Final Report

CITY OF PHILOMATH
15TH AND CHAPEL
LAND DEVELOPMENT
Final Design Report
Oregon State University
CE418, Group 6D
March 29, 2015
Civil Solutions
Brian Weaver
Chase Simpson
Mary Beth Nicholson
Bonggab Kim
Mentor: Sterling Rose (CH2M Hill)

This report was prepared as a class project for the Civil Engineering Capstone Design Course at
Oregon State University. The contents of this report were developed by the student authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of Oregon State University. The analyses, conclusions and
recommendations contained in the report should not be construed as an engineering report or used
as a substitute for professional engineering services.

Civil Solutions May 29, 2015
Table of Contents
[ALL]
1 Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................I
2 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... II
2.1 Project Objective Justification and Benefits ........................................................................ II
2.2 Existing Site Investigation ................................................................................................... II
2.3 Presentation, Evaluation, and Selection of Alternatives ...................................................... II
2.4 Description of Design .......................................................................................................... II
2.5 Regulatory Compliance and Permitting............................................................................... II
2.6 Results and Conclusions ...................................................................................................... II
2.7 Cost Estimate ....................................................................................................................... II
2.8 Appendix I: Geomatics ........................................................................................................ II
2.9 Appendix II: Geotechnical................................................................................................... II
3 Project Objective Justification and Benefits.......................................................................................III
3.1 Objective.............................................................................................................................III
3.2 Justification.........................................................................................................................III
3.3 Benefits ...............................................................................................................................III
4 Existing Site Investigation..................................................................................................................IV
4.1 Site History .........................................................................................................................IV
4.2 Existing Site........................................................................................................................IV
4.3 Tax Lot Information............................................................................................................. V
4.4 Geomatics Data...................................................................................................................VI
4.5 Geotechnical Data............................................................................................................. VII
5 Presentation, Evaluation, and Selection of Alternatives.................................................................. VIII
5.1 Discussion of Results....................................................................................................... VIII
6 Description of Design.........................................................................................................................IX
6.1 Design Features...................................................................................................................IX
6.2 Site Layout..........................................................................................................................IX
6.2.1 Utilities.........................................................................................................................IX
6.2.1.1 Offsite Gravity Sanitary Sewer................................................................................IX
6.2.1.2 Onsite Gravity Sanitary Sewer.................................................................................IX
6.2.1.3 Onsite Pressure Sanitary Sewer ................................................................................ X
6.2.1.4 Offsite Storm Water.................................................................................................. X
6.2.1.5 Onsite Storm Water................................................................................................... X
6.2.1.6 Irrigation.................................................................................................................... X

6.2.1.7 Potable Water............................................................................................................ X
6.3 Grading Plan ........................................................................................................................ X
6.4 Roadways............................................................................................................................XI
6.5 Pond ....................................................................................................................................XI
6.5.1 Irrigation .................................................................................................................... XII
6.5.2 Stormwater Collection ............................................................................................... XII
6.6 Public Park........................................................................................................................ XII
6.6.1 Parking Lot................................................................................................................. XII
6.6.2 Large Gazebo............................................................................................................. XII
6.6.2.1 Steel Structure........................................................................................................ XII
6.6.2.2 Foundations........................................................................................................... XIII
6.7 Maintenance and Restroom Structure.............................................................................. XIII
6.7.1 Reinforced Masonry..................................................................................................XIV
6.7.2 Steel Roof Truss........................................................................................................XIV
6.7.3 Foundation ................................................................................................................XIV
6.8 Other Design Features......................................................................................................XIV
6.9 Cost Estimate .................................................................................................................... XV
7 Regulatory Compliance and Permitting...........................................................................................XVI
8 Results and Conclusions.................................................................................................................XVII
9 Cost Estimate................................................................................................................................ XVIII
10 Literature Cited (ASCE Style).........................................................................................................XXI
Appendix I: Geomatics ..................................................................................................................................i
1.1 Survey Site Control...............................................................................................................ii
2.1 Topographic Survey.............................................................................................................iii
3.1 Summary of Survey .............................................................................................................iv
4.1 Civil Solutions Contribution to Survey................................................................................iv
4.1.1 Chase Simpson..............................................................................................................iv
4.1.2 Brian Weaver .................................................................................................................v
4.1.3 Bonggab Kim.................................................................................................................v
Appendix II: Geotechnical.............................................................................................................................i
1.1 Raw Data from CH2M HILL................................................................................................ii
2.1 Boring Log Analysis.............................................................................................................ii
2.1.1 Soil Properties................................................................................................................ii

List of Figures
[ALL]
Figure 1: 15th and Chapel Aerial Photo 1994.............................................................................................IV
Figure 2: 15th and Chapel Aerial Photo 2014.............................................................................................IV
Figure 3: 15th
and Chapel Terrain Model 2014............................................................................................ V
Figure 4: 15th and Chapel Tax Lot.............................................................................................................. V
Figure 5: Total Station Points and GIS Contour Map.................................................................................VI
Figure 6: Revised Site Plan and Roadway Alignments ..............................................................................XI
Figure 7: Large Gazebo Framing Plan..................................................................................................... XIII
Figure 8: Masonry Restroom and Maintenance Structure .......................................................................XIV
Figure 9: 18' x 30' Pre-Fabricated Rectangular Cedar Gazebo ................................................................. XV
Figure 10: Total Station Points and GIS Contour Map................................................................................iii
Table of Tables
[ALL]
Table 1 – Decision Matrix ....................................................................................................................... VIII
Table 2 – List of Required Permits..........................................................................................................XVI
Table 3 – Estimate of Probable Cost for Proposed Design................................................................... XVIII
Appendix I: Table 1 – GNSS Control Precision...........................................................................................ii
Appendix II: Table 1 – Sieve Analysis Results ............................................................................................ii

I
1 Executive Summary
[MN, CS, BK, BW]
The scope of this project entails the design of an undeveloped (30 acre) property located at the northeast corner of
the South 15th Street and Chapel Drive intersection of Philomath, Oregon. The site was previously used as a mill site but
now is unused and provides no benefit to the client. The client would like to develop this site into an income property by
selling housing lots and deeding space to the city for a public park.
Civil Solutions considered different options when approaching this land development design. The most prevalent
options were land dedicated to residential housing, apartments, park, or storage warehouse. The decision was based on
how well the options met the city of Philomath goals as stated in the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code
while providing the client with the best opportunity for profit. Using the three optimal land design options, residential,
park, and apartment; Civil Solutions proceeded to the design stage. This proposed development plan includes new family
housing and apartment areas, along with open shared park space.
Work on this project includes four main design sections; transportation, park, residential, and utilities. The
designed property has 4,550 feet of new roadway. Included in the new roadways are four T intersections and one cul de
sac. The cross slope of the road is 2.27%. The roads include standard A-curbs and gutters and are 36 feet wide from curb
face to face. Attached to all new curbs are 5 foot wide concrete sidewalks.
The property includes 52 housing lots, roughly 10,250 square feet (0.24 acres) in size, on the northern and eastern
sides of the site. The lots are sized to accommodate either a duplex or a standard single family home. One 5 acre
apartment lot was placed on the western side of the site with a proposed layout. This proposed layout includes 13
apartment buildings, with 8 units per building. The property has the potential for a maximum of 194 dwelling units with
duplexes on all housing lots.
Utility layouts are located within the road right of ways. Storm, sewer, and potable water systems have been
designed. The storm water system is designed to drain all surface runoff to the pond located in the open shared park space.
The sewer system is designed to have the capacity to serve the maximum number of dwelling units on the site. The sewer
water will drain to a centralized location to be pumped to the city’s main system. The potable water system will connect
two existing lines located on the east and west sides of the property. They are designed to supply adequate capacity for the
fire system and residential use.
Several new amenities were included in the 9 acre public park design. Civil Solutions has designed two of the
three structures that are in the park. One 2,400 square foot steel rectangular gazebo will provide places to sit and relax for
the park users. This gazebo will also offer event space for the client to possibly rent out. A 500 square foot restroom was
chosen to be constructed at the center of the park for ease of accessibility to all park users. The third structure is a 540
square foot prefabricated gazebo purchased from a third party. The current pond on the site will be increased in size and
depth to accommodate storm water, which will be used to irrigate the green space of the park. A public parking lot located
on the southeast corner of the park will have 30 parking spaces to improve accessibility to the park features. For
recreational purposes, Civil Solutions designed a playground at the center of the park, a trail through the public park area,
and an outdoor amphitheater.
In summary this project will add to the community by providing more low income housing options in the forms of
apartments and single family homes. The city of Philomath will also benefit from the public park space and the included
amenities. This design will provide profit opportunity for both the city and the client.
The proposed design has an estimated total cost of $17 million. Since this was Civil Solutions first cost estimate
and first time working on a land design project, a contingency of 20% was used. Civil Solutions obtained construction
costs from the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) historical bid price listings for calendar year 2014. The
largest cost item in the proposed design was the general excavation priced at $3.4 million.

II
2 Introduction
[BJW, MN]
2.1 Project Objective Justification and Benefits
The purpose of the 15th and Chapel design project is to design features for the future residential and park
land development to be completed by the city of Philomath. Civil Solutions will create a general layout
for the 30 acre project site, which is currently an unused overgrown open property. The design will
include the following features: roadway alignments, large gazebo structural and foundation designs, storm
water retention and irrigation using the existing pond, and various utility systems.
2.2 Existing Site Investigation
The existing site is approximately 30 acres in size, located in Philomath, Oregon, and currently zoned
industrial. This property is owned by a private entity and consists of overgrown areas along with large
soil stockpiles, and an existing pond.
2.3 Presentation, Evaluation, and Selection of Alternatives
In order to determine which land design options best met the city of Philomath’s needs, Civil Solutions
created a decision matrix. The matrix criteria was based on how well residential, apartments, park, and
warehouse land design options met the city of Philomath goals stated in the Comprehensive Plan and
Land Development Code. Civil Solutions proceeded with the design of residential, park, and apartment
land development options.
2.4 Description of Design
Civil Solutions drafted a site plan based on design features that best met the city’s needs and provided
unique engineering design opportunities. The site was divided into three areas: apartments along the
western boundary, mid-sized residential lots along the north and east property boundaries, and open
shared park space in the middle.
2.5 Regulatory Compliance and Permitting
Permitting required for this land design project was investigated. A partial list of permits needed and
predicted prices has been assembled and detailed in this section.
2.6 Results and Conclusions
Civil Solutions decided to design residential, park, and apartment areas in the project site. All of decisions
are based on the decision matrix and the requirements from the land owner and the city of Philomath.
2.7 Cost Estimate
The total project cost has been estimated at $17 million, including a 20% contingency due to the cost
estimating experience of Civil Solutions while working on their first estimation and land design project.
Civil Solutions’ estimated fee for design services was $223,000 for 620 hours of work during the six-
month design period.
2.8 Appendix I: Geomatics
A topographic survey, using Leica total stations, was completed by multiple groups consisting of
individuals from each team assigned to the Philomath project. The total station data was geo-referenced to
the known control point coordinates using Leica Geo-Office software.
2.9 Appendix II: Geotechnical
Boring logs for the site were not available. Civil Solutions placed provided logs in key locations where
geotechnical engineering designs are expected to take place. For conservative design a factor of safety
of 3.5 was used.

III
3 Project Objective Justification and Benefits
[BJW, CS, MN]
3.1 Objective
The scope of this project entails the development of an existing undeveloped (30 acre) property located
adjacent to the northeast corner of South 15th Street and Chapel Drive in Philomath, Oregon. The site was
previously used as a mill site and will require the removal of any remaining debris, structures, etc. before
any new construction can be completed. The design of this project will include the combination of
residential areas along with open shared park space. This project will require, but is not limited to, the
design of the following: over 4,000 feet of new roadway, a 500 square foot restroom that will also support
a maintenance room, one 2,400 square foot rectangular gazebo, pond restoration, land subdivision for
residential use, and storm and potable water systems.
3.2 Justification
Creating residential, park, and apartment areas in the existing undeveloped 15th
and Chapel project site
will benefit both the city of Philomath and the client. Both parties will benefit due to the increase in land
value by way of zoning change from industrial to residential. The land owner will have the opportunity to
sell housing parcels to a developer, and selling or managing an apartment complex for profit. Developing
the land will also allow the city of Philomath to meet the quality of life and living space goals described
in their Comprehensive Plan. The benefits to each interested party are described in detail in the following
paragraphs.
3.3 Benefits
Completing the 15th and Chapel Land Design Project will benefit the city of Philomath and its
community members by increasing economic development, providing city residents with new living
space and recreational areas, and increasing the tax assessment value of the property. Construction
projects will provide short term employment opportunities to city residents and the maintenance of parks
and housing areas will provide jobs in the future. By developing land for residential purposes, the city
will fulfill its obligation to provide affordable middle to high density housing options as stated in the City
of Philomath Comprehensive Plan. Once the land becomes livable, the tax assessment value will increase,
leading to more revenue for the city through property taxes. These benefits to the city of Philomath are
key factors which make developing the 15th
and Chapel property an appealing decision.
Completing this project also benefits the land owner by increasing the land value. One of the first steps to
completing the land design project is to change the zoning of the property from industrial to residential.
This change in zoning is what will allow the land owner to sell portions of the land for residential
development purposes. The city of Philomath has requested that 0.27 acres of park be designated for
every 10 dwelling spaces. Developing land for community park use, benefits the land owner by adding
value to residential properties through an increase in the overall aesthetics of the area.

IV
4 Existing Site Investigation
[MN, BJW]
4.1 Site History
Chris Workman, Philomath City Manager,
stated that the site was previously a lumber
yard. No information was given as to how
long the lumber yard was in operation, or
when it began and halted operations. The
first step Civil Solutions took to learning
about the history of the project site was to
search for historical photographs. Visual
inspection of the aerial photo, found using
Google Earth, led our team to believe that the
lumber yard was in operation at least until
the year 1994 but no later than the year 2000.
By examining the photo from the year 1994,
we determined that the log storage area was
located in the northeast quadrant of the
property, shown as the white rows in the
upper right section of the photo. Figure 1
also shows the location of the delivery roads
along the north and southwest edges of the
property.
4.2 Existing Site
The existing project site is an undeveloped
lot approximately 29.5 acres in size. The lot
consists of uneven, overgrown terrain
throughout. The project site also consists of
two or more soil-type material store piles
located near the pond. A significant amount
of earthwork will be required to construct
road, park, and residential areas. A 1.3-acre
body of water, Hobin Log Pond, is located
along the southern boundary of the property.
The depth and size of the pond will be
determined after the geomatics survey has
been completed. Additionally, the pond will
need to be cleaned and excavated to provide
storm water retention for the site. The site
also contains existing unpaved roadways
along the north, east, and south perimeters.
The unpaved roadways are most likely semi-
compacted due to the previous log truck
usage.
Figure 1: 15th and Chapel Aerial Photo 1994
Courtesy of Google Earth
Figure 2: 15th and Chapel Aerial Photo 2014
Courtesy of www.google.com

V
Figure 3: 15th
and Chapel Terrain Model 2014
Courtesy of Google Earth
As shown in Figure 3, the Southeast corner of the lot is a paved asphalt area. There are two existing
corrugated metal building structures on the paved section of the lot. A detailed soil investigation in the
east half of the property may be required to determine if contaminants are present due to the unknown
exact use of the buildings. One building is reported as a pump house and must remain on the site. The
other building has been historically used as storage for the city. Civil Solutions has retained permission
from Chris Workman to remove the storage building. Large gravel piles are located near the paved
sections of the site. These stores will need to be removed or incorporated into design elements around the
park or residential areas.
4.3 Tax Lot Information
The Benton County Public Works
Surveyors Office provided a useful
online tool which was used to find the
current tax lot information for the project
site. Civil Solutions was able to obtain
bearings for the lot lines and the acreage
of the property by searching with the
Benton County GIS tool. The GIS tool
was also used to obtain Northing and
Easting state plane coordinate values of
the property corners which aided in the
preliminary AutoCAD design drawing.
According to the Benton County
Assessor’s Office, the current assessed
value of the property is $294,242. This
will be useful later in the design when
determining if the design adds enough
value to the land for the client to
continue with the development process.
Figure 4: 15th and Chapel Tax Lot
Courtesy of http://www.co.benton.or.us/

VI
4.4 Geomatics Data
In order to complete the survey of this site three members of Civil Solutions joined the survey crew which
consisted of at least one individual from each group member for this given project. When planning the
survey for the site it was decided that it would be best to break the survey into two separate sections, one
day for setting site control and another for conducting the topographic survey. The information below
describes the results of the survey.
Figure 5: Total Station Points and GIS Contour Map
Points collected with total stations are represented as dots. Survey extents are represented by the dashed line.
The bold, solid line represents the survey boundary.
From Figure 5, it can be seen that the entire site was not able to be surveyed. This is due to the time
constraint of the survey and the dense obstructions throughout the site, i.e. water, blackberry bushes, and
trees. As a repercussion, a more detailed survey should be conducted as this survey was not complete. In
order to make up for the lack of data and continue this project two other forms of data will be combined
with the total station data. The first is a topographic data obtained through airborne LIDAR data collected
by DOGAMI in 2009. This LIDAR model will be used to fill in the blank areas between the boundary of
the survey (dashed line in figure 1) and the site boundary (bold line in figure 1). The second supplemental
data to be combined with the survey data is terrestrial LIDAR data collected by Chase Simpson, Brian

VII
Weaver and Michael Carpenter. This data will supplement the southeast corner of the site where there is
sparse total station data.
Due to combining three different types of data the range of precision will vary. The largest source of
uncertainty comes from lidar information obtained from DOGAMI due to the fact that their post
processing methods used to obtain this bare earth model are unknown. The second source of uncertainty
comes from the total station data collected. This is because there was thick blackberry bushes throughout
the surveyed site, therefore there are crucial areas that were not properly surveyed. The survey provided
will adequately meet the needs of this project for the course CE418/419 at Oregon State University but
based on these errors, it should not be used for any reason outside of this course. If more time and
resources were available Civil Solutions would recommend a more thorough survey be conducted.
For a detailed description of the process used to obtain the total station data and completed site maps
please see the geomatics report in Appendix I.
4.5 Geotechnical Data
Civil Solutions was provided with two boring logs obtained by CH2M HILL. These logs were used to
simulate logs that Civil Solutions would have gathered for the project site. The supplied boring logs can
be viewed on the pages following Appendix II. Five boring log locations were placed around the site. All
logs were placed in proposed road installment locations with the exception of log 3. Log 3 was placed in
the area where the large gazebo shall be constructed. Three locations correspond to boring 12827-03, the
other two correspond to boring 12827-01. The bearing capacity for the soil was calculated for three
separate column loads: 11.5 thousand pounds (kips), 23 kips, and 46 kips. Soil for the 11.5 kip load has a
capacity of 1544.5 pounds-per-lineal-foot (plf), while the 23 kip columns has a capacity of 2936.5 plf.
The 46 kip load has a capacity of 3168.5 plf. Additional geotechnical data can be viewed in Appendix II:
Geotechnical Data.

VIII
5 Presentation, Evaluation, and Selection of Alternatives
[BJW, CS]
In order to determine optimal design solutions and alternatives, Civil Solutions created a decision matrix
which focused on four land development options and how well those options met certain criteria. The
purpose of the decision matrix was to accomplish two tasks: 1 – help Civil Solutions obtain values for
how each land use option benefits the city of Philomath, and 2 – use the calculated values to compare the
options in an objective way. Land development options were determined based on the project description
from the City Manager. Matrix criteria were agreed upon by Civil Solutions after researching city goals
using the City of Philomath Comprehensive Plan.
Table 1 – Decision Matrix
Residential Apartments Park Warehouse
Employment Medium Medium Low High
Housing Needs High High Low Low
Community Impact Medium Medium High Low
Quality of Life High Medium High Low
Client Profit High High Low Medium
Affordability Low Low High Low
Total 49 45 45 25
Criteria (rank)
 Employment (1)
 Housing Needs (6)
 Community Impact (3)
 Quality of Life (4)
 Client Profit (2)
 Affordability (5)
Meets Criteria (rank)
 High (3)
 Medium (2)
 Low (1)
5.1 Discussion of Results
The top three criteria factors were: housing needs, affordability, and quality of life. These three factors
helped to boost the rating of residential and apartment development while the affordability criteria
reduced ratings for both options. The reverse was true when analyzing park land development. A park
would not contribute to the housing requirements, but was the most affordable option. Even though the
warehouse alternative was high ranking in a few categories, its low performance in the heavily weighted
criteria centered on housing and community impacts removed it from being a desirable development
option. Based on the results of the decision matrix, residential, apartment, and park land development are
all of approximately equal importance when viewed from the perspective of the City of Philomath. Also,
these results do show that the option of developing the land for warehouse use is much less appealing
than the other three options. Civil Solutions proceeded with the design of the top three rated land
development options.

IX
6 Description of Design
[ALL]
Based on the results of the decision matrix, Civil Solutions decided to choose the highest three rated land
use options: residential, apartment, and park land for design. The warehouse option was excluded from
the design of the property because it did not meet the requirements and goals of the city of Philomath
demonstrated by its standing as the lowest rated option in the decision matrix.
6.1 Design Features
After decisions of the design options were made, Civil Solutions discussed what kind of utilities and land
design would be needed to meet the requirements of both the city of Philomath and the city residents at
the same time while also considering client requests. Using the results of the decision matrix and the
client’s needs a public park encompassing a parking lot located in the southeast corner, one large gazebo,
one small gazebo, a small amphitheater, and a central restroom and maintenance building was chosen as
well as low medium residential housing lots, and a large apartment lot.
6.2 Site Layout
Civil Solutions designed a potential layout for the 29.5 acre project site. Main areas in the design include
residential, apartment, and a public space. In terms of residential land and apartment design, Civil
Solutions chose to design 52 housing lots roughly 10,250 square feet (0.24 acres) in size on the northern
and eastern sides of the site. The lots are sized to accommodate either a duplex, or a standard single
family home. One 5 acre apartment lot was placed on the western side of the site, and a proposed layout
was designed. This proposed layout includes 13 apartment buildings, with 8 units per building. The
property has the potential for a maximum of 194 dwelling units with duplexes on all housing lots.
6.2.1 Utilities
Civil Solutions also designed the utility mainline systems, including sanitary sewer (SS), storm water
(SW) and potable water (PW) for the residential area and irrigation for the park area of the designed
layout. There are three separate SS systems and they are classified as follows: onsite gravity sewer; onsite
pressure sewer; and off site gravity sewer. There are also 2 separate SW systems, both are gravity
induced.
6.2.1.1 Offsite Gravity Sanitary Sewer
The offsite gravity SS is located on the northwest corner of the site. It shall be placed 5 feet north of
center line of New Road 1, please see drawing package “Philomath Site Design” produced by Civil
Solutions for reference, and connect to the city of Philomath’s existing 8 inch SS at the intersection of
New Road 1 and South 15th Street. The SS pipe is to be placed, in parallel to center line, 680 feet along
New Road 1. The pipe size is to be 8 inch PVC and shall conform to ASTM D 3034, SDR 35. This SS
system also includes the installation of four standard manholes.
6.2.1.2 Onsite Gravity Sanitary Sewer
The onsite gravity SS follows the same requirements as the offsite SS but is located along the remaining
section of New Road 1, New Road 2, New Road 3 and New Road 4. The SS is all drained to a pump
station located near the intersection of New Road 2 and Chapel Drive and will be pumped to the city of
Philomath’s main sewer line, which is located parallel to the northern property boundary. The onsite SS
includes the installation of 4,020 feet of pipe and 11 standard manholes.

X
6.2.1.3 Onsite Pressure Sanitary Sewer
The pressure SS system will be used to pump all of the onsite gravity SS waste water to the city of
Philomath’s 21 inch PVC mainline located along the northern boundary line of the property. This system
will include the installation of 1,150 feet of 6" PVC pressure pipe. The pipe shall conform to the
requirements of AWWA C-900 (design stress of 4000 psi), and shall be NSF approved with cast iron pipe
equivalent (CI) outside diameter dimensions. PVC pipe shall be class 150 pipe with wall thickness
equivalent to a standard dimension ratio (SDR) of 18. This system also includes the installation of 1
standard manhole and pump.
6.2.1.4 Offsite Storm Water
The offsite SW is located on the northwest corner of the site. It shall be placed 3 feet behind the face of
the northern (or eastern) curb of New Road 1, please see drawing package “Philomath Site Design”
produced by Civil Solutions for reference, and connect to the city of Philomath’s existing 8 inch SW at
the intersection of New Road 1 and South 15th Street. The SW pipe is to be placed, in parallel to the curb
face, 500 feet along New Road 1. The pipe size is to be 8 inch PVC and shall conform to AWWA C900
DR 18 (6"-12") or AWWA C-905 (14"-18") with bell and spigot joints and rubber gasket. This SW
system also includes the installation of 8 standard curb inlet catch basins.
6.2.1.5 Onsite Storm Water
The onsite SW follows the same requirements as the offsite SW but is sized to be 12 inches in diameter
and is located along the remaining section of New Road 1, New Road 2, New Road 3 and New Road 4.
The SW is all drained to the detention pond located at the center of the park to be used for irrigation of the
open shared park space. The onsite SW includes the installation of 3,500 feet of pipe and 29 standard curb
inlet catch basins and 5 standard manholes.
6.2.1.6 Irrigation
The irrigation system is designed for three sections of the park: 1.4 acres of the northwest section, 1.5
acres of the northeast section, and 1.2 acres of the south section. Based on the calculations for the
irrigation system capacity, Civil Solutions selected two types of nozzles and two types of pipe produced
by Irritrol. One hundred sixty-seven 550R rotors (standard nozzle) and twenty I-Pro nozzles will be used.
For the pipe, 8036 foot length of PVC class 200 IPS plastic pipe and 410 foot length of HDPE DR 7 265
PSI will be used. Civil Solutions also decided on using a seven day irrigation interval based on the soil
and weather data.
6.2.1.7 Potable Water
The potable water (PW) system consists of 5,100 feet of 8 inch class 52 dictile iron pipe conforming to
AWWA C-151, and cement-mortar lined and seal coated in accordance with AWWA C-104. The piping
shall be located behind the opposite curb face as the storm water system. This system also includes the
installation of 11 Fire hydrants which are to be Clow Medallio, Kennedy Gaurdian K81D (UL/FM listed),
and shall be factory painted safety yellow.
6.3 Grading Plan
Civil Solutions has designed a finish grade surface for the entire project site. This surface includes the
grading of all of roadways, residential lots, and the apartment lot. This project does include a substantial
amount of earthwork. There is approximately 131,600 cubic yards of cut material and 125,100 cubic
yards of fill material leaving 6,500 cubic yards of net cut material. The overall surface was designed to
balance the overall cut/fill material but to be conservative, due to the uncertainties of the existing grade
surface, civil solutions designed the surface to have slightly more cut than fill. This is because it is more
cost efficient to spoil remaining cut material on the site rather than import more fill material. The

XI
amphitheater seating is also designed into the finish grade surface, although a third party engineer is to
design the retaining structure for the amphitheater. The grading plan also encompasses the pond located in
the park space. Overall the grading plan is completed and ready to build.
6.4 Roadways
Approximately 4,550 feet of new roadway has been designed in the residential section of the site plan.
Asphalt roadway dimensions were designed as 33 feet wide, with a 60 foot wide easement. The roadways
cross sections were designed using the city of Philomath standard detail drawings for residential use
asphalt roadways. The asphalt thickness was designed by Civil Solutions in order to provide the city of
Philomath with a durable, long-lasting product. Roadway edge of pavements were designed to have
concrete sidewalks, curbs, and gutters used for stormwater conveyance.
The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6: Revised Site Plan and Roadway Alignments
6.5 Pond
The existing 1.3 acre pond was designed to provide irrigation to the park by using irrigation intervals
across three sections of the park. Also, the proposed design allows the pond to collect surface runoff

XII
which will recharge the pond for irrigation uses and reduce the amount of water entering the southwest
corner of the site which is prone to flooding.
6.5.1 Irrigation
The irrigation system is designed for three sections of the park: 1.4 acres of the northwest section, 1.5
acres of the northeast section, and 1.2 acres of the south section. Based on the calculations for the
irrigation system capacity, Civil Solutions selected two types of nozzles and two types of pipe produced
by Irritrol. One hundred sixty-seven 550R rotors (standard nozzle) and twenty I-Pro nozzles will be used.
For the pipe, 8,036 foot length of PVC class 200 IPS plastic pipe and 410 foot length of HDPE DR 7 265
psi will be used. Civil Solutions also decided on using a seven day irrigation interval based on the soil and
weather data.
6.5.2 Stormwater Collection
The pond is designed to have a maximum capacity of 4.2 million gallons. It will be used to store the
majority of the storm water of the designed site and reuse that water to irrigate the open shared park
space. The pond has a maximum depth of 11 feet with a bank slope of 4:1. The pond overflow system
will be designed by a third party engineering firm.
6.6 Public Park
Civil Solutions chose to exceed the ratio, 0.27, of public land space to dwelling unit set by the city of
Philomath to increase the space available for use by all residents of the area and Philomath citizens. Using
a ratio of 0.47, a 9.14 acre park was designed to occupy the center of the property and extend to the
southern border.
6.6.1 Parking Lot
A public parking lot for the park was designed to have roughly 30 parking spaces. It will be located on the
southeast corner of the park and is intended to improve the accessibility of the amenities to the park users.
For recreational purposes, Civil Solutions designed a playground at the center of the park, and a trail for
walking and biking through the public park area. One 2400 square foot rectangular gazebo will be
designed to provide places to sit and relax for the park users. This gazebo will also offer event space for
the city to possibly rent out. A 500 square foot restroom was chosen to be constructed at the center of the
park for ease of accessibility to all park users. Detailed descriptions of the park structures are discussed in
the following sections.
6.6.2 Large Gazebo
The large gazebo, designed by Civil Solutions engineers, will be the primary gathering place for
individuals using the park. This 2,400 square foot covered area will provide a great view of the pond and
allow park users to enjoy the park year-round by providing an area out of the elements. Designing the
large gazebo near the main parking lot minimizes the walking distance to this feature.
6.6.2.1 Steel Structure
Civil Solutions chose to design the large gazebo using steel as the main structural material. Choosing steel
instead of wood allowed for an open design by using more slender members. Also, each Civil Solutions
group member had previous steel design experience and was more comfortable using steel in place of
wood.
As shown in Figure 7, the final large gazebo has an open sided design. Using a hip roof configuration for
the large gazebo required the design of steel roof truss components which better transfer loads vertically
into the frame below. Analysis of the structure was done in SAP2000 by applying loads to the trusses and
then applying the truss reactions to the frame.

XIII
Figure 7: Large Gazebo Framing Plan
6.6.2.2 Foundations
Designs of the foundations for the large gazebo have been completed. Three column loads of 11 kips, 23
kips, and 46 kips were analyzed. All foundations are spread square footings of reinforced concrete. A
factor of safety of 3.5 was implemented to ensure a conservative design. To design the square footings for
the loading cases the bearing capacity of 772.7 psf that was calculated for the lightest loaded footing was
used. This decision was made because the lightest load will produce the smallest capacity making the
resulting designs for the two heavier loads conservative. For the 11.5 kip load a 4 foot square 1 foot deep
foundation will be used. The 23 kip load will have a 5 foot square footing that will be 1.5 feet deep. An 8
foot square footing with a depth of 2 feet will be placed for the 46 kips column loads. All footings are
reinforced with steel #9 bars.
6.7 Maintenance and Restroom Structure
The other structure located in the park that was designed by Civil Solutions is a 500 square foot restroom
and maintenance building. The design for this building was done using masonry because using masonry
will provide the city of Philomath with a durable structure, capable of withstanding exposure to harsh
environmental conditions. Also, masonry is the construction material typically used for park restroom
structures.
The masonry structure will contain four areas: 120 square feet of storage, 160 square feet (each) of
women’s and men’s restrooms, and 60 square feet of plumbing. By providing a storage area as a portion
of the structure, the city of Philomath will have a space to store park maintenance equipment and keep
other tools in a rain-free environment. The entrance to the storage room will accommodate an 8 foot tall
by 6 foot wide steel rollup door to allow access for large equipment such as a lawn mower. Men’s and
Women’s restrooms have been laid out with ADA clearances for access to the sinks and large stalls
("2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design", 2010). The plumbing room will house piping and

XIV
electrical components used for toilets, sinks, and lighting. The floor plan of the building is shown in
Figure 8.
6.7.1 Reinforced Masonry
The reinforced masonry building was designed using Masonry Standards Joint Committee (MSJC)
equations for allowable stress design (ASD). Design also included the MSJC minimum reinforcement
spacing and standard 8”x8”x16” standard block size. Horizontal and vertical reinforcement will consist of
#4 rebar spaced according to MSJC section 7.4.3.1. Vertical loads were traced to the masonry shear walls
from the steel roof truss supported by corners of the front and back walls. Due to the Load and Resistance
Factor Design (LRFD) used for steel members, the ASD masonry design was conservative based on
increase applied vertical loads from LRFD factoring.
6.7.2 Steel Roof Truss
The steel roof truss was analyzed using SAP2000 and members were sized using the AISC steel design
manual. HSS 2.25x2.25x0.25 members were used to support the axial tension and compression forces.
Due to the small size of the steel HSS members, plates will be welded to the top and bottom truss chords
with cross members cut, slid over the plate, and welded in place.
6.7.3 Foundation
The schedule of the project did not allow for the design of the foundation for the masonry building. Civil
Solutions suggests the future design for the foundation to be strip footings constructed from reinforced
concrete. This recommendation is based on the load pattern of the building walls.
Figure 8: Masonry Restroom and Maintenance Structure
6.8 Other Design Features
Some features of the park are beyond the scope of this project and will be outsourced for design to a third
party firm. While the main design will not be performed by Civil Solutions, elements of each item have
been considered. A medium sized amphitheater will be located near the center of the park in close
proximity to the north side of the pond. The grading for the seating is encompassed in the grading plan
for the entire property provided by Civil Solutions. One small gazebo will also be installed in the park.
Civil Solutions will order a prefabricated 18 by 30 foot white washed red cedar rectangular gazebo from a

XV
professional supplier, Gazebo Creations. The gazebo will have three entrances and railings on all sides.
Six benches will be placed around the edges of the interior of the gazebo. The gazebo purchased from
Gazebo Creations will cost approximately $23,000. On site pre-installation of a 12 inch rectangular
concrete slab of approximately 565 square feet, with additional 2 by 6 foot concrete steps at each
entrance, is required to prepare the location for installment. A rectangular design was chosen to
best match the large gazebo that is also located in the park. The proposed small prefabricated
gazebo is shown in Figure 9 below.
Figure 9: 18' x 30' Pre-Fabricated Rectangular Cedar Gazebo
Image Courtesy of Gazebo Creation
6.9 Cost Estimate
The Civil Solutions total project cost was estimated at $17 million. This estimate took into account:
predesign, design, services during construction, construction, and a 20% contingency. The design cost
was estimated using the total hours worked by all Civil Solutions team members during the 6-month
design period, 620 hours, multiplied by an entry level engineer’s hourly billing rate, $90 per hour, for a
total of $223,000. The predesign cost was estimated at 20% of the design cost. Predesign items could
include items such as writing the project proposal or meeting with the city of Philomath prior to receiving
the job. Services during construction were estimated as 10% of the construction cost. The services during
construction could include services which contractors require to complete the design but have not been
accounted for in the engineering estimate. Civil Solutions used ODOT’s historical bid price listing for the
year 2014 to obtain actual construction costs based on units of measure standard to items listed in the
detailed construction cost breakdown.
The largest construction cost was general excavation which was estimated at $3.3 million. A cost for
general excavation was used for the proposed design of 131,000 cubic yards of cut used to balance
125,100 cubic yards of fill. The next highest cost were the roadways, estimated at $1.9 million with $1.3
million in asphalt. These costs were expected to be high due to the large amount of earthwork and
roadways needed to complete the design.

XVI
7 Regulatory Compliance and Permitting
[MN]
Civil Solutions investigated what types of permits would be potentially needed for this project. A partial
list of permits was compiled and is described in Table 2 shown below. Civil Solutions was unable to find
the costs of all the permits. The unknown fees associated with the permits will be accounted for in the
contingency plan of the project’s cost estimate.
Table 2 – List of Required Permits
Permit Description Relevance Cost
Structural Permit Required for new buildings and structures. Constructing 2
structures in the park
area.
$1,935
General Storm water
Discharge
Required when construction will disturb 1+
acres and may discharge to surface waters or
conveyance systems to surface waters.
Construction area is
larger than 1 acre.
$850
Structural
Demolition
Required for removal of structures Demolishing two
standing structures on
site.
$87
Alternative
Materials/Methods
Required when using nonstandard
materials/methods.
Large gazebo uses
nonstandard
cantilevered column
design.
Unknown
Road Sign Permit Required when installing new signs. New roadways have
signs installed.
Unknown
Subdivision
Approval
Required when dividing land for residential
use.
Project divides site
into residential and
apartment lots.
Unknown
Road Approach Required when a new entrance onto a public
or county road is created.
Project creates 3 new
approaches to public
roads.
Unknown
Floodplain
Development
Required when building in 100 yr.
floodplain.
Project site lies
within the 100 year
floodplain.
Free
Erosion and
Sediment Control
Required when projects include grading,
grubbing, clearing or other impacts to soil
Entire project site is
graded.
Unknown
Public Works Required when installing Sanitary Sewer,
Storm Drain, or Sidewalks and Street
Pavement/Curb Cuts.
Project installs all
items on required list.
Free

XVII
8 Results and Conclusions
[MN, BK]
The current existing project site is an undeveloped lot approximately 30 acres in size. Civil Solutions
designed a layout that includes the following design features: 52 residential lots, a five-acre apartment lot,
and a nine-acre park with a public parking lot located in the southeast corner of the park, playground, one
large gazebo, one small gazebo, and a central restroom.
For the 15th and Chapel design project, Civil Solutions laid out the entire property and completely
designed the 2,400 sq. ft. large gazebo and its foundations, as well as the 500 sq. ft. restroom building.
4,550 ft. of new roadway was fully designed and adds three new access points along Chapel Drive and
South 15th
street. The project is estimated to cost approximately $17 million.
In conclusion, Civil Solution has designed residential, park, and apartment areas for the 15th and Chapel
project site, located in Philomath, Oregon, in accordance with the requirements of the landowner and the
city of Philomath. In the future, this land development will provide economic benefits to both the city of
Philomath and land owner, such as an increase in the value of the property and the amount of property tax
collected. It also provides the potential to improve the quality of life for both the residents and
community.

XVIII
9 Cost Estimate
[BW]
The total project cost has been estimated at $17 million, including a 20% contingency due to the cost
estimating experience of Civil Solutions while working on their first estimation and land design project.
Civil Solutions’ estimated fee for design services was $223,000 for 620 hours of work during the six-
month design period.
Table 3 – Estimate of Probable Cost for Proposed Design
CITY OF PHILOMATH
15TH AND CHAPEL LAND DESIGN
ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST
PRE-DESIGN (a) $44,640
DESIGN (b) $223,200
SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION (c) $1,245,346
CONSTRUCTION (d) $12,453,460
CONTINGENCY (20%) $2,490,692
TOTAL PROJECT COST (e) $16,457,338
TOTAL PROJECT COST (ROUNDED) $17,000,000
NOTES:
(a) 20% of design cost
(b) 620 hours of entry level engineering work @ $90/hr. bill rate
(c) 10% of Construction cost
(d) Construction costs adapted from ODOT Historical Bid Award Price Listing
(e) Total cost is subject to change and is currently an estimate
CONSTRUCTION COST BREAKDOWN
Item
Installed
Unit Cost Descript. # of Units Total Cost
General
Mobilization $75,000 LS 1 $75,000
Existing Structure Removal $6,500 EA 2 $13,000
Asphalt Removal $1 SQFT 130000 $130,000
SUBTOTAL $218,000
Large Gazebo Structure
Rolled Structural Steel Members $800 TON 8 $6,400
Zee/Cee Purlins $3 LF 480 $1,440

XIX
Item
Installed
Roof Deck $4 SQFT 2400 $9,600
Connections (welding, anchor bolts) $30 HOUR 40 $1,200
4'x4' Foundation $90 CUYD 1.8 $160
SUBTOTAL $19,690
Masonry Building
Total masonry structure cost $120,000 LS 1 $120,000
*SLCgov.com
SUBTOTAL $120,000
Roadways
Sidewalk $60 SQFT 4550 $273,000
Curb $25 LF 9100 $227,500
Gutter $25 LF 4550 $113,750
Asphalt $580 TON 2200 $1,276,000
Signage $2,000 EA 10 $20,000
Parking Lot $580 TON 50 $29,000
SUBTOTAL $1,939,250
Earthwork
General Excavation $25 CUYD 131600 $3,290,000
SUBTOTAL $3,290,000
Irrigation
550R Rotor $10 EACH 167 $1,670
I-PRO Nozzle $1 EACH 20 $20
PVC CLASS 80 IPS PLASTIC PIPE, 4" SIZE $4 LF 800 $3,200
HDPE DR 7 265 PSI, 8" SIZE $15 LF 400 $6,000
Munro LP3005B 5 HP Single Phase
Centrifugal Pump $1,500 EACH 1 $1,500
Irritrol 217B 2 inch Globe/Angle Valve with
Flow Control $150 EACH 6 $900
SUBTOTAL $13,290
Permits
Permits needed to complete design $3,000 LS 1 $3,000
*City of Philomath Standards
SUBTOTAL $3,000
Sanitary Sewer (gravity)
8" PVC Piping and Trenching $100 LF 4700 $470,000
Manholes $3,500 EA 14 $49,000
Lateral Connections $600 EA 40 $24,000
SUBTOTAL $543,000

XX
Item
Installed
Sanitary Sewer (pressure)
6" PVC Piping and Trenching $120 LF 1150 $138,000
Manholes $4,000 EA 2 $8,000
Sewage Pumps $15,000 EA 1 $15,000
SUBTOTAL $161,000
Potable Water
2" PVC Service piping and trench $15 LF 200 $3,000
8" Ductile Iron piping and trench $80 LF 5100 $408,000
8" 45° fitting $650 EA 3 $1,950
8" 22.5° fitting $650 EA 1 $650
8" 'T' fitting $650 EA 7 $4,550
8" Butterfly Valves $800 EA 14 $11,200
Fire Hydrant $1,200 LS 11 $13,200
SUBTOTAL $442,550
Storm Water (gravity)
12" storm water piping and trench $120 LF 3500 $420,000
8" storm water piping and trench $100 LF 500 $50,000
6" Storm water piping and trench $80 LF 250 $20,000
27" Catchment basin $1,100 EA 40 $44,000
Manhole $3,500 EA 5 $17,500
SUBTOTAL $551,500

XXI
10 Literature Cited (ASCE Style)
[ALL]
"2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design" ADA.gov. Department of Justice, 15 Sept. 2010. Web. 29
May 2015.
Coduto, D. P. (2001). Foundation Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
"City of Philomath | Development Code." Http://www.ci.philomath.or.us/. City of Philomath, 2004. Web.
29 May 2015.
Denner, R. W. "City of Philomath | Zoning & Comprehensive Plan Map."
Http://www.ci.philomath.or.us/. City of Philomath, 2005. Web. 29 May 2015.
Irritrol. (2012) “2012-2013 Professional Irrigation Products.” Irritol. Riverside, California.
Minard, Jim. "City of Philomath | Park Master Plan." Http://www.ci.philomath.or.us/. City of Philomath,
Dec. 2012. Web. 29 May 2015.
Toolbox, E. (n.d.). “Dirt and Mud Densities.” <http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dirt-mud-densities-
d_1727.html> (Mar. 3, 2015).
“Unit Weight of Soil.” (2012). <http://www.geotechnicalinfo.com/soil_unit_weight.html> (Mar. 3, 2015).
"ZONING." City of Philomath, Dec. 2013. Web. 29 May 2015.

i
Appendix I: Geomatics
Contributors
Chase Simpson

ii
When planning the survey for the site Chase Simpson, Michael Carpenter and Matthew O’Banion decided
it would be best to break the survey into two separate sections, one day for setting site control and another
for conducting the topographic survey. The information below describes the process and results of each of
those two section.
1.1 Survey Site Control
On February 5th, 2015 Civil Solutions member Chase Simpson led a small group consisting of Lawrence
Pankey, Jake Perkins, and Michael Carpenter were tasked with setting adequate ground control for the
survey. This was accomplished through the use of (2) Leica GS14 GNSS antennas accompanied by (2)
Leica CS15 data collectors that collected rapid static data for the numerous control points for an
observation time of 20 minutes. The control points were strategically located in areas that would optimize
their accessibility to the total stations used to collect the topographic data. Roughly six days after the
seven control points were observed and set, Simpson processed the collected data through OPUS-RS for
corrections. The results indicated that two of the seven control points had to be re-observed due to
unknown errors. On February 12th, 2015 the same group of individuals went to the site once again in
order to re-observe the two control points that had inadequate data before. In order to increase the chance
of obtaining adequate data the observation time was increased from 20 minutes to 30 minutes. Again,
Simpson processed the data through OPUS and the results showed the increased observation time
successfully solved the error. The precision of the control points are listed in the table below.
Appendix I: Table 1 – GNSS Control Precision
Control Point Precision (cm)
X Y Z
CP1 1.2 1.9 2.5
CP2 0.7 0.6 1.3
CP3 1.5 1.4 1.3
CP4 2.1 2.8 2.7
CP5 1.2 1.4 1.3
CP6 1.2 1.3 1.2
CP7 1.5 1.6 1.9
X Y Z
AVERAGE 1.3 1.6 1.7
Reference Frame: NAD83(2011) EPOCH:2010.0000

iii
2.1 Topographic Survey
On February 21st, 2015 Civil Solutions member Chase Simpson led the survey crew members, which
consisted of at least one representative from each group to complete the topographic survey. The
topographic information was collected using (3) Leica TS15 Smart Stations along with (3) 360 degree
prisms. The survey crew was broken up into three teams, two people per total station, with Michael
Carpenter and Chase Simpson providing technical assistance and relief when necessary.
The survey was planned to focus largely on the south west corner of the site, the area closest to the
intersection of 15th
street and Chapel Drive. This area was selected as a priority for the majority of the
group’s designs. Although the survey was extended to cover the entire site with the density of data
decreasing as we extended to the northwest corner of the property. See the handouts attached to the end of
this appendix for the maps depicting the survey data (sheet V1.00)
In order to tie the topo data collected from each total station setup, the operator was required to obtain
shots on a minimum of 3 control points identified by their corresponding name (i.e. CP1, CP2, CP3, CP4,
Figure 10: Total Station Points and GIS Contour Map.
Points collected with total stations are represented as dots. Survey extents are represented by the dashed line.
The bold, solid line represents the survey boundary.

iv
CP5, CP6, or CP7). Once the data was collected, approximately 1645 topographic points, it was post
processed using a software package called Leica Geo Office (LGO). In order to geo reference the data
collected to the appropriate coordinate system (NAD1983 Oregon State Plane North FIPS 3601) the
coordinates of the control points obtained using the GPS systems, and all of the topo data was inserted
into LGO. Once all of the data was in the program the topo data was shifted and rotated so that the control
points shot with the total stations matched the coordinates of the control points measured with the GPS
units. After that the data points were exported to a point file in the following format, Point Id – Northing
– Easting – Elevation – Code, and e-mailed to each group to complete the processing on an individual
basis.
After the point file was created Chase Simpson imported the points into ArcGIS in order to create the
contour depicted below.
3.1 Summary of Survey
From figure 1 of the appendix it can be seen that the entire site was not capable to be surveyed. This is
due to the time constraint of the survey and the dense obstructions throughout the site, i.e. water,
blackberry bushes, and trees. As a repercussion, a more detailed survey should be conducted as this
survey was not complete. In order to make up for the lack of data and continue this project two other
forms of data will be combined with the total station data. The first is a topographic data obtained through
airborne LIDAR data collected by DOGAMI in 2009. This LIDAR model will be used to fill in the blank
areas between the boundary of the survey (dashed line in figure 1) and the site boundary (bold line in
figure 1). The second supplemental data to be combined with the survey data is terrestrial LIDAR data
collected by Chase Simpson, Brian Weaver and Michael Carpenter. This data will supplement the
southeast corner of the site where there is sparse total station data.
Due to combining three different types of data the range of precision will vary. The largest source of
uncertainty comes from LIDAR information obtained from DOGAMI due to the fact that their post
processing methods used to obtain this bare earth model are unknown. The second source of uncertainty
comes from the total station data collected. This is because there was thick blackberry bushes throughout
the surveyed site, therefore there are crucial areas that were not properly surveyed. The survey provided
will adequately meet the needs of this project for the course CE418/419 at Oregon State University but
based on these errors, it should not be used for any reason outside of this course. If more time and
resources were available Civil Solutions would recommend a more thorough survey be conducted.
4.1 Civil Solutions Contribution to Survey
There were three members representing Civil Solutions in the survey crew, Chase Simpson, Bonggab
Kim and Brian Weaver. Their contributions to the survey are described below.
4.1.1 Chase Simpson
As the main leader of the survey crew Simpson was in charge of managing and organizing the survey
process. His responsibilities included creating a general survey plan that would meet the needs of all six
groups, creating documents and standards for the survey crew to follow to ensure all resulting data was
uniform, ensure all of the necessary survey equipment was provided, answer any questions that arose in
the field, and provided technical help when running the survey equipment. He was also one of the main
contributors involved in post processing the data for the control points and the topographic data collected
with the GPS units and the total stations respectively. The documents and standards he provided to the
survey crew are provided at the end of this appendix.

v
4.1.2 Brian Weaver
As a total station chief, Weaver was in charge of one of the three total stations. His responsibilities
included checking out one of the three total stations from the survey locker room and ensuring the data he
collected met the standards and requirements of the survey. He worked with Bonggab Kim and they
alternated between running the total station and holding the rod connected to the reflector
4.1.3 Bonggab Kim
As a member of the survey crew Kim was mainly responsible for holding the 360 degree reflector. This
was one of the most important jobs because the data collected only reflects the positions he placed the
rod. His priority was to capture points over the main features of the earth’s surface on the site. Kim was
partnered with Brian Weaver and they alternated between running the total station and holding the rod
connected to the reflector.

i
Appendix II: Geotechnical
Contributors
Mary Beth Nicholson

ii
1.1 Raw Data from CH2M HILL
Boring log data was provided by CH2M Hill for two holes, 12827-01 and 12827-03. Partial lab data was
also given. The lab results can be viewed on the following pages along with the boring logs. Hole 12827-
01 was drilled to a depth of 31.5 feet. The top 10 feet of soil was silty sand followed by 20 feet of sand
with some silt. Hole 12827-03 was drilled to 61.5 feet. The top 16 feet of soil was clay with some silt
followed by 15 feet of silty sand. Groundwater was not indicated that it was encountered in either boring.
It is suggested that new logs be taken to validate this finding. The lab testing results were provided for
boring 12827-03 and are described below.
2.1 Boring Log Analysis
Two soils from the drilling were tested. A sandy silt from 40 feet below the surface and a clay from 60
feet. The soils were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The sandy silt was
classified MH, meaning it is an inorganic silt of high plasticity. This is an elastic silt. The silt was found
to be damp and stiff. The clay was classified as CH, meaning it is an inorganic clay of high plasticity, also
called a fat clay. The clay was found to vary from damp to wet and very stiff. Blow counts for the
Standard Penetration Test were assumed based an online collection of geotechnical information (Unit
Weight of Soil). A blow count of 6 blows per foot was assumed for clay, and 3 blows per foot was
assumed for the sandy silt.
2.1.1 Soil Properties
Using the Engineering Toolbox, the unit weight of the clay was assumed to be 100 pcf (Engineering
Toolbox). The lab results provided a water content of 50.55%. The sandy silt’s unit weight of 72.81 pcf
and water content of 46.08% were also provided. The clay had a liquid limit of 101% and a plastic index
of 67%. The sandy silt had a liquid limit of 70% and a plastic index of 29%. The sieve analysis results of
the soils from boring 03 are shown in the Table XX below.
Appendix II: Table 1 – Sieve Analysis Results
Sieve Size Clay %Finer Sandy Silt %Finer
No. 4 100 99
No. 10 100 92
No. 40 100 86
No. 100 99 78
No. 200 97 62
The following sections contain the raw boring log data provided to Civil Solutions by CH2M HILL. Prior
to construction, additional geotechnical investigations should be conducted in order to better define the
soil properties throughout the site.

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Final Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (11)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (10)

Similar to Final Report

Similar to Final Report (20)

Final Report