The URL can be used to link to this page

2019.0484.PR0010 SEPA Checklist & Appendices, 2019.11.13 1 CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Action: Receipt: Received By: Date: I. INTRODUCTION INFORMATION Name of Proposal (if applicable): Wyndstone Apartments Applicant: C & E Developments, LLC Address: PO Box 2983, Yelm, WA 98597 Phone: (360) 400-0432 Agent: Craig Deaver – CES NW, Inc. Address: 429 – 29th Street NE, Suite D Puyallup, WA 98372 Phone: (253) 848-4282 Location of Project: City of Yelm, Washington Address: 15025 Tahoma Boulevard SE, Yelm, WA 98597 See Appendix for Vicinity Map. Section: 24 Quarter: SE Township: 17N Range: 01E Tax Parcel Number(s): 21724420300 Date Checklist Prepared: November 12, 2019 2 A. BACKGROUND 1. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Gain administrative site plan approval in Winter 2020, construction permit issuance in Spring 2020, complete site construction and begin building construction upon site construction completion. 2. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain: Yes, the project proposes to complete the development in two phases. Phase one will include all civil work and Buildings 3 and 4 (36-units). Phase two will consist of Buildings 1 and 2 (39- units). The total development will be comprised of 75-units. 3. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation were completed by Insight Geologic, Inc. on July 12, 2019 and a Parcel Prairie Habitat Critical Area Recon was completed by Key Environmental Solutions, LLC on September 5, 2019. They are included with the Administrative Site Plan Review Application. 4. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain: No, there are no other pending governmental approvals. 5. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Administrative Site Plan approval, SEPA Threshold determination, Site development permit, water permits, sewer permits, and building permits. 6. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The proposal is to develop the property into 75-unit multi-family 3 development. There are no existing structures on-site. The development will be designed to City of Yelm standards and to blend in with the surrounding neighborhoods. City of Yelm Water and Sanitary Sewer will serve the site. 7. Location of proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. From Interstate 5 (I-5) south, take exit 116 for Mounts Rd told Old Nisqually. Turn left onto Mounts Rd SW/Nisqually Rd SW/Old Pacific Highway SE. Turn left onto Reservation Rd SE. At the traffic circle, take the second exit onto WA-510 E. At the second traffic circle, take the second exit onto WA-510 E. Merge on to WA-510 E. Turn right onto Tahoma Boulevard Southeast. The destination will be on your left. Section: 24 Quarter: SE Township: 17N Range: 01E B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. EARTH a. General description of the site (circle one): flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other__________: The site is generally flat with areas of low to moderate slopes. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? The steepest on the site is approximately 10%. c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. 4 The soil at the site is identified by the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) map of Thurston County, Washington as Nisqually loamy fine sand and Spanaway gravelly sandy loam. See Appendix for the Soils Map and Description. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. There are no known unstable soils or a history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site will be designed to balance cut and fill quantities to the greatest extent possible. Grading plans were prepared by a licensed professional engineer and submitted to the City of Yelm for review and approval. It is estimated that approximately 11,000 cubic yards of total cut and 10,000 cubic yards of total fill will be required during construction of the proposed project. f. Could erosion occur because of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, if vegetation is cleared during wet weather, there is a potential for erosion to occur. During construction, the developer will utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) for wet weather. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt, or buildings)? Approximately 35% of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces. This area includes the proposed parking lots, sidewalks, and roof area within the site boundary. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 5 As part of the grading plan, a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be prepared for approval by City of Yelm. Erosion control features will be installed prior to construction and maintained until the threat of erosion ceases to exist. The developer will obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) and perform routine site monitoring and reporting to the Department of Ecology under the NPDES permit. 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. The grading activities proposed at the site will cause dust particulate to be emitted to the air. Vehicles and equipment used during construction can be a potential source of emissions. When the project is complete, the site may be the source of vehicle emissions from vehicles using the site. However, quantities are unknown. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. Vehicles using the surrounding street system can be a source of emissions or odor. However, it is not anticipated these off-site vehicle sources of emissions will affect this proposal. There are no other known sources of odor or emissions in the vicinity. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Unwanted dust particulate can be controlled to a certain extent by the application of water before and during grading activities. It is assumed the construction vehicles used will be equipped with factory-installed mufflers and spark arresters that would control excessive emissions. There are no measures proposed to control emissions because of vehicles using the site after construction. 6 3. WATER a. Surface Water: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. There are no surface water bodies located on or within 200 feet of the site. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans for this work. No, there are no onsite or adjacent surface water bodies. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None anticipated. 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. The project does not include any surface water withdrawals or diversions. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, the site does not lie within the 100-year floodplain. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No, the proposal does not include discharges of waste materials. 7 b. Ground Water: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. There will be no groundwater withdrawals. 2. Describe the underlying aquifer with regard to quality and quantity, sensitivity, protection, recharge areas, etc. Thurston County has the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area listed as a both a CARA Geological Category 1 and CARA Category Code 1. 3. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals . . .; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) is/are expected to serve. No waste material will be discharged into the ground. The project proposes to connect to the City of Yelm’s Sanitary Sewer system. c. Water Runoff (including stormwater): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. The primary source of runoff will be from stormwater. Minimal water runoff is anticipated to occur because of landscape watering and other maintenance activities. The project site uses a cartridge filter structure and an infiltration gallery to infiltrate and treat stormwater runoff. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. 8 Generally, a project of this type and size would provide areas of landscaping. If chemicals or fertilizers that are used to maintain these areas are not handled properly, it is possible they could enter ground or surface waters. To our knowledge, there are no other known sources of contaminants associated with this proposal. 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. The proposed multifamily development’s stormwater design will maintain natural drainage patterns per City of Yelm design standards. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: The primary source of runoff will be from stormwater. Minimal water runoff is anticipated to occur because of landscape watering and other maintenance activities. The project site uses a cartridge filter structure and an infiltration gallery to infiltrate and treat stormwater runoff. 4. PLANTS a. Check the type(s) of vegetation found on the site: X Deciduous tree _X Evergreen tree _X Shrubs _X Grass _ Pasture Crop or grain __ Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops Wet soil plants: Water plants: _ Other types of vegetation: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? The developer will remove the vegetation during site development. The clearing limits will be shown on the engineering plans submitted to the City of Yelm for review. 9 Landscaping will be provided throughout the multi-family development and street trees will be provided along the onsite roadway extension. c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. To our knowledge, there are no threatened or endangered plant species on or near the site. No threaten or endangered species are noted on the Washington State Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Species and Habitat interactive map. See Appendix VI for the WDFW map. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will incorporate native plant species in accordance with City of Yelm Code. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. Yes, there appears to be blackberry bushes scattered throughout the site and on adjacent properties. The total site coverage is not known at this time. 5. ANIMALS a. List any birds and other animals, which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: _X Birds: songbirds, crows _X Mammals: field mice, squirrels, deer _ Fish: None b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. To our knowledge, there are no threatened or endangered animal species on or near the site. No threaten or endangered species are noted on the Washington State Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Species and Habitat interactive map. See Appendix VI for the WDFW map. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. 10 No, not to our knowledge. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: The project is a multi-family residential development. No measures are proposed. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. None known. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The primary energy source required to meet the energy needs of the development is electricity. Sufficient amounts of which would be used to maintain a comfortable lifestyle and environment. A combination of electricity and gas would be used to for heating and lighting purposes. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No, the existing adjacent properties are single-family lots or undeveloped. The largest impact to placing solar panels is the existing home locations on the adjacent parcels. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The homebuilder will build the proposed multi-family homes using energy efficient materials based on current industry standards for home building. 7. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste that could occur because of this proposal? If so, describe. Typically, a residential development is not a source of 11 environmental health hazards. During construction of the proposed project, it is possible that a spill related to construction activity or equipment may occur. Once the plat has been constructed, the risk of fire is always present within a residential development. 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. No known possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. There are no known hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect the project development and design. 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project’s development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. During construction, typical materials for construction oil, petroleum or grease may be used and stored on- site and properly disposed of in accordance with the required stormwater pollution prevention plan. No chemicals will be produced. 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. While not anticipated to occur, the services of the local emergency service providers may be required at some time. 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None are proposed. b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area, which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 12 Noise exists from the neighboring single-family parcels and adjacent street system. However, it is not anticipated that the noise will adversely affect the proposed project. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. During the short-term, construction activity at the project site will vary considerably as the construction progresses. In addition, because the noise produced on the site depends on the equipment being used, the noise would vary from day to day. Maximum construction noise levels can be expected to range from 65 to 89 dBA with an average value of approximately 85 dBA. Minimum noise levels can be expected to have a wider range of 57 to 88 dBA with an average value of 78 dBA (based on a construction activity noise model, described in Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances). Noise associated with construction operations on the site will occur roughly between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Long-term noise impacts will result from vehicles using the site and noises typical to a multi-family residential development. 3. Proposed measure to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Noise impacts associated with the construction phases of the project will be limited in duration. To mitigate general noise impacts during the grading phase, measures such as using and regularly maintaining efficient mufflers and quieting devices on all construction equipment and vehicles can be anticipated. No measures to mitigate noise impacts during the building phase are proposed. Construction hours will be limited to the normal workday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will 13 the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. North: Tahoma Boulevard SE with a large lot single-family residence beyond it West: developed single-family lots East: large lot single-family residence South: large vacant lot b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or non-forest use? No, not to our knowledge. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling and harvesting? If so, how: To our knowledge, the adjacent parcels are not used for agriculture or forestry. c. Describe any structures on the site. The parcel is currently vacant. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No, the parcel is vacant. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The site is currently zoned R-16 – High Density Residential. Please see the zoning map in the appendix for clarification of zoning. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? The current comprehensive plan designation is High Density Residential. 14 g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Project is not in an area designate as a shoreline, does not apply. h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. Yes, according to Thurston County GIS the site is within a critical aquifer recharge area and has a possibility of pocket gophers. A pocket gopher study has been completed and submitted with the administrative site plan application. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? The proposed plat will provide 75 units and housing for approximately 225 residents. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None, there are no existing structures onsite. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None at this time. l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The proposed residential plat is adjacent to single-family residential uses. The site is currently zoned R-16 – High Density Residential. m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forestlands of long-term commercial significance, if any: To our knowledge, the adjacent parcels are not used for agricultural or forest lands. 15 9. HOUSING a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. This development anticipates creating 75 new multi-family units. It is assumed the units will be in the middle income range. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None, there are no existing units. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None are proposed. 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Maximum building height is 35 feet. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? No views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed. The view of the site, of course, will be altered to that of a multi-family housing development. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: The proposed multi-family development will include architecturally compatible buildings. After construction, the development will have landscaping. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare will result from reflective surfaces, exterior building lights, and streetlights. Interior lighting may be noticeable. The occurrence of light impacts are anticipated 16 from dusk to dawn. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard, interfere with views, or affect wildlife? It is highly unlikely that glare or light from the project site will interfere with views or affect wildlife. Streetlights and other outdoor lighting are intended to promote safety rather than create a safety hazard. c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Off-site sources of light or glare that may be noticeable would be the result from reflective surfaces, exterior building lights, streetlights and interior lighting from surrounding neighborhoods. The occurrence of light impacts are anticipated from dusk to dawn and are not anticipated to affect the project. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: The exterior building lights and streetlights will be of low intensity, typically used for safety and security purposes. 12. RECREATION a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There are several designated and informal recreational opportunities within the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. Some of these opportunities within approximately 4 miles include: Longmire Community Park, Cochrane Memorial Park, McKenna Park, Yelm City Park, Yelm Skate Park, Yelm-Tenino Trail, and Tahoma Valley Golf Course. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No, the project will not displace any recreational opportunities. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or 17 application, if any: Passive and active recreational opportunities will be provided within the project’s proposed open space. 13. HISTORIC AND CULTURAL PRESERVATION a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. No, there are no known sites in the vicinity eligible for or listed in the Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD). b. Are there any landmarks, features or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. To our knowledge, there are none. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. No formal studies have been conducted to assess cultural or historic resources associated with the site. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. There are no measures proposed to reduce or control impacts. However, if objects are unearthed during site work that may be culturally significant, the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be notified. 14. TRANSPORTATION 18 a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any: The project site is located near the intersection of Tahoma Boulevard SE and Berry Valley Drive SE. Access will be provided from Tahoma Boulevard SE. See Appendix for Vicinity Map. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently serviced by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? No, the site is not directly served by public transit. An Intercity Transit bus stop currently exists approximately 0.6 miles to the northeast along W Yelm Ave. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project eliminate? The project will provide 16 garage parking spaces, 145 on- site stalls, and 46 street stalls for a total of 207 parking stalls. No parking will be eliminated with this proposal. d. Will the proposal require any new improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). ADA accessible ramps will be provided at the intersection of the proposed public local access residential roadway and Tahoma Boulevard SE. As part of the site improvements Durant St SE will be realigned to the project’s western boundary line. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would 19 be trucks (such as commercial and non-passenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? According to the Traffic Assessment completed by Heath & Associates, Inc. on November 7, 2019 the project is estimated to generate approximately 549 trips per day. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so generally describe. No. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None are proposed. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes. Whenever a residential development is constructed, the need for public services, such as police and fire protection, increases. Yelm Community Schools District, Yelm Police Department, and SE Thurston Fire Authority serve the site. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any: Impacts will be controlled by the increase in tax base and tax assessments paid to the public services as well as impact fees. 16. UTILITIES a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: Adjacent to the proposed plat are electricity, water, refuse service, telephone and cable. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on 20 the site or in the immediate vicinity, which might be needed. The proposed plat anticipates using the following utilities: Electricity: ............................................ Puget Sound Energy Water: ................................................................ City of Yelm Sanitary sewer: .................................................. City of Yelm Refuse service: ................................. LeMay Pacific Disposal Telephone/cable/internet: ............................ Comcast/Dish Gas: ...................................................... Puget Sound Energy Stormwater: ....................................................... City of Yelm SIGNATURESThe above answers areunderstand that the ISignatureName of SigneePosition and Agen cy/Organization : _¡nctCts Nlt,,ùDate Submitted: I \7201lete to the best of my knowledge. Ilying on them to make its decision.2t APPENDIX Table of Contents EXHIBIT City of Yelm Zoning Map ................................................. I Site Plan with Vicinity Map ............................................. II Soil Conservation Service Soil Map ................................ III Aerial Photo ................................................................ IV Legal Description .......................................................... V WDFW Priority Habitats and Species Report ..................... VI Parcel Prairie Habitat Critical Area Recon and ESA .......... VII Geotechnical & Stormwater Investigation Report .......... VIII CITY OF YELM ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST for Wyndstone November 12, 2019 Prepared For: C & E Developments, LLC PO Box 2983, Yelm, WA 98597 Prepared By: Daniel Smith, P.E. Savannah Hutchins 06164.2 £¤510 £¤507 OAK CT SEFIR CT SETAHOMA CT SE CURRYCT SE LEALANCT SE RAMSEYLN SE PRAIRIEWINDCT SE 92NDCTSE MOUNTAINVIEW CTSE STORY RD SE HAROLDCT SE FARWESTCT SE SOLBERG CTSE BARRYBRIDGES ST SE VANCILRD SE UMTANUM ST SE MT.SUNRISEST SE 101STAVESE101STWAY SE PRAIRIECREEKLP SE MOUNTAINAIRE LN NW VAN TRUMPST NW QUAIL MEADOWSCT SE PARKVIEWDR SE CARTERLP SE CARWILLIAMSLN SE VIEWDRISE WASHINGTONAVESE 3RD ST NEMOSMANAVE SE CARLY LN SE CARISSA STSE CASUANTLN SE GREENACRESLN SE MOUNTAINVIEW DRSE STEVENSST NW GREENLEAFLP SE CLARK RD SEBETHCT SE2ND ST SE2NDST NE100THCT SE 95TH C TSE SPRAGUEST SE BRENDANDR SEMOSMANAVESW BRIGH T ONRDSE103RD AVE SE JEFF E R S O N AVE N WBURNETT RD SEJUSTMANST SEDAIN ST SEYELMTERRASTSEPALOUSEAVE SE VANCIL CT SE CRYSTALCT NW QUEENSV IE W CT N W R ED F ERNC O URT104TH PL SE KINGSVIEWCT NW VANNORHOPST SE94TH AVE SE RHOTONCT NW THURSTONCT NW 100TH WAY SECOCHRANEAVE SE107TH CT SE MILL RD SEWALTON LN SE PARKVIEWLPSEBERRY VALLEYRD SW LOCKWOODLN SE CANAL RD SE PRAIRIE HEIGHTSST SE 109TH LN SE C A R TERSTS EDO N O VANCTSECASCADIANAVESEBIRKLAND STSEBE RRYVALLEYDRSE T ERRAVALLEYSTSEC ANAL CTSE 4TH ST NEPRAIRIEWIN D ST SE 106TH ST SE98TH WAY SE 104THW AY SE 4TH ST SECRYSTALSPRINGSR D SE RAILROAD ST NWGREENBRIAR S TSELONGMIRE ST SW94THLNS E STEVENS S T NETERRA GLENN ST SEVAN T R U M P S T N E JEFFE R S O N A V E N E 110TH AVE SE92NDWAYSE BERRY VALLEY RD SE SOLBERG ST NWLONGMIRE ST NWEDWARDSSTNWPLAZA DR NE88TH AVE SE WILKENSEN RD SE91STAVE SE WAS H I N G T O N A V E S W YELM TERRA WAY S EBALDHILLSRDSEDOTSONSTSEVIEWDRNW T A HOMABLVDSWMCK E N Z I E A V E S WUNKNOWNCOA T E S R D N W RHOTON RD SEMI D D L E R D S EKAYLASTSE 89TH AVE SE GEORGE RD SE OLD MCKENNARDSE1ST ST NE105TH WAY SE 86TH LN SE RHOTON RD NW109TH AVE SEMOUNTAIN VIEW RD SEKILLION RD SELONGMIRE ST SE NP RD NECRYSTAL SPRINGS RD NWFOXHILLRD SETAHOMABLVDSE93RD AVE SE GROVE RD SEPRAIRIE VISTALP SEMORRISRDSEMORRISCTSEDURANTDR SETRANQUILITY LNSE90THAVESE V A NCILLPSE 99TH AVE SE 100TH AVE SE CALLIE AVE SE T HEAR O S E D R SECIRCLEVIEWDRSE 92ND AVE SE RAINIERVIE WDR SE CULLENSRDNWCARTERCTSEFORRESTE R HE I GHT S DRSEPRAIRIECREEK LP SE105TH AVE SE 104TH AVE SE CREEK RD SEWE S T R D N E 3RD ST SEJENSEN DRSECHAD DR SE CULLENS RD SEHARRIS RD SERAILWAY ST SEFLUME RD SEBR I D G E S T S E 107TH LPSE99TH WAY SE Zoning DesignationC-1 CommercialC-2 Heavy CommercialC-3 Large Lot CommercialCBD Central Business DistrictI IndustrialID Insitutional DistrictMPC Master Planned CommunityP/OS Parks/Open SpaceR-4 Low Density Residential R-6 Moderate Density ResidentialR-16 High Density ResidentialSR 510 Yelm LoopCity LimitsUrban Growth AreaJBLM Large Caliber Weapons - Peak NoiseJBLM Large Caliber Noise Zone IJBLM Large Caliber Noise Zone II The information and data presentedon this map are for informational purposesonly and must be confirmed. City of Yelm . February, 2017 Zoning Map City of YelmCommunity Development Dept.105 Yelm Ave WYelm, WA 98597360.458.3835www.ci.yelm.wa.us Data Source: Thurston GeoData Center929 Lakeridge Dr SWSuite 216Olympia, WA 98502360.754.4594www.geodata.org ftE 5E!:4} 9 VARIES RIw 10' 56' FT a C- 1' 1' ul � m B' 7.5' 11' 11' z NET SITE AREA: DWG. Na. DENSITY 7.5' 6' S' a DES. I DWN. z n a 4.67 AC X 16=74.7 UNITS rn 75 UNITS x z � � ARTERIAL SETBACK: rY m r m 10' a m FLANKING SIDE SETBACK: P m X. P 2' CEMENT CONC. ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER GENERAL NOTES: 1. "ON STREET" PARKING PERMITTED. 2. REFER TO RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON STORM DRAINAGE, STREET LIGHTING, PAVEMENT STRICTURE, ETC. R/W CITY 10, DEPT. OF 1' m ACCESS RESIDENTIAL a NET SITE AREA: DWG. Na. DENSITY 7.5' 6' S' m z� DES. I DWN. a v TOTAL UNITS ALLOWED: 4.67 AC X 16=74.7 UNITS rn 75 UNITS x z � � ARTERIAL SETBACK: 35 SIDE SETBACK: 10' a � FLANKING SIDE SETBACK: m PARKING PARKING REQ.: 2 STALL PER UNITS X 75=150 STALLS GARAGE PARKING: 16 STALLS 4' 1 STREET PARKING: 46 STALLS CITY OF YELM DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS LOCAL ACCESS RESIDENTIAL APPROVED NET SITE AREA: DWG. Na. DENSITY 4-7 R16 -HIGH DENSITY DES. I DWN. I CKD. I DATE WYNDSTIONE MULTI -FAMILY A PORTION OF NW 114 OF THE SE 1l4, SEC. 24, TWP.17N, RNG.1E WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, YELM, WASHINGTON 21724420200 HENDRICKSON, RUSSELL 1" R 6" (MAX.) PAVEMENT d 8" (MIN.) 6" (MIN.) COMPRESSIBLE FILLER (3/4" MAXIMUM). CUT BACK AND PROVIDE SEALANT AT ALL JOINTS WITH FILLER (TYP.). 5.0' 2.00% SLOPE OR LESS 4 . 4 L--4" CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK N4TESs, 4" COMPACTED SUBGRADE 1. COMPACTION FOR CONCRETE CURB AND SIDEWALK TO BE 957 OF MAXIMUM DENSITY. 2. EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE 20' O.C. WITH 11C TOOLED JOINTS ® 5' O.C.. 3. PROVIDE A LIGHT BROOM FINISH. INTEGRAL CURB AND SIDEWALK N.T.S. 30 0 15 30 60 1 inch — 30 feel SHEET INDEX SITE1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN STM1 PRELIMINARY STORM A GRADING PLAN PARCEL NUMBER 21724420300 SITE ADDRESS 15025 TAHOMA BOULEVARD SOUTHEAST YELM, WA 98597 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL NO. 21724420304; 15425 TAHOMA BLVD SE PARCEL A OF CITY OF YELM BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. BLA 140153 YL AS RECORDED JULY 18, 2014 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 4400621. IN THURSTON COUNTY, WASHINGTON. VERTICAL DATUM NAVD 88 ONSITE BENCHMARK: TOP OF CONC, SE CORNER OF POWER VAULT ELEV = 346.55 PRIMARY BENCHMARK CONTROL FROM THURSTON COUNTY GPS CONTROL NO. 1252AZ 2" SURFACE BRASS DISK IN WSDOT CASE MON AT INT TAHOMA BLVD SE AND SW BERRY VALLEY RD NAVD 88 ELEV = 340.02 BASIS 4F BEARINGS MONUMENTS AND CORNERS FOUND AS SET PER PLAT OF TAHOMA TERRA PHASE ONE, DIV 1, AFN 3830707. CALL. POSITION OF WEST LINE OF NW1 /4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 24. SURVEY BY E,TRUE & ASSOC. P.O. BOX 908 YELM, WA. 98597 (360) 458-2894 PROJECT STATISTICS GENERAL STATISTICS GROSS SITE AREA: 203,322 S.F.(4.67 AC.) TAHOMA BLVD S.E. R.O.W.: 15,146 S.F.(0.35 AC.) 56' R.D.W. DEDICATION: 33,197 S.F.(0.76 AG.) NET SITE AREA: 154,979 S.F.(3,56 AC.) DENSITY EXISTING ZONING: R16 -HIGH DENSITY MIN. UNITS REQUIRED: 8 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE MAX UNITS ALLOWED: 16 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE TOTAL UNITS ALLOWED: 4.67 AC X 16=74.7 UNITS TOTAL UNITS SHOWN: 75 UNITS SETBACKS ARTERIAL SETBACK: 35 SIDE SETBACK: 10' REAR SETBACK: 25' FLANKING SIDE SETBACK: 20' PARKING PARKING REQ.: 2 STALL PER UNITS X 75=150 STALLS GARAGE PARKING: 16 STALLS ONSITE PARKING: 145 STALLS STREET PARKING: 46 STALLS TOTAL PARKING: 207 STALLS OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED: GROSS AREA 203,322 S.F. x 10%=20,332 S.F. RECREATION PROVIDED: 20,281 S.F. PARKING OPEN SPACE PROVIDED: 4,157 .S. F. TOTAL OPEN SPACE: 24,448 S.F. PHASE 1 STATISTICS PHASE AREA: 56' R.O.W. DEDICATION: NET AREA: TOTAL NUMBER UNITS: PARKING REQ.: GARAGE PARKING: ONSITE PARKING: STREET PARKING: TOTAL PARKING: 113,631 S.F.(2.61 AC.) 33,197 S.F.(0.76 AC. 80,434 S.F.(1.85 AC. 36 UNITS 2 STALL PER UNITS X 36=72 STALLS 8 STALLS 53 STALLS 46 STALLS 107 STALLS PHASE 2 STATISTICS NET AREA: TOTAL NUMBER UNITS: PARKING REQ,: GARAGE PARKING: ONSITE PARKING: TOTAL PARKING: 74,545 S.F.(1.71 AC.) 39 UNITS 2 STALL PER UNITS X 39=78 STALLS 8 STALLS 92 STALLS 100 STALLS y YAU� wnS11'v61 �a 47023 a rte 1 GIs y s Q l: Soil Map—Thurston County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2019 Page 1 of 3519894051989605198980519900051990205199040519906051990805199100519912051991405199160519894051989605198980519900051990205199040519906051990805199100519912051991405199160528710528730528750528770528790528810528830528850528870 528710 528730 528750 528770 528790 528810 528830 528850 528870 46° 56' 43'' N 122° 37' 22'' W46° 56' 43'' N122° 37' 13'' W46° 56' 35'' N 122° 37' 22'' W46° 56' 35'' N 122° 37' 13'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 10N WGS84 0 50 100 200 300 Feet 0 15 30 60 90 Meters Map Scale: 1:1,100 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Thurston County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 16, 2019 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 29, 2016—Oct 10, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Thurston County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2019 Page 2 of 3 Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 74 Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.6 13.7% 110 Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 3.2 76.0% 111 Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes 0.4 10.3% Totals for Area of Interest 4.2 100.0% Soil Map—Thurston County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2019 Page 3 of 3 Thurston County Area, Washington 74—Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ndc9 Elevation: 160 to 1,310 feet Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 60 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Nisqually and similar soils: 85 percent Minor components: 5 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Nisqually Setting Landform: Terraces Parent material: Sandy glacial outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 5 inches: loamy fine sand H2 - 5 to 31 inches: loamy fine sand H3 - 31 to 60 inches: loamy sand Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.9 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e Hydrologic Soil Group: A Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Yelm Percent of map unit: 3 percent Hydric soil rating: No Map Unit Description: Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes---Thurston County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2019 Page 1 of 2 Norma Percent of map unit: 2 percent Landform: Depressions Hydric soil rating: Yes Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Thurston County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 16, 2019 Map Unit Description: Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15 percent slopes---Thurston County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2019 Page 2 of 2 Thurston County Area, Washington 110—Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ndb6 Elevation: 330 to 1,310 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 65 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 200 days Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated Map Unit Composition Spanaway and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Spanaway Setting Landform: Terraces, outwash plains Parent material: Volcanic ash over gravelly outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 15 to 20 inches: very gravelly loam H3 - 20 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 0 to 3 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA) Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Thurston County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 16, 2019 Map Unit Description: Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes---Thurston County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2019 Page 1 of 1 Thurston County Area, Washington 111—Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2ndb7 Elevation: 330 to 1,310 feet Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 65 inches Mean annual air temperature: 50 degrees F Frost-free period: 150 to 200 days Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance Map Unit Composition Spanaway and similar soils: 100 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Spanaway Setting Landform: Outwash plains, terraces Parent material: Volcanic ash over gravelly outwash Typical profile H1 - 0 to 15 inches: gravelly sandy loam H2 - 15 to 20 inches: very gravelly sandy loam H3 - 20 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand Properties and qualities Slope: 3 to 15 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 in/hr) Depth to water table: More than 80 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.8 inches) Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s Hydrologic Soil Group: A Forage suitability group: Droughty Soils (G002XS401WA) Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Thurston County Area, Washington Survey Area Data: Version 13, Sep 16, 2019 Map Unit Description: Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes---Thurston County Area, Washington Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 10/4/2019 Page 1 of 1 The information included on this map has been compiled by Thurston County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Additional elements may be present in reality that are not represented on the map. Ortho-photos and other data may not align. The boundaries depicted by these datasets are approximate. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. ALL DATA IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND ‘WITH ALL FAULTS’. Thurston County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. In no event shall Thurston County be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits, real or anticipated, resulting from the use, misuse or reliance of the information contained on this map. If any portion of this map or disclaimer is missing or altered, Thurston County removes itself from all responsibility from the map and the data contained within. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained in this map. Authorized for 3rd Party reproduction for personal use only. Wyndstone Aerial 2,684Scale 1: 0 10/4/2019 Note: Legend 100 200 Feet Published: Map Created Using GeoData Public Website Parcel Boundaries Roads - Major Major Roads Ramp I 5; US 101 Roads (Large Scale) Railroads County Border 2019© Thurston County LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PARCEL FOR WYNDSTONE SEPA APPLICATION. PETERSON BROTHERS LLC, A WASHINGTON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF THURSTON, STATE OF WA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A OF BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. BLA-14-0153-YL, AS RECORDED JULY 18, 2014 UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 4400621. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF THURSTON, STATE OF WASHINGTON. 21724420300 15025 Tahoma Blvd SE Yelm, Washington 98597 SOURCE DATASET:WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFEPRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES REPORTREPORT DATE:P191004133440PHSPlusPublic10/04/2019 1.35Query ID:Priority AreaCommon NameAccuracySource EntityOccurrence TypeResolutionNotesSource DateSite NamePHS Listing StatusScientific NameSource DatasetState StatusMgmt RecommendationsMore Information (URL)Sensitive DataFederal StatusGeometry TypeSource RecordDISCLAIMER. This report includes information that the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains in a central computer database. It is not an attempt to provide you with an official agency responseas to the impacts of your project on fish and wildlife. This information only documents the location of fish and wildlife resources to the best of our knowledge. It is not a complete inventory and it is important to note that fishand wildlife resources may occur in areas not currently known to WDFW biologists, or in areas for which comprehensive surveys have not been conducted. Site specific surveys are frequently necesssary to rule out thepresence of priority resources. Locations of fish and wildlife resources are subject to vraition caused by disturbance, changes in season and weather, and other factors. WDFW does not recommend using reports more thansix months old.10/04/2019 1.351 WDFW Test Map Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community PHS Report Clip Area PT LN POLY AS MAPPED SECTION QTR-TWP TOWNSHIP October 4, 2019 0 0.3 0.60.15 mi 0 0.55 1.10.275 km 1:19,842 550 Mill Creek Road · Raymond, Washington 98577 · (360) 942-3184 · Fax (360) 942-0260 Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. September 5, 2019 City of Yelm Community Development Attn: Tami Merriman, Associate Planner 106 2nd St SE Yelm, WA 98597 Re: Peterson Brothers LLC.. Parcel Prairie Habitat Critical Area Recon and ESA No Effect Letter, Thurston County Parcel #21724420300. Located at 15025 Tahoma Boulevard SE, Yelm, Washington, Section 24, Township 17 North, Range 01 East, W.M., and in accordance with the Thurston County Critical Areas Ordinance Title 24.03 (Definitions), Interim Prairie Ordinance 14542, WDFW Management Recommendations for Washington Priority Habitats Oregon White Oak Woodlands and WDFW Habitat Management Recommendations for the Mazama Pocket Gophers and following the 2018 USFWS Mazama Pocket Gopher Screening Protocol. Dear Ms. Merriman, Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. (KES) has completed a Prairie Habitat Area Recon on the above referenced parcel located at 15025 Tahoma Boulevard SE, Yelm, Thurston County, Washington. Fieldwork was conducted on June 11, 2019 and July 11, 2019. Project Description and Findings The parcel was reviewed and are approximately 4.31 acres located in eastern Thurston County, in the city of Yelm. Parcel 21724420300 is currently undeveloped. The parcel was reviewed for prairie habitat and Mazama Pocket Gophers. When the site is developed with multi-family apartment units, there will be not any “Take” of any state or federally listed species. There will be “No Effect” on prairie habitat, Mazama Pocket Gophers or any other critical areas or buffer impacted. KES reviewed Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (WDFW) Priority Habitat Species (PHS) lists and maps and no listed species were found to occur onsite. Adjacent areas were also looked at for any critical areas or listed species, and none were found to occur. Peterson Brothers LLC. Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. Prairie Habitat Recon & No Effect September 5, 2019 2 Vegetation on the parcel consists of: Common Name Sc. Name Status Notes alder Alnus rubra FAC Black hawthorn Crataegus douglasii FAC Canada thistle Cirsium arvense FACU common dandelion Taraxacum officinale FACU common vetch Vicia sativa FAC cut-leaf blackberry Rubus laciniatus FACU curly dock Rumex crispus FAC Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii FACU fireweed Epilobium angustifolium FACU hairy cat's ear Hypochaeris radicata FACU Himalayan blackberry Rubus armenicus FACU Indian plum Oemleria cerasiformis FACU Juniper haircap moss Polytrichum juniperinum FACU Dense klamath weed Hypericum perforatum FACU meadow fescue Festuca pratensis FACU Lotus tree Ziziphus lotus UPL orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata FACU various orchard trees Oregon white oak Quercus garryana UPL Only 3, all smaller than ½” diameter Oregon grape Mahonia nervosa FACU pepper weed Lepidium latifolium FACU plantain Plantago lanceolata FAC red clover Trifolium prartense FACU Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa FACU Roemer’s fescue Festuca roemeri FACU Robert geranium Geranium robertianum FACU Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius FACU serviceberry Amelanchier alnifolia FACU sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella FACU Snowberry Symphoricarpos albus FACU tree-of-heaven Ailanthus altissima UPL The project area was required to be reviewed due to the presence of prairie soils. KES reviewed the Natural Resource Conservation Service Soils (NRCS) maps and verified that prairie soils did not exist in the project area. Soil Types Prairie Soil Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3 % slopes Yes Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15% slopes Yes Peterson Brothers LLC. Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. Prairie Habitat Recon & No Effect September 5, 2019 3 Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15% slopes Yes Mapped prairie soils do not necessarily mean that the area is a prairie –vegetation, landuse, development, and historical land practices may have changed the soil conditions. Current site conditions may or may not accurately reflect mapped soils. Conversely, prairies may be found in areas where the soils are not mapped as prairie soils. Federal ESA Species, Habitats and No Effect There are no Federal ESA species or habitats that exist within the parcel. There will be “No Effect” and/or “No Take” from the proposed project. Historically, the parcel was part of a large farm. In 1990 aerial, this section was still a Douglas fir stand. KES has performed two site visits as required. KES determined that parcel does not meet the definition of prairie from USFWS and that there has been no Mazama Gopher occurrence found on adjacent parcels or anywhere in the vicinity. There is a new subdivision directly to the west and to the north the new high school road has recently been constructed. It is KES’s professional opinion that development of this parcel with multi-family apartment units, will not impact any prairie species or any other critical areas and should be permitted. KES concurs with the proposed site plan. Looking east. Looking south. Peterson Brothers LLC. Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. Prairie Habitat Recon & No Effect September 5, 2019 4 Looking west across parcel. Looking south across parcel. Looking north across parcel. Looking east across parcel. Looking SE at test pits. Looking east across parcel. Peterson Brothers LLC. Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. Prairie Habitat Recon & No Effect September 5, 2019 5 Professional Standard of Care: Please be advised that KES personnel has provided professional services that are in accordance with the degree of care and skill generally accepted in the performance of this environmental evaluation. Fish and Wildlife Habitat Assessments together with wetland delineations, mitigation plans, classifications, ratings, streamtyping, riparian planting plans, ordinary high water line determinations, fish removal and other critical area analysis should be reviewed and approved by the agency with permitting authority and potentially other agencies with regulatory authority prior to extensive site design or development. No warranties are expressed or implied by this assessment until approved by the appropriate resource and permitting agency. The findings expressed in this report are based on field investigations, best available data, best available science, and our professional judgement. The services described in this report were performed consistent with generally accepted professional consulting principles and practices. The services performed were consistent with our agreement with our client. Key Environmental Solutions, LLC, (KES) is not responsible for the impacts of any changes in environmental standards, practices, or regulations after the date of this report. KES does not warrant the accuracy of supplemental information incorporated in this report that was supplied by others. Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate this project and please contact us if you have any questions regarding this information, our findings, conclusions, or recommendations at (360) 942-3184 or (360) 562-5763. Sincerely, Key McMurry Owner/Professional Stream and Wildlife Biologist, PWS The information included on this map has been compiled by Thurston County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice. Additional elements may be present in reality that are not represented on the map. Ortho-photos and other data may not align. The boundaries depicted by these datasets are approximate. This document is not intended for use as a survey product. ALL DATA IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND ‘WITH ALL FAULTS’. Thurston County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. In no event shall Thurston County be liable for direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, special, or tort damages of any kind, including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits, real or anticipated, resulting from the use, misuse or reliance of the information contained on this map. If any portion of this map or disclaimer is missing or altered, Thurston County removes itself from all responsibility from the map and the data contained within. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user and the user is solely responsible for understanding the accuracy limitation of the information contained in this map. Authorized for 3rd Party reproduction for personal use only. Soils 2,028Scale 1: 0 5/24/2019 Note: Legend 100 200 Feet Published: Map Created Using GeoData Public Website Gopher Indicator Soils HIGH MEDIUM LOW Soils (USDA) Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15% slopes Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 30 to 50% slopes Baldhill very stony sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes Baldhill very stony sandy loam, 15 to 30% slopes Baldhill very stony sandy loam, 3 to 15% slopes Baldhill very stony sandy loam, 30 to 50% slopes Baumgard loam, 10 to 40% slopes Baumgard loam, 40 to 65% slopes Baumgard-Pheeney Comples, 40 to 65% slopes Baumgard-Pheeney complex, 10 to 40% slopes Baumgard-Rock outcrop complex, 40 to 65% slopes Bellingham silty clay loam Boisfort silt loam, 20 to 40% slopes Boisfort silt loam, 5 to 20% slopes Bunker gravelly silt loam, 30 to 65% slopes Bunker gravelly silt loam, 5 to 30% slopes 2019© Thurston County June 11, 2019 21724420300 Peterson Brothers LLC. x X High-Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15%, slopes Medium-Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3%, slopes Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15%, slopes Key McMurry, Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. KM N/A N/A 0 July 11, 2019 July 11, 2019 21724420300 Peterson Brothers LLC. x X High-Nisqually loamy fine sand, 3 to 15%, slopes Medium-Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3%, slopes Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 15%, slopes Key McMurry, Key Environmental Solutions, LLC. June 11, 2019 KM N/A N/A 0 July 11, 2019 1015 East 4th Avenue, Olympia, Washington 98506 Phone: 360.754.2128 Fax: 360.754.9299 July 12, 2019 C & E Developments LLC PO Box 2983 Yelm, Washington 98597 Attention: Casey Peterson Report Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Wyndstone Development Proposed Multi-Family Residential 15025 Tahoma Boulevard SE Yelm, Washington Project No. 1142-001-01 INTRODUCTION Insight Geologic is pleased to present our report of subsurface conditions at the location of your proposed Wyndstone multi-family residential development to be located at 15025 Tahoma Boulevard SE in Yelm, Washington. The location of the site is shown relative to surrounding physical features in the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The site of the proposed project consists of a single parcel of property (Thurston County Tax Parcel No. 21724420300), comprising approximately 4.3 acres. The project will include four, multi-family, multi-story residential buildings with appurtenant parking and drive areas. Stormwater runoff from roads and parking areas is to be infiltrated to the subsurface in the northern portion of the property. SCOPE OF SERVICES The objective of our services was to evaluate subsurface conditions on the property as a basis for evaluating suitability of the soils for the proposed building and parking areas, as well as evaluating the soils for stormwater infiltration. Our specific scope of services included the following tasks: Stormwater Investigation 1. Provided for the location of subsurface utilities on the site. We conducted this task by notifying the “One Call” system. 2. Conducted a site reconnaissance to evaluate and mark proposed boring locations at the site and for truck-mounted drilling rig access. 3. Drilled two (2) borings in the location of the proposed stormwater disposal structure at the site using a truck-mounted drilling rig. Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 2 Insight Geologic, Inc. 4. Installed one (1), 2-inch diameter monitoring well, constructed of PVC casing. The well was finished inside a locking steel cover installed flush with the surrounding grade. 5. Collected soil samples continuously during drilling to the full depth of the borings. 6. Maintained logs of the soils encountered in the boreholes and provided well construction details. Soils were described in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and presented on the field logs. 7. Conducted an evaluation of stormwater infiltration rates using the detailed method outlined in Ecology’s 2014 Stormwater Management Manual, as adopted by the City of Yelm, and provide a design infiltration rate for stormwater infiltration. Geotechnical Investigation 8. Excavated a series of six (6) exploratory test pits across the project site using a small, track- mounted excavator. The test pits were excavated to depths of between approximately 6 to 8 feet below ground surface (bgs) across the site. 9. Collected representative soil samples from the test pits for possible laboratory analysis. 10. Logged the soils exposed in the test pits in general accordance with ASTM D2487-06. 11. Provided for laboratory testing of seven (7) soil samples for gradation analyses to evaluate bearing capacity and for stormwater infiltration calculations. 12. Prepared a report summarizing our field activities including our recommendations for site preparation and grading, bearing capacity, seismic class, temporary and final cut slopes, earth pressures, and suitability of the on-site soils for use as fill. FINDINGS Surface Conditions The project site is a rectangular shaped parcel situated at an elevation of approximately 340 to 350 feet above mean sea level (MSL) and is currently occupied by a single-family residence. The property is bounded by Tahoma Boulevard SE to the north, Durant Street SE to the west, and residential properties to the south and east. The site gently slopes down to the north with an elevation drop of 10 feet across the site. The subject site is vegetated with grasses, scotch broom, and isolated stands of low growing trees and other shrubs. Geology Based on our review of available published geologic maps, Vashon age glacial recessional outwash gravel deposits underlie the project site. This material is described as poorly-sorted gravel and sand. This material was deposited by outwash rivers during the waning stages of the most recent glacial period in the Puget Sound region and is not glacially consolidated. Subsurface Explorations We explored subsurface conditions at the site on June 10 and June 14, 2019 by excavating six test pits and advancing two borings in the locations as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The test pits were excavated by Insight Geologic using a track-mounted excavator. The exploratory borings were Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 3 Insight Geologic, Inc. completed by Holocene Drilling using a truck-mounted hollow stem auger drill rig. A geologist from Insight Geologic monitored the explorations and maintained a log of the conditions encountered. The test pits were completed to depths of 6 to 8 feet bgs, and the borings were completed to depths of between 23 and 36.5 feet bgs. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the system described in ASTM D2487-06. A copy of the explorations is contained in Attachment A. Soil Conditions The explorations were generally consistent across the site. Underlying approximately 6 inches of sod, we generally encountered between 1.5 to 2 feet of dark brown, poorly- to well-graded gravel and sand with cobbles and varying levels of silt and organics (GP-GM, GP), in a loose and moist condition. Underlying the dark brown unit, we encountered brown poorly- to well-graded gravels with cobbles and varying percentages of sand (GP, GW) to poorly graded sands with gravels and cobbles and varying percentages of silt (SP, SP-SM), in a loose to very dense and moist to wet condition to the base of the explorations. In general, soils increased in compaction with depth. The soils encountered are consistent with Nisqually loamy fine sand and Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, which are mapped for the area. In general, the Nisqually loamy fine sand is mapped along the north quarter of the site, while the Spanaway gravelly sandy loam is mapped on the remainder of the property. These soils are generally formed from sandy and gravely glacial outwash and generally has restrictive layers occurring greater than 7 feet below grade. Percolation is generally high, with rates between 1.98 and 5.95 inches per hour, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in boring MW-1 at a depth of 32 feet bgs. Groundwater was not encountered in any of the remaining explorations completed on-site. The explorations were completed during the summer season at a time that generally correlates to a lower groundwater elevation. In addition, no evidence of high groundwater was encountered within the explorations at the site. Laboratory Testing We selected seven soil samples for gradation analyses in general accordance with ASTM D422 to define soil class and obtain parameters for stormwater infiltration calculations. Our laboratory test results are provided in Attachment B. STORMWATER INFILTRATION We completed a stormwater infiltration rate evaluation in general accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology Stormwater Manual for Western Washington (2014 Manual) as adopted by the City of Yelm. For the purposes of this evaluation, we selected Method 3 “Soil Grain Size Analysis Method”. The 2014 Manual utilizes the relationship between the D10, D60, and D90 results of the ASTM grain-size distribution analyses, along with site specific correction factors to estimate long- term design infiltration rates of each infiltration facility. Based on our gradation analyses, we estimate that the long-term design infiltration rate (Fdesign) for the proposed stormwater infiltration is between 1.6 and 20 inches per hour, after applying the appropriate correction factors. The range of infiltration rate is the result of varying percentages of fines in the soil Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 4 Insight Geologic, Inc. profile. Our calculations assume that the stormwater infiltration will occur at a depth of at least 3 feet bgs or below the upper gravel with sand and silt unit. Changes to these infiltration rates are possible depending on the depth to groundwater during winter months. For the purposes of stormwater infiltration on this project, we recommend using an infiltration rate of 2.9 inches per hour for the pond area and 5 inches per hour for roof downspouts in the central portion of the site. Table 1. Design Infiltration Rates – Detailed Method Exploration Unit Depth Range (feet) D10 Value D60 Value D90 Value Long Term Design Infiltration Rate (Inches per hour) TP-2 GW 3.0 – 8.0 7.9 44 130 20 TP-5 SP 2.0 – 8.0 0.31 3.2 51 1.6 MW-1 GP 25.0 – 26.5 0.35 14 30 2.9 MW-1 GW 30.0 – 31.5 0.26 8.5 18 B-1 SP-SM 10.0 – 11.5 0.14 2.1 25 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS General We understand that seismic design will likely be performed using the 2015 IBC standards. The following parameters may be used in computing seismic base shear forces: Table 2. 2015 IBC Seismic Design Parameters Spectral Response Accel. at Short Periods (SS) = 1.25 Spectral Response Accel. at 1 Second Periods (S1) = 0.50 Site Class = D Site Coefficient (FA) = 1.0 Site Coefficient (FV) = 1.5 A full report for the seismic design parameters is presented in Attachment C. Ground Rupture Because of the location of the site with respect to the nearest known active crustal faults, and the presence of a relatively thick layer of glacial outwash deposits, it is our opinion that the risk of ground rupture at the site due to surface faulting is low. Soil Liquefaction Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in the development of excess pore water pressures in saturated soils, and a subsequent loss of stiffness in the soil occurs. Liquefaction also causes a temporary reduction of soil shear strength and bearing capacity, which can cause settlement of the ground surface above the liquefied Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 5 Insight Geologic, Inc. soil layers. In general, soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction include saturated, loose to medium dense, clean to silty sands and non-plastic silts within 50 feet of ground surface. Based on our review of the Liquefaction Susceptibility Map of Thurston County (Palmer, 2004), the project site is identified to have a very low potential risk for soil liquefaction. Based on our experience with detailed seismic studies in the Yelm area, including areas that are mapped within the same recessional outwash soil deposits as the project site, we concur with the reviewed map. It is our opinion that there is a low risk for soil liquefaction at the site. Seismic Compression Seismic compression is defined as the accrual of contractive volumetric strains in unsaturated soils during strong shaking from earthquakes (Stewart et al., 2004). Loose to medium dense clean sands and non-plastic silts are particularly prone to seismic compression settlement. Seismic compression settlement is most prevalent on slopes, but it can also occur on flat ground. It is our opinion that the upper 15 feet of the soil profile at the site has a moderate risk for seismic compression settlement. Seismic Settlement Discussion Based on the materials encountered in our explorations, it is our preliminary opinion that seismic settlements (liquefaction-induced plus seismic compression) could potentially total a few inches at the site as the result of an IBC design level earthquake. We are available upon request to perform deep subsurface explorations and detailed seismic settlement estimates during the design phase. Seismic Slope Instability The maximum inclination of the site is approximately 2 percent and we did not observe signs of slope instability during our site work. In our opinion, there is a very low risk of seismic slope instability at the project site under current conditions. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves the lateral displacement of surficial blocks of non-liquefied soil when an underlying soil layer liquefies. Lateral spreading generally develops in areas where sloping ground or large grade changes are present. Based on our limited understanding of the subsurface conditions at the site, it is our opinion that there is a low risk for the development of lateral spreading as a result of an IBC design level earthquake. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. We recommend that the proposed structures be supported on shallow concrete foundations that are designed using an allowable soil bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The soils encountered in our explorations are typically in a loose condition near ground surface. To limit the potential for structure settlement, we recommend that shallow foundations and slabs-on-grade be established on a minimum 1-foot thick layer of structural fill. Depending on final grading plans and Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 6 Insight Geologic, Inc. the time of year earthwork is performed; it could be practical to reuse the on-site soils as structural fill under the foundations/slabs. Stormwater infiltration at the site is feasible. We propose a design infiltration rate of 2.9 inches per hour for the stormwater infiltration systems, based on the assumption that stormwater infiltration will occur within the clean gravels and sands below a depth of about 3 feet bgs. This value is based on an idealized soil column located in the area of the proposed stormwater infiltration trench on the north side of the site. It may be possible to increase the infiltration rate with additional testing such as a Pilot Infiltration Test in the location of the proposed infiltration facility. Alternatively, based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey map, areas of increased infiltration may be present within the Spanaway gravelly sandy loam mapped on the southern portions of the site. Additional evaluation of this area at depth would be required for a more detailed analysis. Earthwork General We anticipate that site development earthwork will include removing the existing vegetation, stripping sod/topsoil materials, preparing subgrades, excavating for utility trenches, and placing and compacting structural fill. We expect that the majority of site grading can be accomplished with conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working order. Our explorations did not encounter appreciable amounts of debris or unsuitable soils associated with past site development. Still, it is possible that concrete slabs, abandoned utility lines or other development features could be encountered during construction. The contractor should be prepared to deal with these conditions. Clearing and Stripping Clearing and stripping should consist of removing surface and subsurface deleterious materials including sod/topsoil, trees, brush, debris and other unsuitable loose/soft or organic materials. Stripping and clearing should extend at least 5 feet beyond all structures and areas to receive structural fill. We estimate that a stripping depth of about 0.5 feet will be required to remove the sod encountered in several of our explorations. Deeper stripping depths may be required if additional unsuitable soils are exposed during stripping operations. We recommend that trees be removed by overturning so that the majority of roots are also removed. Depressions created by tree or stump removal should be backfilled with structural fill and properly compacted. Subgrade Preparation After stripping and excavating to the proposed subgrade elevation, and before placing structural fill or foundation concrete, the exposed subgrade should be thoroughly compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. The exposed subgrade should then be proof-rolled using loaded, rubber-tired heavy equipment. We recommend that Insight Geologic be retained to observe the proof-rolling prior to placement of structural fill or foundation concrete. Areas of limited access that cannot be proof-rolled Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 7 Insight Geologic, Inc. can be evaluated using a steel probe rod. If soft or otherwise unsuitable areas are revealed during proof-rolling or probing, that cannot be compacted to a stable and uniformly firm condition, we generally recommend that: 1) the subgrade soils be scarified (e.g., with a ripper or farmer’s disc), aerated and recompacted; or 2) the unsuitable soils be overexcavated and replaced with structural fill. Temporary Excavations and Groundwater Handling Excavations deeper than 4 feet should be shored or laid back at a stable slope if workers are required to enter. Shoring and temporary slope inclinations must conform to the provisions of Title 296 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, “Excavation, Trenching and Shoring.” Regardless of the soil type encountered in the excavation, shoring, trench boxes or sloped sidewalls were required under the Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA). The contract documents should specify that the contractor is responsible for selecting excavation and dewatering methods, monitoring the excavations for safety and providing shoring, as required, to protect personnel and structures. In general, temporary cut slopes should be inclined no steeper than about 1.5H:1V (horizontal: vertical). This guideline assumes that all surface loads are kept at a minimum distance of at least one- half the depth of the cut away from the top of the slope, and that significant seepage is not present on the slope face. Flatter cut slopes were necessary where significant seepage occurs or if large voids are created during excavation. Some sloughing and raveling of cut slopes should be expected. Temporary covering with heavy plastic sheeting should be used to protect slopes during periods of wet weather. We anticipate that if perched groundwater is encountered during construction can be handled adequately with sumps, pumps, and/or diversion ditches. Groundwater handling needs will generally be lower during the late summer and early fall months. We recommend that the contractor performing the work be made responsible for controlling and collecting groundwater encountered during construction. Permanent Slopes We do not anticipate that permanent slopes will be utilized for the proposed project. If permanent slopes are necessary, we recommend the slopes be constructed at a maximum inclination of 2H:1V. Where 2H:1V permanent slopes are not feasible, protective facings and/or retaining structures should be considered. To achieve uniform compaction, we recommend that fill slopes be overbuilt and subsequently cut back to expose well-compacted fill. Fill placement on slopes should be benched into the slope face and include keyways. The configuration of the bench and keyway depends on the equipment being used. Bench excavations should be level and extend into the slope face. We recommend that a vertical cut of about 3 feet be maintained for benched excavations. Keyways should be about 1-1/2 times the width of the equipment used for grading or compaction. Erosion Control We anticipate that erosion control measures such as silt fences, straw bales and sand bags will generally be adequate during development. Temporary erosion control should be provided during Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 8 Insight Geologic, Inc. construction activities and until permanent erosion control measures are functional. Surface water runoff should be properly contained and channeled using drainage ditches, berms, swales, and tightlines, and should not discharge onto sloped areas. Any disturbed sloped areas should be protected with a temporary covering until new vegetation can take effect. Jute or coconut fiber matting, excelsior matting or clear plastic sheeting is suitable for this purpose. Graded or disturbed slopes should be tracked in-place with the equipment running perpendicular to the slope contours so that the track marks provide a texture to help resist erosion. Ultimately, erosion control measures should be in accordance with local regulations and should be clearly described on project plans. Wet Weather Earthwork Some of the near surface soils contain up to about 7 percent fines. When the moisture content of the soil is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content, the soil will become unstable and it may become difficult or impossible to meet the required compaction criteria. Disturbance of near surface soils should be expected if earthwork is completed during periods of wet weather. The wet weather season in this area generally begins in October and continues through May. However, periods of wet weather may occur during any month of the year. If wet weather earthwork is unavoidable, we recommend that:  The ground surface is sloped so that surface water is collected and directed away from the work area to an approved collection/dispersion point.  Earthwork activities not take place during periods of heavy precipitation.  Slopes with exposed soil be covered with plastic sheeting or otherwise protected from erosion.  Measures are taken to prevent on-site soil and soil stockpiles from becoming wet or unstable. Sealing the surficial soil by rolling with a smooth-drum roller prior to periods of precipitation should reduce the extent that the soil becomes wet or unstable.  Construction traffic is restricted to specific areas of the site, preferably areas that are surfaced with materials not susceptible to wet weather disturbance.  A minimum 1-foot thick layer of 4- to 6-inch quarry spalls is used in high traffic areas of the site to protect the subgrade soil from disturbance.  Contingencies are included in the project schedule and budget to allow for the above elements. Structural Fill Materials General Material used for structural fill should be free of debris, organic material and rock fragments larger than 3 inches. The workability of material for use as structural fill will depend on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult or impossible to achieve. Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 9 Insight Geologic, Inc. On-Site Soil We anticipate that the majority of the on-site soils encountered during construction will consist of gravels, cobbles and sands, located at or near the surface of the site. It is our opinion, that this material is a suitable source for structural fill during a significant portion of the year. On-site materials used as structural fill should be free of roots, organic matter and other deleterious materials and particles larger than 3 inches in diameter. Significant quantities of material greater than 3 inches in diameter were observed during our site explorations. This material will cause significand difficulties in soil grading and compaction efforts. We recommend that the material greater than 3 inches in diameter be screened and removed or crushed for reuse on-site. Select Granular Fill Select granular fill should consist of imported, well-graded sand and gravel or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent passing a U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve based on the minus ¾-inch fraction. Organic matter, debris or other deleterious material should not be present. In our experience, “gravel borrow” as described in Section 9-03.14(1) of the 2018 WSDOT Standard Specifications is typically a suitable source for select granular fill during periods of wet weather, provided that the percent passing a U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve is less than 5 percent based on the minus ¾-inch fraction. Structural Fill Placement and Compaction General Structural fill should be placed on an approved subgrade that consists of uniformly firm and unyielding inorganic native soils or compacted structural fill. Structural fill should be compacted at a moisture content near optimum. The optimum moisture content varies with the soil gradation and should be evaluated during construction. Structural fill should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts and uniformly densified with vibratory compaction equipment. The maximum lift thickness will vary depending on the material and compaction equipment used, but should generally not exceed the loose thicknesses provided on Table 3. Structural fill materials should be compacted in accordance with the compaction criteria provided in Table 4. Table 3. Recommended Uncompacted Lift Thickness Compaction Equipment Recommended Uncompacted Fill Thickness (inches) Granular Materials Maximum Particle Size  1 1/2 inch Granular Materials Maximum Particle Size > 1 1/2 inch Hand Tools (Plate Compactors and Jumping Jacks) 4 – 8 Not Recommended Rubber-tire Equipment 10 – 12 6 – 8 Light Roller 10 – 12 8 – 10 Heavy Roller 12 – 18 12 – 16 Hoe Pack Equipment 18 – 24 12 – 16 Note: The above table is intended to serve as a guideline and should not be included in the project specifications. Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 10 Insight Geologic, Inc. Table 4. Recommended Compaction Criteria in Structural Fill Zones Fill Type Percent Maximum Dry Density Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 at ±3% of Optimum Moisture 0 to 2 Feet Below Subgrade > 2 Feet Below Subgrade Pipe Zone Imported or On-site Granular, Maximum Particle Size < 1-1/4-inch 95 95 ----- Imported or On-site Granular, Maximum Particle Size >1-1/4-inch N/A (Proof-roll) N/A (Proof-roll) ----- Trench Backfill1 95 92 90 Note: 1Trench backfill above the pipe zone in nonstructural areas should be compacted to at least 85 percent. Shallow Foundation Support General We recommend that the proposed structures be founded on continuous wall or isolated column footings, bearing on a minimum 1-foot thick overexcavation and replacement with compacted structural fill where underlying soils are not able to be compacted as structural fill. The structural fill zone should extend to a horizontal distance equal to the overexcavation depth on each side of the footing. The actual overexcavation depth will vary, depending on the conditions encountered. We recommend that a representative from Insight Geologic observe the foundation surfaces before overexcavation, and before placing structural fill in overexcavations. This representative should confirm that adequate bearing surfaces have been prepared and that the soil conditions are as anticipated. Unsuitable foundation bearing soils should be recompacted or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Bearing Capacity and Footing Dimensions We recommend an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf for shallow foundations that are supported as recommended. This allowable bearing pressure applies to long-term dead and live loads exclusive of the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. The allowable soil bearing pressure can be increased by one-third when considering total loads, including transient loads such as those induced by wind and seismic forces. We recommend a minimum width of 18 inches for continuous wall footings and 2 feet for isolated column footings. For settlement considerations, we have assumed a maximum width of 4 feet for continuous wall footings and 6 feet for isolated column footings. Perimeter footings should be embedded at least 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade where the ground is flat. Interior footings should be embedded a minimum of 6 inches below the nearest adjacent grade. Settlement We estimate that total settlement of footings that are designed and constructed as recommended should be less than 1 inch. We estimate that differential settlements should be ½ inch or less between Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 11 Insight Geologic, Inc. comparably loaded isolated footings or along 50 feet of continuous footing. We anticipate that the settlement will occur essentially as loads are applied during construction. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads on shallow foundation elements may be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of footings and by friction on the base of footings. Passive resistance may be estimated using an equivalent fluid density of 303 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming that the footings are backfilled with structural fill. Frictional resistance may be estimated using 0.25 for the coefficient of base friction. The lateral resistance values provided above incorporate a factor of safety of 1.5. The passive earth pressure and friction components can be combined, provided that the passive component does not exceed two-thirds of the total. The top foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance, unless the foundation perimeter area is covered by a slab-on-grade or pavement. Slabs-On-Grade Slabs-on-grade should be established on a minimum 1-foot thick section of structural fill extending to an approved bearing surface. A modulus of vertical subgrade reaction (subgrade modulus) can be used to design slabs-on-grade. The subgrade modulus varies based on the dimensions of the slab and the magnitude of applied loads on the slab surface; slabs with larger dimensions and loads are influenced by soils to a greater depth. We recommend a modulus value of 300 pounds per cubic inch (pci) for design of on-grade floor slabs with floor loads up to 500 psf. We are available to provide alternate subgrade modulus recommendations during design, based on specific loading information. We recommend that slabs-on-grade in interior spaces be underlain by a minimum 4-inch thick capillary break layer to reduce the potential for moisture migration into the slab. The capillary break material should consist of a well-graded sand and gravel or crushed rock containing less than 5 percent fines based on the fraction passing the ¾-inch sieve. The 4-inch thick capillary break layer can be included when calculating the minimum 1-foot thick structural fill section beneath the slab. If dry slabs are required (e.g., where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab), a waterproofing liner should be placed below the slab to act as a vapor barrier. Subsurface Drainage It is our opinion that foundation footing drains and underslab drains are likely unnecessary for the proposed structures. The majority of subsurface site soils are well draining and it is unlikely that subsurface drains would produce water. The soils are suitable for roof runoff drywells and should be classified as Group A for the purposes of design. Conventional Retaining Walls General We do not anticipate that retaining walls will be utilized for the proposed project. We should be contacted during the design phase to review retaining wall plans and provide supplemental recommendations, if needed. Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 12 Insight Geologic, Inc. Drainage Positive drainage is imperative behind any retaining structure. This can be accomplished by using a zone of free-draining material behind the wall with perforated pipes to collect water seepage. The drainage material should consist of coarse sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines based on the fraction of material passing the ¾-inch sieve. The wall drainage zone should extend horizontally at least 12 inches from the back of the wall. If a stacked block wall is constructed, we recommend that a barrier such as a non-woven geotextile filter fabric be placed against the back of the wall to prevent loss of the drainage material through the wall joints. A perforated smooth-walled rigid PVC pipe, having a minimum diameter of 4 inches, should be placed at the bottom of the drainage zone along the entire length of the wall. Drainpipes should discharge to a tightline leading to an appropriate collection and disposal system. An adequate number of cleanouts should be incorporated into the design of the drains in order to provide access for regular maintenance. Roof downspouts, perimeter drains or other types of drainage systems should not be connected to retaining wall drain systems. Design Parameters We recommend an active lateral earth pressure of 37 pcf (equivalent fluid density) for a level backfill condition. This assumes that the top of the wall is not structurally restrained and is free to rotate. For restrained walls that are fixed against rotation (at-rest condition), an equivalent fluid density of 56 pcf can be used for the level backfill condition. For seismic conditions, we recommend a uniform lateral pressure of 14H psf (where H is the height of the wall) be added to the lateral pressures. This seismic pressure assumes a peak ground acceleration of 0.32 g. Note that if the retaining system is designed as a braced system but is expected to yield a small amount during a seismic event, the active earth pressure condition may be assumed and combined with the seismic surcharge. The recommended earth pressure values do not include the effects of surcharges from surface loads or structures. If vehicles were operated within one-half the height of the wall, a traffic surcharge should be added to the wall pressure. The traffic surcharge can be approximated by the equivalent weight of an additional 2 feet of backfill behind the wall. Other surcharge loads, such as construction equipment, staging areas and stockpiled fill, should be considered on a case-by-case basis. DOCUMENT REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION We recommend that we be retained to review the portions of the plans and specifications that pertain to earthwork construction and stormwater infiltration. We recommend that monitoring, testing and consultation be performed during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with our explorations and our stated design assumptions. Insight Geologic would be pleased to provide these services upon request. REFERENCES International Code Council, International Building Code, 2015. Seismic Compression of As-compacted Fill Soils with Variable Levels of Fines Content and Fines Plasticity, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, July 2004. Wyndstone Geotechnical and Stormwater Investigation Report July 12, 2019 File No. 1142−001−01 13 Insight Geologic, Inc. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction Manual, 2018. Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE), Stormwater Management Manual of Western Washington, 2014. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this geotechnical and stormwater investigation report for the exclusive use of C & E Developments LLC and their authorized agents, for the proposed development located at 15025 Tahoma Boulevard SE in Yelm, Washington. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. Please refer to Attachment D titled “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” for additional information pertaining to use of this report. __________________________ We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have questions or require additional information. Respectfully Submitted, Insight Geologic, Inc. William E. Halbert, L.E.G., L.HG. Principal Attachments Insight Geologic, Inc. FIGURES 13 A!s 14 • Crystal _.i Suring ; 0 • C ` Y$Im4. ' f�a Flurne ti . iAot `� Horne P, -� �` _ `I . ��5 •� Athlelc- 40 , ti \ Field ' s:3 �� o • �I' • � RRA i� �� I_�•� i Jf �•'-, r • r• • • rf I r,•' • lr __• . 329 L,��,/ V. �23vl 4 24 SITE w, -ib A *e JI .45rOwa lGolf Course '� • tr, �� 1J I � l �� 1� � sl J _ Solberg McKentle £�1 f aaa.. fJi •. ii' P 1 •�. ' QL,oi�� C 30 Ir L f 315 _ E Jw. l ' 26 ti• I • • GRNYQE, 0 ROAD . • ./ 547 .' I .. . Source: Terrain Navigator Image (c) MC KENNA, WASHINGTON 7.5 MINUTE QUADRANGLE Year 1990 SCALE: 1: 24000 WYN D STO N E YELM, WASHINGTON Figure 1 INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Vicinity Map T47W MED BE 2M20 - - .LTU MW-1 TP-1� ; r y 4 <! TP-6 ' < ! -A 140153 YL f PkRC£L h S i g PAiHNNY � - Ai - INL - � J • I � � ' � I I ` I t PROP 9K ROM 10D.CM +IDC71T 111T {` HIE HTI TP-3 -- MUM-y� r - �� TP-4 I SOURCE: C.E.S. NW INC. LEGEND: (1)B-1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION IIIiOTP-1 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATION 4� MW-1 APPROXIMATE MONITORING WELL LOCATION APPROXIMATE PROJECT BOUNDARY WYN DSTO N E SCALE: 1" = 100' YELM, WASHINGTON Figure 2 INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC, Site Plan Insight Geologic, Inc. ATTACHMENT A EXPLORATION LOGS SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS GROUP NAME CC CEMENT CONCRETE OC ORGANIC COMPOUND G GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, CR GRAVEL CLEAN TS TOPSOIL/SOD/DUFF FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL TX TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION AND GRAVEL GP POORLY GRADED GRAVEL GRAVELLY <5% FINES SOILS MORE THAN 50% COARSE OF COARSE GRAVEL GM SILTY GRAVEL GRAINED FRACTION WITH FINES GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SOILS RETAINED ONNO. 4SIM 12% FINES WELL -GRADED SAND, SAND CLEAN SW FINE TO COARSE SAND MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON AND SAND NO. 200 SIEVE SANDY -5% FINES SP POORLY GRADED SAND SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE SAND SM SILTY SAND FRACTION WITH FINES PASSING NO.4 SIEVE >12% FINES SC CLAYEY SAND SILTS ML SILT AND INORGANIC CL CLAY FINE CLAYS GRAINED ORGANIC SILT, SOILS LIQUID LIMITOL LESS THAN 50 ORGANIC 1 1 1 1 1 1 ORGANIC CLAY SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, SILTS MH MORE THAN 50% AND INORGANIC ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, PASSING NO. 200 SIEVE CLAYS FAT CLAY LIQUID LIMIT �� ORGANIC CLAY, 50 OR MORE ORGANIC ,�, � i OH ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT 70 60 k 50 W O 40 U 1= 30 Q J a 20 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: DRY - ABSENCE OF MOISTURE, DUSTY, DRY TO THE TOUCH MOIST - DAMP, BUT NO VISIBLE WATER WET - VISIBLE FREE WATER OR SATURATED, USUALLY SOIL IS OBTAINED BELOW WATER TABLE INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTION AL ATTERBERG LIMITS CC CEMENT CONCRETE OC ORGANIC COMPOUND AC ASPHALT CONCRETE COMPACTION TEST CR CRUSHED ROCK/ QUARRY SPALLS PP POCKET PENETROMETER TS TOPSOIL/SOD/DUFF GROUNDWATER EXPLORATION SYMBOLS MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVEL IN EXPLORATION, WELL, OR PIEZOMETER GROUNDWATER OBSERVED AT TIME OF EXPLORATION PERCHED WATER OBSERVED AT TIME OF EXPLORATION MEASURED FREE PRODUCT IN WELL OR PIEZOMETER STRATIGRAPHIC CONTACT APPROXIMATE CONTACT BETWEEN SOIL STRATA OR GEOLOGIC UNIT --- APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SOIL STRATA CHANGE WITHIN GEOLOGIC SOIL UNIT APPROXIMATE GRADUAL CHANGE BETWEEN SOIL STRATA OR GEOLOGIC SOIL UNIT APPROXIMATE GRADUAL CHANGE OF SOIL STRATA WITHIN GEOLOGIC SOIL UNIT LABORATORY/ FIELD TEST CLASSIFICATIONS %F PERECENT FINES MD MOISTURE CONTENT AND AL ATTERBERG LIMITS DRY DENSITY CA CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OC ORGANIC COMPOUND CP LABORATORY PM PERMEABILITY OR COMPACTION TEST HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY CS CONSOLIDATION TEST PP POCKET PENETROMETER DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS HA HYDROMETER ANALYSIS TX TRIAXIAL COMPRESSION MC MOISTURE CONTENT UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSION VS VANE SHEAR SAMPLER SYMBOLS 2.4 INCH I.D. SPLIT BARREL ® SHELBY TUBE DIRECT -PUSH ® PISTON STANDARD PENETRATION TEST ® BULK OR GRAB SHEEN CLASSIFICATIONS NS NO VISIBLE SHEEN SS SLIGHT SHEEN MS MODERATE SHEEN HIS HEAVYSHEEN NT NOT TESTED Key to Exploration Logs TP -1 DEPTH REMARKS AND (FT) U.S.C.S. LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 0 � Sod Dark brown fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand, trace silt, fine roots, loose, moist CL � I 2 Brown fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand, 3 N-4 loose, moist 4 5 0_ 6 7 8 Groundwater not encountered 9 10 LEGEND: PROJECT NO.: 1142-001-01 DATE: JUNE 10, 2019 TOTAL DEPTH: 8FEET DRILLING EQUIPMENT: EXCAVATOR LOGGED BY: KEVIN VANDEHEY WYNDSTONE YELM, WASHINGTON INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Exploration Log TP -1 TP-2 DEPTH REMARKS AND (FT) U.S.C.S. LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 0 � Sod Dark brown fine to coarse gravel with sand, occasional 1 cobbles, fine roots, loose, moist C7 2 3 ❑ Brown fine to coarse gravel with sand, loose, moist 4 ❑ El 5 ❑ C7 6 El 7 ❑ ❑ 8 Groundwater not encountered 9 10 LEGEND: PROJECT NO.: 1142-001-01 DATE: JUNE 10, 2019 TOTAL DEPTH: 8FEET DRILLING EQUIPMENT: EXCAVATOR LOGGED BY: KEVIN VANDEHEY WYNDSTONE YELM, WASHINGTON a� T \ INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Exploration Log TP-2 TP -3 DEPTH REMARKS AND (FT) U.S.C.S. LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 0 � Sod Dark brown fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand 1 g and silt, occasional cobbles, fine roots, loose, moist C7 a- 2 Brown fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand, occasional cobbles, loose, moist 3 4 5 a_ C7 6 7 8 Groundwater not encountered 9 10 LEGEND: PROJECT NO.: 1142-001-01 DATE: JUNE 10, 2019 TOTAL DEPTH: 8FEET DRILLING EQUIPMENT: EXCAVATOR LOGGED BY: KEVIN VANDEHEY WYNDSTONE YELM, WASHINGTON INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Exploration Log TP -3 TP-4 DEPTH REMARKS AND (FT) U.S.C.S. LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 0 � Sod H4-41'Dark brown fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand g and silt, occasional cobbles, fine roots, loose, moist C7 CL 2 Brown fine to coarse gravel with cobbles, occasional boulders, dense, moist 3 4 a_ C7 5 6 Groundwater not encountered s 9 10 LEGEND: PROJECT NO.: 1142-001-01 DATE: JUNE 10, 2019 TOTAL DEPTH: 6FEET DRILLING EQUIPMENT: EXCAVATOR LOGGED BY: KEVIN VANDEHEY WYNDSTONE YELM, WASHINGTON a� T \ INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Exploration Log TP-4 TP -5 DEPTH REMARKS AND (FT) U.S.C.S. LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 0 � Sod H4-41'Dark brown fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand 1 g and silt, fine roots, loose, moist C7 CL 2 I Brown fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel and cobbles, loose, moist 3 4 5 U) 6 7 8 Groundwater not encountered 9 10 LEGEND: PROJECT NO.: 1142-001-01 DATE: JUNE 10, 2019 TOTAL DEPTH: 8FEET DRILLING EQUIPMENT: EXCAVATOR LOGGED BY: KEVIN VANDEHEY WYNDSTONE YELM, WASHINGTON a� T \ INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Exploration Log TP -5 TP-6 DEPTH REMARKS AND (FT) U.S.C.S. LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY TEST RESULTS 0 � Sod H4 Dark brown fine to coarse gravel and cobbles with fine to gcoarse sand and silt, loose, moist fi+CL. 2 Brown fine to coarse gravel and cobbles with fine to coarse sand, medium dense, moist 3 4 a_ C7 5 6 Groundwater not encountered s 9 10 LEGEND: PROJECT NO.: 1142-001-01 DATE: JUNE 10, 2019 TOTAL DEPTH: 6FEET DRILLING EQUIPMENT: EXCAVATOR LOGGED BY: KEVIN VANDEHEY WYNDSTONE YELM, WASHINGTON a� T \ INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Exploration Log TP-6 MW -1 z REMARKS AND WELL w a LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY LU o s v LL CONSTRUCTION a�a a o _�� U) > TEST RESULTS 0 Brown fine to coarse gravel with fine to medium sand, medium dense, moist 5 1 18/9 30 0) d 10!E2 18/4 27 U a N U � O 0 U C 15- 3 3/0 50/3" N m N 20 4 3/2 50/3" 11-4 Grades to very dense 25 5 18/9 53 TIT IIII El Brown silty fine to coarse gravel with N D IIII fine to coarse sand, dense, moist 0 o IIII 30 6 18/9 35 U IIII c� Grades to wet "IIII El7 35 18/6 11 Grades to medium dense Groundwater encountered at 32 feet 40 LEGEND: PROJECT NO.: 1142-001-01 DATE: JUNE 14, 2019 TOTAL DEPTH: 36.5 FEET DOE WELL NO.: BLT -736 DRILLING CONTRACTOR: HOLOCENE DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-58 WYN DSTON E DRILLING METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER LOGGED BY: ANDREW JOHNSON YELM, WASHINGTON INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Exploration Log MW -1 B-1 z w C6 REMARKS AND CD LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION LABORATORY LU LUuo co M § 0 U) TEST RESULTS 0 Brown fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel, medium dense, moist U)EL 5 - 1 18/10 26 Brown fine to coarse sand with fine to coarse gravel and silt, occasional cobbles, dense, moist 10 - 2 18/12 48 6? U) Brown fine to coarse gravel with fine to coarse sand, dense, moist 15 - 3 7/3 50/1 D_ 20 - 4 12/4 50/6" 5 6/0 50/6" Groundwater not encountered 25 30 35 40, LEGEND: PROJECT NO.: 1142-001-01 DATE: JUNE 14, 2019 TOTAL DEPTH: 23 FEET DRILLING CONTRACTOR: HOLOCENE DRILLING EQUIPMENT: B-58 DRILLING METHOD: HOLLOW STEM AUGER WYNDSTONE LOGGED BY: ANDREW JOHNSON YELM, WASHINGTON INSIGHT GEOLOGIC, INC. Exploration Log B-1 Insight Geologic, Inc. ATTACHMENT B LABORATORY ANALYSES RESULTS Job Name:Wyndstone Sample Location:TP-2 Job Number:1142-001-01 Sample Name:TP-2 0.5'-3.0' Date Tested:7/1/19 Depth:0.5 - 3 Feet Tested By:Kevin Vandehey 4.3% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 68.7 1.5 in. (37.5)51.9 Fine Gravel 9.7 3/4 in. (19.0)31.3 3/8 in. (9.5-mm) 24.9 Coarse Sand 2.8 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 21.6 Medium Sand 6.9 No. 10 (2.00-mm) 18.8 Fine Sand 7.4 No. 20 (.850-mm) 15.9 No. 40 (.425-mm) 11.9 Fines 4.5 No. 60 (.250-mm) 8.6 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm) 6.1 No. 200 (.075-mm) 4.5 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.31 D30 17.00 D60 41.00 D90 65.00 Cc 22.74 Cu 132.26 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Wyndstone Sample Location:TP-2 Job Number:1142-001-01 Sample Name:TP-2 3.0'-8.0' Date Tested:7/1/19 Depth:3 - 8 Feet Tested By:Kevin Vandehey 1.2% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)64.7 Coarse Gravel 72.7 1.5 in. (37.5)57.3 Fine Gravel 21.2 3/4 in. (19.0)27.3 3/8 in. (9.5-mm) 12.4 Coarse Sand 3.2 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 6.0 Medium Sand 1.8 No. 10 (2.00-mm) 2.8 Fine Sand 0.7 No. 20 (.850-mm) 1.7 No. 40 (.425-mm) 0.9 Fines 0.2 No. 60 (.250-mm) 0.5 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm) 0.3 No. 200 (.075-mm) 0.2 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 7.90 D30 20.50 D60 44.00 D90 130.00 Cc 1.21 Cu 5.57 ASTM Classification Group Name:Well Graded Gravel Symbol:GW Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Wyndstone Sample Location:TP-5 Job Number:1142-001-01 Sample Name:TP-5 0.5'-2.0' Date Tested:7/1/19 Depth:0.5 - 2 Feet Tested By:Kevin Vandehey 7.0% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 47.3 1.5 in. (37.5)67.9 Fine Gravel 15.5 3/4 in. (19.0)52.7 3/8 in. (9.5-mm) 42.9 Coarse Sand 4.9 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 37.2 Medium Sand 15.6 No. 10 (2.00-mm) 32.3 Fine Sand 9.5 No. 20 (.850-mm) 26.6 No. 40 (.425-mm) 16.7 Fines 7.2 No. 60 (.250-mm) 11.5 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm) 9.2 No. 200 (.075-mm) 7.2 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.18 D30 1.40 D60 28.00 D90 60.00 Cc 0.39 Cu 155.56 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand and Silt Symbol:GP-GM Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Wyndstone Sample Location:TP-5 Job Number:1142-001-01 Sample Name:TP-5 2.0'-8.0' Date Tested:7/1/19 Depth:2 - 8 Feet Tested By:Kevin Vandehey 4.9% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 31.3 1.5 in. (37.5)81.7 Fine Gravel 7.3 3/4 in. (19.0)68.7 3/8 in. (9.5-mm) 64.5 Coarse Sand 3.7 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 61.4 Medium Sand 39.1 No. 10 (2.00-mm) 57.7 Fine Sand 17.1 No. 20 (.850-mm) 48.6 No. 40 (.425-mm) 18.5 Fines 1.5 No. 60 (.250-mm) 5.2 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm) 2.6 No. 200 (.075-mm) 1.5 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.31 D30 0.55 D60 3.20 D90 51.00 Cc 0.30 Cu 10.32 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel Symbol:SP Moisture Content (%) Gradation Analysis Summary Data Job Name:Wyndstone Sample Location:MW-1 Job Number:1142-001-01 Sample Name:MW-1 25.0'-26.5' Date Tested:7/1/19 Depth:25 - 26.5 Feet Tested By:Kevin Vandehey 4.5% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 30.9 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 25.5 3/4 in. (19.0)69.1 3/8 in. (9.5-mm) 53.5 Coarse Sand 11.3 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 43.6 Medium Sand 20.4 No. 10 (2.00-mm) 32.3 Fine Sand 8.6 No. 20 (.850-mm) 20.3 No. 40 (.425-mm) 11.9 Fines 3.3 No. 60 (.250-mm) 7.6 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm) 5.3 No. 200 (.075-mm) 3.3 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.35 D30 1.70 D60 14.00 D90 30.00 Cc 0.59 Cu 40.00 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GP Gradation Analysis Summary Data Moisture Content (%) Job Name:Wyndstone Sample Location:MW-1 Job Number:1142-001-01 Sample Name:MW-1 30.0'-31.5' Date Tested:7/1/19 Depth:30 - 31.5 Feet Tested By:Kevin Vandehey 6.7% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 7.9 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 47.8 3/4 in. (19.0)92.1 3/8 in. (9.5-mm) 64.1 Coarse Sand 13.2 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 44.3 Medium Sand 17.9 No. 10 (2.00-mm) 31.1 Fine Sand 9.3 No. 20 (.850-mm) 19.9 No. 40 (.425-mm) 13.2 Fines 3.9 No. 60 (.250-mm) 9.4 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm) 6.5 No. 200 (.075-mm) 3.9 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.26 D30 1.80 D60 8.50 D90 18.00 Cc 1.47 Cu 32.69 ASTM Classification Group Name:Well Graded Gravel with Sand Symbol:GW Moisture Content (%) Gradation Analysis Summary Data Job Name:Wyndstone Sample Location: B-1 Job Number:1142-001-01 Sample Name: B-1 10.0'-11.5' Date Tested:7/1/19 Depth:10 - 11.5 Feet Tested By:Kevin Vandehey 3.9% Percent Percent by Sieve Size Passing Size Fraction Weight 3.0 in. (75.0)100.0 Coarse Gravel 15.0 1.5 in. (37.5)100.0 Fine Gravel 12.7 3/4 in. (19.0)85.0 3/8 in. (9.5-mm) 77.6 Coarse Sand 13.7 No. 4 (4.75-mm) 72.3 Medium Sand 31.1 No. 10 (2.00-mm) 58.7 Fine Sand 22.3 No. 20 (.850-mm) 42.5 No. 40 (.425-mm) 27.6 Fines 5.3 No. 60 (.250-mm) 17.2 Total 100.0 No. 100 (.150-mm) 10.6 No. 200 (.075-mm) 5.3 LL - - PL - - Pl - - D10 0.14 D30 0.47 D60 2.10 D90 25.00 Cc 0.75 Cu 15.00 ASTM Classification Group Name:Poorly Graded Sand with Gravel and Silt Symbol:SP-SM Moisture Content (%) Gradation Analysis Summary Data 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000Percent Passing by Weight Grain Size in MillimetersU.S. Standard Sieve SizeTP-2 0.5'-3.0'TP-2 3.0'-8.0'TP-5 0.5'-2.0'TP-5 2.0'-8.0'COBBLESGRAVELSILT OR CLAYSANDCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINE3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200Graph 1Gradation Analysis ResultsWYNDSTONEYELM, WASHINGTON 01020304050607080901000.0010.010.11101001000Percent Passing by Weight Grain Size in MillimetersU.S. Standard Sieve SizeMW-1 25.0'-26.5'MW-1 30.0'-31.5'B-1 10.0'-11.5'COBBLESGRAVELSILT OR CLAYSANDCOARSEMEDIUMFINECOARSEFINE3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #200Graph 2Gradation Analysis ResultsWYNDSTONEYELM, WASHINGTON Insight Geologic, Inc. ATTACHMENT C SIESMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS Hazards by Location 1 of 2 Search Information Coordinates:46.94455144795768, -122.62151451110839 Elevation:350 ft Timestamp:2019-07-10T17:29:07.126Z Hazard Type:Seismic Reference Document:IBC-2015 Risk Category:IV Site Class:D MCER Horizontal Response Spectrum Design Horizontal Response Spectrum Basic Parameters Name Value Description SS 1.251 MCER ground motion (period=0.2s) S1 0.499 MCER ground motion (period=1.0s) SMS 1.251 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SM1 0.749 Site-modified spectral acceleration value SDS 0.834 Numeric seismic design value at 0.2s SA SD1 0.5 Numeric seismic design value at 1.0s SA 0 5 10 15 Period (s) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 Sa(g) 0 5 10 15 Period (s) 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 Sa(g) 2 of 2 Insight Geologic, Inc. ATTACHMENT D REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE Insight Geologic, Inc. Limitations ATTACHMENT D REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This attachment provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, PERSONS AND PROJECTS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of C & E Developments LLC (Client) and their authorized agents. This report may be made available to regulatory agencies for review. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. Insight Geologic Inc. structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open- ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS Insight Geologic, Inc. considered a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless Insight Geologic specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was:  not prepared for you,  not prepared for your project,  not prepared for the specific site explored, or  completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect:  the function of the proposed structure;  elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure;  composition of the design team; or  project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, Insight Geologic should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org . Insight Geologic, Inc. Limitations SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or ground water fluctuations. Always contact Insight Geologic before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. MOST GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Insight Geologic reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL Do not over-rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from Insight Geologic’s professional judgment and opinion. Insight Geologic’s recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. Insight Geologic cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by Insight Geologic should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining Insight Geologic for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT COULD BE SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having Insight Geologic confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain Insight Geologic to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having Insight Geologic participate in pre-bid and pre-construction conferences, and by providing construction observation. DO NOT REDRAW THE EXPLORATION LOGS Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a Insight Geologic, Inc. Limitations geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. GIVE CONTRACTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with Insight Geologic and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY ON THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor’s procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties. READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. Insight Geologic includes these explanatory “limitations” provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with Insight Geologic if you are unclear how these “Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use” apply to your project or site. GEOTECHNICAL, GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERCHANGED The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project.