying an aquifer that is currently used or is reasonably likely to be used in the future for drinking water.
(a) Risk-Based Concentrations are referenced from the July 2023 update to the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites guidance document dated September 2003.
C-05 - Extract has undergone a GPC (Gel-Permeation Chromatography) cleanup per EPA 3640A. Reporting levels may be raised due to dilution necessary for cleanup. Sample Final Volume includes the GPC dilution
factor, see the Prep page for details.
Page 371 of 533
Table 3. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organophosphorus Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs)Date Az
i
n
p
h
o
s
m
e
t
h
y
l
(
G
u
t
h
i
o
n
)
Ch
l
o
r
p
y
r
i
f
o
s
Co
u
m
a
p
h
o
s
De
m
e
t
o
n
-
O
,
S
Di
a
z
i
n
o
n
Di
c
h
l
o
r
v
o
s
Di
m
e
t
h
o
a
t
e
Di
s
u
l
f
o
t
o
n
EP
N
Et
h
o
p
r
o
p
Fe
n
s
u
l
f
o
t
h
i
o
n
Fe
n
t
h
i
o
n
Ma
l
a
t
h
i
o
n
Me
r
p
h
o
s
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0646U, R-02 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0810U, R-02
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
C. W. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
E. W. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
1.0 7.2 NE 2.5 3.9 0.0049 0.59 0.056 0.17 NE NE NE 6 2.3
RES. NE NE NE NE NE 2.40 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE 8.50 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE 46,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE 1.90 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES.230 78 NE 3.10 55 39 170 3.10 0.78 NE NE NE 1,600 2.30
RES.990 330 NE 13 230 160 730 13 3.3 NE NE NE 6,600 NE
RES.14,000,000 NE NE NE NE 710,000 NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES.190 63 NE 2.50 44 32 140 2.50 0.63 NE NE NE 1,300 2.30
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Carcinogenic
TR = 1E-06
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Noncarcinogenic
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
PARAMETERS Organophosphorus Pesticides (mg/kg) ALA SOP
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
SAMPLING DATA
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
Page 372 of 533
Table 3. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organophosphorus Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs)Date Me
t
h
y
l
p
a
r
a
t
h
i
o
n
Me
v
i
n
p
h
o
s
(
P
h
o
s
d
r
i
n
)
Mo
n
o
c
r
o
t
o
p
h
o
s
Na
l
e
d
(
D
i
b
r
o
m
)
Pa
r
a
t
h
i
o
n
,
e
t
h
y
l
Ph
o
r
a
t
e
Ro
n
n
e
l
(
F
e
n
c
h
l
o
r
p
h
o
s
)
Su
l
f
o
t
e
p
(T
e
t
r
a
e
t
h
y
l
D
i
t
h
i
o
p
y
r
o
p
h
o
s
p
h
a
t
e
)
Su
l
p
r
o
f
o
s
(
B
o
l
s
t
a
r
)
TE
P
P
Te
t
r
a
c
h
l
o
r
v
i
n
p
h
o
s
(
R
a
b
o
n
)
To
k
u
t
h
i
o
n
(
P
r
o
t
h
i
o
f
o
s
)
Tr
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
n
a
t
e
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.205U 0.0512U 0.0512U 0.0512U
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
C. W. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
E. W. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
0.44 NE NE 1.1 26 0.2 220 NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 20.00 NE NE 160 470.00 16 3,900 39 NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 82.00 NE NE NE 2,000.00 66 NE 160 NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 16.00 NE NE 160 380.00 13 3,900 32 NE NE NE NE NENoncarcinogenic
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Carcinogenic
TR = 1E-06
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
Noncancer
Child HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
PARAMETERS Organophosphorus Pesticides (mg/kg) ALA SOP
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
SAMPLING DATA
Page 373 of 533
Table 3. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Organophosphorus Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Notes:
The laboratory MRL that exceeds a Clean Fill Value is indicated with bold blue font
Data Qualifiers:
R-02 - The Reporting Limit for this analyte has been raised to account for interference from coeluting organic compounds present in the sample.
Footnotes:
Symbols/Acronyms:
bgs - below ground surface
C. W. - construction worker receptors
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DU - Decision Unit
E. W. - excavation worker receptors
ft - feet
HI - Hazard Index
MDL - Method Detection Limit
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
MRL - Method Reporting Limit
NA - Sample was not analyzed for this analyte.
NE - No RBCs or RSLs are established for this constituent.
NV - The chemical is considered "nonvolatile" for the purposes of the exposure calculations.
RBC - risk-based concentration
RES. - residential receptors
RSLs - Regional Screening Levels
SOP - Standard Operating Procedure
TR - Target Risk
U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected ("Non-detect") at or above the MRL/MDL.
(b) This pathway is applicable anytime someone is likely to come into contact with contaminated soil. For the occupational scenario, exposure to contaminated soils should be considered for all contaminants found in the
top three feet of soil.
>Max - The constituent RBC for this pathway is greater than 1,000,000 mg/Kg or 1,000,000 mg/L. Therefore, these substances are not expected to pose risks in the scenario shown.
(c) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone soils are contaminated with volatile compounds.
(d) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone contamination is found overlying an aquifer that is currently used or is reasonably likely to be used in the future for drinking water.
(e) Clean Fill Values are referenced from the DEQ's Clean Fill Determinations guidance document dated February 2019.
(f) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are referenced from the May 2022 update to the U.S. EPA Generic Tables.
>Csat - The soil RBC exceeds the limit of three-phase equilibrium partitioning. Soil concentrations in excess of this value indicate free product might be present.
(a) Risk-Based Concentrations are referenced from the July 2023 update to the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites guidance document dated September 2003.
Page 374 of 533
Table 4. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Chlorinated Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Sa
m
p
l
e
T
y
p
e
Sample ID Sample Location
Depth
(ft bgs)Date 2,
4
,
5
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
a
c
e
t
i
c
a
c
i
d
(
2
,
4
,
5
-
T)2,
4
,
5
-
T
r
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
p
r
o
p
i
o
n
i
c
a
c
i
d
(2
,
4
,
5
-
T
P
)
(
S
i
l
v
e
x
)
2,
4
-
D
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
a
c
e
t
i
c
a
c
i
d
(
2
,
4
-
D
)
4-
(
2
,
4
-
d
i
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
)
b
u
t
y
r
i
c
a
c
i
d
(
2
,
4
-
DB
)
Da
l
a
p
o
n
Di
c
a
m
b
a
Di
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
r
o
p
Di
n
o
s
e
b
2-
M
e
t
h
y
l
-
4
-
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
a
c
e
t
i
c
a
c
i
d
(M
C
P
A
)
Me
t
h
y
l
c
h
l
o
r
o
p
h
e
n
o
x
y
p
r
o
p
i
o
n
i
c
a
c
i
d
(M
C
P
P
)
SS1 NW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS2 NE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS3 W area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS4 E area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS5 W-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS6 E-Central area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS7 SW area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
SS8 SE area 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
COMP-0.0-0.5 Site Composite 0.0-0.5 04/01/24 0.012U 0.012U 0.120U 0.120U, *+ 0.290U, *+ 0.012U 0.120U 0.120U, *+12.0U 12.0U
RES. NE NE 630 NE NE NE NE NE 32 NE
C. W. NE NE 2,700 NE NE NE NE NE 130 NE
E. W. NE NE 74,000 NE NE NE NE NE 3,700 NE
RES. NE NE NV NE NE NE NE NE NV NE
RES. NE NE 2.3 NE NE NE NE NE 0.097 NE
4.1 3.7 2.3 25 7.2 9 NE 7.8 0.097 NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 780 630 780 NE 2,300 2,300 NE 78 39 78
RES. 3,300 2,600 6,600 NE 9,900 9,900 NE 330 160 330
RES. NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE NE
RES. 630 510 700 NE 1,900 1,900 NE 63 32 63
Noncancer Child
HI = 1
Ingestion
Dermal
DEQ's clean fill screening levels (e)
US
E
P
A
R
S
L
s
(
f
)
Carcinogenic TR
= 1E-06
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Noncarcinogenic
PARAMETERS Chlorinated Herbicides (mg/kg) U.S. EPA 8151A
Inhalation
Carcinogenic
SAMPLING DATA
Te
s
t
P
i
t
D
i
s
c
r
e
t
e
S
a
m
p
l
e
s
DE
Q
R
B
C
s
(
a
)
Ingestion, Dermal Contact and Inhalation (b)
Volatilization to Outdoor Air (c)
Leaching to Groundwater (d)
Page 375 of 533
Table 4. Soil Samples Analytical Results - Chlorinated Herbicides
Focused Phase II Environmental Site Assessment: 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 97502; Map 372W01BC and Taxlot 9800
Notes:
Data Qualifiers:
Footnotes:
Symbols/Acronyms:
bgs - below ground surface
C. W. - construction worker receptors
DEQ - Department of Environmental Quality
DU - Decision Unit
E. W. - excavation worker receptors
ft - feet
HI - Hazard Index
LOD - Limit of Detection
LOQ - Limit of Quantitation
MDL - Method Detection Limit
mg/kg - milligrams per kilogram
MRL - Method Reporting Limit
NA - Sample was not analyzed for this analyte.
NE - No RBCs or RSLs are established for this constituent.
NV - The chemical is considered "nonvolatile" for the purposes of the exposure calculations.
RBC - risk-based concentration
RES. - residential receptors
RSLs - Regional Screening Levels
TR - Target Risk
U.S. EPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
(b) This pathway is applicable anytime someone is likely to come into contact with contaminated soil. For the occupational scenario, exposure to contaminated soils should be considered for all contaminants found in the
top three feet of soil.
The laboratory MRL that exceeds one or more RBCs are indicated with bold blue font.
U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected ("Non-detect") at or above the MRL/MDL.
(a) Risk-Based Concentrations are referenced from the July 2023 update to the DEQ's Risk-Based Decision Making for the Remediation of Petroleum-Contaminated Sites guidance document dated September 2003.
*+ - LCS and/or LCSD is outside acceptance limits, high biased.
>Max - The constituent RBC for this pathway is greater than 1,000,000 mg/Kg or 1,000,000 mg/L. Therefore, these substances are not expected to pose risks in the scenario shown.
(c) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone soils are contaminated with volatile compounds.
(d) This pathway is applicable whenever vadose zone contamination is found overlying an aquifer that is currently used or is reasonably likely to be used in the future for drinking water.
(e) Clean Fill Values are referenced from the DEQ's Clean Fill Determinations guidance document dated February 2019.
(f) Regional Screening Levels (RSLs) are referenced from the May 2022 update to the U.S. EPA Generic Tables.
>Csat - The soil RBC exceeds the limit of three-phase equilibrium partitioning. Soil concentrations in excess of this value indicate free product might be present.
Page 376 of 533
APPENDIX 1
Historical Aerial Photographs
Page 377 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1952
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 378 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1960
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 379 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1967
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 380 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1976
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 381 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1979
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 382 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 1994
SOURCE: UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 383 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 2003
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 384 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 2014
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 9800
The Site
Page 385 of 533
AERIAL PHOTO 2023
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Map and Taxlot 372W01BC TL 980
The Site
Page 386 of 533
APPENDIX 2
Photographic Documentation
Page 387 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA, 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 1
1. SS1.
2. SS1, facing north.
3. SS2.
4. SS2, facing west.
5. SS2.
6. SS3.
Page 388 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA, 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 2
7. SS3, facing southwest.
8. SS4.
9. SS4, facing west.
10. SS5.
11. SS5.
12. SS5, facing south.
Page 389 of 533
Focused Phase II ESA, 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon Pg | 3
13. SS6.
14. SS6, facing north.
15. SS7.
16. SS7, facing west.
17. SS8.
18. SS8, facing west.
Page 390 of 533
APPENDIX 3
Complete Laboratory Results
Page 391 of 533
Apex Laboratories, LLC
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Wednesday, April 17, 2024
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Jonathan Williams
RE: A4D0820 - 4630 Hamrick Rd. - [none]
Thank you for using Apex Laboratories. We greatly appreciate your business and strive to provide the
highest quality services to the environmental industry.
Enclosed are the results of analyses for work order A4D0820, which was received by the laboratory on
4/2/2024 at 10:30:00AM.
If you have any questions concerning this report or the services we offer, please feel free to contact me by
email at: dthomas@apex-labs.com, or by phone at 503-718-2323.
Please note: All samples will be disposed of within 30 days of sample receipt, unless prior arrangements
have been made.
White City, OR 97503
Cooler Receipt Information
(See Cooler Receipt Form for details)
Acceptable Receipt Temperature is less than, or equal to, 6 degC (not frozen), or received on ice the same day as sampling.
Default Cooler degC 3.3
This Final Report is the official version of the data results for this sample submission, unless superseded
by a subsequent, labeled amended report.
All other deliverables derived from this data, including Electronic Data Deliverables (EDDs), CLP-like
forms, client requested summary sheets, and all other products are considered secondary to this report.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ANALYTICAL REPORT
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 1 of 28
Page 392 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Client Sample ID Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received
A4D0820-01 04/01/24 10:05 04/02/24 10:30SS1Soil
A4D0820-02 04/01/24 10:10 04/02/24 10:30SS2Soil
A4D0820-03 04/01/24 10:20 04/02/24 10:30SS3Soil
A4D0820-04 04/01/24 10:00 04/02/24 10:30SS4Soil
A4D0820-05 04/01/24 10:25 04/02/24 10:30SS5Soil
A4D0820-06 04/01/24 09:50 04/02/24 10:30SS6Soil
A4D0820-07 04/01/24 10:30 04/02/24 10:30SS7Soil
A4D0820-08 04/01/24 10:40 04/02/24 10:30SS8Soil
A4D0820-09 04/01/24 13:00 04/02/24 10:30Comp-0.0-0.5 Soil
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 2 of 28
Page 393 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)C-05Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0288
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Aldrin [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201alpha-BHC [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201beta-BHC [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201delta-BHC [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201gamma-BHC (Lindane) [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201cis-Chlordane [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201trans-Chlordane [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.002014,4'-DDD [2C]
EPA 8081Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 14:391---0.002010.01534,4'-DDE [2C]
EPA 8081Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 14:391---0.002010.005694,4'-DDT
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Dieldrin [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endosulfan I [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endosulfan II [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endosulfan sulfate [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endrin [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endrin aldehyde [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Endrin ketone [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Heptachlor [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00201Heptachlor epoxide [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.00602Methoxychlor [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.0602Chlordane (Technical) [2C]
04/09/24 14:39mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8081B---0.0602Toxaphene (Total) [2C]
EPA 8081BLimits: 42-129 %04/09/24 14:391Recovery: 53 %Surrogate: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr)
EPA 8081B 55-130 %04/09/24 14:391 91 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr)
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 3 of 28
Page 394 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0271
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Chlorpyrifos
R-0204/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0646Coumaphos
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Demeton O
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Demeton S
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Diazinon
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Dichlorvos
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Dimethoate
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Disulfoton
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512EPN
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Ethoprop
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Fensulfothion
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Fenthion
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Malathion
R-0204/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0810Merphos
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Methyl parathion
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Monocrotophos
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Naled (Dibrom)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Parathion, ethyl
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Phorate
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Sulfotep
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Sulprofos (Bolstar)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.205TEPP
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
04/08/24 12:57mg/kg dryND 1 EPA 8270E OPPs---0.0512Trichloronate
EPA 8270E OPPsLimits: 10-136 %04/08/24 12:571Recovery: 115 %Surrogate: Tributyl phosphate (Surr)
EPA 8270E OPPs 34-121 %04/08/24 12:571 96 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr)
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 4 of 28
Page 395 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
SS1 (A4D0820-01)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:1810---1.1925.9Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:1810---0.239115Lead
SS2 (A4D0820-02)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:2410---1.2520.3Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:2410---0.251140Lead
SS3 (A4D0820-03)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:3010---1.1635.5Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:3010---0.231145Lead
SS4 (A4D0820-04)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:3510---1.1931.2Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:3510---0.239135Lead
SS5 (A4D0820-05)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:4110---1.086.89Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:4110---0.21547.4Lead
SS6 (A4D0820-06)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:5910---1.1215.3Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 21:5910---0.22479.2Lead
SS7 (A4D0820-07)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0293
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 22:0510---1.2330.5Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/08/24 22:0510---0.247142Lead
SS8 (A4D0820-08)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0349
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 5 of 28
Page 396 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
SS8 (A4D0820-08)Matrix: Soil
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:1410---1.1731.3Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:1410---0.234185Lead
Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09)Matrix: Soil
Batch: 24D0349
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---1.20Antimony
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---1.2026.3Arsenic
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---1.20114Barium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---0.2410.254Beryllium
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---0.241Cadmium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---1.2014.2Chromium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---1.209.15Cobalt
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---2.4127.7Copper
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---0.241120Lead
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---0.0962Mercury
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---1.20Molybdenum
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---4.8112.0Nickel
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---1.20Selenium
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---0.241Silver
04/09/24 17:20mg/kg dryND 10 EPA 6020B---0.241Thallium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---2.4133.5Vanadium
EPA 6020Bmg/kg dry 04/09/24 17:2010---4.8139.2Zinc
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 6 of 28
Page 397 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
ANALYTICAL SAMPLE RESULTS
Percent Dry Weight
Sample
ResultAnalyte
Reporting
Limit Method Ref.Notes DilutionUnits
Detection
Limit
Date
Analyzed
SS1 (A4D0820-01)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0082.9% Solids
SS2 (A4D0820-02)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0088.2% Solids
SS3 (A4D0820-03)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0083.7% Solids
SS4 (A4D0820-04)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0085.5% Solids
SS5 (A4D0820-05)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0090.8% Solids
SS6 (A4D0820-06)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0088.5% Solids
SS7 (A4D0820-07)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0084.5% Solids
SS8 (A4D0820-08)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0086.0% Solids
Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09)Matrix: Soil Batch: 24D0127
EPA 8000D%04/04/24 07:061---1.0085.9% Solids
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 7 of 28
Page 398 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0288 - EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)Soil
C-05Blank (24D0288-BLK1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:07
EPA 8081B
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Aldrin
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- alpha-BHC
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- beta-BHC
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- delta-BHC
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- gamma-BHC (Lindane)
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- cis-Chlordane
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- trans-Chlordane
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- 4,4'-DDD
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- 4,4'-DDE
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- 4,4'-DDT
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Dieldrin
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endosulfan I
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endosulfan II
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endosulfan sulfate
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endrin
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endrin aldehyde
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Endrin ketone
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Heptachlor
mg/kg wetND0.00200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Heptachlor epoxide
mg/kg wetND0.00600 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Methoxychlor
mg/kg wetND0.0600 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Chlordane (Technical)
mg/kg wetND0.0600 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Toxaphene (Total)
Limits: 42-129 %Surr: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr) Recovery: 73 % Dilution: 1x
55-130 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr) 115 % "
C-05LCS (24D0288-BS1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:23
EPA 8081B
mg/kg wet0.0384 0.00200 45-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 77Aldrin
mg/kg wet0.0427 0.00200 45-137% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 85alpha-BHC
mg/kg wet0.0392 0.00200 50-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 78beta-BHC
mg/kg wet0.0408 0.00200 47-139% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 82delta-BHC
mg/kg wet0.0437 0.00200 49-135% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 87gamma-BHC (Lindane)
mg/kg wet0.0439 0.00200 54-133% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 88cis-Chlordane
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 8 of 28
Page 399 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0288 - EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)Soil
C-05LCS (24D0288-BS1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:23
mg/kg wet0.0424 0.00200 53-135% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 85trans-Chlordane
mg/kg wet0.0496 0.00200 56-139% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 994,4'-DDD
mg/kg wet0.0454 0.00200 56-134% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 914,4'-DDE
mg/kg wet0.0588 0.00200 50-141% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 1184,4'-DDT
mg/kg wet0.0528 0.00200 56-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 106Dieldrin
mg/kg wet0.0465 0.00200 53-132% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 93Endosulfan I
mg/kg wet0.0541 0.00200 53-134% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 108Endosulfan II
mg/kg wet0.0515 0.00200 55-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 103Endosulfan sulfate
mg/kg wet0.0593 0.00200 57-140% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 119Endrin
mg/kg wet0.0426 0.00200 35-137% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 85Endrin aldehyde
mg/kg wet0.0555 0.00200 55-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 111Endrin ketone
mg/kg wet0.0459 0.00200 47-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 92Heptachlor
mg/kg wet0.0459 0.00200 52-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 92Heptachlor epoxide
mg/kg wet0.0621 0.00600 52-143% --- --- --- 1 0.0500 --- 124Methoxychlor
Limits: 42-129 %Surr: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr) Recovery: 74 % Dilution: 1x
55-130 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr) 107 % "
C-05Duplicate (24D0288-DUP1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:56
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
EPA 8081B
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Aldrin
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- alpha-BHC
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- beta-BHC
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- delta-BHC
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- gamma-BHC (Lindane)
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- cis-Chlordane
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- trans-Chlordane
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- 4,4'-DDD
mg/kg dry0.0139 0.00196 --- 10 --- 30%1 --- 0.0153 --- 4,4'-DDE
mg/kg dry0.00522 0.00196 --- 8 --- 30%1 --- 0.00569 --- 4,4'-DDT
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Dieldrin
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endosulfan I
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endosulfan II
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endosulfan sulfate
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 9 of 28
Page 400 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0288 - EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)Soil
C-05Duplicate (24D0288-DUP1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 14:56
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endrin
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endrin aldehyde
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Endrin ketone
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Heptachlor
mg/kg dryND0.00196 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Heptachlor epoxide
mg/kg dryND0.00588 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Methoxychlor
mg/kg dryND0.0588 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Chlordane (Technical)
mg/kg dryND0.0588 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Toxaphene (Total)
Limits: 42-129 %Surr: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr) Recovery: 56 % Dilution: 1x
55-130 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr) 90 % "
C-05, PROMatrix Spike (24D0288-MS1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:44
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0833-04RE1)
EPA 8081B
mg/kg dry0.0222 0.00180 45-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 49Aldrin
mg/kg dry0.0220 0.00180 45-137% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 49alpha-BHC
mg/kg dry0.0244 0.00180 50-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 54beta-BHC
mg/kg dry0.0256 0.00180 47-139% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 57delta-BHC
mg/kg dry0.0223 0.00180 49-135% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 49gamma-BHC (Lindane)
mg/kg dry0.0296 0.00180 54-133% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 66cis-Chlordane
mg/kg dry0.0283 0.00180 53-135% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 63trans-Chlordane
mg/kg dry0.0303 0.00180 56-139% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 674,4'-DDD
mg/kg dry0.0331 0.00180 56-134% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 0.00121 714,4'-DDE
mg/kg dry0.0353 0.00180 50-141% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 0.00146 754,4'-DDT
mg/kg dry0.0352 0.00180 56-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 0.00134 75Dieldrin
mg/kg dry0.0298 0.00180 53-132% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 66Endosulfan I
mg/kg dry0.0351 0.00180 53-134% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 78Endosulfan II
mg/kg dry0.0348 0.00180 55-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 77Endosulfan sulfate
mg/kg dry0.0398 0.00180 57-140% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 88Endrin
mg/kg dry0.0259 0.00180 35-137% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 57Endrin aldehyde
mg/kg dry0.0365 0.00180 55-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 81Endrin ketone
mg/kg dry0.0238 0.00180 47-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 53Heptachlor
mg/kg dry0.0283 0.00180 52-136% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 63Heptachlor epoxide
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 10 of 28
Page 401 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0288 - EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)Soil
C-05, PROMatrix Spike (24D0288-MS1)Prepared: 04/05/24 05:24 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:44
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0833-04RE1)
mg/kg dry0.0418 0.00541 52-143% --- --- --- 1 0.0451 ND 93Methoxychlor
Limits: 42-129 %Surr: 2,4,5,6-TCMX (Surr) Recovery: 45 % Dilution: 1x
55-130 % Decachlorobiphenyl (Surr) 79 % "
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 11 of 28
Page 402 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0271 - EPA 3546 Soil
Blank (24D0271-BLK1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 11:11
EPA 8270E OPPs
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Chlorpyrifos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Coumaphos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Demeton O
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Demeton S
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Diazinon
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Dichlorvos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Dimethoate
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Disulfoton
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- EPN
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Ethoprop
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Fensulfothion
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Fenthion
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Malathion
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Merphos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Methyl parathion
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Monocrotophos
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Naled (Dibrom)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Parathion, ethyl
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Phorate
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Sulfotep
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Sulprofos (Bolstar)
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- TEPP
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
mg/kg wetND0.0500 --- --- --- --- 1 --- --- --- Trichloronate
Limits: 10-136 %Surr: Tributyl phosphate (Surr) Recovery: 103 % Dilution: 1x
34-121 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr) 83 % "
LCS (24D0271-BS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 11:46
EPA 8270E OPPs
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 12 of 28
Page 403 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0271 - EPA 3546 Soil
LCS (24D0271-BS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 11:46
mg/kg wet0.356 0.0500 38-156% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 89Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg wet0.367 0.0500 47-140% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 92Chlorpyrifos
mg/kg wet0.440 0.0500 37-160% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 110Coumaphos
mg/kg wet0.157 0.0500 66-127% --- --- --- 1 0.184 --- 85Demeton O
mg/kg wet0.194 0.0500 70-121% --- --- --- 1 0.194 --- 100Demeton S
mg/kg wet0.409 0.0500 42-134% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 102Diazinon
mg/kg wet0.572 0.0500 39-142% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 143 Q-29Dichlorvos
mg/kg wet0.383 0.0500 16-139% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 96Dimethoate
mg/kg wet0.368 0.0500 28-145% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 92Disulfoton
mg/kg wet0.425 0.0500 44-137% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 106EPN
mg/kg wet0.397 0.0500 47-128% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 99Ethoprop
mg/kg wet0.519 0.0500 27-147% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 130 Q-41Fensulfothion
mg/kg wet0.390 0.0500 44-134% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 98Fenthion
mg/kg wet0.371 0.0500 46-137% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 93Malathion
mg/kg wet0.473 0.0500 66-131% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 118Merphos
mg/kg wet0.394 0.0500 49-138% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 98Methyl parathion
mg/kg wet0.412 0.0500 12-176% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 103Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
mg/kg wet0.474 0.0500 10-153% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 119Monocrotophos
mg/kg wet0.284 0.0500 10-174% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 71 Q-31Naled (Dibrom)
mg/kg wet0.375 0.0500 50-139% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 94Parathion, ethyl
mg/kg wet0.386 0.0500 23-142% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 97Phorate
mg/kg wet0.379 0.0500 45-138% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 95Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
mg/kg wet0.405 0.0500 52-126% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 101Sulfotep
mg/kg wet0.367 0.0500 48-139% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 92Sulprofos (Bolstar)
mg/kg wet0.417 0.200 16-126% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 104TEPP
mg/kg wet0.410 0.0500 54-129% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 102Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
mg/kg wet0.385 0.0500 45-136% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 96Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
mg/kg wet0.367 0.0500 37-140% --- --- --- 1 0.400 --- 92Trichloronate
Limits: 10-136 %Surr: Tributyl phosphate (Surr) Recovery: 116 % Dilution: 1x
34-121 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr) 90 % "
Duplicate (24D0271-DUP1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 13:33
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
EPA 8270E OPPs
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 13 of 28
Page 404 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0271 - EPA 3546 Soil
Duplicate (24D0271-DUP1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 13:33
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Chlorpyrifos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Coumaphos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Demeton O
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Demeton S
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Diazinon
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Dichlorvos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Dimethoate
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Disulfoton
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- EPN
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Ethoprop
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Fensulfothion
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Fenthion
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Malathion
mg/kg dryND0.0557 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- R-02Merphos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Methyl parathion
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Monocrotophos
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Naled (Dibrom)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Parathion, ethyl
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Phorate
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Sulfotep
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Sulprofos (Bolstar)
mg/kg dryND0.203 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- TEPP
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
mg/kg dryND0.0507 --- --- --- 30%1 --- ND --- Trichloronate
Limits: 10-136 %Surr: Tributyl phosphate (Surr) Recovery: 113 % Dilution: 1x
34-121 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr) 91 % "
Matrix Spike (24D0271-MS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 14:09
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 14 of 28
Page 405 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0271 - EPA 3546 Soil
Matrix Spike (24D0271-MS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 04:49 Analyzed: 04/08/24 14:09
QC Source Sample: Comp-0.0-0.5 (A4D0820-09RE1)
EPA 8270E OPPs
mg/kg dry0.484 0.0526 38-156% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 115Azinphos methyl (Guthion)
mg/kg dry0.393 0.0526 47-140% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 93Chlorpyrifos
mg/kg dry0.533 0.0663 37-160% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 127Coumaphos
mg/kg dry0.127 0.0526 66-127% --- --- --- 1 0.194 ND 66Demeton O
mg/kg dry0.228 0.0526 70-121% --- --- --- 1 0.204 ND 112Demeton S
mg/kg dry0.386 0.0526 42-134% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 92Diazinon
mg/kg dry0.650 0.0526 39-142% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 155 Q-01Dichlorvos
mg/kg dry0.397 0.0526 16-139% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 94Dimethoate
mg/kg dry0.367 0.0526 28-145% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 87Disulfoton
mg/kg dry0.515 0.0526 44-137% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 122EPN
mg/kg dry0.407 0.0526 47-128% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 97Ethoprop
mg/kg dry0.676 0.0526 27-147% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 161 Q-01, Q-41Fensulfothion
mg/kg dry0.423 0.0526 44-134% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 101Fenthion
mg/kg dry0.413 0.0526 46-137% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Malathion
mg/kg dry0.493 0.0831 66-131% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 117Merphos
mg/kg dry0.456 0.0526 49-138% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 108Methyl parathion
mg/kg dry0.459 0.0526 12-176% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 109Mevinphos (Phosdrin)
mg/kg dry0.444 0.0526 10-153% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 105Monocrotophos
mg/kg dry0.249 0.0526 10-174% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 59 Q-31Naled (Dibrom)
mg/kg dry0.411 0.0526 50-139% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Parathion, ethyl
mg/kg dry0.386 0.0526 23-142% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 92Phorate
mg/kg dry0.413 0.0526 45-138% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Ronnel (Fenchlorphos)
mg/kg dry0.415 0.0526 52-126% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 99Sulfotep
mg/kg dry0.413 0.0526 48-139% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Sulprofos (Bolstar)
mg/kg dry0.245 0.210 16-126% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 58TEPP
mg/kg dry0.445 0.0526 54-129% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 106Tetrachlorvinphos (Rabon)
mg/kg dry0.412 0.0526 45-136% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 98Tokuthion (Prothiofos)
mg/kg dry0.377 0.0526 37-140% --- --- --- 1 0.421 ND 90Trichloronate
Limits: 10-136 %Surr: Tributyl phosphate (Surr) Recovery: 110 % Dilution: 1x
34-121 % Triphenyl phosphate (Surr) 89 % "
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 15 of 28
Page 406 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0293 - EPA 3051A Soil
Blank (24D0293-BLK1)Prepared: 04/08/24 10:12 Analyzed: 04/08/24 19:14
EPA 6020B
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Arsenic
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Lead
LCS (24D0293-BS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 10:12 Analyzed: 04/08/24 19:20
EPA 6020B
mg/kg wet46.2 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 92Arsenic
mg/kg wet53.5 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 107Lead
Duplicate (24D0293-DUP1)Prepared: 04/08/24 10:12 Analyzed: 04/08/24 19:44
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1831-14)
mg/kg dry2.35 1.32 --- 12 --- 20%10 --- 2.09 --- Arsenic
mg/kg dry6.32 0.263 --- 10 --- 20%10 --- 5.72 --- Lead
Matrix Spike (24D0293-MS1)Prepared: 04/08/24 10:12 Analyzed: 04/08/24 19:56
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1831-16)
EPA 6020B
mg/kg dry78.3 1.66 75-125% --- --- --- 10 82.8 3.94 90Arsenic
mg/kg dry92.9 0.331 75-125% --- --- --- 10 82.8 11.5 98Lead
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 16 of 28
Page 407 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0349 - EPA 3051A Soil
Blank (24D0349-BLK1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:46
EPA 6020B
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Antimony
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Arsenic
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Barium
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Beryllium
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Cadmium
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Chromium
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Cobalt
mg/kg wetND2.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Copper
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Lead
mg/kg wetND0.0800 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Mercury
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Molybdenum
mg/kg wetND4.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Nickel
mg/kg wetND1.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Selenium
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Silver
mg/kg wetND0.200 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Thallium
mg/kg wetND2.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Vanadium
mg/kg wetND4.00 --- --- --- --- 10 --- --- --- Zinc
LCS (24D0349-BS1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:52
EPA 6020B
mg/kg wet26.0 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 104Antimony
mg/kg wet47.5 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 95Arsenic
mg/kg wet51.9 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 104Barium
mg/kg wet25.4 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 101Beryllium
mg/kg wet51.8 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 104Cadmium
mg/kg wet50.3 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 101Chromium
mg/kg wet51.3 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 103Cobalt
mg/kg wet53.6 2.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 107Copper
mg/kg wet53.6 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 107Lead
mg/kg wet1.01 0.0800 80-120% --- --- --- 10 1.00 --- 101Mercury
mg/kg wet25.7 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 103Molybdenum
mg/kg wet51.2 4.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 102Nickel
mg/kg wet25.7 1.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 103Selenium
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 17 of 28
Page 408 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0349 - EPA 3051A Soil
LCS (24D0349-BS1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 15:52
mg/kg wet26.8 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 107Silver
mg/kg wet26.3 0.200 80-120% --- --- --- 10 25.0 --- 105Thallium
mg/kg wet47.8 2.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 96Vanadium
mg/kg wet51.4 4.00 80-120% --- --- --- 10 50.0 --- 103Zinc
Duplicate (24D0349-DUP1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 16:03
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1792-01)
mg/kg dryND1.14 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Antimony
mg/kg dry1.27 1.14 --- 20 --- 20%10 --- 1.56 --- Arsenic
mg/kg dry70.6 1.14 --- 11 --- 20%10 --- 63.2 --- Barium
mg/kg dryND0.228 --- *** --- 20%10 --- 0.171 --- Beryllium
mg/kg dryND0.228 --- *** --- 20%10 --- 0.160 --- Cadmium
mg/kg dry4.63 1.14 --- 26 --- 20%10 --- 5.99 --- Q-05Chromium
mg/kg dry5.25 1.14 --- 17 --- 20%10 --- 6.24 --- Cobalt
mg/kg dry5.82 2.28 --- 17 --- 20%10 --- 6.89 --- Copper
mg/kg dry4.95 0.228 --- 14 --- 20%10 --- 5.68 --- Lead
mg/kg dryND0.0910 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Mercury
mg/kg dryND1.14 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Molybdenum
mg/kg dry6.85 4.55 --- 22 --- 20%10 --- 8.57 --- Q-05Nickel
mg/kg dryND1.14 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Selenium
mg/kg dryND0.228 --- --- --- 20%10 --- ND --- Silver
mg/kg dryND0.228 --- *** --- 20%10 --- 0.134 --- Thallium
mg/kg dry12.0 2.28 --- 41 --- 20%10 --- 18.1 --- Q-17Vanadium
mg/kg dry39.7 4.55 --- 13 --- 20%10 --- 45.2 --- Zinc
Matrix Spike (24D0349-MS1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 16:15
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1792-02)
EPA 6020B
mg/kg dry28.3 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 100Antimony
mg/kg dry55.7 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 1.37 95Arsenic
mg/kg dry1411.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 68.1 128 Q-01Barium
mg/kg dry28.4 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 0.155 99Beryllium
mg/kg dry58.4 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 0.156 102Cadmium
mg/kg dry63.8 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 4.76 104Chromium
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 18 of 28
Page 409 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0349 - EPA 3051A Soil
Matrix Spike (24D0349-MS1)Prepared: 04/09/24 10:15 Analyzed: 04/09/24 16:15
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4C1792-02)
mg/kg dry62.4 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 3.89 103Cobalt
mg/kg dry67.4 2.28 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 6.24 108Copper
mg/kg dry62.1 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 4.78 101Lead
mg/kg dry1.09 0.0910 75-125% --- --- --- 10 1.14 ND 96Mercury
mg/kg dry29.5 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 104Molybdenum
mg/kg dry66.9 4.55 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 8.00 103Nickel
mg/kg dry28.7 1.14 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 101Selenium
mg/kg dry29.6 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 104Silver
mg/kg dry28.5 0.228 75-125% --- --- --- 10 28.4 ND 100Thallium
mg/kg dry65.0 2.28 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 8.40 100Vanadium
mg/kg dry1074.55 75-125% --- --- --- 10 56.9 47.7 104Zinc
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 19 of 28
Page 410 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALITY CONTROL (QC) SAMPLE RESULTS
Percent Dry Weight
Result Limit
Reporting
Units Amount
Spike
Result
Source
% REC
% REC
Limits RPD
RPD
Limit Notes Analyte
Detection
DilutionLimit
Batch 24D0127 - Total Solids (Dry Weight) - 2022 Soil
CONTDuplicate (24D0127-DUP1)Prepared: 04/03/24 09:13 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0813-01)
%77.0 1.00 --- 1 --- 10%1 --- 76.0 --- % Solids
CONTDuplicate (24D0127-DUP2)Prepared: 04/03/24 09:13 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0813-02)
%82.6 1.00 --- 0.5 --- 10%1 --- 83.0 --- % Solids
Duplicate (24D0127-DUP3)Prepared: 04/03/24 19:24 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0873-01)
%74.2 1.00 --- 0.3 --- 10%1 --- 74.5 --- % Solids
Duplicate (24D0127-DUP4)Prepared: 04/03/24 19:24 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0898-01)
%75.2 1.00 --- 0.03 --- 10%1 --- 75.2 --- % Solids
Duplicate (24D0127-DUP5)Prepared: 04/03/24 19:24 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0907-01)
%76.6 1.00 --- 0.5 --- 10%1 --- 76.2 --- % Solids
Duplicate (24D0127-DUP6)Prepared: 04/03/24 19:24 Analyzed: 04/04/24 07:06
QC Source Sample: Non-SDG (A4D0910-01)
%76.6 1.00 --- 0.4 --- 10%1 --- 76.3 --- % Solids
No Client related Batch QC samples analyzed for this batch. See notes page for more information.
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 20 of 28
Page 411 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
SAMPLE PREPARATION INFORMATION
Organochlorine Pesticides by EPA 8081B
Prep: EPA 3546/3640A (GPC)
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
Batch: 24D0288
A4D0820-09RE1 Soil 04/01/24 13:00EPA 8081B 04/05/24 05:24 1.7211.61g/10mL 10g/5mL
Organophosphorus Pesticides (OPPs) by EPA 8270E (GC/MS)
Prep: EPA 3546
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
Batch: 24D0271
A4D0820-09RE1 Soil 04/01/24 13:00EPA 8270E OPPs 04/08/24 04:49 0.8811.36g/5mL 10g/5mL
Total Metals by EPA 6020B (ICPMS)
Prep: EPA 3051A
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
Batch: 24D0293
A4D0820-01 Soil 04/01/24 10:05EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 0.990.505g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-02 Soil 04/01/24 10:10EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 1.110.452g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-03 Soil 04/01/24 10:20EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 0.970.516g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-04 Soil 04/01/24 10:00EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 1.020.49g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-05 Soil 04/01/24 10:25EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 0.980.511g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-06 Soil 04/01/24 09:50EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 0.990.504g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-07 Soil 04/01/24 10:30EPA 6020B 04/08/24 10:12 1.040.479g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
Batch: 24D0349
A4D0820-08 Soil 04/01/24 10:40EPA 6020B 04/09/24 10:15 1.010.497g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
A4D0820-09 Soil 04/01/24 13:00EPA 6020B 04/09/24 10:15 1.030.484g/50mL 0.5g/50mL
Percent Dry Weight
Prep: Total Solids (Dry Weight) - 2022
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
Batch: 24D0127
A4D0820-01 Soil 04/01/24 10:05EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-02 Soil 04/01/24 10:10EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-03 Soil 04/01/24 10:20EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-04 Soil 04/01/24 10:00EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-05 Soil 04/01/24 10:25EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-06 Soil 04/01/24 09:50EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 21 of 28
Page 412 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
SAMPLE PREPARATION INFORMATION
Percent Dry Weight
Prep: Total Solids (Dry Weight) - 2022
SampledMatrixMethod Prepared Factor
RL PrepDefault
Initial/FinalInitial/Final
Sample
Lab Number
A4D0820-07 Soil 04/01/24 10:30EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-08 Soil 04/01/24 10:40EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
A4D0820-09 Soil 04/01/24 13:00EPA 8000D 04/03/24 09:13 NA
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 22 of 28
Page 413 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
QUALIFIER DEFINITIONS
Client Sample and Quality Control (QC) Sample Qualifier Definitions:
Apex Laboratories
C-05 Extract has undergone a GPC (Gel-Permeation Chromatography) cleanup per EPA 3640A. Reporting levels may be raised due to dilution
necessary for cleanup. Sample Final Volume includes the GPC dilution factor, see the Prep page for details.
CONT The Sample Container provided for this analysis was not provided by Apex Laboratories, and has not been verified as part of the Apex
Quality System.
PRO Sample has undergone sample processing prior to extraction and analysis.
Q-01 Spike recovery and/or RPD is outside acceptance limits.
Q-05 Analyses are not controlled on RPD values from sample and duplicate concentrations that are below 5 times the reporting level.
Q-17 RPD between original and duplicate sample, or spike duplicates, is outside of established control limits.
Q-29 Recovery for Lab Control Spike (LCS) is above the upper control limit. Data may be biased high.
Q-31 Estimated Results. Recovery of Continuing Calibration Verification sample below lower control limit for this analyte. Results are likely
biased low.
Q-41 Estimated Results. Recovery of Continuing Calibration Verification sample above upper control limit for this analyte. Results are likely
biased high.
R-02 The Reporting Limit for this analyte has been raised to account for interference from coeluting organic compounds present in the sample.
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 23 of 28
Page 414 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
REPORTING NOTES AND CONVENTIONS:
Abbreviations:
DET Analyte DETECTED at or above the detection or reporting limit.
ND Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the detection or reporting limit.
NR Result Not Reported
RPD Relative Percent Difference. RPDs for Matrix Spikes and Matrix Spike Duplicates are based on concentration, not recovery.
Detection Limits: Limit of Detection (LOD)
Limits of Detection (LODs) are normally set at a level of one half the validated Limit of Quantitation (LOQ).
If no value is listed ('-----'), then the data has not been evaluated below the Reporting Limit.
Reporting Limits: Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)
Validated Limits of Quantitation (LOQs) are reported as the Reporting Limits for all analyses where the LOQ, MRL, PQL or CRL are
requested. The LOQ represents a level at or above the low point of the calibration curve, that has been validated according to Apex
Laboratories' comprehensive LOQ policies and procedures.
Reporting Conventions:
Basis:Results for soil samples are generally reported on a 100% dry weight basis.
The Result Basis is listed following the units as " dry", " wet", or " " (blank) designation.
" dry"Sample results and Reporting Limits are reported on a dry weight basis. (i.e. "ug/kg dry")
See Percent Solids section for details of dry weight analysis.
" wet"Sample results and Reporting Limits for this analysis are normally dry weight corrected, but have not been modified in this case.
" "Results without 'wet' or 'dry' designation are not normally dry weight corrected. These results are considered 'As Received'.
Results for Volatiles analyses on soils and sediments that are reported on a “dry weight” basis include the water miscible solvent (WMS)
correction referenced in the EPA 8000 Method guidance documents. Solid and Liquid samples reported on an “As Received” basis do not have
the WMS correction applied, as dry weight was not performed.
QC Source:
In cases where there is insufficient sample provided for Sample Duplicates and/or Matrix Spikes, a Lab Control Sample Duplicate (LCS Dup)
may be analyzed to demonstrate accuracy and precision of the extraction batch.
Non-Client Batch QC Samples (Duplicates and Matrix Spike/Duplicates) may not be included in this report. Please request a Full QC report if
this data is required.
Miscellaneous Notes:
" --- "QC results are not applicable. For example, % Recoveries for Blanks and Duplicates, % RPD for Blanks, Blank Spikes and Matrix Spikes, etc.
" *** "Used to indicate a possible discrepancy with the Sample and Sample Duplicate results when the %RPD is not available. In this case,
either the Sample or the Sample Duplicate has a reportable result for this analyte, while the other is Non Detect (ND).
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 24 of 28
Page 415 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
REPORTING NOTES AND CONVENTIONS (Cont.):
Blanks:
Standard practice is to evaluate the results from Blank QC Samples down to a level equal to ½ the Reporting Limit (RL).
-For Blank hits falling between ½ the RL and the RL (J flagged hits), the associated sample and QC data will receive a ‘B-02’ qualifier.
-For Blank hits above the RL, the associated sample and QC data will receive a ‘B’ qualifier, per Apex Laboratories' Blank Policy.
For further details, please request a copy of this document.
-Sample results flagged with a 'B' or 'B-02' qualifier are potentially biased high if the sample results are less than ten times the level found in
the blank for inorganic analyses, or less than five times the level found in the blank for organic analyses.
‘B’ and ‘B-02’ qualifications are only applied to sample results detected above the Reporting Level, if results are not reported to the MDL.
Preparation Notes:
Mixed Matrix Samples:
Water Samples:
Water samples containing significant amounts of sediment are decanted or separated prior to extraction, and only the water portion analyzed,
unless otherwise directed by the client.
Soil and Sediment Samples:
Soil and Sediment samples containing significant amounts of water are decanted prior to extraction, and only the solid portion analyzed, unless
otherwise directed by the client.
Sampling and Preservation Notes:
Certain regulatory programs, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), require that activities such as sample filtration
(for dissolved metals, orthophosphate, hexavalent chromium, etc.) and testing of short hold analytes (pH, Dissolved Oxygen, etc.) be performed in
the field (on-site) within a short time window. In addition, sample matrix spikes are required for some analyses, and sufficient volume must be
provided, and billable site specific QC requested, if this is required. All regulatory permits should be reviewed to ensure that these requirements are
being met.
Data users should be aware of which regulations pertain to the samples they submit for testing. If related sample collection activities are not
approved for a particular regulatory program, results should be considered estimates. Apex Laboratories will qualify these analytes according to the
most stringent requirements, however results for samples that are for non-regulatory purposes may be acceptable.
Samples that have been filtered and preserved at Apex Laboratories per client request are listed in the preparation section of the report with the date
and time of filtration listed.
Apex Laboratories maintains detailed records on sample receipt, including client label verification, cooler temperature, sample preservation, hold
time compliance and field filtration. Data is qualified as necessary, and the lack of qualification indicates compliance with required parameters.
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 25 of 28
Page 416 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
LABORATORY ACCREDITATION INFORMATION
ORELAP Certification ID: OR100062 (Primary Accreditation) -
EPA ID: OR01039
All methods and analytes reported from work performed at Apex Laboratories are included on Apex Laboratories' ORELAP
Scope of Certification, with the exception of any analyte(s) listed below:
Apex Laboratories
TNI_IDTNI_IDAnalysis AccreditationAnalyteMatrix
All reported analytes are included in Apex Laboratories' current ORELAP scope.
Subcontracted data falls outside of Apex Laboratories' Scope of Accreditation.
Please see the Subcontract Laboratory report for full details, or contact your Project Manager for more information.
Secondary Accreditations
Apex Laboratories also maintains reciprocal accreditation with non-TNI states (Washington DOE), as well as
other state specific accreditations not listed here.
Subcontract Laboratory Accreditations
Field Testing Parameters
Results for Field Tested data are provded by the client or sampler, and fall outside of Apex Laboratories' Scope of
Accreditation.
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 26 of 28
Page 417 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 27 of 28
Page 418 of 533
6700 S.W. Sandburg Street
Tigard, OR 97223
503-718-2323
ORELAP ID: OR100062
Apex Laboratories, LLC
ANALYTICAL REPORT
White City, OR 97503 Jonathan Williams
12210 Antioch Road
Alpine Environmental Consultants
Report ID:
Project Manager:
Project Number:
4630 Hamrick Rd.Project:
[none]
A4D0820 - 04 17 24 0656
Darwin Thomas, Business Development Director
Apex Laboratories The results in this report apply to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of
custody document(s) and updated by any subsequent written communications. This
analytical report must be reproduced in its entirety.
Page 28 of 28
Page 419 of 533
ANALYTICAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR
Attn: Mr. Darwin Thomas
Apex Laboratories LLC
6700 SW Sandburg St.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Generated 4/15/2024 5:16:15 PM
JOB DESCRIPTION
A4D0820
JOB NUMBER
570-179253-1
See page two for job notes and contact information.
Tustin CA 92780
2841 Dow Avenue, Suite 100
Eurofins Calscience
Page 1 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 420 of 533
Eurofins Calscience
Eurofins Calscience is a laboratory within Eurofins Environment Testing Southwest, LLC, a company within Eurofins Environment Testing Group of Companies
Job Notes
This report may not be reproduced except in full, and with written approval from the laboratory. The results relate only to the
samples tested. For questions please contact the Project Manager at the e-mail address or telephone number listed on this
page.
The test results in this report relate only to the samples as received by the laboratory and will meet all requirements of the
methodology, with any exceptions noted. This report shall not be reproduced except in full, without the express written
approval of the laboratory. All questions should be directed to the Eurofins Calscience Project Manager.
Authorization
Generated
4/15/2024 5:16:15 PM
Authorized for release by
Lori Thompson, Project Manager I
Lori.Thompson@et.eurofinsus.com
(657)212-3035
Page 2 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 421 of 533
Table of Contents
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Laboratory Job ID: 570-179253-1
Page 3 of 18 Eurofins Calscience4/15/2024
Cover Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Definitions/Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Case Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Detection Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Client Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Surrogate Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
QC Sample Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
QC Association Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Lab Chronicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Certification Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
Method Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Sample Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Chain of Custody . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Receipt Checklists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 422 of 533
Definitions/Glossary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Qualifiers
GC Semi VOA
Qualifier Description
*+LCS and/or LCSD is outside acceptance limits, high biased.
Qualifier
E Result exceeded calibration range.
J Result is less than the RL but greater than or equal to the MDL and the concentration is an approximate value.
p The %RPD between the primary and confirmation column/detector is >40%. The lower value has been reported.
Glossary
These commonly used abbreviations may or may not be present in this report.
¤Listed under the "D" column to designate that the result is reported on a dry weight basis
Abbreviation
%R Percent Recovery
CFL Contains Free Liquid
CFU Colony Forming Unit
CNF Contains No Free Liquid
DER Duplicate Error Ratio (normalized absolute difference)
Dil Fac Dilution Factor
DL Detection Limit (DoD/DOE)
DL, RA, RE, IN Indicates a Dilution, Re-analysis, Re-extraction, or additional Initial metals/anion analysis of the sample
DLC Decision Level Concentration (Radiochemistry)
EDL Estimated Detection Limit (Dioxin)
LOD Limit of Detection (DoD/DOE)
LOQ Limit of Quantitation (DoD/DOE)
MCL EPA recommended "Maximum Contaminant Level"
MDA Minimum Detectable Activity (Radiochemistry)
MDC Minimum Detectable Concentration (Radiochemistry)
MDL Method Detection Limit
ML Minimum Level (Dioxin)
MPN Most Probable Number
MQL Method Quantitation Limit
NC Not Calculated
ND Not Detected at the reporting limit (or MDL or EDL if shown)
NEG Negative / Absent
POS Positive / Present
PQL Practical Quantitation Limit
PRES Presumptive
QC Quality Control
RER Relative Error Ratio (Radiochemistry)
RL Reporting Limit or Requested Limit (Radiochemistry)
RPD Relative Percent Difference, a measure of the relative difference between two points
TEF Toxicity Equivalent Factor (Dioxin)
TEQ Toxicity Equivalent Quotient (Dioxin)
TNTC Too Numerous To Count
Eurofins Calscience
Page 4 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 423 of 533
Job Narrative570-179253-1
Analytical test results meet all requirements of the associated regulatory program listed on the Accreditation/Certification SummaryPageunlessotherwisenotedundertheindividualanalysis.Data qualifiers are applied to indicate exceptions.Noncompliant
quality control (QC)is further explained in narrative comments.
·Matrix QC may not be reported if insufficient sample or site-specific QC samples were not submitted.In these situations,to
demonstrate precision and accuracy at a batch level,a LCS/LCSD may be performed,unless otherwise specified in the
method.·Surrogate and/or isotope dilution analyte recoveries (if applicable)which are outside of the QC window are confirmed
unless attributed to a dilution or otherwise noted in the narrative.
Regulated compliance samples (e.g.SDWA,NPDES)must comply with the associated agency requirements/permits.
Receipt
The sample was received on 4/5/2024 9:35 AM.Unless otherwise noted below,the sample arrived in good condition,and,where
required,properly preserved and on ice.The temperature of the cooler at receipt time was 2.6°C.
HerbicidesMethod8151A:Insufficient sample volume was available to perform a matrix spike/matrix spike duplicate (MS/MSD)associated
with preparation batch 570-427853.The laboratory control sample (LCS)was performed in duplicate (LCSD)to provide precision
data for this batch.
8151A
Method 8151A:The laboratory control sample (LCS)and /or laboratory control sample duplicate (LCSD)for preparation batch
570-427853 and analytical batch 570-430104 recovered outside control limits for the following analytes:2,4-DB,Dalapon and
Dinoseb.These analytes were biased high in the LCS and were not detected in the associated samples;therefore,the data have
been reported.
Method 8151A:The continuing calibration verification (CCV)associated with 570-430104 recovered outside the control limits for
2,4-D,Dalapon and Dichlorprop on one column.Results are confirmed on both columns and reported from the passing column
Method 8151A:The method blank for preparation batch 570-427853 contained 2,4-D and 2,4-DB above the reporting limit (RL).
None of the samples associated with this method blank contained the target compound;therefore,re-extraction and/or re-analysis
of samples were not performed.
Method 8151A:The continuing calibration verification (CCV)associated with 570-430104 recovered high and outside the control
limits for 2,4-DB on one column.Results are confirmed on both columns and reported from the passing column.
No additional analytical or quality issues were noted,other than those described above or in the Definitions/Glossary page.
Case Narrative
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job ID: 570-179253-1
Project: A4D0820
Eurofins Calscience
Job ID: 570-179253-1 Eurofins Calscience
Page 5 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 424 of 533
Detection Summary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Client Sample ID: Comp-0.0-0.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-179253-1
No Detections.
Eurofins Calscience
This Detection Summary does not include radiochemical test results.
Page 6 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 425 of 533
Client Sample Results
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method: SW846 8151A - Herbicides (GC)
Lab Sample ID: 570-179253-1Client Sample ID: Comp-0.0-0.5
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 04/01/24 13:00
Date Received: 04/05/24 09:35
RL MDL
ND 12 4.3 ug/Kg ☼04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1
Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedUnitDResultQualifier
2,4,5-T
12 8.7 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
120 56 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND2,4-D
120 120 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND *+2,4-DB
290 84 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND *+Dalapon
12 5.5 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼NDDicamba
120 57 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼NDDichlorprop
120 68 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼ND *+Dinoseb
12000 5700 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼NDMCPA
12000 7700 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1☼NDMCPP
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid 65 p 20-163 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 17:25 1
Surrogate Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedQualifierLimits%Recovery
Eurofins Calscience
Page 7 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 426 of 533
Surrogate Summary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method: 8151A - Herbicides (GC)
Prep Type: Total/NAMatrix: Solid
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID (20-163)
DCPAA1
65 p570-179253-1
Percent Surrogate Recovery (Acceptance Limits)
Comp-0.0-0.5
92 pLCS 570-427853/2-A Lab Control Sample
97LCSD 570-427853/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup
63 pMB 570-427853/1-A Method Blank
Surrogate Legend
DCPAA = 2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid
Eurofins Calscience
Page 8 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 427 of 533
QC Sample Results
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method: 8151A - Herbicides (GC)
Client Sample ID: Method BlankLab Sample ID: MB 570-427853/1-A
Matrix: Solid Prep Type: Total/NA
Analysis Batch: 430104 Prep Batch: 427853
RL MDL
2,4,5-T ND 10 3.7 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1
MB MB
Analyte Dil FacAnalyzedPreparedDUnitResultQualifier
ND 7.510 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 12,4,5-TP (Silvex)
129.5 p 49100 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 12,4-D
140.4 p 100100 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 12,4-DB
ND 72250 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1Dalapon
ND 4.710 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1Dicamba
ND 49100 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1Dichlorprop
ND 59100 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1Dinoseb
13220 p 490010000 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1MCPA
7957 J p 660010000 ug/Kg 04/05/24 16:46 04/12/24 13:20 1MCPP
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid 63 p 20-163 04/12/24 13:20 1
MB MB
Surrogate
04/05/24 16:46
Dil FacPreparedAnalyzedQualifierLimits%Recovery
Client Sample ID: Lab Control SampleLab Sample ID: LCS 570-427853/2-A
Matrix: Solid Prep Type: Total/NA
Analysis Batch: 430104 Prep Batch: 427853
2,4,5-T 20.0 17.26 ug/Kg 86 26 -180
Analyte
LCS LCS
DUnitResultQualifier %Rec
Spike
Added
%Rec
Limits
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)20.0 20.90 p ug/Kg 105 10 -180
2,4-D 200 321.3 p ug/Kg 161 13 -180
2,4-DB 200 411.0 p *+ug/Kg 206 10 -180
Dalapon 500 896.1 *+ug/Kg 179 10 -176
Dicamba 20.0 23.24 ug/Kg 116 21 -164
Dichlorprop 200 188.0 ug/Kg 94 10 -175
Dinoseb 100 1028 E *+ug/Kg 1028 10 -180
MCPA 20000 29200 p ug/Kg 146 22 -180
MCPP 20000 25060 p ug/Kg 125 18 -180
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid p 20 -163
Surrogate
92
LCS LCS
Qualifier Limits%Recovery
Client Sample ID: Lab Control Sample DupLab Sample ID: LCSD 570-427853/3-A
Matrix: Solid Prep Type: Total/NA
Analysis Batch: 430104 Prep Batch: 427853
2,4,5-T 20.0 16.26 ug/Kg 81 26 -180 6 40
Analyte
LCSD LCSD
DUnitResultQualifier %Rec
Spike
Added
%Rec
Limits LimitRPD
RPD
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)20.0 20.96 ug/Kg 105 10 -180 0 40
2,4-D 200 312.3 p ug/Kg 156 13 -180 3 40
2,4-DB 200 334.8 p ug/Kg 167 10 -180 20 40
Dalapon 500 925.3 *+ug/Kg 185 10 -176 3 40
Dicamba 20.0 21.31 ug/Kg 107 21 -164 9 40
Dichlorprop 200 191.8 ug/Kg 96 10 -175 2 40
Dinoseb 100 927.5 E *+ug/Kg 928 10 -180 10 40
MCPA 20000 28760 p ug/Kg 144 22 -180 2 40
MCPP 20000 20760 p ug/Kg 104 18 -180 19 40
Eurofins Calscience
Page 9 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 428 of 533
QC Sample Results
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method: 8151A - Herbicides (GC) (Continued)
2,4-Dichlorophenylacetic acid 20 -163
Surrogate
97
LCSD LCSD
Qualifier Limits%Recovery
Eurofins Calscience
Page 10 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 429 of 533
QC Association Summary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
GC Semi VOA
Prep Batch: 427853
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch
Solid 8151A570-179253-1 Comp-0.0-0.5 Total/NA
Solid 8151AMB 570-427853/1-A Method Blank Total/NA
Solid 8151ALCS 570-427853/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA
Solid 8151ALCSD 570-427853/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA
Analysis Batch: 430104
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Prep Type Matrix Method Prep Batch
Solid 8151A 427853570-179253-1 Comp-0.0-0.5 Total/NA
Solid 8151A 427853MB 570-427853/1-A Method Blank Total/NA
Solid 8151A 427853LCS 570-427853/2-A Lab Control Sample Total/NA
Solid 8151A 427853LCSD 570-427853/3-A Lab Control Sample Dup Total/NA
Eurofins Calscience
Page 11 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 430 of 533
Lab Chronicle
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job ID: 570-179253-1
Project/Site: A4D0820
Client Sample ID: Comp-0.0-0.5 Lab Sample ID: 570-179253-1
Matrix: SolidDate Collected: 04/01/24 13:00
Date Received: 04/05/24 09:35
Prep 8151A JC04/05/24 16:46 EET CAL 4427853
Type
Batch
Method
Batch
Prep Type LabAnalystRun
Prepared
or Analyzed
Initial
Amount Amount
Final Batch
NumberFactor
Dil
Total/NA 49.98 g 5 mL
Analysis 8151A 1 430104 04/12/24 17:25 UJ3K EET CAL 4Total/NA 1 mL 1 mL
GC41Instrument ID:
Laboratory References:
EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494
Eurofins Calscience
Page 12 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 431 of 533
Accreditation/Certification Summary
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job ID: 570-179253-1
Project/Site: A4D0820
Laboratory: Eurofins Calscience
The accreditations/certifications listed below are applicable to this report.
Authority Program Identification Number Expiration Date
Oregon NELAP 4175 02-03-25
Washington State C916-18 10-11-24
Eurofins Calscience
Page 13 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 432 of 533
Method Summary
Job ID: 570-179253-1Client: Apex Laboratories LLC
Project/Site: A4D0820
Method Method Description LaboratoryProtocol
SW8468151AHerbicides (GC)EET CAL 4
SW8468151AExtraction (Herbicides)EET CAL 4
Protocol References:
SW846 = "Test Methods For Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", Third Edition, November 1986 And Its Updates.
Laboratory References:
EET CAL 4 = Eurofins Calscience Tustin, 2841 Dow Avenue, Tustin, CA 92780, TEL (714)895-5494
Eurofins Calscience
Page 14 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 433 of 533
Sample Summary
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job ID: 570-179253-1
Project/Site: A4D0820
Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Matrix Collected Received
570-179253-1 Comp-0.0-0.5 Solid 04/01/24 13:00 04/05/24 09:35
Eurofins CalsciencePage 15 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 434 of 533
Page 16 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 435 of 533
Page 17 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 436 of 533
Login Sample Receipt Checklist
Client: Apex Laboratories LLC Job Number: 570-179253-1
Login Number: 179253
Question Answer Comment
Creator: Vitente, Precy
List Source: Eurofins Calscience
List Number: 1
N/ARadioactivity wasn't checked or is </= background as measured by a survey
meter.
TrueThe cooler's custody seal, if present, is intact.
TrueSample custody seals, if present, are intact.
TrueThe cooler or samples do not appear to have been compromised or
tampered with.
TrueSamples were received on ice.
TrueCooler Temperature is acceptable.
TrueCooler Temperature is recorded.
TrueCOC is present.
TrueCOC is filled out in ink and legible.
TrueCOC is filled out with all pertinent information.
N/AIs the Field Sampler's name present on COC?Received project as a subcontract.
TrueThere are no discrepancies between the containers received and the COC.
TrueSamples are received within Holding Time (excluding tests with immediate
HTs)
TrueSample containers have legible labels.
TrueContainers are not broken or leaking.
TrueSample collection date/times are provided.
TrueAppropriate sample containers are used.
TrueSample bottles are completely filled.
TrueSample Preservation Verified.
TrueThere is sufficient vol. for all requested analyses, incl. any requested
MS/MSDs
TrueContainers requiring zero headspace have no headspace or bubble is
<6mm (1/4").
TrueMultiphasic samples are not present.
TrueSamples do not require splitting or compositing.
N/AResidual Chlorine Checked.
Eurofins Calscience
Page 18 of 18 4/15/2024
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page 437 of 533
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
July 25, 2024
Jack Galpin 744 Cardley Ave, Medford, Oregon 97504
Re: Assessment of Potential Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells Proposed Sunnybrook Development 4630 Hamrick Road, Central Point, Oregon 32-24007645
Dear Mr. Galpin:
This letter provides the results of an assessment of shallow wells in the vicinity of the proposed Sunnybrook Development at 4630 Hamrick Road in Central Point, Oregon for Galpin Homes, LLC (Galpin). Apex Companies, LLC (Apex) understands that the City of Central Point requires an evaluation of the potential for impacts to the water levels in domestic wells near the development due to the installation of utilities within the subdivision. The results of the assessment and an evaluation of potential impacts to groundwater elevations in the vicinity of the proposed development of the Site are provided below.
SHALLOW WELL ASSESSMENT
Apex reviewed Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) online files to identify registered wells within 1,000 feet of the proposed Sunnybrook Development. Additionally, Apex reviewed the White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results letter completed for the White Hawk Transit Oriented Development project (Apex, 2016). Sixteen wells were identified as being potentially located within 1,000 feet of the proposed Sunnybrook Development. Table 1 summarizes the information on the identified wells, and Figure 2 shows approximate well locations by parcel. Exact well locations have not been identified, and it is unknown how many of the wells are still in use. OWRD well logs, where available, are included in Attachment A, and Attachment B includes the 2016 White Hawk Development –Well Survey Results letter (Apex, 2016). Three wells were previously identified as potentially being within theproposed Sunnybrook Development area; however, only one well has been located during pre-development surveys.
The well logs in the OWRD database suggest that, in the vicinity of the development, the soil consists of clay to depths of 6 to 12 feet below ground surface (bgs) underlain by sand and gravel to at least 40 to 50 feet bgs in most locations. The top of claystone, siltstone, or sandstone is present in many of the wells at depths ranging from 4 to 60 feet bgs.
Based on the information obtained from the OWRD well logs and the 2016 well survey for White Hawk development, the completed well depths within the vicinity of the proposed development range from 10 to 50 feet bgs, where known. The static water level at the time of drilling reported on the well logs ranges from 4 feet bgs in well 13 (JACK12241) to 41 feet bgs in well 6 (JACK52926), both located to the southwest of the property. At least three of the well logs are for well deepening (well 6, well 9, and well 13), indicating that there is a long-term lowering in the water table in the area and shallow static water levels reported at the time of drilling may no longer be representative of site conditions. The depth to static water in wells drilled since 1990 ranges from 12 to 41 feet bgs and is likely more representative of current conditions.
Page 438 of 533
Jack Galpin, Galpin Homes, LLC July 25, 2024 Well Survey Results, Sunnybrook Development Page 2
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS DURING EXCAVATION AND UTILITY INSTALLATION
Depth to first encountered water for shallow wells in the area appears to be at least 12 feet bgs as described above. Based on the OWRD well logs, it appears that most (if not all) of the wells are sealed to at least 9 feet bgs and are accessing water below that depth.
During development, imported soil will be used to raise the existing grade by 3 to 4 feet. Based on development plans provided by Galpin, utilities will be installed at a maximum depth of 9 feet below existing grade, and in many cases at shallower depths. It is unlikely that the installation of utilities in the subdivision will intercept the water table. In the unlikely event that groundwater is encountered, local groundwater levels could be impacted by the following:
•Dewatering during construction;
•Infiltration into drain lines; or
•Longitudinal flow in trench backfill.
If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water table could be lowered locally and may impact the static water levels in nearby water wells. This effect would be temporary, and conditions would be expected to return to normal within a short period after completion of the dewatering activities.
Long-term, if the storm or sanitary lines leak, infiltration into the lines could potentially lower the water table in the vicinity of the utilities to the base of the lines; however, this effect would likely extend only a few feet from the utility trenches. This potential impact can be addressed through construction methodologies that meet industry performance standards and city codes.
Given the native soil conditions (clay soils in the upper 6 to 12 feet), the trench backfill could potentially be more permeable than the native soil in the areas where the native clay extends below the bottom depth of the utility bedding. Depending on the depth to which the trench penetrates the water table, longitudinal flow could occur along the trench alignment; however, the influence on the shallow water table would likely be limited to only a few feet laterally from the utility trench.
POTENTIAL MITIGATION
The proposed Sunnybrook Development is not expected to impact groundwater levels in local wells, as excavation and development plans provided by Galpin do not include depths that would likely be below the water table. Additionally, the development will be provided with municipal water supply and sewer services and is not anticipated to impact water availability. If installation does extend below the water table, low-permeability plugs can be used to inhibit flow along the trench line. Assuming crushed rock is used for trench backfill, adding 5 percent (dry weight) bentonite to the backfill would be sufficient to reduce the permeability of the backfill. The bentonite plugs should be placed from the bottom of the trench to 1 foot above the water table in the full width of the trench with a minimum length of 5 feet. A plug should be placed at the low end of each main sewer line.
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Tess Chadil Steve Misner, R.G. Project Manager Senior Associate Hydrogeologist
Page 439 of 533
Jack Galpin, Galpin Homes, LLC July 25, 2024 Well Survey Results, Sunnybrook Development Page 3
15618 SW 72nd Avenue, Tigard, OR 97224 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
ATTACHMENTS
Table 1 – Galpin Homes Well Log Search Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Location of Wells Near Proposed Sunnybrook Development Attachment A – OWRD Well Logs Attachment B – White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results (Apex 2016)
REFERENCES
Apex Companies, LLC, 2016. White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results, Central Point, Oregon. November 16, 2016. “Oregon Water Resources Department Well Report Query.” Well Report Query, Oregon Water Resources Department, apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/gw/well_log/Default.aspx. Accessed 25 July 2024.
Page 440 of 533
Table 1. Galpin Homes Well Log Search
Proposed Sunnybrook Development
4613 Hamrick Road Central Point, Oregon
Map ID Location Tax Lot Street
Number Street Owner Well Log #Well Depth Date
Installed
Static
Water
Level
W-1 372W01 1100 4475 Hamrick Rd Muse JACK 12222 60 1960 25
W-2 372W01 1100 4475 Hamrick Rd Muse JACK 62111 45 2015 12
W-3 372W01 Unk. Unk. Unk. Gebhard JACK 34914 10 Pre 1948 7
W-4 372W01 2500 507 Beebe Rd Beebe JACK 52862 144 1998 12
W-5 372W02 Unk. Unk. Unk. Childress JACK 34915 14 1938 10
W-6 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus JACK52926 204 feet 1999 41
W-7 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus JACK55868
2003 12
W-8 372W02 200 511 Beebe Rd Mingus JACK52660 59 feet 1998 41
W-9 372W02 3100 600 Beebe Rd Shep. of Valley JACK 30394 90 1990 17
W-10 372W02 Unk. Unk. Beebe Rd Beebe JACK 12262 12 1966 9
W-11 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard Rd Himmelman JACK 33759 100 1994 22
W-12 372W02 2700 718 Beebe Rd Nixon JACK 12239 100 1989 28
W-13 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo JACK12241 60 feet 1983 4
W-14 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo n/a 12 feet Unk. 12
W-15 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Rd Picollo n/a 34 feet 1940 34
W-16 372W01 Unk. 4713 Hamrick Rd Houser JACK 12201 37 1963 12
Notes:
1. See Figure 1 for approximate well location
2. Static water level as measured at time of drilling
Shallow Wells Within 1,000 feet of Proposed Sunnybrook Development
Assessment of Potential Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
Proposed Sunnybrook Development32-24007645
Page 1 of 1
Page 441 of 533
Scale in Feet
0 2,000 4,000
Sams Valley, Oregon
United States Geological Survey
7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map
Contour Interval: 20 feet
Scale: 1 inch = 24,000 feet
Date: 2020
SITE
Central Point
OREGON
I:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
G
a
l
p
i
n
H
o
m
e
s
,
L
L
C
\
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
\
3
2
-
2
4
0
0
7
6
4
5
0
1
(
S
i
t
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
)
.
d
w
g
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
7
/
2
5
/
2
0
2
4
b
y
J
P
o
o
r
e
Site Location Map
Assessment of Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon
Approved:Drawn:
TCJPApex Companies, LLC
15618 SW 72nd Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Figure
1
Project Number:
July 2024
32-24007645
Page 442 of 533
Beebe Road
Ge
b
h
a
r
d
R
o
a
d
Ha
m
r
i
c
k
R
o
a
d
W-12
[28']
W-9
[17']
W-13
[4']
W-14
[12']
W-15
[34']
W-3
[7']
W-16
[12']
W-5
[10']
W-6 [41']
W-7 [12']
W-8 [41']
W-10
[9']
W-4
[12']
W-2
[12']
W-1
[25']
W-11
[22']
Legend:
Approximate Water Well Location
[Static Water Level] in Feet Below
Ground Surface
Scale in Feet
0 400 800
Location of Wells Near Proposed
Sunnybrook Development
Assessment of Groundwater Impacts to Shallow Wells
4630 Hamrick Road
Central Point, Oregon
Approved:Drawn:
TCJPApex Companies, LLC
15618 SW 72nd Avenue
Tigard, Oregon 97224
Figure
2
Project Number:
July 2024
32-24007645
I:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
G
a
l
p
i
n
H
o
m
e
s
,
L
L
C
\
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
P
o
i
n
t
\
3
2
-
2
4
0
0
7
6
4
5
0
2
(
W
e
l
l
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
.
d
w
g
M
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
7
/
2
5
/
2
0
2
4
b
y
J
P
o
o
r
e
NOTE: Tax lot information from Jackson County
https://gis.jacksoncountyor.gov (2024).
W-12
[28']
Well Survey Area
Proposed
Sunnybrook
Development
Page 443 of 533
Attachment A
OWRD Well Logs
Page 444 of 533
Page 445 of 533
Page 446 of 533
Page 447 of 533
Page 448 of 533
Page 449 of 533
Page 450 of 533
Page 451 of 533
Page 452 of 533
Page 453 of 533
Page 454 of 533
Page 455 of 533
Page 456 of 533
Page 457 of 533
WELL I.D. LABEL# L
START CARD #
Owner Well I.D.First Name
Address
Zip
(1) LAND OWNER
New Well Deepening
Abandonment(complete 5a)
Conversion
(3) DRILL METHOD
Rotary Air Rotary Mud Cable Auger Cable Mud
OtherReverse Rotary
(4) PROPOSED USE Domestic Community
Industrial/ Commericial
Irrigation
Livestock Dewatering
StateCity
STATE OF OREGON
WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT
(as required by ORS 537.765 & OAR 690-205-0210)
Thermal Injection Other
(5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION
Depth of Completed Well ft.
Explosives used: Yes Type Amount
SEAL
Material From To Amt
Other
Backfill placed from ft. to ft. Material
Filter pack from ft. to ft. Material
BORE HOLE
(Attach copy)
Dia From To
Special Standard
(6) CASING/LINER Dia
Shoe Inside Outside Location of shoe(s)
From To Gauge Stl Plstc Wld ThrdCasing Liner
(7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENSMethod
Type Material
Scrn/slot
widthToFrom
# of
slots
Tele/
pipe size
Casing/
Liner
Dia
(8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour
Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr)
Temperature °F Lab analysis
Water quality concerns?
Yes
From Yes (describe below)To Description
(9) LOCATION OF WELL (legal description)
Tax Lot
Lot
Twp Range E/W WM
Sec 1/4 1/4
Lat °'" or DMS or DD
Long °'" or DMS or DD
County N/S
of the
(10) STATIC WATER LEVEL
WATER BEARING ZONES
From To Est Flow SWL(psi)SWL Date
(11) WELL LOG Ground Elevation
Material To
CompletedDate Started
(unbonded) Water Well Constructor Certification
I certify that the work I performed on the construction, deepening, alteration, orabandonment of this well is in compliance with Oregon water supply well
construction standards. Materials used and information reported above are true tothe best of my knowledge and belief.
License Number Date
Signed
(bonded) Water Well Constructor Certification
ORIGINAL - WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENTTHIS REPORT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF COMPLETION OF WORK
Depth water was first found
Temp casing Yes From To
Screen
Dia
Other
Tax Map Number
I accept responsibility for the construction, deepening, alteration, or abandonmentwork performed on this well during the construction dates reported above. All work
performed during this time is in compliance with Oregon water supply wellconstruction standards. This report is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
License Number Date
Signed
Existing Well / Pre-Alteration
Completed Well
From
Company
Last Name
E D C B AMethodHow was seal placed:
Perf/
Screen
+
Date SWL(psi)
By
Amount Units
sacks/lbs
Slot
length
Perforations
Screens
SWL(ft)+
SWL(ft)+
Size
Contact Info (optional)
Flowing Artesian?
(2a) PRE-ALTERATION Alteration (complete 2a & 10)
(2) TYPE OF WORK
To sacks/lbsAmtFromMaterial
(5a) ABANDONMENT USING UNHYDRATED BENTONITE
Proposed Amount
From+ Dia
TDS amount
Casing:
Seal:
ORIGINAL LOG #
Actual Amount
Street address of well Nearest address
Pump Bailer Air Flowing Artesian
Dry Hole?
Form Version:
ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeTo
Calculated
Calculated
Page 1 of 2
115720
1026408
GLADYS MUSE
4475 HAMMRICK RDCENTRAL POINT OR 97502
45.00
125/14/2015
5/14/2015 5/14/2015
1798 5/14/2015
62111JACK
5/14/2015
GARY NEWMAN (E-filed)
Southern Oregon Well Drilling 541-772-1177
JACKSON 12222
UNDISTURBED
JACKSON 37.00 S 2.00 W
1 SW NW 1100
4475 HAMMRICK RD CENTRAL POINT OREGON 97502
6 0 60
Page 458 of 533
WATER SUPPLY WELL REPORT -
continuation page
(6) CASING/LINER
(7) PERFORATIONS/SCREENS
(8) WELL TESTS: Minimum testing time is 1 hour
(10) STATIC WATER LEVEL
ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeToFrom+ DiaCasing Liner
Material ToFrom
Comments/Remarks
BORE HOLEDiaFromTo
Water Quality Concerns
Yield gal/min Drawdown Drill stem/Pump depth Duration (hr)
SEAL
Material From To Amt sacks/
lbs
From To Description Amount Units
FILTER PACKFromToMaterial Size
SWL(ft)+SWL(psi)Est FlowToFromSWL Date
(11) WELL LOG
(5) BORE HOLE CONSTRUCTION
(2a) PRE-ALTERATION
Perf/Screen Casing/Liner ScreenDia From To Scrn/slot
width
Slot
length
# ofslots Tele/pipe size
From+ Dia ThrdWldPlstcStlGaugeTo
WELL I.D. LABEL# L
START CARD #
ORIGINAL LOG #
To sacks/lbsAmtFromMaterial
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Calculated
Extended casing by three feet. Casing is now approx eighteen inches above
ground level. We placed five sacks of Bentonite chips around the extended
casing.
115720
10264085/14/2015
62111JACK
12222JACKSON
Page 2 of 2
Page 459 of 533
Attachment B
White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results (Apex 2016)
Page 460 of 533
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
November 16, 2016 John Boyd People’s Bank of Commerce 1311 East Barnett Rd. Medford, Oregon 97504 Re: White Hawk Development – Well Survey Results 718 Beebe Road Central Point, Oregon 2251-00 Dear Mr. Boyd: This letter provides the results of a well survey conducted in the vicinity of the proposed White Hawk Development and updates the evaluation of the potential for impacts to the water levels in wells near the development due to the installation of a proposed storm drain line along Gebhard Road. A preliminary evaluation was provided in a letter to you dated August 24, 2015. Subsequent to that letter, the City of Central Point requested that a survey be performed to identify domestic well owners in the vicinity of the development and, where possible, the construction of the wells (e.g., depth, use, screened interval if screened, etc.) to further evaluate the potential for negative impacts to water levels in wells located within the White Hawk transit oriented development (TOD) from the proposed construction of the storm drain line. The survey was completed between December 2015 and April 2016. The results of the survey and an updated evaluation on the potential impacts of the storm drain line on wells identified in the White Hawk TOD are provided below.
WELL SURVEY
A well survey form was sent to the residents located within the White Hawk TOD; Attachment A shows the boundaries and tax lots within the White Hawk TOD. Well surveys were sent to owners of the 31 tax lots within the White Hawk TOD. The well survey was sent at least two times to each tax lot owner; 11 completed surveys were returned to Apex. Attachment B includes copies of the completed surveys. Table 1 summarizes the results of the survey; two surveys were for property outside of the TOD and were not included on Table 1. Results of the well survey indicated the presence of six wells on five tax lots within the TOD. The location of these wells and the reported depth of the well is shown on Figure 1. Where information on the exact location of the well is not available, the location is approximated by placing it in the center of the tax lot for which the information was obtained. In addition, Apex reviewed Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) online files to identify registered wells in the TOD. Ten well logs for wells located on 6 parcels within the TOD were identified. Attachment C contains the identified well logs and Table 2 summarizes the information on the identified wells, by parcel. Two of the parcels1 with well logs registered by OWRD sent in completed well surveys; the other well logs provided additional information. Additionally, shown on Figure 1 are the locations of wells identified in a report prepared by Don Haggerty, PhD in February 20002.
1 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
2 Haggerty 2000. Report on Groundwater in the Vicinity of Beebe Rd., Jackson County, Oregon. February 28, 2000.
Page 461 of 533
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016 Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 2
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
It is unknown how many of the wells identified in the OWRD database or in the Haggarty report are still in use as only two property owners3 with wells identified in the OWRD database and/or the Haggerty report sent back completed well surveys (parcel owners were sent water well surveys in December 2015, January 2016, and/or March 2017). Additionally, the Haggerty report indicated 3 wells to be present on parcel number 15, but the completed well survey for this parcel indicated just one 50-foot deepwell. Figure 1 shows the updated information from the well survey. Based on the information obtained from the well searches:
• At least six wells are in use in the White Hawk TOD based on the well survey results; the well depths range from 12 to 50 feet, where known.
• An additional 5 to 8 wells were identified from the OWRD w ell log database. Of these, all but two are sealed from ground surface to 20 feet or more. Additionally, the Himmelman well at parcel 30 appears to be 100 feet deep and sealed to 35 feet.
• It is unclear whether the additional wells identified in the OWRD database are still in use.
• The well logs in the OWRD database suggest that, in the vicinity of the development, the soil consists of clay to depths of 8 to 12 feet below grade, underlain be sand and gravel to at least 40 to 50 feet in most locations. Figure 1 shows that most of the wells are more than 100 feet from the proposed stormdrain line to be installed beneath Gebhard Road. However, wells are reported at parcels 3, 5, and 6 (see Figure 1) and the location of the wells are not known so the wells could be closer to the proposed utility.
EVALUATION OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS DURING STORM AND SANITARY LINE INSTALLATION
Depth to first encountered water for shallow wells in the area appears to be about 9 feet below grade, but was historically reported as shallow as 4 feet below grade in some areas. Based on the OWRD well logs, it appears that most (if not all) of the wells are sealed to at least 9 feet below grade and are accessing water below that depth. The proposed storm and sanitary lines may be installed to depths of up to 10 to 12 feet and therefore, may intercept the water table in some areas. Based on this information, installation of the storm and/or sanitary lines could impact groundwater levels (and thereby impact the nearby water wells) from the following:
• Dewatering during construction;
• Infiltration into sewer lines; or
• Longitudinal flow in trench backfill. If dewatering is necessary during construction, the water table would be lowered and these effects could extend to nearby water wells. This effect would be temporary and conditions would be expected to return to normal within a short period after completion of the work. Long-term, if the storm or sanitary lines leak, infiltration into the lines could permanently lower the water table in the vicinity of the utilities to the base of the lines; however, this effect would likely extend only a few feet from the utility trench. This potential impact is addressed by quality control during construction to assure the utility lines are installed in alignment, seals are in place, intact and tested, proper pipe bedding is used, and trench backfill is properly compacted. These conditions assure the lines have a tight seal and meet the required performance standards prior to acceptance by the City.
3 Dino Picollo, parcel 28 and Charlotte Holder, parcel 15; see Table 1.
Page 462 of 533
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016 Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 3
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If trench backfill is more permeable than native soil, water could flow longitudinally along the trench and discharge to surface water, permanently lowering the water table in the vicinity of the trench. Given the native soil conditions (clay soils in the upper 8 to 12 feet), it is possible that the trench backfill could be more permeable than the native soil in the areas where the native clay extends below the bottom depth of the utility bedding. Depending on the depth to which the trench penetrates the water table, longitudinal flow could occur; however, the influence on the shallow water table would likely extend only a few feet laterally from the utility trench. This localized depression in the water table caused by the trench could be addressed by installing low-permeability plugs at intervals in the trench backfill. Given that dewatering of local wells was reported after a drain trench was installed in Beebe Road in 1998, it is recommended that low permeability trench plugs be installed in future utility trenches dug for the project.
MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS EVALUATION AND MITIGATION OPTIONS
The potential impact of the installation and presence of the proposed storm and sanitary lines was performed in 2015 and is updated herein based on the updated well information obtained from the wells survey:
• Up to 21 wells may be located in the vicinity of the proposed project; it is unclear how many of these wells are still in use, however, at least three wells that are likely in use appear to be located within 100 feet of the proposed installation along Gebhard Road. The proposed utility installation is not expected to impact two of these wells because the wells are 35 and 140 feet deep and access water well below the depth of utility installation. The third well, located on parcel 3 (Figure 1) is of unknown depth. It is also unlikely that the utility installation will impact this well because the utility installations will penetrate only a few feet into the water table, if at all, at this location.
• A 12-foot depth well is reportedly located on parcel 28 that may be within 100 feet of proposed storm and sewer lines to be installed along the eastern development boundary (Figure 1). There is the potential that this well could be impacted by the utility installation, if the line extends into the water table at this location.
• Wells located further than 100 feet from the installation would not be anticipated to be impacted by the utility installation.
• It is also noted that three wells have been deepened over a period of 16 years, indicating that there is a long-term reduction in water level in the area. The following presents mitigation options to address potential concerns:
• Prior to construction of the storm drain line proposed to be placed along Gebhard Road, verify the depth of the well located on parcel 3 and, if the well is less than a total depth of 15 feet, monitor water levels in that well during construction.
• Prior to construction of storm or sewer lines tie-ins to the existing storm or sewer lines beneath Beebe Road, verify the presence of wells located on parcel 10 identified in the Haggerty report that may be located within 100 feet of the tie-ins and are reported to be shallower than 15 feet in depth. If these wells are still present and in use, monitor the water levels during the construction.
• If installation does penetrate the water table, low-permeability plugs can be used to inhibit flow along the trench line. Assuming crushed rock is used for trench backfill, adding 5 percent (dry weight) bentonite to the backfill is sufficient to reduce the permeability of the backfill. The plugs should be placed from the bottom of the trench to 1 foot above the water table the full width of the trench and have a minimum length of 5 feet. A plug should be placed at the low end of each main sewer line.
• In areas where the lines are installed below the water table, particular care needs to be taken to ensure that the lines have a tight seal.
Page 463 of 533
John Boyd, People’s Bank of Commerce November 16, 2016 Well Survey Results, White Hawk Development Page 4
3015 SW First Avenue, Portland, OR 97201 T 503.924.4704 F 503.943.6357 www.apexcos.com
If you have any questions or need further information, please contact us at your convenience. Sincerely, Amanda Spencer, R.G. Principal Hydrogeologist
ATTACHMENTS
Table 1 – Summary of Well Survey Results Table 2 – OWRD Well Survey Results Figure 1 – Location of Wells in the White Hawk TOD Attachment A – White Hawk TOD Attachment B – Completed Surveys Attachment C – OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
cc: Matt Samitore, City of Central Point
Page 464 of 533
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner
Owner Address
(if different from Site
Address)
Date Survey sent Survey
Returned?
Well?Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400
6026 Palmero Cir
Cameron Park, CA 95682 Survey sent 12/15
12/22/2015
1/25/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
2 372W02 500
10 S Oakdale Ave
Medford, OR 97501 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard Karen and Randall Wales Survey sent 12/15 12/28/2015 Y unknown unknown domestic use and yard/gardening
4 372W02 600
1355 Cora Ln
Auburn, CA 95603 Survey sent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N NA NA Undeveloped land
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard David & Julie Webb Survey sent 12/15 12/30/2015 Y 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and
yard/gardening/orchard
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Survey not completed but OWRD well
log found dated 5/4/2012 for a 140 foot
well
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
8 372W02D 501
PO Box 996
Medford, OR 97501
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 3/11/2016 N Undeveloped land
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but 3
OWRD well logs identified - See Table 2
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe James and Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 1/11/2016 Y 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire
abatement
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF WELL SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 465 of 533
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe Survey sent 3/3/16 N
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church
Survey sent 12/15
Resent 3/3/16 N
Completed Survey not received but
OWRD well log identified - See Table 2
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo Survey sent 12/15 12/23/2015 2 wells
1 - 12 feet
2 - 34 feet
1 - Unknown
2 - 1940ish
one well at back of lot used for
irrigation;
second well shared with 523 Beebe for
domestic and irrigation
OWRD well log from 2/17/1983 for a 60
foot well - see Table 2
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard
Steve & Carolyn
Himmelman Survey sent 12/15 1/5/2016 Y 15 feet unknown
hand dug well
domestic use/irrigation/stock watering
OWRD well log found from 10/11/1994
for a 100 foot well
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard Survey sent 3/3/16 N
Note: yellow highlighted: surveys were returned because the post office could not deliver
Page 466 of 533
Parcel
Index MAP TAX LOT Site Num Site St Owner Well Log #Well Depth Date Installed Notes
1 372W02 400 None NA NA
2 372W02 500 None NA NA
3 372W02 2500 4757 Gebhard None unknown unknown
domestic use and yard/gardening well onsite
based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
4 372W02 600 None NA NA
5 372W02 2601 4617 Gebhard None 35 feet bgs 1930?
domestic use and yard/gardening/orchard well
onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
6 372W02 2600 4613 Gebhard Sergio Mejia JACK61181 140 feet 5/4/2012
sealed from 0 to 50 feet below grade; screened
from 50 to 140 feet below grade
7 372W02 2602 4603 Gebhard William Jeshke None
8 372W02D 501 None
10 372W02D 300 587 Beebe Ken Beebe?
JACK12262
JACK12264
JACK12261
12 feet
66.5 feet
13 feet
1965 and 1966
sealed 0 to 9 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
sealed 0 to 9 feet
11 372W02D 200 511 Beebe Mingus
JACK52926
JACK55868
JACK52660
204 feet
56 feet
59 feet
1999
2003
1998
sealed 0 to 59?
Sealed 0 to 27 feet
sealed 0 to 20 feet
12 372W01C 2500 507 Beebe Terry & Harley Callahan None
13 372W01C 2400 495 Beebe James and Michelle Nistler None
14 372W01C 2300 477 Beebe Michelle Nistler None
15 372W01C 2301 445 Beebe Charlotte Holder None 50 feet 1998
lawn, gardening, watering orchard, fire abatement
well onsite based on Well Survey (see Table 1)
16 372W01C 2200 443 Beebe Rita Deann Tyner None
17 372W01C 1700 4511 Hamrick James Sutton None
18 372W01C 1800 4497 Hamrick Nick Kenneth Lee None
19 372W01CB 1100 4475 Hamrick Gladys Muse None
20 372W01CB 1000 4461 Hamrick Richard Smith None
21 372W01CB 900 4439 Hamrick Humphrey&Windsor LLC None
22 372W01BC 10100 446 Beebe None
23 372W01BC 10200 444 Beebe None
24 372W01BC 10000 4615 Hamrick Edic Sliva None
25 372W01BC 9800 4630 Hamrick CA Galpin None
26 372W01BC 9900 456 Beebe Picollo LLC None
TABLE 2: OWRD SURVEY RESULTS
No Address
No Address
No Address
No Address
Page 467 of 533
27 372W02 3100 600 Beebe
Shepherd of the Valley
Catholic Church JACK30394 90 feet 1990 Deepening of an existing well from 68 to 90 feet
28 372W02 3000 628 Beebe Dino Picollo JACK12241 60 feet 1983
Deepening of an existing well from 35 feet to 60
feet. Sealed from 0 to 35 feet.
30 372W02 200 4848 Gebhard Steve Himmelman JACK33759 100 feet 1994 sealed 0 to 35 feet
31 372W02AA 2800 4920 Gebhard None
Page 468 of 533
[15']
[UNK]
[14'][13']
[66.5']
[56']
[59']
[50'][12']
[35']
[140']
[12']
[34']
[90']
[45']
[13']
[11.5']
[UNK]
[97']
[UNK][23'][15']
[204']
[97']
B1 B2
M1 R1
S1
G1
T1G3
F1
C1
F2
F3
R2
M2
Legend:
Base map prepared from a Well Notiofication Area figure by CES NW (12/01/2105).I
Water Well (Based on Returned Survey; Location Approximate)
Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) Database Well Location
Water Well (Based on February 2000 Haggerty Report and/or OWRD Database; Existence Not Confirmed)
Depth of Well (UNK = Unknown Depth)Project Number
Location of Wells within White Hawk TOD
2251-00
1
Figure
November 2016
0 500
Approximate Scale in Feet
1,000
Well Survey and Evaluation Letter
White Hawk Development
Central Point, Oregon
Apex Companies, LLC
3015 SW First AvenuePortland, Oregon 97201
[35']
B1
Page 469 of 533
Well Survey Results Letter
Attachment A
White Hawk TOD
Page 470 of 533
OF
SHEET
RE
V
I
S
I
O
N
S
DE
S
I
G
N
E
D
B
Y
:
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
:
DA
T
E
:
DR
A
W
N
B
Y
:
PL
O
T
T
E
D
:
1/
1
2
/
2
0
1
6
1
1
:
4
4
A
M
WH
I
T
E
H
A
W
K
T
O
D
CA
S
E
F
I
L
E
N
O
.
1
4
0
0
4
PE
O
P
L
E
'
S
B
A
N
K
O
F
C
O
M
M
E
R
C
E
13
1
1
B
A
R
N
E
T
T
R
O
A
D
ME
D
F
O
R
D
,
O
R
9
7
0
5
4
(5
4
1
)
7
7
4
-
7
6
5
6
19
1
0
1
19
1
0
-
W
E
L
L
_
N
O
T
I
C
E
_
A
R
E
A
.
D
W
G
WE
L
L
N
O
T
I
F
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
A
R
E
A
1
12
/
0
1
/
1
5
AR
W
AR
W
BEEBE ROAD
GE
B
H
A
R
D
R
O
A
D
HA
M
R
I
C
K
R
O
A
D
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2223
24
25
2627
28
29
30
31
32
Page 471 of 533
Well Survey Results Letter
Attachment B
Completed Surveys
Page 472 of 533
Page 473 of 533
Page 474 of 533
Page 475 of 533
Page 476 of 533
Page 477 of 533
Page 478 of 533
Page 479 of 533
Page 480 of 533
Page 481 of 533
Page 482 of 533
Page 483 of 533
Well Survey Results Letter
Attachment C
OWRD Well Logs for Wells Within the TOD
Page 484 of 533
Page 485 of 533
Page 486 of 533
Page 487 of 533
Page 488 of 533
Page 489 of 533
Page 490 of 533
Page 491 of 533
Page 492 of 533
Page 493 of 533
Page 494 of 533
JACK 61181
Page 495 of 533
Page 1 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No.: SUB-23001
Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission
Consideration of a Tentative Plan for the Sunnybrook Village Subdivision
Applicant:) Findings of Fact
C.A. Galpin, LLC ) and
744 Cardley Ave, Suite 100 ) Conclusion of Law
Medford OR 97504 )
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
The applicant submitted a tentative plan application (Type III) for the Sunnybrook Village Subdivision to
subdivide 7.57 acres into 36 lots (“Application”). The property is located within the Low Mix Residential
(LMR) zoning district in the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay.
A subdivision tentative plan is reviewed as a Type III application. Type III applications are reviewed in
accordance with procedures provided in Section 17.05.400, which provides the basis for decisions upon
standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, where applicable.
The standards and criteria for the proposal are set forth in CPMC Title 16, Subdivisions, and Chapter
17.66, Application Review Process for the TOD Overlay. The following findings address each of the
standards and criteria as applies to the subdivision tentative plan.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Sunnybrook Village is located within the Eastside Transit Oriented Development (ETOD) Overlay along
Hamrick Road. Abutting properties to the north, south and west are undeveloped. Low-density, single-
family dwellings are located east of the site and Hamrick Road. Sunnybrook Village is the second master
plan contemplated in the ETOD. Willow Bend, formerly known as White Hawk, is located over 750-ft. to
the west. As the first master plan in this portion of the ETOD, Sunnybrook Village will establish land use
and circulation patterns that will influence development on surrounding properties and circulation
throughout the ETOD. The proposed density of 8 units per acre is consistent with the minimum/maximum
range for density in the LMR zoning district. Access to the proposed development will be provided by a
new connection with Hamrick Road and new streets and alleys will provide circulation throughout the
development.
Page 496 of 533
Page 2 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Figure 1. Tentative Plan Cover Sheet
Page 497 of 533
Page 3 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Figure 2. Grading and Drainage Plan
Page 498 of 533
Page 4 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Figure 3. Utility Plan
Page 499 of 533
Page 5 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Figure 4. ETOD Conceptual Circulation Plan
Page 500 of 533
Page 6 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Figure 5. Tentative Plan
Page 501 of 533
Page 7 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
PART 2
SUBDIVISIONS
Title 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) establishes standards and criteria for land
division applications including tentative plans and final plats. The sections of CPMC 16 applicable to
the Application are:
Chapter 16.10 - Tentative Plans.
CPMC 16.10.010 Submission of application – Filing fee.
The applicant shall submit an application and tentative plan together with improvement plans and other
supplementary material as may be required to indicate the development plan and shall submit ten copies
to the city together with a filing fee defined in the city’s adopted planning application fee schedule. The
diagrams submitted shall consist of three copies at the scale specified in Section 16.10.020 and one copy
in an eight-and-one-half-inch by eleven-inch format.
Finding CPMC 16.10.010: The applicant submitted the tentative plan application along with the required
$4,700 application fee on September 29, 2023. The submittal was reviewed and accepted as complete on
January 10, 2024 for review in accordance with the submittal requirements in CPMC 16.10, CPMC
17.05, and CPMC 17.66.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.010: Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.015 Application and review--Fees.
Applications and review thereof shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 17.05 and all applicable city
ordinances and laws of the state. All costs of administrative and legal staff time costs, plans checks,
construction inspection, preparation of agreements, in excess of the filing fee, shall be borne by the
applicant and paid upon billing by city. Failure to pay such costs as billed shall constitute grounds for
denial of final plat approval or building permits.
Finding CPMC 16.10.015: See Finding CPMC 16.10.010.
Conclusion: 16.10.015: Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.020 Scale.
The tentative plan shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen by twenty-four inches in size or a multiple thereof at
a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet or, for areas over one hundred acres, one inch equals two
hundred feet, and shall be clearly and legibly reproduced.
Finding CPMC 16.10.020: The tentative plan is drawn on a sheet that is eighteen inches by twenty-four
inches and at a scale of one-inch equals thirty feet, which is clearly and legibly produced relative to the
project area.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.020: Consistent.
Page 502 of 533
Page 8 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
CPMC 16.10.030 General information.
The following general information shall be shown on or included with the tentative plan:
A. Proposed name of the subdivision. This name must not duplicate or resemble the name of another
subdivision in the county;
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(A): The proposed subdivision is named “Sunnybrook Village” The proposed
name must be unique relative to other approved land divisions in Jackson County. As a condition of
approval, the applicant is required to submit a subdivision plat name approval from the Jackson County
Surveyor.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(A): Complies as conditioned.
B. Date, north point, and scale of drawing;
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(B): The tentative plan was drawn on August 6, 2024 and includes the scale
and north arrow.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(B): Consistent.
C. Location of the subdivision by section, township, and range, and a legal description sufficient to
define the location and boundaries of the proposed tract or the tract designation or other
description according to the records of the county assessor;
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(C): Figure 1 provides the section, township and range (37 2W 01BC, Tax Lot
9800) and Figure 2 provides a site Vicinity Map. Combined with the legal description submitted with the
application, these items define the location and boundaries of the project site.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(C): Consistent.
D. Names and addresses of the owner or owners, applicant and engineer or surveyor;
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(D): The applicant is listed on the tentative plan (Figure 1) as CA Galpin, LLC
and the engineer is listed as Construction Engineering Consultants, Inc out of Medford, Oregon.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(D): Consistent.
E. A title report indicating all interests of record in the property which is the subject of the
application.
Finding CPMC 16.10.030(E): A title report prepared by First American Title on August 16, 2024 was
provided by the applicant.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.030(E): Consistent.
Page 503 of 533
Page 9 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
CPMC 16.10.040 Existing conditions.
The following existing conditions shall be shown on the tentative plan:
A. The location, widths and names of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or
adjacent to the tract, easements, railroad rights-of-way and such other important features within or
adjacent to the tract as may be required by the city;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(A): The tentative plat illustrates the location and width of Hamrick Road,
which is east of and adjacent to the project site. There are no other existing easements or rights-of-way
within or adjacent to the tract.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(A): Consistent.
B. Contour lines related to some established bench mark or other datum as approved by the city when
the city determines that the nature of the topography or size of the subdivision requires such data.
Contour lines shall have the following minimum intervals:
1. Two-foot contour intervals for ground slopes less than five percent;
2. Five-foot contour intervals for ground slopes exceeding five percent;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(B): Figure 2 includes topographic information at two-foot contour intervals.
The slope of the property is less than five percent.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(B): Consistent.
C. The location of at least one temporary bench mark within the plat boundaries;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(C): The tentative plat submittal provides the basis of survey including the
bearings and elevations.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(C): Consistent.
D. Location and direction of all watercourses and drainage systems;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(D): There are no drainage systems on the project site; however, per the Public
Works Staff Report dated August 21, 2024, there is a 24-inch storm drain line within the Hamrick Road
right-of-way and an open ditch for stormwater conveyance along the north property boundary. There are
no watercourses on or immediately adjacent to the project site.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(D): Consistent.
E. Natural features, such as rock outcroppings, marshes and wooded areas;
Page 504 of 533
Page 10 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(E): The project site is currently undeveloped. Per staff site visits and aerial
imagery, the project site contains some vegetation including a few mature trees, but it primarily consists
of a flat, open grass field. There are no rock outcroppings or wetland areas on the project site.
Conclusion 16.10.040(E): Consistent.
F. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures which the subdivider
proposes to leave on the property after platting;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(F): The property is currently undeveloped and there are no structures for
removal as part of the proposed subdivision.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(F): Not applicable.
G. The location within the subdivision and in the adjoining streets and property of existing sewers
and water mains, culverts and drain pipes, and all other existing or proposed utilities to be used on
the property to be subdivided and invert elevations of sewers at points of probable connections;
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(G): The Applicant’s Findings identify the location of existing infrastructure
adjacent to the subject property relative to existing conditions.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(G): Consistent.
H. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract.
Finding CPMC 16.10.040(H): Zoning designations on the project site and adjacent properties are
denoted on the Vicinity Map (Figure 2).
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.040(H): Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.050 Additional information.
The following additional information shall also be included on the tentative plan:
A. Streets, showing location, width, proposed names, approximate grades and approximate radii of
curves and the relationship of all streets to any projected streets as shown of any development plan
adopted by the city;
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(A): The proposed tentative plan (Figure 5) identifies proposed internal streets,
including their location and width. As shown on Figure 4, the project proposes to align the east-west
streets with the streets developed as part of Willow Bend to the west.
Condition CPMC 16.10.050(A): Consistent.
B. Easements, showing the width and purpose;
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(B): As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), a 10-ft Public Utility Easement
(PUE) is proposed along the frontage of all proposed lots consistent with the Public Works Standards. A
Page 505 of 533
Page 11 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
stormwater easement provides connection to existing drainage facilities along the south property line of
Lot 5. A sanitary sewer easement provides maintenance access and connection to sanitary sewer utilities
on Lot 17 and the proposed stormwater facility tract. No other easements are proposed on the project
site.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.050(B): Consistent.
C. Lots, showing approximate dimensions, area of smallest lot or lots and utility easements and
building setback lines to be proposed, if any;
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(C): Public utility easements and approximate dimensions of each proposed lot
are shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5).
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.050(C): Consistent.
D. Sites, if any, proposed for purposes other than dwellings;
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(D): As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), an open space area and
stormwater tract are proposed in the northern most block of the development.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.050(D): Consistent.
E. Area in square footage of each lot and the average lot area.
Finding CPMC 16.10.050(E): The lot area for the each of the proposed lots is provided on the tentative
plan (Figure 5).
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.050(E): Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.060 Partial development.
When the property to be subdivided contains only part of the tract owned or controlled by the applicant,
the city may require a development plan of a layout for streets, numbered lots, blocks, phases of
development, and other improvements in the undivided portion, indicating inter-relationship with the
portion sought to be divided. The city shall have authority to require that any adjacent parcel or parcels
owned or controlled by the applicant but not included in the proposed subdivision boundaries be included
in the development whenever inclusion of such parcel or parcels would be an appropriate extension of the
development and in the best interests of the public, considering the development plan and the relationship
between the surrounding area and the area of proposed development.
Finding CPMC 16.10.060: The project site is approximately 7.57 acres and the proposed subdivision,
including individual lots, streets and other improvements, will occupy the subject property in its entirety.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.060: Not Applicable.
16.10.070 Explanatory information.
Page 506 of 533
Page 12 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Any of the following information may be required by the city and, if it cannot be shown practicably on the
tentative plan, it shall be submitted in separate statements accompanying the tentative plan:
A. A vicinity map showing all existing subdivisions, streets and un-subdivided land ownerships
adjacent to the proposed subdivision and showing how proposed streets may be connected to
existing streets;
Finding CPMC 16.10.070(A): The proposed subdivision is not adjacent to existing subdivisions, with
properties to the north, south and west currently undeveloped. Figure 4 illustrates how the proposed
streets may connect to future development on adjacent properties and extend to an existing development,
Willow Bend, on the west side of the ETOD.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.070(A): Consistent.
B. Proposed deed restrictions in outline form;
Finding CPMC 16.10.070(B): The proposed subdivision does not include any proposed deed restrictions.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.070(B): Not applicable.
C. Approximate centerline profiles showing the proposed finished grade of all streets, including the
extensions for a reasonable distance beyond the limits of the proposed subdivision;
Finding CPMC 16.10.700(C): Street profiles are not provided with the tentative plan application. The
Public Works Staff Report dated August 21, 2024 requires that the applicant comply with all Public
Works requirements prior to final plat to ensure the streets are completed in accordance with current
standards.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.070(C): Complies as conditioned.
D. The approximate location and size of all proposed and existing water and sewer lines and storm
drainage systems.
Finding CPMC 16.10.070(D): The approximate location of existing and proposed water, sanitary sewer
and storm drainage systems are included with the tentative plan application. As required by the Public
Works Staff Report dated August 21, 2024, civil improvement plans that are designed in conformance
with City Standard Specification and Uniform Details for Construction, including the location of
proposed utilities and protection of all existing public facilities. These plans are reviewed by the City
Engineer prior to construction on site. Prior to final plat, the location of utilities must be shown on as-
built drawings and final installation verified by the engineer of record. Conditions from Rogue Valley
Sewer Services requires that the applicant comply with all RVSS requirements prior to construction to
ensure the sewer facilities are completed in accordance with current standards.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.070(D): Complies as conditioned.
CPMC 16.10.080 Tentative plan approval.
Page 507 of 533
Page 13 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
A. Approval of the tentative plan shall not constitute final acceptance of the final plat of the proposed
subdivision or partition for recording; however, approval of the tentative plan shall be binding
upon city for the purpose of the approval of the final plat if the final plat is in substantial
compliance with the tentative plan and any conditions of approval thereof. A tentative plan
approval shall expire and become void one year from the date on which it was issued unless the
final plat has been approved pursuant to Chapter 16.12 or an application for extension is filed and
approved subject to the requirements of Section 16.10.100 and Chapter 17.05.
B. When it is the intent to develop a tentative plan and record a final plat in phases, the city, at the
time of tentative plat approval, may authorize a time schedule for platting the various phases in
periods exceeding one year, but in no case shall the total time period for platting all phases be
greater than five years without review of the tentative plan for compliance with the current code
and comprehensive plan. Each phase so platted shall conform to the applicable requirements of
this chapter. Phases platted after the passage of one year from approval of the tentative plan will
be required to modify the tentative plan as necessary to avoid conflicts with changes in the
comprehensive plan or this chapter.
Finding CPMC 16.10.080: Upon receipt of a final plat application within the required time limitation per
CPMC 16.12 or CPMC 16.10.100 and 17.05, the City will evaluate the final plat application to assure
that the final plat is substantially compliant with the tentative plan and that all conditions have been met.
The Applicant’s Findings propose the final plat and development will be constructed in three (3) phases
and will be completed within ten (10) years.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.080: Consistent.
CPMC 16.10.090 Conditions on tentative plan approval.
The city may attach to any tentative plan approval given under this chapter specific conditions deemed
necessary in the interests of the public health, safety or welfare, including but not limited to the following:
A. Construction and installation of any on-site or off-site improvements, including but not limited to
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streets, street signs and street lights, traffic control signs and signals,
water, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and park and recreation improvements. In requiring off-site
improvements, the city shall find that said improvements are reasonably related to the
development and would serve a public purpose such as mitigating negative impacts of the
proposed development.
B. All improvements required under this subsection shall be made at the expense of the applicant, and
shall conform to the provisions of the Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for
Public Works Construction in the City of Central Point, Oregon, however, the city, in its
discretion, may modify such standards and determine site-specific design, engineering and
construction specifications when appropriate in the particular development;
C. An agreement by the owner of the property to waive, on his or her behalf, and on behalf of all
future owners of the land, any objection to the formation of a local improvement district which
may be formed in the future to provide any of the improvements specified in subsection A of this
section;
Page 508 of 533
Page 14 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
D. An agreement by the owner of the property to enter into a written deferred improvement
agreement, providing that one or more of the improvements specified in subsection A of this
section shall be made by the owner at some future time to be determined by the city;
E. Any agreement entered into pursuant to subsections B or C of this section shall be recorded in the
county recorder’s office and shall be intended to thereafter run with the land, so as to bind future
owners of the lands affected. Any and all recording costs shall be borne by the applicant;
F. Any other conditions deemed by the city to be reasonable and necessary in the interests of the
public health, safety or welfare.
Finding CPMC 16.10.090: Conditions of approval attached to the tentative plan include providing
improvements that are in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare that include sidewalks,
curbs, gutters, streets, storm drainage, sanitary sewer, water, park and recreation improvements.
Required improvements are related to the development and, as noted in the Parks and Public Works Staff
Report, dated August 21, 2024, are required to conform to City of Central Point Standard Specifications
and Uniform Details for Public Works Construction. Standards have not been modified for the proposed
development and the proposal does not include agreement for local improvement districts or deferred
improvements. Conditions of Approval are listed in the Planning Department Staff Report, dated
September 3, 2024.
Conclusion CPMC 16.10.090: Consistent.
Chapter 16.20, Streets and Other Ways – Design Standards.
CPMC 16.20.010 Creation of streets.
A. Streets created by subdivisions and partitions shall be designed and constructed in
conformance with the requirements of the city’s comprehensive plan, this code, the city’s
public works standards, and all conditions established by the city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.010(A): As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), access to the proposed
subdivision will be provided by newly proposed public streets. All streets will be improved to
minimum construction standards, per the Public Works Staff Report dated August 21, 2024.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.010(A): Consistent.
B. The construction of streets shall include subgrade, base, asphaltic concrete surfacing, curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, storm drainage, street signs, street lighting, and underground utilities.
Finding CPMC 16.20.010(B): The application states that the proposed roadways will be designed to
comply with the City’s codes including the Public Works Design Specifications for street construction.
This is supported by the Tentative Plan (Figure 5) and the Public Works Staff Report dated August 21,
2024.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.010(B): Consistent.
Page 509 of 533
Page 15 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
C. All streets, including the entire right-of-way necessary for the installation of the items mentioned
in the preceding paragraph, shall be dedicated to the city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.010(C): The streets, including the entire right-of-way necessary for installation,
will be dedicated to the City at the time of final plat.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.010(C): Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.020 Streets – Generally
The location, width, and grade of streets shall be considered in their relation to existing and planned
streets, to topographical conditions as they relate to drainage and the operation of the water, sewer
systems, to public convenience and safety and their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to
be served by such streets. Where location is not shown in a development plan, the arrangement of streets
in a subdivision shall either:
A. Provide for the continuation or appropriate projection of existing streets in surrounding areas; or,
Finding CPMC 16.20.020(A): The proposed subdivision is not adjacent to existing subdivisions, with
properties to the north, south and west currently undeveloped. Figure 4 illustrates how the proposed
streets may connect to future development on adjacent properties and extend to an existing
development, Willow Bend, on the west side of the ETOD.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.020(A): Consistent
B. Conform to the plan for the neighborhood approved or adopted by the city to meet a particular
situation where topographical or other conditions make continuance or conformance to
existing streets impractical.
Finding CPMC 16.20.020(B): The proposed subdivision is not adjacent to existing subdivisions, with
properties to the north, south and west currently undeveloped. Figure 4 illustrates how the proposed
streets may connect to future development on adjacent properties and extend to an existing
development, Willow Bend, on the west side of the ETOD.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.020(B): Not applicable.
CPMC 16.20.030 Streets--Reserve strips.
Reserve strips (“street plugs”) controlling the access to public ways may be required, in the discretion of
city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.030: Per Figure 5, reserve strips are not proposed or determined necessary for
any part of the proposed Sunnybrook Village.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.030: Not Applicable.
CPMC 16.20.050 Streets--Extension.
Page 510 of 533
Page 16 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Where a subdivision adjoins acreage, streets which in the option of the city should be continued in the
event of the subdivision of the acreage will be required to be provided through to the boundary lines of
the tract. Reserve strips and street plugs may be required to preserve the objectives of street extensions.
Finding CPMC 16.20.050: The proposed subdivision is not adjacent to existing subdivisions, with
properties to the north, south and west currently undeveloped. Figure 4 illustrates how the proposed
streets may connect to future development on adjacent properties and extend to an existing development,
Willow Bend, on the west side of the ETOD.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.050: Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.060 Existing streets.
Whenever existing streets within a tract are determined by the city to be of inadequate width, additional
right-of-way shall be provided as required.
Finding CPMC 16.20.060: There are no existing streets within the project site. The streets, including the
entire right-of-way necessary for installation, will be dedicated to the City at the time of final plat.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.060: Complies as conditioned.
CPMC 16.20.070 Half streets.
Half streets while generally not acceptable may be approved where essential to the reasonable
development of the subdivision when in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations and
when the city finds it will be practical to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining
property is developed. Whenever a half street is adjacent to a tract to be subdivided, the other half of the
street shall be platted within such tract. Reserve strips and street plugs may be required to preserve the
objectives of half streets.
Finding CPMC 16.20.070: As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), half street improvements are
proposed along the northern property line of the Sunnybrook Village tentative plan application. As noted
in the Parks and Public Works Staff Report, dated August 21, 2024, half street improvements are required
to comply with current standards and specifications.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.070: Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.080 Cul-de-sac.
A cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall in no event be more than four hundred feet long nor
serve more than twelve single-family dwellings or seventy-five dwelling units. All cul-de-sacs shall
terminate with a circular turn-around.
Finding CPMC 16.20.080: As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), a cul-de-sac is not proposed as
part of the Sunnybrook Village tentative plan application.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.080: Not applicable.
Page 511 of 533
Page 17 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
CPMC 16.20.090 Streets--Names.
No street name shall be used which will duplicate or be confused with the names of existing streets except
for extensions of existing streets. Street names and numbers shall conform to the established pattern in the
city and the surrounding area and shall be subject to the approval of the city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.090: The east-west streets on the north and south of the proposed development
provide extensions of existing streets platted with a previous development. Remaining street names will be
subject to approval by the City and Emergency Communications of Southern Oregon prior to Final Plat.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.090: Complies as conditioned.
CPMC 16.20.100 Streets--Adjacent to railroad right-of-way.
Wherever the proposed subdivision contains or is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way, provisions shall be
made for a street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way at a distance to be
determined by city. Such distance shall be determined with due consideration at cross streets of the
minimum distance required for approach grades to a future grade separation.
Finding CPMC 16.20.100: As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), the project site is not adjacent to
railroad right-of-way.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.100: Not applicable.
CPMC 16.20.110 Planting easements.
Where physical conditions require approval of streets less than fifty feet in right-of-way width, additional
easements for planting of street trees or shrubs may be required.
Finding CPMC 16.20.110: Per the Public Works Staff Report dated August 21, 2024, the Public Works
Department is not requiring any easements for planting of street trees or shrubs.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.110: Not applicable.
CPMC 16.20.120 Alleys.
A. Location. Alleys may be provided in commercial and industrial districts, unless other permanent
provisions for access to off-street parking and loading facilities are made as approved by the city.
Finding CPMC 16.20.120(A): As shown on the tentative plat (Figure 5), the proposed development
includes alleys for access to rear-loaded garages throughout the development. Access from the alley is
consistent with design standards and specifications.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.120(A): Consistent.
B. Intersections. Alley intersections and sharp changes in alignment shall be avoided. The corners of
necessary alley intersections shall have a radius of not less than twenty feet.
Page 512 of 533
Page 18 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Finding CPMC 16.20.120(B): As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), the proposed development does
not include sharp changes in alignment and intersections designs are consistent with standards and
specifications for street construction.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.120(B): Consistent.
CPMC 16.20.130 Sidewalks.
Sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with such standards as are adopted by the city. Sidewalk
construction shall be completed on each individual lot prior to the city building inspector granting a
certificate of occupancy for any construction upon said individual lot. No application for a building permit
shall be granted without a requirement in the building permit for construction of sidewalks to city’s
standards.
Finding CPMC 16.20.130: Sidewalks shall be constructed along Hamrick Road to the east, and along all
proposed streets within the development per public works standards.
Conclusion CPMC 16.20.130: Consistent.
Chapter 16.24, Blocks and Lots—Design Standards
CPMC 16.24.010 Blocks – Length, Width and Shape
The lengths, widths and shapes of blocks shall be designed with due regard to providing adequate
building sites suitable to the special needs of the type and use contemplated, needs for convenient
access, circulation, control and safety of street traffic and limitations and opportunities of topography.
Finding CPMC 16.24.010: The proposed subdivision is not adjacent to existing subdivisions or other
developments, with properties to the north, south and west currently undeveloped. Figure 4 illustrates
how the proposed streets may connect to future development on adjacent properties and extend to an
existing development, Willow Bend, on the west side of the ETOD.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.010: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.020 Blocks – Sizes
Blocks shall not exceed twelve hundred feet in length except blocks adjacent to arterial streets or
unless the previous adjacent layout or topographical conditions justify a variation. The recommended
minimum distance between intersections on arterial streets is three hundred feet.
Finding CPMC 16.24.020: As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), block lengths are consistent
with this section. Block length for proposed streets is measured along the proposed centerline. As
noted in the Parks and Public Works Staff Report, dated August 21, 2024, the access spacing along
Hamrick Road, for the proposed access to development, exceeds the 500-foot minimum. As shown on
Figure 4, future development on adjacent properties may continue the development pattern and
maintain compliance with block sizes.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.020: Consistent.
Page 513 of 533
Page 19 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
CPMC 16.24.030 Blocks – Easements
A. Utility Lines. Easements for electric lines or other non-city-owned public utilities may be required,
and shall be a minimum of ten feet in width located on the exterior portion of a single property.
Easements for city utilities (i.e., water, storm drain and sanitary sewer mains) shall be a minimum
of fifteen feet in width located on the exterior portion of a single property. Tie-back easements six
feet wide by twenty feet long shall be provided for utility poles along lot lines at change of
direction points of easements.
1. Structures Located within a City Utility Easement.
a.Except for public utilities and for signs when developed in accordance with
Chapter 15.24 (Sign Code), no person shall locate, construct, or continue to locate a
structure (as defined in Chapter 16.08) within a city utility easement (as defined in
Chapter 16.08), except as provided in subsections (A)(1)(b) and (A)(2) of this
section.
b.Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city may approve fencing, concrete block
walls/fencing, retaining walls, and similar fencing/wall structures that are otherwise
in compliance with the building code, and with the clearance provisions noted
herein, over an easement subject to the following requirements:
i. Said fencing or wall structures that interfere with the installation,
maintenance, access, or operation of a public utility or city utility may be
removed by the utility provider or the city at the sole cost of owner.
ii. Any replacement or relocation of the fencing or wall structures shall be at
the sole cost of the property owner or occupant.
iii. Owners and occupants of property shall not be entitled to compensation for
damages related to removal of the fencing or wall structures.
2. Grass, Asphalt, and Concrete Installed within a City Utility Easement.
a.Subject to the limitations of the building code, lawful owners and occupants of
property may install grass, asphalt and concrete within a city utility easement.
b.In the course of installing, accessing, maintaining, or operating its facilities in a
city utility easement, a public utility or the city, as the case may be, may move or
remove any asphalt, concrete, or vegetation located within said easement. After the
same are moved or removed and after completion of the necessary work, the grass,
asphalt or concrete shall be repaired and replaced in a reasonable manner at the sole
cost of the public utility or city.
c.Owners and occupants of property shall not be entitled to compensation related to
damages to grass, asphalt, or concrete so long as the repairs and replacement are
done in a reasonable manner and in a reasonable time frame.
Page 514 of 533
Page 20 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Finding CPMC 16.24.030(A): Per the tentative plat (Figure 5) no structures or fencing are proposed in
the City Utility Easements along the proposed streets. Development of the individual lots will be required
to comply with the provisions of this section.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.030(A): Consistent.
B. Watercourses. Where a subdivision is traversed by a watercourse, drainage way, channel or
stream, there may be required a stormwater easement or drainage right-of-way conforming
substantially with the lines of such watercourse, and such further width as will be adequate for the
purpose. Streets, parkways or access roads parallel to major watercourses may be required.
Finding CPMC 16.24.030(B): The proposed subdivision is not traversed by a watercourse or
drainage way. There is an open ditch for stormwater conveyance along the north property boundary.
The ditch is not located on the subject property and stormwater runoff from the project site will
discharge into the ditch. As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5) and ETOD Circulation Plan
(Figure 4), the ditch will align with future street right-of-way and does not require an easement at this
time.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.030(B): Consistent.
C. Pedestrian Ways. In any block over seven hundred fifty feet in length a pedestrian way may be
required. The minimum width of the pedestrian right-of-way must be at least six feet in width
which shall be hard surfaced through the block and curb to curb in order to provide easy access to
schools, parks, shopping centers, mass transportation stops or other community services. If
conditions require blocks longer than twelve hundred feet, two pedestrian ways may be required
for combination pedestrian way and utility easement. When essential for public convenience, such
ways may be required to connect to cul-de-sacs. Long blocks parallel to arterial streets may be
approved without pedestrian ways if desirable in the interests of traffic safety
Finding CPMC 16.24.030(C): Per Finding CPMC 16.24.020, the proposed blocks are less than seven
hundred fifty feet in length and a pedestrian way is not included as part of the proposed subdivision.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.030: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.040 Lots – Uses
A. The city may, in its discretion, deny approval for the creation of any lot by any manner if the
effect of such creation of lot would be to facilitate perpetuation of a nonconforming use.
B. No lot shall be created unless it is in compliance with all applicable provision of this code.
Finding CPMC 16.24.040: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the lots of the
proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfy the approval criteria.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.040: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.050 Lots – Sizes and Determination
Page 515 of 533
Page 21 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Lot sizes shall conform with the zoning ordinance and shall be appropriate for the location of the
subdivision and for the type of development and use contemplated. In the case of irregular lots, the width
shall be measured along the front building line. In no case shall the average depth be more than two and
one-half times the width. Corner lots for residential use shall have sufficient width to permit appropriate
building setback from and orientation to both streets.
A.In areas that cannot be connected to sewer lines, minimum lot sizes shall be sufficient to permit
sewage disposal by an engineered system in accordance with Department of Environmental
Quality, Jackson County environmental quality section, and public works standards. Such lot sizes
shall conform to the requirements of the Jackson County environmental quality section.
B. Where property is zoned and planned for business or industrial use, other widths and areas may be
required, at the discretion of the city. Depth and width of properties reserved or laid out for
commercial and industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street service and
parking facilities required by the type of use and development contemplated
Finding CPMC 16.24.050: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the proposed
subdivision tentative plan satisfies the approval criteria.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.050: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.060 Through Lots
Through lots shall be avoided except where essential to reduce access to primary or secondary arterial
streets or streets of equivalent traffic volume, reduce access to adjacent nonresidential activities, or to
overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. A planting screen easement of at least
ten feet may be required along the line of lots abutting such adjacent street. There shall be no right of
access across such planting screen easements.
Finding CPMC 16.24.060: As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), the proposed development does
not include through lots.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.060: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.070 Lot Side Lines
The side lines of lots shall run at right angles to the street upon which the lots face, as far as
practicable, or on curbed streets they shall be radial to the curve.
Finding CPMC 16.24.070: As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), the sides of the lots are at right
angles to the proposed streets.
Conclusion 16.24.070: Consistent.
CPMC 16.24.080 Large Lot Subdivision
In subdividing tracts into large lots which at some future time are likely to be resubdivided, the
location of lot lines and other details of the layout shall be such that the resubdivisions may readily
take place without violating the requirements of these regulations and without interfering with the
Page 516 of 533
Page 22 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
orderly development of streets or other utilities. Restrictions of building locations in relationship to
future rights-of-way shall be made a matter of record if the city considers it necessary.
Finding CPMC 16.24.080: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the
proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfies the lot dimension criteria and does not include large lots
to be resubdivided at a later time.
Conclusion CPMC 16.24.080: Not applicable.
PART 3
ZONING ORDINANCE
The purpose of Title 17 of the CPMC is to encourage the most appropriate use of land, promote orderly
growth of the city, and promote public health, safety, convenience and general welfare. The sections of
CPMC 17 applicable to the application are:
Chapter 17.05, Applications and Types of Review Procedures
This Chapter establishes standard decision-making procedures that enable the city, the applicant, and the
public to review applications and participate in the local decision making process. There are four (4)
types of review procedures, Type I, II, II, and IV that are applied to land use and development
applications in Table 17.05.100.1. It also establishes when a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is required.
Finding CPMC 17.05: As identified in Table I, Section 17.05.100.1 a subdivision tentative plan is
reviewed using Type III procedures. As evidenced by the mailed and posted notice documents in Exhibit
“A”, the application has been noticed and processed in accordance with the Type III review procedures
per Section 17.05.400.
Per Section 17.05.900, a TIA for residential development is required when Average Daily Trips (ADT)
exceed 250. The proposed Sunnybrook Village is estimated to generate 372 ADT for the 33 single-family
dwellings (315 ADT) and 9 multi-family dwellings (57 ADT). The TIA for Sunnybrook Village, prepared
November 13, 2023, evaluates the impacts of the development the following intersections: 1). Hamrick
Road/Beebe Road, 2). Hamrick Road/Sunnybrook access road, and 3). Hamrick Road/Biddle Road. Per
the TIA, Sunnybrook Village does not create impacts to the local street network and additional mitigation
is not recommended at this time.
Conclusion CPMC 17.05: Consistent.
Chapter 17.65 – TOD Districts and Corridors
The purpose of the Central Point transit oriented development (TOD) district is to promote efficient and
sustainable land development and the increased use of transit as required by the Oregon Transportation
Planning Rule.
Finding CPMC 17.65: The proposed tentative plan has been reviewed in accordance with the
applicable zoning regulations provided in Chapter 17.65.
Page 517 of 533
Page 23 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Table 1. Applicable Zoning Regulations
Standard LMR-TOD Proposed Tentative Plan
Minimum Density 6 units/ acre
Maximum Density 12 units/acre 8.1 units/acre
Minimum Lot Area
Attached Row House 2,000 square feet 3,088 square feet
Std Single Family 3,000 square feet 4,131 square feet
Average Lot Area
Attached Row House 2,500 square feet 3,469 square feet
Std Single Family 4,500 square feet 4,561 square feet
Minimum Lot Width
Attached Row House 24-feet 32.7-feet
Std Single Family 50-feet 54-feet
Minimum Lot Depth 50-feet 65-feet
As shown in Table 1, above, the tentative plan proposes 42 residential units on 7.57 gross acres. Per
CPMC 17.65.070(D),Table 2, net density is the gross acreage minus any right-of-way, environmental
or civic land. Based on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), right-of-way accounts for 2.38 acres resulting
in 5.19 acres (net) for the density calculation in this section. Based on the minimum/maximum density
requirement for the LMR zone, this requires 31-62 dwelling units on the site. The applicant proposes
42 units, which is within the minimum/maximum range for density in the LMR zone (Table 1).
Conclusion CPMC 17.65: Consistent.
Chapter 17.66 – Application Review Process for the TOD District and Corridor
This chapter describes the review procedures to be followed for development proposed within the
TOD district and corridor which are identified on the official city zoning map.
CPMC 17.66.030, Application and Review
A. There are four types of applications which are subject to review within the Central Point TOD
district and corridor.
1. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. Master
plans shall be required for:
a.Development or land division applications which involve two or more acres of
land; or
b.Modifications to a valid master plan approval which involve one or more of the
following;
i. An increase in dwelling unit density which exceeds fiver percent of
approved density;
Page 518 of 533
Page 24 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
ii. An increase in commercial gross floor area of ten percent or two
thousand square feet, whichever is greater;
iii. A change in the type and location of streets, accessways, and parking
areas where off-site traffic would be affected; or
iv. A modification of a condition imposed as part of the master plan
approval.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A)(1): The current application is for a 36-lot/42-unit subdivision
on a property of approximately 7.57 acres, with approximately 5.19 acres of net residential
area. An application for a master plan (File No. MP-23002) was submitted separately and
concurrently with the application for the Sunnybrook Village Tentative Plan.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A)(1): Not applicable.
2. Site Plan and Architectural Review. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site Plan and
Architectural Review, shall apply to permitted uses and limited uses within the TOD
district and corridor. For site plan and architectural review applications involving two
or more acres of land, a master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be
approved prior to, or concurrently with, a site plan and architectural review application.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A)(2): The current application is for a subdivision tentative plan
and does not include a Site Plan and Architectural Review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A)(2): Not applicable.
3. Land Division. Partitions and subdivisions shall be reviewed as provided in Title 16,
Subdivisions. For a land division application involving two or more acres of land, a
master plan approval, as provided in this chapter, shall be approved prior to, or
concurrently with, a land division application.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A)(3): The subject property is approximately 7.57 acres with
approximately 2.38 acres net residential area. As evidenced by the findings and conclusions
set forth herein, the proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfies the approval criteria for
Title 16, Subdivisions. The application for subdivision tentative plan was submitted
concurrently with an application for a master plan (See File No. MP-23002), which is under
separate review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A)(3): Consistent.
4. Conditional Use. Conditional uses shall be reviewed as provided in Chapter 17.76,
Conditional Use Permits.
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(A)(4): The current application is a 36-lot/42-unit subdivision and
does not include a Conditional Use.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(A): Not applicable.
Page 519 of 533
Page 25 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
B. Submittal Requirements. A master plan shall include the following elements:
1. Introduction. A written narrative describing:
a.Duration of the master plan;
b.Site location map;
c.Land use and minimum and maximum residential densities proposed;
d.Identification of other approved master plans within the project area (one
hundred feet).
2. Site Analysis Map. A map and written narrative of the project area addressing site
amenities and challenges on the project site and adjacent lands within one hundred feet of
the project site.
a.Master Utility Plan. A plan and narrative addressing existing and proposed utilities
and utility extensions for water, sanitary sewer, storm water, gas, electricity, and
agricultural irrigation.
b. Adjacent Land Use Plan. A map identifying adjacent land uses and structures
within one hundred feet of the project perimeter and remedies for preservation of
livability of adjacent land uses.
3. Transportation and Circulation Plan. A transportation impact analysis (TIA) identifying
planned transportation facilities, services and networks to be provided concurrently with
the development of the master plan and addressing Section 17.67.040, Circulation and
access standards.
4. Site Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67.050, Site design standards.
5. Recreation and Open Space Plan. A plan and narrative addressing Section 17.67.060,
Public parks and open space design standards.
6. Building Design Plan. A written narrative and illustrations addressing Section 17.67.070,
Building design standards.
7. Transit Plan. A plan identifying proposed, or future, transit facilities (if any).
8. Environmental Plan. A plan identifying environmental conditions such as wetlands, flood
hazard areas, groundwater conditions, and hazardous sites on and adjacent to the project
site.
9. Applications shall be submitted as required in Chapter 17.05.
Page 520 of 533
Page 26 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Finding CPMC 17.66.030(B): The current application is a subdivision tentative plan and the
master plan application is under separate review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.030(B): Not applicable.
CPMC 17.66.040 Parks and Open Space
Common park and open space shall be provided for all residential development within a TOD district or
corridor as per Section 17.67.060.
Finding CPMC 17.66.040: As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), common park and open space is
included as part of the proposal.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.040: Consistent.
CPMC 17.66.050 Application Approval Criteria
A. TOD District or Corridor Master Plan. A master plan shall be approved when the approval
authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
1. Sections 17.65.040 and 17.65.050, relating to the TOD district;
2. Sections 17.65.060 and 17.65.070, relating to the TOD corridor;
3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor;
4. Chapter 17.60, General Regulations, unless superseded by Sections 17.65.040 through
17.65.070;
5. Section 17.65.050, Table 3, TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards, and Chapter 17.64,
Off-Street Parking and Loading;
6. Chapter 17.70, Historic Preservation Overlay Zone; and
7. Chapter 17.76, Conditional Use Permits, for any conditional uses proposed as part of the
master plan.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(A): The current application is for a subdivision tentative plan and the
application for master plan (MP-23002) is under separate review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(A): Not applicable.
B. Site Plan and Architectural Review. A site plan and architectural review application shall be
approved when the approval authority finds that the following criteria are satisfied or can be
shown to be inapplicable:
1. The provisions of Chapter 17.72, Site Plan and Architectural Review, shall be satisfied; and
2. The proposed improvements comply with the approved TOD district or corridor master
plan for the property, if required; and
Page 521 of 533
Page 27 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(B): The application is for a subdivision tentative plan and does not
include a Site Plan and Architectural Review.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(B): Not applicable.
C. Land Division. A land division application shall be approved when the approval authority finds
that the following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
1. The provisions of Title 16, Subdivisions; and
2. The proposed land division complies with the approved TOD district or corridor master
plan for the property, if required; and
3. Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor.
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(C): As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the
proposed subdivision tentative plan satisfies the approval criteria.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050(C): Consistent.
D. Conditional Use.
1. A conditional use application shall be approved when the approval authority finds that the
following criteria are satisfied or can be shown to be inapplicable:
a.The provisions of Chapter 17.76, Conditional Use Permits; and
b.The proposed conditional use complies with the approved TOD district or corridor
master plan for the property, if required; and
c.Chapter 17.67, Design Standards--TOD District and TOD Corridor.
2. A conditional use application shall not be required for a conditional use which was
approved as part of a valid master plan approval as provided in subsection (A) of this
section
Finding CPMC 17.66.050(D): The current application is a 36-lot/42-unit subdivision and does
not include a Conditional Use.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.050: Not applicable.
CPMC 17.66.060 Conditions of approval
The approval authority may apply reasonable conditions of approval to ensure that the applicable
standards of this code are satisfied.
Finding CPMC 17.66.060: As evidenced by the findings and conclusions set forth herein, reasonable
conditions apply to ensure the standards of this code are satisfied.
Page 522 of 533
Page 28 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.060: Consistent.
CPMC 17.66.070 Approval expiration
A.Application approvals granted according to the provisions of this chapter shall expire and become
void one year from the date on which they were issued unless:
1.An application for extension is filed and approved subject to the requirements of Chapter
17.05; or
2. Building permits for the development have been issued and construction diligently
pursued to initiate construction.
B.If the time limit for development expired and no extension has been granted, the application shall
be void
Finding CPMC 17.66.070: The application for subdivision tentative plan is reviewed as a Type
III application. Type III applications are reviewed in accordance with procedures provided in
Section 17.05.400, including approval expiration and extension requests.
Conclusion CPMC 17.66.070: Consistent.
Chapter 17.67, Design Standards – TOD District and TOD Corridor
CPMC 17.67.040 Circulation and access standards
A. Public Street Standards.
1. Except for specific transportation facilities identified in a TOD district or corridor master
plan, the street dimensional standards set forth in the City of Central Point Department of
Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works
Construction, Section 300, Street Construction shall apply for all development located
within the TOD district and for development within the TOD corridor which is approved
according to the provisions in Section 17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66.
Finding 17.67.040(A)(1): The application states the proposed roadways will be designed to
comply with the City’s codes including the Public Works Design Specifications for street
construction. This is supported by the Tentative Plan (Figure 5) and the Public Works Staff
Report dated August 21, 2024.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(1): Consistent.
2. Block perimeters shall not exceed two thousand feet measured along the public street right-
of-way.
Finding 17.67.040(A)(2): The properties to the north, south and west currently are
undeveloped. Figure 4 illustrates how the proposed streets may connect to future development
on adjacent properties and extend to an existing development, Willow Bend, on the west side
Page 523 of 533
Page 29 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
of the ETOD. Once development is completed to the west, block perimeter length measured
along the public street right-of-way when development is approximately 1,900-feet.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(2): Consistent.
3. Block lengths for public streets shall not exceed six hundred feet between through streets,
measured along street right-of-way.
Finding CPMC 17.67.040(A)(3): The properties to the north, south and west currently are
undeveloped. Figure 4 illustrates how the proposed streets may connect to future development
on adjacent properties and extend to an existing development, Willow Bend, on the west side
of the ETOD. Once development is completed to the west, block length along the north street
(Denson Street) measured along the public street right-of-way when development is
approximately 597-feet.
Conclusion CPC 17.67.040(A)(3): Consistent.
4. Public alleys or major off-street bike/pedestrian pathways, designed as provided in this
chapter, may be used to meet the block length or perimeter standards of this section.
Finding CPMC 17.67.040(A)(4): As shown on the Tentative Plan (Figure 5), alleys are
proposed mid-block within the interior subdivision. As evidenced in findings and conclusions
of this section, the proposed subdivision complies with block perimeter and block length
standards.
Conclusion CPMC 17.67.040(A)(4): Consistent.
5. The standards for block perimeters and lengths shall be modified to the minimum extent
necessary based on findings that strict compliance with the standards is not reasonably
practicable or appropriate due to:
a. Topographic constraints;
b.Existing development patterns on abutting property which preclude the logical
connection of streets or accessways;
c.Railroads;
d.Traffic safety concerns;
e.Functional and operational needs to create a large building; or
f.Protection of significant natural resources.
Finding CPMC 17.67.040(A)(5): As demonstrated in Finding 17.67.040(A)(2) and (4), the
proposal is consistent with the block perimeter and length requirement; therefore, modification of
the standard is not necessary.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(5): Not applicable.
Page 524 of 533
Page 30 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
6. All utility lines shall be underground but utility vault access lids may be located in the
sidewalk area.
7. Connections shall be provided between new streets in a TOD district or corridor and
existing local and minor collector streets.
8. Pedestrian/Bike Accessways Within Public Street Right-of-Way.
a.Except for specific accessway facilities identified in a TOD district or corridor
master plan, the following accessway dimensional standards set forth in the City of
Central Point Department of Public Works Standard Specifications and Uniform
Standard Details for Public Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction
shall apply for any development located within the TOD district and for
development within the TOD corridor which is approved according to the
provisions in Section17.65.020 and Chapter 17.66.
b.In transit station areas, one or more pedestrian-scaled amenities shall be required
with every one hundred square feet of the sidewalk area, including but not limited
to:
i. Street furniture;
ii. Plantings;
iii. Distinctive Paving;
iv. Drinking fountains; and
v. Sculpture.
c.Sidewalks adjacent to undeveloped parcels may be temporary.
d.Public street, driveway, loading area, and surface parking lot crossings shall be
clearly marked with textured accent paving or painted stripes.
e.The different zones of a sidewalk should be articulated using special paving or
concrete scoring.
Finding 17.67.040(A)(6-8): The application states the proposed completion of public streets will
be designed to comply with the City’s codes including the Public Works Design Specifications for
street construction. This is supported by the Tentative Plan (Figure 5) and the Public Works Staff
Report dated August 21, 2024. As a condition of approval, sidewalks and landscape rows must be
installed along Hamrick Road and all internal subdivision streets.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(6-8): Complies as conditioned.
9. Public Off-Street Accessways.
a.Pedestrian accessways and greenways should be provided as needed to supplement
pedestrian routes along public streets.
Page 525 of 533
Page 31 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
b.Off-street pedestrian accessways shall incorporate all of the following design
criteria:
i. The applicable standards in the City of Central Point Department of Public
Works Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public
Works Construction, Section 300, Street Construction;
ii. Minimum ten-foot vertical clearance;
iii. Minimum twenty-foot horizontal barrier clearance for pathway;
iv. Asphalt, concrete, gravel, or wood chip surface as approved by the city,
with a compacted subgrade;
v. Nonskid boardwalks if wetland construction is necessary; and
vi. Minimum one hundred square feet of trailhead area at intersections with
other pedestrian improvements. A trail map sign shall be provided at this
location.
c. Minor off-street trails shall be a minimum of five feet wide, have a minimum
vertical clearance of eight feet, a minimum two-foot horizontal clearance from edge
of pathway and be constructed of gravel or wood chips, with a compacted
subgrade.
Finding 17.67.040(A)(9): As shown on the tentative plan (Figure 5), the proposed development
does not include pedestrian accessways or greenways.
Conclusion 17.67.040(A)(9): Not applicable.
B. Parking Lot Driveways.
1. Parking lot driveways that link public streets and/or private streets with parking stalls shall
be designed as private streets, unless one of the following is met:
a.The parking lot driveway is less than one hundred feet long;
b.The parking lot driveway serves one or two residential units; or
c.The parking lot driveway provides direct access to angled parking stalls.
2. The number and width of driveways and curb cuts should be minimized and consolidated
when possible.
3. Where possible, parking lots for new development shall be designed to provide vehicular
and pedestrian connections to adjacent sites.
4. Large driveways should use distinctive paving patterns.
Page 526 of 533
Page 32 of 32 Findings & Conclusions of Law File No.: SUB-23001
Finding 17.67.040(B): As shown in Figures 1 and 5, surface parking areas are not proposed as
part of the subdivision development. Driveways and on-site parking will be provided for the
individual residential lots.
Conclusion 17.67.040(B): Not applicable.
C. On-Site Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Attractive access routes for pedestrian travel should
be provided by:
1. Reducing distances between destinations or activity areas such as public sidewalks and
building entrances. Where appropriate, develop pedestrian routes through sites and
buildings to supplement the public right-of-way;
2. Providing an attractive, convenient pedestrian accessway to building entrances;
3. Bridging across barriers and obstacles such as fragmented pathway systems, wide streets,
heavy vehicular traffic, and changes in level by connecting pedestrian pathways with
clearly marked crossings and inviting sidewalk design;
4. Integrating signage and lighting system which offers interest and safety for pedestrians;
5. Connecting parking areas and destinations with pedestrian paths identified through use of
distinctive paving materials, pavement striping, grade separations, or landscaping.
Finding 17.67.040(C): As shown in Figures 1 and 5, on-site pedestrian circulation will be
provided by completion of sidewalks along Hamrick Road and the internal public streets.
Conclusion 17.67.040(C): Consistent.
.
PART 4
SUNNYBROOK VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
The Sunnybrook Village Master Plan provides the framework for site development and includes a
network of public streets internal to the site (See File No. MP-23002).
Finding: The tentative plan (Figure 5) would result in creation of 36 lots, with 42 residential units,
consistent with the Master Plan.
Conclusion: Consistent.
PART 5
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
As evidenced in Planning Department Supplemental Findings, the proposed tentative plan application for
the Sunnybrook Village Subdivision is, as conditioned in the Staff Report dated September 3, 2024, in
compliance with the applicable criteria set forth in Title 16 and Title 17 of the Central Point Municipal
Code.
Page 527 of 533
140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384
PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT
August 21, 2024
AGENDA ITEM: Sunnybrook Village (MP-23002 and SUB-23001)
A proposed 42-unit subdivision along the Hamrick Road frontage. The 7.57-acre site (37S 2W 01BC, Tax Lot
9800) is located within the Low Mixed Residential (LMR) zone and is within the Eastside Transit Oriented
Development (ETOD) overlay.
Agent: Jack Galpin
Traffic:
Southern Oregon Transportation Engineering, LLC prepared a traffic impact analysis for the proposed
subdivision (Sunnybrook Village) within the ETOD overlay at 4630 Hamrick Road. The TIA estimated 372
average daily trips (ADT) from the site at complete build-out. Access is proposed on Hamrick Road via a
proposed new Residential Street (Hartgrave Way).
The proposed connection of Hartgrave Way with Hamrick Road is 691-feet, from the intersection at Beebe
Road. A minimum of 500-feet is required and the intersection distance complies with Table 300-4 of section
300 of the PW standards for new intersection spacing requirements onto an Arterial street. The distance to the
elevated curve just north of the project site along Hamrick Road is approximately 616-feet and provides
adequate sight distance.
The findings of the TIA conclude that the proposed 36-lot/42-unit Sunnybrook Village Master Plan
Development and resulting traffic will not cause adverse effects on the local transportation system.
Existing Infrastructure:
Water: There is an existing 16-inch water line in Hamrick Road
Streets: Hamrick is an improved minor arterial Street.
Stormwater: There is an existing Storm Drain ditch that conveys stormwater along the north border of the
site, flowing east to west.
Background:
The Applicant proposes a 42-unit, single-family residential development along the Hamrick Road Frontage.
Issues:
Existing stormwater conveyance is via an open ditch on the north side of the development, flowing to the
west, eventually tying into City stormwater facilities approximately 1150 feet to the west. Onsite stormwater
runoff shall be treated onsite before it enters the existing ditch as part of phase 1 of the subdivision. The City
has plans to convert the open stormwater ditch to piped.
Conditions of Approval:
Prior to the building permit issuance and the start of construction activities on the site, the following
conditions shall be satisfied:
Public Works Department Gregory Graves, Const. Serv. Supervisor
Page 528 of 533
1. Civil Improvement Plan Review – The Applicant shall submit and receive approval for Civil
Improvement Plans demonstrating compliance with Public Works Department Standard Specifications
for public works construction that includes, but is not limited to, the proposed streets, utilities, and the
protection of public infrastructure.
a. Public Street Construction - Applicant shall demonstrate compliance with City Street Standards
for construction of the proposed public streets, including but not limited to access, sidewalks,
landscape rows and street trees, and street lighting.
i. North Street–Applicant is proposing a half-street on the most northern street. The
pavement width must be a minimum of 20 feet, and on-street parking is not permitted
until full development of the street occurs.
ii. Landscape and Irrigation Plans – Landscaping and irrigation plans are required as part
of civil improvement plans for landscape proposed in the public right-of-way. The
Public Works Department must review and approve plans for public landscape areas.
b. Stormwater Management – The Applicant shall submit and receive approval for a stormwater
management plan demonstrating compliance with the MS4 Phase II stormwater quality
standards
2. Erosion and Sediment Control – The proposed development will disturb more than 5 acres and requires
an erosion and sediment control permit (NPDES 1200-C) from the Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ). The Applicant shall obtain a 1200-C permit from DEQ and provide a copy to the
Public Works Department.
3. Shallow Well Report – The City concurs with the findings and recommendations of the Apex Well
Report. Civil improvement plans must incorporate necessary mitigation actions required for the
installation of underground utilities.
Prior to the final inspection and certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall comply with the following
conditions of approval:
1. PW Standards and Specifications – Applicant shall demonstrate that all Public Works infrastructure
construction is in compliance with the Standards Specifications and Uniform Details for Construction.
2. Stormwater Quality Operations & Maintenance – The Applicant shall record and submit to the Public
Works Department an Operations and Maintenance Manual and Declaration of Covenants for
Operation and Maintenance of the Stormwater Quality Features as required by the Rogue Valley
Stormwater Quality Manual
3. Public Works As-Builts – Provide an accurate and stamped set of as-built drawings.
Page 529 of 533
Inspection Report
CONSULTATION - Land Development/Pre-Construction
Inspection Result
Inspection Status Inspected by Completed at
Completed Mark Northrop 08/13/2024
Address Suite City State Zip
4630 HAMRICK RD --CENTRAL POINT OR 97502
Business Name Building Type
Sunnybrook One Story
Pass/Fail:
Pass
ITEM: Pass/Fail
REMARK:
Comments for Sunnybrook Village
1.Hydrants will need to be added to this development to meet the requirements of the OFC
Appendix C. Depending upon building size and street length from 3 to 6 hydrants may be
required. Please contact FD3 to establish specific locations
2. The right of ways for the streets at 52 feet wide ROW shall be mark with Fire Lane no Parking
on one side. OFC Appendix D103.6
3.The alleys being only 20 foot wide will be designated as required fire department access and
shall be signed a Fire Lane No Parking on both sides. OFC Appendix D103.6
4. Based upon the three phase development plan no temporary turn around will be required.
5.If the development has townhomes that are taller than 30 at the highest level of roof access,
aerial apparatus access may be required. OFC Appendix D105.1
6. Developments where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provide with two
separate and approved access roads. There are two exceptions to this requirement. First is if the
1 / 2
Inspection #JDF-2024-0001061
Page 530 of 533
buildings are installed with an approved sprinkler system or if the there WILL be future
development as determined by the fire code official. Currently no future development is planned
and therefore the buildings will need to meet exception 1 and have sprinklers installed.
Inspection Signatures
Inspector Signature
__________________________
Mark Northrop
--
--
541-831-2749
MarkN@jcfd3.com
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
2 / 2
Inspection #JDF-2024-0001061
Page 531 of 533
February 20, 2024
City of Central Point Planning Department
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon 97502
Re: SUB‐23001, MP‐23002, Sunnybrook Village, 37S 2W 01BC, Tax Lot 9800
There is an existing 8 inch sewer main just north of the property on the adjacent tax lot. Sewer service
for the proposed development may be had by a sewer main extension from the existing main into the
proposed development.
Rogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of this development be subject to the following
conditions:
1. Construction drawings must be submitted to RVSS for review and approval prior to construction.
Feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Nicholas R. Bakke, PE
District Engineer
Page 532 of 533
Planning Commission Resolution No. 921 (09/03/2024)
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 921
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING
A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION FOR AN 36 LOT SUBDIVISION
TO BE KNOWN AS SUNNYBROOK VILLAGE
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(File No: SUB-23001)
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a tentative plan application to create an 36-lot
subdivision consisting of residential property identified on the Jackson County Assessor’s map
as 37S 2W 01BC, Tax Lot 9800, Central Point, Oregon; and
WHEREAS, the project site is located in the Low Mix Residential (LMR) zoning district within the
Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Overlay; and
WHEREAS, the application has been found to be consistent with the applicable approval criteria
set forth in Title 16, Subdivisions and Title 17, Zoning as conditioned per the Staff Report dated
September 3, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on September 3, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point
Planning Commission considered the Applicant’s request for Tentative Plan approval for
Sunnybrook Village subdivision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
Section 1: The City of Central Point Planning Commission hereby approves the Tentative Plan
application for Sunnybrook Village subdivision File No. SUB-23001 subject to the conditions in
the Staff Report dated September 3, 2024 (Exhibit 1).
Section 2: This decision is based upon the Planning Department Staff Report dated September
3, 2024, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, including all attachments thereto.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
3rd day of September, 2024.
__________________________________
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Representative
Page 533 of 533