The URL can be used to link to this page

PZ - Storm Drainage Report RACKERMAN ESTVOLD www.ackerman-estvoId.com 5665 N Meridian Rd Stormwater Report June 2022 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to confirm that the storm water management system design for the proposed 4-lot subdivision is adequate for the specified design storms per the city of Meridian design standards. DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at 5665 N Meridian Road, ID. The limits of construction are approximately 0.5-acres, as shown on the attached construction documents. See Appendix A for a copy of the drainage exhibit. Currently,the site consists of mostly undeveloped terrain with minimal slope, and drainage is achieved mostly by percolation through surface soils. Proposed improvements consist of one internal private road, utilities to service 4 residential building lots and road widening along N Meridian Road. Stormwater from the paved private road and N Meridian Road will sheet flow directly to proposed borrow ditches, which were designed to ACHD specifications. Stormwater that falls on the unimproved building lots will be self-contained.All stormwater within the limits of construction will be contained on site to the extent possible with the addition of the proposed improvements and with the use of the proposed borrow ditch. Infiltration rate is estimated at 8 in/hr conservatively per the Geotechnical Report prepared by Innovate Geotechnical on Mach 31, 2022. BORROW DITCH DESIGN Based on the attached borrow ditch calculations,they are adequately sized to ensure no ponding occurs on the surface and that storm water will infiltrate within the infiltration windows.The geotechnical engineering report prepared by Innovate Geotechnical (IGEO), dated March 21, 2022, assumes groundwater levels to remain greater than 10-feet below the existing ground surface. For the on-site borrow ditch, a design infiltration rate of 8 inches per hour was used for the design per soil classifications identified in the report by IGEO.The on-site borrow ditch will have 1-foot wide infiltration windows where indicated on the storm drainage exhibit. For storage and conveyance, the borrow ditch has a 1-foot bottom width and a 7-foot top width, allowing for 1-foot depth of storage.The required volume to retain is 1,002 CF.This required volume was calculated by accounting for 1-inch of storm water over the tributary area draining to the on-site borrow ditch.The ditch will provide 1,960 CF of storage, with infiltration windows at low points to ensure drainage occurs in under 48hrs. 11PAGE 5665 N Meridian Rd Stormwater Report June 2022 For the off-site borrow ditch, a design infiltration rate of 8 inches per hour was used for the design per soil classifications identified in the report by IGEO.The off-site borrow ditch will have a 2-foot wide infiltration window where indicated on the storm drainage exhibit. For storage and conveyance,the borrow ditch has a 2-foot bottom width and a 9-foot top width, allowing for 1-foot depth of storage.The required volume to retain is 758 CF.This required volume was calculated by accounting for 1-inch of storm water over the tributary area draining to the on-site borrow ditch.The ditch will provide 1,285 CF of storage, with an infiltration window at the low point to ensure drainage occurs in under 48hrs. 2 1 P A G E APPENDIX A DRAINAGE EXHIBIT Q Q 0 m Graphic Scale: J00 Attention is Drawn to the Fact That Drawing Scales May be N i Altered During Reproduction Processes. Scales Shown Hereon are Based on a Full Scale Sheet Size of 24"x 36". i Scale: 1"=20' I � I Ili I I O N I � I / o / Z I I / Z Teo / � Q � � BORROW DITCH PER _ j _I.� m DETAIL ON SHEET C0.2 — WM O z o z BORROW DITCH PER CZ i T i o f DETAIL ON SHEET C0.2 / W BORROW DITCH WITH 2OLF INFILTRATION SAND WINDOW / U V 1 CZ N i� i � PER DETAIL ON SHEET C0.2 w � - BORROW DITCH WITH 5LF OF z INFILTRATION WINDOW PER / Cm DETAIL ON SHEET C0.2 CZ - -- / M ILL T • z co j ON-SITE DRAINAGE AREA - N HAYFIELD COURT :E- IMPERVIOUS AREA = 9,509 SF m I PERVIOUS AREA = 3,600 SF / �] -- ---- BORROW DITCH WITH 5LF OF O - - ----------- - ----- -- INFILTRATION SAND WINDOW C: G� PER DETAIL ON SHEET C0.2 z z 2 U m Z7 [7 w w Q BORROW DITCH WITH 2OLF p / 00INFILTRATION SAND m N BORROW DITCH PER = m Ji 0 0 N Jj m PER DETAIL ON SHEET C0..22W ° o J J Z O v w DETAIL ON SHEET C0.2 z z Q Q Q U) w BORROW DITCH PER � co U) � � U DETAIL ON SHEET C0.2 / MW / 7 O U) I I p 0 i m / D Z / U) Q U) C) Uj / Q Cw z I w ❑� X LO ❑- / D / Q Ln �, w 0. EG IC; E E( C E — —EG W EP �P EP EP EP EP EP EP EP EP I ACHD BORROW DITCH OFF-SITE DRAINAGE AREA ACHD BORROW DITCH WITH 15LF S�CN�- EN IMPERVIOUS AREA = 6,582 SF INFILTRATION WINDOW s C\sTE PERVIOUS AREA = 3,301 SF � _Immml� 16369 NORTH MERIDIAN ROAD 7/22/22 0 61 o 0 M G PROJECT NO. R22049 STORMWATER PLAN C4.0 CALCULATIONS 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 Farm Way Subdivision-Onsite Ditch 2 Enter number of Bioswales/Borrow Ditches(25 max) 1 3 Design Storm 100 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.96 Link to:LQ,v 4 Area A(Acres) 0.30 acres QV TR55 Approved discharge rate for the given storm(if applicable) 0.00 cfs S Design Vol With 0%Sed for Swales V 1,002 ft3 6 Length of Swale 490 ft 7 Infiltration Window?(Note:infiltration required if Longitudinal Slope<10%) Design Infiltration Rate 8.00 in/hr 8 Infiltration Window Width 1.00 ft 9 Set Swale Bottom Width b 1.00 ft 10 Set Swale Top Width 8.00 ft 11 Set Swale Depth y 1.00 ft 12 Swale Side Slopes H:1 Sxs 3.00 13 Calculate cross-sectional area Axs 4.00 ftz Axs=Y zz+by 14 Total Swale Capacity Without Driveways 1,960 ft3 15 Does it Have Capacity? OK 16 Time to Drain 3.1 hr 90%volume in 48-hours minimum OK Check Swale With Driveways 17 Avg.Driveway Fill Slope in Swale (H/V) 3.00 ft/ft 18 Enter Total Number of Driveways 4 ea (12.0) ft3 Deduct driveway slope 19 Enter Total Length of all Driveways 24 ft (96.0) ft3 Deduct driveway length 20 Lost Swale Length From Trees,etc. 0 ft 0.0 ft3 Deduct other 21 Adjusted Length of Infiltration Area 454.0 ft 22 Excess Capacity=Storage-Deductions-Runoff Volume 849.7 ft3 23 Is Capacity Good? YES 24 Time to Drain 3.7 hr 90%volume in 48-hours minimum OK G:\Projects\R22049_2NH Meridian RD\EngArch\Calcs\ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018 6/21/2022,4:11 PM Version 10.0,May 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 Farm Way Subdivision-Offsite Ditch 2 Enter number of Bioswales/Borrow Ditches(25 max) 1 3 Design Storm 100 Weighted Runoff Coefficient C 0.97 Link to:LQ,v 4 Area A(Acres) 0.23 acres QV TR55 Approved discharge rate for the given storm(if applicable) 0.00 cfs 5 Design Vol With 0%Sed for Swales V 758 ft3 6 Length of Swale 257 ft 7 Infiltration Window?(Note:infiltration required if Longitudinal Slope<10%) 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 9.00 ft 11 Set Swale Depth y 1.00 ft 12 Swale Side Slopes H:1 Sxs 3.00 13 Calculate cross-sectional area Axs 5.00 ftz Axs=Y zz+by 14 Total Swale Capacity Without Driveways 1,285 ft3 15 Does it Have Capacity? OK 16 Time to Drain 2.2 hr 90%volume in 48-hours minimum OK Check Swale With Driveways 17 Avg.Driveway Fill Slope in Swale (H/V) 0.00 ft/ft 18 Enter Total Number of Driveways 0 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 527.0 ft3 23 Is Capacity Good? YES 24 Time to Drain 0.0 hr 90%volume in 48-hours minimum OK G:\Projects\R22049_2NH Meridian RD\EngArch\Calcs\ACHD_SD_CALCS_112018-OFFSITE 6/21/2022,4:11 PM Version 10.0,May 2018 GEOTECH N ICAL REPORT Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 5665 N Meridian Rd Development Meridian, Idaho PREPARED FOR: 2 North Homes PO Box 140798 Garden City, ID 83714 PREPARED BY: Innovate Geotechnical IGEO Project No. 322015 March 31, 2022 INNOVATE tG E 0 GEUTEUNTAL mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL Page 1 of 13 March 31, 2022 2 North Homes PO Box 140798 Garden City, ID 83714 Attention: Michael Jobes Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation 5665 N Meridian Rd Development Meridian, Idaho IGEO Project No. 322015 Michael, Submitted herewith is the report of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the subject site. This report contains the results of our findings and an engineering interpretation of the results with respect to the available project characteristics. It also contains recommendations to aid in the design and construction of the earth related phases of this project. On March 3, 2022, an Innovate Geotechnical (IGEO) representative was on-site and completed test pits up to 11 feet below the existing ground surface. Soil samples were obtained during the field operations and were then transported to our office for further testing. Based on the findings of the subsurface investigation and other information, the site soils are suitable for the support using conventional shallow foundations and pavements provided the recommendations in this report are followed. A detailed discussion of design and construction criteria is presented in this report. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If we can be of further assistance or if you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us at (208) 484-1090. RQL 0 S Sincerely, ®� ��NS$®�✓�% Innovate Geotechnical 0. -31-z:z— A Clara Klamm, E.I.T Seth P. Olsen, P.E. Engineering Intern Senior Geotechnical Engineer GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL Page 2 of 13 Table of Contents Attention: Michael Jobes ................................................................................................................ 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING .............................................................................................. 3 3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................ 3 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND FIELD EVALUATION................................................................ 3 4.1 Surface Conditions..................................................................................................................4 4.2 Field Evaluation......................................................................................................................4 4.3 Subsurface Soils ......................................................................................................................4 4.4 Groundwater........................................................................................................................... 5 4.5 Site Subsurface Variations..................................................................................................... 5 4.6 Seismic Setting......................................................................................................................... 5 4.7 Infiltration Testing.................................................................................................................. 6 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 6 5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork........................................................................................... 6 5.2 Structural Fill.......................................................................................................................... 7 5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction............................................................................................. 8 5.4 Foundation Support................................................................................................................ 9 5.5 Lateral Resistance................................................................................................................... 9 5.6 Floor Slabs............................................................................................................................. 10 5.7 Drainage................................................................................................................................. 10 5.8 Pavements.............................................................................................................................. 11 5.9 Infiltration ............................................................................................................................. 11 6.0 QUALITY CONTROL........................................................................................................... 12 6.1 Field Observations................................................................................................................ 12 6.2 Fill Compaction..................................................................................................................... 12 6.3 Concrete Quality................................................................................................................... 12 7.0 LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................................... 12 8.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 13 List of Figures Appendices Figure 1 —Vicinity Map Appendix A— Boring Logs Figure 2 —Site Map Appendix B— Laboratory Test Results Appendix C— DCP Test Results GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL Page 3 of 13 1.0 INTRODUCTION Innovate Geotechnical (IGEO) is pleased to present this report which summarizes the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed development at 5665 N Meridian Road in Meridian, Idaho. The project area is located approximately as shown in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. 2.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The proposed development is on the northwest corner of N Meridian Road and W Producer Dr in Meridian, Idaho. The project entails developing the approximately 2-acre property into 4 residential lots and 1 landscape buffer along N Meridian Road. An existing house on the property will remain and the 4 residential lots will share a common driveway. The proposed project includes evaluating the site for subsurface characteristics and providing pavement, foundation, and infiltration recommendations. Wall loads are expected to be up to 4.0 kips per lineal foot and column loads are anticipated to be less than 20 kips. If the loading conditions are different than we have anticipated, please notify us so that any appropriate modifications to our conclusions and recommendations contained herein may be made. Our understanding of the project is based on our voice and email communications with you and the Preliminary Short Plat Layout prepared by J.J. Howard and dated December 16, 2021. A Site Plan for this evaluation is presented in Figure 2. 3.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our geotechnical engineering evaluation was to provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, and foundation design and construction based on our site evaluation, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses. Our specific scope of services included: • Exploration of soil and groundwater conditions underlying the site by completing three test pits on the site to depths of up to 11 feet below the existing ground surface. • Laboratory testing to assess pertinent physical and engineering properties of the soil observed. • Preparation of this report. 4.0 SITE CONDITIONS AND FIELD EVALUATION Existing surface and subsurface conditions associated with the subject property are presented in this section. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM irin INNOVATE GEGTECHNICAL Page 4 of 13 4.1 Surface Conditions The proposed site for the 5665 N. Meridian Road Development is located in Meridian, Idaho (see Figures 1 and 2). It is currently partially developed with some of the existing structures to remain in place. Topographically, the site to be developed is relatively level with an existing ground surface elevation of approximately 2574 feet above mean sea level (MSL)to approximately 2572 feet above MSL. North Meridian Road forms the eastern boundary of the site and W Producer Rd forms the southern boundary. Photos 1 through 4 present the existing conditions at the time of our field evaluation. RA Photo 1: Looking east Photo 2: Looking north f s ' r Photo 3: Looking west Photo 4: Looking southwest 4.2 Field Evaluation The subsurface soil conditions were determined by performing 3 test pits (TP-1 through TP-3) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. An excavator was used to advance the test pits. Soil samples were obtained at significant change of strata and in general accordance with ASTM D-420 and ASTM D-2488. The subsurface conditions observed during the field evaluation are discussed in Section 4.3. Logs of the test pits, including a description of all soil strata encountered is presented in Appendix A. 4.3 Subsurface Soils After completion of the field evaluation, soil samples were tested for their engineering properties. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B and shown on the boring logs in Appendix A. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEGEO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL Page 5 of 13 The results of our field evaluation and our laboratory testing indicate a fairly consistent subgrade across the site. In general, the existing ground surface is underlain by a stiff sil/lean clay with sand to a depth of approximately 2 feet (TP-1 and TP-3) to approximately 2.5 feet (TP-2) below the existing ground surface. This layer is underlain by a medium dense silty sand to a depth of approximately 5.5 feet (TP-1 and TP-2) to approximately 6 feet (TP-3) below the existing ground surface. These layers overly poorly graded gravel with sand and cobbles to the full depth explored (approximately 11 feet below the existing ground surface). For a detailed description of the soil profiles observed in this evaluation, see the boring logs in Appendix A. See Figure 2 for the approximate boring locations. 4.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not observed during our field evaluation. Numerous factors such as heavy precipitation, irrigation practices, and other unforeseen factors may influence groundwater elevations at the site. The detailed evaluation of these and other factors, which may be responsible for groundwater fluctuations, is beyond the scope of this study. We estimate the seasonal high groundwater elevations to be more than 10 feet. Groundwater observations will be performed and reported monthly to assess on going groundwater elevations. 4.5 Site Subsurface Variations Based on the results of the subsurface exploration and our experience, variations in continuity and nature of subsurface conditions should be anticipated. Due to the heterogeneous characteristics of soils, care should be taken in interpolating or extrapolating subsurface conditions between or beyond the exploratory borings. Seasonal fluctuations in groundwater conditions may also occur. 4.6 Seismic Setting According to the findings of our subsurface evaluation and the guidelines of the International Building Code (IBC, 2018) the Site Classification is D (IBC, 2018, section 1613). The following values should be used for site structural coefficients: Short Period Spectral Response Acceleration SS = 0.296g One Second Period Spectral Response Acceleration SI = 0.107g Short Period Spectral Response Design Acceleration SDs = 0.3089 One Second Period Spectral Design Acceleration SDI = 0.1719 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAI Page 6 of 13 Liquefaction of a soil is defined as the condition when a saturated, loose, cohesion-less, (fine sand-type) soils have a sudden, large decrease, in their ability to support loads. This is because of excessive pore water pressure which develops during a seismic event. Cohesive (clay type) and dense sand and gravel soils typically do not liquefy during a seismic event. Because of the cohesive nature of the soils at the site and depth to groundwater, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at this site is low under seismic conditions. 4.7 Infiltration Testing Infiltration testing was performed in TP-1 and TP-3 at a depth of 3.5 feet to 6.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The infiltration testing was performed in clayey or silty sand. The measured infiltration rates are presented in Table 1. The recommended design infiltration rates are presented in Section 5.9 Infiltration. TABLE 1— Measured Infiltration Rates Location Soil Classification Average TP-1 3.5 Silty sand Test 1 through 4 >20 inches/hour TP-3 3 Silty sand with Test 1 through 4 >20 gravel inches/hour TP-3 6.5 Poorly graded Test 1 through 4 >20 gravel with sand inches/hour 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our site exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed development may be designed and constructed as envisioned. Specific recommendations for proposed foundation design, pavement design, and construction are presented in the following sections of this report. 5.1 Site Preparation and Earthwork 5.1.1 Initial Preparation We recommend that proposed areas for improvements be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious and organic matter, debris be removed, and roots greater than % inch diameter be thoroughly grubbed, when encountered. Based on our observations, we anticipate approximately 2-4 inches of stripping will be required. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL Page 7 of 13 5.1.2 Grading, Excavations, and Subgrade Preparation Current site grades within the proposed improvements are relatively level. We anticipate excavation depths to be fairly consistent on site. However, the relative amounts of silt and clay within the soil varies resulting in varying strengths. Therefore, in order to provide uniform bearing conditions for the proposed structures and pavements,we recommend the following site preparation activities: • Within foundation limits for homes, the native silty/clayey sand soils are to be proof- rolled and compacted to establish final foundation elevations. • Within floor-slab limits. The on-site silty/clayey sand should be proof-rolled before placing capillary break material. Floor-slab areas are to be supported by at least 4 inches of properly compacted capillary break material. • Within the pavement areas, the on-site sand should be proof-rolled before placing the aggregate for flexible pavement section. If earthwork activities cause excessive subgrade disturbance, replacement with structural fill may be necessary. A greater depth of disturbance of the subgrade soil may be expected if site preparation work is conducted during periods of wet weather when the moisture content of the soil exceeds optimum. Any soft, loose, wet or otherwise unsuitable soil, which is encountered during proof rolling, is to be overexcavated to firm soil, or a depth of 2 feet, whichever is less, and replaced with structural fill, as described below. 5.1.3 Temporary Excavations For temporary excavation less than 5 feet deep, side slopes should not be made steeper than 0.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Temporary excavations extending more than 5 feet and up to 10 feet in depth should not be made steeper than 1:1. If unstable conditions or groundwater seepage are encountered, flatter slopes, shoring, or bracing may be required for all conditions. All excavations should be made following OSHA safety guidelines. 5.2 Structural Fill Soil used to support foundations, slab-on-grade floors, and pavement is classified as structural fill for the purposes of this report. Structural fill requirements vary depending on its use as described below. 5.2.1 Structural Fill Structural fill should be well-graded granular soils free of organics, debris, or other deleterious materials and no particles larger than 4 inches in maximum dimension. Depending on the intended use, structural fill should meet the specifications described below: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL Page 8 of 13 • Structural fill placed within building limits, pavement limits, and below structural foundations should consist of well-graded, sandy gravel material with no more than 12% passing the#200 sieve. Equivalent specifications may be used if approved by the project geotechnical engineer. • Structural fill placed as capillary break material below floor slabs should consist of 1 % - inch-minus, free-draining, crushed gravel with less than 10 percent passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve and the fines content should not exceed 3 percent. 5.2.2 Use of on-site Soil The on-site silt and clays observed in our test pits may not be reused as structural fill, unless it can be demonstrated that it meets the specified gradation above. The underlying silty sand and poorly graded gravel may be used as structural fill, provided it meets the specified gradation. 5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction The various types of compaction equipment have their limitations as to the maximum lift thickness that can be compacted. For example, hand operated equipment is limited to lifts of about 4 inches and most "trench compactors" have a maximum, consistent compaction depth of about 6 inches. Large rollers, depending on soil and moisture conditions can achieve compaction at 8 to 12 inches. The full thickness of each lift should be compacted to at least the following percentages of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D-1557: 1. Compacted fill, supporting foundations 95% 2. Compacted fill, below floor slabs 95% 3. Backfill of trenches a. Below foundations 95% b. Below floor slabs 95% c. Below pavements 95% d. Others 90% 4. Compacted fill, below pavements 95% Field density tests should be performed on each lift as necessary to insure that compaction is being achieved. As a minimum, 33% of all spot footings, and one test for every 50 lineal feet of continuous wall footings shall be tested for each lift. We recommend that a geotechnical representative be on site during earthwork operations to observe site preparation and fill placement. Conditions of the structural fill and compacted native soil should be evaluated by in-place density tests, visual evaluations, probing and proof- rolling as these materials are prepared to determine compliance with the contract documents and recommendations in this report. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL Page 9 of 13 5.4 Foundation Support We anticipate that the footings will be established at approximately 2 feet below the existing ground surface. To establish uniform bearing conditions the footings should be established entirely on a specific zone of proof-rolled and compacted native soils. Foundations may be designed using a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 1,800 psf. If structural loads exceed the levels projected in Section 2.0 we should be notified to review our recommendations and provide additional recommendations if needed. In addition to the fill recommendations presented previously in this report, the following recommendations should be implemented: • Continuous footing width should be maintained at a minimum of 24 inches. • Spot footings should be a minimum of 30 inches in width. • Exterior footings should be placed a minimum of 24 inches below final grade for frost protection, and interior footing shall be placed a minimum of 16 inches below grade. • Drainage around the site should be created so that water is not allowed to flow into the excavation during or after construction. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by 1/3 for temporary loads such as wind and seismic forces. Based on the preliminary maximum foundation loads, as presented above, and given that the foundations are supported as described in this report, we estimate that total settlement will be less than about 1 inch. Differential settlement is estimated to be less than about % of the total settlement. Settlement should occur rapidly, essentially as loads are applied. Post-construction settlement should be minor. Loose soil or otherwise unsuitable soil not removed from footing excavations, or disturbance of soil at foundation grade during construction could result in larger settlements than estimated. 5.5 Lateral Resistance The soil pressure available to resist lateral foundation loads is a function of the frictional resistance against the foundation base and the passive resistance which can develop on the face of below-grade elements of the structure as those elements move horizontally into the soil. For foundations bearing in soil prepared as recommended above, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.38 applied to vertical dead load forces for the contact between cast-in-place concrete and soil at foundation grade. The allowable passive resistance on the face of footings may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 210 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), triangular distribution, for structural fill, provided backfill placed against foundations is compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD. Each of the above values includes a safety factor of approximately 1.5. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL Page 10 of 13 5.6 Floor Slabs Floor slabs may be supported on on-site gravel and sand as recommended in the previous sections of this report. We recommend the slab be designed using a modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (k) of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci). To retard the upward wicking of moisture beneath the floor slab, we recommend that a capillary break be placed over the subgrade. Therefore, we recommend floor slabs be underlain by a minimum of 4 inches of free-draining crushed rock meeting gradation and compaction specifications described in Section 5.2.1 of this report. Alternate gradation specifications may be used provided they meet the requirements outlined above and are accepted by the geotechnical engineer of record. To help control normal shrinkage and stress cracking, the floor slabs should have the following features: • Adequate reinforcement for the anticipated floor loads with the reinforcement continuous through interior floor joints • Frequent crack control joints • Non-rigid attachment of the slabs to foundation walls and bearing slabs If moisture sensitive floor coverings are used, blotter, vapor retarder, and choker should be implemented. 5.7 Drainage All soils can experience some volume change when exposed to water. Therefore, adequate site drainage is always important. Site grading design and construction should be implemented to assure that all surface water is directed away from the foundation bearing soils. We recommend the following actions be taken: 1. All areas around the structure should be sloped to provide drainage away from the structures. We recommend a minimum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet away from the structure. 2. All roof drainage should be collected in rain gutters with downspouts designed to discharge well beyond the backfill limits. 3. Adequate compaction of the foundation backfill should be provided. We suggest a minimum of 90% of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM D-1557. Water consolidation methods should not be used under any circumstances. 4. Sprinklers should be aimed away from the foundation walls. The sprinkling systems should be designed with proper drainage and be well-maintained. Over watering should be avoided. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM irin INNOVATE GEGTECHNICAL Page 11 of 13 5. Other precautions may become evident during construction. 5.8 Pavements The flexible pavement evaluation was performed using the Gravel Equivalence (GE) method. In our evaluation we analyzed a common driveway. In general, the thickness of the asphalt pavement is predominantly controlled by the traffic and the thickness of the base and sub-base layers is predominantly controlled by the subgrade conditions. The results of the R-value testing indicated an R-value of 5 (TP-2).The total thickness analysis was developed based on an estimated R-value of the subgrade soil (5), our experience, and recommended traffic data. We recommend using a traffic index (TI) of 4 for the common driveway. The flexible pavement design criteria are summarized in Table 2. TABLE 2-Flexible Pavement Design Criteria Design Characteristic Design Value Design Life 20 Years Traffic T.I.=6.0 Idaho Climatic Factor 1 Subgrade R-Value=4 Subbase R-Value=60 Untreated Base Course (UTBC)—%" crushed aggregate R-Value=80 Asphalt 1.95:1.0 Substitution Ratios Base 1.10:1.0 Subbase 1.0:1.0 The recommended total design pavement section forthe common driveway is presented in Table 3. TABLE 3- Flexible Pavement Section Subbase Pavement Section Flexible Pavement :Thickness Thickness Total Thickness Thickness (inches) (inches) jinches) (inches) Common Driveway 2.5 4 6 12.5 5.9 Infiltration Based on our field evaluation and our understanding of the soils anticipated at the site, applying a factor of safety of 2 for the measured infiltration rate,we recommend using a design infiltration GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEGEO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL "age 12 of 13 rate of 8 inches/hour for the drainage facilities on site in the silty sand and poorly graded gravel. Variations in the infiltration properties of the soils on site can be expected including with depth. We recommend performing an infiltration test to verify the facility specific infiltration rate at the design depth during construction. We estimate the seasonal high groundwater elevation to be more than 10 feet below the existing ground surface. Monthly groundwater readings will be obtained from the piezometers on site over the irrigation season 2022 to confirm this estimate. 6.0 QUALITY CONTROL Our recommendations in this report are based on the assumption that adequate quality control testing and observations will be conducted during construction to verify compliance. This may include but not necessarily be limited to the following: 6.1 Field Observations Observations should be completed during all phases of construction such as site preparation, foundation excavation, structural fill placement and concrete placement. 6.2 Fill Compaction Compaction testing is required for all structural supporting fill materials. Maximum Dry Density (Proctor-ASTM 1557) tests should be requested by the contractor immediately after delivery of any granular fill materials. The maximum density information should then be used for field density tests on each lift as necessary to ensure that the required compaction is being achieved. 6.3 Concrete Quality We recommend that freshly mixed concrete be tested in accordance with ASTM designations. Testing should include slump, temperature, unit weight, yield, entrained air and compressive strength tests. 7.0 LIMITATIONS The recommendations provided herein were developed by evaluating the information obtained from the subsurface investigation. The exploration data reflects the subsurface conditions only at the specific locations at the particular time designated on the logs. Soil and ground water conditions may differ from conditions encountered at the actual exploration locations. The nature and extent of any variation in the explorations may not become evident until during the course of construction. If variations do appear, it may become necessary to re-evaluate the recommendations of this report after we have observed the variation. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM mEn INNOVATE GEOTEOHNICAL Page 13 of 13 Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained, and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. 8.0 REFERENCES ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials ASCE 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers (2016) IBC, International Building Code, 2018 Edition, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA. AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (1993) Foundation Engineering— Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (1994) Fundamentals of Geotechnical Analysis— Dunn, Anderson, and Kiefer (1980) Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations— David F. McCarthy (2007) Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (2020) Principles of Foundation Engineering, Braja M. Das. (2004) GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING MERIDIAN,ID (208)484-1090 W W W.I N NOVATEG EO.COM -t -74r: a a. -J ■ k 1 NOW a, 4� Lr MWOM r •r w INNOVATE Approximate Site Location GEOTECHNICAL 5665 N Meridian Road Development Date: 29-Mar-22 Figure: Vicinity Map Project No: 322015 Drawn By: C. Klamm 1 Locations are approximate Client: 2 North Homes 1 z �' � � .art/,•� �• a ,." ti Ao r _ i k ID I I i I� CL Ur _ - W P ducer ar W Vrrdu�er Dr a �itt� E Pro due Google 1 � 1 . . ' • - .I. - - • 4 INNOVATE GEOTECHNICAL Appendix A UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIELD IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES gvmtia` rm Typical Descriptions Gravels Wide range of grain size and substantial amounts of all ` GW Well graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little or Clean Gravels intermediate particle sizes no fines More than half of mars, frartion Is lamer men No. land.or no fire) Predominantly one size of a range of sizes with some intermediate a n o GP Poorly graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little a sieve size sizes missing [-]I or no fines (For Nsual Gravel with Fines Non-plastic fines(for identification procedures see ML below) o GM Silty gravels,poorly graded gravel-sand-silt Coarse Grained dasswmnons,the 1/" mixtures .is.may ba rs.d as Soils equtyalentt,th,N,,4 (appreciable amount of Clayey gravels,poorly graded gravel-sand-clay sieve size) treat Plastic fines(for identification procedures see CL below) GC mixtures More than narc or material Is larger than No.200 sieve size Sards Wide range of grain size and substantial amounts of all m,No.ztro aieve size is about Clean Sands intermediate particle sizes SW Well graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines the smallest p..de Msible to More than half or coarse Me naked eye) rrectx,I,smaller than gm;,or no fines) Predominantly one size of a range of sizes with some intermediate .- SP Poorly graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no No aarva sea sizes missing fines (Forvisual classifiealions,the va" Sands with Fines Nan-plastic fines(for identification procedures see ML below) $M Silty sands,poorly graded sand-silt mixtures may be used as equ,,lent to the No.4 (appreciable a mount of e l-r-e) firs) Plastic fines(for identification procedures see CL below) SC Clayey sands,poorly graded sand-clay mixtures IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURES ON FRACTION SMALLER THAN NO.4 SIEVE SIZE Dry Strength(Cmshing Dilessnoy(Readion to Toughness(C.h.,aency Characteristics) Shaking) Near Plasta Limit) I Nor[o Slight nulckb slow None M L Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour,silty Silts and Clays or clayey fine sand with slight plasticity Fine Grained Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,gravelly Soils Liquid limit le„men 50 Medium to Hlgh None to Very slow Medum CL clays,sandy clays,silty clays,lean clays L.sa than harc or matadal is larger than No.200 sieve size Slight to Medium Slow slight — OL Organic silts and organic silt-class of low plasticity (ma No.zoo sieve size is about Inorganic silts,micaceous or diatomaceous fine the ame,,,at Patti".vi-in" slight to kydum slow to None ShgM to Medium sand mi5 ous or diatomaceous the naked eye) y silty ic silts Silts and Clays High to Very High None High CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays Uquid limit greater men 50 Medium to High None to Very Slow Slight to Medium OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity High Organic Soils PT Peat and other highly organic soils r r 1)Boundary Classifications:Soils possessing characteristics of two groups are designated by combinations of gropu symbols.For example GW-GC,well graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder. 2)All sieve sizes on this chart are U.S.standard. Sampling Methods r i Auger r Grab //�� Modified No Rock AU Cuttings GB Sample MC California NR Recovery RG Core Sampler SPTStandard Slit ShelbyI I Undisturbed ! Vane Penetration �S Spoon 5T Tube V Sample V A Shear Test X General Notes Modifiers Moisture Content Description Criteria 1)In general,Unified Soil Classification Designation presented on the logs were evaluated Fine Grained Soils Coarse Grained Soils d,ay.d,r em by visual methods only.Therefore,adu,l designations(based on lalo—lory testing)may pypaA,'mwim,e.wt eelwvopu um differ. Granular Portion Granular Portion Fine Grained Portion 2)Drs eepeodr,strata oa the logs represent approximate boundaries only.Adual Description % Desonption % Desoription % transitions may be gradual. Trace 5-15 Trace 5-15 Trace 0-5 3)Logsrepresentgenerelcoilconditionsobservedatthepointof..pi..iiononth¢date With 15-30 With >15 With 5-12 Cementation inho.a l Description Caton, 4)Nowarrentyia pmyidada.tothecontiouity of.oil conditionsbetween indiv;dualsample use Modifier >30 Use Modifier >12 locations. Coarse grained..it.with 5 to 12%fines require dual symbols Coarse Grained Soils l� Water Level Symbols Apparent SPT Relative Density Field Test Water Level Density (blows/ft) (%) Very Lmse <4 0-15 Easily peneths-wlth l 'reIfmng rod pushed by hand (wherefirst encountered) Loose 4.10 15-35 Diffi It to penetrate with 1/2'reinfordng rod pushed by hand Medium Dense 10-30 35-as Easily penetrated a toot wfth 1/2"relnmming rod dr—by a 516 hemmer Water Level Dense 30-50 85-85 Mount.penetrate a foot with 1/2"reinforcing had almen by a 5lb hammer .50 85-100 Penetrated only a few inches with 1/2"reinfordng rod dnvan by a 51b hammer (after completion) Fine Grained Soils Stratification Torvane Pocket Penetrometer Consistency SPT(blowa/ft) Undrained Shear Unconfined Compressive Field Test oaspoption miaress Figure: Strength(tsf) Strength(tsf) Seam VerySoft 12 <0.125 <0,25 Easilypen,baterilin&,,bythumb.Squeezesthroughfinger. Layer A 1 Soft 2-4 0.125-0.25 0.25-0.5 Easily penetrated V by thumb.Molded by light finger pressure. Firm 4.8 0.25.0.5 0.5.1.0 Penetrated over 1/2"by thumb with slight effort.Mall by strong finger pre _ssure, Will Stiff 8-15 0.5-1.0 1.0.20 Indented about 10 by thumb but penetrated only with great effort. Ocra.ional as Very Stir 15-30 10-2.0 2.0-4.0 Readily indented by thumbnail. Hard >30 >2S >40 1 Indented with dill by mumbna;l. Frequent or "ess INNOVATE Innovate Geotechnical TEST PIT NUMBER TP-1 2006 E Franklin Rd,Ste. 110 PAGE 1 OF 1 Meridian, Idaho 83642 GEDTFEWEAL Telephone: (208)484-1090 CLIENT 2 North Homes PROJECT NAME 5665 N Meridian Road Development PROJECT NUMBER 322015 PROJECT LOCATION Meridian, Idaho DATE STARTED 3/3/22 COMPLETED 3/3/22 GROUND ELEVATION 2574 ft TEST PIT SIZE --inches EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Excavator AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY C.Klamm CHECKED BY S.Olsen AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Approximate Location:43.65627,-116.39369 AFTER EXCAVATION -- ATTERBERG I z w a LIMITS w U �� >- U W w L H a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w m w a o z N z 0 �z o U x OZ o (D Wv W J dj O>S mO� Y� �a U� �� Hw U_- o O Qz w UZ O �O 0� �- Qz W z U o U d Z a LL s 0.0 0_ W 3"of grass N F w 2 O w o SILT WITH SAND,(ML)1 %gravel, 17%sand,82%fines,brown, GB 23 82 o moist,some tree roots up to 2"diameter 1 z 0 2.5 ui z N N N O N N M SILTY SAND,(SM)light brown,dry to moist,some cementation GB w 2 0 IL IL z 5.0 Highly cemented section from 5'-5.5' U O o' D: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND,COBBLES,(GP)78% GB C�. gravel,22%sand, 1 %fines,light brown,subrounded,dry to moist 3 4 1 Q J � Q w 7.5 o , 0 0, D. z 10.0 .o. ° o'J3 z c. � GB J 4 m Bottom of test pit at 11.0 feet. x U W F O w INN OVATE Innovate Geotechnical TEST PIT NUMBER TP-2 2006 E Franklin Rd,Ste. 110 PAGE 1 OF 1 Meridian, Idaho 83642 ] GLUGEDTFEWEA1 Telephone: (208)484-1090 CLIENT 2 North Homes PROJECT NAME 5665 N Meridian Road Development PROJECT NUMBER 322015 PROJECT LOCATION Meridian, Idaho DATE STARTED 3/3/22 COMPLETED 3/3/22 GROUND ELEVATION 2572 ft TEST PIT SIZE --inches EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Excavator AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY C.Klamm CHECKED BY S.Olsen AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Approximate Location:43.65646,-116.39463 AFTER EXCAVATION -- ATTERBERG I z w a LIMITS w U �� >- U W w L H a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w m w a o z N z 0 �z o U x OZ o c(7 Wv WJ dj O>S mO� Y� �a U� �� Hw U_- o O Qz w UZ O �O 0� �- Qz W z U o U d Z a s 0.0 0_ LL W 1"of grass N W Bulk(bucket)sample a- LEAN CLAY,(CL)0%gravel,4%sand,96%fines,brown,moist GB 0 1 24 42 21 21 96 w 0 0 z 0 2.5 Uj w z N N N O N M SILTY SAND,(SM)12%gravel,63%sand,26%fines,light brown, GB W subangular,medium to coarse grained,moist 2 23 26 0 a 5.0 z w Highly cemented section from 5.25'-5.5' 0 o o' D: POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND,COBBLES,(GP)light GB 3 Q< °�o brown,subrounded,moist J � Q w 7.5 o , 0 0 0'J3 CJ GB ~ 10.0 °.: 4 z Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. z z J O U 2 co 2 U W F O w 0 INNOVATE Innovate Geotechnical TEST PIT NUMBER TP-3 2006 E Franklin Rd,Ste. 110 PAGE 1 OF 1 Meridian, Idaho 83642 GEDTFEWEAL Telephone: (208)484-1090 CLIENT 2 North Homes PROJECT NAME 5665 N Meridian Road Development PROJECT NUMBER 322015 PROJECT LOCATION Meridian, Idaho DATE STARTED 3/3/22 COMPLETED 3/3/22 GROUND ELEVATION 2573 ft TEST PIT SIZE --inches EXCAVATION CONTRACTOR Client GROUND WATER LEVELS: EXCAVATION METHOD Excavator AT TIME OF EXCAVATION -- LOGGED BY C.Klamm CHECKED BY S.Olsen AT END OF EXCAVATION -- NOTES Approximate Location:43.65574,-116.39471 AFTER EXCAVATION -- ATTERBERG I z w a LIMITS w U �� >- U W w L H a 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION w m w a o z N z 0 �z o U x OZ o (D Wv W J dj O>S mO� Y� �a U� �� Hw U_- o O Qz w UZ O �O 0� �- Qz W z U o U d Z a LL s 0.0 0_ W 1"of grass N N F z w a- d O J W o SANDY SILT,(ML)50%fines,brown,moist GB 26 34 26 8 50 0 1 z a 0 2.5 LU w z N N N O N N M U w O a SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL,(SM)25%gravel,54%sand,21 % FGB 23 21 5.0fines,light brown,subangular,medium to coarse grained,moist w U o Larger gravel and some cobbles,some cementation,harder digging GB 3 J g .o'•D: W 7.5 O POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND,COBBLES,(GP)light GB brown,subrounded,moist 4 N M O.B0. U .o'•D: o ••O 0. 0' GB z 10.0 5 Bottom of test pit at 10.0 feet. z z J 0 U 2 co 2 U W F O w INNOVATE GEOTECHNICAL Appendix B U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200 100 90 80 0 70 w } 60 m � 0 z 50 U) Q 40 z U 30 w a 20 10 0 11 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAVEL SAND COBBLES SILT OR CLAY COARSE I FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE ----------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sample Moisture IQ INNOVATE 5665 N Meridian Road Development Boring/Symbol Test Pit ...(feet) (%I o) .1 Class Soil Classification I U L U GECTECHNIN. Date: TP-1 1.5 22.9 1 17 82 ML Silt with sand Sieve Analysis 3/29/2022 ❑ TP-1 6 4.2 78 22 1 GP Poorly graded gravel with Results Figure. sand Project: 0 TP-2 4 22.7 12 63 26 SM Silty sand 322015 B- 1 Meridian, 0 TP-3 1.5 26.0 - - 50 ML Sandy silt Idaho Client: 2 North TP-3 4.5 22.9 25 54 21 SM Silty sand with gravel Homes 60 , r O 50 ,' ' G x ; w Z 40 0000, . U J 30 O 000, %�G O 20 , ' MH or OH 10 CILWI. ML or OL 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT(ILL) Sample Liquid Plastic INNOVATE 5665 N Meridian Road Development SymbolPlasticity USCS ii rn Depth GEGTEEHNIEAL Date: Atterberg 3/29/2022 TP-3 1.5 34 26 8 ML Sandy silt Limits Results Figure. Project: Meridian, 322015 B-2 Idaho Client:2 North Homes *Based on Sieve Analysis Results S—IIISHMNON MLSON Shannon&Wilson Project Information Report to: Innovate Geotechnical Project: 5665 N. Meridian Rd. Report Date: 3/21/2022 File No.: 108473-006 Material Information Date Sampled: 3/3/2022 Sampled By: Client Date Received: 3/8/2022 Date Tested: 3/14 to 3/18/2022 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY RESULTS Lab Sample Depth Water %Passing Liquid Plasticity Soil Number Borehole Type (ft) Content #200 Limit Index Type Remarks (%) Sieve (%) 22-0253 TP-2 Bulk 1.0' 23.9 96.3 42 21 CL -- Prepared By: Travis Thomsen Shannon &Wilson ATTERBERG LIMITS REPORT =111SHANNON6WLSON CLIENT: Innovate Geotechnical PROJECT NAME: 5665 N. Meridian Rd. FILE NUMBER: 108473-006 PROJECT LOCATION:Ada County, Idaho 60 CL CH 50 x 40 w 0 z_ 30 Q J a 20 10 CL-ML ML MH 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 LIQUID LIMIT(%) Specimen Identification MC LL PL PI Fines Classification 0 TP-2 Bulk 1.0 23.9 42 21 21 96 LEAN CLAY(CL) Prepared By: Travis Thomsen Shannon &Wilson PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORT 01ISHANNON&WILSON CLIENT: Innovate Geotechnical PROJECT NAME:5665 N. Meridian Rd. FILE NUMBER: 108473-006 PROJECT LOCATION:Ada County, Idaho U.S.SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S.SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER 6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 50 60 100 140 200 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 x 60 w >_ 55 m w 50 z w 45 z w 40 w a 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS LCOBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY Os, fine coarse medium fine Specimen Identification Classification D10 D30 D60 • TP-2 Bulk 1.0 LEAN CLAY(CL) -- -- -- Specimen Identification %Gravel %Sand %Fines D15 D50 D85 Cc Cu MC ILL PI • TP-2 Bulk 1.0 0.0 3.7 96.3 -- -- -- -- -- 23.9 42 21 Prepared By: Travis Thomsen Shannon & Wilson Shannon & Wilson 5260 Chinden Blvd. SIII SHANNON 6WILSON Boise, Idaho 83714 Phone:(208) 658-8700 Fax: (208) 658-8703 Report To: Innovate Geotechnical Report Date: 3/21/2022 Project: 5665 N. Meridian Date Sampled: 3/3/2021 Project No.: 108473-006 Date Received: 3/8/2022 Sample ID: TP-2, Bulk' Tested By: HL Soil Description: Lean Clay(CL) Lab Number: 22-0253 R-VALUE IDAHO T-8 Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Drainage Description Zero Zero R-Value @ 200 PSI Dry Density, PCF 99.2 100.5 Exudation Pressure Moisture Content, % 23.2 22.6 Exudation, PSI 308 423 < 5 R-Value (Corrected) 5 8 Specimen would not exudate at Expansion, PSI 0.06 0.22 2500 lb; Test terminated per procedure. 200 psi 6 R-Value Expansion Gradation: AASHTO T-11, T-27 4.0 9000 Screen %Passing %Passing 8000 Sizes As Received As Tested 4" 3.0 7000 3" h J 2" IL 6000 L 1„ N d 2.0 5000 d 3/4" o 1/2" .y 4000 ° 3/8" C l4 a = No. 4 100 100 w 1.0 3000 w No. 8 2000 No. 16 No. 30 0.0 LUI d 1000 No. 50 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 R-Value(Corrected) No. 100 No. 200 -J *This report covers only material as represented by this sample and does not necessarily cover all soils from this layer or source. Reviewed By: Travis Thomsen INNOVATE GEOTECHNICAL Appendix C DCP TEST DATA - Sowers Project: 5665 N Meridian Road Development Date: 3-Mar-22 Location: TP-1 @ 2' Soil Type(s): Silt with sand (ML) No. of Accumulative Standard "N" Resistance (blows per foot) Blows Penetration (mm) (inches) 0 609.60 24.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 5 633.41 24.9 24 609.6 5 642.94 25.3 10 661.99 26.1 20 684.21 26.9 25 635 c E 2 3 t— F_ G26 660.4 W G 27 685.8 28 711.2 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Reference: George F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges. Dynamic Cone for Shallow In-Situ Penetration Testing, Vane Shear and Cone Penetrations Resistance Testing of In-Situ Soils, ASTM STP 399, American Society of Testing and Materials, 1966, pg. 29. Figure - 1 DCP TEST DATA - Sowers Project: 5665 N Meridian Road Development Date: 3-Mar-22 Location: TP-2 @ 2' Soil Type(s): Lean clay(CL) No. of Accumulative Blows Penetration Standard "N" Resistance (blows per foot) (mm) (inches) 0 609.60 24.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 5 658.81 25.9 24 609.6 5 674.69 26.6 10 715.96 28.2 20 760.41 29.9 26 660.4 c E - E 2 2 H � W 28 711.2 W 0 � 30 762 32 812.8 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 Reference: George F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges. Dynamic Cone for Shallow In-Situ Penetration Testing, Vane Shear and Cone Penetrations Resistance Testing of In-Situ Soils, ASTM STP 399, American Society of Testing and Materials, 1966, pg. 29. Figure C- DCP TEST DATA - Sowers Project: 5665 N Meridian Road Development Date: 3-Mar-22 Location: TP-3 @ 2' Soil Type(s): Sandy silt (ML) No. of Accumulative Blows Penetration Standard "N" Resistance (blows per foot) (mm) (inches) 0 609.60 24.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 5 674.69 26.6 24 609.6 5 712.79 28.1 10 744.54 29.3 20 800.10 31.5 26 L660.4 c E - E 3 3 H � W 28 711.2 W 0 � 30 762 32 812.8 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 Reference: George F. Sowers and Charles S. Hedges. Dynamic Cone for Shallow In-Situ Penetration Testing, Vane Shear and Cone Penetrations Resistance Testing of In-Situ Soils, ASTM STP 399, American Society of Testing and Materials, 1966, pg. 29. Figure C- Ir INNOVATE G L 0 GEOTEEHNICAL