12100 SW GAARDE STREET II 5 I IN
20'
- -
_65' ENGINEER[ FTI GRADING NOTES I a
4`
1 . EFFECTIVE EROSION CONTROLENGINEERED FILI. TO 95% ASH T, 110
, DUST CONTROL AND DRAINAGE CONTROL IS I �
15' TO 95% ASHTO T-99 REQUIRED AT AL_L TIMES. THE CITY MAY ORDER STOPPAGE OF WORK TO � �, 4a
1--99
15' 1 EFFECT CORRECTIVE ACTION AT ANY TIME. U
0
2. EMBANKMENTS OR STRUCTURAL FILLS FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION OR FILLS ' 0
TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON BUILDABLE LOTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED FROM
5% EXCAVATED MATERIALS ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL 1 00
5 ' 65' I �.,
Old
BE BROUGHT TO GRADE IN LIFTS NOT TO EXCEED 8" LOOSE MEASURE. EACH I t�
ENGINEERED FILL LIFT SHALL BE COMPACTED -TO 957 OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS OBTAINED BY � � �0
20' � 20' --- - AASHTO T-99 COMPACTION TEST. �
TO 95� ASHTO fl ( �
65' T-99 .
3. CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURAL FILLS ON EXISTING' SLOPES GREATER THAN
ENGINEERED FILL � � �
TO 95% ASHTO 5: 1 SHALL BE ACHIEVED BY BENCHING INTO THE EXISTING BANK A MINIMUM '
T-99 ! OF TEN FEET. IF THE BENCH EXF'JSES ;AND SOIL AN UNDERDRAIN MUST BE
PROVIDED. THE UNDERDRAIN, IF REQ'�JIRED, WILL BE CONSTRUCTED BY LYING I
NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC, EQUIVALENT TO EXXON GTF 12500, ALONG -THE BOTTOM
OF THE STARTiNG BENCH, THEN PLACING A SIX INCH LAYER OF 1 1 2"-0" DRAIN - - -
r �
ROCK, AND FINALLY COVERING THE DRAIN ROCK WITH THE NONWOVEN FABRIC.
SUCCESSIVE B_NCHES WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH VERTICAL FILL BETWEEN TWO
— " FOOUND^DERCUT TON SPO�S(TYP�ITY & TO FIVE FEET AND BE COMPACTED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 8 INCHES. EACH }
8 INCH LAYER SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90 % AASHTO T-180 m
DENSITY. THE FILL SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 2: 1 AT FINISH GRADE. NO ROCK
-� OR SIMILAR MATERIAL_ EXCEEDING A 12" DIAMETER SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THE
0.75' OVERLAY OF ORGANICS STRUCTURAL FILL.
BACKFILLED BY 2 PASSES OF I^ W c
sHEEPSFooT ROLLER(;TYP. ALL LOTS) I ' '' _ 4. THE GEOTECHNICAL. ENGINEER FOR STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE NOTIFIED 24 HOURS z
TYPICAL CROSS- SECTION �oIN ADVANCEBY THE CONTRACTOR, OF STARTING BENCHWORK TO DETERMINE THE
THROUGH LOTS _ NEED FOR AN UNDERDRAIN LAYER AND TO s
VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS. W
5. THE CITY SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF THE GEOTECHNICAL_ ENG;rvEER'S
�� TS y ,gyp REPORT RECOMMENDATION CHANGES.
`�'' EX.DI'�C r
-_ ;r,� - y. SPRING. OR GROUND WATER ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION THE
0+0
- _ ,
-iii: CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE SOLS AND CIVIL ENGINEERS OF THE CONDITIONS FOUND H
, ►- }--,- � AND COORDINATE R I N � r• Q
D ATE HIS ACTIVITIES I J A MANNER THAT WILL ALLOW THE ENGINEERS TIME o
��;� TO REVIEW THE S!TI�ATION AND PREPARE A PLAN TO PROPERLY MITIG,�TE THE WATER
- � _ - _ ENCOUNTERED.
� t- 1 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE THE SOILS ENGINEER TAKE COMPACTION TESTS. A
11. Fn MINIMUM OF THREE TESTS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR EACH 2 FEET OF FILL.
�
G d 0,17 SF r 10,033 SF cb rn 15 1 c_�
420 I - �' 10, 4 SF r - o,b S� - 0,056 F (� 10 48 +� 1 ,404 SF 11,825 I O �I L
O - �J ; i+ 0' '``�
Q Q d W
A t? 48 �` i ' o 0 0 0
co
Lj-- - -
--
i ,
LJ Z
uj
LAJ
i �, Ip� = j p Q
[L ((n
9
' l
- - , I
00 13,081 SF 15 9.
CJS
�� v _ ' 11, 8 •S 11, 9 SF
I pr✓
2'9
\ \ " 00
9 z n
O
( f \ O o Sr o �- cO w C�
12 0,,. _ °'
IV -
I .8 J 00 P' 7+02.48
- I
X16
�.. 23 --- ''
12,721 sF q. . 2
N I�I 11,793 S \' , 1 ,1 SF 11, 0 SF p I
(,� o O 111 SF O
� � - � - � v 13, 82 F ! ---
111 � Q,�� l � \ \ \ \\ ��' ' ' ' 1 ' I I •�
741
a
_ J I
_+ NC.SPJLE
+ r COIJCJBfp
p I I ,5, 15 SF � h3 N
` —DETN PJ
I� 1 14,845 S rh _- ' . . I
co
off - 1 ��. 6 5 I \ , ti �� CL
14, 63 SF �. O p o '
11,096 SF o' 0 3 0 2 r V
- 0 11;000 SF O p 5 Ob
- \ p O 11,000 SF 11,000 SFS 12,227 SF z
' ll I f Q
`&.
Q
G 2 _.
20 427 SF
O O r� 2 �
Ln
W
TRACT B Q
5,771 SF
NOTE: ALL ORCHARD TREES TO BE - '
1 ✓� = "I
REMOVED FROM SITE
a
12100 SW Gaarde Street - -- - -
1 of 2
W N
„W : o
. 234.94' '_ ` _ g
-- -- - - . AOR _
I
-- ----_ —- ---- n
PROJECT AMES ORCHARD
NO. 294 - 001
__.___. .. .. TYPE SITE PLAN
If this notice aimesu-s clearer than the
document, the document is of marginal quaijtY, 3/3/97
Wj �IIIII� IIIIIiI I�IIIIi�lilil I lililii�lilil I IIIIIII+IiIIIi �ililil�lilil I Illilil�lllil I Iililil�lilli I IIIIiil�lilil I lililil Viii I lililil lililCl l i l l i l l l l l I I I I f •
INCH MACE IN CHINA
IIIA►IiI►I�liil► ►nI11111111111IlIlIIII�nIilulllflll IIIIInII unllln Iliilitu IIIIInnlnnhnllllullin nnlnuLlnliunlnulunlnnlllnlulllnnlunlllllilul?Illltllnlllll nnfull SII 1
I IIII inllinlluiillnllniililiill!ullnn Inlluulnllllullnlllnnlnulnlli
r1
L N
menk
Ex�skn9fo ed Pcoe$aAf` Swale or Ditch 0
$
a
A
or CO
,[4 4
r o
Per er06 1 _ 0 P
SPocMg P,q�rlx,f�g•3� U P" Co
I
(n N
n n r Cn n1.1 1 Can1f�1/i ..�•.. _
� prop Inlet cn � �a
Radius = 25' Min. � , r n\co _ -- -
vj .} O
2x2 x3 Stekes Straw Bale Sediment Hgndboak w
With Grnte -—
i � 4
Barriers Along Stops �`"� r � � j �
Clean Pit Run or 2`- Minus Gravel/i '� ,.Min __ Bal N�
Subg ado Reinforced / ed Hay or Straw
8epth' mac/ Existing Ground 12' on Center a W O
Geotextile, as Required \ Provide Full Width of Filter fabric material 36" wide rolls. -2-2•x2'x3' Page rn
Depth Ingress/Egress area* Use staples or wire rings to attach 2" by 2 by 14 ga. wire _
• I ' each Bale W ;
fabric wire. fabric or equiv. -'- Toe of Slops, NOTES: ..:•.. � w
or Grade change1
- a.
-- \\ �20� sr Embed Bales 4 to 6 inches. ���� NOTES:
* 20 Min. for Single Family and Duplex Residential Fj';;.� ;�;-,+7 } PROQF a Drive Stakes Minimum 12" Cy 4
2•_a• ,,_.,, �,• . + Into Ground Surface.
' .I'Y n�+. i , ' { •` e Embed Bales 4 to 6 inches In round x
:�r� Filter FabricQ I �°
TEMPORARY GRAIL CONSTRUCTION - r,< ' ,�'• •- • Only to be used forinstallationsslfeet
an 014
ENTRANCE �*��!•" `'�'N�.•<>�. I I of Lees Than 200 Lineal feet and • Drive Stakes Minimum of 12" into
1 1 nr t111�'' �I i� .?�!i .iii to _ ,I� for Single Family or Duplex Residertral I Ground Surface. d W
FIGURE 3-1A .. Construction on Single Lois of Record ►�l �nM
PI_F,r� W
�'le• ""' Filter Fabric w " 4
l
I - - - eMAY. -- Stapled to Stakes Boles to Butt cti
L Stokes \�\ '/� 2-2"x2"x3' Pegs Each Bale x
2' by 4" wood posts• slandor or together W
fenceor equal alternate: steel
fence poste.
18" Min NOTE: BURY Br,TTCM Or FILTER MArFRIAI- Flow 1�w ,
(:;ravel(12' Min. Depths) IN B" BY 12' TRENCH Runoff Water o a
Runoff water with -� � = s--Filtered Water •.
Sediment � Filter fabric T . with Sedim ent
i)�Lll 2-2'x?'x3'
material _ - -- ^ � ���(! '�r.��1s WWW ll��Mcc Pegs Each Overlap edges
Sediment ' Fire ':esh with 2• by 4" by 14 go I Buried Filter Fabric— Bale p g
2--0-
Water
filler Fabric equivfobrlc� 2'B• I (Min. 4" Depth t, SECTION
Water on lop
p roe of slope Edge of Site Straw Bale Sediment Barriers >-
PLAN Clearing/Dleturbance in Ditches or Swalea co
F1LTER FABRIC INLET BARRIER STRAW BALE SEDIMENT BARRIER
"�'a ., i "F -- - FIGURE 3-7A FIGURE 3-3A
STRAW BALE SEDIMENT BARRIER
GRAVEL dl: WIRE MESH INLET BARRIER __- FIGURE 3-38
FIGURE 3-7C SEDIMENT FENCE DETAILS
FIGURE 3-2 1110 I o
\ V)
5
TEMPORARY GRAVEL
w
4'z L CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
SEDIMENT BARRIER `asp - '�, OLE
WM
-
iw .
- _ I
GAS �_ — _ _ _ 0+0
Wv _�__ +
— ti \ r++� _
,car _-s - --a----. ---_ ,- `o I E 1,. - R- - - -- _ C,
' lami._.i X.1 CCF
- -- -
- z
_�_ 20 "-Nft
Wire Screen
10,
71, E Concrete Block - rn
_ % J 1 Gravel Filter Cn M
,,
10 9k I 7j Cr) \ 7 c 'I �i aD 00
00
C { 0,17 SF N 10033 SF 0D� \ \ Q0 `� 10 4A 1 ,404 SF 11,82 I I` w
�20 ^�' rn W 10, 4 SF 0,0 SF •� 0,056 F I J l+ i1 , w
Ur Q W
O
sr / \ 48'` i 1 ISEDIMENT BARRIER _ > o
J I ' 7
-
\ \ _ .4, II
'q•.� \� - -__�8 00' 1 J. - - - - --- - --- 00' i i=' rl aro `�' �-
6
' 5:
, ! m rn z
• t N I to
S C� W
\ _ - - _ - _ _ __ - - _ l -
- -- \=t- - - - -Q - -- T- — - ^� - 93 I i iF�( Runoff Water Overflow n o
,�� with Sediment
_ ,
. 4 � 4.� 1 - - --- _ �I Wire Screen
0 1 �Q 1 :8 . ! 1 Isb
211-2419
2 1 69. r i
- Filtered
` Sediment Water Drop Inlet
13 081 SF ti
J j
t c ,
1U� • 11, 8 s � i '� 11, r SF ,398 I, � ; i r �,(� I � with Grata
PC - `J 'g' . \ \ ,\\ I,39 i p 13, F '1 1 �7 I l I I t 4 Z ! -
C� s
BLOCK & GRAVEL INLET BARRIER Z `°aC
� \ I� W
o� L,:. ► �' , 1 SF I�� FIGURE 3-78 `° o
I i• rej I .�
1 0' ` \ 12u o
,
r - ' EROSION CONTROL NOTES
Q �7 00 I p� 7+92.48\\ ! �!160.b1' � I 1 --
3 I �, i I �! i ` ! I 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL AND MAINTAII` S10N/SEDIMENTATION
-_ 12,721 SF . I � `� , ' _ , '�i ' _ . —
N ' \ 11,793 SFS 1 ,160 SF c 11, 0 SF � a 11,1 SF 13, 2 F ri 1 ' � I I I � CONTROL DURING CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN IHt PERIODS OF OCTOBER
1 f� m '- I I I�� ' 1, AND GUIDANCE NOF EACH YEAR PER THE EROSION CONTROL TECHNICAL
\��� a 'I (� HANDBOOK (ECRB) DATED JANUARY 1991. THE MINIMUM
SF' I`rr W _ EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:
' p�� < \ 1 `, ! I 1 2. SEDIMENTATION BARRIERS (SILT FENCE OR STRAW BALES SHALL BE
1�°,.- 5500 - . 11'.0 11.r)c) 111. O' _ L __ _ ...__ 5 _ ! I (+" INSTALLED DURING ANY GRADING AND CONSTRUCTICIN IN )ACCORDANCE Z
s �
9• I I I NC.SP�rL WITH ECHE. Q
I / - ' _ -
`' 1 `, _ o ' I - --�`— . 3. GRAVEL ENTRANCE ROAD SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN CL Cf)
7 CONC THE LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLANS. IF THE GRAVEL ENTRANCE ROAD N
_,15,115 SF 6�� - — - ' ! 1 I !'31 I` ETN -PLS ES NOT ADEQUATELY REMOVE DIRT AND MUD FROM WHEELS, SUCH
DO �
�' I �i i THAT MUD AND DIRT TRACKING IS EVIDEN'. ON PUBLIC ROADS, ADDI- _
! ! 1� 14, 45 I �I TIONAL MEASURES MUST BE TAKEN PER THE ECRB SECTION 3.4,1 ` Q
N) _ - _ _ _ �� / 1 ! �°'I' 4. STORM DRAIN INLETS, BASINS AND AREA DRAINS SHALL BE
cn ti� - - \ _ r \ 1 4 PROTECTED PER ECHB SECTION 3.4.10 UNTIL PAVEMENT SURFACES 0
v / 14, 83 SF `` \ �. �� 4 0 ; , I ARE COMPLETED AND/OR VEGETATION IS RE-ESTABLISHED. (� Z 0
\ �, o 0 2 5 00, I 1
11,096 SF o �� 11;000 0 11,000 SF 11 000 sF i2,2z7 sF ! ! 1 I I I 1 _�� ' S. PAVEMENT SURFACES AND VEGETATION 0
I _ Q ON ARE TO BE PLACED AS RAPIDLY Q
AS POSSIBLE. _ (� L
rti
/
Ij ' ' rI 6. SEEDING, MULCHING AND REVEGETATION SHALL BE PERFORMED AS CJ
164.D4 \ X140.65 , `� ! ` 32 SOON AS GRADING FOR EACH PHASE OF- CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE. z
_ ._ 11400 `110.00 11 J r I E
2 ! 20,427 SF -
�O 1-10 A?� ` �,! I I tri 7. RECOMMENDED EROSION CONTROL GRASS SEED MIXES ARE AS FOLLOWS: 0 O Cn
SIMILAR MiXES DESIGNED TO A!'HIEVE EROSION CONTROL MAY BE (n bi
SUBSTITUTED IF APPROVED BY WASHING TON COUNTY. (n 0 �..._
A. DWARF rPASS MIX (LOW HEIGHT, LOW MAINTENANCE): [� 0
--- _`•° ELKA DWARF PERENNIAL RYEGRASS, 80% BY WEIGHT; UJ z
CREEPING RED FESCUE, 20% BY WEIGHT. Q
ss >'r ,
TRACT B I � 1 1 ��0 APPLICATION RATE: 100 POUNDS MINIMUM PER ACRE.
5.771 SF 1 �• � � � I -
�' B. STANDARD HEIGHT GRASS MIX
0 13 `i , ANNUAL RYEGRASS, 40% BY WEIGHT;
00
1 - ''L Ty - - - TURF-TYPE FESCUE, 60% BY WEIGHT;
17a std - APPLICATION RATE: 100 POUNDS MINIMUM PER ACRE.
S. WOOD CELLULOSE FIBER SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE RATE OF ONE AND
_i ONE HALF (1-1/2) TONS PER ACRE.
q. THE EXACT TIME FOR SEEDING WILL BE DETERMINED BY ACTUAL L �
12100 SW Gaarde Street - L WEATHER CONDITInNS. THE: NORMAL SATISFACTORY PERIOD FOR (n
2 of 2 � - �- � 23 .9.4'- '�;`!�"I,f4l '_
•, —`"-"' "' ` """ '" SEFDING SHALL BE CONSIDERED BETWEEN MARCH 1 TO JUNE 1 AND
2`).�1 r„ - - - -
f `
,,
A 211 _ _ _ SEPTEMBER 1 TO OCTOBER 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE
`—` --- - OWNER EXCEPT THE CONTRACTOR MAY PERFORM SEEDING OPERATIONS PROJECT AMES ORCHARD
tI
FROM JUNE 1 TO SEPTEMBER 1 PROVIDED THAT HE WATERS THE NEW NO, 2 9 4 - 0 0 1
GRASS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER. -- -
TYPE EROSION PLAN
If this notice aPpears clearer than Ole
docttrnr�nt, the docnrllent is of, nlarl;inal quality. 3/3/97
IIiIIII� iiIIIII III! iIi� I(illli IIi(III�IIIiI I I(IIiII�III(III I( iil(I( IIiII ' I 111 , !jlll(i(( I I(I( I (I �I (I(I I I ( IIIII�I(I(I ( I(I ( ! ( I � I(ijl I I( IIIII � I ( IIIII 1 IIIIIII( I (I( I IIIII( I I ( III
INCH I MADE IN CHINA
i�tlllll11111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111113
'IIIIIIII1
IIIIIIII lllllllllll 1!111111111111IIIiIIIIIIIIIIIihIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIiIiIiiiIIII!IIIIIiIiIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIiIIiIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilllt(ll111111�11fi�
j: t hg�A1�1�`1 J.,..1:�. .. ...-. ..,..,,... -. :: ..:9�Yall J.x �.;t.Y r� � � (�. .. � ..w.v.�}k Atl�l��b•�N✓ "�4�}Y4,1111NY➢A,.N11Ailx ML•.,��\wr..t��H ,.,
I
ADDRESS: Y ,
i h.yl'
vr,
•�; �kR
�1
�i
i'
I
I
A�
a
i:'recards\micr;,flniltar.aetslbuilding.dcc
r.
I
+t`
v 4
i:.
i
CITY OF TIGARD BUILDING INSPECTION NOTICE
jjInspection Line (Rec-O-Phos e): 639-4175 Business Phone: 639-4171
Inspection:
Footing Susp. Ceiling Sprink. Rough-in Appr/Sdwlk 1
Foundation Plbg. Underslab Mech. Rough-in Fireplace
Post/BPam Struct. Plbg, Top Out Elec. Rough-in INAL:
Post/Beam Mech. Sari. Sewer Gas Line -Bidg.
Plbg. Underfloor Rain Drain Framing -Plumb.
Alarm Wate, '.ine Insulation Mach.
Underflr. Insul. Shear Wall Gyp. Bd. -Elect.
Date Requested:LL 's Time: AM _PM
Address:
Builder: Permit #: J l T
THE FOLLOWING CORnECrIONS ARE REQUIRED:
s'
j
r
----- P1 Date: . '7�
Inspector: _
APPROVED _DISAPPROVED —APPROVED SUBJECT TO ABOVE
Call For Reinsp.
y
'4
I
IF IQ-
5
December 17, 1993
/D -SSS r df
David Scott, P.E.
City of Tigard
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Ref: Bull Mountain Land & Development Company
Arlington Ridge (aka Ames Orchard II) subdivision - Tigard, Oregon
Subdivision Site Grading Improvements Performance Bond: 154146S
a
Dear David.
Enclised is the above referenced bond which is to be used to replace the $25,000 cash bond
tha' was provided to the City of Tigard in late September, 1993. We request that you return `he
$25,000 as soon as possible tc the following name and address:
Bull Moui;tain Land & Development Company
16325 S.W. Boones Ferry Road#203
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97223
.I
If you have any questions, please contact rr,e at 635-2996. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Mark Rockwell
16325 SW Boom ferry Rd Suite 203 �nke Oswego,OR 91035
503-6352996 Fnx 503W3177
is
1
l /Z) /9
Construction imsp ion & iRelated 'Tests
_,,arlson Testing, Inc.
P.O. Box 23e14
i
Tigard,Oregon 97281
Phone(503)664-3460 +
FAX#684-0954
i
i
October 21, 1993
1 CP-9115
Benchmark Land Co
16325 SW Boones Ferry Rd. , #206
Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 4
Attention: Mr. Randy Clarno
GEOTECHNI(:AL INVESTIGATION
AMES ORCHARD NO. 2 at 121st .AVE. AND GAARDE ST.
TIGARD, OREGON
Dear Mr. Clar-no:
1
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation
for the proposed Ames Orchard residential development. The purpose
of our investigation is to provide geotechnical evaluatirtzs and
recommendations in accordance with Vae guidelines of the .pity of
Tigard. This investigation was performed as per your verbal
request.
BACKGROUND
Proposed Development
We have reviewed the Site Grading Man that your Civil Engineer
provided, dated 8/93 . The plan indicates that 33 new residential
building lots will be created. A total of approximately 2 , 300 feet
of new streets are included along with utilities . The maximum
planned depth of cut and fill is approximately 14 ft. A small
storm water pond will be located at the northeast corner of the
property.
The earthwork at the site has already started. Carlson Testing is
providing testing services . It is our understanding that the city
has issued a grading penv*t with the condition that this report be
prepared verifying the suitability of the site for development,
from the geotechnical standpoint.
Site Description
The site is roughly rectangular and apprt)ximately 13 acres in size.
The site slopes gently towards the nort.ieast and elevations ranged
from 330 ft to 446 ft prior to grading. All previously existing
orchard trees had been removed prior to our site visit.
t
t
ON ofto
y
CP-91.15
Benchmark Land Co.
Page 2
Prc� ct Data '
Location -Southwest of tha intersection of SW Gaarue Road
.1
(where it ends in the west) and SW 121st Ave. (Thomas Bros .
Map 655, Grid Coluiin s: Row 5, 1993 ed. ) . I
Developer - Benchmark land Co. -- Address above on title page.
Civi). engineer - Alpha f:ngineering Inc . , Plaza West, Ste. 230,
9600 SW Oak, Portland, Oregon 97223 .
Jurisdictional Agency - City of Tigard.
GEOLOGY/SEISMICITY
The Ames Orchard site is located in the NW-trending Tualatin Basin,
a gentle syncline with faulting along its northeaster. i and eastern
margins where i.t. :.teets the Tualatin Mountains. The Tualatin Basin
reaches a maximum depth of 1500-1600 ft with several faulted or
folded structural highs within its interior. The Ames Orchard site
is located on the NE flank of one of these highs, a simple
anticline that forms Bull Mountain and exposes Miocene age ( 015
million yr) Columbia River Basalt (Tcr) . Below the surface soils
at the site, the basalt is completely decomposed to residual soils
and to saprolite at depths greater than about 15 fc. Saproli.te is
completely weathered basalt that has teen chemically altered to
variable clay minerals, but still retains morphological
characteristics of the parental basalt. Also exposed on western
portions of: the site and mixed with the alluvial silts are traces
of Pleistocene age ( -500,000 yr) loess .
Geological and seismological evidence suggests that the northwest
coast has a "locked subduction zone" which is capable of generating
very large (M8 to M9 Richter Scale) earthquakes with long durations
of shaking over a vast region. Local faulting and sei:Mici_ty are
not as well understood, but are also believed to be capable of
strong shaking. In response, Oregon State regulators upgraded the
entire Western Region to a UBC Seismic Zone 3 .
Based on review of the Beaverton quadrangle geologic map from '
Earthquake Hazard Geology Maps of the Portland Metropolitan Area
lip (USGS Open-File Report 0-90-2 ) , inferred intrabasin normal faulting
occurs along the north and east edges of Bull Mountain, 2500 ft SE
of the site and 31;00 ft north of the site; Bull Mountain is on the
upthrown side of both these inferred faults . No evidence is
currently available to determine definitively whether these
inferred Faults exists and if so, are still_ active. None of the
mapped t ilts in the area have been shown to cut Holocene deposits
of the past 11,000 years .
y
i
CP-911.5
Benchmark Land Co.
Page 3
r
To our knowledgethe property is not in an area prone to
s P
inordinate local seismic activity. The adoption of Seismic Zone 3
�
as defined by the Uniform Building Coo,:, (UBC) by the State of i
Oregon for the region west of the Cascades should be adequate for
earthquake-resistant design at the site. In our opinion, the UBC
seismic soil profile type (Table No. 23-J) that best models the
site subsurface conditions is "S1" . a
s
@ F'IELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
A description of the field exploration procedures, and t_;le test pit
logs, are presented in Appendix A. The test pit loc,9tions are
shown on the Site Plan, attached as Figure 1 . Laboratory testing
procedures and the test results are presented in Appendix B. s
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Our test pits generally encountered relatively homogeneous sandy
SILT to SILT soil (ML) with trace to some clay to a depth of about
14 ft, covered by a topsoil/cultivated zone approximately 16 to 18
inches in thickness . Below 14 ft in test pit TP-3, the residual
SILT has some sand and clay as well as some weathered vesicular
basalt. All near-surface silts ar( mixed loess and alluvial
sediments derived from residual soil and saprolite (decomposed
basalt) . Residual soil was encountered. below 14 ft. No hard rock
or difficult excavation conditions were encountered. The maximum
depth explored was 18 . 5 ft.
No groundwater was encountered. Please refer to the logs of test
pits in Appendix A for details .
i
EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
j General
It is our opinion that the proposed development is geot-echnically
compatible with the subsurface conditions encountered .in this
investigation, provided the recommendations of this report are
incorporated into the d,-sign and construction of the development.
i It is also our opinion that a separate engineering geology
investigation report is not necessary for this development. The
proposed grading is considered to be engineered grading as defined
by the Uniform Building Code. To provide the level of
documentation specified for this type of earthwork usually requires
daily observation and testing during stripping and rough grading
operations .
7l i.
CA 7
I
CP-9115
Benchmark Land Co.
Page 4 i
The near-surface on-site soils are typical of mixed loess and
alluvium soil which from our experience has a low expansion
i potential; therefore, no expansion index testing was performed as
a part of this study. The Soil Conservation Service mapping for
Washington County concurs that the soils have a low to moderate
shrink-swell rating.
Site Preparation
All. fill areas should first be c]_eired (trees, stumps, vejetation,
etc. ) and the topsoil stripped. Debris from clearing should be
removed from the site. Large tree cavities should be backfilled
I)roperly with engineered fill in structural areas . Stripped
topsoil should be stockpiled only in designated areas. Stripping
operations should be observed and documented by the Soil Engi.neer,
or his reresentat.ive. Based on our explorations, the average
depth of topsoil removal is approximately 18 in.
4
' Rough Grading
All grading should be performed in accordance with City of Tigard
requirements (UDC Chapter 70) , with the. exceptions and additions
noted herein. The native soils are at a moisture content slightly �
above the optimum for compaction and may require some drying prior
to compaction. Fill should be compacted in horizontal lifts not
exceeding 8 inches using standard compaction equipment. Wren
placing fill over areas sloping steeper. than SH: lV, the area should
be benched into the existing bank a minimum of 10 ft.
A minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density obtained from
the modified Proctor, ASTM D 1557 or equivalent standard (AASHTO T-
180) is recommended for engineered fill placed dur�_ng rough grading
operations . Field density testing should conform to ASTM D 2922
and D 3017, or D 1556 . All engineered fill should be observed and
tested by the Soil Engineer's representative. Typically densis
tests are taken at about ever_2 verticil feet for every lot1 p.
every 500yd', whi-chever requires more t_csting. If a topsoil lavc._,
is _placed on the surface _of finished lots, then the depth of
replaced topsoil should not exceed oae foot..
Earthwork should only be performed in the summer months, generally
from mid-June to mid--October, when warm dry weather is available
for proper moisture conditioning of soils .
k. . 2.
� y{!. 7.
,.
F
C
M.
1
CP-911 +
Benchmark Land Co. {
Page 5
1
S 1_ c- �
Cut and fill slopes are shown on the plan at not steeper than 2H: IV
and o* a maximum height of 15 feet. Based on our evaluation using
typical parameters for native SILTs such as those at the Ames
Orchard sitci, the proposed cut- and fill slopes have a static factor
of safety against gross instability greater than 1 . 5. ,
The near-surface native soils are generally SILT soils having low 1
cohesion. These soils can erode or surficially slump if exposed to
periods of wet weather or over-irrigation. Slope faces should be
well compacted and landscaping should be well established prior to
mid-October. Hydroseeding of slopes may be prudent. Extensive
erosion control measures should be incorporated if earthwork or
building construction extends into the Fe.11.
Drainage d
Surface .17ater drainage should be directed away from strucL.ures.
Subdrains and perimeter footing drains should be installed iii all
areas whare groundwater seepage is observed or anticipated.
Subdrains should consist of minimum 4 -inch diameter, Schedule 40
PVC perforated pipe enveloped in a minimum of 5 ft'/ft of yi" open
graded gravel wrapped with Amoco 4545 geofabric filter or
equivalent. A minimum of one-half percent fall should be
maintained throughout the drain and nonperforated pipe outlet.
Utilities
All deep excavations and shoring should conform to OSHA regulations ,
( 29 CFR Part 1526) . It is our opinion that the majority of the on-
site near-surface soils are OSHA "Type 8" Soils . The walls of
temporary construction trenches are expected to stand nearly
vertical, with only minor sloughing, to a maximum depth of 4 feet
from construction grade.
All trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent
of the maximum dry density obtained from ASTM D 698, or equivalent
standard. Typically, density tests are taken at about every 2
vertical feet for every 200 lineal feet of trench backfill. . Lift
thicknesses should not exceed 12 inches, except if manufactured
granular material is used for trench backfill, then the lifts for
large vibrating plate-type compaction equipment (e.g. hoe compactor
attachments) may be taken as great as 2 feet, provided proper
compaction is being achieved and tested at each lift. The use of
large reverberating-type compaction equipment near existing
buildings should be monitored for vibrations .
I
I
I
1
CP-9115
Benchr -irk Land Co.
Page
I ■
PVC pipe should be installed in accordance with ASTM D 2321.
procedures . Initial backfill lift thickness for a Y4"-0 crushed j
aggregate base may need to be as great as 4 feet to prevent
flattening of the flexible pipe.
Pavements
■
Based on the California Bearing Ratio tests, the equivalent design
resilient modulus used for a compacted subgr_ade is approximately
18,900 for a compacted subgrade. Assuming a 20 year design life,
the recommended pavement section is given below:
TABLE 1: RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTION s
Recommended Mi7)iPajm
Layer Thickness Recommended
(in. ) Compaction
(Standard)
T. T .=5 .0
91% of Rice
Asphaltic Concrete 3 density (AASHTO
T-209 )
Crushed Aggregate 95% of Modified
Base(Y4"-0) E Proctor(ASTM
__--
D1557)
On-site Soil 90% of Modified
IL
(Rewor_ked Subgr.ade) 12 Proctor(ASTM
D1557 )
Note: Design .in general accordance with The Asphalt
Institute, (MS-1, Sept. 1981) ?
For road construction during wet weatherer a significantly thicker
base section will be needed to support construction traffic.
Typically, subgrade, base course, and asphalt compaction testing is
performed at about every 200 to 300 feet of road. Washington
County requires pr_oofrol.ling of streets with a loaded dump truck.
Soft :+yeas whicr, rut, pump, or weave should be stabilized prior to
paving.
y
Aw
. ';Vii: 9l➢ '' T;
'R
1
CP-9115
Benchmark Land Co. ,q
Page 7 ■
Foundations
The proposed residences, of the type anticipated, can be founded on
shallow spread footings bearing on native soils or engineered fill.
For protection against frost heave, footings should have a minimum
embedment depth of. 18 inches on level ground. Zhe foot=ing widths ■
for a continuous wall and pad footings should not be less than 16 .,
and 24 inches, respectively.
As good construction practice, we suggest that a minimum of two
continuous horizontal No. 2 reinforcing bars, one near the base of
the footing and one within the stem wall, be placed in continuous
footings; if anchor bolts are positioned prior to pouring concrete!,
then the bolts can be "hooked" around the rebar in the stem wall
for additional. resistance to pullout.
The allowable bearing capacity may be taken as 2000 lb/ft'. The
coefficient of friction between soil and poured-in-place concrete
may be taken as 0. 35 . The maximum anticipated total and
40 differential footing movements (generally from settlement) are one
inch and one-half inch over a span of 20 feet, respectively.
Retaining Walls
The following equivalent--fluid lateral soil pressures are
recommended for design of any basement walls and retaining
structures using free-draining granular material as backfill and
having a level soil profile:
i
TABLE 2: RECOMMENDED LATERAL PRESSURES
SOIL PRESSURE (lb/£t')
�W TYPE Unrestrained Wa11 Restrained Wall
Active Pressure 35 -
At-rest Pressure - 55
Passiv.- 'ressure 275* - i
* The upper 0 . 5 foot should be ignored for passive
resistance
These values assume that no traffic loads, hydrostatic pressures,
or other surcharges exist. The coefficient of friction between
soil and poured-in-place concrete may be taken as 0. 35 . A wall_
drain should be placed behind and at the base of the wall . The
CP-9115
Benchmark Land Co. i
Page 8
wall drain should conform to the subdr_ain design recommendations
presented in the Drainage Section of this report. Swimming pools
should be designed using the supplier's criteria and not with the
1 above pressures . °
x GENERAL NOTES
S This report was prepared solely for the Owner and Engineer for the
design of the project. We encourage its review by bidders and/or
the Contractor as it relates to factual data only (test pits and
laboratory data) . The opinions and recommendations contained
within the report are not intended to be nor should they be
construed to represent a warranty of subsurface conditions but are
forwarded to assist in the planning and design process .
If, during construction, unexpected subsurface conditions are
encountered within excavations, we should be notified at once so
that we may review such conditions and revise our recommendations,
j.f necessary.
We would be pleased to provide addiLional input, as necessary,
during the design process and to provide on-site observation and
testing during construction. Please feel free to contact us for
Li this work as well as for any questions you might have regarding
this report.
Sincerely, P.f?
CARLSON L l'1 n+tY F C. �Q7 OREGnN \�
RUTH A.WQ.MGT?t r
147,13
3 ti35
LO Gid ;?
OREGON /
jB _ c - •r ---- BY.
James D. Imbrie, P.E. Ruth A. Wilmoth, R.G.
Vice President Senior Geologist
r
Reviewed By_
Douglas W. Leach
President
RAW/JDI
1
i
i
I �
Jr0 C d�1
I C N
(ti
SW Gaarde_R_o_ad, 0) N �u'
- ,•M. C x 0 Cl
o O
(� ()cc 4
1
:bk o ri i-
15 a 17
— - — - - - - - � - 41-3
I�
Trl '
'
`
1. Sr sol
I ;
-- - -I 160.01'
i N I
i ,� b � nl I �• 1 �� I I!'�JJfu
r �
i. 2� 1 �L. :3
1.OM 9 n.nT 7j � � 1 V 153 ---�
1
ctIof2, "1
TRACT ..11.. TP-2
Oct.1993
''° rt CP-9115
Figure 1
O �
Y,
10 ~_~` •
\
15
.10-„4
e9.00' . /.00' 5.0
-i
S A L
I I
I �� 2
fJ0 V�
13.0e1 Y I o +,.. s ,1.J 8 .3 s ,� v. � \ •,,
120. - � - �� - - �i•
' 17,771 St.
1 I 8
4 0
_SW STA DR I_ - - --
O . �.
s.,
� J
g 4 �\ g 3 � .
- ,LdM f► mono n
\ � \\ 8 11.000 Y � I,,Opn y ,� 12717
j
- - - - — - 00,
- —_11100C,
Ao
I
Reference: .Site Grading flan prepared by Alpha r'ngincering, Inc.,Sheet I of 1, "1
TRACT "R"
LEGEND:
Approximate location of test pit
S(ALL: V'-100'
0 100 200 300 400 ft
Jv
T w`Y i
v'
r
Ye J
'a
i a
�1
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
E
EXploratory Tesc Pits
Our scope of work for this investigation included three test pits.
{ The explorations are located approximately as shown on Figure 1.
The test kits were excavated on September 27, 1993 to depths
ranging from 4 . 5 to 18 .5 ft.
p ,
Within the test pits -epresentative samples of the various soil
units were taken z _aced in airtight jars and in bulk bucket
samples . Relativ, _rength measurements were made at frequent
intervals in the t �p c pits with a Pocket Penetrometer, a manually
operated device used to approximately determine the in--situ
relative strength of cohesive soils . An experienced engineer From
our firm classified the soil units, logged the test- pits, obtained �
the required samples, and generally da.rected the field exploration
operations . Logs of the exploratory test pits are presented on
Figures A-1 through A-3 .
� 4
tin
A-1
I
Y
v. ,
i
t•
f
I
Test Pit No. TP-1
Logged by: JDI Date Excavated: 9-27-93
Location: Vista Drive near lot 6ri Surface Elevation: 430±ft.
CL
E0 a) w ,, c
ca:) o Material Des^ription
vc0 a) E o c Z•
0 CL
Sandy SILT (ML), light brown, dry, loose, many roots to 16- `
1 0.0 � 11.6 in. depth. (16" Cultivated Zone)
— — — — — ----------- _-------------—
4.0
Sandy SILT (ML), orange brown, damp, medium dense.
2
3 4.0
4 - 4.0 27.3
I
5 - Becomes moist at 5 ft.
6 -
7
8 Becomes wet at 8 ft.
9
10
11
12 30.3
Bottom of test pit at 12 ft.
13 No groundwater table encountered.
14-
15-
16-
17-
(Job
4151617Job No. CP-9115 Log of Test Pit F gjure: A-1
,
,:N
Test Pit No. TP-2
Logger! by: JDI Date Excavated: 9-27-93
Location: Lot 32/33 Surface Elevation: 365 + ft.
CL
l v,
E
OL y �, o_ N Material Description
cn 2 U o
'M2" Sandy SILT with trace clay (ML), dark gray-brown, dry to
1 o-5 H 17.8 damp, loose, many roots to 18". (18"Topsoil) 4
2 1.0 SILT with trace to some clay (ML), brown, moist, soft to stiff.
r.
3 2.0
4 - 30.1
5 Bottom of test pit at 4.5 ft. 't
No groundwater table encountered.
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10-
11-
12-
13-
14-
15-
16-
%.
789101112131415 16
17 g
(Job No. CP-9115 Log of Test Pit Pi lure: A-2
'F
yrr r
it
S
r
y
f` Test Pit No. TP-3
c
Logged by: JDI Date Excavated: 9-27-93
Location: Intersection of 121 st Ames Surface Elevation: 368 +ft.
JR E
�- L_ W
t � W (11 Material Description
n oC. E c
o a cD :5V 0
Sandy SILT (ML), light gray-brown, dry, Idose.
1 � 9.8
(18" Cultivated Zone)
2 -4.5+ -- Sandy SILT (ML), brown, damp, medium dense.
3 -3.5
4 - 3.0 26.4
5
Becomes moist at 5 ft.
6 -
7 -
29.5 729.5
ti
9 , Becomes wet at 9 ft.
10
11
12
1 _ � 29.8
13
SILT with some sand and clay (ML), red-brown, wet, medium
15 stiff, some vesicular basalt
16-
17-
Bottom
617Bottom of test pit at 18.5'. No groundwater encountered.
Job No. CP-9115 Log of Test Pit Figure: A-3
t
u�
r
y *'; i
7
[�r,tAYY! 8 't �
bra t
a
s+;
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification. Water Contents and Unit Weights
Natural moisture contents were taken in jars; all samples in were
accordance with ASTM D2216 . The moisture contents are expressed as
a percentage of free water lost by evaporation compared to the dry
weight of soil. These are presented numerically on the Test Pit
Logs. '
Maximum Dry Densit 0 timum Moisture Content
Compaction tests were performed on selected bulk samples during
this study to determine the moisture-density relationships of the
on-site soils. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM D
1557 (AASHTO T-180, Method B) . The results ootained may be
compared to field dry densities for evaluating relative compaction
of compacted fill and native materials. Test- results are presented
in Table B-1 below:
TABLE B-1: Compaction Test Results
Material Description/ Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
i Location Density (lt/ft') Content (�)
Sandy SILT (ML) in TP-1108. 9 16 . 3
@ 2-4 ' depth _ _
i
1
s
rf - B-1 -
t
1
J
California Bearing_Ratio CBR
A native compacted CBR series test was conducted for purposes of
pavement design. The tests were conducted in general accordance
with ASTM D 1883 at recompacted densities bracketing the target dry
density 190% of modified Proctor) . All penetration and testing was ".
performed under a 20 lb surcharge. The densities and interpolated ■
CBR values results are presented below:
TABLE B-2: CBR Test Results
■
Material Description/ Dry Density CBR value @ 0. 1"
Location (lb/ft') penetration
Recompacted, sandy SILT 93.2 8.3
! in TP-1 @ 2 depth
i
Interpolated Value 98.0 12 .6
Recompacted, brown, SILT 105. 9 19.7
w/clay TP-2 @ 1-2 '
i
a
B-2 _
�� '�itN.�r`+i�t"(y[e::'o'M'PC k:.•'',•r..,._.•.... .,•;:ni,`IYU+:iA!"JPiSOM}FtsIN'�aA4r�d4.ppNKv4:lE.L: ! F tYYN!W:`WM[Mtirk �
%''.1 ;W65i.,ii .:.i+Gid$'A911C�Mir!Nre.+'«............,,... _...._--•.....,,._..,,rtar;
✓$1�.
r '
1
r'
'd
't
r
" CITY OF T I GARD RECEIPT OF PAYMENT RECEIPT IVO. :93-24481.5
�
44 ? CHECK AMOUNT' s 25000. 00 rh!
c,rw. ,
r t AME a NULL Mll1.IN•T A I N LAND & CASH AMOUN f 0. 00
:.; DDRESS DEVELOPMENT CO.
PAYMENT* DATE 10/05/93
b
16325 SW BOONES pr t,H Y RD SUBDIVISION s
LAKE. OSWFGO, OR 970:35–
'URPOSE OF PAYMENT AMOUN f PA 11) PURPOSE OF PAYME,N T (aIdUUN T PA I U
IS'TOMER DEPU 25000, 00
r
,yFyF
A 1�
{ IMELi ORCHARD II GRADING ASSURANC-E:
TOTAL AMOUNT PAID 25000. 00
-
1
' 1
CITY OF TIGARDITL ly,IT ,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I T # • . • • . ST T
w 1w1
13W 84Y Hell Bbd.Tigard,Oregon 97223.8100 (603)830.4+71 - =�✓��+ l'
/GV i ,1kLF,:::1.;
r'.TS1UN.
.
. . . . LU . . . . . . . . .
V,V VOLUME. 66000 r_'i
.l_1.... YU1�1 MI'..'. : .'iL'.0it !-i T. tf".,'1 Y
C�! l r,rlk' f »N Y
i ;ib1aT12!',ILr AND FILLING i':+61L10 0 '(D l N( A5 IP ER (aP!(`'HL)YLT)
Mi
,. UL.9._ MV. :..BAIT) lJc:ti'E1_U MENT CO. 1 Ype
163C• 5 SW SOONE6 FERRY RD. PRMT d 40121. SO RTw QIq
5rC',1" 1 ;?0. 03 Rl"i 0�7!A�a✓=�,;
'11;G" Cl;3w ial (in7TtiClv`i P1.,UK 10!1., G'0 fr'ri 1219/28/93
rar?� #a :fir—cla'36
' 33 Nw i1�)T FAVI.
��iDrjuit'U) W1 986411a"
Pf-w n e ?OE, 71.01,:7
his pea111t A issued sub ect to the �-eg:lations contained in tha f r �5ti0r+ cantr•ul
Tigard Municipal ode, a;att �f Lire. ecialty Codes v +
P d all o ter -�v�tia» Tr1al, 4:
apl.}licanle lawn. A; work aril be done in acid"dance wit!, F- i .l.:l Ins;per_•t ion
approved plans. This perait will expire if w3rk i, not started C3rard i n g I n ssP
within I" days 3f 15s'lance, Cr If work :s s�spendet f�, at l-ln 1)r,a i n T n%,�r
j than lee days,
li f .nal In:,pect i.nr,
Cat l "nr inswc�l_t .i�n 620--417
S
r
i
1
rr
r
a
y
r .
QQrr� 400. 50
13125 SW 1W Bl+. PLNCVRECT #
CITY OF TIGARD Tjpra,0�,9nu PERMIT # s� 1����d0 Z. Z
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(503)63"171 OAfE ISSUED
Woo
„2.S/AP � ao(QO
JOB ADDRESS: fAX MAP/LOT
SUB:�Ur1O5 ��"?-'��'c�� y LOT: _ LAND USE: _
VALUATION: '
3S ,-p
OWNER SPECIAL NOTES.
NAME: fi,i/ �r �.�r� rf= L�, r" t`/'Pla� �r�� �c • REISSUE OF:
ADDRESS: LAST REISSUE: ! •
FLOOD PLAIN/
PHONE: - z`1`>�' _ SENSITIVE [.ANO:
CONTRACTOR APPROVALS REQUIRED
NAME: I,v,"a! l °� , �/� s,� T���" PLANNING: _
ADDRESS: /7'93? lVkV -1/-s/ flGnp ENGINEERING:
FIRE DEPT: ----
PHONE: „�i c f =r'— �' c' �'ic'c' OTHER: —
CONTR. BOARD #: tC C EXP DATE: �>
IITEMS REQUIRED
I SUBCONTRACTORS-. PLUMB: _ Aez; a LIST/SUBCONTRACTORS:
l MECH: BUS TAX:
- H/ENGINEER CALCULATIONS:
NAME: 'll�,y�� �.�7P.d7�//1c I��c. TRUSS DETAILS:
ADDRESS: {7 ;� % 1"�t/ / =t =c',7ole ''G OTHER:
/a; , f-M& cw
PHONE: r%S- ' �>' �' - cY311
PROPOSED BLDG. USE:
COMMENTS: C;�D �tw+ry S:?xS���` .� Aim\ Al
I
APPLICANT SIGNATURE 14/11- -7"`
Recei,red By: _ , Date Received: —
PERMIT k ACCT # DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT PD. BAL. DUE
10-432 0'J Building Permit Fees
W 10-431 00 Plumbing Permit Fees _
10-431 01 Mechanical Permit Fees _
10-230 01 State Building Tax (5%)
Building
i
Plumbing
Mechanical _
10-433 00 Plans Check Fee
Building _
Plumbing
Mechanical
i
10-230 06 Fire _
30-202 00 Sewer Connection _
30-444 00 Sewer inspection __ I
25-448-02 Commercial TIF Fees
t. 25-448-04 Industrial TIF Fees
25-448-06 Institutional TIF Fees
25-448-03 Office TIF Fees
25-448-01 Residential Traffic Fees
25-448-05 Mass Transit TIF Fees
i
52-449 00 Parks System Oev Charge (POC)
31-450 00 Storm Drainage Syst Dev Chrg
(SSDC)
24-445-01 Water Quality (Fee in lieu of)
24-445-02 Water Quantity (Fee in lieu of)
TOTAL
om/3587P.WPF
�i
I
�J
MMMIL& 'WILL
i
f3Ull MOUNTAIN I_ANI_�AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
16325 S.W.Boones Ferry Road#206 - Lake Oswego,Oregon 97035 (!
Telephone:503.635-2996 -Fax:503.635-3122 is
September 28, 1993
Mr. David Scott P
Building Official
CITY OF TIGAR.D
I 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, Oregon 97223
Ref: Grading Permit / Ames Orchard II suboivision (SUB 93-0002).
iDear Mr. Scott:
Bull Mountain Land & Development Company has applied and paid for a grading
permit for Ames Orchard ll. We are requesting that the City of Tigard issue the
grading permit, with the following acknowledgements from Bull Mountain Land and
Development Company:
Matrix Development Corporation has filed a "Notice of Intent to Appeal" the
approval for the above referenced subdivision, resolution 93-42. In that regard,
we proceed at our risk should the subdivision approval be reversed on appeal.
,I
We do not have approved utility and construction plans. Therefore, it will be our
responsibility, if additional or modified grading is required to bring the site into
conformity with the utility and construction plans, to do so once the utility and
construction plans are approved.
Per the City's request, enclosed is our check number 1028 in the amount of
Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). The $25,000 cash payment is to serve
as financial security or bond, (until alternate security or bond in the same amount is r.
provided, at which time the City will refund the $25,000 cash payment) to assure
the City of Tigard that the site will be properly hydro-seeded upon completion of the
r excavation process, and that required erosion control measures are implemented
and properly maintained. Should we fail to hydro-seed the site in a timely and
J otherwise proper manner, or fail to implement and maintain erosion control
measures as required, the City of Tigard will be authorized to utilize all, or a portion
' of the $25,000 bond, ,o complete the hydro-seeding, and/or implement and
maintain proper erosion control measures.
Sincerely,
Mark P. Rockwell
Partner
x'
ALPHA ENGINEERING INC.
EN(�INEERIN(; . I)1:VITOPMENT SERVICES . SURVF,YING
d
I
September 23, 1993
JO: 294-001
Mr. David Scott
City of Tigard `
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
RE: AMES ORCHARD 2 GRADING INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
Dear David:
Pursuant to our recent discussion, the following pertains to the grading inspection requirements
for the aforementioned project. I have contacted Carlson Testing services who will both provide
compaction testing services and a soils investigation report. This will be performed in
conjunction with Alpha Engineering, Inc.'s own staff who will oversee the clearing, grubbing
and stripping operation.
We anticipate the site will be stripped down to a bearable surface for the placement of
engineered fills within optimum moisture levels. The final grades will be completed by placing
the stripper) materials back on the lots in 9 to 18 inch depths. Up to 9 inches in the building
envelop area, and up to 18 inches everywhere else, also within optimum moisture levels. The
strippings are to be compacted by rolling over the strippings with at least two passes by a
sheepsfoot roller.
Should you require any additional data, please feel free to call me at (.503) 452-8003.
i
Yours truly,
Ed Christensen, P.E.
Director of Engineering
cc: Randy Clarno
Jim Imbrie, Carlson Testing
i
PLAZA WP: I • 5l IIT!: ,'to • L)fi0O 1.%V. OAK • I'OWI LANI). ()iZFUI»J V'i"3 • ti01,� 45.' ,5001 • FAX 501-452-9041
I
i.
AMES ORCHARD II
SITE GRADING ESTIMATE
(UNIT PRICES PER WUBBEN)
(29 LOTS)
SCHEDULE OF PRICES
SCHEDULE A - STREET CONSTRUCTION
JOB # 294-001
Item Est . Description Unit Total
No. Qty. Price ,
1) 12 AC Clearing site from brush
and removal .
2, 500 . 00 30, 000 . 00
2) * 2900 CY Stripping topsoil in right-
'' of-way and lots . . 90 2, 610 . 00
3) * (,56,830 CYC% Excavation (total) 1 . 25 71, 037 . 50
4) * 50, 830 CY Embankment (total) _ 1 . 50 76 , 245 . 00
5) * 6300 CY Stripping - haul-off
4 . 00 25, 200 . 00
r
6) 10, 650 CY Stripping of lots 0. 90 9, 585 . 00 ):
7) 12 AC Hydroseeding 1, 140 . 00 13, 680 . 00 h'
r
TOTAL 228, 357 . 50 „ .
it
*In place measure
\ached\template
r
�x•;; � ytlN�'/,rrfy�gptnl� �u'�;aj+ 9 .,.,�,,,�,R• •,,.�P..i..,rs
s,
U�c 0'xu
r
I ti� ff<
1
�i
1
r
a q c °1
r
r
, Ng�Ma " k+ ►a ,tEe► ril MI�I
T
September 28, 1893
y.
Mr. Mark P. Rockwell
CITY OF TIFsARD
Bull Mountain Land and Development Company OREGON
16325 SW Boones Perry Road #200
Lake Oswego OR 97G35
i
Dear Mr. Rockwell:
The grading and erosion control plan for Vnes Orchard II Is approved subject to the
following conditions: •
1. A goo-technical report Is to be provided within 3 weeks, pu-suant to Chapter 70
of the UBC.
2. Professional Inspections shall be provided by the civil and Tao-technlcal engine's,
and all reports of said Inspections shall be provided to the Building Divlslon and
the Engineering Department pursuant to Section 7014 of the UBC.
3. Compaction reports shall be provided to the Building Division and the Engineering
Department.
4. The following Inspections to be made by the City shall be requested st minimum
of 24 hours in advance. (Contact Letha Thomas at Ext. 371).
A. Erosion control (prior to starting work)
B. Staking for fill and out (prior to starting work)
C. The subgrade prior to placement of fill t
D. Final grading Inspection
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at 639-4171.
Sincerely,
E
Ad�
David Scott, P.E.
C: Ed Christensen, Alpha Engineering
br/Rookw�OrFtr
'I
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 ,
T
bfll
� �, tyrMNe.Yi.AwrrM'.. •.SPC='+Y^'inWt4a�xsmr...n...a,..+wr.•., ,.«.,......,......,.._».n
I
/n
i
}ppp
' f
4
P
i 1
C 1 TY Ur T I;,,ARD — REC:E 1 PT OF PAYMFN"C' RECE 1 F'"I NO. : 93--P44579
C',I•IE=CK AMOUNT 525. :53 ! i
INAME : BULL MOIINTA is N I.-AND & DEV CASH AMOUNT 0. 00 ;
ADDRFSS : 10+3c.?5 13W BOONES' FERRY RD P'AYMEN'T DATE a 09/28 9 y
�-
-OSWE_GOSUBDIVISION
LADE , OR
97035---
PURPOSE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT VIA 11) F'I.IRF'(JTiE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT ''AID
E�UIE..I)ING PE RM SIT93- �cc: 400. 50 ST. BUILD PERMIT TAX 5% 20. 03
PLAN CWFCK FEE 105. 00
i
I
t W 121ST AND GAARDIT AVE, GRADING & FILLING ,I
66000 YDS.
101441, AMOUNT PAID - > 5j'755. 53
i
i