85 Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepsen, and S. H. Black. 2008. Status review of three formerly common species of bumble bee in the subgenus/Bombus. The Xerces Society.
Evison, S. E. F., K. E. Roberts, L. Laurenson, S. Pietravalle, J. Hui, J. C. Biesmeijer, J. E. Smith, G. Budge, and W. O. H. Hughes. 2012. Pervasiveness of Parasites in Pollinators. PLoS ONE 7:e30641.
Fauser, A., C. Sandrock, P. Neumann, and B. M. Sadd. 2017. Neonicotinoids override a parasite exposure impact on hibernation success of a key bumblebee pollinator. Ecological Entomology 42(3): 306-314.
Fauser‐Misslin, A., B. M. Sadd, P. Neumann, and C. Sandrock. 2014. Influence of combined pesticide and parasite exposure on bumblebee colony traits in the laboratory. Journal of Applied Ecology 51(2): 450-459.
Field, C. B., D. B. Lobell, H. A. Peters, and N. R. Chiariello. 2007. Feedbacks of Terrestrial Ecosystems to Climate Change*. Annual review of environment and resources 32:1–29.
Available from:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.32.053006.141119 [Accessed 20 February 2018].
Fischer, D. and T. Moriarty (Eds). 2011. Pesticide risk assessment for pollinators: Summary of a SETAC Pellston workshop. 15-21 January 2011, Pensacola, Florida, USA.
Fitzpatrick, Ã., T. E. Murray, R. J. Paxton, and M. J. F. Brown. 2007. Building on IUCN Regional Red Lists to Produce Lists of Species of Conservation Priority: a Model with Irish Bees. Conservation Biology 21: 1324–1332.
Flanders, R. V., W. F. Wehling, and A. L. Craghead. 2003. Laws and regulations on the import, movement and release of bees in the United States. pp. 99-111. In K. Strickler and J. H. Cane (eds.) For Nonnative Crops, Whence Pollinators of the Future? Thomas Say Publications in Entomology: Proceedings. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD.
Forrest, J., Inouye, D. W., Thomson, J. D. 2010. Flowering phenology in subalpine meadows:
Does climate variation influence community co-flowering patterns? Ecology 91:431–440.
Frankham, R., J. D. Ballou, and D. A. Briscoe. 2010. Introduction to Conservation Genetics Second Edition, Cambridge University Press, 618 pages.
86 Frankie, G. W., R. W. Thorp, M. Schindler, J. Hernandez, B. Ertter, and M. Rizzardi. 2005.
Ecological patterns of bees and their host ornamental flowers in two northern California cities.
Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 78: 227-246.
Franklin, H. J. 1913. The Bombidae of the New World. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 38: 177-486.
Freese, B. and Crouch, M. 2015. Monarchs in peril: Herbicide resistant crops and the decline of monarch butterflies in North America. Center for Food Safety. 88 pp.
Frison, T. H. 1921. New distribution records for North American Bremidae, with the description of a new species (Hym.) Entomological News 32: 144-148.
Frison, T. H. 1923. Systematic and biological notes on bumblebees (Bremidae; Hymenoptera).
Transactions of the American Entomological Society 48: 307-326.
Frison, T. H. 1926. Descriptions and records of North American Bremidae together with notes on the synonymy of certain species (Hymenoptera). Transactions of the American Entomological Society 52: 129-145.
Fürst, M. A., D. P. McMahon, J. L. Osborne, R. J. Paxton, and M. J. F. Brown. 2014. Disease associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature 506:364– 366. Available from: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7488/abs/nature12977.html [Accessed 20 February 2018].
Fussell, M., and S. A. Corbet. 1992. Flower usage by bumble-bees: a basis for forage plant management. Journal of Applied Ecology 29:451-465.
Gegner, L. 2003. Beekeeping/Apiculture. ATTRA. Available from https://attra.ncat.org/attrapub/summaries/summary.php?pub=76. [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Geldmann, J. and González-Varo, J. P. 2018. Conserving honey bees does not help wildlife.
Science 359:392–393.
Genersch, E., C. Yue, I. Fries, and J. R. de Miranda. 2006. Detection of deformed wing virus, a honey bee viral pathogen, in bumble bees (Bombus terrestris and Bombus pascuorum) with wing deformities. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 91:61–63.
87 Getz, W. M., S. Fortmann-Roe, P. C. Cross, A. J. Lyons, S. J. Ryan, and C. C. Wilmers. 2007.
LoCoH: nonparameteric kernel methods for constructing home ranges and utilization distributions. PloS one 2:e207.
Gibson, C., V. Brown, L. Losito, and G. McGavin. 1992. The response of invertebrate assemblies to grazing. Ecography 15: 166-176.
Gill, R. J. and N. E. Raine. 2014. Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behaviour induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Functional ecology 28:1459–1471. Available from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12292/epdf. [Accessed 28 February 2018].
Gill, R. J., O. Ramos-Rodriguez, and N. E. Raine. 2012. Combined pesticide exposure severely affects individual- and colony-level traits in bees. Nature 491(7422): 105-108.
Gillespie, S. 2010. Factors affecting parasite prevalence among wild bumblebees. Ecological entomology 35:737–747.
Ginsberg, H. S. 1983. Foraging ecology of bees in an old field. Ecology:165–175.
Goka, K. 2010. Introduction to the Special Feature for Ecological Risk Assessment of Introduced Bumblebees: Status of the European bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, in Japan as a beneficial pollinator and an invasive alien species. Applied Entomology and Zoology 45:1–6.
Goka, K., Okabe, K., Niwa, S., Yoneda, M. 2000. Parasitic mite infestation in introduced colonies of European bumblebees, Bombus terrestris. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 44(1):47-50.
Goka, K., Okabe, K., Yoneda, M. 2006. Worldwide migration of parasitic mites as a result of bumblebee commercialization. Population Ecology 48:285–291.
Gorbunov, P. S. 1987. Endoparasitic flagellates of the genus Crithidia (Trypanosomatidae, Zoomastigophorea) from alimentary canal of bumblebees. Zoologicheskii zhurnal.
Goulson, D. 2003. Conservation of bumblebees. In: Species Management: Challenges and Solutions for the 21st Century. ed. by J.M. Baxter and C.A. Galbraith. TSO Scotland, Edinburgh. pp. 477-492.
Goulson, D. 2010. Bumblebees: behaviour, ecology, and conservation. Oxford University Press,
88 New York. 317pp.
Goulson, D. 2015. Neonicotinoids impact bumblebee colony fitness in the field; a reanalysis of the UK’s Food & Environment Research Agency 2012 experiment. PeerJ 3:e854.
Goulson, D., and W. O. H. Hughes. 2015. Mitigating the anthropogenic spread of bee parasites to protect wild pollinators. Biological conservation 191:10–19.
Goulson, D., G. C. Lye, and B. Darvill. 2008. Decline and conservation of bumble bees. Annu.
Rev. Entomol. 53:191–208.
Goulson, D. and K. R. Sparrow. 2009. Evidence for competition between honeybees and bumblebees; effects on bumblebee worker size. Journal of Insect Conservation 13:177–181.
Goulson, D., J. C. Stout, and A. R. Kells. 2002. Do exotic bumblebees and honeybees compete with native flower-visiting insects in Tasmania? Journal of Insect Conservation 6: 179–189.
Gradish, A. E., C. D. Scott-Dupree, L. Shipp, C. R. Harris, and G. Ferguson. 2009. Effect of reduced risk pesticides for use in greenhouse vegetable production on Bombus impatiens (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Pest Management Science 66:142-146.
Graystock, P., E. J. Blane, Q. S. McFrederick, D. Goulson, and W. O. H. Hughes. 2015a. Do managed bees drive parasite spread and emergence in wild bees? International journal for parasitology. Parasites and Wildlife 5(1): 64-75.
Graystock, P., D. Goulson, and W. O. H. Hughes. 2015b. Parasites in bloom: flowers aid dispersal and transmission of pollinator parasites within and between bee species. Proc. R. Soc.
B 282:1-6. The Royal Society. Available from
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsb/282/1813/20151371.full.pdf. [Accessed 28 February 2018].
Graystock, P., D. Goulson, and W. O. H. Hughes. 2014. The relationship between managed bees and the prevalence of parasites in bumblebees. PeerJ 2:e522. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.522.
Graystock, P., K. Yates, B. Darvill, D. Goulson, and W. O. H. Hughes. 2013a. Emerging dangers: deadly effects of an emergent parasite in a new pollinator host. Journal of invertebrate pathology 114:114–119.
89 Graystock, P., K. Yates, S. E. F. Evison, B. Darvill, D. Goulson, and W. O. H. Hughes. 2013b.
The Trojan hives: pollinator pathogens, imported and distributed in bumblebee colonies. The Journal of applied ecology 50:1207–1215. Available from:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2664.12134/full [Accessed 6 August 2014].
Greene, J. W. 1858. Descriptions of several new hymenopterous insects from the North west coast of America. Annals of Lyceum of Natural History of New York 7: 11-12.
Greene, J. W. 1860. XXI. Review of the American Bombidae, together with a description of several species heretofore undescribed, being a synopsis of this family of Hymenopterous insects thus far known to inhabit North America. Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York 7: 168-176.
Grixti, J. C., L. T. Wong, S. A. Cameron, and C. Favret. 2009. Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biological conservation 142:75–84. Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320708003698 [Accessed 5 February 2014].
Hatfield, R, S. Colla, S. Jepsen, L. Richardson, R. Thorp, and S. Foltz Jordan. 2014. Draft IUCN Assessments for North American Bombus spp. for the North American IUCN Bumble Bee Specialist Group. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, www.xerces.org, Portland, OR.
Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, E. Mader, S. H. Black, and M. Shepherd. 2012. Conserving Bumble Bees: Guidelines for Creating and Managing Habitat for America’s Declining Pollinators. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available from:
http://www.xerces.org/bumblebees/guidelines.
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L. and Colla, S. 2015a. Bombus crotchii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:
e.T44937582A46440211. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-
2.RLTS.T44937582A46440211.en. Downloaded on 9 February 2018.
Hatfield, R., Jepsen, S., Thorp, R., Richardson, L., Colla, S. and Foltz Jordan, S. 2015b. Bombus occidentalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:
e.T44937492A46440201. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-
2.RLTS.T44937492A46440201.en. Downloaded on 9 February 2018.
Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, and S. Colla, 2015c. Bombus suckleyi. The
90 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015:
e.T44937699A46440241. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-
2.RLTS.T44937699A46440241.en. Downloaded on 9 February 2018.
Hatfield, R. G., S. Jepsen, M. Vaughan, S. Black, and E. Mader. 2016. An overview of the potential impacts of honey bees to native bees, plant communities, and ecosystems in wild landscapes: Recommendations for land managers. Available from: http://www.xerces.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/09/Xerces_policy_statement_HB_Final.pdf.
Hatfield, R. G., and G. LeBuhn. 2007. Patch and landscape factors shape community assemblage of bumble bees, Bombus spp.(Hymenoptera: Apidae), in montane meadows. Biological conservation 139:150–158.
Hatfield, R. G. Analysis the conservation status of Bombus occidentalis occidentalis. 2018a.
Unpublished data.
Hatfield, R. G. Analysis the conservation status of Bombus franklini. 2018b. Unpublished data.
Hatfield, R.G., S. Colla, S. Jepsen, L. Richardson, R. Thorp. 2018c. Red Listing North America’s Bumble Bees In Bumblebee Specialist Group Report 2017. Pp. 3-9.
Available from: https://bumblebeespecialistgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/BBSGAnnual-Report-2017.pdf Hayes, G. F. and K. D. Holl. 2003. Cattle Grazing Impacts on Annual Forbs and Vegetation Composition of Mesic Grasslands in California. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 17:1694–1702. Blackwell Science Inc. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2003.00281.x.
Highfield, A. C., A. El Nagar, L. C. Mackinder, M. L. N. Laure, M. J. Hall, S. J. Martin, and D.
C. Schroeder. 2009. Deformed wing virus implicated in overwintering honeybee colony losses. Applied and environmental microbiology 75(22): 7212-7220.
Highland, S. A., and J. A. Jones. 2014. Extinction debt in naturally contracting mountain meadows in the Pacific Northwest, USA: varying responses of plants and feeding guilds of nocturnal moths. Biodiversity and conservation 23:2529–2544. Springer Netherlands. Available from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-014-0737-z [Accessed 20 February 2018].
Hilburn, D. 2013. Lessons learned from the Wilsonville Bee Kill by Dan Hilburn, Oregon Department of Agriculture. In Oregon Invasive Species Blog. Available at:
91 http://oregoninvasivespecies.blogspot.com/2013/07/lessons-learned-from-wilsonville-bee.html [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Hines, H. M. and S. D. Hendrix. 2005. Bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) diversity and abundance in tallgrass prairie patches: effects of local and landscape floral resources.
Environmental entomology 34:1477–1484.
Hladik, M. L., M. Vandever, and K. L. Smalling. 2015. Exposure of native bees foraging in an agricultural landscape to current-use pesticides. The Science of the total environment 542:469– 477.
Hobbs, G. A. 1968. Ecology of species of Bombus (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in southern Alberta.
VII. Subgenus Bombus. Canadian Entomologist 100: 156-164.
Hoover, S. E. R., J. J. Ladley, A. A. Shchepetkina, M. Tisch, S. P. Gieseg and J. M. Tylianakis. 2012. Warming, CO2, and nitrogen deposition interactively affect a plant-pollinator mutualism.
Ecology Letters 15(3): 227-234.
Hopwood J., M. Vaughan, M. Shepherd, E. Lee-Mäder, and S.H. Black. 2016. How Neocicotinoids Can Kill Bees, the Science Behind the Role These Insecticides Play in Harming Bees. Tech. rep., The Xerces Society. Available from: http://www.xerces.org/neonicotinoidsand-bees/ [Accessed 20 February 2018].
Horskins, K. and V. B. Turner. 1999. Resource use and foraging patterns of honeybees, Apis mellifera, and native insects on flowers of Eucalyptus costata. Australian Journal of Ecololgy 24:
221–27.
Hudewenz, A., and A.-M. Klein. 2013. Competition between honey bees and wild bees and the role of nesting resources in a nature reserve. Journal of Insect Conservation 17:1275– 1283.
Hudewenz, A., and A.-M. Klein. 2015. Red mason bees cannot compete with honey bees for floral resources in a cage experiment. Ecology and Evolution 5(21): 5049-5056.
Huntzinger M. 2003. Effects of fire management practices on butterfly diversity in the forested western United States. Biological Conservation 113: 1-12.
Husband, R. W. and R. N. Shina. 1970. A review of the genus Locustacarus with a key to the genera of the family Podapolipidae (Acarina), Annals of the Entomological Society of America
92 63:1152–1162.
Incerti, F., L. Bortolotti, C. Porrini, A. Micciarelli Sbrenna, and G. Sbrenna. 2003. An extended laboratory test to evaluate the effects of pesticides on bumblebees, preliminary results. Bulletin of Insectology 56:159-164.
Inouye, D. W. 2008. Effects of climate change on phenology, frost damage, and floral abundance of montane wildflowers Ecology 89(2):353-362.
[IUCN] International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 2012. Red List categories and criteria: Version 3.1Second. IUCN Species Survival Commision, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Available from:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/categories_criteria_3_1#introduction [Accessed 20 February 2018].
[IUCN Red List] International Union for the Conservation of Nature. 2016. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available from http://www.iucnredlist.org/.
Jha, S. 2015. Contemporary human-altered landscapes and oceanic barriers reduce bumble bee gene flow. Molecular Ecology 24:993-1006.
Jha, S. and C. Kremen. 2013. Resource diversity and landscape-level homogeneity drive native bee foraging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:555–558.
Johansen, C. A. and D. F. Mayer. 1990. Pollinator protection: a bee & pesticide handbook.
Wicwas Press. Cheshire, Connecticut. 212 pp.
Johnson, M. D. and C. M. Horn. 2008. Effects of rotational grazing on rodents and raptors in a coastal grassland. Western North American Naturalist 68: 444-452.
Kadoya, E. Z. and H. S. Ishii. 2015. Host manipulation of bumble bee queens by Sphaerularia nematodes indirectly affects foraging of non-host workers. Ecology 96:1361–1370. Eco Soc America. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26236849.
Kearns, C.A. and D.W. Inouye. 1997. Pollinators, flowering plants, and conservation biology.
BioScience 47:297-307.
Kearns, C.A., D.W. Inouye, and N. Waser. 1998. Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant–pollinator interactions. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29:83-112.
93 Kerr, J.T., A. Pindar, P. Galpern, L. Packer, S. G. Potts, S.M., Roberts, P. Rasmont, O.
Schweiger, S. R. Colla, L.L. Richardson, and D. L. Wagner. 2015. Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents. Science 349(6244): 177-180.
Kevan, P.G. 1999. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: species, activity and diversity. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 74:373-393.
Kevan, P.G. 2008. Bombus franklini. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:
e.T135295A4070259. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T135295A4070259.en.
Accessed 9 February 2018.
Kirby, W. 1837. The Insects. In Richardson, J., Swainson, W., and Kirby, W. (eds.), Fauna Boreali-Americana, part 4. 325 pp. Josiah Fletcher, Norwich.
Kimoto C. 2010. Effect of livestock grazing on native bees in a Pacific Northwest bunchgrass prairie. MS Thesis, Oregon State University.
Kirilenko, A. and R. S. Hanley. 2007a. Predicting climate change impact on insect biodiversity:
comparison of scenarios. pp. 453-457 In Proceedings of the 32nd International Symposium on Remote Sensing of Environment, San Jose, Costa Rica (June 25-29, 2007).
Kirilenko, A. and R. S. Hanley. 2007b. Using multiple methods to predict climate change impacts on bumblebees in North America. pp. 42-47, In Proceedings of the International Conference on Environmental Modeling and Simulation.
Kissinger, C. N., S. A. Cameron, R. W. Thorp, B. White, and L. F. Solter. 2011. Survey of bumble bee (Bombus) pathogens and parasites in Illinois and selected areas of northern California and southern Oregon. Journal of invertebrate pathology 107:220–224.
Klein A., B. Vaissiere, J. Cane, I. Steffan-Dewenter, S. Cunningham, C. Kremen, et al. 2007.
Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 274:303-313.
Koppert Biological Systems. 2018. Natural Pollination. https://www.koppert.com/pollination/. [Accessed 19 March 2018].
Kosior, A., W. Celary, P. Olejniczak, J. Fijal, W. Krol, W. Solarz, and P. Plonka. 2007. The decline of the bumble bees and cuckoo bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombini) of Western and
94 Central Europe. Oryx 41:79.
Kremen, C., N. M. Williams, R. W. and Thorp. 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99(26):
16812-16816.
Kruess, A. and T. Tscharntke. 2002a. Contrasting responses of plant and insect diversity to variation in grazing intensity. Biological Conservation 106: 293-302.
Kruess, A, and T. Tscharntke. 2002b. Grazing intensity and the diversity of grasshoppers, butterflies, and trap-nesting bees and wasps. Conservation Biology 16: 1570-80.
Kudo, G., Y. Nishikawa, T. Kasagi, and S. Kosuge. 2004. Does seed production of spring ephemerals decrease when spring comes early? Ecological Research 19:255–259.
Kwong, W. K. and N. A. Moran. 2016. Gut microbial communities of social bees. Nature Reviews Microbiology 14(6): 374.
LaBerge, W. E. 1980. A revision of the bees of the genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere.
Part X. Subgenus Andrena. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 106: 395-525.
LaBerge, W. E. 1986. A revision of the bees of the genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere.
Part XI. Minor subgenera and subgeneric key. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 111: 441-567.
Lark, T. J., J. M. Salmon, and H. K. Gibbs. 2015. Cropland Expansion Outpaces Agricultural and Biofuel Policies in the United States. Environmental Research Letters 10: 1-11.
Larsson, J. I. 2007. Cytological variation and pathogenicity of the bumble bee parasite Nosema bombi (Microspora, Nosematidae). Journal of invertebrate pathology 94:1–11. Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002220110600156X [Accessed 6August 2014].
Laycock, I., K. M. Lenthall, A. T. Barratt, and J. E. Cresswell. 2012. Effects of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid pesticide, on reproduction in work bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) Ecotoxicology 21(7): 1937-1945.
Le Féon, V., A. Schermann-Legionnet, Y. Delettre, S. Aviron, R. Billeter, R. Bugter, F.
Hendrick, and F. Burel. 2010. Intensification of agriculture, landscape composition and wild bee
95 communities: A large scale study in four European countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 137: 143-150.
Lipa, J. J. and O. Triggiani. 1988. Crithidia bombi sp. n. a flagellated parasite of a bumble-bee Bombus terrestris L.(Hymenoptera, Apidae). Acta protozoologica 27:287–290.
Lozier, J. D., J. P. Strange, I. J. Stewart, and S. A. Cameron. 2011. Patterns of range-wide genetic variation in six North American bumble bee (Apidae: Bombus) species. Molecular Ecology. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365- 294X.2011.05314.x/full.
Macfarlane, R. P., K. D. Patten, L. A. Royce, B. K. W. Wyatt, and D. F. Mayer. 1994.
Management potential of sixteen North American bumble bee species. Melanderia 50: 1-12.
Macfarlane, R. P., J. J. Lipa, and H. J. Liu. 1995. Bumble bee pathogens and internal enemies.
Bee World 76(3): 130-148.
Mach, B. M., S. Bondarenko, and D. A. Potter. 2017. Uptake and dissipation of neonicotinoid residues in nectar and foliage of systemically treated woody landscape plants. Environmental Toxicology 37(3): 860-870.
Mäder, E., M. Shepherd, M. Vaughan, S. H. Black, and G. LeBuhn. 2011. Attracting Native Pollinators. Protecting North America's Bees and Butterflies. 384 pp. North Adams, MA: Storey Publishing.
Maharramov, J. et al. 2013. Genetic variability of the neogregarine Apicystis bombi, an etiological agent of an emergent bumblebee disease. PloS one 8:e81475. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081475. [Accessed 28 February 2018].
Mallick, S. A. and M. M. Driessen. 2009. Impacts of hive honeybees on Tasmanian leatherwood Eucryphia lucida Labill.(Eucryphiaceae). Austral Ecology 34:185–195.
Mallinger, R. E., Gaines-Day, H. R., Gratton, C. 2017. Do managed bees have negative effects on wild bees?: A systematic review of the literature. PloS one 12:e0189268.
Manley, R., M. Boots, and L. Wilfert. 2015. REVIEW: Emerging viral disease risk to pollinating insects: ecological, evolutionary and anthropogenic factors. The Journal of applied ecology 52:331–340.
96 Marletto, F., A. Patetta, and A. Manino. 2003. Laboratory assessment of pesticide toxicity to bumblebees. Bulletin of Insectology 56:155-158.
Maxfield-Taylor, S., K. M. Skyrm, and S. Rao. 2011. First record of Sphaerularia bombi (Nematoda: Tylenchida: Sphaerularidae), a parasite of bumble bee queens, in the Pacific Northwest. The Pan-Pacific entomologist 87:134–137.
McArt, S. H., C. Urbanowicz, S. McCoshum, R. E. Irwin, and L.S. Adler. 2017. Landscape predictors of pathogen prevalence and range contractions in US bumblebees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284(1867): 1-8.
McFrederick, Q. S. and G. LeBuhn. 2006. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biological Conservation 129:372-382.
McMahon, D. P., M. A. Fürst, J. Caspar, P. Theodorou, M. J. F. Brown, and R. J. Paxton. 2015.
A sting in the spit: widespread cross-infection of multiple RNA viruses across wild and managed bees. The Journal of Animal Ecology. 84(3): 615-624.
Meehan, T. D., B. P. Werling, D. A. Landis, and C. Gratton. 2011. Agricultural landscape simplification and insecticide use in the Midwestern United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:11500–11505. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1100751108.
Meeus, I., M. J. F. Brown, D. C. De Graaf, and G. U. Y. Smagghe. 2011. Effects of invasive parasites on bumble bee declines. Conservation biology: the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 25:662–671.
Memmott J., P. G. Craze, N. M. Waser, and M. V. Price. 2007. Global warming and the disruption of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecology Letters 10:710-717.
Memmott J., N. M. Waser, and M. V. Price. 2004. Tolerance of pollination networks to species extinctions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 271:2605-2611.
Miller-Struttmann, N. E., J. C. Geib, J. D. Franklin, P. G. Kevan, R. M. Holdo, D. Ebert-May, A.
M. Lynn, J. A. Kettenbach, E. Hedrick, and C. Galen. 2015. Functional mismatch in a bumble bee pollination mutualism under climate change. Science 349:1541–1544.
Milliron, H. E. 1971. A monograph of the Western Hemisphere bumblebees. I. The genera Bombus and Megabombus subgenus Bombias. Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada
97 82: 1-80.
Minckley, R. L., J. H. Cane, L. Kervin, and D. Yanega. 2003. Biological impediments to measures of competition among introduced honey bees and desert bees (Hymenoptera:
Apiformes). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society: 306–319.
Mommaerts, V., S. Reynders, J. Boulet, L. Besard, G. Sterk and G. Smagghe. 2010. Risk assessment for side-effects of neonicotinoids against bumblebees with and without impairing foraging behavior. Ecotoxicology 19:207-215.
Mommaerts, V. and G. Smagghe. 2011. Side-Effects of Pesticides on the Pollinator Bombus: An Overview. In: Stoytcheva, M. (ed), Pesticides of the Modern World. – Pests Control and Pesticides Exposure and Toxicity Assessment. InTech, Rijeka. 507-552 pp.
Morales, C. L., M. P. Arbetman, S. A. Cameron, and M. A. Aizen. 2013. Rapid ecological replacement of a native bumble bee by invasive species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(10): 529-534.
Morandin, L. A. and C. Kremen. 2013. Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields. Ecological Applications 23(4): 829-839.
Morandin, L. A., Laverty, T. M., Kevan, P. G., Khosla, S., Shipp, L. 2001. Bumble bee (Hymenoptera : Apidae) activity and loss in commercial tomato greenhouses. Canadian Entomology 133(6):883-93.
Morandin, L. A. and M. L. Winston. 2003. Effects of novel pesticides on bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colony health and foraging ability. Environmental Entomology 32(3):555-563.
Morandin, L. A. and M.L. Winston. 2005. Wild bee abundance and seed production in conventional, organic, and genetically modified canola. Ecological applications 15(3): 871-881.
Morkeski, A. and A. L. Averill. 2010. Managed pollinator CAP-coordinated agricultural project:
Wild bee status and evidence for pathogen ’spillover’ with honey bees. American Bee Journal 150(11): 1049-1052.
Morkeski, A. and A. Averill. 2012. Wild bee status and evidence for pathogen spillover with honey bees. CAP Updates: 12. Oregon State University Extension. Available online:
http://www.extension.org/pages/30998/wild-bee-status-and-evidence-for-pathogen-spilloverPage 608 of 1628 98 with-honey-bees. [Accessed 19 March 2018].
Morris, M. G. 1967. Differences between invertebrate faunas of grazed and ungrazed chalk grassland. I. Responses of some phytophagous insects to cessation of grazing. Journal of Applied Ecology 4: 459-474.
Mortensen, D. A., J. F. Egan, B. D. Maxwell, M. R. Ryan, and R. G. Smith. 2012. Navigating a critical juncture for sustainable weed management. BioScience 62(1): 75-84.
Motta, E. V. S., K. Raymann, and N. A. Moran. 2018. Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees. PNAS. 10.1073/pnas.1803880115.
Mullin, C. A., J. Chen, J. D. Fine, M. T. Frazier, and J. L. Frazier. 2015. The formulation makes the honey bee poison. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 120: 27-35.
Murray, T. E., M. F. Coffey, E. Kehoe, and F. G. Horgan. 2013. Pathogen prevalence in commercially reared bumble bees and evidence of spillover in conspecific populations.
Biological conservation 159:269–276.
National Research Council. 2007. Status of Pollinators in North America. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
NatureServe. 2017a. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. “Bombus crotchii”. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available from:
http://explorer.natureserve.org. [Accessed 13 February 2018].
NatureServe. 2017b. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. “Bombus franklini”. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available from:
http://explorer.natureserve.org. [Accessed 13 February 2018].
NatureServe. 2017c. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. “Bombus occidentalis occidentalis”. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available from: http://explorer.natureserve.org. [Accessed 13 February 2018].
NatureServe. 2017d. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
Version 7.1. “Bombus occidentalis”. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available from:
http://explorer.natureserve.org. [Accessed 13 February 2018].
NatureServe. 2017e. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application].
99 Version 7.1. “Bombus suckleyi”. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available from:
http://explorer.natureserve.org. [Accessed 13 February 2018].
Niwa, S., H. Iwano, S. Asada, M. Matsuurra, and K. Goka. 2004. A microsporidian pathogen isolated from a colony of the European bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, and infectivity on Japanese bumblebee. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology 48:60-64 (in Japanese with English abstract).
Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States: a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. US Department of the Interior, National Biological Service Washington, DC, USA. Available from:
http://noss.cos.ucf.edu/papers/Noss%20et%20al%201995.pdf.
Öckinger, E. and H. G. Smith. 2007. Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 50-59. [ODA] Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2015. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR 603-057- 0388). Available from: http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/pages/rules/oars_600/oar_603/603_tofc.html [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Ollerton J., R. Winfree, and S. Tarrant. 2011. How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals. Oikos 120:321-326. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x Osborne JL. 2012. Bumblebees and pesticides. Nature: News & Views. Nature 491: 43-45.
Osborne, J. L., A. P. Martin, C. R. Shortall, A. D. Todd, D. Goulson, M. E. Knight, R. J. Hale, and R. A. Sanderson. 2008. Quantifying and comparing bumble bee nest densities in gardens and countryside habitats. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:784-792.
Otterstatter, M. C., and J. D. Thomson. 2008. Does pathogen spillover from commercially reared bumble bees threaten wild pollinators? PloS one 3:e2771.
Otterstatter, M. C., and T. L. Whidden. 2004. Patterns of parasitism by tracheal mites (Locustacarus buchneri ) in natural bumble bee populations. Apidologie 35:351–357. Available from: http://www.edpsciences.org/10.1051/apido:2004024. [Accessed 28 February 2018].
Otterstatter, M. C., R. J. Gegear, S. R. Colla, and J. D. Thomson. 2005. Effects of parasitic mites and protozoa on the flower constancy and foraging rate of bumble bees. Behavioral ecology and sociobiology 58:383–389. Available from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00265-005-
100
0945-3 [Accessed 20 February 2018].
Otti, O., and P. Schmid-Hempel. 2007. Nosema bombi: A pollinator parasite with detrimental fitness effects. Journal of invertebrate pathology 96:118–124.
Otti, O. and P. Schmid-Hempel. 2008. A field experiment on the effect of Nosema bombi in colonies of the bumblebee Bombus terrestris. Ecological entomology 33:577–582.
Paini, D. R. and J. D. Roberts. 2005. Commercial honey bees (Apis mellifera) reduce the fecundity of an Australian native bee (Hylaeus alcyoneus). Biological conservation 123:103– 112.
Panzer, R. 2002. Compatibility of prescribed burning with the conservation of insects in small, isolated prairie reserves. Conservation Biology 16:1296–1307.
Parry, M. L., O. F. Canziani, J. P. Palutikof, P. J. van der Linden, and C. E. Hanson. 2007. IPCC, 2007: climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Paton, D. C. 1990. Budgets for the use of floral resources in mallee heath. In The Mallee Lands:
A Conservation Perspective, eds. J. C. Noble, P. J. Joss, G. K. Jones, Melbourne: CSIRO. 189– 93 pp.
Paton, D. C. 1993. Honeybees in the Australian environment. Bioscience 43:95–103.
Paton, D. C. 1996. Overview of feral and managed honeybees in Australia: distribution, abundance, extent of interactions with native biota, evidence of impacts and future research.
Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. 77 pp.
Paxton, R. J. 2010. Does infection by Nosema ceranae cause “Colony Collapse Disorder” in honey bees (Apis mellifera)? Journal of Apicultural Research 49:80–84.
Pisa, L. W. et al. 2014. Effects of neonicotinoids and fipronil on non-target invertebrates.
Environmental Science and Pollution Research International. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 22(1): 68-102.
Plath, O. E. 1922. Notes on the nesting habits of several North American bumblebees. Psyche 29(5-6):189-202.
101
Plath, O. E. 1927. Notes on the nesting habits of some of the less common New England bumblebees. Psyche 34: 122-128.
Pleasants, J. M. 1981. Bumblebee response to variation in nectar availability. Ecology:1648– 1661.
Pleasants, J. M. and K. S. Oberhauser. 2013. Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect conservation and diversity / Royal Entomological Society of London 6:135–144.
Plischuk, S. et al. 2009. South American native bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) infected by Nosema ceranae (Microsporidia), an emerging pathogen of honeybees (Apis mellifera) Environmental Microbiology Reports 1(2): 131-135.
Plischuk, S., M. E. Pocco, and C. E. Lange. 2013. The tracheal mite Locustacarus buchneri in South American native bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Parasitology International 62:505– 507.
Plowright, R. C. and W. P. Stephen. 1980. The taxonomic status of Bombus franklini (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Canadian Entomologist 112: 475-479.
Radeloff, V. C. et al. 2018. Rapid growth of the US wildland-urban interface raises wildfire risk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 201718850; DOI:
10.1073/pnas.1718850115.
Rasmont, P., A. Pauly, M. Terzo, S. Patiny, D. Michez, S. Iserbyl, Y. Barbier, and E. Haubruge. 2006. The survey of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in Belgium and France. p.18 In Status of the World’s Pollinators. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Rasmont, P. and S. Iserbyt. 2012. The Bumblebees Scarcity Syndrome: Are heat waves leading to local extinctions of bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus)? Annales de la Société Entomologique de France. 48(3-4): 275–280. Available from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00379271.2012.10697776. [Accessed 1 March 2018].
Richardson, L. 2014. Data Contributors. Available from http://www.leifrichardson.org/bbna.html [Accessed 23 September 2015].
102
Richardson, L. 2017. Unpublished database. Information on database and data contributors Available from: http://www.leifrichardson.org/bbna.html [Accessed 22 February 2017).
Rickman, T. 2017. U.S. Forest Service — Eagle Lake Ranger District Bombus occidentalis observations for 2013 and 2014. Unpublished Data.
Rogers, S. R., P. Cajamarca, D. R. Tarpy, and H. J. Burrack. 2013. Honey bees and bumble bees respond differently to inter-and intra-specific encounters. Apidologie 44:621–629.
Roland, J. and S. F. Matter. 2007. Encroaching forests decouple alpine butterfly population dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104:13702–13704.
Rundlöf, M. et al. 2015. Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees. Nature 521:77–80.
Roubik, D. W. 2009. Ecological impact on native bees by the invasive Africanized honey bee.
Acta Biológica Colombiana 14:115–124.
Rusterholz, H. P. and Baur, B. 2010. Delayed response in a plant–pollinator system to experimental grassland fragmentation. Oecologia 163: 141-152.
Rutrecht, S. T. and M. J. F. Brown. 2008. The life-history impact and implications of multiple parasites for bumble bee queens. International journal for parasitology 38:799–808.
Rutrecht, S. T. and M. J. F. Brown. 2009. Differential virulence in a multiple-host parasite of bumble bees: resolving the paradox of parasite survival? Oikos 118:941–949.
Sánchez-Bayo, F., D. Goulson, F. Pennacchio, F. Nazzi, K. Goka, and N. Desneux. 2016. Are bee diseases linked to pesticides?—A brief review. Environment International 89: 7-11.
Sachman-Ruiz, B., V. Narváez-Padilla, and E. Reynaud. 2015. Commercial Bombus impatiens as reservoirs of emerging infectious diseases in central México. Biological invasions:1–11. Springer International Publishing. Available from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-015- 0859-6 [Accessed 1 March 2018].
Saunders, S., C. Montgomery, and T. Easley. 2008. Hotter and drier: the West’s changed climate. Prepared for The Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and Natural Resources Defense Council. Page 64. Available from: http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/west/west.pdf [Accessed 20 February 2018].
103
Schmid-Hempel, P. 2001. On the evolutionary ecology of host–parasite interactions: addressing the question with regard to bumblebees and their parasites. Die Naturwissenschaften 88:147– 158.
Schmid-Hempel, P. and R. Loosli. 1998. A contribution to the knowledge of Nosema infections in bumble bees, Bombus spp. Apidologie 29:525–535. Available from: http://hal.archivesouvertes.fr/docs/00/89/15/54/PDF/hal-00891554.pdf [Accessed 1 March 2018].
Schmid‐Hempel, R. and Tognazzo, M. 2010. Molecular divergence defines two distinct lineages of Crithidia bombi (Trypanosomatidae), parasites of bumblebees. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology 57(4): 337-345.
Schmid-Hempel, R., M. Eckhardt, D. Goulson, D. Heinzmann, C. Lange, S. Plischuk, L. R.
Escudero, R. Salathé, J. J. Scriven, and P. Schmid-Hempel. 2014. The Invasion of Southern South America by Imported Bumblebees and Associated Parasites. The Journal of Animal Ecology 83 (4): 823–37.
Schmidt, N. M., H. Olsen, and H. Leirs. 2009. Livestock grazing intensity affects abundance of Common shrews (Sorex araneus) in two meadows in Denmark. BMC Ecology 9:2doi:10.1186/1472-6785-9-2. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6785/9/2 [Accessed 20 February 2018].
Scholl, A., R. W. Thorp, and E. Obrecht. 1992. The genetic relationship between Bombus franklini (Frison) and other taxa of the subgenus Bombus s. str. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). PanPacific Entomologist 68: 46-51.
Schultz, C. B. and E. E. Crone. 1998. Burning prairie to restore butterfly habitat: a modeling approach to management tradeoffs for the Fender’s blue. Restoration Ecology 6: 244-252.
Schwarz, R. S. N. A. Moran, and J. D. Evans. 2016. Early gut colonizers shape parasite susceptibility and microbiota composition in honey bee workers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(33): 9345-9350.
Scohier, A., A. Ouin, A. Farruggia, and B. Dumont. 2012. Is there a benefit of excluding sheep from pastures at flowering peak on flower-visiting insect diversity? Journal of Insect Conservation 17(2): 287-294.
Scott-Dupree, C. D., L. Conroy, and C. R. Harris. 2009. Impact of currently used or potentially
104
useful insecticides for canola agroecosystems on Bombus impatiens (Hymenoptera: Apidae), Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), and Osmia lignaria (Hymenoptera:
Megachilidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 102:177-182.
Scullen, H. A. 1927. Bees belonging to the family Bremidae taken in western Oregon, with notes. Pan-Pacific Entomologist Pan-Pacific Entomologist4(2): 69-76, 121-128.
Scursoni, J., F. Forcella, J. Gunsolus, M. Owen, R. Oliver, R. Smeda, and R. Vidrine. 2006.
Weed diversity and soybean yield with glyphosate management along a north-south transect in the United States. Weed Science 54:713–719.
Shavit, O., A. Dafni, and G. Ne’eman. 2009. Competition between honeybees (Apis mellifera) and native solitary bees in the Mediterranean region of Israel—Implications for conservation. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 57:171–183.
Sheffield, C. S., L. Richardson, S. Cannings, H. Ngo, J. Heron, P. H. Williams. 2016.
Biogeography and designatable units of Bombus occidentalis Greene and B. terricola Kirby (Hymenoptera: Apidae) with implications for conservation status assessments. Journal of Insect Conservation: 1–11.
Shepherd, M., S. L. Buchmann, M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black. 2003. Pollinator Conservation Handbook. The Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon.
Shykoff, J. A., and P. Schmid-Hempel. 1991. Parasites delay worker reproduction in bumblebees: consequences for eusociality. Behavioral ecology: official journal of the International Society for Behavioral Ecology 2:242–248.
Singh, R., A. L. Levitt, E. G. Rajotte, E. C. Holmes, N. Ostiguy, W. I. Lipkin, A. L. Toth, D. L.
Cox-Foster, and Others. 2010. RNA viruses in hymenopteran pollinators: evidence of inter-taxa virus transmission via pollen and potential impact on non-Apis hymenopteran species. PloS one 5:e14357.
Sjodin, N. E. 2007. Pollinator behavioural responses to grazing intensity. Biodiversity Conservation 16:2103-2121.
Skinner, C. N. 1995. Change in spatial characteristics of forest openings in the Klamath Mountains of northwestern California, USA. Landscape ecology 10:219–228. Available from:
http://www.springerlink.com/index/T4U3205640483310.pdf [Accessed 20 February 2018].
105
Sladen, F. L. W. 1912. The Humblebee: Its life history and how to domesticate it. Macmillan and Co., London 283p.
Sleeter, B. M. 2016. Central Valley Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Geographic Science Center, Menlo Park, CA. Available from:
https://landcovertrends.usgs.gov/west/eco7Report.html. [Accessed 20 March 2018].
Smallidge, P. J. and D. J. Leopold. 1997. Vegetation management for the maintenance and conservation of butterfly habitats in temperate human-dominated habitats. Landscape and Urban Planning 38:259-280.
Sprayberry, J. D., K.A. Ritter, and J.A. Riffell. 2013. The Effect of olfactory exposure to noninsecticidal agrochemicals on bumblebee foraging behavior. PloS one 8(10): e76273.
Stanley, D. A., M. P. Garratt, J. B. Wickens, V. J. Wickens, S. G. Potts, and N. E. Raine. 2015a.
Neonicotinoid pesticide exposure impairs crop pollination services provided by bumblebees. Nature 528(7583): 548-550.
Stanley, D. A., A. L. Russell, S. J. Morrison, C. Rogers, and N. E. Raine. 2016. Investigating the impacts of field‐realistic exposure to a neonicotinoid pesticide on bumblebee foraging, homing ability and colony growth. Journal of Applied Ecology 53(5): 1440-1449.
Stanley, D. A., K. E. Smith and N.E. Raine. 2015b. Bumblebee learning and memory is impaired by chronic exposure to a neonicotinoid pesticide. Scientific Reports 5(16508): 1-10.
State of Massachusetts. 2018. General Laws: CHAPTER 128, Section 35. Available from https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIX/Chapter128/Section35. [Accessed 25 September 2018].
State of Minnesota. 2017. 17.445 INSPECTIONS AND SERVICES; FEES. Available from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/17.445 [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Steffan-Dewenter, I. and T. Tscharntke. 2000. Resource overlap and possible competition between honey bees and wild bees in central Europe. Oecologia 122:288–296.
Stephen, W. P. 1957. Bumble bees of western America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Oregon State College Agr. Exp. Sta.: Tech. Bull. No. 40. 163pp.
Stoner, K. J. L., and A. Joern. 2004. Landscape vs. local habitat scale influences to insect
106
communities from tallgrass prairie remnants. Ecological applications: a publication of the Ecological Society of America 14:1306–1320.
Stoner, K. A. 2016. Current pesticide risk assessment protocols do not adequately address differences between honey bees (Apis mellifera) and bumble bees (Bombus spp.). Frontiers in Environmental Science 4: 79.
Sugden, E. 1985. Pollinators of Astragalus monoensis Barneby (Fabaceae) - New host records - Potential impact of sheep grazing. Great Basin Naturalist 45: 299-312.
Suhonen, J., J. Rannikko, and J. Sorvari. 2015. The Rarity of Host Species Affects the CoExtinction Risk in Socially Parasitic Bumblebee Bombus (Psithyrus) Species. Annales zoologici Fennici 52:236–242.
Tasei, J. N., J. Lerin, and G. Ripault. 2000. Sub-lethal effects of imidacloprid on bumblebees, Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae), during a laboratory feeding test. Pest Management Science 56:784-788.
Tepedino, V. J., D. G. Alston, B. A. Bradley, T. R. Toler, and T. L. Griswold. 2007. Orchard pollination in Capitol Reef National Park, Utah, USA. Honey bees or native bees? Biodiversity and conservation 16: 3083–3094.
Thompson, H. M. and L. V. Hunt. 1999. Extrapolating from honeybees to bumblebees in pesticide risk assessment. Ecotoxicology 8(3): 147-166.
Thomson, D. 2004. Competitive Interactions between the Invasive European Honey Bee and Native Bumble Bees. Ecology 85:pp. 458–470.
Thomson, D. M. 2006. Detecting the effects of introduced species: a case study of competition between Apis and Bombus. Oikos 114:407–418.
Thomson, J. D. 2010. Flowering phenology, fruiting success and progressive deterioration of pollination in an early-flowering geophyte. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences 365:3187–3199.
Thorp, R. W. 1970. The type locality of Bombus franklini and notes on putative Arizona records of other Bombini (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist 46: 177-180.
Thorp, R. W. 1996. Resource overlap among native and introduced bees in California. Pages
107
143–152. Linnean Society Symposium Series.
Thorp, R. W. 1999. Franklin’s bumble bee, Bombus franklini (Frison 1921): a species of special concern. Unpublished Report to USDA Forest Service, Ashland. OR on 1998 season (submitted 23 Nov 99).
Thorp, R. W. 2001. Franklin’s bumble bee, Bombus franklini (Frison 1921): a species of special concern. Unpublished Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR on 1999-2000 seasons (submitted 14 May 2001).
Thorp, R. W. 2004. Franklin’s bumble bee, Bombus (Bombus) franklini (Frison). Unpublished Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR on 2001-2003 seasons (submitted 29 June 2004).
Thorp, R. W. 2005a. Franklin’s bumble bee, Bombus (Bombus) franklini (Frison). Unpublished Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR on 2004 season (submitted 29 March 2005).
Thorp, R. W. 2005b. Franklin’s bumble bee, Bombus (Bombus) franklini (Frison). Unpublished Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR on 2005 season (submitted 7 November 2005).
Thorp, R. W. 2005c. Species Profile: Bombus franklini. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available from:
http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bombus_franklini.pdf [Accessed 20 February 2018].
Thorp, R. W. 2008. Franklin’s Bumble Bee, Bombus (Bombus) franklini (Frison) (Hymenoptera:
Apidae), Report on 2006-2007 Seasons (Submitted 10 March 2008).
Thorp, R. W., D. S. Horning, Jr., and L. L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California. Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23: 1-79.
Thorp, R. W., S. Jepsen, S. F. Jordan, E. Evans, and S. H. Black. 2010. Petition to list Franklin’s bumble bee as an Endangered Species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, Submitted by The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available from: http://www.xerces.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/06/bombus-franklini-petition.pdf. [Accessed 20 March 2018].
108
Thorp, R. W., A. M. Wenner, and J. F. Barthell. 2000. Pollen and nectar resource overlap among bees on Santa Cruz Island. Pages 261–267 In: Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium (Browne et al., eds).
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2014. Pest Risk Assessment for Bumble Bees from Canada. February, 2014. Version 1.1. 36 pp.
[USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. U.S.
Regulated Plant Pest Table. 2018. Available from
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/import-information/rppl/rppl-table. [Accessed 25 September 2018].
[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Effect of 3,6-Dichloro2methyoxybenzoic acid on Apis mellifera Mortality; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC. [U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2012, May 10. OCSPP 850.3020:
Honey Bee Acute Contact Toxicity Test [EPA 712-C-019]. Available from http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0016. [Accessed 25 September 2018].
[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. Available from:
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-11/documents/bee-label-info-ltr.pdf. [Accessed 25 September 2018].
[U.S. EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2014, June 19. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. Available from http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 06/documents/pollinator_risk_assessment_guidance_06_19_14.pdf. [Accessed 25 September 2018]. [USFS] U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2013. Region 5 Forester’s 2013 Sensitive Animal Species List. Available from: https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/plantsanimals/wildlife. [Accessed 13 February 2018]. [USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on a Petition to List the Franklin’s Bumble Bee as Endangered. 76 FR 56381- 56391. September 13, 2011.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;
109
90-Day Findings on 29 Petitions. 81 FR 14058 14072. March 16, 2016. [USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2014. An Overview Comparing Results from Two Decades of Monitoring for Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Rivers, 1992–2001 and 2002– 2011. National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project. Available from:
https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2014/5154/pdf/sir2014-5154.pdf. [Accessed 4 October 2018]. [USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2017a. Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use.
Pesticide Use Maps: 2,4-D. National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project. Available from:
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2015&map=24D&hilo=L& disp=2,4-D [Accessed 9 March 2018].
[USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2017b. Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use.
Pesticide Use Maps: dicamba. National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project. Available from: https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=2015&map=DICAM BA&hilo=L&disp=Dicamba [Accessed 9 March 2018].
[USGS] United States Geological Survey. 2017c. Estimated Annual Agricultural Pesticide Use.
Pesticide Use Maps. National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Project. Available from:
https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/compound_listing.php. [Accessed 9 March 2018].
Vandame, R., and L. P. Belzunces. 1998. Joint actions of deltamethrin and azole fungicides on honey bee thermoregulation. Neuroscience letters 251:57–60.
Van der Steen, J. J. M. 2008. Infection and transmission of Nosema bombi in Bombus terrestris colonies and its effect on hibernation, mating and colony founding. Apidologie 39:273–282. van Wilgenburg, E., G. Driessen, and L. W. Beukeboom. 2006. Single locus complementary sex determination in Hymenoptera: an “unintelligent” design? Frontiers in Zoology 3(1): 1-15.
Available from: http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/3/1/1. [Accessed 20 March 2018].
Vaughan, M., B. E. Vaissi`ere, G. Maynard, M. Kasina, R. C. F. Nocelli, C. Scott-Dupree, E.
Johansen, C. Brittain, M. Coulson, and A. Dinter. 2014. Overview of Non-Apis Bees. D. Fischer and T. Moriarty, editors. Pesticide Risk Assessment for Pollinators. pp. 5-18.
Vazquez, D. P. and D. Simberloff. 2003. Changes in interaction biodiversity induced by an introduced ungulate. Ecology Letters 6: 1077-1083.
110
Velthius, H. H. W. and A. Van Doorn. 2006. A century in advances in bumblebee domestication and the economic and environmental aspects of its commercialization for pollination. Apidologie 37:421-451.
Walther-Hellwig, K., G. Fokul, R. Frankl, R. Büchler, K. Ekschmitt, and V. Wolters. 2006.
Increased density of honeybee colonies affects foraging bumblebees. Apidologie 37:517–532.
Wenner, A. M. and R. W. Thorp. 1994. Removal of feral honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies from Santa Cruz Island. Pages 513–522. The fourth California islands symposium:
update on the status of resources.
Westphal, C., I. Steffan-Dewenter, and T. Tscharntke. 2003. Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecology Letters 6(11): 961-965.
Westphal, C., I. Steffan-Dewenter, and T. Tscharntke. 2009. Mass flowering oilseed rape improves early colony growth but not sexual reproduction of bumblebees. Journal of Applied Ecology 46: 187-193.
Whitehorn, P. R., S. O’Connor, F. L. Wackers, and D. Goulson. 2012. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science 10.1126/science.1215025.
Whitehorn, P. R., M. C. Tinsley, M. J. F. Brown, B. Darvill, and D. Goulson. 2009. Impacts of inbreeding on bumblebee colony fitness under field conditions. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9:152.
Whitehorn, P. R., M. C. Tinsley, M. J. F. Brown, B. Darvill, and D. Goulson. 2011. Genetic diversity, parasite prevalence and immunity in wild bumblebees. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278:1195–1202. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1550. [Accessed 1 March 2018].
Whitehorn, P. R., M. C. Tinsley, M. J. F. Brown, B. Darvill, and D. Goulson. 2014. Genetic diversity and parasite prevalence in two species of bumblebee. Journal of Insect Conservation 18:667–673.
Whittington, R. and Winston, M. L. 2003. Effects of Nosema bombi and its treatment fumagillin on bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) colonies. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 84(1): 54-58.
Whittington, R., M. L. Winston, C. Tucker, and A. L. Parachnowitsch. 2004. Plant-species
111
identity of pollen collected by bumblebees placed in greenhouses for tomato pollination.
Canadian journal of plant science. Revue Canadienne de Phytotechnie 84:599–602.
Wieczorek, J., Q. Guo, and R. Hijmans. 2004. The point-radius method for georeferencing locality descriptions and calculating associated uncertainty. International journal of geographical information science 18:745–767.
Williams, P. H. 1986. Environmental change and the distributions of British bumble bees (Bombus Latr.). Bee World 67:50–61.
Williams, P. H. 1991. The bumble bees of the Kashmir Himalaya (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bulletin of the British Museum of Natural History (Entomology) 60: 1-204.
Williams, P. H. 1998. An annotated checklist of bumble bees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Ent.) 67:79-152. Updated at: www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/bombus/. [Accessed 28 February 2018].
Williams, P. H., M. B. Araújo, and P. Rasmont. 2007. Can vulnerability among British bumblebee (Bombus) species be explained by niche position and breadth? Biological Conservation 138:493–505.
Williams P. H., M. J. F. Brown, J. C. Carolan, J. An, D. Goulson, A. Murat Ayetkin, L. R. Best, A. M. Byvaltsev, B. Cederberg, R. Dawson, J. Huang, M. Ito, A. Monfared, R. H. Raina, P.
Schmid-Hempel, C. S. Sheffield, P. Sima, and Z. Xie. 2012. Unveiling cryptic species of the bumblebee subgenus Bombus s. str. Worldwide with COI barcodes (Hymenoptera: Apidae).
Systematics and Biodiversity. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14772000.2012.664574 [Accessed 20 February 2018].
Williams, P. H., S. A. Cameron, H. M. Hines, B. Cederberg, and P. Rasmont. 2008a. A simplified subgeneric classification of the bumblebees (genus Bombus). Apidologie 39:46–74.
Williams, P. S. Colla, and Z. Xie. 2009. Bumblebee vulnerability: Common correlates of winners and losers across three continents. Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 23:931–940.
Williams, P. H. and J. L. Osborne. 2009. Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide.
Apidologie 40:367–387.
112
Williams, G. R., A. B. A. Shafer, R. E. L. Rogers, D. Shutler, and D. T. Stewart. 2008b. First detection of Nosema ceranae, a microsporidian parasite of European honey bees (Apis mellifera), in Canada and central USA. Journal of invertebrate pathology 97:189–192.
Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S .R. Colla. 2014. The Bumble bees of North America: An Identification guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Wills, R. T., Lyons, M. N., and Bell, D. T. 1990. The European honey bee in Western Australian Kwongan: foraging preferences and some implications for management. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 16:167–76.
Winfree, R., N. M. Williams, H. Gaines, J. S. Ascher, C. and Kremen, C. 2008. Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land‐use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Applied Ecology 45(3): 793-802.
Wisk, J. D. et al. 2014. Assessing Exposure of Pesticides to Bees. In Pesticide Risk Assessment for Pollinators. Eds: D. Fischer and T. Moriarty, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA. 45-74 pp.
Wratt, E. C. 1968. The pollinating activities of bumble bees and honey bees in relation to temperature, competing forage plants, and competition from other foragers. Journal of Apicultural Research 7:61–6.
Xerces Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and Dr. Robbin Thorp. 2010. Petition to the USDA-APHIS seeking regulation of bumble bee movement. 26 pp.
Available from: http://www.xerces.org/petition/xerces-bumblebee-petition-to-aphis.pdf. [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Xerces Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and Dr. Robbin Thorp. 2013, October 29. Letter to Secretary Vilsack regarding January 2010 petition to regulate the movement of commercial bumble bees. 4 pp.
Xerces Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and Dr. Robbin Thorp. 2014a, January 16. Letter to Secretary Vilsack regarding January 2010 petition to regulate the movement of commercial bumble bees. 2 pp.
Xerces Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Defenders of Wildlife, and Dr. Robbin Thorp. 2014b, August 26. Letter to Osama El-Lissy regarding meeting to regulate commercial bumble bees. 16 pp.
113
Xerces Society. 2012. Database of records from Bumble Bee Citizen Monitoring Project (2008- 2012). Maintained by Rich Hatfield, Xerces Society.
Xerces Society, Wildlife Preservation Canada, York University, The Montreal Insectarium, The London Natural History Museum, BeeSpotter. 2017. Data accessed from Bumble Bee Watch, a collaborative website to track and conserve North America’s bumble bees. Available from:
http://www.bumblebeewatch.org/app/#/bees/lists [Accessed 22 February 2017].
Xie, Z., P. Williams, and Y. Tang. 2008. The effect of grazing on bumblebees in the high rangelands of the eastern Tibetan Plateau of Sichuan. Journal of Insect Conservation 12(6): 695- 703.
Yoneda, M., H. Furuta, Y. Kanbe, K. Tsuchida, K. Okabe, and K. Goka. 2008. Reproduction and transmission within a colony of bumblebee tracheal mite Locustacarus buchneri (Acari:
Podapolipidae) in Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 43:391–395. Available from: http://jlc.jst.go.jp/JST.JSTAGE/aez/2008.391?from=Google. [Accessed 1 March 2018].
Zald, H. S. J., T. A. Spies, M. Huso, and D. Gatziolis. 2012. Climatic, landform, microtopographic, and overstory canopy controls of tree invasion in a subalpine meadow landscape, Oregon Cascades, USA. Landscape ecology (27): 1197-1212. Available from:
http://bit.ly/2okar3v [Accessed 20 February 2018].
Zayed, A. 2009. Bee genetics and conservation. Apidologie 40:237–262.
Zayed, A. and L. Packer. 2005. Complementary sex determination substantially increases extinction proneness of haplodiploid populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102:10742–10746.
Zhu, W., D. R. Schmehl, C. A. Mullin, and J. L. Frazier. 2014. Four common pesticides, their mixtures and a formulation solvent in the hive environment have high oral toxicity to honey bee larvae. PloS one 9:e77547. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077547. [Accessed 25 September 2018].
Personal Communications
Rickman, T. 2017. District Wildlife Biologist at US Forest Service, Mt. Lassen National Forest.
Personal Communication with Rich Hatfield, Xerces Society. 20 August 2017.
Thorp, R. W. 2013. Professor emeritus, University of California, Davis. Personal communication
114
with Sarina Jepsen, Xerces Society.
Thorp, R. W. 2014. Professor emeritus, University of California, Davis. Personal communication with Sarah Foltz Jordon, Xerces Society.
Thorp, R. W. 2017. Professor emeritus, University of California, Davis. Personal communication with Rich Hatfield, Xerces Society. 13 March 2017.
XI. DETAILED DISTRIBUTION MAPS
Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) Global Distribution
115
Franklin’s bumble bee (Bombus franklini) Global Distribution
116
Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) California Distribution
117
Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis occidentalis) Global Distribution
118
Suckley Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi) California Distribution
119
Suckley Cuckoo Bumble Bee (Bombus suckleyi) Global Distribution
Attachment 5. Conditions of Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan
Condition 1. Avoid Direct Impacts on Legally Protected Plant and Wildlife Species - Condition 1 requires project proponents to avoid direct impacts on legally protected plant and wildlife species, including federally endangered Contra Costa goldfields and fully protected wildlife species including the golden eagle, bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, southern bald eagle, white-tailed kite, California condor, and ring-tailed cat. Condition 1 also protects bird species and their nests that are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
The proposed project will comply with this condition. There are no expected impacts to Contra Costa goldfields or other special-status plants. Additionally, the project proponent will include pre-construction survey for nesting birds, including raptors and burrowing owls. Habitat for ring-tailed cats does not exist at the subject site.
Condition 2. Incorporate Urban-Reserve System Interface Design Requirements - Condition 2 provides design requirements for projects that interface urban-reserves.
The proposed project is not at- or in- an urban-reserve interface.
Condition 3. Maintain Hydrologic Conditions and Protect Water Quality - Condition requires projects to comply with NPDES permit requirements, to provide stormwater quality control, and to avoid and minimize effects to local waterways. This includes measures, performance standards, and control measures to minimize increases of peak discharge of stormwater and pollutant discharge to protect water quality, including during project construction.
The proposed project will comply with this condition. All NPDES permit requirements will be implemented.
Condition 4. Avoidance and Minimization for In-Stream Projects The proposed project is not an “in-stream” project.
Condition 5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures for In-Stream Operations and Maintenance The proposed project does not include any structures that require any in-stream operation or maintenance.
Condition 6. Design and Construction Requirements for Covered Transportation Projects The proposed project is not a Transportation Project.
Condition 7. Rural Development Design and Construction Requirements The proposed project is not a rural development.
Condition 8. Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Rural Road Maintenance The proposed project is not a rural project.
Condition 9. Prepare and Implement a Recreation Plan - Condition 9 requires providing public access to all reserve lands owned by a public entity.
The proposed project does not abut or adjoin any reserve lands.
Condition 10. Fuel Buffer - Condition 10 provides requirements for fuel buffers between 30 and 100 feet of structures. Requirements include measures relating to fuel buffers near structures and on reserve lands.
The proposed project is an in-fill (urban setting) residential development. It will comply with required setbacks defined by the City of Morgan Hill, but the project site does not abut reserve lands or vegetated open space.
Condition 11. Stream and Riparian Setbacks - Condition 11 provides requirements for stream and riparian setbacks.
The proposed project does not include riparian or stream corridors either on or adjacent to the property boundary.
Condition 12. Wetland and Pond Avoidance and Minimization - Condition 12 provides measures to protect wetlands and ponds, including planning actions, design, and construction actions.
The proposed project would comply with this condition. The project proponent has determined that it is impracticable to avoid permanent impacts to all the wetlands on the project site, so wetland fees will be paid to cover the costs of compensatory mitigation required by the SCVHP.
Condition 13 (page 6-58). Serpentine and Associated Covered Species Avoidance and Minimization - Condition 13 requires surveys for special status plants and the Bay checkerspot butterfly as well as its larval host plant in appropriate areas that support serpentine bunchgrass grassland, serpentine rock outcrops, serpentine seeps, and serpentine chaparral.
The project site does not include any serpentine soils, nor does it constitute habitat for special-status species that are dependent on serpentine soils.
Condition 14. Valley Oak and Blue Oak Woodland Avoidance and Minimization - Condition 14 provides requirements for project planning and project construction, including avoidance of large oaks, guidance on irrigation near oak trees, and a buffer around the root protection zone, roads and pathways within 25 feet of the dripline of an oak tree, trenching, and pruning activities.
The project site does not include valley oak or blue oak stands. The project proponents will work with the City
of Morgan Hill and the SCVHP to ensure protective measures are applied to any existing on-site oak trees that are proposed to be preserved.
Condition 15. Western Burrowing Owl - Condition 15 requires preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls in appropriate habitat prior to construction activities, provides avoidance measures for owls and nests in the breeding season and owls in the non-breeding season, and requirements for construction monitoring.
The project will comply with this condition. Western burrowing owls are not known to occur at the project site, but preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls will be included.
Condition 16. Least Bell’s Vireo - Condition 16 requires preconstruction surveys in appropriate habitat for the least Bell’s vireo prior to construction activities and provides avoidance and construction monitoring measures.
The project site does not contain habitat suitable for least Bell’s vireo. There is no riparian habitat present. A pre-construction bird survey will be included.
Condition 17. Tricolored Blackbird - Condition 17 requires preconstruction surveys in appropriate habitat for the tricolored blackbird prior to construction activities and provides avoidance and construction monitoring measures.
Habitat for tricolored blackbird is present on an adjacent property but not on the subject property. A preconstruction survey for this species will be included.
Condition 18 (page 6-71) San Joaquin Kit Fox - Condition 18 requires preconstruction surveys in appropriate habitat for the San Joaquin kit fox prior to construction activities and provides avoidance and construction monitoring measures.
The project site is an in-fill site in the City of Morgan Hill. The site is not appropriate habitat for San Joaquin kit fox.
Condition 19 (page 6-74). Plant Salvage when Impacts are Unavoidable - Condition 19 provides salvage guidance and requirements for covered plants.
There is no habitat for any covered plants known to exist at the site.
Condition 20 (page 6-76). Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Covered Plant Occurrences - Condition 20 provides requirements for preconstruction surveys for appropriate covered plants (per habitat).
There is no habitat for any covered plants known to exist at the site.
Tree Inventory, Assessment,
And
Protection
Morgan Hill
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
(Monterey Road)
Prepared for:
City Ventures
4441 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
October 17, 2022
Prepared By:
Richard Gessner
ASCA - Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496
ISA - Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B
© Copyright Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2022
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Table of Contents
Summary.................................................................................................1 Introduction.............................................................................................1 Background.............................................................................................1 Assignment .............................................................................................1 Limits of the assignment.........................................................................1 Purpose and use of the report................................................................2 Observations...........................................................................................2 Plans .......................................................................................................2 Tree Inventory..........................................................................................2 Discussion...............................................................................................3 Condition Rating .....................................................................................3 Suitability for Preservation ......................................................................4 Expected Impact Level ...........................................................................5 Tree Protection........................................................................................6 Conclusion ..............................................................................................7 Recommendations..................................................................................7 Bibliography............................................................................................8 Appendix A: Tree Locations, Protection, and Disposition ......................9 Appendix B: Tree Inventory Summary Table.........................................10 Appendix C: Photographs ....................................................................11 C1: Tree #401........................................................................................11 C2: trees #402 and #403.......................................................................12 C3: Trees #404 and #406......................................................................13 C4: Trees #407 and #408......................................................................14 C5: Trees #409 through #413................................................................15 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines ...............................................16 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 1 of 2
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Prohibited Activities ..............................................................................16 Pre-Construction Meeting with the Project Arborist.............................16 Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications .................................16 Monitoring.............................................................................................17 Restrictions Within the Tree Protection Zone .......................................17 Root Pruning.........................................................................................17 Boring or Tunneling...............................................................................17 Timing ...................................................................................................17 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations .................................................18 Tree Protection Signs............................................................................18 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs .......................................................19 E1: English ............................................................................................19 E2: Spanish...........................................................................................20 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions .........................21 Certification of Performance.................................................................22 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 2 of 2
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Summary
The plans are to develop the lots into 49 residential and 5 commercial units. The inventory contains all the trees with trunk diameters greater than six inches (18 inches in circumference).
The inventory contains thirteen trees comprised of eight different species. Five trees are in good condition, six fair, and two are in poor shape. Six trees have fair suitability and seven poor. Eight trees are to be highly impacted and caused to be removed which include #401, #402, #403, #409, #410, #411, #412 and #413. The plans indicate the trees #404, #405, #406, #407 and #408 near the south end will not be affected. Tree protection would consist of fence at a radius of about eight times the trunk diameter distance in feet.
Introduction
Background
City Ventures asked me to assess the site, trees, and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my findings and recommendations to help satisfy planning requirements.
Assignment
• Provide an arborist’s report including an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites where necessary. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health, structure and form), and suitability for preservation.
Limits of the assignment
• The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on October 13, 2022. No tree risk assessments were performed. • The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows: Vesting Tentative Map Existing and Proposed Conditions “The Gates” C.1 and C.2, Tentative Utility and Grading Plans C.4, C.5, C.6, and C.7 dated 6/28/22 provided by MH Engineering Co.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 1 of 22
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Purpose and use of the report
The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by the property owners, owner’s agents, and the City of Morgan Hill as a reference for existing tree and site conditions to help satisfy planning requirements.
Observations
Plans
The plans are to develop the lots into 49 residential and 5 commercial units.
Tree Inventory
The inventory contains all the trees with trunk diameters greater than six inches (18 inches in circumference). The inventory contains thirteen trees comprised of eight different species with only the valley oaks being native to the region (Chart 1).
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 2 of 22
Quantity
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Discussion
Condition Rating
A tree’s condition is a determination of its overall health, structure, and form (ISA 2018). The assessment considered all three characteristics for a combined condition rating. • 100% - Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. • 61-80% - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure, function and aesthetics not compromised with good longevity for the site.
• 41-60 % - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. • 21-40% - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use.
• 6-20% - Very Poor = Poor vigor and dying with little foliage in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape.
• 0-5% - Dead/Unstable = Dead or imminently ready to fail.
Five trees are in good condition, six fair, and two are in poor shape (Chart 2).
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 3 of 22
Quantity
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Suitability for Preservation
A tree’s suitability for preservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species and disturbance tolerances.
• Good = Trees with good health, structural stability and longevity after construction. • Fair = Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be mitigated through treatment.
These trees require more intense management and monitoring, before, during, and after construction, and may have shorter life expectancy after development. • Poor = Trees are expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management.
The species or individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site.
Six trees have fair suitability and seven poor. Trees poorly suited for preservation include invasive species such as the acacia, willow and cottonwood along with those with poor structure or health such as the black oak (Chart 3).
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 4 of 22
Quantity
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Expected Impact Level
Impact level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defines the impact rating:
• Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. • Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems.
• High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope.
Eight trees are to be highly impacted and caused to be removed which include #401, #402, #403, #409, #410, #411, #412 and #413. The plans indicate the trees #404, #405, #406, #407 and #408 near the south end will not be affected.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 5 of 22
> > > > >
(sd)
(ssfm)
(ssfm)
(ssfm)
(ssfm)
(ssfm)
> > > >
(e) (oh)
(e) (oh) (e) (oh)
(e) (oh) (e) (oh) (e) (oh)
(t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t)
(w)
(w)
(w)
(sd) (sd)(sd) (sd) (sd) (sd)
(w)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(sd)
(350)
(344)
(346)
(348)
(352)
(354)
(356)
(360)
(354)
(356)
(358)
(352)
(354)
(352)
(354)
(352) (354)
(356)
0 ssfm)
(ex 339' - 8" Ø pvc c900 ssfm)
h
7'
in)
36" Ø stand pipe TBR
rim 352.70'
inv 348.61', 21" Ø (Out) 36" sq. inlet
rim 351.96'
inv 348.51', 21" Ø (in)
inv 348.51', 18" Ø (Out)
inv 348.51', 21" Ø (Out)
ex. headwall
tow 352.47'
inv 348.47', 21" Ø (in)
(ex 448' - 18" Ø rcp sd @ s=0.32%)
(ex 15' - 21" Ø cmp sd @ s=0.62% TBR)
(ex 5' - 21" Ø cmp sd @ s=0.83%)
(ex triple 24" Ø cmp culvert)
(ep 354.87)
(ep 354.21)
(tc 353.42)
(tc 352.45)
(tc 350.30)
(tc 347.12)
(tc 344.17)
(tc 340.62)
(tc 338.60)
(ex. billboard to be removed)
(ex. guard rail to be removed)
(ex. temporary detention basin to be relocated)
ex. 7" Ø acacia TBR ex. 11" Ø acacia TBR
ex. 14" Ø acacia TBR
ex. 24" Ø willow cluster TBR
ex. 8" Ø cottonwood TBR
ex. 16", 16", 12", 12" multi trunk oak TBR
ex. 11" Ø sycamore TBR
ex. 8" Ø sycamore
ex. 13" Ø spruce
ex. 12" Ø spruce
ex. 7" Ø valley oak TBR
ex. utility pole TBR
ex. utility pole TBR
ex. overhead utility line TBR
ex. overhead line TBR
ex. utility pole to remain ex. utility pole to remain
ex. utility pole to remain
24" sq. inlet
rim 350.53'
inv 348.81', 8" Ø (Out)
( ex 247' - 8" Ø pv c pi pe @ s=3.68%)
24" sq. inlet
rim 342.78'
inv 339.74', 8" Ø (in)
(r = 1,450.00')
(S61°26'33"W)
(253.76')
(r = 1,450.00') (Δ = 4°48'56")
(l = 121.87')
(r = 1,300.31')
(Δ = 23°09'41")
(l = 525.64')
(638.38') (N39°25'32"W)
(ex. City Maintained SSFM to be realigned)
Monterey Road
Jarvis Drive
centerline of ex. 20' wide drain ditch easement per
Bk893 Pg. 169 to be abandoned
ex. drainage ditch to be backfilled
APN 764-10-013 Parcel 4, 759 M 49
2.217 ac
CITY FILE NO.
PLAN SET:
DRAWING:
Works Department
of Morgan Hill
K AVE. MORGAN HILL, CA 95037
76-6480 FAX (408) 779-7236 MORGAN HILL CALIFORNIA
SUPERVISED BY:
SIGNATURE DATE
DRAWN:
CHECKED:
APPROVED:
DESIGN:
DATE:
HOR.
VERT.
JOB NO.
EXP. DATE 06-30-2021
CITY ENGINEER
RCE 58879
Scott C. Creer
DATE:
16075 VINEYARD BOULEVARD MORGAN HILL, CA 95037
(408) 779-7381 FAX: (408) 226-5712
SUBDIVISIONS - LAND PLANNING - LAND SURVEYS
The Gates
The Gates
Site Topography & Prelminary Demo Plan
Site Topography & Prelminary Demo Plan
C.3
of 13
6/28/22
KW HS 1"=40' SR2021-0020
221005.1
CH
HAR I NDER S I NGLA
STATE OF CAL I FORN I A
C49717
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
FOR PLANCHECK ONLY
FOR PLANCHECK ONLY signature shall be provided upon approval 06/29/2022 9:07am
North
102030405060
SCALE: 1"=30'
0 Abbreviations
AC Asphalt Concrete HP High Point
BC Beginning of Curve INV Invert
BVC Beginning of Vertical Curve JP Joint Pole
BW Back of Walk LP Low Point
℄ Centerline Max Maximum
CL D/W Centerline Driveway Min Minimum
CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe NG Natural Ground
CO Clean Out PB Pull Box
DI Drop Inlet ⅊ Property Line
DIP Ductile Iron Pipe PSE Public Service Easement
DWY Driveway PSDE Private Storm Drain Easement
EC End of Curve PVI Point of Vertical Intersection
EG Existing Ground PUE Public Utility Easement
ELCT Electrolier RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
EP Edge of Pavement R/W Right of Way
ER End of Return SDMH Storm Drain Manhole
EVC End of Vertical Curve SSMH Sanitary Sewer Manhole
EX, EXST Existing Std Standard
FC Flush Curb SW Sidewalk
FF Finish Floor TBM Temporary Benchmark
FG Finish Grade TC Top of Curb
FL Flowline TWC Top of Wedge Curb
GB Grade Break Typ Typical
W
(t)
(w)
(ss)
SD (sd)
SS
> >
LegendProposed Description Existing
Project Property Boundary
Property Line
Centerline
Easement, as noted
Curb and Gutter
Driveway Approach
Storm Drain
Perforated Storm Drain
Sanitary Sewer
Water Main
Fire Service
Overhead Electric
Telephone
Wood Fence
Street Barricade
Major Contour
Minor Contour
Benchmark
Monument, Type as shown
Section
Swale
Slope
Storm Drain Manhole
Curb Inlet
Drop Inlet
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Fire Hydrant
Cleanout
Gate Valve
Utility Pole
Electrolier
Sewer Service
Water Service
AC Pavement
PCC walks/driveways
Structures
Bio-Retention Area
** existing features are labeled in italics and parentesis, typical #/A
2.2% (2.1%)
SD (sd)
SS (ss)
(fh)
CO (co)
CO (co)
W
(w)
T
E OH (e) (oh)
X [x] X [x]
F (f)
100
99 (100)
(99)
SD (sd)
nterline of Old Montery Road as
Map recorded at Book 677 of Map,
alley Water Benchmark BM1067
rom Cochrane Road along Old
f 1.7 feet wide by 8.5 feet long concrete
vert; 9.5 feet southwesterly from the
e pole No. GT109368. City of Morgan
sually areas of ponding); Base flood
Underground Utility Note: Observed surface evidence of utility lines including facilities, appurtenances and markings were used in depicting the location of underground utilities shown on these plans. However, lacking excavation, the exact location and depth of underground features cannot be accurately, completely and reliably depicted. Where additional or more detailed information is required, the client is advised that excavation may be necessary.
Construction Staking Note: Owner's Engineer shall provide construction staking for all improvements shown. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to verify the accuracy of all staking prior to the installation of all improvements shown on these plans. It is recommended that the contractor check line and grade from at least three (3) stakes provided. Any descrepancies shall be reported immediately to MH engineering Co. or the Owner's representative.
The contractor shall also field verify all existing tulities' location and elevation prior to the installation of any proposed utilities. Any discrepancies shall be reported to MH engineering Co. or the Owner's representative.
Underground Service Alert Note
Observed surface evidence of utility lines including facilities, appurtenances, and markings were used in depicting the locations of the underground features shown on these plans. Underground features depicted are approximate and it is the responsibility of the contractor to determine the actual location and depth of underground utilities prior to starting excavation.
Call USA North: 1.800.227.2600 OR 811
existing SDE
401
402
403
404
405 406
407
409 410 408
411
412
413
IMAGE 1: TREES HIGHLY IMPACTED INDICATED IN RED
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Tree Protection
Tree protection focuses on avoiding damage to the roots, trunk, or scaffold branches from heavy equipment (Appendix D). The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defined area in which certain activities are prohibited to minimize potential injury to the tree. The most current accepted method for determining the TPZ radius is to use a formula based on species tolerance, tree age/ vigor/health, and trunk diameter (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016).
Trees #404 through #408 are located at the top or on the slope adjacent to Monterey Road. These trees would only require protection on one side if the slope is to be maintained intact. Tree protection would consist of fence at a radius about eight times the trunk diameter distance in feet.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 6 of 22
TREE PROTECTION
Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment.
4'-0"
Maintain existing
grade with the tree
protection fence
unless otherwise
indicated on the
plans.
2" x 6' steel posts
or approved equal.
Tree Protection
fence: High density
polyethylene fencing
with 3.5" x 1.5"
openings; Colororange. Steel posts
installed at 8' o.c.
5" thick
layer of mulch.
Notes:
1- See specifications for additional tree
protection requirements.
2- If there is no existing irrigation, see
specifications for watering requirements.
3- No pruning shall be performed except
by approved arborist.
4- No equipment shall operate inside the
protective fencing including during fence
installation and removal.
5- See site preparation plan for any
modifications with the Tree Protection
area.
SECTION VIEW
KEEP OUT
TREE
PROTECTION
AREA
8.5" x 11"
sign
laminated in
plastic spaced
every 50'
along the
fence.
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
Tree protection
fence: Fencing shall
be comprised of sixfoot high chain link
mounted on eightfoot tall, 1 7/8-inch
diameter galvanized
posts, driven 24
inches into the
ground.
Minimum 4” thick
mulch layer
Crown diameter drip line distance equal to the outer most limit of foliage. Notes:
• All tree maintenance and care shall be
performed by a qualified arborist with a
C-61/D-49 California Contractors
License. Tree maintenance and care
shall be specified in writing according to
American National Standard for Tree
Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other
Woody Plant Management: Standard
Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere
to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and
local regulations.
• All maintenance is to be performed
according to ISA Best Management
Practices.
Notes:
The Tree Protection Zone
(TPZ) may vary in radius
from the trunk and may or
may not be established at
the drip line distance.
See arborist’s report and
plan sheet for
specifications of TPZ
radii.
6’-0”
Modified by Monarch Consulting
Arborists LLC, 2019
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Conclusion
The plans are to develop the lots into 49 residential and 5 commercial units. The inventory contains all the trees with trunk diameters greater than six inches (18 inches in circumference).
The inventory contains thirteen trees comprised of eight different species. Five trees are in good condition, six fair, and two are in poor shape. Six trees have fair suitability and seven poor. Trees poorly suited for preservation include invasive species such as the acacia, willow and cottonwood along with those with poor structure or health such as the black oak. Eight trees are to be highly impacted and caused to be removed which include #401, #402, #403, #409, #410, #411, #412 and #413. The plans indicate the trees #404, #405, #406, #407 and #408 near the south end will not be affected. Trees #404 through #408 are located at the top or on the slope adjacent to Monterey Road. These trees would only require protection on one side if the slope is to be maintained intact. Tree protection would consist of fence at a radius of about eight times the trunk diameter distance in feet.
Recommendations
1. Place tree identification numbers and protection fence locations on all the plans (Appendix A).
2. Fence should be placed around the trees to be retained at a radius of 8x the DBH in feet as follows: #404 = 8 feet, #405 = 8 feet, #406 = 8 feet, #407 = 11 feet, #408 = 8 feet.
3. Install temporary irrigation or soaker hoses in the TPZ’s. Monitor watering times or amounts to ensure adequate soil saturation. (A 5/8” soaker hose requires about 200 minutes to deliver one inch of water to a garden. This number is affected by the length of the hose and the overall rate of flow from the faucet. A good rule of thumb is to expect about ½ GPM as a standard faucet flow rate.). Infrequent deeper watering is preferred.
4. All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and local regulations. All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices.
5. Refer to Appendix D for general tree protection guidelines including recommendations for arborist assistance while working under trees, trenching, or excavation within a trees drip line or designated TPZ/CRZ.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 7 of 22
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
6. Place all the tree protection fence locations and guidelines on the plans including the grading, drainage, and utility plans. Alternatively create a separate plan sheet that includes all three protection measures labeled “T-1 Tree Protection Plan.”
7. Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document.
8. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances.
Bibliography
American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management : Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, 2012. Print.
Costello, Laurence Raleigh, Bruce W. Hagen, and Katherine S. Jones. Oaks in the urban landscape: selection, care, and preservation. Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2011. Print.
Fite, Kelby, and Edgar Thomas. Smiley. Managing trees during construction, second edition.
Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2016.
ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Print.
ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2018. Print.
ISA. Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement.
Western Chapter ISA
Matheny, Nelda P., Clark, James R. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture1998.
Smiley, E, Matheny, N, Lilly, S, Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment:
International Society of Arboriculture, 2017. Print
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 8 of 22
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Appendix A: Tree Locations, Protection, and
Disposition
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 9 of 22
IMAGE 2: TREES IN RED TO BE REMOVED, TREE PROTECTION SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AT EIGHT TIMES THE TRUNK DIAMETER RADIUS OF #404 = 8 FEET, #405 = 8 FEET, #406 = 8 FEET, #407 = 11 FEET, #408 = 8 FEET
401
402
403
404
405 406
407
409 410 408
411
412
413
Tree Protection Fence
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Appendix B: Tree Inventory Summary Table
Table 1
Tree Species I.D. # Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
~ Height
(ft.)
~ Canopy
Diameter
(ft.)
Condition Suitability Expected
Impact
valley oak
(Quercus lobata)
401 5, 5 10 10 Good Fair High
black oak
(Quercus
kelloggii)
402 13, 13, 11,
16, 18
45 35 Fair Poor High
London plane
(Platanus x
hispanica)
403 10 25 10 Good Fair High
London plane
(Platanus x
hispanica)
404 9 25 25 Good Fair Low
valley oak
(Quercus lobata)
405 4, 3, 3, 2 10 10 Fair Fair Low
Chinese
hackberry (Celtis
sinensis)
406 7, 8 Or 12 20 20 Good Poor Low
deodar cedar
(Cedrus deodara)
407 16 25 20 Poor Fair Low
deodar cedar
(Cedrus deodara)
408 12 25 20 Good Fair Low
willow (Salix
alba)
409 10, 8, 8, 8,
6, 6
40 25 Fair Poor High
cottonwood
(Populus
trichocarpa)
410 9 45 25 Fair Poor High
silver acacia
(Acacia dealbata)
411 7, 8, 5, 5,
5, 5, 5, 5,
3, 3
35 25 Poor Poor High
silver acacia
(Acacia dealbata)
412 6, 6, 5 35 25 Fair Poor High
silver acacia
(Acacia dealbata)
413 5, 7 35 25 Fair Poor High
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 10 of 22
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Appendix C: Photographs
C1: Tree #401
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 11 of 22
#401
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
C2: trees #402 and #403
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 12 of 22
#402
#403
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
C3: Trees #404 and #406
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 13 of 22
#406
#404
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
C4: Trees #407 and #408
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 14 of 22
#407
#408
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
C5: Trees #409 through #413
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 15 of 22
#409 #410
#411 #412
#413
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines
Prohibited Activities
The following are prohibited activities within the TPZ:
• Grade changes (e.g. soil cuts, fills);
• Trenches;
• Root cuts;
• Pedestrian and equipment traffic that could compact the soil or physically damage roots; • Parking vehicles or equipment;
• Burning of brush and woody debris;
• Storing soil, construction materials, petroleum products, water, or building refuse; and, • Disposing of wash water, fuel or other potentially damaging liquids.
Pre-Construction Meeting with the Project Arborist
Tree protection locations should be marked before any fencing contractor arrives.
Prior to beginning work, all contractors involved with the project should attend a pre construction meeting with the project arborist to review the tree protection guidelines. Access routes, storage areas, and work procedures will be discussed.
Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications
Tree protection fence should be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. Fence should be comprised of six-foot high chain link fence mounted on eightfoot tall, 1 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fence must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection.
The fence should be maintained throughout the site during the construction period and should be inspected periodically for damage and proper functions. Fence should be repaired, as necessary, to provide a physical barrier from construction activities.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 16 of 22
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Monitoring
Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented.
The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted.
Restrictions Within the Tree Protection Zone
No storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil will be allowed within the Tree Protection Zone. Spoils from the trenching shall not be placed within the tree protection zone either temporarily or permanently. Construction personnel and equipment shall be routed outside the tree protection zones.
Root Pruning
Root pruning shall be supervised by the project arborist. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour.
Boring or Tunneling
Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone.
Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep.
Timing
If the construction is to occur during the summer months supplemental watering and bark beetle treatments should be applied to help ensure survival during and after construction.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 17 of 22
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Tree Pruning and Removal Operations
All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree pruning should be specified in writing according to ANSI A-300A pruning standards and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walk through.
Tree Protection Signs
All sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs stating that all areas within the fencing are Tree Protection Zones and that disturbance is prohibited. Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E).
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 18 of 22
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs
E1: English
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 19 of 22
Appendix D: Example Tree Protection SignD1: English
WARNING
Tree Protection Zone
This Fence Shall not be moved without
approval. Only authorized personnel
may enter this area!
Project Arborist
Evans Right of Way, Saratoga California-Tree Inventory, Valuation, and Protection Guidelines for San Jose Water Company
August 9, 2010
Richard Gessner-ValleyCrest
Tree Care Services, 825 Mabury Rd., San Jose, CA 95133 59
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
E2: Spanish
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 20 of 22
Appendix D2: Spanish
CUIDADO
Zona De Arbol Pretejido
Esta cerca no sera removida sin
aprobacion. Solo personal autorizado
entrara en esta area!
Project Arborist
Evans Right of Way, Saratoga California-Tree Inventory, Valuation, and Protection Guidelines for San Jose Water Company
August 9, 2010
Richard Gessner-ValleyCrest
Tree Care Services, 825 Mabury Rd., San Jose, CA 95133 60
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions
Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.
All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.
This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference.
Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.
Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 21 of 22
APN - 764-10-013
APN - 764-10-015
Arborist’s Assessment October 17, 2022
Certification of Performance
I Richard Gessner, Certify:
That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment;
That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report.
That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998.
Richard J. Gessner
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B
Copyright
© Copyright 2022, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - [email protected] Page 22 of 22
Appendix C
Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix C
Geotechnical Investigation
6288 San Ignacio Avenue, Suite A, San Jose, CA 95119 Phone (408)-629-3822 Facsimile (408) 629-3825 1110 Burnett Avenue, Suite B, Concord, CA 94520 Phone: (925) 788-2751 QUANTUM GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Project No. H052.G
October 20, 2021
Ms. Samantha Hauser
Senior Vice President of Development
City Ventures
444 Spear Street
Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Subject: Proposed Townhome and Commercial Development
18605 Monterey Road
Morgan Hill 8
Morgan Hill, California
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OF RECORD
Reference: Geotechnical Investigation Report
Project No. 10218.G
Gateway Center Business Park
By Terrasearch, Inc
Dated 7 May 2004
Dear Ms. Hauser:
This is to confirm that City Ventures has retained Quantum Geotechnical, Inc., to provide consultation and observation and testing services during construction of the subject project.
The referenced report prepared geotechnical recommendations for a commercial development.
The level of investigation performed in the referenced report is sufficient for the proposed residential development, and many of the recommendations are generally applicable for a residential development. We are currently preparing an updated geotechnical report to provide updated seismic design and specific recommendations for the proposed residential development.
As such, Quantum Geotechnical, Inc., will become the Geotechnical Engineer of Record for the project.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact our office at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Quantum Geotechnical, Inc.
Simon Makdessi, P.E, G.E.
President
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
for Proposed
Gateway Center
Business Park
Morgan Hill, California
for
SOUTH VALLEY DEVELOPERS
By
TERRASEARCH, inc.
Project No. 10218.G
7 May 2004
Mr. Scott Schilling
South Valley Developers
16060 Caputo Drive, Suite 160
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Project No. 10218.G
7 Maf 20ff4- -- -
SUBJECT: Proposed Gateway Center Commercial Development 18605 Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, California
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Dear Mr. Schilling:
In accordance with your authorization, TERRASEARCH, inc., has investigated the soil conditions for the proposed New Gateway Center Commercial Development to be located at 18605 Monterey Road in the City of Morgan Hill, California.
The accompanying report presents our conclusions and recommendations based on our investigation. Our findings indicate, that from a geotechnical standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed Gateway Center Commercial Development provided the recommendations of this report are carefully followed and are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. In addition, any applicable setbacks, easements, and requirements set by the City of Morgan Hill and any other governmental agencies should be adhered to.
Should you have any questions relating to the contents of this repo1i or should you require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience.
George Makdissy, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Copies: 5 to Mr. Schilling
Very truly yours,
TERRASEARCH, inc.,
Robert Pollak, P.E.
Senior Engineer
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ........................................................................................... 4 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Development ........................................................................................................ 4 Site Description ..................................................................................................................... 4 Subsurface Conditions ......................................................................................................... 5 Seis1nic Considerations ........................................................................................................ 5 Seismic Hazards ................................................................................................................... 5 Primary Hazards ....................................................................................................... 5 Secondary Hazards ................................................................................................... 6 Liquefaction Potential .......................................................................................................... 6 Seismic Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 6 UBC Seismic Design Ctite1ia .............................................................................................. 6 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................... 7 General ................................................................................................................................. ? Site Cleaiing and Preparation .............................................................................................. 7 Spread Footing Foundations ................................................................................................ 8 General Slab Construction of Spread Footings or Exterior Slab on Grade ............. 8 Utility Trenches .................................................................................................................... 9 Pavement Design ................................................................................................................. 9 General Construction Requirern ents ........................ .......................................................... 10 GUIDELINES FOR REQUIRED SERVICES .............................................................................. 12 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS ........................................................... 14 APPENDIX A .......... ....................... ............................................................................................... 15 Field Investigation .............................................................................................................. 16 APPENDIXB ................................................................................................................................ 22 Laboratory Investigation .................................................................................................... 23 TABLE 3 .......................................... ........... ........................................................... 24 Summary of Laboratory Test Results .............. ................................................................... 24 APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................................ 25 The Grading Specifications .................................... ............................................................ 26 Guide Specifications For Rock Under Floor Slabs ...................................... ...................... 30 TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 3 of30
Project No. 10218.G Gcotcchnical J nvestigation 7 May 2004
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Gateway Center Commercial Development to be located at 18605 Monterey Road in the City of Morgan Hill, California. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the soil conditions at the site and to establish geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. The geotechnical recommendations are based on our evaluation and investigation, and on a site plan by EDI Architecture, issue dated Febrnary, 2004.
The scope of work for our investigation included:
a. A site reconnaissance by the Project Soil Engineer;
b. Field exploration including 3 drilled borings, and sub-surface soil sampling; c. Laboratory testing of soil samples obtained in the field; d. Engineering analysis of laboratory and field investigations; e. Establishment of geotechnical parameters; and
f. Preparation of this report.
Proposed Development
The proposed development is understood to consist of the constrnction of two new light commercial structures and associated grade level parking. It is assumed that the buildings will be of conventional construction.
Site Description
The site is i1Tegular in shape and is approximately 2.66 acres in areal extent. The site is bounded by a commercial development to the n01thwest and undeveloped land to the n01t heast and southeast. Railroad tracks, placed on a relatively small embankment run along the southwest perimeter of the property. A shallow drainage swale lies parallel and northeast of the embankment. The swale receives water from a culve1t which passes under the railroad embankment. A shallow retention pond is located near the west corner of the site and is pait of the drainage system. At the time of om field investigation, an 18 inch diameter sto1m line was being installed across the property to intercept the swale, and presumably replace the retention pond and swale. The storm line will discharge to the east.
The site was vacant at the time of our investigation and relatively devoid of flora, however, considerable rubble, including construction debris and dumped soil were encountered.
TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 4 of30
Project No. 10218.G Gcotechnical Jnvestigation 7 May 2004 This site desc1iption is based on our site reconnaissance by the Soils Engineer, and on the referenced site plan.
Subsurface Conditions
The test b01ings indicate that the site near surface soils are variable and generally consist of film to hard, silt, clay, sand, and gravel to the depths explored. Heavy gravel was encountered in Boring 1 at a depth of 28½ feet. Plasticity testing indicates that the surficial clay soil has a low propensity to expand when exposed to increases in moisture content.
No groundwater was encountered in our borings. While it is possible that ground water levels may rise during prolonged pe1iods of rainfall, it is not anticipated that groundwater will affect the proposed development.
Seismic Considerations
Because of its proximity to the San Andreas Fault system, Santa Clara County is considered to be one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. Since hist01ic records have been kept in the region, major earthquakes have been recorded on the San Andreas and Hayward Faults.
The San Andreas Fault, located approximately 17½ kilometers to the southwest, is the most likely fault to affect the site with potentially destrnctive strong ground motions. Other known active faults that may subject the site to intense shaking are the Calaveras (south), the Sargent Fault, and the Zayanta -Vergeles Fault, located 6 kilometers to the northeast, and 12 and 22½ kilometers to the southwest respectively.
Seismic Hazards
Seismic hazards can be divided into two broad classifications; 1) Primary hazards such as seismic shaking and damage produced directly from fault surface ruptures, and 2) Secondary hazards produced by seismic shaking including landslides, lurching, floods, subsidence, and liquefaction.
Primary Hazards
The project site is not within the boundaries of the Alquist-P1iolo Special Studies Zone and no faults are known to lie within the site. The likelihood of a surface fault rupture occurring on this site is considered low. Based on historical evidence however, it is likely that at least one significant eaithquake will produce strong ground motions at this site during the design life of the proposed structures. Structural considerations for construction on this site should include the seismic design parameters listed under UBC Seismic Design Criteria below.
TERRASEARCJI, inc. Page 5 of 30
ProjectNo.10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004 Secondary Hazards
The distance of the subject site from rivers and other bodies of water makes secondary earthquake hazards from, flooding (from tsunamis, seiches, and damn failmes) or lateral spreading highly improbable.
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction describes the phenomenon wherein soils lose their supportive strength and become prone to rapid settlement and loss of bearing capacity. Liquefaction occurs during earthquake conditions in saturated, relatively loose, sandy soils located near the ground surface. -.Based on the soil types, groundwater level, and blow counts (N-counts) taken dming om field investigation, the liquefaction potential on this site is considered very low, even if during the course of the project design life, the groundwater should rise to an unprecedented level.
Seismic Conclusions
The most significant seismic hazard is that of shaking. The stmctural design of the proposed buildings should anticipate repeatable horizontal ground accelerations. A prndent stmctural design should incorporate the current state of practice for seismic loads listed in UBC Seismic Design Criteria and the potential for seismically induced settlements as described above.
UBC Seismic Design Criteria
The 1997 Uniform Building Code, Chapter 16, Division IV Earthquake Design requires nearsource factors to be used for sites in Seismic Zone 4 that ar·e within certain distances of critical faults. fu 1998, the futemational Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) published a map folio to be used in scaling distances to the c1itical faults. According to this map folio, the site is within 17½ km of a Type A fault, the San Andreas Fault, and 6 km from the Calaveras Fault, a Type B fault.
Based on Tables 16-R, S and T of the 1997 Uniform Building Code and the data presented in this repo1t, a summary of the earthquake design criteria for use in the design of the proposed structures is as follows:
Seismic Zone
Soil Profile Type
Near Source Factor, Na
Near Source Factor, Nv
TERRASEARC/l, i11c.
4 So
1.0 1.17
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004
DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
1) From a geotechnical standpoint, the site is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. In addition any other requirements set by the City of Morgan Hill and any other governmental agencies should be followed.
2) The most prominent geotechnical considerations on this site are the probability of seismic shaking during the design life of the project, and the presence of non-engineered fill. 3) The proposed structmes may be satisfactorily supported on conventional spread footings. 4) All foundation plans for the improvements must be reviewed by the Soil Engineer prior to contract bidding or submittal to governmental agencies so that plans are reconciled with site conditions and sufficient time is allowed for suitable mitigative measures to be incorporated into the final specifications.
5) TERRASEARCH, inc., should be notified at least two working days prior to foundation operations. This will give the Soil Engineer ample time to discuss the problems that may be encountered in the field and coordinate the work with the contractor. 6) Field observation and testing during the grading operations must be provided by representatives of TERRASEARCH, inc., to enable them to f01m an opinion regarding the adequacy of the site preparation, and the extent to which the earthwork construction comply with the specification requirements. Any work related to the foundation operations perf01med without the full knowledge and under the direct observation of the Soil Engineer will render the recommendations of this report invalid. The degree of observation and frequency of testing services would depend on the construction methods and schedule, and the item of work.
Site Clearing and Preparation
7) It is not anticipated that demolition will be required on this site, however, if during the course of grading operations any concrete foundations, septic tanks, underground utilities, storage tanks, or any other sub-surface structures are encountered, they must be removed. Any tree root system, debris or trash that are encountered should also be removed. It is vital that TERRASEARCH, inc. observe the grading operation and be notified in ample time to ensure compliance with these requirements.
TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 7 of 30
Project No. 10218.G Gcotcclmical Investigation 7 May 2004 8) At the time of our investigation, there was sparse vegetation on the majority of the site. It is not anticipated that stripping will be necessaiy, however if excessive vegetation is present at the commencement of grading operations, the surface of the site in areas containing that vegetation should be stripped to remove the vegetation and/or other delete1ious mate1ial. The need and actual depth of stripping will be determined in the field by the Soil Engineer at the time the grading operations commence.
9) All non-engineered fill and loose or soft soils must be excavated to firm/stiff native ground. Following removal of non-engineered fill and loose and/or soft soil, the top 8 inches of exposed native ground should be scarified and compacted to a minimum degree of relative compaction of 90% at a moisture content above optimum as detennined by ASTM D1557-91 Laborato1y Test Procedure. Materials generated from loose/soft soils may be used as engineered fill with the approval of the Soil Engineer provided they do not contain debris.
Spread Footing Foundation
10) A spread footing foundation system may be used provided that a drainage system be incorporated into the project design to prevent introduction of inigation or storm water into the foundation sub-grade soils.
11) Spread footings should be embedded to a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent pad grade (i.e., trenching depth). Inte1ior footings may have a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the adjacent pad grade. At these depth, the recommended design bearing pressure for the continuous footings or isolated footings should not exceed 3000 p.s.f. due to dead loads and sustainable live loads, and 4000 p.s.f. for all loads including wind and seismic loads. Footings are to be reinforced as required by the structural engineer and in accordance with structural requirements.
12) To accommodate lateral building loads, the passive resistance of the foundation soil can be utilized. The passive soil pressures can be assumed to act against the front face of the footing below a depth of one foot below the ground surface. For design purposes, it is recommended that a passive pressure equivalent to that of a fluid weighing 325 p.c.f. be used. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.30 can be assumed at the base of the spread footing. 13) Structural design should anticipate differential movements of up to ½" in 25 feet.
General Slab Construction for Spread Footings or Exterior Slab on Grade 14) To reduce the potential cracking of concrete slabs, the following are recommended:
a. A minimum of 4 inches of gravel or clean crushed rock material should be placed between the finished subgrade and the slabs to serve as a capillaiy break between the subsoil and the slab. The use of aggregate base beneath the slab will not provide a capillaiy break, however, if floor coverings or potential moisture condensation on the floor slab is not an issue, aggregate base may be used. See the "Guide Specifications For Rock Under Floor Slabs", Appendix C.
TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 8 of 30
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004 b. Cast in place concrete slabs on grade suppo11ing floor cove1ings should be provided with measures to prevent condensation caused by temperature differentials from harming floor coverings. One method to reduce condensation is to place a waterproof membrane between a 2" sand cushion and the 4 inches of gravel. The waterproof membrane shall be overlapped adequately to provide a continuous waterproof membrane barrier under the entire slab. Care must be taken to ensure that the waterproof membrane does not become torn and entangled with the reinforcing.
c. All slabs should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 bars spaced 18 in. center to center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be placed in the center of the slab unless othe1wise designated by the design engineer. d. Slabs at door openings should be constructed with a curl or a thickened edge extending a minimum of 12 inches into native ground or compacted fill.
Utility Trenches
15) Applicable safety standards require that trenches in excess of 5 feet in depth must be properly shored or that the walls of the trench slope back to provide safety for installation of lines. If trench wall sloping is performed, the inclination should vary with the soil type. The underground contractor should request an opinion from the Soil Engineer as to the type of soil and the resulting inclination.
16) With respect to state-of-the-art construction or local requirements, utility lines are generally bedded with granular materials. These materials can convey surface or subsurface water beneath the structures. Therefore all utility trenches which possess the potential to transpm1 water must be sealed with grout where the trench enters/exits the building perimeter. This impervious seal should extend a minimum of 2 feet away from the building perimeter. The Project Soil Engineer must observe the grouting operations.
1 7) Utility trenches must be backfilled with native or approved import material and compacted to relative compaction of 90% in accordance with Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM D1557-91. Backfilling and compaction of these trenches must meet the requirements set fmih by the City of Morgan Hill, Building and Engineering Services Depmiment.
Pavement Design
18) After installation of underground facilities, the top 6 inches of subgrade soils under the pavements should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% based on the ASTM Dl557-91 test method. Aggregate base should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% based on the above test method.
TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 9 of30
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004 19) Based on testing of the surface soils, an "R-Value" of 15 can be used for the near surface soils encountered on the site. The recommended design sections presented in Table 2 were calculated in accordance with the methods presented in the latest update of the 4th Edition of the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual. The Table 2 design sections may be utilized provided that the subgrade is founded within the native material or within impo1ted material of equal to or greater "R-Value."
20) It is customary that a Traffic Index (T.I.) of 4.5 to 5.0 be used for design of pavements for automobile use only. All pavement sections should be designed for Traffic Indices in accordance with applicable standards and with the City of Morgan Hill or Caltrans.
Table 2: Recommended Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
DESIGN ASPHALT CONCRETE AGGREGATE BASE
TRAFFIC INDEX (TYPE B) (CLASS 2)
4.5 3.00 in. 7.0 in.
5.0 3.00 in. 7.5 in.
5.5 3.00 in. 10.0 in.
21) After the sub-grade is established, it is recommended that R-value samples be obtained and tested so that an accurate pavement section is obtained.
General Construction Requirements
22) Liberal drainage gradients must be provided by the project Civil Engineer to remove all stmm water from the vicinity of the foundation and to prevent storm and/or inigation water from seeping beneath the strnctures. Should surface water be allowed to seep under the structure, foundation movement resulting in shuctural damage may occur. All compacted, finished grades should be sloped at a minimum 2% gradient away from the exterior foundation for a minimum distance of 3 feet. Should the recommended surface gradient not be constrncted by the developer as designed by the project Civil Engineer, or should the owner alter the surface drainage provided by the developer, then a sub-drain system should be constructed around the perimeter of the shuctures. Specific recommendations for sub-drain conshuction will be provided upon request. 23) Where practicable, the building pe1imeter should be abutted with hardscape.
TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 10 of30
Project No. 10218.G Geotecbnical Investigation 7 May 2004 24) Downspouts from the gutters should be provided with adequate, non-perforated pipe conduits to cany storm water away from the structures and graded areas and, thus, reduce the possibility of soil saturation adjacent to the foundation and engineered fills. 25) Flower beds or planters are not recommended adjacent to the building foundations because of the possibility of irrigation water affecting the foundations and cast concrete slabs-ongrade. Should planters be constructed, foliage requiiing little irrigation should be planted. It is prefened that inigation adjacent to the building foundations consist of a drip system. Sprinkler systems may be used; however, it is preferred that sprinkler heads do not water closer than 3 feet from the building foundations. If sprinklers are used within 3 feet, then excessive wate1ing should not be allowed; and good surface drainage in the planter area must be provided. 26) If planters are used adjacent to the building foundations, the planters should be provided with a sub-drain system equipped with closed-pipe conduits to discharge surplus irrigation water away from the foundations to a location approved by the project civil engineer. In any case, it is recommended that area surface drains be incorporated into the landscaping to discharge any excessive inigation or rainwater that may accumulate in the planter area. These surface drains must be constructed in a manner that easy flow of surface water runoff is allowed into the pipe inlets.
27) Foundations recommendations included in this report assume that the foundation soils will remain in their present unsaturated condition. Saturation of the foundation soils may result in differential movements in the foundation. If it is anticipated that the proposed footings may be subjected to moisture intrusions due to storm water or any other sources, then a subdrain system should be considered for those areas which may be effected. Terrasearch, inc. will be pleased to provide such recommendations upon request. 28) To reduce pavement damage, landscape islands adjacent to paved parking areas should be equipped with an adequate sub-drain system to discharge iITigation water away from pavement and structures to a location approved by the project civil engineer.
TERRASEARCJI, inc. Page 11 of30
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004
GUIDELINES FOR REQUIRED SERVICES
The following list of services are the services required and must be provided by TERRASEARCH, iuc., dming the project development. These services are presented in check list fonnat as a convenience to those entrnsted with their implementation.
The items listed are included in the body of the report in detail. This list is intended only as an outline of the required services and does not replace specific recommendations and, therefore, must be used with reference to the total report. The degree of observation and frequency of testing services would depend on the construction methods and schedule, and the item of work.
The importance of careful adherence to the report recommendations cannot be overemphasized.
It should be noted, however, that this repmi is issued with the understanding that each step of the project development will be perfmmed under the direct observation of TERRASEARCH, inc.
The use of this report by others presumes that they have verified all information and assume full responsibility for the total project.
TERRASEARCH, illc. Page 12 of30
Project No. 10218.G Gcotcchnical Investigation 7 May 2004 Item Description Required Not Not
Required Anticipated
l. Provide foundation design parameters X
2. Review grading plans and specifications X
3. Review foundation plans and specifications X
4. Observe and provide recommendations regarding X
demolition
5. Observe and provide recommendations regarding site X stripping
6. Observe and provide recommendations on moisture X
conditioning, removal, and/or compaction of unsuitable
existing soils
7. Observe and provide recommendations on the X
installation of sub-drain facilities(if necessary)
8. Observe and provide testing services on fill areas and/or X imported fill materials
9. Review as-graded conditions and provide additional X foundation recommendations, if necessary
10. Observe and provide compaction tests on sanitary X
sewers, stonn drain, water lines and PG&E trenches
11. Observe foundation excavations and provide X
supplemental recommendations, if necessary prior to
placing concrete
12. Observe and provide moisture conditioning X
recommendations for foundation areas prior to placing
concrete
13. Provide design parameters for retaining walls X
14. Provide geologic observations and recommendations X for keyway excavations and cut slopes during grading
15. Excavate and re-compact all geologic trenches and/or X test pits
16. Observe installation of sub-drain behind retaining walls X TERRASEARCH, iuc. Page 13 of 30
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. It should be noted that it is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to notify TERRASEARCIL inc., in writing, a minimum of two working days before any clearing, grading, or foundation excavations can commence at the site.
2. The recommendations of this report are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the borings and from a reconnaissance of the site. Should any variations or undesirable conditions be encountered during the development of the site, TERRASEARC}L inc., will provide supplemental recommendations as dictated by the field conditions.
3. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the infmmation and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the Architect and Engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans and that the necessaiy steps are taken to see that the Contractor and Subcontractors cany out such recommendations in the field.
4. At the present date, the findings of this repmt are valid for the property investigated.
With the passage of time, significant changes in the conditions of a property can occur due to natural processes or works of man on this or adjacent prope1iies. In addition, legislation or the broadening of lmowledge may result in changes in applicable standards. Changes outside of om control may render this report invalid, wholly or partially. Therefore, this report should not be considered valid after a period of two (2) years without our review, nor should it be used, or is it applicable, for any properties other than those investigated.
5. Not withstanding, all the foregoing applicable codes must be adhered to at all times.
TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 14 of 30
APPENDIX A
Field Investigation
Site Plan
Logs of Test Borings
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on 26 April 2004 and included a reconnaissance of the site and the d1illing of 3 exploratory b01ings at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2, "Site Plan."
The ~orings were drilled to a maximum depth of 30 feet below the existing ground surface. The drilling was performed with a Mobile B3500 truck mounted drilling equipment using powerdriven, 6-inch diameter, continuous flight augers. Visual classifications were made from auger cuttings and the samples in the field. As the drilling proceeded, relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained by means of a 2 ½ inch 0. D. split spoon sampler containing 2 inch diameter brass liners. The sampler was advanced into the soil under the impact of a 140 pound hammer having a free fall of 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches into the soil (after seating the sampler the first six inches) were adjusted to the standard penetration resistance (N-Value).Soil samples were taken of the surface soils, and the underlying silty fine sands.
The samples were sealed and returned to our laboratory for testing. Classifications made in the field were verified in the laboratory after fmiher examination and testing.
The stratification of the soils, descriptions, and location of undisturbed soil samples are shown on the respective "Logs of Test B01ings" contained within this appendix.
TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 16 of30
/
BASE: By Thomas Guide
Project No. 10218.G May, 2004
TERRASEARCH, inc.
,
' ' \
,/
' ,
' \ .
I ,
/
' \
I
LOCATION MAP
Gateway Center
Morgan Hill, California
/
1 inch 1900 feet
FIGURE NO. 1
LOGGED BY RJP DATE DRILLED 26 April 2004 BORING DIAMETER _§'.'._ ¢:! ci Q) z a.
..c l!!~ 0.. a. Q) E -g 0 CIJ CIJ
Cl)
5 10
15 20
25 30
0 .a
E
>, SOIL DESCRIPTION
Cl)
:::ii::? Medium brown SAND & GRAVEL; o-·· d ·
·:--~··-'?· damp, medium dense, Af
:O/:'·o· ------ ---------- ---- ---
1 Medium brown Silty CLAY; damp,
medium stiff to hard
C =o 0 Cl) 0 ·- (/) m 0 .a '+'- -
'O -~ U) ~ Q) ~ ij:;: (/) 3o ·- Cl) 0l!) C CIJ ai C0 ::> - 0 SW
CL 12
I I 39
I
-~ --- ------ - -------------
::-0.~~ Orangish brown Clayey Silty SAND; SM
.XtY damp, dense :V.'\.Y.
-~- • {),_ - - ------ --------- ------ /\'():;: Medium brown SAND & GRAVEL; GW 28 :o)::q: damp, dense, gravel sub-rounded to .-_,o,;,?- 2"0 ¾li •. 'O {rr:~;
"_::)~::--· -----------------------
Slightly orange brown Silty CLAY;
damp, hard, some gravel
@ 25' some rounded gravel to ¾"0
@ 28½' heavy gravel
Terminated@ 30' bgs
No Groundwater encountered
CL
>50
GW
L..
Q)
..... .... Q)
2 E I 0
L.. ::i .....
a~
Q)
(l._
BORING NO. B-1
;::, Q)..,,; 'ui
C...,: :j 3
Q) c,j +-'
Cl) 2:- 0 ci.. ·a -o
2:- ~~ 0
110.8 14.0
116.5 15.6
123.3 7.7
118.3 13.4
MISC.
LAB
RESULTS
C = 400psf
0 = 30°
LL = 28
Pl= 12
TERRASEA~CH, inc. PROJECT No. 1021s.G FIGURE No. 3
LOGGED BY RJP DATE DRILLED 26 A12ril 2004 BORING DIAMETER ¢! 0 Q)
z 0..
.c: ~~ i5.. 0..
Q) E -o
(1J C: 0 (I) (1J
L- -
I- -
- 5 -
I- -
I- -
-10-
IL- -
L- -
i-20-
- -
- -
I- -
-25-
L- -
I- -
-30-
I- -
I- -
- C: ·- 0 0 ·- 0 (/) ro ..Cl
E -o2 SOIL DESCRIPTION Q) ·- >- i;:: en U) ·- en C: (1J :::> -
0 JJt Medium brown SILT, SAND & SW
-:ifl~ GRAVEL; damp, medium dense, Af
<1-'·1'·~· . .-i",h'. .-·n-P.
_:jG}.f·.
ll"i.:t-1r-
~: ':" ------------------------ --
Medium brown f. Sandy SILT; damp,
: : : stiff
··•.•,: ........
···.•.; ... . •' :
ML
l--:: ---------------------------
-o en 0 ..Cl --.._ I
en~
3o
0 LO iii(')
10 f{T Medium brown Silty SAND & GRAVEL;
·:hu.: damp, medium dense
~-J0:1<i SW "flt 17
.-·trt.
1)J~1;.
:_q;_l,c
.\\)-'·&·
·r-1>-lt -/t'( P •.. f,,·
Jt.·'' Jtf _____ ___ __________ ___ ___ --- 1/-' 1) 1
/ Slightly orange brown Clayey SILT; ML
v'\ { damp, hard, some gravel
t;; l,1 I;)
(,' 1,
I\,
I,
Terminated@ 20' bgs
No Groundwater encountered
_§_".___ BORING NO. B-2
'-
Q) c '+-
tl -E
Q) "vi
C: .....: :::l ~~ MISC. I e Q) •
0 ~ 1n ~ LAB :::i- 0.. ·5 "O
0 :g ~ 2~ RESULTS
Q) 0 0..
106.7 11.8
118.0 12.7
TERRASEARCH, inc. PROJECT No. 1021a.G FIGURE NO. 4
LOGGED BY RJP DATE DRILLED 26 April 2004
<I::'. ci Q) z D.. 0 .c ..!ll~ .0
15.. D.. E
Q) E ,:, >,
0 CO C (I)
(/) cu
SOIL DESCRIPTION
5 10
15 20
25 l increasing Clay
BORING DIAMETER __['._
_c
·- 0
0 ·- (/) ro tJ -~ Q) ~
Ii= (/) ·- (/) C CO
::, -
l)
CL
SC
SW
CL
0 (/) 0 .0 .... - --C/J<I= I
3o
0 lO a:i CV)
32 37
22 29
...
Q)
+-' '+- Q)
il E I Q
... :::J +-'
a~
Q)
0...
Olive brown Silty CLAY; damp, stiff CL
30 Terminated@ 30' bgs
No Groundwater encountered
BORING NO. B-3
c
·oo
C .,_: Q) •
0 ~
~ D..
0 109.7 18.6
123.0 8.9
117.4 12.1
105.6 14.7
MISC.
LAB
RESULTS
TERRASEARCH, inc. PROJECT No. 1021a.G FIGURE No. s
APPENDIXB
Laboratory Investigation
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Project No. 10218.G Geotechuical Investigation 7 May 2004
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
The laboratmy testing program was directed towards providing sufficient infmmation for the determination of the engineering characte1istics of the site soils so that the recommendations outlined in this report could be formulated.
Moisture content and dry density tests (ASTM D2937-83) were performed on representative relatively undisturbed soil samples in order to dete1mine the consistency of the soil and the moisture vaiiation throughout the explored soil profile as well as estimate the compressibility of the underlying soils.
The strength pai·ameters of the foundation soils were determined from a direct shear test performed on a selected relatively undisturbed soil sample.
Soil expansivity characte1istics were tested by means of plasticity tests perfmmed on a select soil sample.
A summary of all laboratory test results is presented on TABLE 3 of this appendix and on the respective "Logs of Borings", Appendix A.
TERRASEACH, Inc. Page 23 of30
Project No. 10218.G Geotcchnical Investigation 7 May 2004 TABLE 3
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
Atterberg Limits
Sample Depth Dry Moisture Liquid Plasticity Direct Shear Direct Shear No. Density Content Limit Index Test Test
(ft.) (p.c.f.) (%Dry (%)
Wt.) C (psf) PhiC°)
1-1 2 110.8 14.0 28 12 400 30°
1-2 5 116.5 15.6
1-3 10 123.3 7.7
1-4 20 118.3 13.4
2-1 5 106.7 11.8
2-2 10 118.0 12.7
3-1 2 109.7 18.6
3-2 5 J23.0 8.9
3-3 10 11 7.4 · 12. l
3-4 20 105 .6 14.7
TERRASEACH, Inc. Page 24 of30
APPENDIXC
The Grading Specifications
Guide Specifications For Rock Under Floor Slabs
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation
THE GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
on
Proposed Gateway Center
18605 Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, California
1. General Description
7 May 2004
1.1 These specifications have been prepared for the grading and site development of the subject project. TERRASEARCH, inc., hereinafter described as the Soil Engineer, should be consulted p1ior to any site work connected with site development to ensure compliance with these specifications.
1.2 The Soil Engineer should be notified at least two working days prior to any site cleating or grading operations on the property in order to observe the stripping of organically contaminated material and to coordinate the work with the grading contractor in the field.
1.3 This item shall consist of all clearing or grubbing, prepai·ation of land to be filled, filling of the land, spreading, compaction and control of fill, and all subsidiaiy work necessary to complete the grading of the filled areas to conform with the lines, grades, and slopes as shown on the accepted plans. The Soil Engineer is not responsible for dete1mining line, grade elevations, or slope gradients. The property owner, or his representative, shall designate the person or organizations who will be responsible for these items of work.
1.4 The contents of these specifications shall be integrated with the soil report of which they are a part, therefore, they shall not be used as a self-contained document.
2. Tests
The standard test used to define maximum densities of all compaction work shall be the ASTM D1557-91 Laboratmy Test Procedure. All densities shall be expressed as a relative compaction in terms of the maximum dry density obtained in the laboratory by the foregoing standard procedure.
3. Clearing, Grubbing, and Preparing Areas To Be Filled 3 .1 All vegetable matter, trees, root systems, shrubs, debris, and organic topsoil shall be removed from all structural areas and areas to receive fill.
TERRASEARCH, iuc. Page 26 of 30
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004
3.2 Any soil deemed soft or unsuitable by the Soil Engineer shall be removed. Any existing debris or excessively wet soils shall be excavated and removed as required by the Soil Engineer during grading.
3.3 If found, underground strnctures shall be removed from the site such as old foundations, abandoned pipe lines, septic tanks, and leach fields.
3 .4 The final stripped excavation shall be approved by the Soil Engineer during constrnction and before fmther grading is started.
3.5 After the site has been cleared, stripped, excavated to the surface designated to receive fill, and scarified, it shall be disked or bladed until it is uniform and free from large clods. The native subgrade soils shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to the requirements as specified in the grading section of this rep01t. Fill can then be placed to provide the desired finished grades. The contractor shall obtain the Soil Engineer's approval of subgrade compaction before any fill is placed.
4. Materials
4.1 All fill material shall be approved by the Soil Engineer. The mate1ial shall be a soil or soil-rock mixture which is free from organic matter or other deleterious substances. The fill material shall not contain rocks or lumps over 6 inches in greatest dimension and not more than 15% larger than 2-1/2 inches. Materials from the site below the stripping depth are suitable for use in fills provided the above requirements are met.
4.2 Materials existing on the site are suitable for use as compacted engineered fill after the removal of all debris and organic material. All fill soils shall be approved by the Soil Engineer in the field.
4.3 Should imp01t material be required, it must meet the requirements as specified in the body of this report prior to transporting it to the project.
5. Placing, Spreading, and Compacting Fill Material
5.1 The fill materials shall be placed in uniform lifts of not more than 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly blade mixed dming the spreading to obtain uniformity of material in each layer. Before compaction begins, the fill shall be brought to a water content that will permit proper compaction by either (a) aerating the mate1ial if it is too wet, or (b) spraying the material with water if it is too d1y.
TERRASEARCH, i11c. Page 27 of30
Project No. 10218.G Gcotecbnical Investigation 7 May 2004 5 .2 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, either imp01i material or native material shall be compacted to a relative compaction of 90% at a moisture content above optimum as determined by ASTM D1557-91 Laboratory Test Procedure.
5.3 Compaction shall be by footed rollers or other types of acceptable compacting rollers.
Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density.
Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is within the specified moisture content range. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over its entire area and the roller shall make sufficient hips to ensure that the required density has been obtained. No ponding or jetting shall be pennitted.
5 .4 Field density tests shall be made in each compacted layer by the Soil Engineer in accordance with Laboratory Test Procedure ASTM D2922-91 and D3017-88. When footed rollers are used for compaction, the density tests shall be taken in the compacted material below the surface disturbed by the roller. When these tests indicate that the compaction requirements on any layer of fill, or p01iion thereof, has not been met, the particular layer, or portion thereof, shall be reworked until the compaction requirements have been met.
5.5 No soil shall be placed or compacted dming periods of rain nor on ground which contains free water. Soil which has been soaked and wetted by rain or any other cause shall not be compacted until completely drained and until the moisture content is within the limits hereinbefore desc1ibed or approved by the Soil Engineer. Approval by the Soil Engineer shall be obtained prior to continuing the grading operations.
6. Pavement
6.1 The proposed subgrade under pavement sections, native soil, and/or fill shall be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% at a moisture content slightly above optimum for a depth of 6 inches.
6.2 All aggregate base material placed subsequently should also be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95% based on the ASTM Test Procedure D1557-91. The constrnction of the pavement in the parking and traffic areas should conf01m to the requirements set f01ih by the latest Standard Specifications of the Department of Transportation of the State of California and/or City of Morgan Hill, Building and Engineering Services Department.
6.3 It is recommended that soils at the proposed subgrade level be tested for a pavement design after the preliminary grading is completed and the soils at the site design sub grade levels are known.
TERRASEARCJI, inc. Page 28 of 30
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004
7. Utility Trench Backfill
7.1 The utility trenches extending under concrete slabs-on-grade shall be backfilled with native on-site soils or approved impo1t materials and compacted to the requirements pe1taining to the adjacent soil. No ponding or jetting will be permitted.
7.2 Utility trenches extending under all pavement areas shall be backfilled with native or approved import material and properly compacted to meet the requirements set forth by the City of San Jose, Department of Public Works.*
*NOTE: Requirements of City to be added.
7 .3 Where any opening is made under or through the perimeter foundations for such items as utility lines and trenches, the openings must be resealed so that they are watertight to prevent the possible entrance of outside irrigation or rain water into the underneath portion of the strnctures.
8. Subsurface Line Removal
8.1 The methods of removal will be designated by the Soil Engineer in the field depending on the depth and location of the line. One of the following methods will be used.
8.2 Remove the pipe and fill and compact the soil in the trench according to the applicable portions of sections pe1taining to compaction and utility backfill.
8.3 The pipe shall be crushed in the trench. The trench shall then be filled and compacted according to the applicable portions of Section 5.
8.4 Cap the ends of the line with concrete to prevent entrance of water. The length of the cap shall not.be less than 5 feet. The concrete mix shall have a minimum shrinkage.
9. Unusual Conditions
In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions are encountered during the grading operations, the Soil Engineer shall be immediately notified for additional recommendations.
TERRASEARCH, inc. Page 29 of 30
Project No. 10218.G Geotechnical Investigation 7 May 2004
GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROCK UNDER FLOOR SLABS
Definition
Graded gravel or crushed rock for use under slabs-on-grade shall consist of a minimum thickness of mineral aggregate placed in accordance with these specifications and in confomrnnce with the dimensions shown on the plans. The minimum thickness is specified in the accompanying report.
Material
The mineral aggregate shall consist of broken stone, crnshed or uncrnshed gravel, quairy waste, or a combination thereof. The aggregate shall be free from deleterious substances. It shall be of such quality that the absorption of water in a saturated dry condition does not exceed 3% of the oven dry weight of the sample.
Gradation
The mineral aggregate shall be of such size that the percentage composition by dry weight, as determined by laboratory sieves (U.S. Sieves) will conform to the following gradation:
Placing
Sieve Size
¾"
No. 4
No. 8
No. 200
Percentage Passing
90-100
25-40
18-33
0-3
Subgrade, upon which gravel or crnshed rock is to be placed, shall be prepared as outlined in the accompanying soil report.
TERRASEARCH, i11c. Page 30 of 30
Appendix D
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix D
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Phase I and II Environmental Site
Assessment
18545 – 18565 Monterey Street
Morgan Hill, California 95037
July 8, 2021
Prepared for:
City Ventures
444 Spear Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94105
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
735 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 280
San Bernardino, California 92408
Project No.: 185805226
Sign-off Sheet and Signatures of Environmental Professionals Project No.: 185805226
This document entitled Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of City Ventures (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party.
All information, conclusions, and recommendations provided by Stantec in this document regarding the Phase I ESA have been prepared under the supervision of and reviewed by the professionals whose signatures appear below.
Author:
Debbie Hernandez
Staff Geologist
I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in § 312.10 of 40 CFR 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the Property. I have developed and performed all the appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312.
Quality Reviewer:
Alicia Jansen
Associate Scientist
Independent Reviewer:
Kyle Emerson, C.E.G., P.G.
Managing Principal Geologist
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Project No.: 185805226 i
ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... III
1.0 SUMMARY....................................................................................................................... 1.1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2.1
2.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... 2.2
2.2 SPECIAL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS....................... 2.2
2.3 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ................................................................ 2.2
2.4 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................... 2.3
3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION................................................................................ 3.1
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW........................................................................................................ 4.1
4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING ...................................................................................................... 4.1
4.1.1 Property Topography and Surface Water Flow............................................. 4.1
4.1.2 Regional and Property Geology .................................................................... 4.1
4.1.3 Regional and Property Hydrogeology ........................................................... 4.2
4.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS................................ 4.2
4.2.1 Listings for Property....................................................................................... 4.2
4.2.2 Listings for Nearby Sites with Potential to Impact Property.......................... 4.2
4.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS...................................................... 4.3
4.3.1 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Services ............ 4.4
4.3.2 California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) ...................... 4.4
4.3.3 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)........................................ 4.4
4.3.4 California State Water Resources Control Board ......................................... 4.4
4.3.5 Fire Department............................................................................................. 4.5
4.3.6 Local Building and/or Planning Department Records ................................... 4.5
4.4 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW................................................................................. 4.6
4.4.1 Land Title Records/Deeds ............................................................................. 4.6
4.4.2 Aerial Photographs ........................................................................................ 4.6
4.4.3 City Directories............................................................................................... 4.7
4.4.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps...................................................................... 4.7
4.4.5 Historical Topographic Maps ......................................................................... 4.7
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE.............................................................................................. 5.1
5.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY................................................................ 5.1
5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION.............................................................................................. 5.1
5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS .................................. 5.2
5.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS.......................................................................................... 5.2
5.5 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS......................................................................................... 5.2
5.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES.................................................. 5.3
5.7 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS ............................................................................ 5.3
5.8 ADJOINING PROPERTIES............................................................................................. 5.3
5.8.1 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties............................................................ 5.3
5.8.2 Observed Evidence of Past Uses of Adjoining Properties............................ 5.4
5.8.3 Pits, Ponds or Lagoons on Adjoining Properties........................................... 5.4
5.9 OBSERVED PHYSICAL SETTING................................................................................. 5.4
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Project No.: 185805226 ii
6.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION................................................................................... 6.1
6.1 PRE-DRILLING ACTIVITIES........................................................................................... 6.1
6.2 INVESTIGATION ............................................................................................................. 6.1
6.2.1 Soil Boring and Sampling Procedures........................................................... 6.1
6.3 FIELD EQUIPMENT CLEANING PROCEDURES.......................................................... 6.2
6.4 LABORATORY TESTING................................................................................................ 6.2
6.5 INVESTIGATION RESULTS ........................................................................................... 6.2
6.5.1 Field Observations......................................................................................... 6.2
6.5.2 Analytical Results........................................................................................... 6.2
8.0 EVALUATION.................................................................................................................. 8.4
8.1 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ............................................................................................ 8.4
8.2 DATA GAPS..................................................................................................................... 8.5
8.3 CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................... 8.6
9.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS................................................................................. 9.1
9.1 RADON ............................................................................................................................ 9.1
9.2 FLOOD ZONES ............................................................................................................... 9.1
10.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 10.1
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Property Location Map
FIGURE 2 Property Details and Boring Locations
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Summary of Analytical Results – Lead and Arsenic
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY AND VICINITY..............................A.1 APPENDIX B STANTEC RESUMES...................................................................................B.1 APPENDIX C USER PROVIDED RECORDS......................................................................C.1 APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCY DATABASE SEARCH REPORT.................D.1 APPENDIX E HISTORICAL RECORDS..............................................................................E.1 APPENDIX F AGENCY RECORDS ....................................................................................F.1 APPENDIX G LABORATORY ANALYTICAL REPORTS ................................................. G.1
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Project No.: 185805226 iii
Abbreviations
AAI All Appropriate Inquiry
ACM Asbestos-containing material
AST Aboveground Storage Tank
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
BER Business Environmental Risk
CAA Clean Air Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CREC Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
EP Environmental Professional
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Environmental Site Assessment
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
ft msl Feet above mean sea level
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
LBP Lead-based paint
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
NESHAP National Emissions Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
REC Recognized Environmental Conditions
TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VEC Vapor Encroachment Condition
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Summary
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 1.1
1.0 SUMMARY
Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) has completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report of the property located at 18545 and 18565 Monterey Street, City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, California (the “Property”), on behalf of City Ventures (the “Client”). The work was performed according to the Master Services Agreement between Stantec and the Client (the “MSA”). City Ventures (the “User”) has been designated as the User of this report.
The Phase I ESA was conducted in conformance with the requirements of ASTM International (ASTM) Designation E 1527-13, and All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) as defined by the US-EPA in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 312, except as may have been modified by the scope of work, and terms and conditions, requested by the Client. Any exceptions to, or deletions from, the ASTM or AAI practice are described in Section 2.3.
The Property consists of approximately 4.17 acres of primarily undeveloped land with a small portion of an asphalt parking lot. Surrounding properties consists of a Starbucks, a hair salon, convenience store and gas station, railroad tracks, and residential community. A Property location map is illustrated on Figure 1.
A Property map illustrating the main features of the Property is provided as Figure 2. Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance visit are provided in Appendix A.
During the site reconnaissance, Stantec observed evidence of a prior homeless encampment and two propane tanks in the southern portion of the Property. Additionally, an open approximately 35-gallon unlabeled steel cylinder was observed with an unknown liquid with potential petroleum sheen. Stantec recommends this liquid be profiled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
Railroad tracks appear adjacent to the west-southwest of the Property. The presence of railroad tracks adjacent to the Property can be a potential concern due to the possible use of herbicides containing heavy metals (i.e., arsenic and lead) for weed abatement along the railroad tracks. Accordingly, Stantec recommended collection of soil samples for chemical analysis to determine if pesticides or heavy metals associated with herbicides were present at levels that may represent a concern to residential development.
The Phase II Subsurface Investigation
To evaluate the adjacent railroad tracks discussed above, Stantec completed a Phase II ESA at the Property on June 23, 2021. The scope of the investigation included the hand augering and sampling of four (4) soil borings (HA-1 through HA-4) to approximately 3-feet below ground surface (bgs) adjacent to the west-southwestern Property boundary near the railroad tracks.
Soil samples were collected at 0.5 to 1.0, 1.5 to 2.0, and 2.5 to 3.0-foot depth intervals for potential analysis of lead and arsenic. The deeper soil samples (1.5 to 2.0, and 2.5 to 3.0) were placed on hold pending the analysis of the shallow samples from 0.5 to 1.0 feet bgs A total of four (4) soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the metals arsenic and lead by USEPA test method 6010B.
Lead was detected at concentrations ranging from 1.8 to 18 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). These concentrations are well below the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Summary
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 1.2
Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for residential use of 32 mg/kg, and also below the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) residential screening level of 80 mg/kg for lead. Therefore, lead is not considered a concern to the site.
Arsenic was detected in all of the shallow soil samples at concentrations ranging from 5.9 to 28 mg/kg.
These concentrations are above the ESL for residential use of 0.067 mg/kg and above the California naturally-occurring regional background levels of 0.6 to 11.0 mg/kg (Table 1). Therefore, the deeper soil samples from the 2.0 and 3.0-feet interval were analyzed for arsenic from borings HA-1, HA-2, and HA-3.
Arsenic was detected in all of the deeper soil samples at concentrations ranging from 6.7 to 64 mg/kg.
Based on these soil samples the vertical and lateral limits of arsenic impacted soil was not defined on the Property by the completed assessment. Further vertical and lateral assessment will be necessary to define these limits.
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527 of 18545 and 18565 Monterey Street, City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, California or the “Property.” Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in the Data Gaps section of this report. This assessment has revealed evidence of the following recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Property:
• Elevated Arsenic Impacts. Based on the Phase II subsurface investigation results, the elevated detections of arsenic exceed regulatory screening criteria and naturally occurring background levels and are considered a REC to the Property. Stantec recommends further lateral and vertical delineation to determine the estimated quantity of arsenic impacted soil that will need to be addressed prior to residential redevelopment.
Stantec has identified the following non-ASTM issues related to the Property:
• Petromat. Stantec observed a small portion of an asphalt parking lot associated with the adjacent Starbucks. Given that Petromat is a stress-absorbing fabric often associated with asphalt, and it sometimes contains asbestos, Stantec recommends coring the asphalt parking to evaluate if Petromat is present between the asphalt layers and/or native soils to determine whether any special handling or disposal precautions are necessary due to the presence of asbestos.
The preceding summary is intended for informational purposes only. Reading of the full body of this report is recommended.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Introduction
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 2.1
2.0 INTRODUCTION
The objective of this Phase I ESA was to perform All Appropriate Inquiries (AAI) into the past ownership and uses of the Property consistent with good commercial or customary practice as outlined by ASTM International (ASTM) in “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process”, Designation E1527-13. “All Appropriate Inquiries” (AAI) is the process for evaluating a property’s environmental conditions for the purpose of qualifying for landowner liability protections under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). following final rule of Part 312 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 312). The purpose of this Phase I ESA was to identify adverse environmental conditions including recognized environmental conditions (“RECs”) associated with the Property.
The ASTM E1527-13 standard indicates that the purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify RECs, including historical recognized environmental conditions (“HRECs”) and controlled recognized environmental conditions (“CRECs”) that may exist at a property. The term “recognized environmental conditions” means the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property:
1. Due to any release to the environment;
2. Under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or
3. Under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment.
ASTM defines a “HREC” as a REC that has occurred in connection with a property, but has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority and meets current unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (e.g., property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). Before calling the past release a HREC, the environmental professional (EP) must determine whether the past release is a REC when the current Phase I ESA is conducted (e.g., if there has been a change in the regulations). If the EP considers the past release to be a REC at the time the Phase I ESA is conducted, the condition shall be included in the conclusions section of the report as a REC.
ASTM defines a “CREC” as a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (e.g., as evidenced by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), but with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (e.g., property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls).
As defined by ASTM, RECs can include hazardous substances or petroleum products present under conditions in compliance with laws if that presence represents a material threat of future release. The presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products is, however, not a REC if that presence is a de minimis condition. De minimis conditions are minor occurrences of contamination that generally do not present a material risk to human health and would not likely be subject to enforcement action if brought to the attention of governmental agencies. ASTM also considers the potential for a business environmental risk (BER), defined as a risk which can have a material environmental or environmentally-driven impact on
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Introduction
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 2.2
the business associated with the current or planned use of the Property, not necessarily limited to those environmental issues required to be investigated by the ASTM standard. Consideration of BERs may involve addressing one or more ASTM non-scope considerations.
This Phase I ESA was conducted in accordance with the MSA. The scope of work conducted during this Phase I ESA consisted of a visual reconnaissance of the Property, interviews with key individuals, and review of reasonably ascertainable documents. The scope of work did not include an assessment for environmental regulatory compliance of any facility ever operated at the Property (past or present), or sampling and analyzing of environmental media. Stantec was not contracted to perform an independent evaluation of the purchase or lease price of the Property and its relationship to current fair market value.
The conclusions presented in this Phase I ESA report are professional opinions based on data described herein. The opinions are subject to the limitations described in Section 2.3.
ASTM E1527-13 notes that the availability of record information varies from source to source. The User or EP is not obligated to identify, obtain, or review every possible source that might exist with respect to a property. Instead, ASTM identifies record information that is reasonably ascertainable from standard sources. “Reasonably ascertainable” means:
1. Information that is publicly available;
2. Information that is obtainable from its source within reasonable time and cost constraints; and
3. Information that is practicably reviewable.
2.1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Property consists of approximately 4.17 acres of primarily undeveloped land with a small portion of an asphalt parking lot. Surrounding properties consists of a Starbucks, a hair salon, convenience store and gas station, railroad tracks, and residential community. A Property location map is illustrated on Figure 1.
A Property map illustrating the main features of the Property is provided as Figure 2. Photographs taken during the site reconnaissance visit are provided in Appendix A.
The Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) associated with the Property are 764-10-013 and 764-10-015. The Property Owner is identified as Oanh Oanh Nguyen Trinh and Nhat Huu Hoang and Ngoc Tram Thi Nguyen.
2.2 SPECIAL TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ADDITIONAL
ASSUMPTIONS
There were no special terms, conditions, or additional assumptions associated with this Phase I ESA.
2.3 EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
This report documents work that was performed in accordance with the MSA. No other representations, warranties or guarantees are made concerning the accuracy or completeness of the data or conclusions contained within this report.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Introduction
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 2.3
This report provides an evaluation of specified environmental conditions associated with the identified property that was assessed at the time the work was conducted and is based on information obtained by and/or provided to Stantec at that time. 40 CFR 312.20(f)(2) requires that the Environmental Professional evaluate the thoroughness and reliability of provided information. Stantec can neither warrant nor guarantee such thoroughness or reliability, however.
Conclusions made within this report consist of Stantec’s professional opinion as of the time of the preparation of this report, and are based solely on the scope of work described in the report, the limited data available and the results of the work. They are not a certification of the property’s environmental condition.
Project Specific limiting conditions are provided in Section 2.2.
The conclusions are based on the site conditions encountered by Stantec at the time of the work.
Accordingly, additional studies and actions may be required. The identification of non-environmental risks to structures or people on the Property is beyond the scope of this assessment.
Stantec specifically disclaims any responsibility to update the conclusions in this report if new or different information later becomes available or if the conditions or activities on the property subsequently change.
In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this report and the terms and conditions of the MSA, the MSA shall control.
2.4 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
This Phase I ESA was conducted by, or under the supervision of, an individual that meets the ASTM definition of an EP. The credentials of the EP and other key Stantec personnel involved in conducting this Phase I ESA are provided in Appendix B.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
User-Provided Information
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 3.1
3.0 USER-PROVIDED INFORMATION
ASTM E1527-13 describes responsibilities of the User to complete certain tasks in connection with the performance of “All Appropriate Inquiries” into the Property. The ASTM standard requires that the EP request information from the User on the results of those tasks because that information can assist in the identification of RECs, CRECs, HRECs, or de minimis conditions in connection with the Property. Towards that end, Stantec requested that the User provide the following documents and information:
Description of Information
Provided
(Yes /
No) Description and/or Key Findings
User Questionnaire and/or Interview Yes The user is not aware of any environmental issues and/or environmental liens, and activity
use limitations associated with the Property.
Environmental Liens or Activity Use
Limitations
Yes No environmental liens and/or activity use
limitations were identified in the First American
Title Company Preliminary Report dated June
3, 2021.
Previous Environmental Permits or
Reports Provided by User
No The user reportedly does not possess any of
these documents.
Purpose of the Phase I ESA Yes Due diligence
Stantec forwarded the ASTM recommended User Questionnaire to Mr. Kian Malek, Development Associate with City Ventures. The completed User Questionnaire returned to us by Mr. Malek is included in Appendix C.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Records Review
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 4.1
4.0 RECORDS REVIEW
The objective of consulting historical sources of information is to develop the history of the Property and surrounding area and evaluate if past uses may have resulted in RECs. Physical setting records are evaluated to determine if the physical setting may have contributed to adverse environmental conditions in connection with the Property. During the review of historical records, Stantec attempted to identify uses of the Property from the present to the first developed use of the Property. Stantec’s research included the reasonably ascertainable and useful records described in this section.
4.1 PHYSICAL SETTING
A summary of the physical setting of the Property is provided in the table below with additional details in the following subsections
Topography: The Property is at an elevation of 352 feet above mean sea level. The regional topographic gradient is relatively flat with general topographic gradient to the southwest (EDR, 2021).
Soil/Bedrock Data: The subsurface in the vicinity of the Property consists of sandy fine-grained sediments (clay and silt) with minor amounts of coarse-grained sediments (silty sand and sand) to a maximum depth of 27 feet below ground surface (bgs) (Cambria, 1998).
Estimated Depth to Groundwater/
Estimated Direction of Gradient:
Depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the Property ranges from 30.38 to 34.27 feet below top of well casing with an easterly groundwater flow direction (Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, 2012).
NOTE:
Site-specific groundwater flow direction and depth can only be determined by conducting site-specific testing, which Stantec has not conducted.
4.1.1 Property Topography and Surface Water Flow
The Property is at an elevation of 352 feet above mean sea level. The regional topographic gradient is relatively flat with general topographic gradient to the southwest (EDR, 2021). Based on the topography, surface water on the Property infiltrates the ground surface.
4.1.2 Regional and Property Geology
The Property is located in Santa Clara County. The area is located within the Coast Ranges Geomorphic Province, which includes northwest-southeast trending mountain ranges and valleys that have been developed by the San Andreas Fault system (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2002). The Property sits in a valley between the Santa Cruz Mountains to the west and the Diablo Range to the east. The stratigraphy underlying the Site consists primarily of recent-age alluvium (CDMG, 1961).
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Records Review
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 4.2
According to the Site Investigation Report for the Former Shell Service Station located at 17905 Monterey Street, Morgan Hill, California prepared by Cambria Environmental Technology, Inc. (Cambria) dated July 31, 1998, the subsurface in the vicinity of the Property consists of sandy fine-grained sediments (clay and silt) with minor amounts of coarse-grained sediments (silty sand and sand) to a maximum depth of 27 feet below ground surface (bgs).
The closest mapped recently active fault is the Calaveras Fault located approximately 4 miles northeast (CGS, 2011). According to official maps of California, the Property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zone boundary (CDMG, 2000).
4.1.3 Regional and Property Hydrogeology
The Property is located within the South Santa Clara Valley Basin (305.30), within the Pajaro River Hydrologic Unit (305.00) (California Regional Water Quality Control Board [CRWQCB], 1995). According to the Groundwater Monitoring Report – Third Quarter 2012 for the Former Shell Service Station prepared by Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, depth to groundwater ranges from 30.38 to 34.27 feet below top of well casing with an easterly groundwater flow direction.
4.2 FEDERAL, STATE AND TRIBAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
A regulatory agency database search report was obtained from Environmental Data Resources (EDR), a third-party environmental database search firm. A complete copy of the database search report, including the date the report was prepared, the date the information was last updated, and the definition of databases searched, is provided in Appendix D.
Stantec evaluated the information listed within the database relative to potential impact to the Property, assessing the potential for impacts based in part on the physical setting. As part of this process, inferences have been made regarding the likely groundwater flow direction at or near the Property. As described in
4.1.3, the groundwater flow direction is reportedly to the east. Observations about the Property and surrounding sites made during the Property reconnaissance are provided in more detail in Section 5.
4.2.1 Listings for Property
The Property was not identified in the environmental database report.
4.2.2 Listings for Nearby Sites with Potential to Impact Property Stantec assessed data presented in the environmental agency database search report to evaluate the potential for conditions on adjacent and nearby sites to pose a REC, CREC, or HREC for the Property. The evaluation included an opinion of the potential for contamination by hazardous substances or petroleum products to migrate to the Property from a nearby site, including by vapor migration or encroachment (i.e., potential for a vapor encroachment condition [VEC]).
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Records Review
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 4.3
Based on this evaluation, the following individual facilities were identified as the most likely potential sources of impact to the Property. The basis for why each of the following listed databases creates or does not create a REC for the property is also provided.
Listed Facility Name/Address Database Listing
Distance/Direction
from Property
REC?
(YES / NO)
BP 07097 / Vision of Success Inc
ARCO AM PM / ARCO 07097 /
Morgan Hill Fuel
18605 Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
RCRA-VSQG;
CERS HAZ WASTE;
CERS TANKS;
CUPA Listings;
HAZNET; RCRA
NonGen/NLR; UST;
EDR Hist Auto;
CUPA Listings;
HAZNET; CERS;
HWTS
Approximately 200 feet to
the north-northwest (EDR
incorrectly reports 11 feet
to north-northwest)
No
The facility is an active gasoline station with a convenience store since 2010. Multiple administration violations were issued; however, the violations were corrected and there were no reported releases. The underground storage tanks and fuel dispenser islands are located over 200 feet to the north-northwest of the northern-most site boundary. Given there is no evidence of a release and the distance from the USTs and dispenser islands, the facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Property and Stantec recommends no further investigation regarding this issue.
Morgan Hill Fire Department
18300 Old Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
CUPA Listings; EMI;
HAZNET; CERS;
HWTS
Approximately 117 feet to
the south
No
The facility is listed as a fire department with an air discharge permit with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District for the release of small amounts of carbon monoxides, total organic hydrocarbon gases, reactive organic gases, nitrogen, and particulate matter with no reported violations. Multiple administration violations were issued; however, the violations were corrected and there were no reported releases. Given there is no evidence of a release, the facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Property and Stantec recommends no further investigation regarding this issue.
D&T Construction Co.
18375 Old Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
SWEEPS UST;
HIST UST; CA FID
UST
Approximately 275 feet to
the southwest
No
The facility is listed as having one 500-gallon gasoline UST in 1984. No additional information was provided or available online. Given the facility is not adjacent and there is no evidence of a release, the facility is not considered an environmental concern to the Property and Stantec recommends no further investigation regarding this issue.
The remaining listings in the database search report, including listings of Orphan Sites, provided in Appendix D, do not represent a REC.
4.3 LOCAL/REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Stantec checked the following sources to obtain information pertaining to Property use and/or indications of RECs in connection with the Property:
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Records Review
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 4.4
4.3.1 Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Services Agency Name
Contact Information
Finding
Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health Services
http://lustop.sccgov.org/
Date searched: June 17, 2021
Stantec submitted a records request to the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (SCCDEH) to research whether any documents were on file for the addresses for the Site. According to the website, all documents submitted to the SCCDEH are uploaded to the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s online database Geotracker. There are no records listed for the Property address on Geotracker.
4.3.2 California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) Agency Name, Contact Information Findings
California Geologic Energy Management Division
(CalGEM)
5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200 Cypress, CA
90630
Online database:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder
Date searched: June 17, 2021
Stantec searched for oil wells on the California
Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM),
formerly Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal
Resources (DOGGR) online database. No oil wells
were located within a one-mile radius of the
Property.
4.3.3 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC)
Agency Name, Contact Information Findings
Department of Toxic Substance
Control
Online database:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov
Date searched: June 17, 2021
No records were available for the Property address or adjoining properties on the DTSC Envirostor website. Additionally, according to a letter dated June 15, 2021, the DTSC does not have any records associated with the Property addresses.
4.3.4 California State Water Resources Control Board
Agency Name, Contact Information Findings
California State Water Resources
Control (SWRCB)
Online database:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Date searched: June 17, 2021
No records were available for the Property address or adjoining properties on the SWRCB Geotracker website.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Records Review
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 4.5
4.3.5 Fire Department
Agency Name
Contact Information
Finding
Santa Clara County Fire Department
14700 Winchester Boulevard
Los Gatos, California
Phone (408) 378-4010
According to an email dated June 11, 2021, the Property is located within the jurisdiction of the Morgan Hill Fire Department.
City of Morgan Hill Fire Department
15670 Monterey Road
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Phone: (408) 779-2121
On June 11, 2021, Stantec submitted a file review request to the City of Morgan Hill Fire Development. At the time of this report, Stantec has not received a response. Should any pertinent files become available, Stantec will review the files and provide an addendum to the Phase I ESA. Based on its review of other sources, however, Stantec considers it unlikely that any records from this agency would alter the conclusions or recommendations of this report. The lack of this information does not represent a significant data gap.
4.3.6 Local Building and/or Planning Department Records Agency Name, Contact
Information
Findings
City of Morgan Hill
Community Development
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
On June 11, 2021, Stantec submitted a file review request to the City of Morgan Hill Community Development. At the time of this report, Stantec has not received a response from the City of Morgan Hill regarding the request. Should any pertinent files become available, Stantec will review the files and provide an addendum to the Phase I ESA. Based on its review of other sources, however, Stantec considers it unlikely that any records from this agency would alter the conclusions or recommendations of this report. The lack of this information does not represent a significant data gap.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Records Review
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 4.6
4.4 HISTORICAL RECORDS REVIEW
4.4.1 Land Title Records/Deeds
limitations were identified in the First American Title Company Preliminary Report dated June 3, 2021. A copy of the title report is provided in Appendix C. No other land title records were reviewed by Stantec as part of this assessment.
4.4.2 Aerial Photographs
Stantec reviewed historical aerial photographs provided by EDR. The general type of activity on a property and land use changes can often be discerned from the type and layout of structures visible in the photographs. However, specific elements of a facility's operation usually cannot be discerned from aerial photographs alone. The following table summarizes Stantec’s observations of the reviewed historical aerial photographs.
Year Scale Observations, Property and Adjoining Properties 1939
1940
1948
1950
1956
1963
1968
1970
1” = 500’ The Property and surrounding area appear to be vacant land. An eastwest road appears to bisect the northern portion of the Property.
Railroad tracks appear along the western perimeter. A road appears along the eastern perimeter beyond which are orchards.
1974
1982
1” = 500’ The Property and adjoining land appear similar to the previous photographs. Residential structures appear to the west beyond the railroad tracks and road. A fire station appears to the southwest beyond the railroad tracks in the 1982 aerial photograph. 1998 1” = 500’ The Property and adjoining land appear similar to the previous photographs. An increase in residential structures appears to the west.
Commercial development appears to the north. Vacant land appears to the east beyond the roadway.
2006 1” = 500’ The Property remains vacant land. Commercial development included the current gas station appear to the north of the Property. 2009
2012
2016
1” = 500’ The Property remains vacant land. An increase in residential development appears to the northeast. Vacant land remains to the southeast.
Name of aerial photograph source: EDR, 2021
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Records Review
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 4.7
4.4.3 City Directories
Stantec retained a third party to research available reverse city directories for the Property, in approximately five-year intervals. The Property addresses were not listed in the city directory image report. The majority of the listings for the surrounding area were residential. The property to the north (18585 and 18605 Monterey Street) were identified as a hair salon, Starbucks, and gas station between 2017 and 2010. The complete city directory abstract is provided in Appendix E.
4.4.4 Historical Fire Insurance Maps
Fire insurance maps were developed for use by insurance companies to depict facilities, properties, and their uses for many locations throughout the United States. These maps provide information on the history of prior land use and are useful in assessing whether there may be potential environmental contamination on or near the Property. These maps, which have been periodically updated since the late 19th century, often provide valuable insight into historical Property uses.
Stantec requested fire insurance maps from Environmental Data Resources (EDR); however, no coverage exists for the Property. The Sanborn® Map Search Report indicating “no coverage” is presented in Appendix E.
4.4.5 Historical Topographic Maps
Stantec reviewed historical identify map USGS 7.5-minute Topographic Maps of the Morgan Hill and Mount Madonna, California Quadrangles (scale 1:24,000) to help identify past Property usage and areas of potential environmental concern.
Copies of the historical maps are provided in Appendix E. The following table summarizes the maps reviewed and our observations.
Year Scale Observations, Property and Adjoining Sites
1917 1:62500 The Property is depicted adjacent to railroad tracks north of the city of Morgan Hill. No site features are depicted on the Property or surrounding area.
1939 1:62500 The Property is depicted as vacant land. A road appears adjacent to the east beyond which is agricultural land.
1955
1966
1973
1980
1:62500
1:24000
The Property remains depicted as vacant land. Orchards and small structures appear to the west beyond the railroad tracks and roadway.
Vacant land appears to the east.
2012 1:24000 No details are depicted on the site map. Roadways appear in the current configuration.
Name of maps and source: EDR, 2021
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Site Reconnaissance
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 5.1
5.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
A visit to the Property and its vicinity was conducted by Mr. Jaylen Gregory, Staff Geologist with Stantec, on June 15, 2021. Access to the Property was provided by Mr. David Shelly of City Ventures. Stantec was unaccompanied during the Property visit. Figure 2 provides information about the Property and adjoining sites and the location of potential areas of environmental concern. Detailed Property features are provided on Figure 2. Photographs collected during the Property visit are included in Appendix A.
5.1 SITE RECONNAISSANCE METHODOLOGY
The site reconnaissance focused on observation of current conditions and observable indications of past uses and conditions of the Property that may indicate the presence of RECs. The reconnaissance of the Property was conducted on foot and Stantec utilized the following methodology to observe the Property:
• Traverse the outer Property boundary.
• Traverse transects across the Property.
Weather conditions during the visit to the Property were clear and sunny. There were no weather-related Property access restrictions encountered during the reconnaissance visit. Interior access to the storage container and Outlaw Customs and Classics was not provided.
5.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Property and Area
Description:
The Property is located to the west of the intersection of Jarvis Drive and Old Monterey Road in the City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, California. The surrounding area is primarily residential.
Property Operations. The Property consists of undeveloped land and a portion of an asphalt parking lot associated with a Starbucks and hair salon.
Structures, Roads, Other
Improvements:
The Property consists of undeveloped land and a portion of an asphalt parking lot.
Property Size (acres): 4.17 acres
Estimated % of Property
Covered by Buildings
and/or Pavement:
5%
Observed Current Property
Use/Operations:
The Property consists of undeveloped land and a portion of an asphalt parking lot associated with a Starbucks and hair salon.
Observed Evidence of Past
Property Use(s):
None observed.
Sewage Disposal Method
(and age):
Not applicable.
Potable Water Source: Not applicable.
Electric Utility: Not applicable.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Site Reconnaissance
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 5.2
5.3 HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
The following table summarizes Stantec’s observations during the Property reconnaissance.
Observations Description/Location
Hazardous Substances and
Petroleum Products as Defined by
CERCLA 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14):
None observed.
Drums (≥ 5 gallons): None observed.
Strong, Pungent, or Noxious Odors: None observed.
Pools of Liquid: None observed.
Unidentified Substance Containers: None observed.
PCB-Containing Equipment: None observed.
Other Observed Evidence of
Hazardous Substances or
Petroleum Products:
Two propane tanks were observed in the southern portion of the Property. An open approximately 35-gallon unlabeled steel cylinder was observed with an unknown liquid with potential petroleum sheen. Stantec recommends this liquid is profiled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
5.4 INTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
Given there are no structures on the Property this section of the report is not applicable.
Observations Description
Heating/Cooling Method: Not applicable.
Surface Stains or Corrosion: Not applicable.
Floor Drains and Sumps: Not applicable.
Other Interior Observations: Not applicable.
5.5 EXTERIOR OBSERVATIONS
Stantec made the following observations during the site reconnaissance of exterior areas of the Property and/or identified the following information during the interview or records review portions of the assessment:
Observations Description
On-site Pits, Ponds, or Lagoons: None observed.
Stained Soil or Pavement: None observed.
Stressed Vegetation: None observed.
Waste Streams and Waste Collection
Areas:
An abandoned homeless encampment was observed in the
southern portion of the Property. Miscellaneous debris was observed throughout the southern portion of the Property.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Site Reconnaissance
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 5.3
Observations Description
Solid Waste Disposal: No areas indicative of solid waste disposal were observed.
Potential Areas of Fill Placement: No mounds, piles, or depressions suggesting the placement of fill material were observed on the Property.
Wastewater: No exterior wastewater discharge was observed.
Stormwater: Water is expected to infiltrate the exposed ground surface.
Wells: None observed.
Septic Systems: No visible evidence of the existence of a septic system was observed.
Other Exterior Observations: Stantec observed a small portion of an asphalt parking lot associated with the adjacent Starbucks. Given that Petromat is a stress-absorbing fabric often associated with asphalt, and it sometimes contains asbestos, Stantec recommends coring the asphalt parking to evaluate if Petromat is present between the asphalt layers and/or native soil.
5.6 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS/STRUCTURES
Existing
USTs:
No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface patches), which would indicate the presence of USTs, was discovered during the site reconnaissance.
Former
USTs:
No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface patches), which would indicate the historical presence of USTs, was discovered during the site reconnaissance.
Other
Underground
Structures:
None observed.
5.7 ABOVEGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Existing
ASTs:
No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface stains), which would indicate the presence of ASTs, was discovered during the site reconnaissance.
Former
ASTs:
No visible evidence (fill pipes, vent pipes, dispensers, surface stains), reports, or other evidence of the former presence of ASTs was discovered during this Phase I ESA.
5.8 ADJOINING PROPERTIES
5.8.1 Current Uses of Adjoining Properties
As viewed from the Property and/or from public rights-of-way, Stantec made the following observations about use and activities on adjoining sites:
NORTH Starbucks, hair salon, and gas station with drive-thru car wash.
EAST Monterey Street beyond which is an abandoned lot.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Site Reconnaissance
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 5.4
SOUTH A fire station is located to the southwest beyond the railroad tracks.
WEST Railroad tracks beyond which is a road and residential structures.
5.8.2 Observed Evidence of Past Uses of Adjoining Properties Observations of adjoining sites providing indications of past use and activities, if any, are described below.
NORTH None observed.
EAST None observed.
SOUTH None observed.
WEST None observed.
5.8.3 Pits, Ponds or Lagoons on Adjoining Properties
As viewed from the Property and/or from public rights-of-way, Stantec made the following observations about the presence of pits, ponds and lagoons on adjoining sites:
NORTH None observed.
EAST None observed.
SOUTH None observed.
WEST None observed.
5.9 OBSERVED PHYSICAL SETTING
Topography of the
Property and Surrounding
Area:
The northern portion of the Property is relatively hilly with a flat portion in the center then there is a steep drop off that leads to the southern half of the Property.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Subsurface Investigation
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 6.1
6.0 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Stantec conducted a subsurface assessment to address the following identified recognized environmental condition (REC):
• Adjacent Railroad Tracks. Railroad tracks appear adjacent to the west-southwest of the Property.
The presence of railroad tracks adjacent to the Property can be a potential concern due to the possible use of herbicides containing heavy metals for weed abatement along the railroad tracks.
Accordingly, Stantec recommended collection of soil samples for chemical analysis to determine if pesticides or heavy metals associated with herbicides were present at levels that may represent a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) or that are of concern to residential development.
6.1 PRE-DRILLING ACTIVITIES
Prior to the commencement of fieldwork activities, Stantec made the following preparations:
• Stantec visited the Property to mark the proposed boring locations. Subsequent to the marking, underground Service Alert (USA) was notified at least 72-hours prior to the commencement drilling activities; and,
• In accordance with federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR, Section 1910.120), Stantec developed a site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) for the Property. All Stantec personnel and subcontractors associated with the project were required to be familiar with, and comply with, all provisions of the HASP.
6.2 INVESTIGATION
Stantec provided the services of a field scientist on June 23, 2021 to supervise and direct all assessment activities performed during this investigation. The scope of the investigation included the hand augering and sampling of four (4) soil borings (HA-1 through HA-4) to approximately 3-feet below ground surface (bgs) adjacent to the west-southwestern Property boundary near the railroad tracks. All boring locations are depicted on Figure 2.
6.2.1 Soil Boring and Sampling Procedures
A hand auger was used for all borehole advancement. The soils from each boring were containerized and carefully packaged for chemical analysis. The sample containers were labeled with the appropriate identification information (boring number, sample depth, sample collection date, and sample collection time). The samples were logged on a chain-of-custody form and delivered to a state certified laboratory for analysis.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Subsurface Investigation
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 6.2
6.3 FIELD EQUIPMENT CLEANING PROCEDURES
To maintain quality control during soil sampling activities, all soil sampling equipment including hand augers were decontaminated using a triple bucket rinse. Prior to drilling at a given location or sampling interval, all equipment coming in direct contact with soil samples was scrubbed with an Alconox scrub solution followed by a clean tap water rinse and then a final distilled water rinse.
6.4 LABORATORY TESTING
Soil samples collected during this investigation were delivered under chain-of-custody to Eurofins TestAmerica (Eurofins), located in West Sacramento, California for analyses. Eurofins is certified to perform hazardous waste testing by the California State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP).
Soil samples were collected at 0.5 to 1.0, 1.5 to 2.0, and 2.5 to 3.0-foot depth intervals for potential analysis of lead and arsenic. The deeper soil samples (1.5 to 2.0, and 2.5 to 3.0) were placed on hold pending the analysis of the shallow sample. A total of four (4) initial soil samples were submitted for laboratory analysis of the metals arsenic and lead by USEPA test method 6010B. After receipt of the initial soil samples, an additional six (6) soil samples were analyzed from the deeper depths for a total of 10 soil samples for analysis of lead and arsenic.
All laboratory analytical results, and appropriate quality assurance / quality control (QA/QC) documentation, is attached as Appendix G.
6.5 INVESTIGATION RESULTS
6.5.1 Field Observations
No surficial staining or odor was noted during the investigation and groundwater was not encountered. The boring locations are illustrated in Figure 2.
6.5.2 Analytical Results
Laboratory test results from this assessment are presented on the laboratory data sheets attached as Appendix G. A summary of the analytical data from this assessment is provided in Table 1. The laboratory test results from this investigation are discussed below and were comparted to the more conservative value between the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for residential use (July 2019) and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) residential screening level (DTSC, 2020).
Lead was detected at concentrations ranging from 1.8 to 18 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). These concentrations are well below the SFRWQCB ESL for residential use of 32 mg/kg, and also below the DTSC HERO residential screening level of 80 mg/kg for lead. Therefore, lead is not considered a concern to the site and Stantec recommends no further investigation regarding this issue.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 7.3
Arsenic was detected in all of the shallow soil samples at concentrations ranging from 5.9 to 28 mg/kg.
These concentrations are above the ESL for residential use of 0.067 mg/kg and above the California naturally-occurring regional background levels of 0.6 to 11.0 mg/kg (Table 1). Therefore, the deeper soil samples from the 2.0 and 3.0-feet interval were analyzed for arsenic from borings HA-1, HA-2, and HA-3.
Arsenic was detected in all of the deeper soil samples at concentrations ranging from 6.7 to 64 mg/kg.
Based on these results, the elevated detections of arsenic exceed regulatory screening criteria and naturally occurring background levels and are considered a REC to the Property. Stantec recommends further lateral and vertical delineation to determine the estimated quantity of arsenic impacted soil that will need to be addressed prior to residential redevelopment.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Evaluation
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 8.4
8.0 EVALUATION
This section provides a summary overview of or Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions.
8.1 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS
Information gathered from interviews, reviews of existing data, and a Property inspection was evaluated to determine if RECs are present in connection with the Property. Based on this information, Stantec made the following findings and developed the following opinions. • During the site reconnaissance, Stantec observed evidence of a prior homeless encampment and two propane tanks in the southern portion of the Property. Additionally, an open approximately 35-gallon unlabeled steel cylinder was observed with an unknown liquid with potential petroleum sheen.
The materials are considered a de minimis condition. Stantec recommends this liquid be profiled and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. • Railroad tracks appear adjacent to the west-southwest of the Property. The presence of railroad tracks adjacent to the Property can be a potential concern due to the possible use of herbicides containing heavy metals for weed abatement along the railroad tracks. Accordingly, Stantec recommended collection of soil samples for chemical analysis to determine if pesticides or heavy metals associated with herbicides were present at levels that may represent a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) or that are of concern to residential development.
To evaluate the adjacent railroad tracks discussed above, Stantec completed a Phase II ESA at the Property on June 23, 2021. The scope of the investigation included the hand augering and sampling of four (4) soil borings (HA-1 through HA-4) to approximately 3-feet below ground surface (bgs) adjacent to the west-southwestern Property boundary near the railroad tracks.
Lead was detected in all shallow soil samples collected at concentrations ranging from 1.8 to 18 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). These concentrations are well below the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for residential use of 32 mg/kg, and also below the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO) residential screening level of 80 mg/kg for lead. Therefore, lead is not considered a concern to the site.
Arsenic was detected in all of the shallow soil samples at concentrations ranging from 5.9 to 28 mg/kg.
These concentrations are above the ESL for residential use of 0.067 mg/kg and above the California naturally-occurring regional background levels of 0.6 to 11.0 mg/kg (Table 1). Therefore, the deeper soil samples from the 2.0 and 3.0-feet interval were analyzed for arsenic from borings HA-1, HA-2, and HA-3. Arsenic was detected in all of the deeper soil samples at concentrations ranging from 6.7 to 64 mg/kg.
Based on these results, the elevated detections of arsenic exceed regulatory screening criteria and naturally occurring background levels and are considered a REC to the Property. Stantec recommends
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Evaluation
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 8.5
further lateral and vertical delineation to determine the estimated quantity of arsenic impacted soil that will need to be addressed prior to residential redevelopment. • An environmental records search was performed and identified sites within their respective ASTM E 1527-13 search radii of the Property that may represent RECs, HRECs, or de minimis conditions.
Based on one or more of the following reasons: distance from the Property, position of sites with respect to assumed groundwater flow direction, the native soils, and regulatory status, none of the sites identified in the in the environmental records search report are expected to affect soil or groundwater quality at the Property. The environmental records search identified no RECs, HRECs or de minimis conditions at or near the Property.
• Stantec observed a small portion of an asphalt parking lot associated with the adjacent Starbucks.
Given that Petromat is a stress-absorbing fabric often associated with asphalt, and it sometimes contains asbestos, Stantec recommends coring the asphalt parking to evaluate if Petromat is present between the asphalt layers and/or native soils to determine whether any special handling or disposal precautions are necessary due to the presence of asbestos.
8.2 DATA GAPS
The federal AAI final rule [40 CFR 312.10(a)] and ASTM E1527-13 identify a “data gap” as the lack or inability to obtain information required by the standards and practices of the rule despite good faith efforts by the EP or the User.
Any data gaps resulting from the Phase I ESA described in this report are listed and discussed below.
None of the identified data gaps represent a significant data gap.
Gap Discussion
Deletions or Exceptions from
Scope of Work Referenced in
Section 1.4:
None
Weather-Related Restrictions to
Site Reconnaissance:
None
Facility Access Restrictions to
Site Reconnaissance:
None
Other Site Reconnaissance
Restrictions:
None
Data Gaps from Environmental
Records Review:
None
Data Gaps from Historical
Records Review:
None
Data Gaps from Interviews: The Property consists of a vacant lot; therefore, no on-site interview was conducted. Given the historical documentation for the Property and lack of development, the lack of an interview is not
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Evaluation
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 8.6
Gap Discussion
considered a significant impact and is unlikely to impact the findings of the report.
Other Data Gaps: None
8.3 CONCLUSIONS
We have performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Practice E1527 of 18545 and 18565 Monterey Street, City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, California or the “Property.” Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in the Data Gaps section of this report. This assessment has revealed evidence of the following recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Property:
• Elevated Arsenic Impacts. Based on the Phase II subsurface investigation results, the elevated detections of arsenic exceed regulatory screening criteria and naturally occurring background levels and are considered a REC to the Property. Stantec recommends further lateral and vertical delineation to determine the estimated quantity of arsenic impacted soil that will need to be addressed prior to residential redevelopment.
Stantec has identified the following non-ASTM issues related to the Property:
• Petromat. Stantec observed a small portion of an asphalt parking lot associated with the adjacent Starbucks. Given that Petromat is a stress-absorbing fabric often associated with asphalt, and it sometimes contains asbestos, Stantec recommends coring the asphalt parking to evaluate if Petromat is present between the asphalt layers and/or native soils to determine whether any special handling or disposal precautions are necessary due to the presence of asbestos.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Non-Scope Considerations
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 9.1
9.0 NON-SCOPE CONSIDERATIONS
The following ASTM E1527-13 Non-Scope Considerations were performed as part of this Phase I ESA:
9.1 RADON
Radon is a colorless, tasteless radioactive gas with an EPA-specified action level of 4.0 PicoCuries per liter of air (pCi/L) for residential properties. Radon gas has a very short half-life of 3.8 days. The health risk potential of radon is primarily associated with its rate of accumulation within confined areas near or in the ground, such as basements, where vapors can readily transfer to indoor air from the ground through foundation cracks or other pathways. Large, adequately ventilated rooms generally present limited risk for radon exposure. The radon concentrations in buildings and homes depend on many factors, including soil types, temperature, barometric pressure, and building construction (EPA, 1993).
Stantec reviewed regional data published by the EPA on average indoor radon concentrations in the vicinity of the Property (http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html).
EPA Radon Zones (w/Average Measured Indoor Radon concentrations) Zone 1 – High
(>4.0 pCi/L)
Zone 2 – Moderate
(2 to 4 pCi/L)
Zone 3 – Low
(<2 pCi/L)
X
Normally-occupied sub grade areas present? (i.e., basement apartments, offices, stores, etc.) The Property is located in Zone 2 and is considered to have moderate potential for radon; however, none of the 21 tests performed in Zipcode 95037 had a detection above 4 pCi/L. To determine Property-specific radon levels, a radon survey would have to be conducted. However, because the Property is not residential and there are no occupied subgrade areas, further investigation of indoor radon issues does not appear to be warranted.
9.2 FLOOD ZONES
According to the Physical Setting summary portion of the EDR report, the Property is located within a 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
References
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 10.1
10.0 REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials, 2015, Standard Guide for Vapor Encroachment Screening on Property Involved in Real Estate Transactions, Designation E 2600-15.
American Society for Testing and Materials, 2013, Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Process, Designation: E 1527-13.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, 2021, EnviroStor California State Department of Water Resources Control Board, 2021, GeoTracker California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1966, Geologic Map of California, San Jose Sheet, scale 1:250,000.
_____, 2000, Digital Images of Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones of California, Central Coastal Region, CD 2000-004.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. _____, 2010, Fault Activity Map of California, adjustable scale, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html.
California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM), 2021, Well Finder https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/-118.94276/37.10257/6 California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), 1995, Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Region – Region 3.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR), EDR Radius Map with Geocheck, Inquiry Number 6534496.2s, dated June 15, 2021.
_____, Certified Sanborn Map Report, Inquiry Number 6534496.3, dated June 15, 2021. _____, Historical Topographic Map Report, Inquiry Number 6534496.4, dated June 15, 2021. _____, Aerial Photo Decade Package, Inquiry Number 6534496.8, dated June 15, 2021. _____, City Directory Abstract, Inquiry Number 6534496.5 dated June 15, 2021.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2019, EPA Radon Zones https://www.epa.gov/radon/find-information-about-local-radon-zones-and-state-contact-information United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2019, FEMA Floodzone Map Service United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1980, Morgan Hill Quadrangle, 7.5 Minute Topographic Map, Scale 1 inch = 2,400 feet.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Project No.: 185805226
TABLE AND
FIGURES
Table 1
Summary of Soil Analytical Results - Lead/Arsenic
18545 - 18565 Monterey Street
Morgan Hill, California
Stantec Project Number: 185805226
Arsenic
and Lead
by 6010B
Arsenic Lead
0.067 32
0.41 80
0.6 - 11 NE
HA-1-1 1.0 6/23/21 23 1.9
HA-1-2 2.0 6/23/21 18 1.8
HA-1-3 3.0 6/23/21 64 7.9
HA-2-1 1.0 6/23/21 19 17
HA-2-2 2.0 6/23/21 14 14
HA-2-3 3.0 6/23/21 6.7 7.0
HA-3-1 1.0 6/23/21 28 13
HA-3-2 2.0 6/23/21 26 18
HA-3-3 3.0 6/23/21 22 17
HA-4-1 1.0 6/23/21 5.9 9.5
HA-4-2 2.0 6/23/21 NA NA
HA-4-3 3.0 6/23/21 NA NA
Notes:
All concentrations reported in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). (1) - More conservative screening level between USEPA Region 9 RSL (May, 2020) and DTSC HERO Note 3 (June, 2020) (2) - Kearny Foundation Special Report on Background Concentrations of Trace and Major Elements in California Soils (UCR, 1996).
SFRWQCB ESL - San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Environmental Screening Level (July 2019) DTSC - Department of Toxic Substance Control
HERO HHRA - Human and Ecological Risk Office Human Health Risk Assessment NA - Not Analyzed
ND - Not Detected Above Practical Quantitation Limit
NE - Not Established
RSL - Regional Screening Level
USEPA - United States Environmental Protection Agency
BOLD Denotes analyte was detected above the practical quantitation limit < - Denotes analyte was not detected above the practical quantitation limit Yellow shading indicates value above the residential screening levels DTSC HERO Note 3 (Residential)
California Background Levels (2)
Sample ID Sample
Depth (feet)
Sample
Date
ESL (Residential)
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Project No.: 185805226
APPENDICES
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Appendix A Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 A.1
Appendix A Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Name: 18545 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, CA
Photographer: Jaylen Gregory, Stantec
Date: June 15, 2021
Photo #1 View of the northwest portion of the property.
Photo #2 View of the center portion of the property.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Name: 18545 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, CA
Photographer: Jaylen Gregory, Stantec
Date: June 15, 2021
Photo #3 View of the center portion of the property.
Photo #4 Two propane tanks on the southeastern portion of the property.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Name: 18545 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, CA
Photographer: Jaylen Gregory, Stantec
Date: June 15, 2021
Photo #5 View of a steel cylinder containing a couple gallons of unidentified liquid content.
Photo #6 View of unidentified liquid content in the steel cylinder. Liquid had a rainbow coloring similar to that of a petroleum substance, but no odor was observed.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Name: 18545 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, CA
Photographer: Jaylen Gregory, Stantec
Date: June 15, 2021
Photo #7 View of an abandoned homeless compound area in the southeastern portion of property.
Photo #8 View of northwestern portion of property in parking lot area.
Photographs of the Property and Vicinity
Site Name: 18545 Monterey Road, Morgan Hill, CA
Photographer: Jaylen Gregory, Stantec
Date: June 15, 2021
Photo #9 View of drive through car wash on the neighboring property to the northwest.
Photo #10 Railroad tracks appear along the western property boundary and separates the property from the residential neighborhood.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Appendix B Stantec Resumes
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 B.1
Appendix B STANTEC RESUMES
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Alicia Jansen CAC, LRCIA
Environmental Scientist
18 years of experience
Alicia is an Associate Scientist with over fifteen years of experience in Phase I and II Environmental
Assessments, with strong emphasis in water quality
and environmental research. Alicia has managed the
preparation of environmental documents, training
programs, and environmental compliance during large
scale environmental monitoring projects. Alicia’s
environmental consulting experience includes
performing asbestos and lead-based paint surveys,
oversight of contractors during asbestos abatement,
hazardous materials surveys, and Phase I
Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) in
accordance with the practices identified in the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Process, ASTM Designation E 1527-13
and the Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property, ASTM
Designation E 2247-16.
EDUCATION
BA, Environmental Studies, San Jose State University,
San Jose, California, 2004
CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING
Residential Measurement Provider, 108212, National
Radon Proficiency Program, Anaheim, California, 2015
REGISTRATIONS
Certified Asbestos Consultant #CAC #15-5379, State of
California Division of Occupational Safety and Health
Lead Inspector/Risk Assessor #LRC-00005363,
California Department of Public Health
MEMBERSHIPS
Member, Groundwater Resources Association of
California
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
HEALTH, SAFETY & INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
Confidential Health Care Company, Asbestos, LeadBased Paint, and Hazardous Materials Survey | Northern California | Staff
Alicia assisted with site inspections for asbestos, leadbased paint, and hazardous materials at multiple occupied hospitals and office spaces. The scope of work involved sample collection for asbestos and lead-based
paint in addition to the quantification of universal wastes (PCBs, mercury containing equipment, refrigerants, etc.) that would require special handling and disposal. She
assisted with the preparation of reports summarizing
findings.
State of California General Services, Asbestos, LeadBased Paint, and Hazardous Materials Survey | Northern California | 2009 | Technical Support
Alicia assisted with site inspections for asbestos, leadbased paint, and hazardous materials at multiple communication towers in remote areas. The scope of
work involved sample collection for asbestos and leadbased paint in addition to the quantification of universal wastes (PCBs, mercury containing equipment,
refrigerants, etc.) that would require special handling and disposal. She assisted with the preparation of reports
summarizing findings. Role: Technical Support | Cost:
Unknown | Dates involved: 10/2009-10/2009
Indoor Air Quality Assessments* | San Jose, California | 2002-2005 | Staff
Alicia performed site inspections, interviews, and collected air samples to be analyzed for various air pollutants and molds including formaldehyde, penicillium, aspergillus, cladosporium, and stachybotry. She prepared reports
summarizing findings and made recommendations.
Veteran's Administration of Puget Sound, Asbestos and
Lead-Based Paint Survey | Seattle, Washington | 2009 |
Project Scientist
Alicia served as the Project Scientist responsible for
hazardous building material assessments, specifically
asbestos and lead-based paint. These services were
required as part of the pre-design tasks for this project.
Over 300 samples were collected over the span of four
days culminating in a final hazardous building materials report to be incorporated into the facility design as well as demolition activities once the construction phase of the project commences.
Interim Remedial Action, Indoor Air Sampling, and SubSlab Soil Gas Sampling | Sunnyvale, California | 2004– 2014 | Task Manager and Field Support
Alicia conducted an indoor air sampling survey using air sampling pumps, dosimeter badges, and flame ionization
detector (FID) during a sump excavation. She performs
semi-annual sub-slab soil vapor sampling and indoor air quality surveys using summa canisters. She assists with the preparation and submittal of reports summarizing the findings and provides recommendations to the local
regulatory agency. Role: Indoor Air Sampling Survey |
Cost: Unknown | Dates involved: 09/2004-09/2014
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Lead Dust Assessment and Abatement Oversight |
Fremont, California | 2009 | Technical Support
Alicia assisted with the evaluation of lead dust in an
industrial facility. A total of 307 dust wipe samples were collected in order to evaluate the potential presence of lead dust throughout the two-story, 500,000 square foot manufacturing building. Role: Technical Support | Cost:
Unknown | Dates involved: 01/2009-03/2009
Former Tesoro Coke Facility, Asbestos, Lead-Based
Paint Survey | Pittsburg, California | Technical Support Alicia assisted with an asbestos and lead paint survey of 20 structures at the facility ultimately scheduled for
demolition. More than 200 samples were collected over
the span of two days. She prepared a report for
demolition while also providing the information needed
for worker safety during demolition activities at the
facility. Role: Technical Support | Cost: Unknown | Dates involved: 04/2009-04/2009
State of California General Services, Asbestos and LeadBased Paint Survey | Southern California | 2014-2019 | Certified Asbestos Consultant
Alicia conducted with site inspections for asbestos and lead-based paint at multiple bridges, maintenance
stations, and roadways throughout Southern California.
The scope of work involved sample collection for
asbestos and lead-based paint that would require special handling and disposal. She assisted with the review and approval of reports summarizing findings. Role: Certified Asbestos Consultant | Cost: Unknown | Dates involved:
9/2014-10/2019
PERMITTING, COMPLIANCE, AUDITING
Tesoro Refinery, Initial Study* | Benicia, California | 2005 | Staff
Alicia assisted with the background research and
preparation of applicant-prepared initial study for the upgrade of a refinery.
Transmission Line Upgrade* | San Mateo to San
Francisco, California | 2005 | Environmental Research
and Compliance Staff
Alicia supported the environmental compliance program
for the construction of a 27-mile 230 kV underground and overhead transmission line. She assisted with the
preparation and submittal of variance requests, extra
work space requests, and daily and weekly reports for
submittal to the California Public Utilities Commission.
She also conducted research and assisted with training
and report preparation.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS & ASSESSMENTS
California Department of Transportation Portfolio |
Multiple Sites, Northern California and Southern
California, California | 2008-2019 | Task Lead Manager
Alicia prepared quarterly groundwater monitoring reports, subsurface investigation reports, sensitive receptor
surveys, and preferential pathway studies for various
California Department of Transportation locations
throughout Northern California. She assisted with the
utility locating, work plan preparation, field coordination, archived data onto the State Water Resource Control
Board’s (RWQCB) Geotracker electronic filing system.
Alicia currently conducts site inspections for asbestos, lead-based paint, and hazardous materials for bridges,
salt barns, and maintenance buildings associated with
California Department of Transportation locations
throughout Southern California. The scope of work
involves sample collection for asbestos and lead-based
paint that would require special handling and disposal.
She assists with the preparation of reports summarizing findings. Role: Task Lead Manager | Cost: Unknown |
Dates involved: 06/2008-02/2019
Soil Gas Sampling and Human Health Risk Assessment |
San Jose, California | 2014 | Project Lead
Alicia performed a soil vapor survey in conformance with the DTSC Advisory Active Soil Gas Investigations, using soil vapor sampling devices and a mobile laboratory for onsite chemical analysis. She also assisted with the
report preparation summarizing the findings and providing recommendations for further assessment.
Confidential Client, Phase I Environmental Site
Assessments | Multiple Sites, California, Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas, Virginia | Task Manager
Alicia performs Phase I Environmental Site Assessments
for multiple confidential clients in accordance with the practices identified in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment Process, ASTM Designation E 1527-13
and Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property, ASTM
Designation E 2247-16 to achieve compliance with
requirements of the “All Appropriate Inquiries” rule
required to obtain protection from liability under the
federal Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Cleanup and Liability Act (CERCLA). Previous sites
include large industrial warehouses, multi-tenant
commercial buildings, large lots of vacant land, and
residential properties. She reviews topographic maps,
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, and files at local regulatory agencies. She interviews present and former property
owners and performed site and adjacent property
reconnaissance. She prepares reports summarizing the
findings and provides recommendations for further
assessment if applicable. Cost: 3-8000 per report
Goodyear Portfolio | Northern California and Hawaii |
2005–present | Project Lead
Alicia performed Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) and Phase II Site Assessments for various
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company locations throughout
California and Hawaii. She assisted with the installation of monitoring wells and exploratory borings; underground
storage tank removals; site restoration; product removal with passive recovery system; archived data onto the
State Water Resource Control Board’s Geotracker
electronic filing system; and assisted with the preparation of quarterly groundwater monitoring reports, sensitive
receptor surveys, site conceptual models, and subsurface investigation reports. Approximately 250 Sites • Cost:
$8,000 per site.
Jaylen Gregory
Staff Scientist
3 years of experience
Jaylen is a Bachelors of Science graduate interested
in the management and remediation of contaminated
sites. So far his experience includes, reporting for soil and groundwater investigations, reporting for soil and
groundwater remediation projects, and field sampling
for groundwater, soil, and indoor air. Jaylen has
contributed to working on projects with clients in the
private, municipal, oil, and gas sectors.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science , SUNY Albany , Albany, New York,
2018
CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING
40-Hour Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency
Response Certification, (29 CFR 1910.120), OSHA, San
Jose 2018, San Jose, California, 2018
8-hour Site Supervisor's Certification, OSHA, San Jose, California, 2019
30 HR Construction Outreach Course, OSHA, San Jose,
California, 2019
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
AIR QUALITY
SPANG | Sunnyvale, California | 2018-2018 | Indoor Air
Sampler
Conducted indoor air and sub-slab soil vapor sampling to define and minimize the extent of VOC vapor intrusion in multiple office buildings in the Bay Area. Using summa
canisters and radiello diffusive instruments, air samples were analyzed for toxic analytes such as
trichloroethylene and vinyl chloride. Role: Indoor Air
Sampler | Dates involved: 09/2018/-11/2018
GROUNDWATER MONITORING AND
REPORTING
Groundwater Remediation Project | Valero | Benicia ,
California | 2018-Present | O&M Technician, Field
Sampler, Report Writer
Confined the extent of groundwater contamination at an
oil refinery through the usage of an in-situ bioremediation air sparging system. Sampled groundwater and then
reviewed it’s laboratory analytical data to determine if concentration exceedances surpassed California water
quality protection standards. Role: O&M Technician,
Field Sampler, Report Writer | Dates involved: 09/2018- present
GROUNDWATER / SURFACE WATER
INTERACTION
Oregon Expressway | Stantec | Palo Alto, California |
2018-Present | O&M technician
Served as an O&M technician at a pump station that
collects and discharges groundwater and local storm
sewer runoff from roadway underdrains in order to prevent flooding of the OEU underpass. Role: O&M Technician |
Dates involved: 11/2018-present
ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH & SAFETY
Environmental Health and Safety Project | Tesla |
Fremont, California | 2018-2019 | Environmental Health
and Safety Personnel
Helped lead an environmental health and safety project at Tesla, creating lockout tagout placards for their personnel working with electronic, pneumatic, and robotic shutoff points. Role: Environmental Health and Safety
Technician | Dates involved: 08/2018-02/2019
Deborah J Hernandez
Geologic Staff
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Debbie is a staff geologist hired in September of 2018 at the San Bernardino Office. Through her education at Cal Poly Pomona, Debbie has extensive research and writing experience while conducting thesis work.
Field experience ranges from field mapping, rock and soil classification to vast experience utilizing geophysical equipment. Since starting at Stantec, Debbie has applied her knowledge towards Phase I and II Environmental Assessment field work and report preparation. Debbie has also overseen soil vapor extraction projects Debbie completed a GIS certification program through the California University Fullerton and is experienced in ArcGIS 10, Adobe Suite, and the Microsoft Office Suite.
Debbie's environmental consulting experience includes performing Phase I Environmental Site Assessments in accordance with the practices identified in the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process, ASTM Designation E 1527-13, and the collection, and interpretation of Phase II Environmental Assessment data.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Geological Sciences,
California Polytechnica University, Pomona,
Pomona, CA, 2015
CERTIFICATIONS & TRAINING
Geographic Information Systems, California State
University, Fullerton, Fullerton, California, 2018
Lead Sampling Technician, National Association
of Training and Environmental Consulting,
Anaheim, California, 2019
8-Hour Supervisor Trainer Coarse Certification
Hazwoper, OSHA, Simi Valley, California, 2018
Adult and Pediatric First Aid/CPR/AED, American
Red Cross, San Bernardino, Ca, 2018
Asbestos Building Inspector Initial Course,
National Association of Training and
Environmental Consulting, Anaheim, California,
2018
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Soil Vapor Intrusion Assessment/Mitigation
Studies (including Methane)
Soil Vapor Intrusion Assessment, Various
Locations, California
Debbie performed field oversight during the
installation of multiple soil vapor monitoring wells.
She assisted with health and safety oversight,
classified the soils during drilling activities and
assisted with the well installation and subsequent
soil vapor sampling.
Groundwater Supply / Wells
Humboldt Energy, Water Supply Assessment
Debbie coauthored a water supply assessment
report for a wind energy project located in
Humboldt County, California. Through research of
groundwater basins and geographic information
system analysis, she finalized a report used to
supplement the design and construction of over 60
wind turbines and ancillary facilities.
Deborah J Hernandez
Geologic Staff
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Phase I & II Environmental Site Assessments
Environmental Site Assessment, San Bernardino,
Ca
Debbie performed an onsite reconnaissance
survey, historical records investigation, and
formulated the report deliverable. The report
provided a thorough review of the property history
and defined present environmental concerns for
the client.
Aerial Mapping
Mars Data Analyst, JPL*, Pasadena, Ca (Geology
Intern)
Duties included mapping geologic safety hazards
using HiRISE, CTX and THEMIS images on
ArcGIS; analyzed rock classification and
distributions to downselect eight landing sites to
four. Characterized over 300 craters and their
respective ejecta blankets for potential landing
sites. Presented findings at the 2014 Geological
Society of America Conference, Abstract #249384
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Kyle has more than 28 years of professional experience—17 of those years with Stantec—providing geotechnical and environmental consulting. During the course of his experience, he has been involved with a wide variety of geological and engineering projects. He has been in direct charge of quality control/quality assurance (QA/QC) work for Stantec and previous firms for geological, engineering geological, and environmental services primarily in California. Additionally, Kyle has been a primary contact for Stantec with many different clients (including multi-party actions) and regulatory bodies involving contracting, workplan approvals, site assessments and closures, permitting, remedial action, and litigation support. With regard to litigation services, Kyle has extensive experience providing expert witness testimony, second-party review, and litigation support and analysis.
Kyle's extensive experience includes assessment and remediation of property-specific and regional issues involving soil and groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, chlorinated solvents, heavy metals, pesticides, and PCBs.
He currently serves as the managing principal geologist in Stantec's Redlands, California office.
EDUCATION
Engineering Geology/Hydrogeology, California
State University, Los Angeles, California, 1984
AS, General Science, Crafton Hills College,
Yucaipa, California, 1975
BS, Geological Sciences, California State
University, Long Beach, California, 1982
REGISTRATIONS
Certified Engineering Geologist #1271, State of
California Issued 1985, Expires 2011
Professional Geologist #4066, State of California
Issued 1985, Expires 2011
PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Bioremediation
Excavation and Treatment of PetroleumContaminated Soil Kyle designed the excavation and treatment of
45,000 cubic yards of petroleum-contaminated
soil. Soil treatment included utilizing vapor
extraction, combined with bioremediation.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Chemicals & Polymers
Two Former Chemical Plants, Environmental Site
Assessments and Remediation, Vernon, California
Mr. Emerson was part of the team for conducting
Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessments (ESA) and developing remedial
action plans for two former chemical plant sites
with 80-year industrial histories. Phase I ESAs
used historical files, maps, aerial photographs,
available documents, and data from public
agencies and historical directories for identifying
recognized environmental concerns. Extensive
Phase II ESA survey activities aided in identifying
below-grade structures such as vaults/USTs, as
well as assessing the extent of influence and
nature of the contamination. These investigations
confirmed the presence of heavy metals,
petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile organic
compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, radioactive
materials, semi-volatile organic compounds, and
polycyclic aromatic compounds in the soils for
these sites. Specific areas of concern included
former settling ponds, a bone yard, maintenance
areas, transformer and substations, wastewater
treatment facilities, and above-ground storage
tank farms. A conceptual mode was developed for
use in a health risk assessment and developed
risk-based corrective actions to address potential
health and environmental concerns. He assisted
with the development and implementation of a
remedial action plan, combined administrative
controls, engineering controls, and active
remediation; this resulted in the cost-effective
return of one site to active use, and is reducing
health risks to occupants and the public at the
second site.
CONFIDENTIAL: Aerospace Adhesives and
Coatings Plant, Glendale, California
Mr. Emerson was part of the team that conducted
feasibility studies to evaluate remedial alternatives
for remediation of chlorinated VOCs, 1,4 dioxane,
and hexavalent chromium (CrVI) in soil, soil vapor,
and groundwater. Feasibility studies included
groundwater pump testing, benchscale column
testing to evaluate in situ alternatives for reducing
CrVI to the less mobile CrIII valence state, soil
vapor extraction, capping, and excavation. Field
pilot studies were performed to evaluate the
efficiency of various CrVI reductants including the
use of ferrous sulfate, calcium polysulfide,
emulsified oil, and fructose. Extensive multi-depth
soil vapor testing was conducted to evaluate the
distribution of VOCs in the subsurface and to
support vapor intrusion risk assessment.
Feasibility studies were completed in 2008.
Remedial actions are expected to be completed in
2011.
Condition Assessments
Assessment and Mitigation of Manufacturing
Facility
Kyle managed the assessment and mitigation of
an ammunition manufacturing facility covering
1,100 acres in a complex geologic environment.
The contaminates involved red and white
phosphorous, TNT, chlorinated solvents, solid
wastes, and live ordinance.
Soil Contamination Assessment Supervision and
Management
Kyle managed and supervised soil contamination
assessment and in-situ remediation of heavy
metals involving chromium, cadmium, nickel and
zinc by chemical fixation to depths in excess of 40
feet below ground surface beneath existing
structures within several manufacturing facilities.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Litigation Support and Expert Testimony
Kyle provided litigation support and expert
testimony on more than 20 separate projects
involving service stations, chlorinated solvent
cases, heavy metal, and semi-volatile releases.
Corporate / Office
Commercial Developer - Environmental
Remediation of Former Dry Cleaners, El Centro,
California
Mr. Emerson was responsible for assessments
and remediation at this former dry cleaners which
released the dry cleaning chemical
tetrachloroethene (PCE) to the ground and
underlying groundwater. The work included initial
site assessment, agency interaction and
negotiations with the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), and Colorado
Basin Region human health risk assessment
(HHRA), design and implementation of remedial
investigations, feasibility studies, remedial action
plans, and implementation of remediation in
mitigating chlorinated solvent contamination in
vadose and saturated zones at concentrations
indicative of DNAPL. The results of the completed
remediation, as well as continued confirmation
sampling and monitoring, allowed the CRWQCB to
issue site closure in 2008. The site has since been
redeveloped into a new commercial development.
Environmental Assessments
Siting Studies
Kyle performed initial siting studies for potential
Class I, II, and III landfills. The project included
detailed geologic mapping, hydrogeological
studies, and permeability studies of caps and
liners.
Environmental Site Remediation
Assessment and Remedial Design, California
(Project Supervisor)
Kyle supervised the assessment and remedial
design of a system to eliminate salt brine
contamination in shallow perched water horizons
in the Yucaipa, San Bernardino, and Riverside
areas of southern California.
Design and Installation of Recovery Systems*
Kyle designed and installed numerous freeproduct recovery systems that successfully recovered product. One of the sites contained
product up to 11-feet thick covering more than
three city blocks. The dissolved phase had
affected a multi-aquifer system and a public
drinking water system.
Geophysical Characterizations*
Kyle performed and supervised numerous
geophysical characterizations to determine the
extent of old landfills. He provided classification
studies, landfill gas monitoring, removal
verification during grading, methane collection and
mitigation plans, permitting, and closure plans.
Domestic Landfill Development*
Kyle designed and supervised the dynamic
consolidation of a domestic landfill for
development. He used this process to minimize
expected settlement to overlying structures. Kyle
designed commercial developments on closed
landfills that involved complex methane collection
and monitoring systems and building settlement
controls.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Clay Borrow Site Studies
Kyle performed more than 10 separate clay
borrow site studies for determining sources of
material to cap landfills; ranged from a 20-acre dry
lakebed to a 450-acre parcel in complex folded
marine sediments.
Assessment, Clean Up, and Regulatory Support
Management, Santa, Monica (Project Manager)
Kyle managed the assessment, clean up, and
complex regulatory support of a PRP site in an
MTBE case (Charnock subbasin). His work
involved more than 20 environmental
professionals working full time for two years to
complete the assessment and clean up mandated
by the regulatory agencies.
Hazardous Waste
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site, Remediation &
Closure of Multiple Source Areas, Industry,
California
Mr. Emerson performed feasibility studies to
evaluate appropriate and relevant remedial
alternatives to mitigate constituents of concern in
five AOCs contaminated with chlorinated
hydrocarbons, heavy metals, petroleum fuel, and
cutting oils. Ultimately, a combination of remedial
alternatives was implemented that included largediameter auger excavation to 45 feet to minimize impacts on facility operations, vapor extraction,
vapor intrusion risk assessment, deed restriction,
and monitored natural attenuation. At the
completion of remedial actions, confirmation soil,
soil vapor, and groundwater sampling were
conducted and followed with risk assessment to
demonstrate that remedial objectives had been
achieved. No further action was recently granted
by the US EPA and Los Angeles Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Mixed-Use
Port of San Diego Rohr Facility, Chula Vista,
California
Mr. Emerson assisted in a detailed subsurface
assessment of the Rohr facility. The intent of the
assessment was to evaluate the 40-acre former
aircraft part manufacturing facility for acquisition
by the Port of San Diego for redevelopment into a
business park and entertainment complex. The
assessment identified the presence of soil, soil
vapor, and groundwater impacts by petroleum
hydrocarbons, VOCs, heavy metals, PCBs, and
semi-volatile organic compounds. He utilized
many sampling techniques to assess the limits
and concentrations of contaminants in the
subsurface. Ultimately, the team was able to
develop a cost estimate for potential remedial
action cost associated to corrective action to allow
redevelopment.
Master Planned Commercial/Residential
Redevelopment Project, Whittier, California
(Project Manager)
Kyle oversaw the assessment of 26 contiguous
properties that are part of a 21-acre master
planned commercial/residential redevelopment
project. The properties included industrial facilities, platting lines, fuel USTs, and metal processing
plants, among others. The estimated cleanup
costs are approximately $2 million.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Multi-Unit / Family Residential
Residential Development Assessment, Ventura,
California (Project Director)
Kyle directed an assessment of a 40-acre former
agricultural property proposed for residential
development. Pesticides were identified above
hazardous waste levels and preliminary
remediation goals established by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Through
corrective grading methods and onsite placement
of the pesticide impacted soils, all material were
re-used on site without offsite disposal. The over
all cost savings for the client was more than $1
million. Total cost was less than $250,000 for all
necessary activities.
Oil & Gas
Oil Field Site Assessments*
Kyle performed site assessments at oil field leases
involving refineries, bulk storage areas, piping
systems and wellhead, and drilling mud pit
contamination.
Environmental Protection Agency Superfund
Action, Culver City, California (Project Manager)
Kyle served as the project manager representing a
major oil company in the assessment, remedial
action, and litigation support in a multi-party
contamination case affecting a City water supply.
The assessment involved more than 250
continuous core borings up to 100 feet, as well as
extensive remedial actions. The total cost for all
related activities was $22 million. The case is
settled and the closure of the site is pending.
Project Management
Liability and Property Management Consulting
Services
Kyle is providing liability and property
management consulting services to more than 10
medium to large property development firms in the
US. His work involves property transaction
assessments, contract review, acquisition
guideline development, liability management
evaluation, insurance acquisition, and strategic
planning.
Residential Development
Environmental Development Management and
Review (Project Manager)
Kyle manages and reviews environmental
development issues for a large residential
developer specializing in development of
contaminated industrial properties by providing
innovative solutions in developing contaminated
properties for residential use through risk
assessment, engineering, and administrative and
property development controls.
Site Management and Remediation
Design and Implementation of Biodegradation
Programs*, California
Kyle designed and implemented one of the first insitu biodegradation programs in California; it involved 50,000 cubic yards of dieselcontaminated soils, and groundwater to depths of 70 feet below ground surface.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
* denotes projects completed with other firms
Soil and Groundwater Remediation Systems
Soil and Groundwater Contamination
Assessments and Mitigation*, California (Project
Manager)
Kyle managed numerous chlorinated solvent soil
and groundwater contamination assessments and
mitigation programs in southern California. The
projects involved releases that impacted soil and
groundwater to depth of groundwater more than
700 feet in multi-aquifer systems. One case
involved with plume dimensions more than 1 mile
from the source affecting residential properties.
Soil and Groundwater Assessment and
Remediation Programs*
Implemented hundreds of soil and groundwater
assessment and remediation programs at various
service station facilities in Southern and Northern
California, and Nevada. Work involved
assessment, remedial design, installation,
maintenance and monitoring. Closure has been
received on a majority of these sites.
Assessment and Remediation Management*
Kyle managed the assessment and remediation of
soil and groundwater manufacturing at dry
cleaning facilities contaminated with chlorinated
solvents.
Warehouse / Light Industrial
Glendale Redevelopment Project, Glendale,
California (Project Manager)
Kyle managed the assessment and remedial
actions during the redevelopment of and industrial
property. The project involved the demolition of a
historic manufacturing facility and a commercial
dry cleaner. Each of these facilities were
associated with releases of solvents and
petroleum hydrocarbons. Remedial actions
involved excavation by pattern drilling and off site
disposal along with removal of former USTs. The
total cost of remediation and assessment was
$450,000.00.
Compton Redevelopment Project, Compton,
California (Project Manager)
Kyle is serving as project manager for the
assessment and remedial actions for a large
redevelopment project. The project involves the
redevelopment of a historic manufacturing facility
and a former dry cleaner. Each of these facilities
were associated with releases of solvents and
petroleum hydrocarbons. The industrial facility was
also associated with significant volumes of buried
waste that required removal and disposal. These
wastes also included the chemical referenced
above, as well as PCBs and heavy metals.
Remediation has included excavation, vapor
extraction, and chemical fixation. The total cost of
this project has been $2.8 million to date.
Kyle D. Emerson PG, CEG
Managing Principal Geologist
PUBLICATIONS
In-Situ Bioremediation of an Underground Diesel
Fuel Spill: A Case Study. Environmental
Management, 1989.
MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA 95037
Appendix C User Provided Records
July 8, 2021
Project No.: 185805226 C.1
Appendix C USER PROVIDED RECORDS
C:\Users\kmalek\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\VHIH9YH6\Phase I ESA User Questionnaire.doc Stantec Consulting Services, Inc
PHASE I ESA USER’S QUESTIONNAIRE
In order to qualify for protection from land owner liability under CERCLA as an innocent landowner, bona fide prospective purchaser, or contiguous property owner, ASTM standard practice E1527-13 and the federal AAI rule (40 CFR 312) require that the User of the Phase I ESA report provide certain information (if available) to the Environmental Professional completing the assessment.
Failure to provide this information could result in a determination that “all appropriate inquiry” is not complete. Information that is not or cannot be provided to the Environmental Professional may be identified as a “data gap” in the Phase I ESA report.
Please answer the following questions as completely as possible. Attach additional pages as needed. Return the completed questionnaire to Stantec along with the executed Authorization For services form.
1. Property Information
Property Name:
Property Address(es):
City: State Zip
Property Owner Name:
Property Owner Phone #:
2. Contact For Site Access
Name:
Company/Organization/Title:
Phone # E-Mail Address:
3. Environmental Cleanup Liens. Are you aware of any environmental cleanup liens against the property that are filed or recorded under federal, tribal, state or local law? __________ Yes __________ No
If yes, describe or attach details of the lien
4. Activity and Land Use Limitations. Are you aware of any activity and use limitations, such as engineering controls, land use restrictions, or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been filed or recorded as applicable to the property as a result of environmental contamination, investigation, cleanup, or related matters? __________ Yes __________ No
If yes, describe or attach details of the limitations
Morgan Hill G
Morgan Hill CA
x
x
David Shelly
City Ventures - Acquisitions Manager
(949) 274-5251 [email protected]
Oanh Oanh Nguyen Trinh and Nhat Huu Hoang and Ngoc Tram Thi Nguyen n/a
18545-18565 Monterey Road
95037
5. Specialized Knowledge or Experience. As the User of this ESA, do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property, such that you would have specialized knowledge about chemicals and processes used by this type of business?
__________ Yes __________ No
If yes, describe or attach details of your specialized knowledge or experience
6. Relationship of Purchase Price to Fair Market Value of Property. Does the purchase price being paid for the property reasonably reflect the fair market value? Yes No
Not applicable. User is not involved in a purchase of the property.
If you conclude that there is a difference, do you have any reason to believe that the reduced purchase price may be related to contamination known or believed to be present at the property?
Yes, I have reason to believe that the purchase price for the property has been reduced in comparison with the fair market value due to contamination known or believed to be present at the property.
No, I have no reason to believe that the purchase price for the property has been reduced in comparison with the fair market value due to contamination known or believed to be present at the property.
7. Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information. Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property that would help the Environmental Professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances or petroleum products? For example:
Do you know the past uses of the property?
Yes (describe)
No
Do you know of chemicals, hazardous substances or petroleum products that are present or once were present at the property?
Yes (describe)
No
x
x
x
x
Do you know of spills or other releases of chemicals, hazardous substances or petroleum products that have taken place at the property? Yes (describe)
No
Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property? Yes (describe)
No
8. The Degree of Obviousness of Contamination. E1527-13 and the federal AAI rule (40 CFR 312.31) require that the Phase I ESA consider the degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property, and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation. Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property, are there any obvious indictors that point to the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property?
Yes (describe)
No
9. Availability of Previous Environmental Reports. Are you aware of previous environmental site assessment reports, other environmental reports, documents, correspondence, etc. concerning the property and its environmental condition? Yes (describe)
No
Signature:
Name (printed):
Title:
Date:
x
x
x
x
Kian Malek
Development Associate
6/11/2021
CLTA Preliminary Report Form Order Number: 0131-624353ala (Rev. 11/06) Page Number: 1
First American Title
First American Title Company
4750 Willow Road, Suite 275
Pleasanton, CA 94588
File No.: 0131-624353ala (st)
This report has been amended/updated to reflect the following matters:
[ ] No changes made to the report other than the Effective Date [ ] Property address has been revised
[ ] Vesting has been revised
[ ] Legal Description has been revised
[ X ] Taxes have been updated
[ X ] Original item number(s) 1 and 2 has been removed
[ ] New item number(s) have been added
[ X ] Original item number(s) 3 have been revised
[ X ] Other: Informational Notes: New item nos. 1 and 2 have been added
CLTA Preliminary Report Form Order Number: 0131-624353ala (Rev. 11/06) Page Number: 2
First American Title
Updated
First American Title Company
4750 Willow Road, Suite 275
Pleasanton, CA 94588
California Department of Insurance License No. 151
Escrow Officer: Diane Burton
Phone: (925)738-4050
Fax No.: (866)648-7806
E-Mail: [email protected]
Title Officer: Sheryl Taylor
Phone: (559)470-8819
Fax No.:
E-Mail: [email protected]
E-Mail Loan Documents to: Lenders please contact the Escrow Officer for email address for sending loan documents.
Buyer: Quail Capital Investments, LLC
Owner: Oanh Oanh Nguyen Trinh and Nhat Huu Hoang and Ngoc Tram Thi Nguyen
Property: 18545 & 18565 Monterey Road, APNs: 764-10-013 & 764- 10-015
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
PRELIMINARY REPORT
In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, this company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit A. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.
It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
CLTA Preliminary Report Form Order Number: 0131-624353ala (Rev. 11/06) Page Number: 3
First American Title
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested.
Order Number: 0131-624353ala
Page Number: 4
First American Title
Dated as of June 03, 2021 at 7:30 A.M.
The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is:
A specific request should be made if another form or additional coverage is desired.
Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:
Oanh Oanh Nguyen Trinh, a single woman, as to an undivided 45% interest and Nhat Huu Hoang, a married man, as to an undivided 45% interest and Ngoc Tram Thi Nguyen, a single woman, as to an undivided 10% interest
The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is:
A fee as to Parcel(s) 1 and 3, an easement as to Parcel(s) 2, 4, 5, and 6.
The Land referred to herein is described as follows:
(See attached Legal Description)
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows:
A. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2021-2022, a lien not yet due or payable.
1. Intentionally Deleted
2. Intentionally Deleted
3. Assessment liens collected with the general and special taxes disclosed by the reflection of the following on the tax roll:
Community Facilities District LIBRARY JPA CFD 2013-1.
4. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
5. A waiver of any claims for damages by reason of the location, construction, landscaping or maintenance of a contiguous freeway, highway, roadway or transit facility as contained in the document recorded August 31, 1938 as Instrument No. 140249 in Book 893, Page 169 of Official Records.
Order Number: 0131-624353ala
Page Number: 5
First American Title
6. An easement for construction and maintenance of a drain ditch and incidental purposes, recorded August 31, 1938 as Instrument No. 140249 in Book 893, Page 169 of Official Records.
In Favor of: Department of Public Works, State of California Affects: As described therein
A Director's Easement Deed recorded from the State of California, Department of Public Works to the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District on June 30, 1959 in Book 4465,
7. The Community Development Plan of the Ojo de Agua Project Area in the City of Morgan Hill, recorded on June 23, 1981 in Book G169, Page 270, Official Records of Santa Clara County, as Instrument No. 7092982.
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill (Ordinance No. 1057, New Series) Adopting the Ojo De Agua Community Development Plan and Making Certain Findings Pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California, recorded June 23, 1981 in Book G169,
Statement of Institution of Redevelopment Proceedings, pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health & Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq., recorded June 23, 1981 in Book G169, Page 340, Official Records, as Instrument No. 7092984.
An Ordinance of the City of Morgan Hill (Ordinance No. 552, New Series) Approving and Adopting the Amended and Restated Ojo De Agua Community Development Project Are Pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health & Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq.), recorded November 7, 1991 in Book L923, Page 1101, Official Records, as Instrument No. 11126298.
Statement of Institution of Amended Redevelopment Plan, pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law, Health & Safety Code Sections 33000, et seq., recorded November 7, 1991 in Book I 923, page 1109, Official Records, as Instrument No. 11126299.
Notice of Non-effectiveness of Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan recorded December 15, 1992 in Book M541, Page 803, Official Records, as Instrument No. 11692063.
An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill (Ordinance No. 1204, New Series) Adopting an Amendment to the Ojo De Agua Community Development Plan Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33333.6 and Amending a Related Ordinance in Connection therewith, recorded January 9, 1995 in Book N724, Page 1384, Official Records, as Instrument No. 12769934.
The Amended and Restated Redevelopment Plan for the Ojo de Agua Redevelopment Project, Amendment No. 4 recorded December 13, 2006 as Instrument No. 19225080, Official Records.
8. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Subdivision Improvement Agreement" dated December 16, 2002 executed by and between City of Morgan Hill and South Valley Developers, Inc. recorded March 10, 2003 as Instrument No. 16874126 of Official Records.
9. An easement shown or dedicated on the map filed or recorded March 10, 2003 as Book 758, Page 49 of Maps
For: Reciprocal ingress and egress, public service easement, storm drainage easement and incidental purposes.
The effect of a document entitled "Quitclaim Deed", recorded June 2, 2016 as Instrument No. 23322533 of Official Records.
Order Number: 0131-624353ala
Page Number: 6
First American Title
10. Abutter's rights of ingress and egress to or from Monterey Road have been dedicated or relinquished on the filed Map.
Affects: Parcel 3
11. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements in the document recorded April 2, 2003 as Instrument No. 16928125 of Official Records, which provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any first mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value, but deleting any covenant, condition, or restriction, if any, indicating a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, veteran or military status, genetic information, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, to the extent that such covenants, conditions or restrictions violate applicable state or federal laws. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status.
12. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements in the document recorded November 19, 2003 as Instrument No. 17480586 of Official Records, which provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any first mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value, but deleting any covenant, condition, or restriction, if any, indicating a preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, handicap, veteran or military status, genetic information, national origin, source of income as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12955, or ancestry, to the extent that such covenants, conditions or restrictions violate applicable state or federal laws. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status.
Liens and charges for upkeep and maintenance as set forth in the above mentioned declaration, payable to Gateway Center of Morgan Hill Owners' Association. 12a. An easement shown or dedicated on the map filed or recorded October 1, 2004 as Book 776, Page 9 of Parcel Maps
For: Storm drainage, public services and reciprocal ingress and egress and incidental purposes.
Affects: Parcel 1
The effect of a document entitled "Quitclaim Deed ", recorded June 2, 2016 as Instrument No. 23322533 of Official Records.
13. An easement for ingress and egress and incidental purposes, recorded October 6, 2004 as Instrument No. 18034388 of Official Records.
In Favor of: Gateway Retail Center LLC
Affects: Those portions of Parcel B shown as "Proposed
Reciprocal Ingress, Egress & Public Service
Easement" and as depicted on that certain Map
filed for recorded October 1, 2004 in the Office of
the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of
California, in Book 776 of Maps, Pages 9 and 10.
The effect of a document entitled "Quitclaim Deed ", recorded June 2, 2016 as Instrument No. 23322533 of Official Records.