The URL can be used to link to this page

23800 EDMONDS WAY.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii 11104 23800 EDMONDS WAY PLANNING DATA New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects FILE] Name: Arbcr Cattc_-_� 16vit-, 64sill—s- i Date: 12, /2? 0) 1 (0,-� Site Address-. -7, qc-o 717�, 2 C--dm urdj- Plan Check #: BLD - ZOO?- / ro t-- > Project Description: 13 Toivej Aouse_ 601 &V Use(s) Proposed: 44_V Allowed Use: f�S I NO) CUP File Number: rrA- To Allow What Uses: ArA Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES / 0 Reduced Site Plan Provided: 0 1 NO) Zoning: le M - /. !�-- Map Page: oo Comp Plan Designation :C-01'W"M C4 Co r6dc df Comer Lot: 09 0 +lw7 0/t "-ts-Lw Flag Lot (YES ADB File Number (date waived): Ar9B-(D'?-(L Lot Area.- S-5� Plans Match ADB Approved: �>O) Fs_ / Shoreline Required: (YES I 6— Critical Areas Determination #- UA 2 oo-7 Do I 11 Study Required )@]-waiver SEPA Determination: AK 11 Exempt 461 th I K-Needed (for sites with 500 cubic yards of grading or within 200 feet of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger- Requires: (1) Fee, (2) Environmental Checklist, and (3) APO List with notarized form)- V 1A) quire Street: Side(� Side(5 e7 Rea�. 5-d igtual �04tba r_,A A Cks Street: /�� Side:(pe) to Side: C56) lo Rear: 6S I Lot Coverage/f*Aft(��) 1,1 Colo (�AK. Lot Coverage/W Provided: 3S010 V1 Lot Coverage/W Calculations: /vt'/7 L"A wou(d 6e_ 3-7 Building H__J�ght Datum Point: Datum Elevation: �V, 37 Maximum Height -Actual Height: Subdivision: Lot Aggregation Required: .."landscaping Landscaping Matches ADB Approved. - Landscaping Bid Provided: (YES 4& 1 Bond Amount (100% Bid): Plan Review By-� 1-7 I PLANNING DATA =FILE New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects mmercfaj� �qftgAnqljsis Business Name Type/Use Parking Ratiol Tenant Area Required Parking Qa�._ Total Parking Required. - Total Parking Provided -A P 44atigA # Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit Parking Ratio # Units Required Parking Studio 1.21D.U. I Bedroom 1_51D.U. 2 Bedrooms 1.8/D.U. 3 + Bedrooms 2.0/0-U- Total Parking Required. Total Parking Provided A'R', r7t._�_ _777 7 Ot6 'V kC,rAl��? �o �d kQ 0 V-e-d- Aae5 �Vc( S. vziz 80 PO C'L a,-ta'5- /n C/'J IN 36" �(7h —as oxAc14-(Or\ Plan Review By: Al- cdc s A r r- c�,,-? ukr -�- l7ow" 1,011'a s ISO,/ A -T ?- 3?z -3�?� Y K 1104) C -715 'o 0 Sif Cl ;7 2- ? - 2 3 3 /07 ;e q S: 3- Z-� --77 hfi�nl Z- 'A 313 3 -� 3 7 3- '2 s- 1106) C -37 3. rc�(-- S, gq3 -3 � 3 3 q Y�3 c�,>?- 75- u/ (C// 3 5 q f6 -3q3 A - 3-12 0 - c 0 - 372 C 3?2, y D 3q2- 7 A- — 3 5 --3 C, - 3 0 - �ol Ll A?er V, '(2 (. 7 3 3'0 -=�- I/ -z Z. /'? 57 al .7,< ,p ro� oSf C� -"' -f -,? ( - -7 6 0 :-� 4 7- 3. Z 5- k' C f 'o �fc/—> v '> ?e- ju I z) A�-- 3q3 6.,-3-13 q. s' Y�q gat /d(7� �o (-// 1q) 5- C- 313-S- �- -3c7 L( (3 u/ A — s�v- T 5— 39q, C -3 ,0- sfq.( Q 57 (3 - -3 c 6i x f 0,7� 13 f 117) A — 7 7 � 13 - T '? y C - -T�y D- '31� -r ;�*D Z-- 1-12! -r �S- Al C2 4 Y- -?& -=- L/ 2 Y. 2 Al C4 K- , O,ros-rd—> q?3. -�.>- ?-r -.?(D -- '--t 2- r" os--(� q + ?o 2- M 00 = AP- - NOTICE OF INTENT (NOI) APPLICATION FORM I A S I I'll, I'll: Construction Stormwater E C 0 L 0 G Y General Permit Check if applicable: El Change or Update Permit Information n Modification of Permit Coverage Permit #WAR Please print or type all sections of this application. All fields are required unless otherwise marked. 1. Operator/Permiftee [I. Site Owner (Operator: Party with operational control over plans and (if different than Operator/Permittee) specifications; or day-to-day operational control of activities which ensure compliance with SWPPP and permit conditions.) Name Stephen H. Smith Name Stephen H. Smith Company Company Northwest Townhomes LLC Northwest Townhomes ILLC Unified Business Identifier (UBI) Unified Business Identifier (UBI) UBI is a nine digit number used identify a business UBI is a nine digit number used identify a business entity. entity. Write "none" if you do not have a UBI Write "none" if you do not have a UBI number. number. Mailing Address: Mailing Address: 9500 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300 9500 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300 City Seattle 1 State WA I Zip 98115 City Seattle I State WA I Zip 98115 Business Phone: Ext. 206-214-8882 Business Phone: Ext. 206-214-8882 Cell Phone (Optional): Fax 206-686-4935 Cell Phone (Optional): Fax206-686-4935 E-mail: E-mail: Ill. On -site Contact Person (Typically same as IV. Billing Information Certified Erosion & Sediment Control Lead) Name Name Stephen -H. Smith Title Title CoTpany Nelson Geotechnical Associates Company Northwest Townhomes LLC Mailing Address: Mailing Address: 17311 135th Ave NE, Suite A-500 9500 Roosevelt Way NE, Suite 300 city State Zip City State Zip Woodinville I WA 1 98072 Seattle I WA 1 98115 Business Phone: Ext. 425-337-1669 Business Phone: Ext-206-214-8882 Cell Phone (Optional): Fax (Optional): Cell Phone (Optional): Fax 206-686-4935 E-mail : E-mail: ECY 020-85 (Rev. 12/07) RECEIVED MAR 13 2008 PERMIT COUNTER V. Site Information Site or Project Name Arbor Court Townhomes Total area of soil disturbance for site or project: 1.27 acres. (Provide the estimated total area to be disturbed Street Address or Location Description (If the project or site lacks a street address, indicate the during the life of the project, including grubbing, general location of the site. For example, excavation, grading, utilities and infrastructure Intersection of Highways 61 and 34.) installation. Note: I acre = 43,560 ft2.) 23820 Edmonds Way, Edmonds Is the site or project a part or parcel of a "larger common plan of development"? (For example, Type of Construction Activity (check all that apply): subdivision, commercial development.) EI Yes FX] No El Single Family LK Multi -Family Residential If Yes, estimate total area of soil disturbance for entire F] Commercial common plan of development: N/A acres. F] Industrial Highway How many cubic yards of concrete will be poured? Utilities (specify): __42,5___yd 3 (estimate) Other: (specify):_ How many cubic yards of recycled concrete will be used? __a_yd 3 (estimate) Will any engineered soils be used on your project? (For example: cement treated base, cement kiln dust, etc.) El Yes FXI No Zip Code: City (or nearest city): Edmonds 98020 Estimated project start-up date (mm/dd/yy):June 2008 County: Snohomish County Estimated project completion date (mm/dd/yy#Lne 2009 Record the latitude and longitude of the main entrance to the site. For projects without a main entrance (for example, pipelines or roads), record the approximate center of site. Latitude d grees, minutes, seconds degrees, minutes, seconds 47 o 47, 00 "N Longitude -122 o 21 1 07 V * For assistance with latitude and longitude refer to any of the following websites: www.topozone.com http.*Ilcfpubl.epa.govinpdeslstormwaterliationg.cfm, or http://Www.epa.govltrilreportlsiting_toollindex.htm. VI. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Have you developed a SWPPP that includes a narrative description and drawings of best management practices to prevent stormwater pollution? [Z Yes [] No If no, you must develop a SWPPP prior to starting construction activity. ECY 020-85 (Rev. 12/07) VII. Discharge/Receiving Water Information Discharge: Indicate whether your site's stormwater and/or dewatering water could enter surface waters, either directly and/or indirectly: Directly into a surface water body (bodies)? Water body means wetlands, named and unnamed creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, and salt waters and all other surface waters and water courses Indirectly into a surface water body (bodies)? (for example, a discharge to a storm drain system, ditch, and/or pipe that may ultimately flow to a water body.) If the discharge is to a storm sewer system, the name of the operator of the storm sewer system (e.g., City of Tacoma): City of Edmonds F] To g round with 100% infiltration, with no potential to reach surface waters under any condition? Provide locations on the next page or on a separate sheet, if necessary. NOTE: If your stormwater discharges to a storm sewer system operated by the City of Seattle, King County, Snohomish County, City of Tacoma, Pierce County, or Clark County, you must also submit a copy of this NOI to the appropriate jurisdiction. Does your project include dewatering? D Yes [R No You must include dewatering plans and discharge locations in your site Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Location of Discharge into Surface Water Body Enter the water body name and latitude/longitude* of the point(s) where the site has the potential to discharge into a water body (enter all locations). 0 Include the names and iocations of both direct and/or indirect discharges to surface water bodies; even if the risk of discharge is low or limited to periods of extreme weather. 0 Water body means wetlands, named and unnamed creeks, streams, rivers, ponds, lakes, estuaries, and salt waters and all other surface waters and water courses. 0 Some large construction projects (for example, subdivisions, roads, or pipelines) may discharge into several water bodies. 0 If the creek or tributary is unnamed, use a format such as "unnamed tributary to Bull Run Creek." 0 Attach a separate list if necessary. Surface Water Body Name Latitude Longitude degrees, minutes, seconds degrees, minutes, seconds indirectly through storm drainage systems to the Puget Sound 47 0 47 53 N -122 0 23 34 W 0 N 0 W 0 N 0 W 0 N 0 W 0 N 0 W t-or assisrance wan iaraucle ano iongitucte refer to any of Me following websites: www.topozone.com, http.*Ilcfpubl.epa.govinpdeslstormwaterliationg.cfm, or http://www.epa.govltrilreportlsiting_toollindex.htm. ECY 020-85 (Rev. 6/07) To the best of your knowledge, are any of the water bodies listed above included on Ecology's list of water bodies that are impaired for the following pollutants: turbidity, fine sediment, phosphorus or pH? Specifically, are any of the water bodies listed above on Ecology's 303(d) list for turbidity, fine sediment, phosphorus or pH or does it have an approved total daily maximum load (TMDL) for turbidity, fine sediment, phosphorus or pH)? D Yes El No Information on impaired water bodies is available at: http.-Ilwww.ecy.wa.govlprogramslwqlstormwaterlconstructionlimpaired.htmL viii. btate trivironmentai V011CV Act (bt:FA This Notice of Intent (NOI) is incomplete and cannot be approved until the applicable SEPA requirements under Chapter 197-11 WAC are met. 1. Have you submifted an environmental checklist to the SEPA lead agency? El Yes E]No R Exempt* If Yes: provide the name of SEPA lead agency: City of Edmonds Date of checklist submiftal2/16/07 If No: you must submit an environmental checklist to the SEPA lead agency before Ecology can process your application. 0 The SEPA lead agency is typically the local government (city or county). • For private projects where no local permit or license is required, Ecology is the SEPA lead agency. • For public projects, the project proponent (government agency) is the SEPA lead agency. *1f Exempt: Check type of exemption, skip question 2, and proceed to Section IX.: n Watershed Restoration & Fish Habitat Enhancement Exemption (RCW 43.21 C.0382). F] Infill Development Exemption (RCW 43.21 C.229). F] Planned Action Exemption (RCW 43.21 C.031). Note: If the Construction Stormwater General Permit is required, no other SEPA exemptions apply. 2. Has the SEPA lead agency issued a final decision on your checklist? MYes E]No If Yes: • Type of SEPA decision issued: [K Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) F-1 Mitigated DNS (MDNS) n Determination of Significance (DS) n Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) F1 Other: • Date of final SEPA decision: 05/07/07 • Project Proponent Name used during SEPA process: John Sullivan, Steve Smith Dvlpmnt LLC • SEPA Lead Agency file number: ADB-2007-0012 • If a supplemental EIS, SEPA addendum, or some other type of additional SEPA review was required, please describe: if applicable, date of Final SEPA Document: If No to #2 above: The NOI is incomplete. Ecology will hold the application until a final SEPA decision is made or the Construction Stormwater NOI public comment period ends, whichever is later. More information regarding SEPA is available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/e- review.html. ECY 020-85 (Rev. 6/07) IX. Public Notice You must publish a public notice at least once a week for two consecutive weeks with seven days in between publications, in at least a single newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the construction is to take place. Ecology can not grant permit coverage sooner than the end of the 30 day public comment period, which begins on the date of the second public notice. Submit (or fax: 360-407-6426) the NOI to Ecology on or before the date of the first public notice If you fax the public notice to Ecology, you must follow up with hard copy by mail. Failure to do so may delay the issuance of your permit. Provide the exact dates (mm/dd/yy) that the first and second public notices will appear in the newspaper(s): First notice: 02 /-27 / 08 Second notice: 03 / 05 / 08 Begins 30 day public comment period. Name of the newspaper(s) publishing the notices: Seattle Daily JoUrnal of Commerce Go to the next page to complete the Public Notice Template. ECY 020-85 (Rev. 6/07) X. Certification of Permittees "I certify under penalty of law that -this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualiftedpersonnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those directly responsiblefor gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best ofmy knowledge and belief true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submittingfalse information, including the possibility offine and imprisonmentfor knowing violations. " Stephen H. Smith Printed Name * Signature AA Title ,:P- / 1-3 1 L58 Date' * Federal regulations require this application is signed by one of the following: A. For a corporation: by a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice president; B. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively or C. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public facility: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official. Please sign and return this document to the following address: Washington Department of Ecology - Stormwater P.O. Box 47696 Olympia, WA 98504-7696 If you have questions about this form, contact the following Ecology staff: Location Contact Name Phone E-mail City of Seattle, Kitsap, Pierce, and Charles Gilman 360-407-7451 chqi461(cDecy.wa.qov Thurston counties Island, King, and San Juan counties Elaine Worthen 360-407-7229 ewor461(a)ecy.wa.qov Adams, Asotin, Columbia, Ferry, Carrol Johnston 360-407-6437 carr461 Recy.wa.gov Franklin, Garfield, Grant, Lincoln, Pend Oreille, Skagit, Snohomish, Spokane, Stevens, Walla, Whatcom, and Whitman counties. Benton, Chelan, Clallam, Clark, Joyce Smith 360-407-6858 iosm461 (o)ecy.wa.gov Cowlitz, Douglas, Grays Harbor, Jefferson, Kittitas, Klickitat, Lewis, Mason, Okanogan, Pacific, Skamania, Wahkiakum, and Yakima counties. More information is available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/construction/. If you need this document in an alternative format, please contact the Water Quality Program at 360-407-6401. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. ECY 020-85 (Rev. 6/07) PUBLIC NOTICE Northwest Townhomes LLC, 9500 Roosevelt Way NE, Ste 300, Seattle is seeking coverage under the Washington State Department of Ecology's Construction Stormwater General Permit. The proposed project Arbor Court Townhomes is located at 23820 Edmonds Way in Edmonds in Snohomish County. This project involves 1.27 acres of soil disturbance for a residential multifamily construction project. Stormwater will be discharged to the city storm water system which will indirectly discharge to the Puget Sound. Any persons desiring to present their views to the Department of Ecology regarding this application, or interested in the Department's action on this application, may notify Ecology in writing within 30 days of the last date of publication of this notice. Comments can be submitted to�Department of Ecology Water Quality Program, PO Box 47696, Olympia, WA 98504-7696. CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - 425-771-0220 - FAX 425-771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT October 9, 2009 Morgan Design Group Jean Morgan 11207 Fremont Ave N Seattle, WA 98133 Re: Permit Application: BLD20071104 through BLD20071113 Site Address: 23800 to 23824 Edmonds Way, Edmonds Arbor Court Expiration Date: November 6, 2009 Dear Ms. Morgan: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the above referenced permit application is about to expire. According to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 19.00.005(A)(5), applications are only valid for a period of 180 days unless a written request for application extension is submitted to the Building Official. If an application extension is granted it may only be extended for an additional 180 days for a total period of one year. Due to the present economic situation, the City Council has approved a temporary ordinance which would allow an extension of applications for an additional year. Your application was extended for an additional year and your application will expire November 6, 2009. No more extensions may be granted. If you wish to have your application materials and plans returned please immediately inform our offices. Without such notice the application materials and plans will be destroyed 10 days from the date of expiration. Be advised, if in the future you decided to pursue this project you shall be required to submit a new complete application and pay all new applicable fees. If you have any questions feel free to contact our office at 425-771- 0220. Sincerely, �earris Senior Permit Coordinator Cc: File L/Temp/DST's/Master Letters/App Expired Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan April 25, 20o8 Jeannie Graf Building Official City of Edmonds 1215 th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Building Permit Application: BLD20071104 through BLD20071113 Site Address: 23800 to 23924 Edmonds Way Dear Ms. Graf: �,EIVED R 2 ) T EP I would like to request for an extension to the building permit application for the above mentioned building permit applications. It took longer than anticipated to get all of the first round of corrections coordinated with all of the consultants and then get them resubmitted. anticipate getting the second round of corrections back in within the next few weeks. Sincerely, HOWAI DMOV GROUP LLe Jean M. Morgan, AIA President cc: Client; File I - '4'z� 4C. 19 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwd.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering April 25, 2008 Morgan Design Group Jean Morgan 11207 Fremont Ave N Seattle, WA 98133 Re: Building Permit Application: BLD20071104 through BLD20071113 Site Address: 23800 to 23824 Edmonds Way Expiration Date: May 6,2008 Dear Ms. Morgan: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the above referenced permit applications will expire May 6, 2008. According to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 19.00.005(A)(5), applications are only valid for a period of 180 days unless a written request for extension is submitted to the Building Official. If an application extension is granted it may only be extended for an additional 180 days for a total period of one year. To extend the subject permit application you must submit a request in writing to the Building Official prior to the referenced expiration date. Please be advised, once a pen -nit application expires, the application matenials and plans on file with the City will be destroyed within ten working days. Also, if you wish to pursue the project in the future a new permit application and new fees will be required. If you have any questions, please feel free to call our offices at 425-771-0220. Sincerely, oMa2nee� �a /s Senior Permit Coordinator Cc: File L\Temp\DST's\Master Letters\App Due to expire 10/2 1/00 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 20OG WA 5TATE NREC COMPLIANCE - ENTIRf 5ITf PROJECT DE5CRIPTION; NEW BUILDING) COMPLIANCE OPTION: LIWITING POWER ALLOWANCE �J PRESCRIPTIVE ENVELOPE COMPLIANCE OPTION TRADE MAXIMUM ALLOWED LIGHTING WATTAGE (ENTERIM Lor . _AT=2 AMR.W T AREA IN LIN FT QUANTITY AILDN&TO . AREA W�WAY5 U55 THAN I Q U G34' r.34 MAIN ENTRANCE 30 W1 UN Pr OF DOOR WIDTH 1. 35 3.150 OTHER DOOK5 �~) 20 W1 LIN FT OF DOOR MOTH -,-a- 32 I.GOO OTHER DOOR5 GAIRAGE) 20 Wl UN Fr OF DOOR MOTH Ir. 35 11.200 TOTAL ALLOWED *krT5 I G,584 51TE PLAN SCALE: I-20-OP LIGHTING 5CHEDULE MARK MANUFACTURER CATALOG FINISH MTG L MP5 �NiOWATT5/1DE5CR, NOTES QUANTT NUMBER FRANKUN [RON WORKS 70732 FRENCH W I GO W INCANDESCENT WALL SCONCE 121 LAMPS PW5 5KONZE MURRAY FIRMS 45207 GRECIAN 5 2 GOWINCANDE5CENT 35 LAMPS PLUS BRONZE FRANKLIN IRON WORr5 FRENCH BOLLARD - LAMPS PLUS 70734 BRONZE P I GO w INCANDESCENT MAX 3G' TALL =!�� UQfTNG WArrArE (EXTERJORJ L TIC FVTURF 0MRIPTION: NUMPL�,QF FIXTU"5 WATT%pRf WATT5 PIKOPO-ItO @ JFRANKUN IRON WORY,5 71034 FRENCH P I GO W INCANDESCENT P= U 12 WALKWAY5 IZ55 THAN 10' _ T 3.120 LAMPS PLUS BRONZE MAN EMRANCE �NCANUE-5CE! NCANDF5CENT 35 120 OTHER DOOK5 (MAN) INCANDE5CENT 32 ro 1,920 NOTES: W = WALL MOUNTED 5 - SURFACE MOUNTED P - POLE OTHER DOORS (GARAGE) MrANDE-SCENT 51 GO 3.OGO TOTAL PKOP05ED WA-75 12.300 1. ALL LIGHTS TO BE FURN15HED AND INSTALLED BYCONTRACTOR�. SEE A2.0 FOP BUILDING LIGHTING 2. MANUFACTURERS SPECIFIED ABOVE CAN BE 'OR. EQUAL' M 6 -1 &57- X,,/ GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates 8001 — 14th Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 Attention: Jay Finney 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 October 5, 2007 JN 07328 via email jfinney@rpaseattle.com Subject: Transmittal Letter — Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Townhouse Development 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Finney: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for the proposed townhomes to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, dated October 4, 2007. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us If there are any questions regarding this report, or for.further assistance during the design and construction phases of this project. cc: CG Engineering— Mike Spano via email JHS: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ;Z--�7 - James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager MD E C NOV 13 2007 EECE RECEIVED NOV - 6 2007 BUILDING DEPT. 10 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Townhouse Development 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed townhouses to be located in Edmonds, Washington. We did not review complete building plans for the development, but based on the conceptual site plan provided (Morgan Design Group — dated 2115107), we understand that the project will involve the construction of 35 townhomes in 13 buildings on the site. No basements are anticipated and finished floor elevations are assumed to be within a few feet of the existing site grades. If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general 'location of the site. The irregular -shaped, 1.27- acre property features about 250 feet of frontage along Edmonds Way to the northeast. The site is currently developed with six duplex/triplex apartment buildings with shallow crawlspaces or slab floors. The areas around the buildings are on -grade drives, parking, and landscaped beds. There is approximately 4 feet of fall across the site and the subject property is generally on -grade with the adjacent properties to the north and south. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating four test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on site access, the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The test pits were excavated on October 3, 2007 with a rubber -tracked backhoe operated by your personnel. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the Soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plate 3. Soff Conditions The test pits conducted on the site encountered topsoil overlying 2.5 to 4.5 feet of loose to medium -dense, silty sands (weathered soils or old fill) overlying less weathered, medium - dense to dense, native sands. These sands were, in turn, underlain by very dense, silty sands. The non -weathered, dense to very dense, glacially -consolidated mixture of sand, slit and gravel (Glacial Till) was encountered in Test Pits 1 and 3 at 8 to 8.5 feet below grade. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 2 Due to the groundwater encountered in Test Pit 4, the interface of the sands and silty sands would be anticipated to be close to the bottom of this pit. No obstructions were revealed by our explorations. However, debris, buried utilities, and old foundation and slab elements are commonly encountered on sites that have had previous development. Although our explorations did not encounter cobbles or boulders, they are often found in soils that have been deposited by glaciers or fast-moving water. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed in Test Pit 4 at approximately 6 feet below the existing grade. Groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. During the wetter winter months, we anticipate that groundwater could be found in more permeable soil layers, pockets within the till, and perched between the near -surface weathered soil and the underlying glacial till. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pits, are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The test pits conducted for this study encountered medium -dense or denser native sand at depths ranging from 1 to 4.5 feet below the existing grade. Based on these findings, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings can be supported by conventional spread and continuous foundations bear- ing directly on medium -dense, native soils or on structural fill placed above medium -dense, native soil. During wet weather, it may be prudent to cover the bearing surfaces with a 3- to 4-inch thick protective rock mat to prevent disturbance from foot traffic during formwork. The protective mat should consist of clean crushed rock or clean, recycled concrete. The rock mat will likely not be necessary during dry weather. The dense, silty sand soils that underlie the shallow, sandy soils at the site are not suitable for infiltration of stormwater due to their low permeability. Furthermore, groundwater was encountered in one of the test pits and relatively shallow, perched groundwater would be anticipated to occur between the sands and the underlying denser, silty soils following general wet weather or heavy rain events. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates JN 07328 October 5, 2007 Page 3 Storm detention/retention facilities and other utilities are often installed below, or near, structures. The walls of storm vaults must be designed as either cantilever or restrained retaining walls, as appropriate. Wall pressures for the expected soil conditions are presented in the Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls section of this report. It is important that the portion of the structure above the permanent detained water level be backfilled with free -draining soil, as recommended for retaining walls. Should drainage not be provided, the walls must be designed for hydrostatic forces acting on the outside of the structure. The backfill for all underground structures must be compacted in lifts according to the criteria in the previous section of this report. Trenches for underground structures and utilities should not cross a line extending downwards from a new or existing footing at an inclination of (1:1) (Horizontal: Vertical), or a line extending downwards from a property line at an inclination of (1:1) (H:V). We should be consulted if these excavation zones will be exceeded for installation of storm facilities or other utilities. A geotechnical consideration for development of this site is the high silt content of some of the native soils. The fine-grainedi silty soils are sensitive to moisture, which makes them impossible to adequately compact when they have moisture contents even 2 to 3 percent above their optimum moisture content. The reuse of these soils as structural fill will only be successful during dry weather. The earthwork contractor must be prepared to rework areas that do not achieve proper compaction due to high moisture content. Utility trench backfill in structural areas, such as pavements, may also need to be dried before it can be adequately compacted. Improper compaction of backfill in utility trenches and around control structures is a common reason for pavement distress and failures. Imported granular fill will be needed wherever it Is not possible to dry the on -site soils sufficiently before compaction. The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. While site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, the erosion potential on the site is relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas. Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of soil or mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements, and trucks should not be allowed to drive off of,the rock -covered areas. Existing catch basins in, and immediately downslope of, the planned work areas should be protected with pre -manufactured silt socks. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not.be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to veffy that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 4 review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type C (Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock). Under the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) the Soil Class would be C. The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium -dense, native soil, or on structural fill placed above this competent, native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compacton of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. Depending on the final site grades, overexcavation may be required below the footings to expose competent, native soil. Unless lean concrete is used to fill an overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the bottom of a 2-foot-wide footing must be at least 4 feet wide at the base of the excavation. If lean concrete is used, the overexcavation need only extend 6 inches beyond the edges of the footing. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on medium -dense, native soil or structural fill placed above medium -dense, native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. L . ateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates JN 07328 October 5, 2007 Page 5 level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: IJ1,111NIA111, PARAMETER VAJ,UE o clent of Friction 0.45 Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Where: (1) pcf Is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: PARAMETER Active Earth Pressure VALUE 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.45 Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: (1) pof Is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. * For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. It is not appropriate to ' back -calculate soil strength parameters from the earth pressures and soil unit weights presented in the table. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only, The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the Walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 6 Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backrill Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. If the native silty sand is used as backfill, a drainage composite similar to Miradrain 6000 should be placed against the backfilled retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. Free -draining backfill or gravel should be used for the entire width of the backfill where seepage Is encountered. For increased protection, drainage composites should be placed along cut slope faces, and the walls should be backfilied entirely with free -draining soil. The later section entitled Drainage Considerations should also be reviewed for recommendations related to subsurface drainage behind foundation and retaining walls. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below -grade walls, or to prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the performance of subsurface drainage systems c ' an degrade, subsurface groundwater flow patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite products, spray -on liners, or membranes on the outside of the walls. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion to the outside face of a wall Is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is appropriate even when waterproofing' is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining walls. The choice of an appropriate waterproofing system depends on the specific site conditions, the intended construction and use for the project, and the expectations of the end user. We recommend that you contact a specialty consultant if detailed recommendations or specifications related to waterproofing design and/or minimizing the potential for infestations of mold and mildew are desired. Waterproofing materials and systems should also be evaluated and installed GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 7 by an experienced contractor familiar with the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. SLABS -ON -GRADE The building floors can be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop competent native soils, or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through the soil to the new constructed space above it. All interior slabs -on -grade must be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of gravel or crushed rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10 percent. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil plastic sheeting, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where plastic sheeting is used under slabs, joints should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The sheeting should- extend- to the -foundation walls for maximum -vapor- protection.- If no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter' to aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in Curren ' t ACI literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the protection/blotter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 8 We recommend proof -rolling slab areas with a heavy truck or a large piece of construction equipment prior to slab construction. Any soft areas encountered during proof -rolling should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. ROCKERIES We anticipate that rockeries may be used in the site development. A rockery is,not intended to function as an engineered structure to resist lateral earth pressures, as a retaining wall would do. The primary function of a rockery is to cover the exposed, excavated surface and thereby retard the erosion process. We recommend limiting rockeries to an exposed height of 6 feet and placing them against only dense, competent, native soil. The lower 12 inches of any rockery must be embedded below the finish grade that will exist at the face of the rockery. Rockeries that are taller than 8 feet, or that are placed in front of loose soil or in areas of compacted fill will require additional engineering. The construction of rockeries is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering methods and standards. It is imperative that rockeries, if used, are constructed with care and in a proper manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rockery construction. The rockeries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local practice and City of Edmonds standards. In general, the lowest two rows of rocks should have a minimum depth (as measured perpendicular to the rockery's face) of 1/3 of the rockery's height. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures or inclusions, should not be used, in order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed over time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rockery, should be considered in the design. In general, we recommend that rockeries have a minimum dimension of one-third the height of the slope cut above them. Tiered rockedes,are not recommended, unless there is sufficient space to construct upper tiers that do not exert lateral pressure on the lower tiers. The base of a tiered rockery's upper wall should be set back from the rear of the lower rocks an amount equal to the height of the lower tiers. EXCA VA TIONS AND SLOPES Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made, near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above -recommended temporary slope inclinations are based on the conditions exposed in our explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that w! ' 11 remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. It is also important that surface water be directed away from temporary slope cuts. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 6, 2007 JN 07328 Page 9 instability. Please note that loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in the past by utility installation, or if settlement -sensitive utilities are located nearby. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Foundation drains should be used at the base of all foundation walls and earth -retaining walls . These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar -material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 5. For the -best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs -On -Grade section, should be provided in any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Also, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may bypass the footing drains. No groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water Is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to a building should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. it is important that existing foundations be removed before site development. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 10 results in the greatest compacted'dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Beneath footings, slabs 95% or walkways Filled slopes and behind 90% retaining walls 95% for upper 12 inches of Beneath pavements subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed In percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined In accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). Use of On-SitG Soil If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soil is wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rain and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soil is generally silty and therefore moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult during wet weather, or when the moisture content of this soil exceeds the optimum moisture content. The moisture content of the silty, on -site soil must be at, or near, the optimum moisture content, as the soil cannot be consistently compacted to the required density when the moisture content is significantly greater than optimum. The on -site silty sands underlying the topsoil could be used as structural fill, if grading operations are conducted during dry weather. During excessively hot, dry weather, however, It may be necessary to add water to achieve the optimum moisture content. Moisture -sensitive soil may also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment, or even foot traffic, when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. It may be beneficial to protect subgrades with a layer of imported sand or crushed rock to limit disturbance from traffic. The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a slit or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Assoclates October 5, 2007 LIMITATIONS JIN 07328 Page 11 The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Real Property Associates, and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDITIONAL SERMES Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The scope of our work did not include an environmental assessment, but we can provide this service, if requested. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plate 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain Detail JN 07328 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have anyquestions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. JHS: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. rEVM. 01-31- Qa James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechni6al Project Engineer GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. IWLS 1 wr Sw 141H ST SW 11.1 !, =-' F -� :IF 'W 221M PL SW 225 .7 ;T- . PTH 226TH ST 124 gg; -05M FL VA ! . L 22TOF ST - . ��j P. 10600 22 L MM Pt SW �z Pt sv 211M 22 -pTsw 22 fWWRIA, F26T, —9f M ST I'S 059 wi Lsw I p w 3! ST N I S 7VI 2 ST IST R081d r1i v A'p U 2M P, S 233RD ST %I LA pu. aL 234TH STE; Sw cr. MADRONA LN 4 KMI GHAM RD L p 97() 23 PL v) 235M FL Sw RH e ST Sw 0 AM& ItM ZMH z A — // FSW w L !z :i ov p el lit - "" KA IV 1w r 238TH ST SW 217TH ST M 10 Z407MH pee 02SHO ENT R AV_. L IrALL 02 F9w- OTH ...... :101� r. -.24 d ?4M - PL=I- - ST SW ae § 41ST- L r p L SO 7 el Sw 42ND ' 242ND ST01 RERRY H 242go sy t; t- 24 ST 5V 9 243RD Sw (SNOHOM Sli AV) 8600 w PL MALE VILLM 244.TT2.7N ;ST"N'. r Sw, D .205T" -Sw. 205 171-1 2 -ST� -2 7 i4i: f"', xt, i " ; *-'T 0'203RD 0, MKD 01 'i ST: 9 20 mign- I I 200TH ST's'EAr-.'w 19M <- 19m; .,�ST N 71 M, 03� 0 'j FS &9346.- . ...... At w St. pi 90 H HAt At J6 -4* CHM ND NW-1 'Z N m ST 1,18TA, ST 9--� :k bkco f�; < w ZT-i N 185TH PS 5R. 10 . 0 16-�j 184TH - - ST 17 B3RU ST, i An ST 83 ST ISM qp ST, N 18.111!'03 ST. i8OTH pt 182ND 181 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. (Source., Thomas Brothers King County Street Guide and Directory, 2006) VICINITY MAP 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washi.ngton Date: Scale: Plate: Oct 2007 Not to Scale I An GEOTECH CONSULTAWS, INC. (:;id - Approximate Test Pit Location SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Job Date: I scale: 07328 Oct 20071 Not to Scale I plate: 2 7=07 DIT I — Mrnaa Depth (feet) 0.0-1.5 Soil Description inches of Topsoil over brown, gravelly, silty SAND, fine- to me- dium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense (Fill) [SM] 1.5-8.0 Orange -brown, SAND with gravel, medium- to coarse -grained, moist, Medium -dense. [SP] becomes gray, slightly silty, fine- to medium -grained, very moist, medium -dense to dense at 2.5 feet [SPISM] becomes sil!X, cemented, veEy dense at 8 feet. [SM] Test Pit was terminated at a depth of 8.0 feet due to backhoe reTUsai on Septembel No groundwater seepage and no caving were observed in the test pit. TEST PIT 4 — 7,2007. 0.0-1.0 6-inches of Topsoil over brown, gravelly, silty SAND, fine- to me- dium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense ' (Fll� [SM] - encountered 4-inch old drain line at 1 foot. 1.0-6.5 Brown, slightly silty SAND with gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense. [SP/SM] - becomes gray, with occasional gravel, dense at 2.5 feet - becomes coarser qrained, gravelly, wet at 6 feet. Test Pit was terminated at a depth of 6.5 feet on September 7, 2007. Groundwater seepage was encountered at 6 feet in the test pit. Note - Letters in brackets [ ] denote USCS soil designation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington ob Date: scale: Plate: 4 07328 Oct 2007 Not to Scale I I -V TEST PIT 3 — Grass 0.0-1.5 6-inches of Topsoil over brown, gravelly, silty SAND, fine- to me- dium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense (Fill) (SMI 1.5-8.0 Orange -brown, SAND with gravel, medium- to coarse -grained, moist, rhedium-dense. [SPI - becomes gray, slightly silty, fine- to medium -grained, very moist, medium -dense to dense at 2.5 feet [SPISM] becomes sil!y, cemented, very dense at 8 feet. [SM] Test Pit was terminated at a depth of 8.0 feet due to backhoe refusal on September 7, 2007. No groundwater seepage and no caving were observed in the test pit. TEST PIT 4 — 0.0-1.0 6-inches of Topsoil over brown, gravelly, silty SAND, fine- to me- dium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense ' (Fll� [SM] - encountered 4-inch old drain line at 1 foot. 1.0-6.5 Brown, slightly silty SAND with gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense. [SPISM] - becomes gray, with occasional gravel, dense at 2.5 feet - becomes coarser grained, gravelly, wet at 6 feet. Test Pit was terminated at a depth of 6.5 feet on September 7, 2007. Groundwater seepage was encountered at 6 feet in the test pit. Note - Letters in brackets [ ] denote USCS soil designation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Scale: Plate: 4 07328 1 Oct2OO7 I NottoScale I I ��o Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Backfill (See text for requirements) Nonwoven Geotextile Washed Rock Filter Fabric (7/8" min. size) 440 a a a 0 a 0 a C) ;0 ;0..;0'. . . 000 , .0 P%, 1 1110 1.10 6" min. Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) Vapor Retarder or Barrier SLAB 0. 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space, Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) Free -Draining Gravel NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Scale: Plate: 07328 1 Oct 2007 1 Not to Scale 1 5 OEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates 8001 — 14th Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 Attention: Jay Finney 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 October 5, 2007 JN 07328 via email jfinney@rpaseattle.com Subject: Transmittal Letter — Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Townhouse Development 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Finney: We are pleased to present this geotechnical ' engineering report for the proposed townhomes to be constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, dated October 4, 2007. The atta - ched report contains -a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are' I any questions regarding this report, or forfurther assistance during the design and construction phases of.this project. Respectfully submifted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Jam es H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Geotechnical Project Manager cc: CG Engineering— Mike Spano via email , JHS: jyb RECEIVEM NOV 2 6 2007 DEVELOPMENT SERVICEs S waft a I MEET FILE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Townhouse Development 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed townhouses to be located in Edmonds, Washington. We did not review complete building plans for the development, but based on the conceptual site plan provided (Morgan Design Group — dated 2/15/07), we understand that the project will involve the construction of 35 townhomes in 13 buildings on the site. No basements are anticipated and finished floor elevations are assumed to be within a few feet of the existing site grades. If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted. SITE CONDITIO SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The irregular -shaped, 1.27- acre property features about 250 feet of frontage along Edmonds Way to the northeast. The site is currently developed with six duplex/triplex apartment buildings with shallow crawlspaces or slab floors. The areas around the buildings are on -grade drives, parking, and landscaped beds. There is approximately 4 feet of fall across the site and the subject property is generally on -grade with the adjacent properties to the north and south. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating four test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on site access, the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The test pits were excavated on October 3, 2007 with a rubber -tracked backhoe operated by your personnel. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plate 3. SoH Conditions The test pits conducted on the site encountered topsoil overlying 2.5 to 4.5 feet of loose to medium -dense, silty sands (weathered soils or old fill) overlying less weathered, medium - dense to dense, native sands. These sands were, in turn, underlain by very dense, silty sands. The non -weathered, dense to very dense, glacially -consolidated mixture of sand, silt and gravel (Glacial Till) was encountered in Test Pits 1 and 3 at 8 to 8.5 feet below grade. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 2 Due to the groundwater encountered in Test Pit 4, the interface of the sands and silty sands would be anticipated to be close to the bottom of this pit. No obstructions were revealed by our explorations. However, debris, buried utilities, and old foundation and slab elements are commonly encountered on sites that have had previous development. Although our explorations did not encounter cobbles or boulders, they are often found in soils that have been deposited by glaciers or fast-moving water. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater seepage was observed in Test Pit 4 at approximately 6 feet below the existing grade. Groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. During the wetter winter months, we anticipate that groundwater could be found in more permeable soil layers, pockets within the till, and perched between the near -surface weathered soil and the underlying glacial till. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test pits are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The compaction of backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed and replaced with structural fill during construction. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT The test pits conducted for this study encountered medium -dense or denser native sand at depths ranging from 1 to 4.5 feet below the existing grade. Based on these findings, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings can be supported by conventional spread and continuous foundations bear- ing directly on medium -dense, native soils or on structural fill placed above medium -dense, native soil. During wet weather, it may be prudent to cover the bearing surfaces with a 3- to 4-inch thick protective rock mat to prevent disturbance from foot traffic during formwork. The protective mat should consist of clean crushed rock or clean, recycled concrete. The rock mat will likely not be necessary during dry weather. The dense, silty sand soils that underlie the shallow, sandy soils at the site are not suitable for infiltration of stormwater due to their low permeability. Furthermore, groundwater was encountered in one of the test pits and relatively shallow, -perched groundwater would be anticipated to occur between the sands and the underlying denser, silty soils following general wet weather or heavy rain events. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates JN 07328 October 5, 2007 Page 3 Storm detention/retention facilities and other utilities are often installed below, or near, structures. The walls of storm vaults must be designed as either cantilever or restrained retaining walls, as appropriate. Wall pressures for the expected soil conditions are presented in the Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls section of this report. It is important that the portion of the structure above the permanent detained water level be backfilled with free -draining soil, as recommended for retaining walls. Should drainage not be provided, the walls must be designed for hydrostatic forces acting on the outside of the structure. The backfill for all underground structures must be compacted in lifts according to the criteria in the previous section of this report. Trenches for underground structures and utilities should not cross a line extending downwards from a new or existing footing at an inclination of (1:1) (Horizontal:Vertical), or a line extending downwards from a property line at an inclination of (1:1) (H:V). We should be consulted if these excavation zones will be exceeded for installation of storm facilities or other utilities. A geotechnical consideration for development of this site is the high silt content of some of the native soils. The fine-grained,. silty soils are sensitive to moisture, which makes them impossible to adequately compact when they have moisture contents even 2 to 3 percent above their optimum moisture content. The reuse of these soils as structural fill will only be successful during dry weather. The earthwork contractor must be prepared to rework areas that do not achieve proper compaction due to high moisture content. Utility trench backfill in structural areas, such as pavements, may also need to be dried before it can be adequately compacted. Improper compaction of backfill in utility trenches and around control structures is a common reason for pavement distress and failures. Imported granular fill will be needed wherever it Is not possible to dry the on -site soils sufficiently before compaction. The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. While site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, the erosion potential on the site is relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas. Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of soil or mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements, and trucks should not be allowed to drive off of,the rock -covered areas. Existing catch basins in, and immediately downslope of, the planned work areas should be protected with pre -manufactured silt socks. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not.be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs., Even in the absence of active seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively moist air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed in the design. Such a plan GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates JN 07328 October 5, 2007 Page 4 review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with Table 1613.5.2 of the 2006 International Building Code (IBC), the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Soil Profile Type C (Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock). Under the 2003 International Building Code (IBC) the Soil Class would be C. The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium -dense, native soil, or on structural fill placed above this competent, native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. Adequate compaction of structural fill should be verified with frequent density testing during fill placement. Prior to placing structural fill beneath foundations, the excavation should be observed by the geotechnical engineer to document that adequate bearing soils have been exposed. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. Depending on the final site grades, overexcavation may be required below the footings to expose competent, native soil. Unless lean concrete is used to fill an overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 2 feet below the boftom of a 2-foot-wide footing must be at least 4 feet wide at the base of the excavation. If lean concrete is used, the overexcavation need only extend 6 inches beyond the edges of the footing. An allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf]i is appropriate for footings supported on medium -dense, native soil or structural fill placed above medium -dense, native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction seftlement of footings founded on competent, native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch in a distance of 50 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. L . ateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates JN 07328 October 5, 2007 Page 5 level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level structural fill. We recommend using the following . ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: ULTIMA11i, PARAMETER VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.45 Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Where: (1) pcf Is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) passive earth pressure Is computed using the equivalent fluid density. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain level backfill: PARAMETER Active Earth Pressure VALUE 35 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Coefficient of Friction 0.45 Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: (1) pcf Is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid pressures. * For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times Its height, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 10 psf times the height of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid pressure. The values given above are to be used to design permanent foundation and retaining walls only. It is not appropriate to back -calculate soil strength parameters from the earth pressures and soil unit weights presented in the table. The passive pressure given is appropriate for the depth of level structural fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall only. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety factor. We recommend a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding, when using the above values to design the walls. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height from corners or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can occur where a wall is restrained by a corner. The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, -vehicles, or adjacent foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 6 Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. The wall design criteria assume that the backfill will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur during compaction. Retaining Wall Backrill Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coarse, free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. If the native silty sand is used as backfill, a drainage composite similar to Miradrain 6000 should be placed against the backfilled retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. Free -draining backfill or gravel should be used for the entire width of the backfill where seepage is encountered. For increased protection, drainage composites should be placed along cut slope faces, and the walls should be backfilled entirely with free -draining soil. The later section entitled Drainage Considerations should also be reviewed for recommendations related to subsurface drainage behind foundation and retaining walls. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted, relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to percolate into the backfill. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below -grade walls, or to prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the performance of subsurface drainage systems c * an degrade, subsurface groundwater flow patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite products, spray -on liners, or membranes on the outside of the walls. Applying a thin coat of asphalt emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining walls. The choice of an appropriate waterproofing system depends on the specific site conditions, the intended construction and use for the project, and the expectations of the end user. We recommend that you contact a specialty consultant if detailed recommendations or specifications related to waterproofing design and/or minimizing the potential for infestations of mold and mildew are desired. Waterproofing materials and systems should also be evaluated and installed GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 7 by an experienced contractor familiar with the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. SLABS -ON -GRADE The building floors can be constructed as slabs -on -grade atop competent native soils, or on structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through the soil to the new constructed space above it. All interior slabs -on -grade must be underlain by a capillary break or drainage layer consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of gravel or crushed rock that has a fines content (percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand content (percent passing the No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10 percent. As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders, such as 6-mil plastic sheeting, are typically used. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 US perms per square foot (psf) per hour, as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification, although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where plastic sheeting is used under slabs, joints should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive tape. The, -sheeting should extend to the -foundation walls. for maximum -vapor- protection.- If no potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.00 perms per square foot per hour when tested in accordance with ASTM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this requirement. In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded compactable granular material, such as a 5/8 inch minus crushed rock pavement base, should be placed over the vapor retarder or barrier for protection of the retarder or barrier and as a "blotter" to aid in the curing of the concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose. However, the use of material over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, which is always possible in the Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future, essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Therefore, if there is a potential that the protection/blofter material will become wet before the slab is installed, ACI now recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that, because there is a potential for slab cure due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other measures" (steel reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with the recent ACI literature. We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance on the use of the protection/blofter material. Our opinion is that with impervious surfaces that all means should be undertaken to reduce water vapor transmission. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 JN 07328 Page 8 We recommend proof -rolling slab areas with a heavy truck or a large piece of construction equipment prior to slab construction. Any soft areas encountered during proof -rolling should be excavated and replaced with select, imported structural fill. ROCKERIES We anticipate that rookeries may be used in the site development. A rookery is not intended to function as an engineered structure to resist lateral earth pressures, as a retaining wall would do. The primary function of a rookery is to cover the exposed, excavated surface and thereby retard the erosion process. We recommend limiting rookeries to an exposed height of 6 feet and placing them against only dense, competent, native soil. The lower 12 inches of any rookery must be embedded below the finish grade that will exist at the face of the rookery. Rookeries that are taller than 8 feet, or that are placed in front of loose soil or in areas of compacted fill will require additional engineering. The construction of rookeries is, to a large extent, an art not entirely controllable by engineering methods and standards. It is imperative that rookeries, if used, are constructed with care and in a proper manner by an experienced contractor with proven ability in rookery construction. The rookeries should be constructed with hard, sound, durable rock in accordance with accepted local practice and City of Edmonds standards. In general, the lowest two rows of rocks should have a minimum depth (as measured perpendicular to the rookery's face) of 1/3 of the rookery's height. Soft rock, or rock with a significant number of fractures or inclusions, should not be used, in order to limit the amount of maintenance and repair needed over time. Provisions for maintenance, such as access to the rookery, should be considered In the design. In general, we recommend that rookeries have a minimum dimension of one-third the height of the slope cut above them. Tiered rockedes are not recommended, unless there is sufficient space to construct upper tiers that do not exert lateral pressure on the lower tiers. The base of a tiered rookery's upper wall should be set back from the rear of the lower rocks an amount equal to the height of the lower tiers. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, if there are no indications of slope instability. However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures.. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above-recorn mended temporary slope inclinations are based on the conditions exposed in our explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. It is also important that surface water be directed away from temporary slope cuts. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates JN 07328 October 5, 2007 Page 9 instability. Please note that loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in the past by utility installation, or if settlement -sensitive utilities are located nearby. All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve the stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Foundation drains should be used at the base of all foundation walls and earth -retaining walls . These drains should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch7Minus, washed rock and then wrapped in non -woven, geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar -material). At its highest point, a perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a crawl space, and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 5. For the -best long-term performance, perforated PVC pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains. As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs -On -Grade section, should be provided in any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Also, an outlet drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent a build up of any water that may bypass the footing drains. No groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to a building should slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. it is important that existing foundations be removed before site development. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill Is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads. All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real PropertY Associates JN 07328 October 5, 2007 Page 10 results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Beneath footings, slabs 1 95% slopes and behind 1 90% 95% for upper 12 inches of Beneath pavements subgrade; 90% below that level Where: Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed In percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined In accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soft If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soil is wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rain and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soil is generally silty and therefore moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult during wet weather, or when the moisture content of this soil exceeds the optimum moisture content. The moisture content of the silty, on -site soil must be at, or near, the optimum moisture content, as the soil cannot be consistently compacted to the required density when the moisture content is significantly greater than optimum. The on -site silty sands underlying the topsoil could be used as structural fill, if grading operations are conducted during dry weather. During excessively hot, dry weather, however, it may be necessary to add water to achieve the optimum moisture content. Moisture -sensitive soil may also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment, or even foot traffic, when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. It may be beneficial to protect subgrades with a layer of imported sand or crushed rock to limit disturbance from traffic. . The General section should be reviewed for considerations related to the reuse of on -site soils. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 LIMITATIONS JN 07328 Page 11 The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test pits are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Real Property Associates, and its representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDITIONAL SERMES Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observafion services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The scope of our work did not include an environmental assessment, but we can provide this service, if requested. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Real Property Associates October 5, 2007 The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plate 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs Plate 5 Typical Footing Drain Detail JN 07328 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have anyquestions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. JHS: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. L 01-31- 0-9 J James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. -Geotechni6al Project Engineer GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. LS 14TH UZ-1 ST 22011 ST N x 224TH PL SW 14 225TH .. PL Sw — S11 IL Sw 226TH ST 2 �:P]L SW 2 t; 3C 6: 226TH ST - 3 Sw e, .1 - - 1�1 tq PL ' 1 rc PE 227711 h 227TH Sw It r. LgN�t ` 22 84T ST Sw IF i Itscl jo - 9" 05Q Of RV 1 FL-Sw 3C N Sw —C ST .7,__ 7_1 S1 2M32ND ir.. 'ST 2M3ZHD IST @ . 07H 999 Rosid ST zi 232ND AIM .0 ST Sw PL S RD. p L 23311D ST SO L S &6-0) %0 %W' to 231TH �;ST;s 134TH ST., Sw HADRONA LN M AMA My AU)m 23 KOM GHAM RD L 7C p fe 23 X X- . I I-TH R W 1 41 F '235TH PL 114 . 31 pil—sw TH ST SW__rL $-Sw L T11 238TH Uff PLACF I 4THHP�*157 TH ST U11 1; 0 iE ;52 14 10000 10 RIDE 240TH 102UND va ENTLR AV 91. IST LE 5w "_M 24 YM J. 24 a PIL - ST sue t; M § 41ST- Sit 242ND ST Sw 7 f BERRY LN t; F k' 4 1p L (SNDH(Di SH AV) 8600 1-7�ST_p;,j J,L. a Sw1_..1. 4z -ND ST n2 ST: ;' 0 ST. T 19 19 `200 TH TH ST i71AF`W ST Ln e4 107 ig pv� 7ST- -A N: '19 "ST, 2. 493RD -P' ST _7fF77 .9 tit St �J� 90 KINGS 900 'S we A'-.PARA �111 RD' P6 7 ST 6TH -dRICHM 00 ND S . .... 8r/f ST :.4 Nzt /YJ j pin- w, 9! Ch 7 0 _Ck < § 5.. w N i WST - 130.0... 16� & f. TiTkIi ST.. RD Sf, 5T� <1 Opp .4 I a *; z 8 St XN - S N 18 ROL ST N i N, is re L GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. (Source: Thomas Brothers King County Street Guide and Directory, 2006) VICINITY MAP 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washi.ngton _j Job Scale: Plate: I 07328 DaOtcet:2007 Not to Scale I I in GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,'INC. C�a - Approximate Test Pit Location SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Job Date: scale: Plate: 07328 Oct 2007 1 Not to scale 2 0, TEST PIT I — .0.0-4.5 6-inche,s of Topsoil over brown, gravelly, silty SAND, fine- to me- 'dium-grained, moist, loose to mediUM7dense (Fill) [SM] - encountered drain tile and drain rock at ±4 feet. 4.5-9.0 Gray SAND, fine- to medium -grained, very moist, medium -dense to dense. [SP] - becomes dense at 6 feet - becomes silty at 8.5 feet PM] Test Pit was terminated at a depth of 9.0 feet on September 7, 2007. No groundwater seepage and no caving were observed in the test pit. Ttb I F1 I Z — Us 0.0-3.0 6-inches of Topsoil over brown, gravelly, silty SAND, fine- to me- dium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense (Filb [SMJ 2.5-7.0 Brown SAND with gravel, medium- to coarse -grained, moist, dense. [SP] - becomes gray, slightly silty, fine- to medium -grained, very moist, dense at 6.5 feet [SP/SM] ===_==I I . — — — I - - -7 nr%f%'7 Test Pit was terminatea ai a aepin ai t u iuut v, 1 oup-1 111 1 1 e-%.,w 1 - No groundwater seepage and no caving were observed in the test pit. GEOTECH CONSULTA?ffS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Job Date: I scale: Plate: 3] 07328 Oct 2007 1 Not to scale TEST PIT 3 — Grass 0.0-1.5 6-inches of Topsoil over brown, gravelly, silty SAND, fine- to me- dium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense (Fill) [SM] 1.5-8.0 Orange -brown, SAND with gravel, medium- to coarse -grained, moist, Medium -dense. [SP] - becomes gray, slightly silty, fine- to medium -grained, very moist, medium -dense to dense at 2.5 feet [SPISM] becomes siltv, cemented, very dense at 8 feet. [SM] Test Pit was terminated at a depth of 8.0 feet due to backhoe refusal on September 7, 2007. No groundwater seepage and no caving were observed in the test pit. TEST PIT 4 — Grass Depth (feet) Soil -Description 0.0-1.0 6-inches of Topsoil over brown, gravelly, silty SAP 5--77--to me- dium -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense ' (Fll� [S�l - encountered 4-inch old drain line at 1 foot. 1.0-6.5 Brown, slightly silty SAND with gravel, fine- to medium -grained, moist, medium -dense. [SPISM] - becomes gray, with occasional gravel, dense at 2.5 feet - becomes coarser grained, gravelly, wet at 6 feet. Test Pit was terminated at a depth of 6.5 feet on September 7, 2007. Groundwater seepage was encountered at 6 feet in the test pit. Note - Letters in brackets [ ] denote USCS soil designation. GEOTECH CONSULTAWS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Piate., 4 07328 Oct 2007 1 SNco'teto: Scale I I Slope backfill away from foundation. Provide surface drains where necessary. Backfill (See text for requirements) Nonwoven Geotextile Washed Rock Filter Fabric (7/8" min. size) D' 9 0;9 �01 - 0 - 0 6" min. Tightline Roof Drain (Do not connect to footing drain) SLAB 4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe (invert at least 6 inches below slab or crawl space. Slope to drain to appropriate outfall. Place holes downward.) Vapor Retarder or Barrier -, 0;0 00 0 a6 0 0.0 0. . 4 .0 Free -Draining Gravel NOTES: (1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that bypasses the perimeter footing drains. (2) Refer to report text for additional drainage and waterproofing considerations. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL 23820 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Job Date: scale: Plate: 5:j 07328 Oct 2007 Not to Scale MORGAN INDIVIDUAL 5UILDING DATA: INDIVIDUAL 5UILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION5: 238th 5TKEE DESIGN MAX BUILDING HEIGHT - AVERAGE GRADE + 30 PER MULTIFAMILY R151DENTfAL SITE DffVELOPEMENT GROUP STANDARDS FOR P005 WTH A,4/12 OR GREATER SLOPE *0 If 5158 LLC BUILD NG # 1 HEATED SPACE UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PEP FLOOR, BUILDING # 1 A 393.0 11207 ftwo Aw IN 15t FLOOR 303 5.f. 1,24G 5 f. � GARAGE 1,549 s.f. B 392.0 ALLOWED MAX HEIGHT 422.5. : Seod&WA 98133 Tch 3M375-3397 2n.4 FLOOR 1,5G I 5.f. 1,5G 1 5 f. C 392.0 PROPOSED MAX HEIGHT 422.2" Fw M$474420 3rd FLOOR I,GOO S f. I GOO 5 1. D 393.0 392.5 AVERAGE GRADE PROP05ED F.P. - 392.7' 92.0 TOTAL 3,4G4 5 f. 1,24G s f. 4,7 10 s f JOB: 2007004 GRO55 TOTAL BUILDING #2 HEATED SPACE UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PER FLOOR 13UILDING #2 A 393.0 L LARD "4" I st FLOOR 303 s.f 2ria FLOOR 1,5r. I S f 1. 24G 5 f -GARAGE - 1,549 s f I,5G I S f 5 393.0 C 393.5 ALLOWED MAXHEIGHT - 422.25' PROPOSED MAX HEIGHT - 421 92' 3rl FLOOR I GOO s f I GOO 5 f D 393.5 392 25 AVERAGE GRADE PPOP05EO F.F. - 392 4' TOTAL 3,4G4 s f 1,24G 5 f 4.7 10 s f GRO55 TOTAL 4,7 10 � f + 33 s.f. DECKS BUILDING #3 HEATED SPACE UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PEP, FLOOR BUILDING #3 A 393 0 2' F. L 0 I St FLOOR I 105f 8G5 s f. GARAGE 975 f. 5 3930 ALLOWED MAX HEIGHT = 423.0' u :, ) 5TING TRE 2n,l FLOOR 9% , I 3r4 FLOOR 98G S f 98G 5 f, 96G 5 1. C 393.0 D 393 0 PROPOSED MAX HEIGHT - 422 75' 3921, 2� 1 CE G Cc 'I" 392, TOTAL 2,082 , f BG5 a I. 2.947 s 1 393.0 AVERAGE GRADE PPOP05ED F.F - 393 2' 1 920 GRO55 TOTAL 2,947 s f BUILDING #4 HEATED SPACE UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PER FLOOR BUILDING #4 A 392 0 d 9 I st FLOOR 573 . f 1, 140 5 f - GARAGE 1,713 s f B 392 0 ALLOWED MAX HEIGHT = 422.25' TAMPED q 2rIa FLOOR 1,713 � f 1,713 s f C 392 0 PROPOSED MAX HEIGHT - 421 EG' CONCRETE 061.1 3rJ FLOOR 1.83G s f 1,83G . f D 393 0 392 25 AVERAGE GRADE PROP05ED F.F - 393 3' A Be BL I TOTAL 4,122 5 f 1, 140 s f 5.2G2 s f GRO55 TOTAL 5,2G2 S f + 99 . I. DECIK5 92 f. BUILDING #5 HEATED SPACE UNHEATED 5FACI! TOTAL PER FLOOR BUILDING #5 A 392 0 6"c 101 N I t FLOOR 382 s f 2rId FLOOR 1, 142 s I 7GO s I. GARAGE 1. 142 5 f 1. 142 , f B 392 0 C 392 0 ALLOWED MAX HEIGHT = 422.00 PROPOSED MAX HEIGHT - 421 73' 93D C :G) 393,0 \ (J) LLJ 4 3rd FLOOR 1.224 s f 1,224 s f D 392 0 1 .2' F. I 107 , " 0 TING T 0 TOTAL 2,748 5 f 7GO s f. 3,508 s f 392 0 AVERAGE GRADE PPOP05ED F.F - 392 2', 392.0 42.5 E MO,_lk, VED L_ z GRO55 TOTAL 3,508 s f + GG .f. DrCK, Lf) 39 N 4 Z >1 D BUILDING #C HEA17ED SPACE UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PER FLOOR BUILDING #G A 392 0 2.0 5TAMPfD CONCREr let FLOOR 437 5 f 1, 192 s f - GARAGE I.G29 s f B 392 0 ALLOWED MAX HEIGHT = 422.125' 1 7 1 2rId FLOOR I,G35 s.f I.G35 5 f C 392 5 PROP05ED MAX HEIGHT = 421 7G' 0 3rcl FLOOR 1,7 17 s f 1,717 s f D 392 0 392 125 A /IfRAGE GRADE PROP05ED F.F 392 3. z 'A F I EX15TING TREE T 1. 24'-4%& BE REMOVED F IF < LL_ TOTAL 3,759 S f 1, 192 f 4.981 s f - u) LLJ GRO55 TOTAL 4,981 s f + GG e.f. DECKS 0 - NI %t 105 1, 1 U4 -, ozo BUILDING #7 HEATED SPACE I St FLOOR 573 s f 2rId FLOOR 1,713 f UNHEATED SPACE 1, 140 s f - GARAGE TOTAL PER FLOOR 1,713 , f 1,713 f BUILDING #7 A 392 0 5 3925 ALLOWED MAX HFIGHT - 423.25' 9 L 394. F. 0 z (J) 5 s C 3940 PROP05ED MAX HEIGHT = 422 92' 1 4 Lu 3r,l FLOOR 1,836 s f 1.83G , f D 394 5 393. e TOTAL 4,122 . f 1, 140 5 f 5.2G2 s f 393 25 AVERAGE GRADE PROP05ED F.r - 393 5' GPO55 TOTAL 5,2G2 s f + 99 5.f. DECKS EXISTING STRUCTURES TO BE! DEMOL15HED TYP z 6 C) J_ - BUILDING #8 HEATED SPACE UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PER FLOOR BUILDING #5 A 393 0 J let FLOOR I � 0 s f 5G5 s I. GARAGE 975 s f� B 393 0 ALLOWED MAX HE]GHT - 423 25' 10, Lu co 2rO FLOOR 95G , f 98G 5 f. C 393 5 PROPOSED MAX ME [GMT - 422 96 291. 0 Ko 3rd FLOOR 98G s f 55G 5 f. D 393 5 393 25 AVERAGE GRADE PROPOSED F.F. - 393.45' 32 o # TOTAL 2,082 5 f 5G5 s f. 2.947 5 1 IRE LA Ac)A I GRO55 TOTAL 2.S47 . f 111) PARKING POLE u T BUILDING #a HEATED SPACE I st FLOOR 303 s f UNHEATED SPACE 1,24r. 5 f -GARAGE TOTAL PER FLOOR 1,549 s.f. BUILDING #9 A 394 0 5 3945 ALLOWED MAX HEIGHT - 424 25' l(o 2ncl FLOOR I,5G I . f - 1,5G I s f c 394 0 PROP05ED MAX HEIGHT = 423 92' t BLIM #;v n 3rd FLOOR ).GO0 , f I'Goo S f D 394 5 394 25 AVERAGE GRADE PROPOSED F.F - 394 4' BL 1 1, 394.1.' F. 123 - 1- 9G.2 EX15TING TREES TO /3, /01 TOTAL 3,4G4 s f 1,246 s f 4.7 10 s f GP055 TOTAL A.7 10 � f + 33 s.f DECKS CD BE REMOVED BUILDING #10 HEATED SPACE UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PER FLOOR BUILDING # 10 A 393 5 I St FLOOR 303 . I. 1,24G s f -GARAGE 1,540 s f 5 3935 ALLOWED MAX HEIGHT - 423 G25' I.D EX15TING TREE TO 2%,1 FLOOR I,5GI ..f 1,5G 1 5 f C 393 5 PROP05ED MAX HEIGHT - 423 33' REMAIN - TYP SHEET TITLE: 3r,4 FLOOR 1,600 5 f I.GOO 5 f 0 3940 393 G25 AVERAGE GRADE PROP05ED F.F - 393 8' t) bt)'07'04" 1 51TE PLAN TOTAL 3,4G4 S f 1,24G f 4,7 10 s.f GROSS TOTAL 4,7 10 s f + 33 a.f. DECKS SCALE: 1"-200-0" 51TE PLAN BUILDING # 1 1 HEATED SPACE UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PER FLOOR BUIUDING#! 1 A 394 5 I t FLOOR 303 sf 1.24G 5 f - GARAGE 1,549 � f B 394 2 ALLOWED MAX HEIGHT = 424 6 2n,i FLOOR 1,5G I s f - 1.5G I of. C 39G.5 PPOP05ED MAX HEIGHT = 424 031 3,1 FLOOR I GOO , f ),GOO , f D 394 1 20OG WA 5TATENREC COMPLIANCIf ENTIRf 51TE LIGHTING 5CHEDULE TOTAL 3,4G4 s f 1,24G s.f 4.7 10 s f GROSS 394 825 AVERAGE GRADE PROPOSE[) F.F. - 394 5' TOTAL 4,7 10 s f BUILDING # 12 HEATED SPACE + 33 s.f. DECKS UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PER FLOOR BUILDING # 12 A 394 5 PROJECT DE5CRlFnON: NEW BUILDING) COMPLIANCE OPTION: LIGHTING POWER ALLOWANCE ..d PRESCRIPTIVE VNELOPE COMPUANcE opnON MARK MANUFACTURER CATALOG NUMBER FIN15H MTG LAMP5 NOI WATTE/DE5CR. NOTES QUANTITY I st FLOOR, I JO5f 8G5 s.f. - GARAGE 975 9 f. 5 3945 ALLOWED MAXNEIGHT =4248' TRADEABLE MAXIMUM AU3:)WEO LIGHTING WATTAGE (EXTrRJOR) FRANrUN IRON WORKS 70732 FRENCH W I GO W INCANDESCENT WALL SCONCE 121 -F u.-D 2nd FLOOR 98G 5 f 98G s.f. C 394 0 PROPOSED MAX HEIGHT - 424.03' LOCATION A�ffiW T A?fA IN UN Pr QUANTITY ALLOWED AREA LAMPS PLUS BFONZE! 3r,A FLOOR 98G f 98G D 39C 2 W�,WAY5 LE55 THAN 10' G34 s S.f. 6- - MAN ENTRANCE 30 W1 LIN FT Or DOOR WIDTH 1. 35 3.150 MURRAY M155 RECIAN TOTAL 2,082 s f 8G5 s.f. 2,947 s f 394 8 AVERAGE! GRADE PROP05ED F.r. - 394.5' OTHER DOORS (MAN) OTHER DOORS (GARAGE) 20 W1 LIN IT Or DOOR WIDTH 2�G' 32 ''GOO 20 W1 LIN FT Or DOOR WIDTH IG, 35 11.200 LAMM PLUS 48207 BRONZE 5 2 GOWINCANDE5CENT 35 GPO55 TOTAL 2,947 , f DAI III 0 FRANF.UN IRON WORKS 70734 FRENCH P I GO W INCANDESCENT BOLLAIRD - 2 TOTAL ALLOWED WATTS 16.564 SCALE: 1'-201-0- BUILDING # 13 HEATED SPACE UNHEATED SPACE TOTAL PER FLOOR, BUILDING # 13 A 394 0 PROP05ED LAMPS FLUS BRONZE 1 MAX 3G' TALL DRAWN: jwjr I st FLOOR 303 of 1,24G s.f -GARAGE 1.549 s f. 5 394.0 AULOWEDMAXHfIGHT =4240 LIGHTING WATTAGE T PTON� NUMBER OF FIXTU"S WATTS / FIXTURE WATTS PROF @ FRANKLIN IRON WORKS 71034 FRENCH BRONZE P, I I I GO W INCANDESCENT POLE LIGHT 12 im ��ft LE55 THAN I C' 52 ro 3, 12005") 2�.l FLOOR 1.5G 1 9 f 1.5r. 1 S I. C 394 0 PPOP05ED MAX HEIGHT - 423 GS LAMPS PLUS , APPROVED: jpijm 3rd FLOOR I.Goo 5 1. I,GOo 5 1. 0 394.0 MAN ENTRANCE OTHER DOORS (MAN) INCANDESCENT 35 120 4,200 INCANDESCENT 32 ro 1,920 - NOTES: W - WALL MOUNTED 5 - SURFACE MOUNTED P - POLE TOTAL 3,464 s I. 1,24G s.f 4,7 10 6,f. 394 0 AVERAGE GRADE PROP0550 r.F. - 394. 1' OTHER DOORS (GARAGE) INCANDESCENT 51 GO 3.OGO 1. ALL TO FURN15HED AND INSTALLED BYCONTRACTOR. Z SHEET 0 GROSS TOTAL 4,7 10 . I. + 33 s.f. DECKS I 5EE A2.0 MIR BUILDING TOTAL PROPOSED WATTS 12,300 UGHTING LIGHTS BE 2. MANUFACTURTR5 SPECIFIED ABOVE CAN BE'OR EQUAL* 0 A- 1 .0 1 u 41 IS> TRAFFIC I NO A SIGNAL LOAD CABINET MONUMENT IN CASE, 0 1-1/2- BRASS DISK WITH PUNCH, TIED 10/2006 FLOW LINE 8* SS E CA238TH STSW S 89-07'05 E_ 50 6 $ (51ROWN OF ROAD 1845.51 I G BASIS OF BEARING ev 0: 5123 b M e 01. to 5128 W W 5505 5606 7ZI— 70NUMENTIN CASE, ED 10/2006. W 5125 G G CONC. SIDEWALK _ST ST 5159 OP. -- ---- - ---- np 10&04! 50.75! .108.04 6- WOOD FENCt 18.04' 4 5126 C S 671'4!26* SIGN 8.C. STOP PARENT PARCEL LEGAL DESCRIPTION: GRAPHI IC� § C-ALE 10 40 of . . ; 1 INCH --� 20 FT. PARCEL A: 5157 411 THE EAST 90 FEET bF-TRACT 1 IN BLOCK 11, HANBURY'S SOUND MEW TRACTS, ACCORDING TO PLATS THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PACE 20, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. N PARCEL B: 0-- I STORY WOOD THOSE PORTIONS OF TRACT 4 AND 5 IN BLOCK 10, HANSBURY'S SOUND VIEW TRACTS, q ASpH4t r ACCORDING TO PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 7 OF PLATS, PAGE 20, RECORDS OF FRAME HOUSE I tCONC. FOUNDATION SNOHOMISH 'COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: + + (A) ALL THAT PORTION OF TRACT 5, BLOCK 10, HANBURY'S SOUND VIEW TRACTS, DESCRIBED .AS FOLLOWS: 11 11Z3 BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST UNE OF SAID TRACT 5 AND THE SOUTHERLY .6---- I . . MARGIN OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. I-W: .3 THENCE SOUTH 51*12' EAST ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN 90.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1810" 15" WEST 238.67 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OS SAID TRACT 5; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE WEST LINE 280.46 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF cli BEGINNING. /30 C, FENCE (6) ALL THAT PORTION OF TRACT 5. BLOCK 10, HANBURY'S SOUND VIEW TRACT, DESCRIBED LOT 2 f—sh AS FOLLOWS: BLOCK 11 LOT 1 1 7777777 THENCE NORTH 8945' EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE 40.00 FEET; I . I I BLOCK 11 RTH 25*57'45" EAST A DISTANCE OF 203.25 FEET TO THE SOUTHERLY MARGIN OF > THENCE NO' .0 1 STORY WOOD > .41 FRAME HOUSE (CONC. FOUNDATION) SECONDARY. STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 -W, 6o THENCE NORTH 51*12' WEST ALONG THE SAID SOUTERLY MARGIN 70.00FEET-, L/ THENCE SOUTH 18*10'15" WEST A DISTANCE OF 238.67 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND 4 ob 5152 THE- POINT OF BEGINNING. (C) ALL THAT PORTION OF TRACT 4 AND 5, BLOCK 10, HANBURY'S MEW TRACTS, DESCRIBED 5153 AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 5,40.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE HANBURYS SOUND SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 5; 1 STORY WOOD E OF 40.00 MEW TRACTS FRAME HOUSE /Y THENCE NORTH 89*45' EAST ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE OF TRACT 5 A DISTANd it I --i I i9 ASphf4 FEET, �� / CONC. FOUNDATION� C> THENCE NORTH 36*44'20" EAST. A DISTANCE OF 173.08 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY I 0� 3 "n I C:) Z MARGIN OF SECONDARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1-W, SIGN z THENCE NORTH 51*12' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY MARGIN 70 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25*57'45" WEST A DISTANCE OF 203.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. DECID, 0 EXCEPT PORTION CONVEYED -TO STATE OF WASHINGTON, UNDER AUDITOR'STILE NO. 2220832. LOT 5 12"AP. BLOCK 10 ALL SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. -6 OF VERT1ICAL DATUM: 53 41 TEMPORARY BENCH MARK ELEV.= 394.37' PARENT PARCEL SET PK NAIL IN ASPHALT SIDEWALK, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE I STORY WOOD OF EDMONDS WAY, WEST OF THE FIRE HYDRANT. #00463301.000402 t FRAMEHOUSE I TION :j (CONC.FOUNDA 55o5O2 S.F. REFERENCE BENCH MARK. YARD DRAIN NAM) 88 RIM 392.02 1.27 ACRES- POINT*ID: 1880 1 - IE 391.42 OUT E 4� DESIGNATION: GP31099-80 ELEV.= 431.99' THE MARK IS A WSDOT BRASS DISK CEMENTED INTO A DRILL HOLE IN + THE SOUTHWEST END OF THE WESTERLY CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND LEVEL. WITH SURROUNDING SURFACE. SURVEYOWS NOTM- 1-BASIS OF BEARINGFOR THIS SURVEY IS C/L 238TH ST SW AS DECY, i-L.FN -jvr%vr_1 I STOR',' D "_ I I r 11 1 FRAME HOUSE 2-EQUIPMENT- (CONC. FOJNDATION) 5- TOTAL STATION USED (ALL PHASES). ALL EQUIPMENT MAINTAINED IN ADJUSTMENT TO MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIO NS. EASTING BUILDING 2*F. 3-PROCEDURES: FIELD TRAVERSE BALANCED BY METHOD OF LEAST SQUARES. '24*,C. TRAVERS CLOSURE MEETS OR EXCEEDS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCEWITH WAC 332-130. REFERENCES: 1-HANSBURYS SOUND MEW TRACTS, VOL. 7 OF PLATS, PAGE AGE SHED 20, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. 5367 4 F. ST 2-�-RECORD OF SURVEY, AUDITORS FILE NO. 200608185004, 3 'flE_,BuLKjqE4CL RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.' RAILROAD) ..... S 89-07'04' 3-SHORT PLAT, VOL. 1 OF SHORT PLATS, PAGE 36-37, 170.00' RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. THIS MAP REPRESENTS SITE CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED 10-2006 loom" A01% "S UR VE Y I uP-u(;RAPH1C- For ion of the NW Qu&ter 'of the'SW Quarter* Secti.on 31., Township 27 Nbrth, Range 4. East, W.M.' Snohomish County, Washington 5007 RISER LOT 4 BLOCK 10 CL co Q RECEIVED cu 11% co cu NOV — 6 2007 BUILDING DEPT. 0 N cu STREET FILE COPYRIGHT @ 2006� D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC. zi z >_ , V_ 0 Lu 3: '. 8 0) L� z Lu 3: Lj z z CL 5 z 0 3: c!) U- 000 0 LLJ cl) 0 z 0 C:) ce) uj > W uj z < Lj U) Is- C41 W > LL1 W co (1) LU o 0 C) L0 0) D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 10604 NE�38th PLACE, SUITE 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 425.827.3063 OFFICE 800.962.1402 TOLL FREE 425.827.2423 FAX www.drstrang.com =0* I z 0 DRAFTED BY. EJS FIELD BOOK: 178A PROJEbT SURVEYOR'- WBR DATE: 12.28.06 PROJECT NO.: 06319.300 SHEET 1 OF 2 SIGNAL LOAD CABINET �tp 5449 MONUMENT IN CASE, 2* IRON PIPE WITH PUNCH, 1.0-BEWOW SURFACE, TIED 10/2 5448 44b 47 TRAFFIC ISLAND 5505 SIGNAL LO CABINET sss w SS SW S 89*07'05" E 56 ro .1845.51 CROWN OF ROA� BASIS OF BEARING 5123 Gv b Lm T DI. w tl 5124 5125 CON'C. SIDEWALK T_ ST (n np-.- 4 OP. np 5128 5007 LEGEND.- ----------- STORM/SEWER LEGEND: Z� SITE BENCH MARK MONUMENT IN CASE (AS NOTED) CB 5123 CB 5158 RIM 391.63 TYPE 11' IE 39D.58 OUT S 12" CPEP RIM 391.32 STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN IE 386.32 CHANNEL CS 5124 (PARALLEL TO HIGHWAY, @ STORM DRAIN. MANHOLE RIM 392.29. CANNOT MEASURE DOWN IE'S) (UNABLE TO OPEN, SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE BOLT STRIPPED) CB 5341 RIM 391.83 C8 5125. IE 390.23 IN/OLIT W CPEP 0 SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT RIM 391.9Q IE 389.93 IN W&S 10 CPEP CI3 5367 FIRE HYDRANT fE 389.82 OUT E le DI RIM 3k.27 IE 390.37 IN/OUT-12� CPEP SDMH 5126 WATER METER RIM 392.22 CS 5385 IE 387.67 IN S 12* CONC' RIM 394.07 WATER VALVE IE 387.62 OUT E 3V IE 391.97 IN S IT CPEP IE 391.90 OUT 12* CPEP CB 5127 POWER POLE RIM 392.23 CB 5447 IE 387.60 IN W 12� D1 RIM 391.14 IE 387.60 IN N 12* CPEP IE 389.44 OUT NE 12' DI GUY WIRE IE 387.60 IN E 18" CPEP IE 387.23 OUT S 12* CPEP CB 5448 RIM 391.20 GAS VALVE CI3 5128 IE .389,20 IN SW 12* 01 RIM 391.78 IE 389.05 OUT NE 8' DI IE 390.16 OUT S 127 CPEP ROCKERY CS 5129 - b8 5449 TYPE 11 W/GRATE RIM 392.24 - RIM 390.95 IE 388.24 IN S 12� CONC IE 384.95 24" CHANNEL ROAD SIGNAGE IE 387.09 IN W IT CPEP IE 386.89 OUT E IT CONC CB 5504 TYPE 11 C8 5152 RIM 390.49 RIM 393.71 IE 385.49 OUT SW 2r 0 12" DECIDUOUS TREE IE 390.01 IN W 12* CONC CB 5563 - IE 389.26 OUT NVILY IT CONC RIM 393.42 CB*5153 IE 385.42 (UNKNOWN SIZES) RIM 392.62 CI3 5554 (FULL OF DEBRIS) RIM 397.26 7W EVERGREEN TREE CS 5157 IE W6.86 (UNKNOWN SIZES) 12" RIM 390.87. (DEBRIS IN STRUCTURE) P UNDERGROUND POWER T UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE OP OVER HEAD POWER w UNDERGROUND WATER LINE FENCE LINE (AS NOTED) UNDERGROUND GAS LINE - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - SEWER ASBUILT PER DOCUMENT FROM OLYMPIC MEW WATER DISTRICT SIDE SEWER INSTALLATION, NO. 10-20800 CONCRETE PATIO 0 UPO GRAPHIC S UR VE Y A Portion of -Ahe NW Quarter of the SW Quarter Section 31, Townshi 27 -Ncrth, Range 4. Eas't W.M. p Snohomish County, Washington ----------- 14 5506 M ME CASE, ON 10 "T IN CROWN OF ROAD <10 /2006 SIGNAL LOAD CABINET w w __ __ 11% 11 14 5158 50.75 671426" E 6� Q0 5157 '(4, SSMH 5006 RIM 391.92 111385.42 IN S 87 PVC 111385.22 IN W 8" PVC X, IE 385.12 OUT E 8" PVC SSMH 5007 RIM 391.27 IE 384.27 IN W & SE 8" PVC IE 384.17 OUT NW 8" PVC SSMH 5008 RIM 395.23 IE 388.28 IN SE W PVC IE 388.18 OUT NW e PVC SSMH 5505 RIM 390.46 9 SSMH 5506 RIM 390.93' TRAFFIC ISLAND 5152 5153 0 Is". !Al HANBURYS SOUND. MEW TRACTS TBM: PK NAIL WITH WASHER ELEV. = 394.37' 4� 5008 z w 0 Z LLJ U) Lu U_ Q 0 :i z (L 5 z 0 Uj v 0 U_ C� 0 d Uj U) 0 z 0- 0 cr) Uj w Ld z < N X) La. Op _j Uj > Ld > LJJ (0 0) LU .6 0 0 C:� L0 0) 5554 CL 00 CY) C9 C> u cu RECEIVED Nov - 6 Zoo/ c" BUILDIMG DEPT. o 0 0 N CDP COPYRIGHT @ 2006� D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC: D.R. STRONG CONSULTING ENGINEERS ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 10604 NE 38th PLACE, SUITE 101 KIRKLAND, WA 98033 425.627.3063 OFFICE 800.962.1402 TOLL FREE 425.827.2423 FAX www.drstwn6.com - - - - - - - - - - 8 ST I I /'�sll -IT Z4_tL_0_l PIRES: 03 DRAFTED BY: EJS FIELD BOOK - 178A PROJECT SURVEYOR: WBR DATE: 12.28.06 PROJECT NO.: 06319.30 0 SHEET 2 OF 2 - - - - - - - - - - 8 ST I I /'�sll -IT Z4_tL_0_l PIRES: 03 DRAFTED BY: EJS FIELD BOOK - 178A PROJECT SURVEYOR: WBR DATE: 12.28.06 PROJECT NO.: 06319.30 0 SHEET 2 OF 2 cQ4,71MY AA el� u