Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Meadowlake Village - Targhee Building - Drainage Report
Meadowlake Village:TargheeBuilding Drainage Report Prepared for LRS Architects 720 NW Davis, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97209 Prepared by SPF Water Engineering, LLC 300 East Mallard, Suite 350 Boise, Idaho 83706 (208) 383-4140 0 910 61201 1 SPF WATER ENGINEERING 1ECEIVE 5EP - 8 2011 sv:_— 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Meadowlake Village development is located south of East Franklin Road and east of Eagle Road within the City of Meridian Idaho. The Targhee Building site is located within the Meadowlake Village community and is bounded by Grand Lodge Loop to the west, Clocktower Drive to the north, and Arbor Circle to the east. The project site is approximately 2.2 acres in size and will include the construction of an assisted living facility. The existing and proposed storm water design utilizes subsurface infiltration facilities for the disposal of storm water. All existing and proposed streets and drainage facilities within and surrounding the Targhee Building site are private. All stormwater calculations were performed in accordance with ACHD requirements as outlined in ACHD Policy Manual Section 8000. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed building site currently is open space with minimal slopes in the terrain that are typically less than 2%. A 36" gravity irrigation line runs along the northern portion of the site. Currently, storm water runoff that falls on the site infiltrates into the soil, or drains into one of the existing storm drain facilities located on and near the site. A number of storm drainage facilities for this site were constructed with the initial Grand Lodge construction in approximately 2005. Based on our review of the record drawings it is our conclusion that these facilities were located and sized to serve the entire Targhee Lodge development based on the initial master plan. A copy of the original master plan prepared by Briggs Engineering showing the original site plan, drainage basins and storm drain facilities is located in Appendix A. A public records request for the original drainage report for the development was made to the City of Meridian. The City stated that they had no records of this development phase on file. 2.1. Site Geology The Geotechnical report prepared by Materials Testing and Inspection dated August 22, (in Appendix D) generally describes the site to have approximately 2 -feet of lean clay with silt and gravel fill materials extending to a depth of approximately 2 feet bgs. Below these surficial soils a layer of hard, stiff sandy silts with some cementation extends to a depth of approximately 6 feet bgs. This layer of sandy silts is underlain by a thick layer of poorly graded sand and gravel that extended to the bottom of the excavated test pits. These poorly graded sands and gravels located approximately 6 feet bgs are well suited for the subsurface disposal of stormwater with recommended design infiltration rates of 8 inches/hour. 2.2. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in test pits excavated to a maximum depth of 15.2 feet bgs. The Geotechnical Report states that IDWR well drillers reports within '/z mile of the project site indicate that groundwater levels are typically 20 to 40 feet bgs. The SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page 1 Meadowlake Village 926.0010 09/06/2011 Drainage Report Stormwater conveyance and infiltration facilities have been sized to accommodate the 100 -year storm event. Calculations are provided in Appendix B and C. 4.1. Methodology The proposed site was broken into separate drainage basins representing surface runoff entering each catch basin. The Rational Method was used to determine the peak flow leaving each basin. The Rational Method calculates runoff from the following equation: Q = C*I*A where Q = Runoff (cfs) C = runoff coefficient based on land use I = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) A = Area (acres) 4.2. Peak Flows Peak flows were calculated using the Rational Method. The Method assumes that the peak flow will occur when the runoff from the most hydrologically distant point on the site reaches the point of interest (time of concentration). The Rational Method uses a Rainfall Intensity, Duration, and Frequency graph to determine the rainfall intensity to use. The rainfall intensities decrease as the storm duration increases, therefore the peak runoff flow will occur when the intensities are the highest and the duration is the shortest. The standard storm duration of 10 -minutes was used to determine the peak 100 -year storm flows. Calculations for each basin's runoff can be seen in Appendix B. 4.3. Infiltration/Percolation Facility Volumes Two existing and two new subsurface infiltration beds are proposed to serve Drainage Basins A, B, C and D. Seepage Bed C will require a 19 foot long expansion to provide the necessary storage volume. These facilities have been sized for the 100 -year storm event assuming a one-hour storm duration in accordance with current ACHD policy. The required seepage bed storage volumes (Vr) were calculated by subtracting the volume of water infiltrated in the seepage bed during the storm event from the total runoff volume. This volume (Vr) was then increased by 25% to allow for sedimentation. The drainage facilities have been designed to drain within a 24 hr period based on an infiltration rate of 8 in/hr per the geotechnical report. See the provided calculations in Appendix B. 4.4. Sand/Grease Traps Sand and grease traps are required to be installed upstream of the infiltration/percolation facilities to remove the majority of the oil, pollutants, and sediments. Sand and grease traps shall be designed to limit the velocity through the throat of the baffles to 0.50 ft/s or less. Using the width of the vault, maximum allowable velocity, and calculated peak flows, the required distance between the baffles can be calculated. For this project all on-site flows including the 100 -year peak flows are proposed to be routed through existing or new sand and grease traps. The calculations indicate that peak flows through the sand and SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page 3 Meadowlake Village 926.0010 09/06/2011 Drainage Report Appendix A Exhibits I �tacxrowra aaraf ._„_, F..- .r''r. •� NOTES: 1. THIS EXHIBIT ILLUSTRATES THE STORM DRAIN 1SPF WATER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 2005 AND THE DESIGN DRAINAGE BASINS USED BY BRIGGS ENGINEERING ENGINEERING TO SIZE AND LOCATE THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES. IT IS 300 East Mallard Drive, Suite 350 INCLUDED FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES ONLY TO THE CURRENT PLAN. Boise, Idaho 83706 Tel (208) 383-4140 Fax (208) 383-4156 2. THE CURRENT DRAINAGE PLAN FOR BASINS 4 AND 25 AS ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN FOR SHOWN HERE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL MASTER MEADOWLAKE VILLAGE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY PLAN. AS SUCH, DRAINAGE CALCS AND SIZING FOR THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WERE NOT PERFORMED. THE CURRENT ANALYSIS INCLUDES CHANGES TO BASINS 5, 11 AND SCALE. 1"= 80 26 AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. JDRAWN BY.. BLW ORIGINAL DRAINAGE BASIN MAP � � t hJ 4A � , ;o Jr SA `t 4E J?♦♦ ♦ v' �� 1 ♦ .0' r 4B PROPOSED 01 T. S�cE ? TARGHEE \\ BUILDING 5B t 5C�" ry cep ♦ 25B J / 1 I PROPOSED II TARGHEE - L F jr 5E IL f I ry li BUILDING 5D L1 i Fj S U t 25D 11A s 26 / n� 11B NOTES: 1. THIS EXHIBIT ILLUSTRATES THE STORM DRAIN 1SPF WATER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 2005 AND THE DESIGN DRAINAGE BASINS USED BY BRIGGS ENGINEERING ENGINEERING TO SIZE AND LOCATE THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES. IT IS 300 East Mallard Drive, Suite 350 INCLUDED FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES ONLY TO THE CURRENT PLAN. Boise, Idaho 83706 Tel (208) 383-4140 Fax (208) 383-4156 2. THE CURRENT DRAINAGE PLAN FOR BASINS 4 AND 25 AS ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN FOR SHOWN HERE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL MASTER MEADOWLAKE VILLAGE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY PLAN. AS SUCH, DRAINAGE CALCS AND SIZING FOR THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WERE NOT PERFORMED. THE CURRENT ANALYSIS INCLUDES CHANGES TO BASINS 5, 11 AND SCALE. 1"= 80 26 AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. JDRAWN BY.. BLW ORIGINAL DRAINAGE BASIN MAP UA s In 17 1. Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin A 2 Is. area drainage basin map provided? Yes (mop must be included with starmwater calculations) 3 Enter Storm Frequency (100 -year per ACH D policy). 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities (10 max) 5 Area of Drainage Basin (SF or Acres) SF Acre: 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C) c=[(CixAi)+(C2xa2)+(CnxAn)j/A Weighted Avf 1 Basin 1 Basin 21 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 24756.00 11422.00 13452.00 1.14 0.30 0.95 0.95 0.63 7 Calculate Overland Flow Tune of Concentration in Minutes (Tc) or use 10 user caimiate 111 min minimum tonin 9''Calculate the Post -Project peak discharge (QPeak)" C,s,, 2_22'_'_,12.22 cf - y/ 10 Calculate peak Qwq (uses 2 -yr storm) QWn 0.86 77 '77,_ (used for S/G Trap throat velocity, WQ. storm conveyance system sizing) - 11 Calculate total runoff vol .(V)(far sizing; primary storage) V 2,954 ft3 V = Cl (Tc=60)Ax3600 12 Calculate Vwq (for sizing WQ facilities) Enter Percentile Storm I (80th percentile= 0.34 in) 80th` - 0.34 in rEnter WQ Volume(VWQ= Cxi(from line above) xAx3600) VWQ.,. 87.4 fts : 13 Enter approved discharge rate for the given storm (if applicable) - cfs 14 Volume Summary Surface Storage: Pond 'WQ Pond Forebay + 15% sediment V 1,004 it, ` Primary Treatment/Storage Basin V 2,081' Subsurface Storage: Seepage Bed : -� - PrimaryTreatment/Storage Bann+25%Sediment V 3,693 3,693 fY �. Aww 0 09 sin M 1 project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin A '. Enter number of Sand/GreaseTraps (10 max) 1 Number Peak Baffle Throat Velocity Is the Vault Size of S/G Flow Q Spacing. width Area (ft) 0.5 fps Velocity Traps cfs (inch) ok? 1500 G 1 2.22 19 60 7.92 0.28 Y- s Reference for Throat widths (inch} vJ/ `� ADS � Boise Vault Lar -ken WQU, BMP 16 Q. 7- 441A 1000 G 48.0 50.5 n/a2- 1500 G 60.0 61.5 n/a. QU1000 n/a n/a 60 QU1500 n/a n/a 60 {inch} max, ok? 1500 G 1 2.22 19 60 7.92 0.28 1 Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin B Enter number a. vesign 7torm. iuu year 4 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.83 S Area A (Acres) 0.70 '6 Approved: discharge: rate for the given storm (if applicable) 0.00 cis. 7 Design.Volume W/25%Sediment V 2,991 8: Set Design Width W 12 ft 9 Set Design Depth -.D.. Rock Only, 3 -ft filter sand in excavation depth's my 10 Void Ratio of Drain flock - -' 0.4 for1,5"-7" drain rock` 11 Design Infiltration Rate is iri/hr max). 12 Area infiltration 13 Volume Infiltration :.14 Size of Pprf. Pipe 15 Calculate Total Storage_ per Foot Apf=WxbxVoid+A.pp. 1E Calculate Design Length, Void 7.09 ft OA , 5* sj n 15 1 ft# Pers 8 in/hr Aperc -1,056 ft, 'Vperc. 704 ft3/hr Dia pipe 12 it, Spf 318 ft %ft 17 Check Storage for Pere Rate for 24 -Hour Period L as 88 it Storm Duration I Q Runoff Vol Perc Vol pre -Prof Vol Maio Vol Regd Min_. Hr_ in/hr efs ft1' ftp W _ 1ft3,. S0: 0.17. 3:11 : 1,79 1,346 0-: 0 1.346... 15: 025 _ 2.62 _ 1.57 _ 1,705 0. 0 ,..1,705 - 30. - 0 50. 1.82 --. 1.05 2,363 0 ,... 0 2,363 60 1,00 21..15 0,66 2;991 0 0 120 2.00 - s1.66... 0.38 3.493.... 704.. 0 :2,709 180:.... 3:00 0.48. 0.28. - 3,779' 1,408- 0 2,371 360 6.00 030 0,17 4,6'78 - 31:-20 720 121.00 0.19 OA1 5,977 7,744 0 1767 1440 24.00 0.12 :.:..{107 7277 16,192 0 -8,915.:. 'Ttltai t7esign'-Vak. 1'2,399 18 Time to'-Orain 90% volume in 24 -hours min€mum 3.3 hours ONOU71 1 project. Name Meadow€ake Village Targhee Building- Basin C 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? Yes (mapmust be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Storm. Frequency (100 -year per ACHD policy) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities (10 max) 1 5 Area of Drainage Basin (SF or Acres) SF Acres 6-: Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C) C=((CixAi)+(C2xs 2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avg ipAstra v Basin l Basin 21 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 6973.00 6347.00 9566.00 10 Calculate peak Qwq.(uses 2-yrstorm Qvio 0 8-cfs (used for SIG Trap throat velocity, WQ storm. conveyance. system sizing) 0.53 1,637 1,637 ft3 V = Ci (Tc=60)Ax3600 12 Calculate Vwq (for sizing NlQfacilities).. Enter Percentile Storm I (80th percentile = 0.34 in). 0.30 0.95 0.95 13.. Enter approved discharge. rate for the given storm (if applicable) cis... 14 Volume Summary 0:75 WQ Pond Forebay+ 15% sediment v 556 Pi unary Treafinentf.Stcrage Basin V 1,153. ft' - Subsurface Storage: Seepage Bed 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration. in Minutes (Tc) or use 10 User 4Vlcurate _..,. min minimum to Mm, E Determine the average rainfall intensity {i) from IDF Curve -1 3.11 9. Calculate: the Post -Project peak discharge (QPeak) cl, ,A 1.23 J 1.23 cfs') 10 Calculate peak Qwq.(uses 2-yrstorm Qvio 0 8-cfs (used for SIG Trap throat velocity, WQ storm. conveyance. system sizing) 11 Calculate total runoff vol .(V)'(for sizing primary storage). v 1,637 1,637 ft3 V = Ci (Tc=60)Ax3600 12 Calculate Vwq (for sizing NlQfacilities).. Enter Percentile Storm I (80th percentile = 0.34 in). 80th 0.34 in Enter WQ Volume (VWQ.= Cxi (from line above) xAx3600) vwo 484 ft 13.. Enter approved discharge. rate for the given storm (if applicable) cis... 14 Volume Summary Surface Storage. Pond WQ Pond Forebay+ 15% sediment v 556 Pi unary Treafinentf.Stcrage Basin V 1,153. ft' - Subsurface Storage: Seepage Bed -----.,.-- `2,046 Primary (reatment/Storage Basin :+25%Sedimcut ,V 21046 s ft C4 - 3 p� 04Sih (41W 1 Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin C cnser numoer or aanavk3rease ence for Throat widths (inch) Number Peak I Baffle Throat ADS Velocity Is the Vault Size of S/G Flow Q Spacing width Area (ItZ) 0.5 fps Velocity G Traps cfs (inch) (inch) 60.0 max. ok? 1000 G 1 1.23 12 48 4.00 0.31 ence for Throat widths (inch) Boise ADS Vault Lar -ken WQU, BMP 16 G 48.0 50.5 n/a G 60.0 61.5 n/a 1000 n/a n/a 60 1500 n/a n/a 60 14Sx,s4, ok- OAS or% 1ProjectName MeadowlakeVillage TargheeBuilding- BasinD. 2 Enter number of Seepage Reds {10 max) 1 n uesign btorm luu year 4Weighted Runoff Coefficient G 0.74 5. Area A (Acres); 0.09 6: Approved discha rge rate for the given sto i m.(if app Burble} O.00cfs 7Design .Volume W125% Sediment V 357 357 ft'' 8 Set Design Width w loft 9 Set Design Depth D 6.00 ft p Rock Only, 3 -ft filter sand in excavation depth only ✓ 10 Void Ratio of Drain Rock Void) 0.4 0.4 for'1 5°-2" drain -rock= II Design Infiltration Rate (8 inlhrmax) Perp:: 8 in/ii'r-. 12 Area Infiltration' Apert' 147ftz: 13 Volume Infiltration Vperc -98 ft9/hr 14 Size of Pert Pipe Dippipe 1210 15 Calculate Total Storage per Foot SO 24.2 ft,/ft Apf=WxDxVoid aApp' 16. Calculate Design Length L 15 15 ft 17 Check Storage for Perc Rate for 24 -Hour Period Storm Duration 1 Ti- -Runoff Vol YevcVol Pre=Fra}Vol- Max.Vbl'Regd Mini Hr in/hr - :.3.11 cis it ft' -ft3 ft3 10 017 ..:..2.62 -0.21 161 0 0 .._161 is 0.25 -0,18 204 0 0. -. 204 30 0.50 1.82 ,.. -0.13 . -_. - 282 0 0'. 282 60 1100 - 1.15 ;048 357 0 0 120 2.00 0.66 -0.05 - 407 98 - :. 0. 309. 3,00 0.48 - 0.03 451 796 _...,.0 255 6.OD .0,30 - --.0.07 558 491 .. 0 67 L72 12`.00 0.19 `.0.01 114 1,080 - 0 367 OO 0OO 0.12 - 0M 869 2,269 -.. 0 --1 390 Total -Design Volt 357 18 Time, to Drain. 90%volume in 24 -hours minimum 3.31 hours Appendix C Pipe Conveyance Calculations 0 z K W W z cD z W OC Q 3 W a N Ro 0 0 0 0 ^ n 11 Y Y Y Y O O O o O 0000 w w w w A A A A m m m m II II II II v m m m 3 3 3 3 Lm lma Lm 0 0 0 0 0 to A A A A A A A m m m m - - - - m m m m LU .. 0 .. H H H H z 3 3 3 3 A A A A 0 0 0 0 LL LL LL lL � w � w v v v v o o a a m 0 0 0 0 m m m m o 0 0 0 N to O) OJ O1 OJ mm bD m m m m m m m m m m c_ c_ c_ c — — m m m m Y V 0 0 OJ OJ O1 O/ O) w w w 0 3 o Q LL M M M N N j lf1 [+1 m m M M m N N N N Z V .-� O O O -i r -I O O U CO 3 Z W _ u LD LL a `u-' d- " m m m m m N LO 6 LO 0 0 .-i N I-: � u CLL W N N O m Z M M M M M M M M Z Z 0 O m 0 O O m 0 a O O O O O o o o m CC J l^O l^O Wm U7 LO N m N N N N N N N N Q W y O O O O O O O O x N Z N m m m N cN-I m t0 H a ¢ Q ¢ ¢ u V O D a Ro 0 9Vli\ A t.�\lrli�aJ/ TESTING & INSPECTION Ll Environmental Services 0 Geotechnical Engineering Q Construction Materials Testing ➢ Special inspections GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 'of Targhee lodge HomEs Meadow Lake Village at Touchmark 4037 0ocktower Lane Meridian; Idaho Prepared for. Touchmark Development & Construction 5150 SW Griffith Drive Beaverton, Oregon 97005 MTI File Number B1107c 5g 2791 South victory View Way • Boise, Ip 83709 • (208) 376-4748 . Fax (208) 322-6515 mi@mb-id.com •- www.mti-id.com CrIVIIR I I= MlAt_= TESTING & INSPECTION 0 Environmental TABLE OF CONTENTS 22 August 2011 Page# 2 of 32 EXECUTIVESUMMARY.-....,_ .................. — ..... ............. ...................... . ............ ........ ....... ...... 3 INTRODUCTION_—_ ... ___ ..... ...... ................................. .... ... .. ......... ... ....... 5 ProjectDescription .... ................................ ................. .. ............. . ....... ..... ........... ...... ............. . 5 Authorization ......... ... ____ .................................... 5 Purpose.....-, .... ....... I .............. ..................... ........ _ ...................... 5 Scope of Investigation. ...... ..... _ ....... __ ........................ ...... _ ........... .... ............. ...... 6 Warrantyand Limiting Conditions., ................. ..................................... .................... ..................... ...... 6 ExclusiveUse ............................ . . . ...... ......... ... __ . .................... 6 Report Recommendation are Limited and Subject to Misinterpretation. ................. ....................... 6 Environmental Concerns ........ ... __ .................. _ ... ....... ......... _ .......... . . ........ ......... 7 SITEDESCRIPTION .............................. ............... ........ __ ....... ........... . ........ 7 SiteAccess ............................. ................... ... __ ..................... ...... ....... 7 RegionalGeology- ................... __ ...... ........... .... ................. .......... ... . ... . ..... . 7 General Site Characteristics ... ___ ...... ...................................................... 8 Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry ............... ........... ..... ... __ .................................. ........ 8 GeoseismicSetting .................. _ ... .... ............................ .......................... ....... .................. 8 SOILS EXPLORAI[ON ........... _ ....... _ .............. ____ ...... .................... 9 Exploration and Sampling Procedures.. .................... ........... ....... ............. _ ..... .......... ............... 11-1 1_....9 Laboratory Testing Program ......... ____ .................. .......................... . .................... ................... ......... 9 Soil and Sediment Profile .... ....... ................... _ ..... ...... ..................................... 9 SoilsSurvey Review.,.. ............... ......... ......... ...... ................. .............. ......... ...... 10 VolatileOrganic Scan... ..... . . ........... ....... ........... ......... ....... .............. ...... ___ ............... _ ....... 10 SITEHYDROLOGY... ...... .............. .................. ...................... ................................. ....... ............... 10 Groundwater..... ......... _ ....................... . ........... ......... ................... .......... .......... I , 0 Soil infiltration Rates., .... — ...... ............................ ............................ ....... ....... 11 LATERAL. EARTH PRESSURES.. .... ............. _ .......................... ......................... ......................................... I I Retaining Wall Backfill Materials..... ....... ......... _ .............. .. ..... . ......... ........ .................:.,-,:12 RetainingWall Drainage. ...... _ .................................. ..................... .............. . ......... ...................... .............. 13 FOUNUATToN, SLAB, AND PAVEML'NI*DiscussIONANf)R5commENDArIONS . .............. ... ..... __ ............................-13 Foundation Design Recommendations ..... ____ ......... ....... ................ ...... ......... __ 13 FloorSlab -on -Grade -, ......... .... - .... _ ........ ................ __ .................................... ........... ...... ...... 14 Recommended Pavement Sections .................... ........... ....................... ....... ...... ............... Flexible Pavement Sections...:.:.:.,. ............... .............. ........... ................ ......... ........ ...... - 15 RigidPavement ......... ......... ....... ........................ __ ........ _._ ..................16- ........16Common CommonPavement Section Construction Issues .............................. ........... _,_ ...... ....................................:16 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS... ......... .................. ...... _ ......... ...... ............. .................... ..... -. 17 Earthwork.... 1--.11 ...... ...... __ ....... ' ....... ............................................ ..... 17 DryWeather.... ............ ...... ....... ................ ..................... ........ _ ......... ............. .. ........... ......... .......... 18 WetWeather,. ........ ........ _ ......... ......... ............... _ ......... _ ... ............. ............... ............ ................ 18 Soft Subgrade Soils.,_. ............... ................... ............. --...111 ... . ...... .......... 18 Frozen Subgrade Soils ...... ................................................ ............ ............ • ............................ ......... ..... 19 Structuralfill... ...... ................ ...... ..... ...................... ..................... ........... ....... ............ 19 Backfillof Walls .... ......... __ ........ ............. ......... ........ .......................... ........... ___ ............. ..... ...... 20 Excavations, ....... ....... ............ _ ... _ ......... ....... ... __ ..................... .......... ?0 GroundwaterControl._. ..... __ .... ........ .. . .... ..................... ................. .......... ........ . .......... 20 GFNERALCOMMENTS..... ... __ .... .......... _ ............. . ........ _ ................................ .......... ...... _ ............ ............. 21 REFERFNCES.............. _ ............ ................ ........ ................................ ,..22. APPENDICES ..... ......... ......... . . .......... ............... ........ ........... ........ _ ......... 23 AcronymList ........ .... _ ................. ................... .............. ................ . . ........ ............ ............... . .............. ..... 23 Geolechnical General Notes ..... ......... ..... __ .......... . .............. .... ............. _ .. .. .............. ................. - 24 Geotechnical Investigation Test Pit Log _ ................ ............. ................... . ......... __ ..................... 25 AASHTOPavement Thickness Design Procedures..... ... ....... ................... __ ............................ ............ 28 Plate1: Vicinity Map... .._ ... _'_ .... - ..... ............. __ .................... ..................... ........................... ... _ 31 Plate2: Site Map ..... ........................ ....... ... ___ ..... _ ................. .......... __ ... .......... _ ... ... . ............... __ ...... 32 CopyrigIn 02011 MaterwIs Testing & Inspection, hic, 2791 South Victory View Way - Bois;e, ID 83709 - (208) 376-4748 - Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mtl-id,com-wv,iw.mti-id.com AFNM•. � a ..,�� r 22 August 2011 TESTING & Page# 4of32 INSPECTION $uilding Foundations: Based on data obtained from the site and test results from "various laboratory tests performed, MTI recommends following guidelines for the net allowable soils bearing capacity: Soil Bearing, Capacity ' Footing Depth Subgrade Com action . Ne# Allowable Soil Bearin Ca act_. Footings must bear on competent, native, , 2,000 lbslft cemented sandy silt soils, silty sand sediments or compacted structural fill, Existing fill materials Not Required for must be completely removed from below Native Soil /3 increase is allowable foundation elements. 1 Excavation depths ranging for for short-term leading; from 1.2 to 1.8 feet bgs should be anticipated to 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic expose proper bearing soils:_ events or designed wind speeds:- Footings must bear on competent, native, undisturbed poorly graded sandy gravel sediments 6,000 lbs/ftz or compacted structural fill. Existing fill Not Required for materials and silt soils must be completely Native Soil A 113 increase is allowable removed from below foundation elements,I for short-term loading, Excavation depths ranging from 5r5 to 6.0 feet 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic bgs should be anticipated to expose proper events or designed wind bearing soils, speeds. Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2009 TBC minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately 1 inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately % inch. Objectionable soil types encountered atthe bottom of footing excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footing subgrade will require over -excavation and backfilling; with structural tilt. To minimize the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content; MTl recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to makefbeln as rigid as possible. For frost protection. the bottom of external footings should be 30 inches below finished grade. Floor Slabs: Uncontrolled fill, was encountered in portions of the site, MTI recommends that . Gq Tigfit 2Q11 Ivlaterials Testing&; Inspection, Inc. .2791 South Victory View Way • Bois6JD 83705 • (208) 376-4748 i Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mtHd,com • wwwmtWd,com 22.August2011 TESTING & INSPECTION Page# 6of32 Etivironmentaf Services O Geotechnical Fnninanr•:nn n r e._.__ \server\reports\boise\2o11 reports\600- $cope of Investigation The scope of this investigation included review of geologic literature and existing available geotechnical studies of the area, visual site reconnaissance of the immediate site, subsurface exploration of the site, field and laboratory testing of materials collected, and engineering analysis and evaluation of foundation materials. Warranty and Limiting Conditions MTI warrants that findings and conclusions contained herein have been formulated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics, and engineering geology only for the site and project described in this report. These engineering methods have been developed to provide the client with information regarding, apparent or potential engineering conditions relating to the site within the scope cited above and are riecessarily limited to conditions observed at the time of the .site visit and research. Field observations and research, reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the purposes cited above.- Exclusiye'Use This report was prepared for exclusive use of the property owner(s), at the time of the report, and their retained design consultants ("Client"). Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the agreed-upon scope of work outlined in thisreporttogether with the Contract for Professional Services between the CIient and Materials Testing and Inspection, Inc. ("Consultant").- Use or misuse of this report; or reliance upon findings hereof, by parties other than the Client is at their own risk. Neither Client nor Consultant make representation of warranty to such other parties as to accuracy or completeness of this report or suitability of its use by such other parties for purposes whatsoever, known or unknown, to Client or Consultant, Neither Client nor Consultant shall have liability to indemnify or hold harmless third parties 'for losses incurred by actual or purported use or misuse of this report. No other warranties are implied or expressed. RtPort Recommendation are Limited and Subject to -Misinterpretation There is a distinct possibility that conditions may exist that could not be identified within the scope of the investigation or that were not apparent during ,our site investigation. Findings of this report are limited to data collected from noted explorations advanced and do not account for unidentified fill zones, unsuitable soil `types or conditions; and variability in soil moisture and groundwater conditions.. To avoid possible misinterpretations of findings, conclusions, and implications_ of this report, MTI should be retained to explain the report contents to other design professionals as well as construction professionals: Since actual subsurface conditions on the site can only be verified by earthwork, note that construction recommendations are based on general assumptions from selective observations and selective field exploratory sampling. Upon commencement of construction, such conditions may be identified that required corrective actions, ;and these required corrective actions may impact the project budget. Therefore construction recommendations in this report should be considered preliminary, and MITI should be retained to. observe actual subsurface conditions during earthwork construction activities to provide additional construction recommendations as needed. 2781 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 8a mt!@Mti-id.com 22 August 2011 INSPECTION io TESTING '& Page# 8of32 Erwironmentaf services UGeotechnical Engineering ❑ Gonstructiom,"atcr PAfireportslboise Ol i eports\fiO4- The project site is underlain by "Gravel of Sunrise Terrace" as mapped by Othberg and Stanford (1993), The Sunrise terrace is the third terrace above the modern Boise River in the eastern Boise Valley, composed of sandy pebble and cobble- gravel, and is about 115 feet above river level. Quaternary faulting has probably truncated and tilted this terrace along with older surfacess. The surface of this deposit is mantled with -3-7 feet of loess containing a weakly to moderately developed duripan. Based on stratigraphic correlation the Sunrise terrace may be correlative with the Wilder terrace further to the west. General Site Characteristics This proposed development consists of approximately 1.5 acres of relatively level :land. Throughout the majority of the site, surficial materials consist of fine-grained clay -silt with gravel fills. Vegetation primarily consists of lawn grasses, bunchgrass, and other :native grass varieties typical of and to semi -arid environments. Regional drainage is north toward the Boise River. Storm water drainage for the site is achieved by percolation through surficial soils. Storm water drainage collection and retention systems are not in place on the project site and do currently exist within the driveways around the project site. Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry According to the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC, 2006) the average precipitation for Treasure Valley is on the order of 10 to 12 inches per year, with an annual snowfall of approximately 20 inches and a range from 3 to 49 inches, The monthly mean daily temperatures range from 210 F to 950 F with daily extremes ranging from -259 F to 111° F. Winds are generally from the northwest or southeast with an annual average wind speed of approximately 9 miles per hour (mph) with a maximum of 62 mph. Soils and sediments in the area are primarily derived from siliceous materials and exhibit low electro -chemical potential for corrosion of metals or concretes. Local aggregates are generally appropriate for Portland cement and line cement mixtures. Surface waters, gtoundwaters, and soils in the region typically have pH levels ranging from 7.2 to 8.2 (USES 2006). Geoseismic Setting Soils on site are classed as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2009 edition of the IBC. Structuresconstructed on this site should be designed per IBC requirements for such a seismic classification, Our investigation did not reveal hazards resulting from potential earthquake motions including: slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture caused by faulting or lateral spreading. Incidence and anticipated acceleration of seismic activity in the area is low. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise. ID 83 mtAmtkid.com Fax (208) 322=6515 'v"" ""^" 22 August 2011 TESTING & ( .Page# 10of32 INSPECTION Emironmentat Services ❑ Geotechnical Engineering Ganstructi servertreportslboise 201 E reporrs\500- e3SB",�tr=i�Idi4a.irl���c.. ,.�I,SP.Rcial.C�.ateo.irrai<. In many of the deeper developed soils, poorly ;graded sandy gravels are encountered. Poorly graded gravels are most often classified as reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, and vary in relative density from dense to very dense. CIasts found within the poorly graded gravels are generally granitic in composition with minor basalt clasts. Soils Survey Review Review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Ada County Area, Idaho, 1980, indicates that the site is underlain by the Elijah silt loam. Specific soils characteristics, as defined by the USDA, are moderately slow permeability above the hardpan and very slow through fractures in the hardpan, slow runoff, and slight erosion hazard, Vt/latile Organic Scarf No environmental concerns were identified prior to commencement of the investigation. Therefore, soils obtained during on-site activities were not assessed for volatile organic compounds by portable photoionization detector. Samples obtained during our exploration activities exhibited no odors or discoloration typically associated with this type contamination. No ;groundwater was encountered. SITE HYDi oLoGY Existing surface drainage conditions are defined in the General Site Characteristics section. Information provided in this section is limited to observations made at the time of the investigation, Either regional or local ordinances may require information beyond the scope of this report_ Groundwater During this field investigation, groundwater was not encountered in test pits advanced to a maximum depth of 15..2 feet bgs. Soil moistures in the test pits were generally dry to slightly moist, Ip the vicinity of the project site, groundwater levels are controlled in large part by residential and commercial irrigation activity and leakage from nearby canals. Maximum groundwater, elevations likely occur during the later portion of the irrigation season. During a previous investigation performed in February 2001 at the Meadow Lake Village Development, no evidence of groundwater was noted within test pits advanced to depths as great as 1.4.2 feet bgs. Furthermore, according to USGS monitoring well data within approximately (2 -mile of the project site, groundwater was measured at a depth of 40.0 feet bgs, which equates to a groundwater elevation of 2,635 feet above mean sea level (msl). Idaho Department of Water Resources Well, Driller's Reports within 'I2 -mile of the project site indicate static, groundwater levels range between 20 and 40 feet bgs. South Victory View Way - Boise, inti@inti-)d,+ 376-4748 + Fax (208) 322.6515 tnc. w1A.1 CrxLKL.=3 TESTING & INSPECTION 22 August2011 Page # 12 of 32 Below -grade restrained walls, such as basement walls, should be designed based on at -rest pressures. Active Pressures are appropriate under conditions where the wall moves or rotates awayfrom the soil mass at failure. Passive pressures are used far conditions where the wall moves toward the soil mass at failure, Rotation, or lateral movement; of the top of the wall equal to 0.002 times the height of the wall will be necessary for on- site soil backfill to achieve an "active" loading condition. Lateral movement of the top of the wall equal to 0.001 times the height of the wall will be necessary for the "active" pressure condition for imported SP/GP structural backfill. Retaining Wall Backlill Materials For lateral earth pressure analysis', MTl anticipates that the soils of interest will be the native sandy silt (ML) soils encountered between 1.2 and 6 feet bgs in the test pits. For these soils, the following values are applicable under non -surcharged, drained conditions: i,arerar zarrn rressure Values for Native Soil Soil i`ype: Sandy Silt Internal Friction Angie: 28 ° Dry Unit Weight: 105 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Bouyant Unit Weight: 68 pef Natural Void Ratio: 03 Natural Moisture: 22 % At rest lateral earth pressure, 68 psf K' _ 0.5- Active lateral earth pressure: 46 psf Ka 0.4 Passive lateral earth pressure: 355 psf Kr= 2;8 Imported, compacted, structural material, which is used to backfill the soiI side of walls, must demonstrate following characteristics; Lateral Earth Pressure Sail Type; Compacted Sandy Gravel Internal Friction Angle,: 35 0 Cohesion: VA Natural Void Ratio: 0.4 At rest lateral earth pressure: 57 psf Active lateral earth pressure: 36 psf Passive lateral earth pressure: 496 psf Dry Unit Weight: 128 pcf Bouyant Unit Weight: 83 pcf Natural Moistures 5% Ka= 0A K,j= 0,3 K,;= 3.7 in the case that another material is used for backfill., MTI should be, consulted for correct lateral earth pressure values. Granular structural fill should consist of 4 -inch -minus select, clean, granular soil with no more than '30 percent oversize (greater than 3/4 -inch) material and no more than 5 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve). Retaining wall and basement haP>tf;n � n.l T,- „t.,.. -a __ _ , 2791 South Victory v8w Way • Boise, IDS3709 mtj@mfHd.Qom k www • 17ax(208}322-6515 W. N MATERIALS 22 August 2011 TESTING & ( Page# 14 of 32 INSPECTION Soil Bearing Capacity Footing DepthASTM D 1557 Sub rade.Com Net Allowable SpABearing,Ca aci , Footings must bear on competent, native, 2,000 1bs/ft cemented sandy silt soils, silty sand sediments or compacted structural fill. Existing_ fill materials Not Required for f/3 increase must be completely removed from below Native Soil A is allowable elements. Excavation depths ranging for short-term loading, rom1.foundation from 1.2 to 1.8 :feet bgs should be anticipated to 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic expose proper bearing soils, events or designed wind seeds Footings must bear on competent, native, undisturbed poorly graded sandy gravel sediments 6,000 lbs/ft' or compacted .,structural fill. Existing fill Not Required for materials and -silt soils must be completely Native Soil A I/3 increase is allowable removed from below foundation elements.' for short-term loading, Excavation depths ranging from 5.5 to 6.0 feet 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic bgs should be anticipated to expose proper events or designed wind 11 bearing soils. speeds. Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2009 IBC minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately 1 inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately 'lz inch. Objectionable soil types encountered at the bottom of footing excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footing subgrade will require over -excavation and backfilling with structural fill. To minimize- the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content, MTl recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. ,For frost protection, the bottom of external footings should be 30 inches below finished grade: Floor"Slab-on-Grade Organic'loose, or obviously compressive inaterials "must be removed prion to placement of concrete floors or floor -supporting fill. In addition, the remaining subgrade should be treated in accordance with guidelines presented in the Earthwork section, Areas of excessive yielding should be excavated and backfilled with structural fill. Fill used to increase the elevation of the floor slab should meet requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section; Fill materials must be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of maximum "density as determined by ASTM i7 1557. riny a f 0 I I Materials Tesfing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way Boise, ID 83705 • {208):376.4748 - Fax (208) 322-6515. mt11@MtHd.com • www:mti-ld.com MATERIALS TESTING INSPECTION ❑Environmental Services D Ge 22 August 2011 Page # 16 of 32 Aggregate. Base: Material complying with ITD Standard Specifications for Highway Construction sections 303 and 70 for aggregates. Structural Subbase: Material should comply with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section of this report except that the maximum material diameter is no more than z/3, the component thickness. Rigid Pavement Sections AASHTO pavement design method was used to develop the following rigid concrete pavement sections. Traffic loading and subgrade values indicated in the flexible pavement design were used in developing the rigid sections. This design; method assumes the use of dowels at transverse joints. Concrete pavement shall be batched and constructed in accordance with the most current American Concrete Institute, Standards and in accordance with Idaho Transportation Department Standard Drawings C -I -A and CA -B, Native subgrade soils on the site are frost susceptible, and therefore, require joint sealers or under -drains: Rigid Pavement Specifications Pavement Section Co ME, Portland Cement Concrete 7.0 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 6..0 Inches Structural Subbase 10.0 Inches Compacted Subgrade, Not Required Portland Cement Concrete 4,000 psi ;concrete with a modulus of rupture greater than 650 psi generally complying with ITD requirement for Urban Concrete. Crushed Aggregate Base: Material complying with ITD Standard Specifications for Highway Construction sections 303 and 703 for aggregates. Structural Subbase: Material complying with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section except that the maximum material diameter is no more than 2/3 the component thickness.. Common Pavement Section Construction Issues The subgrade upon which above pavement sections are to be constructed trust be properly stripped, inspected and proof -rolled. Proof rolling of subgrade soils should be accomplished using a heavy rubber tired, fully loaded, tandem -axle dump truck or equivalent: Verification of subgrade competence by a. qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician at the time of construction is recommended. Fill materials on the site must demonstrate the indicated compaction prior to placing material in support of the ;pavement section. MTI anticipates that pavement areas will be subjected to moderate traffic., MTI does not anticipate pumping material to become evident during compaction, but subgrade clays and silts near and above optimum moisture contents may tend to pump. Pumping or soil areas must be removed and replaced with structural fill. Copyright 6013daterigls'resting &,inspectim lnc.. 2791 South Victory View W4 + 8oise,10 83709 . (208) 376.4748 ^ Fax (208) 322-6515 mtiCmti-ld,com • www.mti-id.com 6 MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION Services U i Dry Weather 13 22 August 2011 Page ## 186f 32 If construction is to be conducted -during dry seasonal conditions, many problems associated with soft soils may be avoided. However, some rutting of subgrade soils may be induced by shallow groundwater conditions related to springtime runoff or irrigation activities during late summer through early fall. Solutions to problems associated with soft subgrade soils are outlined in the Soft-Subgrade Soils section. ,Problems may also arise because of lack of moisture in native and fill soils at time of placement. This will require the addition of water to achieve near -optimum moisture levels. Low -cohesion soils exposed in excavations may become friable; increasing chances of sloughing or caving. Measures to control ,excessive dust should be considered as part of the overall health and safety management plan. Wet Weather If construction is to be conducted during wet seasonal conditions (commonly from mid-November through May), problems associated with soft soils must be considered as part of the construction plan. During this time of year, fine-grained soils such as silts and clays will become unstable: with increased moisture contents, and eventually deform or rut. Additionally, constant low temperatures reduce the possibility of drying soils to near optimum conditions. Soft Subgrade Soils Shallow fine-grained subgrade soils that are high in moisture content should be expected'to pump and rut under construction traffic. During periods of wet weather, construction may become very difficult if not, impossible. The following recommendations and options have been included for dealing with soft subgrade conditions: • Track -mounted vehicles should be used to strip the subgrade of root matter and other deleterious debris. Heavy rubber -tired equipment should be prohibited from operating directly on the native subgrade and areas in which structural fill materials have been placed. Construction traffic should be restricted to designated roadways that do not cross, or cross on a limited basis, proposed roadway or parking areas. • Construction roadways on soft subgrade soils should consist of a minimum 2 -foot thickness of large cobbles of 4 to 6 incites in diameter with sufficient sand and fines to fill voids. Construction entrances should consist of a 6 -inch thickness of clean, 2 -inch minimum, angular drain -rock and must be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 30 to 50 feet long., During the construction process, top dressing of the entrance may be required for maintenance. • Scarification and aeration of subgrade soils can be employed to reduce the moisture content of wet subgrade soils. After stripping is complete, the exposed subgrade should be ripped or disked to a depth of 1 "fi feet and allowed to air dry for 2 to 4 weeks, Further disking should be performed on a weekly basis to aid the aeration process, • Alternative soil stabilization methods include use of geotextiles, lime, and cemem stabilization. MT1 is available to provide recommendations and guidelines at your request. Copoa�ght 10 20I I Meteriels'resting & Inspection, InL, 2791 South Victory View Way Boise, I 83709 * (208)376-4748 Fax (208) 322-6515 rrti@mti-id.com * www.mti-id.com MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTI®N 22 August 2011 Page # 20 of 32 1\server\reports\bo se\2011 reports\600- ❑Environmental Services ❑GeotechnicatEngine ering OGadstryotjZR%4PJPWi�8723g g9jtS561&l s Backfill of Walls Backfill materials ,must conform to the requirements of structural fill, as defined in this report. For wall heights greater than 2.5 feet, the maximum material size should not exceed 4 inches in diameter. Placing oversized material against rigid surfaces interferes with proper compaction, and can induce excessive point loads on walls. Backfill shall not commence until the wall has gained sufficient strength to resist: placement and compaction forces. Further, retaining walls above 2.5 feet in height shall be backfilled in a manner that will limit the potential for damage from compaction methods and/or equipment Itis recommended that only small hand -operated compaction equipment be used for compaction of backfill within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall, measured from the back face of the wall. Backfill should be compacted in accordance with the specifications for structural fill, except in those areas where it is determined that future settlement is not a concern, such as planter areas, In nonstructural areas, backfill must be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Excavations Shallow excavations that do not exceed 4 Feet in depth may be constructed with side slopes approaching vertical. Below this depth, it is recommended that slopes be constructed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, section 1926, subpart i', Based on these regulations, on-site soils are classified as type "C" soil, and as such, excavations within, these soils should be constructed at a maximum slope: of 1s/2 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical (I'/2H;'IV) for excavations up to 20 feet in height, Excavations in excess of 20 feet will require additional analysis. Note that these slope angles are considered During our subsurface exploration, test pit sidewalls generally exhibited little indication of collapse. For deep excavations, native granular sediments cannot be expected to remain in position. These materials are prone to failure and may collapse, thereby, undermining upper soils layers; This is especially true when excavations approach depths near the water table. Care must be taken to ensure that excavations are properly backfilled in accordance with procedures outlined in.thi"s report. Shallow soil cementation (caliche) was observed throughout much of the site and may cause difficulties during foundation development and utility placement, Cemented soils should be anticipated throughout the site at depths of 1.2 to 6 feet bgs. Groundwater Control Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation and is anticipated to be below the depth of most construction. However, special precautions may be required for control of surface runoff and subsurface seepage. It is recommended that runoff be directed away from open excavations. Silty soils may become soft and pump if subjected to excessive traffic during time of surface runoff Ponded water in construction areas should be drained through methods such as trenching, sloping, crowning grades, nightly smooth drum rolling, or installing a French drain system. Additionally, temporary or permanent driveway sections should be constructed if extended wet weather is forecasted, Copmght ° 201E Materials %strip,& Inspection, Im 2799 South Victory View Way e Boise, 10 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-8515. mti@mfi-ld.com • www,mti-id.com MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION D 22 August 2011 P4ge # 22 of 32 7\server\repotts\boise\A 11 REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1999). Standard Test Method for Materials Finerthim 75 -am (No 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing: ASTM C 117 95. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and. Materials (ASTM) (1999). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates: ASTM C 136 96a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2000) Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort D698-00ae 1. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2002). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Uslne Modified Effort DI West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1999). Standard Test Methods for California Bearing Ratio, ASTM D 1883 — 86. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2006). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1999), Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils` ASTM D 4318 86, West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM; American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASBTO) (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Payment Structure's 1993. Washington, D. C.: AASHTO. Desert Research Institute. Western Regional Climate Center. [Online] Available: <bttp://www.wrcc,dri.edul> (2011). International Building Code Council(2009), International Building Code, 2009, Country Club Hills, IL:. Author. Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) (2005). Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction 2005. BoisejD: Author: Othberg, K, L. and Stanford, I„ A.; Idaho Geologic Society (1992), Geolo ie c Map of the Boise ValWznd Adjoining Area, Western Snake River Plan, Idaho. (scale 1:100,000), Boise; Idaho: Joslyn and Morris. $late of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. (April 2000)._ Technical Guidance Manual For Individual and Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems. Boise, Idaho: Author. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey, [Online] Available: <http-,/lwebsoiisurvey.ares.usda,govlappfa '(2011). U, S. Department of Commerce,, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Desert Research; Institute: Western Reg -conal Climate Center; [Online] Available: <http:1/www.wrec.,dr't.edu/> (2011). U, S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "CFR 29, Pail 1926. subpart P: Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, Excavations. (1986)', [Online] Available: <www.osha.gov> (2010. U. S. Geological Survey; (2006), National Water Information System: Web Interface. [Online] Available; <httD://waterdata.usgs.ggv/nwis> (2011),_ Copyrignt'° 2011 Matenais'Testing & inspection,. tnc, 2751 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 = (203) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@m,ti-id.com • www.0inti-id,com MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION U GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES 22 August 2011 Page # 24 of 32 \\server\reports\bois6201 I UNIpIgD SOIL CLASSSFICATION SYSTEM - RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSf, _0 Description Coarse -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts Fine -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts iW VeryLoose; <4 Very Soft: <2 Loose: 4-10 Soft: 2-4 Medium Dense: 10-30 Medium Stiff: 4-8 Dense: 30-50 Stiff. 8=15 Very Denser >50 -Very Stiff: 15-30 Ch Lean clays lnarganic, gravelly, saudy,, or silty, low to medium plasticity clays Hard:- >30 UNIpIgD SOIL CLASSSFICATION SYSTEM - Major Divisions Description Field Test Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to touch Moist Damp but not visible moisture Wet Visible free water, usually -soil is below water table UNIpIgD SOIL CLASSSFICATION SYSTEM - Major Divisions Deserip tion Field Test Weakly Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Moderately Crumbles _orbeakswilbconsiderable finger pressure Strongly Will not crumble or break with finger pressure UNIpIgD SOIL CLASSSFICATION SYSTEM - Major Divisions Boulders: >YZ m; Coarse -Grained Sand; 5 to 0:6 mm Suits: 0;075 to 0.005 mm Cobbles: 12 to 3 in. Medi m3 -Grained Sandr 0.6 to 02 mm Clays: <O,OOS mm Graveh 3 in. to 5 mm Fine -Grained Sand: 0.2 to 0:075 into UNIpIgD SOIL CLASSSFICATION SYSTEM - Major Divisions Symbol Soil Deseiptionss Coarse-Grainedcoarse Soils <50% passes Na.200 sieve Gravel & Gravelly Soils <50% fraction: passes NoA sieve GW Well -graded gravels; gravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines GP poorly -graded gravels, gravel/sand mixtures with little ort o fines GM Silty gravels; poorly -graded gravel/sandisitt mixtures - GC: Clayey gravels; poorly -graded gravel/sand/clay mixtures Sand & Sandy Soils >50% coarse fraction passes No.4 sieve SW Well` -graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines SP Poorl - graded y y g gravel] sands with little or no fines SM Silty sands; poorly -graded sand/gravel/silt mixtures SC. Clayey sands; poorly -graded sand/gravel/clay mixtures Fine Grained Soils >A% _ passes No,200 sieve Silts &ClaysrOL L L < 50 ML Inorganic silts; sandy, gravelly or clayey silts Ch Lean clays lnarganic, gravelly, saudy,, or silty, low to medium plasticity clays Organic, low -plasticity clays and silts Silts & Clays LL>50 MH Inarganic, elastic silts; sandy, gravelly or clayey elastic silts CH Fat clays; high -plasticity, inorganic clays OH Organic, medium to high -plasticity clays and silts Highly Organic Soils PT Feat,, humus, hydric soils with High organic content Copyright @ 2011 Materials Testing &inspection, Inc, 2791 South Victory View Way - Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376,4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@rnWd.com . www,mti-id.com 6 MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION GEOTEICHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG 22 August 2011 Page # 26 of 32. I reports\600- Test Pit Log #: TP -2 Date.Advanced: 8/11/2011 Logged by: Elizabeth Brown, EXT. Excavated by: Struckman?s Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Depth to Water Table: Not_ EncounteredTotal Depth: 10.1 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and Sample Sample Depth QP Lab (Feet b s)- USCS Soil and Sediment Classification Type Feet b s Test ID Lean Clay Fill (CL FILL): Light brown, dry, 0.0-18 very stiff, with silt, fine grained sand, and 4 2.5-3.0 inch minus cobbles. Organic material to 1 foot bgs: Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry; hard, 1.8-b.0. weak calcium carbonate cementation, fine GS 2.2-2.5 4.5+ grained sand, Sand content increased with depth. Poorly Graded Sandy Gravel (GP): Reddish; brown, slightly moist; dense to very dense, fine 6,Q-10:1 to medium grained sand,, fine to coarse gravel, 5 inch minus cobbles. -Wobble size increased with depth. Lab Test ID Ni LL Pl I Sieve Analysis - - #i4 #10 #40 #100 #200 A 28.1 1 NP NP 1 100 100 78 64 53.9 Copyright 0 2011 Materials `rWing& hispection, lnc;. 279t South Victory View Way + Boise IQ 83709 • (208) 376=4748 . Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mtHd.eom + www.mti-id.com' MATERIALS I_ TESTING S%0 ` INSPECTION %%serverVe Environmental Services QGeotedllnicalEngineering E3 Consttuoiigffii JjNgp5r 1i AASHTO PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES Pavement Section Design Location: Targhee Lodge. Domes, No Truck Access Average Daily Traffic Count: 200 All Lanes :& BothDirections Design Life;: 20 Years. Percent of Traffic in Design Lame, 100% _Terminal Seviceability Index, (Pt): 2.5 Level of Reliability: 95 Subgrade CBR Value; 4 Subgrade Mr: Passenger Cars; Buses: Panel & Pickup Trucks: 2 -Axle, 6 -Tire Trucks: Emergency Vehicle: Durap Trucks:. 'Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks: Double Trailer Trucks Heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks; Average Daily Traffic in Design Lane; Total Design Life 18 -kip ESALs: Actual Log (FSALs)': Trial SN: Trial Log (ESALs)f Pavement Section Design SN: Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt -Treated. Base: Cement Treated Base: Crushed Aggregate Base: Pit Run Aggregate Subgrade.. Special Aggregate Subgrade: Calculation of Design -18 kip FSALs Daily Groh Load 'Traffic -Rate Factors 80 2.m 0.0008 0 2.0% 0.6806 15 2.0% 0.0122 A 2.0% 0.1890 1.0 2.0% 4.4800 0 2.0% 3-6300 0 2-0% 2.3719 0 2.0%a 2.3157 0 2,0% 2,9760 too 48,526 4:587 2.45 Design ESALs 568 0 1,623 6;705 39,731 0 0 0 0 22 August 2011 Page # 28 of 32 -4.696 This number must be equal: to or greater'than the. Actual Log, 2.61 Tbis:rnantw must be equal to or greater than the `CTria1 SN, Design Depth Structural. Drainage - -Inches Coefficient Coefficient 2.50 0.42- nta. 0.00 0.2.5 nta. 0.00 0.17 Ii/a 4-00 0.14 1.0 110.Q0 0.10 1.0 0.00 0.09 0_9 CaPtight m 2111 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc, 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 + (208) 976-4748 � Fax (208) 322-6h15. mtl@mti-id:com. • www.mtkid.com MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION W AASHTO RIGID PAVEMENT THiCKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES 22 August 2011 Page # 30 of 32. Copyright ° 2011 Materials Testing & Inspealon,.In 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 89709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mfi-id.com • www.mti-id.com :Pavement Section Design Location: Targhee Lodge Homes; Parking Garage. Average Daily Traffic Cavnt: 200 All Lanes & Both Directions. Design Life: 20 Years. % of Traffic in Design. Lane: 100% Terminal Sevieeability Index; Pt: 2 (2-5 for major highways; 2.0 fm towertraffc volumes) Level of Reliability, It: 45: R -Value: -9 Subgrade CBR Value; 4 Subgrade Mr, :6,000 Native Modulus of Subgrade Reaction,.. K: 725 (select from chart based on CBR Value) Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, K: 160 (modified for base aggregate _seen.m. indicate m bmtom ofshaetl. Concrete Elastic Modulus,: Ec: 4200000 (typical is 4,200,000 psi)_ Modulus of Ruptare,S'ci 650 (typical is 750 psi) Load Transfer Coefficient; 3: 4.2 (see into€nianon to the right for selection)' Drainage Coefficient, Cd: I (see Table 524 L8;1 from Idaho Manual) Standard Deviation, So: 0.34 (use 0.34 without specific information) Design Serviceability Loss, Delta PSI: 2-5 (20 for interstates & 2,5 for secondary routes), Caiculatioa of Design 18. kip ESALs Daily Growth Load Design Traffic Rare Factors--ESAL's Passenger;Cars' 61 2.0%5 0.0008 433 - `Buses: 5 2.0% 0,6806 30;180 Panel & Pickup Trucks: "20 2.0% 0,0122 2,.164 2 Axle, 6 Tire Trucks; ) a 2-0% 0.1890 16,762 Emergency Vehicle: 1 24%. 44806 39,731 f?ump Trucks; 1- 2:0°/a 3.6300 32;193 Tractor Semi Trailer Truck: 2- 2.0% 23719 ¢3,071 Double: Trailer Trucks 0 Z,00A 2.3187 0 `heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks": (i, 2,010 297600' -0 Average Daily Traffic in Design Lane: -100- Total Design Life 18 kip.ESAL's: 163;532. Traffic index equivalent= 73 Actual. Lug, (ESAL's): 5314. Trial Pavement Design Thickness; inches; 7.00' Trial Log(E5,ALis): 5;66$ This roosrUe equal to( Yaatorfian il}eActual Log (riSAii"sj Pavement Desigd Thickness, Inches: 7.0 Road 64ix Section Thickness, Iuchu s; 6:t1 Copyright ° 2011 Materials Testing & Inspealon,.In 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 89709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mfi-id.com • www.mti-id.com ) H \ ml- �� j 4 « « 4 r 2 C m 6« \ {*) to ., • t-. • Village: -• Building Drainage Report Prepared for LRS Architects 720 NW Davis, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97200 Prepared by SPF Water Engineering, LLC 300 East Mallard, Suite 350 Boise, Idaho 83706 (208)383-4140 09f0612011 U SPF WATER ENGINEERING 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Meadowlake Village development is located south of East Franklin Road and east of Eagle Road within the City of Meridian Idaho. The Targhee Building site is located within the Meadowlake Village community and is bounded by Grand Lodge Loop to the west, Clocktower Drive to the north, and Arbor Circle to the east. The project site is approximately 2.2 acres in size and will include the construction of an assisted living facility. The existing and proposed storm water design utilizes subsurface infiltration facilities for the disposal of storm water. All existing and proposed streets and drainage facilities within and surrounding the Targhee Building site are private. All stormwater calculations were performed in accordance with ACHD requirements as outlined in ACHD Policy Manual Section 8000. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed building site currently is open space with minimal slopes in the terrain that are typically less than 2%. A 36" gravity irrigation line runs along the northern portion of the site. Currently, storm water runoff that falls on the site infiltrates into the soil, or drains into one of the existing storm drain facilities located on and near the site. A number of storm drainage facilities for this site were constructed with the initial Grand Lodge construction in approximately 2005. Based on our review of the record drawings it is our conclusion that these facilities were located and sized to serve the entire Targhee Lodge development based on the initial master plan. A copy of the original master plan prepared by Briggs Engineering showing the original site plan, drainage basins and storm drain facilities is located in Appendix A. A public records request for the original drainage report for the development was made to the City of Meridian. The City stated that they had no records of this development phase on file. 2.1. Site Geology The Geotechnical report prepared by Materials Testing and Inspection dated August 22, (in Appendix D) generally describes the site to have approximately 2 -feet of lean clay with silt and gravel fill materials extending to a depth of approximately 2 feet bgs. Below these surficial soils a layer of hard, stiff sandy silts with some cementation extends to a depth of approximately 6 feet bgs. This layer of sandy silts is underlain by a thick layer of poorly graded sand and gravel that extended to the bottom of the excavated test pits. These poorly graded sands and gravels located approximately 6 feet bgs are well suited for the subsurface disposal of stormwater with recommended design infiltration rates of 8 inches/hour. 2.2. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in test pits excavated to a maximum depth of 15.2 feet bgs. The Geotechnical Report states that IDWR well drillers reports within %= mile of the project site indicate that groundwater levels are typically 20 to 40 feet bgs. The SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page 1 Meadowlake Village 926.0010 09/06/2011 Drainage Report Stormwater conveyance and infiltration facilities have been sized to accommodate the 100 -year storm event. Calculations are provided in Appendix B and C. 4.1. Methodology The proposed site was broken into separate drainage basins representing surface runoff entering each catch basin. The Rational Method was used to determine the peak flow leaving each basin. The Rational Method calculates runoff from the following equation: Q = C*I*A where Q = Runoff (cfs) C = runoff coefficient based on land use I = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) A = Area (acres) 4.2. Peak Flows Peak flows were calculated using the Rational Method. The Method assumes that the peak flow will occur when the runoff from the most hydrologically distant point on the site reaches the point of interest (time of concentration). The Rational Method uses a Rainfall Intensity, Duration, and Frequency graph to determine the rainfall intensity to use. The rainfall intensities decrease as the storm duration increases, therefore the peak runoff flow will occur when the intensities are the highest and the duration is the shortest. The standard storm duration of 10 -minutes was used to determine the peak 100 -year storm flows. Calculations for each basin's runoff can be seen in Appendix B. 4.3. Infiltration/Percolation Facility Volumes Two existing and two new subsurface infiltration beds are proposed to serve Drainage Basins A, B, C and D. Seepage Bed C will require a 19 foot long expansion to provide the necessary storage volume. These facilities have been sized for the 100 -year storm event assuming a one-hour storm duration in accordance with current ACHD policy. The required seepage bed storage volumes (Vr) were calculated by subtracting the volume of water infiltrated in the seepage bed during the storm event from the total runoff volume. This volume (Vr) was then increased by 25% to allow for sedimentation. The drainage facilities have been designed to drain within a 24 hr period based on an infiltration rate of 8 in/hr per the geotechnical report. See the provided calculations in Appendix B. 4.4. Sand/Grease Traps Sand and grease traps are required to be installed upstream of the infiltration/percolation facilities to remove the majority of the oil, pollutants, and sediments. Sand and grease traps shall be designed to limit the velocity through the throat of the baffles to 0.50 ft/s or less. Using the width of the vault, maximum allowable velocity, and calculated peak flows, the required distance between the baffles can be calculated. For this project all on-site flows including the 100 -year peak flows are proposed to be routed through existing or new sand and grease traps. The calculations indicate that peak flows through the sand and SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page 3 Meadowlake Village 926.0010 09/06/2011 Drainage Report Appendix A Exhibits E ^;.'iCkIOWEk _ A s �y 4E J>� 41 /JT ? PROPOSED TARGHEE 101 A a� z n 25B PROPOSED TARGHEE 'BUILDING a oil r V \l I 1 NOTES: 1. THIS EXHIBIT ILLUSTRATES THE STORM DRAIN `SPF WATER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 2005 AND 1 THE DESIGN DRAINAGE BASINS USED BY BRIGGS ENGINEERING ENGINEERING TO SIZE AND LOCATE THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES. IT IS 300 East Mallard Drive, Suite 350 INCLUDED FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES ONLY TO THE CURRENT PLAN. Boise, Idaho 83706 Tel (208) 383-0140 Fax (208) 383-0156 2. THE CURRENT DRAINAGE PLAN FOR BASINS 4 AND 25 AS ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN FOR SHOWN HERE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL MASTER MEADOWLAKE VILLAGE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY PLAN. AS SUCH, DRAINAGE CALCS AND SIZING FOR THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WERE NOT PERFORMED. THE CURRENT ANALYSIS INCLUDES CHANGES TO BASINS 5, 11 AND SCALE. 1"= 80 26 AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. IDRAWN BY.. BLIN ORIGINAL DRAINAGE BASIN MAP U A S 1n " 1.Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? Yes (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Storm Frequency (100 -year per ACHD policy) 100 4Enter number of storage facilities (10 max) 5 Area of Drainage Basin (SF or Acres) SF Acre! 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C) C=tiC1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]JA Weighted Av€ I Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 24756.00 11422.00 13452.00 11 Calculate total runoff vol :(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 2,954 1.14 V = Cl (Tc=60)Ax3600 12 Calculate Vwq'(for sizing WQ facilities) 0.30 0.95 0.95 Both 0.34 in ,Enter WQ Vol ume(VWQ= Cxi(from line above) xAx3600) 0.63 373 h' 13 Enter approved discharge rate for the given storm (if applicable) 7.Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes (Tc) or use 10 user Calwiate :j min minimum 0 min- a 9Calculate the Post -Project peak discharge (QPeak). Qp.k2.2�cfs Y 10, Calculate peak Qwq(uses 2 -yr storm) QWQ 0.36. ds (used for S/G Trap throat velocity, WQ storm conveyance system sizing) 11 Calculate total runoff vol :(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 2,954 113 V = Cl (Tc=60)Ax3600 12 Calculate Vwq'(for sizing WQ facilities) Enter Percentile Stormy (Both percentile = 0.34 in) Both 0.34 in ,Enter WQ Vol ume(VWQ= Cxi(from line above) xAx3600) Vwo 373 h' 13 Enter approved discharge rate for the given storm (if applicable) 14 Volume Summary (Surface Storage: Pond -. - WQ Pond Forebay+ 15`a sediment V 1,004- ft' Primary Treatment(5torage Basin V 7031 fe Subsurface Storage: Seepage Bed/J Primary Treatment/Storage Basin +25%Sediment. V , 3,693 f'� x.3,693 -E46r^ d Cpl w 2.Z f5 V ?(A �-3 3 4 #9 Seri �-,► 1 project Name Meadowlahe Village Targhee Building- Basin A ! Enter number of Sand/Grease Traps (10 max) 1 Number Peak Baffle Throat Velocity Is the Vault Size of S/G Flow Q Spacing width Area (ft) Traps cfs (inch) (inch) max. ok? 1500 G 1 2.22 19 60 7.92 0;28 Y< S Reference for Throat widths (inch} �� ADS} — Boise Vault Lar -ken WQU. BMP 16:`x, Z 0. 008 �ry .= 5/ f 1000 G 48.0 50.5 n/a .-7A 2 1500 G 60.0 61.5 n/a WQU1000 n/a n/a 60 WQU1500 n/a n/a 60 r f� 0.5 fps Velocity Traps cfs (inch) (inch) max. ok? 1500 G 1 2.22 19 60 7.92 0;28 r f� I Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin B 4 Enter number 4 1 ? uesign>torm. iuu year 4'Weighted -Runoff Coefficient 0.33 SArea A(Acres)., 0.70 6 /Approved discharge rate for the given storm fff applicable) 0.00 cfs Design Volume W/25%Sediment: V .2,991 It, 8 Set Design Width W 12 ft 9 Set Design Depth15 7.00 It Rock only, 3 -ft filter santin excavation depth only 10 Vold Ratio of Drain Rod Void 0.4 0.4 for'1,5'-2" drain rock' 11. Design infiltration Rate (8 in/hr mai) Pere. 8 in/hr 12 Area Infiltration Aperc 1,057ft' 13; Volume infiltration Vperc 104 113/hr 14 Size of Perf Pipe Dia pipe 12 115 15 Caleulate Total Storage per Foot Spf 33:8 ftajft Apf=WxDxVoid+App OJ7.; 10; Calculate Design Length. 17Check Storage for Perc Rate for 24 -Hour Period L. 98 88 ft Storm Duration I Q Runoff Vol'. - Perc Vol Prg-ProlVol' MaxVoi.Regd Min Hr, in/hr ..311 cis" ft? -ftp fit _ W 10 OJ7.; 1,79 4,346 '0--: 0. -1..346: 15 0.2S 2.62 .1.52 - ..:1.05_ -_ 1,705. 0 0' 1.,705 30 _ 0.50. - 1.82 _ . _ 2,363 0 _0 --- 2,363 - 60 ,.. 1:00 1.15 ....0.66 0.67 2,91191 0 0 120 LOD '':0138 3,413. - - 704 .. 0 2,709. 7.80 3.00.. ...0.48 0.28. 3,779... 1,406, 0 2.371. 760 6.00' - :0.30. 0.17 - 4.078 3.520 0 ..'11158 720 - '3.2.00 - '-.4.J.9:. ..0.12.... (};11. 5,977 7,744. 0 -1r767 1440 24.00 - - 0.07 - 7,277... 16.192 0 ,8916 Total Design Vol. -: (2,991 _. IS Time to Di ain 90%volume in 24 -hours tninimurn I Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building, Basin C. 2 Is area drainage basinmapprovided? Yes (mapmust be Included with starmwater calculations) a Enter Storm Frequency (100 -year per AGHO policy) 100 4:Enter number of storage facilities (10 max) 1 5 Area of Drainage Basin (SF or Acres) SF Acre! 6 -Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C) C=j(C1xA1.)+(C2xA2)a(CnxAn)j/A Weighted Avf �IyJ�IT1 �r Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basan A Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 6973.00 6347.00 9566.00 10 Calculate peak Qwq(uses 2-yrstorm). Own. BAB cfs (used for:S/G Trap throat velocity, WQ stormconveyance system sizing) 0.53 1,637 1,637 ft3 V = Ci (Tc=60)Ax3600 12 Calculate Vwq,(for sizing WQ facilities); Enter Percentile Storms (80th percentile = 0,34 in). 0.30 0.95 0.95 13. Enter approved discharge rate for the given stom(if applicable) cis" 14 Volume Summary 0.75 WQPondForebay+I'%se6fimont V WQ .556- It' Pumary Treatment/Storage l;asin V 1,153 it Subsurface Storage Seepage Bed - 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes (TO or use l0userCakubte��' .' min minimum Lo min -8 Determine the average rainfall intensity (i) from IDF Curve 1 3.11n r 9 Calculate the Post Project peak discharge (QPeak) cip 4 1.23 ` 1.23 cis 10 Calculate peak Qwq(uses 2-yrstorm). Own. BAB cfs (used for:S/G Trap throat velocity, WQ stormconveyance system sizing) 11 Calculatetotal runoff vol (V) (for sizing primary storage) V 1,637 1,637 ft3 V = Ci (Tc=60)Ax3600 12 Calculate Vwq,(for sizing WQ facilities); Enter Percentile Storms (80th percentile = 0,34 in). Filth 034 In: Enter WQ Volume (VWQ.=:Cxi(from line above) xAx3600) Vtyo 484 ft 3 13. Enter approved discharge rate for the given stom(if applicable) cis" 14 Volume Summary Surface Storage Pond - WQPondForebay+I'%se6fimont V WQ .556- It' Pumary Treatment/Storage l;asin V 1,153 it Subsurface Storage Seepage Bed - - Primary Treatment/Storage Basin +2S%:Sediment V 2,0462046fct -W ,� '901(-g �r9s, 1 Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin C i Enter number of r- ence for Throat widths (inch) Number Peak Baffle Throat ADS VelocityIs the Vault Size ofS/G Flow Q Spacing width Area(fe) I 0.5 fps I Velocity 50.5 Traps cis (inch) (inch) n/a max. ok? 1000 G 1 1.23 12 48 1 4.00 1 0.31 ence for Throat widths (inch) Boise ADS Vault Lar -ken WQU, BMP 16 G 48.0 50.5 n/a G 60.0 61.5 n/a 1000 n/a n/a 60 1500 n/a n/a 60 P ok- I Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building-_ Basin D tmernumberorJeepageHe s puesign Storm lour year 4:Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.74 5 Area A (Acres): 0.09 6 Approved discharge, rate forthe given storm (if applicable). 0.00 cfs 7 Design; Volume W/25%SedimentL V 3- .357 357 ft 8 Set Design Width IN 9 Sot Design Depth D :Rock Only,. -3 -ft filter sand in excavation_ depth only 1(l Void Ratio of Drain Rock SO.A for 1.5°4" drain rock - i 10 ft �T 6.00 ft' Vold 0.4 11 Design Infiltration Rate (8 in/hr mazy Pere 8 in/hr 12 Area Infiltration Apen: ,147 ft'' 13 kVolume Infiltration Vperc. - 98 ft3lhr 14 Size of Perf Pipe Dia pipe 12 to 15 Calculate l otai storage per Foot Apf=WxDxVtrid+Appl 16Calculate Design Length: 17 Check Storage for Pere Rate for 24 -Hour Period Spf 24,:2 fts/ft 15 15 ft :Storm: Duration. I:. Q. Runoff Vol Pert Vole_ Pre -Prof Vot .Max Vol,Regd Min lie in/hr: cfs ft ft'-,: 'ft3 jts 10 0.17 3.11 ':0.21 .0.18 - 163 0 0 ......161 75 0.25'. 2.62 . 204 0 0 -.204. 30 0.50 1-82. .0.13 282 -0 0'. ;->282 60 1.00 1.15 ''0.08 357 0 0. '770 2.00 - 066 :. 0.05 407 98 0 309. L 180 3.00 0:48 - 0.03 _. 451 196 -:. 0 _._ 255 360 : 6.00 :0.30 .0.02 558 491'- D 67 720 ,12.00.. 0.19 .0.01 714 i,08Q.._ 0 -367 '..: 1440 '.. 24.00:.. 0.12 - 0.01. 869 2,259::... 0. ---13 0 'Total Desigo Vol.. 357 .3 Time to Drain 90%volume in 24-hour5rninimum set pe -41 R k3 Jf e� ti t 3.3. hours. Appendix C Pipe Conveyance Calculations 2 O_ H a cr W z 2 z Q z z N W H u Q a V 0 0 J LL LL O z C W W z a z W C a 3 a m v .9- CL .Q u N c O U 0 c v L v v F- F- 0 0 z 0 0 0 0 A n n A Y Y Y Y O O O O it n AA m m m m v m v 3 3 3 3 m 0 0 0 0 w n n n n - - - - m m m m W �F W V Y V .. O F- F- F- F - z 3 3 3 3 n n n n 0 0 0 LL LL LL LL � ti 7 3 4 � 4 O! w w Ol L L m `m m `LL° `L° m m m 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O > > > J V) w m U) N m mN m m m m m m m m c c C c— — m 'm 'm m Y y +m y D 0 0 0 D I-0 a a a a a a a a D 3 FW- O 2 A m m m M m M N N N N u .--i O O O a -I c -I O O U m LL 0LO _ M at M r- uA J LL 6 lD O O .--� N 1' O 3 u LL p W LL v- N LD .--I N M lD M M N 0) N z 2 m m m m m m m m Z c .ti .-i .ti ti ti ti N ti z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON OO = J M LDD W tDD N m N N N N N N H N Q } LL O O O O O O O O N Z m m m N sN-I m LD N 6 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ u U o 0 CL m v .9- CL .Q u N c O U 0 c v L v v F- F- 0 0 z TESTING & INSPECTION i O Environmental Senfices 11 Geotechnical Engineering 0 Construction Materials Testing ❑Special inspections GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Of Targhee lodge Homes Meadow lake Village at Touchmark. 4037 Clocktower Lane Meridian; Idaho Prepared for: Touchmark Development & Construction 5150 SW :Griffith Drive Beaverton, Oregon 97005 MTI File Number B110725g 791 South Victory View Way * Boise, ID 83709 . (208) 37$-4748 ^ Fax (2oa) 322-6515 mtiCamti-iii Ohm + "'Ww mf;AA nn TESTING & INSPECTION 22 August 2011 Page# 2 of 32 0 Environmental Serijoes J Geotechnical En TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........... :. .................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION.. ____ ........ ................... ....... .................... . ......................... .. 5 ProjectDescription...... ......_ ..... .... — ................... -1 ...... .................................................... ....... 5 Authorization ... .............. .................... 5 Purpose.... .......... ................. ___ ............ ............ ...... ......... ........ ........... ...... ......... ......... 5 Scopeof Investigation ............ .......... __ .................................. ............................................. ....................... : 16 Warmly and Limiting Conditions ..... __ ................................ ........................ ............. 6 ExclusiveUse ....................... ............... _ ............. ................. . ................. 6 Report Recommendation are Limited and Subject to Misinterpretation ............... .......... ; ........ ...,.,u,; 6 Environmental Concerns .... _......... _ ... ... ........ .... _ ........... .... I .....P...... .... ....... ; 7 SITEDEsCRIPTION .......... _ ...... ............... __ ........•. _ ........... — ........ ...................................... 7 SiteAccess:............. ............... ............. __ ........... ......... _._ .................... 7 RegionalGeology—__., ......... ........... ................................ ....... __ ........ . ........ 7 General Site Characteristics .................. ...... .......... -..;.-"._1 8 Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry:.... __ ........ ...... . ........ .. ................................... 8 GeoscismicSetting ........ ........... - ....................... ......... .................... ........................... ........... .SOILS EXPLORATION _ ....... __ ..... . ....... ........ ....... .............. Exploration and Sampling Procedures ....... _ ......... ....... ................ .......... _ ......... ......... 9 Laboratory Testing:Program . ................................. ........... ...... ___ ... I ..... 1.19 Soil and Sediment Profile . .... ___ .... ......... _ .......... ............................ 9 SoilsSurvey Review.... .......... I—, ...... ........... .............. .............. ......... ........ __ 10 Volatile Organic Scan ...... ...... __ ................ _ ................... ............ . ... ___ ....... ......... SITE HYDROLOGY ...... ........ ....................... ....... ......... ........................ ........... ...... 10 Groundwater... .......... ........... ........ ...... ............. ........ . .... .... I ... I... ...... ....... ........ � 10 Soil Infiltration Rates.,.. ___ .......... ....... ............... . ...... 11 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES. ..... ......... ....... ........... ........................................... 11 Retaining Wall Backfill Materials... ................ __ ........... ___ _ ........ ........... ..... 12 Retaining WallDrainage .................. ................. . . .. ............... M FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND PAVEmLNF DISCUSSION ANDREcbMENDATIONS ... __._ .... ................ ....... 13 Foundation Design Recommendations .. .................. ........ ............. __ ............................. 13 Floor Slab -on -Grade:...., ........,:, * ................ ........... * ............ .. ........ ....... * ................. .. .... 14 Recommended Pavement Seetions.. — .......... _ ................ .. — ................... -I'll. �. 1.11---- . ..........,.,.,,`35 Flexible Pavement Sections..___. ....... _ ........... ......... ...... ...... ..... ........ ... — ..... ................ ........... ....... 15 RigidPavement Sections . ....... ........ .............. .................. — ........... ........ .... ... .............. ........................ 16 Common Pavement Section Construction issues.— , ................... ____ .......... .......... ........ __ .................. .-.......16 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS...., . ..... — .............. . 1. ............... __ ................. o- ........ ........ ..................... 17 Earthwork-, ............ ............... ......... .... .... "..' ... . ... I ....... ... ...... 17 DryWeather .......... ........... _ .......... ....... ........... ............... ................. ............................. 18 WetWeather,, ... _--1-1 .... 1- ....... ...... 1-11 ........I.. ........... ............... . ..... 18 Soft Subgrade Soils...:... ......... ___ ........ __ .......... ........ ....... ......... ........... 18 FrozenSubgrade Soils ............. ......................... ............. ... _ .............. ...................... ....... ', .... ' 19 Structural......... _._ ..... _ ........ ......... ........................ ............ ................... ......... ........... __ 19 Backfillof Walls ...... _ ......... ........ _ ............ ..................... .......... ......... ......20 Excavations ........ ..... ... ........ 10 Groundwater Control.:,:,- ...... ................... ....................... 20 GENERALCOMMENTS...... ........................ ..... _ ...... ........ .. .... ......... — .... ............ ................................. 21 REFERENCES......... ..................... ....... .... . ... ...... .......... ...... ........ _ 92 APPENDICES....,..... .............. ____ .............. ........ -1.1-111.1- ........ .... 1.1.1.1-1 ................. " ... ... 1.1.11-1123 AcronymList, .................... .......... ............. ...... ...... . .. 23 Geotechnical General Notes., ......... ...... ......... .. . ..... ................... .... ........... ........... ................ ..... . ........ 24 Geotechnical Investigation Test PitLog., ..... ...... "I.— ... ...... ........ ....... ,,,,,.,.,'25: AASHTO Pavement Thickness DcsigiiProcedtuels_ ........ . .........................................28 Plate 1: Vicinity, Map... ..... ...... -1 ....... ............... . ..... ............. . 31 Plate2: Site Map, ........ .............. ...... . ............................ . ....... .... ... ......... 32 Copyright 0 2p1 I Materials Testing & inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way - Boise, ID 83709 - (208) 376-4748 - Fax (208) 322-6515 rHfi@mtHd_com - www.mti-id.com 22 August 2011 TESTING it Page# 4of32 INSPECTION U Building Foundations; Based on data obtained from the site and test results from various laboratory tests performed, MT1 recommends following guidelines for the net allowable soils bearing. capacity: Soil Bearing Capacity Rooting Depth ASTM 131557 Sub rade Compaction Net Ailovvable Soil BearingCapacity i Footings must bear on competent, native, 2,000 lbs/ft' cemented sandy silt soils, silty sand sediments or Not Required for compacted structural fill. Existing fill materials Native Soil t A /3 increase "'ts allowable must be completely removed from below I for short-term loading; foundation elements. Excavation depths ranging 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic from 1.2 to 1.8 feet bgs should be anticipated to events or designed wind expose proper bearing soils. speeds. Footings must bear on competent, native, undisturbed poorly graded sandy gravel sediments 6,000 lbs/ft or compacted structural fill. Existing fill Not Required for materials and silt soils must be completely Native Soil A 1/3 increase is allowable removed from below foundation elements.I for short-term loading, Excavation depths ranging from 55 to 6.0 feet 95%n for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic bgs should be anticipated to expose proper events or designed wind bearing soils, I I speeds. Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2009 IBC minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately i inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately % inch. Objectionable soil types encountered at the bottom of footing. excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footing subgrade will require over -excavation and backfilling with structural fill. To minimize the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content, MTl recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. For frost protection, the bottom of external footiiugs should be 30 inches below finished grade. Floor Slabs: Uncontrolled fill was encountered in portions of the site. MTl recommends that �,_ C°PY��ght ZQl] Ma#erlals'3'esHng& Impection,lnn, 2791 South Victory View Way - Boise, ID 83709 - (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208)322-6515 mh@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com ..•�' �•••"�� 22 August 10 TESTING I•r INSPECTION Page# 6of32 \lserver reports\boiseM l I rep orts\fi00- Erivironmentat Services O Geotechnical Engineering a Gonstrucfio h&tP c i a'arr„.- Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation included review of geologic literature and existing available geotechnical studies of the area, visual site reconnaissance of the immediate site; subsurface exploration of the site, field and laboratory testing of materials collected, and engineering analysis and evaluation of foundation materials. Warranty and Limiting Conditions MTI warrants that findings and conclusions contained herein have been formulated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics, and engineering geology only for the site and project described in this report. These engineering methods have been developed to provide the client with information regarding apparent or potential engineering. conditions relating to the site within the scope cited above and are necessarily limited to conditions observed at the time of the site visit and research. Field observations and research reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to forma reasonable basis for the purposes cited above, Exclusive Use This report was prepared for exclusive use of the property ,owner(s), at the time of the reports and their retained design consultants ("Client"). Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the agreed-upon scope of work outlined in this report together with the Contract for Professional Services between the Client and Materials Testing and Inspection, Inc. ("Consultant').- Use or misuse of this report, or reliance upon findings hereof, by parties other than the Client is at their own risk. Neither Client nor Consultant make representation of warranty to such other parties as to accuracy or completeness of this report or suitability of its use'by such other parties for purposes whatsoever, known or unknown, to Client or Consultant, Neither Client nor Consultant shall have liability to indemnify or hold harmless third parties for losses incurred by :actual or purported use or misuse of this report. No other warranties are implied or expressed. RgPort Recommendation are Limitedand Subiect to Misinterpretation There is a distinct possibility that conditions may exist that could not be, identified within the scope of the investigation or that were not apparent during our site investigation. Findings of this report are limited to data collected from noted explorations advanced and do not account for unidentified fill zones, unsuitable- soil types or conditions, and variability in soil moisture :and groundwater conditions.. To avoid possible misinterpretations of findings, conclusions, and implications of this report, MTI should be retained to explain the report contents to other design professionals as well as construction professionals; Since actual subsurface conditions on the site can only be verified by earthwork, note that construction recommendations are based on general assumptions from selective observations and selective field exploratory sampling,. Upon commencement of construction, such conditions: may be identified that required corrective actions, and these required corrective actions may impact the project budget. Therefore, construction recommendations in this report should be considered preliminary, and MTI should be retained to observe actual subsurface conditions during earthwork construction activities to provide additional construction recommendations as needed. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 8a mtiQMtHd com • Fax (208} 322-6515' 22 August 2,011 TESTING & Page# 8of32 INSPECTION The project site is underlain by "Gravel of Sunrise Terrace as mapped by Othberg and Stanford (1993). The Sunrise terrace is the third terrace above the modem Boise Riven in the easternBoise Valley, composed of sandy pebble and cobble gravel, and is about 115 feet above river level. Quaternary faulting has probably truncated and tilted this terrace along with older surfaces. The surface of this deposit is mantled with 3-7 feet of loess containing a weakly to moderately developed duripan. Based on:stratigraphic correlation the Sunrise terrace may be correlative with the Wilder terrace further to the west. General Site Characteristics This proposed development consists of approximately 1.5 acres of relatively level land. Throughout the majority of the site, surficial materials consist of fine-grained clay -silt with .gravel fills. Vegetation; primarily consists of lawn grasses,, bunchgrass, and other native grass varieties typical of and to semi -arid environments. Regional drainage is northtoward the Boise River. Storm water drainage for the site is achieved by percolation through surficial soils. Storm water drainage collection and retention systems are not in place on the project site and do currently exist within the driveways around the project site. Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry According to the Wester Regional Climate Center (WRCC, 2406) the average precipitation for Treasure Valley is on the order of 10 to 12 inches per year, with an annual snowfall of approximately 20 inches and a range from 3 to 49 inches. The monthly mean daily temperatures range' from 21° F to 95° F with daily extremes ranging from -25° F to 111' F. Winds are generally from the northwest or southeast with an annual average wind speed of approximately 9 miles per hour (mph) with a maximum of 62 mph. Soils and sediments in the area are primarily derived from siliceous materials and exhibit low electro -chemical potential for corrosion of metals or concretes. Local aggregates are generally appropriate for Portland cement and lime cement mixtures. Surface waters, groundwaters, and soils in the region typically have pH levels ranging from 7,2 to. 8.2 (USGS 2006). Geoseismie Setting Soils on site are classed as Site Class i) in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2009 edition of the IBC, Structures constructed on this site should be designed per IBC requirements for such a seismic classification. (fur investigation did not reveal hazards resulting from potential earthquake motions including: slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture caused by faulting or lateral spreading. Incidence and anticipated acceleration of seismic activity in the area is low. 2791 south Victory View Way - Boise, !Q 83709 + (208) 376.4748 • Fax (209) 322-6515 mtMmti-id.rom + WWW Mti-id.com .�`ASNPOk— •' .� 22 August 2011 TESTING & ( Page# 10of32. VW INSPECTION _\\smerreports\_boise\201 t re rts\600-❑ErvironmentalSevices 0GeotechnicaiEngineering ❑C_USnaeaL. ttnn, In many of the deeper developed soils, poorly graded sandy gravels are encountered. Poorly graded gravels are most often classified as reddish brown, dry to slightly moist, and vary in relative density from dense to very dense. Clasts found within the poorly graded gravels are generally granitic in composition with minor basalt clasts_ Soils Survey Review Review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Ada County Area, Idaho, 1980, indicates that the site is underlain by the Elijah -silt loam. Specific soils characteristics, as defined by the USDA, are moderately slow permeability:above the hardpan and very slow through fractures in the hardpan, slow runoff, and slight erosion hazard, Volatile Organic Scan No environmental concerns were identified prior to commencement of the investigation. Therefore, soils 'obtained during on-site activities were not assessed for volatile organic compounds by portable photoionization, detector. Samples obtained during our exploration activities exhibited no odors or discoloration typically associated with this type contamination. No groundwater was encountered. SITE HYDROLOGY Existing surface drainage conditions are defined in the General Site Characteristics section. Information provided in this section is limited to observations made at the time of the investigation, Either regional or local ordinances may require, information beyond the scope of this report, Groundwater During this field investigation, groundwater was not encountered in test pits advanced to a maximum depth,of 15.2 feet bgs. Soil moistures in the test pits were generally dry to slightly moist, In the vicinity of the project site, groundwater levels are controlled in large part by residential and commercial irrigation activity and leakage from nearby canals. Maximum groundwater elevations likely occur during the later portion of the irrigation season. During a previous investigation performed in February 2001 at the Meadow Lake Village Development,, no evidence of groundwater was noted within test pits advanced to depths as great as 14.2 feet bgs. Furthermore, according to USES monitoring well data within approximately Y2 -mile of the project site, groundwater was treasured at a depth of 40,19 feet bgs, which equates to a groundwater elevation of 2,635 feet above mean sea level (msl). Idaho Department of Water Resources Well Driller's Reports within V2 -mile of the project site indicate static; groundwater levels range between 20 and 40 feet bgs. South 3709 . (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208).322-6515 • www.mti-id.com Inc. MAK 1 CKIAlS TESTING F INSPECTION 22 August 2011 Page # 12 of 32 Below -grade restrained walls, such as basement walls, should be designed based can at -rest pressures. Active Pressures are appropriate under conditions where the wall moves or rotates away from the sail mass at failure. Passivepressuresare used for conditions where the wail moves toward the soil mass at failure. Rotation, or lateral movement, of the top of the wall equal to 0.002 times the height of the wall will be necessary for on- site soil backfill to achieve an "active" loading condition. Lateral movement of the top of the wall equal to 0.001 times the height of the wall will be necessary for the "active" pressure condition for imported SP/GP structural backfill. Retaining Wall Backfill. Materials For lateral earth pressure analysis, MTI anticipates that the soils of interest will be the native sandy Silt (ML) soils encountered between 1.2 and 6 feet bgs in the test pits: For these soils; the following values are applicable under non -surcharged, drained conditions: Soil Type: Sandy Silt Internal Friction Angle:- 28 6 Dry Unit Weight: 105 pcf Cohesion: 200 psf Bouyant Unit Weight:: 68 pcf Natural Void Ratio: 0.7 Natural Moisture: 22% At rest lateral earth pressure: 68 psf K,= 0.5 •. Active lateral earth pressure: 46 psf K,= 0.4 Passive lateral earth pressure: 355 psf K — 2.8 Imported, compacted, structural material, which is used: to backfill the soil side of walls, must demonstrate following characteristics: Oil Type: Compacted Sandy Gravel Internal Friction Angle: 35 Cohesion:. NA. Natural Void Ratio: q,4 At rest lateral earth pressure: 57 psf Active lateral earth pressure: 36 psf Passive lateral earth pressure: 496 psf Dry Unit Weight: 128 pcf Bouyant Unit Weighty $3 pcf Natural Moisture: 5 K9= 0.4 K 0.3 K'= 3:7 In the case that another material is used for backfill, MITI should be consulted for correct lateral earth pressure values. Granular structural fill should consist of 4 -inch -minus select, clean,- granular soil with no more than 30 percent oversize (greater than 'l4 -inch) material and no more than 5 percent fines (passing the No. 200 sieve). Retaining wall and basement hiplrfn y,r+ I— —t ---A Copyright C 20111 Maftriats Testi g InsPecti4ne 279t quo rth Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83703 (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@m6-idcom - www.mif-€d.com- MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION Soil Bearing Capacity 22 August 2011 Page # 14 of 32 Fooling Depth ASTM D 1557 NetAllowable Sins rade.Com action SoiiSeariq ;Ca Footings must bear on competent, native, 2 Opp lbslflz cemented sandy silt soils, silty sand sediments or compacted structural fill. Existing fill materials Not Required for Native Soil A /3 increase is allowable must be completely removed from below foundation elements. Excavation depths ranging for short-term loading, from 1.2 to 1.8 feet bgs should be anticipated . to 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic expose proper bearing soils, events or designed wind seeds. Footings must bear on competent, native, undisturbed poorly graded sandy gravel sediments 6,000 Ibslftz or compacted .structural fill, Existing fill Not Required for materials and silt soils must be completely Native Soil A 113 increase is allowable removed from below 'foundation elements.I for short-term loading, Excavation depths ranging from 5.5 to 6.0 feet 95%a for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic bgs should be anticipated to expose proper events or designed wind bearing soils. I I speeds. MTI recommends that a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician verify the bearina soil suitability- for each structure at the time of construction. Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2009 IBC minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately 1 inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately Vz inch. Objectionablesoil types encountered at the bottom of footing excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footing subgrade will require over -excavation and backfilling with structural fill. To minimize the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content,. MTI recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. For frost protection, the bottom of external footings should be 30 inches below finished grade, Floor Slab -on -Grade Organic; loose, or obviously compressive materials must be removed prior to placement of concrete floors or floor -supporting fill. In addition, the remaining subgrade should be treated in accordance with guidelines presented in the Earthwork section. Areas of excessive yielding should be excavated and backfilled with structural fill. Fill used to increase the elevation of the floor slab should meet requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section. Fill materials must be: compacted to a minimum 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557. 2797 South Victory View Way . Boise, ID 837x9 r t1@rn Hd.tom • wwx • .Fax (208) 322-6515 & inspcetlpn;_Inc. MATERIALS 22 August 2011 TESTING & Page# 16 of 32 INSPECTION \lserverlreports\boise\2011 reports\600- Environmehtal Services D Geotechnical Engineering C! Ccnst ctiarlg�9at�Fia � nZ?Sggn 52 )Ih " `' Akrki Aggregate Base: Material complying with ITD Standard Specifications for Highway Construction sections 303 and 703 for aggregates. Structural Subbase: Material should comply with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section ofthis report except that the maximum material diameter is no more than '/3 the component thickness, Rigid Pavement Sections AASHTO pavement design method was used to develop the following rigid concrete pavement sections. Traffic loading and subgrade values indicated in the flexible pavement design were used in developing the rigid sections. This design, method assumes the use of dowels at transverse joints. Concrete pavement shall be batched and constructed in accordance with the most current .American Concrete Institute Standards and in accordance with Idaho Transportation Department Standard Drawings C -1-A and C-1-13. Native subgrade soils on the site are frost susceptible, and therefore, require joint sealers or under -drains,_ Rigid Pavement S ecifications rPavement:Secti®mm Com orient Parkt� �a�3tt ems' Portland Cement Concrete 7.0 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 6.0 Inches Structural Subbase 1.0,0 Inches Compacted Subgrade Not Required Portland Cement Concrete: 4,000 psi concrete with a modulus of rupture greater than 650 psi generally complying with ITD requirement for Urban Concrete. Crushed Aggregate; Base. Material complying with ITD Standard Specifications for Highway Construction sections 303 and 703 for aggregates, Structural Subbase: Material complying with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section except that the maximum material diameter is no more than '/3 the component thickness. Common pavement Section Construction Issues The subgrade upon which above pavement sections are to be constructed Insist be properly stripped, inspected; and proof -rolled, Proof rolling of subgrade soils should be accomplished using,a heavy rubber_ tired, fully loaded, tandem -axle dump truck or equivalent. Verification of subgrade competence by a; qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician at the time of construction is recommended. Fill materials on the site must demonstratethe indicated compaction prior to placing material in support of the pavement section. MT1 anticipates that pavement areas will be subjected to moderate traffic. MTI does not anticipate pumping material to become evident- during compaction, but subgrade clays and silts near and above optimum moisture contents may tend to pump, Ptunping or soft areas must be removed and replaced with structural fill. Copyright 0 2011-'aAatnriats Te3fing-Nc Inspccpbn,.lh'c), 2791 South Victory View Way - BQise, ID 83749 • (248) 376µ4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mt1@mt1-1dcom • WWWmtHd:com MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION J Environmental Services O Geotechnical Dry Weather I 22 August 2011 Page 4 18 of 32 If construction is to be conducted during dry seasonal conditions, many problems associated with soft soils may be avoided. However, some rutting of subgrade soils may be induced by shallow groundwater conditions related to springtime runoff or irrigation activities during late summer through early fall.. Solutions to problems associated with soft subgrade soils are outlined in the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Problems may also arise because of lack of moisture in native and fill soils at time of placement. This will require the addition of water to achieve near -optimum moisture levels. Low -cohesion soils exposed in excavations may become friable, increasing chances of sloughing or caving. Measures ;to control excessive dust should be considered as part of the overall health and safety management plan. Wet Weather If construction is to be conducted during wet seasonal conditions (commonly from mid-November through May), problems associated with soft soils must be considered as part of the construction plan. During this time of year, fine-grained soils such as silts and clays will become unstable with increased moisture content, and eventually deform or rut. Additionally, constant low temperatures reduce the possibility of drying soils to near optimum.conditions. Soft Subgrade Soils Shallow fine-grained subgrade soils that are high in moisture content should be expected to pump and rut under construction traffic., During periods of wet weather, construction may become very difficult if not impossible. The following recommendations and options have been included for dealing with soft subgrade conditions: • Track -mounted vehicles should be used to strip the subgrade of root matter and other deleterious debris. I-3eavy rubber -tired equipment should be prohibited from operating directly on the native subgrade and areas in which structural fill materials have been placed. Construction traffic should be restricted to designated roadways that do not cross, or cross on a limited basis, proposed roadway or parking areas. • Construction roadways on soft subgrade soils should consist of a minimum 2 -foot thickness of large cobbles of 4 to 6 inches in diameter with sufficient sand and fines to fill voids. Construction entrances should consist of a 5 -inch thickness of clean, 2 -inch minimum, angular drain -rock and must be a minimum of 10 feet vide and 30 to 50 feet long.During the construction process, top dressing of the entrance may be required for maintenance. • Scarification and aeration of subgrade soils can be employed to reduce the moisture content of wet subgrade soils. After stripping is complete, the exposed subgrade should be ripped or disked to a depth of 1'fz feet and allowed to air dry for 2 to 4 weeks. Further disking should be performed on a weekly basis to aid the aeration process: • Alternative soil stabilization methods include use of geotextiles, lime, and cement stabilization. MTI is available to provide- recommendations and guidelines at your request. 2791 Way • Boise, ID 83703 mti@mti-id:com - w" • Fax (208) 322-6515 &-Imp"tioo; tnc. MATERIALS 22 August 2011 TESTING & Page#a± 20=of32 INSPEC`T'ION \\serverlreports\boise\2011 reportsS600- U Environmental services: 0 Antachninat )^•nnlnanrinn n t`.nnetri,,.ti2R$Jb1dA3 1a1;J,A725g geQt@;;Ja_1arglree ll= Backfill of Walls Backfill materials .must conform to the requirements of structural fill, as defined in this report. For wall heights greater than 2.5 feet, the maximum material size should not exceed 4 inches in diameter. Placing oversized :material against rigid surfaces interferes with proper compaction, and can induce excessive point loads on walls. Backfill shall not commence until the wall has gained sufficient strength to -resist placement and compaction forces. Further, retaining walls above 2.5 feet in height shall be backfilled in a manner that will limit the potential for damage from compaction methods and/or equipment. It is recommended that only small hand -operated compaction equipment be used for compaction of backfill within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall, measured from the back face of the: wall. Backfill should be compacted in accordance with the specifications for structural fill, except in those areas where it is determined that future settlement is not a concern, such as planter areas.- In nonstruetural areas, backfill must be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition, Excavations Shallow excavations that do not exceed 4 feet_ in depth may be constructed with side slopes approaching vertical. Below this depth, it is recommended that slopes be constructed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, section 1925, subpart P, .Based on these regulations, on-site soils are classified as type "C" soil, and as such, excavations within these soils should be constructed at a maximum slope of 1'/2 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical (1!/2H: IV) for excavations up to 20 feet in height. Excavations in excess of 20 feet will require additional analysis-. Note that these slope angles are 'considered stable for short-term conditions only, and will not be stable for lone -term conditions: During our subsurface exploration, test pit sidewalls generally exhibited little indication of collapse. For deep excavations, native granular sediments cannot be expected to remain in position. These materials are prone to failure and may collapse, thereby, undermining upper soils layers. This is especially true when excavations approach depths near the water table. Care must be taken to ensure that excavations are properly backfilled in accordance with procedures outlined in this report. Shallow soil cementation (calicbe) was observed throughout much of the site and may cause difficulties during foundation development and utility placement. Cemented soils should be anticipated throughout the site at depths of 1.2 to 5 feet bgs; Groundwater Control Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation and is anticipated to be below the depth of most construction. However, special precautions may be required for control of surface runoff and subsurface seepage. It is recommended that runoff be directed away from open excavations. Silty soils may become soft and pump if subjected to excessive traffic during time of surface runoff. Ponded water in construction areas should be; drained through methods such as trenching, sloping, crowning grades, nightly smooth drum rolling, or installing a French drain system. Additionally, temporary or permanent driveway sections should be constructed if extended wet weather is forecasted. €ppyright ° 2011 Materials Testing & insprcfioR lnc, 2791 south Victory View Way - Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 - Fax (208) 322-8515 mti@mtHd.com - wwwmti-id.00m t MATERIALS T TESTING & INSPECTION 22 August 2011 Page # 22 of 32 \\server\reports\boise\20l I reports\600- 0 Environmental Services O G2otechnical Engineering ❑ Constructili�WIRZ ji�g725g__geSt8 trayfti s American Society for Testing and REEERFNCES West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)'(1999). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates: ASTMC 136-96a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2000) Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort D698-00ael. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2002). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort D1557-02el.'West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Material's (ASTM) (1999). Standard Test Methods for California Bearing Ratio, ASTM D 1883 — 86. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2006). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purboses (Unified Soil Classification System) D2487-06. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1.999). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit: and Plasticity Index of Soils: ASTM D 4318—.86. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1993), AASHTO Guide for Design ofPayment Structures 1993. Washington, D. C,: AASHTO. Desert Research Institute: Western Regional Climate Center. [Oniinel Available: <bjjpY/www wrcc dri_et�u1>(2411). International Building Code Council (2009). International Building Code, 2009. Country Cub Hills, IL:. Author, Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (C HTAC) (2005). Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction 2005, Boise, IDs Author. ?thberg, K. L. and Stanford, L. A., Idaho Geologic Society (1992). Geologic Mair ofthel3oise Valley andAdjoiningArea, Western Snake River Plan, Idaho. (scale 1:100,000). Boise, Idaho: Joslyn and Morris. State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality, (April 2000), Technical Guidance Manual For Individual and Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems. Boise; Idaho: Author. U. S. Deparmiont of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Web Soil Survev. [Online) Available: <http:dlwebsoilsurvey nres,usda.govlappl> (2011,). U, S. Department of Commerce,, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Desert Research Institute; Western Rcgional Climate' Center. [Omine] Available: <Iittp:l/www.wrcc.dri.edul> (201I), U, S. Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, "CFR 29 Part 7926, subpart P; SafM'and Health Regulations for Construction, Excavations. (19861t'. [Online] Available: <w'ww.osba.go'v> (2011).,. U. S. Geological Survey. (2006). National Water Information System,: Web Interface. [Online] Available: <htt �Is�lwaterdata.us "s.govtnwis> (20,11). Copyright 02D 11 Mitenals Testing& In5peotion, In4,, 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 (268) W64148 • Fax (208) 322.5515 mh@mti-Id:com - t+Ww.mh-id.com - MATERIALS TESTING it INSPECTION ❑ Environmental Servires tl f;a 7 GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES 22 August 2011 Page # 24:of"32 \\server\reports\boise�20 Pt x� 'RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONS3STENCY CLASSIFICATIONi Field Test Coarse -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts N Fine -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts N Very Loose; <4 Very Soft: <2 Loose: 4-10 Soft: 2-4 Medium Dense: 10-30 Medium"Stiff. 4-8 Dense; 30-50 Stiff 8-15 Very Dense: >50 Very Stiff-, 15-30 SC Hard: >30 " Ind®ist3are't:ii�te3a't Description Field Test Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to touch Moist Damp but not visible moisture wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table PARTICLE ;SIZE Boulders: >12 in. Coarse -Grained Sand: 5 to 0,6 mm Silts; 0.075`toi1A05 into Cobbles: 12 to 3 in. Medium -Grained Sand: 0.6 to 0.2 mm Clays; <0,005'mm Gravel: 3 in. to 5 mitt F ne-Grained Sand: 0? to 0;075 mm UNIFIED Sbit e1; or MATERIALS TESTING Is INSPECTION Environmental Services 0I3e GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG 22 August 2011 Page 26 of 32 I reports\600 Test Pit T og #: TP -2 Date.Advanced: 8111/201;1 Dogged by: Elizabeth Brown, E.I.T. Excavated by Struckmanas Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Total Depth; 10.1 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and Sample Sample Depth QP Lab (Feet b s) USCS Soil and Sediment Classification Type Feet b s Test ID Lean Clay Fill (CL FILL): Light brown; dry, 0.0-1;$ verystiff, with silt, fine grained sand, and 4 2.5-3.0 inch minus cobbles. Organic material to 1 foot bgs: Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry, hard, 1.8-6.0 weak calcium carbonate cementation, fine GS 2,2-2,5 46+ grained sand: Sand content increased with depth. Poorly Graded Sandy Gravel (GP): Reddish brown, slightly moist, dense to very dense„,jine 6.0-10.1 to medium grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, 5inch minus cobbles. Cobble size increased with depth. .Lab Test ID M LL PI Sieve Analysis % _ - #4 #10 #40 #100 1 9200 A 28.1 NP NP 100 160' 78 64 53,9 Copyright ° 2031 M:ne3 ialg'festing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Viotory View Way • 8aise, ID 63709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322.6515 inti@mu-d.com = www:mti-id.com' MATERIALS 22 August 2011 TESTING & Page# 28 of 32 INSPECTION \\serverlreports\boise\2011 reports\60©- Environmental Services t=l C,eotedinical Engineering U Cotlstructijpftijie,3-%�AM725g-gep!36h AASHTO PAVEMENT TiIIc"ESS DESIGN PROCEDURES Pavement Section Design :Location: TargheeLodge-Homes,NoTruckAccess Average Daily Traffic Count: 200 All Lanes & Both Directions Design Life: 20 Years Percent of Traffic in -Design Lane: I06%' Terminal Sevieeability Index (Pt): 2.5 Level of Reliability: 95 SubgradeCSR Value: 4 Subgrade Mr: 6,000 Passenger Gars: Buses: Panel &Pickup Trucks: 2 -Axle; 6 -Tire Trucks: Emergency Vehicle: -Dump Trucks:. Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks: Double: Trailer. Trucks Heavy Tractor Trailer: Combo Trucks: Average Daily Traffic in Design Lane: Total Design Life -.l8 -Kip ESAU; Actual Log (ESAU); Trial SN; Trial Log (ESAU)'., Pavement Section Design SN: Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt -Treated Basei, 'Cemept-Treated Base: Crushed Aggregate Base:: Pit Run Aggregate Subgratde: Special Aggregate Subgrade: Calculation of Design -18 kip ESAU Daily Growth Load 'Traffic Rate Factors 80 2.0% 0.0.008 0 2,0%u 0,6806 15 2.0% 0.0122 4 2.+0% 0:1890 1.0 2.0:% 4.4800 0 2.0% 316300 0 2.0% 2.3719 -0 2.0% 2.31.87 0 2.0% 2.97¢0 100 48,626 4.687 2.45 Design ESALs 568 0 1,623 6;705 39,731 a 0. a 0 '4:696Thisnumbermust beequal :toorgreater than the :Actual Log. 2.61 This number must be equal To or greater than the Trial SN. Design Depth Structural Drainage Inches coefficient Coefficient 2.50 0.42 nla_ 0.00 0:25 n/a. 0.00- 0.17_ Wit 4.00 0.14 1.0 70.00. 0.1.0 1.0- 000 0.09 0.9 Copyright a,2011 Materials Testing & Inspection,. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise,ID,837D9 • (208)376-4748 • Fax(208)322-6515 mtiOmfi-[d:com • www-mti-id.com -' 91 MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION r� AASHTO RIGID PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES 22 August 2011 Page It 30 of 32 Cgpyrigbt 9 2011,Materials Testing t# hispeotim Ind'.. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83743 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 ndti@rntHd.com • www.rnti-id,com .Pavement Section Design Location: Targhee Lodge Homes, Parking. Garage Average Daily Traffic Count: 200 All Lanes & Both Directions Design: Lifet 20 Yeats % ofTraffic .in Design Lane: 100 Terminal Seviceability index,:. Pt: 2 (2 5 for major bighways; 2.0 for Ipwertrafc volumes) Level of Reliability,. R: 95 R -Value: -9 $ubgrade CBR Value: 4 Subgrade Mr: 6,000 Native Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, K: 125 (select from chart based no CBR Value) Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, Kt 160(mnddied for base aggregate section, indicate at botm_m of sheet) ConcreteElasticModulus, Ec; 4200000 (typical is 4,200,000 psi) Modulus of Rapture, Ste: 650 (typical is 750 psi). Load Transfer Coefficient, Jt 4-2 (see information to the right fogse)ection) Drainage Coefficient, Cd: I (sea Table 520 1 8.1 from Idaho Manual) Standard Deviation, Sot 0.34 (use 0.34 without specific information) Design: Serviceability Loss, Delta PSI: 2,5 (2.0 for interstates 8c 2:5 for stequdary words)_ Calculation of Design 18 kip ESAU Daily Growth Load Design Traffic: Rate -Factors. ESAL's Passenger Cars: 61 2.6% 0,0008 433 Buses: 5 2:.'0% 0:6806 30;180 Panel $e Pickup Trucks: 20. 2.0810 0,0122 2j64 (al 2 Axle, 6 Tire Trueksi 10. 2A"!u tr, 1890 16;762 -Emergency Veliicle; 1 2.0% 44800 39,73;1 Dump Tricks, 9 2,0% 3.6300 32,193 Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks; 2 2,0% 23719 42;071 . Double: Trailer Trucks 0 2.0% 2.3187 0 Heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucksp 0 2A°(c 2,9760 '0 Average DallyTraffic in Design Lorre: 700 Total Design Life 18 kip ESAL's: 161,532 Traffic index equivalent= 73 Actual. Log (ESAL's); -5,214- Trial Pavement Design Thickness; inches: 2.40' Trial Log (ESALTs): 5.648 This Won be equal to or greater titan the Actual Log (ESAL's) Pavement Design Thickness, Inches; 7.0 Road Mix Sechlou Thickness; litciies: 6.0 Cgpyrigbt 9 2011,Materials Testing t# hispeotim Ind'.. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83743 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 ndti@rntHd.com • www.rnti-id,com � / q � �\ 0/f\\\ 2 a ,« } ®L w ; W. ; 2±} � LF th g z�}#` leadowlake Village: Targhee Building Drainage • Meridian, Idaho Prepared for LRS Architects 720 NW Davis, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97209 Prepared by SPF Water Engineering, LLC 300 East Mallard, Suite 350 Boise, Idaho 83706 (208) 383-4140 0910612011 F` SPF AT ENGINEERING 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Meadowlake Village development is located south of East Franklin Road and east of Eagle Road within the City of Meridian Idaho. The Targhee Building site is located within the Meadowlake Village community and is bounded by Grand Lodge Loop to the west, Clocktower Drive to the north, and Arbor Circle to the east. The project site is approximately 2.2 acres in size and will include the construction of an assisted living facility. The existing and proposed storm water design utilizes subsurface infiltration facilities for the disposal of storm water. All existing and proposed streets and drainage facilities within and surrounding the Targhee Building site are private. All stormwater calculations were performed in accordance with ACHD requirements as outlined in ACHD Policy Manual Section 8000. 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS The proposed building site currently is open space with minimal slopes in the terrain that are typically less than 2%. A 36" gravity irrigation line runs along the northern portion of the site. Currently, storm water runoff that falls on the site infiltrates into the soil, or drains into one of the existing storm drain facilities located on and near the site. A number of storm drainage facilities for this site were constructed with the initial Grand Lodge construction in approximately 2005. Based on our review of the record drawings it is our conclusion that these facilities were located and sized to serve the entire Targhee Lodge development based on the initial master plan. A copy of the original master plan prepared by Briggs Engineering showing the original site plan, drainage basins and storm drain facilities is located in Appendix A. A public records request for the original drainage report for the development was made to the City of Meridian. The City stated that they had no records of this development phase on file. 2.1. Site Geology The Geotechnical report prepared by Materials Testing and Inspection dated August 22, (in Appendix D) generally describes the site to have approximately 2 -feet of lean clay with silt and gravel fill materials extending to a depth of approximately 2 feet bgs. Below these surficial soils a layer of hard, stiff sandy silts with some cementation extends to a depth of approximately 6 feet bgs. This layer of sandy silts is underlain by a thick layer of poorly graded sand and gravel that extended to the bottom of the excavated test pits. These poorly graded sands and gravels located approximately 6 feet bgs are well suited for the subsurface disposal of stormwater with recommended design infiltration rates of 8 inches/hour. 2.2. Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in test pits excavated to a maximum depth of 15.2 feet bgs. The Geotechnical Report states that IDWR well drillers reports within 1/2 mile of the project site indicate that groundwater levels are typically 20 to 40 feet bgs. The SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page 1 Meadowlake Village 926.0010 09/06/2011 Drainage Report Stormwater conveyance and infiltration facilities have been sized to accommodate the 100 -year storm event. Calculations are provided in Appendix B and C. 4.1. Methodology The proposed site was broken into separate drainage basins representing surface runoff entering each catch basin. The Rational Method was used to determine the peak flow leaving each basin. The Rational Method calculates runoff from the following equation: Q = C*I*A where Q = Runoff (cfs) C = runoff coefficient based on land use I = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) A = Area (acres) 4.2. Peak Flows Peak flows were calculated using the Rational Method. The Method assumes that the peak flow will occur when the runoff from the most hydrologically distant point on the site reaches the point of interest (time of concentration). The Rational Method uses a Rainfall Intensity, Duration, and Frequency graph to determine the rainfall intensity to use. The rainfall intensities decrease as the storm duration increases, therefore the peak runoff flow will occur when the intensities are the highest and the duration is the shortest. The standard storm duration of 10 -minutes was used to determine the peak 100 -year storm flows. Calculations for each basin's runoff can be seen in Appendix B. 4.3. Infiltration/Percolation Facility Volumes Two existing and two new subsurface infiltration beds are proposed to serve Drainage Basins A, B, C and D. Seepage Bed C will require a 19 foot long expansion to provide the necessary storage volume. These facilities have been sized for the 100 -year storm event assuming a one-hour storm duration in accordance with current ACHD policy. The required seepage bed storage volumes (Vr) were calculated by subtracting the volume of water infiltrated in the seepage bed during the storm event from the total runoff volume. This volume (Vr) was then increased by 25% to allow for sedimentation. The drainage facilities have been designed to drain within a 24 hr period based on an infiltration rate of 8 in/hr per the geotechnical report. See the provided calculations in Appendix B. 4.4. Sand/Grease Traps Sand and grease traps are required to be installed upstream of the infiltration/percolation facilities to remove the majority of the oil, pollutants, and sediments. Sand and grease traps shall be designed to limit the velocity through the throat of the baffles to 0.50 ft/s or less. Using the width of the vault, maximum allowable velocity, and calculated peak flows, the required distance between the baffles can be calculated. For this project all on-site flows including the 100 -year peak flows are proposed to be routed through existing or new sand and grease traps. The calculations indicate that peak flows through the sand and SPF Water Engineering, LLC Page 3 Meadowlake Village 926.0010 09/06/2011 Drainage Report Appendix A Exhibits vnu Aw CJ A 4A f � Ir 4E >� 4B / PROPOSED TARGHEE / RI III nINr. / 256 ► PROPOSE[ I TARGHEE 'BUILDING 5C 5D 11B / .. ° 1 s �SGIIAN4 tib r, Ll _ 05E IF Fa LI II 1 11A / ; < if i 01 N / NOTES, 1. THIS EXHIBIT ILLUSTRATES THE STORM DRAIN 1SPF WATER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 2005 AND �` , THE DESIGN DRAINAGE BASINS USED BY BRIGGS ENGINEERING ENGINEERING TO SIZE AND LOCATE THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES. IT IS 300 East Mallard Drive, Suite 350 INCLUDED FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES ONLY TO THE CURRENT PLAN. Boise, Idaho 83706 Tel(208)383-4140 Fax(208)383-4156 2. THE CURRENT DRAINAGE PLAN FOR BASINS 4 AND 25 AS ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN FOR SHOWN HERE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL MASTER MEADOWLAKE VILLAGE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY PLAN. AS SUCH, DRAINAGE CALCS AND SIZING FOR THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WERE NOT PERFORMED. THE CURRENT ANALYSIS INCLUDES CHANGES TO BASINS 5, 11 AND SCALE: 1"= 80 26 AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. DRAWN BY. BLW ORIGINAL DRAINAGE BASIN MAP WON CJ A 4A f � Ir 4E >� 4B / PROPOSED TARGHEE / RI III nINr. / 256 ► PROPOSE[ I TARGHEE 'BUILDING 5C 5D 11B / .. ° 1 s �SGIIAN4 tib r, Ll _ 05E IF Fa LI II 1 11A / ; < if i 01 N / NOTES, 1. THIS EXHIBIT ILLUSTRATES THE STORM DRAIN 1SPF WATER IMPROVEMENTS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 2005 AND �` , THE DESIGN DRAINAGE BASINS USED BY BRIGGS ENGINEERING ENGINEERING TO SIZE AND LOCATE THE STORM DRAIN FACILITIES. IT IS 300 East Mallard Drive, Suite 350 INCLUDED FOR COMPARATIVE PURPOSES ONLY TO THE CURRENT PLAN. Boise, Idaho 83706 Tel(208)383-4140 Fax(208)383-4156 2. THE CURRENT DRAINAGE PLAN FOR BASINS 4 AND 25 AS ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN FOR SHOWN HERE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL MASTER MEADOWLAKE VILLAGE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY PLAN. AS SUCH, DRAINAGE CALCS AND SIZING FOR THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING WERE NOT PERFORMED. THE CURRENT ANALYSIS INCLUDES CHANGES TO BASINS 5, 11 AND SCALE: 1"= 80 26 AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. DRAWN BY. BLW ORIGINAL DRAINAGE BASIN MAP UA S In /7 1. Project Name Meadowiake Village Targhee Building- Basin A 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? Yes (mapmust be included withstormwater calculations) 3 Enter Storm Frequency (100 -year per ACH D.policy) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities (10 max) 5 Area of Drainage Basin (SF or Acres) SF Acre 6 Determine: the Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C) C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn))/A Weighted Avl 1 Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 24756.00 11422.00 13452.00 12 Calculate Vwq (for sizing WO. facilities) 134 Enter Percentile Storm I (80th percentile '= 0.34 iii). Both 0.34 In - Enter WQ Volume (VWQ:= Cxi (from line above) xm3600) 0.30 0.95 0.95 13 Enter approved discharge rate for the given storm (if applicable) of$ 0.63 14 Volume Summary 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes (Tc) or use 10 user caialate min minimum to Min. i. 9`Calculate the: Post -Project peak discharge (QPeak) Qpuk 2.22 2.22 ds j v 10 Calculate peak Qwq (uses2-yrstorm) two 0.86 cfs: �J (used for SIG Trap throat velocity, WQ storm conveyance system sizing) 11 Calculate total runoff vol (V) (for sizing primary storage) V 2,954 113 V = Ci (Tc=60)Ax3600 12 Calculate Vwq (for sizing WO. facilities) Enter Percentile Storm I (80th percentile '= 0.34 iii). Both 0.34 In - Enter WQ Volume (VWQ:= Cxi (from line above) xm3600) Vwq '. 873 fe 13 Enter approved discharge rate for the given storm (if applicable) of$ 14 Volume Summary Surface Storage: Pond - WQ Pond Forebay + 15% sediment V 1,004 it' Primary Treatment/Storage Basin V 7 7081 ft' . Subsurface Storage: Seepage Bed Primary Treatment/Storage Basin +251)6 Sediment V '.'.3,693 3,693 ft' ✓. ________�. \(r w. ?{.s -3 t3 1 Project Name 2 Enter number Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin A 0 A 51011 f'"I ence for Throat widths (inch) Number Peak Baffle Throat Vault VelocityD WQU, Vault Size of SIG Flow Q Spacing width Area (itZ) 0.5 fpsTraps n/a G 60.0 cfs (inch) (inch) n/a max. 60 1500 G 1 2.22 1 19 60 1 7.92 1 0.28 ence for Throat widths (inch) ti.. -V ._ V 0. 7,8 -04/A ✓r Boise ADS Vault Lar -ken WQU, BMP 16 G 4&0 50.5 n/a G 60.0 61.5 n/a 1000 n/a n/a. 60 1500 n/a n/a 60 ti.. -V ._ V 0. 7,8 -04/A ✓r tDi*s r1 1Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basing 2 Enter number of Seepage Beds (10 max) 1 3 Design Storm 100 year -4 Weighted; Runoff Coefficient -C 0.83 5 Area A (Acres):: 0.70 6 Approveddischarge rate for the given. storm ('d applicable): It€ 0.00 cfs'. 7 Design Volume W/25%Sediment V 2,991 ftp j4 -8 Set Design 'Width - W 12 it 9.Set Design -Depth D 7.00 ft. Rock Only, 3 -ft filter sand In excavating depth only FIX 10 Void Ratio of Drain Rack Void 0A 0.4 for'1.5"-7" drain rock 0:- 11 Design Infiltration, Rate (8 iq/hr max) Perc_ {! 8 in/kfr 12 Area Infiltration Niferc 1,05b f2 13 Volume infiltration_ Vperc 704 ft3/hr- 14 5ixe of Peri Pipe Dia pipe 12 in 15 CaltulateTagaf Storage per Foot 5pf 33`8 ti'/It Apf=WxOxVoidtApp 0-50 16 Calculate. Design Length. L S8 88 ft _17- Check Storage for Perc Rate for 24 -flour Period l :Storm Duration 1 Q._ .Runoff Vol PercVol :Pre-Proj Vol Max Vol Reqd Mine Nr. in/hr - cfs- ftp- ft' W - ft 11 10: FIX 3.1.1 : 1.79 '1,348 0:- 0. 1,346. i5 0.25 _. 2,62 1.52 - 1,705 0 0 '-1,705:: 30 0-50 1.82 1.05, 2,363. - 0 -.. 0 2,363•: 60 1.00 -... 115 0.616 2;991 0 0 120 - 2.00 0.66 ...:.0,38 %413. 704... 0 2,709. ?80 3.00 0.48 01.28 3,779 1,408 0 2,371 360 6 00' 0:30 017- 4,8`t8 3,520 - 0 - 1,1,58- 720...- 12.00 - . 0,19: - 0.11. - 5,9'17- 7,744 ;0 -1,767..: 1440._.. 24.00 0.12...:....007 7.277.... 16,192. 0 -8915.:... Total Design V01, 2,991 18 1 me to Drain 90% volume in 24 -hours minimum ' 3.8 hours. 1 Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin C - 2 Is area drainage: basin map provided? Yes (mapmust be included With stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Storm Frequency (100 -year per ACHD policy) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities (10 max) 1 5 Area of Drainage Basin (SF or Acres) SF Acre! 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient (C) C=[(CixA1)+-(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)j/A Weighted Avt Q #9 511"® Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4 Basin 5 Basin 6 Basin 7 6973.00 6347.00 9566.00 11 Calculate total runoff vol (V) (for sizing primary storage) V -. 1,637 1,637 ft3 V - Ci (Tc=60)Ax3600 - 0.53 - Enter Percentile Storm 1 (80th percentile..- 0,34 in) 80th 0.34 in Enter WQ Volume (VWQ= Cxi (from line above) xAx3600) - VvJQ 484 ft3 - 13 Enter approved discharge rate for the given storm (if applicable) - 0.30 0.95 0.95 Surface Storage: Pond WQ Pond Forebay+ IS%. sediment V - . 556 it, 035 1,153 fY' Subsurface Storage: Seepage Bed - - � ---<-; --., .Primary Treatment/Storage Basin +25%Sediwent V .2A46 � 2,046 ft' 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes (To) or use 14 min minimum _... r User calculate to Min _ 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity (I) from OF Curve 1 - 3,11 _ n r 9 Calculate the Post -Project peak discharge (QPeak) C68 1.23 1.23 ofs 10 Calculate peak Qwq (uses 2 -yr storm) Q,,Q 0.48 cis (used for S/G Trap throat velocity, WQ storm conveyance system sizing) 11 Calculate total runoff vol (V) (for sizing primary storage) V -. 1,637 1,637 ft3 V - Ci (Tc=60)Ax3600 - 12Calculate .Vwq.(for sizing Wo. facilities).-, - - Enter Percentile Storm 1 (80th percentile..- 0,34 in) 80th 0.34 in Enter WQ Volume (VWQ= Cxi (from line above) xAx3600) - VvJQ 484 ft3 - 13 Enter approved discharge rate for the given storm (if applicable) - cfs 14 Volume Summary Surface Storage: Pond WQ Pond Forebay+ IS%. sediment V - . 556 it, Primary Treatment/Storage Basin V 1,153 fY' Subsurface Storage: Seepage Bed - - � ---<-; --., .Primary Treatment/Storage Basin +25%Sediwent V .2A46 � 2,046 ft' 1 Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin C Enter number 1 t5,09 son G. ence for Throat widths (inch) f"pi,r re Lu A SY S Number Peak Baffle Throat Velocity Is the Vault Size of SIG Flow Q Spacing width Area(ft) 0.5 fps Velocity 61.5 Traps cis (inch) (inch) 60 max, ok? 1000 G 1 1.23 12 48 4.00- 0.31 ence for Throat widths (inch) f"pi,r re Lu A SY S Ai�ddZ � �x,S�tn4',. LY /i"C°-8 Boise Vault Lar -ken ADS WQU, {7 '.� {j,rj`,.•, per.. BMP 16 G 48.0 50.5 n/a G 60.0 61.5 n/a 1000 n/a n/a 60 1500 n/a n/a 60 Ai�ddZ � �x,S�tn4',. LY /i"C°-8 OAS 00% 'tom Project Name Meadowlake Village Targhee Building- Basin D L Enter number of seeba¢e Beds -.. uesign �mrrn, iw year 4 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.74 5:Area A(Acres). 0.09 -6:Approved discharge, rate for the given storm (if applicable). 0.00 cfs 7;Design Volume W/25%, Sediment- V - - 357 it ,3.57' to 8.Set Design ;Width W% ft 9 Set Design Depth 0 6.00 ff ,Rock Only, 3 -ft filtersand in excavation depth only 0.25' 10 Void Ratio of Drain; Rock 0.4 for 1.5"-2' drain rock 11. Design Infiltration Rate (8 m/hr max) 12 Area Infiltration 13 Volume Infiltration ti4 Size of Perf',Pipe 15. Callculate Total Storage per Foot. Apf=WxDxVoid+App: 10 nalr i:late Design Length 17 Check Storage for Perc Rate for: Void0.4 Pero 8 in/hr- Aperc `- :147 ft. Vperc 98 ft3/hr Dia pipe 12 in Spf 24.2 ft'(R L 15 1.5 it 0 Storm Duration I L l G1` ( Runoff Vol I florc: tical ( Pre -Pro] Vo( I Max Vol Rmid (j Min lir in/hr cfs ft3 'ft3 ,fta- ft' 35 0.25' 2.62 -0.18: 204 0 0 704... 30 0.50.... 3.82 0.13282 _ 0 _ 0` ..282 60 Z00 1.15 ',0.08 - 38 7 0'_-�.:. 9 .,. 120 - 2,.00 -0.66 -. 0,05 407 - 98 0 309 180 300 0.48 0.03 _. 451 :. 196 0 255 360 - 6 0b :0.30 A.07, 558 491 :0 ,:0 67 720 -- 12.00 0.19 - `0,01 714 "1,080 ' 36"7 -'. 1,440 : 2?1.00 012 0.d1 1 869' 2,259 0 •1390 18 Time to Drain 90% dolun7e in 2,4 -hours miown Iurn Total '.Design Vol.1 (357 1' 3.9 hours Appendix C Pipe Conveyance Calculations I 1. Y Y Y Y 0 0 0 0 3 00 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 n n n M m m m ii v Qj v v 3 3 3 3 m m m m O O O O A n n n m m m m m m m m W y a a a a am+ o F F� Z 3 3 3 3 n n n n 0 0 0 0 LL LL LL LL 4�- w w � L 3 m m m m o 0 0 O O 0 O (% to In to C C C C m m m m C C C C io m .gy m a 0 MMOM FO- FO H -o -o D Z) M) � 3 O gJ LL M M m M m N N N N N N Z 4 V c4 O O O c4 a O O u m LL _ u LL d _ Q _ V l0 O1 M O1 M N lA X A. 1 � l6 O O N N h .--I O V LL O W N m W l+'1 M O N— M O O O O Q Z M m m M M M m M z Z ,„ O O O O O O O O Q O O O O O O O O O OM d' J W l^D W lC N y LL V O O O O O O O O = N NZ m m oo m m r V u o 0 LL¢¢ Q¢ u a I 1. MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION Mr. Joseph A. Billig Touchmark Development & Construction 5150 SW Griffith Drive Beaverton, Oregon 97005 (503) 646-5186 Dear Mr. Billig: 22 August 2011 Page # 1 of ')2 Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Targhee Lodge Homes Meadow Lake Village at Touchmark 4037 Clocktower Drive Meridian, Idaho In compliance with your instructions; we have conducted a soils exploration and,foundation evaluation for the above referenced development. Fieldwork for this investigation was conducted on 1 I August 2011, Data have been analyzed to evaluate ,pertinent <geotechnical conditions. Results of this investigation,, together with our recommendations, are to be found in the following report. We ,have provided three copies for your review and distribution. Often questions arise concerning soil conditions because of design and, construction, details that -occur on •a project. MTI would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical engineers during project implementation. Additionally, MTI would be pleased in providing materials testing and special inspection services during -construction of this project. If you will advise us of the appropriate time to discuss these engineering services,, we will be pleased to meet with you at your convenience. MTI appreciates this opportunity to be of service to you and looks forward to working with you'in the future. If you have'questions, please call (208)376-4748, Respectfully Submitted, Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc, Elizabeth Brown, E.I.T. Staff Enginee Reviewed Sy; Kevin L. Schroeder, P;G. k sp"tion, Inc, K TESTING & INSPECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS 22 August 2011 Page 4 2 of 32 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......... ....... ..................................... ............. 3 INTRODUCTION.......... -- ..... ...... -- ........... ............... ............ -'- .................................. 5 Project Description ........ -- ............... ................................. ......... . .. ......... - .... . ............................. 5 Authorization........ ........................ ....... ......... ............... 5 Purpose... - ..... .... ................ ............... ............... ....... ............... .......................... ........... ....... ............ _ 5 Scopeof Investigation.... ........... .............. ..... - ... ................................ .......... ......... _ ........ 1-1-1.1- ........ - ...... 6 Warranty and Limiting Conditions ... .................................................. — ......... ....... ....... .............. ....... 6 ExclusiveUse ......... .......... .......... _ ... _ ..... _ ....... ........................... ......... .... 6 Report Recommendation are Limited and Subject to Misinterpretation. ..................... ......................... 6 Environmental Concerns.... .... ...... ......... ....... ....... ........ ...................................... 7 SITEDESCRIPTION ..... .............. ................. - ..... --- ...... -.1 ........... ....... .... - .. ......... 7 SiteAccess ....................................... ....... ................. ............ ..................... 7 RegionalGeology,..,.:, ................... ................. .............. ............. . ....... 7 General Site Characteristics......... -- ........ ...... .......... ........... ................................. 8 Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry ............. ....... ......... - ..... -'_ ........... ......... 8 GeoseismicSetting..... ..................................... -'- ................. .................. ......... _ ............ ... 8 SOILS EXPLORATION ..... .... ---- ... ............ . . ............................... ....... 9 Exploration and Sampling Procedures ....................... -- ....... - ... ........ ........ .............................. .............. 9 Laboratory Testing Program ................... ............ -1.----- ........... ............... ....... — .......... ......... .......... 9 Soil and Sediment'Profile . ........................ ........... ................................................. 9 SoilsSurvey Review ..................... ...... ................. ... _ .... ........ ........................ __ .................... .........10 VolatileOrganic Scan...... ..... .......... --- ............. ........................... ...... . ............. ........... 10 SlITHYDROLOGY... ................ .................................... ........... ........ ......... ....... ................ 10 Groundwater............. .......... .... - ....... ...... - ....... ...... ...... .............. ........ ................... ............. 10 Soil Infiltration Rates- ........ .... - ... ......... .......................... - ... ............ ......... ....... .... -- ... --- -- I I LATERAU FARTU PRESSURES ...... ...... .......... ............ ..... - ... ........................... .......... ... -- .............................. 11, Retaining Wall Backfill Materials ......................... ..... . ....... ....... ....... ....... - .......... 12 RetainingWall Drainage., ........... ....... ............. ......... -- ...... ............ ...... .. ......... .. ............. .. .......... 13 FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND PAVEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........... .................. ------ ......... ... 13 Foundation Design Recommendations . ......... ................ ..... - ........ - ....... ...... - I ... 1.1.1-1-- ... ..................... 13 FloorSlab -on -Grade-.. ......... ...... — .. ........... .............. ...... ......... . -.. - ....... ............ .. ....... 14 Recommended Pavement Sections ........ -- ........ ........... ................ ........................ ..................... 15 Flexible Pavement Sections.. .... . ... ...................... ... ---- ... ....... --- ... ............. 15 RigidPavement Sections- ........ - ....... — .......... ..... ............... .......... .......................... ...... 16 Common Pavement Section Construction Issues ... ............. ......................... .................. ..... 16 CONSTRUCTION CuNsiDuRA'OoNs ...... ---- .................. .... ....... ......... ......... . ............ .......... 17 Earthwork...... ........ ................... ........ ................. .............................. ............... ...... 17 DryWeather- ... ........... ....................... .................. ............ ....... ............ ___ ...... .........:18 WetWeather..... ........ - ............... ---- ......... ....... ........ t ....... 18 Soft Subgrade Soils..... . .................. .......... ......... ............ ..................... Is FrozenSubtrade Soils .... ................................................................. ......... ....... . 19 StructuralFill ......... ............. ............ ......... --- ..... ...................... ......... ..................... - ........ 19 Backfillof Walls......... . ..... ....... -- ..... ............. ...... . .......................... - ............ ............. ........ ......... 20 Excavations-.- ....... . . ....... ...... ............. --- ........................................ 2'0 Groundwater Comrol-- .... .......... .............................. ... .................. - ......... 20 GENERALCOMMIENTS --- .................. ........ ...... --- .............. ................... .... .... ............ -- ............... 21 Rt--FLRENcFs - ................... - ... ... ..... ... ....................... _ ........... ........ - ........... . --- ........................ - .... M APPENDICES-.:. ....... .................... ......... .................... ..... - ......... . ......... ............................................23 AcronymList ....... - .......................................... ............. .............. ............... .............. ............. ..... _- ...... _ 23 Geotechnical General Notes .,-... ... ...... - ..... - ..... ...... .................. . .................................... ......... 24 Geolochnical Investigation Test Pit Log ....... ....... -- ......... ....... ................... 25 AAS'HTO Pavement Thickness Design Procedures .............. ....... ...... - ....... ........... .............................. 28 Plate1. Vicinity Map.:. ............ .............. ........ -_ .......... ......................................................... ................ ..... 31 Plate2: Site Map- .......... -- ..... -- ..... - ................. _ ...... ....................... ... ____ .. . .. . ..... .......... ....... ... _ ... _., 32 Copyright a 2011 Materials Testing & Inspectiou. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 - (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-65.15 rnti@rnti-ld-corn - wwwtriti-Id,porn CR•",^' "%K `"' 22 August 2011 TESTING Er Page # 4 of 32 INSPECTION Q Building Foundations: Based on data obtained from the site and test results from various laboratory_ tests performed, MTI recommends following guidelines for the. net allowable soils bearing capacity: Soil Bearing Capacity Footing Depth, ASTM D 1557 '` Sud rade Compaction Net Allowable Soil Bearin Capackty Footings must bear on competent, native, 2 000 lbs/ft2 cemented sandy silt soils, silty sand sediments or Not Required for compacted structural fill, Existing fill materials Native Soil i A 1J increase is allowable must be completely removed from below i foundation elements. Excavation depths ranging for -short-term loading; from L2 to 1.$ feet bgs should be, anticipated to 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic expose proper bearing soils:_ events or designed wind speeds Footings must bear on competent, native; undisturbed poorly graded sandy gravel sediments 6,000lbs/fl? or compacted structural fill. Existing fill Not Required for materials and silt soils must be completely Native Soil A 'ls increase is allowable removed from below foundation elementsi for short-term loading, Excavation depths, ranging from 5.5 to 6.0 feet 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic bgs should be anticipated to expose proper events or designed wind bearing soils, I speeds. Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2009'113C minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately I inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately % inch. Objectionable soil types encountered at the bottom of footing excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footing subgrade will require aver -excavation and backfilling with structural fill, To minimize the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content, MTl recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. For frost protection, The bottom of external footings should be 30 inches below finished grade. Floor Slabs: Uncontrolled fill, was encountered in portions of the site. MTI recommends that Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way - Boise, [D 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 roti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com •Yra � v■ \Yr\`y.� TESTING it 22 August 2011 Page # 6 of 32 INSPECTION W Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation included review of geologic literature and existing available geotechnical studies of the area, visual site reconnaissance of the immediate site, subsurface exploration of the site, field and laboratory testing of materials collected,, and engineering analysis and, evaluation of foundation materials. Warranty and Limiting Conditions MTI warrants that findings and conclusions contained herein have been formulated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics, and engineering geology only for the site and project described in this report. These engineering methods have been developed to provide the client with information regarding apparent or potential engineering conditions relating to the site within the scope cited above and are necessarily limited to conditions observed at the- time of the site visit and research. Field observations and research reported herein are considered sufftcient,in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the purposes cited above. Exclusive This report was prepared for exclusive use of the property owners), at the time of the report, and their retained design consultants ("Client"). Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the agreed-upon scope of work outlined in this report together with the Contract for Professional Services between the Client and Materials Testing and Inspection,_ Inc, (,,Consultant"). Use or misuse of this report, or reliance upon findings hereof, by parties other than the Client is at their own risk. Neither Client nor Consultant make representation of warranty to such other parties as to accuracy or completeness of this report or suitability of its use by such other parties for purposes whatsoever, known or unknown, to Client or Consultant, Neither Client nor Consultant sball have liability to indemnify or hold harmless third parties for losses incurred by :actual or purported use or misuse of this report. No other warranties are implied or expressed. Report Recommendation are Limited and Subiect to Misinterpretation There is a distinct possibility that conditions may exist that could not be identifiedwithin the scope of the investigation or that were not apparent during our site investigation. Findings of this report are limited to data collected from noted explorations advanced and do not account for unidentified till zones; unsuitable soil types or conditions, and variability in soil moisture and groundwater conditions. To avoid possible misinterpretations of findings, conclusions, and implications of this report, MTI should be retained to explain the report contents to other design professionals as well as construction professionals. Since actual subsurface conditions on the site can only be verified by earthwork, note that construction recommendations are based on general assumptions from selective observations and "selective field exploratory sampling. Upon commencement of construction, such, conditions may be identified that required corrective actions, ;and these required corrective actions may 'impact the project budget. Therefore, construction recommendations in this report should be considered preliminary, and_MTI should be retained to observe actual subsurface conditions during earthwork construction activities to provide additional construction recommendations as needed, 2791 South Victory View`Way Boise„ ER 83709 • (208) 376-4748 roti@intHd com + WWW,MtE id.com �� ••�••...•22 August 2011 TESTING & Page t# 8of32 INSPECTION Cl Environmental Services U Geotechnical Engirieerin a ❑ �o stns tip A i�ra a`���}\ �portslboise\20] 1 reports1600- The project site is underlain by "Gravel of Sunrise Terrace" as:mapped by Othberg and Stanford (1993). The Sunrise terrace is the third terrace above the modern Boise River in the eastern Boise Valley, composed of sandy pebble and cobble gravel, and is about 115 feet above river level. Quaternary faulting has probably truncated and tilted this terrace along with olden surfaces. The surface of this deposit is mantled with -3-7 feet 'Of loess containing a weakly to moderately developed duripan. Based on-stratigraphic correlation the. Sunrise terrace may be correlative with the Wilder terrace further to the west.. General Site Characteristics This proposed development consists of approximately 1.5 acres of relatively level land. Throughout the majority of the site, surficial materials consist of fine-grained clay -silt with gravel fills. Vegetation primarily consistsof lawn grasses, bunchgrass, and other :native grass varieties typical of and to semi -arid environments. Regional drainage is north toward the Boise River. Storm water drainage for the site is achieved by percolation through surficial soils. Storm water drainage collection and retention systems are, not in place on the project site and do currently exist within the driveways around the project site. Regional Site; Climatology and Geochemistry According to the Western -Regional Climate Center (WRCC, 2006) the average precipitation for Treasure Valley is on the order of 10 to 12 inches per year, with an annual :snowfall of approximately 20 inches and -a range from 3 to 49 inches. The monthly mean daily temperatures range from 210 F to 95° F with daily extremes: ranging from -25° F to I I V F. Winds are generally from the northwest or southeast with an annual average wind speed of approximately 9 miles per hour (mpl) with a maximum of 62 mph. Soils and sediments in the area are primarily derived from siliceous materials and exhibit low electro -chemical potential for corrosion of metals or concretes. Local aggregates are generally appropriate for Portland cement and lime cement mixtures. Surface waters, groundwaters, and soils in the region typically have pH levels ranging from 7.2 to 8.2 (USGS 2006), Geoseismic Setting Soils on site are classed as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2009 edition of the IBC, Structures constructed on this site should be designed per IBC requirements for such a seismic classification. Our investigation did not reveal hazards resulting from potential earthquake motions including: slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture caused by faulting or Iateral spreading. Incidence and anticipated acceleration ofseismic activity in the area is low. M1 South Victory View Way - noise, ID 88 mti@rrtl- d.oDm 376.4748-+ Fax(208)322-651.5 Inc; ••"' • `• ••"`� 22 August 2011 TESTING & Page# 10 of 32 INSPECTION \lserver\reportstboise\2011 reports\600- Environmental services ❑ Geotechnical Engineering Constructicta f aG a)a 3 e�tin a _ _75nrriaJ.:t_n Por n In many of the deeper developed soils, poorly ,graded sandy gravels are encountered. Poorly graded gravels are most often classified as reddish brown, dry to slightly moist„ and vary in relative density from dense to very dense. Clasts found within the poorly graded gravels are generally granitic in composition withminor basalt clasts. Soils Survey Review Review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service; Soil Survey of Ada County Area, Idaho, 1980, indicates that the site is underlain by the Elijah silt loam. Specific soils characteristics, as defined by the USDA, are moderately slow permeability above the hardpan and very slow through fractures in the hardpan, slow runoff, and slight erosion hazard, Volatile Organic Scan No environmental concerns were identified prior to comrnencement of the investigation. Therefore, soils obtained during on-site activities were not assessed for volatile organic compounds by portable photoionization detector. Samples obtained during our exploration activities exhibited no odors or discoloration typically associated with this type contamination. No groundwater was encountered. SITE HYDROLOGY Existing surface drainage conditions are defined in the :General Site Characteristics section. Information provided in this section is limited to observations made at the time of the investigation. Either regional or local ordinances may require information beyond the scope of this report, Groundwater During this field investigation, groundwater was not encountered in test pits advanced to a maximum depth of 15.2 feet bgs. Soil moistures in the test pits were generally dry to slightly moist. In the vicinity of the project site, groundwater levels are controlled in large part by residential and commercial irrigation activity and leakage from nearby canals. Maximum grourrdwater elevations likely occur during the later portion of the irrigation season. During _a previous investigation performed in February 2001 at the Meadow Lake Village Development, no evidence of groundwater was noted within test pits advanced to. depths as great as 14.2 feet bgs. Furthermore, according to USGS monitoring well data within approximately /2Tmile of the project site; groundwater was measured at a depth of 40.0 feet bgs, which equates to a groundwater elevation of 2,635 feet above mean sea level (msl). Idaho Department of Water Resources Well Driller's Reports within tl2-mile of the project site indicate static, groundwater levels range between 20 and 44 feet bgs- C,pYdAi ® 21P7 tMatenals'I'e tipg & Tnsp"ooli, Inc, 2787 South Victory View way -Boise, ID 83709 . (208)376-4748 Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mtHc1,00m • www.mti-id.com #VIP%1 CPCIHL� TESTING 6 INSPECTION P-1 22 August 2011 Page # 12 of 32 Below -grade restrained walls, such as basement walls; should be designed based on at -rest Pressures. fictive Pressures are appropriate under conditions where the walI moves or rotates away from the sail mass at failure. Passive pressures' are used for conditions where the wall moves toward the soil mass at failure. Rotation, or lateral movement, of the top of the wall equal to 0.002 times the height of the wall will be necessary for on- site soil backfill to achieve an "active" loading condition_ Lateral movement of the top of the wail equal to 0.001 times the height of the wall will be necessary for the "active' pressure condition for imported SP/GP structural backfill. Retaining Wall Backfill Materials For lateral earth pressure analysis, MTI anticipates that the soils of interest will be the native an silt (ML) sails encountered between 1.2 and 6 feet bgs in the test pits. For these soils, the following values are applicable under non -surcharged, drained conditions: �u�G. a: , ar�,r i ressure v aides for Native Soil Soil Type- Sandy Silt Internal Friction Angle: 2.8 ° Dry Unit Weight: 105 pcf Cohesion:: 200 psf Bouyant Unit Weight: 68 pef Natural Void Ratio: 0,7 Natural, Moisture! 22% At rest lateral earth pressure; 68 psf K' 0.5 Active lateral earth pressure. 46 psf K, 0:4 Passive lateral earth pressure. 355 psf K 2.8 Imported, compacted, structural material, which is used to backfill the soil side of walls, must demonstrate following characteristics: Oil Type: Compacted -Sandy Gravel Internal Friction Angle: 35 ° Cohesion: NA Natural Void Ratio: OA At rest lateral earth pressure: 57 psf Active lateral earth pressure: 36 psf Passive lateral earth pressure: 496 psf Dry Unit Weight: 128 pcf Bouyant Unit Weight: 83 pcf Natural Moisture'. 5 % K,;= 0.4 K,= 0 3 Ke= 3.7 In the case that another material is used for backfill, Ml'1 should be consultedfor correct lateral earth pressure values. Granular structural fill should consist of 44nch-minus select, clean, granular soil with no more than 30evePj c (greater than !a -lite Retaining wall and basement ch) material and no more than 5 percent fines (passing the No. 200 backfill mtrct hp „1�,-A :., ----- J_.__ M=rtats IMing m tupwien, Inc. iD 53709 (208)376-4748 . Fax (208) 922;8515 �nm a un.,.,,...ai :a - 0 MATERIALS 22 August 20.11 TESTING €r Page# 14 of 32 INSPECTION ❑.Geotechnical Soil Bearing Capacity Footing Depth ASIIGP`D 1 57 NefAllowable Sub rade Com ,actioq , Soil Bearing"Ca ael,. Footings must bear on competent, native, 2,0001bs/f? .cemented sandy silt soils, silty sand -sediments or compacted structural fill, Existing fill materials Not Required for } must be completely removed from below Native Soil A 13 increase; 'is allowable foundation elements. Excavation depths ranging for short-term loading, from 1.2 to 1.8 feet bgs should be anticipated to 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic expose proper bearing soils. 11events or designed wind speeds Footings must bear on competent, native, undisturbed poorly graded sandy gravel sediments 6,900 lbs/ft' or compacted .structural fill. Existing fill Not Required for materials and silt soils must be completely Native Soil A '13 increase, is allowable removed from below foundation elements.' for short-term. loading, Excavation depths ranging from 5.5 to 6.0 feet 95% for Structural Fill which is defined by seismic bgs should be anticipated to expose proper events or designed wind bearing soils. speeds. MTl recommends that a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician verify the bearing soil suitability or each structure at the time of construction. Footings should be proportioned tomeet either the stated soil 'bearing capacity or the 2009 IBC minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately 1 inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately 'l2 inch. Objectionable soil types encountered at the bottom of footing excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footing subgrade will require over -excavation and backfilling with structural fill. To minimize the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content, lblTI recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. For frost protection', the bottom of external footings should be 30 inches below finished grade. Floor Slab -on -Grade Organic 'loose, or obviously compressive materials must be removed prior to placement of concrete floors or floor -supporting fill. In addition, the remaining subgrade should be treated in accordance with guidelines presented in the Earthwork section, Areas of excessive yielding should be excavated and backfilled with structural fill. Fill used to increase, the elevation of the floor slab should meet requirement$ -detailed in lire Structural Fill section. Fill -materials must be compacted to a minimum 95percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM (31557. G�apy�hght.'1D 1 hfiateria7s Tt'sting & Inspection, Inc; 2791 South Victory View Way Boise, IP 83709 r (208) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mtt-idcom • www:mti-id.com MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION 22 August 2411 Page # 16 of 32 Aggregate Base: Material complying with ITD Standard Specifications for Highway Construction sections 303 and 703 for,aggregates, Structural Subbase: Material should comply with the requirements, detailed in the Structural Fill section of this report, except that the maximum, material diameter is no more than 2/3 the component thickness. Rigid PavementSections AASBTO pavement design method was used to develop the following rigid concrete pavement sections. Traffic loading and subgrade values indicated in the flexible pavement design were used in developing the rigid sections. This design method assumes the, use of dowels at transverse joints. Concrete pavement shall be hatched and constructed in accordance with the most current American Concrete Institute Standards and in accordance with Idaho Transportation Department Standard Drawings C -1-A and C -1-B. Native subgrade soils on the site are frost susceptible, and therefore, require joint sealers or under -drains._ Rigid Pavement Specifications *Pavement Section Componemt, 1, Par. ara Portland Cement Concrete 7.0 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 6.0 Inches Structural Subbase 10.0 Inches Compacted Subgrade Not Required *MTI recommends that.a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineerin technician verify subgrade competency afthe time of construction_ Portland Cement Concrete., 4,000 psi .concrete with a modulus of rupture greater than 550 psi generally complying with ITD requirement for Urban Concrete. Crushed Aggregate Base: Material complying with ITD Standard Specifications for Highway Construction sections 303 and 703 for aggregates. Structural Subbase; Material complying with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section except that the maximum material diameter is no more than '-la the eomponenC thickness. Common Pavement Section Construction Issues The subgrade upon which above pavement sections are to be constructed must be properly stripped, inspected and proof -rolled. Proof rolling of subgrade soils should be accomplished using a heavy rubber - tired, fully loaded, tandem -axle dump truck or equivalent,- Verification of subgrade competence by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician at the time ofconstructionis recommended. Fill materials on the site must demonstrate the indicated compaction prior to placing material in support of the pavement section. MTI anticipates that pavement areas will be subjected to moderate traffic. MTI does not anticipate pumping material to become evident during compaction, but subgrade clays and silts neat- and above optimum moisture contents may tend to pump.. Pumping or soft areas must be removed and replaced. with structuralfill. Copyright 8 2011 Materials Tnting & bispeetion; Ino;: 271il South }/Ictary View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4746 • Fax (208) 322-6815 n1 ia"I i-Pdcom • www.rMi-id;corn MATERIALS 22 -August 20 11 TESTING & Page 18 of 32 INSPECTION Environmental Services CI Geotechnical€noineerina EGonstructiox9ita.ena11T�ei\r;parts\bo G011�reporto1b00- Dry Weather If construction is to be conducted during dry seasonal -conditions, many problems associated with soft soils may be avoided. However, some rutting of subgrade soils may be induced by shallow groundwater conditions related to springtime runoff or irrigation activities during late summer through early fall. Solutions to problems associated with soft subgrade soils are outlined in the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Problems may also arise because of lack of moisture in native and fill soils at time of placement. This will require the addition of water to achieve near -optimum moisture levels. Low -cohesion soils exposed in excavations may become friable, increasing chances of sloughing or caving. Measures to control excessive dust should be considered as part of the overall health and safety management plan. Wet Weather If construction is to be conducted during wet; seasonal conditions (commonly from mid-November through. May), problems associated with sofa soils must be considered as part of the construction plan. During this time of year, tine -grained soils such as silts and clays will become unstable: with increased moisture content; and eventually deform or rut. Additionally; constant low temperatures reduce the possibility of drying soils to near optimum conditions, Soft Subgrade Soils Shallow fine-grained subgrade soils that are high in moisture content should be expected to pump and rut under construction traffic., During periods of wet weather, construction may become very difficult if not impossible. The following recommendations and options have been included for dealing with soft subgrade conditions: • Track -mounted vehicles should be used to strip the subgrade of root matter and other deleterious debris. Heavy rubber -tired equipment should be prohibited from operating directly on the native subgrade and areas in which structural fill nmaterials have been placed. Construction traffic should be restricted to designated roadways that do not cross, or cross on a limited basis, proposed roadway or parking areas, • Construction roadways on soft subgrade soils should consist of a minimum 2 -foot thickness of large cobbles of 4 to 6 inches in diameter with sufficient sand and fines to fill voids; Construction entrances should consist of a 6 -inch thickness of clean, 2 -inch minimum, angular drain -rock and must be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 30 to 54 feet long. During the constnictiort process, top dressing; of the entrance may be required for maintenance. • Scarification and aeration of subgrade soils can be employed to reduce the moisture content of ,wet subgrade soils, ,After stripping is complete, the exposed subgrade should be rippedor disked to a depth of 112 feet and allowed to air dry for 2 to 4 weeks, Further disking should be performed on a weekly basis to aid the aeration process. • Alternative .soil stabilization methods include use of geotextiles, lithe, and cement stabilization. 'MTI is available to provide recommendations and guidelines at your request; -SOPYfi9bt 0 2011 Materiais'resting & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 * (208) 376-4748 Fax (248) 322-6515 mti.Ornti-id.com • www.mti-Id.com 4 6 MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION 0 Environmental Services Backfill of Walls 22 August 2011 Page # 20 of 32 14serveAreports%oiseS201 I Backfill materials must conform to the requirements of structural fill, as defined in this report. For wall heights greater than 2.5 feet, the maximum material size should not exceed 4 inches in diameter. Placing oversizedmaterial against rigid surfaces interferes with proper compaction, and can induce excessive point loads on walls. Backfill shall not commence until the wall has gained sufficient strength to resist placement and compaction forces. Further, retaining walls above 2.5 feet in height shall be backfilled in a manner that will limit the potential for damage from compaction methods and/or equipment. It is recommended that only small hand -operated compaction equipment be used for compaction of backfill within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall, measured from the back face of the wall. Backfill should be compacted in accordance with the specifications for structural fill, except :in those areas where it is determined that future settlement is not a concern, such as planter areas, In nonstructural areas, backfill must be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition, Excavations Shallow excavations that do not exceed 4 feet in depth may be constructed with side slopes approaching vertical. Below this depth, it is recommended that slopes be constructed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, section 1926, subpart P. Based on these regulations, on-site soils are classified as type "C" soil, and as such, excavations within these soils should be constructed at a maximum slope of 11/2 -toot horizontal to I foot vertical (I %2H IV) for excavations up to 20 feet in height. Excavations in excess of 20 feet will require additional analysis, Note that these slope angles are considered During our subsurface exploration, test pit sidewalis generally exhibited little indication of collapse. For deep excavations, native granular sediments cannot be expected to remain in position. These materials are prone to failure and may collapse, thereby, undermining upper soils layers, This is especially true when excavations approach depths near, the water table. Care must be taken to ensure that excavations are properly backfilled in accordance with procedures outlined in this report. Shallow soil cementation (caliche) was observed throughout much of the site and may cause difficulties during foundation development and utility placement. Cemented soils should be anticipated throughout The site at depths of 1.2 to 6 feet bgs., Groundwater Control (groundwater was not encountered during the investigation and is anticipated to be below the depth of most construction. However, special precautions may be required for control of surface runoff and subsurface seepage. It is recommended' that runoff be directed away fromopenexcavations. Silty soils may become soft and pump if subjected to excessive traffic during time of surface runoff. Ponded water in construction areas should be drained through methods such as trenching, sloping, crowning grades, nightly smooth drum rolling, or installing a French drain system. Additionally, temporary or permanent driveway sections should be constructed if extended wet weather is forecasted. ,Copyright 02911 Materials TeAizvg & Inspection, Inc, 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mtl@.mll-id.co€n•,Www.mti-id-conn - 1 6 MATERIALS. 22 August 201 1 TESTING £T (. Page # 22 of 32 INSPECTION 0 REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1.999). Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75 -um (No 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggre ares by Washing; ASTM C 117 — 95. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials'(ASTM) (1999). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates: ASTM C 136 — 96a. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2000) Standard Test Methods for Laboratory ompaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard EffortD698-00ael. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Soeiety for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2002). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort DI West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. .American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1999). Standard Test Methods for California Bearing 114tio:4STM D 188.3 — 866. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2006). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) D2487-06. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for -Testing and Materials (ASTM) (1999). Standard Test Methods forLiquid Limit Plastic Limit- and Plasticity Index of Soils: ASTM D 4318-86. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of ftyment Structures 1993., Washington, D. C.: AASHTO. Desert Research Institute. Western Regional Climate Center. [Online.] Available? <httpafwww,wrcc.dri:edu7> (2011). International Building Code Council (2009). International Building Code. 2009. Country Club Hills, IL: Author. Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) (2005). Idaho Standards for Public. Works' Construction 2005, Boise, ID: Author. Othberg, K. L. and Stanford, L, A„Idaho Geologic Society (1992). Geologic Map of the Boise Valley and Adjoining Area Western Snake River Plan, Idaho. (scale 1:100,000). Boise, ldaho: Joslyn and Morris. State of Idaho, Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality. (Apri12000). Technical Guidance Manual For Individual and Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems. Boise; Idaho: Author. U, S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. [Online] Available: <httpa7websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/> (2011'). U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric. Administration and Desert Research Institute, Western Regional Climate Center. [Online] Available: <http:/hvww.wrec.dri.edu/> (2011)., U. S Dept. of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. `CFR 29 Pant 1926 subpart P Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. Excavations. (1986)'1. [Online] Available: < www.osha.gov> (2011).. U. S. Geological Survey: (2006). National Water lnfe madoo System: Web Interface. (Online] Available: <hqR;//waterdata'uses.gov/nw'is> (2011). C opynghF0 2011 Materials Testing & IngNct'ion. Inc; 2751 South Victory view Way • Bolse, ID 83709 - (208) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mtl@mt1-1d.com - www.mti-id.com 1 6 MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION K W GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES 22 August 201:1 Page # 24 of 32 \tserver\teports\bo ise\20 I 1 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTFM i RELATIVE DENSITYV AND CONSISTENCY CL�TI0IV Description Coarse -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts N Fine -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts VeryLooser <4 Very Scift.. <2 Loose: 4-10 Soft:- 24 Medium Dense: 10-30 Medium Stiff: 4 -8 - Dense: 30-50 stiff, 8=15 Very Dense: >50 Very Stiff: 15-30 CH Fat clays; high -plasticity, inorganic clays Hard: X30 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTFM i "`�ttli�� �outent , Description Field Test Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to touch. Moist Damp but not visible moisture Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below waterltable UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTFM i Ceamntation Description Field Test Weakly 'Crumbles or breaks with handling or Gravel; 3 in. to 3 mm slight finger pressure Moderately Crumbles: or beaks with considerable SW Well-gradedsands; gravelly sands with little or°no fines finger pressure strongly Will not crumble or break with finger Fine Grained Soils >50% passes No.200 sieve pressure UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTFM i PARTICLE SIZE Boulders: >12 in. Coarse -Grained Sand: 5 to 0 6-mr t Silts: 0.075 to 0.005 mm Cobbles: 12 to 3 in. Medium -Grained Saitd: 0.6 to 0? mni Cla s <0.005 mm Gravel; 3 in. to 3 mm Fine -Grained Sand: 0.2 to 0;075 mm UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTFM i Major Divisions Symbol Soil D,esctriptions 21 Coarse -Grained Soils <50% passes No.200 sieve Gravel & Gravelly Soils <50%o coarse fraction passes NoA sieve GW Well -graded gravels; gravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines Gl? Poorly -graded gravels; gravel/sand mixtures with little or no 'fines GNI Silty gravels; poorly -graded gravel/sand/silt mixtures GG Clayey gravels; gr p oorl Y g?aded grave(lsand clay mixtures Sand & Sandy soils >50% coarse fraction passes No.4 sieve SW Well-gradedsands; gravelly sands with little or°no fines SP Poorly -graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines SM Silty sands; poorly -graded Sand/gravel/silt mixtures SC Clayey.sands; poorly- graded sand/gravel/clay mixtures Fine Grained Soils >50% passes No.200 sieve Silts & Clays LL < 50 ML Inorganic silts; sandy, gravelly or clayey silts CL Lean clays; inorganic, gravelly, sandy;; or silty, low to medium -plasticity clays OL Organ i c, low -plasticity clays and silts Silts & ClaClays MH Inorganic, elastic silts sandy, gravelly or clayeyelastic sits CH Fat clays; high -plasticity, inorganic clays OH Organic, medium to bigh-plasticity clays and silts Highly Organic Soils PT peat,; humus, hydric soils with high organic content. Cop`aright 9 2011 Materials Testing & Inspection,. inq; 2791 South Victory View Way... Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376.4748 !l=ax (208) 322-6515- mti@mti id.com «:www.mti-id.com MATERIALS TESTING £r INSPECTION GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG 22 August 2011 Page # 26 of 32 ver\ eports\boise\201 I reports\600- Test Pit -Log #: TP -2 Date Advanced: 8/1112011 Logged by: Elizabeth Brown, E.I.T. Excavated by Struckmanis Backhoe Service. Location: See Site Map Plates Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered. Total Depth: 10.1 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and Sample Sample Depth Lab (Feet bgs) USCS Soil and Sediment Classification Type (Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Lean Clay Fill (CL FILL): Light brown, dry, 0.0-1:$ very stiff, "with silt, fine grained sand, and 4 2.5-3.0 inch minus cobbles. —Organic material to 1 foot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML). Light brown,. dry, hard 1.8 6.0 weak calcium carbonate cementation, fine CS 2.2-2,5 4:5+ grained sand. - -84nd content increased with depth. Poorly Graded Sandy Gravel (GP): Reddish brown, slightly moist, dense to very dense, fine 6,0-10.,1 to medium grained sand fine to coarse gravel,, S inch minus cobbler. Cobble size increased with depth, Lab Test TD TVt LL P1 Sieve Analysis #4 #10 #40 #100 #200 A 2$,1 1 NP NP 1 100 100 78 64 53.:9 Capyright ° 2011 Matuials'resting & Inspection, Inc, 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 316-4748 Fax (208) 322.6515 mti@mti-ri.com • www:mti-id.com Ago MATERIALS 22 August 2011 TESTING & Page# 28 of 32 INSPECTION 3tserverVepoits\boise\2011 repoits\600- ❑ Enviionmentat Services 0 Geotechnical Engineering Q ConstructijRM IJRRII VWA8725g—gg"bola%ggSfi AASHTO PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES Pavement Section Design Location: Targhee Lodge. Homes, No Truck Access Average Daily Traffic Count: 200 All Lanes& Both Directions Design Life: 20 Years Percent of Traffic in Design Lane:. 140% Terminal Seyieeability Index (Pt): 2.5 Level of Reliability': '95 Subgrade CBR Value: 4 Subgradc Mr: P assengerCars: Buses: Panel & Pickup Trucks: 2 -Axle, 6 -Tire Trucks: Emergency Vehicle: Dump Trucks: Tractor Serpi Trailer Trucks: Double Trailer Trucks Heavy Tractor Trailer -Combo Trucks: Average Daily Traffic in Design Lane: Calculation of Design -18 kip ESALs Daily Grovth Load Traffic Rate Factors 80 2.0"la 0.0048 0 2.0% 0.6806 15 2.0% 0,0122 4 2;0% 0.1890 1.0 2.0% 4.4800 0 2:0°1 3.6300' 6 2-0% 2.3719 0 2..0% 2.3187 -0 2.0°/u 2,9760 100 Total Design Life -:l8-kip.FSALs: -48A25 6,000 Design ESALs 5,68 0 1,623 6,705 39;731 0 0 i1 0 Actual Log (ESALs): 4.687 Trial SN: 2.45 Trial Log (F,SALs)_ *696 This number must be equal to or greater than lhe.Actuci Log. Pavement Section Design SNr X2,61 This number must be equal to or greater than the'friai SN, Design C6pyri& b $011 Matenats Testing & inspection, hsc, 2791 South Victory View 'Way - Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 - Fax {208) 392-6515 mtiidrmti-id.com - www.mti-id.com - Depth. Structural Drainage ,Inches Coefficient Coefficient Asphaltic Concrete: 2.50 0.42 n1a Asphalt -Treated Base; 0.00 0.25 nia. Cement -Treated Base: _0.00 0.17 Wit Crushed Aggregate Bases 4.00- 0.14 1.0 Pit Run Aggregate Subgrade: 10.00 0.30 1:0 Special Aggregate Subgrade. 0.40 0.09 0..9- C6pyri& b $011 Matenats Testing & inspection, hsc, 2791 South Victory View 'Way - Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 - Fax {208) 392-6515 mtiidrmti-id.com - www.mti-id.com - MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION AASHTO RIGID PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES 22 August 2011 Page # 30 of 32 1 reports,\600 Gopyrigbt 0 2dll Materials Testing & Inspection; Inc:. 2791 South Victory View Way e Boise, I 83709 • (2,08)376-4748: - Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-(d.00m Pavement Section Design Location: Targhee Lodge Homes; Parking Garage Average Daily Traffic Count: 200 All Lanes & Both Directions Design. Life: 20 Years. - % of Traffic in Design. Lane: 100% Terminal Seviceability index;. Pt; 2 (2.5 for major highways, 2,0 for lower traffic volumes) Level of Reliability, R: 95. R -Value: 9 $ubgrade CBR Value: 4 Subgrade Mr: 6,000 NativeModulusof Subgrade Reaction,. K: 125 (select from chart based on CBR Value) Effective Modulus of Subgrade Reaction, Kl 160 f.difiedfor base aggo,ims, acuon, iadicute at battom of;_heck) Concrete Elastic Modulus, Ec: 4240000 (typical is 4,200,000 psi) Modulus of Rupture, S'c: 650 (typical is 750 psi), Load Transfer Coeffleient„ 7i 4-2 (sec information to the right for selection) Drainage Coefficient, Cd: I (see Table 520 1.8.1 from Idaho Manual) Standard Deviation, So: 0,34 (use 034 without Specific information) Design Serviceability Loss, Delta PSI; 2.5 (2.0 for interstates & 2.5 for secondary mutes) Calculation of Design 18'. kip ESALs Daily Growth Load Design Traffic Rate Factors ESAL's passenger;Cars; 61 2.0%v 0.0008 433 Buses: 5 2.0% 0:6806 30,186 panel& Pickup Trucks: 20- 2.09/4 0,0122 2,164 7 Axle, 6 Tire Trucks'. 10. 2,0% 0.1890 16;762 Emergency Vehicle,, I 10% 4.4800 39,73.1 Dump Trupks: '1 2.0% 3:6300 32;193 Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks: Z 2.0% 2:3719 42,071 Double Trailer Trucks 0 10% 23187 0 'Heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks: it 2 0% 2.9760 0 Average Daily 7Yaf is in Design Gane; :100 Total Design Life 18 kip ESAL's: 163,532. Traffic Index equivalent-- 73 Actual Log_(ESAL's): 52J4 Trial Pavement Design Thickness; inches: V,0,0' Trial Log(ESAL's): $;608 This must be equal to argreaier thae the Actual Log(ESAIA) Pavement Design Thickness, Inches: 7.0. Road Mix Section Thickness, Inches: 5:0 Gopyrigbt 0 2dll Materials Testing & Inspection; Inc:. 2791 South Victory View Way e Boise, I 83709 • (2,08)376-4748: - Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-(d.00m r 4 \$kms\ kn2\\\ Wi Ln �{a � � 16 Subject: Powder Lab Spot Exhaust Locations Status: I New Drawing #: Spec Sect#: Submittal #: Addendum: Schedule #: Potential Schedule Wor Cost Impacts: Schedule Impact: In Review Comments: Cost Impact: In Review Comments: Information Requested: F Dated Required: 09/09/2011 Please provide spot exhaust locations for the new powder lab. Submitted By: Peter Foley SOURCE OF REQUEST: Requesting Firm: Howard S. Wright REQUEST FOR INFORMATION a 6allour Beatty oompany 425 NW 10th Avenue, Suite 200-A 10959-: Yakima Rack TI Portland, OR 97209 PHONE: 503-220-0495 FAX: RFI #: 19 Date: 09/06/2011 To: Michelle Startt From: Peter Foley LRS ARCHITECTS, INC. Howard S. Wright 720 NW DAVIS 425 NW 10th Avenue, Suite 200-A PORTLAND, OR 97209 Portland, OR 97209 Phone: 503-221-1121 Phone: 503-546-6145 Fax: 503 221 2077 Fax: 503-546-6181 Email: mstartt@lrsarchitects.com Email: foleyp@hswc.com CC: Subject: Powder Lab Spot Exhaust Locations Status: I New Drawing #: Spec Sect#: Submittal #: Addendum: Schedule #: Potential Schedule Wor Cost Impacts: Schedule Impact: In Review Comments: Cost Impact: In Review Comments: Information Requested: F Dated Required: 09/09/2011 Please provide spot exhaust locations for the new powder lab. Submitted By: Peter Foley SOURCE OF REQUEST: Requesting Firm: Howard S. Wright DESIGN WITH INTEGRITY PLANNING DES10N INTERIORS ARGHITEGTURE 720 NW Davis 503.221.1121 w Suite 300 503.221.2077'1 FEE PROPOSAL -TENANT IMPROVEMENT Portland OR 97209 vww.lrsarchrtects.com Project Name: Summit Building Restroom Upgrades Project Number: 211214 Beaverton, Oregon 97006 Date: 08.15.11 Owner: Andrea Coomes Grubb & Ellis 1120 NW Couch Street, Suite 350 Portland OR 97209 Please review this Fee Proposal and authorize below. Copy and return original to LRS Architects, Inc. Description of Services: The scope of work for the above referenced project is to work with Grubb & Ellis on restroom upgrades to the existing restrooms in the Summit Building for Columbia. The work will include a preliminary layout, construction documents once the plan is approved, finish selections to match new shower rooms, permitting assistance and construction administration for the project. Fee Proposal for Architectural Services: Fee for scope described above: Space Planning (includes 2 review meetings with stakeholders and 2 revisions): $ 800.00 Construction Documents.2$ .400.00 $ 3,200. 00 r Estimated Reimbursable (includes finish board materials): $ 300.00 Additional Architectural Services (Time & Material - Not to Exceed): Permit Assistance. $ 400.00 Assistance During Construction: $ 800.00 Additional Meetings: $200.00 Each Attachments: LRS Fee Schedule 2011 Contract Terms: Services will be compensated on an estimated phase fixed fee basis as described below, plus reimbursables. See attachments for additional terms and reimbursable expenses. Payment for professional services will be billed monthly as work progresses. The total amount of each billing shall be due and payable within 30 days of the date of the invoice. A fee of 1.5% of the amount due will accrue for each 30 -day period the Invoice remains past due. Liability, is limited to the amount of the fee. Approval: The Services described above are approved: Owner Authorized Representative LRS Architects, Inc. Date: 08.15.11 Lr—s ARCHITECTS DESIGN WITH INTEGRITY PLANNING DESIGN INTERIORS ARCHITECTURE 720 NW Davis 503.221.1121 T Suite 300 503.221.2077EJ Portland OR 97209 www.lrsarchitects.com RATES & REIMBURSABLES BILLABLE HOURLY RATES YEAR 2011 Principal $150.00 Sr. Project Manager $125.00 Project Manager $115.00 Project Architect $100.00 Specification Writer $105.00 Sr. Planner $100.00 Interiors / Project Manager $105.00 Interiors / Senior Designer $95.00 Interiors / Designer #1 $75.00 Interiors / Designer #2 $65.00 Interiors / Designer #3 $55.00 Job Captain 1 $100.00 Job Captain 2 $95.00 Job Captain 3 $85.00 Project Staff #1 $75.00 Project Staff #2 $65.00 Project Staff #3 $55.00 Graphic Design $75.00 Administrative Staff $65.00 Reimbursable expenses are additional direct expenses over and above basic services described above and include expenses incurred by the Architect and the Architects employees and consultants in the interest of the project as identified below: PRINT RELATED REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Size B&W Plots Color Plots Printing Prices B&W Copies/Prints Color Copies B&W/Color Scans 8-1/2 x 11 letter na na 0.15 1.50 na 8-1/2 x 14 legal na na 0.15 1.50 na 9 x 12 ARCH A na na 0.15 1.50 na 11 x 17 Tabloid na na 0.30 2.00 na 12 x 18 ARCH B 1.50 9.00 na na 2.50 18 x 24 ARCH/ANSI C 3.00 18.00 na na 5.00 24 x 36 ARCH/ANSI D 6.0036.00 na na 8.00 30 x 42 ARCH 30 8.75 52.50 na na 12.00 36 x 48 ARCH/ANSI E12.00 1 72.00 no I na 1 15.00 MISCELLANEOUS REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Faxes (per page) $1.00 CD ROM $5.00 DVD ROM $10.00 Mileage at current IRS rale Rental Cars at cost Airfare at cost Lodging at cost Telephone at cost Lr -s ARCHITECTS \� \ mk ; G q§ M cizaU —Ca%® /f§g X � /�- ! rz )\ / X02 ` ` §| § # 0 S%T SYIPMIE9f Sl�rs nznwauc 1 y PlLwrwcr -]I0 El I I]II p� �J' I LL axEanaN I� I I I I tlN I nznwauc 1 y PlLwrwcr ZOOMCARE TEST FIT CORNELL OAKS - WATERSIDE BUILDING B - SUITE 15268 SCALE. NOT TO SCALE Fs 720 NW Davis Suite 300 • Portland OR 97209 A R C H I T E C T S 503.221.1121 Itsausor�ess��r:ks www.irsarchitects.com 503.221.2077 0 LRS Architects, Inc. 0 2011 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13,707 RSF ADDRESS: 15247 NW GREENBRIER PARKWAY PROJECT NUMBER: 206003 DATE ISSUED: 09.06.11 TFa.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I sera, I I I I I �--- e I I I I I I eine° �___+___d P_�_+---� I I dxln I I I I I i I I �I ---- JI I mTELLw� voaxt'fv°4d I _T —�— — I I I I I I 1 I L ---J L ---- ---- J IIOtELLN.G ena rrr-ir7 uLJu NEw I I I xoTEutNc I I I New V na�aN II I I I I I I� L___J____J L_P_J_--- I __WMA W MTA r _-7 IYSxYd —L I I I I I I I r L _J—___J— —J _ —� SlOFYq r L___J— --- J NEw nI u cau�Ncs uev I I I I PNi S�5 OFFZCE CFF IPR/✓A1£ 1PRNATE ZOOMCARE TEST FIT CORNELL OAKS - WATERSIDE BUILDING B - SUITE 15268 SCALE. NOT TO SCALE Fs 720 NW Davis Suite 300 • Portland OR 97209 A R C H I T E C T S 503.221.1121 Itsausor�ess��r:ks www.irsarchitects.com 503.221.2077 0 LRS Architects, Inc. 0 2011 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 13,707 RSF ADDRESS: 15247 NW GREENBRIER PARKWAY PROJECT NUMBER: 206003 DATE ISSUED: 09.06.11 TFa.1