Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Application
�a 5 Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba To ensure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by the Meridian City Council please submit your comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall Attn: Jaycee Holman, City Clerk, by: September 17, 2013 Transmittal Date: August 27, 2013 File No.. SHP 13-003 Hearing Date: September 24, 2013 Request: Public Hearing - Short Plat approval consisting of two (2) building lots on 1.14 acres of land in the C -G zoning district for River Valley Retail Subdivision By: North LLC Location of Property or Project: 3230 E. River Val _Joe Marshall (No FP) _Scott Freeman (No FP) Steven Yearsley (No FP) —_Michael Rohm (No FP) —Macy Miller (No FP) —Tammy de Weerd, Mayor _Charlie Rountree, C/C _Brad Hoaglun, C/C —Keith Bird, C/C —David Zaremba C/C Sanitary Services (No VAR, VAC, FP) —Building Department/ Rick Jackson —Fire Department Police Department _ City Attorney _Community Development City Planner —City Engineer _ Economic Dev. (CUP only) Parks Department Your Concise Remarks: —Meridian School District (No FP) —Meridian Post Office (FP/PwsHP only) _Ada County Highway District _Ada County Development Services _Central District Health COMPASS (Comp Plan only) Nampa Meridian Irrig. District _Settlers Irrig. District _ Idaho Power Co. (FP,PP,CUP/SHP only) _Qwest (FP/PP/SHP only) —Intermountain Gas (FP/PP/SHP only) —Idaho Transportation Dept. (No FP) _Ada County Ass. Land Records Downtown Projects: _Meridian Development Corp. Historical Preservation Comm. South of RR / SW Meridian: NW Pipeline _ New York Irrigation District Boise-Kuna Irrigation District Boise Project Board of Control / Tim Page City Clerk's Office • 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-888-4433 • Fax 208-888-4218 • www.meridiancity.org (::�-VENnNPlanning Division — COMMISSION & COUNCIL REVIEW APPLICATION Type of Review Requested (check all that apply) D Alternative Compliance D Annexation and Zoning D Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment D Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment D Conditional Use Permit D Conditional Use Permit Modification D Development Agreement Modification ❑ Final Plat ❑ Final Plat Modification D Planned Unit Development D Preliminary Plat ❑ Private Street D Rezone la Short plat D Time Extension (Commission or Council) D UDC Text Amendment D Vacation (Council) D Variance D Other Applicant name: J Applicant address: Wo ColvAbill zip: 2l2of Applicant's interest in property; 0 Own ❑ Rent ❑ Optioned D Other Owner name: Set "Uri. Phone: Owner address: Agent name (e.g., arc'h+itect, t Firm name: O r `F•i'1 Address: ~J ee Primary contact is: gApplii Contact name: Contact address: i Subject Property Informal! Location/street address: Assessor's parcel number(s): Township. range, section:: — Current land use: 6 ), er, developer, representative): P-0 j L Ire. D Owner D Agent JOther !W E-mail: G2'�fo� 2S• Zip: E-mail: 'BGt+-Lv W r i Q Zip: E-mail: Total acreage: / , / Current zoning district: Fax: Lf „ax: (822) 398-4147 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102 a Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208)884-5533 • Facsimile: (208)888-6854 • Website:www.meridiancity.atg I (Rev. OMM013) Project/subdivision mune: /VIGV t aif General description of proposed project/request: Proposed zomllg district(s): � Acres of each zone proposed: % Type of use proposed (check all that apply): ❑ Residential commercial ❑ Office O Industrial ❑ Other Who will own & maintain the pressurized irrigation system in this development? AIM /v/IJ Which irrigation district does this property lie within? M 1 / Primary irrigation source: "M I D Secondary: LI*v Square footage of landscaped areas to be irrigated (if prin ary or secondary point of connection is City water): Residential Project Summary (if applicable) N ZA Number of residential units: Number of common lots: Number of building lots: Number of other lots: Proposed number of dwelling units (for multi -family developments only): I bedroom: 2 - 3 bedrooms: 4 or more bedrooms: Minimum square footage of structure(s) (excl. garage): Proposed building height _ Minimum property size (s.f): _ Gross density (DU/acre-total land): _ Percentage of open space provided: Percentage of qualified open space acreage: Average property size (s.f ): Net density (DUMcre-excluding roads & Meys)t Acreage of open space: (See Chapter 3, Article G, for qualified open space) Type of open space provided in acres (i.e., landscaping, public, common, etc): Amenities provided with this development (if applicable): Type of dwelling(s) proposed: ❑ Single-family Detached ❑ Single-family Attached ❑ Townhomes ❑ Duplexes ❑ Multi -family ❑ Other Non-residential Project Summary (if applicable) Number of building lots: 2- Other lots: 6,040 p Gross floor area proposed: AJ1A Existing (if applicable): V Q4® �Z17 Hours of operation (days and hours); Building height: oL Percentage of site/project devoted tto7the 9following- ` Landscaping: e2 / e Building: a Paving: 3 D'7o eA Total number of employees: Number and ages of students/children (if applicable): l J p Total number of parking spaces provided: `2 Number of compact spaces provided: Authorization 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 884-5533 ® Facsimile: (208) 888-6854 • Website: www.meridiancity.mg 2 (Rev. 021WW013) 1332 Main Street, Suite 30 Columbia, SC 29201 Phone: (803) 254-0350 August 15, 2013 Ms. Sonya Watters City of Meridian Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102 Meridian, ID 83642 Subject: Short Plat Application 3230 E. River Valley Dear Sonya, On behalf of North Eagle Road LLC, enclosed please find the short plat application for 3230 E. River Valley Road for review by the City of Meridian Planning Division. We are requesting the property be subdivided into two lots as shown in the enclosed proposed subdivision plat. The subdivision proposed is in conformation with all requirements and provisions of the UDC and acceptable engineering, architectural and surveying practices and local standards. The property has been recently developed to include a 5,118 square foot retail building and associated infrastructure to include parking, landscaping, utilities, stormwater, grading, and landscaping in accordance with the approved building permit C -SHELL -2013-0003. Included in the application are copies of such approved construction plans for streets, water, sewer, sidewalks, irrigation and other public improvements as well as the landscape plan. These improvements are in place and the proposed subdivision does not deviate from the approved plans and does not include the removal of any of the recent improvements. The property was previously annexed into City limits and rezoned from RUT to C -G (AZ -12-010) and issued a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-thru within 300 feet of a residential district (CUP -12-008). Further the property was issued a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC-12-084) and the associated Development Agreement was recorded on January 13, 2013 (Recorded Instrument No. 113005608). The proposed subdivision does not deviate from the conditions in the CZC or Development Agreement. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Thank you for your consideration. cer, Coin W 'g Project Con Ph: (828)231-8506 back r�t�'�vrStPxLrA{ [ 1>z'p� 3 iz s,c;�rl, Project No. 12-084 IDAHO 1450 East Watertower St. Suite 130 SURVEY Meridian, Idaho 83642 GROUP Phone (208) 846-8570 Fax (20B) 884-5399 DESCRIPTION FOR 2420 N. EAGLE ROAD September 13, 2012 A parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 4, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the W1/4 corner of said Section 4 from which the NW corner of Section 4 bears North 00°36'08' East, 2611.39 feet; thence along the East-West centerline of said Section 4 South 89°45'23' East, 110.00 feet to a point on the East right-of-way line of N. Eagle Road, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; feet; thence along said East right-of-way line North 43050'39" West, 57.12 feet; thence continuing along said East right-of-way line North 00036'08" East, 138.97 thence leaving of said East right-of-way line South 89°45'23" East, 280.00 feet; thence South 00036'08" West, 180.00 feet to a point on the East-West centerline of said Section 4; thence along said East-West centerline North 89°45'23' West, 240.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING containing 1.14 acres, more or less. Prepared by: Idaho Survey Group, P.C. F) 16' Gregory G. Carter, P.L.S. SAISG Projects\2420 Eagle Rd Topo 12-084\Documents\DESCRIPTION.doc Record and return to: TitleOne Corporation Attn: Jack Owsley 1101 W. River St., Suite 201 Boise, Idaho 83702 I;tzi051ff �1c ✓ ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT 19.00 4 BOISE IDAHO 01/29/2013 04:26 PM DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbiilig II11 SiECOReRD-REQ Recording I�I�III I'lll ��I��IIII�I I�II�I VIII �II �I��III�I�II II�I�I�I II�II��I RECORDED -REQUEST OF TITLEONE BOISE 113010826 SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this A9 day of � 2013, between SGI, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, hereinafter referred to a "Grantor", and NORTH EAGLE ROAD, LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company, whose address is 1332 Main Street, Suite 30, Columbia, South Carolina 29201, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee". AIINE&8.EIH: That Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of TEN AND NO/100 ($10.00) DOLLARS and other good and valuable considerations, in hand paid by Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, alien, remise, release, convey and confirm unto Grantee, those certain lands situate, lying and being in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described on attached Schedule I together with all the tenements, hereditaments anq appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion or reversions, remainder or remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof (collectively, the "Property"), TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above granted, bargained and described Property unto said Grantee to Grantee's own proper use, benefit and behoof forever, SUBJECT ONLY TO the matters described on attached Schedule 2, AND Grantor hereby represents, warrants and covenants as follows: A. 'That the Property is free from all encumbrances made by Grantor, and B. Grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey the Property, and hereby warrants the title to said Property for any acts of Grantor and will defend the title of said Property against the lawfid claims and demands of all persons claiming by, through or under Grantor, but against none other. [signatures on next page] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written, Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: (print witness name) (print witness name) STATE OFA- ) COUNTY OF J" ) SS: GRAN'T'OR: SGI, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company By: Blue Rock Development, LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, its Member By: T.�.c. ( _,a, Frederick G. Neser its Managing Member The foregoing Special Warranty Deed was acknowledged before me this /,6 day of 2013, by Frederickq. Neser, Managing Member of Blue Rock Development, LLC, as Member of SGI, LLC, (1ho is personally known to me OR ( ) who produced as identification. Pgy,Got` S •• Print Notary Name g D �•® NOTARY PUBLIC of__�_ 0 ° ao ®•®®® Pll�•,®��p�, Residing at fi l rid. i •mB• sI /ATE 0�°e`00°® ��°® nanee� `• My Commission Expires: gy/✓�' iz� A parcel of land located in the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows; Commencing at the West quarter corner of said Section 4 from which the Northwest corner of Section 4 bears North 00°36'08" East, 2611.39 feet; thence along the East-West centerline of said Section 4 South 89°45'23" East, 110.00.00 feet to a point on the East Right -of -Way line of North Eagle Road, said point being the Real Point of Beginning; thence along said East Right -of -Way Line North 43°50'39" West, 57.12 feet; thence continuing along said East Right -of - Way line North 00°36'08" East, 138.97 feet; thence leaving said East Right -of - Way line South 89°4523" East, 280.00 feet; thence South 00136'08" West, 180.00 feet to a point on the East-West centerline of said Section 4; thence along said East-West centerline North 89°4523" West, 240.00 feet to the Real Point of Beginning. Schedule 1 2. PRMITTED El XCEPTIONS Taxes and assessments for the year 2013 and subsequent years; and Conditions, restrictions, limitations, easements, reservations, zoning ordinances and other matters of record, if any, none of which are hereby reimposed. Schedule 2 AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST NORTH CAROLINA STATE OFr�T;,> ) r� ) CsNvjrJ� COUNTY Or, s> Rebecca K. Wright, as Manager of I North Eagle Road LLC( "N. Eagle") 1332 4ilrin St„ Suit e 30 (name) (address of N. Eagle) Columbia South Carolina, 29201 (city) (state) being first duly sworn upon, oath, depose and say: Exbllrlt "A" N.Eagglcis N Eagle 1. Tbat,� the record owner of the property described on the attached,' and does hereby grant permission to: to su t th ccompanying appiicafion(s) pettaitung to that property. N. Eagle hereby agrees 2. 4k,%naa to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and its employees harmless from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application. N. E�aggle hereby grants 3. t , y n—eperndssion to City of Meridian staff to enter the subject property for the purpose of site inspections related to processing said application(s)t until the plat has been recorded. Dated this / 0 day of d4k '2013— Manager 0t 3 Manager of North SUBSCRIBBI) AND SWORN to before me the day and year C Jeffrey Hill NOTARY PUBLIC qa ttblie foraahoj� rar C/'n zv�r �c Buncombe Coumy,NC Residing at: !(� UAA,4•?-2It�S O oL`L,�linc288a My Commission Expires January 02, 201JMy Commission Expires: ' %' ,dA 'l 33 B_ Broadway Aveaue, Suite 102' • Meridian, kiaho 33&42 Phone: (208) 884-5533 • Pacsiaule: (208) 888-6854 • Websiae: www.meridkmdty,org Page 1 of 2 Gregory Carter From: Jerry Hastings Ohastings@adaweb.net] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:58 AM To: Gregory Carter Subject: Rivervalley Retail Subdivision Name Reservation August 15, 2013 Greg Carter, PLS Idaho Survey Group RE: Subdivision Name Reservation: "Rivervalley Retail Subdivision" Dear Greg, At your request, I will reserve the name "Rivervalley Retail Subdivision" for your project. I can honor this reservation only as long as your project is in the approval process. Final approval can only take place when the final plat is recorded. This reservation is available for the next ten (10) years unless the project is terminated by the client or the jurisdiction or the conditions of approval have not been met. In which case the name can be re -used by someone else. Sincerely, Jerry Hastings, P.L.S. County Surveyor Ada County, Idaho 208-287-7912 208-287-7909 Fax ]hastingsCc-Dadaweb.net From: Gregory Carter [mailto:gcarter@idahosurvey.com] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 8:30 AM To: Jerry Hastings Subject: RE: Subdivision Name Reservation Jerry, How about "Rivervalley Retail Subdivision" From: Jerry Hastings [mailtodhastings@adaweb.net] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 2:40 PM To: Gregory Carter Subject: RE: Subdivision Name Reservation Hi Greg, name Meridian has been used before and should not be used anymore. It causes problems with the Emergency Medical Services and Fire and Police. Please see if they can select another name. On our website there is a section that can help pick a name: Pick "Reserved Subdivision Name List on the Left hand side menu about half way down. Then the second line down from the top and pick "Search the Existing Reserved and Recorded Subdivision Names List. There is a Sound Ex function built in to the search. If the name comes up, that means it has been used. Just input some names until it says no names. Or, just send me a list of possibilities. Thanks, Jerry. Jerry Hastings, P.L.S. County Surveyor 8/16/2013 x� ,,,< | , `! .| {�} \ ,,,< w {�} \ § q � � §§ !i \/� :,,r, K/! \§ZF° �,, §•!!: !( ° //(!§ { ` B" ° \ Z., :/R / & S\\/ 'TZ. 1 \ /S&E JA! / \ \/\/ \ / \/\\ \§( 54; 2 as \\\ \ \ . ..oz \ j b2/§» & §§ 5 $ a,— §m _ ! )\4 ( cz. r[! } o ( 6 /\\ -- \f / \\ { \/. \/ \ !} !}\ ;§ \K / xz o �� \\ _ (Z. _-/0\ \ E / \< § _ cz. } \f / \\ \/ \ I\ \K / xz o E / \< § p z !4 4 { \ \ / \\ \ \ \\ $ z Community Development Parcel Verification Date: 8/16/13 Meridian City Hall, Suite 102 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 208.887.2211 The parcel information below has been researched and verified as correct by the City of Meridian Community Development Department. Project Name: Rivervalley Retail Subdivision Parcel Number: 51104234103 Zip Code: 83646 T/R/S: 3N 1E 04 Acres: 1.138 Property Owner: North Eagle Rd., LLC 1332 N. Main St., #30 Columbia, SC 29201 Address Verification Rev: 04/23/12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE -APPLICATION MEETING NOTES Project/Subdivision Name Grid4Lo (.407'rmU7.f Date: Applicant(s)/Contact(s): ri-k City Staff: (16- 7tVh ,I Jii '�rry Location: 2_f10 ,v, c tom. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation: Size of Property: Design Guidelines Development Context: Proposed Use: (r,G7nrneruizt Proposed Zoning: -Existing Use: 11 Existing Zoning: C�1 Surrounding Uses: me r a l h/1r-0— 'Street Buffer(s) and/or Land Use Buffer(s): Open Space/Amenities/Pathways: Access/Stub Streets/Street System: &7'yeuav 2Ccess ok" ve'-yajl epi J7. Sewer & Water Service: Topography/Hydrology/Floodplain Issues: Canals/Ditches/Irrigation/Hazards: History: )9Z- r2 e7/0 'tJ ar-ODr 013;4 Note; A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) will be required by ACHD for large commercial projects and any residential development with over 100 units. Itis the applicanes responsibilKy to contact & transmit the TIS to ACHD. To avoid unnecessary delays & expedite the hearing process, applicants are encouraged to submit the TIS to ACHD prior to submitting their application to the Cify. Not having ACHD comments and/or conditions on large projects may delay hearing(s) at the City. Please contact Mindy Wallace at 387-6178 or Christy Little at 387-6144 at ACHD to determine if a TIS is required or for any questions in regard to ACHD conditions, impact fees and process, i Other Agencies/Departments to Contact: ❑ Ada County Highway District ❑ Nampa Meridian Irrigation District ❑ Public Works Department" ❑ Idaho Transportation Department ❑ Settler's Irrigation District Building Department �Lctr 2 ❑ Sanitary Services Company ❑ Police Department ❑ Parks Department ❑ Central District Health Department ❑ Fire Department ❑ Other. Apptcation(s) Required: ❑ Administrative Design Review ❑ Conditional Use Permit ModificationfTransfer ❑ Rezone ❑ Alternative Compliance ❑ Development Agreement Modification Short Plat ❑ Annexation ❑ Final Plat ❑ Time Extension - Council ❑ City Council Review ❑ Final Plat Modification ❑ UDC Text Amendment ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment -Map ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Vacation ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment- Text ❑ Preliminary Plat ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Private Street ❑ Other Notes: 1) Applicants are required to hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with UDC 11 -5A -5C prior to submittal of an application requiring a public hearing (except for a vacation or short plat); and 2) All applicants for penri fs requiring a public hearing shall post the site with a public hearing notice in accord with UDC 11 -5A -5D.3 (except for UDC text amendments, Comp Plan text amendments, and vacations). The information provided during this meeting is based on current UDC requirements and the Comprehensive Plan. Any subsequent changes to the UDC and/or Comp Plan may affect your submittal and/or application, This pre -application meeting shall be valid for four (4) months, 3� Friday, August 16, 2013 2:52:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time Subject: RE: Meridian Commons - Proposed Subdivision Date: Friday, August 16, 2013 2:43:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Perry Palmer To: Becky Wright Becky, In reviewing this submittal, I don't see any concerns from the fire department's stand point. Thanks, Perry Perry Palmer, Deputy Chief of Fire Prevention Meridian Fire Department 208.888.1234 Dedication, Loyalty, Tradition CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and privileged and intended for receipt and use solely by the individual or entity named in this email transmission. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender immediately that you have received this message in error and destroy this message. From: Becky Wright [mailto:Becky@interfaceproperties.com] Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2013 10:46 AM To: Perry Palmer Subject: Meridian Commons - Proposed Subdivision Mr. Palmer, We met a few weeks ago regarding the proposed subdivision of 3230 E. River Valley into two separate lots (see attached proposed plat). As you are aware we are required by the City to obtain approval from the Meridian Fire Department for such plat. I understand from our discussion at our 7/22 meeting that an email from you stating your approval would suffice to meet this requirement. As such can you please review the attached and provide your comments and approval if warranted? Thankyou for your help. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you! Page 1 of 2 Becky Becky Wright Interface Properties Ph: 828.667.4824 Mobile: 828.231.8506 Fax: 828.398.4147 Beckv(@Interfaceproperties.com Page 2 of 2 v o Hill; A �s 4j$ 3 A lj"tp yx a €g € Or s ag a1.i gR f s yX e xt� a K S es€ eA " a E 8 T&.R m a s s a _ n most 1. € IL{ g _ ry �I I. P� 4 no �' � m€ -'F P CY £ n Qm�q Ig .. oilWry 9 Off' pe W� a e, 4$ 1 '� _E€ AN, till t aj $, '§ a E c an' Ply n Y 34 S S 9 2n ��. IA6 o 3 m s f,= € A it o v d§ a 9's 4 3 F , s ££,k F 9 rs a aq s ®# P. ' - .'ami An ea re4i_ Va. s s ;,mPol jP aYF, ."s H _ F all £9f S o €3 KP 6 5 ft 3 A m 10 2 s y oz 8 5 s € P ; d ss zs a"_, € t o o$ -A- S' 4 A. SB £ ¢ m of 4 IBM; �sgg�az s �R a�� 1�§ ; att ae s4 all 1. lx�aI s� in; £r �s ;, is g �Z xt�T C 5 B� fir$ ski . 'rs i s W 4 5 a s.. r Xx$ a sa P E a N, d s t @ da s p i to 1 ,�it r a s o x r 2 B 4 -• 1 A A� - 1 W. P -, 10k 4 S i9 " M. £ d X, nn TO , eE R a. as i a - R - _p E Ha e$ € H 550 �'a r 3 q` 3 d. 4 "i I it 011 EAR �q R 3 1gs Ai$�S� 3o 1,q e k¢ � e � p a 'ae v _ g R NO F c s d d._ s A r 0 k > a sf d d'd 3d aE x P$j8 or rQ Q e, d;nfA � ' g AS 20 Una j 1 R RMAI 114 P Nis §€ d¢r s 3 P Yom A 's 3 P= a ", s g Pq DO IQ's t ' x ts €fl s s s �3e a9 6 £fiIR it s&w er10 �' c� � s a7,„ to e & ag sy �§ 4 :-Ili �� $a eza It Mal ie3 10 s 8 ss n 5 =eL aJ s > nq & §3 am +, e H � IN A- Ra s nils; @ a�� :� o Epd � s `� yg4R4 RCI e2 5g apt N nx@ € l3 ME. Bpi a e§ e 0 d � e n Ing gal �S� q, 0 s IQ s'� � � Egws a ak p Ps s £ _s UA L tl €aaPa 3P 14 ss tae sag €s AP &9 'ss H w�€e s€� s Ray5 at zR $ s4 ^�..� a 4S6 + € £w s�RA �� az Q o m $-1M; E €R 9 16P x g s�u'"� €i sa se s -g t W € AZT r Asa is g z P g x xP P. e s' M -S P. 4' P. 99 a3s �" s a s w a' AM go`i a§ a 3 eke as s' F J q A W� 4aP KI @� y Ex Wi P FS n q S Y7 P M SPS � g A F Fo MR F a sea .ate � � s � s �� v� a6S p ;r m � }' a Ess a3� � �� F go asst i s 10 s 1111000910e "=' a `! No it NA s HI ;e 133a §2ss � 4P- EMIT m aE M 5 x� s s2 a Ipp � Ng a8,a e8a r, e -e c n ey Rw nr ,.g2s @s as q At v�0a c _o a§ oz P - 4er §? Da rIX § 5 j e� Aa Y� IP V g V00 aEv 0 To �a §€e n y a m s i.QP m Qv F ] i "J $M 4m 3X d is A6 n" IS a P6 a 9Re ss�k^fPGa "a'��S SFaesegF�ue-va g 2 � §I is 8 m< 'ao �9 oZ $ s9 mC O LZI General 1Yae m pr��l(i Cover Sheet Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings o� / t Ir //N. EAGLE RD (PUBLIC) — X.36 a REARwc `�fv 00']6'66" W 2611.J9' w u, A / m m----------------------- £ r ' 0 /° �- -- -L- _ __—__-_-_________ ° — --------__ N 00'36OB" E 136.97 p i I 1 J'w A9 a, `L al 30 1 1''egI-N E i Mi l i II a91� r� i II ( 1 I m 1 NR c1 I 4 I 262G EAGLE flP 1 1 li 1 I I e Eli j D a 0 1 9� oll I 111 � Ili 111 �0 1 I \ p m 1 r ji i'i ii 1 1 1 I I •s JI, � g ILI` Ir �1 1 111 m� a� v y NNRE GARAGE I R: II `II r I rl j �l L� I I 11 I I `I I I <me ss 55 11 I II I 1 II II - i _ jb FUTURE REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY APARTMENTS ` I REGENCY FT RIPER VALLEY LLC I o r r v py A� oq�a .1 C)+ r r General R Meridian Commons {{` s �`' ExistingTo o &Site Demo Site Develo ment E;?�« PConstruction Drawings a6 K_ r� Pi Biu II', N. Eagle Rd. le a�A a N r o sy b e3 qs p y p -z n¢ j N MIT a hs a gag; �9jj e �_ F zs a'sP es e s e r E a s�e9 jump!.n �s t � s3 z e v� ¢3 z s ar P. y s mi3 - - n e$ a w ¢ .p ns rz M h i s rx ¢9 §^ y 3 3 xtl n ams k 4 adz m s € al HE H5 'ssa �E� �11 n ga�r.�YS a 1 ��� � y g 2G a a g eR 5& R ¢ti viol 'em g � s d y dQ- of 4 r s 7 ix QRJ is F General Meridian Commons SWPPP Plan Site Development Construction Drawings ! \ ) \ �| N & General a9Rma Meridian e__ Site Development .c _m,o +r %p— ` i2 Jd� \ 3 e, $ )! m !;}s Ell Standard Details ,a Commons d s o > Construction Drawip § ( ¥ ! &A| wn; Standard Details ,a Commons d s o > Construction Drawip 9 as➢ ��A Qi€f }p �n� V�r A �.KIM 3 yN5 a,t �� ig Standard Details Meridian Commons Meridian Water Site Development Construction Drawings nano i ik 4 �ti p �AAln E�og �ix. ai Standard Details Meridian Commons Meridian Water Site Development Construction Drawings nano § L w ) . ; Standard ,m a Commons +on Details Site _wR« .». % . Construction Dra+> ' t g 2 ! § L w ) . ; Standard ,m a Commons +on Details Site _wR« .». % . Construction Dra+> ' t C) a '4 Standard Details :§Roadway Meridian a__ sow! Construction Drawings . Ni\I � »© »\ \ U �\< i « « r � . Meridian a__ sow! Construction Drawings . Ni\I � »© »\ \ U �\< i � . Meridian a__ sow! Construction Drawings . � »© »\ \ U �\< i Meridian a__ sow! Construction Drawings A q "t--sa'a��xwMse, s� $ eQ � le = =i i I i ifl� isEE lies ssf I, ��! s�`o �J� '�i• 'i?IPI( farm t t i �e a Standard Details Roadway & Lighting Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings d I i fi. t• UT �\ z� lAN N 17 Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings d A / !( i 1— J aE A RIE k rt gR s. P n _ f f—you r -u gg R 3� Ige '. �� o..� b; 99$f1 CU.� i ' rf qs� 2 g= q s WIM Standard Details Meridian Commons �P( a Site Details Site Development , • Construction Drawings ga' s Me.1 a� N. Eagle Pd. m 1 0 I I k__ I v I i d eem � ,. Ix .. •. 5 E f� M 7 1 gg q 3 ry R AA Site Layout Meridian Gommons Plan Site Development Construction Drawings N. Eagle Rd. c. i EMMM I IIj I I i 4RR= I ,f TEPEE s$s3e�T e � Y 1 � a I+. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .%+++.+++ I TEPEE e � Y 1 � a ]S q b Site Layout Meridian Commons Materials Plan Site Development Construction Drawings H "� Grading & Drainage ( Meridian Commons s o a w-- ) Construction Dramr r)/ ); )••� �- !� - __ __ : -.:- ) Grading & Drainage ( Meridian Commons s o a w-- ) Construction Dramr 11 e ® — N. Eagle Rd. ' n aFu�[uix4� I — — gl 1 1 ---- I I 1 I x I 1 i 1 I I ¢3 i d m o �� P i �t• III I��II II'IIVIII'I S a I...tr+ / $ 3 z vv3 _= A Site Utilities Meridian Commons ,_ &� I Plan Site Development g C y I . Construction Drawings 9 I I Wridiv IdaM ,I Fn ( I r 1� II 4 I I/ye I 'AIL 11 e ® — N. Eagle Rd. ' n aFu�[uix4� I — — gl 1 1 ---- I I 1 I x I 1 i 1 I I ¢3 i d m o P S a $ 3 z vv3 _= A Site Utilities Meridian Commons ,_ &� �r= ;> lit, °! Plan Site Development g . Construction Drawings 9 Wridiv IdaM fi S § g R E5 T Site Utilities Sewer Plan & Profile -�� N. Eagle Rd I c III � p �9PM— �I I I 8 n I 1 \ S' 1 — gp q II I � 1 X nA XAWIA- um.rt 1 1 1 11 f 1 I I I RI 8 I HI I I 111 I I II X55 i Lf n 4 g Y Fg �Zp s Y � 4 @ 5 5 r 0 32 ry Meridian Commons 6 Site Development II��Construction Drawings Idn 6 T I xaX i I rw � has Ya � re I t � b Ic � 11 fi S § g R E5 T Site Utilities Sewer Plan & Profile -�� N. Eagle Rd I c III � p �9PM— �I I I 8 n I 1 \ S' 1 — gp q II I � 1 X nA XAWIA- um.rt 1 1 1 11 f 1 I I I RI 8 I HI I I 111 I I II X55 i Lf n 4 g Y Fg �Zp s Y � 4 @ 5 5 r 0 32 ry Meridian Commons 6 Site Development II��Construction Drawings Idn M, I�L$Eh�yii I � I I Z I _ t � m�� f _ rl � N. Eagle Rd. r N RAI RII Ig§ Igllllllllllt 4o i 1 IL jA P T till I ` wrow 1 __--O` 1 _ 1 S S Y c s S ! I _ I 4 $ 3� _2 }i V{ cnm j II b w II A IiS e ux0 1 �`g 2` IDnY Cig3 1, nrt iv.. _ Site utilities Meridian Commons A xmt Stokesberry Lateral Site Development 1— L- _— I' 1 s II Plan & Profiles® Construction Drawings 1 = £ ' IdNp- 6 p� N3 u A g Rag i it � I lr I II I [ b VI �1 V V 9n13tl i 1 i SW W DRIK MP9 I I I e''� III ,I I li fi I it t! ttYo gp�ygg� ei ROT! s�xS �TI III I I M, I�L$Eh�yii I � I I Z I _ t � m�� f _ rl � N. Eagle Rd. r N RAI RII Ig§ Igllllllllllt 4o i 1 IL jA I SD T till I ` M, I�L$Eh�yii I � I I Z I 1 I I' it rl � IMy Pq IP� r N RAI RII Ig§ �I�i N I ` wrow 1 __--O` 1 1 S S Y c I 3� }i V{ II j II b A IiS I r N S S Y c (A F 3� y3 b £ g S f p C)^ Cig3 1, nrt iv.. Site utilities Meridian Commons Stokesberry Lateral Site Development 1 s a Plan & Profiles® Construction Drawings = £ IdNp- s a as %€ s€ a p€ ax s Yz alot 1€�qqa NBCRay & IN �� S� �_ NA s €P4$ C s''s Ep - 5 gQ > r S .N S r $ Yt Ny^ F a 3WW d is: No W Pa L s' Q x s e _€ W z; YS 4 a.f ft ��£ a 1'48 F 4 W3 4.. s H 2. P V@ 'rr E R£= s _FS t zQd IMF 2 �a $100 lot c ze 11 U to 0 of Rol g £5# n �$ o Y. J RP§ € gX 'S.hR IM*�A Rg£r.� _ 5�8 :'€ f� $@5 P. E1E �.$. P� A P3 a48 "3 Pe LWB $R9 £I'll gig! I �p� £€ _�ni F B g $g` e a L 4QF b£ Q. '3 OVA -- S dF 4 £v p bR 4 2 �L a a £' £ Ry s 28 a� KC QW, Ij t is A �.m j �,�'gF $R Pa iiE$ £� S n So Q £P' y £ .'F F s" at al .4 Rog -A 9 '.'Q b ;� 9g � .'.ST W. Rol go W71 i _' Q: N&ArZip RNIT gp 4€ y N z i Q i3� c 1i k. -9 m4 F P A q.R9 "t T ''' PA 4. R 4 n a 9 �e �y.t '1. AF t a A k s€ 4--6� R WAR; N! C § 2 Q_ v N " i R€ wa_a s� 9 39 '$y Q x £ 5� Qgg € Sb P- 9 ; 1,11 � y y zR£ sE €S - 14 IN ;Sry. m t. :9 Y cis, a ''� y-k� {E $' lav �n 3 i �£ RA # TR SPak ASCa L2 F s vR £0 X - R A S3BwA yy3 �� 5� 4 @ ss B 3 ad_ €J a�E�a Ig s � aE d §� a A. �Ra n € § sE R as &. £aqg¢ SON 66 �a&�� r3€55 g£ 9 A F M 85M 4 Rll o aA -19913 F n 18 £In 2 [A € ! � o s� b � o¢.A % § £�� 111£4"- ii.%€p no £ry£ry0 �€6F A� v r as w tPit s£ a £� s1 R 1"ma§ g4 P " + Ss £fie 1 3 1; POPE rrr, �' � ag No Xg E 4& � R Q ��a r£Q F _ 4 q �d bg UP Q Il eF£ it ` F. Sr`. s 3 a s R £ AlQHMO a� Z 5 6>, 0 a. � E� I 9q j l £B 9 P $, S] 1-0 9 _s -R f _ � 4 P! 6 FI k An= 4 d 9 H.R Pa r qg N j � Q .nr� M4 6 ` £mQM-3 Q,, Al §U LG gN _ all W I i� is 4 i2 5 �s �2; § R Q -„top..ti 2a 5q�5ym S VII. or ss .aa sf h �P B nR % 1 @�@ AJ 49 g �A T A Si' £qF s _ Yk F',% 4 b4 y F§ PIP gyp€ g pig s j $ L �A £a2 ig^ 2� Pa s^ s a 2y QA kSa°q on, eEY $4 8 P g£ 'j" _ i 'sppwp $� `P :C_t 5 RM1 >N€ 2 £ `�e x a it I S F€ mP1.. 3E ��na B® Aa b i$R Re �W <4 r. ..3 ,2 .. uFacb{9 P_P�g$eSi&�PREE?�r�'n 9d3R gie 2 n '9 8 - 6 i R 19 n;t?°, General Cover Sheet Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings 0 sm bo Pn Pa �L to (/� l FC �A O o n;t?°, General Cover Sheet Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings 0 O Pn �L to (/� l FC o 3 : QaC CD Co r—P 73 o^ ati—�P�- // PA — / 9A = / 2 — M. EAGLE RD (PUBLIC) — enss OF BEARING_ \ / u — d — go ,A �.N- .°-------- – ------------Fo ------ ------ ---- -s— --- ` 1 / ogGP ---__ – GgGR – – 9.A / I` NJ( 0'36 UB" E 138.97 \ i CID 1 I I I I I X11 I I 1111 I I I I I I I I' ,= =�z -- --- -- --- -- - `--------- ' T 1 > ,o.o' s, O P, ,• I 1 Im I ' I ! I Oil' TFDFl r 1 2420 N. EAGLE R0. 1 a 0 oQ 0 �I II NII I 1 I �g of I ti , I w I 1 0 ly `II s� I I I 1 1 I I I II --- G I co £m F y Ir'-I I_ li In m c I1 rn A I II •,P/�� I p FUTURE GARAGE 11 -� I 9I 11 � I 1 , r' ' L C £moi GF _r _— I II I� I 11 I 1 1 m Lw�T i s s I C m I 1 I < I I IIS 1 I i AY -� A I e FUTURE REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY APARTMENTS REGENCY AT RIVER VALLEY LLC I 1 r F€.RYPF a6gR GS ., r 4, a a z E., s-s L Z R001 ©®le®®6b®®® N�meo �F Jasspa i $ g p a $'&�E€59R 5dp§�lk _,tA 2 A d (�, `=. � General M � Meridian Commons i I�(� Existing Topo &Site Demo Site Development o 5N § Construction Drawings 1 ,_del— .. Metltlian IJah .7 P�- / At UNI1''1©Y1 — ,; — — — — — — — — — — N. Eagle Rd. G a�44�� € 9 fR � a L' > £ _y F N i IIr�� Q goZ 1 Q� N — ,; — — — — — — — — — — N. Eagle Rd. b I I FF-Jk q; N Cl I$ F s v �* as , 4 e i s ars f h I s s s Q s,v M- ea � t s Q N x ? t H 7 � Z to MW IN" oil him � z£ v s Q4N p�F s 5 G a�44�� € 9 fR � a L' > £ _y F N i IIr�� Q goZ 4 Q� N I : � 1 t y a szpGa @A a MIN v 11 b I I FF-Jk q; N Cl I$ F s v �* as , 4 e i s ars f h I s s s Q s,v M- ea � t s Q N x ? t H 7 � Z to MW IN" oil him � z£ v s Q4N p�F s 5 G a�44�� € 9 fR li R - L' > £ _y F N Q goZ 4 N : oip8 t y a szpGa @A a MIN v 11 C7r q , e General m Meridian Commons Construction Drawings SitSWPPP Plan e Development p�cr szpGa @A a MIN v 11 V•. "Jf 1� ! v ._. O ® 0 \ 3 PIM H 11 Q H r a ra- �e Q f P s� age = t Q4 gill � will s 4 A got i � L i 1N f[J j� a 9L � '"pan �� �� 4 L a� �S a F i Rosin � t E y t - -i. F3 S 0 p AA1 C7r q , e General m Meridian Commons Construction Drawings SitSWPPP Plan e Development p�cr ( , � General s R» mm Meridian Comm_ Site Development Construction Drawings / o \ \\� , ( , � General s R» mm Meridian Comm_ Site Development Construction Drawings I r f 1' sR ii e3 t q } iG ? �p �\ pm�N L It A , < Q§ p ° ey Q q y CnT, ssN x fF m F es 6fe pj;'i yg b e3 t q } iG ? �p 4�Ff �\ pm�N L A L � rrS d e Standard Details Meridian Commons § •`n h %i Meridian Sewer Site Development �.4 $ ...—Construction Drawings Baan n �4§ i pia - s s �Uk i m n" OF. f R a4 v �d R � J a xN £ p §2 ffn 0 41 0 s .4' 9 �6 yfo 11 StandardDetails Meridian Commons `�E j ���: Meridian Water Site Development ko c% - irstl Construction Drawings �n FY Al ) ; 6L^ d\ o9bb%% Meridian Commons 10 »�mmo+mmmmas o+m«Priv* \ / \ Construction mA> _- - � � / \ ) ,)\ 6L^ d\ o9bb%% Meridian Commons 10 »�mmo+mmmmas o+m«Priv* \ / \ Construction mA> _- - � � / Standard Details Roadway i , N 4 r 1F nDn fji mT 9y 0 A N S E t4 xS jt; 65x,.;. 3' t i , N 4 r 1F nDn fji mT 9y 0 A N S E Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings I !� 11(i 11 —fie =tmrtnareM+l� 4' I i5 r m �8 9�—ia zt�.swMm+� 3� Standard Details Roadway & Lighting c — --r i z i F. i a !r L = rn !li!il1111 � �A i sl��(,(I O m Standard Details Roadway & Lighting c — --r i z i F. i a !r L � I � �A i 4S Standard Details Roadway & Lighting c — --r i z i F. i a !r L Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings � l gu � �A i 4S I + bbl � I, Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings , § ;`| Standard m+ ;& Site ++ � \ �| Meridian e__ Site Development _ Construction Drawings / \ � ` \ ;`| Standard m+ ;& Site ++ � \ �| Meridian e__ Site Development _ Construction Drawings / LIr1 e �I N. Eagle Rd. V tl X d i�lj m' I v m 1 Z g D v 1 I 1 E n — 1 f rr 1 --fi �I N. Eagle Rd. 1 d i�lj m' I v N 1 Z g D v 1 I 1 1 i i E n R 1 N Ig " 8N Site Layout Meridian Commons Plan Site Development Construction Drawings Meddan IdaA K Eagle Ad. it � W9 t � I rn R � � I it it I - f y « , ��, . . , s a II r� I r i � � E J I it it ot Z V? a yil e 9 ' d i F Sda? q r^ Site Layoui Meridian Commons CD Materials Plan Site Development N a d$ - s��construction Drawings Ian H 0 III e 10, B i o s t� na ♦ pm( 29 s y 3 2 t f m6 P � n` 3 Fly pp Grading & Drainage t Meridian Commons Plan Site Development Construction Drawings a, 9 i I m ill I � i y MMOR FE - lig Ihf I I I— I 1 0 / �Ye � — — \— N. Eagle Rd. — —. — — — — — — — -- _h = X V✓ . f;, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 n e> 9 i I m ill I � i y MMOR 1 �tjjj'� 5'ulw aswt i 3Fg 1 I 1 t 1 I I P F 11 1 1 avrw�s Site Utilities �(® Plan N 1 FE - lig Ihf I I I— I 1 0 1 �tjjj'� 5'ulw aswt i 3Fg 1 I 1 t 1 I I P F 11 1 1 avrw�s Site Utilities �(® Plan N 1 �Ye � p _h v5 ga. mh c. Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings „ y I v _ a3� M 4b a '�= F•t Z �— 9 x� gm u s ,F 7 '- �vi� 5 a g: b O s °d $q c Vsg c:s be fga gy�i�g§4n a s r 9 s s a g &€ s V C%itsY(< !d Mn S�€v c� n m c aA s�� tiy g .ekr Site Utilities Meridian Commons 1 Q I) KK I' g 1r�r ��(' Sewer Site Development I 5l9 Plan & Pro file Construction Drawings I g CC yI - MeM. s slio a II, � I MEW A w i i a � i I IV. eagle na. v _ a3� M 4b a '�= F•t Z �— 9 x� gm u s ,F 7 '- �vi� 5 a s n b O s °d $q c Vsg c:s be fga gy�i�g§4n a s r 9 s s a g &€ s V C%itsY(< !d a n m c aA s�� tiy g .ekr Site Utilities Meridian Commons 1 g 1r�r ��(' Sewer Site Development Plan & Pro file Construction Drawings MeM. g I 4 I ] im r S 5 I S SJ_ 3 R' Fl 4_ h Ir i ' G 4 " �i Ali� ` I- ESv' it 1 1 it i I rlf:' '"� y � Site Utilities Meridian Commons I 3 � y ! e a ��;.• m � , ��,., q (® Stokesherry Lateral Site Development 2 o Plan & Profile Construction Drawings I a Ii.E Md I.io Ag H! I I NM I ; � I ORO! l - N. Eagle Rd. = a� �IIIIIII F, _ _ gill 1 --lo R 5 4 v ] im r I S I Fl 4_ h Ir i ' G 4 " �i ` I- ESv' it 1 1 it i I v im Fl 4_ ' G 4 " rlf:' '"� y � Site Utilities Meridian Commons � y e a ��;.• m � , ��,., q (® Stokesherry Lateral Site Development 2 o Plan & Profile Construction Drawings a Ii.E Md I.io rV-p a L-, a . . ,_ pl — .1 — ih:rzf �p g Landscape Plan M. Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings N. Eagle Rd. ' �s,IflllAlllll�llIIIIIIII _� _ __ _ __ _ I i al t. lm . as rV-p a L-, a . . ,_ pl — .1 — ih:rzf �p g Landscape Plan M. Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings I 3 I t. ) I � II I I v Nit 1 IIS 1 m I II I II• I 4 n A I I I I --- jj rV-p a L-, a . . ,_ pl — .1 — ih:rzf �p g Landscape Plan M. Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings ! ,.,g Landscape Details Z \� Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings H ono ov H s vE Irrigation Meridian Commons G Plan Site Development 1 T s M Construction Drawings rr iOZ p t a,' d & 6f 5I �i' .5— t 5 tle %iEEi is B� 6 E H s vE Irrigation Meridian Commons G Plan Site Development 1 T s M Construction Drawings !, ! ( ■ r dy\ ;Q«Y: WE �§ 4®¥ /§ \ ! | ` ; rfa\>k1 G }])(\ \( �__ Site_, 707onstruction mA> . . _ / � .Construction a Commons � _ Plans owp«\orac / f ngs !a(/ ;\ , | .Construction a Commons � _ Plans owp«\orac / f ngs H \/ c®Rdteals \\ _+ 9 Z \\}} AI\ Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings _ y N Eagle Rd _ IIiII�IIIIIhIIIIIIiIII12�,� I -�� y oae o3 5e a n - •y 4i 4 as iP 3$ � �fibCS y'A y o3 5e a n - •y iP 3$ � �fibCS y'A g s U41 k 3 y4P €� Y i A: $agg Z A ' h q Irrigation Meridian Commons �('} Plan Site Development o w4� o Construction Drawings e . a M -d- El R€ s a ljjjjj egg° Q�9zc�ii � go �\ m p gjep V � CJ 5a§ M O y�99 ffi —1'� a y $.i��'-a ^5\Z n g 1 s c o H a it r "ll n O IM 3 p \ F Yr r" Irrigation M Meridian Commons A �, j Details Site Development o�. „M, Construction Drawings II I Jpe®� II 1 IF I 1 x I �r 1 I / a� r r. I� I ar Landscape Plan Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings M Y N Eagle Fid. — �— qa ��7,III�IIII�IIIIII �� i-- _ ti t t i �/r a '7 o ^ o j z Ig t I i Z < s _''� T —__ , r I m I t , ��_— _ �— l t rtl I � o r I I •' I i 1 ii � i II I Jpe®� II 1 IF I 1 x I �r 1 I / a� r r. I� I ar Landscape Plan Meridian Commons Site Development Construction Drawings M F u y ng a W .i P A8£ MAN Cc <D w1 �s w OBE SSp'u; R - on Ano 'gWAR \ 11 yv -. s"g p2 �a � s si � il 1. Min v N 9 A N l� c 1 ss a Jogsr4 2 € 5$ 4®§ ssFc PI§ s ss+sx SV jpqPa p a: s 3 `u s a r I—P x b 1 i ii Landscape Meridian Commons @ ;p€ ;=tj�(/ Details Site Development o as Construction Drawings a'gs '%" vsmen id:no 1 .y y, y . ..,3��. .�.. . . z N. Eagle Rd.— �.. � — > Irrigation Plan z2`44R`mrr Meridian am_« Site Development ,,,,Construction o +> IN T7 J Meridian Commons Site Development ......Construction Drawings ono �g °s a v 9a b \\ tl 7111 3 r'k ;aP a z All x 2 �� 13 a a `42N e2� 4 `' a' a'€ �`a`. ';?j 1■, Irrigation Details IN T7 J Meridian Commons Site Development ......Construction Drawings ono August 14, 2013 THE LAND GROUP, INC. Public Works Department City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Meridian Commons —Application for Short Plat —Engineer's Certification of Street Centerline Elevation Dear Sirs: As required by the application for a short plat of the Meridian Commons property, please accept this certification. The plat of this project does not propose any streets for which a certification could be made that the design centerline elevations would be in excess of 3 -ft above the highest established normal groundwater elevation. However, I am able to certify that the other improvements to the site will result in finished ground elevations which are greater than 3 -ft above the highest established normal groundwater elevation as identified by the site geotechnical study prepared by Materials Testing & Inspection under their file number B120816g, as attached. If you need further information, please don't hesitate to contact me at 208-939-4041. Sincerely, Jason Densmer, PE THE LAND GROUP, INC. Enclosure as noted Cc: Becky Wright— Interface Properties via email becky@interfaceproperties.com 0 Site Planning • Landscape Architecture • Civil Engineering • Golf Course Irrigation & Engineering • Graphic Design • Surveying 462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100 • Eagle, Idaho 83616 • P 208.939.4041 • www,thelandgroupinc.com fi MATERIALS TESTING & INSPECTION ❑ Environmental Se vicEs O Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing 0 Special Inspections of SGI Retail Building 2420 North Eagle Road Meridian, 10 e' > . , AI - 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # I of 26 bI20816g_geotech ❑ Environmental Services ❑ Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections Ms. Rebecca Wright G4 Acquisitions, LLC 1001 Telecom Drive Boca Raton, FL 33431 (561) 989-8079 Re: Geotechnical Engineering Report SGI Retail Building 2420 North Eagle Road Meridian, ID Dear Ms. Wright: In compliance with your instructions, we have conducted a soils exploration and foundation evaluation for the above referenced development. Fieldwork for this investigation was conducted on 16 August 2012. Data have been analyzed to evaluate pertinent geotechnical conditions. Results of this investigation, together with our recommendations, are to be found in the following report. We have provided three copies for your review and distribution. Often questions arise concerning soil conditions because of design and construction details that occur on a project. MTI would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical engineers during project implementation. Additionally, MTI would be pleased in providing materials testing and special inspection services during construction of this project. If you will advise us of the appropriate time to discuss these engineering services, we will be pleased to meet with you at your convenience. MTI appreciates this opportunity to be of service to you and looks forward to working with you in the future. If you have questions, please call (208) 376-4748, . ^A Respectfully Submitted, QQPpFESSIpN Materials Testing & Insp 0 ®Q ��CENS�®G°®� no KEVINL S Q - SCHROEDER � 964 14919 Monica Saculles, P E S P $ /Reviewed by: Kev hroeder, PZS grF'ttF",PP�� Geotechnical Engineer �0 �OF10 Geotechnical Services Manager 0d SRO Reviewed by: EPizabeth Brown, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Copyright 02012 Materials Testing& Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way ^ Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4746 ^ Fax (208) 322-8515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 2 of 26 b 1208l6g_geotech ❑ Environmental Services I7 Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing I] Special Inspections TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................. 3 ProjectDescription.... ........................................................ ........... ........................................................... 3 Authorization............................................................................................................................................. 3 Purpose...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Scopeof Investigation............................................................................................................................... 3 Warranty and Limiting Conditions............................................................................................................ 4 ExclusiveUse............................................................................................................................................ 4 Report Recommendation are Limited and Subject to Misinterpretation................................................... 4 EnvironmentalConcerns........................................................................................................................... 5 SITEDESCRIPTION............................................................................................................................................. 5 SiteAccess................................................................................................................................................ 5 RegionalGeology...................................................................................................................................... 5 GeneralSite Characteristics....................................................................................................................... 5 Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry ........................................................................................... 6 GeoseismicSetting.................................................................................................................................... 6 SOILSEXPLORATION......................................................................................................................................... 6 Exploration and Sampling Procedures...................................................................................................... 6 LaboratoryTesting Program.. ...... .................... ......... ............................................................................ - 7 Soiland Sediment Profile.......................................................................................................................... 7 SoilsSurvey Review.................................................................................................................................. 7 VolatileOrganic Scan................................................................................................................................ 8 SITEHYDROLOGY............................................................................................................................................. 8 Groundwater., ...................................................... .................................................... ........... - .............. 8 SoilInfiltration Rates................................................................................................................................ 8 FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND PAVEMENT' DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS-- .............. -- .......... ................ 9 Foundation Design Recommendations...................................................................................................... 9 FloorSlab-on-Grade.................................................................................................................................. 10 RecommendedPavement Sections............................................................................................................ 10 Flexible Pavement Sections....................................................................................................................... 11 Common Pavement Section Construction Issues...................................................................................... 11 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS.................................................................................................................... 12 Earthwork.................................................................................................................................................. 12 DryWeather.............................................................................................................................................. 13 WetWeather.............................................................................................................................................. 13 SoftSubgrade Soils................................................................................................................................... 13 FrozenSubgrade Soils............................................................................................................................... 14 StructuralFill............................................................................................................................................. 14 Backfillof Walls........................................................................................................................................ 15 Excavations............................................................................................................................................... 15 GroundwaterControl. ............................. ........ .................................................................................... 15 GENERALCOMMENTS....................................................................................................................................... 16 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................................... 17 APPENDICES.......................................................................................................................I.............................. 18 AcronymList............................................................................................................................................. 18 GeotechnicalGeneral Notes...................................................................................................................... 19 Geotechnical Investigation Test Pit Log.................................................................................................... 20 AASHTO Pavement Thickness Design Procedures.................................................................................. 23 Platel: Vicinity Map................................................................................................................................. 25 Plate2: Site Map....................................................................................................................................... 26 Copyright ® 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 - Fax (208) 322-6515 mtfC@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 3 of 26 h 120816g_geotech ❑ Environmental Services ❑ Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections INTRODUCTION This report presents results of a geotechnical investigation and analysis in support of data utilized in design of structures as defined in the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). Information in support of groundwater and storm water issues pertinent to the practice of Civil Engineering is included. Observations and recommendations relevant to the earthwork phase of the project are also presented. Revisions in plans or drawings for the proposed structures from those enumerated in this report should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer to determine whether changes in foundation recommendations are required. Deviations from noted subsurface conditions, if encountered during construction, should also be brought to the attention of the soils engineer, Project Description The proposed development is in the eastern portion of the City of Meridian, Ada County, ID, and occupies a portion of the SW'/aNWY, of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian. This project will consist of construction of a single -story retail structure approximately 11,000 square feet in size to be developed on roughly 1.1 acres. Total settlements are limited to 1 inch. Loads of up to 2,000 pounds per lineal foot for wall footings, and column loads of up to 50,000 pounds were assumed for settlement calculations. Additionally, assumptions have been made for traffic loading of pavements. Retaining walls are not anticipated as part of the project. MTl has not been informed of the proposed grading plan. Authorization Authorization to perform this exploration and analysis was given in the form of a written authorization to proceed from Ms. Rebecca Wright of 64 Acquisitions, LLC to Monica Saculles of Materials Testing and Inspection, Inc. (MTI), on 8 August 2012. Said authorization is subject to terms, conditions, and limitations described in the Professional Services Contract entered into between G4 Acquisitions, LLC and MTI. Our scope of services for the proposed development has been provided in our proposal dated 2 August 2012 and repeated below. Purpose The purpose of this Geotechnical Engineering Report is to determine various soil profile components and their engineering characteristics for use by either design engineers or architects in: • Preparing or verifying suitability of foundation design and placement • Preparing site drainage designs • Indicating issues pertaining to earthwork construction • Preparing light and heavy duty pavement section design requirements Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation included review of geologic literature and existing available geotechnical studies of the area, visual site reconnaissance of the immediate site, subsurface exploration of the site, field and laboratory testing of materials collected, and engineering analysis and evaluation of foundation materials. Copyright ® 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Bolse, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mtionnti-id.com • www.mti-ici.com 21 August 2012 Page # 4 of 26 h120816g_geoteeh O Environmental Services ❑ Geotechnical Engineering- ❑ ConStf Udbrl Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections Warranty and Limiting Conditions MTI warrants that findings and conclusions contained herein have been formulated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics, and engineering geology only for the site and project described in this report. These engineering methods have been developed to provide the client with information regarding apparent or potential engineering conditions relating to the site within the scope cited above and are necessarily limited to conditions observed at the time of the site visit and research. Field observations and research reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the purposes cited above. Exclusive Use This report was prepared for exclusive use of the property owner(s), at the time of the report, and their retained design consultants ("Client"). Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the agreed-upon scope of work outlined in this report together with the Contract for Professional Services between the Client and Materials Testing and Inspection, Inc. ("Consultant"). Use or misuse of this report, or reliance upon findings hereof, by parties other than the Client is at their own risk. Neither Client nor Consultant make representation of warranty to such other parties as to accuracy or completeness of this report or suitability of its use by such other parties for purposes whatsoever, known or unknown, to Client or Consultant. Neither Client nor Consultant shall have liability to indemnify or hold harmless third parties for tosses incurred by actual or purported use or misuse of this report. No other warranties are implied or expressed. Report Recommendation are Limited and Subject to Misinterpretation There is a distinct possibility that conditions may exist that could not be identified within the scope of the investigation or that were not apparent during our site investigation. Findings of this report are limited to data collected from noted explorations advanced and do not account for unidentified fill zones, unsuitable soil types or conditions, and variability in soil moisture and groundwater conditions. To avoid possible misinterpretations of findings, conclusions, and implications of this report, MTI should be retained to explain the report contents to other design professionals as well as construction professionals. Since actual subsurface conditions on the site can only be verified by earthwork, note that construction recommendations are based on general assumptions from selective observations and selective field exploratory sampling. Upon commencement of construction, such conditions may be identified that required corrective actions, and these required corrective actions may impact the project budget, Therefore, construction recommendations in this report should be considered preliminary, and MTI should be retained to observe actual subsurface conditions during earthwork construction activities to provide additional construction recommendations as needed. Since geotechnical reports are subject to misinterpretation, do not separate the soil logs from the report. Rather, provide a copy, or authorize for their use, of the complete report to other design professional or contractors. This report is also limited to information available at the time it was prepared. In the event additional information is provided to MTI following publication of our report, it will be forwarded to the client for evaluation in the form received. Copyright © 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 - (208) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mtl-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 5 of 26 b120816g_geotech O Environmental Services 0 Geotechnical Engineering 0 Construction Materials Testing 0 Special Inspections Environmental Concerns Comments in this report concerning either onsite conditions or observations, including soil appearances and odors, are provided as general information. These comments are not intended to describe, quantify, of evaluate environmental concerns or situations. Since personnel, skills, procedures, standards, and equipment differ, a geotechnical investigation report is not intended to substitute for a geoenvirornmental investigation or a Phase II/III Environmental Site Assessment. if the potential for petroleum or hazardous materials contamination or other environmental hazards relating to the site exists, MTI must be informed prior to the commencement of the geotechnical investigation. if environmental services are needed, MTI can provide, via a separate contract, those personnel who are trained to investigate and delineate soil and water contamination. $ITE DESCRIPTION Site Access Access to the site may be gained via Interstate 84 to the Eagle Road exit. Proceed north on Eagle Road approximately 2.0 miles to its intersection with River Valley Street. The site occupies the northeast comer of this intersection. Presently the site exists as a vacant residence with associated outbuildings fronting Eagle Road. The location is depicted on site map plates included in the Appendix. Regional Geology The project site is located within the western Snake River Plain of southwestem Idaho and eastern Oregon. The plain is a northwest trending rift basin, about 45 miles wide and 200 miles long, that developed about 14 million years ago (Ma) and has since been occupied sporadically by large inland lakes. Geologic materials found within and along the plain's margins reflect volcanic and fluvial/lacustrine sedimentary processes that have led to an accumulation of approximately 1 to 2 km of interbedded volcanic and sedimentary deposits within the plain. Along the margins of the plain, streams that drained the highlands to the north and south provided coarse to fine-grained sediments eroded from granitic and volcanic rocks, respectively. About 2 million years ago the last of the lakes was drained and since that time fluvial erosion and deposition has dominated the evolution of the landscape. The project site is underlain by the "Gravel of Whitney Terrace" as mapped by Othberg and Stanford (1993). Sediments of the Whitney terrace consist of sandy pebble and cobble gravel. The Whitney terrace is the second terrace above modem Boise River floodplain, is thickest toward its eastern extent, and is mantled with 2-6 feet of loess. General Site Characteristics This proposed development consists of approximately 1.1 acres of relatively level terrain. Throughout the majority of the site, surficial materials consist of native clay soils or clay with gravel fill. Vegetation primarily consists of sod, mature trees, and other landscape plants, as well as native grasses typical of and to semi -arid environments. Copyright ® 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti®mti-Id.com • www.mtl-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 6 of 26 bl20g]6g_gwtech 0 Environmental Services O GeotecN-dcal Engineering 0 Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections Regional drainage is north and west toward the Boise River. Storm water drainage for the site is achieved by percolation through surfreial soils. No storm water should drain onto the project site from surrounding properties. Storm water drainage collection and retention systems were not noted on the project site, though they have been incorporated into the surrounding roadways. Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry According to the Western Regional Climate Center, the average precipitation for Treasure Valley is on the order of 10 to 12 inches per year, with an annual snowfall of approximately 20 inches and a range from 3 to 49 inches. The monthly mean daily temperatures range from 21° F to 95° F with daily extremes ranging from -25° F to I I I' F. Winds are generally from the northwest or southeast with an annual average wind speed of approximately 9 miles per hour (mph) with a maximum of 62 mph. Soils and sediments in the area are primarily derived from siliceous materials and exhibit low electro -chemical potential for corrosion of metals or concretes. Local aggregates are generally appropriate for Portland cement and lime cement mixtures. Surface waters, groundwaters, and soils in the region typically have pFI levels ranging from 7.2 to 8.2. Geoseismic Setting Soils on site are classed as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 16 of the 2009 edition of the IBC. Structures constructed on this site should be designed per 113C requirements for such a seismic classification. Our investigation did not reveal hazards resulting from potential earthquake motions including: slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture caused by faulting or lateral spreading. Incidence and anticipated acceleration of seismic activity in the area is low. SOILS EXPLORA'T'ION Exploration and Sampling Procedures Field exploration conducted to determine engineering characteristics of subsurface materials included a reconnaissance of the project site and investigation by test pit. Test pit sites were located in the field by means of visual approximation from on-site features or known locations and are presumed to be accurate to within a few feet. Upon completion of investigation, each test pit was backfilled with loose excavated materials. Re -excavation and compaction of these test pit areas are required prior to construction of overlying structures. In addition, samples were obtained from representative soil strata encountered. Samples obtained have been visually classified in the field by professional staff, identified according to test pit number and depth, placed in sealed containers, and transported to our laboratory for additional testing. Subsurface materials have been described in detail on logs provided in the Appendix. Results of field and laboratory tests are also presented on these logs. MTI recommends that these logs not be used to estimate fill material quantities. Copyright ® 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mtl-ld.com P A i 21 August 2012 Page # 7 of 26 bl20816g_geotech ❑ Environmental ❑ : e.o .;,rt ;1iGal Engineering ❑ Consbuction Materials Testing 0 Special Inspections Laboratory Testing Program Along with our field investigation, a supplemental laboratory testing program was conducted to determine additional pertinent engineering characteristics of subsurface materials necessary in an analysis of the anticipated behavior of the proposed structures. Laboratory tests were conducted in accordance with current applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) specifications, and results of these tests are to be found on the accompanying logs located in the Appendix. The laboratory testing program for this report included; Atterberg Limits Tests - ASTM D 4318 and Grain Size Analysis - ASTM C 117/C 136. Soil and Sediment Profile The profile below represents a generalized interpretation for the project site. Note that on site soils strata, encountered between test pit locations, may vary from the individual soil profiles presented in the logs, which can be found in the Appendix, Surficial soils were predominately native lean clays or lean clay with gravel till material. Clays were generally dark brown in color, ranged from dry to slightly moist in moisture content, and were hard. Gravels of up to 3 -inches in diameter were encountered in the clay fill. Organic material was present throughout the majority of the clay layer. Native sandy silt and sandy silt fill material was noted beneath the surficial clay layers. Sandy silts were light brown to brown, dry to slightly moist, and contained limited tree roots throughout. The native sandy silts were generally hard, with varying degrees of induration and calcium carbonate cementation. Sandy silt fills were stiff to very stiff. Fine gravel was present at the side of test pit 2 in the sandy silt fill layer. In many of the more deeply developed soils, poorly -graded gravels were present. Gravels were most often classified as brown, dry to slightly moist, and varied in relative density from medium dense to dense. Calcium carbonate cementation also extended through the upper 6 to 12 inches of this horizon. Fine to medium - grained sand was prevalent throughout the gravels, though coarse-grained sand was encountered at depths greater than 10 feet. Cobbles were primarily 6 -inches in diameter or smaller, though cobbles up to 12 -inches in size were noted at depth. Competency of test pit walls varied across the site. In general, fine grained soils remained stable while more granular sediments readily sloughed. However, moisture contents will also affect wall competency with saturated soils having a tendency to readily slough when under load and unsupported. Soils Survey Review Review of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Ada County Area, Idaho, 1980, indicates that the site includes the Purdam silt loam surficial soil type. Specific soils characteristics for these soils, as defined by the USDA, include moderately slow permeability above the hardpan and very slow through fractures in the hardpan, slow runoff, and slight hazard of erosion. Copyright ® 2012 Materials Testing & lnspwion, Inc, 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com f 21 August 2012 Page # 8 of 26 b120816g_geolech ❑ Environmental Services ® Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections Volatile Organic Scan No environmental concerns were identified prior to commencement of the investigation. Therefore, soils obtained during on-site activities were not assessed for volatile organic compounds by portable photoionization detector. Samples obtained during our exploration activities exhibited no odors or discoloration typically associated with this type contamination. No groundwater was encountered. SITE HYDROLOGY Existing surface drainage conditions are defined in the General Site Characteristics section. Information provided in this section is limited to observations made at the time of the investigation. Either regional or local ordinances may require information beyond the scope of this report. Groundwater During this field investigation, groundwater was not encountered in test pits advanced to a maximum depth of 13.4 feet bgs. Soil moistures in the test pits were generally dry to slightly moist. In the vicinity of the project site, groundwater Ievels are controlled in large part by residential and commercial irrigation activity and leakage from nearby canals. Maximum groundwater elevations likely occur during the later portion of the irrigation season. During previous investigations performed in December 2005, June 2007, December 2009, and February 2012 approximately t/< -mile to the north, south, and southeast of the project site, no evidence of groundwater was noted within numerous test pits advanced to depths as great as 16.7 feet bgs. Another investigation performed in February 2012 approximately %-mile to the southeast of the project site revealed groundwater at depths greater than 19 feet bgs. Based on evidence of this investigation and background knowledge of the area, MTI estimates groundwater depths to remain greater than approximately 17 feet bgs throughout the year. This depth can be confirmed through long-term groundwater monitoring. Soil Infiltration Rates Soil permeability, which is a measure of the ability of a soil to transmit a fluid, was not tested in the field. Given the absence of direct measurements, for this report an estimation of infiltration is presented using generally recognized values for each soil type and gradation. Of soils comprising the generalized soil profile for this study, lean clay soils generally offer little permeability, with typical hydraulic infiltration rates of less than 2 inches per hour. Sandy silt soils will commonly exhibit infiltration rates from 2 to 4 inches per hour. Induration and calcium carbonate cementation was encountered within clay and sandy silt soils may reduce infiltration rates to near zero. Poorly -graded gravel sediments typically exhibit infiltration values in excess of 12 inches per hour. Infiltration testing is generally not required within these sediments because of their free - draining nature. It is recommended that infiltration facilities constructed on the site be extended into native,, non-cemented sandy gravel sediments. Excavation depths of approximately 7 feet bgs should be anticipated to expose these sandy gravel sediments. Because of the high soil permeability, ASTM C 33 filter sand, or equivalent, should be incorporated into design of infiltration facilities. An infiltration rate of 8 inches per hour should be used in design. Actual infiltration rates should be confirmed at the time of construction. Copyright © 2012 Materials Testing S+ Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 ^ Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 9 of 26 b 120816g_geotech Q Environmental SeNicoS 0 Geotechnical Engineering C) Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections FOUNDATION, SLAB, AND PAVEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Various foundation types have been considered for support of the proposed structure. Two requirements must be met in the design of foundations. First, the applied bearing stress must be less than the ultimate bearing capacity of foundation soils to maintain stability. Second, total and differential settlement must not exceed an amount that will produce an adverse behavior of the superstructure. Allowable settlement is usually exceeded before bearing capacity considerations become important; thus, allowable bearing pressure is normally controlled by settlement considerations. Considering subsurface conditions and the proposed construction, it is recommended that the structure be founded upon conventional spread footings and continuous wall footings. Total settlements should not exceed 1 inch if the following design and construction recommendations are observed. Foundation Design Recommendations Based on data obtained from the site and test results from various laboratory tests performed, MTI recommends following guidelines for the net allowable soils bearing capacity: Soil Bearing Capacity w �� rrr i � ; FaotingDep#h � ,' AS,`CM D'1557 slatb'rade`Con etIon` lYetAllowaj2l� ;, , ) SoilBearin 'Cii ci Footings must bear on competent, undisturbed, 2,0001bs/ft 2 native sandy silt soils, poorly -graded gravels, or Not Required for compacted structural fill. Existing lean clay soils Native Soil 1 A /3 increase is allowable and tial materials must be completely removed for short-term loading, from below foundation elements.' Excavation 95% for Structural Fill which is de fined by seismic depths ranging from I to 5.5 feet bgs should be events or designed wind anticipated to expose proper bearing soils, speeds. 'MTI recommends that a qualified peotechnical engineer or engineering technician verify the bearing soil complete, these areas must be backfilled in a controlled and compacted manner as described in the Structural Fill section. Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2009 IBC minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately 1 inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately t/2 inch. Objectionable soil types encountered at the bottom of footing excavations should be, removed and replaced with structural fill, Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footing subgrade will require over -excavation and backfilling with structural fill. To minimize the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content, MTI recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. For frost protection, the bottom of external footings should be 30 inches below finished wade. Copyright 02012 Materials Testing & Inspection. Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti(°lmti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 10 of 26 b120816g_geotech D Environmental Services ❑ Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special inspections Floor Slab -on -Grade Native clay soils are moderately plastic and will be susceptible to shrink/swell movements associated with moisture changes. Additionally, dense organic material was generally encountered within these clay soils. Areas of the site within the proposed structures should be excavated to sufficient depths to completely remove lean clay soils. Uncontrolled fill was encountered in portions of the site MTI recommends that these fill soils be excavated to a sufficient depth to expose competent native soils or to a minimum depth of 1'/z feet below finished subgrade If any fill materials remain in place the exposed surface of remaining fill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557 A qualified soils technician should be present during excavation to identify these materials. Organic, loose, or obviously compressive materials must be removed prior to placement of concrete floors or floor -supporting fill. In addition, the remaining subgrade should be treated in accordance with guidelines presented in the Earthwork section. Areas of excessive yielding should be excavated and backfilled with structural fill. Fill used to increase the elevation of the floor slab should meet requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section. Fill materials must be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557. A free -draining granular mat (drainage fill course) should be provided below slabs -on -grade. This should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and properly compacted. The mat should consist of a sand and gravel mixture, complying with Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC) specifications for'/4-inch (Type 1) crushed aggregate. A moisture -retarder should be placed beneath floor slabs to minimize potential ground moisture effects on moisture -sensitive floor coverings. The moisture -retarder should be at least 15 -mil in thickness and have a permeance of less than 0.01 US perms as determined by ASTM E 96. Placement of the moisture -retarder will require special consideration with regard to effects on the slab -on -grade. The granular mat should be compacted to no less than 95 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557. Upon request, MTI can provide further consultation regarding installation. Recommended Pavement Sections MTI has made assumptions for traffic loading variables based on the character of the proposed construction. of pavements both now and in the future. Based on experience with soils in the region, a subgrade California Bearing Ratio (CBR) value of 4 has been assumed for near -surface native lean clay/sandy silt soils on site. The following are minimum thickness requirements for assured pavement function. Depending on site conditions, additional work, e.g. soil preparation, may be required to support construction equipment. These have been listed within the Soft Subgrade Soils subsection. Copyright 02012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com u 21 August 2012 Page # 11 of 26 H 20816"cotech ❑ Environmental Ba;virsc ❑ Geotechnical Engineering 0 Construction Materials Testing O Special Inspections Flexible Pavement Sections The AASHTO design method has been used to calculate the following pavement sections. Calculation sheets provided in the Appendix indicate the soils constant, traffic loading, traffic projections, and material constants used to calculate the pavement sections. MTI recommends that materials used in the construction of asphaltic concrete pavements meet requirements of the ISPWC Standard Specification for Highway Construction. Construction of the pavement section should be in accordance with these specifications and should adhere to guidelines recommended in the section on Construction Considerations. AASHTO Flexible Pavement Specifications *MTI recommends that a qualifiedeop technical engineer or engineering technician veriN subgrade competency at the time of construction. Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt mix design shall meet the requirements of ISPWC, Section 810 Class III plant mix. Materials shall be placed in accordance with ISPWC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. Aggregate Base: Material complying with ISPWC Standards for Crushed Aggregate Materials. Structural Subbase: Material should comply with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section of this report except that the maximum material diameter is no more than 2/3 the component thickness. Common Pavement Section Construction Issues The subgrade upon which above pavement sections are to be constructed must be properly stripped, compacted (if indicated), inspected, and proof -rolled. Proof rolling of subgrade soils should be accomplished using a heavy rubber -tired, fully loaded, tandem -axle dump truck or equivalent. Verification of subgrade competence by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician at the time of construction is recommended. Fill materials on the site must demonstrate the indicated compaction prior to placing material in support of the pavement section. MTI anticipates that pavement areas will be subjected to moderate traffic. MTI does not anticipate pumping material to become evident during compaction, but subgrade clays and silts near and above optimum moisture contents may tend to pump. Pumping or soft areas must be removed and replaced with structural fill. Fill material and aggregates in support of the pavement section must be compacted to no less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 for flexible pavements and by ASTM D 1557 for rigid pavements, If a material placed as a pavement section component cannot be tested by usual compaction testing methods, then compaction of that material must be approved by observed proof rolling. Minor deflections from proof rolling for flexible pavements are allowable. Deflections from proof rolling of rigid pavement support courses should not be visually detectable. Copyright 02012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mtl®mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com s An' Tar III�f ,� "D''r�v*v ywj g �J,4_14, t n rrr a a p s �, a t 's + tt 3l r_ 0.;,+.7.310.' Asphaltic Concrete 2.5 Inches 3.0 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 4.0 Inches 6,0 Inches Structural Subbase 10.0 Inches 10.0 Inches Compacted Subgrade Not Required Not Required *MTI recommends that a qualifiedeop technical engineer or engineering technician veriN subgrade competency at the time of construction. Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt mix design shall meet the requirements of ISPWC, Section 810 Class III plant mix. Materials shall be placed in accordance with ISPWC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. Aggregate Base: Material complying with ISPWC Standards for Crushed Aggregate Materials. Structural Subbase: Material should comply with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section of this report except that the maximum material diameter is no more than 2/3 the component thickness. Common Pavement Section Construction Issues The subgrade upon which above pavement sections are to be constructed must be properly stripped, compacted (if indicated), inspected, and proof -rolled. Proof rolling of subgrade soils should be accomplished using a heavy rubber -tired, fully loaded, tandem -axle dump truck or equivalent. Verification of subgrade competence by a qualified geotechnical engineer or engineering technician at the time of construction is recommended. Fill materials on the site must demonstrate the indicated compaction prior to placing material in support of the pavement section. MTI anticipates that pavement areas will be subjected to moderate traffic. MTI does not anticipate pumping material to become evident during compaction, but subgrade clays and silts near and above optimum moisture contents may tend to pump. Pumping or soft areas must be removed and replaced with structural fill. Fill material and aggregates in support of the pavement section must be compacted to no less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698 for flexible pavements and by ASTM D 1557 for rigid pavements, If a material placed as a pavement section component cannot be tested by usual compaction testing methods, then compaction of that material must be approved by observed proof rolling. Minor deflections from proof rolling for flexible pavements are allowable. Deflections from proof rolling of rigid pavement support courses should not be visually detectable. Copyright 02012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mtl®mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 12 of 26 h120816g_geotech Environmental Services ❑:s.-otechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing t7 Special Inspections MTI recommends that rigid concrete pavement be provided for heavy garbage receptacles. This will eliminate damage caused by the considerable loading transferred through the small steel wheels onto asphaltic concrete. Rigid concrete pavement should consist of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement (PCCP) generally adhering to ITD specifications for Urban Concrete. PCCP should be 6 inches thick on a 4 -inch drainage fill course (see Floor Slab -on -Grade section), and should be reinforced with welded wire fabric. Control joints must be on 12 -foot centers or less. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Recommendations in this report are based upon structural elements of the project being founded on competent native sandy silts, poorly -graded gravels, or compacted structural fill. Structural areas should be stripped to an elevation that exposes these soil types. Earthwork Excessively organic soils, deleterious materials, or disturbed soils generally undergo high volume changes when subjected to loads, which is detrimental to subgrade behavior in the area of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills, and foundations. Mature trees, brush, and thick grasses with associated root systems were noted at the time of our investigation. It is recommended that organic or disturbed soils, if encountered, be removed to depths of 1 Y feet (minimum), and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Stripping depths should be adjusted in the field to assure that the entire root zone or disturbed zone or topsoil are removed prior to placement and compaction of structural fill materials. Exact removal depths should be determined during grading operations by a qualified geotechnical representative, and should be based upon subgrade soil type, composition, and firmness or soil stability. If underground storage tanks, underground utilities, wells, or septic systems are discovered during construction activities, they must be decommissioned then removed or abandoned in accordance with governing Federal, State, and local agencies. Excavations developed as the result of such removal must be backfilled with structural fill materials as defined in the Structural Fill section. MTI should oversee subgrade conditions (i.e., moisture content) as well as placement and compaction of new fill (if required) after native soils are excavated to design grade. Recommendations for structural fill presented in this report can be used to minimize volume changes and differential settlements that are detrimental to the behavior of footings, pavements, and floor slabs. Sufficient density tests should be performed to properly monitor compaction. For structural fill beneath building structures, one in-place density test per lift for every 5,000 square feet is recommended. In parking and driveway areas, this can be decreased to one test per lift for every 10,000 square feet. Copyright O 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way - Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mtl-id.com - www.mtl-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 13 of 26 b120816g_gemech ❑ Environmental Servlcos ❑ Oct i ❑ ❑ Special Inspections Dry Weather If construction is to be conducted during dry seasonal conditions, many problems associated with soft soils may be avoided. However, some rutting of subgrade soils may be induced by shallow groundwater conditions related to springtime runoff or irrigation activities during late summer through early fall. Solutions to problems associated with soft subgrade soils are outlined in the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Problems may also arise because of lack of moisture in native and fill soils at time of placement. This will require the addition of water to achieve near -optimum moisture levels. Low -cohesion soils exposed in excavations may become friable, increasing chances of sloughing or caving. Measures to control excessive dust should be considered as part of the overall health and safety management plan. Wet Weather If construction is to be conducted during wet seasonal conditions (commonly from mid-November through May), problems associated with soft soils must be considered as part of the construction plan. During this time of year, fine-grained soils such as silts and clays will become unstable with increased moisture content, and eventually deform or rut. Additionally, constant low temperatures reduce the possibility of drying soils to near optimum conditions. Soft Subgrade Soils Shallow fine-grained subgrade soils that are high in moisture content should be expected to pump and rut under construction traffic. During periods of wet weather, construction may become very difficult if not impossible. The following recommendations and options have been included for dealing with soft subgrade conditions: • Track -mounted vehicles should be used to strip the subgrade of root matter and other deleterious debris, Heavy rubber -tired equipment should be prohibited from operating directly on the native subgrade and areas in which structural fill materials have been placed. Construction traffic should be restricted to designated roadways that do not cross, or cross on a limited basis, proposed roadway or parking areas. • Construction roadways on soft subgrade soils should consist of a minimum 2 -foot thickness of large cobbles of 4 to 6 inches in diameter with sufficient sand and fines to fill voids. Construction entrances should consist of a 6 -inch thickness of clean, 2 -inch minimum, angular drain -rock and must be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 30 to 50 feet long. During the construction process, top dressing of the entrance may be required for maintenance. • Scarification and aeration of subgrade soils can be employed to reduce the moisture content of wet subgrade soils. After stripping is complete, the exposed subgrade should be ripped or disked to a depth of 1t/z feet and allowed to air dry for 2 to 4 weeks. Further disking should be performed on a weekly basis to aid the aeration process. • Alternative soil stabilization methods include use of geotextiles, lime, and cement stabilization. MTI is available to provide recommendations and guidelines at your request. Copyright O 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 - Fax (208) 322.6515 mti@mti-id.com • www,mti-id,com 21 August 2012 Page # 14 of 26 b120816g_geotech ❑ Environmental Seryims ❑ t (n - hntcal Englneerinq ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Sprdai Inspections Frozen Subgrade Soils Prior to placement of structural fill materials or foundation elements, frozen subgrade soils must either be allowed to thaw or be stripped to depths that expose non -frozen soils and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Stockpiled materials must be allowed to thaw and return to near -optimal conditions prior to use as structural fill. Structural Fill Soils recommended for use as structural fill are those classified as GW, GP, SW, and SP in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D 2487). Use of silty soils (USCS designation of GM, SM, and ML) as structural fill may be acceptable. However, use of silty soils (GM, SM, and ML as structural fill below footings is prohibited. These materials require very high moisture contents for compaction and require a tong time to dry out if natural moisture contents are too high and may also be susceptible to frost heave under certain conditions. Therefore these materials can be quite difficult to work with as moisture content, lift thickness, and compactive effort becomes difficult to control. If silty soil is used for structural fill, lift thicknesses should not exceed 6 inches (loose), and fill material moisture must be closely monitored at both the working elevation and the elevations of materials already placed. Following placement, silty soils must be protected from degradation resulting from construction traffic or subsequent construction. Recommended granular structural fill materials, those classified as GW, GP, SW, and SP, should consist of a 6 -inch minus select, clean, granular soil with no more than 50 percent oversize (greater than'/4-inch) material and no more than 12 percent fines (passing No. 200 sieve). These till materials should be placed in layers not to exceed 12 inches in loose thickness. Prior to placement of structural fill materials, surfaces must be prepared as outlined in the Construction Considerations section, Structural fill material should be moisture - conditioned to achieve optimum moisture content prior to compaction. For structural fill below footings, areas of compacted backfill must extend outside the perimeter of the footing for a distance equal to the thickness of fill between the bottom of foundation and underlying soils, or 5 feet, whichever is less. Each layer of structural fill must be compacted, as outlined below: • Below Structures and Rigid Pavements; A minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. • Below Flexible Pavements: A minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557 or 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 698, The ASTM D 1557 test method must be used for samples containing up to 40 percent oversize (greater than '/4 -inch) particles. If material contains more than 40 percent but less than 50 percent oversize particles, compaction of fill must be confirmed by proof rolling each lift with a I0 -ton vibratory roller (or equivalent) until the maximum density has been achieved, Density testing must be performed after each proof rolling pass until the in-place density test results indicate a drop (or no increase) in the dry density, defined as the maximum density or "break over" point, The number of required passes should be used as the requirement on the remainder of fill placement, Material should contain sufficient fines to fill void spaces, and must not contain more than 50 percent oversize particles. Copyright 02012 Materials resting & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way - Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mtl@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 15 of 26 b 120816g,-gcotech ❑ Enylrol'.m'm,;: vices O Qeotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing El Special Inspecilons Backfill of Walls Backfill materials must conform to the requirements of structural fill, as defined in this report. For wall heights greater than 2.5 feet, the maximum material size should not exceed 4 inches in diameter. Placing oversized material against rigid surfaces interferes with proper compaction, and can induce excessive point loads on walls. Backfill shall not commence until the wall has gained sufficient strength to resist placement and compaction forces. Further, retaining walls above 2.5 feet in height shall be backfilled in a manner that will limit the potential for damage from compaction methods and/or equipment. It is recommended that only small hand -operated compaction equipment be used for compaction of backfill within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall, measured from the back face of the wall, Backfill should be compacted in accordance with the specifications for structural fill, except in those areas where it is determined that future settlement is not a concern, such as planter areas. In nonstructural areas, backfill must be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. Excavations Shallow excavations that do not exceed 4 feet in depth may be constructed with side slopes approaching vertical. Below this depth, it is recommended that slopes be constructed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, section 1926, subpart P. Based on these regulations, on-site soils are classified as type "C" soil, and as such, excavations within these soils should be constructed at a maximum slope of 1'/2 foot horizontal to 1 foot vertical (1 %2H;1 V) for excavations up to 20 feet in height. Excavations in excess of 20 feet will require additional analysis. Note that these slope angles are considered During our subsurface exploration, test pit sidewalls generally exhibited little indication of collapse; however, sloughing of fill materials and native granular sediments from test pit sidewalls was observed. For deep excavations, native granular sediments cannot be expected to remain in position. These materials are prone to failure and may collapse, thereby, undermining upper soils layers. This is especially true when excavations approach depths near the water table. Care must be taken to ensure that excavations are properly backfilled in accordance with procedures outlined in this report. Groundwater Control Groundwater was not encountered during the investigation and is anticipated to be below the depth of most construction. If recommended, excavations below the water table will require a dewatering program. It may be possible to discharge dewatering effluent to remote portions of the site, to a sump, or to a pit. This will essentially recycle effluent, thus eliminating the need to enter into agreements with local drainage authorities. Should the scope of the proposed project change, MTI should be contacted to provide more detailed groundwater control measures. Copyright p 20 t2 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322.6515 mt1@mtHd.com • www,mti-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 16 of 26 b120816gtgeotech O Environmental Services ❑ Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections Special precautions may be required for control of surface runoff and subsurface seepage. It is recommended that runoff be directed away from open excavations. Silty or clayey soils may become soft and pump if subjected to excessive traffic during time of surface runoff. Ponded water in construction areas should be drained through methods such as trenching, sloping, crowning grades, nightly smooth drum rolling, or installing a French drain system. Additionally, temporary or permanent driveway sections should be constructed if extended wet weather is forecasted. GENERAL COMMENTS When plans and specifications are complete, or if significant changes are made in the character or location of the proposed structures, consultation with MTI should be arranged as supplementary recommendations may be required. It is recommended that suitability of subgrade soils and compaction of structural fill materials be verified prior to placement of structural elements. Additionally, monitoring and testing should be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for structural fill and that proper placement and compaction techniques are utilized. Copyright @) 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, Id 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mtl-ld.com 21 August 2012 Page # 17 of 26 b120816g__geotech O Environmental ws ❑ Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special inspections REFERENCES American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2004). Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-µm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing: ASTM C 117 — 04. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2006). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates: ASTM C 136 —06. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2007). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort D 698-07el. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2009). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort D 1557-09. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2007). Standard Test Methods for California Bearing Ratio, ASTM D 1883 — D7e2. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2011). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System) D2487-11. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2010). Standard Test Methods for Liguid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils: ASTM D 4318 — 10. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (1993). AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures 1993. Washington, D. C.: AASHTO. Collett, R. A., U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. (1980). Soil Survey of Ada County Area, Idaho, Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Desert Research Institute. Western Regional Climate Center. [Online] Available: <httUD•//www wrcc dri.edu/> (2012). International Building Code Council (2009), International Building Code, 2009. Country Club Hills, IL: Author, Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) (2010). Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, 2010. Boise, ID: Author. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Web Soil Survey. (Online] Available: <http://websoilsurvey.iires.tisda.gov/app/> (2012). U. S. Dept, of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "CFR 29, Part 1926, subpart P: Safeh, and Health Regulations for Construction. Excavations. (19861 [Online] Available: <www,osha.gov> (2012). U. S. Geological Survey. (2011). National Water Information System: Web Interface. [Online] Available: <http:Uwaterdata.usgs.sov/nwis> (2012). Copyright ®2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 3764748 • Fax (208) 322.6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 18 of 26 bI2e816g_gentech ❑ Environmental Services ❑ Geotechnical Engineering U Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections APPENDICES ACRONYM LIST AASHTO: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACCP: Asphalt Cement Concrete Pavement ACRD: Ada County Highway District ASTM: American Society for Testing and Materials AU: Augersample bgs: below ground surface CB: Carbide bit CBR: California Bearing Ratio D: natural dry unit weight, pcf DB: diamond bit DM: Dames & Moore sampling tube GS: grab sample IBC: International Building Code ISPWC: Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction ITD: Idaho Transportation Department LL: Liquid Limit M: water content MSL: mean sea level N: Standard "N" penetration: blows per foot, Standard Penetration Test NP: nonplastic PCCP: Portland Cement Concrete Pavement PERM: vapor permeability PI: Plasticity Index PID: phomionization detector PVC: polyvinyl chloride Qc: cone penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, psi Qp: Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, tsf Qu: Unconfined compressive strength, tsf SPT: Standard Penetration Test (140:pound hammer falling 30 in. on a 2:in. split spoon) SS: split spoon (13/8:in. inside diameter, 2:in. outside diameter, except where noted) ST: Shelby tube (3:in. outside diameter, except where noted) USCS: Unified Soil Classification System USDA: United States Department of Agriculture UST: underground storage tank V: vane value, ultimate shearing strength, tsf WT: apparent groundwater level Copyright ®2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322.6515 mti@mtl-id.com • www.mtl-ld.com 21 August 2012 Page # 14 of 26 b120816"eatech O Environmental Services ® Geotechnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES k.; l iw:ltl `y 4 y t, i k i{ } (C 't ;REL 7Il Lt E 84'C7 Rjill'Coi+ISiST�p V.111CLAS A ICA PSON . , ++ ' i+ .',. , t °+` ' ,, , ` ,+ „ `. Coarse -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts Fine -Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts N Very Loose: <4 Very Soft: <2 Loose: 4-10 Soft 2-4 Medium Dense: 10-30 Medium Stiff: 4-8 Dense: 30-50 Stiff: 5-15 Very Dense: >50 Very Stiff: 15-30 Hard: >30 Description Field Test Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to touch Moist Damp but not visible moisture Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table �`/I£ .1. a{ia. },-. '§Cv W ,'.1 kw F7°��3jr d jk:ffi ^� {; <F 5"�i;� ,t5,k.,M`f.. t±��tS',t9rQr1$erii'€5ak++, xeh Description Field Test Weakly Crumbles or breaks with handling or 5 to 0.6 mm slight finger pressure Moderately Crumbles or beaks with considerable 12 to 3 in. finger pressure Strongly Will not crumble or break with finger <D.005 mm pressure �`/I£ .1. a{ia. },-. '§Cv W ,'.1 kw F7°��3jr d jk:ffi ^� {; <F 5"�i;� ,t5,k.,M`f.. t±��tS',t9rQr1$erii'€5ak++, xeh .y .. Boulders: >12 in. Coarse -Grained Sand: 5 to 0.6 mm Silts: 0.075 to 0.005 mm Cobbles: 12 to 3 in. Medium -Grained Sand: 0.6 to 0.2 mm clays: <D.005 mm Gravel: 3 in. to 5 mm Fine -Grained Sand: 0.2 to 0.075 mm Silts & Clays LL > 50 MH Inorganic, elastic silts; sandy, gravelly or clayey elastic silts Copyright02012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mtl-ld.com ,'.1 kw F7°��3jr d jk:ffi ^� {; <F 5"�i;� ,t5,k.,M`f.. t±��tS',t9rQr1$erii'€5ak++, xeh i � Lr +f`y,�- s*5�ni.�,r � ,c tx'+�n +gy�pp �Y}} t�iz^kF k al r '� 'F a•,"' "'�yJI�,VQI,Y rz�, a�+i...�.r X'8�tltsc {.',F# h�rZX..'k3%!1��.�T.".t.�A'xSl�Qt,�S.Fe:i�ic v: `v..,`✓,rt+Y.,n��,tk :lit t-)),�1{I & Coarse -Grained Soils <50% passes No.200 sieve Gravel & Gravelly Soils <50% coarse fraction passes No.4 sieve GW Well -graded gravels; gravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines GP Poorly -graded gravels; gravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines GM Silty gravels; poorly -graded graveP/sand silt mixtures GC Clayey gravels; poorly -graded gravel/sand/clay, mixtures Sand & Sandy Soils >50% coarse fraction passes No.4 sieve SW Well -graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines SP Poorly -graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines SM Silty sands; poorly -graded sand/gravel/silt mixtures SC Clayey sands; poorly -graded sand/gravel/clay mixtures Fine Grained Soils >50% passes No.200 sieve Silts & Clays LL <50 ML Inorganic silts; sandy, gravelly or clayey silts CL Lean clays; inorganic, gravelly, sandy, or silty, low to medium -plasticity clays OL Organic, low -plasticity clays and silts Silts & Clays LL > 50 MH Inorganic, elastic silts; sandy, gravelly or clayey elastic silts CH Fat clays; high -plasticity, inorganic clays OH Organic, medium to high -plasticity clays and silts Highly Organic Soils P'f Peat, hmnus, hydric soils with high organic content Copyright02012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mtl-ld.com ' Er, 21 August 2012 Page # 20 of 26 b 120816g_geotech 0 Environs llsl i� ;,, Q Geotechnical Engineering 0 Consiroction Materials Testing 0 Special Inspectlons GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log #: TP -I Date Advanced: 16 Aug 2012 Logged by: Monica Saculles, P.E. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Total Depth: 13.4 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and Sample Sample Depth QP Lab Feet bgs) USCS Soil and Sediment Classification Type Feet bgs) Test ID 0.0-1.4 Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown, dry, hard 4.5+ _Organic material throughout, Sandy Silt (ML): Light brown to brown, dry, hard, with fine-grained sand. 1,4-5.2 --Weak to moderate calcium carbonate 4.5+ cementation throughout. --Limited tree roots present to depths of up to 3.0 eel bgs. Poorly -Graded Gravel (GP): Brown, dry to slightly moist, medium dense to dense, with fine to medium -grained sand and 6 -inch -minus sub -rounded to rounded cobbles. 5.2-13.4 --Moderate calcium carbonate cementation noted in the zipper 6 to 12 inches. --Coarse-grained sand and 12 -inch -minus sub - rounded cobbles were present at depths greater than approximately 10.0 feet bgs. Copyright 0 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti®mti-Id.com • www.mti-id.com �=5 F* 2$K:: 21 August 2012 Page # 21 of 26 b 120816g_geotech ❑ Environmental Services ❑ Geotechnical Engireering O Construction Materials Testing O Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log #: TP -2 Date Advanced: 16 Aug 2012 Logged by: Monica Saculles, P.E. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Total Depth: 9.8 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and Sample Sample Depth QP Lab Feet bgs) USCS Soil and Sediment Classification Feet bgs) Test ID Lean Clay with Gravel Fill (CL -FILL): Dark __Type 0.0-I.0 brown, dry to slightly moist, very stiff to hard, 4.0-4.5+ with intermittent 3 -inch -minus gravel. Sandy Silt Fill (ML -FILL): Brown, slightly moist, stiff to very stiff, with fine-grained sand. --Three-inch-minus gravel fill was present 1.0-5.4 along the east sideivall of the test pit. --Limited tree roots present in southeast corner of the test pit to a depth of roughly 4.5 ,feet bgs. Poorly -Graded Gravel (GP): Brown, slightly moist, medium -dense to dense, with fine to 5.4-9.8 medium -grained sand and 6 -inch -minus sub - rounded to rounded cobbles. --Dense, fine organics present from 5.4 to 6.0 ,feet bgs. Copyright ® 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376-4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti®mti-id.com • www.mti-id.com MATERIALS TESTING Er Page 4 22 of 26 INSPECTION bl20816g_geotech ❑ Environmental Services 'j : Engineering l7 Construction Materials Testing _ EI Special Inspections GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log #: TP -3 Date Advanced: 16 Aug 2012 Logged by: Monica Saculles, P.E. Excavated by: Struckman's Backhoe Service Location: See Site Map Plates Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Total Depth: 7.1 Feet bgs Depth Field Description and Sample Sample Depth QP Lab Feet bgs) USCS Soil and Sediment Classification Type (Feet bgs) Test ID Lean Clay (CL): Dark brown, slightly moist, 0.0-4.0 hard, with fine-grained sand. GS 2.5-3.0 4.5+ A --Organic material to a depth of 1.6 feet bgs. --Indurated. from 1.6 to 4.0 feet bgs. Sandy Silt (ML): Brown, dry to slightly moist, 4.0-53 hard, with fine-grained sand 4.5+ --Moderate to strong calcium carbonate cementation throughout. Poorly -Graded Gravel (GP): Brown, dry to slightly moist, medium -dense to dense, with 5.3-7.1 fine to medium -grained sand and 4 -inch -minus sub -rounded to rounded cobbles. --Moderate calcium carbonate cementation noted in the upper 6 to 12 inches. Lab Test ID M_ LL PI Sieve Analysis % #4 #10 #40 9100 #200 A 11.3 36 13 100 100 98 94 88.6 Copyright I) 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti®mti-id.com - www.mtl-id.com 21 August 2012 Page # 23 of 26 b120816g_geotech ❑ Err�� Services ❑ Geo cecnical Engineering ❑ Construction Materials Testing ❑ Special Ins{ ,,:;liens AASHTO PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES Pavement Section Design Location: SCI Retail Building, No Truck Access Average Daily Traffic Count: 100 All Lanes & Both Directions Drainage Design Life: 20 Years Coefficient Asphaltic Concrete: Percent of Traffic in Design Lane: 100% No Asphalt -Treated Base: 0.00 Terminal Sesdeeability Index (Pt): 2.5 Cement-Deated Base: 0.00 0.17 Level of Reliability: 95 4.00 0.14 1.0 Subgrade CBR Value: 4 0,10 Subgrade Mr: 61000 0.00 Calculation of Design -18 kip ESALs Daily Grotwh Load Design Traffic Rate Factors ESALs Passenger Curs: 30 2.0% 0.0008 213 Buses: 1 2,0% 0.6806 6,036 Panel & Pickup Trucks: 12 2.0% 0.0122 1,298 2 -Axle, 6 -Tire Trucks: 6 2.0% 0.1890 10,057 Concrete Trucks: 1.0 2.0% 4,4800 39,731 Dump Trucks: 0 2.0% 3.6300 0 Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks: 0 2.0% 2.3719 0 Double Trailer Trucks 0 2.0% 2.3187 0 Heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks: 0 2.0% 2.9760 0 Average Daily Traffic in Design Lane: 50 Total Design Life 18�kip ESALs: 57,335 Actual Log (ESALs): 4.758 Trial SN: 2,51 Trial Log (ESALs): 4,760 This number most be equal to or greater than the Actual Log. Pavement Section Design SN: 2,61 This number most be equal to or greater than the Trial SN. Design Copyright © 2012 Mnterials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (206) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mtiOrriti-id,com ^ www.mti-ld.com Depth Structural Drainage Inches Coefficient Coefficient Asphaltic Concrete: 2,50 0.42 No Asphalt -Treated Base: 0.00 0.25 n/a Cement-Deated Base: 0.00 0.17 n/a Crushed Aggregate Base: 4.00 0.14 1.0 Pit Run Aggregate Subgrade: 10.00 0,10 1.0 Special Aggregate Subgrade: 0.00 0.09 0.9 Copyright © 2012 Mnterials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (206) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mtiOrriti-id,com ^ www.mti-ld.com 21 August 2012 Page # 24 of 26 b120816"conch ❑ Environmental , r ❑ Get..; :!-deal Engineering ❑ Construction Malorlals Testing ❑ Special Inspontions AASHTO PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN PROCEDURES Pavement Section Design Location: SGI Retail Building, Truck Access Average Daily Traffic Count: Design Life: Pc,eent of Traffic in Design Lane: Terminal Seviceability Index (Pt): Level of Reliability: Subgrade CBR Value: Passenger Cars: Buses: Panel & Pickup Trucks: 2 -Axle, 6 -Tire Trucks: Concrete Trucks: Dump Trucks: Tractor Semi Trailer Trucks: Double Trailer Trucks Heavy Tractor Trailer Combo Trucks: Average Daily Traffic in Design Lane: Total Design Life 18 -kip ESALs: Actual Log (ESALs): Trial SN: Trial Log (ESALs): Pavement Section Design SN: Asphaltic Conerete: Asphalt -Treated Base: Cement -Treated Base: Crushed Aggregate Base: Pit Run Aggregate Subgrade: Special Aggregate Subgrade: 100 All Lanes & Both Directions Drainage 20 Years Coefficient 3.00 100% n/a 0.00 0.25 2.5 0.00 0.17 We 95 0.14 1,0 10.00 4 1.0 Subgrade Mr: 6,000 Calculation of Design -18 kip ESALs Daily Growth Load Design Traffic Rate Factors ESALs 20 2.0% 0.0008 142 3 2.0% 0.6806 18,108 13 2.0% 0.0122 1,407 8 2.0% 0.1890 13,409 1.0 2.0% 4.4800 39,731 2 2.0% 3.6300 64,386 3 2.0% 2.3719 63,106 0 2.0% 2.3187 0 0 2.0% 2.9760 0 50 200,288 5.302 3.09 5,303 This number must be equal to or greater than the Actual Log 3.10 This number must be equal to or greater than the Trial SN, Design Depth Structural Drainage Inches Coefficient Coefficient 3.00 0.42 n/a 0.00 0.25 n/a 0.00 0.17 We 6.00 0.14 1,0 10.00 0.10 1.0 0.00 0.09 0.9 Copyright® 2012 Materials Testing & Inspection, Inc. 2791 South Victory View Way • Boise, ID 83709 • (208) 376.4748 • Fax (208) 322-6515 mti@mti-id.com • www.mtl-id.com Site Ma i I I � ' a ROW Bldg• VI "a. l+: Nottoscale ApproximeteSile ---- Boundary Approximate MTI Test Pot Locetbn --""'----= ���""^^•••••••.............. SGI Retail Building 2420 North Eagle Road ,. Miniclari, ID sm Modifled by: MHS --"" 13 August 2012 Drawing: BI20Bi0g MATERIALS _ TESTING& INSPECTION 2791a.vIca m"Wq Pra 2237 �I MIl,1083M98135 Fe%: MINIMS EmaB: mtljtlmfi�M.tom 5 '( July 5, 2013 Mr. Richard C. Schader Schader Macdoel, LLC 17612 Robison Road Macdoel, CA 96058 on, .Is u 0 1 Dear Mr. Schader Farmland Management Services ("FMS") has discovered that the Siskiyou Red Rocks property contains an unauthorized and illegal landfill. This property was purchased by Iron Horse Acres, LLC on December 28, 2012, and is operated by FMS. Indeed, the property contains evidence related to the dumping of construction waste, equipment, appliances, other household refuse, as well as a 1,000 gallon underground storage fuel tank. The presence of this dump site was never disclosed to FMS. Indeed, substantial evidence suggests that deliberate steps were taken to prevent FMS from discovering the site during the Phase I ESA inspection. The presence of this refuse and debris constitutes a clear breach of the Real Estate Purchase Contract ("Contract"), as well as a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Pursuant to section fifteen (15) of the Contract, you explicitly warrant that the property is not "in violation of any federal, state, or local law, ordinance or regulation relating to industrial hygiene or to the environmental conditions on, under or about the Property..." California law requires a solid waste disposal permit to dispose of waste, even on an entity's own land. Disposal of waste without a permit is direct violation of state law. Moreover, any actions that were taken to prevent the discovery of the dump -site further exposes you and Schader Macdoel, LLC to liability for fraud. FMS and Iron Horse therefore demand that you and Schader Macdoel, LLC remove all illegal debris and refuse no later than August 1. 2013. If the dump site is not cleared by this time, FMS and Iron Horse will be compelled to pursue appropriate legal action. I am enclosing a Task Order prepared by FMS's environmental consultant, which estimates the initial work at $11,200. Very truly yours, Jeff Hillberg Sr. Investment Analyst 301 E. Main Street « Tbrlock, CA 95380-4537 9 (209) 669-0742 Office • (209) 669-0811 Pax AMMEDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN FARMLAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES AND RCC GROUP, LLC June 24, 2013 TASK ORDER No. 43.3 - Consultation and Regulatory Closure Assistance Activities for Unauthorized Landfills Siskiyou Red Rock Ranch, Macdoel, California Specific Scope of Services — FMS6804 This Task Order No. 43.3 is an Amendment to the Agreement between Farmland Management Services, (FMS or Client) and RCC Group, LLC (RCC) dated September 26, 2006 (Amendment). The Scope of Services is hereby amended to include consultation on and regulatory closure assistance to FMS regarding the delineation of unauthorized landfills, removal of buried wastes, and disposal or recycling of recovered wastes, participating in the regulatory closure process, and restoration of environmental conditions at the unauthorized landfill locations on portions of the Siskiyou Red Rock property. The Siskiyou Red Rock property consists of approximately 7,103 acres (gross) of farmed and vacant lands. The Subject Property parcels are distributed into two groups of land parcels, designated herein as north group and south group. Both parcel groups are accessible from the intersection of Red Rock Road and Robison Road, which is approximately 10 miles southeast of U.S. Highway 97 and Macdoel, California. The unauthorized landfill locations are located approximately on the southwest corner of the north group land parcels, along Long Prairie Road, and generally southwest of the Main Shop (Site). An airphoto image from July 2012 illustrates two rectangular areas where possible waste landfills were constructed and used by the previous Owner/Generator. These were not disclosed to RCC in 2012. Site re -inspection activities were completed by RCC under Task Order No. 43.1 on December 22, 2012. As a result of spring 2013 agricultural redevelopment activities conducted by the current Farm Tenant, the unauthorized landfills were discovered. As a consequence, additional RCC services were requested by Mr. Jim Redmond of FMS on June 18, 2013. The additional RCC services requested including preparation of an "Action Plan", which could include landfill Identification, contractor coordination and removal activities, as well as waste disposal planning activities. The proposed "Action Plan" presented below consists of a number of activities to address the Identification and removal of these unknown buried solid wastes. Proposed Action Plan Assumptions: • Based on discussion with FMS, RCC understands the land parcels, which appear to be impacted by the presence of unauthorized landfills, are not planned for cultivation in this upcoming growing season. Regardless, the presence of buried solid waste makes the ground unsuitable for farming and may have long-term detrimental impacts to shallow groundwater and downslope farming activities, not including possible long-term disclosure and property valuation issues. • Following a more careful inspection of historical aerials available to RCC and Google Earth, a remote search has identified at least two areas that appear more likely to have been used for trenches and unauthorized dumping. RCC has identified a *west dump area* and *east dump area* of approximately 6 -acres in areal extent. An annotated PDF image of the suspect areas is attached. RCC recommends the following Action Plan elements, which would be applied to both "dump areas": 1. Conduct an expedited, non -intrusive geophysical survey of Site conditions in an attempt to identify the specific locations and extent of acreage impacted by the unpermitted waste disposal practices. (Task Order No. 43.3) A brief description of non -intrusive geophysical survey is provided as an attachment to this Task Order. FMS Agreement Task Order No 43.3 062413 2. Briefly verify the locations using an FMS supplied backhoe to confirm the presence of trenches and buried solid wastes, which were located on the basis of the non -intrusive geophysical survey. (Task Order No, 43.3) 3. Estimate the volumes of buried solid waste and attempt to calculate the preliminary costs for excavation, stockpiling, segregation of hazardous wastes from the construction debris, tires, scrap metal and household appliances and garbage that may be found in the trenches. (Task Order No. 43.3) 4. Estimate transportation and disposal fees for the different wastes (Class I, II and III) and scrap for recycling. (Task Order No. 43.3) 5. If requested, the issue of unauthorized landfill closure permit with Siskiyou County could be researched and discussed with County staff at the time when disposal fees are estimated since solid wastes are likely to be transported to local Siskiyou County landfills. (Task Order No. 43.3) 6, Meeting with FMS and Counsel to verbally present the findings and costs. At this point, no significant wastes are generated, and the discussions should focus on the role of Seller as Generator, and the decision to pursue cost -recovery and cost allocation. (Task Order No. 43.3) 7. Once the decision for cost responsibility and allocation is established (e.g., 100% Seller or 75% Seller/ 25% Hancock or an alternative approach), waste management protocols can be established, Using these protocols, RCC would direct a qualified Contractor to excavate, transport and dispose or recycle the wastes to the appropriate facility or scrap vendor. (a proposed Task Order No. 43.4) 8. If FMS and Counsel decide that a letter of landfill closure or compliance with Siskiyou County EHD is needed to complete the land use history of the Ranch, RCC can negotiate the scope of work with SCEHD to obtain such closure documentation. (a proposed Task Order No. 43.4) Presently, the execution of Task Order No. 43.3 shall serve as written documentation of the June 24, 2013 discussion and subsequent Authorization to Proceed to be issued by FMS. This Task Order would authorizes the initiation of the first six elements outlined above on "Consultation and Regulatory Closure Assistance Activities for Unauthorized Landfills" at the Siskiyou Red Rock property. Project Deliverable: Under Task Order 43.3, selected Project deliverables will be submitted to FMS in Portable Document Format (PDF), in accordance with Client's requests for paperless documentation. Specifically, the interim Project deliverables will include the following: o Initial Memorandum indicating the locations of suspect landfill trenches, o Progress Memorandum providing the estimated volumes of buried solid waste and the preliminary costs for excavation, stockpiling, segregation of hazardous wastes from the construction debris, tires, scrap metal and household appliances and garbage that may be found in the trenches o Update Memorandum describing the findings from the discussions with SCEHD staff and the results of negotiating the regulatory closure requirements o Recommendations Memorandum and presentation to Client and Counsel Project Time Schedule Project consulting services were initiated by RCC for FMS under Task Order No. 43.3 on June 18, 2013. Once authorized, Site visits will be performed to facilitate the geophysical contractor activities and document Site observations regarding the nature of wastes discovered, and as directed by Client. RCC is available to coordinate activities of the geophysical contractor, and identify the start date for the field portion of the non -intrusive survey, which is expected to require up to 3 days. The Initial Memorandum is anticipated to be available for Client review within 10 business days following the Site survey work. FMS Agreement Task Order No 43.3 062413 2 Project Fee Estimate Since the exact Scope of Services for the activities outlined above, cannot be estimated at this time, RCC services will be provided and tracked on a Time & Materials basis. RCC will generate Invoices following the completion of progress milestones or memoranda, and will include all applicable fees and reimbursable expenses, which are incurred by RCC. As specified in the Agreement, the proposed maximum professional service labor rate for RCC Managing Principal is $110.00 per hour; however, the maximum Project Manager Labor rate of $95.00 per hour will apply regarding the continued performance of the "Consultation and Regulatory Closure Assistance Activities for Unauthorized Landfills" at the Siskiyou Red Rock property. The RCC Staff Engineer will be invoiced at the Labor Rate of a maximum of $75.00 per hour. The Project Fee Estimate includes RCC travel labor incurred at the reduced Travel Labor Rate of 50% of the Standard Labor Rate. The Fee Estimate does not include any laboratory testing fees since no samples are anticipated for collection, and if required, these services will be directly invoiced to FMS, to ensure early payment discounts. • Estimate for the non -intrusive survey by the Geophysical Contractor: $11,200.00 The two areas total approximately 6 acres, which can be surveyed in approximately 2.5 days. The Geophysical Contractor assumed $175 per person per day for per diem. The Geophysical Contractor shall invoice FMS directly to facilitate their report performance. The costs are distributed as follows: Mobilization/Preparation --- $2000; Field Survey --- 2.5 days @ $2400/day --- $6000; Crew Per Diem --- 3 days --- $1050; Data Processing -- $1500; (office) Report Preparation -- $650; (office) ESTIMATED TOTAL -- $11200.00 As indicated above, the Project Fee Estimate will be incurred and reimbursed on a Time & Materials basis, in accordance with the Agreement and RCC Schedule of Charges, which is Attachment B to the Agreement. FMS Agreement Task Order No 43.3 062413 As indicated above, the execution of this Task Order No. 43.3 shall serve as written documentation of the Authorization to Proceed. This Task Order would authorizes the initiation of the first six Action Plan elements outlined above regarding the "Consultation and Regulatory Closure Assistance Activities for Unauthorized Landfills" at the Siskiyou Red Rock property. Acceptance of Task Order No. 43.3 Scope of Services, Project Schedule and Fee Estimate: Farmland Management Services: Date Initialed: RCC Group, LLC: Date Initialed: 06124/13 FMS Agreement Task Order No 43.3 062413 A Description of Non -Intrusive Geophysical Survey Methods The recommended approach for non -intrusive identification of wastes involves the use of surface geophysics. Specifically, an experienced geophysical contractor (NORCAL Geophysics - htta:llnorcalceoahvsical.como will establish a horizontal control grid over the areas of interest and then obtain magnetic and electromagnetic data on a 1 0 -ft. grid to define localized anomalies caused by buried debris. The magnetic data will show where there are buried metallic objects, and the electromagnetic data will be sensitive to both metallic and non-metallic debris that generates an electrical property contrast with the undisturbed materials. These surveys will be sensitive to a depth of about 12 to 15 feet. The recorded data will be computer processed in the field to generate preliminary magnetic and conductivity contour maps. These maps will be analyzed and ground penetrating radar will be locally used over defined anomalous zones to further identify the approximate depth and size of features where possible. Upon completion of the field survey the contractor will run additional data processing in their office and prepare a letter report for RCC. Their report would describe the methods, procedures, results, and their interpretation regarding the location(s) of buried debris. A site map showing the lateral extent of anomalous zones, and the respective magnetic and conductivity contour maps with their interpretation will be included with their report. RCC will take these mapped indications of buried waste and conduct the backhoe confirmation activity outlined in Action Plan Element No. 2. The Contractor anticipates they can cover about 3 acres per day to complete. The survey will be performed by a 2 -person crew headed by a California Professional Geophysicist. Please let me know if you have questions or when you would like to discuss this further FMS Agreement Task Order No 43.3 062413 0 `A File No.: SI -IP -13-003 Project Name: River Valley Retail Subdivision Request: Request for a short plat consisting of 2 building lots on 1.14 acres of land in the C -G zoning district, by North Eagle Road, LLC. Location: The site is located at 3230 E. River Valley Street, in the NE 1/4 of Section 4, Township 3N., Range IE.