Minutes - 2007 - Planning & Zoning - 02/12/2007 - Special
THE CITY OF EAGLE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Special Meeting Minutes
660 E. Civic Lane
February 12, 2007
I. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting called to order at 5:42 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL: Present: Jacobs, Zastrow, Pierce, Aspitarte, McCarrel, MY AC Representative
Jeremy Rausch
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CP A-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06 - M3 Ea!!le - M3 Ea!!le. LLC.: M3 Eagle LLC,
represented by Gerry Robbins of The M3 Companies, is requesting a Comprehensive Plan
Map Amendment to include +/, 6,005 acres into the Eagle Comprehensive Plan designating
the following land uses: +/, 40 Acres Rural Residential, +/- 1,627 acres Residential Estates,
+/- 470 acres Residential One, +/- 670 acres Residential Two, +/- 1,250 acres Residential
Three, +/, 670 acres Residential Four, +/- 770 acres Village Center, +/- 88 acres Mixed Use;
+/, 100 Acres Commercial, an Annexation and rezone with a Pre-Annexation and
Development Agreement for +/,40 acres AR,DA (up to 1 unit per 5 acres with a development
agreement), +/- 1,627 acres RE,DA (up to I unit per 2 acres with a development agreement),
+/,470 acres RI,DA (up to one unit per acre with a development agreement), +/, 670 acres
R2-DA (up to two units per acre with a development agreement), +/- 1,250 acres R3-DA (up
to 3 units per acre with a development agreement), +/- 670 acres R4-DA (up to four units per
acre with a development agreement), +/- 770 acres Village Center,DA, +/- 88 acres MU-
DA(Mixed Use with a development agreement) to allow for a maximum of +/, 12,0 I 0
residential units, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Eagle City Code Section 8,6
"Planned Unit Developments" to allow for the M3,PUD. The +/- 6,005 acre site is generally
located north of the Farmers Union Canal and Homer Road, east of State Highway 16 and
west of Willow Creek Road. Specifically described in the meets and bounds description on file
at the City of Eagle. This item was continued/rom the December 11,2006 special meeting,
Pierce introduces the item.
N ichoel Baird Spencer, City Planner, gives update of application and new correspondence.
Vern Brewer, City Engineer, gives overview of report prepared for the Commission. Stands for
questions from the Commission.
Bill Brownlee, M3 Eagle, gives overview of the five planning areas for M3. Stands for questions
from the Commission. Commissioner McCarrel asks about schools. Discussion on traffic.
Gary Funkhouser, explains the handout given to them earlier in the meeting.
Commissioner Aspitarte asks about amount of aquifers.
Ed Squires, discusses the aquifers in the area. Displays a map for the record.
Gary Funkhouser discusses updated traffic impact study. General discussion.
Joanne Butler, procedural questions. Asks that the April 9th date be moved up.
Susan Buxton, discusses the time frame and need for staff to be able to get the Commission a
complete staff report with agency comments. Recommendation cannot be made by the
Commission until May 1,2007.
Aspitarte moves to table CP A-5-06/Z0A-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06 - M3 Eagle - M3 Eagle,
LLC to April 9, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. Seconded by Zastrow. ALL AYES...MOTION
CARRIES.
Page 1 of2
K.I.P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-1-12-07sprnin.doc
4. REPORTS:
A. Commission:
B. City Attorney:
C. Staff:
5. ADJOURNMENT:
McCarrel moves to adjouru. Seconded by Jacobs. ALL AYES...MOTION CARRIES.
Hearing no further business the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
.',......".,
.' I,,,
~~~. Of EAO I.,
..oJ' .., ~ ..........I..~ #.'"
~ ,....- e. tJI
~ ~... "yORA r^.. '\
.. W.:r ~..- . _
i : (;0 ~.. c.
. . .
- .. . ~.~ . I:
: ~ "'L~: I
~ a.... SEn. ~..O I
~ -.1-c ,,9.- ~""'-:I
~ .p').....Oj.:}'ORi''.~. ~.
#. " ....... :\)l-~
.... <17"; Of \ ......
'I, L .'
11'"'11"""
ll(;A--dL-~ (~
SHARON K. BERGMANN
CITY CLERK/TREASURER
APPROVED:
~~
N'W. PIERCE ~
CHAIRMAN
-----.
A TRANSCRIBABLE RECORD OF THIS MEETING IS A V AILABLE AT CITY HALL.
Pagelof2
K\P&Z\MINUTES\Temporary Minutes Work Area\PZ-l-] 2-07spmindoc
TO:
Response to ITD Comments
M3 Eagle
Memo
Sue Sullivan, ITD DATE: February 12, 2007
FROM: Gary Funkhouser, P.E., Stanley Consultants
PROJECT: M3 Eagle
SUBJECT: M3 Eagle Traffic Impact Study
PLAN REFERENCES
• Comments by ITD on the plan references are correct.
• References to agency responsible for transportation improvements were mixed up.
MODEL
• Trip Capture
o See response to ACHD and City of Eagle.
• 2% growth rate on SH-44 and SH-16:
o The 2% annual growth rate on SH-44 and SH-16 was based on COMPASS
population/employment/household projection for Ada County and Canyon County for the
Community Choice growth scenario between 2005 and 2030.
• SH-55 Growth Rate
o We use the historical traffic data from ATR #10 between 1990 and 2005 to derive at the average
4.3% growth rate.
o The traffic data was not attached but could be found on ITD Planning website.
• Land use scenarios
o We only consider residential growth in Eagle Comprehensive Plan north of the Boise River
totaling 10,905 new households by 2027 for the Background Traffic projection.
o The Communities in Motion uses Community Choice land use scenario which projected 5,692
new households and 5,683 new jobs by 2030 in the entire Eagle Comprehensive Plan.
o The land uses in the Eagle Comprehensive Plan considered in the TIS do not match the
Community Choice land use exactly. But in term of traffic, the trip generation is greater.
• Are the lane assumptions/improvements in the COMPASS model documented somewhere
o COMPASS should have all the model runs for M3 Eagle project. The model runs for M3 Eagle
shouldn't have different network assumptions from modeling for Communities in Motion
because it is the same 2030 network.
2/12/2007
Q:I/ 90591StudytT!S-Addendum1DoclITD CornmentlResponse-ITD.doc
Stanley Consultants
Response to ITD Comments
M3 Eagle
INTERSECTION
• SH-44 & SH-55 intersection
o This intersection was not considered in the analysis because it is outside the study area as
defined with ACHD before the study began.
o The intersection is under study for the 3 Cities River Crossing and it is assumed they will make
it handle all projected traffic.
• SH-44 & Eagle Rd intersection
o 57,000 vpd would require more than 7 lanes based on COMPASS capacity guidelines.
o But the intersection is projected to operate at LOS E under Total Traffic.
o SH-44 and Eagle Road is projected to operate at LOS F under background traffic and LOS E
under total traffic with the same lane configuration but with different traffic conditions. Under
background traffic, SH-16 extension and 3-River Crossing are not in the network. Under total
traffic they area, which reduced traffic at the intersection and better LOS. See mitigation
analysis on page 34.
• SH-44 & Ballentyne Rd intersection
o It's a T-intersection why have WB left -turn lane.
• SH-44 & Linder Road intersection
o The intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during PM peak hour with 2/2/1 lane
configuration on all approaches. For the intersection to operate at LOS E during PM peak hour,
3 thru lanes are needed on SH-44. During off peak hour, the intersection might operate at
acceptable LOS with just 2 lanes on SH-44.
• SH-16 M3 Access Points
o The proposed access points match the frontage design in the SH-16 improvement study for the
early development phases. By 2027, the access points would need to be roundabouts or
interchanges to accommodate the traffic conditions.
o The temporary access point for Phase 1 on SH-16 does not match the frontage design.
o We have the traffic data for the proposed accesses on SH-16 but did not show in the main body
of the TIS report. Traffic data for Big Gulch access could be found in the appendix along with
the LOS.
o The developer should construct the frontage or similar access north of Beacon Light Road for
site access.
o Safety analysis for Phase 1 is discussed in the TIS report including safety issue, sight distance,
and safety mitigation. If required, we can break out this analysis into a separate traffic impact
and safety study report for Phase 1 only.
• SH-16 & Floating Feather Road intersection
o On page 40 ..., an overpass would be needed at Floating Feather Road if SH-16 is an interstate.
o The intersection is modeled as on overpass in the model.
o The intersection would operate at acceptable LOS as a signalized intersection. But a signalized
intersection would not be allowed if SH-16 is built to interstate or expressway standards.
2/12/2007
Q:1190591StudyITIS-Addendum1DocIITD CommentlResponse-ITD.doc
Stanley Consultants
2
Response to ITD Comments
M3 Eagle
MISC
• Intersections will need turning lanes, traffic signal, roundabouts, overpass, or interchanges.
• We should include a section in the TIS discussing ped/bike greenbelts and pathway system as
planned by the City of Eagle, ACHD, COMPASS, and ITD.
• For unsignalized intersection, the mainline on the state highways would not experience delay
because the stop signs are on the minor roads. Only the left -turn traffic on state highway experience
minimal delay. LOS for mainline on state highway is LOS A at unsignalized intersection.
• For signalized intersection, the capacity for the mainline on the state highways could be increased
by allocating more green time. This would reduce the green time and capacity on minor road.
• The change in traffic volume and delay at intersection could be use to measure the impacts on the
mainline by the development.
PHASE 1
• The Phase 1 safety analysis is in the TIS report but if ITD requires, we could prepare a separate
traffic impact and safety study for Phase 1 only. Access permit application would then submit with
the Phase 1 report.
2/12/2007
Q:1190591StudytT/S-Addendum1DocUTD CommentlResponse-ITD.doc
Stanley Consultants
3
Response to ACHD Comments
M3 Eagle
Memo
TO: Lori Den Hartog, ACHD DATE: February 12, 2007
FROM: Gary Funkhouser, P.E., Stanley Consultants
PROJECT: M3 Eagle
SUBJECT: M3 Eagle Traffic Impact Study
1. - SH-16 is not in the STIP or GARVEE Program for improvements as the TIS states. All that
is funded to this point is a study. The impacts to the District's street network will need to be
analyzed based on the assumption that the State Highway system will not be improved OR
the developer needs to demonstrate how the improvements to the State Highway system will
be funded and constructed to handle the anticipated traffic from this development.
• Agree, SH-16 construction is not in the STIP or GARVEE program.
• But, SH-16 improvement/construction from Ada/Gein county line to I-84 with
interchanges and overpass/underpass is listed in the Communities in Motion (CIM) as one
of the funded regionally significant project — $241,860,000 on Page 92.
• Page 2 of CIM ..., the plan would be financially constrained and included only projects
that could he funded with existing levels of revenue over the next 25 years.
2. According to ITE, office parks are not considered multi -use developments and no trip
capture should be assumed because the trip generation rates already take that into account.
(Page 86 of the Trip Generation Handbook).
• Agree, Office Park by itself is not considered a multi -use development.
• A development containing multiple Office Parks not located close to each other would be
considered as a multi -use development (Page 89 of ITE Trip Generation Handbook).
• M3 Eagle contains multiple Office Parks not located within walking distance
o The 20% trip capture in Table 1 page 23 of TIS report is not within one Office Park
site but represents the internal trip exchange among the Office Park sites and with
other land uses within the site boundary.
2/12/2007
Q:1190591StudylTIS-AddendumlDocIACHD CommentlResponse-ACHD.doc
Stanley Consultants
Response to ACHD Comments
M3 Eagle
3. The TIS assumes 30% trip capture and 6% pass by trips, yet no documentation is included to
show how this was determined. The calculation of trip capture will be required to be
documented using the ITE worksheet in the ITE trip generation handbook.
• We assumed a 30% capture rate for M3 Eagle. The followings are the justifications:
o If M3 Eagle is considered as a Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD), the ITE
total daily trip generation is 90,075 vpd, which is approximately 34% less trips than if
individual trip generation rates for the different uses are used. The M3 study used
individual rates with a 30% capture rate which resulted in 8.5°%0 greater off site traffic
than if the PUD category was used.
o PUD Description: Residential planned unit developments, for the purposes of trip
generation, are defined as containing any combination of residential land uses. These
developments might also contain supporting services such as limited retail. and
recreational facilities.
o The proposed commercial. uses are mainly neighborhood commercial which will
primarily serve the site except for the commercial land use along SH-16. M3 Eagle
will also contain supporting services such as schools, parks, and recreational land uses
o Based on COMPASS household survey
• 56% of home -base shop trips have trip length within 1 to 10 minutes
• 47% of home -base social trips have trip length within 1 to 10 minutes
• 45% of home -base school trips have trip length within 1 to 10 minutes
• 55% of home -base other trips have trip length within 1 to 10 minutes
• 53% of non -home -base trips have trip length within 1 to 10 minutes
• Pass -by trips are correlated to the size of the development and traffic volume on the
adjacent streets. By 2027, SH-16 is projected to carry approximately 3,898 vph during
PM peak hour. Based on the preliminary site plan, commercial uses are proposed along
SH-16. These commercial uses are assumed to attract 6% (525 vph) pass -by trips off SH-
16 during PM peak hour, which is approximately 13% of the PM peak traffic on SH-16.
Based on ITE Trip Generation Handbook, average pass -by trip is approximately 13% of
the 2027 total traffic on SH-16 during PM peak hour.
4. It is unclear how the background traffic was determined. Since build -out is considered to be
2027, the District's 2007 CIP or COMPASS' Communities in Motion should be used as the
background traffic since the years are nearly identical. This will also include all of the
growth that COMPASS assumed as well as the planned projects. Any improvements shown
to be needed that are not included in ACHD's CIP should be considered to be a direct result
of this development.
• We only consider residential growth in Eagle Comprehensive Plan north of the Boise
River totaling 10,905 new households by 2027 for the Background Traffic projection
• The Communities in Motion uses Community Choice land use scenario which projected
5,692 new households and 5,683 new jobs by 2030 in the Eagle Comprehensive Plan
north of the Boise River.
• The land uses in the Eagle Comprehensive Plan considered in the TIS do not match the
Community Choice land use exactly. But in term of traffic, the trip generation is higher
2/12/2007
Q:1190591StudylT/S-Addendum1DocIACHD Comment Response-ACHD.doc
Stanley Consultants
2
M3 Eagle
PM Peak Hour Internal Capture Trip
Total PM Peak Trips= 13689
ITE Methodology
Land Uses
External Internal
Trip Trip % Internal Trip
Residential - Retail - Office 10350 1919 14%
Retail - Retail - Retail 1521 948 7%
Office - Office - Office 1856 65 1 %
Total
2931 22%
School Trips= 1420 1136 8%
4067 30%
Internal Trips Estimate
PM Peak Hour
CO
0
0
CCk
\ CNI
$q2
E• E
o o
10 ■
§ c §
EeE
3coo
Residential
k
E
3
k
2
m
k
E
a
tr--
To
\
w
�
CO
k
m
K
_
c
/
\
wk
k
Cr)
CO
0
k
w
k
w
0
0
0
0
0
To
k
w
\
V
$
f
A
CO
0
\
Cr)
/
%
To
k
7
To
w
\
/
b
w
w
To
1-
/
0)22
k0q
Total Internal
k §
§ o
wTo Ta
e
o
6
e
Land Use Retail 1
PM Peak hour
f0
X
W
ti
M
N
(o
CO LO
(0
c
L
CO
In
1
CD
M
co
N
N
03
O
O
r
L
c
W
X
W
0
F-
O
E c E
0 CO 0
O
U
c co
E @ E
N (0 0)
0 m 0
Land Use Retail 3
Land Use Retail 2
O
f`
(0
c
X
W
O
O
CD
O
O
c
CD
M
co
M
0
O
0
r
L
X
W
•
(0
0
F-
N
N
M
N
Ta
L
0)
X
W
O
r--
Lc)
0
N
CD
CO
O
1
0)
1
G)
C
CO
O
Co
co
O
M
co
N
O
H
CO
N
CO
O
O
r
03NCOD
O N
Land Use Office 1
0)
c
k
w
CO
0)
%
c
7
$
o
w
k
0
&�2
�wwI/
(0
(0
m
¢
kkk
EeE
3c3
kkk
kco3
nmc
¢ ƒ
omn
/ cop
Land Use Office 3
Land Use Office 2
/
k
w
0)
CO
/
E
n
1
/
2
/
e
0
0
w
w
3
/
2
CO CD
c
ƒ
k
2
/co
3
\
1
k
n
%
/
G�
9
k
w
k
co
0
k
w
w
k
e
Response to ACHD Comments
M3 Eagle
5. According to Figure 11, Linder Road needs to be five lanes the full length and Eagle Road
needs to be five lanes south of Floating Feather. This was not included on page 34.
Agree
6. Eagle Road (SH-55) south of SH-44 has a projected volume of 57,500 yet no improvements
are suggested.
• The SH-44 and Eagle Road intersection is projected to operate at LOS under Total
Traffic and no improvements are necessary (Pages 34-37).
7. The intersections of SH-44/Eagle Road and SH-44/Linder Road are both projected to operate
at LOS F, yet no improvements are suggested.
• SH-44/Eagle Rd intersection is projected to operate at LOS E under Total Traffic
• SH-44/Linder — LOS E if 3 thru lanes on SH-44 and is suggested on Page 15 of
addendum.
8. Table 10 shows SH-44/Eagle Road operating at LOS E under total traffic conditions yet
Table 9 shows it operating at LOS F under background conditions with the same exact lane
configuration.
• SH-44 and Eagle Road is projected to operate at LOS F tinder background traffic and
LOS E under total traffic with the same lane configuration BUT with different traffic
conditions.
• Under Background Traffic, SH-1 6 extension and 3 Cities River Crossing are not in the
network.
• Under Total Traffic they are, which reduced traffic at the intersection and better LOS.
See mitigation analysis on pages 34-37.
9. The TIS concludes a statement on page 39 that planned transportation system improvements
in the Ada County 2030 Plan would have sufficient capacity to accommodate growth and
this development. The TIS should document how this conclusion was reached because this
development was not included in the plan.
• The TITS and addendum are the documentations for the assumptions, analyses, mitigation
analyses, and findings
• "Ada County 2030 Transportation Plan" refers to all the planned/proposed transportation
improvements collectively in Ada County undertaken by all the agencies
• What will be built for the 2030 plan has additional capacity built in it of which M3 Eagle
utilizes
2/12/2007
Q: I/90591StudylTIS-Addendum1DockACHD CommentlResponse-ACHD.doc
Stanley Consultants
3
Response to ACHD Comments
M3 Eagle
10. The network to the east to SH55 and through the intersection of SH55 & SH44, both to the
south and to the east needs to be shown. Identify roads needing to be constructed to serve
M3, even when they are through another development, especially when they are through
another development, as ACHD has not historically condemned right of way for a
development. Need to show the volume on Eagle Road between Eagle Alternate and State
Street (network shown on pg. 34 approx).
• SH-55/SH-44 intersection was not included in the analysis because it is outside the study
area agreed upon by ACHD at start of study
• Eagle Road between Eagle Alternative and State Street = 34,700 vpd
11. Need to show widening needed to accommodate development with and without river
crossings, roads through other developments, other ITD road projects not programmed and
ACHD projects needed but not in the CIP. Because of the endless variations possible it
might be feasible to just do 3 or 4 levels of network — 1) everything, 2) every thing except
the bridges, 3) No ITD improvements, and 4) No offsite developer improvements.
• Outside of study area agree upon at start of study
12. The turning movements along Beacon Light do not make sense as they are showing much of
the traffic volume turning onto Beacon Light from the north and then back off of Beacon
Light to the north indicating they are probably underestimating the impact on Beacon Light
Road, unless these are the captured trips in which case we need more of a road network to
handle them. It does not appear as though the captured trips are shown, and these will need
to be accounted for within the development's road network.
• The 30% capture trips are within the site boundary and were not distributedI'assigned to
the external roadway south of Beacon Light Road.
13. An analysis of the project phasing identifying when the various roadway improvements to
the State system and ACHD's system is necessary based on anticipated traffic from this
development will also be required. The District will consider restricting the development's
phasing if the identified roadway improvements are not in place. The TIS needs to address
at which point downstream from the site, roadway improvements are no longer needed to
accommodate this development's anticipated traffic.
• Phase l analysis is included in the 'us report addressing improvements within the defined
study area
• An update to the traffic study may be required when future phases of the project are
submitted
2/12/2007
Q:1190591StudyITIS-Addendum1DocIACHD CommentlResponse-ACHD.doc
Stanley Consultants
4
EAGLE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
February 12, 2007
CPA-5-06/ZOA-3-06/A-14-06/RZ-19-06 - M3 Eagle - M3 Eagle, LLC City of Eagle
PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY
NAME
ADDRESS
PHONE
PRO?
CON?
TESTIFY?
i -6-11i Pad-edOse2--
cJ c�P�d
l r4P11 (
z
9• 3743
14 CJ
P N N n
p. V - A A
qCO cj CK on
co CO, 0 DI1
wcn
CO -co
V
p U W A a
O
P !J o O
— • ANOD
n
.wwoD 'd s
ovoa J13321J MO�1IM
IOH'VAY !G
O▪ ?
W
0 D
r
m
m
m -a
0O
Om
>
r -4
>0
7 0
u C)
_)D
D
n
m
D
0
>121Vd IVNOI
m D
Z ()
(n
v m
>
m
n
O�
T7 n
5 A
O "'
3NOZ 21343119 1VNOIIISNVd1
•M
--N A JZ
o•o—oov,c,a o0
ts1V400-1- Oy
DCc2 C) 8
r)ZCZZC cnxa
O • y�00( HiZ
- mmO ni
Z�
"Vv_R0 rn
DC.�_R o0-4
�mrDZD5 O�
II'_i-1D
o, = O D
'co
m
O u n N
z o
� n
n'
>
n • < C V
a)a Q N? p 0
(D (D Q 0
m0 a „ (p
0 N _0 3 fD a va
3cDFORTf.
=• lD NQ
' ▪ Q• D .
D 0 (0 v w
73 ET E
a— •�3Q0
3 J a 3 a
cu Q g Q
C Q 0 3m
Q o c m 3 0
-; o fD Qccc, 0-
o 0 o Q o
(Q>>5.
D3a a-0
330
• ? Q.
a• 30
rip
a =.: Q
/•Q
a
Ca
a
cD
Cr
0
CD• o •°
o
n o
• m(D
Qo a
O 0
0
ili A,
a
D
0
cD
0
Southwestern Residential Area
Dv/na ss.o 'SlJNn jzz
Nea1S�MH1nOS
meffe
\ ...,
--, .--------r-
..----c_
• ..-- --"
A, ...II
• • 61
•
03
H011 NOTV
OVoB a3ONn
OVOM )13321D MOIIIM
IMINIMINI
m
WAJ
co
0
0
cri
O
e
O
a)
30VdS N3dC
NNVd SS3NIS118 ONV 301dd0
1VIN1Sl0Nl
CO
N
z
co
0
n
1VIIN30IS3N
m
0 m
O m
D Z
la o r
N o N o O
e e e
v �
� � m
o ((nn ro v,
0
O
N
>cn
-4
(D
W
0 0)
v0
C m 3
z_r3
Z 'D
m
31Jd3 EW
0
D
r
N
w
N
0
O
30VdS N3dO 1VNOIO321
N21Vd SS3NISf18 ONV 301dd0
1VIN1Sf1ONI
co
c
cn
m
cn
N
0
77
n
W A • Co▪ CO
IA 0
1VIIN301S3N
V
N
-13
m
0 0
O—I m
D Z
V r 0
m o O
e o e e e T
m ADZ:
-
o N _
W N
W A 0)
d3eIV 3-10V3
0
✓
30VdS N3dO 1VNOIJ321
50
0 -
O
O
O
NNVd SS3NISf18 ONV 30I4d0
IVINiSfaNI
; X
c
N
z o
m
N
0
A 3
n 3
s
0
m
2
r
r
CO
CO
,p V
1VI1N3OIS3N 3Sf1 a3XIIN
1VI1N9OIS3N
m
0 0
O m
D z
r
A X 00 0
D -t
o o
0
0
3
col 3
T N
W OS D 0
v '73 T
J CO --I
N cL.
o
O O
O
0)
CO
v . v
l0 (0
v 0
cm0
Zr
r_
Z -u
Y321d N2131S3M
CO
C
D
n N C.
O J N Uh
O C>
C mO
3
z3
_ r
r •
z
Co �� CD
D
°' m
CD O N V-
O
c m 3
Zr 3
•
z
m canxin
C) K in s m
o w > w > rn
m 0 rn 0 cn
2 0m 0mm
rn 73
0 m X m X) Z
D D D X
X m
rn D
D
CO
0 0 0
O 0 0
.o �o �o
o' o o'
O▪ ) O Cn
N OD
O Cr)O
00v,-4
J CO (D
D -4
O 0
XI -i
rn
V) r
O -0
rn
-4 XI
O 0
-4 rn
D
r -(
O
C
Z rn
- r
n r
C
Z
0
O
• C
n V)
N
(0 N -t rn N -1 w V+
N D
0 O O O O O
!V -► O 0 w ,3
o v N 11 N Cr)
0 0 0 0 0 0
v19w03
(0
0
le'JOS '!`JVJOO
AA
... O
r 3
Z 3
O
m
W ON Z70
COMPARISON AFTER ADJUSTMENT
x
D
a) A
00o� J mD
(n 0 1 0 -0 tnr
O 0)
0 A N O N N (O
e o 0 o e -
O A m
00 . • A W
Cr. CO CO
(D N
0
1
r
30 1N30?13d
0
C
zm
r
N Z
c)
0 0 C
o g
O
V
O
0
°: O
(o J a 3
CO (NAi.- ) T U0
IV N A m
0 0 1
CO ' 0
CO LA
•
31OV3 £IN
1
0
1
D
✓
30VdS N3dO IVNOID3LI
NLIVd SS3NISfl8 ONV 30lddO
lVOEJ1SflaNl
N + n
N N J 1
w OD N m D
N j J N W -+ A r
0) N (n N 00 A)
0
O
4- 1 + C. N
e e e e
m
O73
n
D Z
CO 1 O
e e T
Al
0 CIL
W 01
0 (T
00 (T
0
c�
zm
1 r
cn z
0
1-
O ? (ry (.
n
O
W • 3
(00 V A N 'S
N CO D (n
N w 0 m
0 0 0 ,4
(0
N
CO•
0
A CO CO
V3?:JV 310V3
0mm0 z33rn
10Tc�+0mmCi)
r zm--4 om00m
D D X/1 z 0 m Z
O0 r p m m D
- W O n A r
Z m W N M
C30
u,m m
0 0 m 0 -
m v cn D - r
D
73
x
D 1
00 ▪ W N � n O
W V W A A N m D
j 0 tO Ps)V D. V 0 r
IV 0. (A
N N
0
0
-4
0
r
W • -+ O N (D N
e-e ea"
AO 1N30a3d
D .p 0
?) ' 0 (o C
O A o
o co
co
O_
0)
O
0
N
0
mn
3
0'
cm
CO• c m
U) 01 W
M3 EAGLE AND EAGLE COMBINED
y
0 0-
?:o•a
co wq�
°x.
cD
CD c 0
o
cu a,
9crEi
1
�o coo
C —
a n1 y
CD ., C 0
"
`E o
ao
CC . CC
c. R• N
Yalu
w cp .D
'+ �••� cD
n 0 y
Pr 0
?(i
1 S.'{
CD a
CD
y �
g a
w c<o
as
C 0 aQ•
o CD
EA o-n
E crok
- 0
a � p,
�a
g co
C
CA 0 0
C) f tl
g
?r bd
C cCD o
5o 0
N • ovE.
o .0
CD m CD
w ern
ct)C p
OV
CD DO 14
.0
w o 5'
o co
a. cHo
vc�5. E.
N
a n .a
T.
y. --n (N 1
�*. Lamt o
tri
0.
(IQ 8
Ii.'
w a`D
rT
0.
p
E.CD
C
co 8
Aa
0
CAgao
�
c a co
o a to
y O•
EAN CD
0 a<
o
CD 0 0
el
y cn
° CD C
~o
v 0
5
LOOT `0 dasnaer
0
s
CA
co
4
&OmSpans uawipas 3o 0)Iu1S pa 103ul
0
1 0
0
0
11)
■
(pawsunlsg pagsu)
Water Level Contour Elevation in Feet MSL
Approximate Ground Water Flow Direction
Et 0 • 0 0 g 0
co 0
w ¢'
CD 0 AD
0 CD :;
r.•s' . ..I Pam' y
EA o
r. CD
a
CD 0 o. o
0 A
p o
y
A E"
w
y0°.
tO CD IQ
co A, O Y-r
coo < N ., 9
®oCj
CD
y w
. •r1 A
'"'j o ed CD
oo.
Cra co
6 a
cn
:saomos MEG 13n01 .101t?M
Ato13 puu sano3uoD
1anari aalum punoi9
= al!W 6 :e!eog
sb
n
n CD
T1
CD
w 0
lig 1-1-
'CI.
i
co
0
0
CANYONCO
ADA CO
5