The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Storm Drainage Calcs Prepared For: Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision #2 City of Meridian Meridian, Idaho Storm Drainage Report C A ENc E N S�� 41 17381 �i�C qTF 0 F 0 �P 10/08/21 Prepared By: Mike Bultman, P.E. Project Engineer KM Engineering, LLP 9233 West State Street Boise, ID 83714 208.639.6939 mbultman@kmengllp.com 1CM October 8, 2021 Project No: 21-200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 ProjectDescription ...................................................................................................................... 1 SiteDescription............................................................................................................................... 1 Scopeand Methods ...................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Drainage Conditions .......................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Drainage Conditions and Analysis .................................................................................. 1 TemporarySwales........................................................................................................................... 1 ACHDBorrow Ditches..................................................................................................................... 2 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 2 APPENDICES Appendix A - Figures Post-Development Drainage Map Storm Water Improvement Plans Appendix B —Calculations Temporary Swales ACHD Borrow Ditches Appendix C - Geotechnical Engineering Report Geotechnical Engineering Report (Consultant) INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to show that the storm drainage facilities for the proposed Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision #2 (Project) are designed to meet The City of Meridian, ACHD's, and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water quality requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of the construction of a private commercial road throughout the Hill's Century Commercial Subdivision and roadway improvements along the south side of E. Amity Rd.The proposed improvements include new roadways, sidewalks, storm drainage and site utilities. SITE DESCRIPTION The Project is located SE of the S. Tavistock Ave and E. Amity Road intersection in Meridian, ID. SCOPE AND METHODS The Rational Method is the standard method for small catchments and was used to calculate the post-development storm water volumes and flow rates for this project (see Appendix B - Calculations). EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS The pre-project watershed consists of undeveloped land that sheet flows from east to west untreated. The catch basins drain to temporary swales for vertical infiltration. Permanent storm drainage facilities will be constructed as the individual lots develop. PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS The proposed drainage system improvements consist of 2 temporary swales with sand windows along the private road and an ACHD borrow ditch along the south side of E. Amity Road. The post-development site was broken into eight (4) drainage basins found in Appendix A. Each basin was delineated according to the tributary area draining to each facility. TEMPORARY SWALES Based on our calculations, all temporary swales are adequately sized to ensure no ponding occurs on the asphalt surface and that storm water will infiltrate within the infiltration swale in a 24-hour period. The geotechnical report prepared by MTI dated October 111", 2016 stated that ground water is anticipated to be deeper than an elevation of 2682.00. Once the size of the swale is calculated, the time necessary for infiltration of storm water into the ground is calculated at less than 23 hours. The geotechnical report measured an infiltration rate of greater than 12"/hr, and we used an infiltration rate of 8"/hour. 1 See Appendix B for further information. ACHD BORROW DITCHES Based on the attached ACHD spreadsheet, the two proposed borrow ditches along the south side of E. Amity Rd have been sized to meet the requirements. See Appendix B for further information. SUMMARY This report determines that the Project storm water design sizing and analysis conforms with the City of Meridian and ACHD storm water design criteria. 2 APPENDIX A - FIGURES APPENDIX B - CALCULATIONS APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 ProjectDescription ...................................................................................................................... 1 SiteDescription............................................................................................................................... 1 Scopeand Methods ...................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Drainage Conditions .......................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Drainage Conditions and Analysis .................................................................................. 1 TemporarySwales........................................................................................................................... 1 ACHDBorrow Ditches..................................................................................................................... 2 Summary......................................................................................................................................... 2 APPENDICES Appendix A - Figures Post-Development Drainage Map Storm Water Improvement Plans Appendix B —Calculations Temporary Swales ACHD Borrow Ditches Appendix C - Geotechnical Engineering Report Geotechnical Engineering Report (Consultant) INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to show that the storm drainage facilities for the proposed Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision #2 (Project) are designed to meet The City of Meridian, ACHD's, and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) water quality requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of the construction of a private commercial road throughout the Hill's Century Commercial Subdivision and roadway improvements along the south side of E. Amity Rd.The proposed improvements include new roadways, sidewalks, storm drainage and site utilities. SITE DESCRIPTION The Project is located SE of the S. Tavistock Ave and E. Amity Road intersection in Meridian, ID. SCOPE AND METHODS The Rational Method is the standard method for small catchments and was used to calculate the post-development storm water volumes and flow rates for this project (see Appendix B - Calculations). EXISTING DRAINAGE CONDITIONS The pre-project watershed consists of undeveloped land that sheet flows from east to west untreated. The catch basins drain to temporary swales for vertical infiltration. Permanent storm drainage facilities will be constructed as the individual lots develop. PROPOSED DRAINAGE CONDITIONS AND ANALYSIS The proposed drainage system improvements consist of 2 temporary swales with sand windows along the private road and an ACHD borrow ditch along the south side of E. Amity Road. The post-development site was broken into eight (4) drainage basins found in Appendix A. Each basin was delineated according to the tributary area draining to each facility. TEMPORARY SWALES Based on our calculations, all temporary swales are adequately sized to ensure no ponding occurs on the asphalt surface and that storm water will infiltrate within the infiltration swale in a 24-hour period. The geotechnical report prepared by MTI dated October 111", 2016 stated that ground water is anticipated to be deeper than an elevation of 2682.00. Once the size of the swale is calculated, the time necessary for infiltration of storm water into the ground is calculated at less than 23 hours. The geotechnical report measured an infiltration rate of greater than 12"/hr, and we used an infiltration rate of 8"/hour. 1 See Appendix B for further information. ACHD BORROW DITCHES Based on the attached ACHD spreadsheet, the two proposed borrow ditches along the south side of E. Amity Rd have been sized to meet the requirements. See Appendix B for further information. SUMMARY This report determines that the Project storm water design sizing and analysis conforms with the City of Meridian and ACHD storm water design criteria. 2 APPENDIX A - FIGURES �, N W EB AREA TO ACHD BORROW DITCH #1 = 6,547 SF IMPERVIOUS AREA TO ACHD BORROW EP C = 0.77 DITCH #2 = 5,851 SF a.W C 0.77 -12"W 12'1N 12"W 12"W 12'1N , W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W ,2"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12'W 12"W 12"W 12"W ,2ZEP-EP-EP--EP ,2"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W- -EP EP EP EP EP 3 EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP Ep EP EP EP EP EP EP 0 10 20 40 60 E AMITY RD Lu — — — Plan Scale 3 Q ro — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——— ———— ———— ——— — ———— ———— ———— —- -— ———— ———— ——— ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— ——-- ---- ---- --- EP EP El EP EP EP- EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EF EP EP EP EP lnq 3 ro EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP Fla �E E EG E G d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d d J ° d ° ° O I 3 4O w �_ O RR O O O W a d d • ° � oe W ° W / dd 0 d W O ° t d 11 ° LOT 14 LOT 1 d — 1 FINI =� E &� t W ' I IMPERVIOUS AREA TO TEMPORARY �' Z o d ° � � O d BLOCK 2 SWALE #1 = 49303 SF W C = 0.95 W k > PA Co W d d LI O I �` M" ✓` J d d ° °d d 03 d r} ® Q ° W VV V�I 3g wv .. d 3g p 3g o� ® w z d W ► d a 5� V Qsco O L 0 z d d d W - ° dQ d W Q d° O O d I °d d 4� V d \ �3L LL g p� EP F_G� p IO IMPERVIOUS AREA TO TEMPORARY ~ z SWALE #2 = 4,378 SF w C =0.95 v _Ln J d J d d LOT 13 LOT 12 d d O d I d PAF d d d d I ° p d d M 2 d d 00 0 I N p I� p O Z O O E N G I N E E R I N G d Y 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY BOISE, IDAHO 3713 PHONE(208)639-6939 6"Pi kmengllp.com 3 I 0 a DESIGN BY: MGB a �O DRAWN BY: MGB z o I CHECKED BY: TA DATE: 10/08/21 PROJECT: 21-200 m I o SHEET NO. w I m laJ 0 N 4. N d SS\o N A L e�C C E N S /Y9TF OF 0 4et G. NOTE: LOOP TRACER WIRE FROM MAIN 10/08/2021 LINE PIPE TO SERVICE BOX AND BACK ALONG SERVICE LINE PIPE. 4" SANDY TOP SOIL SEED SIDES AND BOTTOM (NO SOD) 2"0 FORD, MUELLER OR APPROVED TOP OF SWALE = 2687.00 EQUAL ANGLE STOP W/LOCK WING & ui IRON PIPE THREAD CONNECTIONS, OR .3• 6' WIDE X 11' �• o 1 APPROVED EQUAL LONG �\�i DRAINAGE WINDOW BOTTOM OF SWALE = 2685.00 4"0 THREADED CAP OR PLUG FINISH GRADE 00 3 MINIMUM SEPARATION TO HIGH SEASONAL 36" MINIMUM ASTM /\/\�- C C \�\� GROUNDWATER C-33 FILTER SAND OVEREXCAVATE SECTION AS CARSON 18-INCH "STANDARD" cn NECESSARY AND BACKFILL WITH *NOTE: REINFORCED FIBERGLASS z W1, FREE DRAINING PIT RUN OR ASTM O 1. 2'-6" MIN., 5'-0" VALVE BOX (OR EQUAL) C-33 FILTER STAND v� MAX. IN UNPAVED APPROVED METAL OR PLASTIC TAG j FREE DRAINING PIT RUN MATERIAL AREAS WHERE THE WITH "NON-POTABLE WATER DO W LINE IS FREE - DRAINING. NOT DRINK" IS RQUIRED NOTES: 2 3'-6" MIN., 5-0' z . 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF GROUNDWATER OR MAX. IN PAVED CARTRIDGE DUAL CHECK VALVE EVIDENCE OF GROUNDWATER IS ENCOUNTERED WITHIN 3—FEET TO THE TOP AREAS OR WHERE N FORD OR MUELLER OR OF SAND. THE LINE IS NOT APPROVED EQUAL -H FREE DRAINING CO w 2. SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY MTI DATED 10/11/16 FOR ADDITIONAL O N INFORMATION. 3. FINDER WIRE AND z IDENTIFICATION TAPE w 4"0 PVC OR ABS TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SWALE (PRIVATE) REQ'D PER THE C/) PIPE VALVE Box ISPWC DIVISION 900. * °z NTS NOTCH 4"0 VALVE BOX OVER PIPE WITH MIN. CLEARANCE FROM PIPE SLOPE TO DRAIN 2"0 BRONZE CURB STOP- �Pvc . ELBOW, MAIN LINE FORD OR MUELLER, OR SCHEDULE 80 REQUIRED APPROVED EQUAL. 2" CLASS 200 SOLVENT WELD PVC PIPE cV NATIVE MATERIAL OR MIN 2' WIDE ASTM C-33 FILTER SAND TYPICAL 2" SERVICE z WINDOWS AT LOW POINTS. LENGTH DEPENDENT ON NTS 0 q INFILTRATION REQUIREMENTS (TYP) EDGE OF TRAVEL WAY V)_ z GRAVEL SHOULDER co N W ASPHALT BACKSLOPE, _4" OF 3/4" MINUS J GRASS GRAVEL BASE COURSE (NO SLAG) Q (/) C J ALLOWED ---10" OF STRUCTURAL SUBBASE u 0 q PLAN IMPORT BACK FILL OR APPROVED Wuj N.T.S. /�/� ��\� \� ~AND V PROOERIA ROLL SUBGRADE.. Q 0 3' GRAVEL OR WIDTH, SEE NOTE 5 PAVED SHOULDER (95% MIN PROCTOR COMPACTION) SEE NOTE 4 NOTES: EDGE OF DEPTH, VEGETATION 1. REFER TO PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBGRADE 0 EE W TRAVEL WAY SEE NOTE 5 SEE NOTE 2 PREPARATION IN GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY ATLAS/MTI W LU 2% F AND DATED OCTOBER 11, 2016 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. 2. ATLAS TO VERIFY SUBGRADE COMPETENCY AT TIME OF 0 4. St P OPE MAX CONSTRUCTION. � e S ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION (PRIVATE ROAD) Q< NATIVE SOIL NTS GRAVEL THIS SIDE ONLY GRASS ALLOWED D NATIVE MATERIAL ON BACKSLOPE ONLY OR 3' DEPTH OF ASTM C-33 z FILTER SAND WINDOWS 3' W U 2' MIN SECTION V) LINE J CL ROW J MIN 3' SEPARATION DITCH 37.0 5.0' ACHD SIDEWALK INVERT TO GROUNDWATER/ 17' _ � EASEMENT BEDROCK REQUIRED � SECTION A-A MAX GROUNDWATER PROPOSED ROAD WIDENING 2 0' 1.0' FLAT N.T.S. ELEVATION ASPHALT 3' 14.0' LANDING HIGH POINT WIDTH VARIES SHOULDER GRAVEL PER PLAN (WIDTH VARIES SHOULDER BORROW DITCH PER 1.0' FLAT NOTES: f27, 2% PER PLAN) DETAIL ON SHEET LANDING —� C0.1 1. BORROW DITCHES SHALL BE DESIGNED TO CONVEY RUNOFF TO A DISCHARGE POINT OR INFILTRATE STORMWATER. SIZE FOR 100—YEAR DESIGN STORM. 0 2. DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANT SPECIES AND/OR ASTM C-33 SAND WINDOWS IN INVERT. BACKSLOPE OF o BORROW DITCH MAY HAVE GRASS. 3. IF SAND WINDOWS ARE USED IN LIEU OF CONTINUOUS SAND TRENCH, PROVIDE DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS 5" ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SP-3, 0.50/ / / / // _ / / 3:1 MAX. SLOPE of TO SHOW INFILTRATION OF 90% VOLUME IN 48-HOURS IS MET. INCH (1/2") MIX, PG-64-28) \\/�\\/�\\//�\�r _ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ TO EXISTING TYP. 4. 4:1 MAX SLOPE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER FOR ROADS >_45 MPH, 3:1 MAX SLOPE OF GRAVEL SHOULDER FOR /\% /\% /\% /\% /\% /\ / /\ 6" OF 3/4" MINUS CRUSHED \ N ROADS <45 MPH 4" OF 3/4"-MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE / / / AGGREGATE LEVELING COURSE / - / / 5. BORROW DITCH WIDTH AND DEPTH VARIES BASED ON SIZING REQUIREMENTS / /\/ /\/\EXISTING \�\ - �� / 6. CURBING MAY BE REQUIRED \\%� %\\\ \ \ \� \� \� \� \� \ \ GRADE, \ 6�\ \ \ \ 5 SIDEWALK PER ACHD a 7. USE INTENDED FOR UNDEVELOPED, RURAL ARTERIALS 25" OF 6-INCH MINUS PIT-RUN SUBBASE/ \/\ \/\/\/\/ /�l\T/� � T(\/\ SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD \� //\\/ //\ \ \//\ \/ \��\/1\ \�D RA\G S\709. \� \ Admbk Y 2017 BORROW DITCH STANDARD DRAWING \ \\//\\/\ r\lam\\/�\�j\�j\\/ 3 ACHD STORMWATER GUIDELINES DESIGN DETAIL 05 a E. AMITY RD. SECTION ENGINEERING SCALE: NTS 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY BOISE, IDAHO 83713 o PHONE(208)639-6939 kmengllp.com 0 o DESIGN BY: MGB 0 N N DRAWN BY: MGB g CHECKED BY: TA a o DATE: 10/08/21 PROJECT: 21-200 SHEET NO. s C0. 1 N H N a SS\oNAL EVo E N S J L --12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 1 W 12'W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W 12'V 12'V 12"W 12"w 12"w 12"w 12"w 12"w 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"W- N s o - EP -EP EP _ Ep �� E� � EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP � EP EP -EP EP EP EP EP �/ JqT P� � w �P EP EP EP EP EP F \O �P °+0° 1+00 _ _ 26g0 - E AMITY RD , �26g�- / ,� OF - - - - - - }- - - - + - l / 3+00 i �26g2_ 3+93 qF� G. 202 10/08/2021 00 89.55 89.45 y \2690_ \ 89.98 90.34 90.75 -2691\ 91.25 91 68 �26 2. 92.05 P - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MA -- --yam - --MA�--- ---- - MA MA 92 �q MA MA_ 9 EP EP __ __ __ �- �- - - - - - - -EP EP - MA EF FA r � 89.30 89 TG N EP-�€ -Ep 89.82 �P - 90.17 EP EP EP Ep a �Ep -- --EP - - EP K EP - ---- EG �� MA 3 �L' EP -EP EP- EP EP �_ _ E� -EP EP C" ' EP 09 EP -EP- Ep N ' 91.53 EP > 2689 2690 3 TG E^ G T�-G 91.9� 0 10 20 40 60 J \ 2688 2689 2 2691 a �`-�d3_ d3 _ d3- 89.40 ' FIL 2689 2690 _ MA I 87.38 2688 Plan Scaleui 87.53 / 89.84 2689 2689_ a FL 2689 SW .3 FL 89•09 2690 LEGEND d .41 ° a 2690 TG 2691sw I O °° 2689 ° 2690 90.46 d ° ° ° ° a ° ° 2688 2691 - - - - - - - 14.29 FINISH GRADE ELEVATION O � w ° 0 2689 SW o 1 IRR 2687 N 2688 rn 2689 2690 I R - - - - - - - 1.5� FINISH GRADE SLOPE 1 26$7 IRR� _ ° RR I 26g6 \ Q 2688 O \ m -2713 - - - - - EXISTING GRADE CONTOUR / 4 �-2713 --�- DDJ CEN�SIT OUR R FOR z ad LU / I \ \ \ / ��271,3 --�� FUTURE GRADE CONTOUR N ,Ib d \ \ \\ \ I I I W w FLOW LINE = / a \ \ \ / I ' : .;'` ;•:; EP EP EDGE OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT SHEET NOTES 1. ALL SPOT ELEVATION ARE TO THE TOP OF ASPHALT bo \ 2688 / \ •' UNLESS NOTED AS FOLLOWS: RIM RIM OF STRUCTURE \ LOT 14 5 ':-` `: rn� \ / Zgg9� � \ 17'I \ TA = TOP OF ASPHALT o \ / / // ��T� �7 \ TG = TOP OF GRAVEL Z �26g0 i CR = CROWN OF ROAD / \ �' CON = TOP OF CONCRETE Q \ \ mod' 6` `L l �/26g�, MA = MATCH EXISTING \s / ) ILL FL = FLOW LINE y, W ° I / \\ \ �� I / I`;;::•; GB GRADE BREAK SW = TOP OF SIDEWALK FG = FINISHED GRADE rh TBC= TOP BACK OF CURB d T \\ \ GENERAL NOTES ( \ 2686\ BLOCK ' 2\ w e \ 2687 - 26g1 I \ 1. SEE SHEET CO.0 FOR PROJECT NOTES W \ 1 2687 2688 I \ / \ 2686 o ° k 2. ADJACENT DESIGN CONTOURS ARE SHOWN FOR \\ 2688 \ \ 2689 88.94 ) `° 2690 I o 91.23 REFERENCE ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL Lo 1.6% FL / 'n 2691 + `° •' TIE-IN ELEVATIONS AND NOTIFY DESIGN ENGINEER OF a ° °a \ 87 pp N \ FL �:: ANY DISCREPANCIES. \ d ° w ° d \ 2686 FIL M \ �600 8g 2687 � f \ � 2689 O / I co 1 2 26g1 rn }o6 O•.••�• KEY NOTES _ 92.62 03 d W 87 14 d3 -d3 d3 d d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 d d3 \ 26g2 MA 1. SEE TEMPORARY DRAINAGE SWALE DETAIL ON SHEET \ d3 d3 d3 d3 d3 - �d3 d3 C0.1. > wv wv MA 0 \ cb`b \\\ 88.93 n 0 90.74 ° 92.35 wv d ° 87.41 1.8% N 0 MA p c i `y�Oo 0 0 Q� ® 0 \ I \ \ \ 3 I 91.01 °� o o ' . 2. ADJACENT DESIGN CONTOURS ARE SHOWN FOR CR 1.8% `i c� 92.62 /� I REFERENCE ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL w I d / 87.46 89,20 - CR 9 TIE-IN ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY Co RIM o \\ CR \ 2 DESIGN ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. D 87.14MA I sco / \ 194 0 �N \ N 90.74 &91.73 I 3. INSTALL BORROW DITCH PER ACHD STANDARD DETAIL #5 RIM 92.35 ON SHEET CO.1 AND AMITY ROAD SECTION ON SHEET J -EP d3 d3 d3 _� _� ° a / d3 d3 d3-- dil d3 dam-- d3 d3 2. I Co.1. r 26268 t 268s \\\ 268 I I O l / ��, 2ss2 �� g / U p z I 1 / 6 87.00 \ \ I cD 1 26gp / / 2691 \ i9\ t l = Q a °° FIL \\ 1.5% / / \ C 1 92.96 W d / 1 2686 " f 2688 \\\ \ \ 268g FL 2g90 \ �6'g, '6g1 91.21 / C Q V 2687 2\$ �6� \ / uri FL c 0 z \ \ 2690 \ O 26899 0 2687 / 2689 W Q AEG/ O I I \ 2688 G EG 2686 \\ r'rn� \ \ \�- Q 1-3 0) ILL Co Co \ 1213LOT \ LOT \ \ z \ \ W CS \ O u / d \ / d IJ T / \ m ° �\ a C� o o �\ - �' �- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ep \ 0 6"PI 6"PI \ \ \ \ \ m \ \ \ \ \ I E N G I N E E R I N G 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY o I I \ \ \ BOISE, IDAHO 83713 Z PHONE(208)639-6939 a I m ID kmengllp.com o a o DESIGN BY: MGB N DRAWN BY: MGB g I \ I I \ \\ \ \ \ \ CHECKED BY: TA o I \I \ / I � I \ \\\ \ \ \ I DATE: 10/08/21 u l PROJECT: 21-200 SHEET NO. s N 4. N d APPENDIX B - CALCULATIONS STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS TRIB AREA: #1 Project No.: 21-200 Date: 10/7/2021 Project Description: Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision #2 Swale: #1 Trib Area: #1 Runoff Event Frequency: 100 year METHOD: 1" STORM OVER IMPERVIOUS AREA Per City of Meridian standards: design storm event for the 100-year storm is for 1" of storm water over the entire tributary area Drainage Area: 4,303 Asphalt (S.F.) 0 Sidewalk(S.F.) 0 Landscape (S.F.) 4,303 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA(S.F.) 0.10 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA(AC.) Vs = (T-tc)*Qp+(tc*Qp)/2+(1.5*tc*Qp)/2 -Vin Vin = (T+1.5*tc)*Qin/2 Item Coeff. Area S.F. Area AC. C tc T 1.5 tc Asphalt (S.F.) 0.95 4,303 0.10 0.95 Modified Rational Method Hydrograph Sidewalk (S.F.) 0.95 0 0.00 0.00 Landscape (S.F.) 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 Combined: 0.10 0.95 Triburaty Area 4303.0 ft 2 Intensity 1.0 in C 0.95 Volume to Retained= 340.7 ft 3 SWALE#: #1 Runoff Volume (per other calculations): 340.7 ft' Sediment Storage: 15.0 Volume Required (VR): 391.8 ft3 Depth 2.00 ft Average End Area: 204.0 ft 2 Swale Volume Provided: 408.0 ft 3 OK, VP >VR INFILTRATION: Infiltration Window per 100' Volume to be infiltrated: 340.7 ft 3 Infiltration Rate 8 in/hr Infiltration Width 6 ft Infiltration Length 11 ft First Hour Infiltration 44.0 ft 3 Time to infiltrate: 11.6 hr OK, < 24 hours STORM DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS TRIB AREA: #2 Project No.: 21-200 Date: 10/7/2021 Project Description: Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision #2 Swale: #2 Trib Area: #2 Runoff Event Frequency: 100 year METHOD: 1" STORM OVER IMPERVIOUS AREA Per City of Meridian standards: design storm event for the 100-year storm is for 1" of storm water over the entire tributary area Drainage Area: 4,378 Asphalt (S.F.) 0 Sidewalk(S.F.) 0 Landscape (S.F.) 4,378 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA(S.F.) 0.10 TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA(AC.) Vs = (T-tc)*Qp+(tc*Qp)/2+(1.5*tc*Qp)/2 -Vin Vin = (T+1.5*tc)*Qin/2 Item Coeff. Area S.F. Area AC. C tc T 1.5 tc Asphalt (S.F.) 0.95 4,378 0.10 0.95 Modified Rational Method Hydrograph Sidewalk (S.F.) 0.95 0 0.00 0.00 Landscape (S.F.) 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 Combined: 0.10 0.95 Triburaty Area 4378.0 ft 2 Intensity 1.0 in C 0.95 Volume to Retained= 346.6 ft 3 SWALE#: #2 Runoff Volume (per other calculations): 346.6 ft 3 Sediment Storage: 15.0 Volume Required (VR): 398.6 ft3 Depth 2.00 ft Average End Area: 204.0 ft 2 Swale Volume Provided: 408.0 ft 3 OK, VP >VR INFILTRATION: Infiltration Window per 100' Volume to be infiltrated: 346.6 ft 3 Infiltration Rate 8 in/hr Infiltration Width 6 ft Infiltration Length 11 ft First Hour Infiltration 44.0 ft 3 Time to infiltrate: 11.8 hr OK, < 24 hours ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology.These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision#2-ACHD Borrow Ditch#1 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 300-Year Flood Route) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) 1 Click to Show More Subbasins ❑ Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 Subbasin 6 7 8 9 10 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 4,142 1,283 1,122 Acres 0.15 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 0.70 0.20 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avg 0.77 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User Calculate min to Mln. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"I 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 2.58 in hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(ClPeak) Qpeak 0.30 cfs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential Single Family 0.35-0.50 10 Calculate total runoff vol(V)(for sizing primary storage) V 401 Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=Ci(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th Industrial and Commercial 0.60 in Light area: 0.. Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) Vrr 251 ft. Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,Cemeteries 0.10-0.25 Playgrounds 0.20.0.35 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin Streets Asphalt 0.95 Basin Forebay V 40 ft' Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 361 W Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 401 W Gravel 0.75 Fields:Sandy soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 0. Adapted from ASCE P:\21-200\Documents\Reports\Storm Drainage\21-200 ACHD Borrow Ditch q1 10/8/2021,12:41 PM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Sizing Bioswales & Borrow Ditches NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision#2-ACHD Borrow Ditch#1 2 Enter number of Bioswales/Borrow Ditches(25 max) 1 3 Design Storm 100 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.77 Link to:LQV 4 Area A(Acres) 0.15 acres QV TR55 Approved discharge rate for the given storm(if applicable) 0.00 cfs 5 Design Vol With 0%Sed for Swales V 401 ft3 6 Length of Swale 50 ft 7 Infiltration Window?(Note:infiltration required if Longitudinal Sloped%) Design Infiltration Rate 8.00 in/hr 8 Infiltration Window Width 2.00 ft 9 Set Swale Bottom Width b 2.00 ft 10 Set Swale Top Width 14.00 ft 11 Set Swale Depth y 2.00 ft 12 Swale Side Slopes H:1 Sxs 4.00 13 Calculate cross-sectional area Axs 20.00 14.00 ft' 2 Axs=y z+by 14 Total Swale Capacity Without Driveways 700 ft3 15 Does it Have Capacity? OK 16 Time to Drain 6.0 hr 90%volume in 48-hours minimum OK Check Swale With Driveways 17 Avg.Driveway Fill Slope in Swale (H/V) ft/ft 18 Enter Total Number of Driveways ea 0.0 ft3 Deduct driveway slope 19 Enter Total Length of all Driveways ft 0.0 ft3 Deduct driveway length 20 Lost Swale Length From Trees,etc. ft 0.0 ft3 Deduct other 21 Adjusted Length of Infiltration Area 0.0 ft 22 Excess Capacity=Storage-Deductions-Runoff Volume (401.2) ft3 23 Is Capacity Good? 24 Time to Drain 0.0 hr 90%volume in 48-hours minimum OK P:\21-200\Documents\Reports\Storm Drainage\21-200 ACHD Borrow Ditch#1 10/8/2021,12:41 PM Version 10.0,May 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Finding Peak Discharge/Volume-Rational Method NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology.These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. rge Rate using th r post-developm Calculate Post-Development Flows(for pre-development flows,increase number of storage facilities to create new tab) User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision#2-ACHD Borrow Ditch#2 2 Is area drainage basin map provided? YES (map must be included with stormwater calculations) 3 Enter Design Storm(100-Year or 25-Year With 100-Year Flood Route) 100 4 Enter number of storage facilities(25 max) 1 Click to Show More Subbasins ❑ Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin Subbasin 1 Subbasin 2 3 4 5 Subbasin 6 7 8 9 30 5 Area of Drainage Subbasin(SF or Acres) SF 3,689 1,153 1,009 Acres 0.13 6 Determine the Weighted Runoff Coefficient(C) 0.95 0.70 0.20 C=[(C1xA1)+(C2xA2)+(CnxAn)]/A Weighted Avg 0.77 7 Calculate Overland Flow Time of Concentration in Minutes(Tc)or use default 10 User calculate min o Min. Estimated Runoff Coefficients for Various Surface Type of Surface Runoff Coefficients"f 8 Determine the average rainfall intensity(i)from IDF Curve based on Tc i 2.58 in/hr Business Downtown areas 0.70-0.95 9 Calculate the Post-Development peak discharge(QPeak) QPeak 0.27 ifs Urban neighborhoods 0.50-0.70 Residential 50 10 Calculate total runoff volV for sizing primary storage) V 358 ft' Single Family 0.60-0.75 ( )( g P Y g ) Multi-family 0.60-0.75 V=Ci(Tc=60)Ax3600 Residential(rural) 0.25-0.40 11 Calculate Volume of Runoff Reduction Vrr Apartment Dwelling Areas 0.70 Industrial and Commercial Enter Percentile Storm I(95th percentile=0.60 in) 95th 0.60 in Light areas 0.80 Enter Runoff Reduction Vol(95th Percentile=0.60-in x Area x C) Vrr 224 W Heavy areas 0.90 12 Detention:Approved Discharge Rate to Surface Waters(if applicable) cfs Parks,cemeteries 0. Playgrounds 0.20-0.0-0.35 5 Railroad yard areas 0.20-0.40 13 Volume Summary Unimproved areas 0.10-0.30 Surface Storage:Basin streets Asphalt 095 Basin Foreba V 36 ft' . Y Concrete 0.95 Primary Treatment/StorageBasin V 322 ft' Brick 0.95 Subsurface Storage Roofs 0.95 Gravel Volume Without Sediment Factor(See BMP 20 Tab) V 358 ft' Fields:Sandy soil Soil Soil Type Slope A B C D Flat:0-2% 0.04 0.07 0.11 0. Average:2-6% 0.09 0.12 0.15 0. Steep:>6% 0.13 0.18 0.23 0. Adapted from ASCE P:\21-200\Documents\Reports\Storm Drainage\21-200 ACHD Borrow Ditch#2 10/8/2021,12:48 PM Version 10.5,November 2018 ACHD Calculation Sheet for Sizing Bioswales & Borrow Ditches NOTE:This worksheet is intended to be a guideline to standardize ACHD checking of drainage calculations and shall not replace the Engineer's calculation methodology. These calculations shall establish a minimum requirement.The Engineer's methodology must result in facilities that meet or exceed these calculations in order to be accepted. User input in yellow cells. 1 Project Name Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision#2-ACHD Borrow Ditch#2 2 Enter number of Bioswales/Borrow Ditches(25 max) 1 3 Design Storm 100 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.77 Link to:LQ,v 4 Area A(Acres) 0.13 acres QV TR55 Approved discharge rate for the given storm(if applicable) 0.00 cfs 5 Design Vol With 0%Sed for Swales V 358 ft3 6 Length of Swale 47 ft 7 Infiltration Window?(Note:infiltration required if Longitudinal Slope<1%) Design Infiltration Rate 8.00 in/hr 8 Infiltration Window Width 2.00 ft 9 Set Swale Bottom Width b 2.00 ft 10 Set Swale Top Width 14.00 ft 11 Set Swale Depth y 2.00 ft 12 Swale Side Slopes H:1 Sxs 4.00 13 Calculate cross-sectional area Axs 20.00 14.00 ft' Axs=Y zz+by 14 Total Swale Capacity Without Driveways 658 ft3 15 Does it Have Capacity? OK 16 Time to Drain 5.7 hr 90%volume in 48-hours minimum OK Check Swale With Driveways 17 Avg.Driveway Fill Slope in Swale (H/V) ft/ft 18 Enter Total Number of Driveways ea 0.0 ft3 Deduct driveway slope 19 Enter Total Length of all Driveways ft 0.0 ft3 Deduct driveway length 20 Lost Swale Length From Trees,etc. ft 0.0 ft3 Deduct other 21 Adjusted Length of Infiltration Area 0.0 ft 22 Excess Capacity=Storage-Deductions-Runoff Volume (358.1) ft3 23 Is Capacity Good? 24 Time to Drain 0.0 hr 90%volume in 48-hours minimum OK P:\21-200\Documents\Reports\Storm Drainage\21-200 ACHD Borrow Ditch#2 10/8/2021,12:49 PM Version 10.0,May 2018 APPENDIX C - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT MATERIALS TESTI NG & SW INSPECTION ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT of Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision 3625 East Amity Road Meridian, ID Prepared for: Brighton Development, Inc. 12601 West Explorer Drive, Suite 200 Boise, ID 83713 MTI File Number B161292g 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti cbmti-id.com MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 1 of 38 INSPECT 1 O N h 161292g_geotech.docx ❑ Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering U Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections Mr.Jon Wardle Brighton Development, Inc. 12601 West Explorer Drive, Suite 200 Boise, ID 83713 (208) 378-4000 Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision 3625 East Amity Road Meridian,ID Dear Mr. Wardle: In compliance with your instructions, MTI has conducted a soils exploration and foundation evaluation for the above referenced development. Fieldwork for this investigation was conducted on 30 September 2016. 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 a PDF copy for your review and distribution. Often, questions arise concerning soil conditions because of design and construction details that occur on a project. MTl would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical engineers during project implementation. Additionally, MTI can provide 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 meet with you at your convenience. MT] 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. ,ONAL F k� y`r.SIN '0 14898 Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Reviewed by: EI zabeth Brown, E. la_ll.l;fv 0 Staff Engineer Geotechnical Engin er ,�TE of 10l Ae�� Reviewed by: Monica Saculles, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise,ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(20B)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mtiAmti-id.com MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#2 of 38 INSPECTION b I 61292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................................3 ProjectDescription.................................................................................................................................................3 Authorization..........................................................................................................................................................3 Purpose...................................................................................................................................................................3 Scopeof Investigation............................................................................................................................................4 Warranty and Limiting Conditions.........................................................................................................................4 SITEDESCRIPTION..........................................................................................................................................................5 SiteAccess..............................................................................................................................................................5 RegionalGeology...................................................................................................................................................6 General Site Characteristics....................................................................................................................................6 Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry........................................................................................................6 GeoseismicSetting.................................................................................................................................................7 SOILSEXPLORATION......................................................................................................................................................7 Exploration and Sampling Procedures....................................................................................................................7 LaboratoryTesting Program...................................................................................................................................7 Soiland Sediment Profile.......................................................................................................................................7 VolatileOrganic Scan.............................................................................................................................................8 SITEHYDROLOGY...........................................................................................................................................................8 Groundwater...........................................................................................................................................................9 SoilInfiltration Rates..............................................................................................................................................9 SLOPESAND SETBACKS................................................................................................................................................10 FOUNDATION,SLAB,AND PAVEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................10 Foundation Design Recommendations.................................................................................................................10 FloorSlab-on-Grade.............................................................................................................................................It AASHTO Recommended Pavement Sections......................................................................................................12 FlexiblePavement Sections..................................................................................................................................12 Recommended Gravel Equivalent Pavement Sections.........................................................................................13 FlexiblePavement Section...................................................................................................................................13 Pavement Subgrade Preparation...........................................................................................................................14 Common Pavement Section Construction Issues .................................................................................................14 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS...............................................................................................................................15 Earthwork.............................................................................................................................................................15 DryWeather.........................................................................................................................................................16 WetWeather.........................................................................................................................................................16 SoftSubgrade Soils..............................................................................................................................................16 FrozenSubgrade Soils..........................................................................................................................................17 StructuralFill........................................................................................................................................................17 Backfillof Walls...................................................................................................................................................18 Excavations...........................................................................................................................................................18 GroundwaterControl............................................................................................................................................19 GENERALCOMMENTS..................................................................................................................................................19 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................................................20 APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................................................21 AcronymList........................................................................................................................................................21 GeotechnicalGeneral Notes.................................................................................................................................22 Geotechnical Investigation Test Pit Log...............................................................................................................23 AASHTO Pavement Thickness Design Procedures.............................................................................................33 R-Value Laboratory Test Data..............................................................................................................................36 Plate1:Vicinity Map............................................................................................................................................37 Plate2: Site Map...................................................................................................................................................38 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 3 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections INTRODUCTION This report presents results of a geotechnical investigation and analysis in support of data utilized in design of structures as defined in the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). Information in support of groundwater and stormwater issues pertinent to the practice of Civil Engineering is included. Observations and recommendations relevant to the earthwork phase of the project are also presented. Revisions in plans or drawings for the proposed development from those enumerated in this report should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer to determine whether changes in the provided recommendations are required. Deviations from noted subsurface conditions, if encountered during construction, should also be brought to the attention of the soils engineer. Project Description The proposed development is in the southeastern portion of the City of Meridian, Ada County, ID, and occupies a portion of the NE'/4NW'/4 of Section 33, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian. This project will consist of construction of a commercial subdivision to be developed into 20 commercial lots. It is anticipated that structures will be developed with spread/continuous footings and concrete floor slabs. Total settlements are limited to 1 inch. Loads of up to 4,000 pounds per lineal foot for wall footings, and column loads of up to 50,000 pounds were assumed for settlement calculations. Additionally, assumptions have been made for traffic loading of pavements. Retaining walls are not anticipated as part of the project. MTI has not been informed of the proposed grading plan. Authorization Authorization to perform this exploration and analysis was given in the form of a written authorization to proceed from Mr. Jon Wardle of Brighton Development, Inc. to Monica Saculles of Materials Testing and Inspection, Inc. (MTI), on 23 September 2016. Said authorization is subject to terms, conditions, and limitations described in the Professional Services Contract entered into between Brighton Development, Inc. and MTI. Our scope of services for the proposed development has been provided in our proposal dated 23 September 2016 and repeated below. Purpose The purpose of this Geotechnical Engineering Report is to determine various soil profile components and their engineering characteristics for use by either design engineers or architects in: • Preparing or verifying suitability of foundation design and placement • Preparing site drainage designs • Indicating issues pertaining to earthwork construction • Preparing light and heavy duty pavement section design requirements 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#4 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections 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 form a reasonable basis for the purposes cited above. Limitations Only 10 test pits were advanced because one of the preselected locations for the test pits was in the vicinity of a drainfield. Exclusive 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 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. Report Recommendations are Limited and 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 require 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 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 5 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections observe actual subsurface conditions during earthwork construction activities to provide additional construction recommendations as needed. Since geotechnical reports are subject to misinterpretation, do not separate the soil logs from the report. Rather, provide a copy of, or authorize for their use, the complete report to other design professionals or contractors. Locations of exploratory sites referenced within this report should be considered approximate locations only. For more accurate locations, services of a professional land surveyor are recommended. This report is also limited to information available at the time it was prepared. In the event additional information is provided to MTI following publication of our report, it will be forwarded to the client for evaluation in the form received. Environmental Concerns Comments in this report concerning either onsite conditions or observations, including soil appearances and odors, are provided as general information. These comments are not intended to describe, quantify, or evaluate environmental concerns or situations. Since personnel, skills, procedures, standards, and equipment differ, a geotechnical investigation report is not intended to substitute for a geoenvironmental investigation or a Phase II/III Environmental Site Assessment. If environmental services are needed, MTI can provide, via a separate contract, those personnel who are trained to investigate and delineate soil and water contamination. SITE DESCRIPTION Site Access Access to the site may be gained via Interstate 84 to the Eagle Road exit. Proceed south on Eagle Road approximately 2.5 miles to its intersection with Amity Road. From this intersection, proceed east 0.6 mile. The site resides on the south side of the road. Presently the site exists as an existing residence with associated farm land. The location is depicted on site map plates included in the Appendix. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 6 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections Regional Geology The project site is located within the western Snake River Plain of southwestern Idaho and eastern Oregon. The plain is a northwest trending rift basin, about 45 miles wide and 200 miles long, that developed about 14 million years ago (Ma) and has since been occupied sporadically by large inland lakes. Geologic materials found within and along the plain's margins reflect volcanic and fluvial/lacustrine sedimentary processes that have led to an accumulation of approximately 1 to 2 km of interbedded volcanic and sedimentary deposits within the plain. Along the margins of the plain, streams that drained the highlands to the north and south provided coarse to fine-grained sediments eroded from granitic and volcanic rocks, respectively. About 2 million years ago the last of the lakes was drained and since that time fluvial erosion and deposition has dominated the evolution of the landscape. 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 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 20 acres of gently sloping terrain. These slopes traverse downhill from the east to west. Throughout the majority of the site, surficial soils consist of fine- grained clay soils. Vegetation primarily consists of agricultural crops. Regional drainage is north and west toward the Boise River. Stormwater drainage for the site is achieved by percolation through surficial soils. The site is situated so that it is unlikely that it will receive any stormwater drainage from off-site sources. Stormwater drainage collection and retention systems are not in place on the project site and were not noted within the vicinity of the project site. Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry According to the Western Regional Climate Center, the average precipitation for the 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 217 to 95°F, with daily extremes ranging from -25°F to IIICE Winds are generally from the northwest or southeast with an annual average wind speed of approximately 9 miles per hour (mph) and 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 water, groundwater, and soils in the region typically have pH levels ranging from 7.2 to 8.2. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 7 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections Geoseismic Setting Soils on site are classed as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 20 of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) publication ASCE/SEI 7-10. 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 lateral spreading. Incidence and anticipated acceleration of seismic activity in the area is low. SOILS EXPLORATION Exploration and Sampling Procedures Field exploration conducted to determine engineering characteristics of subsurface materials included a reconnaissance of the project site and investigation by test pit. Test pit sites pre staked by Brighton Development, Inc and were located in the field by means of a Global Positioning System (GPS) device and are reportedly accurate to within ten feet. Upon completion of investigation, each test pit was backfilled with loose excavated materials. Re-excavation and compaction of these test pit areas are required prior to construction of overlying structures. In addition, samples were obtained from representative soil strata encountered. Samples obtained have been visually classified in the field by professional staff, identified according to test pit number and depth, placed in sealed containers, and transported to our laboratory for additional testing. Subsurface materials have been described in detail on logs provided in the Appendix. Results of field and laboratory tests are also presented in the Appendix. MTI recommends that these logs not be used to estimate fill material quantities. Laboratory Testing Program Along with our field investigation, a supplemental laboratory testing program was conducted to determine additional pertinent engineering characteristics of subsurface materials necessary in an analysis of anticipated behavior of the proposed structures. Laboratory tests were conducted in accordance with current applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications, and results of these tests are to be found on the accompanying logs located in the Appendix. The laboratory testing program for this report included: Atterberg Limits Testing — ASTM D4318, Grain Size Analysis — ASTM C 117/C 136, and Resistance Value (R-value) and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils—Idaho T-8. Soil and Sediment Profile The profile below represents a generalized interpretation for the project site. Note that on site soils strata, encountered between test pit locations, may vary from the individual soil profiles presented in the logs, which can be found in the Appendix. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 8 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections The materials encountered during exploration were quite typical for the geologic area mapped as Gravel of Sunrise Terrace. Surficial soils were predominately lean clays with sandy silt/silty sand fill materials being encountered above the surficial lean clays in test pits 1 and 3. Fills were light brown to brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff/medium dense to dense, and contained fine to medium-grained sand and fine gravel. Lean clays were dark brown to light brown, dry to slightly moist, and medium stiff to hard. Generally sandy silt soils were encountered beneath the surficial lean clays and fill materials. Sandy silts were light brown to brown, dry to moist, stiff to hard, and contained fine to coarse-grained sand and varying degrees of calcium carbonate cementation. Poorly graded gravels with sand were encountered beneath the sandy silts. Poorly graded gravels with sand were light brown to yellowish brown, dry to moist, loose to very dense, and contained fine to coarse-grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, and 5-inch-minus cobbles. In the western portion of the site, poorly graded gravel with clay and sand sediments were typically encountered beneath the poorly graded gravels. Poorly graded gravels with clay and sand were light brown to reddish brown, slightly moist to saturated, medium dense to very dense, and contained fine to coarse-grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, and 3-inch-minus cobbles. In the eastern portion of the site, silty sand sediments were encountered beneath the poorly graded gravel with sand sediments. Silty sands were dark brown to light brown, slightly moist to moist, dense to very dense, and contained fine to coarse-grained sand and varying degrees of induration. In test pit 2, silt with sand soils were encountered beneath the poorly graded gravels with clay and sand. Silts with sand were dark brown to brown, stiff to very stiff, and contained fine-grained sand and varying degrees of induration. Competency of test pit walls varied little across the site. In general, fine grained soils remained stable while more granular sediments readily sloughed. However, moisture contents will also affect wall competency with saturated soils having a tendency to readily slough when under load and unsupported. 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 of contamination. Groundwater encountered did not exhibit obvious signs of contamination. 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. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 9 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections Groundwater During this field investigation, groundwater was encountered in some test pits at depths ranging from 7.9 to 10.6 feet bgs. In other test pits, no groundwater was encountered to depths as great as 15.5 feet bgs. Soil moistures in the test pits were generally dry to moist within surficial soils and in areas where groundwater was not encountered. Within the poorly graded gravel sediments, soil moistures graded from dry to saturated as the water table was approached and penetrated. In the vicinity of the project site, groundwater levels are controlled in large part by residential and agricultural irrigation activity and leakage from nearby canals. Maximum groundwater elevations likely occur during the later portion of the irrigation season. During previous investigations performed in August 2013 and June 2014 within approximately 1/2-mile to the northwest and southwest of the project site, groundwater was noted within numerous test pits at depths ranging from 4.4 to 14.2 feet bgs. However, groundwater was not encountered to a depth of 18.1 feet bgs in an investigation performed in April 2015. Groundwater monitoring conducted by MTI to the site located to the southwest of the project site showed groundwater elevations ranging from 4.1 to 7.18 feet bgs. However, groundwater monitoring conducted to the south of the project site showed groundwater elevations ranging from 16.2 to 17 feet bgs. For construction purposes, groundwater depth for the elevated eastern portion of the site can be assumed to be greater than 8 feet bgs throughout the year and for the western lower portion of the site groundwater elevations can be assumed to remain greater than 5 feet bgs throughout the year. Since this is an estimated depth and seasonal groundwater levels fluctuate, actual levels should be confirmed by periodic groundwater data collected from piezometers installed in test pits 1, 4, and 5. If desired, MTI is available to perform this monitoring. Soil Infiltration Rates Soil permeability, which is a measure of the ability of a soil to transmit a fluid, was not tested in the field. Given the absence of direct measurements, for this report an estimation of infiltration is presented using generally recognized values for each soil type and gradation. Of soils comprising the generalized soil profile for this study, lean clay and silt with sand soils generally offer little permeability, with typical hydraulic infiltration rates of less than 2 inches per hour. Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand sediments generally exhibit infiltration rates of 2 inches to 6 inches per hour. Sandy silt soils will commonly exhibit infiltration rates from 2 to 4 inches per hour and silty sand sediments usually display rates of 4 to 8 inches per hour; though calcium carbonate cementation and induration may reduce these values to near zero. Poorly graded gravel sediments typically exhibit infiltration values in excess of 12 inches per hour. Due to the presence of shallow groundwater, indurated/cemented, and clayey soils, MTI recommends infiltration testing be conducted prior to construction. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 10 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections SLOPES AND SETBACKS Native slopes on the site were shallower 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (3:1). Therefore, slope setback requirements as outlined in the 2012 IBC are not applicable. Our investigation did not reveal any potential slope instabilities. FOUNDATION, SLAB,AND PAVEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Various foundation types have been considered for support of the proposed development. Two requirements must be met in the design of foundations. First, the applied bearing stress must be less than the ultimate bearing capacity of foundation soils to maintain stability. Second, total and differential settlement must not exceed an amount that will produce an adverse behavior of the superstructure. Allowable settlement is usually exceeded before bearing capacity considerations become important; thus, allowable bearing pressure is normally controlled by settlement considerations. Considering subsurface conditions and the proposed construction, it is recommended that the development be founded upon conventional spread footings and continuous wall footings. Total settlements should not exceed 1 inch if the following design and construction recommendations are observed. Presently, there are approximately 20 lots proposed for the project site. The following recommendations are not specific to the individual structures,but rather should be viewed as guidelines for the subdivision—wide development. Foundation Design Recommendations Based on data obtained from the site and test results from various laboratory tests performed, MTI recommends the following guidelines for the net allowable soil bearing capacity: Soil Bearing Capacity ooting Depth ASTM D1557 Net Allowable Subgrade Compaction Soil Bearing Capacity Footings must bear on competent, undisturbed, native 2,000Ibs/ft2 sandy silt soils, poorly graded gravel with sand, or Not Required for Native compacted structural fill. Existing lean clay soils and fill Soil A %3 increase is allowable for materials must be completely removed from below short-term loading, which is foundation elements. Excavation depths ranging from 95%for Structural Fill defined by seismic events or roughly 1.5 to 3.3 feet bgs should be anticipated to expose proper bearing soils.2 designed wind speeds. 'It will be required for MTI personnel to verify the bearing soil suitability for each structure at the time of construction. 2Depending on the time of year construction takes place, the sub,grade soils may be unstable because of high moisture contents. If unstable conditions are encountered, over-excavation and replacement with granular structural fill and/or use of geotextiles ma,, b�quired. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 11 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections The following sliding frictional coefficient values should be used: 1) 0.35 for footings bearing on native sandy silt (ML) soils and 2) 0.45 for footings bearing on native poorly graded gravels and granular structural fill. A passive lateral earth pressure of 349 pounds per square foot per foot(psf/ft) should be used for sandy silt(ML) soils. For compacted sandy gravel fill and poorly graded gravels, a passive lateral earth pressure of 496 psf/ft should be used. Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2012 IBC minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately 1 inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately 1/2 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 footings 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 the 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 Uncontrolled fill was encountered in portions of the site. MTI recommends that these fill materials be excavated to a sufficient depth to expose competent, native soils or to a minimum depth of 1 foot below finished subgrade. If fill materials remain after over-excavation, the exposed subgrade must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. MTI personnel must be present during excavation to identify these materials. Native clay soils are moderately plastic and will be susceptible to shrink/swell movements associated with moisture changes. Areas of the site within the proposed structures should be excavated to sufficient depths to expose lean clay. The clay soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and compacted between 92 to 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. The moisture content should be within 2 percent of optimum. Structural fill should be placed as soon as possible after compaction of clay soils in order to limit moisture loss within the upper clays. Ground surfaces should be sloped away from structures at a minimum of 5 percent for a distance of 10 feet to provide positive drainage of surface water away from buildings. Grading must be provided and maintained following construction. 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 the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 12 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections A free-draining granular mat(drainage fill course) should be provided below slabs-on-grade. This should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and properly compacted. The mat should consist of a sand and gravel mixture, complying with Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC) specifications for 3/4-inch (Type 1) crushed aggregate. A moisture-retarder should be placed beneath floor slabs to minimize potential ground moisture effects on moisture-sensitive floor coverings. The moisture-retarder should be at least 15-mil in thickness and have a permeance of less than 0.01 US perms as determined by ASTM E96. Placement of the moisture-retarder will require special consideration with regard to effects on the slab-on-grade and should adhere to recommendations outlined in the ACI 302.1R and ASTM E1745 publications. The granular mat should be compacted to no less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Upon request, MTI can provide further consultation regarding installation. AASHTO Recommended Pavement Sections Per Brighton's request, MTI has provided both AASHTO and Gravel Equivalent pavement recommendations. MTI recommends AASHTO Pavement Sections be used for site pavements. MTI has made assumptions for traffic loading variables based on the character of the proposed construction. The Client shall review and understand these assumptions to make sure they reflect intended use and loading of pavements both now and in the future. MTI collected a sample of near-surface soils for Resistance Value (R-value) testing representative of soils to depths of 2 feet bgs. This sample, consisting of sandy silt collected from test pit 9, yielded a R-value of 12. The R-value was converted to a CBR value of 5 for design calculations. The following are minimum thickness requirements for assured pavement function. Depending on site conditions, additional work, e.g. soil preparation, may be required to support construction equipment. These have been listed within the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Results of the test are graphically depicted in the Appendix. Flexible Pavement Sections The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design method has been used to calculate the following pavement sections. Calculation sheets provided in the Appendix indicate the soils constant, traffic loading, traffic projections, and material constants used to calculate the pavement sections. MTI recommends that materials used in the construction of asphaltic concrete pavements meet requirements of the ISPWC Standard Specification for Highway Construction. Construction of the pavement section should be in accordance with these specifications and should adhere to guidelines recommended in the section on Construction Considerations. AASHTO Flexible Pavement Specifications Pavement Section Componentl Driveways and Parking Driveways and Parking No Truck Access Truck Access Asphaltic Concrete 2.5 Inches 3.0 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 4.0 Inches 4.0 Inches Structural Subbase 8.0 Inches 10.0 Inches Compacted Subgrade See Pavement Subgrade See Pavement Subgrade Preparation Section Preparation Section 1It will be required for MTI personnel to verify subgrade competency at the time of construction. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 13 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt mix design shall meet the requirements of ISPWC, Section 810 Class III plant mix. Materials shall be placed in accordance with ISPWC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. Aggregate Base: Material complying with ISPWC Standards for Crushed Aggregate Materials. Structural Subbase: Granular structural fill material complying 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. Gradation and suitability requirements shall be per ISPWC Section 801, Table 1. Recommended Gravel Equivalent Pavement Sections MTI recommends Gravel Equivalent Pavement Sections be used for proposed roadways. As required by Ada County Highway District (ACHD), MTI has used a traffic index of 6 to determine the necessary pavement cross-section for the site. MTI has made assumptions for traffic loading variables based on the character of the proposed construction. The Client should review these assumptions to make sure they reflect intended use and loading of pavements both now and in the future. MTI collected a sample of near-surface soils for Resistance Value (R-value) testing representative of soils to depths of 2 feet below existing ground surface. This sample, consisting of lean clay soils collected from test pit 9, yielded a R-value of 12. The following are minimum thickness requirements for assured pavement function. Depending on site conditions, additional work, e.g. soil preparation, may be required to support construction equipment. These have been listed within the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Results of the test are graphically depicted in the Appendix. Flexible Pavement Section The Gravel Equivalent Method, as defined in Section 500 of the State of Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD) Materials Manual, was used to develop the pavement sections. ACHD parameters for traffic index and substitution ratios, which were obtained from the ACHD Policy Manual, were also used in the design. Calculation sheets provided in the Appendix indicate the soils constant, traffic loading, traffic projections, and material constants used to calculate the pavement sections. MTI recommends that materials used in the construction of asphaltic concrete pavements meet the requirements of the ISPWC Standard Specification for Highway Construction. Construction of the pavement section should be in accordance with these specifications and should adhere to guidelines recommended in the section on Construction Considerations. Gravel Equivalent Method Flexible Pavement Specifications Pavement Section Component' Roadway Section Asphaltic Concrete 2.5 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 4.0 Inches Structural Subbase 12.0 Inches Compacted Subgrade See Pavement Subgrade Preparation Section 'It will be required for MTI personnel to verify subgrade competency at the time of construction. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 14 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt mix design shall meet the requirements of ISPWC, Section 810 Class III plant mix. Materials shall be placed in accordance with ISPWC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. Aggregate Base: Material complying with ISPWC Standards for Crushed Aggregate Materials. Structural Subbase: Material complying with requirements for granular structural fill (uncrushed) as defined in ISPWC. Pavement Submde Preparation Uncontrolled fill was encountered in portions of the site. MTI recommends that these fill materials be excavated to a sufficient depth to expose competent, native soils or to a minimum depth of 1 foot below finished subgrade. If fill materials remain after over-excavation, the exposed subgrade must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. MTI personnel must be present during excavation to identify these materials. Native clay soils are moderately plastic and will be susceptible to shrink/swell movements associated with moisture changes. Areas of the site within the proposed pavement sections should be excavated to sufficient depths to expose clay soils. The clay soils should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches and compacted between 92 to 98 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. The moisture content should be within 2 percent of optimum. Structural fill should be placed as soon as possible after compaction of clay soils in order to limit moisture loss within the upper clays. Common Pavement Section Construction Issues The subgrade upon which above pavement sections are to be constructed must be properly stripped, compacted (if indicated), 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 MTI personnel at the time of construction is required. Fill materials on the site must demonstrate the indicated compaction prior to placing material in support of the pavement section. MTI anticipated 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 soft areas must be removed and replaced with structural fill. Fill material and aggregates in support of the pavement section must be compacted to no less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 for flexible pavements and by ASTM D 1557 for rigid pavements. If a material placed as a pavement section component cannot be tested by usual compaction testing methods, then compaction of that material must be approved by observed proof rolling. Minor deflections from proof rolling for flexible pavements are allowable. Deflections from proof rolling of rigid pavement support courses should not be visually detectable. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 15 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections MTI recommends that rigid concrete pavement be provided for heavy garbage receptacles. This will eliminate damage caused by the considerable loading transferred through the small steel wheels onto asphaltic concrete. Rigid concrete pavement should consist of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) generally adhering to ITD specifications for Urban Concrete. PCCP should be 6 inches thick on a 4-inch drainage fill course (see Floor Slab-on-Grade section), and should be reinforced with welded wire fabric. Control joints must be on 12-foot centers or less. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Recommendations in this report are based upon structural elements of the project being founded on competent, undisturbed, native sandy silt soils, poorly graded gravel with sand sediments, or compacted structural fill. Structural areas should be stripped to an elevation that exposes these soil types. Earthwork Excessively organic soils, deleterious materials, or disturbed soils generally undergo high volume changes when subjected to loads, which is detrimental to subgrade behavior in the area of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills, and foundations. Agricultural crops and thick grasses with associated root systems were noted at the time of our investigation. It is recommended that organic or disturbed soils, if encountered, be removed to depths of 1 foot (minimum), and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Stripping depths should be adjusted in the field to assure that the entire root zone or disturbed zone (plow depths) or topsoil are removed prior to placement and compaction of structural fill materials. Exact removal depths should be determined during grading operations by MTI personnel, and should be based upon subgrade soil type, composition, and firmness or soil stability. If underground storage tanks, underground utilities, wells, or septic systems are discovered during construction activities, they must be decommissioned then removed or abandoned in accordance with governing Federal, State, and local agencies. Excavations developed as the result of such removal must be backfilled with structural fill materials as defined in the Structural Fill section. MTI should oversee subgrade conditions (i.e., moisture content) as well as placement and compaction of new fill (if required) after native soils are excavated to design grade. Recommendations for structural fill presented in this report can be used to minimize volume changes and differential settlements that are detrimental to the behavior of footings, pavements, and floor slabs. Sufficient density tests should be performed to properly monitor compaction. For structural fill beneath building structures, one in-place density test per lift for every 5,000 square feet is recommended. In parking and driveway areas, this can be decreased to one test per lift for every 10,000 square feet. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 16 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections 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 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. 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. • Soft areas can be over-excavated and replaced with granular structural fill. • 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 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 11/2 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 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 17 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections Frozen Subgrade Soils Prior to placement of structural fill materials or foundation elements, frozen subgrade soils must either be allowed to thaw or be stripped to depths that expose non-frozen soils and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Stockpiled materials must be allowed to thaw and return to near-optimal conditions prior to use as structural fill. The onsite, shallow lean clay and silt soils are susceptible to frost heave during freezing temperatures. For exterior flatwork and other structural elements, adequate drainage away from subgrades is critical. Compaction and use of structural fill will also help to mitigate the potential for frost heave. Complete removal of frost susceptible soils for the full frost depth, followed by replacement with a non-frost susceptible structural fill, can also be used to mitigate the potential for frost heave. MTI is available to provide further guidance/assistance upon request. Structural Fill Soils recommended for use as structural fill are those classified as GW, GP, SW, and SP in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D2487). Use of silty soils (USCS designation of GM, SM, and ML) as structural fill may be acceptable. However, use of silty soils (GM, SM, and ML) as structural fill below footings is prohibited. These materials require very high moisture contents for compaction and require a long time to dry out if natural moisture contents are too high and may also be susceptible to frost heave under certain conditions. Therefore, these materials can be quite difficult to work with as moisture content, lift thickness, and compactive effort becomes difficult to control. If silty soil is used for structural fill, lift thicknesses should not exceed 6 inches (loose), and fill material moisture must be closelX monitored at both the working elevation and the elevations of materials already placed. Following placement, silty soils must be protected from degradation resulting from construction traffic or subsequent construction. Recommended granular structural fill materials, those classified as GW, GP, SW, and SP, should consist of a 6-inch minus select, clean, granular soil with no more than 50 percent oversize (greater than 3/4-inch) material and no more than 12 percent fines (passing No. 200 sieve). These fill materials should be placed in layers not to exceed 12 inches in loose thickness. Prior to placement of structural fill materials, surfaces must be prepared as outlined in the Construction Considerations section. Structural fill material should be moisture- conditioned to achieve optimum moisture content prior to compaction. For structural fill below footings, areas of compacted backfill must extend outside the perimeter of the footings for a distance equal to the thickness of fill between the bottom of foundation and underlying soils, or 5 feet, whichever is less. All fill materials must be monitored during placement and tested to confirm compaction requirements, outlined below, have been achieved. Each layer of structural fill must be compacted, as outlined below: • Below Structures and Rigid Pavements: A minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. • Below Flexible Pavements: A minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 15 57 or 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 18 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections The ASTM D 15 57 test method must be used for samples containing up to 40 percent oversize (greater than 3/4- inch) particles. If material contains more than 40 percent but less than 50 percent oversize particles, compaction of fill must be confirmed by proof rolling each lift with a 10-ton vibratory roller (or equivalent) until the maximum density has been achieved. Density testing must be performed after each proof rolling pass until the in-place density test results indicate a drop (or no increase) in the dry density, defined as maximum density or "break over" point. The number of required passes should be used as the requirements on the remainder of fill placement. Material should contain sufficient fines to fill void spaces, and must not contain more than 50 percent oversize particles. 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 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 1'/2 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (1'/2:1) 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 long-term conditions. During the subsurface exploration, test pit sidewalls generally exhibited little indication of collapse; however, sloughing of fill materials and native granular sediments from test pit sidewalls was observed, particularly after penetration of the water table. 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 soil 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. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 19 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections Shallow soil cementation (caliche) was observed through portions of the site and may cause difficulties during foundation development and utility placement. Cemented soils should be anticipated through the eastern portion of the site at depths of 2 to 4.5 feet bgs. Groundwater Control Groundwater was encountered during the investigation but is anticipated to be below the depth of most construction. Excavations below the water table will require a dewatering program. Dewatering will be required prior to placement of fill materials. Placement of concrete can be accomplished through water by the use of a treme. It may be possible to discharge dewatering effluent to remote portions of the site, to a sump, or to a pit. This will essentially recycle effluent, thus eliminating the need to enter into agreements with local drainage authorities. Should the scope of the proposed project change, MTI should be contacted to provide more detailed groundwater control measures. 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 and clayey 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. GENERAL COMMENTS When plans and specifications are complete, or if significant changes are made in the character or location of the proposed development, consultation with MTI should be arranged as supplementary recommendations may be required. Suitability of subgrade soils and compaction of structural fill materials must be verified by MTI personnel prior to placement of structural elements. Additionally, monitoring and testing should be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for structural fill and that proper placement and compaction techniques are utilized. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#20 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections REFERENCES Ada County Highway District (ACHD) (2013). Ada County Highway District Policy Manual (October 2015). [Online] Available: <http://www.achdidaho.org/AboutACHD/PolicyManual.aspx>(2016). American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2004). Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction: ACI 302.1R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI. American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE)(2013). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures: ASCE/SEI 7-10. Reston,VA:ASCE. American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM)(2013). Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-µm(No. 200,)Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing:ASTM C117.West Conshohocken,PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2014). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aregates:ASTM C136.West Conshohocken,PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2012). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort:ASTM D698.West Conshohocken,PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2012). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory CoMpaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort:ASTM D1557.West Conshohocken,PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM)(2013). Standard Test Methods for Resistance Value(R-Value)and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils:ASTM D2844.West Conshohocken,PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)(2011). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System):ASTM D2487.West Conshohocken,PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2010). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils:ASTM D4318.West Conshohocken,PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2011). Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs:ASTM E1745.West Conshohocken,PA: ASTM. American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993.Washington D.C.:AASHTO. Desert Research Institute.Western Regional Climate Center. [Online] Available:<http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/>(2016). International Building Code Council(2012). International Building Code,2012.Country Club Hills,IL:Author. Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) (2010). Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, 2010. Boise, 1D: Author. Othberg,K.L. and Stanford,L.A.,Idaho Geologic Society(1992). Geologic Map of the Boise Valley and Adjoining Area,Western Snake River Plain,Idaho. (scale 1:100,000).Boise,ID:Joslyn and Morris. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. CFR 29, Part 1926, Subpart P: Safety and Health Regulations for Construction,Excavations(1986). [Online]Available:<www.osha.gov>(2016). U.S. Geological Survey (2016). National Water Information System: Web Interface. [Online] Available: <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis>(2016). 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#21 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections APPENDICES ACRONYM LIST AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACHD: Ada County Highway District ACI American Concrete Institute ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials bgs: below ground surface CBR: California Bearing Ratio D: natural dry unit weight,pcf ESAL Equivalent Single Axle Load GS: grab sample IBC: International Building Code IDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental Quality ISPWC: Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction ITD: Idaho Transportation Department LL: Liquid Limit M: water content MSL: mean sea level N: Standard"N"penetration: blows per foot,Standard Penetration Test NP: nonplastic OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCCP: Portland Cement Concrete Pavement PERM: vapor permeability PI: Plasticity Index PID: photoionization detector PVC: polyvinyl chloride QC: cone penetrometer value,unconfined compressive strength,psi Qp: Penetrometer value,unconfined compressive strength,tsf Qu: Unconfined compressive strength,tsf RMR Rock Mass Rating RQD Rock Quality Designation R-Value Resistance Value SPT: Standard Penetration Test(140:pound hammer falling 30 in. on a 2:in. split spoon) USCS: Unified Soil Classification System USDA: United States Department of Agriculture UST: underground storage tank V: vane value,ultimate shearing strength,tsf 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#22 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION 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 Hard: >30 Moisture Content Aow= Cementation Description Field Test Description Field Test Dry Absence of moisture,dusty,dry to touch Weakly Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure Moist Damp but not visible moisture Moderately Crumbles or beaks with considerable finger pressure Wet Visible free water,usually soil is below Strongly Will not crumble or break with finger water table g pressure PARTICLE SIZE Boulders: >12 in. Coarse-Grained Sand: 5 to 0.6 min Silts: 0.075 to 0.005 min Cobbles: 12 to 3 in. Medium-Grained Sand: 0.6 to 0.2 min Clays: <0.005 mm Gravel: 3 in.to 5 min Fine-Grained Sand: 0.2 to 0.075 min UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Major Divisions Symbol Soil Descriptions Gravel&Gravelly GW Well-graded gravels;gravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines Soils GP Poorly-graded gravels;gravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines Coarse-Grained <50% coarse fraction GM Silty gravels;poorly-graded gravel/sand/silt mixtures Soils passes No.4 sieve GC Clayey gravels;poorly-graded gravel/sand/clay mixtures <50% passes No.200 Sand&Sandy SW Well-graded sands;gravelly sands with little or no fines sieve Soils SP Poorly-graded sands;gravelly sands with little or no fines >50% coarse fraction SM Silty sands;poorly-graded sand/gravel/silt mixtures passes No.4 sieve SC Clayey sands;poorly-graded sand/gravel/clay mixtures ML Inorganic silts; sandy,gravelly or clayey silts Silts&Clays CL Lean clays;inorganic,gravelly,sandy,or silty,low to medium-plasticity clays Fine Grained LL<50 Soils>50% OL Organic,low-plasticity clays and silts passes No.200 MH Inorganic,elastic silts; sandy,gravelly or clayey elastic silts sieve Silts&Clays CH Fat clays;high-plasticity,inorganic clays LL>50 OH Organic,medium to high-plasticity clays and silts Highly Organic Soils PT Peat,humus,hydric soils with high organic content 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com CTesti M©2spe Materials Testing&Inspection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#23 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-1 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5610619 Longitude: -116.3479919 Depth to Water Table: 9.4 Feet bgs Total Depth: 10.1 Feet bgs Notes: Piezometer installed to 10.1 feet bgs. Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Silty Sand Fill (SM-FILL): Light brown to brown, 0.0-1.2 dry, medium dense to dense, with fine to medium- grained sand. 1.2-3.2 Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown, dry, very stiff to 4.0-4.5 hard. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Light 3.2-6.7 brown, dry, dense to very dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, 4- inch-minus cobbles. Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand (GP- GC): Light brown to reddish brown, slightly moist to saturated, dense to very dense, with fine to 6.7-10.1 coarse-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel, and 4- inch-minus cobbles. --Groundwater slowly infiltrated through the sidewalls because of clay content and relative density of the soils. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#24 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-2 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5602074 Longitude: -116.3474579 Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Total Depth: 15.5 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab (Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown to brown, dry to 0.0-1.5 slightly moist, medium stiff to very stiff. 0.75-3.5 --Plow zone to a depth of 0.8 foot bgs. --Organics encountered to a depth of 1.1 feet bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry, very stiff to 1.5-3.0 hard, with fine to medium-grained sand. --Very weak intermittent induration encountered throughout. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Light 3.0-6.4 brown to yellowish brown, dry, medium dense to dense, with medium to coarse-grained sand. Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand (GP- 6.4-10.3 GC): Light brown to reddish brown, slightly moist, dense to very dense, with fine to coarse- grained sand and fine to coarse gravel. Silt with Sand (ML): Dark brown to brown, stiff 10.3-15.5 to very stiff, with fine-grained sand. GS 13.5-14.0 A --Moderate induration encountered throughout. Lab Test ID M LL PI Sieve Analysis(% passing) % - - #4 #10 #40 #100 #200 A 29.4 36 9 99 98 90 82 75.1 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 als www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com Copyrigg&Ins eMate Inc. Testing&Inspection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#25 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-3 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5602646 Longitude: -116.3459320 Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Total Depth: 12.3 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab (Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Sandy Silt with Gravel Fill (ML-FILL): Light brown to brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff, 0.0-1.5 with fine to medium-grained sand and fine gravel. 3.0-3.5 --Plow zone to a depth of 1.1 feet bgs. --Organics to a depth of 1.5 eet bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, dry, very stiff to 1.5-3.4 hard, with fine-grained sand. --Weak to moderate calcium carbonate cementation encountered below 2.0 eet bgs. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Light 3.4-9.1 brown, dry, medium dense to dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand and fine to coarse gravel. Silty Sand (SM): Dark brown, slightly moist to 9.1-12.3 moist, dense to very dense, with fine to coarse- grained sand. --Moderate induration encountered throughout. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#26 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-4 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5602646 Longitude: -116.3445206 Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Total Depth: 4.7 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab (Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown, dry to slightly moist, stiff to very stiff. 0.0-2.8 2.0-3.5 --plow zone to a depth of 1.2 feet bgs. --Organics to a depth of 1.3 eet bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown to brown, dry, very stiff to hard, with fine to medium-grained sand. 2 8 4 7 --Very strong calcium carbonate cementation encountered below 3.7 feet bgs. --Refusal on very strong cementation at 4.7 feet bgs. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 Copyrig & a Materialswww.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com Testing Inspection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#27 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-5 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5611572 Longitude: -116.3450470 Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Total Depth: 12.5 Feet bgs Notes: Piezometer installed to 12.5 feet bgs. Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown to brown, dry to 0.0-3.3 slightly moist, very stiff. GS 2.5-3.0 2.75 B --Plow zone to a depth of 1.2 feet bgs. --Organics to a depth of 1.3 eet bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, slightly moist to moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse- grained sand. 3.3-6.1 --Weak to moderate calcium carbonate cementation from 3.4 to 4.0 feet bgs. --Moist soils are likely from the irrigation ditch located in close proximity to the test pit. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Yellowish 6.1-10.8 brown to light brown, slightly moist, medium dense to dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, and 5-inch-minus cobbles. Silty Sand (SM): Light brown to brown, slightly moist to moist, dense to very dense, with fine to 10.8-12.5 coarse-grained sand. --Moderate to strong induration encountered throughout. --Refusal on induration at 12.5 feet bgs. Lab Test ID M LL PI Sieve Anal sis(%passing) % - - #4 #10 #40 #100 #200 B 13.5 41 20 100 99 96 91 85.5 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#28 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-6 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5611420 Longitude: -116.3459778 Depth to Water Table: 10.6 Feet bgs Total Depth: 11.0 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab (Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown, dry to slightly 0.0-2.1 moist, stiff to hard. 1.25-4.25 --Organics to a depth of L I feet bgs. --Plow zone to a depth of 1.2 eet bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, slightly moist to moist, very stiff to hard, with fine to coarse- 2.1-4.1 grained sand. --Moderate to strong calcium carbonate cementation encountered below 2.6 eet bgs. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Light 4.1-11.0 brown, slightly moist to saturated, medium dense to dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel, and 3-inch-minus cobbles. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 als www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com Copyrigg&Ins eMate Inc. Testing&Inspection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page#29 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-7 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5595016 Longitude: -116.3469925 Depth to Water Table: 8.1 Feet bgs Total Depth: 11.1 Feet bgs Notes: Piezometer installed to 11.1 feet bgs. Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown to brown, dry to 0.0-2.3 slightly moist, very stiff to hard. 2.75-4.5 --Plow zone to a depth of 1.1 feet bgs. --Organics to a depth of 1.9 eet bgs. 2.3-3.5 Sandy Silt (ML): Brown to light brown, dry, stiff to very stiff, with fine to medium-grained sand. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Yellowish 3.5-9.6 brown to light brown, dry to saturated, loose to medium dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand and fine to coarse gravel. Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand (GP- 9.6-11.1 GC): Reddish brown, slightly moist to moist, dense to very dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand and fine to coarse gravel. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 Copyrig & a Materialswww.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com Testing Inspection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 30 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-8 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5597954 Longitude: -116.3489151 Depth to Water Table: 9.6 Feet bgs Total Depth: 10.5 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID 0.0-2.1 Lean Clay (CL): Light brown to dark brown, dry 1.75-4.0 to slightly moist, stiff to very stiff, Sandy Silt (ML): Brown to light brown, slightly moist to moist, stiff to very stiff, with fine to 2.1-4.5 medium-grained sand. --Very weak calcium carbonate cementation below 3.8 eet bgs. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Light 4.5-10.5 brown to yellowish brown, dry to saturated, medium dense to dense, with fine to coarse- grained sand and fine to coarse gravel. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 als www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com Copyrigg&Ins eMate Inc. Testing&Inspection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 31 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-9 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5593376 Longitude: -116.3486252 Depth to Water Table: 9.2 Feet bgs Total Depth: 10.2 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab (Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown, dry to slightly moist, hard. 0.0-1.8 --plow zone to a depth of 0.8 foot bgs. 4 5+ --Organics to a depth of 1.5 eet bgs. 1.8-4.4 Sandy Silt(ML): Brown, dry to slightly moist, stiff Bulk 1.8-2.3 R-Value to very stiff, with fine to medium-grained sand. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Light 4.4-9.5 brown to yellowish brown, dry to saturated, dense to very dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, and 5-inch-minus cobbles. Poorly Graded Gravel with Clay and Sand (GP- 9.5-10.2 GC): Reddish brown, slightly moist to moist, dense to very dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand and fine to coarse gravel. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 Copyrig www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com Testingg&Inspection 2016 Mate nspection. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 32 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-10 Date Advanced: 30 Sept 2016 Logged by: Jacob Schlador, E.I.T. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Latitude: 43.5597687 Longitude: -116.3480453 Depth to Water Table: 7.9 Feet bgs Total Depth: 8.8 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sediment Sample Sample Depth Lab (Feet bgs) Classification Type Feet bgs) Qp Test ID Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown, dry to slightly 0.0-1.6 moist, stiff to hard. 2.0-4.5 --Organics to a depth of 0.5 foot bgs. --Plow zone to a depth of 0.8 oot bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown, slightly moist, stiff 1.6-4.6 to very stiff, with fine to medium-grained sand. --Encountered weak calcium carbonate cementation below 2.8 eet bgs. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Light 4.6-8.8 brown to yellowish brown, dry to saturated, dense to very dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, with 5-inch-minus cobbles. 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 als www.mti-id.com•mti(a)mti-id.com Copyrigg&Ins eMate Inc. Testing&Inspection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 33 of 38 INSPECTION b I 61292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections AASHTO PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES Pavement Section Design Location: Hill's Century Farm Subdivision,No Truck Access Average Daily Traffic Count: 200 All Lanes&Both Directions Design Life: 20 Years Percent of Traffic in Design Lane: 50% Terminal Seviceability Index(Pt): 2.5 Level of Reliability: 95 Subgrade CBR Value: 5 Subgrade Mr: 7,500 Calculation of Design-181dp ESALs Daily Growth Load Design Traffic Rate Factors ESALs Passenger Cars: 78 2.0% 0.0008 553 Buses: 1 2.0% 0.6806 6,036 Panel&Pickup Trucks: 15 2.0% 0.0122 1,623 2-Axle,6-Tire Trucks: 5 2.0% 0.1890 8,381 Concrete Trucks: 1.0 2.0% 4.4800 39,731 Dump Trucks: 0 2.0% 3.6300 0 Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks: 0 2.0% 2.3719 0 Double Trailer Trucks 0 2.0% 2.3187 0 Heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks: 0 2.0% 2.9760 0 Average Daily Traffic in Design Lane: 100 Total Design Life 18-kip ESALs: 56,324 Actual Log(ESALs): 4.751 Trial SN: 2.30 Trial Log(ESALs): 4.757 Pavement Section Design SN: 2.41 Design Depth Structural Drainage Inches Coefficient Coefficient Asphaltic Concrete: 2.50 0.42 n/a Asphalt-Treated Base: 0.00 0.25 n/a Cement-Treated Base: 0.00 0.17 n/a Crushed Aggregate Base: 4.00 0.14 1.0 Subbase: 8.00 0.10 1.0 Special Aggregate Subgrade: 0.00 0.09 0.9 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 34 of 38 INSPECTION b161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections AASHTO PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES Pavement Section Design Location: Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision,Truck Access Average Daily Traffic Count: 200 All Lanes&Both Directions Design Life: 20 Years Percent of Traffic in Design Lane: 50% Terminal Seviceability Index(Pt): 2.5 Level of Reliability: 95 Subgrade CBR Value: 5 Subgrade Mr: 7,500 Calculation of Design-18 ldp ESALs Daily Growth Load Design Traffic Rate Factors ESALs Passenger Cars: 60 2.0% 0.0008 426 Buses: 5 2.0% 0.6806 30,180 Panel&Pickup Trucks: 20 2.0% 0.0122 2,164 2-Axle,6-Tire Trucks: 10 2.0% 0.1890 16,762 Concrete Trucks: 1.0 2.0% 4.4800 39,731 Dump Trucks: 1 2.0% 3.6300 32,193 Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks: 2 2.0% 2.3719 42,071 Double Trailer Trucks 1 2.0% 2.3187 20,563 Heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks: 0 2.0% 2.9760 0 Average Daily Traffic in Design Lane: 100 Total Design Life 18-ldp ESALs: 184,089 Actual Log(ESALs): 5.265 Trial SN: 2.79 Trial Log(ESALs): 5.265 Pavement Section Design SN: 2.82 Design Depth Structural Drainage Inches Coefficient Coefficient Asphaltic Concrete: 3.00 0.42 n/a Asphalt-Treated Base: 0.00 0.25 n/a Cement-Treated Base: 0.00 0.17 n/a Crushed Aggregate Base: 4.00 0.14 1.0 Subbase: 10.00 0.10 1.0 Special Aggregate Subgrade: 0.00 0.09 0.9 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 35 of 38 INSPECTION b I 61292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections GRAVEL EQUIVALENT METHOD—PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES Pavement Section Design Location: Hill's Century Farm Commercial Subdivision,Proposed Roadways Average Daily Traffic Count: 200 All Lanes&Both Directions Design Life: 20 Years Traffic Index: 6.00 Climate Factor: 1 R-Value of Subgrade: 12.00 Subgrade CBR Value: 5 Subgrade Mr: 7,500 R-Value of Aggregate Base: 80 R-Value of Granular Borrow: 60 Subgrade R-Value: 12 Expansion Pressure of Subgrade: 0.00 Unit Weight of Base Materials: 130 Total Design Life 18 kip ESAL's: 33,131 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE: Gravel Equivalent,Calculated: 0.384 Thickness: 0.196923077 Use= 2.5 Inches Gravel Equivalent,ACTUAL: 0.41 CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE: Gravel Equivalent(Ballast): 0.768 Thickness: 0.329 Use= 4 Inches Gravel Equivalent,ACTUAL: 0.773 SUBBASE: Gravel Equivalent(Ballast): 1.690 Thickness: 0.917 Use= 12 Inches Gravel Equivalent,ACTUAL: 1.773 TOTAL Thickness: 1.542 Thickness Required by Exp.Pressure: 0.000 Design ACHD Depth Substitution Inches Ratios Asphaltic Concrete(at least 2.5): 2.50 1.95 Asphalt Treated Base(at least 4.2): 0.00 Cement Treated Base(at least 4.2): 0.00 Crushed Aggregate Base(at least 4.2): 4.00 1.10 Subbase(at least 4.2): 12.00 1.00 2791 S Victory View Way•Boise, ID 83709•(208)376-4748•Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com•mti(afmti-id.com CopyrigM©2 Materials Testing&Inspepection,Inc. MATERIALS 11 October 2016 TESTI NG & Page# 36 of 38 INSPECTION b 161292g_geotech.docx ❑Environmental Services ❑Geotechnical Engineering ❑Construction Materials Testing ❑Special Inspections R-VALUE LABORATORY TEST DATA Source and Description: TP-9, 1.8'-2.3' — Sandy Silt Date Obtained: September 30, 2016 Sample ID: 16-7668 Sampling and ASTM D75: AASHTO T2: X ASTM AASHTO X Preparation: D421: T87: Test Standard: ASTM AASHTO Idaho T8: X D2844: T 190: Sample A B C Dry Density(lb/ft) 102.3 100.8 96.3 Moisture Content(%) 17.9 19.8 21.5 Expansion Pressure (psi) 0.09 0.00 0.00 Exudation Pressure (psi) 430 233 99 R-Value 14 12 10 R-Value @ 200 psi Exudation Pressure= 12 R-Value @ Exudation Pressure 15.0 14.0 d 13.0 j 12.0 11.0 10.0 9.0 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Exudation Pressure(psi) 2791 S Victory View Way-Boise, ID 83709-(208)376-4748• Fax(208)322-6515 www.mti-id.com-mti c( mti-id.com co�y��ghr:=;�o,eMarP�s Test'g s • i i f a-% rwr N F7 C � Q • � m n Cd 31J m mi 31 L..e "` as as 77�Jbr� X.] ur MA r Q 11 VE as 711VGaPAM as o EVE PlI E U'dVT I rf f J Tf XL� GR VE R LAI 3A !MJ14 5T Cn CD 1 i Ll m Q ROOSEVELT Si-. �� N N LATAH 5T rl Oil y _ 15 HCl�1 y N 27TH ST 15 331 IdA14 S N 20TH �Ti Fri 6rrL x k 0 N o j 0 -P� � � w =C ryic r on OQ a � vi � � o CDD -' o o cc �- N N O Z Z _ � G � CD !a w m 0 W � Dc °7 cn o CD cA cnCD v Z � CDN Nmy o o zA m T 0 n X V � M � ao N 1 1 Z L W O c • n J Yl \V 0 pro I � I ` II �II II ! I II f ! � I I II � I I I � o I I I I i flf1 i l mN I [ lilj• � I I I I ! I I m ---� L-- ---- -- ---' II m cn I I I CD ID 1 LLLJJJ I p I y � I v' I I li ----- ------- I I ! I I I I I II i I I I € I I m E � Lill ------------------- W N m a, p Q N 3 �a �a o a m oZ p 9 o m ani m n 5 0 o o Q o m o m 00 a y 3 0 0' o' `z v G to iv 2 8 w m 0 L N CD CD CD CDN Z 5 CO N Z1 NmD `� � � © za CD CD m m-0 T7 � n x = V n m N� Z 3 ago N 0 A ® m N W C �� 3 w N