The URL can be used to link to this page

Report A f ® www.tvfr.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue August 12, 2013 John Floyd Associate Planner Tigard Permit Center 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97223 Re: Bonaventure Senior Living— Hall & Ross St Dear Mr. Floyd, Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed site plan surrounding the above named development project. Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue endorses this proposal predicated on the following criteria and conditions of approval: 1) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD DISTANCE FROM BUILDING AND TURNAROUNDS: Access roads shall be within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building. An approved turnaround is required if the remaining distance to an approved intersecting roadway, as measured along the fire apparatus access road, is greater than 150 feet. (OFC 503.1.1) 2) DEAD END ROADS: Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turnaround. (OFC 503.2.5) 3) ADDITIONAL ACCESS ROADS— COMMERCIAL: Where buildings exceed 30 feet in height or three stories in height shall have at least two separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings or facilities having a gross area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provided with at least two separate means of fire apparatus access. Buildings up to 124,000 square feet provided with fire sprinklers may have a single access. (OFC D104) 4) AERIAL FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet in height. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. (OFC D105) 5) REMOTENESS: Where two access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. (OFC D104.3) 6) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD WIDTH AND VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where fire apparatus roadways are less than 26 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are more than 28 feet wide but less than 32 feet wide, "NO PARKING" signs shall be installed on North Operating Center Command&Business Operations Center South Operating Center Training Center 20665 SW Blanton Street and Central Operating Center 7401 SW Washo Court 12400 SW Tonquin Road Aloha,Oregon 97007-1042 11945 SW 70th Avenue Tualatin,Oregon 97062-8350 Sherwood,Oregon 97140-9734 503-259-1400 Tigard,Oregon 97223-9196 503-259-1500 503-259-1600 503-649-8577 www.tvfr.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue one side of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Where fire apparatus roadways are 32 feet wide or more, parking is not restricted. (OFC 503.2.) 7) FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS WITH FIRE HYDRANTS: Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet. (OFC D103.1) 8) NO PARKING SIGNS: Where fire apparatus roadways are not of sufficient width to accommodate parked vehicles and 20 feet of unobstructed driving surface, "No Parking" signs shall be installed on one or both sides of the roadway and in turnarounds as needed. Roads 26 feet wide or less shall be posted on both sides as a fire lane. Roads more than 26 feet wide to 32 feet wide shall be posted on one side as a fire lane. Signs shall read "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" and shall be installed with a clear space above grade level of 7 feet. Signs shall be 12 inches wide by 18 inches high and shall have red letters on a white reflective background. (OFC D103.6) 9) SURFACE AND LOAD CAPACITIES: Fire apparatus access roads shall be of an all-weather surface that is easily distinguishable from the surrounding area and is capable of supporting not less than 12,500 pounds point load (wheel load) and 60,000 pounds live load (gross vehicle weight). You may need to provide documentation from a registered engineer that the design will be capable of supporting such loading. (OFC D102.1) 10) BRIDGES: Where a bridge or an elevated surface is part of a fire apparatus access road,the bridge shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with AASHTO HB -17. Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be designed for a live load sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus.Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges when required by the fire code official. Where elevated surfaces designed for emergency vehicle use are adjacent to surfaces which are not designed for such use, approved barriers,approved signs or both shall be installed and maintained when required by the fire code official. (OFC 503.2.6) 11) TURNING RADIUS: The inside turning radius and outside turning radius shall be not less than 28 feet and 48 feet respectively, measured from the same center point. (OFC 503.2.4 & 103.3) 12) PAINTED CURBS: Where required, fire apparatus access roadway curbs shall be painted red and marked "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" at approved intervals. Lettering shall have a stroke of not less than one inch wide by six inches high. Lettering shall be white on red background. (OFC 503.3) 13) GRADE: Fire apparatus access roadway grades shall not exceed 10 percent. Intersections and turnarounds shall be level (maximum 5%) with the exception of crowning for water run-off. When fire sprinklers are installed, a maximum grade of 15% may be allowed. The approval of fire sprinklers as an alternate shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of ORS 455.610(5). (OFC 503.2.7 & D103.2) 14) GATES: Gates securing fire apparatus roads shall comply with all of the following: Minimum unobstructed width shall be 16 feet, or two 10 foot sections with a center post or island. Gates serving one- or two-family dwellings shall be a minimum of 12 feet in width. Gates shall be set back at minimum of 30 feet from the intersecting roadway. Gates shall be of the swinging or sliding type. Manual operation shall be capable by one person. Electric automatic gates shall be equipped with a means for operation by fire department personnel. Locking devices shall be approved. Electric automatic gates shall comply with ASTM 220-5 and UL 325. (OFC D103.6) Removable bollards are not an approved alternate to a swinging gate. 15) COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS - REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The required fire flow for the building shall not exceed 3,000 gallons per minute (GPM) or the available GPM in the water delivery system at 20 psi, whichever is less as calculated using IFC, Appendix B. A worksheet for calculating the required fire flow is available from the Fire Marshal's Office. (OFC B105.3) Please provide a fire flow calculation worksheet AND a current fire flow test of the nearest fire hydrant demonstrating available flow at 20 psi residual pressure—contact the water provider for flow test information. Please forward copies to both TVF&R, and Tigard Building Services. Fire flow calculation worksheets, as well as instructions, are available on our web site at www.tvfr.com. Page 12 www.tvfr.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 16) FIRE HYDRANTS—COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS: Where a portion of the building is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured in an approved route around the exterior of the building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided. This distance may be increased to 600 feet for buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system. (OFC 507.5.1) 17) FIRE HYDRANT NUMBER AND DISTRIBUTION: The minimum number and distribution of fire hydrants available to a building shall not be less than that listed in Appendix C,Table C 105.1. Considerations for placing fire hydrants may be as follows: • Existing hydrants in the area may be used to meet the required number of hydrants as approved. Hydrants that are up to 600 feet away from the nearest point of a subject building that is protected with fire sprinklers may contribute to the required number of hydrants. • Hydrants that are separated from the subject building by divided highways or freeways shall not contribute to the required number of hydrants. Heavily traveled collector streets only as approved by the fire code official. 18) PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANTS: To distinguish private fire hydrants from public fire hydrants, private fire hydrants shall be painted red. (OFC 507.2.1, NFPA 24 & 291) 19) FIRE HYDRANT DISTANCE FROM AN ACCESS ROAD: Fire hydrants shall be located not more than 15 feet from an approved fire apparatus access roadway. (OFC C102.1) 20) REFLECTIVE HYDRANT MARKERS: Fire hydrant locations shall be identified by the installation of reflective markers. The markers shall be blue. They shall be located adjacent and to the side of the centerline of the access road way that the fire hydrant is located on. In case that there is no center line, then assume a centerline, and place the reflectors accordingly. (OFC 510.1) 21) PHYSICAL PROTECTION: Where fire hydrants are subject to impact by a motor vehicle, guard posts, bollards or other approved means of protection shall be provided. (OFC 507.5.6) 22) CLEAR SPACE AROUND FIRE HYDRANTS: A 3 foot clear space shall be provided around the circumference of fire hydrants. (OFC 507.5.5) 23) FIRE HYDRANT/FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION: A fire hydrant shall be located within 100 feet of a fire department connection (FDC). Fire hydrants and FDCs shall be located on the same side of the fire apparatus access roadway and or drive aisle. FDCs shall normally be remote except when approved by the fire code official. Fire sprinkler FDCs shall be plumbed to the fire sprinkler riser downstream of all control valves. Each FDC shall be equipped with a metal sign with 1 inch raised letters and shall read, "AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS OR STANDPIPES"or a combination thereof as applicable. (OFC 912.2) 24) ACCESS AND FIRE FIGHTING WATER SUPPLY DURING CONSTRUCTION: Approved fire apparatus access roadways and firefighting water supplies shall be installed and operational prior to any combustible construction or storage of combustible materials on the site. (OFC 1410.1 & 1412.1) 25) KNOX BOX: A Knox Box for building access is required for this building. Please contact the Fire Marshal's Office for an order form and instructions regarding installation and placement. (OFC 506.1) 26) PREMISES IDENTIFICATION: Buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabet numbers. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a'h inch stroke. (OFC 505.1) 27) FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS TO EQUIPMENT: Fire protection equipment shall be identified in an approved manner. Rooms containing controls for HVAC, fire sprinklers risers and valves or other fire detection, suppression or control features shall be identified with approved signs. (OFC 509.1) Page 13 i . 1 . E www.tvfr.com Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue 28) ANGLE OF APPROACH AND DEPARTURE: The angles of approach and departure for fire apparatus roads shall not exceed 8 Degrees. (OFC 503.2.8, NFPA 1901) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 29) Please provide a site plan that includes designated aerial apparatus access, fire hydrants, and FDC locations for approval. If you have questions or need further clarification, please feel free to contact me at 503-259-1512. Sincerely, Karen Mohling Deputy Fire Marshal Copy: Jim Clarkson, Architect Page 14 CES NWT LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: 0 1k1 q DATE: le)bibif JOB#: SUBJECT: 6v rv►,44n,f_i b7/-7 ,44 A'fI'ENTION: ese., WE ARE SENDING YOU: Prints ❑Plans ❑Specifications ❑Copy of letter [Documents ❑Reports ❑Change order ❑Samples ❑Other: COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 2 ► 0/) P ' C Ie rQ� 4 eenv.A THESE ARE TRANSMIYI'ED AS CHECKED BELOW: ▪For approval For your use ❑As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑Other: ❑FOR BIDS DUE: REMARKS: COPY TO: SIGNED: CESNW, INC. 13190 SW 681H PARKWAY, STE. 150,TIGARD,OR 97223 503.968.6655 T 503.968.2595 F www.CESNw.COM C E S NW .-:::: (7.--C,70/1-/--7,0(--2//- LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL TO: C e r DATE: ./J, JOB#: _ zips SUBJECT: 4 ,►� A 1"1 ENTION/1.SIME !' I , WE ARE SENDING YOU: ints ❑ Plans ❑Specifications ❑Copy of letter ❑Documents ❑Reports ❑Change order ❑Samples ❑ Other: COPIES D. 'E NO. DESCRIPTION G CC U ,1 6 r \ U1 ) ri-t'F14) THESE ARE TRANSMI Fl ED AS CHECKED BELOW: or approval ❑For your use ❑As requested ❑Other. � ❑FOR BIDS DUE: 214 OCT 22 REMARKS: CAIN VTl MU) CAIN DIVISWN 0111)1N 41( COPY TO: SIGN'is CESNW, INC. 13190 SW 68TH PARKWAY, STE.150,TIGARD,OR 97223 503.968.6655 T 503.968.2595 F WWW.CESNW.COM Dan Nelson From: John Floyd Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:07 AM To: John Wolff(TVFR);Al Dickman Cc: John Jensen; Dan Nelson Subject: RE: Bonadventure Hydrants Thank you,John. From: Wolff, John F. [mailto:John.Wolff @tvfr.com] Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:42 AM To: John Floyd; Al Dickman Cc: John Jensen Subject: RE: Bonadventure Hydrants Correction: the additional hydrant is to cover the NW corner not the NE. JW From: Wolff, John F. Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:38 AM To: John Floyd; Al Dickman (al @ tgard-or.gov) Cc: John Jensen Subject: Bonadventure Hydrants Gentlemen, I have discussed hydrant locations for this project and have reviewed the applicants last proposal. (Drawing is en-route) We have come to agreement for hydrant location approval for this project. From the most recent plans submitted they still need to add one additional hydrant to the NE corner which they are revising the plan now to show. I know this project is a high priority and time sensitive to get approved so I wanted to let you know that with the one addition the number of hydrants and locations submitted are approved by TBF&R. John Wolff I Deputy Fire Marshal II Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue Direct: 503-259-1504 www.tvfr.com DISCLAIMER: E-mails sent or received by City of Tigard employees are subject to public record laws. If requested, e-mail may be disclosed to another party unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law. E-mails are retained by the City of Tigard in compliance with the Oregon Administrative Rules "City General Records Retention Schedule." 1 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY—SITE ADDRESS: This form is recognized by most building departments in the Tri-County area for transmitting information. Please complete this form when submitting information for plan review responses and revisions. This form and the information it provides helps the review process and response to your project. City of Tigard • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 11111 • Transmittal Letter r i k,,\It i\ 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503.718.2439 • www.tigard-or.gov TO: - JV-Q..1-S0,--, DAT DEPT: BUILDING DIVISION Er �- OCT142014 FROM: V e.' ' CITY OF TIGggD PLANNING/ENGINEERING COMPANY: (.`,.,5)1L /4,r- _ PHONE:-" )6),- 69 x By1 RE: �j ,_'1�1 EX) iti 1 bilidi �Sife A�ress) (Permit Number) (Project name or subdivision name and lot number) ATTACHED ARE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: Copies: Description: I Copies: Description: Additional set(s) of plans. Revisions: Cross section(s) and details. Wall bracing and/or lateral analysis. Floor/roof framing. Basement and retaining walls. Beam calculations. Engineer's calculations. Other(explain): REMARKS: FOR OFFICV USE ONLY Routed to Permit Technician: Date: `G� 2 1k Initials•�`i!' Fees Due: ❑ Yes I l Fee Description: Amount D ue: $ $ $ $ Special Instructions: Reprint Permit(per PE): ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Done Applicant Notified: Date: Initials: 1:\Building\Forms\TransmittalLetter-Revisions.doc 05/25/2012 City of Tigard IN • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r l c n n Building Permit Review — Commercial - With Land Use • Building Permit #: 5:27-0Z0 l y._d j l t, Site Address: /j( O SW /*// e/vc/, Suite/Bldg#: Project Name: / rr,Ue",74(4 yt el %;°A 4 rc.1 (Name of commercial business occupying the Itliace. If vacant,enter Spec Space.) Planning Revl w Proposal: PQR O'f i-Oocc1 &,1V(# (,1 Sesliec- /%y , ❑ Verify site address/suite #exists and active in permit system. ❑ Land Use Case#: , /42i c90/3- Cox( ❑ Plan,s� �tch Approved Land Use: � [ 'Site Plan L7 Landscape Plan ❑ Other: ❑ Urban Forestry Plan ❑ Elevation Plan ❑ Building Height: Maximum Height Actual Height ❑ Conditions Met: ❑ Prior to Submittal / ❑ Prior to Permit Issuance ,(� Notes: ��lr�J �q/' Anibal Vy yQ`h+. ice,, /�/�J/editi^ !/*/1'/9c Approved by Planning: Date: Revisions (after Building Submittal only ewer D Revision 1: ❑ Approved of Approved i�� `.•``/ Revision 2: Approved ❑ Not Approved J/rjj t_ f p / a leiri Revision 3: ❑ Approved ❑ Not Approved Building Permit Submittal Original Submittal Date: 0//1/ Site Plans: # 3 Building Plans: # Building Permit#: Eyler building ppermj #above. �� Workflow Routing: Planning [ Engineering Lii'Permit Coordinator [ ding Workflow Sign-off: ❑ Sign-off for Planning(include notes from planning review) Route Application Documents: ❑ Building: original permit application, site plans,building plans, engineer and beam calculations and trust details,if applicable, etc. Notes: - 4111.10 By Permit Technician: _ Date: /017 AN I:\B uilding\Forms\BldgPermitRvw_COM_W ithLandUse_0429I4.docx t Engineering Review Actual Slope: f'2 PFI Permit#: � f 7/ ,� Conditions Met--��,+ ,�/� Notes: Approved by Engineering: 4 ;�r, ,.iau, I ate: -- �✓ Revisions (after Building Submitta o ly) Revie er Date Revision 1: ❑ Approved Not Approved ` I --V Revision 2: Approved ❑ Not Approved I ) _ , /n/2-- / Revision 3: ❑ Approved ❑ Not Approved Permit Coordinator Review ❑ Conditions Met- Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Notes: Revisions (after Building Submittal only) /� � L G / a pi/ " , idle( Revision Notice 1: Date Sent to Applicant: `:04 Revision Notice 2: Date Sent to Applicant: Revision Notice 3: Date Sent to Applicant: XOK to Issue Permit / Approved by Permit Coordinator: _ / I , Date: /‘)/2"--Vi/ L\Building\Forms\BldgPermitRvw_COM_W ithLandUse_042914.docx Albert Shields From: Albert Shields Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 5:41 PM To: 'Eric Rouse'; Jim Clarkson; Tony Weller Cc: Dwight Wildeson; John Bosse; John Floyd; Al Dickman; Dan Nelson Subject: Bonaventure-SIT2014-00014-Conditions of Approval not met, BUP2014-00206 Demo- Tree Protection Not Installed. Attachments: Conditions-09-08-2014.pdf Gentlemen: Planning and Engineering have reviewed your site permit application, SIT2014-00014, and find that it cannot yet be issued because: 1. The PFI permit has not yet been issued. Engineering tells me that their redlines were sent back to you on August 13 and that they are waiting to receive a complete set of corrected plans. 2. 22 of the Conditions of Approval for PDR2013-00001 have not yet been met. John noted a few of these Conditions in his email of August 12th but those Conditions remain unmet. Both Planning and Engineering advise me that most of what is needed to meet each of the outstanding Conditions has been done and that we are waiting for your submittals on the remaining issues. I've attached a copy of the Conditions of Approval on which I have highlighted the Conditions that are still "Not Met." When the required plan changes and corrections have been made, please send us a complete revised plan set rather than individual corrected sheets. In net, it seems that in this case the tail, representing the still incomplete details, is wagging the dog. Please review the status of each of the Conditions, particularly whatever elements are still needed for each one. Then we can meaningfully review them together at our meeting on Thursday morning. We understand your eagerness to get a demo permit, a grading permit, and the 1200-C and we are happy to work with you to get those permits issued as soon as possible, however, we cannot issue permits until the required Conditions have been met. 1. In the case of the 1200-C, once plans are correct and complete they will be forwarded to Cleanwater Services and DEQ for review and permit issuance. Please bear in mind, however, that CWS and DEQ have heavy workloads right now and may take as long as 4 to 6 weeks to complete their reviews and issue a permit. And we do not yet have complete and correct plans to submit. 2. Regarding a grading permit, grading permits have a somewhat different set of requirements than site permits and are generally less demanding, particularly because a 1200-C is not required. So a grading permit could be issued much sooner than a site permit. We will get back to you with the specific requirements for a grading permit but again, complete plans are needed. 3. And as for the demo permit, normally, we require the issuance of a site permit before a demo permit but we have waived this requirement in this case. Nonetheless, we can't issue this permit until we receive written certification from the project arborist that the required tree protection measures are properly installed. (Condition #7). Please let me know if you have any questions. Albert Shields Permit Coordinator 1 — 'f:4, 'r r: y vim ,..0,,,,,,-- � a �� k� u" c m r RECEIVED Geatechnical ■ Environmental : Special l k AUG 4 2014 Columbia West * ' ' CITYUOFT1GARD' 4.II f BUILDING DIVISION � �' ,- , Geotech + l S to es . Bonaventure ni Senior Inv Living tigation Ti ard, Ore on t June 20,2013 i II 5 i � 3 3 �'4 ' 4 -�„•.. 6a �5 - - Y", . fit , e { V'',0'; L 5 4, o x ? 11917 NE 95 Street � � Vancouver Washington 98682 phone.360 823 2900 fax 360.823.2901 <. , _i � vnnnn.columbiawestenginen . rm 1 Geotechnical • Environmental • Special inspections Columbia West 4r - GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION BONAVENTURE SENIOR LVING TIGARD, OREGON Prepared For: Bonaventure Senior Housing Mr. Robert Underwood 3220 State St. Suite 200 Salem, Oregon 97301 Site Location: 8325 SW Ross Rd Tigard, Oregon 97224 Prepared By: Columbia West Engineering, Inc. 11917 NE 95th Street Vancouver, Washington 98682 Phone: 360-823-2900 Fax: 360-823-2901 Date Prepared: June 20, 2013 Geotechnical • Environmental•Special Inspections 11917 NE 95-Street Vancouver,Washington 98682 • Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 www.columbiawestengineering.com r , I TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ii LIST OF APPENDICES iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 General Site Information 1 1.2 Proposed Development 1 2.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SOIL CONDITIONS 1 3.0 REGIONAL SEISMOLOGY 2 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FIELD INVESTIGATION 3 4.1 Surface Investigation and Site Description 4 4.2 Subsurface Exploration and Investigation 4 4.2.1 Soil Type Description 4 4.2.2 Groundwater 5 5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5 5.1 Site Preparation and Grading 5 5.2 Engineered Structural Fill 6 5.3 Cut and Fill Slopes 7 5.4 Foundations 7 5.5 Slabs on Grade 8 5.6 Settlement 9 5.7 Excavation 9 5.8 Lateral Earth Pressure 9 5.9 Seismic Design Considerations 10 5.10 Liquefaction 11 5.11 Drainage 12 5.12 Bituminous Asphalt and Portland Cement Concrete 12 5.13 Wet Weather Construction Methods and Techniques 13 5.14 Soil Erosion Potential 14 5.15 Utility Installation 15 6.0 CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS 15 REFERENCES FIGURES APPENDICES Columbia West-ip- " onaventure Tgard Project(BSM1GeolecMicaReport113176.Bonavenhre Senior Living,Tgard.Oregon Geotechnical Report.docx rev June 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page ii Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 1 Site Location Map 2 Test Pit Location Map 3 Typical Cut and Fill Slope Cross-Section 4 Minimum Foundation Slope Setback Detail 5 Typical Perimeter Footing Drain Detail 6 Typical Perforated Drain Pipe Trench Detail r. Columbia West=iI- maventure Tigard Project(BSM\Geotechnice Repom13116.Bonaventure Senior Living,Tigard,Oregon Geotechrocal Report.docx, rev.June 2013 , r Geotechnical Site Investigation Page iii Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon LIST OF APPENDICES Number Title A Analytical Laboratory Test Reports B Subsurface Exploration Logs C Soil Classification Information D Report Limitations and Important Information t4eoteannlca1•Env3ronntpnta7•Speck!•,•■••ttOn• Columbia West „Fr' ma venture Tigard Project(BSH)1GeotechnicaPReport113116.Bonaventure Senior Living.Tigard.Oregon Geotechnical Report docz. rev.June 2013 GEOTECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING TIGARD, OREGON 1.0 INTRODUCTION Columbia West Engineering, Inc. was retained by Bonaventure Senior Housing to conduct a geotechnical site investigation for the proposed Bonaventure Senior Living center located at 8325 SW Ross Rd in Tigard, Oregon. The purpose of the investigation was to observe and assess subsurface soil conditions at specific locations and provide geotechnical engineering analyses, planning, and design recommendations. The specific scope of services was outlined in a proposal contract dated May 15, 2013. This report summarizes the investigation and provides field assessment documentation and laboratory analytical test reports. This report is subject to the limitations expressed in Section 6.0, Conclusion and Limitations, and Appendix D. 1.1 General Site Information As indicated on Figures 1 and 2, the subject site is located at 8325 SW Ross Rd in Tigard, Oregon. The site is comprised of tax parcel W250644 totaling approximately 5.85 acres. The subject site is bounded by residential properties. The regulatory jurisdictional agency is the City of Tigard, Oregon. The approximate latitude and longitude are N 45° 24' 40" and W 122° 45' 45", and the legal description is a portion of the NW '/4 of Section 12, T2S, R1 W, Willamette Meridian. 1.2 Proposed Development Review of preliminary site plans produced by Bonaventure Senior Housing indicates that the proposed development will include construction of a 3-story independent living center, a 3-story assisted living center, a 4-story common area, a trash enclosure area, a single-story memory care courtyard, and associated drive and parking areas. Columbia West understands that minor cut and fill areas will be proposed. This report is based upon proposed development as described above and may not be applicable if modified. 2.0 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SOIL CONDITIONS The subject site lies within the Willamette Valley/Puget Sound Lowland, a wide physiographic depression flanked by the mountainous Coast Range on the west and the Cascade Range on the east. Inclined or uplifted structural zones within the Willamette Valley/Puget Sound Lowland constitute highland areas and depressed structural zones form sediment-filled basins. The site is located within the central portion of the Portland/Vancouver Basin, an open, somewhat elliptical, northwest- trending syncline approximately 60 miles wide. Columbia West= � i j onaventure Tigard Protect(BSRPGeolechnicaRReport 113116.Bonaventure Senior Living,Tigard,Oregon Geotechnical Report door rev.June 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 2 Bona venture Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon According to the Generalized Geologic Map of the Willamette Lowland (Marshall W. Gannett and Rodney R. Caldwell, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 1998), near-surface soils are expected to consist of silt, sand, and gravel deposited primarily by late Pleistocene glacial outburst floods derived from catastrophic outburst floods of Glacial Lake Missoula (Qs). The Web Soil Survey (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service [USDA NRCS], 2013 Website) identifies surface soils as Quatama loam. Quatama series soils are fine-textured silts and clays with moderate permeability, moderate water capacity, and low shear strength. Quatama soils have low to moderate shrink-swell potential and slight erosion hazard based primarily upon slope grade. 3.0 REGIONAL SEISMOLOGY Recent research and subsurface mapping investigations within the Pacific Northwest appear to suggest the historic potential risk for a large earthquake event with strong localized ground movement may be underestimated. Past earthquakes in the Pacific Northwest appear to have caused landslides and ground subsidence, in addition to severe flooding near coastal areas. Earthquakes may also induce soil liquefaction, which occurs when elevated horizontal ground acceleration and velocity cause soil particles to interact as a fluid as opposed to a solid. Liquefaction of soil can result in lateral spreading and temporary loss of bearing capacity and shear strength. There are at least four major known fault zones in the region that may be capable of generating potentially destructive horizontal accelerations. These fault zones are described briefly in the following text. Portland Hills Fault Zone The Portland Hills Fault Zone consists of several northwest-trending faults located along the eastern boundary of the Portland Hills. The fault zone is approximately 13 miles in length and is located approximately 6 miles north of the site. According to Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995), there is no definitive consensus among geologists as to the zone fault type. Several alternate interpretations have been suggested, including various strike-slip and dipping thrust fault theories. Evidence exists to suggest that fault movement has impacted shallow Holocene deposits and deeper Pleistocene sediments. Seismologists recorded a M3.9 earthquake thought to be associated with the fault zone near Kelly Point Park in April 2003, and a M3.5 earthquake possibly associated with the fault zone occurred approximately 1.3 miles east of the fault in 1991. Therefore, the Portland Hills Fault Zone is generally thought to be potentially active and capable of producing possible damaging earthquakes. :�nrtachnital•Envtrnnmanto;a fir+c rof rrn.-' Columbia West ,na enure Tigard Protect(BSM\Geotech icaFRepor1113116.Bonavenure Senior Living.Tigard.Oregon Geotechn,cal Report docx. rev.Jive 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 3 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Fault Zone Located approximately 9 miles southwest of the site, the 50-mile long Gales Creek- Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone consists of a series of discontinuous northwest- trending faults. Possible late-Quaternary geomorphic surface deformation may exist along the structural zone (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). Although no definitive evidence of impacts to Holocene sediments has reportedly been observed, a M5.6 earthquake occurred in March 1993 near Scotts Mills, approximately four miles south of the mapped extent of the Mt. Angel fault. It is unclear if the earthquake occurred along the fault zone or a parallel structure. Therefore, the Gales Creek-Newberg-Mt. Angel Structural Zone is considered potentially active. Lacamas Creek-Sandy River Fault Zone The northwest-trending Lacamas Creek Fault and northeast-trending Sandy River Fault intersect north of Camas, Washington approximately 20 miles northeast of the site. According to Geology and Groundwater Conditions of Clark County Washington (USGS Water Supply Paper 1600, Mundorff, 1964) and the Geologic Map of the Lake Oswego Quadrangle (Oregon DOGAMI Series GMS-59, 1989), the Lacamas Creek fault zone consists of shear contact between the Troutdale Formation and underlying Oligocene andesite-basalt bedrock. Secondary shear contact associated with the fault zone may have produced a series of prominent northwest-southeast geomorphic lineaments in proximity to the site. Recorded mild seismic activity during the recent past indicates this area may be potentially seismogenic. Cascadia Subduction Zone The Cascadia Subduction Zone has recently been recognized as a potential source of strong earthquake activity in the PortlandNancouver Basin. This phenomenon is the result of the earth's large tectonic plate movement. Geologic evidence indicates that volcanic ocean floor activity along the Juan de Fuca ridge in the Pacific Ocean causes the Juan de Fuca Plate to perpetually move east and subduct under the North American Continental Plate. The subduction zone results in historic volcanic and potential earthquake activity in proximity to the plate interface, believed to lie approximately 20 to 50 miles west of the general location of the Oregon and Washington coast (Geomatrix Consultants, 1995). 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FIELD INVESTIGATION A geotechnical field investigation consisting of visual reconnaissance and 5 soil boring explorations (SB-1 through SB-5) was conducted at the site on June 10, 2013. Subsurface soil profiles were logged in accordance with Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) specifications. Disturbed soil samples were collected from relevant soil horizons within the explorations and submitted for laboratory analysis. Sample results are presented in Appendix A. Exploration locations are indicated on Figure 2. Exploration logs are presented in Appendix B. Soil descriptions and classification information are provided in Appendix C. 3oatechnk •Ertvrrenmentei•SP,Kia'inSpec}r,:, Columbia West - ,na ensure Tigard Propel(BSI-01Geotev ,vn0Report113116.Bonavenhre Senior Living.Tigard.Oregon Geotechnical Report.doco. rev.June 2013 . r , Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 4 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon 4.1 Surface Investigation and Site Description The 5.85-acre subject site lies on an open, relatively flat field, vegetated with tall grass, shrubs, and trees. The site has historically been utilized as a farm. Current development and structures at the site consist primarily of a residential home which includes a swimming pool area, two barns, an outbuilding, associated paved drive areas, and a soil stockpile located at the approximate northern central portion of the site as indicated on Figure 2. According to elevation data obtained from topographic maps and Google Earth, the site elevation ranges from 204 to 208 feet above mean sea level (amsl) across the property. 4.2 Subsurface Exploration and Investigation Soil boring explorations SB-1 through SB-5 were advanced at the site to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet using a truck-mounted, mud-rotary and hollow-stem auger drill system on June 10, 2013. Exploration locations were selected to observe subsurface soil characteristics in proposed development areas. Approximate exploration locations are indicated on Figure 2. 4.2.1 Soil Type Description Soil boring exploration indicated that the site is covered with approximately 12 inches of organic-rich topsoil. Underlying the topsoil, surficial soils resembling the Quatama loam soil series were encountered. Subsurface lithology was reasonably consistent at all explored locations and may generally be described by soil types identified in the following text. Soil Type 1 — Sandy SILT and Sandy Lean CLAY Soil Type 1 was observed to consist primarily of heavily mottled, orange, gray, and light brown, medium stiff, very moist, Sandy SILT and Sandy Lean CLAY. Soil Type 1 was observed below the topsoil in soil boring explorations SB-1 through SB-3, and SB-5, and interlayered at various depths between Soil Types 2 and 3. Analytical laboratory testing conducted upon representative soil samples obtained from soil borings SB-1 and SB-2 indicated approximately 51 to 66 percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve and in situ moisture contents ranging from 26 to 35 percent. Atterberg Limit test results indicated a liquid limit ranging from 31 to 37 percent and a plasticity index ranging from 6 to 15. Soil Type 1 is classified as CL and ML according to USCS specifications and A-6(8), A-4(1), and A-4(4), according to AASHTO specifications. Soil Type 2 — Silty SAND Soil Type 2 was observed to consist of brown to gray, wet, loose to dense silty SAND with interlayered lenses of poorly graded SAND. Soil Type 2 was observed underlying Soil Type 1 in soil boring explorations SB-1 through SB-3, and SB-5, underlying the topsoil at SB-4, and interlayered at various depths between Soil Types 1 and 3. eot.thnital Envirortn+ent 4 SpRCar a+apecficrColumbia West- - maventure Tigard Project(BSMI\Geotecle caM1Report\13116.8onaventure Senior Living.7gard.Oregon Geotechnical Report door, rev.June 2013 Geotechnica! Site Investigation Page 5 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon Analytical laboratory testing conducted upon representative soil samples obtained from soil boring SB-1 indicated approximately 36 percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve and in situ moisture content of 30 percent. Atterberg Limit test results indicated that Soil Type 2 is non-plastic. Soil Type 2 is classified as SM or SP according to USCS specifications and A-4(0) according to AASHTO specifications. Soil Type 3 — Lean CLAY with Sand Soil Type 3 was observed to consist primarily of heavily mottled, brown, blue, orange, gray, medium stiff to very stiff, very moist, Lean CLAY with Sand. Soil Type 3 was was observed underlying Soil Type 2 in soil boring explorations SB-1 through SB-3, and SB-5, and interlayered at various depths between Soil Types 1 and 2. Analytical laboratory testing conducted upon representative soil samples obtained from soil borings SB-1 through SB-3 indicated approximately 71 to 76 percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve and in situ moisture contents ranging from 26 to 29 percent. Atterberg Limit test results indicated a liquid limit ranging from 27 to 48 percent and a plasticity index ranging from 6 to 27. Soil Type 3 is classified as CL or CL-ML according to USCS specifications and A-4(3), A-7-6(15), and A-7-6(18), according to AASHTO specifications. 4.2.2 Groundwater Light perched groundwater seepage was encountered in all subsurface explorations at an approximate depth of 10 feet bgs. Measurements from inside the boreholes at soil borings SB-3 through SB-5 indicated that seepage was occurring from a sandy layer underlain by a less permeable sandy CLAY layer. According to Estimated Depth to Groundwater in the Portland Oregon Area, 2013 Website (USGS. Oregon Water Science Center), the shallow static aquifer altitude in the vicinity of the site is approximately 161 to 164 feet amsl corresponding to an approximate depth to groundwater at the site of 40 to 45 feet depending upon ground surface elevation. Groundwater levels are often subject to seasonal variance and may rise during extended periods of increased precipitation. Perched groundwater may also be present in other localized areas. 5.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS The geotechnical site investigation suggests the proposed development is generally compatible with surface and subsurface soils, provided the recommendations presented in this report are utilized and incorporated into the design and construction processes. Design recommendations are presented in the following text sections. 5.1 Site Preparation and Grading Vegetation should be cleared and topsoil stripped from areas identified for structures and site grading. Vegetation, other organic material, and debris should be removed from the site. Stripped topsoil should also be removed, or used only as landscape fill in nonstructural areas with slopes less than 25 percent. A stripping depth of .fefierlk:Yt.Fnwlrnnn+rrnt?;. Columbia West=g%- maventure Tigard Protect(BSH)1GeotechnmanRepom13116,Bonaventure Senior Living.Tigard.Oregon Geotechn,cal Report.docx, rev.June 2013 , Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 6 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon approximately 12 inches is anticipated. The required s; ipping depth will increase in areas with unsuitable fill, remnant building foundations and drive areas, or previously disturbed soils. Stripped material should be stockpiled prior to removal or placed in a separate designated location away from other material. The post-construction maximum depth of topsoil or landscape fill placed or spread at any location onsite should not exceed one foot. Previously disturbed soil, debris, remnant building debris, soil stockpiles, or unsuitable fill encountered during grading or construction activities should be removed completely and thoroughly. This includes test pit locations conducted as part of this investigation. Demolished structures should be removed entirely. This includes old foundations, the swimming pool at the existing residence, utilities, and associated unconsolidated soils. Abandoned septic systems, including tanks and drain fields, should be removed completely. Excavation areas should be backfilled with engineered structural fill. Wells should be properly abandoned and filled with bentonite, cement grout, or other suitable means in accordance with applicable state and federal regulations. Additional geotechnical assessment is recommended if structures are proposed in proximity to abandoned wells. Site grading activities should be performed in accordance with requirements specified in the 2009 International Building Code (IBC), Chapter 18 and Appendix J, with exceptions noted in the text herein. Site preparation, soil stripping, and grading activities should be observed and documented by an experienced geotechnical engineer or designated representative. 5.2 Engineered Structural Fill Areas proposed for fill placement should be appropriately prepared as described in the preceding text. Surface soils should then be scarified and compacted prior to additional fill placement. Engineered structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in depth and compacted using standard conventional compaction equipment. The soil moisture content should be within two percentage points of optimum conditions. A field density at least equal to 95 percent of the maximum dry density, obtained from the modified Proctor moisture-density relationship test (ASTM 01557), is recommended for structural fill placement. For engineered structural fill placed on sloped grades, the area should be benched to provide a horizontal surface for compaction. Compaction of engineered structural fill should be verified by nuclear gauge field compaction testing performed in accordance with ASTM D6938. Field compaction testing should be performed for each vertical foot of engineered fill placed. Engineered fill placement should be observed by an experienced geotechnical engineer or designated representative. Engineered structural fill placement activities should be performed during dry summer months if possible. If fill placement occurs during dry weather conditions, clean native iC.aC knuirrnmantcd a Columbia West= 1 nenre Tigard Project(BSM\Geotectnnicat\Reportf13116.Bonaventure Senior Living.Tigard.Oregon Geotechn,cal Report docx, rev.June 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 7 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon soils may be suitable for use as structural fill if adequately moisture-conditioned to achieve recommended compaction specifications. Because they are moisture- sensitive, fine-textured soils are often difficult to excavate and compact during wet weather conditions. If adequate compaction is not achievable with clean native soils, import structural fill consisting of well-graded granular material with a maximum particle size of three inches and no more than five percent passing the No. 200 sieve is recommended. Representative samples of proposed engineered structural fill should be submitted for laboratory analysis and approval by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement. Laboratory analyses should include particle-size gradation and modified Proctor moisture-density analysis. 5.3 Cut and Fill Slopes Fill placed on existing grades steeper than 5H:1V should be horizontally benched at least 10 feet into the slope. Fill slopes greater than six feet in height should be vertically keyed into existing subsurface soil. A typical fill slope cross-section is shown in Figure 3. Drainage implementations, including subdrains or perforated drain pipe trenches, may also be necessary in proximity to cut and fill slopes if seeps or springs are encountered. Drainage design may be performed on a case-by-case basis. Extent, depth, and location of drainage may be determined in the field by the geotechnical engineer during construction when soil conditions are exposed. Failure to provide adequate drainage may result in soil sloughing, settlement, or erosion. Final cut or fill slopes at the site should not exceed 2H:1V or 15 feet in total height without individual slope stability analysis. The values above assume a minimum horizontal setback for loads of 10 feet from top of cut or fill slope face or overall slope height divided by three (H/3), whichever is greater. A minimum slope setback detail for structures is presented in Figure 4. Concentrated drainage or water flow over the face of slopes should be prohibited, and adequate protection against erosion is required. Fill slopes should be constructed by placing fill material in maximum 12-inch level lifts, compacting as described in Section 5.2, Engineered Structural Fill and horizontally benching where appropriate. Fill slopes should be overbuilt, compacted, and trimmed at least two feet horizontally to provide adequate compaction of the outer slope face. Proper cut and fill slope construction is critical to overall project stability and should be observed by an experienced geotechnical engineer. 5.4 Foundations Foundation recommendations will ultimately depend upon the size and locations of structures proposed in the final development plan. It is our understanding that proposed buildings will likely consist of slab-on-grade, 3 to 4-story, wood-frame buildings. Maximum anticipated loads are approximately 5 to 6 kips per foot for perimeter footings and 85 to 95 kips per column. If actual loading exceeds anticipated Columbia West=7-- rnaventore Tigard Project 1BSF6\GeotecMicetReport113116.Bonaventure Senior Living,Tigard.Oregon Geotechnical Report door. rev.June 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 8 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon loading, additional analysis should be conducted for the specific loan conditions and proposed footing dimensions. The existing ground surface should be prepared as described in Section 5.1, Site Preparation and Grading, and Section 5.2, Engineered Structural Fill. Foundations should bear upon a 12-inch-thick layer of crushed aggregate base compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density placed on firm competent native soil or engineered structural fill. Disturbed or soft surface soils should be removed from foundation alignments and replaced with granular structural fill. Footings should extend to a depth at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent exterior grade to provide adequate bearing capacity and protection against frost heave. If foundations are constructed during wet weather conditions, over-excavation and additional granular structural backfill is recommended. Excavations adjacent to foundations should not extend within a 1.5H:1V angle projected down from the outside bottom footing edge without additional geotechnical analysis. To evaluate bearing capacity for proposed structures, serviceability and reliability of shear resistance for subsurface soils was considered. Allowable bearing capacity is typically a function of footing dimension and subsurface soil properties, including settlement and shear resistance. Based upon in-situ field testing and laboratory analysis, the estimated allowable bearing capacity for well-drained foundations prepared as described above is 1,500 psf. Bearing capacity may be increased by one- third for transient lateral forces such as seismic or wind. The modulus of subgrade reaction is estimated to be 200 psi/inch. The estimated coefficient of friction between firm native soil or engineered structural fill and in-place poured concrete is 0.42. Lateral forces may also be resisted by an assumed passive soil equivalent fluid pressure of 250 psf/f against embedded footings. The upper six inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure calculations. Foundations should not be permitted to bear upon disturbed soil. Because soil is often heterogeneous and anisotropic, the geotechnical engineer of record or designated representative shall observe, test, and approve foundation subgrade soils prior to placing crushed aggregate base rock, forms, or reinforcing bar. 5.5 Slabs on Grade The proposed buildings may have slab-on-grade flooring. Slabs may be supported on competent native soils or engineered structural fill. If encountered, disturbed soils, organic-rich topsoil, or undocumented fill in the proposed slab locations should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Preparation and compaction beneath the slab should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 5.1, Site Preparation and Grading, and Section 5.2, Engineered Structural Fill. Slabs should be underlain by at least six inches of free-draining crushed aggregate. Geotextile filter fabric may be used below the crushed aggregate to increase subgrade support. A moisture barrier may be constructed beneath the slab. A typical moisture Columbia West- ,naventure Tigard Protect(BSI-p\GeotechntcaAReport\13116.Bonaventure Senior Living,Tigard.Oregon Geotechnical Report door. rev.June 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 9 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon barrier consists of 6 mil visqueen plastic overlain with two inches of fine sand constructed over the crushed aggregate subgrade. Alternative moisture barriers may be specified by a licensed, experienced structural engineer or architect. Slabs should be appropriately waterproofed in accordance with the anticipated type of finished flooring. Slab thickness and reinforcement should be designed by an experienced structural engineer. 5.6 Settlement Total long-term static footing displacement for shallow foundations constructed as described in this report is not anticipated to exceed approximately 1 inch. Differential settlement between comparably loaded footing elements is not expected to exceed approximately 1/2 inch over a span of 50 feet. For deep fill areas, total footing settlements may increase due to consolidation of fill material and underlying native soil. The resulting vertical displacement after loading may be due to elastic distortion, dissipation of excess pore pressure, or soil creep. Expansion of subgrade may also occur due to uplift rebound forces after unloading of native soils in deep cut areas. Settlement described above pertains to static loads. 5.7 Excavation Soils at the site were explored to a maximum depth of 51.5 feet using a truck-mounted, mud-rotary and hollow-stem auger drill system. Bedrock was not encountered and blasting or specialized rock-excavation techniques are not anticipated. Light perched groundwater seepage was encountered during subsurface exploration in all soil boring explorations at an approximate depth of 10 feet bgs. Based upon laboratory analysis and field testing, near-surface soils may be Oregon State Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Type C. For temporary open-cut excavations deeper than four feet, but less than 20 feet in soils of these types, the maximum allowable slope is 1.5H:1 V. OSHA soil type should be confirmed during field construction activities by the contractor. Soil is often anisotropic and heterogeneous, and it is possible that OSHA soil types determined in the field may differ from those described above. The contractor should be held responsible for site safety, sloping, and shoring. Columbia West is not responsible for contractor activities and in no case should excavation be conducted in excess of all applicable local, state, and federal laws. 5.8 Lateral Earth Pressure Lateral earth pressure should be carefully considered for design of retaining walls. Hydrostatic pressure and additional surcharge loading should also be considered. Retained material may include engineered structural backfill consisting of imported granular material meeting Section 02630 and Table 02630-1 of ODOT Standard Specifications. Backfill should be prepared and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor test (ASTM D1557). Recommended parameters for lateral earth pressures for engineered structural fill are Columbia West-iii' ,naventure Tigard Project(BSR)1Geotechnica0Repon113116,Bonaventure Senior Living,Tigard,Oregon Geotechnical Report.docx. JJJJJJ rev.June 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 10 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon presented in Table 1. The design parameters presented in Table tare valid for static loading cases only. The recommended earth pressures do not include surcharge loads, dynamic loading, hydrostatic pressure, or seismic design. If seismic design is required, seismic forces for unrestrained walls may be calculated by superimposing a uniform lateral force of 10H2 pounds per lineal foot of wall, where H is the total wall height in feet. The resultant force should be applied at 0.6H from the base of the wall. Base coefficient of friction and bearing capacity for retaining wall design may be estimated based upon the values identified previously in Section 5.4, Foundations. Table 1. Recommended Lateral Earth Pressure Parameters Equivalent Fluid Pressure Drained Backfill Material for Level Backfill' Wet Density Internal Angle of At-rest Active Passive Friction Imported granular backfill 60 pcf 38 pcf 517 pcf 140 pcf 35° per 02630-1 ODOT The upper 6 inches of soil should be neglected in passive pressure calculations. If exterior grade from top or toe of retaining wall is sloped, Columbia West should be contacted to provide location-specific lateral earth pressures. A continuous one-foot-thick zone of free-draining, washed, open-graded 1-inch by 2-inch drain rock and a 4-inch perforated gravity drain pipe is assumed behind retaining walls. Geotextile filter fabric should be placed between the drain rock and fine-textured backfill soil. Specifications for drainpipe design are presented in Section 5.11, Drainage. If walls cannot be gravity drained, saturated base conditions and/or applicable hydrostatic pressures should be assumed. Final retaining wall design should be reviewed and approved by the geotechnical engineer. Retaining wall subgrade and backfill activities should also be observed and tested for compliance with recommended specifications by the geotechnical engineer or designated representative during construction. 5.9 Seismic Design Considerations According to the National Seismic Hazard Maps, Open-File 02-420, United States Geologic Survey (USGS), October 2002, the anticipated peak ground and maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations resulting from seismic activity for the subject site are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Approximate Probabilistic Ground Motion Values for`firm rock'sites based on subject property longitude and latitude 10%Probability of 2%Probability of Exceedance in 50 yrs Exceedance in 50 yrs Peak Ground Acceleration 0.19 g 0.40 g 0.2 sec Spectral 0.44 g 0.93 g Acceleration 1.0 sec Spectral 0.15 g 0.34 g Acceleration Geoteche.cal•8nw■ranmant•l•Sp.cial lne;,etrr: Columbia West -- na r` venture Tigard Project(BSFfpGeotechnicaRReporttl 3116,Bonecentue Senior Living.Tigard.Oregon Geotechnocal Report doco, rev.June 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 11 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon The listed probabilistic ground motion values are based upon "firm rock" sites with an assumed shear wave velocity of 2,500 ft/s in the upper 100 feet of soil profile. These values should be adjusted for site class effects by applying site coefficients Fa and Fv as defined in 2009 IBC Tables 1613.5.3(1) and (2). The site coefficients are intended to more accurately characterize estimated peak ground and respective earthquake spectral response accelerations by considering site-specific soil characteristics and index properties. Based upon observed subsurface soil conditions at the site, and review of well logs and local geologic maps. site soils may be considered to be Site Class D as defined in 2009 IBC Section 1613.5.2. This site class designation indicates that some amplification of seismic energy may occur during a seismic event because of subsurface conditions. Additional seismic information is presented in Section 5.10, Liquefaction. Localized peak ground accelerations exceeding the adjusted values may occur in some areas in direct proximity to an earthquake's origin. This may be a result of amplification of seismic energy due to depth to competent bedrock, compression and shear wave velocity of bedrock, presence and thickness of loose, unconsolidated alluvial deposits, soil plasticity, grain size, and other factors. Identification of specific seismic response spectra is beyond the scope of this investigation. If site structures are designed in accordance with recommendations specified in the 2009 IBC, the potential for peak ground accelerations in excess of the adjusted and amplified values should be understood. 5.10 Liquefaction Liquefaction, defined as the transformation of the behavior of a granular material from a solid to a liquid due to increased pore-water pressure and reduced effective stress, may occur when granular or non-plastic silt materials quickly compact under cyclic stresses caused by a seismic event. The effects of liquefaction may include immediate ground settlement and lateral spreading. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are generally saturated, cohesionless, loose to medium-dense sands within 50 feet of the ground surface. Recent research has also indicated that low plasticity silts and clays may also be subject to sand-like liquefaction behavior if the plasticity index determined by the Atterberg Limits analysis is less than 8. Potentially liquefiable soils located above the existing, historic, or expected ground water levels do not generally pose a liquefaction hazard. It is important to note that changes in perched ground water elevation may occur due to project development or other factors not observed at the time of investigation. Based upon the results of the field investigation, laboratory analysis, and review of ground water mapping, near-surface soils are not saturated and exhibit low to moderate plasticity characteristics. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction of shallow soils at the site is considered to be low. Columbia West=w''- `' inaventure Tigard Project(BSH)\GeotectnicaM1Report113116.Bonaverxue Senior Living,Tigard,Oregon Geotechnical Report docx, rev.June 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 12 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon 5.11 Drainage At a minimum, site drainage should include surface water collection and conveyance to properly designed stormwater management structures and facilities. Drainage design in general should conform to the City of Tigard regulations. Finished site grading should be conducted with positive drainage away from structures. Depressions or shallow areas that may retain ponding water should be avoided. Roof drains, low-point drains, and perimeter foundation drains are recommended for structures. Drains should consist of separate systems and gravity flow with a minimum two-percent slope away from foundations into the stormwater system or approved discharge location. Concentrated discharge of water should be prohibited across slopes and water should not be diverted, routed, or allowed to flow over or across slope faces. Perimeter foundation drains should consist of 3-inch perforated PVC pipe surrounded by a minimum of 1 ft3 of clean. washed drain rock per linear foot of pipe and wrapped with geotextile filter fabric. Open-graded drain rock with a maximum particle size of 3 inches and less than 2 percent passing the No. 200 sieve is recommended. Geotextile filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N or approved equivalent, with AOS between No. 70 and No. 100 sieve. The water permittivity should be greater than 1.5/sec. Figure 5 presents a typical foundation drain. Perimeter drains may limit increased hydrostatic pressure beneath footings and assist in reducing potential perched moisture areas. Subdrains should also be considered if portions of the site are cut below surrounding grades. Shallow groundwater, springs, or seeps should be conveyed via drainage channel or perforated pipe into the stormwater management system or an approved discharge. Recommendations for design and installation of perforated drainage pipe may be performed on a case-by-case basis by the geotechnical engineer during construction. Failure to provide adequate surface and sub-surface drainage may result in soil slumping or unanticipated settlement of structures exceeding tolerable limits. A typical perforated drain pipe trench detail is presented in Figure 6. Foundation drains and subdrains should be closely monitored after construction to assess their effectiveness. If additional surface or shallow subsurface seeps become evident, the drainage provisions may require modification or additional drains. The geotechnical engineer should be consulted to provide appropriate recommendations. 5.12 Bituminous Asphalt and Portland Cement Concrete According to preliminary site plans, the subject site is anticipated to include asphalt concrete streets, drive aisles, loading areas, and parking stalls. Based upon analytical laboratory test results and field exploration, Columbia West recommends the general pavement design consist of a minimum of 10 inches of compacted crushed aggregate base overlain with a minimum of 3 inches of asphalt concrete pavement for onsite parking and drive areas. The general pavement section identified above assumes adequate subgrade support provided by firm compacted engineered structural fill or a Gmrtochnical v Env+•nnnr ntal Columbia West-411 maventure Tigard Protect(BSt-\GeotechnicarRepom13116,Bonaventtae Senior Living.Tigard.Oregon Geotechnical Report.doca. JJ rev.June 2013 Geotechnica! Site Investigation Page 13 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon well-drained, recompacted, native subgrade. Columbia West recommends adherence to the City of Tigard's standards for public works construction if improvements to public roads are proposed. For dry weather construction, pavement surface sections should bear upon competent subgrade consisting of scarified and compacted native soil or engineered structural fill. Wet weather pavement construction is discussed later in Section 5.13, Wet Weather Construction Methods and Techniques. Subgrade conditions should be evaluated and tested by a licensed geotechnical engineer or designated representative prior to placement of crushed aggregate base. Subgrade evaluation should include nuclear gauge density testing and wheel proof-roll observations conducted with a 12-cubic yard, double-axle dump truck or equivalent. Nuclear gauge density testing should be conducted at 150-foot intervals or as determined by the onsite geotechnical engineer. Subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor dry density, as determined by ASTM D1557. Areas of observed deflection or rutting during proof-roll evaluation should be excavated to a firm surface and replaced with compacted crushed aggregate. Crushed aggregate base should be compacted and tested in accordance with the specifications outlined above. Asphalt concrete pavement should be compacted to at least 91 percent of maximum Rice density. Nuclear gauge density testing should be conducted to verify adherence to recommended specifications. Testing frequency should be in accordance with the City of Tigard specifications. Portland cement concrete curbs and sidewalks should be installed in accordance with the City of Tigard specifications. Curb and sidewalk aggregate base should be observed and proof-rolled in the presence of an experienced geotechnical engineer or designated representative. Soft areas that deflect or rut should be stabilized prior to pouring concrete. Concrete should be tested during installation in accordance with ASTM C171, C138, C231, C143, C1064, and C31. This includes casting of cylinder specimen at a frequency of four cylinders per 100 cubic yards of poured concrete. Recommended field and analytical laboratory concrete testing includes slump, air entrainment, temperature, and unit weight. 5.13 Wet Weather Construction Methods and Techniques Wet weather construction often results in significant shear strength reduction and soft areas that may rut or deflect. Installation of granular working layers may be necessary to provide a firm support base and sustain construction equipment. Granular layers should consist of all-weather gravel, 4-inch by 6-inch gabion, or other similar material (6-inch maximum size with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve). Construction equipment traffic across exposed fine-textured soil should be minimized. Equipment traffic induces dynamic loading, which may result in weak areas and significant reduction in shear strength for soils above plastic limit. Wet weather 6..tech„k0,•Envir••"..„ul Columbia West- naventure Tigard Project(BSHI\Geotecfnica6Report\13116,Bonaventure Senior Living,Tigard.Oregon Geolechnical Report.doca. rev.June 2013 Geotechnica! Site Investigation Page 14 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon construction may generate signif;cant excess quantities of soft wet soil, which should be removed from the site or stockpiled in a designated area. Construction during wet weather conditions may require increased base thickness. Road base should consist of 3"-0 or 1'/4"-0 crushed aggregate and should be placed on previously stripped and structurally competent subgrade. Over-excavation may be necessary to provide a firm base upon which to place crushed aggregate. Geotextile filter fabric such as Mirafi 500X or an approved equivalent is also recommended. Crushed aggregate base should be installed in a single lift with trucks end-dumping from an advancing layer of granular fill. During extended wet periods, stripping activities may also need to be conducted from an advancing layer of granular fill. Once installed, the crushed aggregate base should be compacted with several passes from a static drum roller. A vibratory compactor is not recommended because it may further disturb the subgrade. Subdrains may also be necessary to provide subgrade drainage and maintain structural integrity. Crushed aggregate base should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density according to the modified Proctor density test (ASTM D1557). Compaction should be verified by nuclear gauge density testing. Observation of a proof-roll with a loaded dump truck is also recommended as an indication of subgrade performance. It should be understood that wet weather construction is risky and costly. An experienced geotechnical engineer or designated representative should observe and document wet weather construction activities. Proper construction methods and techniques are critical to overall project integrity. 5.14 Soil Erosion Potential Based upon field observations and laboratory testing, the erosion hazard for site soils in flat to shallow-gradient portions of the property is likely to be low. The potential for erosion generally increases in sloped areas. Therefore, disturbance to vegetation in sloped areas should be minimized during construction activities. Soil is also prone to erosion if unprotected and unvegetated during periods of increased precipitation. Erosion can be minimized by performing construction activities during dry summer months. Site-specific erosion control measures should be implemented to address the maintenance of exposed areas. This may include silt fence, biofilter bags, straw wattles, or other suitable methods. During construction activities, exposed areas should be well-compacted and protected from erosion with visqueen, surface tactifier, or other means, as appropriate. Temporary slopes or exposed areas may be covered with straw, crushed aggregate, or riprap in localized areas to minimize erosion. Erosion and water runoff during wet weather conditions may be controlled by application of strategically placed channels and small detention depressions with overflow pipes. i3aox¢etenkel•Ewrrnnmenta! SC ch.3:n,,.- n � Columbia West r - ma venture Tigard Protect(BSM\GeotecMicaReport113116.Bonaventure Senior Lamp.Tigard.Oregon Geotechnica)Report.doce. rev.June 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 15 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon After grading, exposed surfaces should be vegetated as soon as possible with erosion- resistant native species. Jute mesh or straw may be applied to enhance vegetation. Once established, vegetation should be properly maintained. Disturbance to existing native vegetation and surrounding organic soil should also be minimized during construction activities. 5.15 Utility Installation Utility installation at the site may require subsurface excavation and trenching. Excavation, trenching and shoring should conform to federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR, Part 1926) and OR-OSHA regulations. Site soils may slough when cut vertically and sudden precipitation events or perched ground water may result in accumulation of water within excavation zones and trenches. These areas should be dewatered in accordance with appropriate discharge regulations. Due to potential shallow ground water conditions, significant dewatering and pumping may be necessary. Utilities should be installed in general accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Utility trench backfill should consist of crushed aggregate or other coarse-textured, free-draining granular material acceptable to the client, City of Tigard, and the site geotechnical engineer. Trench backfill material within 18 inches of the top of utility pipes should be hand compacted (i.e., no heavy compaction equipment). The remaining backfill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as determined by the modified Proctor moisture-density test (ASTM D1557). Clean, free-draining, fine bedding sand is recommended for use in the pipe zone. With exception of the pipe zone, backfill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 12 inches in thickness. Compaction of utility trench backfill material should be verified by nuclear gauge field compaction testing performed in accordance with ASTM D6938. It is recommended that field compaction testing be performed at 250-foot intervals along the utility trench centerline at the surface and midpoint depth of the trench. Compaction frequency and specifications may be modified for non-structural areas in accordance with recommendations of the site geotechnical engineer. 6.0 CONCLUSION AND LIMITATIONS This geotechnical site investigation report was prepared in accordance with accepted standard conventional principles and practices of geotechnical engineering. This investigation pertains only to material tested and observed as of the date of this report, and is based upon proposed site development as described in the text herein. This report is a professional opinion containing recommendations established by engineering interpretations of subsurface soils based upon conditions observed during site exploration. Soil conditions may differ between tested locations or over time. Slight variations may produce impacts to the performance of structural facilities if not adequately addressed. This underscores the importance of diligent QA/QC ?AChn;N.Ens<rnn:t,nntpf a 5paclac!r. Columbia West=,;,` maventure Tgard Project(BSl't)lGeotechnica■Reportt13116,Bonaver,Oee Senior Limp,Tgard Oregon Geotechnical Report.docz. rev.Jute 2013 ' Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 16 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon construction observation and testing to verify soil conditions are as anticipated in this report. Therefore, this report contains several recommendations for field observation and testing by Columbia West personnel during construction activities. Columbia West cannot accept responsibility for deviations from recommendations described in this report. Future performance of structural facilities is often related to the degree of construction observation by qualified personnel. These services should be performed to the full extent recommended. This report is not an environmental assessment and should not be construed as a representative warranty of site subsurface conditions. The discovery of adverse environmental conditions, or subsurface soils that deviate significantly from those described in this report, should immediately prompt further investigation. The above statements are in lieu of all other statements expressed or implied. This report was prepared solely for the client and is not to be reproduced without prior authorization from Columbia West. Final engineering plans and specifications for the project should be reviewed and approved by Columbia West as they relate to geotechnical and grading issues prior to final design approval. Columbia West is not responsible for independent conclusions or recommendations made by other parties based upon information presented in this report. Unless a particular service was expressly included in the scope, it was not performed and there should be no assumptions based upon services not provided. Additional report limitations and important information about this document are presented in Appendix D. This information should be carefully read and understood by the client and other parties reviewing this document. Sincerely, ¢6GISTE��O COLU■ BIA W-ST E GINEERING, Inc. OREGO If//BENJAMIN L,'O• IrI ♦r1 , r Ben1ja in L. C ok, RG 1 r��\ e_. 'gist kbLoGO A......_. -(P, 1-2,.31-\3 [?kaci'-1 E. Lehto, PE, GE Principal Engineer - P' r, .'"-, '�4,,x0.1 ;'JAL , { it 32 `8' L. 4111 _ 0 Columbia West-yr- ..../--s 16 tonsvertha2'how p oe t bsFivroteCMkaInpcdfi13110.b0Avs,wo senor!Mrs Nall,crayon goot.inkatspolt.dou. rW.4une 2013 Geotechnical Site Investigation Page 17 Bonaventure Senior Living, Tigard, Oregon REFERENCES Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Soil and Rock(I), v04.08, American Society for Testing and Materials, 1999. Beeson, M.H., Tolan, T.L., Madin, I.P., Geologic Map of the Lake Oswego Quadrangle, Clackamas, Multnomah, and Washington Counties, Oregon; Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries; Geological Map Series GMS-59, 1989. Estimated Depth to Groundwater in the Portland, Oregon Area, USGS Oregon Water Science Center 2013 Website, http://or.water.usgs.gov/projs_dir/puz/index.html Generalized Geologic Map of the Willamette Lowland, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Marshall W. Gannett and Rodney R. Caldwell, 1998. Geomatrix Consultants, Seismic Design Mapping, State of Oregon, January 1995, International Building Code: 2009 International Building Code, 2006 edition, International Code Council, 2009. McCarthy, Kathleen A., and Anderson, Donald B., Ground Water Data for the Portland Basin. Oregon and Washington, Open File Report 90-126, United States Geological Survey, 1990. National Seismic-Hazard Maps, Open File Report 02-420, United States Geological Survey, October, 2002. Oregon Administrative Rules, Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division, Excavations, Subdivision P. Portland Maps (http://www.portlandmaps.com) Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, 29 CFR Part 1926, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), revised July 1, 2001. U. S. Geological Survey, National Water Information System: Web Interface, http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/current/?type=flow&group_key=basi n_cd Web Soil Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture 2013 website(http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm.). Wong, Ivan, et al, Earthquake Scenario and Probabilistic Earthquake Ground Shaking Maps for the Portland, Oregon, Metropolitan Area, IMS-16, Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, 2000. Youd, T. L, and Idriss. I. M., Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 4, April, 2001. .,,,;hnkat•Environmental•Spec1z::11gp4tt,t1r1c Columbia West maventore Tigard Project(BSM1Geotechnical1Report113116.Bonavenlure Senior Living,Tigard.Oregon Geotechnical Report.door, rev.June 2013 FIGURES ,•Sy r i 1 , w a U a _ m `� .45 w 4d . rf €�f W��S . e r a N w k p t Ttdtri N+Nb $} , �d� « rt rtt Pak uAP6ik yMt't SbvR < ? ,Nate l �< 4 a W '�''f ° �.,' � Aoha twrv,r v �Vlft - F w�Y� P PaG Goble 3- ar t * nr„way P' "4";<l Peek W <ap r ` a`> € . •r fi 4„. Srat rePa z na.n .. take rvnerCooper NaturMu aPan ,�TE,LOCATOOf ir Tigard . Lake 1. -ate `./ �/w 2 G Coure SW 8te�0 - King- „.,, 's1NOst+r� a l, 'YtiA�6 tsf5 .*.od lake Oawe , Coudt2ry G1ub 64f tour e� ; 11F� utiW pty TualaiSn 44', , i ' AP fi $*9artnd 1 i ' sw k+e;y si 2 � � t :''r,'► /o, is)t. g$ F[1�3d S �� ;lgd Pad#� D -I YcKwa>d 1 € � Snyder Park + r,¢ ° W , ;� Par ..,,, ;.‘,, , f, I % '"-, --1-5-4-4..,,'," 4,,, � � ' t Eon"'t"Pd. t` 2 . v n� I 3 � ]- dr.� � .�'' §A, � ��t �R ��' ' �",� � � peck af. '` 1�,.< a `, ��r? 'is , AiQrryfiett! s. s y �z r c » ' 'A., a 'shank t w�eonvIilk ,,Ikt 'r,! � °A w ilii MAP S• « �d a' a 7' y t f 3rd. OURCE: GOOD 5 b Deign_ Drawn: BLC SITE LOCATION MAP Columbia West y� Checked: LVL Date: 61t31t3 Columbia - t—client: BONAVENTURE Rev By Date FIGURE Job No.: 13116 BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING 11917 NE 95'Street,Vancower,Washington 98682 H32S SW ROSS ST 1 Phone.350-823-2900,Fax 360-823.2901 CAD File: FIGURE 1 www mlumh esfengineenng com Scale: N/A TIGARD, OREGON I . ., . . sW 'a's nctlaset, _. .! ;! ., • .II* -�°'�, ° APPROXIMATE SITE BOUNDARY �° ' •�,.� - =4''E .�- ` r .lam } I _ : SB-4 SB-3 _Ef.) -q ),. p., ,.. 4 .y0- t ,, �� r yr SOIL STOCKPILE "'- 1 -�"" SB TYPICAL CUT AND FILL SLOPE CROSS-SECTION EXISTING GROUND SURFACE COMPACTED ENGINEERED STRUCTURAL FILL TYPICAL CUT SLOPE; PLACED IN 12-INCH LIFTS GRADE MAY BE DETERMINED BY III_\\\\SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER III BUT NOT TO EXCEED 2H:1V TYPICAL FILL SLOPE; GRADE MAY BE DETERMINED BY I-I I _I I SITE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER NOT TO EXCEED 2H:1V 1, —I I POSSIBLE GROUND _....---- I — ► —I I ' }...._—WATER SEEP P \ A. N. N. N. N. N. N. I I �Ill—I III ROUTE DRAINS THROUGH SOLID PIPE TO 4 FEET (TYPICAL) DAYLIGHT AT SLOPE FACE. MAINTAIN SOLID PIPE TO APPROVED DISCHARGE LOCATION. rr_ ' DO NOT ALLOW TO FLOW OVER SLOPE FACE. ��I CII 1I- -------��, '• I l i ,' POSSIBLE GROUND WATER SEEP TOE BENCH/KEY \ \ \ \ \ \ \ . _ ♦ I , I—I Ai` POSSIBLE GROUND �_�- t�} WATER SEEP 1 r r i 1 r'r 1 .tt∎r;� I I 1 2 FEET (TYPICAL) '—I I I —I t I I I I I r' ' 'T�— NEED FOR DRAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY _ GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION MINIMUM MINIMUM 10 FEET 5 FEET TYPICAL DRAIN SECTION DETAIL DRAIN SPECIFICATIONS •" -, '•v GEOTEXTILE FABRIC :414 J `• ' WASHED DRAIN ROCK GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL CONSIST OF MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED MINIMUM ; ' p MINIMUM EQUIVALENT WITH AOS BETWEEN No. 70 AND No. 100 SIEVE. 2 FEET y- Al-H EE T MINIMUM 3-INCH DIAMETER WASHED DRAIN ROCK SHALL BE OPEN-GRADED ANGULAR DRAIN ROCK �,; % PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE WITH LESS THAN 2 PERCENT PASSING THE No. 200 SIEVE AND A MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE OF 3 INCHES, MINIMUM MINIMUM 2 FEET 2 FEET ,, _•Fr „ent:,l•tip ..•I in•he,3'° i Design: Drawn:BLC TYPICAL CUT AND FILL NOTES: Columbia west r- Checked:LVL Date:6/13/13 SLOPE CROSS—SECTION FIGURE 1. DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE. !"'" Client: BONAVENTURE Rev By Dote 2.SLOPES AND PROFILES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. 11917 NE 959 STREET Job NO: 13116 BONAVENTRUE SENIOR LIVING 3 3.DRAWING REPRESENTS TYPICAL FILL AND CUT VANCOUVER.WASHINGTON 98682 SLOPE SECTION, AND MAY NOT BE SITE-SPECIFIC. PHONE:360-823-2900 FAX 360-823-2901 CAD File:FIGURE 3 TIGARD, OREGON - www.colameaiwestengineering.ceo Scale:NONE TYPICAL CUT AND FILL SLOPE CROSS-SECTION PROPOSED STRUCTURE I COMPACTED ENGINEERED STRUCTURAL ' FILL OR COMPETENT NATIVE CUT SOIL 10 FEET _..d FOOTING �.0 I RECOMMENDED MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SETBACK H DISTANCE BETWEEN BOTTOM EDGE OF FOOTING Nt•p" AND FACE OF SLOPE IS 10 FEET OR SLOPE I AND HEIGHT DIVIDED BY 3, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. MINIMUM SETBACK DISTANCE ASSUMES SLOPE H I- EXISTS ON ONE PROPERTY BORDER. FOR PROPERTY CORNERS WITH ADJOINING SLOPES, ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING ANALYSIS MAY BE REQUIRED. ' I1I III III- Geotecnnut•Enu,ronmental•Spec:aflnspnct,orrs Design: Drawn:BLC MINIMUM FOUNDATION NOTES: Columbia West-41, Checked:LVL Date:6/13/13_ SLOPE SETBACK DETAIL FIGURE 1. DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE. ' ' ' ' " ' \ Client: BONAVENTURE Rev By Date 2.SLOPES AND PROFILES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. I� 3.DRAWING REPRESENTS TYPICAL FOUNDATION 11917 NE95u,STREET J04! NO:13116 BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING A SETBACK DETAIL, AND MAY NOT BE VANCOUVER.WASHMJGTON 86682 '-F SITE-SPECIFIC. PHONE:3604323-2900 FAX 360-8232901 CAD File:FIGURE 4 TIGARD. OREGON www.columbeiwestengineering.com Scale:NON E TYPICAL PERIMETER FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 7--------____./ FINAL EXTERIOR GRADE SHOULD PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURES SLOPE TO DRAIN TOPSOIL MATERIAL �> W -----,... W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W 4, W W W W W W W W ' W W W W W W W 4, 1 W W W W W GEOTEXTILE FABRIC W W w (MIRAFI 140N OR EQUIVALENT) _ FOOTING _ MINIMUM DEPTH °•;•�� OF 24 INCHES •1.. Ilim. 31.°° if 0 00 6? Eilill I— I I- i llnll III III I 0`••�0o II 1 —I 11_1 1 1=11 i—I I — I I I 1 I III HI 1 1 "1 ' FILTER SAND COMPETENT NATIVE SOIL PERFORATED OR SLOTTED 3-INCH RIGID PVC DRAIN BEARING SURFACE OR PIPE INSTALLED AT MINIMUM 2 PERCENT SLOPE WITH ENGINEERED STRUCTURAL FILL GRAVITY FLOW TO APPROVED DISCHARGE LOCATION OPEN-GRADED DRAIN ROCK WITH MAXIMUM PARTICLE SIZE OF 3 INCHES ,,,, • ''''" "''s „.,-"o>. Design: Drawn:BLC TYPICAL PERIMETER - Columbia West-I -- Checked:LVL Date:6/13/13 FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL - r Client: BONAVENTURE Rev By Date FIGURE NOTES: i�917F 95msTHEET Job No: 13116 BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING 1. DRAWING IS NOT TO SCALE. 5 2. DRAWING REPRESENTS TYPICAL FOOTING DRAIN VA 3 R,6UVE WASHINGTON 98682 �bNE 36°823-290°FAX 366823-2901 DETAIL AND MAY NOT BE SITE—SPECIFIC. CAD File:FIGURE 5 TIGARD, OREGON uwvw.colum6a�wesrengineering.com • Scale: NONE • • TYPICAL PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE TRENCH DETAIL STRUCTURAL AREAS NON—STRUCTURAL AREAS ASPHALT PAVEMENT SURFACE 1 1/4"-0 CRUSHED AGGREGATE ROAD BASE NON—STRUCTURAL FILL / TOPSOIL STRUCTURAL FILL ,. kAfA�A��A'4.A•{{ _I I_I —I MINIMUM 1 FOOT 2 FEET (TYPICAL) -iii"4.'r '44• W 4 _ r 1111•• up- i-• , 1••1 iirpolvaoi 1•06 J OPEN—GRADED FRACTURED—FACE i.�'`=:I ANGULAR DRAIN ROCK WITH MAXIMUM 3—INCH PARTICLE SIZE VARIES 1',:.•••' ! • ere _ li- • �•••i I ••','I GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC : 6111 01 (MIRAFI 1 40N OR EQUIVALENT) 0 Ir�• I,•�`_`,I MINIMUM 6—INCH DIAMETER LialliSkr111111J___ I RIGID PVC OR HDPE DRAIN PIPE TI 1 I _ �. I UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL III—III y MINIMUM 2 FEET f NOTE: LOCATION, INVERT ELEVATION, DEPTH OF TRENCH, AND EXTENT OF PERFORATED PIPE REQUIRED MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DURING CONSTRUCTION BASED UPON FIELD OBSERVATION AND SITE—SPECIFIC SOIL CONDITIONS. 6"0e0.e.c,a a Envwpnmanud•Spacl"t In•pe,ttipn9 ah Design: Drawn:BLC TYPICAL PERFORATED Columbia West - Checked:LVL Date:6/13/13 DRAIN PIPE TRENCH DETAIL FIGURE ,, " , j'" Client:BONAVENTURE Rev By Date 11917 NE 95th STFEET Job No: 13116 BONAVENTURE SENIOR LIVING VANCOUVER.WASHINGTON 98682 6 PI-ONE.360823.2900 FAX 3608232901 CAD File:FIGURE 6 TIGARD, OREGON www.cdtrmbaiwestertynearMpram Scale:NONE APPENDIX A LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Geotechn;cal ■ Environmental r Special Inspections kik 1 19 17 NE 95a'Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360.823-2901 Columbia West47ii www.columbiawestengineering.com PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-287 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/20/13 SB1.1 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Sandy Lean CLAY Soil Boring SB-01 CL, Sandy Lean Clay depth=2.5 feet _ SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE none A-6(8) LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Rainhart"Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913, D422 ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA initial dry mass(g)= 68.7 %gravel= 0.0% as-received moisture content= 32.8% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 34.8% liquid limit= 37 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 65.2% plastic limit= 22 effective size,D1,o1= n/a plasticity index= 15 D(30)= n/a PERCENT PASSING fineness modulus= n/a Doco= n/a SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS US I mm act. 1 intern. max I min 6.00" 150.0 100.0% GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00" 100.0 100.0% g QQ 8 S°� 3.00" 75.0 100.0% r'N r.:37= 4A.t « - a Ilk' : a a a7 n wa 2E1 2.50- 63.0 100.0% 100% • • a••• •• • • ° .+ - - 100% 2.00- 50.0 100.0% • 1.75 45.0 100.0% 900/0 • 90% J 1.50 37.5 100.0 • j 1.25 31.5 100.0% ce 1.00' 25.0 100.0% 80% i 80% (D 718" 22.4 100.0% • ; 3/4- 19.0 100.0% 70% 70%% `5/8 16.0 100.0% 1/2" 12.5 100.0% ' 3/8" 9.50 100.0% 60% 60% 1/4" 6.30 100.0% al . c ;• #4 4.75 100.0%•A 50% 50/ #8 2.36 99.8% o. ' #10 2.00 99.8% #16 1.18 99.3% 40% 40% #20 0.850 99.9% #30 0.600 98.3% 30% 30% o #40 0.425 97.5% Z #50 0.300 96.1% . a N #60 0.250 95.3% 20% i 20% #80 0.180 91.2% #100 0.150 88.9% 10% 10% #140 0.106 77.0% #170 0.090 71.4% #200 0.075 65.2% 0% I I I 0% DATE TESTED TESTED BY 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 particle size(mm) 06/13/13 MJR + sieve sizes -0--sieve data ._._ i This report may not be reproduced except in full without prig written authortza6m by Correia West Ergineerng.Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.atlarized sirabue C W E-s 12-rO7/12 . • . Geotechnical ■ Environmental a Special Inspections,,,_ * ' 11917 NE 95 Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Columbia West Phone:360-823-2900.Fax:360-823-2901 w Foi—:— ww.columbiawestengineering.com ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-287 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st.Suite 200 06/20/13 SB I.1 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Sandy Lean CLAY Soil Boring SB-01 CL,Sandy Lean Clay depth=2.5 feet LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Liquid Limit Machine.Hand Rolled ASTM D4318 ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION ® ® © LIQUID LIMIT 10045 liquid limit= 37 wet soil+pan weight,g= 40.47 40.38 40.09 90% -- plastic limit= 22 dry soil+pan weight,g= 35.35 35.02 34.54 eo% plasticity index= 15 pan weight,g= 20.52 20.77 20.88 e 70% N(blows)= 35 24 15 °i 60% 9 50% moisture,%= 34.5% 37.6% 40.6% .e 0 40% SHRINKAGE PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION E 30 o e o 0 20% -- 10% shrinkage limit= n/a wet soil+pan weight,g= 27.16 27.16 0% shrinkage ratio= n/a dry soil+pan weight,g= 26.01 26.00 10 25 100 pan weight,g= 20.81 20.82 number of blows,"N" moisture,%= 22.1 % 22.4% ADDITIONAL DATA PLASTICITY CHART 8o — %gravel= 0.0% ✓ %sand= 34.8% • %silt and clay= 65.2% 70 r • %silt= n/a - "U"Line %clay= n/a 60 - /• moisture content= 32.8% x 50 r• d "A''Line c -c or OH P 40 /. 9 - % co n 30 - e 20 CL ur OL 0 MH or OH / 10 / - .CL-ML Mt`or OL DATE TESTED TESTED BY 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 06/19/13 MJR liquid limit This report may not be reproduced except in full without prior written authorization by Columbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature CWE-s14-r12/09 Geotechnical - Environmental ■ Special Inspections tions 11917 NE 9Y'Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360.82 -2901 C o l u m b i a We St www.columbiawestengineering.com PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-288 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/20/13 SB1.2 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Sandy SILT Soil Boring SB-01 ML, Sandy Silt depth=5 feet SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE none A-4(4) LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Rainhart"Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913, D422 ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA initial dry mass(g)= 125.9 %gravel= 0.0% as-received moisture content= 35.1% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 33.7% liquid limit= 34 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 66.3% plastic limit= 27 effective size,Dlto1= n/a plasticity index= 7 D130)= n/a PERCENT PASSING fineness modulus= n/a D(60)= n/a SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS US I mm act. I interp. max I min 6.00' 150.0 100.0% GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00• 100.0 100.0% 3.00" 75.0 100.0% Mir tr7- -,_NN s Pm A T? = k a i g 2x1 2.50" 63.0 100.0% 100% • • , .° . o -0_ . ib ° ' •• a •-•w• 100% 2.00• 50.0 100.0% '° I 1.75 45.0 100.0% 90°h I - 90% • 1.50' 37.5 100.0% { j 1.25• 31.5 100.0% i i _ 1.00' 25.0 100.0% 80% I 80% (7 7/8' 22.4 100.0% - 3/4" 19.0 100.0% 70% I I 70% 5/8' 16.0 100.0% 1/7 12.5 100.0% I 3/8" 9.50 100.0% 60% { . 60% 1/4" 6.30 100.0% e ; ; #4 4.75 100.0% w 50% - - 50% #8 2.36 100.0% fl. ; _ #10 2.00 100.0% #16 1.18 99.8% 40% - 1 40% #20 0.850 99.7% #30 0.600 99.10 30% 30% z #40 0.425 98.4% a #50 0.300 97.1 ; v) #60 0.250 96.4% 20% , r 20% #80 0.180 92.6% #100 0.150 90.6% 10% i 10% #140 0.106 78.4% i #170 0.090 72.6% 0% i F- ' 0% #200 0.075 66.3% DATE TESTED TESTED BY 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 particle size(mm) 06/13/13 MJR + sieve sizes sieve data ( This report may not be reproduced except in lot without prior written artlaraa'm by Cambia West Etchorthg,Im. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signore C W E-s 12-r07/12 Geotechnical * E€iv r' rn-r,':;[ ! . Spec it, i3 )n, 11 917 NE 95''Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Columbia West ilk Phone:360-823-2900.Fax:360-823-2901 fiL /, --www.col umbiawesLengineering.corn ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-2 88 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st.Suite 200 06/20/13 SB 1.2 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Sandy SILT Soil Boring SB-01 ML,Sandy Silt depth=5 feet LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Liquid Limit Machine. Hand Rolled ASTM 1)4318 ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION LIQUID LIMIT o e e © f oo°r liquid limit= 34 wet soil+pan weight,g= 39.54 40.63 40.23 90 plastic limit= 27 dry soil+pan weight,g= 34.92 35.54 35.08 80% plasticity index= 7 pan weight,g= 20.89 20.74 20.82 , 70% N(blows)= 33 22 17 01 60% 50% moisture,%= 32.9% 34.4% 36.1 % c 40 SHRINKAGE PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION E 30% � O ® 0 0 20% 10% shrinkage limit= n/a wet soil+pan weight,g= 27.27 27.44 0% , shrinkage ratio= n/a dry soil+pan weight,g= 25.86 25.97 10 25 100 pan weight,g= 20.58 20.50 number of blows,"N" moisture,%= 26.7% 26.9% - ADDITIONAL DATA PLASTICITY CHART ea . %gravel= 0.0% sand= 33.7% %silt and clay= 66.3% 70 •°U"Line %silt= n/a clay= n/a 60 - ,• moisture content= 35.1% , 50 %• m "A' Line c -• CH or OH , A. 40 V - % 2 O. 30 r• 20 CI_or OL MH or OH 10 ". � CL/ML 0 &or OL 0 1 DATE TESTED TESTED BY 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 06/19/13 MJR liquid limit This report may not be reproduced except in full without prior written authorization by Columbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING.INC.authorized sigiature C W E-s 14-r 12/09 Geotechnical • Environmental • Special inspections 11917 NE 95"Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 Columbia West vwuw.columbiawestengineenng.com PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-289 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/20/13 SB1.3 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Silty SAND Soil Boring SB-01 SM, Silty Sand depth=7.5 feet SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE none A-4(0) LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Rainhart "Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913. D422 ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA initial dry mass(g)= 105.3 %gravel= 0.0% as-received moisture content= 30.3% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 63.5% liquid limit= 0 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 36.5% plastic limit= 0 effective size,0001= n/a plasticity index= 0 Df301= n/a PERCENT PASSING fineness modulus= n/a Dig01= 0.133 mm SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS US I mm act. I interp. max I min 6.00" 150.0 100.0% GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00" 100.0 100.0% 8 Sig 3.00' 75.0 100,0% e ;.�ri.,k �•WAN t ' a w A R i a ill 'aa'e 3" 2.50' 63.0 100.0% 100% % •iIliiillIIiIiU1hhIiIIIUIU, •a • 9 % -I 1.00" 50.0 100.0% 1.75" 45.0 100.0% 1.50 37.5 100.0% l j 1.25' 31.5 100.0% • 80% f 80% 1.00" 25.0 100.0% 718' 22.4 100.0% 314' 19.0 100.0°/ 70% t 70% �� 16.0 100.0% 112' 12.5 100.0°/ 3/8 9.50 100.0% 60% 60% 1/4' 6.30 100.0% co c i i #4 4.75 100.0% Al 50% 50% #8 2.36 99.9% CI. #10 2.00 99.9% e 1 l ° #16 1.18 99.7% 40% 40% #20 0.850 99.6% #30 0.600 98.2% 30% I 30% O #40 0.425 96.7% a #50 0.300 89.2% to #60 0.250 85.2% 0 20 k 20% #80 0.180 72.1% #100 0.150 64.8% 10% t 10% #140 0.106 50.6% #170 0.090 44.0% #200 0.075 36.5% 0% I 0% DATE TESTED TESTED BY 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 06/13/13 MJR particle size(mm) //JJ ,� .---- + sieve saes sieve data This repot may not be reproduced except h full without per written ai harization by Coknbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.ai*hwized sigraWre C W E-s 12-r07/12 Geoteclanical . Environmental . Special inspections 11917 NE 95v'Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Columbia Wes t Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 , 1 www.columbiowestengineering.com PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT PROJECT 'CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-290 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/20/13 SB1.4 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Silty SAND Soil Boring SB-01 SM,Silty Sand depth= 10 feet SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE none A-2-4(0) LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Rainhart"Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913. D422 ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA initial dry mass(g)= 144.2 %gravel= 0.0% as-received moisture content= 31.0% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 73.6% liquid limit= 0 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 26.4% plastic limit= 0 effective size,Do,%= n/a plasticity index= 0 D01= 0.083 mm PERCENT PASSING fineness modulus= n/a Don= 0.181 mm SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS US I mm act. I intern. max I min 6.00" 150.0 100.0% GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00" 100.0 100.0% 8 3.00" 75.0 100.0% z... .4:-=.�°N 8 wE f. 5 e a Et t: 8R S 2.50" 63.0 100.0% 100% • ae •ea • • •• 100% 2.00' 50.0 100.0% 1.75' 45.0 100.0'ThliNtil\90% , - 90% 1.50" 37.5 100.0 > 1.25" 31.5 100.0% - ga 1.00" 25.0 100.0% 80% - 80% 0 7/8" 22.4 100.0% 3/4" 19.0 100.0% 70°k 70% 5/8" 16.0 100.0% 117 12.5 100.0% 310• 9.50 100.0% 60% . .. 60% 1/4' 6.30 100.0% c ; j I #4 4.75 100.0% Ti 50% 50% 2 a #10 2.00 99.8% e ! I #16 1.18 99.5% 40% - - . 40% #20 0.850 99.4% #30 0.600 96.5% 30% i I -- 30% 0 #40 0.425 93.6% i r i ` #50 0.300 80.8% H #60 0.250 74.2% 20% i i , 20% #80 0.180 59.8% ' ! #100 0.150 51.8% 10% . . 10% #140 0.106 39.1% #170 0.090 33.1% #200 0.075 26.4% 0% - I-- - - i - -4--- - 0% DATE TESTED TESTED BY 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 06/13/13 I MJR particle size(mm) + sieve sizes -0-sieve data L.: This report may not be reproduced except in full without ma written authorization by Columbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature C W E-s 12-r07/12 Geotechnical • Environmenta: 11- 11917 NE 950i Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 Columbia west ,- www.columbiawestengineering.com PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 SI3-291 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/20/13 SB I.5 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE SILTY CLAY with Sand Soil Boring SB-01 CL-ML, Silty Clay with Sand depth= 17.5 feet SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE none A-4(3) LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Rainhart"Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913, D422 ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA initial dry mass(g)= 119.6 %gravel= 0.0% as-received moisture content= 29.9% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 26.3% liquid limit= 27 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 73.7% plastic limit= 21 effective size,Dom= n/a plasticity index= 6 Dt3o)= n/a PERCENT PASSING fineness modulus= n/a D(601= n/a SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS US I mm act. I intern. max I min 6.00" 150.0 100.0% GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00" 100.0 100.0% g c� 3.00' 75.0 100.0% r � �� .� � ig >#u IL.' x x a� xR 3x :Yi 2.50' 63.0 100.0% 100% b • t• - F r r t:+t 100% 2.00' 50.0 100.0% 1.75' 45.0 100.0% % 90% W 1.50' 37.5 100.0% ® > 1.25" 31.5 100.0% • ; g 1.00" 25.0 100.0% 80% 1 • 80% (2 7/8" 22.4 100.0% 3/4' 19.0 100.0% 70% j 70% 5/8' 16.0 100.0% 1/2" 12.5 100.0% 3/8" 9.50 100.0% 60% 60% 1/4' 6.30 100.0% c #4 4.75 100.0% A 50% ' ' 50% #8 2.36 99.9% Q. ' #10 2.00 99.9% . - #16 1.18 99.2% 40% 40% #20 0.850 98.7% #30 0.600 97.7% 30% 30% o #40 0.425 96.7% Z #50 0.300 94.4% a rn #60 0.250 93.2% 20% - . 20% #80 0.180 88.7% #100 0.150 86.2% 10% 10% #140 0.106 79.9% #170 0.090 77.0% #200 0.075 73.7% 0% I - - - I - I 0% DATE TESTED TESTED BY 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 particle size(mm) 06/1 4/1 3 BJR + sieve sizes $ •sieve data \ �.� This repot nay ixt be reaeduced except in N wiypu ptfa mitten authorization by Colrrtia West Engineering,Inc COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.aihaized sknat re C W E-s 12-r07/12 Geotechnical ■ Environmental • Special Inspections,.,.. 11917 NE 95''Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Columbia West jl ill Phone:360-823-2900.Fax: g.c 823-2901 wvwv.columbiaWestengineering.com ,,� ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 131 16 S 13-291 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/20/13 SB 1.5 Salem.Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE SILTY CLAY with Sand Soil Boring SB-01 CL-ML,Silty Clay with Sand depth= 17.5 feet LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Liquid Limit Machine.Hand Rolled ASTM D4318 ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION B © © LIQUID LIMIT o 1oo°i liquid limit= 27 wet soil+pan weight,g= 41.03 40.62 41.50 90% plastic limit= 21 dry soil+pan weight,g= 36.85 36.43 37.02 80% plasticity index= 6 pan weight,g= 20.65 20.84 20.91 a 70% N(blows)= 35 26 16 d 60% 0' 50% moisture,%= 25.8% 26.9% 27.8% c 40% SHRINKAGE PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION E 30% 0,--__.A__-0 O ® © O 20% 10% shrinkage limit= n/a wet soil+pan weight,g= 28.20 28.02 0% . . . . . l shrinkage ratio= n/a dry soil+pan weight,g= 26.91 26.76 10 25 100 pan weight,g= 20.68 20.76 number of blows,'11" moisture,"/= 20.7% 21.0% ADDITIONAL DATA PLASTICITY CHART 80 %gravel= 0.0% %sand= 26.3% •. %silt and clay= 73.7% 70 - "U"Line %silt= n/a %clay= n/a 60 1 .r•,. moisture content= 29.9% !. 50 • "A' Line c CH or OH • ' 40 e• • • 0. 30 • l'. 20 i CL or OL _ MN or OH• . 10 / •CL,ML jr. M►,IN OL DATE TESTED TESTED BY a . . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 06/19/13 MJR liquid limit ,, - g �+ —" — This report may not be reproduced except in full without prior mitten authorization by Columbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WESSTENGINEERING,INC.aulkwized*flatus C W E-s 14-r12/09 Geotechnical is Ens cr m_: s S c i.,�.i is p ct,ons d 11917 NE 95'h Street,Vancouver,Washingmn 98682 Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360823-2901 Columbia West www.col u m biawestengineer,ng.com PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-292 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/20/13 SB1.6 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Lean CLAY with Sand Soil Boring SB-01 CL,Lean Clay with Sand depth=20 feet SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE none A-7-6(18) LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Rainhart"Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913, D422 ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA initial dry mass(g)= 124.1 %gravel= 0.0% as-received moisture content= 26.6% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 28.7% liquid limit= 48 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 71.3% plastic limit= 21 effective size,Dclo1= n/a plasticity index= 27 Dom= n/a PERCENT PASSING fineness modulus= n/a Dteo1= n/a SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS US I mm act. I interp. max I min 6.00" 150.0 100.0% GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00" 100.0 100.0% 8 3Q 3.00' 75.0 100.0% -,-E, -k�N ,NZ- e a e. R F _ E.t- !El 2.50' 63.0 100.0% 100% • • •••• •••• • • •• •. I . I I II I, I 100% 2.00' 50.0 100.0% fr 1 1.75' 45.0 100.0% 90% I ' 90% J 1.50" 37.5 100.0% m 1 - j 1.25' 31.5 100.0% ' a4 1.00' 25.0 100.0% 80% : - 80% ° 7/8" 22.4 100.0% - 3/4" 19.0 100.0% 70% 70% 5/8" 16.0 100.0% 1/2" 12.5 100.0% ' t ' 3/8' 9.50 100.0% 60% 60% 1/4" 6.30 100.0 e i i #4 4.75 100.0% m 50% 50% #8 2.36 99.8% a - I + #10 2.00 99.8% #16 1.18 98.5% 40% -" ' I - 40% #20 0.850 97.7% f I ; #30 0.600 95.3% 30% - - 30% Z #40 0.425 93.0% #50 0.300 89.3% ' #60 0.250 87.4% 20% I- . • ( 20% #80 0.180 84.2% #100 0.150 82.5% 10% i - 10% #140 0.106 76.9% #170 0.090 74.2% . I r i - •0% I - - 1 -- 0% #200 0.075 71.3% DATE TESTED TESTED BY 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 particle size(mm) 06/14/13 BJ R + sieve sizes :sieve date t - �_- TNs report may not be reproduced except n full without prior mitten aut arizatimn by Columbia Nest Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.ai#i°rized signature CWE-s12-r07/12 Geotechnical ■ Environmental s Special Inspections 4 11917 NE 95th -290 Vancouver,360-823-2901 98682 C ol u m b Vile t Phone:360.623-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 www.columbiawestengineering.com ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S 13-292 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st.Suite 200 06/20/13 SB1.6 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE 4 USCS SOIL TYPE Lean CLAY with Sand Soil Boring SB-01 CL,Lean Clay with Sand depth=20 feet LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Liquid Limit Machine.Hand Rolled ASTM D4318 ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION LIQUID LIMIT 0 ® 0 0 100% liquid limit= 48 wet soil+pan weight,g= 41.17 39.37 39.83 90% plastic limit= 21 dry soil+pan weight,g= 34.68 33.30 33.33 80% plasticity index= 27 pan weight,g= 20.60 20.49 20.71 e 70% N(blows)= 35 22 15 ai 60% moisture,%= 46.1% 47.4% 51.5% •o 40 40% SHRINKAGE PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION E 30% 0 0 0 0 20% 10% shrinkage limit= n/a wet soil+pan weight,g= 27.16 27.48 0% , , . . • shrinkage ratio= n/a dry soil+pan weight,g= 26.03 26.29 10 25 100 pan weight,g= 20.76 20.58 number of blows,"N" moisture,%= 21.4% 20.8% ADDITIONAL DATA PLASTICITY CHART 80 %gravel= 0.0% %sand= 28.7% /• - • %silt and clay= 71.3% 70 e •"U"Line %silt= n/a %clay= n/a 60 r • moisture content= 26.6% x 50 %. m "A'Line c - CH or OH % A' 40 u % w A a 30 1• 0 20 CL Or OL MH or OH ' 10 r (CL,ML ML or OL DATE TESTED TESTED BY 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 06/19/13 MJR liquid limit Cl-' This report may not be reproduced except in full without prior mitten authorization by Columbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized sigrature C W E-s 14-r12/09 Geotechnical • Environmental • Special Inspections 11917 NE 95"'Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Columbia West Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:366823-2901 . .try-- www.columbiawestengineenng.com PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-293 _ Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st.Suite 200 06/20/13 SB2.1 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Sandy SILT Soil Boring SB-02 ML, Sandy Silt depth=2.5 feet SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE none A-4(1) LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Rainhart "Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913, D422 ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA initial dry mass(g)= 93.4 %gravel= 0.0% as-received moisture content= 28.5% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 48.8% liquid limit= 31 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 51.2% plastic limit= 25 effective size,D1101= n/a plasticity index= 6 D130)= n/a PERCENT PASSING fineness modulus= n/a D(e0)= 0.092 mm SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS US I mm act. I intern. max I min 6.00' 150.0 100.0% GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00' 1006 100.0% 3.00" 75.0 100.0% e ;,:4/, ckn Z • ax Q x $ :i 8 no 2.50' 63.0 100.0% 100% • ,, •••• •••• • •• -.__ : 100% 2.00' 50.0 100.0% • 1.75 45.0 100.0% % 90% -I, 1.50" 37.5 100.0% > 1.25' 31.5 100.0% . • 1.00" 25.0 100.0% 80% 80% ° 7f8" 22.4 100.0% 3/4" 19.0 100.0% 70% - 700 5/8" 16.0 100.0% 1/2" 12.5 100.0% • • 3/8' 9.50 100.0% 60% 60% 1/4" 6.30 100.0% to • c • #4 4.75 100.0% a 50% ® 50% #8 2.36 99.9% a • #10 2.00 99.8% • #16 1.18 99.3% 40% 1 40% #20 0.850 99.0% • #30 0.600 97.8% 30% 30% p #40 0.425 96.6% s #50 0.300 93.3% CI) #60 0.250 91.7% 20% 20% #80 0.180 84.4% #100 0.150 80.4% 10% 10% #140 0.106 65.8% #170 0.090 58.9% #200 0.075 51.2% 0% i- i 0% DATE TESTED TESTED BY 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 06/14/13 BJR particle size(mm) // + sieve sizes sieve data ms's'" -� �� This report may rut be reproduced except n full without prior written ai haizatian by Columbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.aWurized signature C W E-s 12-r07/12 Geotechnical ■ Environmental ■ Special Inspections Ai 11917 NE 950'Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Cal u m b i a West Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 www.columbiawestengineering.com n g i n e e r i ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-293 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st.Suite 200 06/20/13 SB2.1 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Sandy SILT Soil Boring SB-02 ML.Sandy Silt depth=2.5 feet LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Liquid Limit Machine. Hand Rolled ASTM D4318 ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION LIQUID LIMIT O e ioo°r 7. liquid limit= 31 wet soil+pan weight,g= 42.23 38.42 41.71 90% plastic limit= 25 dry soil+pan weight,g= 37.35 34.18 36.55 80% plasticity index= 6 pan weight,g= 20.88 20.93 20.75 e 70% N(blows)= 30 20 16 r: 60 50% moisture,%= 29.6% 32.0% 32.7% H •o 40%= SHRINKAGE PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION E 30%i 0'61"� O A o © 20% 10%-t shrinkage limit= n/a wet soil+pan weight,g= 28.44 28.17 0% shrinkage ratio= n/a dry soil+pan weight,g= 26.91 26.71 10 25 100 pan weight,g= 20.72 _ 20.83 number of blows,"N" moisture,%= 24.7% 24.8% ADDITIONAL DATA PLASTICITY CHART 80 %gravel= 0.0% :• %sand= 48.8% 70 - %silt and clay= 51.2% •"U"Line %silt= n/a %clay= n/a 60 moisture content= 28.5% • >< 50 `: e "A'Line e - CH or OH Z'▪ 40 / a .P . a 30 `•• 20 ...' I.L Or VL MH or OH • 10 / (CL-Mt. 0 ML or OL DATE TESTED TESTED BY 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 06/19/13 MJR liquid limit c �ir....._ This report may not be reproduced except in tut without price ewiben aulhaizaion by Cokmbia West Engineering,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature OWE-s14-02/09 Geotechnical • Environmental is Special Inspections 11917 NE 95d'Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 Columbia West' :,,,,:):47--‘ ..colu m biawestengineering.com rl tg I r'; c PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT PROJECT t CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-294 Tigard, Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/20/13 SB2.6 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Sandy SILT Soil Boring SB-02 ML, Sandy Silt depth=20 feet SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE none A-4(0) LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Rainhart "Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913, D422 ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA initial dry mass(g)= 104.5 %gravel= 0.0% as-received moisture content= 32.9% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 409% liquid limit= 0 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 59.1% plastic limit= 0 effective size,D(10)= n/a plasticity index= 0 Dlam= n/a PERCENT PASSING fineness modulus= n/a D180)= 0.077 mm SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS US I mm act. I interp. max I min 6.00' 150.0 100.0% GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00' 100.0 100.0% 3.00' 75.0 100.0% a ter`", ` VAN N Z `i• A n n $ 55 a g as 2.50' 63.0 100.0% 100% • •• •••• •••• • • • •• • _ • -+ + I 1, + 100% 2.00' 50.0 100.0% •• 1.75' 45.0 100.0% 1.50' 37.5 100.0% 90% • „ 90% W > 1.25' 31.5 100.0% Q • - K 1.00' 25.0 100.0% 80% 80% (3 7/8' 22.4 100.0% 3/4" 19.0 100.0% • 5/8' 16.0 100.0% 70% i 70% 1/7 12.5 100.0% ' 3/8' 9.50 100.0% 60% . • . 60% 1/4" 6.30 100.0% m e #4 4.75 100.0% A 50% 50%% #8 2.36 99.9% CL ; ; #10 2.00 99.9% zrt - #16 1.18 99.6% 40% - 40% #20 0.850 99.5% #30 0.600 99.2% 30% - - m00% 0 #40 0.425 98.8% Z #50 0.300 96.8% - a ' C" #60 0.250 95.8% 20% 20% #80 0.180 88.4% #100 0.150 84.4% 10% 10% #140 0.106 71,7% #170 0.090 65.8% #200 0.075 59.1% 0% I- I 1 0% DATE TESTED TESTED BY 100.00 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 particle size(mm) 06/14/13 BJR + sieve sizes sieve data C _z-y Ttrs report may not be reproduced except in MI sewer prior written adharizatim by Colurbia West Elgneerilg,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signal/ire C W E-s 12-r07/12 Geotechnical . Environmental . Special Inspections 1 NE-82 Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Columbia West Phone:one:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 pie www.columbiawestengineenng.com PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT • PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-295 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st.Suite 200 06/20/13 SB3.3 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Lean CLAY with Sand Soil Boring SB-03 CL, Lean Clay with Sand _ depth= 15 feet SPECIFICATIONS AASHTO SOIL TYPE none A-7-6(15) LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Rainhart"Mary Ann" Sifter 637 ASTM D6913, D422 ADDITIONAL DATA SIEVE DATA initial dry mass(g)= 105.6 %gravel= 0.7% as-received moisture content= 27.2% coefficient of curvature,Cc= n/a %sand= 23.0% liquid limit= 41 coefficient of uniformity,Cu= n/a %silt and clay= 76.3% plastic limit= 21 effective size,0(101= n/a plasticity index= 20 D(30)= n/a PERCENT PASSING fineness modulus= n/a Dom= n/a SIEVE SIZE SIEVE SPECS US I mm act. I interp. max I min 6.00" 150.0 100.0% GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 4.00" 100.0 100.0% 8 �oS 3.00" 75.0 100.0% rw` •WE N a w;% R i Z W 2.50" 63.0 100.0% 100% C s •••• •• • • • • •• ,I .- 100% 2.00" 50.0 100.0% ' * •. 1.75" 45.0 100.0% 90% i . . -I 1.50" 37.5 100.0% 90� js 1.25' 31.5 100.0% i K 1.00' 25.0 100.0% 80% 80% (7 7/8" 22.4 100.0% 3/4" 19.0 100.0% 70% 70% 5/8" 16.0 100.0% 1/2" 12.5 100.0% ' 3/8' 9.50 100.0% o 60%60/0 60/0 1/4" 6.30 100.0% c #4 4.75 99.3% q 50% - 50% #8 2.36 98.5% O. #10 2.00 98.3% } #16 1.18 97.3% 40% - 40% #20 0.850 96.7% ' #30 0.600 95.7% 30% F i ; 30% ra #40 0.425 94.7% Z #50 0.300 92.7% - H #60 0.250 91.7% 20% i i " 20% #80 0.180 881% #100 0.150 86.3% 10% . 10% #140 0.106 81.3% I #170 0.090 78.9% }; #200 0.075 76.3% 0% - i I- 0°% DATE TESTED TESTED BY 100.00 1 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 particle size(mm) 06//////14/13®®®® f.+ BJR + sieve sizes -.4:6-sieve data `---- This report may not be reproduced except in full MOW prior mitten authorization by Columbia West Ergi eerig,Inc. COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized sgnature C W E-s l 2407/12 Geotechnical ■ Environmental ■ Special Inspection== 11917 NE 95'^Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 r. Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 Co I u m b i a West www.columbiawestengineering.com J ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. LAB ID Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 S13-295 Tigard.Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE FIELD ID 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/20/13 SB3.3 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR MATERIAL DATA MATERIAL SAMPLED MATERIAL SOURCE USCS SOIL TYPE Lean CLAY with Sand Soil Boring SB-03 CL,Lean Clay with Sand depth= 15 feet LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Liquid Limit Machine. Hand Rolled ASTM D4318 ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT DETERMINATION LIQUID LIMIT o e o 0 100% liquid limit= 41 wet soil+pan weight,g= 42.89 41.22 38.32 90% _ . plastic limit= 21 dry soil+pan weight,g= 36.60 35.27 33.17 80% plasticity index= 20 pan weight,g= 20.68 20.70 20.89 . 70% - N(blows)= 35 26 17 a; eo% 50% moisture,"/= 39.5% 40.8% 41.9% c 40% 0_.--,9---0 SHRINKAGE PLASTIC LIMIT DETERMINATION E 30% o 0 o o 20% 10% shrinkage limit= n/a wet soil+pan weight,g= 27.25 27.53 0% I shrinkage ratio= n/a dry soil+pan weight,g= 26.11 26.35 10 25 100 pan weight,g= 20.74 20.78 number of blows,"N" moisture.%= 21.2% 21.2% ADDITIONAL DATA PLASTICITY CHART 80 %gravel= 0.7% %sand= 23.0%• r %silt and clay= 76.3% 70 e.. If"U"Line %silt= n/a %clay= n/a - `• moisture content= 27.2% x 50 `. v "A'Line c CH or OH a" 40 / R a 30 - i. CLorOL 20 "� r MH or OH • 10 f. .CL.ML lot or OL DATE TESTED TESTED BY 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 06/19/13 MJR liquid limit C. This report may not be reproduced except in full without prior mitten authorization by Columbia West Engineering,Ina COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature CWE-s14-r12/09 • • r,-<,technicai • Environmental • Special Inspections 11917 NE 95th Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Columbia West Phone:360-823-2900.Fax:360-823-2901 pi" www.colu mm bi iewe ewesteng i nee ring.co rn n g i n - s r I n g , I n c MOISTURE CONTENT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO. Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE PAGE 3220 State st.Suite 200 06/18/13 1 of 3 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 _ ASR LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Despatch LEB2 ASTM D2216,Method B MOIST DRY CONTAINER LAB ID FIELD ID MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE MASS*PAN MASS PAN MASS MOISTURE CONTENT OVEN TEMP. S13-296 SB1,7 grayish brown sandy silt/clay 110 t 5°C 187.74 163.35 86.25 31.6% Soil Boring SB-01,depth=25 feet SI3-297 SBI.8 grayish brown silty/clayey sand 206.37 178.17 87.20 31.0% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-01.depth=30 feet S13-298 SB1.9 brown sand 207.39 179.93 86.90 29.5% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-01.depth=35 feet S13-299 SB1.10 light brown sandy silt/clay ± °C 192.81 169.38 87.72 28.7°ir I l I� Soil Boring SB-01,depth=40 feet S13-300 SB 1.11 light brown silty/clayey sand 195.97 165.97 87.06 .1X.I)"0 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-01,depth=45 feet S13-301 SBI.12 light brown silty/clayey sand 195.21 161.00 87.04 It,.." 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-01,depth=50 feet S 13-302 SB2.2 light brown silty/clayey sand 201.42 171.65 87.05 ' `� 110± Soil Boring SB-02,depth=5 feet S13-303 SB2.3 brown sand 204.61 175.72 86.69 32.4% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-02,depth=7.5 feet S 13-304 SB2.4 brown sand with silt/clay 08.70 176.42 86.68 36.0/n Soil Boring SB-02,depth=10 feet 2 ° 110±5°C S 13-305 SB2.5 brown sand with silt/clay ° 1 l0±5°C 215.64 186.10 86.88 29.8 ° Soil Boring SB-02,depth=17 feet NOTES: This report may not be reproduced except in full a thout prior mitten authorization by Columbia West Engineenng,Inc. DATE TESTED TESTED BY 06/14/13 BJR COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature CWE-s11-r02/10 • Geotechnicai a Environmental • Special Inspections 11917 NE 95th Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Phone:360-823-2900.Fax:360-1323-2901 Columbia West www.colu mbi awesteng stengi i ne a ri n g.com e r• i n 1 , MOISTURE CONTENT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE PAGE 3220 State St.Suite 200 06/18/13 2 of 3 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Despatch LEB2 ASTM D2216,Method B MOIST DRY CONTAINER LAB ID FIELD ID MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE MASS•PAN MASS•PAN MASS MOISTURE CONTENT OVEN TEMP. S 13-306 SB2.7 brown sand with silt/clay 207.47 179.66 85.64 29.6% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-02,depth=25 feet S13-307 SB2.8 brown sand 200.43 176.50 87.15 26.8% 110 ± 5°C Soil Boring SB-02,depth=30 feet S13-308 SB2.9 brown sand 202.00 169.60 86.84 39.1°/a 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-02,depth=35 feet S13-309 SB2.10 brown sand 2 1 1.64 182.74 86.96 30.2% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-02,depth=40 feet SI3-310 SB2.11 brown silt/clay with sand 1 99.98 1 74.59 85.')9 28.7% I 1±S I Soil Boring SB-02,depth=45 feet S13-311 SB2.12 brown silty/clayey sand 199.01 171.68 87.60 32.5% 1 10±5"c Soil Boring SB-02,depth=50 feet S13-312 SB3.2 brown silty/clayey sand 197.75 170.60 86.90 32.4% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-03,depth=10 feet S13-313 SB4.1 brown silty/clayey sand 199.99 169.47 86.95 37.0% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-04,depth=5 feet S13-314 SB4.2 brown sand with silt/clay 108.96 84.35 10.50 33.3% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-04,depth=10 feet S13-315 SB4.3 brown sand 115.31 89.70 10.42 32.3% 110±5'c Soil Boring SB-04,depth= 15 feet "-is report may not be reproduced except in flit without prior wrtte^ v Columba West Engineenng,Inc. DATE TESTED TESTED BY 06/14/13 BJR COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature CWE-sl1-r02/10 • Geotechnical . Environmental a Special Inspections 11917 NE 95"'Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Phone:360-823-2900.Fax:360-823-2901 Columbia West pis www.columbiawestengineering.com f n g i n � r i n g . I n c MOISTURE CONTENT PROJECT CLIENT PROJECT NO Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard Parcel Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 Tigard,Oregon Robert Underwood REPORT DATE PAGE 3220 State st. Suite 200 06/18/13 3 of 3 Salem,Oregon 97301 DATE SAMPLED SAMPLED BY 06/10/13 ASR LABORATORY TEST DATA LABORATORY EQUIPMENT TEST PROCEDURE Despatch LEB2 ASTM D22I6,Method B MOIST DRY CONTAINER LAB ID FIELD ID MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE MASS PAN MASS+PAN MASS MOISTURE CONTENT OVEN TEMP. S13-316 SB5.2 brown sand 115.64 91.48 10.08 29.7% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-05,depth= 10 feet S13-317 S135.4 grayish brown sandy silt/clay 111.42 88.61 10.21 29.1% 110±5°C Soil Boring SB-05,depth=20 feet NOTES: This report may not be reproduced except in full without prior mitten authorization by Coluntia West Engineering,Inc. DATE TESTED TESTED BY 06/14/13 BJR COLUMBIA WEST ENGINEERING,INC.authorized signature C W E-s l 1-r02/10 APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS 11917 NE 95th Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Phone 360-823.2900,Fax,360-823-2901 Gnotechnical •Environmental.Special Inspections www.co'umbiawestengireering.com Columbia West` E n g i n , o r i n g , i n r. �. SOIL BORING LOG jj PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO BORING NO. Bonaventure Senior Living Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 SB-1 PROJECT LOCATION DRILLING CONTRACTOR DRILL RIG ENGINEER PAGE NO Tigard.Oregon Subsurface Technologies Diedrich B50 Turbo ASR 1 of 2 BORING LOCATION DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD START DATE START TIME see Figure 2 mud rotary split spoon 6/10/13 830 REMARKS APPROX SURFACE ELEVATION GROUND WATER DEPTH FINISH DATE FINISH TIME 206 feet not encountered 6/10/13 1100 Depth Samde Dave/ SPT Sande USCS Gr he ra^ o `m- Recovery B;bw FiddID Depth Soi LITHOLOGICDESCRIPTIONANDREMARKS ggu 3-H - 2= rot. (heel) Type T Log v ate,=� �— =-15— (inches) Count (feet) yPe o z a ;r'•r• Topsoil. Light brown,sandy SILT with fine roots. iI//I• CL- %PPM Light brown,medium stiff,very moist.sandy SILT with /III,rr gray mottling and sandy lean CLAY.[Soil Type l ML •0•0•0•0iiS B a y [ yip ] IrII/ / II IIIr SPT 18 18 3 1.1 2.5 0000/00 32.8 652 37 15 •0iiiiii 100III• /IIIr■• //woo..•Ir/••• 5— •II/Ir• SPT t.818 3 1.2 5 %Iili%i I0i0/009 35.1 66.3 34 7 /III/r■ 3 •0i0 ordo /000009 SM Brown to gray,loose,very moist to wet,silty SAND. ' SPT 18 18 3 L. 7.5 [Soil Type 2] 30.3 36.5 0 0 -1 • 10- -SPT 18 18 3 1.4 10 Light groundwater seepage observed at 10 feet bps. 31.0 26,4 0 0 • • 15— • /I%I r• SPT 18 18 V 3 1.5 17 CL- %PPM Brown,medium stiff to stiff,very moist.silty CLAY 29.9 73.7 27 6 /IIIIrr ML with Sand,[Soil Type 3] 7 a — SP Brown to gray,medium dense,wet.clean SAND.[Soil o Type 2] 20— SPT 18 18 5 1.6 20 CL e Brown.gray,blue.and red,stiff to very stiff very moist. 36.6 71.3 48 27 re m 7 lean CLAY with Sand.[Soil Type 3] 9 o N O / Z / 25— O SPT 1818 5 17 5 78 - - 31.6 N 10 L9 o 0 m 11917 NE 55th Street,Vancouver.Washington 98682 Phone 360-823-2900.Fax.360$23-2901 Geotechnical. Environmental•Special In;pectlons •� w *IL ww.celumbiawesngineering.com Columbia West E n g i n c e r i n g , I n c SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO BORING NO Bonaventure Senior Living Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 SB-1 PROJECT LOCATION DRILLING CONTRACTOR DRILL RIG ENGINEER PAGE NO Tigard.Oregon Subsurface Technologies Diedrich B50 Turbo ASR 2 of 2 BORING LOCATION DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD START DATE START TIME see Figure 2 mud rotary split spoon 6/10/13 830 REMARKS APPROX SURFACE ELEVATION GROUND WATER DEPTH FINISH DATE FINISH TIME 206 feet not encountered 6/10/13 1100 d DrNef SPT Same USCS �� Ne5 Dee) STypee Recovery Blow Feld ID Depth Sal Graphic LI T HOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS - ' �No a— -e „E (inches) Count (feet) Type d J a c 2 — SPT 18 18 V 12 1.8 30 CL Begun-grad blue,and rest,stiff to very stiff-very moist. 31.0 Q 17 lean CLAY with Sand, [Soil Type 3][continued] 23 35- SPT l 8 18 X 10 1.9 35 SP Brown to multicolored.dense,moist.poorly graded 29.5 14 SAND.[Soil Type 2] 15 41 SPT 18 18 12 1.10 40 ML Light brown to tan,hard.moist,sandy SILT.with thin 28.7 16 iron banded layers and lenses of sand.[Soil Type I] 20 45 SPT 18 18 X 6 1.11 45 CL / Red to tan,very stiff,very moist lean CLAY with sand. 38.0 10 [Soil Type 3] 12 r. • 5 SPT 1818 6 1.12 50 46.3 O 7 m 11 Bottom of borehole at 51.5 feet. Ground water not encountered. a Borehole backfilled with bentonite on 6 10 2013. N O C z 55_ 0 O m J_ — 0 5) m C1 • — O J D to 11917 NE 95th Street Vancouver.Washington 98582 Gootochnical•Environmontat•Special I nspection^ Phone:360-323-2900,Fax:35023-2901 www.columbiawestengineering.com Columbia !IIes tp, I n c SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO. BORING NO Bonaventure Senior Living Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 SB-2 PROJECT LOCATION DRILLING CONTRACTOR DRILL RIG ENGINEER PAGE NO. Tigard,Oregon Subsurface Technologies Diedrich B50 Turbo ASR 1 of 2 BORING LOCATION DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD START DATE START TIME see Figure 2 mud rotary split spoon 6/10/13 1100 REMARKS APPROX.SURFACE ELEVATION GROUND WATER DEPTH FINISH DATE FINISH TIME 206 feet not encountered 6/10/13 I350 d Depth Semple Dme/ SPT Same USCS c— SN_. a- V..^-. Recovery Blwi Field ID Depth Soi Gr hie LITHOLCGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS H ae °e aJ W 8,..2.L._": g d N (feet) Type 1 Type 9 C. a c FN" (inches) Count (feet) z o m o- •1nr�. •\1 • Topsoil. Light brown,sandy SILT kith fine roots. ML Light brown,medium stifT,very moist sandy SILT with gray mottling.[Soil Type 1] +SPT 18 18 2 2.1 2.5 28.5 51.2 31 6 3 5 ;..: SPT 18 18 2 2.2 3 SM : Brown.loose,wet,silty SAND.[Soil Type 2] 35.2 •,ti 2 SPT 18 18 V 2 2.3 7.5 '::, 32.-4 5 111 SPT 18 18 2 2.4 10 .;: `::• Light groundwater seepage observed at 10 feet bgs. 36.0 5 }` 1 :•j i OM CL- /000, Brown.medium stiff to stiff,very moist silty CLAY ML WO with Sand.[Soil Type 3] SPT 18 12 4 2.5 17 ML Red brown,stiff to very still,very moist.sandy SILT. 29.8 M 4 [Soil Type 1] n 3 u3 1- o O 20—;- z • SPT 1818 3 2.6 20 32.9 59.1 0 0 Fe 10 co l3 a t7 m 0 N 0 O 0 K 25-- mSPT 18 18 9 2.7 25 SP . Brown to multicolored,medium dense to dense.moist, 29.6 10 poorly graded SAND with interlayering of silty w 16 SAND and clean coarse SAND.[Soil Type 2] m _ J Z Fr O . 11917 NE 95th Street Vancouver.Washington 98682 Gootachnical•Environmontel.Special Inspection; Phone.360823.2900,Fax 360-823-2901 www.columbiawestengineering.com Columbia West est E n g i n e e i i n q , I n c SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO. BORING NO Bonaventure Senior Living Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 SB-2 PROJECT LOCATION DRILLING CONTRACTOR DRILL RIG ENGINEER PAGE NO Tigard.Oregon Subsurface Technologies Diedrich 1350 Turbo ASR 2 of 2 BORING LOCATION DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD START DATE START TIME see Figure 2 mud rotary split spoon 6/10/13 1100 REMARKS APPROX SURFACE ELEVATION GROUND WATER DEPTH FINISH DATE FINISH TIME 206 feet not encountered 6/10/13 1350 DePIK S Drive/ SPT sample USCS (feel Type Recovery Bow Field ID Depth Type Graphic g UTHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS ' :? :� 3� @ 63- Inches) Count Met) YPe g v SPT 18 18 V 12 2.8 30 CL Brown to multicolored,very stiff to hard,very moist. 26.8 _ Q 18 lean CLAY with Sand.[Soil Type 31 79 - j 35- -SPT 18 18 8 2.9 35 SM '•.�•: Brown to multicolored,medium dense to dense,wet. 39.1 8 silty SAND.[Soil Type 2] 15 •• • - .tir 40— .•:.:< ..,•,, SPT 1818 17 2.10 40 30.2 27 20 W ,r: r7 •• 45-- •;;,• SPT 1818 9 2.11 45 • 28.7 50-T SPT 1818 15 2.12 50 32.5 °m — 18 25 a. — Bottom of borehole at 51.5 feet. Ground water not encountered. 8 — Borehole backfilled with bentonite on 6 10 2013. z 55_ co J_ O m 'C7 V J m - 11017 NE 05th Street.Vancouver.Washington 99682 Gootechnical• En>rironmontnl•Spacial In:poction,• Phone 360$23-22900,Fax:350.923-2901 WWW.COlumbiawestengineering.com Columbia West n g i n o_ e r r n g , T n c SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO BORING NO Bonaventure Senior Living Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 SB-3 PROJECT LOCATION DRILLING CONTRACTOR DRILL RIG ENGINEER PAGE NO Tigard,Oregon Subsurface Technologies Diedrich B50 Turbo ASR 1 of 1 BORING LOCATION DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD START DATE START TIME see Figure 2 hollow stein split spoon 6/10/13 1350 REMARKS APPROX SURFACE ELEVATION GROUND WATER DEPTH FIN'SH DATE FINISH TIME 206 feet not encountered 6/10/13 1450 Deplh sample Dare/ SPT Sample USCS Graphic G� �� c yx d o„ V d- (feel) Two Recovery Blow Feld ID Deplh Toe Log LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REM.ARKS { � oo. 3_ a �v (inches) Count {(eel} Type a °'c d — z Topsoil. Light brown.sandy SILT with line roots. MI. Light brown,medium still moist,sandy SILT with gray mottling.[Soil Type I] 5— SPT 1818 2 3.1 5 3 5 I SM ' •". Brown,loose.moist.silty SAND.[Soil Type 2] •Id 10- SPT 18 18 2 3.2 10 •:••'?t Light groundwater seepage observed at 10 feet bgs. 32.4 3 15- 2, SPT 18 18 3 3.3 15 CL Brown to gray.medium stiff to stilt very moist_lean 27.2 76.3 41 20 7 CLAY with sand.[Soil Type 3] ~ – 8 o — a 0 20-- o SPT 1818 5 3; 20 z – 7 1_'f o – Bottom of borehole at 21.5 feet. Ground water not encountered. Borehole backfdled with bentonite on 6 10 2013. u 0 O — 11517 NE 95th Street,Vancouver,Washington 98682 Gootecnnical.Environmental.Special Inspoctons L f Phone:360-823-2900,Fax 360-823-2901 www.columbiewestengineering.com Columbia West Fi- E n g i n e e r i n g , T_ n c SOIL BORING LOG PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO. BORING NO Bonaventure Senior Living Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 SB-4 PROJECT LOCATION DRILLING CONTRACTOR DRILL RIG ENGINEER PAGE NO Tigard,Oregon Subsurface Technologies Diedrich B50 Turbo ASR 1 of BORING LOCATION GRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD START DATE START TIME see Figure 2 hollon steps split spoon 6/10/13 1500 REMARKS APPROX SURFACE ELEVATION GROUND WATER DEPTH FINISH DATE FINISH TIME 206 feet not encountered 6/10/13 1550 (feet) Sample Recce, Blow Field ID Depth of L� LITHOLOGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS 4---: 'fc—,'Q_? �� ssi„t Ti. d_ Cloches) Count (seep Type " n'o 3 a 1V ENV a '..;%::. Topsoil. Light brown,sandy SILT with fine roots. SM • Brown.loose,wet,silty SAND.[Soil Type 2] I ::::: •.::: ...:•..: ., .... ., ,....: ::: ::...: :.. 5- SPT 18 12 3 1.1 5 37 0 5 5 10— .41•".••,:. SPT 18 12 2 4.2 10 SP Brown,loose,wet,fine.SAND.[Soil Type 2] 33.3 _ 2 4 A'''.::. Light groundwater seepage observed at 10 feet bgs 15— , SPT 1812 2 4.3 15 ?.` 32.3 '° _ 4 C 3 z — m •i': n 5 — 0 O 20-- 0 SPT 18 18 2 4.4 20 SM '•'%'+ Light brown,medium dense,wet.fine silty SAND.[Soil •0 ▪ •5 ::, .r• Type 3] co J °m - Bottom of borehole nt 21.5 feet. m Ground water not encountered. Borehole backfilled with bentonite on 6 10 2013. J Z I 11917 NE 95th Street,Vancouver.Washington 95682 • Phone.360-823-2900.Fax 350-823-2901 Gaotochnical• Environmcnt�I • • ln;paction www.columbiawestengineering,com Columbia West ,- E n w I n c c r 1 n 9 , I n c SOIL BORING LOG • PROJECT NAME CLIENT PROJECT NO. BORING NO Bonaventure Senior Living Bonaventure Senior Housing 13116 SB-5 PROJECT LOCATION DRILLING CONTRACTOR DRILL RIG ENGINEER PAGE NO Tigard.Oregon Subsurface Technologies Diedrich 1350 Turbo ASR 1 of 1 BORING LOCATION DRILLING METHOD SAMPLING METHOD START DATE START TIME see Figure 2 hollow stem split spoon 6/10/13 1600 REMARKS APPROX.SURFACE ELEVATION GROUND WATER DEPTH FINISH DATE FINISH TIME 306 feet not encountered 6/10/13 1700 g Depth Same DM! SPT Sample USCS Graphic <I.,-a–. °- v_ .K s? h ie- ROI Typ Recovery Blow Field ID Depth Tot Log LITHOLCGIC DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS pe gam? a c � (Inches) Count (feet) Type o J d z a Topsoil. Light brown.sandy SILT with fine roots. ML Light brown.medium stilt very moist.sandy SILT with _ gray mottling.[Soil Type 1] 5-1. :,� SPT 18 12 3 5 t 5 SM Brown,loose,wet.silty SAND.[Soil Type 2] j ": :v:.•1 --:•::.. SPT 18 ['I 2 5 2 10 Light groundwater seepage observed at 10 feet bgs. 29.7 – :;`: r3 ri 15— r SPT 18 13 2 5.3 15 CL j Brown,stiff,von'moist lean CLAY With Sand.[Soil 3 Type 3] o 5 j L S °0• 20— o SPT 18 18 2 5.4 20 2') l re – 8 m 9 4 J $ - Bottom of borehole at 21.5 feet. m Ground water not encountered. n Borehole backfilled with bentonite on 6 10 2013. - g Q Z APPENDIX C SOIL CLASSIFICATION INFORMATION SOIL DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES Particle-Size Classification ASTM/USCS AASHTO COMPONENT size range sieve size range size range sieve size range Cobbles >75 mm greater than 3 inches >75 mm greater than 3 inches Gravel 75 mm—4.75 mm 3 inches to No.4 sieve 75 mm—2.00 mm 3 inches to No. 10 sieve Coarse 75 mm—19.0 mm 3 inches to 3/4-inch sieve - - Fine 19.0 mm—4.75 mm 3/4-inch to No.4 sieve - Sand 4.75 mm—0.075 mm No.4 to No.200 sieve 2.00 mm—0.075 mm No. 10 to No.200 sieve Coarse 4.75 mm—2.00 mm No.4 to No. 10 sieve 2.00 mm—0.425 mm No. 10 to No.40 sieve Medium 2.00 mm—0.425 mm No.10 to No.40 sieve - - Fine 0.425 mm—0.075 mm No.40 to No.200 sieve 0.425 mm—0.075 mm No.40 to No.200 sieve Fines(Silt and Clay) <0.075 mm Passing No.200 sieve <0.075 mm Passing No.200 sieve Consistency for Cohesive Soil POCKET PENETROMETER SPT N-VALUE (UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE CONSISTENCY (BLOWS PER FOOT) STRENGTH,tsf) Very Soft 2 less than 0.25 Soft 2 to 4 0.25 to 0.50 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 0.50 to 1.0 Stiff 8to15 1.0 to2.0 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2.0 to 4.0 Hard 30 to 60 greater than 4.0 Very Hard greater than 60 - Relative Density for Granular Soil SPT N-VALUE RELATIVE DENSITY (BLOWS PER FOOT) Very Loose 0 to 4 Loose 4 to 10 Medium Dense 10 to 30 Dense 30 to 50 Very Dense more than 50 Moisture Designations TERM FIELD IDENTIFICATION Dry No moisture. Dusty or dry. Damp Some moisture. Cohesive soils are usually below plastic limit and are moldable. Moist Grains appear darkened.but no visible water is present- Cohesive soils will clump. Sand will bulk. Soils are often at or near plastic limit. Wet Visible water on larger grains. Sand and silt exhibit dilatancy. Cohesive soil can be readily remolded. Soil leaves wetness on the hand when squeezed. Soil is much wetter than optimum moisture content and is above plastic limit. AASHTO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM TABLE 1.Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials General Classification (35 Percent or Less Passing.075 mm) (More than 35 Percent Passing 0.075) Group Classification A-1 A-3 A-2 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 Sieve analysis,percent passing: 2.00 mm(No.10) - - - 0.425 mm(No.40) 50 max 51 min - - - - - 0.075 mm(No.200) 25 max 10 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 min 36 min Characteristics of fraction passing 0.425 mm(No.40) Liquid limit 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min Plasticity index 6 max N.P. 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min General rating as subgrade Excellent to good Fair to poor Note:The placing of A-3 before A-2 is necessary in the"left to right elimination process"and does not indicate superiority of A-3 over A-2. TABLE 2.Classification of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials General Classification (35 Percent or Less Passing 0.075 mm) (More than 35 Percent Passing 0.075 mm) A-1 A-2 A-7 A-7-5, Group Classification A-1-a A-1-b A-3 A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7-6 Sieve analysis.percent passing: 2.00 mm(No.10) 50 max - - - - - - - - - - 0.425 mm(No.40) 30 max 50 max 51 min - - - - - - - - 0.075 mm(No.200) 15 max 25 max 10 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 35 max 36 min 36 min 36 min 36 min Characteristics of fraction passing 0.425 mm(No.40) Liquid limit 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min 40 max 41 min Plasticity index 6 max N.P. 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min 10 max 10 max 11 min 11 min Usual types of significant constituent materials Stone fragments, Fine gravel and sand sand Silty or clayey gravel and sand Silty soils Clayey soils General ratings as subgrade Excellent to Good Fair to poor Note:Plasticity index of A-7-5 subgroup is equal to or less than LL minus 30.Plasticity index of A-7-6 subgroup is greater than LL minus 30(see Figure 2). AASHTO=American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials . • e r I GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME 05%slnes- C004 and IsCcs3 •GW <IS%sand:Well-graded gravel`\ a15%sane WelFgraded gravel well sand y Cu<4 and/or 1>Ce.3 •GP C 0115%:and Poorly graded gravel 015% ane Poorly graded gravel arty sand fines=ML or MH a GW-GM 075%sand .Well-graded growl worth silt Cu24 and ISCC53 z15%sand -Well-graded gravel wkh silt and sand fines=CL CH. •G •GC <15%sand a Well-graded gravel well clay or stlty clay) GRAVEL. (or CL-ML/ a15%sand •Well-graded gravel with clay and sand %gravel> - .5-12%Ones or silty clay and sand) %sand Ones=ML or MH .GP-GM .<is%sand:Poorly graded gravel wall sit Cu<4 and/or 1>Cc>3 •a15%sand •Poorly graded gravel wall sett and sand fines=CL,CH, •GP-GC 15%sand--•Poorly graded gravel with clay(or silly clay) or CL-ML) 055%sand a Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand for silty clay and sand/ fines=ML or MH ,GM 0ilty gavel 215%15%rand sand •S Silty gavel with sand >12%fines •fines=CL or CH •GC-. 075%sand—Clayey gravel a15%sand Clayey gravel voth sand fines=CL-ML •GC-GM 015% Saltlty cl , avel 215%sand sand •Silty.clayey yey gravel with Sand r 05%fines Cs. and 1sCcs3 -SW a 015%gravel Well-graded sand 015%gravel Welgraded sand with gravel Cud and/or 1>Cc>3 SP 0 gravel .Poorly graded sane 115%75%gravel—a Poorly graded sand with gravel Ines=ML or MH •SW-SM •<15%gravel -Well-graded sand with silt Cu06 and 1gCcs3 115%gravel Well-graded sand with sit and gravel fines=CL CH, •SW-SC- <1S%gravel •Well-graded sand with clay(or silty clay) SAND or CL-ML) 015%gravel •Walagraded sand wnh clay and gravel %sand z .5-12%Ines (or slily clay and gravel) %gravel fines=ML or MH •SPSM 015%gravel Poorly graded sand with silt Cu<6 and/or 1>C<>3 a15%gravel a•Poorly graded sand with sett and gravel fines=CL,CH. •SP-SC .015%gravel Poorly graded sand with clay(or silty clay) (or CL-ML) 215%gravel -Poorly graded sand wash clay antl gravel (or silty clay and gravel) fines=MLor MH SM-0 %gravel .Silt sand z15105%gravel Silty y sand with gravel >12%fines we fines=CL or CH •SC <15%gravel Clayey sand a15%gravel Clayey sand well gravel --ts fines=CL-ML •SCSM <15%gravel -Silty.clayey sand 015%gravel 'Silty,clayey sand with gravel Flow Chart for Classifying Coarse-Grained Soils(More Than 50%Retained on No.200 Sieve) GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME <30%plus No.200 ..„..........,...<1250%%plus No.200 •Lean clay 13. pluf No.200 %sand 2%gravel—.Lean clay oath sand PI>7 and plots CL •%sand<%gravel—•Lean clay with gravel on or above %sand a%gravel <15%gr el—.Sandy ban clay "A"-tine a 30%plus No.200 z 15%gravel -Sandy Man clay wen gravel %send c%gravel <15%sand a Gravely lean clay 2 15%sand Gravely lean clay with sand 0 30%pals No.200 .015%plus No.200 .Silty clay 13-29%plus No.200_ a%sand 2%gravel Silty clay with sand 4 s PI 5 7 and CL-ML �.%sand<%gravel—..5ity clay with gravel Mryamc -plots on or above %sand z%gravel-..___________:,<15%gravel Sandy silty clay "A"-line 230%pWS No.200 15%gravel Sandy slty clay with gravel %sand<%gravel._ •<15%sand s Gravelly silly clay -----7--.z 15%sand—sy Gravelly silty clay with sand <30%plo.No.200 .c 15%plus No.200 .Sit LL 0 \ 15-29%plus No.200 .%sand z%gravel y Salt with sand e Plc 4 or plots — ML _.%sand<%gravel—.Silt with gravel below"A"-line %sand z%gravel < 5%:ravel--•Sandy silt z 30%plus No.200 x 15%gravel Sandy silt with gravel %sand<%gravel <15%sand Gravely It LL-ovendned _•a 15%sand a Gravelly silt with sand Organic <0.75 OL LL-not deed <30%plus No.200 <15%plus No.200 .Fat clay 15-29%plus Na.200. %sand 0%grata—.Fat clay with sand PI plots on or —• CH %sand<%gravel—I.Fat clay with gravel above"A"-line %sand 2%gravel <15%gravel�Sandy fat clay 2 30%plus Na.200 z 15%gavel Sandy fat clay with gravel %.and c%grave) <15%sands Gravelly lot clay tnoryalrc 015%saM -Gravelly fat clay vnth sand <30%plus No.200 <15%plus N.200 •Elastc sit 15.9%plus No.200 •%sand.%grant—a.Elastic silt wen sand LL 250 PI plots below -I.LIN %rand<%gravel Elastic sit with grams' "A"-line _____•%sand z%gravel ♦<15%prams) Sandy:la::sa z 30%plus No.200 015%gravel Sandy elastic sett with gravel LL ovendned %sand<%gravel 15%sand a Gnmslly elasbc rat Organic <0.75 OH a 15%santl Gravelly elashc sO with sand LL snot dried Flow Chart for Classifying Fine-Grained Soil(50%or More Passes No 200 Sieve) . . APPENDIX D REPORT LIMITATIONS AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION • I Gentechnicael • Environmental • Special Inspectiar Columbia West-- Date: June 20, 2013 Project: Bonaventure Senior Living Tigard, Oregon Geotechnical and Environmental Report Limitations and Important Information Report Purpose, Use, and Standard of Care This report has been prepared in accordance with standard fundamental principles and practices of geotechnical engineering and/or environmental consulting, and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill typical of currently practicing local engineers and consultants. This report has been prepared to meet the specific needs of specific individuals for the indicated site. It may not be adequate for use by other consultants, contractors, or engineers, or if change in project ownership has occurred. It should not be used for any other reason than its stated purpose without prior consultation with Columbia West Engineering, Inc. (Columbia West). It is a unique report and not applicable for any other site or project. If site conditions are altered, or if modifications to the project description or proposed plans are made after the date of this report, it may not be valid. Columbia West cannot accept responsibility for use of this report by other individuals for unauthorized purposes, or if problems occur resulting from changes in site conditions for which Columbia West was not aware or informed. Report Conclusions and Preliminary Nature This geotechnical or environmental report should be considered preliminary and summary in nature. The recommendations contained herein have been established by engineering interpretations of subsurface soils based upon conditions observed during site exploration. The exploration and associated laboratory analysis of collected representative samples identifies soil conditions at specific discreet locations. It is assumed that these conditions are indicative of actual conditions throughout the subject property. However, soil conditions may differ between tested locations at different seasonal times of the year, either by natural causes or human activity. Distinction between soil types may be more abrupt or gradual than indicated on the soil logs. This report is not intended to stand alone without understanding of concomitant instructions, correspondence. communication, or potential supplemental reports that may have been provided to the client. Because this report is based upon observations obtained at the time of exploration, its adequacy may be compromised with time. This is particularly relevant in the case of natural disasters, earthquakes, floods, or other significant events. Report conclusions or interpretations may also be subject to revision if significant development or other manmade impacts occur within or in proximity to the subject property. Groundwater conditions, if presented in this report, reflect observed conditions at the time of investigation. These conditions may change annually, seasonally or as a result of adjacent development. Additional Investigation and Construction QA/QC Columbia West should be consulted prior to construction to assess whether additional investigation above and beyond that presented in this report is necessary. Even slight variations in soil or site conditions may produce impacts to the performance of structural facilities if not adequately addressed. This underscores the importance of diligent QA/QC construction observation and testing to verify soil conditions do not differ materially or significantly from the interpreted conditions utilized for preparation of this report. Therefore, this report contains several recommendations for field observation and testing by Columbia West personnel during construction activities. Actual subsurface conditions are more readily observed and discerned during the earthwork phase of construction when soils are exposed. Columbia West cannot accept responsibility for deviations from recommendations described in this report or future Geotechnical•Environmental•Special Inspections•Materials Testing 11917 NE 95 Street Vancouver,Washington 98682 •Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 :vrotiwcciumbiaw estengineering.com Geotechnical and Environmental Report Limitations and Important Information Page 2 of 2 Columbia West Engineering,Inc. performance of structural facilities if another consultant is retained during the construction phase or Columbia West is not engaged to provide construction observation to the full extent recommended. Collected Samples Uncontaminated samples of soil or rock collected in connection with this report will be retained for thirty days. Retention of such samples beyond thirty days will occur only at client's request and in return for payment of storage charges incurred. All contaminated or environmentally impacted materials or samples are the sole property of the client. Client maintains responsibility for proper disposal. Report Contents This geotechnical or environmental report should not be copied or duplicated unless in full, and even then only under prior written consent by Columbia West, as indicated in further detail in the following text section entitled Report Ownership. The recommendations, interpretations, and suggestions presented in this report are only understandable in context of reference to the whole report. Under no circumstances should the soil boring or test pit excavation logs, monitor well logs, or laboratory analytical reports be separated from the remainder of the report. The logs or reports should not be redrawn or summarized by other entities for inclusion in architectural or civil drawings, or other relevant applications Report Limitations for Contractors Geotechnical or environmental reports, unless otherwise specifically noted, are not prepared for the purpose of developing cost estimates or bids by contractors. The extent of exploration or investigation conducted as part of this report is usually less than that necessary for contractor's needs. Contractors should be advised of these report limitations, particularly as they relate to development of cost estimates. Contractors may gain valuable information from this report, but should rely upon their own interpretations as to how subsurface conditions may affect cost. feasibility, accessibility and other components of the project work. If believed necessary or relevant, contractors should conduct additional exploratory investigation to obtain satisfactory data for the purposes of developing adequate cost estimates. Clients or developers cannot insulate themselves from attendant liability by disclaiming accuracy for subsurface ground conditions without advising contractors appropriately and providing the best information possible to limit potential for cost overruns, construction problems, or misunderstandings. Report Ownership Columbia West retains the ownership and copyright property rights to this entire report and its contents, which may include, but may not be limited to, figures, text, logs, electronic media, drawings, laboratory reports, and appendices. This report was prepared solely for the client, and other relevant approved users or parties, and its distribution must be contingent upon prior express written consent by Columbia West. Furthermore, client or approved users may not use, lend, sell, copy, or distribute this document without express written consent by Columbia West. Client does not own nor have rights to electronic media files that constitute this report, and under no circumstances should said electronic files be distributed or copied. Electronic media is susceptible to unauthorized manipulation or modification, and may not be reliable. Consultant Responsibility Geotechnical and environmental engineering and consulting is much less exact than other scientific or engineering disciplines, and relies heavily upon experience, judgment, interpretation, and opinion often based upon media (soils) that are variable, anisotropic, and non-homogenous. This often results in unrealistic expectations, unwarranted claims, and uninformed disputes against a geotechnical or environmental consultant. To reduce potential for these problems and assist relevant parties in better understanding of risk, liability, and responsibility, geotechnical and environmental reports often provide definitive statements or clauses defining and outlining consultant responsibility. The client is encouraged to read these statements carefully and request additional information from Columbia West if necessary. Geotechnical•Environmental•Special Inspections•Materials Testing 11917 NE 95 Street Vancouver,Washington 98682 •Phone:360-823-2900,Fax:360-823-2901 wro wcalumbiawestengineer ing.com L_