Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Company of Idaho VAR
w .,1 �• t HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY Mayor LEGAL DEPARTMENT ROBERT D. CORRIE A Good Place to Live (2 08) Council Members CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS CHARLES ROUNTREE 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT GLENN BENTLEY MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 1 It (`08) 88� �� I t RON ANDERSON Phone (208) 888-4433 • Fax (208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING , DEPARTMENT KEITH BIRD (208) 88�-5533 �- TRANSMITTAL TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS g WITH THE CITY *OF MERIDIAN E To insure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian , City Council; please 'submit your comments,and recommendation to Meridian City Hall; Attn: Will'Berg, City Clerk by: August 12, 9998 t TRANSMITTAL- DATE: 7/31198 HEARING DATE: 8118/98 REQUEST:_ Variance for Off -Premise Sian at S. Proaress Avenue/1-84_ _ BY: R.T. Nahas Company of Idahol�UGP�r"- LOCATION"OF PROPERTY OR PROJECT: NW 1/4, SW 1/4, Section 1.8, T.W. F TAMMY DE WEERD, P/Z MALCOLM MACCOY, P/Z MARK NELSON, P2 BYRON SMITH, P2 KEITH BORUP, P/Z ROBERT CORRIE, MAYOR RON ANDERSON, C/C CHARLIE ROUNTREE, C/C KEITH BIRD, C/C GLENN BENTLEY, C/C WATER DEPARTMENT SEWER DEPARTMENT BUILDING DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT CITY ATTORNEY CITY ENGINEER 4CITY PLANNER MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT MERIDIAN POST OFFICE (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) __ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT r ADA PLANNING ASSOCIATION CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH `•r NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT ----L—SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT IDAHO POWER CO. (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) U.S. WEST (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) k INTERMOUNTAIN GAS (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (PRELIM. & FINAL PLAT) , CITY FILES x IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT: YOUR CONCISE REMARKS: i 1 t. G NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on August 18, 1998, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of R. T. Nahas Company of Idaho, for a Variance for land located in the NW'/4 , SW'/4, Section 18, T.3N., R.lE., B. M., Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located at S. Progress Avenue and I-84. The Application requests a variance for an off -premise sign. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. ; A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 31' day of July, 1998. a WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., Y &ERK PUBLISH July 31 and August 14, 1998. CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID 83642 t VARIANCE APPLICATION � t (RE: Meridian Zoning Ordinance). NAME:i (Owner or holder of valid option) ,N( ADDRESS: S, /7"4 0/6.e— -Z.-7fAA'0 Phone: 23�'70c� GENERAL LOCATION: Fi rZ S i S ` , LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY:_ r,f, PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF VALID OPTION: A copy of your property deed or option agreement must be attached. /' p PRESENT ZONE CLASSIFICATION: VICINITY SKETCH: A vicinity map and/or site plan at a scale approved by the City?showing property lines, streets existing and proposed zoning and such other items as the City may require. SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS: A list of all property owners and addresses within, contiguous to, directly across the street from, and within a 300' radius of the parcels) proposed for a variance must be attached. (This information is available from the County Assessor.) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED VARIANCE: � 1N5iI41U A FRF-S7-,4MDIA .h '616A.1 Z� -A/i%may/,(,l(v "C-eiUTi2-L• i/AU 6.1 a 0k1-bi-&;r--e.. PAgi - h. A-049 "Al 04 L64�760 !ki T SIGN -V 14" IV -y, -r 4 s CITY COUNCIL RECORDS Date Received City Council Hearing Date Received by t CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK July 17, 1998 Meridian City Council 33 E. Idaho St. Meridian, ID 83642 RE: CENTRAL VALLEY SIGN APPLICATION ("VARIANCE") Dear Council Members: E Please see attached drawing of a sign we would like to erect on our property at "Central Valley Corporate Park". The purpose for this sign is three fold: (1) to identify the park; (2) to identify major tenants located within the park; (3) to consol- idate the previously mentioned on one sign,. as opposed to having separate freestanding signs. The proposed new sign would be located on the south end of the park in a common area. The existing freestanding sign identifying the park on the east end of the property would be removed. According to your planning director, Sherry Styles, the reason this sign would require a variance is because the tenants on the sign are "off premise" of the sign location. It is true that the tenants to be shown on the sign are not directly under the sign, but they are a part of Central Valley Corporate Park. Many shopping centers have main identification signs that have tenant panels on them. This is a nice way of cutting down on the number of freestanding signs in a congested area. . Your consideration on this matter would be greatly appreciated. S iric r"t W. RWN/cs 102 S. 17th, Suite 300 • Boise, Idaho 83702 • (208) 336-6661 11 FRONT'ELEVAT'ION 0 POUSLE FACE PYLON 51ON 5CALE: W6" = 1'- 0" i .. ?,. . .-, ' ::�. j ', • � .: —S OR*' AL OES.GN s RAOTECIEO CENTRAL VAM CORPORATE PARK 11NDEA FEOEAAL DOPCAWS E-00 IpA11 �� AND CANNOT RE REPWOOIJCED w W1gLE OR w 1'ArtT vvrtNotR l u;rwJONN MOR70N ar 57EPNEN PAIDR WRTTEN PERANSSION OF CUSTOMER APPRMAL ;tiW mon .�wAuwn V er ... FrCE "CEN%1A172.P17' I 6131911 t evcp A I " "� j i iN3JNd1 30 '1NIOd £0�9Z r:`lg•OL+It Oap r a Z zar-vi kn um r N I T S w.p A' pr+ Q. I T pa. p01 1 Y x X V N n} N~ N +' i} .r� bID ci Zn � � _ -� — �(,• N .- NIS ' I 0011{1 If N N S 1'I n. I •� 019 i- •O)N I. Y r, . + LiQ - h $ �.., Z UJ Li x. m 0 N — v I' (pv NO (v CQ3 j I �� I I � • 1 _ �': D'rD3.0 ..•. •^V I ���I 1 F v `� g �• I ��' !`S ,\„�� � �. \gig. ( I'•I• ! � . �t' ; ' ck O J. Er is N ®� UU 31 NII, pn N 1 04 in fr cq 2b0LL $�ao 41/ J. K Z r a 3ova� d I v .,: II f� �, r fl' 30 iN10 Q z u u rl u v d Z-- Q .D o o a I -- - - ^- — o ^ n �� % 1 Zb'tr,+ N ; - 13' 00 f.. rD r- / i�� •/ a of = r- rD Vl N r ' • r cr ^6010.5--•^'('t��1. j i il. - - -- - - ---' -- '--C i Q �0.00'00' F va i r n V, QN n•41 jL(R a a ro+; Oo< ! ! OJ T -=30N`dHt-3(IV6J- I` ; d N D;r� o� lr !; Q Q . p -- 1N39Nb �0 1NI0 ZCy i"�.. i °du �y SZ'OZgZ:I-- LIR-S;13+ zx •yry u l Ia 0. V) o 11 } — p Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE Council Members CHARLES ROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD August 11, 1998 HUB OF TREASI9E VALLEY q A Good PIaCe't0 Live LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208)884-4264 CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS 33 EAST IDAHO BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208)887-2211 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 • Nx`(208) 887-4813 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208)884-5533 Mr. Mark Kreizenbeck Microrama LLC c/o K-2 Construction 8555 W. Hackamore Drive Boise, ID 83709 Re: Best Western - S. Progress Meridian, Idaho h Dear Mr. Kreizenbeck: The above -referenced property is located in a C -G zone which permits hotels/motels. The project was reviewed by the Meridian City Council and approved for construction.' If you need additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF MERIDIAN J Shari Stiles P&Z Administrator a j' •A. yf�[ HCI Howard, Consultants, Inc. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists 7444 Lemhi Street, Boise, ID 83709 208-376-8200 Fax 208-376-8201 January 23, 1996 Project No. B2147-021 Mr. Ronald Nahas Rafanelli & Nahas One Bates Boulevard," Suite 200 Orinda, California 94563 RE: REPORT , Soil & Foundation Evaluation_ -Central_Valley Corporate Park No. 5 n;i` MeridiaIdiho:— T Dear Mr. Nahas: Howard Consultants, Inc. (HCI) has performed the authorized Soil and Foundation Evaluation for the proposed Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5 in Meridian, Idaho. The work was performed in accordance ; with our Revised Proposal dated December 6, 1995. This report summarizes the results of our field evaluation, and presents our geotechnicalengineering opinions and recommendations. Based on the field evaluation and subsequent analyses, it is our opinion that the site. is suitable for the proposed warehouse/commercial buildings and associated pavement areas provided the recommendations in this report are followed. t r Up to 5.0 feet of apparently uncontrolled, surficial fill was encountered adjacent to East Central Drive. Additionally, 0.5 to 1.5 feet of surficial fill was also encountered at the western end of the study area. We have provided recommendations in this report for remediation of these surficial fill areas. We recommend that the actual vertical and horizontal extent of the surficial fill areas be determined in the field before - construction, so they can be remediated consistent with the recommendations in this report in a timely manner. ` We recommend that HCI be retained to accomplish `a review of the earthwork, foundation, paving, and drainage portions of the plans and specifications prior to construction. A copy of this geotechnical report should be incorporated into the construction documents. We also recommend that HCI provide construction monitoring and testing services. i We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, H WARD CONSULT TS, C. } Wayne A. Herbel, P.E. S aff Engineer John W. Ingram III, P.E. i O / Project Engineer l' Daniel P. Gado, P.E. a JWI/tc 6560 Principal Of®p� O , L P; V J `# 5 t f' 5: 4 t }' 4 ilt 2 � �. m. r, . � i g. 3�Iy TABLE OF CONTENTS z , Page INTRODUCTION ....... .... 1. PROPOSEDYCONSTRUCTION ...... .............. ... .... 2" SITE DESCRIPTION .... ........ .. .............. ... `. 4 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ............... 15 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .......... ......... 6 Subsurface Soils .......... ....... .. 6 Ground Water ..:... ...... .................... 9 OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .... ........ 10 ........ General 1 .. .............. ...... 10 a. Bearing Soil ..................................... 10. ` Temporary. Excavation Support I' l l .................. Dewatering ........... .... .............. '12 ...... Utility Trench Backfill................................ 12 Earthwork 12 ....... Wet Weather Construction ............................. t� 14 Foundations ...... ............ ' .................... j 14 Loading Dock Retaining Wall Design ........................ .16 Surface Grading and Drainage ............................ 21 REVIEW°'OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ....................... 22 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND MONITORING .............. Y• 22 EVALUATION LIMITATIONS 1 „ .................. . .......... 23 3 1 s i ffi REPORT Soil & Foundation Evaluation Central Valley. Corporate Park No. 5 Meridian, Idaho INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our Soil and Foundation Evaluation for the t proposed Central Valley Corporate -Park No. •5 in Meridian, `Idaho. The approximate location of the proposed project is shown on Plate T, Vicinity Map. The limits of our study area for Corporate Park No. 5 are outlined on Plate 2, Site Plan. i 'The purpose of this evaluation was to assess;the subsurface conditions and to prepare wgeotechnical-engineering opinions and recommendations for the design and`constructi ofr `l building foundations, floor slabs, sidewalks, pavement areas, and grading and drainage! To a accomplish this evaluation, we performed the following scope of work 1. Contacted utility markout prior to the excavation of tes(pits. S 2. Obtained pertinent geologic- data° for geotechnical interpretation of the area, which included the site of the . proposed Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5. 3. Performed a subsurface evaluation by observing the excavation of twenty test pits using a rubber -tire backhoe. The soils encountered in the test pits were visually identified and logged by a geotechnical engineer: in accordance with y the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The in situ moistureland' A density of select soil layers _ was measured in the field using a nuclear; a Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists HCI u i Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 Page 2 densometer. Soil samples were obtained for further identificatioi and laboratory testing, which included Atterberg limits, in situ moisture content, i percent passing the No. 200 sieve, and Idaho R -value. The unconfined compressive strength of fine-grained, uncemented surficial soils was measured 1 in the field with a pocket penetrometer. The soil in situ moisture content and b dry density was measured in the field with a nuclear densometer at select locations. 4. Observation wells for monitoring the depth to the ground water tablewere 3 installed in Test Pits 1, 3, 12, 13, and 16. The location of the test pits; and observation wells are shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. Observation wells G were -located. in proposed stormwater disposal areas. ' 5. Performed analyses based on the data from Items 2 and 3 above, and prepared geotechnical opinions and recommendations. ' 6. Prepared this report. , PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand that the proposed development will consist of site ih provements for an area that is approximately 40 acres as shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. The site' improvements will include construction of approximately 2,500 lineal feet of paved roadways, stormwater seepage/infiltration at up to five locations, and installation of sanitary sewer and potable water lines to service the individual lots in the proposed commercial subdivision. We understand that an existing 8 -inch sanitary sewer line traversed the property from roughly east to west, and that the existing sanitary sewer line will be relocated into the HCI _ Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists d r 0 I J E I Central. Valley Corporatet Park Project No. 132147-021 Page 3 proposed street alignment. Sanitary, sewer lines will also be extended into both the, East Progress Court and East Nine Mile' Court cul-de-sacs. New potable water lines will be constructed beneath all of the proposed new roadway alignment. 3 We understand that the extreme western end of the project (Block 4, Lot 6) has already been developed. We understand that the existing motel located on Block 4, -Lot 6 will be expanded at some point in the near future. Additionally, two buildings are planned o to be constructed on the south-central portion of the proposed. subdivision (Block 4, Lots 10 through`15). The proposed buildings will have footprint areas of approximately 111,000 and 30,500 square feet, res ectivelY• The proposed buildings will be one to two story, commercial and/or retail buildings with wall loads of about 2 kips per lineal foot or less, and s a .column load's of about 50 .to 75 kips. Approximately 7.5 acres of parking and a paved � service corridor located immediately north of the two buildings are also planned. We understand that specific development plans for the eastern portion of the` site s (Block 2, Lot 14 and Block 4, Lots 16 through 24) are not known at this time. However, ° we anticipate 'that the development of the eastern portion of the site will be similar to that 4 of the south-central portion of the site (i.e. one to two-story commercial/retail buildings'with access roads and parking). k We anticipate that stormwater disposal for, the individual lots in both the south-central and eastern portions of the site will be accomplished by the installation of subsurface seepage Y pits that will be constructed for each separate building project. We understand that some, of the proposed commercial/retail buildings may have loading docks. ' K � HCI R Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists , , Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 Page 4 We understand- that the existing Eight Mile Lateral and Nine Mile Creek, which 4 -traversed the site in a roughly northwest/southeast direction, will not be relocated. Based on our review of the proposed street plans and profiles by , Hubble Engineering, we i understand that` earthwork (cuts and fills) for the roadway construction and individual lot development will generally not exceed about l foot of cutting or filling. However, up w 2 to 3 feet of fill is planned for roadway and embankment construction -adjacent to the Eight., Mile Lateral. All structural fill for roadway construction will be imported, pii-run sand`and gravel. ' SITE DESCRIPTION 1' 7 At the time of our field evaluation, the subject property was bounded on the south by Interstate 84, on the east by Nine Mile Creek, on the north by undeveloped agricultural land, and on the west by Meridian Road and developed commercial property. The ground surface was covered with annual vegetation with the exception of a portion of the site near the southern boundary and `the portion of the site east of the Ei ht Mile Lateral Canal which,, . g � _ t: had recently been plowed and had no vegetation on the surface. , At the time of our subsurface evaluation, an existing paved cul-de-sac was located- on ocated'on the south end: of South Progress Avenue near the northwest corner of the site. 1An { existing underground sanitary sewer line was located within a 20 -foot -wide easement, which i traversed the site from the South Progress Avenue cul-de-sac to East Corporate Drive near the northeast corner of the site. We understand that the sanitary sewer will be relocated into the proposed street alignment. I s, u j 1 jCl ~, Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Si Geologists" Mfr ,F a Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 " Page 5 The. Eight Mile LateralCanal bisected the site from the southeast corner of the site to near the middle of the northern boundary of the subject property. Based on our observations and the topographic survey provided by Hubble Engineering, Inc., the `western , x portion of the site sloped gently from east to west from the Eight Mile Lateral Canal] with - y an elevation change of approximately 11 feet. The northeastern portion of the site generally sloped toward the northeast with an Felevation change of approximately 6 feet from one side A to the other. An approximately 3-fo6t-high pile of fill soil was observed near the northeast corner of the site adjacent to East Central Drive. It appears that the fill was placed at this 1 i location during the construction of East Central Drive. V E . We understand that a residence may have been'located in the northeastern portion of the site before the, construction of East Central Drive. However, no trace of the residenceµ was observed during our field evaluation, a FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Twenty test pits were excavated at the site on December 14 and 15, 1995 with a rubber tire-mounted backhoe to a maximum depth of 14:0 feet. The approximate location s e of each test pit, is shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2. Plates 3 through. 22 present a log of each , f A ' test pit. Plate'23, USCS; should be used to interpret the"terms�on the,test pit logs'and in r this report. j 0 The soils encountered in each test pit were visually evaluated,"and the soil°`profiles were logged in the field by a geotechnical engineer in accordance- with the USCS. .Select r samples of the soil encountered were obtained for " further laboratory evaluation, which " included Atterberg limits, in situ moisture content, percent passing the No. 200 sieve, and f HCI'�,; Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists � ' 1 i, R Central Valley Corporate -Park - Project No. B2147-021 Page : 6 s Idaho R-value. All laboratory testing was accomplished in accordance with American Society, for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures. `The soil in situ moisture and density at select locations was measured in the field using a nuclear densometer. The unconfined compressive strength of the surficial, uncemented, fine-grained soils was measured in thee field with a-pocket penetrometer. The field and laboratory testing results are presented on: the corresponding test pit'logs. g , - y Observation, wells for measuring the depth to the ground water'table were installed in Test Pits 1 3,12, 13, and 16. Observation wells were located in proposed stormwater� disposalareas. At the conclusion*of our subsurface evaluation, all test pits were loosely backfilled even with the existing ground` surface: All of the test pit locations. were staked and=the- stakes were labeled. We recommend that all test pits be 'accurately located in the field by survey methods prior to construction. If any test' pit is located beneath a pavement or, building area, we recommend that the test pit be re-excavated and refilled with structurat fill in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. This procedure will help to, . minimize localized settlement. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS k Subsurface Soils The general soil profile I consisted of up to about 8.5 feet of thin layers of clay, silt a and fine 'sand overlying dense sand and gravel. The upper 1.0 to 2.0 feet of the surficial, fine-grained soil was silty clay. The underlying silt and fine sand showed various degrees, of cementation. Limited surficiaf fill was also observed at various locations. A more HCConsulting Geotechnical Engineers k Geologists k , L I {^ F Central Valley, Corporate Park . Project No. B2147-021 Page .7 detailed description of the subsurface conditions encountered at individual'test pit locations' .. is provided below. l The surficial soil at the site generally consisted of l to_ 2 feet of stiff to hard, brown, r silty clay or clayey silt. However, the upper 6 to 12 inches" was typically soft to firm Viand had a higher moisture content.. The soft clay' extended to a depth _of it .5 feet in Test Pits 8, 11, and 20, which were excavated on the south `edge` of the site and in the proposed East; o Nine Mile Court cul-de-sac, 'respectively. The ground surface at Test Pits 8, 11, 14,= 19, and -20 had recently been plowed. Roots and vegetation were generally only observed in' the upper 4 to 6 inches of the surface soils in -the eastern half of the site, as identified in Test Pits 8, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18. However, the topsoil layer was up to 10 to 12 inches thick ,in Test Pits 13 and 15. Atterberg limits testing. accomplished on the surficial, silty clay layer indicated 'that this layer generally had moderate 'plasticity. However, the Atterberg limits test results for a sample of the clay obtained from a depth of 1.5 feet in Test Pit 19; (which was excavated adjacent to the northeast edge of�the Eight Mile Lateral at approximately the property line between Lots 18'and 19), had a liquid limivoif 59%. Atterberg limits results of greater than 50 are indicative of moderate to high plasticity clay with high shrink/swell potential" with varying moisture 'content. Up to 1.5 -feet of surficial fill, that consisted primarily of sand and gravel with varying amounts of silt and clay, was encountered above, the native clay layer, in Block 4, - Lots 7, 9, and 10 (Test Pits 1, 2, and 5). Additionally, 5`feet of surficial, fine, sandy,]. silt fill was encountered in Test Pit 18, which was excavated on the property line between Lots' HO 3. HCI` -.. "Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists r 4 9 1 Central Valley Corporate Park Project No.. B2147-021 Page 8 ` a 23 and 24 approximately 50 feet south of East Central Drive. The sandy, silt fill was loose to medium dense, and the moisture content decreased from moist to damp with depth. 3 Beneath the surficial fill and/or native, silty clay was light brown to tan, medium dense to dense, sandy silt and/or silty sand. The moisture'content of this layer was variable, and ranged from dry to moist. The silt and clay content of this soil layer generally decreased with depth. This soil layer was generally 4 to 5 feet thick, however, the thickness r a of this layer decreased to as little as 1.0 to 2.5 feet thick in Test Pits 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10, l which were excavated primarily in the western portion of the site. The thickness of this h i layer was 2.5 feet in Test Pits 10 and 19, which were excavated in Block 4, Lots 14 and 20, respectively. This soil layer contained significant clay in Test Pits 11, 12, and 16. This soil` layer was generally weakly, to highly cemented. However, Test Pits 16 and 17, which were excavated in the northern half of Block 2, Lot 14, had limited uncemented zones. ..The uncemented zones were medium dense to dense. { , Beneath all of the previously described; fine-grained soil layers was light brown to tan, dense to very dense, sandy gravel or coarse to fine sand. The upper 6 to 12 inches of F the gravel layer in Test Pits 2, 4, 6, 8, and 14, which were excavated in the western and U southern portion of the site, contained varying amounts of silt and clay. The upper 6 to 12 inches of this gravel layer was also moderately to highly cemented. The top of the dense to very dense gravel/sand was encountered ata depth that ranged from 5.5 to 8.5 feet.. However, the depth to the top of the gravel was as shallow as 2.5 to 3.5 feet in Test Pits 2, 3, 5; and 10, which were excavated generally in the western portion of the site. The. depthwto the top of the clean gravel/sand at each of the test pit locations is presented on Plate 3 HCIConsulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists 1. Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. 132.147-021' Page �9 2, ;Site Plan. All of the test pits were terminated in .the clean, dense to very dense gravel/sand at a depth that ranged from 8 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface. I The moisture content of the gravel/sand layer ranged from damp to wet. 1 r , Ground Water A The depth to ground water was measured to be from about 7 to 8 feet below. the existing ground surface in the south portion of the site in Test Pits 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 11". Ground water was not encountered in any other test pits at the time of our study:,, i Significant staining and/or mottling, which would indicate the potential depth to the seasonal high ground water table, was not observed above the water table at the site. However; the:, depth to the seasonal high water table.could raise significantly above the elevations at which 7 ground water was encountered, since our test pits were excavated approximately two months after the end of the irrigation season. The actual' depth to the seasonal high ground water table at the site will vary depending on seasonal precipitation, and irrigation. The amount of rise in the water table will be much more significant within 100 to 200 feet of irrigation. 8 3 ditches, such as the Eight Mile Lateral. Observation wells were installed in Test Pits 1, 3, 12, 13, and 16 to a depth that ranged from 9.5 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface, F { at proposed stormwater disposal areas. The . depth to the ground water table could be monitored in the observation wells up to the time of construction to verify the actual depth to the ground water table at those locations. ,i HCI <„ Consulting Geotechnical Engines & Geologists E j_ r Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. 1321471021 Page 10 u� 1 , OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General r It, is our opinion that `the site is suitable for the proposed commercial/warehouse r a development. The recommendations contained in this report reflect our understanding of the Y location and configuration of the proposed buildings, associated pavement;areas, topography and subsurface conditions. If design plans change (e.g. structural loads or traffic patterns are significantly different from what we have been provided), or subsurface conditions between test pit locations vary significantly from" what was observed during our subsurface evaluation, we should be notified to review the report recommendations and make any necessary revisions. The report recommendations reflect a straight-line interpolation of the subsurface conditions between test pit locations. However, the soil and ground water, conditions may vary at the proposed site. The variation in soil/ground water conditions will not be known until construction, and may cause changes to construction plans and/or costs. 1 Bearing Soil We recommend that all of the uncontrolled, surficial fill, such as was encountered in. the upper 6 to 18 inches in Test Pits F and 2, and the upper 5 feet in Test Pit 18 be removed from all pavement, sidewalk, and building areas. Additionally, the upper 4.to 6 inches of the surficial clay and silt containing vegetation and roots should likewise be t strippedfrom all future.building, g, pavement, and sidewalk areas. The depth of stripping may have to be increased to 8 to 10 inches in areas that have been cultivated. All pavementand sidewalk areas could be supported on the underlying, exposed, native soils. Any t uncemented; soft to stiff, silt and clay with a pocket penetrometer reading of less than 2.0 HCIT ' Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists P Central Valley' Corporate' Park Project No. B2147-021! Y Page 11 R 3 tons per square foot (tsf) should be removed from beneath all bearing wall and column footings. Thus, bearing wall and column footings could bear on the exposed, native, :very k stiff to hard silt/clay, or the underlying, native, medium dense to dense, cemented silt/clay, A dense.to very dense sand/gravel, or structural -fill placed and compacted over these native soils .in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. However, specific site preparation procedures, as presented in the following sections, will need to be accomplished to maintain a stable subgrade. We recommend that all footing excavations be observed by HCl to verify that they. a , have been accomplished to the recommended bearing soil, that all of the surficial fill or topsoil has been' removed from building, pavement, and sidewalk areas, and that all bearing surfaces have been prepared in accordance with this report. Temporary Excavation Support_ 3 Temporaryexcavation support in the form, of steel or timber shoring or flattened side slopes with a maximum, slope of 1.5: 1 (horizontal to vertical) - should be provided for all excavations exceeding a depth of 5 feet. -Excavations in soils with no potential for cave-in and a depth of less than 5 feet 'can be constructed with vertical sides. Sloughing of granular soils could occur during the excavation, when ,the soils are dry, or if wetted during rain or snow periods. Appropriate precautions should be taken to protect workers from being injured by loose material falling into the excavation. All excavation and temporary support should be performed in accordance with applicable OSHA standards. 4 , 0 HCl :_<„ Consulting, Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists I i Central Valley Corporate: Park 3 ` Project No. B2147-021, Page 12 Dewatering a Grading of areas adjacent to excavations should be performed _ such that runoff is prevented from entering the excavation. Any groundwater or rainwater which does o accumulate in excavations should be removed with conventional gravel sumps and pumps,, K 1 before placing structural fill, foundations or utilities. Utility Trench Backfill All saturated, loose or disturbed soil should be removed from, the bottom of utility trenches, before placing pipe bedding. Backfill 'should be placed and compacted in utility y trenches in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. Bedding of pipes and r. utility trenches should be accomplished in accordance with the latest edition of the Idaho. - Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWQ. Earthwork • 3 We recommend that all of ,the. surficial,,uncontrolled fill and/or topsoil containing roots and vegetation be removed -from all future pavement, building, and sidewalk areas as described in the Bearing Soil section of this report. The existing surficial fill, such as was encountered in Test Pits 1, 2 and 18 could be reused as structural fill, provided .that it'does not contain roots, vegetation, or construction debris. The existing surficial fill that is reused as structuraffill should not be used as pavement kbase or subbase, and should not be used in other'areas subject to freeze/thaw cycles. Otherwise, the surficial soil stripped from the site containing roots and vegetation could be stockpiled and later used in landscape areas. After completing all of the stripping and fill removal operations, we recommend that } the exposed soil surface be proofrolled with a minimum of five passes of a smooth -drum F . a a HCT l .. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists a � 3 Central Valley Ci rporate.Park a Project No. B2147-021, Page 0 ' a roller with. a minimum drum weight"'of 5 tons operating in the static mode. If weaving (pumping) or unstable soils, are observed during the proofrolling operation, these unstable v soils should be removed to firm soil and replaced with structural fill: We recommend that HCI be retained to. observe the proofrolling operations to verify that all unstable soil has been removed and replaced as recommended. Observation of footing trenches and pavement /sidewalk subgrade is particularly important in the northeastern portion of the site where we believe a former residence was located. The _site of 'the'' former residence may confain a loosely backfilled basement, or an abandoned septic tank or' underground fuel tank(s), z a Additional soil, improvement may be required if these structures or any uncontrolled" fill; is µ P encountered during the grading operation. `t After stripping and proofrolling the site, structural fill will be required beneath all a building, sidewalk, and pavement areas. Structuial fill may also be required beneath some 1 , building footings, particularly where surficial fill has been removed. Granular structural fill should consist of soil classified as sand and/or gravel (GW, GP, GM, SW, SP, SM)`` as described on the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) on Plate 23. Granular structural r fill should have no more` than 10% passing the No. 200 sieve'and cobbles no larger than 6 inches in a size. j Structural fill should be placed to the>subgrade elevation in uniform, maximum, 12- inch -thick, loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 95 % of the maximum dry density of the soil, as determined by ASTM Test D.698 (Standard Proctor)`. 'This assumes that heavy- t compaction equipment such as smooth -drum, vibratory rollers with a minimum drum weight of 5 tons is used. The maximum loose lift thickness should be reduced to 8 inches where HCI<<., .Consulting Geotechnical Engineers Sr Geologists , l 1 a Central Valley Corporat � Park Project No. B2147 -02f Page 14 t r smaller and/or lighter compaction equipment, such as hoepacks or 1 -ton, walk -behind ACI compaction equipment is used. We recommend that HCI be retained to monitor fill compaction to verify contractor compliance with the project specifications. Wet Weather Construction We recommend that site construction be undertaken during dry weather conditions. t, If the site construction, particularly grading, is undertaken during wet periods of the year, the surficial clay/silt will be susceptible to pumping or rutting when subjected to heavy Iloads from rubber -tired equipment. or vehicles which exert a point load. Wet weather eartl work should be performed by low pressure, track -mounted equipment which spread and reduce the vehicle -load. Work should not be performed immediately after rainfall. All soft and @' a disturbed areas should be excavated to undisturbed soil and be backfilled with structural fill as described in the Earthwork section of this report. Assuming the soil is wet and soft but not disturbed, the initial. layer of fill placed over the native soil should be at least 12 inches in depth. Compaction of the fill should be sufficient to preclude pumping of the native soil. In summary, careful construction procedures are paramount to the successful grading operation if the surficial silt/clay is wet and soft. Consulting us prior to initiating this type of construction is recommended to maximize earthwork efficiency and achieve al stable subgrade. i Foundations t We recommend that conventional shallow foundations be used to support the proposed commercial/warehouse buildings. The following recommendations should be accomplished for all foundations: HCI71. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists Central Valley Corporate Park' Project No. B2147-021( Page 16 6. If the above recommendations are accomplished, then a maximum allowable' bearing value (ABV) of 3,000 psf could beused for the design of all food `s g g. bearing on the'recommended beaiingi soil, or structural fill placed over this soil in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. 7. If the above bearing `soil, earthwork and foundation recommendations, are accomplished, then we anticipate that total aid differential settlement will be 'less than 1.0 inch and 0:5 inch, respectively. Loading Dock Retaining"Wall Design Loading dock retaining walls should be designed using 3 the following crig, w,�teria: l C 1. For at -rest lateral earth pressure conditions (assuming the top of the wall does l not move during backfilling), use an equivalent fluid'p`ressure (Efi=FXP) equal to 55 pounds per`"cubic foot (pcf), assuming that the walls are backfilled with t granular structural fill. t 2. -For active laterafearth pressure conditions (assuming the top of the wall is'l allowed to move 1/8 to 1/4 inch during backfilling), use an EFP equal to 35 E pcf, assuming the wall is backfilled with granular structural fill. The following passive °resistance and friction criteria could be used for loading dock 1 wall design: u ; 1. Use' a passive "lateral`earth pressure of 300 pcf, assuming walls are backfilled ti withbgrahular structural fill. The passive lateral earth pressure is based fon a a reduced Kp"of 6.5`and total lateral movement of less than 0.25 inches. HCIConsulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists I 11 11 Central Valley Corporate Park ' Project No. B2147-021 Page I 2. Use a friction factor (tanS) of 0.35 .,for - walls, assuming footings are P constructed directly on the on-site; surficial silt/clay. I The above -recommended EFP's for retaining wall design are based on the use of granular structural fill as backfill, and that fully -drained conditions will be maintained throughout the life of the project. We recommend that weep holes be constructed 6 inches above the base of the wall for drainage. Lateral surcharge pressures due to equipment, 1 storage loads, etc. have not been included in the above lateral earth pressure recommendations. A lateral earth pressure coefficient of 0.5 could be used to estimate the y. lateral earth pressure induced on retaining walls due .to adjacent surcharge loads. The compaction of backfill within 5 feet of the retaining walls should be performed only with vibratory plates or walk -behind, smooth -drum, vibratory rollers to minimize surcharge loading of the walls. Floor Slabs, Sidewalk and Pavement Areas We recommend that the following preparation and construction procedures be used for all floor slab, sidewalk and pavement areas: 1. Afteruncontrolled, surficial fill removal, completion of stripping of the. topsoil with roots and cutting to the required subgrade, proofroll. the exposed, soil surface in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. 2. Grade .and compact structural fill to the required subgrade elevation; in { accordance with " the Earthwork `section of this report. h 4 a HCI Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 Page 18 z Place and compact 3/4 -inch -minus, crushed sand Wand gravel with no 'more :: s than,5 % passing the No. 200 sieve to a minimum compacted thickness of 4 inches in all floor slab, and sidewalk -ureas. The sand and gravel will act 8 a leveling course and help distribute point loads. Compact the base course 3 to a minimum -of 95 % of the maximum dry density of the soil in accordance with ASTM Test D 698 (Standard Proctor): r If additional moisture protection is required beneath slabs -on -grade, a,,6 -mil polyethylene vapor barrier could be used beneath the floor slabs to reduce the x migration -of moisture through therslabs.. The vapor barrier should be placed ,. 1 between layers of sand to help protect the barrier from puncture. a Provided the site preparation procedures, ` as presented above, are ' accomplished, the following pavement sections are recommended for South v Progress Avenue, the East Progress Court and East Nine Mile Court cul-de- sacs, the Access Roads/Loading-Unloading Areas for individual lots, and 'p ,Automobile Parking Areas, respectively: s ** South Progress Avenue: t' ■ 3" - Type 3 asphalt -concrete top course i ■ 4" = 3/4 -inch -minus, crushed sand and gravel base course ; ■ 8" - Pit -run, sand and gravel subbase course* ** East Progress-Court/East Nine Mile Court: ■ 3" - Type 3 asphalt concrete top course j ■ 4" - 3/4 -inch -minus, crushed sand and gravel base course ■ 6" - Pit -run, sand and gravel subbase course* e . 1 i` V 1 T HCLI., Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists * Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021= Page' 19 Access Roads/Loading-Unloading .Areas: 3" - Type 3 asphalt concrete top course ■ 4" 3/4 -inch -minus, crushed sand and gravel base course ■ 15" - Pit -run, -sand and gravel subbase course* , Automobile Parking Areas: ■ 2" - Type 3 asphalt concrete top course 4" - 3/4 -inch -minus, crushed sand and gravel base course ■' 6" - Pit -run, sand and gravel subbase course* The subbase course is not required in those areas where granular structural fill has been placed to at least the same thickness as "the required subbase course.in accordance with the Earthwork section of this report. The subbase thickness is based on having a pavement subgrade that consists of non -plastic sandy silt. The subbase thickness should be increased by 12 inches where the pavement subgrade consists of silty clay. However, over- excavation need not extend into the underlying non -plastic silt if -it is encountered before over -excavation reaches its maximum 12 -inch depth. We recommend that HCI be retained to observe all exposed pavement subgrade throughout the entire project s to verify that all of the silty clay has been removed from pavement areas. where the above -recommended subbase thickness is used. The above recommended pavement, sections are based on an assumed . 20 -year pavement design life and the following assumed traffic volumes: 1. South. Progress Avenue: TI = 8 , t c 2. East Progress Court/East Nine`Mile Court: TI = 7 Al ¢. 3. Access Drives and Loading/Unloading Areas: TI = 6:5 Subgrade 'support for South Progress Avenue and the two.cul-de-sacs_ ' ;1 is based on an estimated R -value of 50 for non' -plastic sandy silt. The pavement section for the access roads and loading' unloading areas { for individual lots is based on a subgrade R -value of 5, ' since we anticipate HCI . Consulting Geotechnical Engineers ,& Geologists . a e Central Valley Corporate ,Park Project No.. B2147--621 Page 20 x a that they wilPbe constructed directly on the surficial silty clay. The surficial, silty .clay has a much lower R -value than the underlying, non -plastic, `sandy' silt, which had `a tested R=value of 78. Therefore, we recommend that HCI be retained to review the grading plans of the individual lots to verify actual cut and fill thicknesses. This -will allow us to adjust the actual pavement ; �a t subbase thickness to match the actual subgrade soil for each lot. The subbase ` F thickness, provided above for the access roads/loading-unloading areas for individual lots maybe decreased if the actual pavement subgrade is the non- ' plastic, sandy silt. The pavement subgrade soil should also be verified by HCI during construction on each individual lot.. �3 The above automobile parking -area pavement -section, assumes. that, 1 only, automobiles and light trucks, such as pick-up trucks and vans, would be 1 operating in the automobile parking areas. We' recommend that crack maintenance be -accomplished every three to five years to minimize the potential for surface water infiltration into the underlying, clay/silt subgrade. l w The subbase should consist of 6=inch-minus, well -graded sand and gravel with less than 10% passing the No. 200 sieve. The subbase should be , compacted as outlined for structural fill in the Earthwork -section of this a report. i The base course should consist of 3/4 -inch -minus, well -graded`,. crushed sand and gravel with less than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve. 'The, HCI-:1. Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists . r 1 Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 Page 21 base course should 'be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum dry density of the soil per ASTM Test D 698 (Standard Proctor). • r The asphalt concrete should have material properties as specified in ASTM Test D 3515 and have a mix design with a maximum aggregate size between 3/4r and 3/8 inch. The asphalt concrete should be compacted -to at 3 least 95% of the Marshall density for the mix design. Surface Grading and Drainage ,m Site grading, including grading of all sidewalks and landscaped areas, should `slope y a minimum of 2 % away from the proposed buildings to prevent ponding and to direct surface runoff away from the area. All runoff from downspouts, roof areas, paved areas, 1 landscaped areas and other large volumes of stormwater should be directed away from the r � proposed structures, and not be allowed to infiltrate the soil beneath paved areas or footings. All drainage should be directed to an approved discharge and/or collection facility. d We recommend that all seepage trenches be excavated a minimum of 1.0E fooVinto the underlying, uncemented, clean, sand or gravel located between 3.0 and 8.5 feet below the existing ground surface at "the site. The depth to the'top of the uncemented, clean, " sand/gravel at each test pit location is presented on the Site Plan, Plate 2. A percolation rate of 20 inches per hour (3 minutes per inch) could be used for the clean, sand/gravel., The open seepage trench should then be backfill with a suitable filter medium as required by the prevailing regulatory requirements. The ground water table was encountered in Test Pits 1, 2, 5, 6, and 11 at between about 7 and 8 feet below the existing ground surface. It is r , ru HCI <... Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists 1 4 .1 . i l I ° Central Valley Corporate Park k Project No. B2147-021 Page 22 ' 3 our opinion that the depth to the seasonal high ground water table will fluctuate depending ' on seasonal irrigation and precipitation. , Observation wells were installed in Test Pits 1, 3, 12, 13, and 16, 'and the actual depth to ground water at these locations could be monitored throughout the irrigation season s , to assist with the design of the stormwater disposal system. The observation wells ;were 1 located at proposed stormwater disposal locations. f REVIEW OF PLANS -AND SPECIFICATIONS We recommend that. HCI review the final plans and specifications for the site , improvements and development of each individual lot prior to issuance of the construction 'documents for bidding. It has''been our experience that having the consultants from the x design team review the construction documents prior to bidding minimizes the potential for 3 errors, and also reduces costly changes to the contract during construction. HCL. will provide review of . the documents on a "time and expense basis. CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS AND MONITORING r � It is our opinion that the success of the proposed construction will be dependent on l following the report recommendations, good construction practices and providing the +necessary construction monitoring,'testing and consultation to verify that the work lids, 0=11 i. completed, as recommended. We recommend that Howard Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide monitoring, testing and consultation services to verify that ,the re-port recommendations are being followed. If we are not retained to perform; the recommended services, ,we cannot be responsible for soil engineering -related construction errors or;- ' HC1;:<,., Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists Y Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 Page 23 f: > omissions. The recommended services arenot included in this evaluation and would be billed on a time and expense basis. S EVALUATION LMTATIONS This report has.been prepared to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site of the Se proposed Central Valley' Corporate Park No. 5 in Meridian, Idaho. Our services consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted, geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This acknowledgement is in lieu of all warranties either expressed or implied. The following plates accompany and complete this report: g Plate .l: Vicinity Map. a Plate 2: Site Plan y, Plate 3-22: Exploratory Test Pit Logs Plate -23: Unified Soil Classification System , i a 4 4 1 s 3 � 1 �* j iC1 Consulting Geotechnical Engineers & Geologists ... .. ....... . ..... . L ... ........ ...... .... ... I, JIF CLA, .... an ve, .. to* CARM C It— z YOST A s CA IOL FAIRVIEW TE !SEA AVE ME I IA _@Aat El AVE --- ----- . .. . . . ... ... ................... A 'AVE. 31 34 R.A. ct AVE k4prar PL cr. a CT (No Sdale) 1J A s E C!L _. 5 44 Ov 7 --- ------ --------- . .... . .---------.. .. ...... ..... .. OR L2Wg=s cT neg ....... Ref.: S "g" MW &onV=y, 1993 - VICINITY MAP HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. -Project No. 02147-021 PLATE 1 x r 1 Y y C O H`O ,O lO 01 O Z C. OI O1 m c cn a a yN C V 3IM } yC-AN W u� N v a°a a^` ; a om F 1 ^ C V v O 0 C` m d « N uj viz a E, E• Lo E n o y o o :z N 3d ' y k d K d m_C r�.ii mY O • a a ww^ o 1-a w U? x .,tet cY Q CL CL 3° 3 O a ern u a •• V 1 �•O y e 2 �~ i 4 BhNO QIQaLVWH ,[90Li 0 Ol aAhm l v ... _ .... _ 1.. U y of ki cL r ow" ro ` -- R I j m /O W CL � � 9 b U F y aa.n � s a W a 0 z 0 W c m W t 0 is . i EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #1. a Central Vall' e Co o t P k HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. 3 PLATE 3 , . J rp ra a ar Project No. B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL ` SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 1.5 SM Silty, fine to medium SAND (Fill) - brown, medium dense, moist, some 'clay and some gravel, dry density = 95.4 pcf, ' moisture content = 23.3 % .. CL r Silty CLAY (Native)" - brown, very stiff, damp' tomoist, dry' density = 106.0 pcf, moisture content = 18.7%. 4.5 -5.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - tan, medium dense, damp to moist, moderately to highly cemented. 5.5-7.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - tan, medium- dense, damp to moist, some gravel, moderately cemented. 9 7.5- 13.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy RAVEL - light brown, very dense, wet. . t . i a— F 7 Excavated on December 14, 1995. ; Ground water encountered at 8.0 feet. j Test pit terminated at 13.0 feet below existing ground level. Sample taken at 3.0 feet. Bulk sample taken a 3.5 feet. Observation well set to 13.0 feet. Logged by: WAH r HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. 3 PLATE 3 , . W 4 ,o Z 0 W } CC m W W F - Q 0 } M W Y U UJ M U PLATE 4 1 s EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #2 Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL E (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION , 0.0-0.5 SC Clayey, fine to coarse SAND (Fill) - brown, medium dense, moist, with gravel and some cobbles, < 1 -inch -thick layer vegetation at 0.5 feet. , 0.5- 1.5 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, stiff, damp, pocket penetrometer = 1.0 to 2.0 tsf.. 1.5 - 2.5 ML Clayey SILT - light brown, very stiff, dry, with gravel, weakly cemented. 2.5 - 3.0 GM Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, dry'to damp, with some silt and clay, dry density = 117.6 pcf, moisture content = 6.1%.' r 3.0-9.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, damp. 9 f C Excavated on December 14, 1995. Ground water' encountered at 6.75 feet:. Test pit terminated at 9.O feet below existing ground level. Logged by: WAH HCI Howard Consultantk; Inc. PLATE 4 1 W J ' k • i � EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #3. Central Valley Corporate Park Project No., B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL l` (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION r A 5 r � 0.0 - 1.25 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, stiff, moist, trace fine -sand, pocket penetrometer = 1.0 to 1.5 tsf. 1.25 - 3.5 ML Fine, sandy SILT:- tan, medium dense, dry, moderately to highly cemented. 3.5 14.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL light brown, denser to very dense, damp. 3 i a l Excavated on December 14, 1995. No ground water encountered. Tesrpit terminated at 14.0 feei'below existing ground level. Bulk sample taken at 0.5 feet Observation well set to 14.0 feet - y Logged by. WAH HCI'- 4 Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 5 W z 0 W} X=m Uj J w Q i PLATE 6 (� a EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #4 Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 , DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS j a DESCRIPTION 1 i 0.0 - 1.0 CL a. J Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, stiff to hard, damp to moist, at 0.5 feet pocket penetrometer = 1.0 tsf, . from 0.5 to 1.0 foot pocket penetrometer >4.5 tsf, liquid limit = 45%, plasticity index = 25%. 25%. { 1.0-2.5 ML Fine, sandy SILT - tan, medium dense, dry to damp, moderately to highly cemented. 2.5-.5.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - brown/tan mottled, medium dense, damp to moist, weakly cemented. Moisture content = 19.7 %,1 percent passing the No. 200 sieve = 29.4%. 5.5 - 6.0 GM Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, damp, some silt. 6.0 - 10.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, damp. r P i t 1 a t Excavated "on December 14, 1995. No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing ground level. A Samples taken at 0.5 and 3.5 feet. Logged by: -WAH a 3 HCHoward Consultants, Inc. A PLATE 6 (� LU a 0 U) Z O uj mm 1 i F t r ! EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #5 f Central Valley Corporate Park x Project' No. B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL f. (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 2" CL Silty CLAY (Fill) brown, stiff, damp to moist, some,gravel. 2 - 1.0- CL. Silty CLAY (Native) brown, very stiff to hard, damp to moist, pocket,penetrometer = 3.5 to 4.5 tsf. 1.0- 3.5 ML Fine, sandy SILT -tan, medium dense, damp to moist, moderately to highly cemented. 3.5-9.0 GP Fine to coarse sandy'GRAVEL - light brown to tan, dense, damp to moist, wet at 7.5 feet. r J f Excavated on December 14, 1995. Ground water encountered at 7.5 feet: . Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing ground level. a Logged by: WAH HCI ' Howard Consultants, Irc.' PLATE 7. F: ; a t e'• EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #6 i r Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 , ➢ 1 t;. DEPTH "SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION a 3 ;d.O - 2.5 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - Brown, very stiff, moist, dry density 91.5 pcf, moisture content, _= 22.2%, liquid limit '— 34%, 4 plasticity index = 17%, R -value '<5. ' a 2.5 -5.0 '_SM Silty, fine to medium SAND - brown/tan' mottled, 'dense, moist weakly to moderately cemented, trace gravel. 5.0 - 6.0 GM Fine to medium, sandy Q RAVEL - light brown, dense, damp to moist, some silt,, moderately cemented. 6:0 - 11.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, very dense; .moist to wet, some cobbles. I �. . i 9 , F w Excavated on December 14, 1995. t Ground water encountered at 7.0 feet. Test pit' terminated at 11.0 feet below existing ground level. Sample taken -at 2.0 and 3.5 feet Bulk sample taken at 1.0 feet. Logged by: WAH HCI \ L: Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 8 C) W U EXPLORATORY TEST PIT, LOG #7 iV Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS' DESCRIPTION' 0.0-1.0 ML Clayey SILT '(Native) - brown, stiff, moist, pocket penetrometer 1.0 to 2.0 tsf. 1.0-3.0 SM Silty, fine SAND - tan, medium dense to dense, dry to da'mp, some coarse sand, moderately to highly cemented... 3.0-4.0 SM Fine to coarse SAND'- light brown to tan, dense, damp, some silt' some gravel, weakly cemented. 4.0-9.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown to tan, dens6, damp, some cobbles. ltxcavated on December 44, 1995. No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing ground leviel. Logged by: WAH HCI Howard Consultafits,.Ihc. PLATE 9 W Z 0 W } Crm W W F - Q i i l EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #8 Central Valley Corporate Park ti Project No. B2147-021 Excavated on December 14, 1995. ko ground water encountered. ' Test pit terminated 'at 8.0 feet below existing ground level (caving, water). Sample taken at 0.5 feet. Logged by: WAH HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. a PLATE 10 h DEPTH SOIL :. SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION `0.0 - 1.5 CL i Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, soft to firm, moist, roots and vegetation top 6 inches, pocket penetrometer = 0.5 tsf. Upper 8.0 inches recently plowed. ' � g J.5-3.5- ML Fine, sandy SILT. - tan to light brown, medium dense, moist, weakly cemented. 73.5 - 6.0 SM ti Silty, fine SAND - tan, 'medium dense, moist, moderately to highly'cemented, trace to some gravel, gravel increases with depth. 6.0-6.5 GM Silty, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense to very dens e, damp to moist; moderately cemented. , 6:5-8.6 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light ' brown, dense to very dense, moist. ! o 3} a Excavated on December 14, 1995. ko ground water encountered. ' Test pit terminated 'at 8.0 feet below existing ground level (caving, water). Sample taken at 0.5 feet. Logged by: WAH HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. a PLATE 10 LU a 0 Z 0 > Ui CC m W J EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #9' Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021. DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION•' 0.0 - 1.0 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, stiff, moist, pocket penetrometer 1.0 to 1.5 tsf. i 1.0-4.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - tan, medium dense, damp, some coarse sand, weakly cemented to 2.0 feet, `moderately to highly cemented to 4.5 feet; dry density = 74.6 pcf, moisture content = 21.8%, R -value = 78. M , 4.576.5 SM Silty, fine SAND,' brown/tan mottled, medium dense, damp to moist, weakly cemented. 6.5- 10.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, ,damp to moist. 1 s . a Excavated. on December 14, 1995. No ground water encountered.., + Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing ground level. Samples taken at 1.5 and 5.5 feet. Bulk sample taken at 2.5 feet. Logged by. WAH a HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 11 is W W a 0 r m 0 W Y U m U n � EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #10 Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION g 0.0 - 1.0 ML Clayey SILT, (Native) - brown, firm, moist. 1.0-3.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - tan, medium dense, dry to damp, highly cemented. A 3.5 -11.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, damp. 3 Excavated on December 14, 1995. ko ground water -encountered. 1 Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing ground level. Logged by: WAH F HCIF Howard Consultants, Lnc. PLATE 12L w Q 0 W Z 0 LU }. crm W j. A ' 1 3 EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #11' Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 A r DEPTH SOIL SOIL 3 (feet) CLASSDESCRIPTION r 0.0 - 15. ML Clayey SILT '(Native) - brown, soft, moist, upper 8 inches recently plowed. 1.5 -5.5 ML SILT - light brown; hard, moist, some clay, weakly cemented, dry - density = 92.5 pcf, moisture -content = 23.6%. 5.5 -6.5 SM `Silty-, fine SAND,- light brown, medium dense, moist, moderately L to highly cemented. o 6.5--9.5 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - dight brown, dense, wet. ,YY a . f v 1. Excavated on December 14, 1995. Ground "water encountered at Z o feet. .. Test pit terminated at 9.5 feet below existing ground level. Sample taken'.at 0, 5 feet. Logged by: WAH -, HCI Howard Consultanisjnc. PLATE 13 W -j- LU A Project, No. B21417-021 DEPTH SOIL w.SOIL (feet) CLASS U) z 0.0-1.5 CL 0 1.0 to 1.25 tsf, roots and vegetation top 2 inches., In Fine, sandy SILT - light brown to tan, stiff to very. stiff, moist, Uj some clay, weakly to moderately cemented. LU Silty, fine SAND - light brown/tan moiiled, medium dense, damp, X ca W -j- ILI t EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #12 Central Valley Corporate Park A Project, No. B21417-021 DEPTH SOIL w.SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0-1.5 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, stiff, moist, pocket penetrometer 1.0 to 1.25 tsf, roots and vegetation top 2 inches., O Fine, sandy SILT - light brown to tan, stiff to very. stiff, moist, Uj some clay, weakly to moderately cemented. 15 -5.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - light brown/tan moiiled, medium dense, damp, Uj to moist,, moderately to highly, cemented. S.5- 11.5 GP� cc ILI t EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #12 Excavated on December 14, 1995. i lo ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet below existing ground level. Observation well set to 11.5 feet Logged by: WAH Howaron�utants, Inc. HCI 4d ClI1 PLATE 14 Central Valley Corporate Park A Project, No. B21417-021 DEPTH SOIL w.SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0-1.5 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, stiff, moist, pocket penetrometer 1.0 to 1.25 tsf, roots and vegetation top 2 inches., 1.5-3.5 ML Fine, sandy SILT - light brown to tan, stiff to very. stiff, moist, some clay, weakly to moderately cemented. 15 -5.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - light brown/tan moiiled, medium dense, damp, to moist,, moderately to highly, cemented. S.5- 11.5 GP� Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, moist, some cobbles. Excavated on December 14, 1995. i lo ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 11.5 feet below existing ground level. Observation well set to 11.5 feet Logged by: WAH Howaron�utants, Inc. HCI 4d ClI1 PLATE 14 w c 0 U) z 0 In LU a: co W J W Q 0 } m. 0 w U LU (n U , EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #13 Central Valley Corporate Park' Excavated on December 15, 1995 No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at "12.0 feet below existing ground level. Sample taken at 2.0 and 6.0 feet. Observation well set to 12.0 feet: &?gged by: WAH HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 15 J c €k Project No: B2147-021 �F • SOIL r a t- (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION ; w { 0.0 - 1.5 CL Excavated on December 15, 1995 No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at "12.0 feet below existing ground level. Sample taken at 2.0 and 6.0 feet. Observation well set to 12.0 feet: &?gged by: WAH HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 15 J c €k Project No: B2147-021 P DEPTH SOIL SOIL r a t- (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION ; 0.0 - 1.5 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, stiff, moist; pocket penetrometer = 1.0 tsf,;roots and vegetation in upper 8 to 10 inches. ' 1.5 - 2.5 ML Clayey SILT - light brown, . stiff to very stiff, moist, some fine k sand, pocket penetrometer = 1.5 to 2.5 tsf, moisture content . =. 36.2%. - 2.5-5.0 SM Silty, fine SAND - tan, medium dense, moist, moderately 'to highly cemented. 5.0 = 7.5 SM Fine SAND - light brown, dense, damp to moist, some medium to coarse sand, some silt, weakly cemented. r Y 7.5-9.5 GP Fine to coarse, sandy, GRAVEL - light brown to'tan, dense, damp to moist, some cobbles. ' 9.5- 12.0 SP i- Fine to coarse SAND - light brown to 'tan, dense, damp to moist, some gravel. Excavated on December 15, 1995 No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at "12.0 feet below existing ground level. Sample taken at 2.0 and 6.0 feet. Observation well set to 12.0 feet: &?gged by: WAH HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 15 J c €k w J LU Q m a LU Y V LU co 0 EXPLORATORY TEST PIT ' LOG #14 Excavated on December 15, 1995. No ground water encountered. f Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing ground level. e a Logged by: WAH HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 16 "' Central Valley Corporate Park ;i Project No. B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL - I (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION { 0.0 - 1.5 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, soft (from 0.0 to 1.0 foot), moist, stiff from 1.0 to 1.5 feet (pocket penetrometer '= 1.25 tsf). Upper 8.0 inches" recently plowed. 1.5.- 6:0k,ML Fine, sandy -SILT - light brown to tan, medium dense, ,damp to " moist, moderately to highly cemented. r 6.0-7.0 GM Silty, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, damp, moderately to f highly cemented. F 7.0- 10.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown to tan, dense'to very dense, damp, some cobbles. x >1 Excavated on December 15, 1995. No ground water encountered. f Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below existing ground level. e a Logged by: WAH HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 16 "' LU Z 0 In W a: co LU _J V EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #15 Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS 'DESCRIPTION 0.0- 1.0 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, soff, moist -(freshly plowed) roots and vegetation top' 12 inches. 1.0 - 2.0 'CL Silty CLAY - brown, hard, damp to moist, pocket penetrometer 4.5 tsf,' moisture content 2 1. 0 %. 2.0-4.0 SM Silty; fine SAND - light brown, medium dense, damp to moist, weakly demented. 4.0'- 5.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - tan, medium dense, damp, highly cemented. 51.5-8.5 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL light brown, dense,,to very dense, damp`. Excavated on December 15, 1995. No ground water encountered'. T&t pit" terminated at 8.5 feet below existing ground level. Sample taken at 1.5 and 3.0 feet. Logged by: WAH HCI -4 Howard Consulta'riis, Inc. PLATE 17 w Q 0 V) Z 0 In w (r ca w r Q 0 m 0 w Y U L" m U S 9 q 5 3 Excavated on December 15, 1995. No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet, below existing ground, level. . Sample taken at 2.0 feet. Observation well set to 10.0 feet. Logged by. WAH HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. n PLATE 18 `' 9 , EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #16 Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION r 0.0- 1.5 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown; very stiff, damp to moist, pocket penetrometer = 3.0 to 2.5 tsf; dry density = 89.3 pcf, moisture content = 26.8%. a 1.5-3.0 r ML Fine, sandy SILT - light brown, stiff, `moist, some clay) weakly 14 cemented, pocket penetrometer = 1.0 to 1.5 tsf, dry density = 75.3 pcf, moisture content = 31.8%, percent passing the No. 260 sieve = 59.0%, liquid limit = 41%, plasticity index = 13%. 3.0-4.5 ML Fine, sandy SILT --light brown, medium dense, moist. 4:5 - 6.0 SM Silty, fine SAND ° - brown/tan mottled, medium dense, moist, moderately to highly cemented. 6.0- 10.0 GP Fine`to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown,: dense, moi1 st, with some cobbles. ` 9 q 5 3 Excavated on December 15, 1995. No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet, below existing ground, level. . Sample taken at 2.0 feet. Observation well set to 10.0 feet. Logged by. WAH HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. n PLATE 18 `' W Q� 0 z 0 9 cc m W J LU a 0 m 0 LU Y V LU m U 1 i EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #17 $ j HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 19 r Central Valley Corporate Park i 4. Project No. ,B2147-021 a* a VI DEPTH SOIL SOIL ti (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION t 0.0-2.0- CL Silty CLAY (Native) =brown, stiff, moist, roots and vegetation top 4 -inches, pocket penetrometer = 1.0 to 1.5 tsf, dry density —:'90.9 pcf, moisture content = 23.9%. 2.0-5.5 ML k Fine, sandy SILT - light brown to tan, medium dense, 'damp to moist, moderately to highly cemented. 5.5-7.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - light brown, medium. dense to dense, damp, weakly cemented. 7.5P- 8.5 SM Silty, fine SAND. - light brown, medium dense to dense, damp. 8.5-.10.0 SP Fine to medium SAND - light brown, medium dense, damp, -some coarse sand, trace gravel. i F F .e 4 l Excavated on December 15, 1995. No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 10.0 feet below 'existing ground level. Logged by: WAH 9 $ j HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 19 r Cn Z 0 W M M EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #18 Central Valley Corporate Park Project No.. B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION f 0.0 - 5.0 ML Fine7, sandy SILT (Fill) light brown ,td tan, loose to'medium dense, moist to 1 '5 feet, damp, to 5.0 feet, with highly cemented pieces (broken up caliche), roots and vegetation top 4 inches, some vegetation at 5.0 feet. 5.0 - 6.'0 ML Fine, sandy SILT (Native) - light brown, medium dense to d6nse, damp, weakly cemented. 6.0-7.5 SM Silty, fine :SAND - light brown, medium dense, damp, highly cemented. 1.'5 - 9.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown; dense, damp.' Excavatid on December 15, 1995., No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing ground level. Logged by: WAH HC Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 20, w J w F— a 0 m 0 w Y U w m U s PLATE 21., k T g EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #19 Central Valley Corporate Park Project. No. B2147-021 { DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0-1.0 CL Silty CLAY {Native) - brown, soft, moist, upper $inches recently plowed. m 1.0-2.0 CH Fine, sandy CLAY - light brown, very stiff to hard, damp, to moist, moisture, content = 22.1 %, percent passing the No. 200 sieve = 53.7%, liquid limit = 59%, plasticity index = 35 %.. 2.0-4.5 SM Silty, fine SAND - tan, dense, damp, highly cemented. 4.5 - 8.5 GP Fine''.to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense Ito very dense, damp. j r .a A • • a ti ^f 1 A � 4 m Excavated on December 15, 1995. F No ground water encountered. v ; Test pit terminated at &5,feet below existing6ground level. Sample taken at 1.5 feet: Bulk sample taken at 7.0 feet. Logged by,.-, WAH HCI =- Howard Consultants, Inc. s PLATE 21., k `LU a 0 z 0 > W } cr_ m W J EXPLORATORY TEST PIT. LOG #20 , -f Central Valley Corporate Park Project No. B2147=021 3 `DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION { 0.0-1.5 CL Silty CLAY (Native) - brown, soft, moist to wet, upper 8 inches 3 recently plowed. 1.5,-4.0 SM Silty, fine SAND - tan, medium dense, damp, trace clay, highly cemented. 3 Y 4.0-6.0 SM Silty, fine to coarse SAND - light brown, dense, damp, weaklyto moderately cemented, trace gravel. 6.0-9.0- GP Fine to coarse SAND - light brown; dense, damp, some cobbles. . a ry r i i 3 w Excavated on December 15, 1995. No ground water encountered. Test pit terminated at 9.0 feet below existing ground level. 1 E Logged "by: ,WAFT N E HCI Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 221 I•. LU w Q 0 } m 0 W Y U LU on U I MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL. 4 TYPICAL NAMES GW Well -Graded Gravel, CLEAN Gravel -Sand Mixtures. GRAVELS GP Poorly -Graded Gravel, Gravel -Sand Mixtures. GRAVELS GM" Silty Gravel, Gravel -- GRAVELS Sand-Silt.Mixtures.t WITH FINES GC Clayey Gravel, Gravel- COARSE Sand -Clay Mixtures -4.. GRAINED SOILS SW Well -Graded Sand, CLEAN SANDS Gravelly Sand.; 'SP Poorly-Graded`Sand, Gravelly Sand. SANDS SM Silty Sand, SANDS Sand -Silt Mixtures. 'WITH FINES SC Clayey Sand,' Sand -Clay Mixtures. ML Inorganic Silt, Silty or Clayey Fine Sand. SILTS AND CLAYS Inorganic Clay of Low LIQUID LIMIT CL to Medium Plasticity', o LESS THAN 50o Sandy or Silty Clay.; OL Organic Silt and -Clay FINE of Low..Plasticity. GRAINED SOILS Inorganic Silt, Mica - g MH ceous Silt, Fine Sand SILTS AND CLAYS or Silt, Elastic Silt. LIQUID LIMIT CH Inorganic Clay of High GREATER THAN 50% Plasticity, Fat Clay,. OH Organic Clay of Medium to High Plasticity.! Highly Organic Soils. PT Peat, Muck and Other Highly Organic Soils. t 4 f UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 3 ASTM D-2487, Standard Classification of'Soils w For Engineering Purposes HCI 'y Howard Consultants, Inc. PLATE 23 . # r LU Q Cn z 0 W ,. a: m W a i EXPLORATORY TEST PIT LOG #1A x Y Central Valley Corporate Park a Project No. -B2147-021 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0 - 1.0 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL (Fill) - light brown, medium dense, moist. A 1.0 - 2.5' CL, CLAY (Native)- brown, very stiff, damp to moist, trace gravel, pocket penetrometer = 2.5 to 3.0 tsf. 1' 2.5-5.5 ML Fine, sandy SILT - light brown, stiff to. very stiff, damp;'to moist, some clay, weakly to moderately cemented. 5.5-6.5 GM Silty, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, damp to moist. '6.5 - 9.5 GP Fine to coarse, sandy GRAVEL - light brown, dense, moist to wet, some cobbles. °9.5 - 12.5 SP Fine to coarse SAND - light brown to orange, dense, wet, with some gravel and thin lense of fine sand. m Note: This was not included in the report since it was excavated outside the study area. It has been saved for future -reference. :Excavated on December 14, 1995. 'Ground ,water. encountered at 7.5 feet. Test pit terminated at 12.5 feet below existing ground level. . Samples taken at 1.5, 3.5, 11.0, and 12.0 feet. Logged by: WAH HCI Howard Consulfants, Inc. PLATE, PRCc Central`Valley Corporate Park /�e•s�`' Traffic Circulation Analysis , yR FUNK�� , Introduction Y Bell -Walker Engineers, Inc., was retained to prepare a preliminary traffic circulation analysis for a proposed commercial and light industrial development (Central Valley j Corporate Park) in Meridian near. East 1st Street and Meridian Road. Figure 1 shows the t site location. " The purpose' of this study is to make recommendations for the roadways in the business park adjacent intersections: t `East 1st Street and Central Valley Drive, , •' Central Valley Drive and Progress Avenue, 9 ,Progress Avenue and°Corporate Drive, and i. • East1st Street and Corporate Drive., This analysis will provide a basis for a potential future traffic impact study. , j Existing Conditions , Central Valley Corporate Park is accessible from East 1st Street via Central Valley; � l i Drive and Corporate Drive, and from Franklin Road via Stratford Drive (Figure 2). Centrale Valley Drive and Corporate Drive, both east -west roadways with parking allowed on both' sides, are 60 feet and. 40 feet wide respectively. Progress Avenue is a,40 feet wide north - south roadway with parking allowed on both sides. Stratford Drive is a 40 feet wide north- south'roadway connecting to Franklin Road. Traffic counts were taken in 1992 at the intersections of 1st Street/Corporate Drive, and' 1st Street/Central Valley Drive. These counts were increased 2% per year to estimate a � c build -out (year 2015) turning movements. i e Trip Generation and Traffic Assignment Additional traffic from Central Valley Corporate Park was modelled assuming t e I industrial and commercial uses as shown in Table 1. The building area is estimated to be 37% of. the available land area. The table does not include existing developments in the Park such as Mc Donalds, Pizza Hut, etc., since traffic from existing uses is included in current traffic, volumes. The tripgeneration shown for Computrol is for the proposed expansion only. The distribution of site traffic in Central Valley Corporate Park for the year 2015 is shown on Figure 3. Traffic Circulation As shown in Figure 3, most of the traffic from the warehouse foodstore, the discount department store, and the wholesale sports store uses Progress Avenue and Central Valley' Drive to access 1st Street: Traffic generated by Ight industrial/office complexes north and east of Computrol accesses 1st Street from Corporate Drive. Only 6 % of the site generated traffic uses Stratford Drive to access Franklin Road. Central Valley Drive and Corporate Drive carry the rest of the traffic. Appendix" -A contains the build -out turning movements at the intersections of 4st, , Street/Central Valley Drive, 1st Street/Corporate Drive, Progress Avenue/Corporate Drive, I f and :Central Valley Drive/Progress Avenue. A capacity analysis, as described in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual, was performed for the four intersections.Results indicate that£,. all the four;; intersections will perform at level-of-seivice "C" or better with recommended i intersection configuration. t The concept plan fcr Meridian (see Concept .Report prepared by CH2M HILL for } ACHD,,May 1993) for the year 2014 proposes five alternatives. Alternative 4 proposes a "T"' (three leg) intersection for East=lst Street/Central' Valley Drive with restricted movements to Meridian Road (right-in/right-out) from East 1st Street. The plan also proposes a realignment of Meridian Road to Corporate' Drive, forming a conventional four -leg intersection. This intersection of 1st Street, Corporate Drive, and Meridian Road would be signalized. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show the existing and recommended' lane configurations atthe four intersections with the .proposed changes ash described above. - a 3 w I. 3 + a 1 Conclusions and Recommendations a To-ensure safe movement of traffic in the Central i Valle Corporate Park afollowing improvemerea,''thecommended: ' Central Valley Drive should- acro mmodate 4 li lanes at 1st Street and 3 lanes j at Progress Avenue. Dual left-turn lanes should be provided at the intersection. 1st Street i • Progress Avenue should bei widened to 3 lanes at Central Valley Drive and 11 Corporate Drive. Le ft_m � rmng and through traffic onto Progress Avenue from Central' Valley Drive should be controlled by a two-wa • y stop sign. To avoid backing traffic from Central Valley Drive onto 1st Street due to the ' right turning traffic volumes (4173 veh/hr) at Progress Avenue, lane with a yield control is recommended for Central ValleDee right-turn • y rive. Corporate Drive should accommodate' 4 lanes at 1st Stree Progress Avenue: t and 3 lanes at i F A 1 f • a w 1 4Y t ' 9 1 y a 1 ' a i a 9 ,. e i • s n , yi— e} �O M^ ��. r,a t1> d cc n i � a N l 0 0 coo V' O 000 Q co I%-.- tet' %- ui m a wmN Nc+i Os l e- 1 � r C1 , Go I-. I'— N = ca r -v00 _I%. 0 f Q (0 6 H w r r N E ce) M co i 4) w CLL.. 0000 V) m0000 i V N 0 0 0 O�Nti rte: m `O `O 1 U € L .- �„� (D as co _ CLa .. c m N 2 N Y J W w = cc d W c c . $ ooacA rnw . v�C9co .IO LL o` o Z' o � I .0 . V (D CO) Wi i N a 1-11-0 1 t G y cc N N e Vpp� CL « w ;t D 3 Q m U Q 12 s � M V N co � 4 1 1 � J -4-- Stratford Dr I Y C �'- Office Park '• C 4 I i I ' ' C r_ ffi _ E Office Park 7 Y •Ive ' L a ' Progress Ave Pizza Taco Y o Hut a rime v 1 Office Park Office Park Cheyon O "St St v t \r to 1-84 S § t i Meridian.. Rd Figure 2 ., Access Roadways t t,,- 4-a - J t. Corporate -,Dr > < 0 n D r Figure 4 Existing -Geometry Lc -G TURNING MOVEMENT Project NO. Slotion No. Dole Mile Post Hours Waother Counly D. H. V A. 9.7..❑ Year 901.� City Loco%1a1 Norah Point z L -n Road - 3, 74 > < Rda TO rrr iffy' < Rda TO MOB 4 L.—G TURNING MOVELENT 0 Lai Project ft. L3" S1011M Na NO — Dole D Aay Post Hours --------- Weather County. D. H. V Q A.D. r ❑ yeor 2011 city Locallcr Norlh Point o Roa d -A-L Pd -*—ro e2, -J 71. 66. > 11 Rood Y 130 'wa 1 2 11 Rood Y 1 1 1 7 1 031A 4 Lc -G TURNING MOVEM,.NT Project No. SlafAw. Na Mile Post Dote Day Hours Weather Counly D. H.V El A. D. T. ❑ Yeor Cil.V Locollix A vL North Point 0 Rood e. l Ve% Ile ? /D < < Road TO WQve,melyf LEG TURN No, No. Afile Post County Ci/.Y 0 • North Point Rood -7 Y;=• A ve- Q �t ING -MOVEMENT Pate .... .... DW Hars Woomer 0. H V A. D.;r. am Ev - ----------------=-=-=9 � _AN}V I PtG APPLICATION WO%K:SHL I Intersecti`cln: 1 st St / Central Ville'•r Dr Date-: 2015 Analyst: PV Time Period Analyzed • PM Fk:: Project No. .�i Cit'' �i' �:•.S tate: MERIDIAN t j - % 1161. X416 416 330 (N -'j ST REE _') i 18') 1 y r � 81 < , S � 1 / , , . WB TO l 1 ++J 32 > .330 180 '400 4.1:1ti ----- 21 ,g 1 i i 1 1. i T � � t 7 1 ) 65; ti t3------------------- d } { 1 i • i i ' 208 1 +DR '_' i e CEN. TVAJ > C STREET)' 1 EB TOTAL 1 �. � , 1 i � , / 1306 . � — - 652 �_ _i._+ 2081 �_, 1 :req 7 EBLT _ B / W2 TH '=• 1 Ljy:i -' ; ,' SB Trt = ,:� .� � i 1A �: I "]?_ t`�1 i ' L ..l o - f / > 1 i t - 416 � S t_ K O CRI I CALi. i_•/'Si-"f"'i l -•I r�Y' VOLUMES LEVEL i } WS LT _# 216 or} } SES &V= 3.3,_•} TH 1: car i ; NB,TH 653 0 TO 1200 UNDER Q 1 1 1201 TO 140o NEAREB , 1 _ OVER _-/--===i 216 E -W CRITICAL' 98 F iTUS`_ 19 STATUS? UNDER' _- CRITICAL YELL-WALKER EdGINEEfS, IN YuIof, ------------------------ I�, -__ --------- � ---------•__-- - Using tCAF j------ .----------------- -- i --------------------- - �' ------ - ----- "----'-----� # INP( f WOR: -',SHEET } hIntey pec_tion:1 st :tet .r' Central Valley Dr, Date:015 :Analyst:PV TiMePer.iod Anl-yzd:PM PK Area Type: CSD` 10t}ie ' 1 Pr-ejoct No. City/Sta•te:MERIDIF` 1 f :VOLUME AND GEOME TR I CS� - :1st STNEET- fid :'S ST . {'i 1613 , t 4 1 SB TOTAL / 1 1.0. j �f T- '1 - /-% 12.0 - 1 815 -3301 �1 TOTAC 1 . c TH LT 1 1 1 ; '-----.---------- 32 < 1 --- - --- -- i"JORTH -- a ------ 1 - ' i 4 !IDENTIFY IN DIAGRAM � a : 1 . Vo l ume s _ _- --- - --- - --- t , t : '.Lanes lane widths # TH R[ # CEN.trAL'. DR' - i'.Movements- by lane 0 1 Y n S 1 � i 3.c.+ ) 1 E:°'iiiUREET 14.Parking locations: 1. 12,01 ::}'•_+h 1 . Ba•'t Jorge Ing the L 0 ] �• � } # i 1 1. i_} <4 415 j i .I ..la td E;$ TOTAL - # 1:y C17211 i r 17.i_us stops V- 0 t ! /S} TOTAL : "t'F:AF._- 'I C ' AND ROADWA`, CONATIONS ! : Ap : Grd .: HL' : -Ad j rbc . Lane : Buses : PHF : C.n# . Ped # edstrH But4tbnf Ar;- : pr: Z ;. } }- : Y:'14 : Dim : 4Nb) y :. pd:'hQ ! /N : Mn . T 3.m6j Type : : Ear' -t: 'i"? } . 1�_i: 1.6 : i•=i # i } 1 S 1 0.95 i 10; r '--� { ---'- ; ---+2}• `--, i ---L\_ jjj :WBI+i.'Li'i 1.0 it N # 0 : } : 0.95 1 10 1 •:f, f to , t, — i 101+0.01 Q , i_y i N : >. 1 : j i 0.95 ; to i ''{ i it :,:=•:-t : -F-0 . 1„ d: 1.0 : N : /tt i ds i 0.95 i 1' } : i 1 it $ 1 :!_3'raLde;+ups-down flb:.r_Ii_ses stopping hr k Mih.Tif ing: i?in.gr.et:n ,-for.-r-Y 1- : H''+s: dF_.h• > 'i- whl s PHF: per_ k# h«t_ir- `abtor 3 :#`m:pkg.maneity rs/hr yCnf-Peds:Cn-flctng peas/hr Arr;.T'ype: Type ! r' "PHASING i ) ) j {!{ 1 1 1 : T:i m- : G= 21.0: G= —lLtQ O : � t .'.► / = Ow i..) 1 �_' 0.01 - / i_7= 1. ,.. Ems= i _ 31 i_ = G= 0.01 S = ;,► . 1_) , } n 1 i : ing : Y +R= 4 1 Y+R= 'i : •'C ##••:_ Z I Y +R= ! i W N ►: ,f sl { Y+R = 0,1 { i Ptmd/Ac: t: A : : ---------------------------------------------------^----- -------- ---- _ : Protected turns: yF::M:**K 0000`' : Permitted turns: f+tt'` i Cycle Length 100 Sec : BELL -WALKER ENGINEERS, NGINEERS , INC . , BOISE,, I D ; using #•lCAP ' _ s - -- --- - --------------f ------- ------------•----- ------------__----- Intersect-ion 1 St St ,� Central Valley Dr •Date:2015 "aly"t=�'�� -_ ---_._ TimePer•iod Anlyzd:PM Pty: Area -type: iCBD XOtt�er ;Project• No. Ci.t'y/State:MEF;IDIAN • f l_E',,EI_-OF --SERY10E WORKSHEET F'ar=_.t Ts rm Tclay Second Term Delay_ _;Tot.'Dela,r_&_ 3 G GROUP! v/c 1 Green A _ ,..._ C:'yCle; Df_?}c1'y ; i=dile; Delay i!''rgrsr:;�-c.({-1 E1 r1; i_i-1;) Fs���lrc�•"1;;-;r; - - ; Ratio F;atio l1 Length ! d1 l Group i d2 !Factor' Delay r GFS;. Dei a\' KO 1 ; 2; :x1 ; g/L' ; C ;sec/'feh Cap,ciseq/ eh; PF 1sec_-,"\,eh LC�S�=ec'/'.�et-1;Tt 1, seq ? 1 10=1 ; T , 9713 ; (ti+8) *'•'Ir ; 9-1 ; € 19— EB 9—EB At ` 6571 0.0101 ) 27.50 ., 6921 1,61; 1.00 1 29.12; j D ; WEI.S 1 ) 1 ! , _ )1 ! ) 1 ; e ) 274881 - ) '_ ['r. _ ) 0.5951 0.2101 100,012 .101 3161 2,161 - 1 24.871 L- 1 , NB I E; 0,8760 0.4601 1 i' ?C} , tQ ,56 1 164S! ^1 c _41 C 1 1 18.171 '- 1- C1 P ; 0.3141 0 . 460 1. 100,01 .12 95 '-d`Z ; ti ; 01091 10 . 5 ) 11.091 09 ( 1 ; __I__1 _;--; ------- / ------- ------ 1 . 1 > As' 0.9711 0 . 210 1 .100.0f 1`?)_+,1_t/ 29.791 3 7; 19.641 1.00 ) 59.441 E 11 � SBI N! N! 0 5% 0.46b! 100 ,01 14.9:2; 11 431 0.33' 0.85 1" 25.701 D ------------------------ --------------•-------------------------------------- -- --- ) - Interwecti_on Dela., r 22.5?9 =•ec;'1,Eh. intersection LOS C Table 'y. i-- ) LAT•#E GROUP D I AGRAi\ S--[ * * * = PROT1_:TD , +++ = PEF:i•i-i T D . 0#0,= PROTCTD & Pt=f=: `#-1 i D ---------------------------- ) ) r Ile, 3 > s DELL -WALKER ENGINEERS, INC., BOISE, I D , using NAP- -- t 4 { PLANNING ATFLICATION WORKSHEET p A ! Intersection: 1 ST CORf-CIF;ATO DR• Date: 201= ' Analyst: P") , y k. . Time Period Analyzed: PM Fk:: c a a Project No. L3t\j.'/State: CENTRAL-VALLE\t PARKA MERIDIAN' 1 sB 240 q _ 1 1 �{ t /� (N_S STREET) ; 739 � ,' /�, •• 150 67 Ti� -. :tel56 ' 4tER TOTAL 4SED r : 199 t \� -. 240 241 } w 19�' 199 1 3 1 F 'j 1- 1 t , 313 313 1 50---V ctr} i ----------------- t n •-.. -« :� 263 -„ 1 , 1 1 62 1 ------------ ---} ' i ' i6 4 ;> 1 NEW R£} - ' : : (E-+W•625- !EB STREET;} 1 351 � 2 C : ES TOT'Al ; -1 ; 526 V 50 t 121.: / ' y 1 TOTAL • ) 1 1 ES LT 235, ., 1 1 NS L. r = 263 MAXIMUM }� s WB TH _ 9 ;; :: SB TH = 240 4 11 SUM OF CRITICAL CARAC I T 'r av 325 5 VOLUMES LEti EL 1 ,- WB LT = 199 or! ,:v. SB LT 109 or! : ;:} TO V2'0 UNDER + EB TH bb t 1: NS TH = 313 ; 1201 TO 1400 NEAR [' 65 -1 [ 422 - ; 1400' OVER r 1, ``t_c f 503 = S2S• STATUS? UNDER--- : E -W CRITICAL N -S CRITICAL -------- -'-- --- --------- -------------------------------------- ------ -- BELL -WALKER ENGINEERS, INQ, BOISE, ID, -using NCAP- ` --------------------------'-------••------•------------------------------------------ t . a INPUt WC]RI<SliEEi Inter=ection:1 ST r CORPORATE DR Date:2015 —^ :.Analyst:P4' TimePeriod Anly:_d:PM PK Agea Type: XOthsv- :Project No. City/State:CENTRAL VALLEY PARK @ MERIDIAN., !VOLUME "ANr (_EDMETR,IC 1 6T NI-�------- SB TOTAL. ; 11 1 1 1 1 1 12.0 ; 0 - C 4471' ) 1 12.0 ; 12.0 -WB TOTAL_ t N i 300 480 1091 RT TH LT 1 199 , { NORTH 1 1-12.0' -LT-•- -- i -Ti --1---:- f 1 I DENT I F`r IN DIAGRAM 1 -12.i•:►' -RT-- ' a- 3 -- ------ —•--- 2.Lanes, lane widths ' LT J RT `1 NEW RD 1 �..R�1ct•`�emen•t= by lone �:=�� 1 12.>i 12.01 EiGi 'STF:EET !4 -Parking locations -,1 ; lc:.t1 i ; 62` 15.Bay storge 3;-sg'r hs i 4011 66 2A 1 �526: 1 T a. :6. I s 1 ar"t,J s 1 _ %` i_{ TOi (?iL "- ! 5. :7.Bus stops [12761 !TRAFFIC -AND RCtA;;i,l:=rY CONDITIONS v 100 N7V TOTAL : Qp 1 Grd.. 1 HV 1 1 � ; Nb AQ .Pkg .Lane 1 Buses 1 PHF : Cnf . Ped 1 VPed=trn Button; Ark. ) Pr•1 ! i f (%)A 'YIN Nm 1 1 (fsd,' 1 -sr ) ; `r',•'I•; !Mn, T-srrsC) Type jj iEit:,+ti}.!t?.1 i.i_i ; .• N ; 0 ; j ; 0.95 1 10 ; i-.. y 20 V, 31. { : B 1 +!•.j . i:% 1 1.0 1 N7 1 0 1 0 1 0.95 1 10 '; Y 1 20' 1 3i j t mu 1 +i• -i ,.o r 1.0 .z_! 1 S`I ; 0 ; 0 1 0. 95 1 10 t ! - ! A e (Grade:+up,-down Nb:buces stopping/hr' Mih i-iminC, : mim. gr"EFeh - for ;H`is: >eh. > 4 whir. PHF eak-hour factor pedestrian rocs `.t 1Nm:pkg.fRSr-ffei`.-ers/hr--__tCnf.Peds:Cnrlct.ng^ped=./hr-==Arr__yfie: Type -1_C 1 F'HAS I NG OR D 1 * 1 1 * 1 1 e ! ; ; + * * 1 , v t L r• , 1 1 M 1 : ; ; ; + ! > j '`! i 1 e 1 .. _ - l7 _ . ) = 20.0; G !:!- L .>_% �' -! ,-•— 20.0; ,.3= 0.01 Lam= 1 � .'• 1 i ng ; ,f'+R= : Y +R= : ;`+R= 3 ; Y+R= 3 : Y+R= 3 ; Y +R= 3 ; Y +R= O 1 Y+R= i_> %. ;.F' md/Act; A A A 1 A ! 1 A ! 1------_ -------- ------------------------- ----------•------------------------ 1 Protected turn=: *11*" o�_!oo" : Permitted -turns: +-t-++' 1 Cycle Length 10P. Sec', 1------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BELL-WAL KE:R ENGINEERS, INC., BOISE, I I? , using ,NCAP a a ------------------ ------ ------------------- ------: --------------=--;------- Intersecti.on:1 ST 1 C. RPORATE DR Date:2015 r TimeFeriod Anlyzd tPM PKArea Type:LHD;Qtt{er ;Project No. - City/State-CENTRALVALLEY PARK ,arMEFIDIAN `_r LEVEL-OF-SERVjCE WOF.KWQET - --- =---_ First Term Delay $----Second. Term Delay : Tot . De l ay_l_ a LANE ! 4 � 5 S ; 8 9` ' . 10 11 V 1" 1 1 t:4HOl.P! .,•?c 1 Green; Cycle: Delay.:; Lane.; Delay !Pr gr sn:I_-ane Bpi Lr -{:i Apprch!Ap, ----- Ratio! RatioMengthl d1 iGroup, d2 ;Factor! Delay ; COY; Way >Le? g;.' C C ; sec? veh ; Cap , c ; Sec ? veh; NF : sec Veh: LOS &ec?veh: TL- {Ap::'v:! �'-'ec_ : t ( ph).) ; �'.9n13: (6+8)*?;9-JK ),r�, l A; 6.7261 0.200: 100.0; 2S.45' 340; c 1 '') 33=10! ) EW E; O. 193; 0.200! 1L)'.).{`1) 25.2, -•cr 1 -` ) ; i _ > .c. .� ) ,., - .. 1 f 0.03f-0.35 ) 21.53; . [� : i `,79 � erg) PV 0.17 51 0-200: '00.0; �-.c.2 •): ,03! i-)�iti ) )_ 2 c, C ) .�� ) _ t_;) :.}.E�1 ) t1 T1s ; H i L. �n,.t'7' . 0.2001 100.01 2 r . -%; 340 ; -2.331 1 11-} 30.061 D ; WB: •`. 1 0.1981 ? t . 2 }f_} : 100.01 51 - �q 1 N• Q.41 25.321 ; �1� i ! I , i_j'T I 1_j y w1 1 �1>5 : ; 1 : i"J; f}. i14: �}„'�1f ){j1 '-�c c.) '- 1 - '_ C t.ti.4 f,) ._ 1. •_ ) 100.01 25.951 .-\031 )).L/. -1i .:i}�8C i .2 �2�231 f 11. . ) / _--) ------ 1 ------; .-.------ ) ------7: ----- 1 -------- 1 __•- - 1 - -- ) L, f . 17 A; ?J.�7iy0: !}.28ti)y 11:;0-Oi may._;.pmt; 9231 0.801 0i1 1 --- --- 1 --- i-- NLSI �i 1_).5-`J1I, if..L f'ij; 11'),01 .>.� ��'•1 13251' 0.311 _ 3 OW 1 5 1 1 : P: i.}.11-'4: 0.3701 100,01 15,761 6601 0,001 7 P c! ) : A: 0 y14; i-7:110; 1f)L,.�s_}: 32.20 S 7.1 1 ' 36.401 _ 1 � J ) 4 .11 : 1.00 / ��� . 4�_1) �? 1 SH: E; 0040; 40; 1_j.200: - 1?)t}.01 2S, c4.1 1 2- -1 i_}M I 26.`af D ) )q 1 1 r 1 _ C22 1 0.200: _ �' - ) %- ) i }-. /ice t- !? `•1;'}O 1 -1f t• 1 27.151' '^' .; 300, � -. 4 _ . t ) j._1 . tris 2 . 1 .5 1 _� :)0 , 1.02:0.W _; i4 ' i t ' : : -------------------------------- ------- or,-Lel -, ------,-1------------------------------- ----- C-- t ------- ..1 ec?+.eh, Inter_ec _ibn LEIS C T•able.9.1 ---------------------------------- .----^-------------------------------------- ;LANE -------------------- ------ ----- ;LANE GR0 P . DI t=GRAMS-F w H = NOU T CTD', +++ = PERkTTD, p #u# = %'ROTCTD F'Et- MTT .J '---------------------------------------------- k y sf, 1 i 1 : ! + { 1 ---------- ----------------------- .. DELL -WALKER ENGINEERS, INC., B01SE5 ID, using NCAP a ------------------------------------------------------- ---------- --' ---- } 3 1 { j a r d Y s { r } *Y s i ;1 ' PLS NIRVG APPLICATION WORKSHEET Intersection: CORPORATE DR/PROGRESS AVE Dat,`: 2015 Analyst: PFJ x 1 , Time Period Analyzed: PM PV*' , Project No. 1 ` City/State: CENTRAL VALLEY PARK /d #'RERIrrI;;N ; ----------------- SB TOTAL R ----- -------------------------------=----- CORPORATE DR ( N -S STREET) ; 0 0 1 N r' 1 C _ T 5 , 1- 1 0 :'WB TOTAL ; R t 0 f -v i------------------- i -------------------- i —•---------_ 1 2 , t s / _ • t . t � t 1 G / , ' 204 1 1 1 T ' '• 64 1 1 �A T E i7R ; r. i , (E—W STREET) .; }} '[til -y O, [ i (( '7 268 ; EB TOTAL....s ,q 7-2)) )NB s:_ .a \ , TOT 2 IL i EIi LT — 0 ; ; N8 LT = 65 ; ; MAXIMUr-f ; { > W' B T H = '2Z 5 1 1 r• TH _ 1 t SUM OF CRITICAL HL I f R L , 23 1 �5 VOLUMES LEVEL � ; i. R WB LT= r 1 car SLS LT = r i or,' R ; i TO 12�_ 0 UNDER R a r > EBTR—R 1'65 NB T — 72 2. 1 7O 1400 NEAR R C2 60-4 _, 1 t 72 1400 OVER 269 ` -t- 72 - 3,4 0 STATUS? Us lL>EF: E -W CRITICAL N17S CR I T I CAL a ; ---------=----------=- ___------------------------------------------------ ------,. DELL-WALle"ER ENGINEERS, INC. , BOISE, ;D, using NCAP 1 , - -- ---- ----- - _ t LC!i."•AT I OW CORPS 1R A t F. -OR/PRO[ -_SS^►= VE ----- 1 NAME-CEh1TF<A - WLEY -F FKF.H.---,-�--------- -1iOORLY VOLUMES 1 VOLUMES IN PCPH - s tis 1 Major street : Ct �RPOFATE DR 1 Grade 204--•--Y2--- '•• v-�-V4 --- 0 _-._V Date of Counts: � 015 V7-- V9,-: X STOF'! V-- %49 ; Time Period: ! YIELD ' iPM PK 1 65 011 11 -72 j Approach S;geed v Mhsitar Street: Grade 1 l 25 PROGRESS AVE c=r% ; y PHF: .9 N= I , VOLUME ADJUSTMENTS- - r- ----------------------------------- ,Movement no . ; s 1 3 i 4 T ,� 7 - ------------------------------------------ --------------- ----- - -- ------ -----1 ---------'. Volume (vph) 1 264 ; 64 1 0 1 235 1 65 '. 0 ;. -----_--=----°------_-- ------ -------------- {ol(pcph),Jee fable 1!1.11X?.XXXXXX;7.:?}.4.Xxxx: 1_-i} -- .7}xf---- -- -----0 -1 }STEP 1 RT From Minor Street V9 C•6n#13cting Flows, Vc i 1/2 V3+V2= 3 ' 204 = 2:6 yph("')c9) l Critical Gap, Tc ; Tc= 5.5 sec'_-- {Tab.10. ) Potential Capacity, Cp 1 Cp9= 852 pcph (Fig. 10. _,) m , Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Cm9=Cp9= 852 pcph TES: � , �„ ,-` L : From i`j ct j G r Street f ''i ..'-► Conflicting Flows .1C 1 , V2= ; � _ r - '`i.'-_ _ 3 � .-1•{- �1 .it' L 1 �' i�.T4 ::: tiGi V pt-� � � C 4 ) PCritical Gap, Tc 1 Tc= 5 secs (Tab.10.2) �'otential Capacity, Gp4= ?1_ pcph (F2g.10.3) ° of Cp utilized and Impedance Factor- 1 (`:'4/Cp4) xIOO= 0% P4= 1' _]Actual Capiwi ty , _C'm�------- (FigNl �} ).-__. 1-Cm4=CP4===915 pcph 15p_ph STEP ---`---=LT_From Minor -Street ==-==_•-_---- ,-----_-_--_-_<-=,--+J','___----_____ �--- - ---- 1 Conflicting Flows, Vt 1_i 4r;"..l-V2+:+'c�-V4= --':�_-- -- tL +-204 + 235 + 0 = 471 W ('��'e7 ) Critical Gap, Tc 1 Tc 6.5 secs (Tab.1�_s.2) # i lPotential Capacity, Cp 1 Cpl=. 510 pcph (Fig.10.3) #' Actual Capacity, Cm 1 Cm7=Cp7xP4= 510 x 1 = 510 1 pc ph• , SHARED LAh1F_ CAPACITY SH = (V7+V9) ((V7/Cm7) +(V9 Cm9)) if lane is skarid=-=-- CR CF; LOS LOS MOVEMENT V (PCPH) CM (E CPH) CSH (PCPH) (CM-1111) ( CSH-'V) CH CSH 7 72 510 510 438- 433 A' A `'" 0 852 510' 852 438 A A { 4 0 915 915 A E. 1 js l S �t�i r;i-sus-1_ PROGF:ESS-t={�:E__- hdi=,P1E . CEN'i RtiL 'VALLEY e'{=:F:K; F t ------------- - ----------!---------------'----- Hc1CIF:L`i VOLUMES Grade 0% 1 t i V12 ' 109 i 1 1 ik 1 * 1 1 oil , t ' !Glad e . .: . �' ---X10-�-- -------' ---'•15-- ._,q —----------- ; 4--. 536 a major road ' Grade + _ ---1'-' ------------ PROGRESS AVE ..>;: 26 i ! ` STOP I YIELD N= 2 > Date of Count= :2015 V9 , Time Pe=riod :'PM PK, • minor road 473 Pbevai 3 iho Speea : 5 � o jt i.0 ). PH F :. 9 CWTRAL VALLEY s Grade 0 % 1 ,._G VOLUME ----------------------w ADJUSTMENTS. STMENTS. .•emen --------------------------------------------------- t' no . 1 1 ' 2 1 13 1 4 _ 12 01 1 261 5::61 W; 6; 261 1091 •y?W CA It 01 -)91 t—_•----____ ),IL`7 1S(�tl_ph),TC11—<.. y_— 1.,,—__—._—. {_'--__ )_—_t}}_��.--.--__ 1j .0 OAXJ�XTXX!.X/ 90!XX�,XIXXXXI ._ -- — 291 121—t --C.._•-' 1 � (>� ..1 li'F1 i VOLUMES r r ,H 1 1 ;f/ 1 • i -t ) 1 120 3 i V 11 1 , vio I 1 —t ------------- I 77 1+? 1 j 29 _ ] 11 ) e 1 1 120 , t 520 a t i t a l OCAT I OW PUF:F'ORA fE DR F'F:i`G SS E A ,JNHME�GEt-•tl`F'.AL� VALLEY , I bTEF i RT From Minor -PARK ~---- --- -_=-- . StreetV9 j Conflicting , Flows, tJc--------==-==1=%'•� ' =�=t.'_�� +tJ2=Vc4 j i �1 13+ 1/2 Vb+V"5=Vc1 '" Critical Sap, Tc {Tat1.10} 2) ' 5.5 F Potential Ca acct'`' C / F } '_�)' p- 1 } �-(. 1ql'•_ 1 .) / 1�p9 = liji)}.:pCpri 5.5 q _ d G � Of Autilised '{t,� ' � t::2 — r _ ��1000% pi� - �_}pc pt r, 1 Impedance Factor, P (Fig.10.5) ' /Cp9)-I;l'}i1= 51% P9= _ (vI Cpl :), ; ,;j.>_�_>= 1'f'. Actual Capacity, Cm I «7 � Cii9=Cp9•1= li}I_}''_} c L^, i � pcph t Cml_=C 12= 1000 c r• p, 'rcph STEP 2 From Major Street _ ;J4 ____=_ ___ =_ --_ =____ ___-_=_ { . `+Ji--=---- C•ac-s# 1, is ting __-_____ -•--=••-__-_- __-_--_- + 5= C ! 3 Critical C�-:rt�, Tc (Ta-b.10.215 _ - '. Potential CaPPcity,Cp: Fig11;},T j; _ C t4 — ici;►:i - r : t .. eT CP utilized � , pcfh 1 � - £.p1 1,} 0 pcphq / .Tm 1 e `c,ctor P {Fig:lO.5) (.�4/Cp4); loo= 59 1 .,, p . f , ; rT � Actual Capacity, G � I,f P4= ,49Pl= i , i - Cm4=Cp4= 1:>t,:* pcph ; �LOCpTlON:CORPORATE � . DR / PF RESS AVE NAME:CENTRi' VALLEY ~ * ' � SHARED LANE CAPACITY � ^ ^ . � APPROACH MOVEMENTS 7,8,9 ^` � ` , CR CR LOS � LOS MOVEMENT V(PCPH) CM(PrPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM -V) (CSH-V) C�� ~CS�f � �� � 7 ` 29 135 200 106 51 D » E ^ 8 120 226 200 106 51 D. E / 9' 520 1000 480 ' . A ! | ^ ^ 1 � APPROACH MOVEMENTS 10,11,12 OR CR LOS LOS + ' MOVEMENT V(PCPH) = CM(PCPH) CSH(PCPH) (CM -V) (CSH-V) CM/ CSH 10 0 37 222 37 102 E' ^D ^ 11 120 222 222 102 102 D ' D � 12 " O 1000 222 1000 = 102 A D ' ' f ^ � ^ ~ MAJOR STREET LEFT TURNS 1,4 � ^ JMOVEMENT =====�=====��===============�===========================================�=======^ _ V(PCPH) CM(PCPH) CR(CM-V) LOS � 1 0 1000 . 1000 Ai » 4 � 590 1000 410 ~ A t � U COMMENTS: - u ^ | ~ . - . � � ^ ^ . � ^ � ' ^ . ^ ^ � � ` . ~ ' � � � - - ^ r . � ~ * � . . 0 . . ^ ' `. � , ^ h i SUSAN S, EASTLAKE, President February 10, 1998', GARY E. RICHARDSON, Vice President SHERRY R. HUBER, Secretary City of Meridian i 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 (!' F Re: MV -01-98 Progress Avenue/ Meridian Road On October 14 1997 Ada County Highway District staff acted onR �m,i".._.vtofor t this site. The conditions and requirements also apply to MV -01-98. If you have any questions please feel free to call m t 387-6178. F Sincerely, ' e i I Steve Arnold f Senior Development Analyst cc: Project file z Chroh file` , R , r _ I � A . 1 �F ' aria county highway district r 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680 SUSAN S. EASTLAKE; President GARY E. RICHARDSON, Vice President SHERRY R. HUBER, Secretary October 14, 1997 B -II, LLC 3959 Muldoon Place Meridian, -Idaho 83642 Re: Staff Level Approval Rama Subdivision/MPP-03-97 Progress Avenue Facts and Findings: A. The Ada County Highway District (ACRD) staff has received the above referenced'application requesting preliminary plat approval to construct 3 -lot commercial subdivision. The 3.43 -acre site is located on the west side of Progress Avenue, southeast of the intersection of Meridian Road and Central Drive. This development is estimated to generate 800 additional (700 existing) vehicle trips per day based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual. The alignment of Progress Avenue has been proposed to be shifted by the property owners to the east. There is a turnaround at the terminus of Progress Avenue, adjacent to the subject site's south property line. Due to the fact that Progress Avenue will be shifted further south, the applicant should be required to provide a $2,480.00 deposit to -the Public Rights[-of=Way Trust Fund at the District for the required street improvements of approximately 124 -feet of 5 - foot wide concrete sidewalk on Progress Avenue abutting the parcel, prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. B. The application and site plan received by the City of Meridian and submitted to the District on September 19, 1997, have been reviewed by the ACHD Development Services staff and conforms to applicable District standards ip ol icy, or can be made to conform with the change(s) to the plan described in the requirements stated below. This is a staff level approval and will not be heard by the ACHD Commission unless the site pian is changed in such a manner as to not conform with District standards/policy or an appeal of the Development Services staff decision is submitted as described within the Standard f Requirements outlined below. ada county highway district 318 East 37th • Boise, Idaho 83714-6499 • Phone (208) 345-7680 The following requirements are provided as recommendations for conditions of approval to the City of Meridian: Site Specific Requirements: 1. Comply with requirements of ITD for State Highway I-84. Submit to the District a letter from ITD regarding said requirements prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Contact the District III Traffic Engineer at 334-8340. 2. Provide a recorded cross access easement for all internal parcels within this subdivision to use combined access points to Progress Avenue, prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). 3. The two existing driveways that serve the hotel are approved with this application. 4. No new driveways have been proposed with this application and none are approved. 5. Provide a $2,480.00 deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund at the District for !he required street improvements of approximately 124 -feet of 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalk on, Progress. Avenue abutting the parcel, prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. 6. Provide a $7,620.00 deposit to the Public Rights -of -Way Trust Fund at the District for the required street improvements of approximately 380 -feet of 5 -foot wide concrete sidewalOon Meridian Road abutting the parcel, prior to District approval of the final plat or issuance,of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. , 7. Utility street cuts in the new pavement are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact Construction Services at 345-7667 (with file number) for details. 8. Access to Meridian Road is prohibited. 9.• As required by District policy, restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this parcel. , 10. Other than the existing access points that serve the hotel specifically approved with this application, direct lot or parcel access to Progress Avenue is prohibited. Lot access restrictions, as required with this application, shall be stated on the final plat. a RAMA.SLA Page 2 �i r Standard Requirements: 1. This decision of the Development Services Supervisor may be appealed to the Ada County s Highway District Commission by the applicant or by an owner of property within 300 -feet of the parcel within 15 calender days from the date of this report. The request shall specificallX identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would result in a substantial hardship or inequity. The request will be heard by the District Commission at an evening meeting within 20 calender days of the District's receipt of the appeal letter. The appellant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Development Services Supervisor within two days of the action and shall include a- minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of it's original decision The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting'of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of ,applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in, , accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road'Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway Dis rich Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. , 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, ces, plans;' or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its interit to change the,planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the laW in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 4 RAMA.SLA Page 3 F a I F � 8. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are 'in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized' representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. K i Conclusion of Law: t 1. ACED requirements are intended to assure that the proposed use/development will not place an undue burden on the .existing vehicular and pedestrian transportation system within the vicinity impacted by the proposed development. Should you have, any questions or comments please contact the ACHD Development ServicI s staff at P P , 3'45=7662: , Sincerel r F .¢ 1 rySa e .. evelopm t Services Supervisor cc: Project file' Lead agency I 1 , E t, t 1 , RP.�IA.SLA Page 4 , A cn CO < rn CD Cl- 12- LLJ < cn C) x LL! > ;q. qu DO Ir Pro a. LL) 8/-/ LLJ r I ------------------------- M v p VM A1.aK1N i1Yli / H 32 p oil p 4 k d 0 s Z41 LCryQo? 1,1 ��±.^iQ�i�'• Am �° �a� 1 . c o '° o OF (�/� y D r zNNZ Z 1Q 1q 1Q Q Q c K$$$ m o ao (no Q 8 m a a m 1'� u m Q I� 0 a Z:'" D > -3,�:,m to O Da 'o <i8 i°n NtiIM�$ 8 A_ "�3yg9t� m Q Q < N++ p+ y m K ime -o D 4 k d i R.T. NAHAS COMPANY Sine,11)47 REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS CALIFORNIA • NEVADA • IDAHO ZURCHER BUILDING 102 S. 17TH, SUITE 300 BOISE, IDAHO 83702 March 01, 1991 Mr. Jack Niemann City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, Id 83642 Dear Jack, Thank you for allowing us to proceed with the Pizza Hut footings and foundations prior to having our final map recorded. We expect to have the map recorded by March 20. We will hold the City of Meridian harmless from any complications that might occur as a result of giving us this waiver. Robert W. Nahas --- R . T . Nahas Co. of I Allan Humphries Rocky Mountain Pizza Huts, Inc E SLIVISION EVALUATION SKEET Proposed Development Name CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO 2 City MERIDIAN Date Reviewed 2/7/91 Preliminary Stage Final XXXXX ik k #_ Engineer/Developer ROYLANCE & ASSOC./R.T. NAHAS OF IDAHO Date Sent The following SUBDIVISION NAME is approved by the Ada County Enginner or his designee per the requirements of the IDAHO STATE CODE. CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO. 2 X. Date The Street name comments listed below are made by the members of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE (under direction of the Ada County Engineer) regarding this development in accordance with the Boise City Street Name Ordinance. The following existing street names shall appear on the plat as: 1 "IDAHO STATE HIGHWAY 69" r i "E. CORPORATE DRIVE" "E. CENTRAL DRIVE" , The following, new street name cannot be approved because it is over ten letters in length unless the Ada County Highway District will state in writing that the name will fit on a sign: "E. CENTRAL VALLEY STREET" The above street name comments have been read and approved by the following agency representatives of the ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE. ALL of the signatures must be secured by the representative or his designee in order for the street names to be officially approved. I I" ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE, Ada County Engineer John Priester Ada Planning Assoc. Terri Raynor Meridian Fire Dept. Representative 'RESENTATIVES OR DESIGNEES D Date 7 ate Date ` NOTE: A copy of this evaluation sheet must be presented to the Ada County Engineer at the time of signing the "final plat", otherwise the plat will not be signed !!f! Sub Index Street Index Map NUMBERING OF LOTS AND BLOCKS block 2 should start with lot 1 U MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 19,:1991 PAGE #3 understand it the establishment of the flood plains, the City has to adopt that, I mean the City has to accept that or not. The primary causes of the flood plains are culverts under roadways. The culvert that crosses the culvert that carries Nine Mile Creek causes a back up. Based on what is shown on the southeast side of this development on Nine Mile Creek, that your going to see some kind of a flood plain through this project. They do have some restrictions that deal with heigth of floor levels concerning that flood plain. I don't know how this will affect the project but I wanted you to be aware of this. Kingsford: Anyone else to offer testimony? Hearing no response, I will close the Public Hearing. Giesler: Regarding the pressurized irrigation, is that just going to be dry lines`or did you have a solution for when this comes on line it will be charged. Lee: Right, it will be ready to go. I think we are going to go with a well on this system. One thing I might say about the floor level, these particular buildings the way they are designed, the actual floor in most cases is above natural -ground, and then we build a five foot high burm to raise the ground up artificially. The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Myers to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared for the Planning and Zoning for Fiscal Funding for a Conditional Use. Roll Call Vote: Yerrington - Yea; Giesler - Yea; Myers - Yea; Tolsma - Yea; Motion Carried: All Yea: The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Yerrington to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Fiscal Funding. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM M —FINAL-PLLATi CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE, PARK e PHASE, #2: Dave Roylance: I'm here tonight to request approval of Central Valley Corporate Park. Giesler: Have you seen the Engineer's comments? Roylance:Yes. The Motion was made by Myers and seconded by Yerrington to approve the -Final Plat.for Central Valley Corporate Park. Motion -Carried: All Yea: Kingsford: Mr. Nahas would you like to update the public on what you have sold out there? Nahas: We've sold a parcel to Pizza Hut and Chevron and McDonalds looking. We haven't closed on it, we expect to be closing.at the end of March. We are still waiting for a motel E 4 4 February 5, 1991 Mr. Tom Schmaltz Central District Health 1455 No. Orchard Boise, Idaho 83706 RE: Central Valley Corporate Park: Dear Mr. Schmaltz, This letter is to advise that the City of Meridian has given preliminary approval to the Phase No. 2 of the Central Valley Corporate Park. The final approval is scheduled for the Meridian City Council Meeting to be held on February 19, 1991. Sincerely,, Ja gk`Nfe nn Ry y C1 k&ing dminstrator f Meridian, ID. I HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live OFFICIALS COUNCILMEN JACK NN, City RONALD R. S,TreasurerClerk JANICE GASS, Treasurer. NICEGA CITY OF MERIDIAN MYERSTOLSMA BRUCE D. STUART, Water Works Supt. ROBERT GIESLER WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, JR., Attorney 33 EAST IDAHO MAX YERRINGTON EARL WARD, Waste Water Supt. MERIDIAN IDAHO 83642 KENNY BOWERS, Fire Chief s Chairman Zoning a Planning BILL GORDON, Police Chief Phone 888-4433 JIM JOHNSON GARY SMITH, City Engineer GRANT P. KINGSFORD f Mayor February 5, 1991 Mr. Tom Schmaltz Central District Health 1455 No. Orchard Boise, Idaho 83706 RE: Central Valley Corporate Park: Dear Mr. Schmaltz, This letter is to advise that the City of Meridian has given preliminary approval to the Phase No. 2 of the Central Valley Corporate Park. The final approval is scheduled for the Meridian City Council Meeting to be held on February 19, 1991. Sincerely,, Ja gk`Nfe nn Ry y C1 k&ing dminstrator f Meridian, ID. I R.T NAHAS CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORAtTE`PARK FINAL PLAT PHASE # 2 C O M M E N T S } 1-: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: NO COMMENTS RECEIVED: 2: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: CAN APPROVE WITH CENTRAL WATER & SEWER: 3: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: ALL LATERALS & WASTEWAYS MUST BE PROTECTED, DRAINAGE MUST BE RETAINED ON SITE: 4: U.S. WEST: REQUIRE 10 FT. EASEMENT ALONG'ALL FRONT & REAR PROPERTY LINES, 5 FT. EASEMENT ALONG ALL SIDE LOT LINES: 5: CITY ENGINEER: SEE ATTACHED: 6: SEWER DEPARTMENT: WILL REVIEW SEWER PLANS WHEN SUBMITTED: 0 7: POLICE DEPARTMENT: NO COMMENTS: u CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMEP ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION` 1455 North Orchard Boise, Idaho 83706} } REVIEW SHEET Return to: Boise Rezone # Eagle Conditional Use # b --Meridian _ Preliminary/Final/Short Plat Kuna l� �'oN rizaG �a//,P r BYi� Fr/C PO-Je Z ACZ �d„didiJio.J 1. We have no objections to this proposal. 7-5 2. We recommend denial of this proposal. 3. , _ Specific knowledge as to the exact type of use must be provided before we can comment on this proposal. f 4. We will require more data concerning soil conditions on this proposal before we can comment. 5. _ We will require more data concerning the depth of (high seasonal ground water)(solid lava) from original grade before we can camment concerning individual sewage disposal. 6. _ We can approve this proposal for individual sewage disposal to be located (2,4) feet above solid lava layers. 7. __(� We c approve this proposal for: Centrage _Interim sewage Individual sewage _ Community sewage system and _ ntlwwater Individual water _ Community water well. �ral 8. Plans for `Central sewage Community sewage system _Sewage dry lines, and �entral water _Community water must be submitted to and approved by the Regional Health and Welfare Environmental Services Field Office. 9. C� Street runoff is not to create a mosquito breeding problem. 10. _ This department would recommend deferral until high seasonal ground water can be determined if other considerations indicate approval. a ' r 11. _ If restroom facilities are to be installed then a sewage system MUST be installed to meet 1 Idaho State Sewage Regulations. , 12. _ -We will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any (food establ.ishment)(beverage establishment)(swimming pools or spas)(grocery store). 13. Date �t a Am Aa �i z G > H mG F"J b HJ � H• H. rt p m w m yy la U1 1'1 f-- m O wof H•� G G m a co n H • rt h -h w w O w �j m O m t -I• G m w p• rt r• w d a G H• w cn r - c rt cn rt O rt �t d H • C� m d O m rt P. rf m m b rt rt W w O H• rt I q m W m n 00 In, rt O m ul O a p cn H 9 rt m Illl,il! M � n a � amu. p"5'yl � ..-4 M C) 1,05 ro In0 o w > F.. [rJ N M v 09 %d o x nc 00 y d r� 1-3 d a H N� z wo r O H O z C) H 1 y 1 C) O z C) H r z d O z FU C K I.' 110 lf-3 9R N N P tort �.. .. M, rt N• r• K r N• fD CA K Q T W fD �, r [OGS WN NWi ID f�Di r 3 G, 7C lD' a �i WR 1 a 7 a 1�t rS rt01 �i •AIDC F+ Ooh 0+ K W M (A � � � �Im M � n n o Alto cr v n W-• r n rt r• m r• a rt f1 R% ~ a rptrt 3 �.. �. .. •. R, z W K, H oIrt " 1" o P V rar z r v r z � � v ro o .. x C-4 ro z r� c c Fc ;d w K o � N N 1.0 F - rt M z n ro o b o r" �, v C) z O y�� 1-3 H 1y-1 C t fD `ii7 M N M FTJ H �► y z H 1 F' C�r1 H x C) C u�i ti d � oo H� y H H r' > 3y O H y r y. r, z z& d U�H OfDo y d a m �D W 14 r � � mH C mn A� O w 'z0, r � O Q rt .> LTJ ti H 0 ft 0 1 d r r 1-3 ';;Roylance & Associates P.A. Engineers • Surveyors • Landplanners 4227 Emerald, Boise, Idaho 83706 Telephone (208) 336-7390 i January 29, 1991 Project No. 969 City of Meridian ATTN: JACK NEIMAN 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 8,3642 RE: CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK PHASE 2 a Dear Mr. Neiman: The enclosed plat is being submitted for final plat approval. This plat is in conformance with the previously approved preliminary plat and meets all requirements and conditions of the ordinances of the City of Meridian and with current engineering and surveying practices and, local ;standards. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, 1 Scott T. Christensen , Enclosures STC/rr a a, f { d b C+ N N N c~B Ic cn pyy� K H fes' L=J K O n ro A ro �J r5 A J� O O LTJ y 0 t3 � y M ~ d tri Ov I 0 rt y rrr NW rt to o o '< ro 0:8 N rt H m x n °c g d CO 00 y� Hrt ct to m y e z z �' t� r • H � � txj H C pD+ O ti •• O rt r 04 ° � tri • [1-3 1 9p-�— y— — ar n H y F< n O z n H r r� z, d O z ro td cI z FC N N y3 Z � r O H x O ro t H 4 �N, �w r• E N • d 0 � �!!llilli�!!lNLIIII�:�IIIIIlI! rt Ao r. y ro bn rt ~ n • :H H 10 H K �r z � v o .. C4 W C �k o E r Q0 Ne � r d b<i y C)0roM0 •. © n Z> =* P.... y y` Z y ` tri w H r n ! ~ W fir F3 •`d t=i N W 2 H H r rr m O O 6'4 bO; x z N tt2i H x 0� cin r i-+ � H 00 � .. z tD � f d oa O y L�, > H � H �p rr n H v R ' z $, � o H y 3 • • t > if (A) x r H ° M> z t3l �* > fD rr y • rF� � f� T � s � � all_ K � � a V?' a � r rr gh rA R+ Ir, S v tt+ R rr E K. a v o SoN a T � s � � K � � a V?' a � rr rA rot Q ? Ir, S v tt+ 31 a o SoN a �n QQ a M n SCA K s S S �S n s Q � A 1 ti Iz- fl 1-4 4 cn S � � O y Sk y J R 'o Sk6 T � s � � K � � a V?' a � C4 rt d rt -�= K S 31 QL s S S �S n A ti fl 1-4 o O y S 'o Sk6 � S s �N C o co ttj n ����Ss sus � N-� n '.-r tri t` Q m 6 y 0 b G Oo�0Cal z rrtg tri H o tri e tI] 100 N M z 1-1 H 0 a x z r �n �ai H 7C •• (-) < tib I'd g d cc)H� 'or] H d H H �' �� rot w n 2 r E•• ~ O Or r* g cr H Q .L4 z c K H kD ko F-' P%, 0, 0 CITY OF MERIDIAN "Huta of Treasure Valley" 33 E. Idaho Meridian, Idaho 83842 888.4433 Customer's Order No. Date — ?�1 199 Name Address Phone: SOLD BY CASH C.O.D. CHARGE ON ACCT. MDSE. RETD. PAID OUT I I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I All claims and returned goods MUST be accompanied by this bin. TAX Q'® 1 Byceived TOTAL GS 202.2 T PRINTED IN U.S.A. /� ,.,... I I I �, �►I I I I I I t '•b H N (� �1 y V GI C4 C�rl � '� a O r• r• b fDrtGC O a n n a to W n to n w n w rt GC ID ST 9 o rt r. O r' 'a �a �• an rt $ 't Y�. as n n N fA rpt ^ rt ps rt u ( o to a 0 m rt � rt tinrr m N d rat rt m' ^ H• tr• ~ t:+ rt o a rt W.a, a' m "rJ R rt. • O r• a+ z rat r0 O � IM z U Cl ro Fli o ro > y t 64w rt nrocnn 44 rt Q� n M I-- N �O rat En o a R •p� 610 M rt F- 'd fD rl tLla tv W y ;'` rt a O O' < ro O;g � v t� tij H x C) C Dnp �d rat r0 O C) H y �C O C z CJ F --I r w 0 1 z x � IM z U Cl ro Fli o ro > y t 64w d , � x nrocnn � W W Orrn Q� n z p �O n ? En � O z •p� H M H 'd fD rl tLla tv W y ;'` rt a O O' < ro O;g -7 t� tij H x C) C Dnp �d i r .. t Jco p• A a y tD d A °° rt �d 8 � .. H m y � d H �v a fit N f 7 H .. z° � �.. O r m rt o H C) H y �C O C z CJ F --I r w 0 1 z x � U r Fli o ro > y d , � x � W W Orrn Q� a H N �o .Roylance'& Associates P.A. Engineers • Surveyors • Landplanners 4227 Emerald, Boise,-Idaho 83706 'Telephone (208) 336-7390 January 29, 1991 Project No. 969 y City of Meridian ATTN: JACK NEIMAN ' 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK PHASE 2, _ Dear Mr. Neiman: a The enclosed plat is being submitted for final plat approval. This°plat is in conformance with the previously, approved-preliminary plat and meets all requirements and conditions of the ordinances of the City of Meridian and with current engineering and surveying practices and local standards. If-you have any questions please call. Sincerely. .75,.�_____� Scott T. Christensen Enclosures _ STC/ rr' t l a .. y 1 r { l- ' s SCHEDULE A , COMMITMENT NO.: P 102898—A/HEH—LB EFFECTIVE DATE OF COMMITMENT: NOVEMBER 16, 1990 AS OF 7:30 A.M. YOUR NO.: EDDY—WARILA, INC. PREPARED FOR: ESCROW EDDY—WARILA, INC. MAIN 2581 S. BROADWAY ATTN: LYNN BASURA ATTN: STEVE EDDY RT NAHAS 102 S. 17TH ATTN: 'BOB NAHAS INQUIRIES SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO: HAROLD E. HUSTON VICE PRESIDENT a ° 1. POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED: ' AMOUNT PREMIUM (A) X ALTA OWNERS POLICY $ 225,000.00 $ 855.75 FORM B- — 1.970 PROPOSED INSURED: EDDY—WARILA, INC. (B) ALTA LOAN POLICY 1970, (AMENDED 10/17/70) PROPOSED INSURED:' 2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN SAID LAND IS DESCRIBED OR REFERRED'TO IN THIS COMMITMENT AND COVERED HEREIN IS A FEE SIMPLE. 3 3. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR_INTEREST IN SAID LAND IS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREO VESTED IN , SIMIDA CORPORATION., AN INDIANA CORPORATION,, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED! ?ONE.. HALF INTEREST AND R. T. NAHAS COMPANY OF IDAHO_,, AN IDAHO }CORPORATION, AS'TO AN UNDIVIDED ONE HALF INTEREST_ f i i .4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS COMMITMENT IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY* OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO AND DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:' t A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION1181'', TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A FOUND BRASS CAP MONUMENTING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER`S OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCE ALONG THE"WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 18, h' NORTH 01°02104" EAST A DISTANCE OF 2650.29 FEET TO A FOUND BRASS CAP MONUMENTING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER _OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 18, THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER NORTH 89042117" EAST A DISTANCE OF 148.54 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF IDAHO 'STATE HIGHWAY NO. 69, THENCE FOLLOWING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 89042117" EAST A DISTANCE OF 27.50 FEET TO A -POINT; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY A DISTANCE OF 2.89 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CIRCULAR CURVE TO THE RIGHT, SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 00°09'23", A RADIUS OF 1060.92 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 24°42'42" EAST, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 2.89 FEET TO A POINT, .THENCE NORTH 28°57138" EAST A DISTANCE OF 90.74 FEET TO A POINT, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 61°21'46" WEST A DISTANCE OF'24.82 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF A SPIRAL CURVE TO THE RIGHT SAID SPIRAL HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 28057'38" EAST, A CHORD DISTANCE OF 150.91 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 31°02134" EAST A DISTANCE OF 29.11 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH 61°22'00" EAST A DISTANCE OF 180.01 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 29°18100" WEST A DISTANCE OF 180.01 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 61°21'46" WEST A DISTANCE OF 155.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. a SCHEDULE B COMMITMENT NO.: P 102898-A € I. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE COMPLIED WITH: F: 1. INSTRUMENTS NECESSARY TO CREATE THE ESTATE OR INTEREST 'TO BE INSURED MUST BE PROPERLY EXECUTED, DELIVERED AND DULY FILED FOR RECORD.:` II. SCHEDULE B OF THE POLICY OR POLICIES TO BE ISSUED WILL CONTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE FOLLOWING MATTERS UNLESS THE SAME ARE DISPOSED ' OF TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPANY: , 1. DEFECTS, LIENS, ENCUMBRANCES, ADVERSE CLAIMS OR OTHER MATTERS, IF ANY, CREATED, FIRST APPEARING IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OR ATTACHING SUBSEQUENT,TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF BUT PRIOR TO THE DATE THE, PROPOSED INSURED ACQUIRES FOR VALUE OF RECORD THE ESTATE OR INTEREST OR MORTGAGE THEREON COVERED BY THIS COMMITMENT. 2. STANDARD EXCEPTIONS: t (A) RIGHTS OR CLAIMS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. I (B) EASEMENTS, OR CLAIMS OF EASEMENTS, NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. (C) ENCROACHMENTS, OVERLAPS, BOUNDARY LINE DISPUTES, OR OTHER MATTERS WHICH WOULD BE DISCLOSED BY AN ACCURATE SURVEY OR INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES. (D) ANY LIEN, OR RIGHT TO -A LIEN, FOR SERVICES, LABOR, OR MATERIAL, HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED, IMPOSED BY LAW AND NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. (E) UNPATENTED MINING CLAIMS; RESERVATIONS OR EXCEPTIONS IN PATENTS OR IN ACTS AUTHORIZING=THE ISSUANCE THEREOF, WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO WATER. ° (F) TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN AS EXISTING LIENS �w BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS. CONTINUED 3 SCHEDULE B (CONTINUED) , COMMITMENT NO.: P 102898—A E a3. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 1. GENERAL TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1990, WHICH ARE LIENS, IN THE ORIGINAL SUM OF $ 263.02, WHICH ARE NOW DUE AND PAYABLE BUT NOT DELINQUENT. PARCEL NO. 03 S1118233870 SAID TAXES AFFECT A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND OTHER LANDS. GENERAL TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1990, WHICH ARE LIENS, IN THE ORIGINAL SUM OF $ 818.34, WHICH ARE NOW DUE AND PAYABLE BUT NOT DELINQUENT. PARCEL NO. 03 S1118233905 4 SAID TAXES AFFECT A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND OTHER LANDS. 2. GENERAL TAXES FOR THE YEAR 1991, WHICH ARE LIENS, ARE NOT YET DUE AND PAYABLE. . t, 3. SEWERAGE CHARGES AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POWERS OF THE CITY OF BOISE. NO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS NOW SHOW'OF RECORD. 4. LIENS AND ASSESSMENTS OF THE FOLLOWING DISTRICT AND THE RIGHTS F° AND POWERS THEREOF AS PROVIDED BY LAW. NO DELINQUENCIES APPEAR IN THE COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE+. DISTRICT: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT (343-1884) 5. AN EASEMENT CONTAINING CERTAIN TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND FOR THE PURPOSES STATED HEREIN. FOR: FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING THEREIN IRRIGATION 'FACILITIES TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT AND PRIVILEGE OF INGRESS ,. AND EGRESS TO AND FROM SAID PROPERTY FOR SAID PURPOSES. IN FAVOR OF: THE STATE OF IDAHO RECORDED: SEPTEMBER 11, 1964 INSTRUMENT•NO.: 593567 AFFECTS: A 10 FOOT STRIP ADJOINING HIGHWAY NO. 69 ON THE EAST 6. THAT CONDEMNATION DECREE IN STATE OF IDAHO VS. DAVID T. WARREN ET AL, CIVIL CASE NO. 34617, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 11, 1964, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 593567; WHEREIN THE STATE OF IDAHO CONDEMNED CERTAIN PROPERTY ADJOINING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND "SUCH RIGHTS OF ACCESS IF ANY THERE BE TO THE SAID HIGHWAY PROJECT NO. S-3782 (1) FROM THE REMAINING PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANTS BE EXTINGUISHED AND PROHIBITED EXCEPT FOR ACCESS TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY SIDE AND AN APPROACH 40.0 FEET IN WIDTH ON EACH SIDE OF THE PUBLIC WAY AT SURVEY STATION 454+00". I I • F € is .. .. •... R. 2 .- meq: P 102898—A 7. THAT CONDEMNATION DECREE IN STATE OF IDAHO VS DAVID T. WARREN ET 'AL,.•CIVIL CASE NO. 34617, RECORDED APRIL 21, 1965, AS INSTRUMENT[ NO. 609585 WHEREIN THE STATE OF IDAHO CONDEMNED PROPERTY I t ADJOINING THE SUBJECT', PROPERTY. AND "SUCH RIGHTS 'OF.ACCESS'IF ANY THERE BE TO THE SAID HIGHWAY PROJECTNO. 5-3782 ('1) -FROM THE REMAINING PROPERTY OF THE DEFENDANTS BE EXTINGUISHED AND PROHIBITED EXCEPT' FOR ACCESS TO THE_'FRONTAGE ROAD`ON"THE SOUTHEASTERLY SIDE'AND AN APPROACH 40.0_FEET IN WIDTH ON: -.EACH! SIDE,,OF THE PUBLIC_WAY AT SURVEY STATION 454+00". SAID DECREE AMENDED AND MODIFIED BY EXCHANGE DEED RECORDED MARCH 30, 1989', UNDER INSTRUMENT -WO -8913618. 8. AN EASEMENT CONTAINING CERTAIN`,„TERMS, CONDITIONS AND -PROVISIONS AFFECTING'A,PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND FOR THE PURPOSES STATED` HEREIN. FOR:'I'FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES! THE.PURPOSES OF BUILDING*A ROAD FOR'INGRESS ?AND 'EGRESS, SAID ROAD BEING INTENDED AND CAPABLE OF CARRYING -ALL REASONABLE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. AND ALL OTHER `. TRAFFIC WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN -AND SERVICE BUSINESS PREMISES LOCATED ADJACENT TO AND APPURTENANT TO SAID EASEMENT. , RECORDED: NOVEMBER 17, 1971, INSTRUMENT NO.: 788547 1y AFFECTS: A 55' STRIP ' f I -t p. 9. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS` AND EASEMENTS AS HERETO ATTACHED. DATED: DECEMBER 12, 1988 EXECUTED BY: GLENNBROOK PROPERTIES' AND `SIMIDA CORPORATION RECORDED: DECEMBER 16, 1988 INSTRUMENT NO.: 8861921 P AMENDMENT TO SAID COVENANTS RECORDED: JULY 21, 1989 INSTRUMENT NO.: 8934034 10. AN EASEMENT CONTAINING CERTAIN TERMS, CONDITIONS AFFECTING A PORTION OF SAID PREMISES AND FOR THE HEREIN. FOR: PUBLIC UTILITY, IRRIGATION, RECORDED: MAY 15, 1989 INSTRUMENT NO.: 8921818 I AND PROVISIONS PURPOSES STATED LANDSCAPE AND DRAINAGE 11. AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY.AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HEREIN NAMED THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS THEREIN PROVIDED. BETWEEN: GLENNBROOK PROPERTIES, A'NEVADA CORPORATION (!'GLENNBROOK") AND SIMIDA CORPORATION, AN INDIANA• -=O CORPORATION ( "SIMIDA" )y' DATED: JUNE 19, 1984 € A RECORDED: JULY 16, 1984 INSTRUMENT NO.: 8435210 PROVIDING: FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND FORMATION OF LIMITED -PARTNERSHIP UPON .4 E. P 102898—A NOTE: ACCORDING TO THE INFORMATION PROVIDED, THE FORTHCOMING t: DEED WILL BE SUBJECT TO'THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED EASEMENTS:: AN EASEMENT SITUATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION -18, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE I- EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, DESCRIBED AStiFOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT A POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBE 0.75 ACRE TRACT, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EASEMENT, THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLYRIGHT OF WAY OF IDAHO STATE HIGHWAY 69, NORTH 61°21146" WEST A DISTANCE OF 24.82 -FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 28'57'38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY SOUTH 16012104" EAST A DISTANCE OF 56.41 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 61°21146" WEST A DISTANCE OF 15.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS EASEMENT. AN EASEMENT 25 FEET WIDE ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF IDAHO STATE HIGHWAY 69. E s AN EASEMENT 20 FEET WIDE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF -THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 0.75 ACRE TRACT. AN EASEMENT 5 FEET WIDE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY PROPERTY LINES OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 0.75 ACRE TRACT. NOTE: WE NOTE A RECORD OF SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. REFERENCE TO THE RECORD IS MADE FOR FULL PARTICULARS. RECORDED: APRIL 30, 1985 INSTRUMENT NO.: 8522890 BOOK/PAGE: BOOK F OF SURVEY AT PAGE 748 x NOTE: THERE IS NO NOTICE OF RECORD AND THEREFORE NO SEARCH HAS BEEN MADE FOR ANY UNPAID ASSESSMENTS, CHARGES -OR FEES FOR SEWER, WATER, GARBAGE, IRRIGATION AND OTHER POSSIBLE UTILITY SERVICES. NOTE: IF THE PROPOSED.INSURED UNDER THE POLICY TO ISSUE HAS ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE COVERAGE OR EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE COMPANY WILL BE PLEASED TO PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION. NOTE: PURSUANT TO THE STATE OF IDAHOINSURANCEREGULATIONS, A CANCELLATION FEE IS TO BE CHARGED ON ALL CANCELLED ORDERS. , UNLESS OTHERWISE ADVISED, ORDERS WILL BE CONSIDERED CANCELLED SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE ON THE COMMITMENT. THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE ASSESSED SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR RATE FILING WITH THE IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE. a END, OF EXCEPTIONS "'