Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit 6627 - Gateway North - Building 7 Shell
6627 90-368 gateway north building 7 3515 south 116th street GATEUJM 'y )0sR7 BLDG. 7 B (kg-7 CITY OF T UKWILA 6200 SOUTNCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 21, 1991 Mr. Robert Hart Project Manager Bedford Properties, Inc. 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 107 Seattle, WA 98168 RE: Gateway North - Request for Extension of Building Permit Dear Mr. Hart: In response to the above referenced letter a 180 day extension, computed from the expiration date of December 10, 1991, is hereby granted for City of Tukwila Building Permit #6627. Please be aware that under the provisions of the Uniform Building Code no further extensions can or will be granted. If work authorized by this permit does not commence before June 10, 1992, permit #6627 will become null and void. Sincerely, DA4P Building Official PIIONE N (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor November 12, 1991 Mr. Duane Griffin City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Parkway Seattle, WA 98188 RE: Gateway North - Bldg 7 Permit Extension #6627 Dear Duane, We request a 180 day extension for the Bldg No. 7 Permit (Permit No. 6627 issued 6- 10 -91). As you are aware, the Real Estate climate and the Nation's economy has changed dramatically over the last year. Tenants are consolidating their operations, spending less, and delaying major commitments such as relocations. Banks and other lenders have also changed the procedures which make speculative development prohibitive. In fact Bldg 7 might be the last speculative project built in the forseeable future. The lease -up process for the existing buildings ( Bldgs 2 & 4, Bldgs 5 & 6) has been slower than originally projected. However, progress has been steady and we have recently signed several tenants. Financing is also committed from the Bank. Based on lease -up and finance requirements we could commence construction in January or February. However, a Spring start would avoid weather- related problems with the construction. Please call me at 241 -1103 if you require additional information. Robert Hart Project Manager Bedford Properties, Inc. A Diversified Real Estate Development and Management Company BLJFORL7 PROPER cS 0 irmy . NOV 14 1991 Gip( Uf'; Y1 U'o,t , IVtLA 12720 Gateway Drive Telephone Suite 107 206/241 -1103 Seattle; Washington Fax 98168 206124'I -2191 • • . - • • 1. •: III - 1 : 1 • , year 1988 SETBACKS: N _ S - E - UTILITY PERMITS REQUIRED? U Yes 0 No BAR/LAND USE CONDITIONS? 0 Yes W- (through Public Worksl 50 No FIRE PROTECTION: xQSprinklers 0 D etectors 0 N/A ZONING: CONDITIONS (other than those noted on or attached to permit/plans) ADDRESS P.O. Box 33978, Seattle, WA ZIP 98133 WA. ST. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE # SSGCO *24918 Li- ARCHITECT David Kehle, Architect e. . . •rr� .. Bedford Properties . ��� . 241 -1103 ADDRESS 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 107, Seattle, WA ZIP 98168 CONTRACTOR SSG Corp. PHONE 367 -9393 ADDRESS P.O. Box 33978, Seattle, WA ZIP 98133 WA. ST. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE # SSGCO *24918 EXP. DATE 5/92 ARCHITECT David Kehle, Architect PHONE 433 - 8997 ADDRESS 12878 Interurban Avenue South, Seattle, WA ZIP 98168 CITY OF TUKWILA Dept. of Community Development - Building Division 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 BUILDING PERMIT NO. SITE ADDRESS PROJECT NAME/TENANT Gateway North Bldg 7 TYPE OF () New Building U Addition U Tenant Improvement (commercial) U Demolition (building) WORK: 0 Rack Storage 0 Reroof 0 Remodel (residential) 0 Other: DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE: New tilt -up concrete office /warehouse building (shell only). CODE • COMPLIANCE USE>. SQUARE FEET TOTAL: .............. ................. OCC. SQUARE OCC. SQUARE OCC. LOAD FEET LOAD FEET LOAD SQUARE FEET OCC. SQUARE OCC. TOTAL LOAD FEET LOAD SQUARE FEET TOTAL OCO, LOAD APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE BY: I hereby certify that I have read and examined this permit and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of lair and ordinances governing this work will be complied with, whether specified herein or not. The granting of this permit does not presume to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of any other state or local laws regulating construction or the performance of work. I am authorized to sign for and obtain this building permit. SIGNATURE: PRINT NAME: CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY NO. 3515 S 116 St BU1LD1I' PERMIT (POST WITH INSPECTION CARD AND PLANS IN A CONSPICUOUS LOCATION) DESCRIPTION:; BUILDING: :: •••• PLAN:CHECK >FEE i> BUILDING: :SURCHARGE €; :;< :E ANNO TOTAL - F E ES ':3 1,966':00 RCPT: #:<:: MEM 8 27-90 . Buramtramen PLAN CHECK NO.: 90 -368 SUITE # BUILDING OFFICIAL VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION - $ 828,044.00 ASSESSOR ACCOUNT # 102304 -9012 DATE: o (-14/4- COMPANY: p� 7=,=• L' DATE: /C ? ( U Grading/Fill s permit shall`bec ©me null and; : d ,lf the work nit commenced w�thln 80 days, fr the da of issuance, or if the : work is suspended or abandoned fora period of: 180 days :;from`: the last inspection '. DATE ISSUED: PERMIT NO. - CONTACTED ^ ' DATE READY DATE NOTIFIED I B PERMIT EXPIRES 2nd NOTIFICATION BY: (Init.) AMOUNT OWING 3RD NOTIFICATION BY: BUILDIN6 - PERMIT APPLICATION TRACKING PLAN CHECK NUMBER INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF • Contacts with applicants or requests for information should be summarized in writing by staff so that any time the status of the project may be ascertained. • Plan corrections shall be completed and approved prior to sending on to the next department. • Any conditions or requirements for the permit shall be noted on the plans or summarized concisely in the form of a formal letter or memo, which will be attached to the permit. • Please fill out your section of the tracking chart completely. Where information requested is not applicable, so note by using "N /A ". BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE/OCCUPANCY INFORMATION (to be filled out by Plan Checker) TOTAL M9J:111111 TOTAL DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW "X" In box indicates which departments need to review the project. ki PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS 0 OTHER g BUILDING - final review (1 311,1 ate Sent - Date .. roved - ROUTED Ct.-5-. FIRE PROTECTION: Sprinklers [l Detectors • N/A FIRE DEPT. LETTER DATED: —Co -- (A) INSPECTOR: 5 3 = N -6p /2/Nk , 4QED BAR/LAND USE CONDIYIONS? [ 1Yoz. MINIMUM SETBACKS: N- S- 11 ITY PER ITS REQUIRED? I Yes �No UF'1C EDmON (year): 9, friel REVIEW COMPLETED PROJECT NAME L SITE ADDRESS E NO. TOTAL SITE ADDRESS . I SUITE # VALUE OF CONSTRUCTI - $ `fS @% , CLN PROJECT D NAME/TENANT v' d ; I •• FA NO' I l 2I ricl ASSESSOR ACCOUNT # 4f,tro ,g 1 ce3cY1 -101'2. - r TYPE OF New Building Addition Tenant Improvement (commercial) U Demolition (building) WORK: ❑ Rack Storage ❑ Reroof ❑ Remodel (residential) ❑ Other: DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE: ti Ni 1 ht,i2 C� 02CI k;X i ibl l-1cl - 1 11 at i LI BUILDING USE (office, warehouse, etc.) ticsi 1,1 Uft 4 Iu elt-1 NATURE OF BUSINESS: 7 4 `_, 01,+ WILL THERE BE A CHANGE { ^'�^ IN USE? I (J(` No U Yes IF YES, EXPLAIN: {,/� SQUARE FOOTAGE - Building: %427f,2 Tenant Space: --- Area of Construction:6/ , WILL THERE BLS TORAGE OR USE OF FLAMMABLE, COMBUSTIBLE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE BUILDING? ICJ No ❑ Yes IF YES, EXPLAIN: PROPERTY OWNER 0 b, w gL4 fi�001 l ? PHONE / ADDRESS I/4 t) P' , .. i?.i rre ki7 // , 1 tub ZIPQ ( ..Ali 'CONTRACTOR WI, et , PHONE ' ( 07'(imJ ADDRESS pOO, lkX i3 1j? r l r' I W� ZIP el .I WA. ST. CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE #,��,�C.w,) ik /4.-1 \,1�) EXP. DATE H, Vi ct i ARCHITECT .4i D ,,t-I Ilt PHONE j3. : 7 ADDRESS is, 1' Eutie hi-I4 f , ,%, Vtk- . t0), a ZIP j( CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development - Building Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 (206) 433 -1 849 APPLICATION MUST BE DATE APPLICATION ACCEPTED co BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION FEES (for staff use only) DESCRIPTION BUILDING PERMIT: FEE PLAN: CHECK FEE BUILDING SURCHARGE ENERGY SURCHARGE AMOUNT RCPT .# DATE mod► ` ms. NENNESSIMESSINIMIIII aintlEM APPLICATION SUBMITTAL In order to ensure that your application is accepted for plan review, please make sure to fill out the application completely and follow the plan submittal checklist on the reverse side of this form. Handouts are available at the Building counter which provide more detailed information on application and plan submittal requirements. Application and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. VALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION Valuation for new construction and additions are calculated by the Department of (omminity nevelopm9nt prior to application submlal. Contact the Permit Coordinator at 133 - 1951 prior to submitting application. In all cases, a valuation amount should be entered by the applicant. This figure will be reviewed and is subject to possible revision by the Building Division to comply with current fee schedules. BUILDING OWNER / AUTHORIZED AGENT If the applicant is other than the owner, registered architect/engineer, or contractor licensed by the State of Washington, a notarized letter from the property owner authorizing the agent to submit this permit application and obtain the permit will be required as part of this submittal. EXPIRATION OF PLAN REVIEW Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitations: The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the applicant as defined in Section 304(d) of the Uniform Building Code (current edition). No application shall be extended more than once. If you have any questions about our process or plan submittal requirements, please contact the Department of Community Development Building Division at 433-1849. DATE APPLICATION EXPIRES ......,... • . . . FtACK•A* • • ••••••• • • • Completed building permit apptfcation 8ullcng floor plan shcin . . SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST Structural c ' °PP! s' stem .. .. • .. . .. . .. • ••• • •••. • • • ••• •••• • •• RESIDENTIAL . . . . . . NEW ............................................................................................................ r_1 Legal deSCIptIOn .. • , . ; . • •: .„:. : COMMERCIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENTS; Completed building permit 'application" (ond, for each structure or *ictsior Two (2) setS of con struotf on plans which include ' • " ••••'•••••••••••:•",:"•••••••••:,::: •:: ::.:: • 1 1 • • Locabon of tenant space • Existing and proposed parking •••,,,,:::::::::::::::.••',..., Ctv -,T,,ijr.:,,.,, ,.:•••.i.,:• •:..;,kiotitio!1,,..,..... ( wall) : _ : or square omit.-- :bulic177...:7;.;::::::::'4.::::,,,•5:::.:,::::"...t:::::::',:.'""'":''.ter!,11:iciiiigge,,,,,:,...:„...., :...:.,..„. :,.... .„.. frin:, toctsi::: .:TE)IrT.idjaceil!1.: 6:of ,141.41q.P9:.....• ',.Retioe:91idt"!!..:r.:'•:•::',i.::'''''iiiitiP0„,:""":E':::::::iiiii:00 ...:....,.....71............:;:•:,ii...iiii.,:iite!"!"F1,:...r.c.,,7,:•:•:.„::•,,,:::::::: ...,;,4:::::: :','..:.........1.,!....i. ........:„.„,:::„.•:.crp:sa :.81?1tiient,fpr....,.... ,::.,:,,..„,,,•••••,,,,ii....:',.:ii. 0;;;hith. 1:0i$9.tc.bli'a?9,..1:,':::::;::':::-.:.._•_::...i..,::::::::.;..:,:::.,::::1 ...c.::::Nt*I :::eY:tc..:9...Fina411:::?' :..!.:,,,,..,..J•''..'....'''..Pd.:'...,‘$'1,'-)d.::'...,:s,'.ii.....,,,,:,,t::..s,,r.:,s:a,,g:':::..thp,.,:,:::,3:.::i:i;!,,fr„:•'...m.'i'..::..:7:g....';,..',...,':..:,,::.,:„'s':':.:'n'oi'..':,::'ar: Structu '::'..::.s':,...:''l.:.ii:.:.,„.7..,,....„:.'c,:(gr:::„.'r,a,..:',:':,,.::',..:;..:',,.:.,„',,,,,,,,,:,'I':i:,:.:-.,, ..,.:.;:. aii,,,oi'...0 :ofdi.::::::.:::::.::::: trPiitirmp!...,:......-....,..„,:•:,::::iii 4 ',#■?,, ,„...,:.•,.••::,,,4::„...i::::::::::::.,:::.••• •• : 0 Pd‘,:::00. IV991:::::::••:::._ ,••'''';':.:::::*•.;iiii.0.0#,?.?..f,:,„;::::::::::::,:-... . ...'•...... • '•• "."' c s ta mpe d if tTt!...::,:,.::::::•...::::::.:::,:::.,:iiiiii,',!'../.!.t.q„..::: . -... . , . : . .. ,... i •,:: : :: :ii:P PC:f?,! . .:.,'.:I.f'.,:7„..: .... 'ant ' '1 ..... . . .. , .... . :•:,:tYPTE,_ ___',i•laft...**1.:P.!.::;.:y::•:::•:•:':'':- .. . . :- .. • till* W.F,:,::•.:.,:::::::::::.::•:::::::„::,:":•:,:.::::•:;::: ...•••• • • . ... . . • • HEROOF II Completed buIlng •• perm app u ca tlon ••••:•:.:•.-.,•••••• • J Assessor Account Number Two (2) sets of plans wfiich IncLute Site Plan (showinU bulldng and locatton of antenna/satellite dish) • . so. .. • ... : • Stru ctural calculations stamped by a Washington State licensed 4000.•.00 t11 " •••••,..,•••••••••••••••:•:.: RESIDENTIAFIEIAOL>EL Completed bulldlnp pemtit application (one for each ••• • • • •••• • •-•" sitUOttite Two (2) sets of working drawings, which Include Site plan • Foundation plan • Roof plan 'BuIlng elevations tall views) • Structural framin9 plans • ....... . • •••• : •• • , ••• oi ••••• •:•• • • .. • .• . NpTe If ory.. and plans must 0:0 • • •••• • UTILITY PROJECT TRACKING CHECK( T Control# 90 -368 SITE ADDRESS 3515 S 116 St Project Description New Building (Warehouse) PROPERTY OWNER Bedford Properties Address 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 107, CONTRACTOR SSG Corporation Address P.O. BOx 33978, Seattle, WA -CONTACT PERSON Don Bolmelle Address 18215 72nd Avenue South, Kent, WA ROUTING DATE PLANS RECEIVED 8 - 27 - 90 Site Utility 8 - 27 - 90 PERMITS REQUIRED TYPE OF REVIEW PERMITS PERMIT # ❑ Channelization /Striping/ Signing ❑ Curb Cut /Access /Sidewalk C1 Excavation (public) ❑ Fire Loop /Hydrant ❑ Flood Zone Control • Hauling E] Landscape Irrigation ❑ Moving an Oversized Load E] Sanitary Side Sewer ❑ Sewer Main Ext. (private) ❑ Sewer Main Ext. (public) Q Storm Drainage ❑ Water Main Ext. (private) ❑ Water Main Ext. (public) ❑ Water Meter (exempt) Size: No. ❑ Water Meter (permanent) Size: No. EJ Water Meter (temporary) Size: No. ❑ Other ❑ Other CONDITIONS OF PERMIT ISSUANCE OR FINAL SIGN -OFF OF PROJECT FINAL PWD SIGN -OFF APPROVAL (signature) (PW.UTILTRK) PROJECT Gateway North Bldg 7 Square Footage 37,485 Phone 241 -1103 Seattle, WA Zip 98168 Phone Z 3 DATE ROUTED DATE PLANS DATE RESUB. TO PWD APPROVED REQUESTED COMMENTS p 98133 Phone2514222 Zi.p 98032 APPROVED CONDITIONS PLAN /LETTER DATE ISSUED DATE FINAL Yes / No ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Date CITY OF TUKWILA CENTRAL PERMIT SYSTEM ENGINEERING DIVISION 6200 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 (206) 433-Q179 SITE ADDRESS e1,.2 PROPERTY OWNER ADDRESS It ENGINEER ADDRESS CONTRACTOR ADDRESS NAME ADDRESS CITY, ZIP PHONE (32 /W1.UTILAPP) ' l' / flLHh abl /fib NAME OF PROJECT 4 ft4I . ,Ali " rd i<r z is 1 2 , / 7 ) 'l Duplex Hotel IN PERMITS REQUESTED 1 Sewer Main Extension (private) Sewer Main Extension (public) Water Main Extension (private) Water Main Extension (public) Excavation (in public right -of -way) Fire Loop /Hyd.(main to vault) No: Sizes: Landscape Irrigation Sanitary Side Sewer No: Water Meter - Permanent: No: Sizes: Meter Address (if different from site address) • Water Meter - Temporary: No: Sizes: • Water Meter - Exempt: No: Sizes: Meter Address (if different from site address) WATER METER DEPOSIT /REIMBURSEMENT WATER METER BILLING MONTHLY SERVICE BILLINGS TO: Q water Q sewer (J metro NAME ADDRESS DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT O Single Family Residential [ j Multiple Dwelling: No. units Triplex Apartments Applicant /Authorized Agent (signature) (print name) Contact Person (print name) Address I5zi(1:2 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA AUG 2 7 1990 PERMIT CENTER UTILITY PERMIT APPLICATION (please print) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION NAME ADDRESS CITY, ZIP PHONE ["Commercial /Industrial: Office [v�Warehouse Retail School /College /University Church Other Motel Other MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION New Building: Square footage Remodel /Addition: Square footage o or g nal building space Square footage of additional building space King County Assessor's valuation of existing structures $ Valuation of work to be done $ CONTROL # CIO `31n. 5c l'iouVad with BIt( Pemi PHONE ' .- 1N5 ZIP 4 12:406 PHONE WI - !7222, ZIP �p PHONE '.03A ZIP! %7S Curb Cut /Access /Sidewalk Channel1zation /Striping /Signing Hauling Moving an Oversized Load Storm Drain Flood Zone Control Other 1 standby a Condominiums PHONE ZIP Hospital Manufacturing D KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. DATE ( 6 - Q1 -90 PHONE PHONE I- &0z22. bUf�, ZIP y 80'32. All site plans shall be provided in one submittal for review by the Public Works Department. Six (6) sets (copies) of plans stamped by a licensed engineer are required. Plans are to be submitted to the Permit Center where they will be routed to Public Works. The following information is necessary for Public Works Department eva- luation and approval of site plans: 1. Sanitary Sewer A. Type of pipe - concrete, transite, etc. B. Size of pipe C. Percent of slope on pipe, length of run D. Number and type of fixtures to be serviced E. Connection points F. Location of cleanouts G. Type of bedding material - if required H. Invert elevations 2. Storm Sewer (include existing topography and proposed grading and surfacing) A. Type of pipe B. Size of pipe C. Percent of slope, length of run D. Connect point E. Location of structures F. Square footage of area to be drained, including roof area G. Bedding material if required H. Invert elevations 3. Water Mains A. Type of pipe B. Size of pipe C. Hydrant type and locations, if on a city main D. Valve type and locations E. Connection point F. Type of connection - live tap, tee, etc. G. Location and size of thrust blocking H. Size and location of mains, including elevations (profile) 4. Parking Areas I1Y'Oi: TUKWILA Public Works Requirements A. Type of surfacing - asphalt, crushed rock, etc. B. Percent of slope or runoff direction C. Location and size of curb cuts D. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic facilities, including signing and striping, wheel chair ramps, curb cuts. 5. Domestic Water A. Type of pipe - cooper, galvanized, etc. B. Size of pipe C. Number and type of fixtures D. Size of meter - 1 ", 1} ", etc. E. Location and elevation of meter box F. Location and size of tap After the Public Works Department has completed their review and the plans are approved, the applicant will be notified by letter of necessary per- mits and requirements; an approved set of plans will accompany the letter. If the plans are not approved the applicant will be notified by letter of necessary resubmittal requirements. All required permits are obtained through Department of Community Development at 433 -1851. Utility Inspectors Water and Sewer (433 -1860) Street (433 -1850) TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: d. Pey '-\- P Chi. (10/T2.MEMO) City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (206) 433-1800 Gary L. VanOusen, Mayor 1- � (Sh_011 c� 1\u us-t- Icict o Codc..5 G odaw for th v o v .e, Of Cor truth ors W Q ho) ���u. T - M 3 - 7) s,' x QQ •oq ‹Ga(so oy 4.00 MEMORANDUM o 0 a. q (Db,00 �i,5a 1 41 So Geo -1.; :.,,• , ,ii,',- , • • „ • + L., REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PROPOSED SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOR BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. rinrE@ROVE " ;!...P 1 1 1990 MAHAN & DESALVO, INC. D. (206) 746.5200 Fax. (206) 746.5068 2405 140th Ave. N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005 Bedford Properties, Inc. c/o Kidder, Mathews & Segner 12886 Interurban Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98168 Attention: Mr. Joseph S. Layman Regional Manager — Vice President We are pleased to submit our "Report, Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Seagate Development, King County, Washington." You provided written authorization for these services in a letter accompanying a signed copy of our proposal dated August 28, 1987. The scope of our services was outlined in our proposal letter dated August 26, 1987. We previously presented our "Report, Preliminary Geotechnical Studies, Rosatto Butler Site, East Marginal Way South and SR 599, King County, Washington," dated August 13, 1987, for this property. At your request, we have forwarded copies of this report to the parties indicated below. We appreciate this opportunity to be of further service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any questions regarding this report or other aspects of the project. We look forward to assisting you during the detailed design and construction phases of the Seagate project. JKT:cs File No. 1199 -02 -1 November 24, 1987 Yours very truly, J'. Tuttle incipal GeoE :ineers, Inc. 6 0f4-- cc: Mr. Gerald Kirkpatrick /BCI General Contractors Mr. Steve Gwinn /SSG Corporation GeoEngineers Incorporated Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists INTRODUCTION SCOPE SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS T A B L E O F CONTENTS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 GENERAL 6 SITE PREPARATION 7 FILL PLACEMENT 8 PRELOADING 10 FOUNDATION SUPPORT 11 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 12 RETAINING WALLS 13 PAVEMENT DESIGN 13 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS 14 RIVERBANK STABILITY AND SETBACK CONSIDERATIONS 15 USE OF THIS REPORT 16 List of Figures Figure No. SITE PLAN 1 APPENDIX A Page No. 1 2 FIELD EXPLORATIONS A -1 BORINGS A -1 DUTCH CONE PROBES A-2 TEST PITS A -2 3 3 4 Page No. GeoEngineers Incorporated TABLE OF CONTENTS (PAGE 2) List of Appendix A Figures Figure No. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM A -1 KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS A -2 LOGS OF BORINGS A -3 thru A -16 LOGS OF DUTCH CONE PROBES A -17 thru A -28 LOGS OF TEST PITS A -29 thru A -34 APPENDIX B LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING B -1 List of Appendix B Figures Figure No. GRADATION CURVES B -1 thru B -2 DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA B -3 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS B -4 thru B -6 Page No. GeoEngineers Incorporated REPORT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PROPOSED SEAGATE DEVELOPMENT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON FOR BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed Seagate Industrial Development along the Duwamish River in King County, Washington. The site is bounded by the Duwamish River, East Marginal Way South, SR 599 Highway and Pacific Highway South. The site is shown, with respect to adjacent features, on Figure 1. Historical data including past site usage were presented in our "Report, Preliminary Geotechnical Studies" dated August 13, 1987. Briefly, the site was primarily used for farming prior to 1970. Three buildings appear to have been erected at the northeast corner of the site in 1978 and have subsequently been removed with the exception of a small timber —frame portion of a building that remains at this time. The site was also actively filled during the late 1970s and early 1980s by a local excavating company under a King County grading permit, as discussed in the aforementioned report. The King County permit dictated that the fill was to consist of earth fill ranging from pit run gravel to clay with some broken asphalt and concrete. The fill was to contain no wood or garbage debris and broken concrete and asphalt was to be mixed with at least 50 percent soil. Since a King County shoreline permit was never obtained, we assume that no filling was accomplished within 200 feet of the river during this grading episode. The president of the earthwork con— tractor indicated most of the fill was soil from various job sites around the Seattle area and that it contained very little concrete, asphalt or other debris. Compaction was limited to dozers spreading the fill and the truck traffic traversing the site. Figure 2 presents a 1976 topographic map obtained from the King County grading file. It appears the earthwork contractor, Boulevard Excavating, Inc., prepared this map prior to filling the site. GeoEngineers Incorporated Neither specific grading nor development plans for the purposed project are available at this time. It is our understanding that one- to two -story concrete tiltup structures are anticipated, some with dock -high floors. Several of the buildings may have gross areas of on the order of 100,000 square feet. Access to the site will be gained from East Marginal Way South near South 116th Street. SCOPE The purpose of this phase of our services is to develop design criteria and performance estimates for the geotechnically- related aspects of the project. Our specific scope of services includes: 1. Exploring subsurface soil and ground water conditions by a series of explorations which includes test borings, Dutch cone probes and test pits. 2. Evaluating pertinent physical and engineering characteristics of the foundation soils from the results of laboratory tests per- formed on samples obtained from the explorations. 3. Evaluating the fill on the site to determine its general state of compaction and to recommend the extent of any reworking which may be needed to provide satisfactory foundation and subgrade support. 4. Evaluating whether or not consolidation of underlying compressible soils under the weight of the fill now in place is complete and estimating the magnitude and rate of settlements which will result from new areal loadings imposed by fill and building loads. 5. Developing foundation design requirements and performance estimates for shallow spread footings for the proposed structures. 6. Providing recommendations for yard area grading and pavement design sections. 7. Evaluating the riverbank stability for the existing conditions and for rapid drawdown conditions following a 100 -year level flood and recommending the need for any reshaping of the slope or revetment work for slope protection. 2 GeoEngineers Incorporated SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is relatively flat and comprises approximately 27.7 acres. The site is devoid of signs of previous occupancy, with the exception of the northeast portion along the Duwamish River. This portion of the site exhibits primarily gravel surfacing as well as some asphalt pavement and a slab -on -grade which remains from a recently removed steel building. The timber -frame office portion of this structure was still in placed as of September 1987. At the west end of the gravel surfaced area, a debris pile, primarily of concrete and wood, exists. The northwest portion of the site supports considerable dense vegeta- tion, including tall grass and deciduous trees. A primitive road enters the property from the south abutment of the Pacific Highway South bridge and follows the top of the Duwamish River bank to the north /south drainage swale entering the property. The northwest portion of the site was apparently not filled during the previously discussed grading period due to the lack of a King County Shoreline Permit. As such, this is generally the lowest area of the site and supports the oldest vegetation. The majority of the remainder of the site is relatively flat or gently sloping as a result of the past grading efforts. Vegetation is in various stages of reestablishment ranging from essentially nonexistent to relatively thick. Significant drainage ditches exist along the perimeter of the site. Another drainage ditch extends in an east -west direction along the south border of the northeast portion of the site (previous Butler Sealant Site). It appears that the drainage is sloped to the north /south drainage swale entering the property at the Duwamish River. The bank of the Duwamish River was observed during the previous study at an Elevation -2.0-foot tide. Thick vegetation exists along the river bank along the top of the slope to about ordinary high tide level, masking surf icial conditions. No significant riprap or erosion protection was observed. The inclination of this portion of the river bank varies from about 1.5H:1V (horizontal to vertical) to near - vertical. Most of the bank is near - vertical to about 1:1. Some localized undercutting of the bank has 3 GeoEngineers Incorporated occurred near the ordinary high tide level. In addition, localized surfi- cial sloughing or slumping has resulted in the movement of blocks of soil and vegetation onto the lower portion of the riverbank which typically is much flatter below mean sea level. The river bank below the ordinary high tide level is devoid of vegeta- tion. Silty fine sand /fine sandy silt is exposed (see sieve analysis results in Appendix B). Considerable concrete, half- buried wood and metal debris exists along this area and is exposed at lower tide levels. Based on visual observations, the slope below the high tide mark to mean sea level, an elevation difference of about 6 feet, varies from near - vertical to about 2H:1V where it continues from about 1H:1V to 3H:1V to the low tide level. We were not able to observe the mudline below the low tide level. However, it appears to flatten out in some areas and continue sloping in others. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions at the site were explored with a program consisting of 5 hollow -stem auger borings, 5 Dutch cone probes, and 15 test pits. The locations of the explorations are shown in the Site Plan, Figure 1. Details of the field exploration program as well as the explor- ation logs are presented in Appendix A. Details of the laboratory testing program are presented in Appendix B. The results of the laboratory program are presented in both appendices, as appropriate. The site is located in the relatively broad alluvial valley of the Duwamish River. Based on review of aerial photography as discussed in our previous preliminary report, it appears that the river location in this particular area has been relatively stable during this century. However, we expect that the river has meandered throughout the valley floor since the last period of continental glaciation resulting in rather rapidly changing subsurface conditions. In addition, most of the site was filled with a considerable depth of waste soils for a period on the order of five to seven years. Figure 2 presents a topographic map that appears to have been prepared by the earthwork contractor prior to this filling episode. The depth of the fill soils varies. The shallowest fill depths, generally on the order of a few feet, are located along the north margin of the property near the Duwamish River. Since a King County Shoreline Permit 4 GeoEngineers Incorporated was not obtained during the recent grading episode, we assume any fill that does exist within 200 feet of the Duwamish River was placed at an earlier date. We would expect the least ground modification due to the effects of filling in the northwest portion of the site. Some regrading was accomplished in northeast portion of the site where the Butler Sealant operation was located. The greatest depth of fill along the north margin was encountered towards the northeast portion of the site where Test Pit 13 encountered 8 feet of fill including car parts, bed springs and miscel- laneous debris. Boring 1 in the same vicinity, encountered silty fine sand with occasional clods of silt, which may also be fill, to a depth of 11 feet. The explorations across the remainder of the site encountered from about 7 to 14 feet of fill. The fill was not penetrated in Test Pits 1, 2 and 8 due to refusal on concrete fragments or difficult digging conditions. The fill soils range from silt to silty sand with gravel (glacial till). With the few exceptions noted on the exploration logs, no significant organics were observed in the fill. Occasionally a 1 -foot layer of organic fill and grass was observed. A limited quantity of debris was noted in the fill. This debris generally consisted of construction materials from building demolitions and included brick, asphalt or concrete fragments less than 2 feet in diameter. Exceptions are Test Pits 1 and 8 where refusal was encountered at depth apparently on large concrete fragments. It appears that some of the material placed at the bottom of the fill may have included considerable debris. This may have been used to aid in "bridging" over the soft native surficial soils. The fill was reportedly placed in an "uncontrolled" manner, i.e., no compactive effort other than by track - rolling with the bulldozer and wheel compaction by the dump trucks. The results of our density tests confirm this condition with compaction varying from about 83 to 88 percent of the maximum dry density based on ASTM D -1557. The top of the fill generally possesses the higher densities, primarily due to desiccation. A decrease in density was noted with depth. The native soils below the fill generally consist of low- density fine - grained materials typical of alluvial depositional environment. The original grass mat was observed in many of the test pits. Toward the 5 GeoEngineers Incorporated Duwamish River, the native soil ranges from a loose fine sand with a variable silt content to a fine sandy silt. More typically, fine sandy silt to clayey silt with variable organic content was encountered below the fill. The organic content was extremely variable from fine - grained soils with a trace of organic matter to peat. The peat was generally observed within the soil matrix rather than as a discrete layer. Discrete layers of organic soils were observed at some locations. The organic layer was encountered roughly from mean sea level to the high tide level. Gray fine or fine to medium sand with a variable silt content was generally encountered below this layer at about mean sea level. This unit • grades to a fine sandy silt and generally extends to between Elevation -35 and -45. An exception was noted in Dutch Cone P -1 where sand extends to approximately Elevation -60. The density is extremely variable ranging from very loose to dense. These more granular strata typically overlie a relatively thick soft clayey silt which was encountered between Elevation - 60 to -74. Medium dense to very dense sands grading to sandy gravel were encountered in the deepest explorations varying between Elevation -60 to- 80. The ground water conditions encountered during our exploration program are indicated on the exploration logs. It should be noted that the explora- tion program was conducted during the late summer /early fall season after a very dry year. Standpipe piezometers were installed in Borings 2 and 5 to provide ground water data for riverbank stability studies. Water levels were subsequently measured at about Elevation +1.0 on September 23, 1987. Fluctuations in the level of the ground water should be expected. We anticipate the levels may be higher during the spring. Due to the random nature of the fill soils, the ground water conditions could also vary locally across the site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL The subsurface conditions across the majority of the site consist of a layer of "uncontrolled" fill soils overlying relatively soft compressible alluvial soils to depths of on the order of 100 feet deep. Most of the consolidation of the compressible soils due to the weight of the existing 6 GeoEngineers Incorporated fill has occurred. However, additional consolidation, both within the existing fill and the native compressible soils will occur when new loads are applied. Based on our analyses, we estimate that from 1 to 3 inches of settlement could occur from typical concrete tiltup building floor and column loads with shallow spread footing and slab -on -grade support at existing grades. Buildings with dock -high floors would be expected to experience larger settlements. Final grades and specific development plans have not been established at this writing. We have assumed that existing grades will not be signi- ficantly changed. We conclude that the planned structures can be supported on shallow- spread footings provided that site preparation work includes excavation of portions of the existing fill and placement of structural fill on which to support footings. Use of a preload program to reduce postcon- struction settlements may be appropriate. It will be beneficial to ac- complish the earthwork phase of construction as far in advance of building construction as practical to maximize the benefits of any preloading. The on -site soils are too fine - grained to be workable during wet weather; there- fore, any grading during the wet season, such as the planned spring startup for the project, will require use of imported granular borrow soils. In light of these considerations, we suggest that dock -high buildings be located in areas where the existing grade is higher and the adjacent areas be cut down to provide dock -high access. This procedure would also reduce settlements and preload requirements. SITE PREPARATION The on -site fill soils consist of moisture- sensitive silts or silty sands such that use of these materials as structural fill will not be possible during wet weather. If earthwork can be completed during the drier summer months, it should be possible to use at least some portion of the existing fill in the structural fill to minimize grading costs. Moisture conditioning of the fill soils should still be expected. Vehicular access is good to the site during the late summer and early fall months due to desiccation at the surface; however, we anticipate that it will be very difficult to operate equipment across the site during wet weather. 7 GeoEngineers Incorporated All trees, brush and vegetation with significant root mass should be removed from building and pavement areas. The depth of stripping will be minimal toward the south portion of the site where vegetation has not reestablished itself significantly. The greater stripping depths will be in the dense brush and tree area towards the northwest corner of the site outside of the area of recent filling. If more than 2 feet of structural fill soil is to be placed in this area, the grass should be cut as short as possible and cuttings removed. The sod can be left in place provided it is on the order of only a few inches thick. If site preparation is performed during wet weather as presently anticipated, stripping should be done using lightweight construction equipment operating on the sod layer. Equipment should be kept off the exposed subgrade surface to avoid disturbance. The subgrade should be evaluated by proofrolling under the observation of a representative from our firm to determine if there are localized areas of soft or deleterious soils which need to be replaced. Proofrolling should not be done in wet weather or when the ground is saturated. Any soft areas should be excavated and replaced with clean pit run borrow as recommended by our representative. Temporary roads will be required for access to construction areas during wet weather. Our experience suggests that 18 to 24 inches of sand and gravel with less than 5 percent fines, crushed rock or quarry spells will be necessary for construction equipment. It may be desirable to place geotextile fabric on the subgrade, especially in soft areas, to minimize mixing of the subgrade and road subbase materials and to reduce pumping and weaving. Due to the quantity of material that may be necessary to construct the haul roads, we suggest the haul roads be placed at permanent road locations wherever possible. Subsequent to construction, adequate weather conditions, and /or any repair work necessary, fine grading and paving could occur. PILL PLACEMENT We recommend that all footings and floor slabs bear on at least 2 feet of structural fill. Depending on finish grades, this may require excavation of existing fill soils beneath footings and /or floor slabs. Especially for dock —high buildings, this procedure should be accomplished prior to placing 8 GeoEngineers Incorporated the preload to reduce the amount of excavation into the structural fill pad after preloading is complete. Care will have to be exercised to minimize subgrade disturbance if this is done during wet weather. Select granular fill with less than 5 percent fines (based on that portion passing the 3/4 inch sieve) will be necessary along with careful control of surface runoff to avoid ponding in the excavations along footing lines. Alterna- tively, the excavation beneath footings could be accomplished subsequent to preloading. This may be preferable if final building foundation plans are not completed prior to earthwork. We recommend that all structural fill placed during wet weather consist of well - graded pit run sand and gravel not exceeding 4 inches of size. The fill should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material. The fines content ( material passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the minus 3/4 inch fraction) should not exceed 5 percent. Preload fill that will be used subsequently for grading yard areas, should also meet this criteria. On- site soils may be used during dry weather if at the proper moisture content and free of organics and other deleterious material. However, the construc- tion schedule should be such that these fills will be protected by a layer of granular fill, paving or floor slabs before the following wet season. If not, these fills could be easily disturbed by any construction activity. Structural fill placed within the foundation, slab or pavement areas should be placed in horizontal lifts 10 inches or less in loose thickness. The initial lift may need to be somewhat thicker and compacted without vibration in .order to reduce the chance of causing pumping in the subgrade soils. Each subsequent lift should be uniformly compacted with vibratory equipment to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with the ASTM D -1557 test method. Where building pads are being prepared prior to preloading, we recom- mend that the fill be placed and compacted to at least the design finished floor elevation to allow for fill settlements. If building grades are near existing site grades, the preload could be placed without any preparatory work for foundation support so that the excavation and replacement with structural fill could be accomplished during the drier summer months. 9 GeoEngineers Incorporated PRELOADING The use of a preload program to reduce postconstruction settlements on a specific building site may be appropriate. This will depend in large part on variations in the thickness of fill required to establish finished floor grade, the time this fill can be left in place before building construction, and the amount of postconstruction settlement which is acceptable. Further information on finished floor grades and projected earthwork and building construction schedules is needed to evaluate the need for preloading. If a preload program is considered necessary, we recommend that the building areas be preloaded with one foot of fill for each 100 psf of design floor load. This fill surface should extend at least 5 feet beyond the footprint of each building and then slope down at the natural angle of repose. If future building additions are contemplated, the full height of fill (for the structural pad and the preload) should be extended at least 30 feet beyond the initially planned building footprint in the area of possible expansion. This fill is in addition to any fill required to bring building sites to design grades. Since plans are in the preliminary stages at this time, we recommend we be provided the opportunity to review the final plans with respect to an appropriate preloading program. The preload fill need be compacted only enough to provide trafficability. Fill settlements are expected to be variable due to the irregular deposition of compressible soils and the difference in existing fill thicknesses across the building areas. If existing grades are not significantly changed, we expect that 1 to 3 inches of settlement could occur from a 300 psf floor load. A relatively deep east /west ditch exists between the Butler. Sealant property and the rest of the site. This area has been only nominally preloaded with respect to the existing fill depth around the ditch. Therefore, if a building footprint crosses the ditch, a specially configured preload fill is anticipated in this area to reduce differential settlements. In order to evaluate the magnitude and rate of fill settlements, we recommend that several settlement monitoring plates be installed prior to placing any fill in the building areas. An example of a suitable settlement plate and a description of monitoring procedures are presented in Figure 3. 10 GeoEngineers Incorporated We will recommend appropriate settlement plate locations once building locations, dimensions and elevations are established. Initial elevation readings of the settlement plates must be obtained as soon as they are set and before any fill is placed. The elevations of the plates should then be determined twice each week during filling so that settlement progress in relation to the amount of fill in place can be defined. Relatively thick compressible strata were observed at many of the exploration locations. We expect that it may take on the order of six to eight weeks for a majority of the settlement to occur. We recommend that readings be obtained weekly after completion of filling. The results should be forwarded to our office promptly after each reading for evaluation. If the thickness of compressible soils varies significantly from that in our explorations, the actual preload period may have to be adjusted. The presence of the measurement rods which extend from the settlement plates through the fill will inhibit the mobility of earthmoving equipment to some extent. The contractor will have to exercise care to avoid damaging the rods. The construction documents should emphasize the importance of protecting the settlement plates and measuring rods from disturbance. Once the majority of the settlement has occurred, the preload fill can be removed from the building and either used to preload another of the building sites (if the construction schedule will permit sequential preloading) or for other site grading. FOUNDATION SUPPORT We recommend that all footings be founded on at least 2 feet of structural fill. This fill should extend horizontally beyond each side of the footing a distance equal to the depth of excavation below footing subgrade. The fill should be placed in a minimum of two lifts and compacted such that at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D -1557) is achieved throughout the fill. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Individual column footings should have a minimum width of 3 feet. Continuous strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. In order to provide more uniform support and reduce differential settlements, we recommend that exterior foundations consist of continuous spread footings rather than isolated pad footings. 11 GeoEngineers Incorporated The footings should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2500 pounds per square foot for dead plus long -term live loads. This value may be increased by one third when considering earthquake or wind loads. The use of spread footing support for buildings on this site is expected to be limited to high -bay (24- to 28 -foot clear) warehouse struc- tures and two -story office buildings. If multi -story buildings are con- templated, pile foundations will likely be necessary. Additional consulta- tion to identify the more,favorable areas for use of pile foundations and to develop design criteria for these foundations will be required. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction on the base and passive resistance on the sides of the footings. Frictional resistance can be determined using 0.35 for the coefficient of base friction. Passive resis- tance can be determined using an equivalent fluid density of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), assuming that the soils around the footings for a distance of twice the footing depth consist of structural fill compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. This value should be applied from one foot below the ground surface in areas which are not paved. In paved areas or beneath floor slabs, passive resistance can be calculated from the bottom of the slab. The above values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. We estimate that postconstruction settlements of interior column and perimeter wall footings will be on the order of one half to one inch if column loads are less than 100 kips. We have assumed the conditions observed in our explorations are representative of the existing fill soils and no significant organics or organic debris are present. We recommend that the structures be designed to tolerate at least one half inch of differential settlement between adjacent column footings due to the variable subsurface conditions. Differential settlements up to one fourth -inch in 25 feet may be experienced along continuous wall footings. Approximately 50 percent of the postconstruction settlement should occur within about two weeks of load application. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT All floors should be supported on at least 2 feet of structural fill. If the fill pad is placed prior to the preload fill, the pad fill surface should be recompacted after removal of the preload to redensify any areas 12 GeoEngineers Incorporated disturbed during fill removal. We recommend that floor slabs be supported on a 4 —inch thick base course of crushed rock or clean sand and gravel with less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. A vapor barrier should be provided if the slab will be covered with tiles or carpet. If the slab surface will be exposed, it is our opinion that a vapor barrier is not needed provided that the base course is sufficiently coarse to act as a capillary break and yard drainage is directed away from slab —on —grade buildings. Assuming finished grades are within about 1 foot of existing grades, it is our opinion that postconstruction settlements subsequent to an appropriate preload program from typical warehouse floor loadings of 250 psf should not exceed 1/2 to 3/4 inch. Due to the depth of existing fill soils, we would expect differential settlements to occur over a broad area and be limited to less than 1/4 inch in 40 to 50 feet if relatively uniform areal loading conditions are maintained. RETAINING WALLS We recommend that the walls at the loading dock areas and any wing walls adjacent to the ramps to the loading docks be designed for lateral pressures based on an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf. This assumes that the walls will not be restrained against rotation when backfill is placed, that the backfill consist of clean pit run sand and gravel as specified above, and that there will be provision for drainage of the pit run backfill behind the walls. An allowance of one foot of increased wall height for each 100 psf of surcharge (floor load) which may be imposed adjacent to the walls should be made. We recommend the fill be compacted to between 90 and 95 percent of maximum dry density within a 5 —foot zone behind the walls. Overcompaction should be avoided. PAVEMENT DESIGN If roadway paving is accomplished in the late summer, this will minimize subgrade disturbance and enable use of less thick pavement sec— tions. However, the proposed construction schedule for this project may require most road work to be done during the normally wet seasons. Pavement subgrade areas should be stripped and proofrolled or otherwise evaluated as previously recommended. If the subgrade is wet, we recommend lightweight construction equipment be used to grade the subgrade surface; however, 13 GeoEngineers Incorporated equipment should be kept off the exposed surface to the fullest extent possible. In general, heavily loaded trucks should not be allowed directly on the subgrade, with the exception of utility installation. All utilities and utility ducts should be installed in advance of placing subbase fill. Utility trenches should be backfilled to pavement subgrade level with structural fill compacted as previously recommended. Temporary roads and layout areas should be constructed by placing excess pit run fill. This material can be spread for use in other areas when final yard area grading is done. If road construction is done during wet weather, we anticipate that a subbase of select sand and gravel on the order of 18 inches may be required. Localized soft zones could require placing geotextile fabric and up to 24 inches of subbase to form a stable section. The base course and asphalt concrete (AC) section should consist of 6 inches of crushed rock and 3 inches of AC in roadway and loading dock areas. Automobile parking areas should have 4 inches of crushed rock and 2 inches of AC. If yard area paving can be done in the summer, we anticipate that the subbase section could be reduced to 12 inches after proofrolling and preparation of the subgrade to a firm, nonyielding condition. However, the low density of the existing fill can shorten the design life of the pavement section such that a thicker subbase section would provide better long -term performance. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS We recommend the roads and parking areas be sloped to drain away from the buildings such that surface runoff is collected and carried off - site. Perimeter footing drains are not considered necessary unless any buildings or portions of buildings are lower than surrounding grades. Any perimeter footings should be connected to the storm drain system. Roof drains should also be connected directly to the storm drain system and not be inter -tied with any other subdrains. The existing site soils, especially the fills soils, are relatively impermeable. Any low areas or depressions will lead to ponding and a perched ground water condition. 14 GeoEngineers Incorporates! RIVERBANK STABILITY AND SETBACK CONSIDERATIONS Our computer -aided slope stability analyses of the existing riverbank configuration indicate a marginally stable condition (factor of safety slightly above unity). Portions of the riverbank are locally oversteepened, which has resulted in some surficial sloughing and slumping. We understand a 30 -foot King County easement extending inland from the ordinary high tide level (Elevation 5.5) of the river will be incorporated into the project layout. A 16- foot -wide combined access road and public use pathway is to be part of the 30 -foot easement. We recommend that the riverbank be reconfigured to increase its overall stability. This should be done by resloping a portion of the bank and lowering the grade along the access road /pathway. The riverbank should be sloped back at 2H:1V (hori- zontal to vertical) from the ordinary high tide level (Elevation 5.5) to Elevation 11.0. This elevation should be maintained for the access road /pathway width to provide freeboard above the 100 -year flood level. A transition using a 2H :1V slope, rockery or other means should then be made up to parking lot elevation. If a rockery is used, the embankment may need to be reinforced if vehicles will be parked immediately above the rockery to conform to King County regulations. Our analyses indicate that this will result in a minimum factor of safety of 1.25 within the easement, increasing to greater than 1.4 in the parking area with this modified configuration. A factor of safety in excess of 1.5 is generated for potential failure planes that would intersect the nearest indicated building location. These safety factors are, in our opinion, reasonable for the development considerations. It should be noted that these safety factors are for the critical case of expected low tide level and high ground water condition - the rapid drawdown condition does not significantly affect the stability other than near the slope face within the saturated zone. The factor of safety for the portion of the riverbank below ordinary high tide level is indicated to be less than 1.2. We believe that any future localized slumping which may occur in this area would best be handled 15 GeoEngineers Incorporated as a maintenance item. Localized slumps can be excavated and replaced with appropriate sized rock using a small truck — mounted clamshell or other suitable equipment working from the access roadway. We recommend that the portions of the reconfigured riverbank within the easement which are not paved be hydroseeded, planted or otherwise protected from erosion immediately after grading. Since this area is only under water during a combination of a significant storm event and high tide, it is our opinion that further slope protection is not warranted. USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for use by Bedford Properties, Inc. and their agents in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or esti— mating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The project is in the conceptual stage at this writing. The final grades, building loads and configurations and their interaction with the existing site conditions will complicate some of the design considerations. As the design develops, we expect that additional consultation will be necessary to provide for modification or adaptation of our recommendations. We should be retained during the design phase to provide more detailed evaluations of settlement magnitudes and rates, for preload fill configura— tions and to establish an appropriate monitoring program. These additional services should also include a review of the final design and specifications to see that our recommendations are interpreted and implemented as intended. 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. Due to the past filing and alluvial environment, variations in subsur— face conditions between the explorations should be expected. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by our firm should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are 16 GeoEngineers Incorporated JRG:JKT:cs Copyright © 1987 GeoEngineers, Inc., All Rights Reserved consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommenda— tions for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with contract plans and specifica— tions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. 0 0 0 — The conclusions and recommendations in this report should be applied in their entirety. We are available to review the final design and specifi— cations to see that our recommendations are properly interpreted. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. 17 Respectfully submitted, GeoEngineers, Inc,. J. Robert Gordon Pr , • t Engineer J 7• K. Tuttle Principal GeoEngineers Incorporated • 310' .. BOUNDARY C.T ORDINARY HIGH WATER AS EVIDENCED BY' LINE OF VEGETATION IN JULY 1987 RIVER EXPLANATION: B BORING LOCATION AND NUMBER TP - TEST PIT LOCATION AND NUMBER P - ♦ PROBE LOCATION AND NUMBER G - 1 • GRAB SAMPLE LOCATION AND NUMBER R5 REFERENCE: DRAWING ENTITLED "PRELIMINARY, PLAT OF SEAGATE ", DATED AUG. 1987, BY WILSEY & HAM, INC. 4 MD A 77- • EXIST BUILIO TO BE REMO' Po 1.4 EA:' 27.72 ACRE •. EX. 1117:11 • eligg Geon Incor •' -, ( Yf? /.. • 204' SEC 9BIC. T2314,R4E I SITE PLAN FIGURE 1 PROJECT SITE D uW A M is H od B•/ 'rees L TURN AROUND T ... . TP -5 ' • Project 9oundar TION AND NUMBER CATION AND NUMBER ION AND NUMBER LOCATION AND NUMBER • RIVER r' R5 4RY, PLAT OF SEAGATE ", DATED AUG. ;1987, S GeoEngineers `� Incorporated AMA! Alvo H Pease N 150 300 f I SCALE IN FEET VICINITY MAP.) v Existing Ditch— EXPLANATION: —W --- ORIGINAL CONTOURS ---IB PROPOSED CONTOURS / r—Xcs EXISTING TOP OF BANK DUWAMISH RIVER NOTES: TOTAL AREA = 28.5 ACRES FILL QUANTITY = 360,000 C.Y. (PROPOSED) FROM KING COUNTY GRADING FILE 1998 -33 DuWaR'ish River REFERENCE: DRAWING ENTITLED "GRADING PLAN FOR T.J.R.c S.'", DATED 10/18/76, BY BOULEVARD EXCAVATING INC. Toe of Slope State Highway GeoEngln 14 100 incorpo • • J Top of Proposed Fill /2 m Z2 !2 1.6 — 3t ish Riper °uWam A A • (PROPOSED) LE 1998 -33 /9 LO N FOR T.J S.", DATED 10/18/76, ����■1.�A1ii�iA /�'� Toe of Slope — 8 State Highway Tom of Slope of Proposed Fill Property Line 4, 14 GeoEn Incorporated 26 Existing Paved Access Road 4 z4 ze 3a -34 0 150 300 1 1 1 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1878 SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE SAND PAD IF NECESSARY NOTES: (NOT TO SCALE) MEASUREMENT ROD, 1/2" 0 PIPE OR REBAR CASING, 2" 0 PIPE (SET ON PLATE, NOT FASTENED) COUPLING WELDED TO PLATE SETTLEMENT PLATE, 16" X 16" X 1/4" 1. INSTALL MARKERS ON FIRM GROUND OR ON SAND PADS IF NEEDED FOR STABILITY. TAKE INITIAL READING ON TOP OF ROD AND AT ADJACENT GROUND LEVEL PRIOR TO PLACE- MENT OF ANY FILL. 2. FOR EASE IN HANDLING, ROD AND CASING ARE USUALLY INSTALLED IN 5 -FOOT SECTIONS. AS FILL PROGRESSES, COUPLINGS ARE USED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL LENGTHS. CONTINUITY IS MAINTAINED BY READING THE TOP OF THE MEASUREMENT ROD, THEN IMMEDIATELY ADDING THE NEW SECTION AND READING THE TOP OF THE ADDED ROD. BOTH READINGS ARE RECORDED. 3. RECORD THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE MEASUREMENT ROD IN EACH MARKER AT THE RECOMMENDED TIME INTERVALS. EACH TIME, NOTE THE ELEVATION OF THE ADJACENT FILL SURFACE. 4. READ THE MARKER TO THE NEAREST 0.01 FOOT, OR 0.005 FOOT IF POSSIBLE. NOTE THE FILL ELEVATION TO THE NEAREST 0.1 FOOT. 5. THE ELEVATIONS SHOULD BE REFERENCED TO A TEMPORARY BENCHMARK LOCATED ON STABLE GROUND AT LEAST 100 FEET FROM THE EMBANKMENT. k w. � Incorporated SETTLEMENT PLATE DETAIL FIGURE 3 APPENDIX A APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS The subsurface conditions at the site were explored by a field program consisting of a series of five borings, five Dutch cone probes and 15 test pits at the locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The exploration locations were determined by a field survey performed by Wilsey & Ham, Inc. after our exploration program. The elevations were determined based on their location with respect to topographic information presented on the referenced plat map. The explorations were conducted at various dates from September 4 through September 23, 1987 and are indicated on the individual exploration logs. BORINGS The borings were drilled with a truck- mounted continuous flight hollow stem auger drill rig. Four borings were originally scheduled for the project. However, Dutch Cone Probe P -5 encountered refusal at a relatively shallow depth and thus an additional boring near this probe location was advanced to explore the subsurface conditions at greater depth. The borings were continuously monitored by an engineering geologist from our firm. The soils were classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A -1. A key to the boring log symbols is presented in Figure A -2. Representative samples were obtained using a 3- inch - outside- diameter split barrel sampler. This split barrel sampler was driven into the soil using a 300 -pound hammer free- falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches or other indicated distance is recorded on the boring logs. The logs of the borings are presented in Figures A -3 through A -16. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. The logs also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples it was interpreted. A- 1 GeoEngineers Incorporated All soil samples were brought to our laboratory for further exami- nation. Selected samples were tested to determine their engineering properties. The results of the moisture contents and dry density tests are presented on the boring logs. Other laboratory results are presented in Appendix B. DUTCH CONE PROBES Five Dutch cone probes were performed for this project by a local exploration company under' subcontract to our firm. The equipment used for this test consists of a cone and friction sleeve which are advanced hydraul- ically by rods reacting against a truck. The static cone penetration test is performed as follows: (1) the cone is pushed down by an inner rod and the point resistance is recorded; (2) the cone and the sleeve are then pushed and their combined resistance is measured; (3) the cone resistance is subtracted from the total resistance to provide the frictional resistance. A direct correlation between point resistance and the bearing capacity of the soils is obtained. The relative density or consistency of the soil probed is empirically related to the cone resistance. Comparing the cone bearing capacity and the friction ratio (sleeve friction /cone bearing) provides an interpretive soil classification based on the Dutch cone soil classification chart prepared by J.H. Schmertman, 1969. The descriptive soil interpretations presented on the Dutch cone probe logs have been developed by using this classification chart as a guideline. Modifications to the classifications were developed according to correlations of soil types disclosed in the adjacent borings performed on the site and careful interpretation of the probe results. The detailed interpretive logs of the Dutch cone probes accomplished for this study are presented in Figures A -17 through A -28. TEST PITS Fifteen test pits were excavated at various locations across the site. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 9 to 17.5 feet using a rubber -tired Extendahoe under subcontract to our firma The test pit explorations were continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who maintained a detailed log of the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, and observed ground water conditions. In A - 2 GeoEngineers Incorporated A - 3 several of the test pits, nuclear densometer tests were performed to provide relative density information (see Appendix B). A sample at the probe location was returned to our laboratory to determine the in -situ moisture content. Large samples were also obtained at most locations to determine the laboratory maximum density. The percent compaction and moisture content are presented on the logs. Soils encountered were classified in general accordance with the soil classification system shown in Figure A -1. The test pit logs are presented in Figures A -29 through A -34. GeoEngineers Incorporated COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 60% RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 60% PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE NOTES: MAJOR DIVISIONS GRAVEL MORE THAN 60% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE SAND MORE THAN 80% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE SILT AND CLAY LIOUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 SILT AND CLAY LIQUID LIMIT 50 OR MORE HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS 1. Field classification Is based on visual examination of soil In general accordance with ASTM 02488 -83. 2. Soli classification using laboratory tests Is based on ASTM D2487 -83. 3. Descrtptlons of soil density or consistency are based on Interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance of soils, and /or test data. GeoEngineers Incorporated ok.r% SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CLEAN GRAVEL GW GRAVEL WITH FINES CLEAN SAND SAND WITH FINES INORGANIC ORGANIC INORGANIC ORGANIC GROUP SYMBOL GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL MH CH PT POORLY - GRADED GRAVEL WELL - GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL SILTY GRAVEL CLAYEY GRAVEL GROUP NAME WELL - GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND POORLY - GRADED SAND SILTY SAND CLAYEY SAND SILT CLAY OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT PEAT Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch Moist - Damp, but no vlsible water Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE A -1 LABORATORY TESTS: AL CP CS DS GS HA K M MD SP TX UC CA Atterberg limits Compaction Consolidation Direct shear Grain- size analysis Hydrometer analysis Permeability Moisture content Moisture and density Swelling pressure Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Chemical Analysis BLOW- COUNT /SAMPLE DATA: Blows required to drive Dames & Moore sampler 12 inches or other Indicated distances using 300 pound hammer falling 30 inches, 'P' indicates sampler pushed with weight of hammer or hydraulics of drill rig. NOTES: GeoEnglneers � Incorporated SOIL GRAPH: 1. Soil classification system Is summarized in Figure A -1. Soil Group Symbpl (See Note 1) 2. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration Togs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Distinct contact between Soil Strata Gradual Change between Soli Strata Water Level Bottom of Boring 22 II Location of relatively undisturbed sample 12131 Location of disturbed sample P ❑ Location of sampling attempt with no recovery 10 Location of sample attempt using Standard Penetration Test procedures 40 Location of relatively undisturbed sample using 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS FIGURE A -2 - ( SP B BROWN FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL - 1 13 ® ® ' G GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL COBBLES - (STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) - M MOTTLED GRAY AND BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT - - S SM A AND FINE SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL GRAVEL, _ ML C COBBLES AND CHARCOAL (LOOSE, SOFT TO MEDIUM MD 1 18 1 102 6 6 ® ® S STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) _ ML G GRAY CLAYEY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) - 6 6 ® ® - - - M MD, 3 35 8 85 3 3 i i - - ML ( (SOFT, LOOSE, WET) - S SM _ _ - MD 2 29 9 90► 1 14 ■ ■ S DARK GRAY FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) - SP D - - 1 19 0 0 - - - 2 23 ® ® 1- w w u . 0 5 10 16 = 20 S 1- 0. w 2 3 0 .0 0 O 01 J I- TEST DATA `c O N C o ' O « m qc O p U N m 0. E 00 mu co L m CeoEn gr orate Group Symbol BORING NO. 1 3 a Note: See Figure A - for Explanation of Symbols DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 16.6 feet LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -3 40 45 60 56 6 70 76 8 TEST DATA E. a « 0 0 mm `oo �m 3 ° o ' 03 a Group in Symbol Note: See Figure A -2 for Explanation of Symbols GeoEnglneers W O Incorporated BORING NO.1 (Continued) r DESCRIPTION LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-4 80 86 90 95 F- w w LL —10 F- a w 0 10 110 11 12 TEST DATA ..m 00 O O U Note: See Figure A -2 for Explanation of Symbols GeoEngineers klirr Incorporated 0 a o oo o Group CO o w Symbol BORING NO. 1 (Continued) DESCRIPTION LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -5 120 12 5 -- •v110111111111.1EN TEST DATA BORING NO. 1 (Continued) O T u, ti ✓ � « To I c E d0 oo �m oo m Group -4~ 20 op cot) co Symbol MD 19 109 54 Note: See Figure.A -2 for Explanation of Symbols GeoEngineers 4 Incorporate (SAME AS ABOVE) DESCRIPTION BORING COMPLETED AT 125.0 FEET ON 9/4/87 LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -6 - SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL PODS OF SILT (VERY LOOSE, DRY TO MOIST) (FILL ?) - - MD 16 81 3 1 - - MD 14 85 4 ■ - SP DARK GRAYISH -BROWN FINE SAND WITH A TRACE - OF SILT (VERY LOOSE, WET) _ - MD, DS 32 90 2 g - - SP- BROWN LAYERED FINE SAND WITH SILT AND SILTY - SM FINE SAND WITH OCCASIONAL LENSES OF FINE - - MD, DS 35 86 2 • SM SANDY SILT (VERY LOOSE, WET) _ - _ GS, MD, DS 34 88 2 • - ` - - 6 0 SP DARK GRAY FINE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) ` _ I — .- - 12 ® - - 22 ® _ J LLJ :Y s 0 5 10 16 w w tL -20 H a. w 2 3 3 4 TEST DATA ''c w CD N• 00 U co oa m 00 I C ao t U E Group to Symbol BORING NO. 2 Note: See Figure A -2 for Explanation of Symbols GeoEnglneers Incorporated • DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 16.0 feet LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -7 40 46— 60— MD 25 99 MD 28 90 TEST DATA 0 r c r m 1 00 00 Group 2() oo corn (0 Symbol 12 • 15 • SP_ SM SM Notes See Figure A -2 for Explanation of Symbols GeoEngtneers RV Incorporated .s BORING NO. 2 (Continued) (SAME AS ABOVE) DESCRIPTION DARK GRAY LAYERED FINE SAND WITH SILT AND SILTY FINE SAND WITH A TRACE OF ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) BORING COMPLETED AT 50.0 FEET ON 9/4/87 PIEZOMETER INSTALLED TO 50.0 FEET ON 9/4/87 DEPTH TO WATER MEASURED AT 14.0 FEET ON 9/23/87 LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -8 - - - 30- ® SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH CONCRETE RUBBLE (FILL) - - - ML GRAYISH- ORANGE MOTTLED SILT WITH OCCASIONAL _ ROOTS AND WOOD, OXIDIZED (SOFT, MOIST) - - 0 - C 3 • - - MD 25 81 2 IN GRADES TO GRAYISH -BROWN CLAYEY SILT WITH - 'OCCASIONAL ORGANICS (SOFT, WET) - - - ML GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH ORGANICS (SOFT - - - MD 29 93 g ■ TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET) - _ SP DARK GRAY FINE SAND TO SILTY FINE SAND WITH - SM OCCASIONAL ORGANICS (VERY LOOSE TO LOOSE, WET) - - 2 ■ - _ ML GR EENISH -GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH A TRACE - OF SHELL FRAGMENTS (SOFT, WET) - MD 41 78 6 • - I— SP DARK GRAY FINE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) - '� 25 w - ML GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL ORGANICS, WOOD AND SHELL FRAGMENTS (SOFT, WET) - - 2 • - 0 5 10 15 W w - 20 F- a w 2 3 3 4 al TEST DATA „ C 0 In c 00 U C OC 1 f U 0 E Group m Symbol BORING NO. 3 Note: See Figure A -2for Explanation of Symbols ::BLOW COUNT NOT REPRESENTATIVE GeoEngineers � Incorporated DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 18.0 feet LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -9 - - MD 34 86 4 M ML SM GRAY LAMINATED FINE SANDY SILT AND SILTY FINE SAND WITH SOME FINE SAND WITH SILT AND - OCCASIONAL ORGANICS (SOFT, VERY LOOSE, WET) - - 5 M - - ML GRAY FINE SANDY SILT AND SILT WITH TRACES - _ OF SHELL FRAGMENTS (SOFT, WET) _ MD 31 90 4 M - - 4 M - - AL 1 • SILTY CLAY TO CLAYEY SILT (VERY SOFT) - (LL = 45, P1 = 20) - - 0 M - - 0 M FINE SANDY ZONE - - 2 • SP- - ,-- SM GRAYISH -GREEN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND A TRACE 40 45 60 66 1- w w -60 a. 8 6 70 7 8 TEST DATA V - . V - w.2 a a CO 0 W o o m -If - 2(.1 00 Kko GeoEngineers 14\0 Incorporated V a o o Group coo co Symbol BORING NO. 3 (Continued) DESCRIPTION MEDIUM DENSE, WET) Note: See Figure A -2 for Explanation of Symbols LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -10 80 — 86— 90 — 96— t— ut w LL - Z 100— x w 106— 110 116 0 A 0 0 I-. TEST DATA 0 N 0 y, in 3C m p 00 -o oo m Group 2V c0 mV v) Symbol MD 23 104 MD 28 94 MD 22 104 11 N 18 • 25 • 62 • 50- 4" 49 SP SW GW SP Note: See Figure A -2 for Explanation of Symbols � GeoEngineers Incorporated BORING NO.3 (Continued) (SAME AS ABOVE) DESCRIPTION GRAYISH -GREEN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT AND SHELL AND WOOD FRAGMENTS (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) GRAY FINE TO COARSE SAND (VERY DENSE, WET) FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL WITH SAND (VERY DENSE, WET) GRAY FINE SAND WITH A TRACE OF COARSE SAND (VERY DENSE, WET) BORING COMPLETED AT 113.5 FEET ON 9/8/87 DUE TO ARTESIAN FLOW AND HEAVE LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -1 1 0 6 10 16 2 3 3 4 0 .0 0 J TEST DATA C d c 0 0 U 0 AD C CO GeoEnglneers Incorporated 0 0 G E Group v, Symbol BORING NO. 4 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 17.0 feet Note: See Figure A-2 for Explanation of Symbols LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-12 - - SM ML (SAME AS ABOVE) DARK GRAY SILTY FINE SAND AND FINE SANDY SILT WITH OCCASIONAL ORGANICS AND OCCASIONAL - LENSES OF FINES AND (VERY STIFF TO LOOSE, 8 ■ SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, WET) - - MD 32 89 5 W - — 6 i — — 3 IN — L CLAYEY SILT WITH FINE SANDY LENSES (SOFT, - WET) - - MD 53 70 2 • - _ 1 — 3 ■ — _ 2 1 — - 4 ■ — 40 45 50 56 6 7 7 8 TEST DATA 0 q ». 00 U -0 c o Group Symbol BORING NO.4 (Continued) DESCRIPTION Note: See Figure A -2 for Explanation of Symbols •�� GeoEnglneers � Incorporated LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -13 H w w n . w TEST DATA 0 N co • m To 1... Q as c o i aa; oo E Group -J~ 20 oa mu to Symbol MD 35 86 2 10 ■ 27 ` GeoEngineers IIi Incorporated SM SP Note: See Figure A -2 for Explanation of Symbols BORING NO. 4 (Continued) (SAME AS ABOVE) DESCRIPTION GRAYISH -GREEN SILTY FINE SAND WITH SILT TO FINE SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT AND SHELL FRAGMENTS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) GRAYISH -GREEN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH A TRACE OF SILT AND SHELL FRAGMENTS (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) BORING COMPLETED AT 95.0 FEET ON 9/9/87 LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -14 ImIMO - SM GRAY AND BROWN MOTTLED SILTY FINE SAND WITH ROOTS (LOOSE, DRY) - _ MD 6 81 7 ■ - GRAY AND BROWN MOTTLED FINE SAND WITH SILT SM (LOOSE, DRY) _ - MD 8 85 8 ■ ML GRAY AND BROWN MOTTLED FINE SANDY SILT AND - — SILT WITH OCCASIONAL ORGANICS (MEDIUM — STIFF TO STIFF, DRY TO MOIST) - MD, 45 70 4 ■ - DS SP DADK GRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (LOOSE TO — MEDIUM DENSE, WET) DS 26 96 15 ■ - ML GREENISH -GRAY FINE SANDY SILT AND SILT WITH OCCASIONAL FIBROUS ORGANICS AND SHELL - FRAGMENTS (VERY SOFT TO SOFT, WET) - DD, 51 76 2 ■ SP - DARK GRAY FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, WET) - - 28 ® - - „V'''. SM _ GRAY SILTY FINE SAND AND FINE SANDY SILT - ML (VERY LOOSE TO LOOSE, VERY SOFT TO SOFT, WET) _ DS 27 91 2 ■ - - MD 34 86 2 ■ _ 0 5 10 16 1- w w LL 20 x w 25 30 35 40 0 .a w TEST DATA ` c c 00 � C) co 0 0 COQ co m E Group to Symbol �� GeoEngineers N W Incorporated BORING NO. 5 Note: See Figure A -2 for Explanatlon of Symbols DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation: 14.6 feet LOG OF BORING FIGURE A -15 40 46 60 TEST DATA to., >1 to .. g ... To to - .13.0; z g >.= 6, CD cci CI) -11- 2c) CC MD 29 91 0 cno Note: See Figure A-2 for Explanation of Symbols •=1 41 51 GeoEnglneers trig Incorporated to co • Group co Symbol BORING NO. 5 (Continued) (SAME AS ABOVE) DESCRIPTION BORING COMPLETED AT 50.0 FEET ON 9/9/87 PIEZOMETER INSTALELD TO 50.0 FEET ON 9/9/87 DEPTH TO WATER MEASURED AT 13.0 FEET ON 9/23/87 LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-16 r \It B FEET DEPTH 0 5 10- 25- 15- 20- 30- METERS O I 2 CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE — TON / SQ. FT. — 10 20 50 MUM= MUMMER immumn mum= mum= i FRICTION SOIL INTERPRETATION RATIO SURFACE ELEVATION: 100 200 400 4 8 12 14 17 .5 feet PREDRILLED CCUTTINGS CONSISTED OF SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND CONCRETE FRAGMENTS (FILL) SAND (LOOSE) CLAYEY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF) (BECOMES SOFT) ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT SAND (DENSE) SILTY 0 0 z m m 1 15 20 45 7 25- 8 111 ' i : 35- 40- 4 5 6 9 10 12 13 14 ii,aat mi P.iINIl111111111111 i 1 111 �i�i►�iii °n iiiiiiiiinii b 1 MUUMUU I puiiiiiiiii M1111 1 IIIMMMII MUMMER U. 1MIOIUIf 11�11�11111111 IIlIIIIIIIIiII� P..I��I�IIIU1 1►111M111111 IIIIII1IIIIII HIMMIMIN minimum' l►vnummu IIIIII�UIIlUI '�iu =uii �� A111�1�1INU 5111 (BECOMES SOFT) ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT SAND (DENSE) SILTY SAND LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT SILTY SAND LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT (BECOMES DENSE) DEPTH FEET 1 METERS 461-14 2 50 56 60- 70 65- 75- 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TON ISQ. FT. - 10 20 50 L FRICTION RATIO 100 200 400 4 8 12 14 1111 1�11�11111 ii 1,�umnr IN 1111111111 KIMIn Mr UMW 1111 111111 IN MIMI 141 UMW MO MUIR Nn mIMI u II 11111 K UMW vs 11111 111111111 11 HI MI I HIM PH I HMI 11,1 IINI III I NI NM 111 1 1111 SOIL INTERPRETATION OCCASIONAL SILTIER LAYERS SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE) SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 2 FOOT (BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE) SILTY 90 92 80 86- 22 76- 23 24 26 26 27 28 1 SILTY LAYER GRADING TO SANDY SILT, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT SILTY LAYER GRADING TO SANDY SILT CLAYEY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF) SAND (LOOSE) CLAYEY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF) SAND LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT (BECOMES "\ O a a G) m CO 0 a. 60 66 18 19 20 21 70 IIi���111�1f i1n11■vu11n 111111111111111 pammunin iii��iiiiii1 MUMMER �mu��u ■n IM MO= IL M111111 11 /1111 111 nmmnin ImmII= IIIIIwlllIIll i1111mumI 11101111111 Imuninm NIU11111IM IFIi1111111{ s 'MwM IIIIIMMIll IIh11111�11 11111111111111 Niy��1111�11 l�III�IIII�I INII11111 ■It lIMI1l1l1111ll 11111 � SILTY (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE) SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 2 FOOT (BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE) SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT 11% NIU 0 0 0 DEPTH FEET I METERS 92-28 2 95 100- 105- 115 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 9 - E"P", JP'e'Y • <K7"" }''`L5 - ce'I"" . CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE — TON / SQ. FT. — 5 10 20 50 100 200 400 FRICTION RATIO 4 8 12 14 SOIL INTERPRETATION PROBE TERMINATED AT 112.5 FEET ON 9/2/87 1I1 ' r E 0 c m 0 0 v c —4 0 0 m 0 co m 105-{ 32 110 J 33 34 115- 35 i 11 N /1111111111 11►11II1IIIIIf IlrNlllllllll 111`1111111111 11111/%1111111111 1111'111111111 uiiiiii 1IIIIIIIIII1II u nu�nmu INIIIIIIIIII mmunnn IIIIIIIIIIIfII 1111111111111! mm11111111 11111111111111 unnumm mmunun lilli�lnlll ��n��nnn N81111111111 11111ni M11M111111 mmuumin 1�111�11111111 unmmnn ommumn GRAVELLY SAND PROBE TERMINATED AT 112.5 FEET DUE TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL ON 9/2/87 �■�iiii iiiiiii - i -- IIIIIII III1II �N���1111111��� 11111111111111 SO ■�Nnum��� , 1,�nu1u1ii� 11111111111111 �i ii n�mm��■ 11111111111111 111111111111111.1 1I11I11IIII 1 �i■����ii Nu ...1111111111111111111111 1111121111 11111110=1111111111111111 11110110111 un 1111011111111M IIIIII �%� immompommommuiiiimm minsionn �111 1111111111111111111111111 1111111011111 3.11111111 111111111111111111M111111111111M11111 IMMO amilmalmmEMMOIMM1111111111 1101M111111 ��■�111 M���nnum��� n���ue���u Illanunimmmes muumuu 111111 IIIIHi!!iI1II tIIlIIlIllIIlI 1111111111111111111111111111111 OMEN ii■nu� iin�uii 1111111111111 � � � ��� / �1■�1I�!nil■ IgINt1111111 � �� ■�1II���:iill 111111111111N ...EN11111111111111111 ��� ■�NI /����IIIIIi��� 1111M1111111 � �n��1� 1111111111111111111•1111111 NII1�1 11111 11111N11111 MIME 1111111111111111111111MIII 1111111111111 � �N1N1 �M ■�NI�11111��� �mununm CLAYEY SILT (SOFT) SAND LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET SOFT TO VERY SOFT SE T MED UM (BECOMES DENSE) (BECOMES 4- DEPTH FEET I METERS 0 _ 0 1 2 5 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- • r..i..r ..�..�....� .r_ 1111 r�rriwri. *0111111111 UMW= CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TON / S4. FT. - 10 20 50 100 200 400 ��ni �r�RI1HIMM1i•�■ 1111111 11111011h1111 �11 11��■ � .R11IIuIIifuIU11•i � •1.11IHH11u11IR1111■ itilbMMIN Ulililllr arar�m . FRICTION RATIO 4 8 12 14 r•erw SOIL INTERPRETATION SURFACE ELEVATION: 18.0 feet PREDRILLED AND BACK- FILLED WITH SAND "4 4-. Ft I a 15 35 20- 25- 30- 40- 45 - 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ■ fil 4 1 f /11►.R :u1 numial an ogninimm munniimmmagnunma 1aauii II II1_11I • IIIIIIIIINIII IIiE1111111111 111111i:!IINI 11111111111.11 NII1IIIIIE11 IIIII1.MAlll inummul !%IIIIIIIIIIN n I11 1 �1 11 N 1 l 11 11111/1111111 IJIIaIIHIIII mum i'iiii 11111111111111 11111111111111 1lIIIIIUIIIII 111111111111111 IIi:1111111111 iii aiiiinu 1 INIIIIIIII {II n:..ln1 1 1� �H 11► H /IINIt Nu Honor nmuumn 1101111111111 wnn11u1n SAND APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 2 FEET SOFT TO VERY SOFT SAND i.LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE) (BECOMES DENSE) (BECOMES LOOSE) SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT (BECOMES LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE) SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATE g FOOT SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY : FOOT (BECOMES DENSE) (BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE) "L.AYEY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF) -AND ( ENSE) • I II 1 1 WI LI EEO 1 1 MIMEO r ■111111111■ ■■ ■•r111111ifi11 ■ ■E � 1111■■ 01111 r■ ■111111111 ■ ■■ 111111MIlI1 111111111t111111111 ■■ ■ MINO■■ NI1111 11111■ ■■111111111 ■■ 1111111111 ■if =: 01111 �11I ■111111111■�■ 1111111111.11 r ■��gll�■■■�111111111■ ■■ 11111111111111 I ■HIUI_���N1NI ■ IIII1 i III ■11 ■■ 1111! ►ill! ■f / ■►!IIIIf 11111111I111I11111r ■■ 111:.1111 ■11 IIi uIU11■II mon 1111111111111111M11 I I1I I 11I I RI1 111111111111111■1U ■ ■/11111111■ ■■ 11Ni1,1ln111u 1 111111111111101 ■■■n11111111■ ■■- 11111111111 ■11 Imanumpat i ■■ ■■111111111 ■ ■r 11111111n1 ■I1 1 111 1111111111111111111111111111 11►1I1111■f1 ' ■■■d111� ■ 111111111 ■■ IIi l 1 11111 ■I1 � ■■■`3111 ■ ■1/11111111 ■ ■t 11P4111111■11 ■■ ■11111 ■■ ■■111111111■ ■r 1111 /1111 ■fl ' ■■ ■11111 ■■ 1111111111■ ■■ 1111111111 ■11 III IIIIIIIll hII I •••r11111i 1111■■11111111111 ■r■ UNU1111■11 ■ ■■1 ni imiru11/n111 ■ ■■ 1/1!I1n1! ■11 � ■■■11111 ■■■■111l11111■■i IIi►itluU ■i1 ■■■11111 ■ ■r�/11111111■ ■n 111 ►111111x11 � •.iiiiIO MINE111111111111111111 WHIM= LAYERS OF SAND, FINE SANDY SILT AND CLAYEY SILT CLOOSE, MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF) Artt 0 DEPTH FEET METERS 46 -14 I _ 2 50- 55- 60- 65 70- 75 FRICTION RATIO 100 200 400 4 8 12 14 ■■ ■11111 ■■1U111111 ■ ■■ 11111111111 ■11 UNIIMMENNIIIIMINNIEMMENIM 11;111111/.11 1111111111111 ■■■ It11 ■r■ ■111it:N1r ■a 1/11111/11 IlI ,�■ f�f111111r11 h !iI1IIl II RII II1I! i hmfuhhhhhlm i mum"' 11 ■ ■■ 1II;5I1111r11 18 � r ■■ ■r■ it111111ll■11 ■■1111111 111P2Inn111111■■■ 1 ►11111111 ■11 ■ ■ ■11111/%■U■111111111 ■ ■■ 111!1111111 ■11 ■ ■11111M /. iii1111IUMNIErl 11�`►i1111 ■11 ® N ■i1I11∎i.�!�In1111iin■■■ 1/!..11111x11 17 ■■■/Inl�� / ■�lnlnlll ■ ■■ 1111111111 ■11 rr■in ININUM ■111111111■ ■■ llilnllII.uI MEM '6 111121111111110 li 1111 19.11 ■II ��■ 1IIIiiillhII 19 20 2..1 22 23 811110 N11511 CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TON / SQ. FT. - 10 20 50 SOIL INTERPRETATION WITH OCCASIONAL SILTY LAYERS CLAYEY SILT (SOFT) POSSIBLE ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT SANDY ENUliffibliiii----MiliiIMMENII ' 1111111 1111MIIIIIIMMUMMUIMMUNIN 112111111111111 IIIIMPlid 1111111111111 11111111111111 mom= ■ nanu= wiIIIIImm ��•�11N C �11n Cmi 1111111111 11uc:••nmr IIIMINIRCIMI 111■11:i111 IMIMEIMIERMI 11111111M111 � �e�n �uInmuI�N n►nmmMm � ���� e1 1mmi1111111111 1n11funnn Mail 1111111HUmi �E ����n�����m � � \ N1� 1111:1111111111 I � ■inl t 1111E� 111011111M11 1111111111:761 IIE� /IHHIIIl NIIIIiiI 1111111111111111111 INNER 1 ammo aummllamm nimmum 1111111111•11111110111111 1111111111011 111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111 � 1111111■111I11I 111111��� HIIl�1�11N11 � �� ■1111 = �1IIII 11111111111111 _ •••MM UMuM N • � II I II II II 111111111MIIIIIN1111111111111111111111111111 M11m11m � n�u��m u IMININ 11 MIMI MIME ■1 X1111111 ■�I MUM= I .lrUlllllffl 1111111111MIIMMUNIMI111111111111111 MUUMUU 11111•1111III 111Il1lln!; �1 11111111111111 r�n�n��mn _ 11110111111111111111 iiiiiiuoiiii hill 1111111113111111111 pormum a a 60- 65- 70 75- 80- 85- 90- 92- 18 19 20 2,1 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CLAYEY SILT ( POSSIBLE ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT SANDY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY < FOOT SANDY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY g FOOT • SANDY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY g FOOT SAND (LOOSE) BECOMES S /5/87 Vig DEPTH FEET 1 METERS 0, 0 2 5 I0 15- 20- 30 25- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 1 CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE —TON / SD. FT. — 5 10 20 50 100 200 400 III 11111111.1111 111111111111,111111111111MEMI � � i � i i���1111111111111111111111111111111111 � � ■�1■II A HI1111111111111111111 iui ��.:���•1��� mum MUMMER 110111111111111 mMMnUM u►11n11111n emNIUunu nu.■Muf nfMnMu IN1.lMINII 111 ►111111111 mmunnu IHMEIMM UMIUMM ►��N I nnummum i iiimmunimm MIME mum= Immmumn IiiN��l111H11 nUMMIm Lmmmmnu FRICTION SOIL INTERPRETATION RATIO SURFACE ELEVATION: 4 8 12 14 15.5 feet SANDY SILT AND /OR CLAYEY SILT (STIFF) SILTY SAND AND SANDY SILT (LOOSE, STIFF) SAND ( 11/4 NW; al aa 15- 25- 35 40 20- 30- 7 10 12 111112111110100111 i_1II 1110111 Illir 111111111111111111•111 AMMUMINNINEI im o N 1 =111 "fl 1 � ■IIII�N� • J SILTY SAND AND SANDY SILT (LOOSE, STIFF) SAND (MEDIUM DENSE) (BECOMES DENSE) (BECOMES LOOSE) 45 4 13 14 SILT LAYER, DENSE) DEPTH FEET 1 METERS 46 -14 2 50 55- 60- 75 65- 70- an+.ct mew MIN err 9- s -s7 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TON / SQ. FT. - 5 10 20 50 100 200 400 1 II N �' n �, II 41111111111 mmmuni•mormiammumimma *III!411 � ■■ � 111111111111111 SEIM NMI 1 1111 MI1111111•111 1111111111111111111111111111111111 1I of I t 1 FRICTION RATIO 4 8 12 14 1 1 1 U1111iiUa.I ...1 1111114312111 11011111111111 11M11l111 11 ►11111111 11t11111r111 11111111 11 11111111!.1 111! =iii1111 1101111111111111 1!;11111111 11.:!111111 11i1■i11•111 11111111111111 . 111/1111111 111011111111 11111111111 11111111111111 ii1n111 -111 /1r1111111111111 111.1111 11 111111 _ MI 1111111111111 1111111111111 111/1111111111 11111111111111 111!5111111111 111tI111i1IN11 1111111il:!1111 111111111..1111 1111 =1111111 Ii1I1111111111 11111111N1111 1i1111111111I11 11011111111111 11111111 11111 SOIL INTERPRETATION SANDY SILT (VERY STIFF SANDY SILT AND SILTY SAND (MEDIUM STIFF) SILT LAYER, APPROXIMATELY g FOOT SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT CLAYEY SILT (SOFT) 1 0 0 3 3 c 0 n 0 i m 33 0 CO m CO 60- 65- 70 75 80 85 90 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 92-' 28 1 iMn 111111 1111.1111%11111111111111111111111111111111111111110111111 { i . 1111 I N 11 1 III I1 1 1111/m11o11 11101111 1 11 1 . 11 /IIII�IoII minimum imam= IIIIIIIUII ■11 IIIIIiM\II IIIIIIIU /11 AI!!:iilll�lf 1i1HMM111 11 /111111111111 11111111111111 III1IIIIIIII 1IIiiiiI11III mu- u11 NUMMI MINIM= ERMIMMER MOE I�NI %111 ■11 MISNOMER NuIMnIn Hu1■nnEn sEM SILTY CLAYEY SILT (SOFT) SANDY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT SANDY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT �� ■ �� III lIIII1I1, _ 1111111111 N 1 ■ Id pI� n ■��III�111111111111111111 �� ii •1 �11fflfl �■ 1��1ffilttitt 1��ff111� • 0 111111 u ii�ui � �iniii �n■��umn i ���� 11111111111111 111111WINNI 29 i �iii EMU H � nn � m� I1111 i�iiini■�i iiii'�ii�iiii ° �:��� �� ■��NI■ ■��Ilillll 1111111111 11 1 MIME iiiu��i � i�n�iiim � H i i � �� ii � I n11111 � NIi�■ 11111111 11111111 I \■1111 �� � • 11111111 11 ( �'1�1 ■�,1111111I1II�� 11111 I ■ullUl11 I�Ill�p 1 11111111111 II iiiiin i 11111111111 ii EMU= IIIIMIE11111111 • 111111•1•111111 • 1111111•111111 �� 11 � �� �unm��� 111111111• 111111111• 1 1 111•111111111111EMEMIUM11111•11111 11101111111111 ■�in �i■��mm� M 11111111 11111111 Mu���n �� 1111111111111•• un • 1111101 ■ 1111111�� 1111111111111111 11 1�"11 �H�I � �■�N111NI1 11111111111• 11111111111• n ��������� " �� � ■ Miiiiiii —_-� R II Aai PROBE TERMINATED AT 96, FEET DUE TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL ON 9/5/87 DEPTH FEET I METERS 92 -- 28 95- 1 whioririms moms 3 - ' M R ME ����.nnnm�� CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TON / SQ. FT. - 10 20 50 100 200 400 11111•11111111111 _1 '01t /Ntli�r 30 1111•1111111111•1•1 • FRICTION SOIL INTERPRETATION RATIO 4 8 12 14 GRAVELLY SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE) (BECOMES DENSE) ■ENE■ I/u■U•l =-- :r-- - - -..: =m:- - — - -- -- -- i. = -- am= mow! — - -:, S -....z E ..�.. - -- .. -- ......... -. :: _ No - -.._� - - -- we mill : - - -li•- • GeoEn Incorporated LOG OF DUTCH CONE PROBE p -3 FIGURE A -24 (Continued) DEPTH FEET I METERS 0 _ 0 1 2 111111111111111111111111•111111 11111111111111111 Min= EMEMMINIMINMEN 111111111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111 111111111 111111111111111111 MINIM =mum minimmilmm inumu 11111111 1111111:11111 Im 111 1111111111111 � mo���III � lisuo■IIIIIIIIImm 111�111�1�11 1111111111.111111111 110111111111111 11111111:11111111 11111111 '�1 IIII 1 Iliiifi111 11010•11111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 11111M111111 1111•11111M1111111101 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111■1111111 IN11111111011 11111111111111111111111111111 11111111 11111 1 .1111111M 1 -1111111111111111111 MIR= 111 111111111111M11111111111111111111111111111 1111■11111111111 � i iii ���ii■i i�■�i 111111111111111 ININ11111111 111' '11611111111E1111111 111111111111 Nummutal 101111111111111111111111•111 11111111111111 MIME 1111111111111111M11111M111 1110111111111 is�uH�NnnNUm ■�■ 1111100111111111111 1111111111111111111111111 11111:1•1111111111111111111111111 mums � MEM iiIIIiI111111•1 1 minim= _ 1111■ ■11Ip „� 11111l��� Ij 11111 ■111 " " " "' 1llhIIII1Ii 11111111111111 1111111111M1111111,11111 ���0111�1■���1IIIlllnl�� IIIIIII�I11If � 111111■ ■rr11i ��1N1111111� 111111111111111111 ■�11Hil�i ::. - -- INNER CLAYEY SILT AND FINE SANDY SILT WITH SOME GRAVELLY LAYERS (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF) (FILL) CLAYEY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF) SANDY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT SANDY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT (BECOMES SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF) SAND ( (LOOSE) NIA a 4- 10 5- 20- 25- 30- CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TON/SQ. FT. - FRICTION SOIL INTERPRETATION RATIO SURFACE ELEVATION: 10 20 50 100 200 400 4 8 12 1 4 20.6 feet PREDRILLED AND BACK - FILLED WITH SAND 1111 Illll11lf 1111111111111111 MIndu11n 1 IIIII piIIII NINO INdN1111 ■11 11191111 ■11 11111I11111 ■11 iiiiiiiiiaii 111,2111111111 RIMER AMMER HUMMER 11111111 nan1n111111N i� i��i 1�n_:.i�11 ■i� M11M1= 1►1�1 /1�11�11 M1N1111 ■11 �Ilillii�ll ►inNnn ■n \I�IN�U�11 STIFF TO SANDY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT SANDY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT (BECOMES SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF) 0 m 1 N 15 20- 25- 30y 35- 40- 45- 10 I 1 12 13 14 1 1 1 J SAND (LOOSE) (BECOMES DENSE) (BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE) SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT (LOOSE) (BECOMES DENSE) (BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE) SiLTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT (BECOMES � X1106 mai MN aft - C2WOURL M • EMI . E DEPTH FEET 1 METERS 46 -14 Uni111111I1111 111111111111111 111111111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111 1■111111111111 1,111!1 11111111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111 111111110111111 ITAI 11111r11r 1 ►111111111111 11111 11111 111111/1111111 11/11111111111 111111111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111 1111(1111111111 1111■111111111 11111111111111 111111511111111 111111%11111 uN11111111111 11111111111111 11111111111111 1111 /�1111r11f1 11111111111111 11111111 1101111111111 111131M11111 11111311111111 11111,11111111111 11/11III11M 11111x111111111 1/111/11 MI/11111111 1 SANDY SILT AND /OR SILTY SAND (MEDIUM `STIFF. LOOSE) 50 g6 _ 60 65 - 70- 75- 10 20 50 100 200 400 4 8 12 14 uu.I11/1 NMI uuuu1111- aRuu11r11111uu■ 1111111111111MENIMI 111111111 b uuu.111r uuu1/11111 �uuIIIUIai■�� *RI11111111 �� � uuu11111 uu111111111111Uu■ MUM 1111 aII1�1111111uu■ f uuuiull 11111111111.111111111111111 1/111111 II /111 RNIuII"• I 0611111111511 M ������� uuu 111 11�.il111111iluuu 1 T � N MI1111uuuuui1I11111f■ Ib!IIIIIIII � uuu11111�i�uu11111111fuuu uuu11111/�'�RUt111111111uuu _ R 1U11111111uu■ �Imweas uIa1 I llillluuu 1 . 1 !!��uu1111hr11111uu■ 18 �•,'111•I1ul�uuuui11/11111u uuu!1111 uuuu11r111111u uuu►1111 �uII111I11111uuu uu►�= 1111111111111111111111111111111 uu\!1111 uuuu11111111iuuf uu1111M1'�RII111111111uu■ u1111111 uuu111111111uuu ___ IflI uuuuloluuu 11111111111511111110111111 12!1111 20■ = u�>.� R _ — u �r." i 111111110111111111111 1 . I ,N � 1WN IIhi.11I11111I NMI 1u1�EtN11uUn u 111911111111 21 111111111121111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 MUM �uRT /11111 uuu1u11111tuuu � u111651111 ■uu111/llnluu■ � ��Riuii��RIIHI111111uuu u 2 2 uu111u1111111uu■ 111 r/ � uuu11.111 uR11111111111uu11 uUUWI111 uuu111111111u�■ 111111111101111 ' 111111111111111111111 23 � uuu111 /f�uN � uuu►1111 uuu 1111r111uu■ � uuu11111 uuununillla i MUUMUU �uuunilll uuun111111111uuu 1HP �uuu11111 uuuuu111111uuu 24 � I11i���. ■��11 � rimm1nu wemillinnurfinimmorn . 16 19 CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE - TON /SQ. FT. - FRICTION RATIO P SOIL INTERPRETATION SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT (BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE) SILTY LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT' CLAYEY SILT (SOFT) m C) c m N 0 0 a 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 z m m 60- 65 - 20 70 23 24 80- 85 90- 92- 18 19 21 22 2 . 26 27 28 ■isiiiuninr■ 1111111111111111111111111111E ■Innlllnlu-i 1111111111111111111111111111 ommunuHIIInm■ ■/llniuM111n 1111=1111 11111111111111.11111111 111111111111111111111111111111111 Irillm i I I ummuun 11n.nn un 1111111111111I 111 M1HM11111 UM111111MM iiriii E uN�i�wn NIlUNhlIlIl W nn1nm 11113111111111 IIIIIMIIHIIII 1111 /111111111 1�11 iiigliiiiii III/M 111111 11111IIII11IIt \III�IIII�� hnuu muumuu unman MUM= iiuiiiiiiu r11111111111U ��m�unmi iiiiii ►I %I�I�IH1I1II il1l1l /1111111 CLAYEY POSSIBLE ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT SAND (MEDIUM DENSE) (BECOMES DENSE) was Oil I 117 7 0 Z1 � I ow IIIII VIMU 1 1 11111�I�II 111111 �i� 1 iiiiiiiii:� Niiiiiiiiiiii 11111111 IIIIIIi!fl!I_ IIIIIHIIIIIII iii =iiiii� ��iiiiiiiiiii 11111111111111 IMINIMMIUMIN 11111111111111 � !111111111u 11111111111111Mam muumuu unumum MUUMnn �� �I■IIMn� =M �eImm��� n�I��nnn 1•111111111111 111111111111111111111111111 iiiiiniii 1111111 � ■�Illlfllll {I�� 11111111111111 111111111111111111 � t ■�Iillllll� 11111111111111 � EMU= ��■NIIINIII 111111111111111 � ��iiini� �i u�m�iiiiiii � �C����n��� =In�mn ■� nu�m�nIu � MAW= ■nMlllllII 3 111NN 111 n � ■i niii� nIII�� � IIIIU NIIIIIIIN {1 � 1111111111111 ���NIII� ■t ■��1�i1111m � 1�11u mmiumm a annum 1 minimum= 1•1111111111111./WI MUM= 11111111111111 IIIIIIEIIIMIINIUMMIMMM 11111111111111 MINIMUM MIME MI I MUMMA 111111111111111 111111111•111111111.11M111111111111111111111 111111111H1111 .1111111111MEMMINIIIIIIIIIIMM1111111. MUUMUU INEMMUNIMMAMMUIMMEMI muumuu NomillUM1111110111111111111111linummum imummunnows 11N1�1�1�1�� 11 11111 1111111111E1 � ��� ■��IIIWI■ � � ■�Ilil�un ��Ilillllm mom= ammoommumum maloommil 0 /EA Q DEPTH FEET 1 METERS 92- 281 2 95 100 105- 29 30 31 CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE FRICTION SOIL INTERPRETATION - TON / SQ. FT. - RATIO 10 20 50 100 200 400 4 8 12 14 (BECOMES VERY DENSE) (BECOMES MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE) (BECOMES DENSE TO VERY DENSE) PROBE TERMINATED AT 100 FEET ON 9/2/87 GeoEngineers kir- Incorporated LOG OF DUTCH CONE PROBE P-4 FIGURE A -27 (Continued) DEPTH FEET I METERS OT 0 1 2 I0 20 25 30 15 nnmMI= 11111111111111 111mm111•■ 1111111111111111111 ■mnn111111■ 111nM1mn 0111111111111111 11111111M11 emu ■•11 1111i3nmt10 111111 ■�■ IIrlrAi1111111 111111111111111111 111g11111111111 111110111111111 1■u0111mu 11NIIIII ■111■ 11111111111111 11111111111111111M MI 11111111111111111 1 ■111 1111111111111 'NIMBI!! MINIM man -- •■•■=minummis mnnmm nu_ awas■un�— rmmn Annnmm Nmmunim■rommommo minim= INIMMEN111/111•111111111111111111 MINI 1 111 -- • — �•nm nn ���■���� �auu��nnn � �H■n �r mmimmm MAIM= ���•:•��� 111111111•1■ IIIII�IIIIINI � 111111■111 IIINIIIIIIIIII 8 � � BI11 1111111111111111 IIU/�IINIIII �111 ■Nlilll •�� 111111111 111 ��t1 /1 11H I 111111111111111E 1111111111111 11111•11111111 1��■ 111112IIIIIIN � �� ■��� �� ■� 1111111111111 � ����fl - .�. UIIIIllhIIIII 5 111111111,, fit*, NIB NS CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE —TON / SQ. FT. — 10 20 50 FRICTION SOIL INTERPRETATION RATIO SURFACE ELEVATION: 100 200 400 4 8 12 14 17.0 feet IIMMUM111 LiinhIiuII Nounnm Ilffff i.r i Nom Imam 10 R Ilhiiimm I►111I1111111f 1m1I1111111111 PREDRILLED AND BACKF I LLED WITH SAND CLAYEY SILT (SOFT) SAND LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT BECOMES SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF (BECOMES SOFT) ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1 FOOT ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT SAND WITH SILTY SAND AND SILT LAYERS (LOOSE CLAYEY 15- 20 30- 35- 40- 45- 4 5 6 7 25- 8 9 I0 12 13 14 • i 111111111111111111 111111111111111 (BECOMES SOFT) ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY 1'� FOOT ORGANIC LAYER, APPROXIMATELY FOOT SAND WITH SILTY SAND AND SILT LAYERS (LOOSE) CLAYEY SILT (VERY SOFT TO SOFT) SILTY SAND AND SAND (DENSE TO VERY DENSE) PROBE TERMINATED AT 37 FEET DUE TO PRACTICAL REFUSAL ON 9/5/87 DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) 0 - 3.0 3.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 8.0 8.0 - 9.0 0 - 2.5 2.5 - 7.0 7.0 - 9.0 9.0 - 11.0 GROUP SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL `� GeoEngineers �� Incorporated LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 1 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 18.0 FEET BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ASPHALT FRAGMENTS UP TO 2 FEET IN DIAMETER (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) BLUISH -GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL (STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) DARK BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL COBBLES AND MINOR CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) LIGHT BROWN SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL (STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) TEST PIT TERMINATED AT 9.0 FEET ON 9/22/87 DUE TO REFUSAL ON CONCRETE DEBRIS SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 3.0 FEET DENSITY TEST AT 3.0 FEET, 114 PCF DRY DENSITY WITH 13% MOISTURE CONTENT TEST PIT 2 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 19.0 FEET GRAYISH -BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ORGANICS AT 2.0 FEET (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL AND A TRACE OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) BROWNISH -GRAY SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) BROWN SAND AND GRAVEL WITH SILT (DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11.0 FEET ON 9/22/87 DUE TO VERY DIFFICULT DIGGING SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 4.0 AND 9.5 FEET DENSITY TEST AT 4.0 FEET, 89 PCF DRY DENSITY WITH 23% MOISTURE CONTENT DENSITY TEST AT 0.0 FEET, 104 PCF DRY DENSITY WITH 14% MOISTURE CONTENT THE ELEVATIONS AND DEPTHS ON THE TEST PIT LOGS, ALTHOUGH SHOWN TO 0.1 FEET, ARE BASED ON AN AVERAGE OF MEASUREMENTS ACROSS THE TEST PIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ACCURATE TO 0.5 FEET. LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A -29 DEPTH BELOW GROUP SOIL GROUND SURFACE CLASSIFICATION (FEET) SYMBOL 0 - 5.0 5.0 - 11.5 11.5 - 14.0 14.0 - 17,0 0 - 6.5 6.5 - 7.5 7.5 - 14.0 14.0 - 17.0 0 - 7.0 7.0 - 12.5 12.5 - 17.5 �� GeoEngineers �� Incorporated LOG OF TEST PIT TEST PIT 3 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 18.0 FEET BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY) (FILL) NOTE: BECOMES GRAY, MOIST AT 3.0 FEET GRAY SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES (STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) DARK GRAY SANDY SILT WITH ORGANICS AND CONCRETE FRAGMENTS (GRASS NOTED AT 11.5 FEET OL DARK BROWN TO BLACK ORGANIC SILT WITH PEAT (MEDIUM STIFF, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 17.0 FEET ON 9/22/87 SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 3.5, 12.0 (23% MOISTURE CONTENT) AND 16.0 FEET (109% MOISTURE CONTENT) DENSITY TEST AT 3.5 FEET, 114 PCF DRY DENSITY WITH 12% MOISTURE CONTENT TEST PIT 4 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 20.5 FEET GRAY AND BROWN MOTTLED SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL, OCCASIONAL ORGANICS AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) BLACK ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) GRAY AND BROWN SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) DARK BROWN SILT WITH VARIABLE ORGANIC CONTENT BRICKS AND CONCRETE DEBRIS TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 17.0 FEET ON 9/22/87 SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 5.0, 6.5, 14.5 (57% MOISTURE CONTENT) AND 16.0 FEET TEST PIT 5 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 18.5 FEET GRAY SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY TO 3 FEET, MOIST) (FILL) GRAY FINE SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) ML /OL GRAY SILT AND DARK BROWN ORGANIC SILT (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 17.5 FEET ON 9/22/87 SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 3.0 AND 15.0 FEET (78% MOISTURE CONTENT) DENSITY TEST AT 3.0 FEET, 117 PCF DRY DENSITY WITH 16% MOISTURE CONTENT DESCRIPTION LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A-30 DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) 0 - 2.0 2.0 - 9.0 9.0 - 12.5 12.5 - 17.0 0 - 11.0 11.0 - 17.0 0 - 3.0 3.0 - 11.0 GROUP SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL ML Ni GeoEngineers gro" Incorporated LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 6 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 17.5 FEET GRAY SILT WITH A TRACE OF SAND, GRAVEL AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (STIFF, DRY) (FILL) BROWN SANDY SILT WITH GRAVEL AND A TRACE OF CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) WITH GRASS AT 8.0 FEET GRAY SILT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) DARK GRAYISH -BROWN SILT WITH ORGANICS (SOFT, MOIST) NOTE: GRASS BETWEEN 12.5 AND 13.0 FEET TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 17.0 FEET ON 9/22/87 SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM 12.5 TO 17.0 FEET (44 TO 73% MOISTURE CONTENT) TEST PIT 7 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 18.0 FEET GRAY AND BROWN MOTTLED SANDY WILT WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, DRY TO MOIST) (FILL) POD OF ORGANICS FROM 7.5 TO 8.5 FEET ML /OL GRAY SILT WITH VARIABLE ORGANIC CONTENT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) GRASS AT 11.0 FEET TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 17.0 FEET ON 9/22/87 SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM 15.0 TO 17.0 FEET (86% MOISTURE CONTENT) TEST PIT 8 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 18.0 FEET GRAY SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, WOOD AND CONCRETE DEBRIS (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY) (FILL) GRAY SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 11.0 FEET ON 9/22/87 DUE TO CONCRETE LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A -31 DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) TEST PIT 9 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 20.0 FEET 0 - 5.0 BROWN SANDY SILT AND SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, BRICK AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (STIFF AND MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 5.0 - 12.0 GRAY AND DARK BROWN SILT WITH SAND, GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) 12.0 - 14.0 ML GRAY SILT WITH SAND (VERY STIFF,MOIST) 14.0 - 16.0 ML DARK GRAY SILT WITH A TRACE OF ORGANICS (STIFF, MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 16.5 FEET ON 9/22/87 SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM 14.5 TO 16.0 FEET (50% MOISTURE CONTENT) 0 - 8.0 8.0 - 10.5 10.5 - 12.5 12.5 - 16.5 GROUP SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL TEST PIT 11 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 11.5 FEET 0 - 1.5 BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (LOOSE, DRY) (FILL) 1.5 - 6.0 ML BROWN AND ORANGE MOTTLED SILT (MEDIUM STIFF TO STIFF, MOIST) 6.0 - 9.0 ML /OL GRAY, DARK BROWN AND BLACK SILT AND ORGANIC SILT WITH PEAT (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) 9.0 - 13.5 OL GRAYISH -BROWN SILT WITH FIBROUS ORGANICS (SOFT, MOIST) 13.5 - 14.0 SM GRAY SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 14.0 FEET ON 9/23/87 SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 3.0 (36% MOISTURE CONTENT), 7.0 (125% MOISTURE CONTENT), 11.0 AND 14.0 FEET (81 -154% MOISTURE CONTENT) MAJOR SEEPAGE AT 13.5 FEET GeoEngineers Incorporated LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 10 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 18.5 FEET BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND OCCASIONAL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY TO MOIST) (FILL) GRAY SILT (STIFF TO VERY STIFF, MOIST) (FILL) DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) BROWN SILT WITH A TRACE OF ORGANICS (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) GRASS FROM 12.5 TO 13.0 FEET TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 16.5 FEET ON 9/23/87 SAMPLE OBTAINED FROM 13.0 TO 16.0 FEET (63% MOISTURE CONTENT) LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A -32 DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) GROUP SOIL. CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL GeoEngineers Wi r o t, Incorporated LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 12 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 14.5 FEET 0 - 0.5 TOPSOIL AND ROOT MASS 0.5 - 3.0 ML BROWN SILT WITH OCCASIONAL ROOTS (STIFF, DRY TO MOIST) (FILL ?) 3.0 - 7.0 ML BROWN AND ORANGE MOTTLED SILT WITH OCCASIONAL ROOTS (STIFF, MOIST) 7.0 - 12.0 ML GRAY AND ORANGE MOTTLED SILT (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) 12.0 - 14.0 SP -SM DARK BLUISH -CRAY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 14.0 FEET ON 9/23/87 SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 8.0 FEET (66% MOISTURE CONTENT) MAJOR SEEPAGE AT 13.0 FEET TEST PIT 13 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 15.0 FEET 0 - 3.0 BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, DRY) (FILL) 3.0 - 8.0 BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH METAL DEBRIS (VALVE COVERS, BED SPRINGS) AND A TRACE OF GRAVEL (VERY LOOSE, DRY TO MOIST) (FILL) 8.0 - 14.0 SM BROWN SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE, MOIST BECOMES MOIST TO WET AT 12.0 FEET) TEST PIT COMPLETED 14.0 FEET ON 9/23/87 TEST PIT 14 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 14.0 FEET 0 - 2,0 DARK BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL, CONCRETE AND BRICK FRAGMENT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (FILL) 2.0 - 5.0 SP -SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 5.0 - 6.5 ML BROWN AND ORANGE MOTTLED FINE SANDY SILT (MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) 6.5 - 11.0 ML /OL GRAY AND BROWN SILT, ORGANIC SILT AND PEAT WITH OCCASIONAL ROOTS TO 1.25 INCHES (SOFT TO MEDIUM STIFF, MOIST) 11,0 - 14,5 ML GRAYISH -BROWN SILTY WITH ORGANICS (SOFT, MOIST TO WET) 14.5 - 16.0 SM BLUISH -GRAY SILT FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (LOOSE, WET) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 16.0 FEET ON 9/23/87 SAMPLES OBTAINED AT 8.0 (140 - 256% MOISTURE DENSITY) AND 12.0 FEET (60% MOISTURE CONTENT) MAJOR SEEPAGE AT 15.5 FEET LOG OF TEST PIT FIGURE A -33 DEPTH BELOW GROUND SURFACE (FEET) GROUP SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYMBOL LOG OF TEST PIT DESCRIPTION TEST PIT 15 APPROXIMATE ELEVATION: 16.0 FEET 0 - 2.0 BROWN SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND CONCRETE FRAGMENTS (MEDIUM DENSE, DRY TO MOIST) (FILL) 2.0 - 7.5 SP-SM BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 7.5 - 12.0 SP-SM BROWN WITH ORANGE OXIDATION STAINING FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE, MOIST) 12.0 - 16.0 SM BROWN WITH ORANGE OXIDATION STAINING SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND (LOOSE, MOIST) TEST PIT COMPLETED AT 16.0 FEET ON 9/23/87 SAMPLE OBTAINED AT 9.0 FEET SEEPAGE AT 15.5 FEET ,1• Geo Engineers Incorporated l akv i P P° . LOG OF TEST PIT AMMOINIIII•M• FIGURE A-34 • APPENDIX; B. APPENDIX B LABORATORY AND FIELD TESTING All soil samples were brought to our laboratory for further exami— nation. A series of laboratory tests were performed during the course of this study to evaluate the index and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Descriptions of the types of tests performed are given below. Selected samples from the borings were tested to determine their moisture content and dry density. Selected samples from the test pits were also tested to determine their moisture content. The results of the moisture content and dry density tests are presented on the exploration logs and in figures presenting the results of laboratory tests, where appro— priate. A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative grab samples obtained along the riverbank (G -1 and G -2) and two samples from the borings. The results of the grain size determinations for the samples are presented in this appendix. Three one — dimensional consolidation tests were performed on selected samples from the borings to provide data for developing settlement estimates. Porous stones were placed on both the top and bottom of the sample to allow drainage. Vertical loads were then applied to the sample incrementally in such a way that the sample was allowed to consolidate under each load increment. The rebound of the sample during unloading was also measured. The results of the consolidation test are presented in this appendix as a plot of consolidation (strain) versus applied load (stress). Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples from the borings to evaluate the strength characteristics of the supporting soils. The direct shear test imposes both a normal and shear stress on a sample to induce a failure at a predetermined location. An internal friction angle can be estimated for each soil type tested. The test results are presented in this appendix. B — 1 GeoEnglneers Incorporated Atterberg limits were established on a selected sample from one boring. Atterberg limits are used primarily for classification and indexing of cohesive soils. The liquid and plastic limits are defined as the moisture content of a cohesive soil at arbitrarily established limits for liquid and plastic behavior, respectively. The results of the Atterberg limits are presented on the boring log. Laboratory maximum densities were established for three bulk samples obtained where nuclear densometer tests were performed in test pits. The laboratory maximum density represents the highest degree of density which can be obtained from a particular soil type by inducing a predetermined compaction effort. The test determines the "optimum" moisture content of the soil at the laboratory maximum density. The laboratory maximum density tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM D -1557 on a bulk sample of material. The test results were used to determine the percent compaction of the existing fill soils. Nuclear densometer tests were performed in several of the test pits to indicate the in —situ dry density of the fill soils. Representative samples were brought back to the laboratory for moisture content determinations because the nuclear gauge moisture content is not accurate in trench conditions. The moisture contents and the dry densities are presented on the appropriate test pit logs. B — 2 GeoEngineers Incorporated SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION G -1 G -2 RIVER BANK GRAB SAMPLE RIVER BANK GRAB SAMPLE FINE SANDY (SM-ML) SILTY FINE SILT AND SAND (SM) SILTY FINE SAND — --- ! eallni U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE `�. `�• `� � d \ o (0- % O 1 4-) 43. 43 . p• 4 \ P • 4 4) 10 1.0 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAND mon !a1 E MINIM M CO88LES GRAVEL COARSE 1 FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION B B -2 19' 24' GRAY SILTY GRAY FINE (SM -ML) FINE SANDY SAND (SM) SILT AND SILTY FINE SAND — -- — 100 90 ► - 80 70 } 60 m a z 50 40 30 20 1 0 10 100 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 1� - �, �* ��• v` ti v (off A �p �- -,\ 41\ 4Y � �. „\o 4 \-P 43 10 1.0 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS SAND 1 { i { { NrEMEN.' 1 � t r 1 0.01 COBBLES GRAVEL COARSE 1 FINE COARSE 1 MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY 0.001 1111114.fl 1199 -02 -1 JRG:EL DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA Sample Moisture Dry Confining Shear Boring Depth Sample Content Density Pressure Strength Number (Feet) Description (Z) (pcf) (psf) (psf) 2 14 Fine sand 31.6 90 1200 1050 2 19 Silty fine sand 34.7 86 1500 1150 2 24 Fine sand with 34.3 88 1900 900 silt 5 14 Silt 45.2 70 1200 500 5 19 Fine sand 26.2 96 1500 2200 5 24 Silt 51.2 76 1900 925 5 34 Silty fine sand 27.0 96 2500 1250 KEY BORING, NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) SOIL CLASSIFICATION MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY (LBS /FT B -1 19' GRAY SILT AND CLAY (ML -CL) 35.1% 84.7 --... 1 0 . 02 . 04 . 06 . 08 . 10 . 12 . 14 . 1 .2 .3 .4 .5 t GeoEngineers kir osiso Incorporated PRESSURE (LBS /FT x 10 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 40 50 - t CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE B -4 KEY BORING NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) SOIL CLASSIFICATION MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY (LBS /FT B -3/2 11.5' GRAY SILT (ML) 43.0% 75.7 . .15 .20 .2 .3 .4 .5 � GeoEngineers �ow Incorporated PRESSURE (LBS /FT x 10 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 40 50 -I - I CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE B -5 PRESSURE (LBS /FT x 10 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 1 2 3 4 5 10 20 30 40 50 CONSOLIDATION (INCHES /INCH) 0 0 0 w N 1- 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 . I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KEY BORING NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) SOIL CLASSIFICATION MOISTURE CONTENT DRY DENSITY (LBS /FT 11 BROWN SILTY PEAT (PT) 86.4% 49.9 TP -11 <4/ GeoEnglneers � Incorporated CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE ® -6 • o e : � ype o nspection: 6 11 nrg 9 0.- Sp: • ns ructions: _ Druv-C ,.:t. poSShi e.-- . P a- (• C • G e rn�A Date Wanted: 6 " . am. di Request ---' xrai Phone Na '5 -- 6 d,-- s CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 INSPECTION RECOREi Retain a copy with permit ❑ Approved per applicable codes. ❑ Corrections required prior to approval. Inspector: // Dater 7— 9 ❑ $30.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to reinspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. Recept No.: 70: m 'ro ect: f //iv , 7 /l - Type of inspection: �� � Address: J � Date Called; Special Instructions: f ,; 30 Go ' Oc 'c-9,_ Date Wanted: 6-2. `.52_ a . pm. Requester: Phone No.; 7'-' INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit ECT •' 0. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING ;DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98181 ❑ Approved per applicable codes. COMMENTS: N e. e ,7. . ' (( , L ( uroapo ecep ❑ Corrections required prior to approval. S J4.. A/ • ,4 ERMFT 0 206) 431 =3670 .e_ -�r41 -cam I / C--1p /`'' o2 --- /. --0' - vaG 4 C . /v 6 4..43 +-4 ,-.1— ,%.:=1 r, L S 4.ot-�il ...m.-4 , lil .e..,/-71 .Pis 4 :v (51-4 " .6 ❑ . $30.00 REINSPECTIO FEE REQUIRED. Prior to reinspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. e: CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTIICENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 May 28, 1991 Dear Dan: Dan Balmelli Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Ave. S. Kent, Wa. 98032 RE: Gateway North Phase IV Development - Building No. 7 PHONE # (2061 433.1800 Gory L. I inDusc,, ,SIayor Public Works Department has reviewed your plans and approves these for Building No. 7 only per the following conditions and comments. Prior to beginning the work, call Denise Millard, Permit Coordinator (431 -3672) to have the following permits prepared for pickup: The prior Developer's Agreement for mitigating traffic impacts on this development is in affect for this phase of the development: also this phase of the development will be provided per the July 25, 1990 letter commemorating the agreement to complete the left turn channelization along East Marginal Way for the Gateway North Phase III Development. Sanitary side sewer approval /permitting will be covered under Val Vue Sewer District with the stipulation that all sewer construction shall comply with the City of Tukwila Standards and /or Val Vue Sewer District Standards, whichever is more stringent. Water system extensions, including water services and meter boxes shall be approved /permitted through Water District # 125 with the stipulation that this system meets the City of Tukwila Standards and /or Water District # 125 Standards, whichever is more stringent. Enclosed you will find a copy of the Metro Industrial Form of which you will fill out and transmit to Metro to determine whether a discharge permit is required. Also enclosed, you will find the January 26, 1990 metro letter to the Public Works Director, Ross Earnst, and a Non - Residential form to be filled out by the applicant and sent to Metro, which will make a final determination of the Metro capacity charge that will be levied against the Development by Metro directly. No additional Land Altering Permit is necessary as grading for Phase IV was accomplished under Phase I of the development approval, via King County. It is necessary for the applicant to meet with the Building Official to determine the appropriate soils reports necessary for this building. Dan Balmelli, Barghausen Engineers May 28, 1991 Page 2 In reference to the FIRM panel 310 of 650 (dated September 29, 1989) this property is contiguous to the Green River between sections "I ", "N ", "J" - the City's flood study indicates the 100 year flood elevation is 9.5 (without levees). The Development plans indicate the elevation of 21.5 for Building No. 7 for the finish lowest floor elevation, which is beyond the 500 year flood elevation for the site. It is noted that all parts of this development is above the 500 year flood elevation. Therefore, no Flood Control Zone Permit is required. Requested is the following permits be obtained before beginning any work: 1. Storm Drainage Permit (Permit Fee = $25.00) 2. Curb Cut / Access / Sidewalk / Channelization/Signalization Permit (Permit Fee = $25.00) Public Works staff has reviewed and approves the enclosed channelization plan for East Marginal Way as part of this approval. This work shall be carried out under this permit. The City will be responsible for striping to the north from the south side of the bridge )approximately 340 ft. north of South 116th). The fire loop /fire hydrant and all sprinkler requirements shall be referred to the Tukwila Fire Marshall Nick Olivas, (433 -1859) and be permitted under the plan review processes of the Tukwila Fire Department and Water District 125. Note: The grassline swales in Phase I adjacent to the east side of the development and adjacent to the west side of East Marginal Way South was originally designed and permitted through King County. Those portions of the public right -of -ways were considered public infrastructure and to be operated and maintained as public, under the Phase I master drainage plan approved by King County. It is our understanding that at the time of annexation of this property from King County to Tukwila, the drainage infrastructure came under the ownership of the City. Additional drainage work may be permitted under the conditions of the Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. letter of July 24, 1990, provided under Phase III for this overall development. It is noted in Item 1, Paragraph 3, that "if the owner desires to maintain a higher level of service to this area for asthetic purposes, it can do so by submitting a formal request to the Public Works Department indicating the extent of the work being proposed... ". Enclosures (5) Dan Balmelli, Barghausen Engineers May 28, 1991 Page 3 (Note: the deduct meter for landscape irrigation will be handled through Water District # 125 and not be the responsibility of the City of Tukwila). 3. Landscape Irrigation Permit (Permit Fee = $25.00) Approvals by the Seattle Water District shall also be obtained through the Seattle Water Department. A DOH approved backflow prevention device shall be installed as part of this work. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance do not hesitate to call me at 433 -0179. Sincerely, guy, Ron Cameron, P.E. City Engineer Public Works Department PF /amc:B6:balmelli xc: Greg Villanueva Permit Coordinator Ted Freemire Bob Hart- Bedford Properties Metro Read File Development File - Gateway Building 7 (a.k.a. Seagate) CONTROL # 90 -368 PERMIT # [ ] CURB CUT /ACCESS /SIDEWALK [ ] CHANNELIZATION /STRIPING /SIGNING IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY [ ] FIRE LOOP /HYDRANT [X] LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 [ ] SEWER MAIN EXTENSION [ ] STORM DRAINAGE [ ] WATER MAIN EXTENSION [ ] MISC. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES FOR PERMISSION TO: proceed with work per approved plans /letter 5/291 ISSUE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: + THE APPLICANT MUST NOTIFY CITY INSPECTOR GREG VILLANUEVA ((206) 431 -3674) OF COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. SITE ADDRESS: 3515 East Marginal Way N. PROJECT NAME: Gateway No. Bldg. 7 NAME OF OWNER: Bedford Properties PHONE: (206) 241 -1103 ADDRESS: 12720 Gateway Dr. #107 Seattle, Wa. ZIP: 9816 CONTRACTOR: SSA Corp. PHONE: (206) 367 -9393 ADDRESS: P.O. Box 33978 Seattle, Wa. ZIP: 98133 FEES PLAN CHECK FEE $ 10.00 (000/345.830) INSPECTION FEE $ 15.00 (401 /342.400) RECEIVED BY TOTAL $ 25.00 RECEIPT # DATE ACCEPTS THIS PERMIT AND AGREES TO ABIDE BY ALL APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE. WE AGREE THAT THE CITY OF TUKWILA SHALL BE HELD HARMLESS FROM ALL OR ANY CLAIMS ARISING AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT. PERMITS WHICH HAVE LAPSED BEYOND THE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE SHALL REQUIRE A REAPPLICATION AND REISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT THROUGH THE CITY OF TUKWILA AT AN ADDITIONAL FEE (433 -0179) APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE TITLE APPROVED BY: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PERMIT HOLDER WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS APPEARS ON THIS RECORD HAS SATISFACTORILY MET THE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT APPROVED HEREIN. FIELD INSPECTION DATE CITY INSPECTOR PERMIT NOT SIGNED -OFF BECAUSE cc: APPLICANT INSPECTOR CITY SHOPS FINANCE DEPARTMENT FIRE DEPARTMENT INITIALS DATE CONTROL # 90 -368 PERMIT # FEES VX] CURB CUT /ACCESS /SIDEWALK 1. K] CHANNELIZATION /STRIPING /SIGNING IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY [ ] FIRE LOOP /HYDRANT [ ] LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES FOR PERMISSION TO: proceed with work per approved plans /letter 5/2391 PLAN CHECK FEE $ 10.00 (000/345.830) INSPECTION FEE $ 15.00 (000 /342.400) RECEIVED BY TOTAL $ 25.00 RECEIPT # APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE TITLE FIELD INSPECTION DATE CITY INSPECTOR PERMIT NOT SIGNED -OFF BECAUSE ISSUE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: [ ] SEWER MAIN EXTENSION [ ] STORM DRAINAGE [ ] WATER MAIN EXTENSION [ ] MISC. + THE APPLICANT MUST NOTIFY CITY INSPECTOR GREG VILLANUEVA ((206) 431 -3674) OF COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. + + SITE ADDRESS: 3515 East Marginal Way N. PROJECT NAME: Gateway No. Bldg. 7 NAME OF OWNER: Bedford Properties PHONE: (206) 241 -1103 ADDRESS: 12720 Gateway Dr. #107 Seattle, Wa. ZIP: 9816 CONTRACTOR: SSA Corp. PHONE: (206) 367 -9393 ADDRESS: P.O. Box 33978 Seattle, Wa. ZIP: 98133 + DATE ACCEPTS THIS PERMIT AND AGREES TO ABIDE BY ALL APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE. WE AGREE THAT THE CITY OF TUKWILA SHALL BE HELD HARMLESS FROM ALL OR ANY CLAIMS ARISING AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT. PERMITS WHICH HAVE LAPSED BEYOND THE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE SHALL REQUIRE A REAPPLICATION AND REISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT THROUGH THE CITY OF TUKWILA AT AN ADDITIONAL FEE (433 -0179) cc: APPLICANT INSPECTOR CITY SHOPS FINANCE DEPT.(IF APPLICABLE) FIRE DEPT. (IF APPLICABLE) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PERMIT HOLDER WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS APPEARS ON THIS RECORD HAS SATISFACTORILY MET THE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT APPROVED HEREIN. INITIALS DATE CONTROL # 90 -368 PERMIT # [ ] CURB CUT /ACCESS /SIDEWALK [ ] CHANNELIZATION /STRIPING /SIGNING IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY [ ] FIRE LOOP /HYDRANT [ ] LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION FIELD INSPECTION DATE CITY INSPECTOR CITY OF TUKWILA 6300 SOUTHCENTER BLVD. TUKWILA, WA 98188 APPR 1, B - -- - 1 PH IP SER, SENIOR ENGINEER, CITY OF TUKWILA PERMIT NOT SIGNED -OFF BECAUSE ISSUE DATE: EXPIRATION DATE: [ ] SEWER MAIN EXTENSION [X] STORM DRAINAGE [ ] WATER MAIN EXTENSION ( ] MISC. THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY APPLIES FOR PERMISSION TO: proceed with work per approved plane /letter 5/2891 + + THE APPLICANT MUST NOTIFY CITY INSPECTOR GREG VILLANUEVA ((206) 431 -3674) OF COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF WORK AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE. + + SITE ADDRESS: 3515 East Marginal Way N. PROJECT NAME:Gateway No. Bldg. 7 NAME OF OWNER: Bedford Properties PHONE: (206) 241 -110 ADDRESS: 12720 Gateway Dr. #107 Seattle, Wa. ZIP: 9816 CONTRACTOR: SSA Corp. PHONE: (206) 367 -939 ADDRESS: P.O. Box 33978 Seattle, Wa. ZIP: 98133 FEES PLAN CHECK FEE $ 10.00 (000/345.830) INSPECTION FEE $ 15.00 (412 /342.400) RECEIVED BY TOTAL $ 25.00 RECEIPT # DATE ACCEPTS THIS PERMIT AND AGREES TO ABIDE BY ALL APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA MUNICIPAL CODE. WE AGREE THAT THE CITY OF TUKWILA SHALL BE HELD HARMLESS FROM ALL OR ANY CLAIMS ARISING AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT. PERMITS WHICH HAVE LAPSED BEYOND THE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE SHALL REQUIRE A REAPPLICATION AND REISSUANCE OF THE PERMIT THROUGH THE CITY OF TUKWILA AT AN ADDITIONAL FEE (433 -0179) APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE TITLE cc: APPLICANT INSPECTOR CITY SHOPS FINANCE DEPARTMENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE PERMIT HOLDER WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS APPEARS ON THIS RECORD HAS SATISFACTORILY MET THE STANDARDS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE PROJECT APPROVED HEREIN. INITIALS DATE 1 =HARD HUDSON & A ')CIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 LI r oz .,,J r:6 sPt =._�� JOB Y N oRT( SHEET NO, Imo.' I OF CALCULATED BY GJ N'7 DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE \ / .I2 'rfIIGICj...(�,s.1, _ -w! L' _Is.T,IrTet*E' C'. _... 2 9- •• �`.! ... t'ut.Lln.ls i ! , 1.7 fQ • 2,o ......... ( 1- 1,15) t4-.1 .Pur- 112 9. Psf_ 4; 75 + 1 - - t 2" { z . ._ .1 6e4 .ISM (.,9a4) .. 20t3c 'C1 bl! 170 _ R CEIVED aITY 9F T?KW LA .'. )1UG 2 7. 1999; - - PERMIT CENTiR RICHARD HUDSON & ArOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENG ,..;ERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 12.06F1 Flewc.ts k , 1 �, 1_11,...- .__..$1 GNP A. 2l_. .. I ok I�a4 ,�zi etLi 1 JOB (.A -'1'i a No'z114 SHEET NO 1 OF DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE CALCULATED BY 6 .N All • W =... 2e}.5Q +_•=lo PSI r =_ i _ . 2,3 ..l 22 - .. iz(1)]3 o !L - 170 U /q? ._ �c� ��.C�� , (46)i,,,-44,147(14", ..._. � .. 3 e, � : ` 1!(20> ! — t.4tZc� .— &i+ Z.(.7) (td, 72:4 e t . cctc . • • :sic; .0.._ ..i.. =HARD HUDSON & ArOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGlivEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 JOB e-na... Norm SHEET NO. OF CALCULATED BY M DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ...._._.....__. __ _1- - 2 az .'. 2 - 2 14/.. _ � Lo o 2r,� -5 NC� h ^ 2 _ 3 _.... 0 - : . Q 6, 3 / /4- ___ 3 A. .� soli..".- - CD...._.. _.. _ w _`3.�'. 5 .._. - { _.. . ''� _ _ . ..!.._ 5�f) ...._ . _..._.._.._ 3 .. �_ _._...__......... _. ___ ff ,,,, 1 ._ .� _ . ___. ___ _ ___ 12 __ . Kt Z.. _,_. __ .,211 - C/ it N (Z � 3 /4 R,IoHAR,D HUDSON & Af CIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206 - 324.6160 JOB irl `7 • /306 1 SHEET NO g ( . OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED B SCALE DATE RICHARD HUDSON & A( )CIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206 -324 -6160 Job FX f SHEET No. OF DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE CALCULATED BY C.31.1 • _ _..__.... - -- _.. _C . _._ -... __ _.._ . ..._..: _ . __._ -_ _ G.3 1 I %t ir __._ .._._-- ..__.. - t - f.. _ _ ___ _ - -. ___ _.__ ...__..- .. -_. 11O __ -- -.� -.__� _.. ....__1..___. ____ ,.... _.._... __._ ___ 4�� H� ._ ._ . _ ._.. .N.4C _ --_ --- r - _ -- - � lb r _ _ __ _. _ _._ _ _ _.. __ _ _.._.. -. 7 - f IS _,_ M ~.��°>.'-- _.__._ cam.. _ ._._.. ___ ._ - ..._ ._.._. ...__. . _ _ .. --( _.�- __ _ _.__.... e ; TI'..°_ - z 6 -_.._ t2.� 7.5..�,?�._._.._....._ -._.._ ...__ 5.75i 2 '�._._- -_ ht.._ -..IC _..._..__.__ ....... T O _ .. M -_... E -_.�' - ...___ r _._ _.. ►. 1 b-7t+..__ ...... ._ _ _...._.. RICHARD HUDSON & A( )CIATES, CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206 -324 -6160 Job FX f SHEET No. OF DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE CALCULATED BY C.31.1 • •RICHARD HUDSON & A( )CIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206 - 324 - 6160 Zomc �.5 JOB s trmA ' 4, SHEET NO OF CALCULATED BY ai DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE Zakle r �.= . _.1s - I &6!, , .1 RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324 -6160 ese wall panels have been designed based on the TEST REPORT ON SLENDER WALLS blished by the American Concrete Institute, Southern California Chapter and e Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. = 3000. psi ;r = 60000. psi .:tual Thickness = 6.250 in. osign Thickness = 5.500 in. rfective Height = 20.000 ft. eight of parapet = 2.000 ft. ributary width = 6.500 ft. dead load = 2800. Pounds per width b ( 24. in.) >of .Live load = 5400. Pounds per width b ( 24. in.) ind load = 16.0 psf eismic zone 3 ::centricity = 5.8 in. , epth to steel = 3.680 iri. nimum nimum ximum ximum .ximum allowable allowable allowable allowable allowable **************** * **** * * * * * * * * *** * * ** **** * **** ** * T I L T - U P W A L L D E S I G N * **************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * CRITICAL. LOAD CASE = 3 * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** steel area = .16 sq.in. / width b ( #4 & #5 steel area = .20 sq'.in. / width b ({#6 bars steel area = 1.42 sq.in. per width b deflection = 1.60 in. bar spacing = 16.50 in. CASE IA U = 1.40) + 1.7(L) M =P *e 8 roof (No P* deflection) ment under factored loads Mu = 6277.08 ft -lbs /width b i. times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 10610.56 ft -lbs /width b required = .459 sq.in. per width b CASE IB U = 1.40) + 1.7(L) M= 0.6 *P *e + P *deflection nent under factored loads Mu = 13088.46 ft -lbs /width b d times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 13117.28 ft -lbs /width b rlection under service loads = .178 in. nent under service loads = 2566.90 ft -lbs /width b required = .688 sq.in. per width b JOB: seagate 6Q— $ 1 Sheet no. 77 Calculated by A»' Checked by Date: 1/26/90 o4.$ E V.% I fSo1 bars) & larger) R0%4. esti RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324 -6160 CASE II U = .75(1.40 + 1.7L + 1.87E) .0 t Live Load •ment under factored loads Mu = .12626.14 ft -lbs /width b d times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 12680.63 ft-lbs/width b flection under service loads = .470 in. aent under service loads = 6786.27 ft -lbs /width b required = .766 sq.in. per width b CASE III U = .75(1.40 + 1.7L + 1.7W) 50% Snow load JOB: seayate 6 A 1 Sheet no. P) Calculated by <UL Checked by Date: 1/26/90 aent under factored loads Mu = 13981.33 ft-lbs/width b d times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 13996.79 ft -lbs /width b Election under service loads = .503 in. 'meht under service loads = 7262.13 ft -.lbs /width b required = .848 sq.in. per width b -fl 4 As provided = .98 sq.in. -a1 5 As provided = .92 sq.in.4$ -- MiN. %- Fr.C.0 CASE IV U = .90 + 1.43(E) aent under factored loads Mu = 12050.43 ft -lbs /width b d times nominal. moment (PhiMn) = 12121.40 ft -lbs /width b Iflection under service loads = .470 in. aent under service loads 6786.27 ft -lbs /width b . required = .734 sq.in. per width b CASE V U = .9(0) + 1.3(W) aent under factored loads Mu 10619.48 ft -lbs /width b ii times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 10675.08 ft- -lbs /width b flection under service loads = .438 in. merit under service loads = 6326.20 •ft-lbs /width b required = .617 sq.in. per width b RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324 -6160 **************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * T I L T - U P W A L L D E S I G N * k * * ** ********** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** ** ese wall panels have been designed based on the TEST REPORT ON SLENDER WALLS Wished by the American Concrete Institute, Southern California Chapter and e Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. c = 3000. psi y = 60000. psi ctual Thickness = 6.250 in. esign Thickness = 5.500 in. ffective Height = 20.000 ft. :eight of parapet = 2.000 ft. ribt.rtary width = 11.500 ft. pof dead load = 600. Pounds . cof live load = 1100. Pounds :i.nd load = 16.0 psf eismic zone 3 ccentricity = 5.8 in. epth to steel = 3.680 in. per per rii.mum allowable steel area = .20 sq.in. n.i,mum allowable steel area = .25 sq.in. .ximum allowable steel area = 1.77 sq.in. .ximum allowable deflection = 1,60 in. .ximum allowable bar spacing = 16.50 in. width b ( 30. in.) width b ( 30. in.) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** 1 £ dtaa * CRITICAL LOAD CASE = 2. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *k * * * * * * * ** * * ** / width b (1t4 & #5 bars) / width b (06 bars & larder) per width .b CASE IA U = 1.4(D) + 1.7(L) M =P *e 0 roof (No P* deflection) ment under factored loads Mu = 1298.54 ft -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 5551.08 ft-lbs /width b required = .198 sq.in. per width b CASE IB U = 1.4(D) + 1.7(L) M= 0.6 *P *e + P *deflection nent under factored loads Mu = 6702.44 ft -'lbs /width b d times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 6736.92 ft -lbs /width b flection under service loads = .029 in, ment under service loads = 518.20 ft -lbs /width b required = .198•sq.in per width b • JOB: SEAGATE 6B 4.1 Sheet no. 9 Calculated by o.Jt- Checked by Date: 1/26/90 D cQ RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324-6160 CASE III U = .75(1.40 + 1.,.7L + 1.7W) 50`1; Snow load ment under factored loads Mu = 17530.61 ft -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 17625.57 ft -lbs /width b Election under service loads = .559 in. ment under service loads = 10077.97 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.102 sq.in. per width b CASE IV U = .90 + 1.43(E) invent under factored loads Mu = 18874.34 ft -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 18964.22•ft -ibs /width b . fiection under service :loads = .593 in. . -ment.under service loads = 10699.27 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.244 sq.in..per width b CASE V U = .9(D) + 1.3(W) ment under factored loads Mu = 16390.73 ft -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 16431.96 ft--lbs /wiclth b riection under service loads = .548 in. oent under service loads = 9884.41 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.022 sq.in. per width b JOB: SEAGATE 0 4 1 Sheet no. LCD Calculated by G.S Fil Checked by Date: 1/26/90 CASE II U = .75(1.40 + 1.7L 4 1.87E) .0 % Live Load meat under factored loads Mu = 19409.34 ft -lbs /width b i. times nominal. moment (PhiMn) = 19435.20 ft -lbs /width b riection under service loads = .593 in. meat under service loads = 10699.27 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.273 sq.in. per width b -II 5 As provided = 1.53 sq.in. 4-r 5 S 114> -11 6 As provided = 1.33 sq.in. Zbr l L �^.' 1 .Mse wall panels have been designed based on the TEST REPORT ON SLENDER WALLS blished by the American Concrete Institute, Southern California Chapter and •a Structural. Engineers Association of Southern California. = 3000. psi y = 60000. psi c tua], Thickness = 6.250 in. i ictn Thickness = 5.500 in. ffActive Height = 20.000 ft. ,right of parapet = 2.000 ft. ri.butary width = 10.000 ft. , :of dead load = 2800. Pounds per width b oof live load = 5400. Pounds per width b ind load = 16.0 psf eismic zone 3 ocentricity = 5.8 in. epth to steel = 3.680 in. nimum nimum ximum ;<imr rm xi.mum RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324 -6160 allowable allowable allowable allowable allowable **************** ** * * * * * ** * * * * ** * ** * * * * ** * * * ** ** * T I L T - U P W A L L D E S I G N * . **************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ( ( 24. in.) 24. in.) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * CRITICAL LOAD CASE = 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * ** steel area = .16 sq.in. steel area = .20 sq.in. steel area = 1.42 sq.in. deflection = 1.60 in. bar spacing = 16.50 in. JOB: SEAGATE 6C 1 Sheet no. 0 Calculated by 4.D't Checked by Date: 1/26/90 / width b (#f4 & #t5 bars) / width b (#6 bar* & larger) per width b CASE IA U = 1.4(0) + 1.7(L) M =P *e @ roof (No P* deflection) ment under factored loads Mu = 6277.08 ft -1bs /width b .i time nominal moment (PhiMn) = 11285.86 ft -ibs /width b required = .474 sq.in. per width b CASE TB U = 1.4(0) + 1.7(L) M= 0.6 *P *e + P *deflection .ment under factored loads Mu = 15524.60 ft -lbs /width b i. tunes nominal moment (PhiMn) = 15571.23 ft-lips/width b fl.ection under service loads = .182 in. ment under service loads = 2619.05 ft --l.bs /width b required = .907 sq.in. per width b Zoki RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324-6160 CASE II U = .75(1.40 + 1.7L + 1.87E) .0 % Live Load ment under factored loads Mu z .18677.80 ft -lbs /width b i. times nominal. moment (PhiMn) = 18759.09 ft -lbs /width b election under service loads = .706 in. oent under service loads = 10182.33 ft-lbs/width b required = 1.321 sq.in. per width b CASE III U = .75(1..4D + 1.7L + 1.7W) 50% Snow load ment under factored loads Mu = 19144.19 ft -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (PhiMn) _ .19199.58 ft -lbs /width b flection under service loads = .725 in. ment under service loads = 10467.01 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.359 sq.in. per width b -14 5 As provided = 1.53 sq.in. 4r 5 r " M.FPC. O Te?M:) , -11 6 As provided = • 1.77 sq.in. CASE IV U = .9D + 1.43(E) rnent under factored loads Mu = 18019.89 ft -lbs /width b :i. times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 18097.33 ft -lbs /width b election under service loads = .706 in. aent under service loads = 10182.33 ft -lbs /width b required •= • 1.259 sq.in, per width b CASE V U = .9(0) + 1.3(W) oent under factored loads Mu = 15978.70 ft -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (.PhiMn.) = 16010.19 ft -lbs /width b election under service loads = .656 in. ment render service loads = 9460.44 ft -lhs /width b required = ` 1.051 sq.in. per width b JOB: SEAGATE 6C 47 Sheet rro. M. Calculated by 4:411 Checked by Date: 1/26/90 RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324 -6160 ****************** :K ** ** * * * * *. ** * ** * ** * * ** * * * **** * T I L T - U P W A L L D E S I G N * • **************** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** �.e wall panels have been designed based on the TEST REPORT ON SLENDER WALLS n].ished by the American Concrete Institute, Southern California Chapter and Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. - 3000. psi = 60000. psi 3tual Thickness = 6.250 in. .sign Thickness = 5.500 in. rrfbcti.ve Height = 20.000 ft. :.sight of parapet = 2.000 ft. cibutary width = 14.600 ft. y)t dead load = 2800. Pounds per width b ( 79. in.) ;od live load = 5400. Pounds per width b ( 79. in.) End load = 16.0 psf : i.smic zone 3 :centricity = 5.8 in. :pth to steel = 3.680 in. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * CRITICAL LOAD CASE = 2 * * * * * * * * * *: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** nimum allowable steel area = .52 sq.in. nimum allowable steel area = .65 sq.in. dimum allowable steel. area = 4.66 sq.in. -durum allowable deflection = 1.60 in. nimum allowable bar spacing = 16.50 in. / width b (44 & tt5 / width b (116 bars per width b :ASE IA U = 1.4(D) + 1.7(L) M =P *e 0 roof (No P* deflection) went under factored loads Mu = 6277.08 ft-lbs /width b I times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 14173.13 ft-Ms/width b required = .521 sq.in. per width b :ASE I8 U = 1.40) .f 1.7(L) M= 0.6 *P *e + P *deflection ment under factored loads Mu = 14102.10 ft -lbs /width b times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 14105.02 ft• -.ibs /width b Fiection under service loads = .052 in. anent under service loads = 2450.70 ft -lbs /width b required = .521. sq.in. per width b JOB: SEAGATE 60 41 Sheet rio. rs Calculated by c- U 1 Checked by Date: 1/26/90 Zc Iv lc) DOC, bars) & larger) �� Iz 7>A .v"t Ric T. • RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324-6160 ASE II U = .75(1.4D + 1.7L + 1.87E) .0 `; Live Load ment under factored loads Mu = 24714.93 ft -lbs /width b .i times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 24788.31 ft -lbs /width b Election under service loads = .292 in. ment under service loads -- 13862.21 ft-lbs/width b required = 1.367 sq.in. per width b -1t 4 As provided = 1.37 sq.in. -t} 5 As provided = 1.53 sq.in. Zf— 5. e3a.PINuC 6c) eraf). CASE III U = .75(1.40 + 1.7L + 1.70 50% Snow Load ment under factored loads Mu = 24034.90 ft -lbs /width b i tunes nominal moment (PhiMn) = 24162.49 ft -lbs /width b Election under service loads = .289 in. ment under service loads = 13718.21 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.275 sq.in. per width b CASE IV U = .9D + 1.43(E) ment under factored loads Mu = 24026.37 ft -ibs /width b i, times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 24044.48 ft -lbs /width b Election under service loads = .292 in. nrent under service loads = 13862.21 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.347 sq.in. per width b CASE V U = .9(D) + 1.3(W) •nrent under factored loads Mu = 20957.91 ft -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (PhiMn) _ 21074.87 ft -lbs /width b flection under service loads = .271 in. ment under service loads = 12852.40 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.138 sq.in. per width b JOB: SEAGATE 6D Sheet no. 11 Calculated by e.,,. El Checked by Date: 1/26/90 R HUDSON & A( )CLATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 JOB A V/ Norrrtf SHEET NO. CALCULATED BY E-A--- OF DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE , • • 1 _ _... _.L... . 5 ,Z.) 15 . ., 7 I I'Lt .. 2.5 T - . --- " - 9 rt-11 . _. __ _...._ .. ... .. ... . \ ... _ . ___ 2. 1 2 F _...Crittkkisvigoil 1(13) (I tcl) ='-' l s4r7 z.ss7 rLi .11'7, ... !di a .1 ?.•.,r.1 1 . i 1 . _. VT.._ sit3.s 0-efl) . ...... 77,9 y.. i --- 1 - 1 2- - , . . . 1 1 __. L..._.. , '77. .7-1• 1 „.FL.r._ + ... „it I Locke ..Yz____.LV to ..o ..21.-e:Ic.. e. ... --._ 1 .F r _ 7il- i l . L , ...i.........1.....-._ ........4..».....1.....:4;...«.'.. ■ ' If 2(1(15 6 65? sckti rt..,.. 4r trz e cok • '.. - , l'f '•• 4% IOS 37S V-) 1 1--- -1- t--- .s 2.75 _ ". . — . 4 M C ?) - . .' ' ' • ,•• • .... • .• ' , i k ' (%id1Lr :: e)Trhist .. i • i I . . : i 1 s z%9: ; t:ttomle\Af t ic,cl 41P • Vc- : clVtit:. ,, , !Oa. e. 4 1 2 ` 7c.. coe;s7 . ..: " %. c;rtitit . fIzt:•A%Kx c “-r, , ;ARIA HUDSON & ASS0c \TES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE ., 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206 - 324.6160 JOB /IMF - \Mk( N &i-Dr 7 [ao -T- 193 SHEET NO. I OF CALCULATED BY r CHECKED BY DATE SCALE DATE 1-r( a-90 �rahl LE "'..�lN_ . 5 ��..p,F i e'_ ._ f oo9rf■it _... _. - 5 °_,S _._ �___v�l •. EQ F Tr- is 8.7 ;.__._. _.._ - -- - __.... _ .. __ ..___ . _______JsE.__.5.- *5____ __,d . =__ .0 _?.6 }_.,65411 IIuTaalo2 . ..t°, . �t2tD b ... ... ..... .._ - -..__ ; aa ._ . fvTorz. .. . tric..' .. I. 12.5 (1)(.R44 ._ `.. 4 ►.. _ v4r;..s.._._._. w . k IP , of E. 71!",x7. . _.. _ ri i1 - - s. . ___. -._ .n _r_ P_S. r_ D HUDSON & ASSOCTATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEEK. 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 i - - ... ..... 1 -.1.-- i -. • I I - --:- - i L - 1 - i• - 1 - - --; .- --- - - - i - - - — - ;zo _o F. I _ li.,.1 ... __. ... . 1 .... ....1._....... _. .. ._ , . , . ..! .I. . .FIsfuve Al4Y = I )c.ieL .; ..,(1 g.......S1 1 i ! — 7 - .. i _ 1....._.i ........... 1..........4Es ..1....__. __..1._______ • .. _ .., .. ,I....,,i_ _s_.1- --7- _ ai,5 ........ _ . Plc, JOB tql■■16 No, LD 7 f9o-T-191 SHEET NO. C OF CALCULATED BY C.11 DATE 9- Is-90 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 'A I -V. _k ,-„..... .---- • - 1 - --- - .1 namt... ..... i i - "- ; 1 r _ .i.....rAl...r.Aat,..ivta)0.4.7e_ .mc.._...T.2.5....pf I I ' • - - - r .7 .( 14* I .. ! - I - :1"..= 2.1-9.Z .k.-IP2s. , . i • -1 • ! • 1 . C' A 14 ..is 1,•• . . , • . u_k_7- 27 (..01) ...„ _F- . ..2, L. 12,25( 3E.) • •••• • •Z 191 - • •-• • VNI I 7(. .'e, • 2. I 10.75 1 Or _ t eS)_ „ARD HUDSON & ASSOCr ^ES, INC. CONSUMING ENGINEERS' 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE I ! 1 ■ I Friutt.c .M .... .4.. ; tii?q .1 ,71,r,.. i A:61.)dt) A i rT _TNe.!__Frzcio7,__ 1 i r , , , . } _, ) 1 i • 4 0 2 1 0 1 & I 1(.e.-. ire roo dei , i IND CC,..) 1 i Lo 1 :);- 1 . PANE:fr iiiPel, Si, 9 •1 P 1Le-t-Ad .1 N _rot _i..C.1)4E. __1...ont). _j_ 1 _ a tz-o” A. Ft-oPlz. 1 THC- 111 , . 1 NW,ILL __ 6vt, _ AD _rapNr2v44 _ 1 1 t i wtacts I, &#u() , 'Z,tittalz Wau.A. 6 , I ; 1 ! ; 1 1 1 i t I i i 1 I i 1 1 4, ,ilzo\obE. Fo R. :Dii'l-Ir2A9t wt- , 41-54 le-LF_ 1 1 C RO2 I 14. I (0, -• c.. f 7.: ttS.h.". (448=9) le4 .- .1.- • - 1 7 1 - g19 , 10 — • S te2)17...._tt e) r SHEET NO R CALCULATED BY e.Sti or_ C...4 1 - "- •-• - - - 1 - : - -- ..., --i•• - -I -- i s C I - ' i i--:--r----t—,4—.—,--. . . I ... .. co ilicae.76.: . a.Locic i . i...1......1. i ..c(dr...... , ;. - .7.1,Dz , .7 , It (s) . i JOB IVT(. AL.pc 7 E9o-7-19] • • • I. • - -u.Lro I OF DATE CI _13 _c1 6- 1-417 • .,..ARD HUDSON & ASSOF WES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEekS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 JOB V.V.1 I C SHEET NO. 4 OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE 1 1 ' , • 1 i i ! P-NE-L ' C.,N0Qt::. I I E. _ I CON 1%4 E.C.TION • 1 I ,c4 i _ C4 fR,Qblct t.t.c.c.lt TG _ 1 litzt.s1 I ' lgod.oli■Lit . 6:04- :Fq = J2.rp 4-,37_ Melo Foece = t 1 1 -.. ._ PL. +.i 4 fi-e ' 1 2 (l C 4)1i3t_ _....- ._s_.... wr..._ -.., .7.6 144 s - - - 1 i g Li- — 7 l e ?L+. • Z11_ -- ----01-• ?Li= 21 - - - 1 - -- -- -- - - - -- c 'p -- i - -- 711 4 ,,_ .. izb, - T.,c), ot• _I ......::, _ _ii„ cgt,iciA.J.t.T._..... L ARGI 1.•,,` , I I itoNKIL__ _ 1.._.. . = a . .4 .. 11 .. , ... . , , • • : , . : , I 1 ' 1 i- - i.$. (....J J r,...-4.i,.....) 1 ild.is .. • . , i, — , - 1, . ' •...– 1 , , .. ,• . -, , • , ! . , t ..I ..;. , . I - :- ".---- -irk' D.1 :: .... 1 1.2o , I - •••• cu = 5 .e. _s. -V- ,RD HUDSON & ASSOCTC ES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 i f M4x t c;f. Ir`'4 lze'Q'I���1._.{sJ�._ „Fo o � . _ l c G.6N 74 oN ; . 1w t� a.�' .. . - ' � r ce S .F1'&1►3 4.1 318.5 i Crl Icrit 2 (to5) 2 ... r ; ee /0• JOB (4■TiC lltih`t SHEET NO 5 CALCULATED BY G J 1 OF DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE I '°llllJ.c.7fo�i.._.To ..._�+Jac� al 03 Z I I c. I 1 ( i 3q t«py,,, 2`l • Roh 56x) t� a - . l Y� �. Da)s ��, . S �►t:�o�'2. ;2- (l S) (1.33) 1 •_-`16 .. 1 fa, SZ L 5 . ' � � 4 X ?7 roil /� Fi ovt2 , 132 4 -I A i S AI(,U SNrAr? ,ARD HUDSON & ASSOC( TES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY DATE SCALE DATE 41 ! .. ! , • I i ; 1 ' . ' ... . . . I i . 1 R E.yiseD ; S ig-:71c-w -1 .. i - - _i . L 1 ,.. - . 1 • i , 1 , 1 t ! , 1 1 471 11 . 2-4 1 i d . , .1(4i) 7•_ 1 I 1 It- E4 P j 4 1 • i : •i •I'' - - . A _,„--- 7 ----- ------ It— "Tc. le__L. It —.._ _4_17: ni,.t.e.. !. I -; M k-S, I . _.1-..... i .170____Ii.S._ - 1.4) ___? _Vt_ ----- 1% ii .... ...._.._ 0_1 I tn s ime. — I - -.- - -. . i Talti.E. 71'41 T____ W/.., Z.7.....Fie:4, 1 _ I --. A ---r .6 _ *E150,t1c.., Tor. .... rct R. ..._ A.* CI:kelt.. C L-71'. 1 CC-c40.4 WI IA _ ..._ __ . I } ! • . - . . " . . _ . .... lit,. .The .. Z. I V) f,___. _.. .. )_(‘g .t.. I I I _ 2-53? ■ 1 -.. —.1 . i ....' .....1 . -. , .-- i i . ......k.u...clu_ r.. .. 1 2',5$;■ ..._e,k... 1 . . i "t 1 1 1 •.......... . ■ . 1 .. I ! . . 1 ■.) 1 / .-Li , it>la I ...0 Rpcs .„7tie. . _.... _ . ... ._ . , .......... , 1, : 3B7 P' . 1 , , 1 ' ; 2-• ' 1 !........ - - 1 ■ ' I k,Lt.. t...t>c le:::■8 fa 1-1c _ . 4u. cto 7.. 38 s , 1 i 1 i 1 z ' t _ lit. mt i t ... tot i... 1 . ■ •••• 6: .- .. _ __ _ 'I - - ' .2Y ..=- _ _ 9" ■ --- . _ _ - - _ - - - - _ -- -- LZ ___11 _. IF( ._ 19 1 `8 ni 71 . - .Teal. - -- L - T�� - - - L - . -- N + N - a e, c. ------ ._.._._... _... - -- -- .SLI2LI ' —.1 -1"t.. -. 75 • A w 2 1r L = 1 . S �" os _ -- _. __ 32 _ u 9 Su r _.. _ _ . -. . ... _.. _ ... _. . . 2 4391:).. _it E4%._. -t , _ ....64_ i'2 ____ ,-..._ 211 et s i p L. . ._ . _. . . _ _ - - • i -- __ ----- __.- __P_e.Ta • - 7 /8 ' ( ��13 ... .. . ._- - '. A_ 4 + ; zr= I , on, - r .„ ! _ `J( ."--Ill _ __ - - - �. _. . _......... .. I k )g 1 4►7 1. ; i ( 7 Z 198z .- 2 I - 4- i a io i L0_ _. 2 VAw _. . _ _ AL !_4.F.� - -- — - , HUDSON & ASSO T RTES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE E%,,, 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206 - 324 -6160 JOB SHEET NO 7 CALCULATED BY CAI N' OF DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE • ,ARD HUDSON & ASSOC( .TES, ma. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 1 1 1 -A • ' I , 4 , . ..I . ... • 1 ' coogaim .. - '1 - 1 - I • , k it )..,(0.. .._ - 1 lisim •c.c.s'•& — JOB tialirL Wel tc..*-7 SHEET NO 6 CALCULATED BY SV CHECKED BY DATE SCALE cA ft 1 . 4 17:9 40(to Crb 7 9 \a- e7(75 a?) \u , 46s. • OF DATE 7G AI,33 44L tt.le.- • 19- .e _tei ca FPI/1.A laq Ott?. .. . c. ... • • - . 1 I _ _ _ 2-4 • 2:: ‘ 0 — f c. ie._ ____ 17.6 -- . . _ . .... 11 _ A Ai t 1:6•. _I-1 0 - 9 . (.._ 1.2- .... t A - (o.i0 P* I .. 4.c., . - , 1.1C, . ' 1 . _ . _ _ ._ _ i c , � I .: ' i rsA a Cu 6, . _ • f.: — _ . _L . _ C _ _ _ — _ — .... ...., . _ . _ • . AO 04 4047 f 411 AC1 . • 1 111 "• II it c :".- 1 e..s. Ao7 1 , ... . - c:44 t _ eN c.t-, 1, 1,1 S -e.. , 4 &c...L.e.L0 it 7 _ uk lotq.it 4 - .. >`i - - z‘.c. - --- M 0 - . 1 i5wirt;AA , 1 •.BD HUDSON & ASSOC ATE S, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 JOB etwwialE. kkftl IA 0 CO ( ti) SHEET NO, 9 OF CALCULATED BY —assaM--. DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE a tx:, MI • I 1 (.76V • _ . . • 1 I '__Z I • . _ _P„ i 1 ,.., . it ... - - °La= t - - --- 1 1•SZ C 6C1 • - __. (.4 i o t% _.'..=.1•6 0... . _ I lwif.... . • .. f . _ , _ c .i ' ? F.F...? vi)....1._ j - c ?) s. 0— 3. • _ crt _5 _ 174.) ?_(.9c1)_ I 1 _ '+, 1 i /,,,, - S ML, - i I Mt) I 0•Z9 (10 __ _ .. ,Z.7._1__ C _ _ . ._ ..- ___ ___ t 2. L , , ..t_ .i.ARD HUDSON & ASSOIT' TES, INC. JOB 6."..-Tek.A.nwi NI cbt2:11A . t19 CONSULTING ENGINEERS SHEET NO. IC) 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 CALCULATED BY C...4& M DATE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 OF CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ;.ARD HUDSON & ASSO((TES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE a SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206 -324 -6160 JOB 61(r IE.Ni ∎ rah SHEET NO _ CALCULATED BY G J r 1 SCALE OF DATE CHECKED BY DATE .EL�.......1 _'4- =. . .Piame -L !'11`'� 1S 5. /i -.. I S7auc. ` vri& ,.�..._..H. _... _..., `` �4' _g..146 _,T J _ �_ __- 1. -- q_. . (ecL) 1 / 704.1 4'. 13 - a _ . E9, s'i 5o , (Ix _ _....- _ - - .__.- __ _._ _. _ .... _._ 1 7 ' � . p c . r � t D . --- , 9 ....... �o .. -- - 20 -. _ __ - -_.- -_ _ -_- I �,�'.... .- k"Q> I S,S 'h¢ — -- } t; .. �_.__. 6,.3 1 ?i =. L -.1 W (moo .'= 1l,t) :. . . , ... ; . -_.--_ _. .-._LI. iele.. Wi 1 00 .-_�a_ l0 1.1 J .... .. .T i Iles ; 5 0 i10n . + PSE : .._ 'I��K , ___ _ _— _ ;. _._. -. -_ ..._._ ._...__. (o 1 0 ht 124 - PAnAae.7 , 3.'a' t.. 57z . ' d Ar (:,.1' sT ..Ft\` E.. ' ' ail . _.... ...ht- _?p`- o.....a_-._ - ..__. ._..._ • _ ...^ .. --- ;.ARD HUDSON & ASSO((TES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE a SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206 -324 -6160 JOB 61(r IE.Ni ∎ rah SHEET NO _ CALCULATED BY G J r 1 SCALE OF DATE CHECKED BY DATE ASS CC HUDSON JOB `. A%i YV Al . �g o -1_ , & .AYES, ETC. , CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 CALCULATED BY GJ DATE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206.324.6160 SHEET NO CHECKED BY II OF DATE SCALE ... _ I _ 1LJ i ZEN 41. 15�... J k.I �v .�. _ .._ E..1 N .. ...- . lobo. _ _g.C.IIU P6,1. 1 I_ N Fpttt ,. I f _.. _.l .. __ n/_ ;_..02 ;..: Ff2 -L .5_ _._.r!J.A,K k__.-1\1) ._ 6 . ._._ 6∎14-.1___tL = 1 - X 17 K11FoNI.c _.V.f81 . , ASS CC HUDSON JOB `. A%i YV Al . �g o -1_ , & .AYES, ETC. , CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 CALCULATED BY GJ DATE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206.324.6160 SHEET NO CHECKED BY II OF DATE SCALE RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1606 12th Ave. Suite 18 • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324-6160 JOB: GATEWAY N. #7 Sheet ***********************4*********************** 4: TILT - DP WALL DESIGN * *********************************************** Calculated by CA4t. k Checked by Date: 5/24/90 hese wall panels have been designed based on the TEST REPORT ON SLENDER WALLS 'ublished by the American Concrete Institute, Southern California �h t d , � n Chapter an he Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. Fc = 4000. Fy = 60000. Actual Thickness = Design Thickness = Effective Height z Height of parapet = Tributary width = Roof dead load = Roof live load c Wind load = 16.0 Seismic zone 3 Eccentricity = 5.5 in. Depth to steel = 3.700 in. 1inimuN 1inimum iawimum iaxirUum 1aximV0 allowable allowable allowable allowable allowable psi psi 6.250 in. 5.500 in. 20'000 ft. 2.000 ft. 7.000 ft. 3000. Pounds per width ,b 6300. Pounds per width b psf ( 20. in.) ( 20. in.) 4**********************m**** * CRITICAL LOAD CASE = 3 * **************************** steel area = .13 sq.in. steel area = .17 sq.in. steel area = 1.56 sq.in. deflection = 1.60 in. bar spacing c 16.50 in. / width b (04 & #5 / width b t#6 bars per width b CASE IA U = 1.4(D) + 1.7(L) M=Pme @ roof (No P* deflection) loment under factored loads Mu = 6833.75 ft-lt)s/width b `hi times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 11710.46 ft-lbs/Width b )s required = .496 sq.in. per width b CASE IB U = 1,4(D) 4 1-7(L) M=0.6*p*e 4 P*deflection ----_-_---_-_----_-----_ --------_'-__ —_-_-_ 1oment•ndor factored loads Mu z •14703.90 ft-lbs/width b lhi times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 14731.14 ft-lbs/width b )eflection under service loads = .203 in. loment under service loads = 3822.58 ft-lbs/width b )s .required = .770 sq.in' per width b P �� � �� " ~~ sm. To ���am� �� "4 k��, - ' bars) & larger) RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite l8 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324-6160 CASE II U = '75(1.40 f 1.7L f 1.87E) .0 % Live Load: Moment under tattered loads Mu = 13522.06 ft-lbs/width b Phi times nominal moment (PhiMn) 7. 13542.66 ft-Ihs/width b Deflection under service loads c .526 in. Moment under service loads c 7309.76 ft-lbs/width b As required = ,802 sq.in. per width b CASE III ]J c .75(1.4D + l.7L + 1.7W) 50% Snow load Moment undor'factorod loads Mu = 15237.59 ft-lbs/width b Phi times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 15242,59 ft-lbs/wicJthb�~� Deflection , under service loads = .668 in. — ' Moment under service loads = 7885.63 ft-lbs/width b As required = •.907 sq.in. per width b 5 As ,provided = .92 sq.in. _# 6 As provided = 1.33 sq.in. CAGE IV U = .90 f 1.43(E) c� �~�^ ,� . TAL tr. =-• ° o�12.5 Moment under faotored loads Mu = 12906.77 ft-lbs/width b Phi times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 12956.05 ft-lbs/width b Deflection ,under smrvco loads 7 ,526 in. Moment under service loads = 7309.76 ft-lbs/width b As required = .770 sq.in. per width b CASE .V• U = .9(D) 4 1.3(W) Moment under factored loads Mu .= 11354.91 ft-lbs/width tx Phi times nominal moment(PhiMn) = 11403.40 ft-lbs/width b Deflection under service loads =. .491 in. 'Moment under service loads = 6811.17 ft-lbs/width b As required = .648 sq.in. per width b TY JOB: GATEWAY N. #7 -^ Sheet no. |ui Calculated by_:4f-1 Checked bY Date: 5/24/90 Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum Maximum fc = 4000. psi Fy = 60000. psi Actual Thickness = 6.050 in. Design Thickness = 5.500 in. Effective Height = 20.000 ft. Height of parapet = 2.000 ft. Tributary width = 11.000 ft. Roof dead load = 52. Roof live load = 100. Wind load = 16.0 psf Seismic zone 3' Eccentricity = 5.5 in. Depth to steel = 3.700 in, allowable allowable allowable :allowable allowable Moment under factored l oad7. Mu = Phi times nominal moment (PhiMn ) Deflection under service loads Moment under service loads = As required = .132 sq.in. per RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC:. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 13 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324 -6160 .' . *Y: ** ** t.*** * * * * ***: :k * ***** *** * CRITICAL .LOAD CASE = 2 $: *• * ** ** * * *** *. * * * * * * * * * *: * * * * ** steel area = .13 sq.in. steel area = .17 sq.in. steel area = 1.5E sq.in. deflection = . 1.60 in. bar spacing = 16.50 in. Pounds per width b ( 20. in,) Pounds per width b ( 20. in.) Moment under, factored loads Mu = 111.28 ft -lbs /width b Phi times nominal moment. (PhiMn) = .3723.78 ft -lbs /width b As required = .132 sq.in. per width b CASE ID U = 1.4(D) 4 1.7(L) M= 0.6 *P *e + P *deflection 4742.07 ft -lbs /width b 4832.23 ft-lbs/width b .003 in. 44.55 ft-lbs /width b width b tc.-T -V13 JOE: GATEWAY N #7 Sheet no. Calculated by Checked by Date: 5/24/90 :4 *.$ * *********: k.**** * ** * *** * * * *4: * * *. * * * * ** * *4: *4.* 4 1' I L T - U P W A L L D E S I G N * *: * ** * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * *:k:Y:k:Y- ::k ** *:k:k:k*:k4:>l** * * * ** * * ** These wall panels have been designed based on the TEST REPORT ON SLENDER WALLS published by the American Concrete Institute. Southern California. Chapter and the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. / width b (04 & #5 bars) / width b ( #6 bars & larger) per width b CASE IA U = 1.4(D) + 1.7(L) M =P *e @ roof (No P* deflection) %met. TYtt. 15.. (suo To Was- 111 �� �2X0-�-�� RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC' JOB: GATEWAY #7 » -~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS Sheet no. “P • ' 1605 12th Ave. Suite 1Q e' � Calculated by_��at^wt SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98112 Checked by ` (206) 324-6160 Date: CASE II U = .75(1.4D f 1.7L + 1.87E) .0 % Live Load oment under factored loads Mu = 18388'94 ft-lbs/width b hi times nominal moment (:PhiMn) = 18465.52 ft-lbs/width h eflaotion under service loads = .733 in. oment under •serVioe loads c 10175'79 ft-Ibs/Widthb s`roquired = 1.231 sq.in. per width b 3 '-# 6 As provided = 1.33 sq.in. *�— ��A^� ��c: � � _� ~- " ' 3 - 7_AS provided = 1.80 'sq.in. • ' CASE III U = .75(1.4D 4 1.7L + 1.7W) 5()% 8now'load e) oment under factored loads Mu = 18054405 ft-lba/wicjth b hi times nominal •moment (PhiMn) = 18064,43 ft-l|s/width b efleotion under service loads = .677 in. oment under service loads = 9406.19 ft-lbs/Width b s required = 1.009 sq.in. par width b CASE IV U = .9D + 1'43(E) oment under factored loads Mu = 17809-86 ft_lbs/width b hi times nominal Moment (PhiMn) 17942.59 ft-lk»o/idth b eflection under service loads = .733 in. oment under service loads = 10175.79 ft b s required = 1.193 sq.in. per width b CASE V U = .9(D) + 1.3(W) oment under factored loads Mu = 15480.71 ft-lbs/width times nominal Moment (PhiMn) = 15529.34 ft-lbs/width b eflertionundor service loads ,= .676 in. oment under service loads = 9308.57 ft-lbs/width b s required = .977 sq.in' per width b ~z,cw4�� (°0p41 ) m� �\(� �� °-,-' ^ ^n HARD HUDSON & ASSOC 4TES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206 - 324 -6160 ; i 6' I5.13 � '1$ .$ zL r . Zo►st - 0 JOB 1y c�l�` SHEET NO. 1 1 OF DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE CALCULATED BY • I .CpAt.tdr ytdSr'. .. Fc Fy Actual Thickness Design Thickness Effective Height = 20.000 f Height of parapet. = 2.000 f Tributary width = 13.600 ft Roof dead load = 9000. Roof live load = 9000. Wind load = 16.0 psf Seismic zone 3 Eccentricity = 5.5 in. Depth to steel = 3.700 in. Minimum Minimum Maximum Maximum •Maximum RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 10 'SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96112 (206) 324 -6160 allowable allowable allowable allowable allowable = 4000. psi = 60000. psi. = 6.250 in. 5.500 in. t. t . Moment under factored loads Mu = Phi times nominal moment. . (Phi.Mn ) As required = .844 sq.in. per Pounds per width b ( 72. in.) Pounds per width b ( 72. in.) * *:k** * i'. ***• ** ** * * ** * * * * * * * *** * CRITICAL LOAD CASE = 2 * ** *****. *** ** * * * * ** * * * * *** * ** CASE 10 U = 1.4(D) 4 1.7(L) M =0.6 *P *e 4 P *def lec:ti Moment under factored 'loads Mu = 23074.16 ft-lbs/width b Phi times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 23165.94 ft -lbs /width b. Deflection under service loads = .104 in. Moment under service loads =. 5215.24 ft- lbs /widt•h b As required = .611 sq.in. per width b JOB: GATEWAY N 07 Sheet no. Is Calculated by C -4 Checked by Date: 5/24/90 *******: k********** ***;*** **: ** * ** * * * *** *** **** *** * T I L T - U P W A L L D E S I G N * k************•*** * *** ** * ********** * **** ** ** * **** These wall panels have been designed based on the TEST REPORT ON SLENDER WALLS published by the American Concrete Institute, Southern California Chapter and the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, steel area = .46 sq.in. / width b ( #4 & #5 steel area = .59 sq.in. / width b (t6 bars steel area = 5.70 sq.in. per width b deflection = .1.60 in. bar spacing = 16,50 in. CASE IA U = 1.4(D) + 1.7(L) M =P *e @ roof (No P* deflection) 12787.50 f t -lb s /width b = 23652.63 ft -lbs /width b width b C. r-- IwEl.1., 12 P.N r* 13 bars) & larger) RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC :. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 13 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324 -6160 ::A5E II U = .75(1.4D + 1.7L + 1.87E) .0 % Live Load • nent under factored loads Mu = 27006.09 ft- lbs /width.b i times nominal moment. (PhiMn) = 27083.83 f t- lbs /width b flection under service loads = .296 in. nent under service loads = 14800.61 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.408 sq.in. per width b -#I 4 As provided = 1.57 sq.in. -4 5 As provided = 1.53 'sq. in. 4- 5 , Fact. ::ASE III U = .75(1.4D + 1.7L 4 1.7W) 50% Snow load nent under factored loads Mu = 20002.37 ft -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 28014.82 ft -lbs /width b flection under service loads = .305 in. nent under service loads = 15254.61 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.395 sq.in. per width b ;:ASE IV U = .9D + 1.43(e) merit under factored loads Mu = 25761 .91 f t -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 25876.11 f t -lbs /width b flection under service loads = .296 in. rent under service loads _ .14800.61 ft-lbs/width b required = 1.369 sq.in. per width b CASE V U = .9(D) 4 1.3(W) ment under factored loads Mu = 22883.15 f t- :lbs /width L' i times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 22953.72 ft -lbs /width b flection under service loads = .277 in. ment under service loads = 13852.80 ft-lbs/width b required = • 1.167 sq.in. per width b 9o -w. J08: GATEWAY N #t7 Sheet, no. 1°1 Calculated by cLArl Checked by Date: 5 /24/90 BONE <om 1 p Put s.. S im Peet. IZ P01 3 --PS It' t't - 13 , hese wall panels have been designed based on the TEST REPORT ON SLENDER WALLS ublished by the American Concrete Institute, Southern California Chapter and he Structural Engineers Association of Southern California. Fc = 4000. psi. Fy = 60000. psi Actual Thickness = 6.250 in. Design Thickness = 5.500 in. Effective Height = 20.000 ft. Height of parapet = 2.000 f t. Tributary width = 14.300 ft. Roof dead load = 3000. Pounds Roof live load = 6300. Pounds Wind load = 16.0 psf Seismic zone 3 Eccentricity = 5.5 in. Depth to steel = 3.700 in. iinimum linimum laximu'm laximum laximum RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98112 (206) 324 -6160 allowable allowable allowable allowable allowable * * * * ** * * * * ** * * ** ** * ** * * **** **4k *:k ** * ** ** k ** *** ** T I L T - U P W A 1. L D E S I G N *' **********;y************************************ per width b ( 80. in.) per width b ( 80. in.) ;K * *:k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * CRITICAL LOAD CASE = 2 * ** k * *4:* * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * ** *:k CASE 18 U = 1.4(D) d 1.7(L) M=0.6 *P *e + P *•deflection 3013: GATEWAY N #7 Sheet no. Calculated by Checked by Date: 5/24/90 a.14.: C.... 1'EL 1 2-. steel area = .53 sq.in. / width b ( #4 & t15 steel area = .66 sq.in. / width b ( #6 bars steel area = 6.33 sq.in. per width b deflection = 1,60 in. bar spacing = 16.50 in. CASE IA U = 1.4(D) + 1.7(L) M =P *e @ roof (No P* deflection) foment under factored loads Mu = 6833.75 ft -lbs /width b nhi times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 15341.. 10 f t- lbs /width b )s required = .528 sq.in. per width b vioment under factored loads Mu = • 14463.63 ft-lbs/width b ?hi times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 14514.00 ft -lbs /width b Deflection under service loads _ .048 in. vloment: under service loads = 26.16.88 ft b 7s required = .528 sq.in, per widt•.h•b bars)' & larger) • RICHARD HUDSON & ASSOC. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEkRS 1605 12th Ave. Suite 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96112 (206) 324-6160 CASE II U = .75(1.4D + 1.7L + 1.37E) CASE III U = .75(1.4D 4 1.7L 4 1.7W) 509 Snow load CASE IV U = .9D + 1.43(E) CASE V U = .9(D) 4 1.3(W) C .0 % Live Load ment under factored loads Mu = 23902.80 ft -lbs /width b i times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 24009.53 ft-ibs /width b Election under service loads = .244 in. Iment under service loads = .13555.67 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.261 sq.in. per width b -# 4 As•provided = 1.37 scr.in. • -# 5 As provided = 1.84 'sq, in. s k2 „ F nent under factored loads Mu = 23517.17 f t- lbs /width b ri times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 23602.01 ft -lbs /width b iflection under service.loads = .244 in nent under service loads = 13524.17 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.175 sq.in. per width b ment under factored loads Mu = 23287.64 ft -lbs /width b ii times .nominal moment (PhiMn) = 23341.06 ft -lbs /width b ; flection under service loads = .244.in. )ment under service loads = 13.555.67 ft -lbs /width b required = 1.251 sq.in. per width b ment under factored loads Mu = 20324.75 ft -lbs /width b ii times nominal moment (PhiMn) = 20388,16 ft-lbs /width b flection under service loads = .226 in. ment under service loads = 12570.93 ft-lbs /width b required = 1.054 sq.in. per width b t.3 tct,] JOB: GATEWAY N #7 Sheet no. 2� Calculated by r'J±1 Checked by Date: 5/24/90 , <,or c�IL I . OR # e 1e°,A , . - ' 1 _ _ . | - � ` � ' . 1 _ L I . ! - | _ - -' ---- � ) ' � . � � . , 6.01.10. T ' . -' ' 4._ . ... /_- - . i AN:ini . it. ---'_- -� � . i 6 A.6... FrAiN . l -�- / i 1 _1 .. _ I__ ----�-- _ ._... - r _-__ S1 __ ---' � . ' - ___--_� __-./...",...I.Js)1 '__.=_. Vg) __ ' .-_-_________ � --_ 5 _C. ."( k.a.._ '''- ''-------------'— -_ - ..Ti_. _-_-_-_ L ' ICU __I__- .- (4) ..7.._ ____ '____ ) _ _ K____ _ - ._____ .____ _II __Zfll_ e.oltil. ..-- -__ ��-'.-` __�_�_— _-_---- C._ .g>.I _� 1 r. _ .1NtSritol ../..F._ ___ � /_-'. ----- __ i . 1".ri_ ____ �'_ _i . ' .. -- | _ . - ... � %2C.. — .._. _ __ � La. . . . 1 '' � ! � . � _. _ C-4:0-5.t_Lt. ' - . / . 1 -- ' �- � ? _ - �- ' / > / ! ' � � i < - -' ` ' � ' � ._7(c _ -.-' t � __�_ - _.'__--_ ` ' -_-___�- _ _ . ... & ASSOOr TES, INC. CONSULTING _-___'_ 1605 12TH AVENUE • SUITE 18 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98122 206-324-6160 JOB � ^ � - �u�e*b �� ~ l , � � ' � _-. . � SHEET NO, OF CALCULATED BY DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALE CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 Plan Check #90 -368: Gateway North Bldg 7 3515 S 116 St PHONE a (206) 433.1800 THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS APPLY TO AND BECOME ,.PARk„92 THE APPROVED PLANS UNDER TUKWILA BUILDING PERMIT NUMBER WU) 1. No changes will be made to the plans unless approved by the Architect and the Tukwila Building Division. 2. Plumbing permit shall be obtained through the King County Health Department and plumbing will be inspected by that agency, including all gas piping (296- 4722). 3. Electrical permit shall be obtained through the Washington State Division of Labor and Industries and all electrical work will be inspected by that agency (277- 7272). 4. All mechanical work shall be under separate permit through the City of Tukwila. 5. All permits, inspection records, and approved plans shall be posted at the job site prior to the start of any construction. 6. When special inspection is required either the owner, architect or engineer shall notify the Tukwila Building Division of appointment of the inspection agencies prior to the first building inspection. Copies of all special inspection reports shall be submitted to the Building Division in a timely manner. Reports shall contain address, project name and permit number of the project being inspected. 7. All structural concrete to be special inspected (Sec. 306, UBC). 8. All structural welding to be done by W.A.B.O. certified welder and special inspected (Sec. 306, UBC). 9. Provide special inspection of bolts installed in concrete as required under U.B.C. Section 306 (a) 2. 10. Readily accessible access to roof mounted equipment is required. Caryl VonDusrn, Mayor Gateway North Bldg 7 Page 2 11. Any exposed insulations backing material to have Flame Spread Rating of 25 or less, and material shall bear identification showing the fire performance rating thereof. 12. Subgrade preparation including drainage, excavation, compaction, and fill requirements shall conform strictly with recommendations given in the soils report. See General Notes, Sheet S -3 for inspection requirements. 13. A statement from the roofing contractor verifying fire retardancy of roof will be required prior to final inspection (see attached procedure). 14. All construction to be done in conformance with approved plans and requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1988 Edition), Uniform Mechanical Code (1988 Edition), Washington State Energy Code (1990 Edition), and Washington State Regulations for Barrier Free Facility (1990 Edition). 15. Notify the City of Tukwila Building Division prior to placing any concrete. This procedure is in addition to any requirements for special inspection. 16. Validity of Permit. The issuance of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for , or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority or violate or cancel the provisions of this code shall be valid. 17. A Certificate of Occupancy will be required for this permit. Final inspection approval will be granted for a shell building designed for speculative tenant(s). Occupancy of any area of this building may not be approved until approved toilet room facilities are provided in this building. Tenant improvement developments shall be under a separate building permit. "X" REQUIRED INSPECTIONS PHONE DATE APPROVED INSPECT. INITIALS DATE(S) CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUED X 1 Footings 431 -3670 X 2 Foundation 431 -3670 R 3 Slab and/or Slab Insulation 431 -3670 4 Shear Wall Nailing 431 -3670 X 5 Roof Sheathing Nailing 431 -3670 6 Masonry Chimney 431 -3670 7 Framing 431 -3670 % 8 Insulation 431 -3670 9 Suspended Ceiling 431 -3670 10 Wall Board Fastening 431 -3670 11 12 13 x 14 FIRE FINAL Insp: 575 -4407 x 15 PLANNING FINAL 431 -3670 x 16 PUBLIC WORKS FINAL 431 -3670 x 17 BUILDING FINAL 431 -3670 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 SITE ADDRESS: 3515 S 116 St • BUILDIIIG PERMIT INSPECTION RECORD (Post with Building Permit in conspicuous place) BUILDING PERMIT NO DATE ISSUED: SUITE NO.: PROJECT: Gateway North Bldg 7 CALL FOR INSPECTIONS AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE crr (INSPECTOR COMMENT SECTION ON REVERSE) INSPECTION PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS All approved plans and permits shall be maintained available on the site in the same location. 1. FOOTING - When survey stakes and forms are set and rebar is tied In place. 2. FOUNDATION - When forms and rebar are in place. 3. SLAB - If structural slab or if underslab insulation is required. 4. SHEARWALL NAILING - Prior to cover. 5. ROOF SHEATHING NAILING - Prior to cover. 6. MASONRY CHIMNEY - Approximately midpoint. 7. FRAMING - After rough -in inspections such as mechanical, plumbing, gas piping, electrical and fire stopping is in place. 8. INSULATION - After framing approval, but before installation of wallboard. Baffles must be installed to keep attic ventilation points clear. 9. SUSPENDED CEILING - Fasten diffusers, lights and seismic bracing. 10. WALL BOARD FASTENING - Prior to taping (see UBC Chap. 47 and Table 47G). 11. 12. 13. 14. FINAL FIRE INSPECTION - Contact Fire Department for their requirements. 15. FINAL PLANNING INSPECTION - Contact Planning Department for their requirements. 16. FINAL PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION - Contact Public Works Department for their requirements. 17. FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION - When all work, corrections, reports and other inspections are complete. OTHER AGENCIES: Plumbing (including gas piping) — King County Health Department — 296 -4732 Electrical — Washington State Department of Labor and Industries — 277 -7272 A preconstruction meeting with the Building Inspector may be scheduled prior to starting the job by contacting the Department of Community Development, Building Division at 431 -3670. Although not required, a meeting of this type can often eliminate problems, delays and misunderstandings as the project progresses. MVIQW PL N REVIEW COIU ME & Plan Check No.: ' "1 0 ''' Project:�EU)49 1401414 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS 10. 11. a R d ‘ . 1 .N q geigo � d 6v.4§ : J� N zco 00 li..,„eo-g ivJa4 40,100 0 404 Q N A 4)5 D 5 c, 3 1-0 1 -1§aa0 111- Od No changes will be made to the plans unless approved by the Architect and the Tukwila Building Division. Plumbing permit shall be obtained through the King County Health Department and plumbing will be inspected by that agency, including all • gas piping (296- 4722). Electrical permit shall be obtained through the Washington State Division of Labor and Industries, and all electrical work will be inspected by that agency (277- 7272). All mechanical work shall be under separate permit through the City of Tukwila. All permits, inspection records, and approved plans shall be posted at the job site prior to the start of any construction. When special inspection is required, either the owner, architect or engineer shall notify the Tukwila Building Division of appointment of the inspection agencies prior to the first building inspection. Copies of all special inspection reports shall be submitted to the Building Division in a timely manner. Reports shall contain address, project name and permit number of the project being inspected. All structural concrete to be special inspected (Sec. 306, UBC). All structural welding to be done by W.A.B.O. certified welder and special inspected (Sec. 306, UBC). 9. All high - strength bolting to be special inspected (Sec. 306, UBC). Any new ceiling grid and light fixture installation is required to meet lateral bracing requirements for Seismic Zone 3. Partition walls attached to ceiling grid must be laterally braced if over eight (8) feet in length. Readily accessible access to roof mounted equipment is required. Engineered truss drawings and calculations shall be on site and available to the building inspector for inspection purposes. Documents shall bear the seal and signature of a Washington State Professional Engineer. Any exposed insulations backing material to have Flame Spread Rating of 25 or less, and material shall bear identification showing the fire performance rating thereof. Subgrade preparation Including drainage, excavation, compaction, and fill requirements shall conform strictly with recommendations given in the soils wort . dgt= 6eNet NOTES, .t4 - S- - - Fov.. I s1EctiON E u %ee INTS. A statement from the roo ing contractor verifying fire retardancy of roof will be required prior to final inspection (see attached procedure). All construction to be done In conformance with approved plans and requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1988 Edition), Uniform Mechanical Code (1988 Edition), Washington State Energy Code (1990 Edition), and Washington State Regulations for Barrier Free Facility (1990 Edition). 18. All food preparation establishments must have King County Health Department sign -off prior to opening or doing any food processing. Arrangements for final Health Department inspection should be made by calling King County Health Department, 296 -4787, at least three working days prior to desired inspection date. On work requiring Health Department approval, it is the contractor's responsibility to have a set of plans approved by that agency on the job site. 19. Fire retardant treated wood shall have a flame spread of not over 25. All materials shall bear identification showing the fire performance rating thereof. Such identification shall be issued by an approved agency having a service for inspection at the factory. Notify the City of Tukwila Building Division prior to placing any concrete. This procedure is in addition to any requirements for special inspection. 21. All spray applied fireproofing, as required by U.B.C. Standard No. 43 -8, shall be special inspected. 22. All wood to remain in placed concrete shall be treated wood. 23. All structural masonry shall be special inspected per U.B.C. Section 306 (a) 7. Validity of Permit. The issuance of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority or violate or cancel the provisions of this code shall be valid. A Certificate of Occupancy will be required for this permit. ,,,� 1. Footings 2. Foundation 3. Slab /Slab Insulation 4. Shear Wall Nailing 5. Roof Sheathing Nailing 6. Masonry Chimney 7. Framing 8. Insulation 9. Suspended Ceiling 10. Wall Board Fastening 11. 12. 13. 14. Fire Final 15. Planning Final 16. Public Works Final 17. Building Final PL N REVIEW COIU ME & Plan Check No.: ' "1 0 ''' Project:�EU)49 1401414 REQUIRED INSPECTIONS 10. 11. a R d ‘ . 1 .N q geigo � d 6v.4§ : J� N zco 00 li..,„eo-g ivJa4 40,100 0 404 Q N A 4)5 D 5 c, 3 1-0 1 -1§aa0 111- Od No changes will be made to the plans unless approved by the Architect and the Tukwila Building Division. Plumbing permit shall be obtained through the King County Health Department and plumbing will be inspected by that agency, including all • gas piping (296- 4722). Electrical permit shall be obtained through the Washington State Division of Labor and Industries, and all electrical work will be inspected by that agency (277- 7272). All mechanical work shall be under separate permit through the City of Tukwila. All permits, inspection records, and approved plans shall be posted at the job site prior to the start of any construction. When special inspection is required, either the owner, architect or engineer shall notify the Tukwila Building Division of appointment of the inspection agencies prior to the first building inspection. Copies of all special inspection reports shall be submitted to the Building Division in a timely manner. Reports shall contain address, project name and permit number of the project being inspected. All structural concrete to be special inspected (Sec. 306, UBC). All structural welding to be done by W.A.B.O. certified welder and special inspected (Sec. 306, UBC). 9. All high - strength bolting to be special inspected (Sec. 306, UBC). Any new ceiling grid and light fixture installation is required to meet lateral bracing requirements for Seismic Zone 3. Partition walls attached to ceiling grid must be laterally braced if over eight (8) feet in length. Readily accessible access to roof mounted equipment is required. Engineered truss drawings and calculations shall be on site and available to the building inspector for inspection purposes. Documents shall bear the seal and signature of a Washington State Professional Engineer. Any exposed insulations backing material to have Flame Spread Rating of 25 or less, and material shall bear identification showing the fire performance rating thereof. Subgrade preparation Including drainage, excavation, compaction, and fill requirements shall conform strictly with recommendations given in the soils wort . dgt= 6eNet NOTES, .t4 - S- - - Fov.. I s1EctiON E u %ee INTS. A statement from the roo ing contractor verifying fire retardancy of roof will be required prior to final inspection (see attached procedure). All construction to be done In conformance with approved plans and requirements of the Uniform Building Code (1988 Edition), Uniform Mechanical Code (1988 Edition), Washington State Energy Code (1990 Edition), and Washington State Regulations for Barrier Free Facility (1990 Edition). 18. All food preparation establishments must have King County Health Department sign -off prior to opening or doing any food processing. Arrangements for final Health Department inspection should be made by calling King County Health Department, 296 -4787, at least three working days prior to desired inspection date. On work requiring Health Department approval, it is the contractor's responsibility to have a set of plans approved by that agency on the job site. 19. Fire retardant treated wood shall have a flame spread of not over 25. All materials shall bear identification showing the fire performance rating thereof. Such identification shall be issued by an approved agency having a service for inspection at the factory. Notify the City of Tukwila Building Division prior to placing any concrete. This procedure is in addition to any requirements for special inspection. 21. All spray applied fireproofing, as required by U.B.C. Standard No. 43 -8, shall be special inspected. 22. All wood to remain in placed concrete shall be treated wood. 23. All structural masonry shall be special inspected per U.B.C. Section 306 (a) 7. Validity of Permit. The issuance of a permit or approval of plans, specifications and computations shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of this code or of any other ordinance of the jurisdiction. No permit presuming to give authority or violate or cancel the provisions of this code shall be valid. A Certificate of Occupancy will be required for this permit. ,,,� CONTACT DATE COMMENTS _ INITIALS A,U. c.ra.4.19-,1.4 •-44_ / / ir Z ail / -3f -9V )-,(- t P d € - 1 pM. • -� '. • , d�- 9 ... Ole , .cam i . ( f�nJ �n��'I� ��/� /� e ,� may �� 1 41,1 4 i 7X S 4 l ,( - / Q 0, / , 1 i g `�D -i - (. LI r�. ( 1.�. be, 'i L >, tti (,b/ 3 l9V J* 77 4A a .ee f yy .t.r .4.c- ki J� -if ^ka,-1�.e'.,t i. ,c., f -e4,...2 y „f'ti -F- ��('.{.c l e,�lc_ ( 7 10 1/ .1 y ,Ge ,e ce rX . /0 : `.I / ; ,lGi ; ! ' , . i- J i + _f..Q Q t A . c I / t y . �- i, lht.,� . it ... ',7-.,-,0, . /r � <...,-v-�.� V ito / bi ... I /9/ ( 1)7 &,t- 1iAx-ci <' M: CQ Y j /J A$. J t'X,PAL G c G h / ('f i i t't- F e,<-1 14./0 Pe. .•GO- . 2, , /th / , P 1 V- (.4 ( eP r� -, ti r �f ,��.� -1 10 (..c 1 -t <..,. . 5/ 1 9 / 60 i + .,.QE_.Z:l'..a t. ok G? (.7 t �,, i cc.(. `2-G .-Q.1, -- c. oP J • PLAN CHECK NUMBER CITY OF TUKV47LA Dept. of Community Development - Building Division Phone: (206) 431 -3670 PERMIT CEN( ER ACTIVITY LOG 6300 Southcenter Boulevard — #100 Tukwila Washington 98188 `1 10 .ice • .. ADDRESS: .5 / 5 /� Z.5. PROJECT: • BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. "Land Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists" Ms. Denise Millard City of Tukwila Building Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Approved East Marginal Way Channelization Plan for Gateway North Building Seven Our Job No. 3675 Dear Denise: May 9, 1991 COURIER DELIVERY RECEIVED CITY OFTI)KWILA MAY 9 1991 PERMIT CENTER Pursuant to your request, I am forwarding six sets of the on -site engineering design plans completed by our office for the Gateway North Building No. 7 development and six blueline prints of the East Marginal Way Channelization Plan for your final approval. You indicated that the Channelization Plan has been approved and the City is now ready to prepare the building permit approval letter for this project. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your assistance. DKB /mh 3675C.005 enc: (6) Sets On -Site Engineering Design Plans (6) Copies East Marginal Way Channelization Plan cc: Mr. Bob Hart, Bedford Properties (w /enc) Mr. George Minniear, SGA (w /enc) Mr. David Kehle, David Kehle Architects (w /enc) Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Home Office: 18215 72nd Avenue South • Kent, Washington 98032 • (206) 251 -6222 • Fax (206) 251 -8782 California Office: 4612 Roseville Road, Suite #103 • North Highlands, California 95660 • (916) 348-3057 • Fax (916) 348-0953 BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. "Land Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists" Mr. Brian Sheldon Traffic Engineer City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila WA 98188 Dear Brian: April 19, 1991 COURIER RE: Revised Channelization Plan for East Marginal Way Adjacent to Gateway North Development Our Job No. 2908 Pursuant to our meeting several weeks ago regarding the East Marginal Way Channelization Plan, I am forwarding six blueline prints of the revised plan which has been redesigned in an attempt to incorporate the changes and additions discussed during our meeting. The following is a brief list of the major changes and additions provided on the plan: 1. We have completed additional field work to pick up the existing channelization on the East Marginal Way bridge and the intersection of South 115th Street and East Marginal Way. 2. The stacking lane for the northbound left turn lane has been increased from 100 feet to 160 feet as agreed during our meeting. 3. The thru lane widths have been revised as discussed during our meeting from left-turn 12 feet to 11 feet on the northbound and southbound left -turn lanes, and 19 feet and 20 feet for the southbound through lanes north and south of the South 116th Street intersection, respectively. 4. It was agreed to during our meeting that the existing raised island would be completely removed and replaced with appropriate channelization striping and Type 1 and Type 2 buttons. The plan has been revised to incorporate these changes. 5. Details for the various types of lane striping and channelization have been provided on the plans in accordance with the City of Tukwila standard details. 6. As requested, we have verified the existing turning radius from the SR -599 overpass for the northbound left-turn travel movements and have provided appropriate radii for a WB 50 truck turning radius. 7. As discussed, we have provided the appropriate signage for southbound traffic movement to indicate a right -turn only for the right turn lane south of the South 116th Street along East Marginal Way. Home Office: 18215 72nd Avenue South • Kent, Washington 98032 • (206) 251 -6222 • Fax (206) 251 -8782 California Office: 4612 Roseville Road, Suite #103 • North Highlands, California 95660 • (916) 348 -3057 • Fax (916) 348 -0953 Mr. Brian Sheldon Traffic Engineer City of Tukwila -2- 8. As requested, the existing channelization on the East Marginal Way bridge and South 115th intersection, has been provided on the plan, and we have designed the new channelization to match into the existing by extending a two -way left -turn lane across the East Marginal Way bridge. Please note that we have indicated the extent of work provided by Bedford Properties as terminating at the south end of the East Marginal Way bridge. Once you have had a chance to review the enclosed plans, please contact me if you have further questions or would like to meet to review the plan. Sincerely, n* e x Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Senior Project Engineer DKB /mh 2908C.005 enc: (6) Revised East Marginal Way Channelization Plan cc: Mr. Bob Hart, Bedford Properties (w /enc) Mr. Phil Fraser, l of Tukwila, Public B uildln Work Department (w /enc) Mrs��Denise ' `rd' "' City''of T�kw11a � ` De eiit w %enc j•k i °- Mr. Dave Kehle, Kehle Architects (w /enc) April 19, 1991 APR 23 1991 ar o '7UKWILA PLANNING DEPT. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASIIINGTON 98188 February 28, 1991 Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Project Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineeers, 18215 72nd Avenue S Kent, Washington 98032 RE: Request for extension on Building Permit Application Plan Review # 90-368. Dear Mr Balmelli: Your request to extend your Building Permit application has been granted. Your permit application will be valid for 180 days from your request on February 27, 1991. If your permit is not obtained during this time the application becomes null and void and a new application will be required for submittal with the payment of fees. No refunds will be given on the expired permit. In granting this extension you agree to respond to our requests for resubmittal in a timely fashion and keep the Permit Coordinator informed of any delays you may experience. If you have any questions regarding your extension please contact me. Sincerely, • r Building Official City of Tukwila Department of Community Development PHONE # (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDuscn, Mayor Ms. Denise Millard Permit Coordinator City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Request for Building Permit Application Extension for Gateway North Building 7 Our Job No. 3675 BARGHAUSEN C ONSULTING EN INC. "Land Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists" February 27, 1991 Dear Denise: Our office has been assisting Bedford Properties in obtaining the necessary building and utility permits for construction of building no. 7 in the Gateway North Corporate Center development. We have been informed that the building permit application is due to expire within the next couple of days. At this time, we are requesting an extension of the building permit application for 180 days, so that we can work with the Public Works Department in resolving some off -site street and channelization improvements along East Marginal Way. We have attended several meetings with the Public Works Department to discuss appropriate channelization improvements along East Marginal Way. These improvements have expanded from those which were originally required, based on further review by both the Traffic Department and our office. On Tuesday, February 26, 1991, Mr. Bob Hart and me attended a meeting with Mr. Phil Fraser, Mr. Brian Sheldon, Mr. Ron Cameron, Mr. Ross Heller, and Mr. Pat Brodie to review the proposed channelization improvements. We will be completing the final improvement plans within the next couple of weeks, and will be submitting to the City for final approval. Once the off -site improvement plans are approved, the building permit should be ready for issuance. Mr. Fraser is aware of the building permit application expiration date, and has indicated that we have a valid request for an extension. Please proceed to extend our application for a minimum of 180 days, so that we can complete the channelization improvement plans and obtain approval. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue in further detail, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Project Engineer DKB/bl ill,/ r ' RECEIVED 3675c.001 � p i:, 1 10 cc: Mr. Bob Hart, Bedford Properties Mr. Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila Public Works Department pERMIT CENT ER Mr. Ron Cameron, City of Tukwila Public Works Department Mr. Brian Sheldon, City of Tukwila Traffic Engineer Home Office: 18215 72nd Avenue South • Kent, Washington 98032 • (206) 251 -6222 • Fax (206) 251 -8782 California Office: 4612 Roseville Road, Suite #103 • North Highlands, California 95660 • (916) 348 -3057 • Fax (916) 348 -0953 Dear Denise: 02/28/1991 08 :39 FROM BARGHAUSEN ENGINEERS TO 4313665 P.02 ili lb BARGHAUSEN _ CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. °Land Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists' //-� — � February 27, 1991 lJ Ms. Denise Millard. Permit Coordinator City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Request for Building Permit Application Extension for Gateway North Building 7 Our, Job No. 3675 Our office has been assisting Bedford Properties in obtaining the necessary building and utility permits for construction of building no. 7 in the Gateway North Corporate Center development. We have been informed that the building permit application is due to expire within the next couple of days. At this time, we ate requesting an extension of the building permit application for 180 days, so that we can work with the Public Works Department in resolving some off -site street and channelization improvements along East Marginal Way. We have attended several meetings with the Public Works Department to discu=s appropriate channelization improvements along East Marginal Way. These improvement have expanded from those which were originally required, based on further review by both the Traffic Department and our office. On Tuesday, February 26, 1991, Mr. Bob Hart and me attended a meeting with Mr. Phil Fraser, Mr. Brian Sheldon, Mr. Ron Cameron, Mr. Ross Heller, and Mr. Pat Brodie to review the proposed channelization improvements. We will be completing the final improvement plans within the next couple of weeks, and will be submitting to the City for final approval. Once the ofd site improvement plans are approved, the building permit should be ready for issuance. Mr. Fraser is aware of the bung permit application expiration date, and has indicated that we have a valid request for an extension. Please proceed to extend our application for a minimum of 180 days, so that we can complete the channelization improvement plans and obtain approval. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue in further detail, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, gide Daniel K. Balmelli, F.E. Project Engineer DKB/b1 3675c.001 cc: Mr. Bob Hart, Bedford Properties Mr. Phil Fraser, City of Tukwila Public Works Department Mr. Ron Cameron, City of Tukwila Public Works Department Mr. Brian Sheldon, City of Tukwila Traffic Engineer Home Office: 18215 72nd Avenue South • Kant, Washington 98032 • (206) 251-6222 • Fix (206) 25 .8782 California office: 4612 Roseville Road, Suite #103 • North Highlands, California 95660 • (916) 3483057 • Fax (916) 348 -0953 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 January 31, 1991 Dan Balmelli Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Wa. 98032 RE: Gateway North Resubmittal of Rechannelization Dear Dan: Public Works Department has reviewed the rechannelization diagram for East Marginal Way South and South 116th Street. Enclosed are the minutes of our January 15, 1991 meeting with respect to Public Works comments. Also enclosed you will find copies of comments we have made with respect to the proposed rechannelization and East Marginal Way South. Requested is you address our comments. We would be happy to meet with you if you have any questions regarding our comments or concerns. Please call me at 433 -0179 if I can be of further assistance. xc: Sincerol ,v.b % / Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer Public Works Department Brian Shelton Ross Heller Permit Coordinator Ted Freemire Read File Development Gateway North Enclosures (2) PF /amc :8:gateway3 PHONE # (2061433.1800 Gary L, VanDusen, Mayor 5. Barghausen Gateway North Revised Rechannelization Plan Review Agenda Jant'any 15, 1991 Page 5 Brian Shelton/ Robin Tischmak From 1/8/91 10 minutes Meeting 1. IDENTIFY BIKE PATH `-) ON EAST SIDE OF EAST MARGINAL WAY S. AND . Fj b t 4 PROVIDE FOR ITS RECONFIGURATION TO THE EAST RED -LINE CHANNELIZATION DRAWING IS ENCLOSED. REQUIREMENTS: A. 2- LANES, THRU LANES' NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND; NORTH. OF SOUTH 116TH STREET. REVIEWERS. DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE ISLAND CONFIGURATION WILL WORK WITHIN THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE 15 AND 14 FOOT SOUTHBOUND DIMENSIONS JUST SOUTH OF SOUTH 116TH WILL NOT WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT -OF -WAY (CHANGE THE EXISTING ROADWAY SECTION). PROVIDE RIGHT TURN ARROWS IN SOUTHBOUND LANE. SHOW APPROPRIATE BEGINNING OF DUEL LANE WHERE 2 14' WIDTH LANES CAN BE PROVIDED. REMOVE FOG LINE ON/. WEST SIDE OF ROADWAY SOUTH OF SOUTH 116TH.. NORTH OF SOUTH 116TH RESTRIPE FOR SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE AND TURN LANE UP TO SOUTH 115TH STREET. EXPAND DRAWING ACCORDINGLY. REQUEST -J RESUBMITTAL. • 4 EXISTIN CURB S WAL - -DC. ■' G EXISTING CURB L WALK vpv�� BRi06 F EXISTING East r► S 11 ° 24'56" E 368:92' EX 153IDIG -S . E �� STINGG STOP L REMOVE EXISTING WHITE FOG LINE SIGN Marginal PROPOSED SOLID WHITE C EXI FOG LINE J � Vp 0 r i NSTA� WHITE PLASTIC LEFT • TURN ARROW (TYPE 2 LI EXIST. STOP SIGN c7CIST. STOP LINE \--PROPOSED WHITE STOP SAR STRIPE PROPOSED W GORE STRIPE WITH H V TYPE 2d RPM'S A 20' CC. . F OISTING CURB . 1OC PROPOSED LOUD DOUBLE YELLOW S *KO WITH TYPE 2d RPM 's II 40. O.C. - 6" DUCT - - --; �n WHITE \- Z.< FOG •E S 07 E 593.29' PROPOSED SOLID WHITE FOG LINE REMOVE COSTING ISLAND AND CASING AS gIOWN EXISTING CURB COSTING REMAIN *ILA City = r Tukwila FIRE DEPARTMENT 444 Andover Park East Tukwila, Washington 98188 -7661 (206) 575 -4404 Fire Department Review Control Number 90 -368 Re: Gateway North Building #7 Dear Sir: Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor September 6, 1990 The attached set of building plans have been reviewed by The Fire Prevention Bureau and are acceptable with the following concerns: 1. The total number of fire extinguishers required for your establishment is calculated at one extinguisher for each 3000 sq. ft. of area. The extinguisher(s) should be of the "All Purpose" (2A, 10 B:C) dry chemical type. Travel distance to any fire extinguisher must be 75' or less. (NFPA 10, 3 -1.1) (UFC 10 -1 (3 -1)) Extinguishers shall be installed on the hangers or in the brackets supplied, mounted in cabinets, or set on shelves (NFPA 10, 1 -6.6), and shall be installed so that the top of the extinguisher is not more than 5 feet above the floor. (NFPA 10, 1 -6.6) (UFC 10.301) Maintain fire extinguisher coverage throughout. 2. No point in a sprinklered building may be more than 200 feet from an exit, measured along the path of travel. (UBC 3302(d)) Exit doors shall swing in the direction of exit travel when serving an occupant load of 50 or more. (UBC 3304(b)) Exit doors shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. (UFC 12.104b) Exit hardware and marking must meet the requirements of Uniform Fire Code Sections 12.104 & 10.402(a). City gi Tukwila FIRE DEPARTMENT 444 Andover Park East Tukwila, Washington 98188 -7661 (206) 575 -4404 Page number 2 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Exits serving more than 50 occupants shall be provided with illuminated exit signs. (UFC 12.108(d)) 3. All sprinkler drawings shall be prepared by companies licensed to perform this type of work. Drawings shall first be approved by the Washington Survey & Rating Bureau, Factory Mutual Engineering or Industrial Risk Insurers, then by the Tukwila Fire Department. No sprinkler work shall commence without approved drawings. (City Ordinance #1528 & NFPA 13, 1 -9.1) (UFC 10.305) The sprinkler system for this spec warehouse shall be a minimum ordinary hazard Group 3. (City Ordinance #1528) 4. Maintain hose station coverage per City Ordinance #1141. (UFC 10.302) Local U.L. Central Station Supervision is required. (UFC 14.105) Tamper supervision is required on all P.I.V. and O.S.Y. sprinkler valves. All new underground piping shall be tested hydrostatically. Test pressure shall be not less than 200 psi for 2 hours. Maximum leakage allowed (with joints in plain view) shall not exceed 2 quarts per hour. The Fire Department shall witness all tests. (NFPA 24, 8 -9.3.2 & NFPA 24, 8- 9.3.3) (UFC 10.301) All underground piping shall be visually inspected by the Tukwila Fire Department prior to any backfilling. Pipe joints shall not be covered until after completion of a successful hydrostatic test. (NFPA 24, 8- 9.3.4) (UFC 10.301(f)) All sprinkler systems, fire hydrant systems, standpipe systems, fire alarm systems, portable fire extinguishers, and other fire - protective or extinguishing systems or appliances shall be CITA Tukwila Page number 3 FIRE DEPARTMENT 444 Andover Park East Tukwila, Washington 98188 -7661 (206) 575 -4404 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor maintained in an operative condition at all times and shall be replaced or repaired when defective. All repairs and servicing shall be made in accordance with recognized standards. (UFC 10.302a) Contact the Tukwila Fire Department, Fire Prevention Bureau to witness all required inspections and tests. (NFPA 13, 1 -10.2) (UFC 10.305(b)) 5. Key box - When access to or within a structure or an area is unduly difficult because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life- saving or fire - fighting purposes, the Chief may require a key box to be installed in an accessible location. The key box shall be a type approved by the Chief and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the Chief. (UFC 10.209) H.V.A.C. units rated at 2,000 cfm require auto - shutdown devices. These devices shall be separately zoned in the alarm panel and local U.L. Central Station supervision is required. 6. All electrical work and equipment shall conform strictly to the standards of the National Electrical Code. (NEC 70) (UFC 85.101) Each circuit breaker shall be legibly marked to indicate it's purpose. (NEC 110 -22) All electrical wiring is to be inspected by the State Electrical Inspector, Washington State Department of Labor & Industries. (NEC 70) 7. When fire dampers are required to maintain fire resistance of construction, fire dampers shall comply with the requirements of UBC Standard 43 -7. (UFC 10.401) All interior wall covering materials shall be fire - resistive or shall be treated to be fire - resistive, so as to result in a flame- spread Yours truly, cc: T.F.D. file ncd City f Tukwila FIRE DEPARTMENT 444 Andover Park East Tukwila, Washington 98188 -7661 (206) 575 -4404 Page number 4 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor rating as required by UFC Appendix VI -C tables 42A and 42B. A certificate of the flame spread rating is required to be delivered to the Tukwila Fire Department. (UBC 4204) (UFC 10.401) Every building shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways with all- weather driving surface of not less than 20' wide and 13'6" vertical clearance. Access roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with an approved turn - around area. Access shall be within 150' of all portions of the building. (UFC 10.207 as amended) Your street address must be conspicuously posted on the building and shall be plainly visible and legible from the street. Numbers shall contrast with their background. (UFC 10.208) All hydrants and all surface access roads shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction (UFC 10.301) The Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau Geo, . Engineers or Bedford Properties, Inc. 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98168 GeoEngineers, Inc, 2405140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Thlephone (206) 746 -5200 Fax. (206) 746-5068 ,877.4fg EAtui July 11, 1990 Geotechnical Considerations Phase III, Gateway North Tukwila, Washington File No. 1199- 005 -BO1 JUL 8 I9 ) Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWIIA AUG 2 7 199u Attention: Mr. Bob Hart PERMITCENTER This letter confirms our geotechnical recommendations for Phase III of your Gateway North project located in Tukwila, Washington. These recommen- dations were provided during an on -site meeting with you, Mr. David Kehle, Architect, Messrs. George Minnear and Bill Martin with SSG Corporation, and Mr. J. Gordon with GeoEngineers. Existing site grades within the footprints of Buildings 5, 6 and 7 for Phase III are approximately 12 to 18 inches below finished subgrade eleva- tions. Based on testing performed last fall, the existing subgrade soils need to be further compacted prior to placing additional fill. The surficial soils within the building footprints are fiery dry for the top several inches and then become wetter with depth. Where the existing subgrade is 18 inches or more below finished subgrade, we recommend that the existing surface be bladed smooth and compacted with a large, self - propelled, smooth -drum, vibratory roller. Where the existing subgrade is less than 18 inches below subgrade, we recommend that the soils be scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, smooth- graded, and similarly compacted. Compaction should be achieved per our previous recommendations. It may be necessary to moisture - condition the soils. Once adequate compaction has been obtained, structural fill can be placed to the finished subgrade elevations. Geo Engineers Bedford Properties, Inc. July 11, 1990 Page 2 The existing site soils are very silty. It will facilitate later earthwork if the silty subgrade soils are graded so the center of each building pad is crowned above the edges. This procedure will prevent ponding of water on the relatively impermeable subgrade soils both before and after placing the granular structural fill. It is our opinion that surcharging or preloading the building footprints above finished floor elevation is not necessary, provided that fill required to establish finished subgrade is placed sufficiently in advance of building construction such that the major portion of settlements due to this loading has occurred prior to building construction. This recommendation is based on a maximum design floor loading of about 300 pounds per square foot. Since only 12 to 18 inches of structural fill is necessary to achieve the finished subgrade elevations, we do not expect significant settlement of the building pads to occur. However, if building construction will occur within the next two months, it would be prudent to install settlement plates in these building areas to monitor settlement response as well as to confirm that the settlement is largely complete prior to building construction. We request that the data be forwarded to us within three days after each reading so that we can monitor the settlements on a timely basis. We request that we be informed when the scarifying and recompaction is to be done so that we can perform a representative number of density tests on the recompacted subgrade to confirm that adequate compaction is being achieved. (iedillialOneerS Bedford Properties, Inc. July 11, 1990 Page 3 We trust this letter satisfies your current needs. Please call if you have any questions. JRG :JKT :ira Two copies submitted cc :V David Kehle, Architect 12878 Interurban Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98168 SSG Corporation 1235 - 15th Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98125 Attn: Mr. George Minnear Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. J' Robert Gordon, P.E. Senior Engineer ler4 Jack K. Tuttle, P.E. • - �^' Principal • I BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. "Land Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists" Mr. Phil Fraser City of Tukwila Engineering Department 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 December 14, 1990 RE: Revised Channelization Plan for East Marginal Way Adjacent to Gateway North Development Our Job No. 3675 Dear Phil: As requested, we have provided the additional existing and proposed channelization stripping and signage for the East Marginal Way Channelization Improvement Plan, and are forwarding six copies along with the original six sets of the on -site engineering design plans for your final review and approval. Also enclosed is a copy of the utility permit application for this project as requested by your office. Please proceed to finalize your review and approve the enclosed plans at your earliest convenience so that we can obtain the necessary permits for this project. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, DKB /et C604.37 enc: (6) Copies Revised Channelization Plan (6) Sets Original On -site Engineering Design Plans (1) Copy Utility Permit Application cc: Mr. Bob Hart, Bedford Properties (w /enc) Mr. Dave Kehle, David Kehle Architects Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Project Engineer ew-Lic,t-w-104 Afvua-Aavnt r-q RECEIVED DEC 241990 uKVVti" PUBLIC WORKS Home Office: 18215 72nd Avenue South • Kent, Washington 98032 • (206) 251 - 6222 • Fax (206) 251.8782 California Office: 4612 Roseville Road, Suite #103 • North Highlands, California 95660 • (916) 348-3057 • Fax (916) 348 -0953 CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTIICENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 November 21, 1990 Dan Balmelli, P.E. Project Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, Wa. 98032 Dear Dan: 3. Dimensioning of width and proposed). 4. Existing and proposed Marginal Way South. Phil Fraser, Senior Engineer Public Works Department Enclosures (12) xc: Ron Cameron, Brian Shelton Read File, DevelopmentFile: Gateway. 0 PHONE II (206) 433.1800 l ^(..),/ k Gary L. FanOusrn. Mayor Public Works Department has reviewed your resubmitted plans and some issues we consider, need to be addressed. You are requested to pro- vide the following information on your proposed channelization plan: 1. Existing channelization on East Marginal Way South and South 116th Street. 2. Proposed channelization on East Marginal Way South and South 116th Street. of all lanes and curb radii (existing signing on South 116th Street and East Enclosed are all sets of plans you submitted to us. Requested is a resubmittal of the entire plan package, six (6) sets, with revised channelization plan, six (6) sets, and a copy of your Utility Permit Application. If you have any questions or I can be of further assistance do not hesitate to call me at 433-0179. PF /amc :7 :gateway7 • BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. "Land Planning, Survey, and Design Specialists" Mr. Phil Fraser City of Tukwila Engineering Department 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Resubmittal of Engineering Design Plans for Gateway North, Building 7 Our Job No. 3675 Dear Phil: November 8, 1990 COURIER DELIVERY RECEIVED NOV - 91990 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS Enclosed for your final review and approval are six sets of the Engineering Design Plans prepared by our office which have been revised to incorporate the plan review comments contained in your letter dated September 6, 1990. 1. As requested, we have highlighted the engineering plans to indicate the portion of site improvements which will be completed under the Building 7 building permit. All other information shown on the plan has either been constructed or already permitted under previous phases of the development. 2. As requested by Comment No. 2 of your letter, we have prepared a channelization improvement plan along East Marginal Way to incorporate a northbound left turn lane into the project. The work generally consists of removal of a portion of the existing raised island and re- striping of the travel lanes. Enclosed for your review and approval are six copies of the East Marginal Way re- channelization plan. 3. Comment No. 3 of your letter requests information regarding the landscape improvement work within the East Marginal Way right -of -way, including bond and Insurance information. Our office is not involved in the preparation of landscape work for this project. However, we previously provided documentation to Bedford Properties and their contractor regarding the requirements which were set forth by the City of Tukwila for completing any work within this area. Home Office: 18215 72nd Avenue South • Kent, Washington 98032 • (206) 251 -6222 • Fax (206) 251 -8782 California Office: 4612 Roseville Road, Suite #103 • North Highlands, California 95660 • (916) 348-3057 • Fax (916) 348-0953 I Mr. Phil Fraser City of Tukwila Engineering Department i -2- Sincerely, a4Ve Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Project Engineer Please proceed to complete your review of these plans as soon as possible and contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thank you for your assistance. DKB /et C594.10 enc: (6) Sets Revised Civil Engineering Design Plans (6) Copies East Marginal Way Re- Channelization Plan cc: Mr. Bob Hart, Bedford Properties (w /enc) Mr. Dave Kehle, David Kehle Architects (w /enc) Mr. George MInnear, SSG Corporation (w /enc) November 8, 1990 Richard RW:2 Mahan &DeSelvo CONSULTING ENGINEERS October 15 , 1990 Duane Griffin City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Dear Mr. Griffin, Sincerely, yble cc: David Kehle 12878 Interurban Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98168 • Regarding: 90 -T -19 (Gateway North, Building 7) Enclosed are drawings, calculations and soils report for your use. 1411 Fourth Avenue Bldg. Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 624 -8150 We have received information on the proposed project and have reviewed it for compliance with the structural portions of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. We have no additional comments. CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 September 6, 1990 Dan Balmelli, P.E. Barghausen Enginers, Inc. 18215 72nd Ave. S. Kent, Wa. 98032 RE: PHONE H (206) 433.1800 Cary L. VanDusen, Mayor or : - Buildin• No. - Site Plan - Resubmittal Re•uest Dear Dan: Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed site plan and request resubmittal to address the following comments: 1. In review of site plans, it is not clear what sewer, water, storm, infrastructure has been built (for Building No. 7) and what is to be constructed by this plan. As an example, on Page 4 of 5 it is noted in the lower right hand corner, just north of Building No. 7, the note states "install (existing) ". This note appears in other places on the plan and one cannot tell by review as what is existing and what is to be installed as new. It may be appropriate to felt -tip what is to be built as new on all sets of plans or change the notes to clarify. 2. In approval of Buildings 5 and 6 a rechannelization plan on East Marginal Way South and South 116th Street to the bridge was required. As part of this building application, requested is six (6) sets of this rechannelization plan at this time so that the rechannelization and upgrading of East Marginal Way South can be approved under this site review process. 3. If appropriate, provide for the landscape work adjacent to East Marginal Way South (including bond and insurance) for City approval. Si Enclosures (7) PF /amc :5 :gtwy7 Requested is resubmittal of the six (6) sets of plans addressing the above comments. If you have any questions or concerns about the issues raised by this review, please do not hesitate to call me at 433 -0179. Phil Frbser Senior Engineer Public Works Department xc: Permit Coordinator Development File: Gateway Building No. # 7 Read File • 1 1 Mahan &DeSaalvo =1' CONSULTING ENGINEERS September 7, 1990 Duane Griffin City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, Washington 98188 Regarding: 90 -T -19 (Gateway North, Building 7) Dear Mr. Griffin, 1411 Fourth Avenue Bldg. Seattle, Washington 98101 (206) 624 -8150 SEP 101990 \ C.1'(Y tin PLANNING DEPT. We have received information on the proposed project and have reviewed it for compliance with the structural portions of the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code. Our comments follow. Structural 1. The soils report furnished does not include foundation design criteria. Provide a copy of the soils report referenced in the General Notes and revise the General Notes to include reference to the specific recommendations contained in GeoEngineers letter dated July 11, 1990 (ref. 1199 - 005 -B01) for phase III work. 2. Provide design calculations for the foundation system. 3. The drawings indicate a future mezzanine; however, there is no consideration given to this in the calculations. Please clarify. 4. Provide design calculations for the diaphragm chords and connections. Provide additional information on row B drag strut design. 5. Provide design calculations for the seismic tie and concrete anchor shown on C -4 and L -4 in accordance with Section 2312(h)2H. 6. Provide design calculations for the ledger and ledger connections. 7. Provide design calculations for shear walls. 8. Provide design calculations for the 12" square wall pilasters. 9. The tilt -up wall panels appear to be over reinforced in the 18" and 24" wide middle portions between doors. Provide additional calculations for these wall portions considering the actual widths. 10. Provide design calculations for the cantilever concrete walls in the dumpster area. This drawing must be stamped by the Engineer of Record. 11. Revise the General Notes to require special inspection per the specific requirements of Section 306. September 7, 1990 City of Tukwila Re: 90 -T -10 Page Two Sincerely, Richard yble RW:1 Please have the applicant respond to the above comments in itemized letter form and resubmit two copies of revised drawings and one copy of revised calculations, as required. All status inquires are to be directed to our receptionist. cc: David Kehle 12878 Interurban Avenue S. Seattle, WA 98168 Mahan &DeSalvo CITY OF TUKWILA 6200 SOUTHCENTER BOULEVARD, TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98188 September 6, 1990 Dan Balmelli, P.E. Barghausen Enginers, Inc. 18215 72nd Ave. S. Kent, Wa. 98032 RE: Gateway North - Building No. 7 - Site Plan - Resubmittal Request Dear Dan: • q 0 - X81 .1 1;� 4 PHONE N (206) 433.1800 Gary L. VanDusen, Mayor Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed site plan and request resubmittal to address the following comments: 1. In review of site plans, it is not clear what sewer, water, storm, infrastructure has been built (for Building No. 7) and what is to be constructed by this plan. As an example, on Page 4 of 5 it is noted in the lower right hand corner, just north of Building No. 7, the note states "install (existing) ". This note appears in other places on the plan and one cannot tell by review as what is existing and what is to be installed as new. It may be appropriate to felt -tip what is to be built as new on all sets of plans or change the notes to clarify. 2. In approval of Buildings 5 and 6 a rechannelization plan on East Marginal Way South and South 116th Street to the bridge was required. As part of this building application, requested is six (6) sets of this rechannelization plan at this time so that the rechannelization and upgrading of East Marginal Way South can be approved under this site review process. 3. If appropriate, provide for the landscape work adjacent to East Marginal Way South (including bond and insurance) for City approval. Requested is resubmittal of the six (6) sets of plans addressing the above comments. If you have any questions or concerns about the issues raised by this review, please do not hesitate to call me at 433 -0179. S i Phil Fraser Senior. Engineer Public Works Department xc: Permit Coordinator Development File: Gateway Building No. # 7 Read File Enclosures (7) PF /amc:5:gtwy7 SITE ADDRESS • RC -- .i. -$- • •. " SUITE # , VALUE OF CONSTRUCTI 1 - $ z, tr PROJECT ? 0 NAME/TENANT kd > (ui lrle4 ASSESSOR ACCOUNT # 102 -10 I2 TYPE OF ( WORK: 0 New Building Addition Tenant Improvement (commercial) Li Demolition (building) Rack Storage 0 Reroof 0 Remodel (residential) 0 Other: DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE: iiDY tla -tie OtttriaYit C; e/tt a ltIlIbllIu - at, MI, I ii FEEIVE i U AUG 2 7 1940 �= BUILDING USE a: (office, warehouse, etc.) e i t�9bvtit L-i-i- Hbluu1ik NATURE OF BUSINESS: 44E0_, LL- Otp ' WILL THERE BE A CHANGE IN USE? {� r4�- C�YL1,.. .I i No Yes IF YES, EXPLAIN: i" , Lr!SD & DES ' • SQUARE FOOTAGE - Building: % j Tenant Space: -- Area of Construction:%* WiLL THERE BS TORAGE OR USE OF FLAMMABLE, COMBUSTIBLE OR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE BUILDING? No 0 Yes IF YES, EXPLAIN: PROPERTY OWNER t3501:0 t p � PHONE 1 �ilds ADDRESS b tub ZIP ' CONTRACTOR ' .o PHONE ,7,.qm ADDRESS •Q ikx G c ..LiAlii i . , ZI P e le e ' t WA. ST. CONTRACTOR'S LiCENSE # 0c . /� i 7 � � EXP. DATE r V �'4 ARCHITECT 1!l D IL PHONE 3 . ADDRESS , Kb 14-I' :meal g lks1.(,09, ZIP Iub BUILDI ''' PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development - Building Division 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila WA 98188 --- DESCRIPTION (206) 433 -1849 BUILDING PERMIT FEE PLAN CHECK FEE < ' BUILDING SURCHARGE ENERGY SURCHARGE APPLICATION MUST BE FILLED. OUT COMPLETELY OTHER: .. FEES (for staff use only) TOTAL - AMOUNT.:. RCPT.•# . DATE. - 1)C1.(6p` )1.4/1: -a - o BUILDING OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT cisT A NI i XAt It Ep )$ :.0 e.1,�, e 0 r . P„ OY: SIGNATUR : L( PRINT NAME • 10 r-5 I DATE '511 ADDRESS 1-7,E ` I • , CITY /ZIP[ 1 1 /. DATE APPLICATION EXPIRES PHONE G CONTACT PERSON �(,� 1/7 L PHONE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL In order to ensure that your application Is accepted for plan review, please make sure to fill out the application completely and follow the plan submittal checklist on the reverse side of this form. Handouts are available at the Building counter which provide more detailed information on application and plan submittal requirements. Application and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. VALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION Valuation for new construction and additions are calculated by the Department of Community DPveloprQnt prior to application nubm!ttaI. Contact the Permit Coordinator at 133 - 1851 prior to submitting application. In all cases, a valuation amount should be entered by the applicant. This figure will be reviewed and is subject to possible revision by the Building Division to comply with current fee schedules. BUILDING OWNER / AUTHORIZED AGENT If the applicant is other than the owner, registered architect/engineer, or contractor licensed by the State of Washington, a notarized letter from the property owner authorizing the agent to submit this permit application and obtain the permit will be required as part of this submittal. EXPIRATION OF PLAN REVIEW Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitations: The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 180 days upon written request by the applicant as defined in Section 304(d) of the Uniform Building Code (current edition). No application shall be extended more than once. If you have any questions about our process or plan submittal requirements, please contact the Department of Community Development Building Division at 433 -1849. DATE APPLICATION ACCEPTED `i7'373076D Geo J Engine ( 66: gt/341.\kpo%J MEN1IllgO AUO 2 71990 MAHAN & DESALVO, INC. Bedford Properties, Inc. 12720 Gateway Drive, Suite 107 Seattle, Washington 98168 Attention: Mr. Bob Hart This letter confirms our geotechnical recommendations for Phase III of your Gateway North project located in Tukwila, Washington. These recommen- dations were provided during an on -site meeting with you, Mr. David Kehle, Architect, Messrs. George Minnear and Bill Martin with SSG Corporation, and Mr. J. Gordon with GeoEngineers. Existing site grades within the footprints of Buildings 5, 6 and 7 for Phase III are approximately 12 to 18 inches below finished subgrade eleva- tions. Based on testing performed last fall, the existing subgrade soils need to be further compacted prior to placing additional fill. The surficial soils within the building footprints are Fiery dry for the top several inches and then become wetter with depth. Where the existing subgrade is 18 inches or more below finished subgrade, we recommend that the existing surface be bladed smooth and compacted with a large, self - propelled, smooth -drum, vibratory roller. Where the existing subgrade is less than 18 inches below subgrade, we recommend that the soils be scarified to a depth of about 12 inches, smooth- graded, and similarly compacted. Compaction should be achieved per our previous recommendations. It may be necessary to moisture - condition the soils. Once adequate compaction has been obtained, structural fill can be placed to the finished subgrade elevations. GeoEngineers, Inc. 2405140th Ave. NE, Suite 105 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone (206) 746.5200 Fax. (206) 746.5068 July 11, 1990 Geotechnical Considerations Phase III, Gateway North Tukwila, Washington File No. 1199- 005 -B01 .� 8 I9J Consulting Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA AUG 2 7 lb. i PERMIT CENTER , , Cie Engineers Bedford Properties, Inc. July 11, 1990 Page 2 The existing site soils are very silty. It will facilitate later earthwork if the silty subgrade soils are graded so the center of each building pad is crowned above the edges. This procedure will prevent ponding of water on the relatively impermeable subgrade soils both before and after placing the granular structural fill. It is our opinion that surcharging or preloading the building footprints above finished floor elevation is not necessary, provided that fill required to establish finished subgrade is placed sufficiently in advance of building construction such that the major portion of settlements due to this loading has occurred prior to building construction. This recommendation is based on a maximum design floor loading of about 300 pounds per square foot. Since only 12 to 18 inches of structural fill is necessary to achieve the finished subgrade elevations, we do not expect significant settlement of the building pads to occur. However, if building construction will occur within the next two months, it would be prudent to install settlement plates in these building areas to monitor settlement response as well as to confirm that the settlement is largely complete prior to building construction. We request that the data be forwarded to us within three days after each reading so that we can monitor the settlements on a timely basis. We request that we be informed when the scarifying and recompaction is to be done so that we can perform a representative number of density tests on the recompacted subgrade to confirm that adequate compaction is being achieved. 0 Engineers Bedford Properties, Inc. July 11, 1990 Page 3 We trust this letter satisfies your current needs. Please call if you have any questions. JRG:JKT:ira Two copies submitted cc: V David Kehle, Architect 12878 Interurban Ave. S. Seattle, WA 98168 SSG Corporation 1235 - 15th Ave. N.E. Seattle, WA 98125 Attn: Mr. George Minnear Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Robert Gordon, P.E. Senior Engineer G, �G Jack K. Tuttle, P.E. S' 4-C, Principal Plan Review PROJECT ADDRESS .516 I `(i ' DATE i -31-90 OCCUPANCY GROUP TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION LOCATION ON PROPERTY BUILDING HT. / NO. STORIES FLOOR AREA OCCUPANT LOAD EXITING REQUIRcMENTS W.S.E.C. NOTES: CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DI AA MI!ilf /1I1 /ICWnu PLAN CHECK NUMBER q nt4 .11. 611 CHAPTER 51 -10, W .A.C. Qu " G 0.001,140(- prepared by: DETAILED REQUIREMENTS TYPE OF OF CONSTRUCTION. c1• leAtIO • PART V, CHAPTER 23, U.B.C. WILLA 1 ;k4ILL CaQce it eu TO: FROM: OATS: SUSJSCT: Chi of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila Washington 98188 (20) 433 Cary L. Vanousen, Mayor `lm0Jron i � a_W> 1301 Igo Ir'1 (10 /T2.MEMO) MEMORANDUM •