Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Report
/ T c2 7 0-0 / g 9 S W / y St GeoP �,4c Engineering; lnc: • "' Real -World Geotechnical Solutions I Investigation • Design • Construction Support May 30, 2007 ' Project No. 07 -1124 a;: < +•;,,;, 1 % � • Mr. Rick Zoucha I ^' DDR Development, LLC � 14295 SW Woodhue Street Tigard, Oregon 97224 „ g ., f • Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report ' Fern Street Residence 13784 SW Fern Street Tigard, Oregon ' This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering study conducted by GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. (GeoPacific) for the above referenced project. The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate subsurface conditions at the site and to provide geotechnical recommendations for site grading, foundation design, construction and retaining wall design. This geotechnical study was performed in general accordance with GeoPacific Proposal No. P -3127, dated April 20, 2007. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Located at 13784 SW Fern Street in Tigard, Oregon (Figure 1), the property is roughly 1.7 acres in size and is undeveloped. According to topographic mapping, the site is gently sloping downward to the west. A site plan provided by you indicates that construction of one single family home is planed in the southeast portion of the site and that an existing driveway will be utilized. In addition, an existing retaining wall east of the proposed residence will be replaced by a new Keystone retaining wall up to about 8 feet high. REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMIC SETTING ' The project site is located on the west flank of Bull Mountain, in the southeast portion of the Tualatin Basin. Regional geologic information for the site area was obtained from the "Earthquake Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area, Oregon," Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Resources, Open File Report 0 -90 -2 (Madin, 1990). These maps indicate the site area is underlain by wind -blown loess of the middle Pliocene age (about 2 to 12 million years ago) identified as the Portland �• Hills Silt. This unit generally consists of massive, structureless, quartzo- feldspathic silt that mantles the Portland Hills and surrounding area. Underlying the Portland Hills Silt is underlain by a thick sequence of lava flows belonging to the Miocene (about 14.5 to 16.5 million years ago) Columbia River Basalt Group (CRB) (Beeson et al., 1989). Regionally, the CRB is a dense, finely crystalline rock that commonly exhibits blocky and columnar jointing. Localized interflow zones between individual lava flows are typically vesicular, scoriaceous, and brecciated, and sometimes include sedimentary rock. I 7312 SW Durham Road Tel (503) 598 -8445 Portland, Oregon 97224 Fax (503) 598 -8705 I May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 I i At least three potential source zones capable of generating damaging earthquakes are thought to exist in the region. These include the Portland Hills Fault Zone, Gales Creek - Newberg -Mt. Angel Structural Zone, and the Cascadia Subduction Zone, as discussed below. Portland Hills Fault Zone The Portland Hills Fault Zone is a series of NW- trending faults that vertically displace the Columbia River Basalt by 1,130 feet and appear to control thickness changes in late Pleistocene (approx. 780,000 years) sediment (Madin, 1990). The fault zone extends along the eastern margin of the Portland Hills for a distance of 25 miles, and lies about 7 miles northeast of the subject site. Geomorphic lineaments suggestive of Pleistocene deformation have been identified within the fault zone, but none of the fault segments have been shown to cut Holocene (last 10,000 years) deposits (Balsillie and Benson, 1971; Cornforth and Geomatrix Consultants, 1992). No historical seismicity is correlated with the mapped portion of the Portland Hills Fault Zone, but in 1991 a M3.5 earthquake occurred on a NW- trending shear plane located 1.3 miles east of the fault (Yelin, 1992). Although there is no definitive evidence of recent activity, the Portland Hills Fault Zone is generally assumed to be potentially active (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). 1 Gales Creek - Newberg -Mt. Angel Structural Zone The Gales Creek - Newberg -Mt. Angel Structural Zone is a 50- mile -long zone of discontinuous, NW- trending faults that lies about 12 miles southwest of the subject site. These faults are recognized in the subsurface by vertical separation of the Columbia River Basalt and offset seismic reflectors in the overlying basin sediment (Yeats et al., 1996; Werner et al., 1992). A recent geologic reconnaissance and ' photogeologic analysis study conducted for the Scoggins Dam site in the Tualatin Basin revealed no evidence of deformed geomorphic surfaces along the structural zone (Unruh et al., 1994). No seismicity has been recorded on the Gales Creek or Newberg Faults (the faults closest to the subject site); however, ' these faults are considered to be potentially active because they may connect with the seismically active Mount Angel Fault and the rupture plane of the 1993 M5.6 Scotts Mills earthquake (Werner, et al. 1992; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Cascadia Subduction Zone The Cascadia Subduction Zone is a 680- mile -long zone of active tectonic convergence where oceanic crust of the Juan de Fuca Plate is subducting beneath the North American continent at a rate of 4 cm per year (Goldfinger et al., 1996). Very little seismicity has occurred on the plate interface in historic time, and as a result, the seismic potential of the Cascadia Subduction Zone is a subject of scientific controversy. The lack of seismicity may be interpreted as a period of quiescent stress buildup between large magnitude earthquakes or as being characteristic of the long -term behavior of the subduction zone. A growing body of geologic evidence, however, suggests that prehistoric subduction zone earthquakes have occurred (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). This evidence includes: (1) buried tidal marshes recording episodic, sudden subsidence along the coast of northern California, Oregon, and Washington, (2) burial of subsided tidal marshes by tsunami wave deposits, (3) paleoliquefaction features, and (4) geodetic uplift patterns on the Oregon coast. Radiocarbon t, dates on buried tidal marshes indicate a recurrence interval for major subduction zone earthquakes of 250 to 650 years with the last event occurring 300 years ago (Atwater, 1992; Carver, 1992; Peterson et al., ' 1993; Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). The inferred siesmogenic portion of the plate interface lies roughly 50 miles west of the Oregon coast and 20 to 40 miles below the ocean surface. 1 07 -I 124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 2 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I May 30, 2007 • GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 I. FIELD EXPLORATION Our site - specific exploration for this report was conducted on May 1, 2007. Four exploratory test pits I were excavated with a small trackhoe to depths of approximately 4.5 to 8 feet, at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The test pits were located in the field by pacing or taping distances from apparent property corners and other site features shown on the plans provided. As such, the locations of I the explorations should be considered approximate. At the completion of the test pit logging, the test pits were backfilled with the excavated spoils and tamped I with the backhoe bucket. This backfill should not be expected to behave as compacted structural fill and some minor settling of the ground surface may occur. I A GeoPacific geologist observed and recorded soil information such as color, stratigraphy, strength, and soil moisture. Soils were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Rock hardness was classified in accordance with Table 1, modified from the ODOT Rock I Hardness Classification Chart. Results of the exploration program are shown on the summary test pit logs attached to this report. Table 1. Rock Hardness Classification Chart 1 ODOT Rock Unconfined Hardness Field Criteria Compressive Typical Equipment Needed For I Rating Strength Excavation Extremely Soft Indented by thumbnail <100 psi Small excavator I ( R0) Scratched by thumbnail, Very Soft (RI) crumbled by rock 100 -1,000 psi Small excavator hammer I Not scratched by Medium excavator Soft (R2) thumbnail, indented by 1,000 -4,000 psi rock hammer (slow digging with small excavator) I Medium Hard Scratched or fractured by Medium to large excavator (slow to very (R3) rock hammer 4,000 -8,000 psi slow digging), typically requires chipping with hydraulic hammer or mass excavation) I Scratched or fractured w/ Slow chipping with hydraulic hammer and/or Hard (R4) difficulty 8,000- 16,000 psi blasting Not scratched or I Very Hard (R5) fractured after many >16,000 psi Blasting blows, hammer rebounds I SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS e'. }, Soils On -site native materials encountered in the test P its consisted of soil units as described below. I Undocumented Fill — Undocumented fill soil was encountered in test pits TP -1, TP -2 and TP -3. It generally consisted of medium stiff, dark brown, gravelly silt. The thickness of the fill ranged from about 0.5 to 1.5 feet. I 07- 1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 3 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. i May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 Silt — Silt materials interpreted as belonging to the Portland Hills Silt unit were encountered in test pits TP -1, TP -2 and TP -3, below the surface zone of undocumented fill. The silt encountered generally • consisted of stiff to hard, brown clayey silt. Residual Soil — Residual soil from in -situ weathering of underlying basalt bedrock was encountered in test pit TP -1, below the silt unit and in test pit TP -4, at the surface. The residual soil encountered generally consisted of very hard, red brown clayey silt with basalt cobble sized fragments. Basalt Bedrock: Basalt bedrock was encountered in test pit TP-4 below the colluvium. The basalt bedrock encountered generally consists of hard (R4) rock, red brown and dark gray, basalt, severely weathered, dense. Test pits TP -1 and TP -4 were terminated due to refusal on the bedrock unit, at approximate depths of 6 and 4.5 feet, respectively. Groundwater Groundwater seepage was not encountered during explorations. It is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on the season, local subsurface conditions, changes in site utilization, and other factors. Perched groundwater conditions often occur over fine- grained native deposits such as those beneath the site, particularly during the wet season. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Results of this study indicate that the proposed residential house is geotechnically feasible provided that the following recommendations are incorporated in the design and construction phases of the project. Final site and grading plans should be made available for our review and finalization of this report. The following report sections present conclusions and recommendations regarding slope stability, site preparation, engineered fill, subsurface drainage, wet weather earthwork, structural foundations, footing drains, Keystone retaining walls, seismic design, excavating conditions and trench backfill, pavement sections, and erosion control considerations. The recommendations of this report assume that the structures will have raised floors and crawlspaces. If structures are planned with basements or concrete slab -on -grade floors, GeoPacific should be contacted for additional recommendations regarding basement retaining wall design and drainage, concrete floor slabs and moisture protection, or other issues. Slope Stability No evidence of slope failure was observed during our field exploration. This absence of slope instability is believed to be predominantly due to residual soils that have a high strength, and the presence of shallow rock. Site Preparation and Undocumented Fill Removal Proposed structure, parking and driveway areas to receive fill should first be cleared of vegetation and any loose debris or undocumented fill, and all debris from clearing should be removed from the site. - Organic -rich topsoil should then be stripped. We anticipate that the depth of stripping will range from about 6 to 10 inches, with an average depth of stripping of about 8 inches. Locally deeper stripping may be needed in treed areas or other areas of thicker topsoil development. The final depth of stripping removal should be determined on the basis of site observations after the initial stripping has been performed. Stripped topsoil should be stockpiled only in designated areas and stripping operations should be observed and documented by GeoPacific. Existing subsurface structures (tile drains, old utility lines, 07 -1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 4 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 septic leach fields, etc.) beneath structures and pavements should be removed and the excavations backfilled with engineered fill. In construction areas, once stripping is approved, the area should be ripped or tilled to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in -place prior to the placement of engineered fill or crushed aggregate base for pavement. Exposed subgrade soils should be evaluated by GeoPacific. For large areas, this evaluation is normally performed by proof - rolling the exposed subgrade with a fully loaded scraper or dump truck. For smaller areas where access is restricted, the subgrade should be evaluated by probing the soil with a steel probe. Soft/loose soils identified during subgrade preparation should be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition or over - excavated and replaced with engineered fill, as described below. The depth of overexcavation, if required, should be evaluated by GeoPacific at the time of construction. Undocumented fill deposits encountered during site grading should be removed and recompacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Undocumented fill was encountered to depths of about 0.5 to 1.5 feet in test pits TP -1, TP -2 and TP -3. Other localized zones of fill may be present in other areas of the site beyond our explorations. Relatively inorganic portions of the undocumented fill may be re -used as engineered fill, provided it is moisture conditioned and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Engineered Fill In general, we anticipate that soils from the planned cuts will be suitable for use as engineered fill provided it is adequately moisture conditioned prior to compacting. Imported fill material must be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to being imported to the site. Oversize material greater than 6 inches in size should not be used within 3 feet of foundation footings, and material greater than 12 inches in diameter should not be used in engineered fill. 1 Engineered fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches using standard compaction equipment. We recommend that engineered fill be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined by Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) or equivalent. On -site soils may be wet of optimum; therefore, we anticipate that aeration of native soil will be necessary for compaction operations performed during late spring to early summer. Proper test frequency and earthwork documentation usually requires daily observation and testing during stripping, rough grading, and placement of engineered fill. Field density testing should conform to ASTM D2922 and D3017, or D1556. Engineered fill should be periodically observed and tested by GeoPacific. Typically, one density test is performed for at least every 2 vertical feet of fill placed or every 500 yd whichever requires more testing. Because testing is performed on an on -call basis, we recommend that the earthwork contractor be held contractually responsible for test scheduling and frequency. ' r Subsurface Drainage I Although groundwater seepage was not encountered in our explorations, seeps and springs are not uncommon in this geologic and topographic setting. If seeps or springs are encountered during site grading, recommendations should be provided in the field for appropriate subsurface drainage. Such provisions would likely consist of subsurface or "French" drains collecting seepage water at the source and directing it in a controlled fashion to the storm drain system or other appropriate outlet. GeoPacific 07 -1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 5 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I . May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 should review project grading plans prior to construction. The need for, and specifics of, subsurface drains on site would depend on the specifics of the planned grading. I Wet Weather Earthwork The on -site soils are moisture sensitive and may be difficult to handle or traverse with construction equipment during periods of wet weather. Earthwork is typically most economical when performed under dry weather conditions. Earthwork performed during the wet- weather season will probably require expensive measures such as cement treatment or imported granular material to compact fill to the recommended engineering specifications. If earthwork is to be performed or fill is to be placed in wet weather or under wet conditions when soil moisture content is difficult to control, the following recommendations should be incorporated into the contract specifications. t . ➢ Earthwork should be performed in small areas to minimize exposure to wet weather. Excavation or the removal of unsuitable soils should be followed promptly by the placement and compaction of clean engineered fill. The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent soil disturbance. Under some circumstances, it may be necessary to excavate soils with a backhoe to minimize subgrade disturbance caused by equipment traffic; ➢ The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run -off of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water; ➢ Material used as engineered fill should consist of clean, granular soil containing less than about 7 percent fines. The fines should be non - plastic. Alternatively, cement treatment of on -site soils may be performed to facilitate wet weather placement; 1 ➢ The ground surface within the construction area should be sealed by a smooth drum vibratory roller, or equivalent, and under no circumstances should be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Soils which become too wet for compaction should be removed and replaced with clean granular materials; ➢ Excavation and placement of fill should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to verify that all unsuitable materials are removed and suitable compaction and site drainage is achieved; and ➢ Bales of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be strategically located to control erosion. If cement or lime treatment is used to facilitate wet weather construction, GeoPacific should be contacted to provide additional recommendations and field monitoring. Structural Foundations Based on our understanding of the proposed project and the results of our exploration program, and assuming our recommendations for site preparation are followed, native deposits and/or engineered fill soils will be encountered at or near the foundation level of the proposed structures. These soils are generally stiff to very stiff and should provide adequate support of the structural loads. Shallow, conventional isolated or continuous spread footings may be used to support the proposed structures, provided they are founded on competent native soils, or compacted engineered fill placed I 4 directly upon the competent native soils. We recommend a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for designing the footings. The recommended maximum allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for short term transient conditions such as wind and seismic I _ loading. All footings should be founded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Minimum footing widths should be determined by the project engineer /architect in accordance with applicable design codes. 07 -1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 6 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 Assuming construction is accomplished as recommended herein, and for the foundation loads anticipated, we estimate total settlement of spread foundations of less than about 1 inch and differential settlement I between two adjacent load- bearing components supported on competent soil of less than about 3 /4 inch. We anticipate that the majority of the estimated settlement will occur during construction, as loads are applied. Wind, earthquakes, and unbalanced earth loads will subject the proposed structure to lateral forces. Lateral forces on a structure will be resisted by a combination of sliding resistance of its base or footing on the underlying soil and passive earth pressure against the buried portions of the structure. For use in design, a coefficient of friction of 0.5 may be assumed along the interface between the base of the footing and subgrade soils. Passive earth pressure for buried portions of structures may be calculated using an equivalent fluid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming footings are cast against dense, 1 natural soils or engineered fill. The recommended coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values do not include a safety factor. The upper 12 inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure computations unless it is protected by pavement or slabs on grade. Footing excavations should be trimmed neat and the bottom of the excavation should be carefully prepared. Loose, wet or otherwise softened soil should be removed from the footing excavation prior to placing reinforcing steel bars. Footing and Roof Drains We anticipate that the proposed home will be raised floor, and that no concrete slab -on -grade floors will be used in living areas. Based on experience with standard local construction practices, perimeter footing drains are not required for raised wood floors with crawlspaces. However, if perimeter footing drains are not utilized, then positive exterior drainage away from the foundation, positive crawlspace drainage to an adequate low -point drain exiting the foundation, visqueen covering the exposed ground in the crawlspace, and crawlspace ventilation (foundation vents) become even more important. The homebuyers should be informed and educated that some slow flowing water in the crawlspaces is considered normal and not necessarily detrimental to the home given these other design elements incorporated into its construction. Evaluation of the potential for mold to develop in crawl spaces is beyond our area of expertise. If it is desired to reduce the potential for moist crawl spaces, footing drains may be installed. Where used, the outside edge of all perimeter footings should be provided with a drainage system consisting of minimum 3 -inch diameter, perforated plastic pipe embedded in a minimum of 1 ft3 per lineal foot of clean, free - draining sand and gravel or 2 " -1/2" drain rock. The drain pipe and surrounding drain rock should be wrapped in non -woven geotextile (Mirafi 140N, or approved equivalent) to minimize the potential for clogging and/or ground loss due to piping. Water collected from the footing drains should be directed into the local storm drain system or other suitable outlet. A minimum 0.5 percent fall should be maintained throughout the drain and non - perforated pipe outlet. Down spouts and roof drains should collect roof water in a system separate from the footing drains in order to reduce the potential for clogging. Roof drain water should be directed to an appropriate i' discharge point well away from structural foundations. Grades should be sloped downward and away from buildings to reduce the potential for ponded water near structures. Keystone Retaining Walls The proposed Keystone wall is located adjacent to the east side of the proposed house, and will reportedly have a maximum exposed height of 8 feet. The plans provided indicate slopes above the walls are near _ level, and grades in front of walls are gently sloping. The walls will retain primarily engineered fill. 07 -1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 7 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 I The walls were analyzed using "Compac" Keystone blocks (8 "x18 "x12 ") with geogrid reinforcement. Retaining walls up to 8 feet in exposed height should be embedded a minimum of 8 inches (one Keystone unit) below finished grade. Soil in front of the embedded portion of the wall should consist of compacted engineered fill or stiff native soil. Subgrade soils should consist of engineered fill or very stiff native soil and the walls should be founded on a crushed rock leveling pad a minimum of 6 inches thick. If soft, wet or otherwise unsuitable soils are encountered at the base of the wall, these soils should be overexcavated and replaced with additional crushed rock. Specific overexcavation recommendations should be made by GeoPacific at the time of construction if needed. 1 Geogrids should be spaced according to the attached wall detail (Figure 3). The bottom geogrid should be placed between the second and third block and subsequent geogrids should be spaced every three blocks vertically. Geogrids should be a minimum of 5.5 feet long, with the upper grid 7.5 feet long as shown on Figure 3. Geogrid length is measured from the face of wall. Geogrid should consist of Stratagrid SG300, or approved equivalent. The grids should be rolled out perpendicular to the face of the wall and not along the wall face. The wall should be battered to 4.4 degrees, which corresponds to a alternating pin positions between rows of facing units. The reinforced backfill zone should consist of 3 /4 " -0 crushed rock, or equivalent clean granular fill approved by GeoPacific and compacted to at least 95% of Standard Proctor (ASTM D698). To avoid bulging of the wall facing, heavy compactors should not be used within 2 feet of blocks and compaction against the back of wall should be achieved using a hand held vibratory plate compactor. Block infill should consist of 3 /4 " -0 crushed rock. Adequate drainage behind and beneath the wall is critical to wall performance. A subsurface drain consisting of 4 -inch diameter, perforated, Schedule 40 PVC or ADS Highway Grade pipe embedded in clean, free - draining sand and gravel, or drain rock, should be placed behind the bottom of the wall as shown on Figure 3. The drain pipe and surrounding drain rock should be wrapped in non -woven geotextile (Mirafi 140N, or approved equivalent) to minimize the potential for clogging and /or ground loss due to piping. Water collected from the drains should be directed to the detention pond or other suitable outlet. Based on the attached calculations, the proposed wall is anticipated to have adequate factors of safety against sliding, overturning, bearing capacity failure, internal failure, and facing failure provided that our recommendations for wall construction are followed. Wall facing blocks and geogrids should be installed per the manufacturer's instructions. GeoPacific should monitor construction of the Keystone walls including subgrade and backcut inspection, overexcavation requirements, embedment, wall batter, geogrid placement, and backfill compaction. Seismic Design I ) • Structures should be designed to resist earthquake loading in accordance with the methodology described " in section 1615 of the State of Oregon 2004 Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) Amendments to the 2003 International Building Code (IBC). The maximum considered earthquake ground motion for short period and 1.0 second period spectral response may be determined from map Figures 1615(1) and 1615(2) of the State of Oregon 2004 Structural Specialty Code (OSSC) or the 2003 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) "Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures" published by the Building Seismic Safety Council. We recommend Site Class D be 07- 1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 8 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I . May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 used for design per the OSSC, Table 1615.1.1. Using this information, the structural engineer can select the appropriate site coefficient values (F and F,,) from Tables 1615.1.2(1) and 1615.1.2(2) of the 2003 -�4 IBC to determine the maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration for design of the project. Soil liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein saturated soil deposits temporarily lose strength and behave as a liquid in response to earthquake shaking. Soil liquefaction is generally limited to loose, granular soils located below the water table. The native stiff fine- grained silt soils with some clay encountered in the test pits are not considered highly susceptible to damaging liquefaction. Excavating Conditions and Utility Trenches We anticipate that on -site soils can be excavated using conventional heavy equipment such as scrapers and trackhoes. Based on results of our field exploration program, hard rock is likely to be encountered at shallow depths near the slope on the west side of the site. Deeper excavations in other areas may encounter rock, and there is some potential for local shallow rock deposits in areas beyond our test pit locations. Rock excavation will likely require heavy ripping, use of narrow buckets with rock teeth, pneumatic rock hammers and /or blasting. 1 Maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, is the responsibility of the contractor. Actual slope inclinations at the time of construction should be determined based on safety requirements and actual soil and groundwater conditions. All temporary cuts in excess of 4 feet in height I should be sloped in accordance with U.S. Occupational Safety and Heath Administration (OSHA) regulations (29 CFR Part 1926), or be shored. The existing native soils classify as Type B Soil and temporary excavation side slope inclinations as steep as 1H: 1 V may be assumed for planning purposes. This cut slope inclination is applicable to excavations above the water table only. Vibrations created by traffic and construction equipment may cause some caving and raveling of excavation walls. In such an event, lateral support for the excavation walls should be provided by the contractor to prevent loss of ground support and possible distress to existing or previously constructed structural improvements. PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with the procedures specified in ASTM D2321. We recommend that structural trench backfill be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density obtained by Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) or equivalent. Initial backfill lift thick nesses for a 3 /4 " -0 crushed aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to reduce the risk of flattening underlying flexible pipe. Subsequent lift thickness should not exceed 1 foot. If imported granular fill material is used, then the lifts for large vibrating plate- compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor attachments) may be up to 2 feet, provided that proper compaction is being achieved and each lift is tested. Use of large vibrating compaction equipment should be carefully monitored near existing structures and improvements due to the potential for vibration - induced damage. Adequate density testing should be performed during construction to verify that the recommended relative .279 compaction is achieved. Typically, at least one density test is taken for every 4 vertical feet of backfill on each 200 - lineal -foot section of trench. Pavement Sections ' Based on assumed traffic loading and results of our field exploration and testing program, GeoPacific developed alternative pavement sections for use on the project. Table 2 presents our recommended 07 -1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 9 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I . May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 r minimum pavement section for dry- weather construction conditions. A subgrade soil R -value of 15 was assumed for design purposes. Ir The recommended pavement sections were formulated using the Crushed Base Equivalent method and assuming a Traffic Index of 4.0 for on -site streets. The Traffic Index is enerall appropriate for minor g Y residential streets and cul -de -sacs. The project engineer or architect should review the assumed traffic indices to evaluate their suitability for this project. Changes in anticipated traffic levels will affect the corresponding pavement section. ' Table 2 - Recommended Minimum Dry - Weather Pavement Sections Material Layer Minimum Thickness Compaction Standard I Asphaltic Concrete (AC) (inches) 92% of Rice Density (top lift) 91% of Rice Density (lower I lifts) AASHTO T -209 Crushed Aggregate Base 3 /4"- 2 95% of Modified Proctor 0 (leveling course) ASTM D1557 Crushed Aggregate Base 8 95% of Modified Proctor 1' /z " -0 ASTM D1557 Recommended Subgrade 12 95% of Modified Proctor or approved native In new pavement areas, native soil subgrade in pavement areas should be ripped or tilled to a minimum depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted in -place to at least 95 percent of ASTM D1557 (Modified Proctor) or equivalent. In order to verify subgrade strength, we recommend proof - rolling directly on subgrade with a loaded dump truck during dry weather and on top of base course in wet weather. Soft areas that pump, rut, or weave should be stabilized prior to paving. If pavement areas are to be constructed during wet weather, our firm should review subgrade at the time of construction so that condition specific recommendations can be provided. Wet- weather pavement construction is likely to require soil amendment, or geotextile fabric and an increase in base course thickness. During placement of pavement section materials, density testing should be performed to verify compliance with project specifications. Generally, one subgrade, one base course, and one AC compaction test is performed for every 100 to 200 linear feet of paving. Erosion Control Considerations During our field exploration program, we did not observe soil types that would be considered highly ' susceptible to erosion. In our opinion, the primary concern regarding erosion potential will occur during construction, in areas that have been stripped of vegetation. Erosion at the site during construction can be minimized by implementing the project erosion control plan, which should include judicious use of straw bales and silt fences. If used, these erosion control devices should be in place and remain in place I throughout site preparation and construction. Erosion and sedimentation of exposed soils can also be minimized by quickly re- vegetating exposed areas of soil, and by staging construction such that large areas of the project site are not denuded and exposed at the same time. Areas of exposed soil requiring immediate and/or temporary protection against exposure should be covered with either mulch or erosion control netting/blankets. Areas of exposed soil requiring 07- 1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 10 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 I permanent stabilization should be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture, or hydroseeded with an approved seed - mulch - fertilizer mixture. I UNCERTAINTIES AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the owner and their consultants for use in design of this project only. This report should be provided in its entirety to prospective contractors for bidding and estimating purposes; however, the conclusions and interpretations presented in this report should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and groundwater conditions can vary significantly over small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations that may not be detected by a geotechnical study. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, GeoPacific should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing and consultation should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by explorations. The checklist attached to this report outlines recommended geotechnical observations and testing for the project. Recommendations for design changes will be provided should conditions revealed during construction 1 differ from those anticipated, and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, GeoPacific attempted to execute these services in accordance with generally accepted professional principles and practices in the fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology at the time the report was prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made. The scope of our work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous or toxic substances in the soil, surface water, or groundwater at this site. 1 0.0 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. <c �� ROF ; , \ S incerely, �� GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. OR GI o o % ER 2 6, 4 =30� L. 06 20 d p(Q1RES .. Kirk L. Warner, R.G. Scott L. Hardman, 0 P.E. Senior Geologist Principal Geotechnical Engineer ��- Attachments: References 111 Checklist of Recommended Geotechnical Testing and Observations Figure 1 — Vicinity Map Figure 2 — Site Plan Figure 3 — Keystone Retaining Wall Detail Logs of Test Pits TP -1 through TP -4 Retaining Wall Calculations 07 -I 124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 1 1 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. ' . May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 REFERENCES I` Atwater, B.F., 1992, Geologic evidence for earthquakes during the past 2,000 years along the Copalis I River, southern coastal Washington: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 97, p. 1901 -1919. Balsillie, J.J. and Benson, G.T., 1971, Evidence for the Portland Hills fault: The Ore Bin, Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries, v. 33, p. 109 -118. Carver, G.A., 1992, Late Cenozoic tectonics of coastal northern California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists -SEPM Field Trip Guidebook, May, 1992. Cornforth and Geomatrix Consultants, 1992, Seismic hazard evaluation, Bull run dam sites near Sandy, Oregon: unpublished report to City of Portland Bureau of Water Works. Geomatrix Consultants, 1995, Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon: unpublished report. Goldfinger, C., Kulm, L.D., Yeats, R.S., Appelgate, B, MacKay, M.E., and Cochrane, G.R., 1996, Active strike -slip faulting and folding of the Cascadia Subduction -Zone plate boundary and forearc in central and northern Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest, v. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 223 -256. Madin, I.P., 1990, Earthquake hazard geology maps of the Portland metropolitan area, Oregon: Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Open -File Report 0 -90 -2, scale 1:24,000, 22 p. Peterson, C.D., Darioenzo, M.E., Burns, S.F., and Burris, W.K., 1993, Field trip guide to Cascadia paleoseismic evidence along the northern California coast: evidence of subduction zone seismicity in the central Cascadia margin: Oregon Geology, Vol. 55, p. 99 -144. r Unruh, J.R., Wong, I.G., Bott, J.D., Silva, W.J., and Lettis, W.R., 1994, Seismotectonic evaluation: Scoggins Dam, Tualatin Project, Northwest Oregon: unpublished report by William Lettis and Associates and Woodward Clyde Federal Services, Oakland, CA, for U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO (in Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Werner, K.S., Nabelek, J., Yeats, R.S., Malone, S., 1992, The Mount Angel fault: implications of seismic- reflection data and the Woodburn, Oregon, earthquake sequence of August, 1990: Oregon Geology, v. 54, p. 112 -117. Yeats, R.S., Graven, E.P., Werner, K.S., Goldfinger, C., and Popowski, T., 1996, Tectonics of the Willamette Valley, Oregon: in Assessing earthquake hazards and reducing risk in the Pacific Northwest, Vol. 1: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1560, P. 183 -222, 5 plates, scale 1:100,000. Yelin, T.S., 1992, An earthquake swarm in the north Portland Hills (Oregon): More speculations on the seismotectonics of the Portland Basin: Geological Society of America, Programs with Abstracts, v. 24, no. 5, p. 92. ' d ti I I 07 -1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 12 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I May 30, 2007 GeoPacific Project No. 07 -1124 I. i CHECKLIST OF RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL TESTING AND OBSERVATION Item No. Procedure Timing By Whom Done I Contractor, Developer, 1 Preconstruction meeting Prior to beginning site Civil and Geotechnical work Engineers 2 picking operations Stripping, aeration, and root- During stripping Soil Technician ' Compaction testing of 1 o During filling, tested 3 engineered fill (95 of every 2 vertical feet Soil Technician Standard Proctorr) ) Compaction testing of trench During backfilling, ' 4 backfill (95% of Standard tested every 4 vertical Soil Technician Proctor) feet for every 200 — lineal feet 5 Street subgrade compaction Prior to placing base Soil Technician (95% of Standard Proctor) course I' 6 Base course compaction Prior to paving, tested Soil Technician (95% of Modified Proctor) every 200 lineal feet I o AC Compaction o During paving, tested 7 (91% (bottom lift) / 92% (top every 200 lineal feet Soil Technician I I ift) of Rice) Summary Report of 8 Geotechnical Observation and Completion of project Geotechnical Engineer I 1 Testing I I C F I 07 -1124 -Fern Street Residence GR.doc 13 GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. • I . et GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. Geo! - ' ' 1, '' __- eNtig e 7312 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon 97224 LOCATION MAP ..,_ . ,, 111- - Inc:" Tel: (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 ..., _ . . ,.. - / ,, ..,-- . , , - - , .-._ 1 1 c 4 -.. ,' '4,'‘.._\'.1;."• , • .,:; lk, - <,-; 7 :: : ::::,,, \ ' ;. ; ....7). ) • 2 ' 1 1 ' ///'; _ :' - X'. ;; •%; --"- - ' ; ; - -_ __ ( i 1 ,.,. '‘‘, - ' -- N:fac. - F.r. - •'-- • • - • -- \ i+t '' ' --' s; ; •';71 ft-2 - - 1 ,1 t• .•t '••,,•_-_ ' -, ,,,-7 - - • 1 ; 7" --- ',' 7, I t• t - . X ,.., tt, s t-' ,..,,,• • N - . ••-•. ..t''\ NORTH .14 r , V , :::" . 7 , ..r/ f t ' --'" ltt \ -‘,„ ••••'..----,,-- It • ytti/__ .‘.'-'. -., 2,--7:!.:7,/ , t • •• ,.7 . i --- s, r ii / r 1 ,,t,,,,,, ,.,,I. _.,_.__• A ,...,-!,_, 1 ••-ts, 11 . ,,..-7- -7' -,----„--, t‘. •• .7.; \ t , - -...-, ..--- 1 ^", ,..• t• 1 - 1 I ... // - ':-.:4,, \ ,, ' s :‘..: . :,t-,, - - -- -a - iiiiv.:: : -.::. - - , , , , , , ) :.,.....- / 1 ,_ ,-- 2„ ._ , K. i-: 1 ' .3 .- - tb.--- --- -- ' ,• : .• 1 gr,-, v , i. .1 ....,,, - ,, i‘-',( SUBJECT PARCEL : 1.0 i . .--,- , •:- , r, :,,,,_-_,--.-:,__--,--_----=:,,,,, 1 1 _-:::,=-_,-/,,,,,,,_ , ), ,-, , i , f, -, __ 7 i ,,„ - ., ,,,,, ,, . ,,,. t:V./,'": .,tiii'i.,-7,./17,,,), '..( al ', 7,._,-- ' 3' - t-t7 v n.p' • - ---/ .' ' 1 ?', ' I '''''''./7--- 'IV • - --- --";4- '1 - r- c-'''- ---`: '- : . ;:s% ., , /:',",-".. , 1 ,.:',,/ ..1:;;T. .:.;•,;..4. 4 ' -.', • . 7 „;,,,, ,„. ii ..' ( ----. ., :,,,/,, 1 % 7 , t ,t ; ,,, ,,, ,_-•:', , t .; - ' .• • • ••:!..ti '•,,--i•• tt 72: , fi'te':,,,-111 t t ' - - - ' /1.-t t ,t A7,1F1,4 1,, Pf f it ; t ' 't _.- • --:----, ,, ' --- -- •scA ' 7.. -..+. • ,,,47,7 :-.- 2% 2- `rr( ,....›,44, 0," /,,,,,,,,,,,, ‘,.,_ - ,-,-i::..., '‘, \ 2 " \ ,.'..,';__ , .111" :i :!,?; : ' -17 r.: ::1,- ,.. -- ..,. - . 0 , , !A •'-'," ! ", : . _ i / A ' • - - 7 ...q7_ , .. - 4----' - • t' -■ , • .; ': -- - .,...."_-'_-__ t . ''' Vt' . -. 1, , 7 .1 1: .2, 2 . 2 -•;,:ta::: t .14 . 4 , - .= 4 :••!• \ \ : .. - ••;!_:,, t- - •t: ;/,, t;t., \ . . - ..7. ,,:1:67,e,%,, -7:_,.;/ 1 ; . i.• ,,,, . :.',-: ,'•-t•- :. l :i (2' , • I - , ...!•••'4- • , ','7-7 . -7_ ,, ..•,1• '... : / tt; t . t !-- -- • '`'.1 2.:5: \ --'- 1 - :% g '-- , ---..--,- . ' .. -,-•.• '- - ,:. ( X T . -- : - -,,E - - - =,,,,,, , I ./...-:--- • , 4_.L_-,...1_____ /1”,Z, t -• ,i I ..4 '- y.. -1 1 2 - . - -. / . 4:4: - /Aili'■.,,, , ': 1 •- - , : 1 - - . • 1 :- . ' - --. / • - ,'' '- : -----, • • '•'• /---- - • - ";' , ...) . 1'••1 • .;';'' !•'''''- •',.." ./.''•":" ' 7 .--V: ' --r ji_____„--, , _ ' : • . c --- 2 • , I 'ri" t' ''■ ,/,-----• • • • . ! V / • "47/ ° 7 1,- ,-• ,•;/:, 1' • • / ---- 1. -70 AD--- --. - ---H__. • tc ••• f ----: X i'• 0.- ;NI .,:•;------=•:••; ii• 1- I , 1 I ", , , • . z,,-- „-_,- • _ _ , ----_-.—„.....-11 -- - ....----- ...- .-- - -,1/.• , • -.,, .,.. ,, \%, 2.-.7.-.)?...4: ,:•:-."---=='•;.,' -...,..- • -, 1 .'• i t IL / , - ! ! '' --- L ' • • ---.' ' ,.__ _ t_ __ „ ,, _ ______,=_„.,.. ___- .2 , - . i. t7., - -, ,,,•-tkt tt; t, 7.742 1, "- .. - ;„7. , , , St:• , i /..„': .-: ; 'r 1,-7 / 1 ' /. /-■).' 1 F . .* t. . • ' AP P' ' ' ' '.-;- ' . • " 4-7 4 .------ - ' s:.-- - ''' '. 6 4 h /( ' :Wn .. ‘.':',.; ''ar' . - - . --, \%."- , ; ,- ,1 s. n'; ' ... ,:;''' `-',:). .../ ' ).'• .i 1 ...-:: ' .- r i :./7- I ?`..7 ,".:: ,..- 7 -I; ) ,- - --- ". - ''',' „._)/ ._.-- :._:,._,--: -,:. I 1:(11,'1't-- :6.1 r i .i!:: : . 1; ...'':,,' il ,k;;,; . :,}1) ii2ly; ',.1,..;/.2-. ,,,/;;-..., i ' ii ;.; ..--.-.*;__ -,7 ,„,: : - 4- ----,..- ,...-.,-L.----- '4", , .II, (.7..=- Pk- - ' • , r - .. - ' // , ',,,,, /..--, ,, . , 'F.. -)----" -, , — -.,%. Y ." " ''- :.?.;--"'"-;•"- • • - " -- -. • "' '' r -._ .•-•-, / i \ , 11 1.... 1 I ,- -. ' 7,,i %,..7 ': )) ,..r' • , Y( 1 .,--,,,. ' ■ / ///,' q . - . - _,A. `;',-... . ;1 ) i 1 O'• - ---'-'- • .;" `1,t6 •,',$ 0 '..t-: t / .. • - i 0 --- 2: ,'',.% , ,...-''f;-"‘. ' ' ill:' 9 , -, k ,.y. -.', I ---- ",',V, / , i -.:, (' ( ir .-.r.:' .:0 1 1/ .. ' ilin - % ! 4 , O r ' - '`,;''' ' 'it 'i2 "*.. ,,-) '; 'i . ;1; /-1!,,,, ,.i':, rfr ----:',--- .. I■elji•;;;)t, q.r...._. ,--;-,..•.,.. ,/ ...,„______.:,,,,„__:. /,„,, 4,‘ ,,,, ,77: ---,-..-71, ,t , t,,,-1 N 4 ',,: -' ''. • , . ' '4 ...' if % IV , 41, , r ,',---, fP . ?4: -- i . Oil , '7 T • ,. \ , - ' •• / •'-'. -, 1" ,•;•‘^' ,i, ' - •‘: - ‘r - • •••-• _., ,,,_;>. 7: .. _ „ - s.:‘, 1 * ,;_ : . , ,,,,,- ,,, . !;• W ■, r1;: ,,... 4%-t ':' l_t:',) P.' F •• •;• • :-:; - '•.':•7 V'' /•• ••; :-:.;?-"7 4. ' "i'VON'Ills ' '' - i. ' 1"1 'j ("° • ,! ( ' I '' ; I• D f , ;, /.. Ili I I - - ''TV t!-1-4 Atil tt,t, 1;, .•/-tt. !/!=7 : I.:bd. :-:-' , ".,,-;t' -vf._°_t„ :itt I c , w ,./ . 1 ,, i ,,, ,,, ::- \ .,.. „.: /.. g,,, 1; .. ., * 4 t -t? - - ' ft I 1 ' ,' f ',', \ ''rtfc3 Lk, .,- . l'-' ).; ',II :-. 5):::?; -?..";')•--- I ....;:..7 1 IL _:.------.: . A , ..:rii'-'<fin'- - - - ...1 1 ! , :rn:, 1 ''' )_.)'); n ? ; i `-,.-7;>: AA' i")'''..:-*' '.....*- - r,- kl't7:=1 --,'Ifi.i' --->_--. --- -;`..,j n ',, 'n 1p: ,;.',• . *rt f ., ,Y,- -nn r•11,, `.,:w; - - - ":.: , ,. :' " ,,1 - , .,,‘, .-n 1.,!,1 4 .:. : 4,,, :s.: :::-. ;,,k.: ni,l,:;,- -, i / :n " . 1, ! , , .. 1 i I R . --;.---7, ; -.? = 5 ---: '* (.."/'•' ..‹.-:•">,-..-, I ; , A; ( . { 7 , 7 `. : ■ \ I - - --- •-: V --- r h• : 1' I I t----- 4011r -.:- —.. ki :, 4 _ .:L= i I, (--• -, ' 72 ( 7 - - -.L , , -in., , '' , t 1 4 L ;If ...'..__1_1_:• .:: 7 ..' ,"(.°'_.'„ .,''',':',_. , e , „: i (.', - in. .;i7.;_' :-; r )r •.'„ n- „4„ -..,=,.- in I ; : ) ;,i 4.- . ; 7 :.- ;0 cr - - 1 ''/'' ' ••: ''1.- - 'n J /ir 4,.. --•-•- - '''•.: - f:.;1....',• \ •:•,.,:`, . .7.: --- .r, , ••, c.!, ...r/ .• ' i r , ,,,\,„,.\.,,,, ,,, , , ,,...< . ., . , , • c , , ,:c a ., .., .. if' • // : C. ,,,:1,14,...k , 19. ..., I. ' V114.- ,:-,:',,,. '.., \ 1 , 7 I:. . '‘, i ,.• 7..,: '''--"- '4•'-' 1 . ) '‘I C. I' i ri '''" i' / :1; 7 i '‘ • •', i il,' bi. • 14:' _ l ' 111 -- 011 7 . 1 ., ),;,) IP '-, 1: ' ,./ _.,.','',, 2 „. i , , , , ',1 , 1 , 2 , 4„ , , I L .- LT,7., , : 7 --• K., - 7: - - - ; ,, -4- - ,tr-;,t--!, 7 'd 1 ■ \''' ''. 1 . 1 ' 1 ; ' ''' '''''• 1 :L ' --' •-• ' 1i i 1•! . .:‘/' z , n ) , ( • -' . "1:.1', „ .:, L,', ,,.::t• - 1. ‘i-',. p' ._., . Y.- , _ \ ‘':i , ..: 7 :4 ‘‘' ": , 1 ,•' • < •-•s •-:, 17: 2 f' '• , t i - ti •. •-•• -• -- •-•-. I, " ,, , 1;4 , ti: 1,.!ll'i."'i:1- .:T I 1 f:-C,C=-424'i"" ::' \•''', f I 1,':'- ------ ;I ''• ' ..)".' I - , : -' ::-i - . I LI.-•_::, s '\•,.. ,/, ::::--., h,.7,47:4 ' 7 11 1 :::. : :::\•.`:-„,, . : ; l calif • - L: li • I I 1 L I ' \ • \ , ' • •\•' ,•., .4Th - r..s, ,'...-49 7 , * - -t . , N-. :..., ' -' 11"k, r.# ; 1 , 1 •; ‘ : ''= . F I . • . --,T - • - - ' -- .."•.: • •!'i .•:, - •:: •--••.',\ • , - - - 1. .•11 yht .■ t , , . RP 1. L . h., . , , . , „,-.. ,... . , , , . --- - -- - , - r - - r - • - 7 --7• ''. \ ‘ • •••,• • .' ,' - :' • . :17 - ..• : ///--- \ „ " L :I / 2. If) i I ' - 1.- - - - _ - ::" 7 :2 - :':' -, - 7 ',.• : :3 '_, - t4--- - ` - • ,.?,(;6:• - - '4( It'•' -,hr I t ' , t •tt \-.•• • , " t , . A '., '. \ • :••'' ', ['I: '- '''' I,, - - 22, ' ' : 4 -- - -- -•-• --7-- • -- 44 - 0:4 • I ;. ;i eP ".;,,,, / ,/ a •17-: ---': //Y./ ' ''‘ ''' - U • -..r - '' ' . ' H ' ' : ' : ' ' -- -- '''' . - - ' ' - ' ,/,''•:•; ' ' r ' ' -. ., -" ' ' -1 - •: 11 '. i• ,-- jii 1, \ - tt- -1- -:- - ,-:- - -- " .., g ...,! tl.:, ,/,727 /2• ------ I) , ,--- - 7.!:, I I . 2./ t• • tv A-- - ---,- ' -:"---, - ' -, • 't- :,•-• t_t- -7 4. '-• 1 it ".tt-• - - )11,- -,, ..; :•.,' i' 1 I ; 1 :-, - -"-- -- i -t _ : -,77t,-,t7'-„Y, '7A ,;;;;::::,,; ,,-.:;;:=---- .4 y (11 , - - • . ..- / •,4y q .. f ;.. ,--,. 1 0 1 ... , . • - 3. - .',,': r -- • ,:,•" --- .t'ls;,..___ !,..-.; / : ..0 " / 4 1,.......-..c!` ? ----;'••••••••:.*-- • __.-•-f4i . :•, . , ; . - - r t ir, ,6 % % /7. -2----4 °,2= 2 - / .4t;;,V.;•:„../" AWs• ,, .i- ( i,, 1 . ':•‘:,'• ' ,-- 41' ;••• • ' .., , \: \ - _1 ' ..••,•:,••• ,..•-:-=‘,.,.- ,,• - -I. , .,• ;I: i ../.; y.,, ...;," , A.'• L.. --e. .://?, .___,,,, , \ --,.\,,,,,,.. , ,, ...,, :,,,N-, .. ,:: - ..! ''. : '_,.:.'''''..'; li , : - ::: - :;• / 0!?;': \;: / iti';'• I., ,;:-/,';->:' );',, - ' ,- ; -- .T - ri: = "r"r% -'„-.:"---.2-..";;-Ak''•:. i: 1 'i; I . '-- ' ' '; ', ‘ 0, - :V,,V ... \: ' :"_: 7 ::: ' % ' ''', - - - -:.- ' .--: - - , : ' -:,. ' 4. ::':',..--- ..:i.f;'';`.'': 1 • 1 1/4 . 7,-.;', - • ;,' ,)-2" :,.- :nn.!.- 4- . :7q , ,tr: - -'-' ' - It ---'' ' "I .Y )077/4 4-5 ' . I .;•,; - : -:.".[/;' I ,':, • !? ;' , , 4?•;; ; h • IfI - >1: i 7 1 6, . ,•>-- - . *. „i: /7 • • . - - •.::: : ‘ -: • -, : i . 74.: 4. 7 ! ,..-- 4, l :.,i':•ni,.14,1 I Z I:LY; k1 2-:2- ,:.-4, -- ;: - LIV?V.,,,,. - - . -- ',;r7::: •-:- :. ... ':, ' 4 - - '' ..7' *i', .4 - - I , .);\ ':;, -.. .... ,--- • ,• 1 !iii..;..',' . / . /.1 '•--\.- --. . - "' ' •'• 7- :- ,' - :- - : - . 1-- :. --:-\''' .';:, '' . ‘ -- ---,!', / 4 i , ..,'",_.,-,...... --,-..,---,-,.-, 4.,,,/,,, ,,..,,,..„, , , ,, , , : , ,, , :*.--., , ,,,•,_.,,,, , /,, , y,.---,.\: , :-... , :, , ,,,... , ,,,- , -,,,.N,: , .... _, ,.---,:;,., -7.,r- (.,. ,---,,/ /.,-;..:,\,----7------j.\::-/41 l '•, ' :7'....7; 2 ' . ' , ,t;=, -- - - --L ;.2,„: \ 5 t ) :,:it. t . -: .: -- .1; -- J t :•,- - 5!: " ...x. --,-,' :; •••• ,..;`: , . _t-,- 411k \• - : •?- 1 / , , li \.'''...-"- ' ' '.' - ' - :- - _'.E - 't- ' r , -- -,•••:-- . ,-,- '-, , ----,,,-__ - -- - t - t ? •;- 7 ' •-,:' ,-- c •.-- ",„ F / ...: ,,, - ,. . -----'.:,, ,, , I ... , •, .._ _, ,., .....,_ n ,...„ .,, pc \\ NNW ,,,,, I . Id .. , _.-- ,. ._ _ .-- - - • . k 16 g ; \, -, .. ' .,- ',-/ ., , h , -- - --I. ;._> ..._- . - .,_ AZ:; .., . t . - 7 - .. - t„ , 71•-• - - ..-- - ; ::--- .„ ---• tt: - •• - ..:7t --- - 1---- - - it • ' - - --•• , - t • , - n - ,_ - eF - :-; - r. - - - -- , r \ - --- - ' . till... • st A rr , r , - = 2. .- .. . '' t l' . if' a 5 ft , , '. -1 ,4: • 1 it -,, \ .r.; - - .- - ' 1 • - y-4-::::-7-7 '. -.2 .t:1,1,:-: • , tt, •,,,,fti„,„..- ., ..2•4;" 7.'1. , - -- . er, :0 '',,,,. tt ,„ .,-- ,-; '-- _-- - -,: - ,., •;?t,-, '1 t _ - _• - •,t_ t • r--=' - _____,_, , _.1 '..::- -;_ --- --t. , . . , • , - : ;••=-__ _ t _;:, • ; - ;;/-4 - :•;•: :. ,t,; 1 f . : 1 it ••„/•-.::-:-• •„,. 4 I • " II -.---- - -t-t - __-.;11-w-, 11 •-::::!--,-.•" .. It ---- •• - - -7 - • "4 '-. I-- 't.t--_, _4' ' , •, •'• -- ',._ ' _.. --, - " __:' -- 1, , . - --,/ '..,1 - ,•., ,. z, , , ' ''''• - - - ---'' - :'• - 1.' 7- ,,.P:' k., ''' F .- --- ,,--r.'i :',:: 5 1--- . ,g.: ':':;.41,4 -. .-2,.. ,--:----__-__)-. -;---',.. -- : - - ; "'li .- - 5 1 " --- ' -- ' --: -" ''' . '11 ' - '''' ;-; ' 444 ` .:1- ' ,.,,_, , , .. - -. , ._ --- ., 4} „.--,. o o ,„:?.,',', , Mi. --.,,,--"..,:•---";; •- - • rtt _ _ _ • ;:---.- 2,1- , ,, It 1 • I:- ; • :1.•,%'••••= t• - ''':--••-. - t • - - - -. t'-'''' 1- i — . -- ---- •fil t ' -- -- • t t'ijt1 7 1 .' _ ' t : ,Y 2 VI, . ' f i t ) ,• - • : ;_;.?:_ -._ •;-;-• .-- ----' _.. --;'• ,, .. 4. -;-". '' !).-1:. = ', LI ! vi 4 , 1 '. ..._=•:,, 1 ;' - '-'• ''' tr`c ''A''''':' '.;;;--, -- --- -.---''''- ' --- "---- : - 1. " .1 --- ---., - ,,s '.' - cf. ., ,. , :., --, .. ,.. - ' • 10'1 r!..,`. -. ---1 7 ‘._.1. : I -- _.r: -t-' ','-.-,-- '-- 7•1: • -• - -- t r-: ;--_ t , ,, / 7 t•! ...,, -2 --_,.. ---,, - ,--,- ----.-------,---,- - --- - '7:.:"\-.' 16' . -__ , --- 7" ''---`-%--• - - - . -....,, F. - - .. • i .1 1 it 1 . 7: - ------•:,,,==---, ,... . . ' 1 ' i r, del ::;;2- 0.- . • , __,;.---, 7.0 •." '''': . .--,. , .--, c O • . . , .....7‘-' 's ..A! • I: . ... , - . • . • , .. .., - i.-.Bm I --- --7,, IN 4 ..„__,__. „,:,,,,,„:.,.,./0, % .. , ...... \ - 2. i.:.-...) , 'n..- .:1--- _ ----:•" - --<. . , --: - /so ---., - i / ii: ,. ___, • ,:.:...„:,:. ,,,t,... ./ ,: - ....i I , . __ ., ......„ ( - • . , •,•••••!-,--- - 2 .- - -c:.:- •'131 , 4 - -- - tr- iti•yr l'i ' - - ' ' ' 7 — --=--,-,- _ ::::4,, •.: , -',..\• , \,t 2- • j{ • , • • • --; - t-'-• - • -• - - . .< li ' _ --- - ____ _hit • ". ',,,,,,:-.--, , • I ,_•::.- I • Legend Approximate Scale 1 in = 2,000 ft Date: 5/24/07 Drawn by: KLW 1 Base map: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute Topographic Map Series, Beaverton Quadrangle Project: Fern Street Residence Project No. 07-1124 I FIGURE 1 Tigard, Oregon I I 1 • • GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. I I GeoP Mt 7312 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon 97224 I SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN I . , - Eng) neering, Inc. - ' ' Tel (503) 598-8445 Fax: (503) 598-8705 I , I 1 v '- ''- . '.--.0 . . , _ r ______ I ,,. -\... N\ --„. , J . \\ , / . 7 -- - - I --- ----/- ., \------ ' i NN-... ' . .. , e 3 00,cst N i --, ---- - . / ._ --,,-,- - --(----,\ I ..............--....)**-... _ 2 ' . '-' • - .... •::::•$. -..:- — At N ' ' . ss-- ■ ,.. '1,-..: _ -^,;,'••••: - S.- ••• . .. 41, _ _ ___ ,,___ _ --- .., \ ---- - -1 A ..- ■ ' - - - , .----• r- --, - ---...„_„, ._ '\' r.'_, . , - ,- \ , - , I ( I I ...-• \ \ .... \ \ 1 5 9 , - • .rt N. , -..... - --- ., ,. •,-, .""-----__, `- ,„ ' \ / i i } ,-- \ . — _ --- - ---___. 1 , _ --, „ - „, :' I , , t _ I ■ / ■ „ imi \ I . , - - ) 7.• 1 ', 1 \ I \ _ , , \ 1 4:t ,i S.‘ - i ; I , \ - II ' 1 - s Lif,lt.00 S _ •-,.,.„. , t tcsi , ,, , i 1 . I , .. - . NN N ■ ,. .-.3 , -- 1 \ -_ .: •-■ 1 - NN . ■ , -.. tl •-..„. , - ,. \ , c . .. ‘.. ........ — "- / -‘44-- L ..,_ •..- _, . „,. `.... ' , --a -,.■.„ TP - \ t , L1-7 . - , . = „ 1 ‘,........" i ' •-• 4 100 ‘4:' ' . 'n1,\ `,...\ , \ ,% • ' "\ I . op '- - \- 'Jo\ -. .t. \. ) (.__.----,,,, m : . P-3 ' 0 , I - , <1 ■., ■ •.,., ■ ` ." ' -, -■ 1 , I - „ , - , - ' •••.'• 's ---- ' n•-■•, -' --. , „.. II r 1 ■ . ■.,,, CI' ' ‘ ' ■ -‘ - ' ''' '..,,. •- ' & ' 7 •-, ' -`,.. ■ -".„ -4 ...'-- -------- Itar.........„......................................0'—‘1 -C1'-''''_1'. _------- '...,.,,,.. \ ' \ . ■ --.- ,..f -' -. ,_6 ,.. c _ - --- etc _ , , ., ,....,-,.. S .2). \ ' , ^ _ r" - - 7 2 - --- "' 1 / ,... ■ --- - -", -- - ; ) , ) `. / I / I ; T ----- , - I ( , I , , .__ .. . ..._ -. ... L.--, ....___. / i / : / I ; , . I , .. ' .. - -_.--' ...._ -_______- ' C••4 -------------__ . ----n-n------ --- 2 ----- -- -_, ---■-_ -*-- '"--„ ...._ T:■- ..... nn - - _____- -'---- ■-_,.. - t• 0 ----- — _____ --- '- , -- "-.... I O. . • , • - , • . . - • _ ._. *---. . , .„ , • , - . _ I I . • „ _ - _ - - - - - - I I . LEGEND TP-1 APPROX. SCALE Fern Street Residence I Test pit designation and approximate location Drawn By: KLW FIGURE 2 I 0 I 30 I 60 FEET I Tigard, Oregon Project No. 07-1124 7312 SW Durham Road u'e0�;; Portland, Oregon 97224 KEYSTONE WALL TYPICAL DETAIL I ° Engineering I c. Tel: 503.598.8445 Fax: 503.598.8705 Keystone Cap Unit Finished Grade Variable Slope -3 ' �3 • No Steeper than 4H:1.: f� :,- 4.4 Degree ,::�.�trj z >t Minimum - � .A ; �� - _ :. 4 , rte: Batter d av f„ , = k,it. Minimum 8" Low "Compac" ' . " Permeability Soil Keystone \, 7.5 Long Geogrid I Units Nx-io. �s StrataGrid SG300 1 (Top Layer Only) I 13 ti 8' Maximum Wall Height . Reinforced Fill I 3/4" Crushed Rock or Clean Granular I 1 i. 5.5' Long Geogrid (Typical) , StrataGrid SG300 1 it'f:3,10 l' 2' Min` I > �� Limit of Excavation 8" Minimum " F(Contractor Responsible Embedment V " _ 4" Drain for Stable Backcut) II Variable Slope --------- Minimum Crushed Rock Overlying No Steeper than 3H:1V Suitable Bearing Soils I NOTES: I 1. Wall Height (H) is the retained height. 2. Minimum wall embedment is 8 inches (one Keystone unit). F. 3. Unit core fill and leveling pad shall consist of 3/4" - 0 crushed aggregate. 4. Backfill in reinforced zone to consist of imported granular soil as approved by the geotechnical engineer. I. 5. Geotechnical Engineer should review subgrade soils. 6. Geogrids must be of appropriate type and length per the design calculations. 7. Finish grade must provide positive drainage. I . Date: 5/30/07 Drawn by: SLH ' Project: Fern Street Residence I Project No. 07 -1124 I FIGURE 3 Tigard, Oregon I - GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. Gee 7312 SW Durham Road TEST PIT LOG . ` ni. _ Portland, Oon 97224 I Engineering; Inc. Tel: ( 598 reg 8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Fern Street Project No. 07 -1124 Test Pit No. TP -1 ;. >� Tigard, OR E w ^ N F2 o L V 2 N N u? N y N a3 c o I o a 2 9 a C E 5 C Material Description GU a v —'"2o 0 0 co _. Medium stiff, dark brown, gravelly SILT (ML), damp (undocumented fill) 1 Very stiff, brown, clayey SILT (ML), damp — 3.0 I 2- - 4.0 3— 1 4— 4.5 I 5— Very hard, red brown, clayey SILT (ML), with some basalt cobble sized fragments, damp I 6 Test Pit Terminated at 6 feet due to refusal of trackhoe on weathered Basalt 7— Note: No groundwater seepage encountered. 1 8 10 I 11— I 12— i 13= 14— I 15 16- 17 LEGEND iTh ° Date Excavated: 5/1/07 root B`; 4 d Logged By: KLW ,,000 --- — Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment I . , GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. G . 7312 SW Durham Road aeO� `' „ I Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG I Eoyineerinyanc. Tel: (503) 598 - 8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 $ Project: Fern Street Tigard, OR Project No. 07 -1124 BORING TP -2 O C E N,^ a – N o O Y .2 I 75 o. O d o a o 42 .o :? .,=. Material Description ,7 a a v N – 2'" 2 o � p 0 U Medium stiff, dark brown, gravelly SILT (ML), damp (undocumented fill) 1 1- - 1.5 Stiff to hard, brown, clayey SILT (ML), damp I 2- - 2.0 3— II — 4.0 4 — 4.5 ' 5 ' 6- 7- 1 8— Test Pit Terminated at 8 feet I Note: No groundwater seepage encountered. 10 I 11— II 12 13= 14— 15 4 _ !fp I 16— — 17 I. LEGEND — ° Date Excavated: 5/1/07 I ' filial. � a e ® Logged By: KLW MO to Bucke to. — Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment I . I ; Geo Pacific Engineering, Inc. G - 6 oP 7312 SW Durham Road TEST PIT LOG ' Portland, Oregon 97224 Engineering: t Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Fern Street Tigard, OR Project No. 07 -1124 BORING TP -3 a� ku C O N O 2 N N (n n N �p C 0. 2 C CL C l 5 . Material Description o a� — �" 2 0 a 0 0 m P 3 CO Medium stiff, dark brown, gravelly SILT (ML), damp (undocumented fill) 1 ' 2 = Stiff to hard, brown, clayey SILT (ML), damp 3— ' 4- 5 ' 6 Test Pit Terminated at 6 feet 7— Note: No groundwater seepage encountered. 8 1 9— 10 I 11 -- 12— 13� 14- 15 ,4 — j� 16- 17 i LEGEND Date Excavated: 5/1/07 I • fi Gal RO0 to Bucke d4V ® Logged By: KLW 1,000 £ Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment I • • ' a GeoPacific Engineering, Inc. pop '� � �' 7312 SW Durham Road L. Portland, Oregon 97224 TEST PIT LOG Engineering. Tel: (503) 598 -8445 Fax: (503) 598 -8705 Project: Fern Street Project No. 07 -1124 Test Pit No. TP-4 Tigard, OR a o o c Q 0 f6 = Material Description D as ° c Z o m p a o 111 Very stiff, red brown, clay SILT (ML), with basalt fragments, damp 1— 2— Hard rock (R4), dark gray and red brown, BASALT, moderately weathered, very 3— close joints 1 ' 5 Test Pit Terminated at 4.5 feet due to trackhoe refusal on basalt rock 1 Note: No groundwater seepage encountered. 7- 8- 1 10 1 11- 12— 13= 14— 1 15 16— ' a r 17 LEGEND ° Date Excavated: 5/1/07 3=X anal Logged By: KLW MO to Bucke 1,000 g Surface Elevation: Bag Sample Bucket Sample Shelby Tube Sample Seepage Water Bearing Zone Water Level at Abandonment 1 .V STONE R ETAINING WALL SYSTEMS RETAINING WALL DESIGN mik. Version 3.3.1.152 I SEISMIC DESIGN Project: Fern Street Date: 5/30/2007 Project No: 07 -1124 Designer: SLH I 1 Case: Case 2 I Design Method: Coulomb -NCMA (modified soil interface) alligir Design Parameters 4 I Soil Parameters: c y pcf Reinforced Fill 36 0 130 _________r 3 Retained Zone 30 0 120 : I Foundation Soil 30 100 120 2 Reinforced Fill Type: 2.5" minus Gravel or Crushed Stone ErA. Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus - 1 I Peak Acceleration = 0.18 g Vertical Acceleration = 0.00 g Factors of Safety (seismic are 75% of static) sliding: 1.50/1.13 pullout: 1.50/1.13 uncertainties: 1.50/1.13 I overturning: 2.00/1.50 shear: 1.50 connection: 1.50/1.13 bearing. 2.00/1.50 bending: 1.50 Serviceability: 1.00 /NA I Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG300 3400 1.61 1.10 1.20 1600 1.50 1067 0.90 0.90 I Analysis: 8-foot High Compac Units - Seismic Case: Case 2 Unit Type: Compac Wall Batter: 4.40 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone I Wall Ht: 8.67 ft embedment: 0.67 ft BackSlope: 14.00 deg. slope, 10.00 ft long Surcharge: LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge I Load Width: 100.00 ft Load Width: 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.49/1.76 3.42/2.10 7.23/5.27 4.70 /3.29 6.25 /3.47 I Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1409/1731 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.63 ft/1.27 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) I Calc. Allow Ten Pk Conn Sery Conn Pullout Layer Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal Tcl Tsc FS 4 7.33 7.5 81 / 552 SG300 1067/1832 ok 418/558 ok 506/ N/A ok >10/1.43 ok I 3 5.33 5.5 197 / 528 SG300 1067/1832 ok 501/668 ok 579/ N/A ok 4.85/1.45 ok 2 3.33 5.5 315 / 578 SG300 1067/1832 ok 583/778 ok 653/ N/A ok 8.23/3.58 ok 1 1.33 5.5 517 / 740 SG300 1067/1832 ok 666/888 ok 726/ N/A ok 9.59/5.36 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): I SG300 2.67 sy /ft i NOTE: THESE CALCULATIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD I 1`1 NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY QUALIFIED ENGINEER , fj� I I I Date 5/30/2007 Page 1 VSTONE ' ETAINING WALL SYSTE RETAINING WALL DESIGN iinik. Version 3.3.1.152 I t Project: Fern Street Date: 5/30/2007 a 1 Project No: 07 -1124 Designer: SLH I Case: Case 1 Design Method: Coulomb -NCMA (modified soil interface) agil e Design Parameters = 4 I Soil Parameters: c y pcf • � Reinforced Fill 36 0 130 3 Retained Zone 30 0 120 UFA I Foundation Soil 30 100 120 2 Reinforced Fill Type: 2.5 " minus Gravel or Crushed Stone :r( Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus - 1 1 Minimum Design Factors of Safety sliding: 1.50 pullout: 1.50 uncertainties: 1.50 overturning: 2.00 shear: 1.50 connection: 1.50 I bearing: 2.00 bending: 1.50 Serviceability: 1.00 Reinforcing Parameters: Strata -Grid Geogrids I Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS FS Tal Ci Cds SG300 3400 1.61 1.10 1.20 1600 1.50 1067 0.90 0.90 I Analysis: 8 foot High Compac Units Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Compac Wall Batter: 4.40 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 8.67 ft embedment: 0.67 ft I BackSlope: 14.00 deg. slope, 10.00 ft long Surcharge: LL: 0 psf uniform surcharge DL: 0 psf uniform surcharge Load Width: 100.00 ft Load Width: 100.00 ft I Results: Sliding Overturning Bearing Shear Bending Factors of Safety: 2.49 3.42 7.23 4.70 6.25 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1409 psf I Eccentricity at base: 0.63 ft Reinforcing: (ft & lbs /ft) Calc. Allow Ten Pk Conn Sery Conn Pullout I Layer Height Length Tension Reinf. Type Tal 10 Tel Tsc FS 4 7.33 7.5 81 SG300 67 ok 418 ok 506 ok > 10 ok 3 5.33 5.5 197 SG300 1067 ok 501 ok 579 ok 4.85 ok I 2 3.33 5.5 315 SG300 1067 ok 1067 ok 583 ok 653 ok 8.23 ok 1 1.33 5.5 517 SG300 666 ok 726 ok 9.59 ok Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): SG300 2.67 sy /ft ' NOTE: THESE CALCULATIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONLY AND SHOULD A NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BYA QUALIFIED ENGINEER I 1 I Date 5/30/2007 Page 1 ' Tory . \ . BLIII,l:?iNG P a NCB .-. . �1 oi 0067 ( r PLANNING DIVISION:, • Required Seth ks: ti Approvelo 0 Not Approved Side: _ ___ Side: . From. r'S Garage: 6 Rear: 1 . Visual Clearance: 3'"A roved 0 Not Approved Maximum Building Height ..; feet . CWS Service Provider Letter Required: 0 Yes 1 No 1 Received 8`r : t /tA t <�/LL.&... ... Date: to /4 70'1 � `, (�s. ;ziJ � / (; ' / . ENGINEERIN DEPART ENT: . � 5b � . / �/ ' Actual Slope: % % p L; a • pproved HOUSE / / / � ,; Site. Plan: _ ' ', pproved L M 4- ot Approved . // . y ,1 / L OT 21 g .',�` L' : i '' Date: .... ' Sa . 1'J o t ' s . �?, �,3�i,1 L" –e.,1 R " . .:., Vl/c• y.A.A. G); -'z GY 5 P� ,e../e_ CU « ms's % ,. G > G° _z___:, � 71, . / �" / W . i . /, • 7y / 6/5/6 I / • � 4 P APEEL 1 / / PAR firiQN PLAT 'i!'.;/ 8 I / / �,�'L NO 1945 -017 ./,;'' f. - .. / LEGEND �-• ! J ///,./ / -/ ,4 ,' ,' • = I R / % , / • = SET IRON ROD 1 2 ! ` 0 = IRON PIPE ' % /13" ' `/ ,_. - -- 3� ® = CONTROL POINT / / @ = CLEAN OUT /// ' / - j' ,1 [o . TRANSFORMER 1 i i 12 " -16 ' - i WALL i / I 1: te 0 STORM MANHOLE' yr. 1 / .. / / .5 V ...._... .ro STORM LINE. „11 i ': / i ' � ' 0 = SANITARY MANHOLE 1 . / /. — I SANITARY LINE 1 ` n" / 3 /' //// i ai DI = CONTROL VALVE / \ it / // 'i-ic ' • -----` 54� w / I = WATER METER / /' ' i ; 24% 32 " / -- .. j /:^� , % j` /PARCEL 3 ' i p = WATER VALVE i 4p / / :y - /, / , i / / /;/ PARTITION PLAT ,II" 0 / , „5-',.,/ . /^ i , / / No. 1995 -On, • . 7 / - GRAVEL . �'S »� $ �/ I . = CONCRETE / i /i i � _ ;d z /. = • ' , ; .1 a' / / J l / / / ' : ,. . MAPLE t8" � i / '��Ea ' / �� ,,��,, / 7 -._._ / �9,, / i'' s = FIR / // ;�h // /,,. ' 7.•" // --- -- ,� 1 O/ - OAK / / / 12" y,^345/ / / / // - /�. 'P a = DECIDUOUS / .,LB" 7� : ° ro // � '`..it / /(/ - r - - FENCE 2 4 " / Q ' /may — ,, — = WATER LINE / / / • —ra— = PGE LINE // = FIRE HYDRANT • a , to j 24" j 0 i'< —ca = GAS LINE / / / / / / ti e /; 8/ M = MAIL BOX / /' / — NOTE TABLE • /7 ! . / 3 10 -I8* on ,\R � NOTE DESCRIPTION RIM ELEV I.E. ELEV. FLOW M ") // t 8 la" , 6 .• 2 ./,,, _ 1O . O STORM MANHOLE 325.44 W. = 317.14 OUT ® SANITARY MANHOLE 321,96 W. = 310.76 IN w Q SANITARY MANHOLE 316.71 E. = 310.01 OUT s f ' / ( STORM MANHOLE 315.68 E. = 309.83 OUT "' i ,0" 12" C.C.P. W. = 341.221 „ i" w , 22" it 0" . .. / E. = NOT LOCATED a' r: 4 Q 15" C.M.P. W. = 316.68 Q 10" C.M.P. E. = 315.42 R c � ' W = 314.96 / �m / 117. r ® 18" C . 0 P . TO ® S. = 319.67 :f; • • • • • 11 4 ' / / "/ j J CA B ASIN 316.19 • • ° . // {r�� /,� _ r CA B A SIN 326.60 • • • • • • . I Q} „ a^ �L �/ F I 2, � l P SANI TARY MANHOLE APPRUXIMAT� • I.O44 . 1° • • • • ;� , ret ry ° °° M / /,, N -- i / i % ' ;' 4 -- -'I l ; /' 11 - Aft � - fir ; ;��r. : 1 gd �' i ! ff IL.. I 1 • • • / // b 1.1,4-- X91 �Ip / / / / / h / 1 7/h 1 L - 1(49 ;/ , • f ti /// /' j ' +' i�=T IN. f`(�r `N� t O • � �/ 1�e � /i! �( of �f�l� �1�7��j� it/ i gip/ ` 1 84 o v+/ F BI or . / / /// IC 14-/ alf 4 91/4-)7)--e---- GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. 7312 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon 97224 Phone: 503 - 598 -8445 • Fax 503 - 598 -8705 Special Inspection / 3765 SA) do 5l� JOB # DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT Fe •' S S-i�� I r I'!C �� � C-)"'DATE 4 - 2 JOB ADDRESS TYPE OF INSPECTION Sc... Lc, PERMIT NO. WEATHER ,)u Inspection Notes: (Include location, testing date, substitutions / deviations, materials, methods of construction, conformance statement, etc. (c --- re:c 6c. v. dz_.//c..7.„ • (S ov\ IhSOecTruv. or-- r\G 10 /v ✓V� SCkc�� Sit\ • t' r • 4 - 0 fyies vv1/4 S-{( reo(oe. • • Observed by: 74e e';i i Information contained herein pertains to materials tested /inspected only. The fact that any particular work has been observed or tested does not waive the contractor's responsibility for the means and methods of construction, job site safety, or to comply with the contract documents. • --CCU GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING' INC: 7312 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon 97224 Job # Phone: 503 - 598 -8445 • Fax 503 - 598 -8705 REPORT OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Client Project e--v\ r - S • (,J 1L �� 4),-.) tttt J o 7 Soil Descriptions tt S J . !-; cs i . 3/ q , r i — W Method of Test I I F3 0 • Serial # 3 1 s ciS TEST ELEV. DATE TEST LOCATION FIELD FIELD DENSITY MAX DRY COMP COMP TYPE ) MOIST. (PCF) DENSITY SPEC. RESULT (�' % WET DRY C ' P ' (PCF) GJ © - ! 0 - t Z 136.1 12,61 i35 -3 10.® 9 3 o f � � .L )3(.0 12.00 clz o 4 v0 9.4 13b.s f + Z v `1.2- 13445 Iz s.S /2.g • • Remarks .31 U +- vv F 6 5 F es. ( Test by: G ;1-2. ;:e Information contained herein pertains to materials tested /inspected only. The fact that any particular work has been observed or • tested does not the contractor's responsibility for the means and methods of construction, job site safety, or to comply with the contract documents. GEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. 7312 SW Durham Road Portland, Oregon 97224 Phone: 503 - 598 -8445 • Fax 503 - 598 -8705 Special Inspection / 7<F4i t t r . JOB # DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT Fe / � -".• � ( cC . t IA- DATE b • L I — JOB ADDRESS TYPE OF INSPECTION Or" ^ IP. e u PERMIT NO. • WEATHER Inspection Notes: (Include location, testing date, substitutions / deviations, materials, methods of construction, conformance statement, etc. J" l T6„A ' (�lCe r 1L Pc N c c c+v 4 ©o o t S v or d -• ��, C U vG r■_S 4� C 4 4 10c fi e ✓ I ! 1 c1 ,� tO i i!� L CA Err C_ v l— Y e v.: r . (,✓, \ 1 Y r ik E c o v i 0 n -�' l-- J. • Observed by: Information contained herein pertains to materials tested /inspected only. The fact that any particular work has been observed or tested does not waive the contractor's responsibility for the means and methods of construction, job site safety, or to comply with the contract documents. - GiEOPACIFIC ENGINEERING, INC. 7312 SW Durham Road (, ; ' , Portland, Oregon 97224 !l� Phone: 503 - 598 -8445 • Fax 503 - 598 -8705 Special Inspection JOB # DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT Few. DATE 7 / 1 3 /0 7 • JOB ADDRESS TYPE OF INSPECTION •i7:•-e1 5U4 J / PERMIT NO. ?- WEATHER Su ,s-7 / / t/ Inspection Notes: (Include location, testing date, substitutions / deviations, materials, methods of construction, conformance statement, etc. 6/iG' /Gc c A-- -f5 CQcr C7 ) 5 1 I 0 �'7 S P.i! ✓L IL-; o,.0 .E/'CI Ge.4∎1 R o ? S2 .re 1i S e v'k, S i /e _ 50 5 a,,- 2 �t�c� //4 c4 I d 17 ' 9 ,7" Geirlu+. / G / ecru / o-n � e r � S 7 LiJ C h Lam+. S r.4.+ , � v Pt—c. i 4 -2 ve 5 /5 r e ar .t c 5 r / T ii /1 ; 5 ex !/ ear t 4 ‘ c, I awl r—e_.." 5 "; /7: .go J ( / ! / / L / / / / xa L� �,c.✓ e. h��iv� fY c4 i' P�v �.tiY t� u. r `��t sr C�c�c9 . U'-i r / c /< i / / Gva5- _ ,t /o >�� ► i _ LZ /'7J > ,P�Gt_6/ b�P cry a-¢ z. v © 1 S a P J / r f r / � 5 I Te L O4 6 ?1 B/yt -Y�/ l� 4 v • t ua Gn u c. - if Observed by: Information contained herein pertains to materials tested /inspected only. The fact that any particular work has been • observed or tested does not waive the contractor's responsibility for the means and methods of construction, job site safety, or to comply with the contract documents.