Final Geotechnical Engineering Report - yorkeandcurtis.comyorkeandcurtis.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Final-Geotechnical... · Final Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Retail

Terracon Consul tants, Inc. 12400 SE Freeman Way, Suite 102 Por t land, Oregon 97222 P [503] 659 3281 F [503] 659 1287 terracon.com

Final Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Retail Development

NW Spruce Avenue & NW 9th Street Corvallis, Oregon

June 21, 2012 Project No. 82115010A

Prepared for: PACLAND

Portland, Oregon

Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc.

Portland, Oregon

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................. 1

2.1 Site Location and Description ................................................................................. 2 2.2 Project Description .................................................................................................. 2 2.3 Site Reconnaissance .............................................................................................. 4 2.4 Existing Reports...................................................................................................... 4 2.5 Climate Data ........................................................................................................... 7

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 8 3.1 Published Geologic Literature ................................................................................. 8

3.1.1 Seismic Hazards ........................................................................................ 8 3.1.2 Fault Rupture Hazards ............................................................................... 9

3.2 Soil Conservation Publication Review ..................................................................... 9 3.3 Subsurface Evaluations .......................................................................................... 9 3.4 Typical Profile ....................................................................................................... 10 3.5 Groundwater Observations ................................................................................... 11 3.6 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................ 13

3.6.1 Consolidation Testing .............................................................................. 13 3.6.2 Swell Test Series ..................................................................................... 14 3.6.3 Soil Corrosion Potential ........................................................................... 14

4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ...................................... 16 4.1 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................ 16 4.2 Earthwork ............................................................................................................. 19

4.2.1 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 19 4.2.2 Site Preparation ....................................................................................... 20 4.2.3 Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................. 20 4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement .................................................................... 22

4.3 Foundations .......................................................................................................... 24 4.3.1 Design Recommendations ....................................................................... 24 4.3.2 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations .................................... 26

4.4 Seismic Considerations ........................................................................................ 26 4.4.1 Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction ...................................................... 27 4.4.2 Seismic Settlement Discussion ................................................................ 28

4.5 Floor Slab ............................................................................................................. 28 4.5.1 Design Recommendations ....................................................................... 28 4.5.2 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 29

4.6 Utility Trenching and Backfilling ............................................................................ 30 4.6.1 Utility Trenching ....................................................................................... 30 4.6.2 Utility Subgrade Preparation .................................................................... 31 4.6.3 Pipe Bedding, Haunching, and Initial Backfill ........................................... 31 4.6.4 Trench Backfill ......................................................................................... 31

4.7 Retaining Walls ..................................................................................................... 31 4.7.1 Lateral Earth Pressures ........................................................................... 31 4.7.2 Construction Considerations .................................................................... 33

4.8 Pavements ............................................................................................................ 34

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.8.1 Design Recommendations ....................................................................... 34 4.8.2 Asphalt and Base Course Materials ......................................................... 36 4.8.3 Concrete Properties and Materials ........................................................... 37 4.8.4 Construction Considerations ..................................................................... 37

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ................................................................................................. 37

APPENDIX A – FIELD EXPLORATION Exhibit A-1 Site and Exploration Plan Exhibit A-2 Site Aerial Photo and Sketch Exhibit A-3 Field Exploration Description Borings B-1 – B-6 Boring Logs (August 2011) Borings B-101 – B-108 Boring Logs (September 2011) CPT Report Cone Penetration Test Summary Borings B-201 – B-202 Boring Logs (November 2011)

APPENDIX B – LABORATORY TESTING

Exhibit B-1 Laboratory Testing Summary Laboratory Results Grain Size Determinations Laboratory Results Atterberg Limit Results Laboratory Results Consolidation Test Results Laboratory Results Unconfined Compressive Strength Tests Laboratory Results Laboratory Test Summary Laboratory Results Proctor and CBR Summary

APPENDIX C – SOIL & ROCK CLASSIFICATION Exhibit C-1 General Notes Exhibit C-2 Unified Soil Classification System

APPENDIX D – PROJECT FIGURES Exhibit D-1 Footing Drain Detail Exhibit D-2 Heavy Duty Pavement Sections

APPENDIX E – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Exhibit E-1 WRCC Summary Exhibit E-2 AASHTO Pavement Design Calculations Exhibit E-3 Geotechnical Investigation Fact Sheet Exhibit E-4 Foundation Design Criteria Exhibit E-5 Foundation Subsurface Preparation Note

Final Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Retail Store #3146-00 Corvallis, Oregon June 21, 2012 Terracon Project No. 82115010A

Responsive Resourceful Reliable Page i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Based on our analyses of the subsurface conditions and the proposed loading conditions, we have estimated total settlements to be on the order of 0.6 to 1 inch with the structural loads provided. These estimated totals would be considered to be the total settlement experienced following the construction of each individual footing (some of which are already in place). However, as the building loads are applied to the footings, primary settlement would begin. Based on the assumption that the roof loads and floor slabs final construction would be completed over time and that the majority of the dead loads would be applied to the footings by the time the roof is constructed, we estimate that total settlements following the completion of the roof and floor slabs (post-construction) would be on the order of 0.5 to 0.75 inches over the life of the structure (Assumed 20 years). In our opinion, supporting the structure on the existing footings and new footing where required is the most economical building support option. Based on the subsurface conditions and our understanding of the proposed construction, the primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed retail building development are summarized below.

Environmental Development Restrictions: Earthwork at the site will be significantly affected by the development restrictions currently in place by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Therefore, building elements should be planned so that native soils in this area will not be disturbed or disturbed as little as practical. It is not the intent of this report to address environmental contamination and/or site restrictions for development due to environmental contamination.

Seismic Settlements: Based on our analyses for liquefaction of the non-plastic soils and strain-softening of the clay soils, we estimate that about 2 to 3 inches of seismic related settlements could be experienced by the building during a code (2009 International Building Code) defined design level earthquake. The upper 20 to 25 feet of soils at the site are predominately clay type materials with intermittent non-plastic soils that are very thin (less than about 18 inches in thickness). Therefore, the majority of the liquefaction settlements is greater than 20 feet bgs and is not likely to cause bearing capacity loss. However, some excessive strain (accounted for in the 2 to 3 inches) will likely occur due to cyclic softening of the clay-like materials. Based on our previous experience with the Retailer on similar projects, we understand that these settlements are typically tolerable by the building without collapse and can be accommodated for in the structural design.

Foundations: The building may be supported on the existing and new conventional continuous and isolated spread footings bearing directly on structural fill. Existing foundations are supported on about 1-foot of granular fill. New footings within the existing building pad should be supported on a minimum of 1-foot of granular fill and new footings in


Responsive Resourceful Reliable Page ii

the loading dock expansion should be supported on a minimum of 2-feet of granular fill. Structural fill and footing subgrades should be prepared in accordance with the 4.2 Earthwork section of this report.

Near Surface Soils with Shrink/Swell Potential: The low to medium plasticity native soils

in the upper several feet have a moderate to high shrink/swell potential and must be carefully prepared, moisture conditioned, and protected from disturbance, moisture intrusion, and drying. Based on laboratory test results, we recommend a minimum of 2 feet of granular (non-plastic) soils underneath floor slabs and 1-foot of granular fill underneath footings in order to limit the maximum potential vertical rise tolerance of 1-inch by the Retailer. It appears from our explorations that the existing granular fill pad conditions are in accordance with these recommendations.

Floor Slabs: Based on the available information, the originally proposed floor slab was designed for a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 pci. This subgrade modulus does not meet the Retailer’s design requirement of 150 pci. However, based on our explorations and the fact that a minimum of about 2 feet of crushed aggregate is in place, we estimate that the 150 pci design requirement would be met with the existing subsurface conditions. Furthermore, we estimate that, based on the swell testing of the site soils that the potential vertical rise (PVR) is below the retailer’s maximum tolerance of 1-inch.

Dewatering: Relatively shallow groundwater conditions were observed in the borings. Deep utilities into the groundwater, which are reported to be at depths of 8 feet or about 10 feet below finished floor elevation, may require special handling and disposal due to the environmental restrictions. We would expect dewatering to be necessary in the retailer’s deep sanitary sewer lines. The environmental reports (under separate cover) should be reviewed and discussed with the regulatory agency prior to dewatering activities.

Moisture Sensitivity Soils and Wet Weather: The near surface native soils at the site

are fine-grained by nature and will be very moisture sensitive. Therefore, the site soils will be difficult or impossible to compact as structural fill especially when wet weather prevails. The ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill should not be planned without amendment. Unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. Stabilization measures will need to be employed should unstable subgrade conditions develop.

This summary should be used in conjunction with the entire report for design purposes. It should be recognized that details were not included or fully developed in this section, and the report must be read in its entirety for a comprehensive understanding of the items contained herein. The GENERAL COMMENTS section should be read for an understanding of the report limitation.

Reliable Responsive Resourceful Page 1

FINAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT

CORVALLIS, OREGON Project No. 82115010A

June 21, 2012

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This geotechnical engineering report has been completed for the Proposed Retail Development located in Corvallis, Oregon. Previously, Terracon prepared a Preliminary Geotechnical Review Services letter dated April 14, 2011. The current effort consisted of completing geotechnical explorations, laboratory testing, and preparing an engineering report for this project. The purpose of the geotechnical engineering evaluation was to provide information and geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations relative to:

subsurface soil conditions groundwater conditions earthwork foundation design and construction seismic considerations floor slab design and construction lateral earth parameters truck route only pavement design

This report has been prepared in general accordance with the Retailer’s Subsurface Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements dated September 22, 2011. This evaluation does not include quantitative or qualitative characterization of regulated environmental contaminants. However, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) and Limited Site Investigation report was completed concurrently by Terracon and submitted to PACLAND under separate cover (Terracon Project No. 82117017 and 82117009A, respectively). The site and exploration plans and logs of the explorations completed for the project are presented in Appendix A. The results of the laboratory testing performed on select soil samples are included in Appendix B of this report. Soil classification information sheets are included in Appendix C. Project Figures and Supporting Documents are provided in Appendices D and E, respectively.

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION

The site is generally undeveloped with the exception of a partially constructed foundation for a retail building in generally the same footprint location of the proposed retail building. The foundation was constructed in the 2008 timeframe and has not been completed since that time. The majority of the perimeter footings and interior footings with stem walls up to about the anticipated floor slab elevation have been constructed. The site contains grass covering of the


Responsive Resourceful Reliable Page 2

majority of the site, even the portion of the site that appears to have been previously stripped of surface topsoil. 2.1 Site Location and Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION

Location The site is located near the southwest corner of NW 9th Street and NW Spruce Avenue in Corvallis, Oregon.

Site boundaries

North: Northwest Spruce Avenue right-of-way and commercial/retail development further north. East: Existing OfficeMax building, asphalt pavements, a bank further east and NW 9th Street further east. South: Currently undeveloped land immediately south (with the proposed strip retail development) and multi-family residential further south. West: Single family residential development.

Site area dimensions The project site is generally the proposed building footprint, loading dock area, and appurtenances (about 40,000 square feet in total) of the larger retail development shown on the site plan.

Existing improvements

The site is currently partially developed with recently constructed footings for a roughly 30,000 SF retail building on the north portion of the site. Construction on the building was ceased in 2008. We understand that up to 5 smaller buildings along the south edge of the site were planned, but were not constructed.

Current ground cover

The site is currently covered with grass and scattered soil stockpiles, as shown on Exhibit A-2 Site Aerial Photo and Sketch. An area with woven geotextile fabric at the ground surface is located in the eastern portion of the site. Several gravel construction roads are located throughout the site.

Existing topography The site is relatively flat with overall topographic relief on the order of 2 to 3 feet (not including the soil stockpiles) generally down towards the northeast.

2.2 Project Description

ITEM DESCRIPTION Site Layout See Appendix A, Exhibit A-1, Site and Exploration Plan.

Structures The project will include a new one-story commercial retail building and loading dock with a proposed total footprint of approximately 36,000 SF. The building will either be constructed over the existing



ITEM DESCRIPTION foundations, or in the same approximate footprint.

Building construction

We have assumed that the retail building will be similar to a prototype store in construction. Typical construction consists of masonry block load bearing and non-load bearing walls, steel columns, girders, and joists for support of the roof structure, and on-grade cast-in-place floor slabs.

Finished floor elevation Currently planned at elevation 227.50 feet based on the below-referenced grading plan provided to us.

Maximum loads (provided by structural engineer)

Interior Columns: 58 kips dead load and 130.5 kips dead and snow load. Exterior Columns: 29 kips dead load and 123 kips dead and snow load. Walls: 2.5 klf non-load bearing and 2.5 klf dead load and 4.25 klf dead and snow loads for load bearing. Slabs: 125 psf uniform loading and 5-kip concentrated loading max.

Maximum allowable settlement (from Report requirements)

Total Static Settlement: ¾-inch Masonry Walls: L/900 or about ½- inch over 40 feet Maximum Allowable Seismic Settlement: 2 to 3 inches (Assumed based on similar projects per PACLAND) Maximum Allowable Potential Vertical Rise: 1-inch

Grading

Minor fills, including pavement section materials, on the order of 1 to 2 feet are anticipated across the majority of the site. We understand that excavations and replacement of a “soil disposal area” may be part of the overall development. However, this area is not part of our evaluation.

Cut and fill slopes None over 2 feet expected. Free-standing retaining walls None expected.

Below Grade Areas Loading dock ramp area, assumed to be about 4 feet below finished grade.

Pavements

We understand that no pavement improvements are the responsibility of the Retailer. Therefore, we have only considered the truck route pavements and loading dock pavements as part of our evaluation as a guide to the site developer. We have utilized the following loading conditions:

Heavy-Duty ESALS 211,700 Design Life = 20 years Minimum Thicknesses = 4 inches AC and 6 inches PCC

Off-site Improvements None anticipated as part of the Retailer’s responsibility.



2.3 Site Reconnaissance As part of our scope of work, we completed a site reconnaissance on April 12, 2011 during the preliminary evaluation and several during the current evaluation in August, September and November of 2011. All site features shown on the attached Site Sketch were visually estimated and are shown for discussion purposes only. A summary of observations are below.

LOCATION OBSERVATIONS

Building Pad

The proposed building pad appears to be shallow foundations constructed with cast-in-place concrete footings with masonry block stem-walls. There appears to be continuous perimeter wall footings and individual column pads in the interior of the building. The interior surface appears to be graded with crushed gravel for slab-on-grade floors. No walls were observed to have been constructed, but several pallets of masonry blocks were observed near the building pad.

Parking Area In general, the parking area appears to be covered with gravel near the building, and grass in other areas.

Site and Adjacent Property Features

The south half of the development site is covered with several soil stockpiles in the approximate locations shown on Exhibit A-2, which we understand from our concurrent environmental study to be excavation spoils from both topsoil stripping and footing excavations. An area covered with woven geotextile fabric was also observed in the southeastern portion of the site. The site is currently a closed construction site and is fenced off with temporary chain-link fencing. The adjacent properties to the east include an Office Max building and parking lot and an OSU Federal Credit Union building and parking lot. The adjacent properties to the west include a Grace Center for Adult Care Services building and parking lot and single-family residences. The adjacent properties to the south include multi-family residences and several small retail/commercial buildings. A strip mall is located across NW Spruce Avenue to the north.

2.4 Existing Reports We were provided with the following geotechnically relevant documents by PACLAND and the project developer for our review:

(1) “Report of Geotechnical Engineering Services, CCC Plaza, NW 9th Street and NW Spruce Avenue, Corvallis, Oregon” dated July 2, 2007, by GeoDesign, Inc. (GeoDesign).

(2) “Geotechnical Investigation – Proposed CPI Commercial Center Site, Tax Lots 1703 & 10000, NW Spruce Avenue, Corvallis (Benton County), Oregon” dated December 14, 1998 by Redmond & Associates (R&A).

(3) “Grading Plan, Sheet C3.1”, revision dated December 5, 2007, by W&H Pacific. (4) “Figure 2 Current Site Features, Triple C Plaza Site, Corvallis, Oregon” undated, by

Maul Foster Alongi, Inc. (MFA).



DOCUMENT RELEVANT INFORMATION SUMMARY

(1) GeoDesign geotechnical report

The geotechnical report for the partially constructed building foundation in the northwest portion of the site provided the most relevant geotechnical data for the site and is the basis for the majority of our discussion. Explorations and Subsurface Conditions: The geotechnical report relied entirely on explorations and laboratory testing by others, including:

7 test pit logs from 1998 by Redmond & Associates 9 test pit logs from 2007 by Foundation Engineering Inc. 1 monitoring well boring from 1998 by MFA

Numerous other explorations, including cone penetrometer test (CPT) probes, in the vicinity of the project were mentioned in the report, including those performed by GeoDesign, but were not included or appended to the report provided to us. The report describes the subsurface soil conditions to generally be “consistent” with a 12- to 18-inch thick layer of disturbed native soil (i.e., tilled zone) or gravel fill. Underlying the fill/disturbed native soils typically consisting of interbedded soft to very stiff silt and clay to a depth of approximately 20 to 25 feet below the ground surface (bgs). The soils are reportedly highly plastic near the surface and become less plastic with depth. Medium dense to dense, gray, moist, sand with silt was reportedly encountered below the silt and clay zone in the environmental borings by MFA and CPT probes (not on the site). Interbedded medium dense to very dense gravel and sand was reportedly encountered below a depth of approximately 33 feet bgs in boring MW-10. Groundwater conditions were reported to have been encountered in various explorations at depths between approximately 15 and 23 feet bgs. GeoDesign’s review of water well logs indicated static water levels in the area are between 8 and 15 feet. Seismic Hazards: GeoDesign reported that based on their research and the fine-grained nature of the subsurface soils encountered in their explorations, it was their opinion that there is a low potential for seismic hazards such as liquefaction, lateral spreading, or fault rupture affecting the site. GeoDesign classified the site as Site Class “D” according to the 2006 International Building Code and 2004 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. Foundation Recommendations: For all the proposed buildings (except Building 600 to be constructed over a contaminated soil placement area), GeoDesign recommended shallow spread footings with a minimum embedment depth of 30 inches for exterior footings and 18 inches for interior footings due to the shrink/swell potential of the high plasticity surface soils. Allowable bearing pressures of 2,000 psf were recommended. Post-construction vertical movements (settlement or swell) of 1.5 inches total with differential movements of 0.75 inch over a span of 50 feet were estimated. Helical augers (piers) or pipe piles were recommended for support of Building 600



DOCUMENT RELEVANT INFORMATION SUMMARY since environmental restrictions (to be discussed later) do not allow excavation in that area. Floor Slab Recommendations: Slab-on-grade floor subgrades were recommended to be covered with 12 inches of imported granular fill as soon as possible after grading to prevent disturbance and/or excessive drying. Floor loads of 150 psf were anticipated, and a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 psi/in was recommended. Pavement Recommendations: Traffic volumes for the CCC Plaza development were much lower than the proposed Retailer’s ESALs. The CCC Plaza heavy duty pavement were designed for 130,000 ESALs (closest to the proposed Retailer’s standard duty pavement ESALs) and are summarized below: Heavy Duty Asphalt Concrete (AC): 4” AC over 13.5” aggregate base (AB) over “normal” subgrades and 17.5” AB over “Soil Placement Area” (i.e., contaminated area where no excavation is allowed). Cement amended areas were reported to be designed for 4” AC over 7.5” AB over 12” cement amended subgrade for heavy duty traffic. Portland Cement Concrete (PCC): 6” PCC over 8” AB for loading docks and crosswalks. A design California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test was not performed, but several resilient modulus values were assumed depending on the pavement area and whether cement amendment was to be performed. It should be noted that the above pavement section recommendations were based on an Initial and Terminal Serviceability Index of 4.2 and 2.5, respectively, which varies from the proposed Retailer’s design requirements. Other Considerations: GeoDesign stated that a primary concern was the high plasticity and related shrink/swell potential of the near surface soils. Cement amendment is recommended by GeoDesign to reduce the shrink/swell potential of the soils. Earthwork would be further complicated by the environmental restrictions placed on earthwork at the site, as discussed in the following summary from the GeoDesign report:

Soil excavated from the upper 15 feet shall not be transported off-site or shall be disposed of off-site in accordance with applicable hazardous waste regulations.

Soil within the “Soil Placement Area” shall not be disturbed. Soils greater than 15 feet bgs may not be exposed or excavated unless the material is “managed and disposed off the property in accordance with all applicable waste management regulations.”

Potable water shall be used for dust control during construction. Information on the environmental history of the site and DEQ development restrictions can be found in our concurrent Phase I ESA and Limited Site Investigation reports under separate covers.

(2) R&A geotechnical

No field exploration or laboratory testing was provided in the copy of the report Terracon received.



DOCUMENT RELEVANT INFORMATION SUMMARY report Foundation Recommendations: Recommended shallow foundations supported

directly on medium stiff native clay or 1-foot of granular fill. Recommended allowable bearing pressures of 2,000 psf to 3,500 psf, respectively. Total settlement estimated was 1½ inches. Floor Slab Recommendations: Slab-on-grade floor subgrades were recommended to be covered with 6 inches of imported granular fill. A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 150 psi/in was recommended.

2.5 Climate Data Based on the local weather conditions described in the Climatic Atlas of the United States published by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Western Regional Climate Center, wet weather conditions at this site could be anticipated between about October through May. Weather data from the Western Region Climate Center (WRCC) states that the average annual precipitation at the Corvallis State University, Oregon (351862) station is approximately 40.96 inches. Between June and September the average monthly precipitation is about 0.89 inches while the average monthly precipitation between November and March is about 5.93 inches. Average annual snowfall is about 5.9 inches. A summary of relevant climate data for each month at the WRCC station is as follows:

Month Average

High Temp. (oF)

Average Low Temp.

(oF)

No. Of Days High Temp. <

32oF

No. Of Days Low Temp.

< 32oF

Mean Precip. (in)

Mean Snowfall

(in)

January 45.7 33.2 1.3 14.2 6.63 2.9

February 50.3 34.9 0.2 10.4 5.06 1.2

March 55.2 36.9 - 7.2 4.34 0.4

April 61.0 39.6 - 3.0 2.57 -

May 67.3 43.9 - 0.4 1.97 -

June 73.2 48.5 - - 1.23 -

July 81.0 51.4 - - 0.36 -

August 81.4 51.1 - - 0.54 -

September 75.5 47.6 - 0.1 1.46 -

October 64.5 42.2 - 1.8 3.16 -

November 52.7 37.8 0.1 7.1 6.48 0.2

December 46.6 34.6 0.8 11.6 7.16 1.2

Annual 62.9 41.8 2.4 55.8 40.96 5.9



The WRCC Monthly Climate Summary data for the referenced station is presented in Appendix E of this report.

3.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

3.1 Published Geologic Literature Based on published geologic maps1,2 the geology underlying the site is mapped as fine-grained facies of the Quaternary outburst flood deposits, often referred to as “Willamette Silts.” This material is defined as interbedded fine sand, silt, and clay mixtures deposited by backwater from the outburst floods from Glacial Lake Missoula. These deposits are often semi-consolidated from desiccation and/or subsequent high flood waters and are generally 20 to 30 feet in thickness in the site vicinity. The Willamette silt deposit generally forms a relatively flat surface across the Willamette valley and is underlain by Middle terrace deposits that consist of sand, gravel, silt and clay mixtures. The terrace deposits are alluvial deposits from the Willamette River. In the vicinity of the site, the basin fills (Willamette silts and Middle terrace deposits) are reported to be on the order of about 100 to 150 feet below the ground surface. The basin fills are reported to be underlain by Eocene age (38 million years or older) sedimentary rock formations. In general, the soils encountered in the borings for this project are consistent with the geologic maps. Based on nearby well log data obtained from the Oregon Water Resources Department website available online and published geologic literature, the sands and gravels derived from the Middle terrace deposits are expected to be present to significant depths (+/-50 ft) and underlain by similarly dense granular and very stiff fine-grained materials to over 100 feet in depth. Therefore, it is our opinion that sufficient information is publically available regarding the soils at depths up to 100 feet bgs that a 100-foot boring is not necessary in order to classify the site soils for the seismic site classification. 3.1.1 Seismic Hazards The Oregon State of Oregon, Department of Geology and Mineral Industries, Interpretive Map Series, IMS-24, “Identified Landslides Hazard Map and Relative Earthquake-Induced Hazard Maps for Six Counties in the Mid/Southern Willamette Valley Including Yamhill, Marion, Polk, 1 Oregon Geologic Data Compilation (ODGC) – Release 5 of the Oregon Geologic Data Standard, compiled by Lina Ma, Ian P Madin, Keith V Olson, and Rudie J Watzig, published by Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (2009). 2 United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1424-A - Geologic Framework of the Willamette Lowland Aquifer System, Oregon and Washington, Marshall W Gannett and Rodney R Caldwell, published by U.S. Geological Survey (1998)



Benton, Linn, and Lane Counties, Oregon” (2008) indicates that the project site is situated in an area with a low relative liquefaction hazard and a high relative ground-shaking amplification hazard area. The site vicinity is mapped as a low landslide hazard area. It should be noted that the “low” liquefaction hazard mapping designation is bracketed by “rare” and “very low” on the lower end and “moderate”, “high”, and “very high” on the higher end. The “low” designation may indicate a relatively thin layer(s) of liquefiable sediments in relation to the other categories. 3.1.2 Fault Rupture Hazards We reviewed the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program Quaternary Faults and Folds Database available online (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/usmap.php). The nearest fault to the project site is the Owl Creek fault, approximately 3 miles east of the project site. According to this source, the fault has been mapped as a normal fault with an average strike of N5ºE and an Easterly dip direction. The fault is in the slip rate category of less than 0.2 mm/year. Based on the information described above, it is our opinion that the risk associated with surface rupture at the site is low. 3.2 Soil Conservation Publication Review The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service has published a series of soil surveys with typical soil properties located within each county of Oregon. Terracon reviewed the online version of the USDA Soil Conservation Service publication in Benton County, Oregon. One soil type is mapped across the site and is identified as Dayton Silt Loam. Below is a table summary of relevant information within the online survey data:

Soil Type USCS Classification

Liquid Limits

Plasticity Index

Corrosion of

Concrete

Corrosion of Steel

pH Hydrologic Group

Dayton silt loam

ML, CL, CH, CL-ML

25-70 5-45 Moderate Moderate 4.5-7.3

D

3.3 Subsurface Evaluations Subsurface conditions for the subject site were evaluated in multiple events:

August 28 and 29, 2011 where 6 borings were completed in conjunction with the environmental site investigations.

September 7 through 9, 2011 where 8 additional borings and one Cone Penetrometer Test were completed within the building pad and truck-route.

November 15, 2011, where two supplemental borings were completed within the building pad for additional laboratory testing and supplemental analyses.



Soil descriptions presented in this report are based on the subsurface conditions encountered at specific exploration locations across the site at the time the explorations were performed. The subsurface conditions encountered are summarized below while the interpretive logs of the explorations are presented in Appendix A. The approximate exploration locations are presented on the Site and Exploration Plan (Exhibit A-1). Descriptions of the field procedures and equipment used are presented in Appendix A along with the northings, eastings, and ground elevations of the boring locations. 3.4 Typical Profile Based on the results of the explorations, we have generalized the subsurface conditions within the proposed building pad as follows:

Stratum Approximate Depth to Bottom of Stratum (feet) Material Encountered Consistency /

Density

Stratum 1 (Fill)

2 to 3½

Sandy, crushed gravel - approximate 1-inch minus

crushed aggregate underlain with a geotextile fabric

Medium dense, damp to moist

Stratum 2 (Lean

Clay & Silt) 24 to 29

Interbedded lean clay, silt, and sandy lean clay, low to medium plasticity, occasional seams (4 to 12 inches) of non-plastic silt

with fine sand

Soft to stiff, wet

Stratum 3 (Sand)

33½ to 37 and Undetermined: Borings terminated within this stratum at the planned depth

of 31½ feet.

Fine sand with variable amounts of silt and clay Medium dense, wet

Stratum 4 (Gravel)

Undetermined: Borings B-102, B-105, B-106, and B-2, where this stratum was encountered,

were terminated at the planned depths of 36½ to 41½

feet.

Sandy gravel with variable amounts of silt

Very dense

Variations in subsurface conditions may exist between the exploration locations and the nature and extent of variations between the explorations may not become evident until construction. Specific conditions encountered at each exploration location are indicated on the individual exploration logs. Stratification boundaries on the exploration logs represent the approximate location of changes in soil types; in-situ, the transition between materials may be gradual. Details



for each of the explorations can be found on the exploration logs included in Appendix A of this report. The borings completed for this project did not encounter buried debris. While borings did not encounter these materials, it does not preclude their presence on-site. Based on historic use of the site, remnant foundations or slabs, abandoned utilities, or other buried debris associated with the previous site use could be encountered. However, we do not expect significant amounts of these materials (aside from the constructed footings on-site) since we did not observe them on-site or encounter them in the explorations and the building pad has already been graded. 3.5 Groundwater Observations The borings were observed while drilling and after completion for the presence and level of groundwater. Some borings were able to be observed following a 24 hour period. In Boring B-1, a vibrating wire piezometer was grouted in-place within the borehole. A summarizing of the groundwater conditions in the current borings at the time of drilling is presented in the following table. Only the borings that encountered groundwater are summarized within the table.

Boring Number Depth to groundwater while drilling, ft.

Depth to groundwater after drilling, ft.

B-101 11 11

B-102 11 N/M

B-103 11 14

B-104 NE 14 (24 hrs)

B-105 11 14 (24 hrs)

B-106 10½ 10½

B-1 19 N/M*

B-2 20 N/M

B-3 15 N/M

B-201 14 12

B-202 20 N/M N/E = not encountered (no groundwater observed) N/M = Shallow borings were not left open where water was not encountered since temporary wells and environmental sampling performed. * Vibrating wire piezometer

Groundwater conditions (including quantity, duration of flow, and soil moisture conditions) should be expected to vary with changes in season, precipitation, site utilization, and other on-



and off-site factors not evident at the time the explorations were completed. The chart below shows groundwater elevation at the vibrating-wire piezometer.

Groundwater was not observed in the remaining borings while drilling, or for the short duration that the borings were allowed to remain open. However, this does not necessarily mean these borings terminated above groundwater, or that the water levels presented in the table above are stable groundwater levels. As shown in the chart, groundwater level fluctuations occur due to seasonal variations in the amount of rainfall, runoff and other factors not evident at the time the borings were performed. Therefore, groundwater levels during construction or at other times in the life of the structure may be higher or lower than the levels indicated on the boring logs. It should be noted that the groundwater levels reported above were measured at the end of summer and in the fall, which is typically associated with seasonal low ground water levels. The possibility of groundwater level fluctuations should be considered when developing the design and construction plans for the project.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

140

142

144

146

148

150

152

154

9/12/11 9/22/11 10/2/11 10/12/11 10/22/11 11/1/11 11/11/11

Prec

ipita

tion

(in)

Elev

atio

n (ft

)

Date of Groundwater Reading (days)

GW Elev Ground Surface Elevation: MAX MIN Rain Data



3.6 Laboratory Testing Note that due to environmental conditions of soils at the site, soil samples were not stored for the duration of the Retailer’s requirements. The soil samples were placed back at the site in the required soil stockpiles for re-use on the site. Samples retrieved during the field exploration programs were returned to the laboratory for observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were visually or manually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System described in Appendix C. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and are presented on the exploration logs and in Appendix B. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable local standards or other accepted standards. Note that due to environmental contamination of soils at the site, soil samples were not stored for the duration of the Retailer’s requirements. The soil samples were placed in the drums on-site for disposal.

3.6.1 Consolidation Testing One consolidation test was performed to determine the compressive characteristics of the site soils. The test results are presented in Appendix B, and the engineering properties used in our engineering evaluation are summarized below.

Boring/ Sample

Preconsolidation Pressure (psf)2

Virgin Compression

Ratio1

Recompression Ratio1

Secondary Compression

Ratio1

Coefficient of Vertical

Consolidation1

B-3, S-7 (13 ft)

4,600 0.2 0.015 0.002 0.5 ft2/day

B-201, S-1 (3½ ft)

4,000 0.1 0.011 0.001 0.4 ft2/day

B-201, S-5 (13 ft)

2,800 0.2 0.015 0.003 1.7 ft2/day

B-202, S-3 (7 ft)

5,800 0.22 0.01 0.001 0.5 ft2/day

B-202, S-5 (10½ ft)

3,800 0.19 0.02 0.001 0.1 ft2/day

1. Parameters are as measured in the consolidation tests and are based on percent strain. 2. Preconsolidation pressure determined using strain energy consolidation method.



3.6.2 Swell Test Series A series of swell tests were completed on one Shelby tube sample at in-situ moisture content and drier than in-situ moisture contents. The drier samples were tested for swell at various loading conditions prior to inundating the samples. The test results are presented in Appendix B and are summarized below.

Boring / Sample

Moisture Content (%)

(Start / Finish)

Swell at ¼ ksf (%)

Swell at ½ ksf (%)

Swell at 1 ksf (%)

Swell at 2 ksf (%)

B-103, S-2 (4 to 4½ ft)

37 / 40 0.2 %

10 / 33 8%

11 / 31 4.9%

B-103, S-2 (4 to 4½ ft)

7 / 28* 1.5%*

10 / 33 3%

* Sample consisted of silt seam within overall sample. Remaining samples consisted of lean clay.

Based on the results of the tests summarized above, we have estimated that the maximum swell from soils at the site being dried and then allowed to re-wet, varies from about 8 percent to 3 percent depending on the confining pressure. The soils were left out to dry in our laboratory with air flow over the sample for a little over 24 hours in order to allow the samples to dry. Therefore, we would consider these moisture contents to be near the lowest possible from soils being exposed to air during construction. Based on the moisture contents of the soils in-situ, the soils at depths greater than about one foot bgs would not be expected to dry to the extents tested. In our opinion, the maximum depth to possibly experience the level of drying in our laboratory tests is about 1 to 2 feet. 3.6.3 Soil Corrosion Potential Results of the pH and resistivity testing are presented below in the following table:

Boring/Sample Number Depth (ft) pH Resistivity

(ohm-cm)

B-101, S-2 2½ 6.4 2,000

B-104, S-2 2½ 6.7 2,200

B-106, S-2 2½ 5.6 2,300



The electrical resistivity of each sample listed above was measured in the laboratory with distilled water added to create a standardized condition of saturation. Resistivities are at about their lowest value when the soil is saturated. Electrical resistivity of soils is a measure of their resistance to the flow of corrosion currents. Corrosion currents tend to be lower in high resistivity soils. The electrical resistivity of the soils varies primarily with its chemical and moisture contents. Typically, the lower the resistivity of native soils the more likely that galvanic current may develop and increase the possibility of corrosion. Based on laboratory test results, resistivity values for the near surface native soils ranged from approximately 2,000 to 2,300 ohm-cm. Soils with resistivity values below 2,000 ohm-cm are generally associated with soils classified as “very severe to severely corrosive” towards buried metal objects while soils with resistivity values between 2,000 and 5,000 ohm-cm are generally associated with soils classified as “corrosive”. The pH levels are considered to be essentially neutral and are generally associated with low corrosion rates in carbon steel. With respect to the need for protection of buried metal pipes, we recommend that the design engineers consult with the manufacturers of specific products in order to determine the need for protection. Based on the resistivity values, the existing site soils would be generally classified as “very severely corrosive to severely corrosive” towards buried metals and we recommend specifying non-metallic pipes where possible and consider protection wrapping. It is our opinion that Type I or Type II cement is suitable for this project.



4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

4.1 Geotechnical Considerations The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated to develop geotechnical related design and construction recommendations for the proposed site development. Terracon prepared a DRAFT Initial Geotechnical Engineering Report for this project on September 30, 2011 and attended a subsequent project meeting with the PACLAND design team and the developer’s design team on October 24, 2011. New information relative to the project permitting requirements was presented and discussed during this meeting. We were provided a copy of a portion of the original geotechnical report for the permitted project prepared by Redmond and Associates and dated December 14, 1998. Following our project meeting, Terracon was provided revised building loads anticipated for this project by the project structural engineer (BCRA, Inc.). These loads were significantly less than the guideline loads presented in the Retailer’s geotechnical guidelines in the Subsurface Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements dated September 22, 2011. Therefore, supplemental explorations, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses were completed with the new information. Based on our analyses of the subsurface conditions and the proposed loading conditions, we have estimated total settlements to be on the order of 0.6 to 1 inch. These estimated totals would be considered to be the total settlement experienced following the construction of each individual footing (some of which are already in place). However, as the building loads are applied to the footings, primary settlement would begin. Based on the assumption that the roof loads and floor slabs final construction would be completed over time and that the majority of the dead loads would be applied to the footings by the time the roof is constructed, we estimate that total settlements following the completion of the roof and floor slabs (post-construction) would be on the order of 0.5 to 0.75 inches over the life of the structure (Assumed 20 years). Typically, in our experience, we have utilized the total estimated settlement in comparison to the Retailer’s requirements. However, this project is unique in that there are significant limitations in the existing building permit that prohibit certain footing modifications without obtaining new permits. In addition, we understand that if new permits are required, significant impacts to the project schedule (and possible project viability) would be experienced. Therefore, we recommend the retailer and the design team consider utilizing the existing foundations (with modifications for the exterior perimeter footings) as they currently exist. We have estimated that the total settlements should not exceed 1 inch (greater than the 0.75 requirement). However, post-construction settlements should not exceed 0.75 inches. In addition, we would expect that differential settlements would be on the order of 0.5 inches in 40 feet for masonry walls and less than 0.96 inches between columns, which meet the Retailer’s requirements for the differential settlement tolerances.



In our opinion, supporting the structure on the existing footings and new footing where required is the most economical building support option. Should the design team and the Retailer desire that the interpreted settlement requirements are the total calculated settlement without regard to final construction timelines and the calculated settlements are not acceptable, then support of the existing foundations will require deep foundations. Terracon contacted local piling contractors to estimate the cost impact of this alternative. Deep foundations would consist of underpinning the existing foundations and new footings with 4- to 6-inch diameter steel pipe piles. We have estimated in previous correspondence that underpinning would add about $150,000 to the project for the piles. This total would not include additional structural ties and modifications that may be required for the underpinning attachment to existing footings. Based on the subsurface conditions and our understanding of the proposed construction, the primary geotechnical considerations associated with the proposed retail building development are summarized below.

Environmental Development Restrictions: Earthwork at the site will be significantly affected by the development restrictions currently in place by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). Therefore, building elements should be planned so that native soils in this area will not be disturbed or disturbed as little as practical. It is not the intent of this report to address environmental contamination and/or site restrictions for development due to environmental contamination. Terracon is providing environmental consulting services relative to environmental concerns and/or hazards and is summarized under separate cover.

Seismic Settlements: Based on our analyses for liquefaction of the non-plastic soils and

strain-softening of the clay soils, we estimate that about 2 to 3 inches of seismic related settlements could be experienced by the building during a code (2009 International Building Code) defined design level earthquake. The upper 20 to 25 feet of soils at the site are predominately clay type materials with intermittent non-plastic soils that are very thin (less than about 18 inches in thickness). Therefore, the majority of the liquefaction settlements is greater than 20 feet bgs and is not likely to cause bearing capacity loss. However, some excessive strain (accounted for in the 2 to 3 inches) will likely occur due to cyclic softening of the clay-like materials. Based on our previous experience with the Retailer on similar projects, we understand that these settlements are typically tolerable by the building without collapse and can be accommodated for in the structural design.

Foundations: The building may be supported on the existing and new conventional continuous and isolated spread footings bearing directly on structural fill. Existing foundations are supported on about 1-foot of granular fill. New footings within the existing building pad should be supported on a minimum of 1-foot of granular fill and new footings in the loading dock expansion should be supported on a minimum of 2-feet of granular fill.



Structural fill and footing subgrades should be prepared in accordance with the 4.2 Earthwork section of this report.

Near Surface Soils with Shrink/Swell Potential: The low to medium plasticity native soils

in the upper several feet have a moderate to high shrink/swell potential and must be carefully prepared, moisture conditioned, and protected from disturbance, moisture intrusion, and drying. Our laboratory tests indicate vertical swell percentages vary from 8 to 3 percent (by height) if dried then saturated and was about 0.2 percent at the in-situ moisture content when saturated. Based on these results, we recommend a minimum of 2 feet of granular (non-plastic) soils underneath floor slabs and 1-foot of granular fill underneath footings in order to limit the maximum potential vertical rise tolerance of 1-inch by the Retailer. It appears from our explorations that the existing granular fill pad conditions are in accordance with these recommendations.

Floor Slabs: Based on the available information, the originally proposed floor slab was designed for a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 pci. This subgrade modulus does not meet the Retailer’s design requirement of 150 pci. However, based on our explorations and the fact that a minimum of about 2 feet of crushed aggregate is in place, we estimate that the 150 pci design requirement would be met with the existing subsurface conditions. Furthermore, we estimate that, based on the swell testing of the site soils that the potential vertical rise (PVR) is below the retailer’s maximum tolerance of 1-inch. Therefore, we recommend that a minimum of 2 feet on non-expansive granular fill be maintained underneath the floor slab and base course.

Dewatering: Relatively shallow groundwater conditions were observed in the borings. Deep utilities into the groundwater, which are reported to be at depths of 8 feet or about 10 feet below finished floor elevation, may require special handling and disposal due to the environmental restrictions. We would expect dewatering to be necessary in the retailer’s deep sanitary sewer lines. The environmental reports (under separate cover) should be reviewed and discussed with the regulatory agency prior to dewatering activities.

Moisture Sensitivity Soils and Wet Weather: The near surface native soils at the site are

fine-grained by nature and will be very moisture sensitive. Therefore, the site soils will be difficult or impossible to compact as structural fill especially when wet weather prevails. The ability to use native soils from site excavations as structural fill should not be planned without amendment. Unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. Stabilization measures will need to be employed should unstable subgrade conditions develop. .



4.2 Earthwork The following presents recommendations for building pad preparation, excavation, subgrade preparation and placement of structural fills on the project. The recommendations presented for design and construction of earth supported elements including foundations, slabs and pavements are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. 4.2.1 Construction Considerations The near surface native soils encountered in the borings for this project consist of clay to silt materials and in a moisture condition much greater than 2 percent over optimum moisture content. Therefore, the site soils are considered to be moisture sensitive and will be difficult or impossible to compact as structural fill. Accordingly, the ability to use native soils (aside from environmental contaminant considerations) from site excavations as structural fill will depend on their moisture content at the time of earthwork, the prevailing weather conditions when site grading activities take place, and the proposed location for reuse. At the time of our study, moisture contents of the surface and near surface soils ranged from just above (2 to 5 percent) optimum moisture content (16 percent as determined by ASTM D698) to more than 20 percent over optimum. Therefore, it is likely that over-optimum soils will be encountered during construction and in order to use soils that are wet of the optimum moisture content, the soils will need to be dried by aeration during dry weather conditions, or an additive, such as cement, may be needed to stabilize the soil. In addition, in order to protect the subgrades from disturbance, a rock protective mat or cement-modifying may be required during wet weather. Otherwise, the subgrades could become disturbed from additional moisture (wet weather) or construction traffic and would be rendered unsuitable. Upon completion of filling and grading, care should be taken to maintain the subgrade moisture content prior to construction of floor slabs and pavements. Construction traffic over the completed subgrade should be avoided to the extent practical. The site should also be graded to prevent ponding of surface water on the prepared subgrades or in excavations. Unstable subgrade conditions could develop during general construction operations, particularly if the soils are wetted and/or subjected to repetitive construction traffic. Stabilization measures will need to be employed if unstable subgrade conditions develop. The contractor is responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations (including utility trenches) as required to maintaining stability of both the excavation sides and bottom. Excavations should be sloped or shored in the interest of safety following local and federal regulations, including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards.



4.2.2 Site Preparation Stripping, excavation, grading, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and provide proper control of erosion. Accumulated water must be removed from subgrades and work areas immediately, or allowed to substantially drain, prior to performing further work in the area. Equipment access may be limited and the amount of soil rendered unfit for use as structural fill may be greatly increased if drainage efforts are not accomplished in a timely sequence. Site preparation in the truck-route will require removing surface vegetation and remaining organic-rich topsoil or other deleterious materials in planned loading dock expansion, appurtenance, and pavement areas. Organic-rich topsoil and native soils were observed on the order of about 6 to 12 inches within our explorations (and previous explorations by others). In the loading dock area, we estimate an average of about 10 inches of stripping required based on our explorations. Actual removal depths should be determined at the time of grading based on the subgrade material’s stability and organic content. We recommend stripping topsoil to depths that expose soils with less than 5 percent. 4.2.3 Subgrade Preparation After site preparation is completed and prior to placement of new fill, we recommend that the exposed subgrades be observed and evaluated for the presence of soft, loose or unsuitable materials. We recommend proofrolling the subgrades in the floor slab areas of the building pad to help locate weak or unstable areas at or just below the exposed subgrade level. Proofrolling should be performed using heavy rubber-tired equipment, such as a fully-loaded dump truck, having a minimum gross weight of about 20 tons. Subgrades within footing excavations should be undercut a minimum of 1-foot (within the existing fill pad) and 2-feet within new loading dock expansion areas to allow for granular fill placement and to expose medium stiff native silt and clay. Unsuitable areas identified by proof-rolling and/or hand-probing by the owner’s representative should be overexcavated and/or stabilized as described in this section. Based on the outcome of the proofrolling operations, some overexcavation or subgrade stabilization should be expected, especially during wet periods of the year as described in the previous section and in the areas along the truck-route and loading dock ramp. Methods of stabilization, which are outlined below, could include scarification and recompaction, removal of unstable materials and replacement with granular fill (with or without geotextiles), or cement modification. The most suitable method of stabilization, if required, will be dependent upon factors such as schedule, weather, and size of area to be stabilized and the nature of the instability.

Scarification and Recompaction – It may be feasible to scarify, dry, and recompact the granular fill soils present on-site. The fine-grained clay and silt materials will likely not be feasible to stabilize by this method nor should they be allowed to dry out in order to achieve compaction requirements. The success of this procedure would depend



primarily upon favorable weather and sufficient time to dry the soils. Even with adequate time and weather, stable subgrades will not be achievable if the thickness of the soft soil is greater than about 1 to 1½ feet. Limited use of this stabilization method should be expected.

Granular Fill - The use of crushed stone or gravel could be considered to improve

subgrade stability. Typical undercut depths would range from about ½ foot to 2 feet. The use of high modulus geotextiles i.e., engineering fabric, such as Mirafi HP370, could also be considered depending on the soil conditions and possible underground work planned in the area. Equipment should not be operated above the fabric until one full lift of granular fill is placed above it. The maximum particle size of granular material placed immediately over geotextile fabric or geogrid should not exceed 2 inches. This method of stabilization should be limited to the extent practical because of the potential for soil management of the native soils above and beyond the normal construction practices due to the potential environmental contamination present.

Chemical Stabilization – For wet, unstable soils, stabilizing the subgrades with portland cement could be considered. Chemical modification should be performed by a pre-qualified contractor having experience with successfully stabilizing subgrades in the project area on similar sized projects with similar soil conditions. We estimate that this method will be utilized on-site for stabilizing native subgrades since the preferred method for soil management of environmental contaminated soils is to manage them in-place. However, it is our experience that chemically modified soils are not desirable within the building pad due to the added corrosion potential to sub-floor utilities.

Overexcavations should be backfilled with structural fill material placed and compacted in accordance with this section of this report. Subgrade preparation and selection, placement, and compaction of structural fill should be performed under engineering controlled conditions in accordance with the project specifications. Subgrade Protection: Native silt and clay soils will be sensitive to construction traffic during prolonged periods of wet weather. If it becomes necessary to protect the subgrade, we recommend that exposed subgrades should be covered with a rock protective layer consisting of 3- to 6-inch quarry spalls (outside the building pad area), free-draining Select Fill, Crushed Rock Base Course, or crushed recycled concrete of equivalent gradation. If wet weather or wet subgrade conditions necessitate protection, we recommend that the contractor be responsible for determining the minimum thickness of the protective layer, based on the conditions at that time. In addition, the native subgrades should not be allowed to dry-out. Their moisture content should be maintained near the in-situ moisture content to prevent the risk of future shrink/swell from occurring.



Frozen Subgrade Soils: If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, all exposed subgrades should be allowed to thaw and then be recompacted prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill or foundation components. Alternatively, the frozen material could be excavated from the subgrade to reveal unfrozen soil prior to placing subsequent lifts of fill or foundation components. The frozen soil should not be reused as structural fill until allowed to thaw and adjusted to the proper moisture content, which may not be possible during winter months. 4.2.4 Fill Materials and Placement All fill materials should be inorganic soils (with less than 3 percent organics) free of vegetation, debris, roots and sticks larger than ½ inch in diameter and rock fragments larger than six inches in size. Within the upper two feet in the building pad, the maximum aggregate size should be reduced to 2 inches. Our recommendations below are for imported materials for the following:

foundation backfill exterior slab areas building pad areas truck-route pavement areas interior floor slab areas

Soils and aggregates for use as fill material within the site should conform to the following specifications based on the 2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction (OSSC):

Fill Type 1 Specification Acceptable Location for Placement

Common Fill OSSC Section 00330.13 Selected General Backfill2

All locations across the site, except within building pad and appurtenances Dry weather only

Select Fill OSSC Section 00330.14 Selected Granular Backfill3

All locations across the site. Wet and Dry weather acceptable.

Subbase Select Fill with additional stipulations4

Subbase course material for pavements and floor slabs.

Crushed Rock Base Course

(CRBC)

OSSC Section 02630.10 Dense Graded Aggregate (1”-0) with the

modification that less than 8% pass the No. 200 sieve as

determined by ASTM D 422.

Finished base course materials for pavements and floor-slabs.

Trench Backfill

OSSC Section 00405.14 for Trench Backfill, Classes B through E with additional

stipulations6

For placement as trench backfill where seepage conditions are encountered and if necessary for

achieving compaction of initial lift. Otherwise, acceptable materials include Common and

Select Fill listed above.



Fill Type 1 Specification Acceptable Location for Placement

Utility Subbase

Stabilization

OSSC Section 00330.14 for Selected Granular Backfill above water groundwater

seepage and OSSC Section 00330.16 for Stone

Embankment Material with additional stipulations6

12-inch compacted lift in wet or soft subgrades encountered in trench base and other utility excavations.

Bedding & Haunching

OSSC Section 00405.13, Pipe Zone Material

Minimum 6 inches below the utility pipes up to a minimum of 6 inches above the utility pipe.

1. Controlled, compacted fill should consist of approved materials that are free (free = less than 3% by weight) of organic matter and debris (i.e. wood sticks greater than ½ inch in diameter). A sample of each material type should be submitted to the geotechnical engineer for evaluation.

2. Material within the upper 2 feet of finished subgrade in pavement and building pad locations shall have a minimum laboratory CBR equal to or greater than 5% at 95% compaction.

3. Material should have a maximum aggregate size of 2 inches, and a minimum laboratory CBR of 20%, and no more than 8% passing the No. 200 sieve by weight determined by ASTM D 422.

4. Material shall have a minimum laboratory CBR equal to or greater than 40% at the specified minimum compaction percent.

5. The contractor shall select the appropriate material for use based on the current and forecasted weather conditions at the time of construction.

6. Maximum aggregate size shall be limited to 2½ inches. If open-graded materials with large void spaces, such as quarry spalls, are used over the fine-grained native soils, we recommend that the materials be placed over a geotextile fabric separator to prevent fines migration as well as to stabilize the subgrade. The geotextile fabric should be a woven product (Mirafi HP570 or equivalent). The following compaction requirements are recommended for the prepared subgrade and structural fill expected to be placed for this site:

Item Description Fill Lift Thickness

Common Fill, Select Fill, Subbase and CRBC: 8 inches or less in loose thickness when heavy, compaction equipment is used.



Item Description

Compaction Requirements 1

Within the Building Pad Limits and upper 2 feet of pavement subgrade: 95% of the material’s maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557) for granular materials and 98% of the material’s maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698) for fine-grained materials. Outside Building Pad Limits, within pavement areas and greater than 2 feet below subgrade: 92% of the material’s maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557) for granular materials and 95% of the material’s maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698) for fine-grained materials. Retaining Wall Backfill: 92 to 95% of the material’s maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557) for granular materials and 95 to 98% of the material’s maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698) for fine-grained materials. All other areas: 90% of the material’s maximum modified Proctor dry density (ASTM D1557) for granular materials and 92% of the material’s maximum standard Proctor dry density (ASTM D698) for fine-grained materials.

Moisture Content

Granular materials: Within ±2 percent of optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D 1557. Fine-grained materials: Within -0 to +3 percent of optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D698.

1. We recommend that engineered fill be tested for moisture content and compaction during placement. Should the results of the in-place density tests indicate the specified moisture or compaction limits have not been met, the area represented by the test should be reworked and retested as required until the specified moisture and compaction requirements are achieved.

4.3 Foundations We recommend the proposed building be supported by a shallow, spread footing foundation system bearing on a minimum of 1 to 2 feet of granular Select fill over subgrades prepared in accordance with Subgrade Preparation section of this report. Design recommendations for shallow foundations for the proposed structure are presented in the following paragraphs. 4.3.1 Design Recommendations

DESCRIPTION Column Wall Net allowable bearing pressure 1 1-foot Select Fill over medium stiff silt/clay in existing fill pad 2-feet Select Fill over medium stiff silt/clay in loading dock expansion area

2,000 psf

2,000 psf

2,000 psf

2,000 psf

Minimum dimensions 24 inches 18 inches

Minimum embedment below finished grade for frost protection and moisture content fluxuations2

30 inches 18 inches



DESCRIPTION Column Wall Approximate total static settlement 3

Approximate Post-Construction total settlement

1 inch <¾ inch

1 inch <¾ inch

Estimated differential settlement 3 < ¾ inch between columns

<½ inch over 40 feet

Allowable passive pressure 4 240 psf/ft

Allowable coefficient of sliding friction 4 0.35

1. The recommended net allowable bearing pressure is the pressure in excess of the minimum surrounding overburden pressure at the footing base elevation. Assumes any unsuitable fill or soft soils, if encountered, will be undercut and replaced with structural fill.

2. And to reduce the effects of seasonal moisture variations in the subgrade soils. For perimeter footing and footings beneath unheated areas.

3. The foundation settlement will depend upon the variations within the subsurface soil profile, the structural loading conditions, the embedment depth of the footings, the thickness of compacted fill, and the quality of the earthwork operations. The above settlement estimates have assumed that the maximum footing width is 8½ feet for column footings and 2 feet for continuous footings.

4. The value presented is an equivalent fluid pressure. The sides of the excavation for the spread footing foundation must be nearly vertical and the concrete should be placed neat against these vertical faces for the passive earth pressure values to be valid. Passive resistance in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile should be neglected.

The net allowable bearing pressures presented in the table above may be increased by one-third to resist transient, dynamic loads such as wind or seismic forces. Please note that lateral resistance to footings should be ignored in the upper 12-inches from finish grade. Footing Drains We recommend that footing drains be installed around the perimeter of the proposed building at the base of the foundations. Drains are also recommended behind all retaining and loading dock walls. Footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40, rigid, perforated PVC pipe placed at the base of the heel of the footing with the perforations facing down. The pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of clean free-draining granular material. Drain rock material should conform to Granular Drain Backfill of 2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction section 00430.11. We recommend placing a non-woven geotextile, such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent, above the free draining backfill and below the overlying fill material. Footing drains should be directed toward appropriate storm water drainage facilities. Water from downspouts and surface water should be independently collected and routed to a suitable discharge location.



4.3.2 Shallow Foundation Construction Considerations The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water and loose soil and rock prior to placing concrete. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become excessively dry, disturbed or saturated, or frozen, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete. Place a protective layer of crushed rock over the bearing soils if the excavations must remain open over night or for an extended period of time. If disturbed bearing soils are encountered in footing excavations, the excavations should be extended deeper to suitable soils. Overexcavations for compacted backfill placement below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings at least 8 inches per foot of overexcavation depth below footing base elevation. The overexcavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation with Fill Materials and Placement section of this report. The overexcavation and backfill procedures are described in the adjacent figure. Final exterior grades should promote free and positive drainage from the building areas at all times. Water must not be allowed to pond or to collect adjacent to foundations or within the immediate building area. We recommend that a gradient of at least 3 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet from the building perimeter be provided, except in paved locations. In paved areas, a minimum gradient of one percent should be provided. 4.4 Seismic Considerations

Description Value

2009 International Building Code Site Classification (IBC) 1

F1

Site Latitude 44.586º N

Site Longitude 123.259º W

Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 0.805g

S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.393g

1. The 2009 IBC and 2010 Oregon Structural Specialty Code require a site soil profile determination extending to a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current scope does not include the required 100 foot soil profile determination. Borings extended to a maximum depth of about 41½ feet, and this seismic site class definition considers that very dense to hard soil as noted on the



Description Value published geologic mapping and as encountered in the boring continues below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to deeper depths would be required to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration. As discussed in the Published Geologic Literature section of this report, we would interpret that site soils encountered at the site are representative of the soils to a depth of 100 feet. It is our opinion that a 100-foot boring is not necessary to classify the soil site class because sufficient information is publically available to meet the requirement.

As discussed below and in the geology section of this report, the site soils have a high risk of liquefaction and cyclic strain softening. Consequently, we have classified the Soil Site Class as F and site specific response analysis may be required to determine spectral accelerations. However, Section 20.3.1 of ASCE 7-05 allows site coefficients Fa and Fv to be determined from Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2 for structures with fundamental periods of vibration equal to or less than 0.5 second. We understand, based on our experience with structures similar to the proposed development, that the fundamental period of the structure is less than 0.5 seconds. Therefore, Site Class D was used to determine the values of Fa and Fv in the following table.

Site Class D Spectral Response Accelerations

Fa site coefficient 1.178

Fv site coefficient 1.614 4.4.1 Earthquake-Induced Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction is the phenomenon where saturated soils develop high pore-water pressures during seismic shaking and lose their strength characteristics. This phenomenon generally occurs in areas of high seismicity, where groundwater is shallow and loose granular soils or relatively non-plastic fine-grained soils are present. Soft to stiff silt and clay was encountered in the building borings to a depth of about 25 feet bgs. Groundwater was estimated as shallow as 8 feet for our evaluation. Underlying the silt and clay was medium dense to dense sand (about 5 to 10 feet in thickness) and further by very dense gravels. As part of this geotechnical evaluation, we performed a site-specific liquefaction analysis using the methods based on empirical methods originally developed by Seed and Idriss and subsequently modified by others. We utilized the continuous soil profile from the CPT test to evaluate the liquefaction potential of the site soils. The latest recommended procedures were presented by Idriss and Boulanger (2008). The peak ground acceleration and moment magnitude used in the analysis were based on IBC derived ground motions for the design earthquake. Because the site soils are generally plastic in nature, liquefaction within the upper 20 to 25 feet of the site is expected to be very limited. However, the medium dense sands



between 25 and 30 feet have a low to moderate risk of liquefaction. In addition, plastic soils are near their liquid limit between 10 and 15 feet bgs and have a moderate to high risk of strain softening (a condition where excessive strain occurs under cyclic loading). Based on our analyses, we estimate that about 2 to 3 inches of seismic related settlements are likely to occur during a design level seismic event; however, we do not expect the soils within the footing bearing zone to be compromised from a bearing capacity standpoint. 4.4.2 Seismic Settlement Discussion The 2009 IBC and 2010 Oregon Structural Specialty Code require that liquefaction analyses be completed assuming a substantial earthquake with associated ground accelerations that are provided in the International Building Code (IBC). It is not the intent of the codes to require a building to be in an operable condition after such event. Rather the codes’ philosophy for seismic design is based on life safety with the intent of preventing building collapse as a result of such a design earthquake. Owners should understand that buildings may not be in an operational condition after such a design earthquake and significant repair or even building replacement may be necessary. It therefore seems reasonable that designing a building for the potential impacts of seismic settlement resulting from a design earthquake event should be based on the premise of preventing building collapse. Our design recommendations in this report are predicated on the assumption that the seismic related settlements will be able to be accommodated by the structural design. The owner must become involved with the decision making process when it is determined that a building can tolerate predicted seismic settlements without collapse. Based on our experience with buildings of similar size and construction, we anticipate that the above mentioned settlements do not exceed the range of tolerance for preventing collapse. Should the settlements not be within tolerance or damage during a design level earthquake are not acceptable to the owner, additional mitigation measures, such as pile foundations, would be necessary to prevent or limit seismic settlements to within acceptable tolerances. 4.5 Floor Slab 4.5.1 Design Recommendations

Description Value

Interior floor system Concrete slab-on-grade supported on structural fill.

Base 6 inches of CRBC Base Course (also capillary break material)

Subbase3 Minimum 24 inches of Select Fill (recommended for support)

Modulus of subgrade reaction 150 pci for point load conditions.



Description Value

1. Floor slabs should be structurally independent of any building footings or walls to reduce the possibility of floor slab cracking caused by differential movements between the slab and foundation.

2. The floor slab design should include a capillary break, comprised of free-draining, compacted, granular material, at least 6 inches thick. Free-draining granular material should have less than 8 percent fines (material passing the #200 sieve).

3. The recommendations for materials for support of the slabs have considered locally available materials and cost for comparable materials. Since this site is a net import for materials, no costs above and beyond normal construction costs for the site are expected to achieve the recommended properties above.

If the material becomes segregated during spreading, we recommend that areas of CRBC be keyed with choker material conforming to the gradation requirements of ASTM D-448, grading No. 10, with 6 to 12 percent passing the U.S. No 200 sieve. The choker should be less than ¾ inch thick. From a geotechnical standpoint, the use of a vapor retarder beneath the interior slabs is not considered necessary. However, we anticipate that some moisture will develop beneath the slab as a result vapor migration through the soil. We recommend that the floor slab designer determine if the moisture collection beneath the slab will adversely affect the performance of the floor and the various floor coverings that may be placed on the floors. If a vapor barrier is to be used, we recommend using a puncture-resistant product that is classified as a Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E 1745. To avoid puncturing of the vapor retarder, construction equipment should not be allowed to drive over any vapor retarder material. The slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and/or ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder. 4.5.2 Construction Considerations On most project sites, the site grading is generally accomplished early in the construction phase. However as construction proceeds, the subgrade may be disturbed due to utility excavations, construction traffic, desiccation, rainfall, etc. As a result, the floor slab subgrade may not be suitable for placement of base rock and concrete and corrective action will be required. We recommend the area underlying the floor slab be rough graded and then thoroughly proofrolled with a loaded tandem axle dump truck prior to final grading and placement of base rock. Particular attention should be paid to high traffic areas that were rutted and disturbed earlier and to areas where backfilled trenches are located. Areas where unsuitable conditions are located should be repaired by removing and replacing the affected material with properly compacted fill. All floor slab subgrade areas should be moisture conditioned and properly compacted to the recommendations in this report immediately prior to placement of the base rock and concrete.



4.6 Utility Trenching and Backfilling 4.6.1 Utility Trenching We recommend that utility trenching, installation, and backfilling conform to all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations such as OR-OSHA and OSHA regulations for open excavations. Some excavation bank stability problems for utility construction may occur where excavations extend into native soils or soils with elevated moisture conditions. Excavations for utilities below about 10 feet below the finished floor elevation are expected to encounter groundwater seepage. Where water is encountered in excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement. If dewatering becomes necessary, it should be designed and maintained by the contractor. Depending on the season of the work, groundwater seepage elevations may be higher than that encountered in our borings. Dewatering should be designed and maintained by the contractor. It is possible that pumped sumps and/or some form of perched water cutoff may be necessary for excavations that penetrate into perched groundwater zones. Dewatering: Seasonal groundwater should be expected within excavations approaching or exceeding 10 feet in depth. We provide the following recommendations for incorporation into the project specifications with respect to dewatering:

The contractor should be made responsible for designing, permitting, and constructing dewatering system using accepted and professional methods consistent with current industry practice to eliminate water entering the excavation under hydrostatic head from the bottom or sides.

It needs to be clear to the contractor that the dewatering system should not be dependent solely upon sumps or pumping water from within the excavation which could continue to worsen the integrity of the excavation’s stability, the surrounding ground, and subgrades.

The dewatering system should be of sufficient size and capacity to prevent ground and surface water flow into the excavation and to allow work to be installed in a dry condition (i.e. no standing water) that maintains stability of the subgrade soils.

The contractor should be responsible for obtaining discharge permits and designing settling basins, as necessary by permit, for the pumped water and performing water quality testing that may be required by regulatory agencies including but not limited to Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. All data and other submittals required by regulatory agencies shall be submitted to the owner and Civil Engineer.

Please note that water pumped from mobile sumps and pumps will likely be relatively turbid and the contractor should be prepared to provide a settling pond or other filtration methods to meet requirements of the discharge permit. The size of the pond or portable tank and time the water



remains in a settlement pond or other alternate structure is highly dependent on the contractor’s methods and the volume of water being pumped. 4.6.2 Utility Subgrade Preparation We recommend that all utility subgrades be firm and unyielding and free of all soils that are loose, disturbed, or pumping. Such soils should be removed and replaced, if necessary. If utility foundation soils are soft and/or excessively wet, we recommend that they be overexcavated of 12 inches and replaced with compacted fill per section Fill Materials and Placement of this report. The necessary depth of excavation would need to be determined in the field by a qualified representative of the Construction Testing Laboratory (CTL) per the Retailer’s typical project requirements. It may be necessary to place a geotextile fabric over the native subgrade soils if they are too soft, to provide a separation between the bedding and subgrade soils. 4.6.3 Pipe Bedding, Haunching, and Initial Backfill We recommend that pipe zone material conform to material specifications as presented in Section 00405.13, Pipe Zone Material, of the 2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. We recommend a minimum of 6 inches of bedding material be placed in the trench bottom for flexible pipes. Bedding material should conform to material as defined in Section 00405.12, Bedding, of the 2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. All trenches should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of the pipe. 4.6.4 Trench Backfill The native soils are not suitable for utility trench backfill due to the elevated moisture content, high clay content, and relatively low compacted strength. All trench backfill should be placed as structural fill and compacted to the levels recommended within this report. All trenches should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of the pipe. 4.7 Retaining Walls Reinforced concrete walls with unbalanced backfill levels on opposite sides should be designed for earth pressures at least equal to those indicated in the following table. We understand that below grade walls are planned in the loading dock area. 4.7.1 Lateral Earth Pressures Earth pressures will be influenced by structural design of the walls, conditions of wall restraint, methods of construction and/or compaction and the strength of the materials being restrained. Two wall restraint conditions are shown. Active earth pressure is commonly used for design of free-standing cantilever retaining walls and assumes wall movement. The "at-rest" condition assumes no wall movement. The recommended design active and at-rest lateral earth



pressures do not include a factor of safety and do not provide for possible hydrostatic pressure on the walls.

Earth Pressure Conditions

Coefficient for Backfill Type

Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf)1

Surcharge Pressure, p1 (psf)

Earth Pressure, p2 (psf)

Active (Ka) Select Fill - 0.28 35 (0.28)S (35)H

Common Fill - 0.32 40 (0.32)S (40)H

At-Rest (Ko) Select Fill - 0.44 55 (0.44)S (55)H

Common Fill - 48 60 (0.48)S (60)H

Ultimate Passive (Kp)

Select Fill - 3.5 390 --- ---

Common Fill – 3.1 340

1. The equivalent fluid pressures recommended in this table are based on soil unit weights anticipated for locally available materials ranging from about 110 pcf to about 125 pcf

Applicable conditions to the above include:

For active earth pressure, wall must rotate about base, with top lateral movements of about 0.002H to 0.004H, where H is wall height.

For passive earth pressure to develop, wall must move horizontally to mobilize resistance.

Uniform surcharge, where S is surcharge pressure. Soil backfill weight a maximum of 125 pcf. For seismic surcharges, we recommend a 6H uniform surcharge pressure for the active

case and a 10H uniform surcharge pressure for the at-rest case be incorporated into the design.



Horizontal backfill compacted between 92 and 95 percent of modified Proctor maximum dry density for granular fill and 95 to 98 percent of standard Proctor maximum dry density for fine-grained fill.

Loading from heavy compaction equipment not included. No hydrostatic pressures acting on wall. No dynamic loading. No safety factor included in soil parameters. Ignore passive pressure in frost zone. Heavy equipment should not operate within a distance closer than the exposed height of

retaining walls to prevent lateral pressures more than those provided. Additional recommendations may be necessary if differing conditions from described above are to be included in the design. For the granular values to be valid, the granular backfill must extend out from the base of the wall at an angle of at least 45 and 60 degrees from vertical for the active and passive cases, respectively. To calculate the resistance to sliding, an ultimate value of 0.55 should be used as the ultimate coefficient of friction between the footing and the underlying soil. The above table does not include factors of safety and should be considered ultimate values. The purpose of the safety factor for the coefficient of friction and passive coefficient is that the wall footings would need to translate a significant distance in order to develop the full ultimate capacity. Therefore, the design values should include a factor of safety for limited translation and we recommend a factor of safety of about 1.5. Fill against foundation and retaining walls should be compacted to densities specified in the Earthwork section of this report. Compaction of each lift adjacent to walls should be accomplished with hand-operated tampers or other lightweight compactors. Over-compaction may cause excessive lateral earth pressures which could result in wall movement. 4.7.2 Construction Considerations To control the water level behind walls, we recommend a perimeter drain be installed at the foundation level as shown on the Footing Drain Detail (Exhibit D-1) and described in the following notes.

Free-draining Granular Wall Backfill (2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction section 00510.12) should be placed a minimum width of 12 inches behind the back of the wall and extend down the heel of the footing to the drain rock around the perforated pipe.

Minimum 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40, rigid, perforated PVC pipe placed at the base of the heel of the footing with the perforations facing down. Cleanouts should be provided as needed.

The pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of clean free-draining granular material. Drain rock material should conform to Section 00430.11, Granular Drain



Backfill Material, as presented in the 2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. We recommend placing a non-woven geotextile, such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent, above the free draining backfill and below the overlying fill material.

Drainage pipe could be omitted if weep holes that are hydraulically connected to the granular drainage material are installed through the face of the wall, and the discharge water is conveyed away from the wall or other structures. The weep holes should be spaced at a maximum 8 feet on-center.

Exterior ground surface should consist of a 12-inch thick impervious soil cap or paved and sloped to drain away from walls.

4.8 Pavements Pavement subgrades for the truck-route are expected to consist of native silt and clay. We recommend that all fill used to raise low areas must have pavement support characteristics at least equivalent to the existing soils and must be placed under engineering controlled conditions. Recommendations regarding subgrade preparation are provided in Earthwork section of this report. The pavement support characteristics of subgrade soils can be improved by amending the soils with cement. This may also be necessary during wet weather conditions to provide a stable subgrade over the wet season. If soil-cement amendment is proposed, we can perform a test mix program to determine the optimum cement content, and reanalyze the pavement section to reduce the overall section thickness. 4.8.1 Design Recommendations It must be recognized that pavement design is a compromise between high initial cost and little maintenance on one side and low initial cost coupled with the need for periodic repairs. As a result, the owner has provided reliability design expectation for an appropriate pavement section to meet their criteria. Critical features which govern the durability of the surface include the level of compaction of the subgrade, the stability of the subgrade, the presence or absence of moisture, free water and organics, the fines content of the subgrade soils, the traffic volume, and the frequency of use by heavy vehicles. Our recommendations are based upon a 20-year design life. The pavement design recommendations assume that the subgrade and any structural fill will be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in this report. Design of new pavements for the project has been based on the procedures outlined in the 1993 Guideline for Design of Pavement Structures by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Soil Design Values: Terracon completed one California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test on representative native soil samples and a CBR value of just below 5 percent was obtained.



However, once these values are seasonally adjusted based on weather climate and drainage conditions, we used a design CBR value of about 2 percent in the design. Traffic Design Values: Traffic loading provided for heavy-duty pavements consists of 211,700 18-kip ESALs over 20 years. Other design parameters used in the design included initial serviceability = 4.2, terminal serviceability = 2.0, reliability = 85%, and standard deviation = 0.45 for flexible pavements and 0.35 for rigid pavements. Recommended alternatives for flexible and rigid pavements, summarized for each traffic area, are as follows:

Traffic Area

Recommended Asphalt Pavement Section Thickness (inches) Asphalt

Concrete Surface

Base (CRBC) Subbase Total

Heavy Duty 4 12 - 16 Heavy Duty Alternate 4 6 10 20

Traffic Area Recommended Concrete Pavement Section Thickness (inches)

Portland Cement Concrete Surface Base Subbase Total

Heavy Duty 6 ½ 8 - 14 ½

Heavy Duty Alternate 6 ½ 4 12 22 ½ Truck Loading and

Dumpster Pad Areas 7 6 - 13

Pavement design calculations are provided in the Appendix E. Re-evaluation of the recommended pavement sections may be necessary if the actual traffic varies from the assumed criteria outlined above. The pavement sections recommended in the table above are not intended for construction traffic. If the pavements will be constructed early during the construction sequence, such that they will be subjected to construction traffic, then provisions should be made for completing repairs to the roadway and placing a new wearing surface just prior to the Grand Opening. As previously stated, haul roads and laydown areas should be included in project planning to provide access to the building area during construction.



4.8.2 Asphalt and Base Course Materials Specifications for manufacturing and placement of pavements and crushed base course should conform to specifications presented in Section 00745, of the 2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. Specific recommendations for asphalt concrete and crushed rock base course (CRBC) are provided below.

Asphalt: We recommend that the asphalt cement binder conform to Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction Section 745.11 for PG 64-22, Performance Graded Asphalt.

Asphalt Mix Aggregate: We recommend using a mix with aggregate meeting the gradation requirements for ½-inch Dense as presented in Section 745.12, Broadband Limits for Dense Graded Mixes. ¾-inch Dense would be acceptable for the base lift of asphalt, not the top lift. However, based on our experience, it is unlikely for the contractor to place two separate mix designs on the same project. Therefore, the ½-inch is recommended for the project.

Asphalt Mix Design: The job mix formula should meet the requirements for Level 3 dense graded mixtures as presented in Section 745.13 of the Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction, for heavy-duty pavement. The job mix formula and quality control testing of the formula should be less than one year old.

Recycled Asphalt Product (RAP): We recommend no more than 15 percent RAP be used in the mix design for this project (based on Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction Minor HMA specifications section 00744 for requirements of blended asphalt on RAP percentages greater than 15).

Crushed Rock Base Course: We recommend that the crushed aggregate base course conform to gradation specifications presented in Section 02630.10, Dense Graded Aggregate, grading 1”-0, with the modification that no more than 8 percent pass the No. 200 sieve using the ASTM D 422 test method (i.e., washed sieve).

Compaction – Asphalt Courses: We recommend that asphalt be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent of the Rice (theoretical maximum) density.

We contacted Knife River Materials, one of the largest suppliers of pavement materials in the area, with respect to current material availability. The above specified materials are both locally available and are standard products that should be cost-effective for flexible pavement design and construction.



4.8.3 Concrete Properties and Materials Concrete pavement design recommendations are based on an assumed modulus of rupture of 580 psi and a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi for the concrete. It is our opinion that concrete pavements should be reinforced and have relatively closely spaced control joints on the order of 15 to 20 feet. We recommend that minimum reinforcement consist of 6x6-W2.0xW2.0 welded wire or equivalent. The welded wire reinforcement should be terminated 3 inches on either side of all construction, contraction and expansion joints. We further recommend that, at a minimum, loading dock pavements be reinforced with #3 bars on 15 inch centers, each direction. We recommend that contraction joints be spaced no greater than 12 feet apart. For areas subject to concentrated and repetitive loading conditions such as dumpster pads, truck delivery docks and ingress/egress aprons, we recommend using a concrete pavement with a thickness of at least 7 inches underlain by at least 6 inches of crushed gravel. Prior to placement of the crushed stone the areas should be thoroughly proofrolled. For dumpster pads, the concrete pavement area should be large enough to support the container and tipping axle of the refuse truck. 4.8.4 Construction Considerations Materials and construction of pavements for the project should be in accordance with the requirements and specifications of this report and the 2008 Oregon Standard Specifications for Construction. Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for through an on-going pavement management program in order to enhance future pavement performance. Preventative maintenance activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventative maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for pavements.

5.0 GENERAL COMMENTS

Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide observation and testing services during grading, excavation, foundation construction and other earth-related construction phases of the project.



The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report. This report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings, across the site, or due to the modifying effects of construction or weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation and supplemental recommendations can be provided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold, fungi, bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or prevention of pollutants, hazardous materials or conditions. If the owner is concerned about the potential for such contamination or pollution, other studies should be undertaken. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices for the exclusive use of Walmart Stores, Inc., PACLAND, and their respective successors and assigns, for specific application to the project location and stated purpose. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing.

APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION

SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN

PROPOSED RETAIL STORE #84440 NW SPRUCE AVE AND NW 9TH STREET

CORVALLIS, OREGON

A-1 4103 SE International Way, #300 Portland, Oregon 97222

PH. (503) 659 3281 FAX. (503) 659 1287

82115010A

12/19/2011

KTH

KTH

TAJ

KTH

IF SHOWN

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

EXHIBIT

82115010AFIG DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT

INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5

B-6

B-101 B-102

B-103 B-104

B-105 B-106

B-107 B-108

B-1

B-101

BORING NUMBER AND

APPROXIMATE LOCATION

(AUGUST 2011)

BORING NUMBER AND


(SEPTEMBER 2011)

LEGEND

B-201

B-202

CPT-1

CPT-1 CPT NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE

LOCATION (SEPTEMBER 2011)

B-201

BORING NUMBER AND


(NOVEMBER 2011)

DIAGRAM IS FOR GENERAL LOCATION ONLY, AND IS NOT

INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

4103 SE International Way, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97222

PH. (503) 659-3281 FAX. (503) 659-1287

A-2

EXHIBITSITE AERIAL PHOTO AND SKETCH

PROPOSED RETAIL STORE #84440NW 9th Street and NW Spruce Avenue

CORVALLIS, OREGON

Project Manager:

Drawn by:

Checked by:

Approved by:

KTH

CAB

LRY

KTH

Project No.

Scale:

File Name:

Date:

82115010A

Not to Scale

Sept. 2011

Source: USGS 7.5 Minute Corvallis, Oregon Quadrangle

SPA covered

with geotextile

Soil Stockpiles

Building Foundation

Approximate Site Boundary

Approximate footprint of former CPI building (circa 1963-1978)

Office MaxOSU Federal

Credit Union

Strip Retail Center

NW Spruce Avenue

Knects Auto Supply

Apartments

Sin

gle

Fam

ily R

esid

ential

Kentucky Fried Chicken

Splish Splash (auto wash)

Key Bank

LEGEND

Former Circle 9

Drycleaners

Final Geotechnical Engineering Report Proposed Retail Development Corvallis, Washington June 21, 2012 Terracon Project No. 82115010A

Exhibit A-3 Page 1

Field Exploration Description Our subsurface exploration program for this project included three phases of explorations (August, September, and November of 2011).The borings’ locations were determined in the field by Terracon personnel with survey level GPS equipment, in order to satisfy the Subsurface Investigation Specifications and Report Requirements. As such, the exploration locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The approximate locations of the explorations are presented on Exhibit A-1, the Site and Exploration Plan. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the exploration. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosed in this appendix. Our exploratory borings were advanced using truck-mounted drill rigs operated by independent drilling firms working under subcontract to our firm. The borings were completed utilizing hollow-stem auger methods. A geologist from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. Samples were stored in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing. Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 2.5- to 5-foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test Method. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or “blow count” (N value). If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Relatively intact samples were obtained by pushing a 3-inch outside diameter, seamless steel Shelby tube into the soil using the hydraulic system on the drill rig in accordance with ASTM D 1587. Since the thin wall tube is pushed rather than driven, the sample obtained is considered to be relatively intact. The samples were classified in the field by examining the ends of the tube prior to sealing with plastic caps. The samples were then transported to our laboratory where they were extruded for further classification and laboratory testing. One cone penetrometer test (CPT) probe was completed near the center of the building pad. The CPT probe was advanced with using a truck mounted rig operated by an independent firm working under subcontract to our firm. A continuous log of the probe hole was obtained. Soil descriptions presented on the CPT logs are based on interpretations of the cone data at a specific exploration location. The probe holes were backfilled with bentonite slurry after completion.


Exhibit A-3 Page 2

The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. Where groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth, and date of observation, is depicted on the log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted portion of the drilling rods, the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted, or through the use of an observation well. The soil descriptions presented on the boring logs in this appendix are based upon the drilling action, observation of the samples secured, laboratory test results, and field logs. The various types of soils are indicated as well as the depth where the soils or characteristics of the soils changed. It should be noted that these changes may have been gradual, and if the changes occurred between sample intervals, they were inferred. Boring

# Easting Northing Elevation Boring # Easting Northing Elevation

B-1 4202389.6 1076324.0 153.2 B-101 4202465.7 1076294.9 156.1

B-2 4202547.4 1076218.2 155.8 B-102 4202542.4 1076293.5 155.9

B-3 4202437.6 1076147.4 155.5 B-103 4202377.5 1076226.2 155.8

B-4 4202242.1 1076363.7 152.1 B-104 4202463.2 1076225.3 156.1

B-5 4202425.6 1076372.3 153.2 B-105 4202376.7 1076149.6 155.9

B-6 4202573.1 1076353.6 155.3 B-106 4202544.4 1076147.7 155.8

B-201 4202376.7 1076290.8 153.9 B-107 4202328.9 1076367.1 152.5

B-202 4202515.1 1076182.7 154.0 B-108 4202498.1 1076352.3 154.7 Note: The borings were mapped using a Leica RX 1230 GPS unit. The values should be considered accurate to the nearest ±1 foot in the horizontal directions and ±½ foot in elevation. Elevations were collected using the NAVD88 vertical datum and converted in the lab to NGVD29.

6000*

2000*

1200

1000*

2000*

2000*

1500*

4000*

19

26

27

1.0

ND

ND

1.0

ND

ND

ND

ND

Grass and 2-inch root zone overSILT, trace organics, mottled brown,medium stiff, low plasticity, moist to wet

-soft, wet

-trace fine sand, medium plasticity

LEAN CLAY, with silt, gray, soft, mediumplasticity, wet

SILT, with sand, gray, stiff, mediumplasticity, wet

SS

SS

SS

ST

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

CL

CL

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

9

6

3

3

2

3

2

7

6

18

18

24

18

18

18

18

18

7376

10

31

3938

40

43

38

35

34

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

8-29-11

*Calibrated Hand Penetrometer**CME 140H SPT automatic hammer

Proposed Retail Store #84440SITE

BORING STARTED

CME75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED

The stratification lines represent the approximate boundary linesbetween soil and rock types: in-situ, the transition may be gradual.

PID

Rea

ding

(pp

m)

<1.

0=N

ot D

etec

ted

(ND

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

WSC

JOB #

RIG

8-29-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

19

WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS, ft

BORING LOG NO. B-1

NW 9th Street and Spruce AvenueCorvallis, Oregon

SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

30.5

36.5

1.4

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, trace silt, gray,medium dense, wet

SANDY GRAVEL, with silt, gray-brown,very dense to dense, wet

BOTTOM OF BORING

Boring advanced using hollow-stem augermethods.

SS

SS

SPGPGM

GPGM

10

11

52

45

12

12 11

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

8-29-11



BORING STARTED

CME75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


PID

Rea

ding

(pp

m)

<1.

0=N

ot D

etec

ted

(ND

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

WSC

JOB #

RIG

8-29-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

19


BORING LOG NO. B-1


SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

35D

EP

TH

, ft

.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

2000*

3000*

2500*

3500*

4500*

4500*

4000*

2.5

3.5

15

24

ND

ND

ND

FILL: SANDY GRAVEL with silt (1-inchminus Crushed Base Course), brown,medum dense, damp over geotextile fabric

FILL: SILT, trace sand and gravel, gray,medium stiff, low plasticity, moistSILT, mottled brown, medium stiff to soft,low plasticity, moist to wet

-trace fine sand, soft

LEAN CLAY, mottled brown-gray,medium stiff, medium plasticity, wet

SANDY LEAN CLAY gray, stiff, low tomedium plasticity, wet

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

ML

ML

ML

ML

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

22

6

4

3

3

3

6

6

7

10

10

14

18

18

18

18

18

18

4

19

37

38

35

35

36

29

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

8-29-11



BORING STARTED

CME75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


PID

Rea

ding

(pp

m)

<1.

0=N

ot D

etec

ted

(ND

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

WSC

JOB #

RIG

8-29-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

20


BORING LOG NO. B-2


SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

29

35.536

ND

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, with silt, gray,medium dense, wet

SANDY GRAVEL, trace silt, brown, verydense, moist to wetBOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SPSM

SPSM

10

11

21

50/5½"

14

10

24

24

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

8-29-11



BORING STARTED

CME75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


PID

Rea

ding

(pp

m)

<1.

0=N

ot D

etec

ted

(ND

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

WSC

JOB #

RIG

8-29-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

20


BORING LOG NO. B-2


SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

35D

EP

TH

, ft

.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

2500*

2500*

3000*

1500*

1235

2500*

4000*

4000*

2

3.5

9

18

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

FILL: SANDY GRAVEL with silt (1-inchminus Crushed Base Course), brown,medium dense, moist over geotextile fabricSILT, with clay, trace organics, light gray,soft, moist to wetLEAN CLAY, trace organics, brown-gray,soft, medium plasticity, wet

-8 inch seam of non-plastic silt with finesandSILT, brown, soft to very soft, low tomedium plasticity, wet

LEAN CLAY, with fine sand, brown, stiff,medium plasticity, wet

-gray

SS

SS

SS

SS

ST

SS

ST

SS

SS

SS

ML

CL

CL

CL

ML

ML

ML

ML

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

24

3

3

2

1

2

8

9

16

6

16

18

24

18

24

18

18

18

79

81

86

4

36

38

39

39

35

35

37

30

29

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

8-30-11



BORING STARTED

CME75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


PID

Rea

ding

(pp

m)

<1.

0=N

ot D

etec

ted

(ND

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

WSC

JOB #

RIG

8-30-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

15


BORING LOG NO. B-3


SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

29

36.5


-trace gravel, very dense

BOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SPSM

SPSM

11

12

20

78/11"

18

14 25

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

8-30-11



BORING STARTED

CME75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


PID

Rea

ding

(pp

m)

<1.

0=N

ot D

etec

ted

(ND

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

WSC

JOB #

RIG

8-30-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

15


BORING LOG NO. B-3


SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

35D

EP

TH

, ft

.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

3000*

2500*

2500*

4000*

2

11.5

Grass and 2-inch root zone overLEAN CLAY, gray, stiff, low plasticity,moistSILT, trace fine sand, brown, mediumstiff, low plasticity, moist

-soft

-4-inch seam non-plastic SILT with finesand

-wet-3-inch layer non-plastic SILT with finesandBOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

CL

ML

ML

ML

ML

1

2

3

4

5

7

4

2

3

6

5

18

18

18

18

16

35

38

37

33

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 1

PROJECT

8-30-11



BORING STARTED

CME75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

WSC

JOB #

RIG

8-30-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

10


BORING LOG NO. B-4


SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

4500*

2000*

2000*

2500*

4.5

11.5

Grass and 2-inch root zone overSILT, brown, stiff, low plasticity, moist towet

LEAN CLAY, brown, soft, low to mediumplasticity, wet

-5-inch layer of non-plastic SILT

BOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

ML

ML

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

8

7

3

2

3

6

14

18

18

18

11

30

38

36

38

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 1

PROJECT

8-30-11



BORING STARTED

CME75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

WSC

JOB #

RIG

8-30-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

N/E


BORING LOG NO. B-5


SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

3500*

3000*

2000*

3000*

2

11.5

5 inches Asphalt Concrete Pavementover 4 inches SANDY GRAVEL, with silt(1-inch minus Crushed Base Course) overFILL: SANDY GRAVEL, trace silt, brown,medium dense, damp to moistLEAN CLAY, gray, medium stiff, wet

-soft, wet

-6-inch layer of non-plastic SILT

BOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

CL

1

2

3

4

5

25

4

3

2

3

16

8

18

18

18

4

36

39

38

37

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 1

PROJECT

8-30-11



BORING STARTED

CME75

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

WSC

JOB #

RIG

8-30-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

N/E


BORING LOG NO. B-6


SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

2500*

2639

2500*

3000*

3000*

3000*

4500*

4500*

2

18

FILL: SANDY GRAVEL, with silt, brown,very dense, damp

SILT, trace fine sand, brown, mediumstiff, low plasticity, wet

-4 inches non-plastic SILT layer

-medium plasticity

SILT, trace fine sand, gray, stiff, lowplasticity, wet

-gray, stiff

SS

ST

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

50

5

5

4

6

7

8

16

17

18

18

18

18

18

18

85

3

36

41

40

41

38

34

30

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

9-8-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-8-11WD 2 hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

11


11

BORING LOG NO. B-101


SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

31.5

SILT, trace fine sand, gray, stiff, lowplasticity, wet

-two 3 inch layers of interbeedded fine tomedium SAND, very stiff, wet

BOTTOM OF BORING

Boring advanced using rotary wash drillingmethods.

SSML 9 2016 33

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

9-8-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-8-11WD 2 hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

11


11



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

3000*

2831

2500*

2500*

2500*

3000*

3500*

2.5

9

20

23

28

FILL: SANDY GRAVEL, with silt, brown,medium dense, damp

LEAN CLAY, brown, stiff, mediumplasticity, wet

SILT, brown, medium stiff, low plasticity,wet

-4 inch non-plastic SILT layer

-stiff, medium plasticity


LEAN CLAY, gray, medium stiff, mediumplasticity, wet-3 inch non-plastic SILT layer

SILT, trace fine to medium sand, gray,stiff, low plasticity, wet

SS

ST

ST

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

CL

ML

ML

CL

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

21

7

5

8

6

10

14

0

24

8

18

18

18

18

84

4

36

40

40

37

35

29

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

9-8-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-8-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

11




SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

33.5

40.5

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, trace silt, gray,medium dense, wet-2 inch SILT layer

SANDY GRAVEL, trace silt, brown, verydense, wet

BOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SS

SP

GP

GP

9

10

11

25

64

50/5.5"

16

16

4

30

17

13

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

9-8-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-8-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

11




SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

35

40

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

4000*

3500*

2000*

1500*

2500*

3000*

1000*

2

7

23

27

FILL: SANDY GRAVEL (1-inch minuscrushed GRAVEL), with silt, tan, mediumdense, dampLEAN CLAY, brown, medium stiff, lowplasticity, wet

SILT, brown, medium stiff, low plasticity,wet

-medium plasticity, two 3 inch non-plasticSILT layers

-gray

SILT, with sand, gray, stiff, low plasticitywet

SS

ST

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

CL

CL

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

24

6

4

4

5

5

9

10

18

8

18

18

18

18

18

83

3

3737

36

39

37

32

29

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

9-7-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-7-11WD 24hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

11


14



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

31.5

MEDIUM SAND, trace gravel and silt,gray, medium dense, wet

BOTTOM OF BORING


SSSP 9 1012 32

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

9-7-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-7-11WD 24hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

11


14



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

3500*

20893500*

2000*

2000*

1500*

4000*

3000*

2

4

18

28

FILL: SANDY GRAVEL, trace silt, brown,dense, damp

LEAN CLAY, gray, medium stiff, lowplasticity, wet

SILT, trace fine sand, brown, mediumstiff, low plasticity, wet

-medium plasticity



-low plasticity

SILT, with fine to medium sand, gray, stiff,low plasticity, wet

SS

ST

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

CL

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

38

4

5

5

5

11

11

12

10

14

18

18

18

18

18

94

3

2938

39

41

37

31

31

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

9-7-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-7-11WD 24hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

N/E


14



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

31.5


4 inch elastic SILT layer in tip

BOTTOM OF BORING


SSSPSM

9 1614 39

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

9-7-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-7-11WD 24hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

N/E


14



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

1000*

21653000*

3000*

2000*

3000*

3000*

3000*

2

14

18

24

FILL: SANDY GRAVEL, trace silt, brown,medium dense, damp

SILT, trace fine sand, brown, stiff, lowplasticity, wet

-medium plasticity

-medium stiff

-low plasticity, 2 to 4 inch non-plastic layers

SILT, brown, stiff, medium plasticity, wet

LEAN CLAY, gray, medium stiff, mediumplasticity, wet

SILT, trace fine to medium sand, gray,stiff, low plasticity, wet

SS

ST

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

CL

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

17

8

6

5

8

4

10

10

16

16

18

18

18

18

18

89

4

3338

40

41

36

35

27

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

9-7-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-7-11WD 24hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

11


14



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

29

37

41.5

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, trace silt andgravel, gray, dense, wet

-1 inch SILT layer

SANDY GRAVEL, trace silt, brown-gray,very dense, wet

BOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SS

SP

SP

GP

9

10

11

39

34

97/11"

16

18

14

24

35

11

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

9-7-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-7-11WD 24hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

11


14



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

35

40

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

4000*

34772000*

2000*

1000*

1000*

1500*

2

4.5

24

FILL: SANDY GRAVEL, trace silt, brown,medium dense, damp

LEAN CLAY, tan, medium stiff, mediumplasticity, wet

SILT, brown, medium stiff, mediumplasticity, wet


-two 3 inch non-plastic SILT layers

FINE SAND, with silt, gray, mediumdense, wet, with 2-1 inch SILT layers

SS

ST

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

CL

ML

ML

ML

ML

ML

SPSM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

23

5

4

4

5

8

17

16

10

18

18

18

18

18

14

91

9

3241

43

38

38

31

34

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

9-8-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-8-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

10.5




SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

36.5

40.5

FINE SAND, with silt, gray, mediumdense, wet, with 2-1 inch SILT layers

-trace silt, dense

-with gravel

-trace silt and gravel

SANDY GRAVEL, trace silt, brown, verydense,wet

BOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SS

SPSM

GP

GP

9

10

11

31

44

50/5.5"

16

16

5

20

23

12

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

9-8-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-8-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

10.5




SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

35

40

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

2500*

2000*

2000*

1500*

2

11.5

Grass and 2 inch root zone overLEAN CLAY, tan, stiff, damp

SILT, brown, stiff, wet

-medium stiff

-two 1 to 2 inch non-plastic SILT layers

BOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

CL

ML

ML

ML

ML

1

2

3

4

5

9

8

5

4

3

8

16

12

16

18

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 1

PROJECT

9-9-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-9-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

N/E




SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

3000*

2500*

1500*

2000*

1

2.5

11.5

5 inches Asphalt over 5 inches of crushedGRAVEL (1-inch minus base course)FILL: SANDY GRAVEL, trace silt, brown,medium dense, dampSILT, brown, medium stiff, wet

-soft

-medium stiff-two 2 to 3 inch non-plastic SILT layers

BOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SS

SS

SS

ML

ML

ML

ML

1

2

3

4

5

17

6

4

3

5

16

14

16

18

18

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 1

PROJECT

9-9-11



BORING STARTED

B-57

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


CLIENT

LOGGED MLE

STI

JOB #

RIG

9-9-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

N/E




SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

Subsurface TechnologiesOperator: SAMSounding: P-1Cone Used: DDG1170

CPT Date/Time: 9/9/2011 1:13:17 PMLocation: CORVALLISI RETAILJob Number: 82115010A

Maximum Depth = 32.48 feet Depth Increment = 0.328 feet

*Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983

Tip Resistance

Qt TSF2500

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Depth(ft)

Local Friction

Fs TSF50

Pore Pressure

Pw PSI100-20

Friction Ratio

Fs/Qt (%) 100

Diff PP Ratio

(Pw-Ph)/Qt (%) 100-20

Soil Behavior Type*

Zone: UBC-1983

1 sensitive fine grained 2 organic material 3 clay

4 silty clay to clay 5 clayey silt to silty clay 6 sandy silt to clayey silt

7 silty sand to sandy silt 8 sand to silty sand 9 sand

10 gravelly sand to sand 11 very stiff fine grained (*) 12 sand to clayey sand (*)

120

2662

3000*

2000*

4000*1768

2000*

2000*

1500*

2.5

22

OC = 3%

OC = 3%

FILL: GRAVEL, with sand, trace silt,brown, medium dense, moistover geotextile fabric

LEAN CLAY, brown, medium stiff, wet

-2- to 3-inch silt, trace fine sands lenses

-gray, stiff

SANDY SILT, gray, stiff, wet

ST

SS

ST

SS

ST

SS

ST

SS

ST

SS

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

CL

ML

ML

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

5

4

6

9

12

19

16

22

18

22

18

23

18

24

18

88

84

32

39

37

37

40

33

32

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

11-15-11



BORING STARTED

D-50

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


Org

anic

Con

tent

(%

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLS

STI

JOB #

RIG

11-15-11WD 4hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

14


12



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

30.5

33

36.5

SANDY SILT, gray, stiff, wet

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, trace silt, gray,medium dense, wet

SANDY GRAVEL, brown, very dense, wet

BOTTOM OF BORING


SS

SS

SP

GP

11

12

18

81

18

10

3838

14

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

11-15-11



BORING STARTED

D-50

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


Org

anic

Con

tent

(%

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLS

STI

JOB #

RIG

11-15-11WD 4hrs AB

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

14


12



SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

35D

EP

TH

, ft

.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

2000*

3000*

2263

3000*

4000*

2462

2500*

2000*

2500*

2

10

17.5

22

25

OC = 3%

OC = 2%

FILL: GRAVEL, with sand, trace silt,brown, medium dense, moistover geotextile fabricLEAN CLAY, brown, stiff, wet

-medium stiff

SILT, trace fine sand, brown, mediumstiff, wet

LEAN CLAY, trace fine sand and silt,brown, medium stiff, wet

SANDY SILT, gray, very stiff, wet

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, trace silt and1- to 2-inch silt seams, gray, mediumdense, wet

ST

SS

ST

SS

ST

SS

ST

SS

SS

ST

SS

CL

CL

CL

ML

ML

ML

CL

CL

SP

SP

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

7

6

5

7

7

22

20

18

24

18

24

18

24

18

18

24

18

82

82

36

38

40

38

34

33

31

35

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 1 of 2

Continued Next Page

PROJECT

11-15-11



BORING STARTED

D-50

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


Org

anic

Con

tent

(%

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLS

STI

JOB #

RIG

11-15-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

20




SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

5

10

15

20

25

DE

PT

H,

ft.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

32.5

35

FINE TO MEDIUM SAND, trace silt and1- to 2-inch silt seams, gray, mediumdense, wet

GRAVEL, with sand - soils logged bymaterials within augers and by drillingaction. 10 feet of heave into augersfollowing completion of drilling at 35 feet.No sample obtained due to heave.BOTTOM OF BORING


SSSP 12 2016 34

TESTS

DESCRIPTION

UN

CO

NF

INE

DS

TR

EN

GT

H,

psf

GR

AP

HIC

LO

GPage 2 of 2

PROJECT

11-15-11



BORING STARTED

D-50

WL

WL

WL

BORING COMPLETED


Org

anic

Con

tent

(%

)

CLIENT

LOGGED MLS

STI

JOB #

RIG

11-15-11WD

82115010A

PACLAND

DRILLER

20




SAMPLES

US

CS

SY

MB

OL

WA

TE

RC

ON

TE

NT

, %

TY

PE

NU

MB

ER

30

35D

EP

TH

, ft

.

RE

CO

VE

RY

, in

.

SP

T -

N *

*B

LOW

S /

ft.

DR

Y U

NIT

WT

pcf

BO

RE

HO

LE_9

9 8

211

5010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T 1

2/19

/11

APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING


Exhibit B-1 Page 1

Laboratory Testing Samples retrieved during the field exploration were taken to the laboratory for further observation by the project geotechnical engineer and were classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and local practice described in Appendix A. At that time, the field descriptions were confirmed or modified as necessary and an applicable laboratory testing program was formulated to determine engineering properties of the subsurface materials. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples and the test results are presented in this appendix. The laboratory test results were used for the geotechnical engineering analyses, and the development of foundation and earthwork recommendations. Laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with the applicable ASTM, local or other accepted standards. Selected soil samples obtained from the site were tested for the following engineering properties:

Moisture Content California Bearing Ratio Grain Size Distribution Resistivity, pH Atterberg Limits Consolidation Test Proctor Moisture-Density Relationship Unconfined Compressive Strength

Percent Swell Tests Organic Content

Lab tests not completed on samples:

Strength tests, no cuts or fills utilizing site soils are planned to exceed 10 feet and slopes steeper than 3:1 (H:V).

Note that due to environmental contamination of soils at the site, soil samples were not stored for the duration of the Retailer’s requirements. The soil samples were placed in the drums on-site for disposal.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

%Clay

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-3

100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

4

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-3

14 16 20 30 401.5 3

%Gravel %Sand %Silt

Specimen Identification


Classification

30.3

5041 3/4 1/23/8

LL PL

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

D10

fine coarse medium

6

3.5

38.9

37.0

94.0

45.3

66.20.015

7.781

0.605

5.005

4.75

37.5

4.75

9.5

25

0.005

1.333

0.305

1.042

0.076

0.136

200

coarse

D100 D60

6 810

D30

CuPI Cc

102.60

4.44

0.0

51.2

0.0

0.7

41.7

10.0

63.0

5.3

13.0

3.01

1.13

60

fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

SILT (ML)

SANDY GRAVEL with silt (GP/GM)

SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL)

SAND with silt (SP/SM)

SILTY GRAVELLY SAND (SM)

102232

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

8.0ft

35.0ft

25.0ft

35.0ft

0.0ft

8.0ft

35.0ft

25.0ft

35.0ft

0.0ft

Project: Proposed Retail Store #84440Site: NW 9th Street and Spruce Avenue Corvallis, OregonJob #: 82115010ADate: 12-19-11T

C_G

RA

IN_S

IZE

821

150

10A

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

12

/19

/11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

0.0010.010.1110100

%Clay

B-101

B-201

B-202

Bulk/CBR

100 1403 2

COBBLESGRAVEL SAND

SILT OR CLAY

4

B-101

B-201

B-202

Bulk/CBR

14 16 20 30 401.5 3

%Gravel %Sand %Silt



Classification

5041 3/4 1/23/8

LL PL

GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS

PE

RC

EN

T F

INE

R B

Y W

EIG

HT

D10

fine coarse medium

6

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.075

0.075

0.075

0.075

200

coarse

D100 D60

6 810

D30

CuPI Cc

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

94.2

94.4

92.7

69.1

60

fine

HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS

FAT CLAY (CH)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

SILT (ML)


28

21

25

19

53

40

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION

3.5ft

9.5ft

12.0ft

2.5ft

3.5ft

9.5ft

12.0ft

2.5ft


C_G

RA

IN_S

IZE

821

150

10A

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

12

/19

/11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-2

B-2

B-3

B-3

B-3

Bulk/CBR

SILT (ML)

SILT (ML)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

SILT (ML)

SILT (ML)

LEAN CLAY (CL)


LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)


63

69

PISpecimen Identification

ML

CL

MH

CH

CL-ML

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

37

38

36

39

35

40

32

45

32

33

40

LL PL %Fines

6.0ft

10.0ft

20.0ft

25.0ft

10.0ft

20.0ft

25.0ft

6.0ft

13.0ft

20.0ft

2.5ft

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS

Classification

27

25

20

26

26

23

22

22

23

20

19

10

13

16

13

9

17

10

23

9

13

21


C_A

TT

ER

BE

RG

_LIM

ITS

821

1501

0A

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

12

/19

/11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 20 40 60 80 100

B-101

B-101

B-102

B-103

B-103

B-104

B-105

B-105

B-106

B-201

B-201

B-201

B-202

B-202

B-202

FAT CLAY (CH)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

FAT CLAY (CH)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

FAT CLAY (CH)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

SILT (ML)

SILT (ML)

94

PISpecimen Identification

ML

CL

MH

CH

CL-ML

PLASTICITY

INDEX

LIQUID LIMIT

53

40

47

45

33

46

60

37

63

38

36

40

45

38

36

LL PL %Fines

3.5ft

20.0ft

5.5ft

4.5ft

20.0ft

4.5ft

4.0ft

15.0ft

4.0ft

3.5ft

13.0ft

19.5ft

7.0ft

10.5ft

17.0ft

ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS

Classification

25

24

25

25

23

27

21

24

20

22

23

25

24

26

27

28

16

22

20

10

19

39

13

43

16

13

15

21

12

9


C_A

TT

ER

BE

RG

_LIM

ITS

821

1501

0A

.GP

J T

ER

RA

CO

N.G

DT

12

/19

/11

Classification pcf MC%

B-3, S-7, 13' LEAN CLAY (CL) 86 35

Moisture content after test 31

PROJECT: JOB NO. 82115010A

LOCATION: DATE 9/28/2011

CONSOLIDATION TEST

PORTLAND, OREGON

B-3, S-7, 13'


Indicates inundated

conditions

Corvallis Retail Project

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

0.1 1 10 100

Str

ain

Load (ksf)


B-201; S-1; 3.5 feet LEAN CLAY 102 22




CONSOLIDATION TEST

PORTLAND, OREGON

Corvallis, OR


Indicates inundated

conditions

Corvallis Retail

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

0.1 1 10

Str

ain

Load (ksf)

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

Cv (

ft^

2/s

ec)


B-201; S-5; 13 feet LEAN CLAY 86 33




CONSOLIDATION TEST

PORTLAND, OREGON


Indicates inundated

conditions

Corvallis Retail

Corvallis, OR

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

0.1 1 10

Str

ain

Load (ksf)

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

Cv (

ft^

2/s

ec)


B-202; S-3; 7 feet Lean Clay (CL) 81 37




CONSOLIDATION TEST

PORTLAND, OREGON


Indicates inundated

conditions

Corvallis Retail

Corvallis, OR

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

0.1 1 10

Str

ain

Load (ksf)

1.E-06

1.E-05

1.E-04

Cv (

ft^

2/s

ec)


B-202, S-5, 10.5 LEAN CLAY 78 40




CONSOLIDATION TEST

PORTLAND, OREGON


Indicates inundated

conditions

Corvallis Retail

Corvallis, OR

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

0.1 1 10

Str

ain

Load (ksf)

1.E-07

1.E-06

1.E-05

Cv (

ft^

2/s

ec)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 4 8 12 16 20 24

36

36

29

33

32

85

84

94

89

91

ST

RE

SS

, ps

f

UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST

AXIAL STRAIN, %

Project: Proposed Retail Store #84440Site: NW 9th Street and Spruce Avenue Corvallis, OregonJob #: 82115010ADate: 12-19-11

B-101

B-102

B-104

B-105

B-106

3.5ft

5.5ft

4.0ft

4.0ft

4.0ft

WC,%, pcf

FAT CLAY (CH)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

FAT CLAY (CH)

FAT CLAY (CH)

Specimen Identification Classification

TC

_UN

CO

NF

INE

D 8

2115

010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T

12/1

9/1

1

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

38

39

35

76

79

81

ST

RE

SS

, ps

f


AXIAL STRAIN, %


B-1

B-3

B-3

7.0ft

8.0ft

11.5ft

WC,%, pcf

SILT (ML)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

SILT (ML)


TC

_UN

CO

NF

INE

D 8

2115

010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T

12/1

9/1

1

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2,400

2,600

2,800

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

32

37

38

38

88

84

82

82

ST

RE

SS

, ps

f


AXIAL STRAIN, %


B-201

B-201

B-202

B-202

3.5ft

13.0ft

7.0ft

11.0ft

WC,%, pcf

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

LEAN CLAY (CL)

SILT (ML)


TC

_UN

CO

NF

INE

D 8

2115

010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T

12/1

9/1

1

B-1 0.0 10

B-1 2.0 31

B-1 6.0 37 27 10

B-1 6.5 39 73

B-1 7.0 38 76

B-1 8.0 4.75 96 40

B-1 10.0 38 25 13 43

B-1 15.0 38

B-1 20.0 36 20 16 35

B-1 25.0 39 26 13 34

B-1 35.0 37.5 10 11

B-2 0.0 4

B-2 2.0 19

B-2 6.0 37

B-2 8.0 38

B-2 10.0 35 26 9 35

B-2 15.0 35

B-2 20.0 40 23 17 36

B-2 25.0 32 22 10 4.75 63 CL 29

B-2 30.0 24

B-2 35.0 9.5 5 24

B-3 0.0 25 13 4

B-3 4.0 36

B-3 6.0 45 22 23 38

B-3 8.0 39 79

B-3 10.0 39

B-3 11.5 35 81

B-3 13.0 32 23 9 35 86

B-3 15.0 37

B-3 20.0 33 20 13 30

B-3 25.0 29

B-3 35.0 25

B-4 0.0 16

B-4 2.5 35

B-4 5.0 38

B-4 7.5 37

B-4 10.0 33

B-5 0.0 11

B-5 2.5 30

B-5 5.0 38

B-5 7.5 36

B-5 10.0 38

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%<#200Sieve

SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS

Satur-ation(%)

VoidRatio

Depthft

Dry UnitWeight

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)

LiquidLimitBorehole

Sheet 1 of 2

USCSClass-

ification

MaximumSieveSize(mm)


C_L

AB

_SU

MM

AR

Y 8

2115

010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T

12/1

9/1

1

B-6 0.0 4

B-6 2.5 36

B-6 5.0 39

B-6 7.5 38

B-6 10.0 37

Bulk/CBR 2.5 40 19 21 0.075 69 CL 32

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%<#200Sieve


Satur-ation(%)

VoidRatio

Depthft

Dry UnitWeight

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)

LiquidLimitBorehole

Sheet 2 of 2

USCSClass-

ification



C_L

AB

_SU

MM

AR

Y 8

2115

010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T

12/1

9/1

1

B-101 0.0 3

B-101 3.5 53 25 28 0.075 94 CH 36 85

B-101 4.5 41

B-101 7.5 40

B-101 10.0 41

B-101 15.0 38

B-101 20.0 40 24 16 34

B-101 25.0 30

B-101 30.0 33

B-102 0.0 4

B-102 5.5 47 25 22 36 84

B-102 6.5 40

B-102 10.0 40

B-102 15.0 37

B-102 20.0 35

B-102 25.0 29

B-102 30.0 30

B-102 35.0 17

B-102 40.0 13

B-103 0.0 3

B-103 4.0 37 83

B-103 4.5 45 25 20 37

B-103 7.5 36

B-103 10.0 39

B-103 15.0 37

B-103 20.0 33 23 10 32

B-103 25.0 29

B-103 30.0 32

B-104 0.0 3

B-104 4.0 29 94

B-104 4.5 46 27 19 38

B-104 7.5 39

B-104 10.0 41

B-104 15.0 37

B-104 20.0 31

B-104 25.0 31

B-104 30.0 39

B-105 0.0 4

B-105 4.0 60 21 39 33 89

B-105 4.5 38

B-105 7.5 40

B-105 10.0 41

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%<#200Sieve


Satur-ation(%)

VoidRatio

Depthft

Dry UnitWeight

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)

LiquidLimitBorehole

Sheet 1 of 2

USCSClass-

ification



C_L

AB

_SU

MM

AR

Y 8

2115

010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T

12/1

9/1

1

B-105 15.0 37 24 13 36

B-105 20.0 35

B-105 25.0 27

B-105 30.0 24

B-105 35.0 35

B-105 40.0 11

B-106 0.0 9

B-106 4.0 63 20 43 32 91

B-106 4.5 41

B-106 7.5 43

B-106 10.0 38

B-106 15.0 38

B-106 20.0 31

B-106 25.0 34

B-106 30.0 20

B-106 35.0 23

B-106 40.0 12

B-201 3.5 38 22 16 32 88

B-201 4.5 39

B-201 9.5 0.075 94 37

B-201 13.0 36 23 13 37 84

B-201 14.5 40

B-201 19.5 40 25 15 33

B-201 25.0 32

B-201 30.0 38

B-201 30.5 38

B-201 35.0 14

B-202 4.5 36

B-202 7.0 45 24 21 38 82

B-202 8.0 40

B-202 10.5 38 26 12

B-202 11.0 38 82

B-202 12.0 0.075 93 34

B-202 17.0 36 27 9 33

B-202 20.0 31

B-202 27.0 35

B-202 30.0 34

PlasticLimit

PlasticityIndex

%<#200Sieve


Satur-ation(%)

VoidRatio

Depthft

Dry UnitWeight

(pcf)

WaterContent

(%)

LiquidLimitBorehole

Sheet 2 of 2

USCSClass-

ification



C_L

AB

_SU

MM

AR

Y 8

2115

010

A.G

PJ

TE

RR

AC

ON

.GD

T

12/1

9/1

1

CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO ASTM D 1883

Combined Bulk Soil Description: LEAN CLAY (CL)

CBR Sample Tested By: Jerrad J. Isch

2-4' Comments:

10 Blows/Lift 25 Blows/Lift 56 Blows/Lift

Condition of Sample: soaked soaked soaked

Dry Density Before Soaking: 93 pcf 101 pcf 107 pcf

Dry Density After Soaking: 89 pcf 96 pcf 103 pcf

Moisture Content:

Before Compaction: 16.5 % 16.8 % 16.6 %

After Compaction: 16.3 % 16.7 % 17.0 %

Top 1-in Layer After Soaking: 29.0 % 26.0 % 22.5 %

Average After Soaking: 25.8 %

Swell: 2.4 % 2.1 % 1.4 %

Surcharge Amount: 64.8 psf 64.8 psf 64.8 psf

Max. Dry Density (MDD)* = 112 pcf 95% of MDD = 106.4 pcf

Optimum Moisture* = 16 % CBR at 95% of MDD = 5.0

*As Molded Values (Not Rock Corrected)

Sample No.:

Exploration:

Depth:

PROJECT NO: PROJECT NAME:

DATE OF TESTING:

82115010A

9/20/11 Proposed Retail Store #84440

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

90 95 100 105 110

Corr

ecte

d C

BR

Dry Density (pcf)

CBR Curve

Lab Data Points

CBR at 95% MDD

100

105

110

115

120

125

12.0 17.0 22.0

Dry

Den

sit

y a

s M

old

ed

(p

cf)

Moisture Content (%)

Compaction Curve

ASTM D698

APPENDIX C

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

GENERAL NOTES DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS: SS: Split Spoon - 1-3/8" I.D., 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted HS: Hollow Stem Auger ST: Thin-Walled Tube - 2" O.D., 3” O.D. unless otherwise noted PA: Power Auger RS: Ring Sampler - 2.42" I.D., 3" O.D., unless otherwise noted HA: Hand Auger DB: Diamond Bit Coring - 4", N, B RB: Rock Bit BS: Bulk Sample or Auger Sample WB: Wash Boring or Mud Rotary

The number of blows required to advance a standard 2-inch O.D. split-spoon sampler (SS) the last 12 inches of the total 18-inch penetration with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches is considered the “Standard Penetration” or “N-value”. For 3” O.D. ring samplers (RS) the penetration value is reported as the number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches, reported as “blows per foot,” and is not considered equivalent to the “Standard Penetration” or “N-value”.

WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS: WL: Water Level WS: While Sampling N/E: Not Encountered WCI: Wet Cave in WD: While Drilling DCI: Dry Cave in BCR: Before Casing Removal AB: After Boring ACR: After Casing Removal

Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the borings at the times indicated. Groundwater levels at other times and other locations across the site could vary. In pervious soils, the indicated levels may reflect the location of groundwater. In low permeability soils, the accurate determination of groundwater levels may not be possible with only short-term observations.

DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Soil classification is based on the Unified Soil Classification System. Coarse Grained Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; their principal descriptors are: boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are principally described as clays if they are plastic, and silts if they are slightly plastic or non-plastic. Major constituents may be added as modifiers and minor constituents may be added according to the relative proportions based on grain size. In addition to gradation, coarse-grained soils are defined on the basis of their in-place relative density and fine-grained soils on the basis of their consistency.

CONSISTENCY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS

Unconfined

Compressive Strength, Qu, psf

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.

Consistency

Standard Penetration or N-value (SS)

Blows/Ft.

Ring Sampler (RS) Blows/Ft.

Relative Density < 500 0 – 1 Very Soft 0 – 3 0 – 6 Very Loose

500 – 1,000 2 – 3 Soft 4 – 9 7 – 18 Loose 1,000 – 2,000 4 – 6 Medium Stiff 10 – 29 19 – 58 Medium Dense 2,000 – 4,000 7 – 12 Stiff 30 – 49 59 – 98 Dense 4,000 – 8,000 13 – 26 Very Stiff 50+ 99+ Very Dense

8,000+ 27+ Hard

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF SAND AND GRAVEL GRAIN SIZE TERMINOLOGY Descriptive Term(s) of other

constituents Percent of Dry Weight

Major Component of Sample

Particle Size

Trace < 15 Boulders Over 12 in. (300mm) With 15 – 29 Cobbles 12 in. to 3 in. (300mm to 75 mm)

Modifier >29 Gravel 3 in. to #4 sieve (75mm to 4.75 mm)

RELATIVE PROPORTIONS OF FINES Sand

Silt or Clay #4 to #200 sieve (4.75mm to 0.075mm)

Passing #200 Sieve (0.075mm)

Descriptive Term(s) of other constituents

Percent of Dry Weight

PLASTICITY DESCRIPTION

Term Plasticity Index

Trace With

Modifier

<5 5 – 12 >12

Non-plastic

Low Medium

High

0 1 – 10 11 – 30

>30

Rev 03/11

Form 111—6/98

UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Criteria for Assigning Group Symbols and Group Names Using Laboratory TestsA Soil Classification

Group Symbol

Group NameB

Cu 4 and 1 Cc 3E GW Well-graded gravelF Clean Gravels Less than 5% finesC Cu 4 and/or 1 Cc 3E GP Poorly graded gravelF

Fines classify as ML or MH GM Silty gravelF,G, H

Coarse Grained Soils

More than 50% retained

on No. 200 sieve

Gravels More than 50% of coarse fraction retained on No. 4 sieve Gravels with Fines More

than 12% finesC Fines classify as CL or CH GC Clayey gravelF,G,H

Cu 6 and 1 Cc 3E SW Well-graded sandI Clean Sands Less than 5% finesD Cu 6 and/or 1 Cc 3E SP Poorly graded sandI

Fines classify as ML or MH SM Silty sandG,H,I

Sands 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve Sands with Fines

More than 12% finesD Fines Classify as CL or CH SC Clayey sandG,H,I

PI 7 and plots on or above “A” lineJ CL Lean clayK,L,M Silts and Clays Liquid limit less than 50

inorganic

PI 4 or plots below “A” lineJ ML SiltK,L,M

Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,N

Fine-Grained Soils 50% or more passes the No. 200 sieve

organic

Liquid limit - not dried 0.75 OL

Organic siltK,L,M,O

inorganic PI plots on or above “A” line CH Fat clayK,L,M

Silts and Clays Liquid limit 50 or more

PI plots below “A” line MH Elastic SiltK,L,M

Liquid limit - oven dried Organic clayK,L,M,P organic

Liquid limit - not dried 0.75 OH

Organic siltK,L,M,Q

Highly organic soils Primarily organic matter, dark in color, and organic odor PT Peat

A Based on the material passing the 3-in. (75-mm) sieve B If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles

or boulders, or both” to group name. C Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: GW-GM well-graded

gravel with silt, GW-GC well-graded gravel with clay, GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt, GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay.

D Sands with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols: SW-SM well-graded sand with silt, SW-SC well-graded sand with clay, SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt, SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay

E Cu = D60/D10 Cc = 6010

230

DxD)(D

F If soil contains 15% sand, add “with sand” to group name. G If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM, or SC-SM.

HIf fines are organic, add “with organic fines” to group name. I If soil contains 15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name. J If Atterberg limits plot in shaded area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay. K If soil contains 15 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with

gravel,” whichever is predominant. L If soil contains 30% plus No. 200 predominantly sand, add

“sandy” to group name. M If soil contains 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add

“gravelly” to group name. N PI 4 and plots on or above “A” line. O PI 4 or plots below “A” line. P PI plots on or above “A” line. Q PI plots below “A” line.

APPENDIX D

PROJECT FIGURES

Project Mngr:

Approved By:

Checked By:

Drawn By:

Project No.

Scale:

Date:

File No.Consulting Engineers and Scientists

EXHIBIT

4103 SE INTERNATIONAL WAY PORTLAND, OR 97222FAX. (503) 659-1287PH. (503) 659-3281

KTH

EJL

KTH

TAJ

82115010A

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT D.DWG

SEPTEMBER 2011

FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL

D-1PACLAND

PROPOSED RETAIL STORE #84440NW SPRUCE AVE & NW 9TH ST

CORVALLIS OREGON

Drawn By:

Checked By:

Approved By:

Project Mngr:

File No.

Date:

Scale:

Project No. EXHIBIT

Consulting Engineers and Scientists

4103 SE INTERNATIONAL WAY, #300 PORTLAND, OR 97222FAX. (503) 659-1287PH. (503) 659-3281

HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT SECTIONSKTH

EJL

KTH

TAJ

82115010A

NOT TO SCALE

EXHIBIT D.DWG

SEPTEMBER 2011D-2

PACLANDPROPOSED RETAIL STORE #84440

NW SPRUCE AVE & NW 9TH STCORVALLIS OREGON

APPENDIX E

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

CORVALLIS STATE UNIV, OREGON Period of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature

Table updated on Mar 24, 2011 For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums:

Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered

Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons

Station:(351862) CORVALLIS STATE UNIV

From Year=1889 To Year=2010

Monthly Averages

Daily Extremes Monthly Extremes Max. Temp.

Max. Min. Mean High Date Low DateHighestMean

YearLowest Mean

Year>=

90 F<=

32

F F F F dd/yyyy

or yyyymmdd

F dd/yyyy

or yyyymmdd

F - F - #

Days#

Day

January 45.7 33.2 39.5 66 19/2005 -1 12/1909 46.3 1953 29.4 1930 0.0 1

February 50.3 34.9 42.6 69 24/1905 -5 04/1899 48.2 1968 35.2 1989 0.0 0

March 55.2 36.9 46.1 82 28/1930 12 01/1971 53.6 1934 40.8 1917 0.0 0

April 61.0 39.6 50.3 91 28/1926 24 03/1918 57.1 1926 44.3 1955 0.0 0

May 67.3 43.9 55.6 96 29/1983 28 05/1909 61.3 1931 50.9 1962 0.2 0

June 73.2 48.5 60.9 102 24/1925 32 24/1911 67.5 1889 56.2 1893 1.3 0

July 81.0 51.4 66.2 107 20/1946 36 03/1918 71.5 1941 61.2 1955 4.9 0

August 81.4 51.1 66.2 108 10/1981 37 25/1900 70.9 1967 60.7 1912 5.0 0

September 75.5 47.6 61.6 103 05/1944 27 24/1908 66.9 1918 54.0 1911 2.0 0

October 64.5 42.2 53.3 92 03/1980 22 31/2006 58.5 1937 47.5 1893 0.1 0

November 52.7 37.8 45.3 73 01/1890 10 28/1896 50.8 1899 38.1 1985 0.0 0

December 46.6 34.6 40.6 66 29/1917 -14 12/1919 48.1 1950 31.4 1919 0.0 0

Annual 62.9 41.8 52.3 108 19810810 -14 19191212 55.7 1940 48.8 1893 13.5 2

Winter 47.5 34.2 40.9 69 19050224 -14 19191212 47.0 1934 36.0 1890 0.0 2

Spring 61.1 40.2 50.7 96 19830529 12 19710301 55.9 1934 45.8 1955 0.2 0

Summer 78.5 50.3 64.4 108 19810810 32 19110624 67.9 1958 60.8 1893 11.3 0

Fall 64.3 42.5 53.4 103 19440905 10 18961128 57.3 1937 49.2 1893 2.0 0

Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring = Mar., Apr., and MaySummer = Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall = Sep., Oct., and Nov.

Page 1 of 2CORVALLIS STATE UNIV, OREGON Period of Record General Climate Summary - T...

9/30/2011mhtml:file://N:\PROJECTS\2011\82115010A\Working Files\Laboratory-Field Data-Borin...

CORVALLIS STATE UNIV, OREGON Period of Record General Climate Summary - Precipitation

Table updated on Mar 24, 2011 For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums:

Months with 5 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered

Seasons are climatological not calendar seasons

Station:(351862) CORVALLIS STATE UNIV

From Year=1889 To Year=2010

Precipitation Total Snowfall

Mean High Year Low Year 1 Day Max.>=

0.01 in.

>= 0.10 in.

>= 0.50 in.

>= 1.00 in.

Mean High Year

in. in. - in. - in.dd/yyyy

or yyyymmdd

# Days

# Days

# Days

# Days

in. in. -

January 6.63 15.51 1970 0.25 1985 4.28 28/1965 19 13 4 1 2.9 51.9 1950

February 5.06 15.23 1904 0.12 1920 3.26 06/1996 16 11 3 1 1.2 15.0 1993

March 4.34 11.70 1904 0.43 1926 2.07 22/1998 17 11 3 0 0.4 5.0 1956

April 2.57 7.99 1937 0.22 1939 2.06 13/1937 14 8 1 0 0.0 1.0 1911

May 1.97 5.80 1998 0.00 1992 1.58 06/1963 11 6 1 0 0.0 0.0 1893

June 1.23 4.34 1984 0.00 1918 2.14 29/1952 7 4 1 0 0.0 0.0 1893

July 0.36 2.72 1947 0.00 1889 1.75 28/1947 2 1 0 0 0.0 0.0 1893

August 0.54 5.24 1968 0.00 1892 1.48 29/1983 3 2 0 0 0.0 0.0 1893

September 1.46 5.40 1920 0.00 1890 2.18 18/1969 7 4 1 0 0.0 0.0 1893

October 3.16 9.70 1950 0.00 1895 2.26 29/1924 12 7 2 0 0.0 5.0 1935

November 6.48 18.28 1973 0.22 1890 4.45 19/1996 18 12 5 1 0.2 9.5 1955

December 7.16 17.11 1996 1.47 1976 3.43 28/1998 20 13 5 2 1.2 20.0 1919

Annual 40.97 73.21 1996 22.99 1944 4.45 19961119 147 92 26 7 5.9 28.7 1916

Winter 18.85 34.12 1996 5.40 1977 4.28 19650128 55 38 13 4 5.3 27.7 1969

Spring 8.88 16.19 1993 3.02 1952 2.07 19980322 43 25 5 1 0.4 5.0 1956

Summer 2.14 6.37 1968 0.21 1951 2.14 19520629 13 6 1 0 0.0 0.0 1893

Fall 11.10 23.50 1973 1.22 1929 4.45 19961119 36 23 7 2 0.2 9.5 1955

Winter = Dec., Jan., and Feb. Spring = Mar., Apr., and MaySummer = Jun., Jul., and Aug. Fall = Sep., Oct., and Nov.

Page 1 of 2CORVALLIS STATE UNIV, OREGON Period of Record General Climate Summary - P...


CORVALLIS STATE UNIV, OREGON (351862) Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary

Period of Record : 4/ 1/1889 to 12/31/2010

Percent of possible observations for period of record. Max. Temp.: 98.8% Min. Temp.: 98.9% Precipitation: 100% Snowfall: 95% Snow Depth: 44.9% Check Station Metadata or Metadata graphics for more detail about data completeness.

Western Regional Climate Center, mailto:[email protected]

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec AnnualAverage Max. Temperature (F)

45.7 50.3 55.2 61.0 67.3 73.2 81.0 81.4 75.5 64.5 52.7 46.6 62.9

Average Min. Temperature (F) 33.2 34.9 36.9 39.6 43.9 48.5 51.4 51.1 47.6 42.2 37.8 34.6 41.8

Average Total Precipitation (in.) 6.63 5.06 4.34 2.57 1.97 1.23 0.36 0.54 1.46 3.16 6.48 7.16 40.97

Average Total SnowFall (in.)

2.9 1.2 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 1.2 5.9

Average Snow Depth (in.)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 1 of 1CORVALLIS STATE UNIV, OREGON Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary


Design Inputs Asphalt Concrete

Sugrade Support CBR = 2

Mr = 3750 psi k = 175 pci

Reliability 85 % 85 %

Standard Deviation So = 0.45 0.35

Initial Serviceability Po = 4.2 4.5

Terminal Serviceability Pt = 2.0 2.5

Design Serviceability Loss, PSI = 2.2 2.0

Layer Coefficients:AC Surface and Binder a1 = 0.42

Aggregate Base a2 = 0.13

Concrete Compressive Strength = 4000 psi

Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete = 3,600 ksi

Modulus of Rupture of Concrete: = 580

Load Transfer ("J" Factor) = 4.2

Drainage Coefficient = 1.0

Heavy Duty NMKT

Asphalt Section Traffic (18 kip ESAL) = 211,700

Asphalt Pavement Section Drainage, m

AC Surface + Binder 4.0 in.

in.

Aggregate Base 1.0 12.0 in.

Structural Number: 3.24

Structural Number - Required 3.23

Heavy Duty NMKT

Concrete Section Traffic (18 kip ESAL) = 211,700

Concrete Pavement Section 6.2 in.

Project: Proposed Retail Location: Corvallis, OR

Project No. 82115010A Date: 09/29/11

Pavement Design(AASHTO 1993 Method)

Design Inputs Asphalt Concrete

Sugrade Support CBR = 2

Mr = 3750 psi k = 175 pci

Reliability 85 % 85 %

Standard Deviation So = 0.45 0.35

Initial Serviceability Po = 4.2 4.5

Terminal Serviceability Pt = 2.0 2.5

Design Serviceability Loss, PSI = 2.2 2.0

Layer Coefficients:AC Surface and Binder a1 = 0.42

Aggregate Base a2 = 0.13

Subbase a3 = 0.08

Concrete Compressive Strength = 4000 psi

Modulus of Elasticity of Concrete = 3,600 ksi

Modulus of Rupture of Concrete: = 580

Load Transfer ("J" Factor) = 4.2

Drainage Coefficient = 1.0

Heavy Duty NMKT

Asphalt Section Traffic (18 kip ESAL) = 211,700

Asphalt Pavement Section Drainage, m

AC Surface + Binder 4.0 in.

in.

Aggregate Base 1.0 6.0 in.

Subbase 1.0 10.0 in.

Structural Number: 3.26

Structural Number - Required 3.23

Heavy Duty NMKT

Concrete Section Traffic (18 kip ESAL) = 211,700

Concrete Pavement Section 6.2 in.

Project: Proposed Retail Location: Corvallis, OR

Project No. 82115010A Date: 09/29/11

Pavement Design(AASHTO 1993 Method)

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FACT SHEET PROJECT LOCATION: NW 9th Street and NW Spruce Avenue, Corvallis, Oregon

Engineer: Kristopher T. Hauck, PE Phone #: 503.659.3281

Geotechnical Engineering Co.: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Report Date: June 21, 2012

Ground Water Elevation: 134 – 145 feet NGVD29, where encountered

Fill Soils Characteristics: Maximum Liquid Limit: 30 Maximum Plasticity Index: 0

Specified Compaction: Percent of Maximum Laboratory Density Location ASTM D 698 ASTM D 1557 Subgrade & Fill below Structures, Upper 2 ft of Pavement Areas 98 95 Below 2 feet of Pavement Subgrades 95 92 All Other Areas 92 90

Moisture Content: Granular soils ±2 of optimum (ASTM D 1557) Fine-grained soils -0 to +3 optimum (ASTM D 698) Date Groundwater Measured: August 2011 to November 2011

Topsoil/Stripping Depth: Estimated average of 10 inches, based on 6 to 12 inches of topsoil observed in borings.

Undercut: 1-foot undercut replaced with Select Fill over medium stiff silt/clay in existing fill pad and

2-foot undercut replaced with Select Fill over medium stiff silt/clay in loading dock expansion area

Proctor Results: Shown on attached CBR plot in Appendix B.

pH: 5.6 to 6.7

Corrective actions required for construction based on pH level noted: none

Resistivity: 2,000 to 2,300 ohms*cm

Corrective actions required for construction based on resistivity level noted: specifying non-metallic pipes

where possible and consider protection wrapping

Cement Type: Type I or Type II

Recommended local DOT subbase/base material: Base: Oregon Standard Specification 02630.10 Dense Graded Aggregate (1”-0) with less than 8% passing #200 sieve.

Recommended Compaction Control Tests:

1 Test for Each 2,500 Sq. Ft. each Lift (bldg. area), 1 Test for Each 10,000 Sq. Ft. each Lift (parking area)

Structural Fill Maximum Lift Thickness: 8 inches (Measured loose)

Subgrade Design CBR value = 2

Minimum Recommended Pavement Thickness (in)

Traffic Area Pavement Material

Asphalt Concrete

Thickness (in)

Portland Cement Concrete

Thickness (in)

Base Course Thickness

(in)

Subbase Thickness

(in)

Total Thickness

(in)

Heavy-Duty ACP 4.0 - 12.0 - 16.0 PCC - 6.5 8.0 - 14.5

Heavy-Duty Alternate Section

ACP 4.0 - 6.0 10.0 20.0 PCC - 6.5 4.0 12.0 22.5

Truck Loading and Dumpster Pad

PCC - 7.0 6.0 - 13.0

NOTE: This information shall not be used separately from the geotechnical report.

FOUNDATION DESIGN CRITERIA PROJECT LOCATION: NW 9th Street and NW Spruce Avenue, Corvallis, Oregon Engineer: Kristopher T. Hauck, PE Phone #: 503.659.3281 Geotechnical Engineering Co.: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Report Date: June 21, 2012 Screen Wall Foundation type: Spread footings supported on 1 foot (existing building pad) to 2 feet (loading dock) of Select Fill over medium stiff silt/clay. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 psf Factor of Safety: 3 Minimum footing dimensions: Isolated: 24 inches Continuous: 18 inches Minimum footing embedment: Isolated: 30 inches Continuous: 18 inches Frost depth: 18 inches Maximum foundation settlements (see text of report for explanation): Total Static: 1 inch Total Static Post-Construction: ¾ inch Differential: ¾ inch between columns, ½ inch over 40 feet for walls Slab: Potential vertical rise: < 1 inch Capillary Break: 6 inches of crushed rock base course over 24 inches of subbase (Select Fill) Subgrade reaction modulus: 150 psi/in Method obtained: CBR Correlation. Passive Equivalent Fluid Pressures: 240 pcf (allowable) for structural fill material COMMENTS: This information shall not be used separately from the Geotechnical Report.

FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION WAL-MART JOB #3146-00, CORVALLIS, OREGON June 21, 2012 UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OTHERWISE IN THE DRAWINGS AND/OR SPECIFICATIONS, THE LIMITS OF THIS SUBSURFACE PREPARATION ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THAT PORTION OF THE SITE DIRECTLY BENEATH AND 5 FEET BEYOND THE BUILDING AND APPURTENANCES. APPURTENANCES ARE THOSE ITEMS ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING PROPER (REFER TO DRAWING SHEET SP1), TYPICALLY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE BUILDING SIDEWALKS, GARDEN CENTER, PORCHES, RAMPS, STOOPS, TRUCK WELLS/DOCKS, COMPACTOR PAD, ETC. THE BASE DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING AND THE APPURTENANCES.

ESTABLISH THE FINAL SUBGRADE ELEVATION TO ALLOW FOR THE CONCRETE SLAB, BASE, AND SUBBASE. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR REQUIRED SLAB THICKNESS. THE 6” THICK BASE MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO OSSC SECTION 02630.10 DENSE GRADED AGGREGATE (1”-0) WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT LESS THAN 8% PASS THE NO. 200 SIEVE AS DETERMINED BY ASTM D 422. THE 12” SUBBASE MATERIAL SHALL BE OSSC SECTION 00330.14 – SELECTED GRANULAR BACKFILL WITH A CBR>20 PERCENT, MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE OF 2-INCHES, AND LESS THAN 8 PERCENT PASSING THE NUMBER 200 SIEVE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS FOR ALL CUT AND FILL DEPTHS REQUIRED. ANY PROPOSED EQUIVALENT ALTERNATIVE BASE OR SUBBASE MATERIAL MUST BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER AWARD OF CONTRACT. ANY EQUIVALENT ALTERNATIVE SHALL ONLY BE USED IF APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE CEC AND AOR. WITHIN EXISTING FILL PAD, CONFIRM MINIMUM 12 INCHES OF GRANULAR COMPACTED FILL EXISTS BELOW BOTTOM OF FOOTING ELEVATION. IF NOT, UNDERCUT FOOTING SUBGRADES A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF FOOTING AND 8-INCHES BEYOND THE FOOTING EXTENT TO EXPOSE MEDIUM STIFF NATIVE SOILS. PLACE AND COMPACT SELECT FILL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION 02300 UP TO BOTTOM OF FOOTING ELEVATION. WITHIN LOADING DOCK EXPANSION, REMOVE SURFACE VEGETATIONS, TOPSOIL, ROOT SYSTEMS, ORGANIC MATERIAL, EXISTING FILL, AND SOFT OR OTHERWISE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL FROM THE AREA. UNDERCUT FOOTING SUBGRADE A MINIMUM OF 24 INCHES BELOW BOTTOM OF FOOTING ELEVATION AND 16 INCHES BEYOND THE FOOTING LIMITS TO EXPOSE MEDIUM STIFF NATIVE SOILS. REMOVE AND REPLACE UNSUITABLE AREAS WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL. SUBGRADE MATERIAL SHALL CONTAIN LESS THAN 5 PERCENT ORGANIC AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIALS. FILL MATERIALS SHALL BE PLACED IN LOOSE LIFTS NOT EXCEEDING 8 INCHES IN THICKNESS AND COMPACTED TO AT LEAST 95 PERCENT OF THE MODIFIED PROCTOR MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (ASTM 1557) AT A MOISTURE CONTENT WITHIN 2 PERCENT BELOW TO 2 PERCENT ABOVE THE OPTIMUM. NATIVE SUBGRADE MOISTURE CONTENTS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT 0 PERCENT TO 3 PERCENT OF OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D698) OR NO LESS THAN 20 PERCENT (WHICHEVER IS GREATER AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION) TO LIMIT SHRINK/SWELL POTENTIAL. THE FOUNDATION SYSTEM SHALL BE ISOLATED SPREAD FOOTINGS AT COLUMNS AND CONTINUOUS SPREAD FOOTINGS AT WALLS. THIS FOUNDATION SUBSURFACE PREPARATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE SITE WORK SPECIFICATION. IN CASE OF CONFLICT, INFORMATION COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE WAL-MART SPECIFICATIONS. REFER TO THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION NOT COVERED IN THIS PREPARATION. THIS INFORMATION WAS TAKEN FROM A GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC., DATED JUNE 21, 2012 (GEOTECHNICAL REPORT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS NOT A CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION).