Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit MI98-0167 - NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS - TOWER AND RADIO EQUIPMENT
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS MI98-0167 City of Tukwila (206) 431 -3670 Community Development / Public Works • 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT WARNING: IF CONSTRUCTION BEGINS BEFORE APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRES, APPLICANT IS PROCEEDING AT THEIR OWN RISK. Parcel No: Address: Suite No: Location: Category: Type: Zoning: Const Type: Gas /Elec.: Units: Setbacks: Water: Wetlands: 262304 -9075 575 ANDOVER PK W NSFR MISCPERM TUC N/A 001 North: .0 South: .0 East: .0 West: .0 TUKWILA Sewer: TUKWILA Slopes: N Streams: Permit No: Status: Issued: Expires: MI98 -0167 ISSUED 12/04/1998 06/02/1999 Occupancy: Not in table. UBC: 1997 Fire Protection: Contractor License No: GALLLI *337CF OCCUPANT NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 575 ANDOVER PK W, TUKWILA WA 98188 OWNER LOWE NORTHWEST INVESTOR Phone: 206 575 -2120 600 UNIVERSITY ST #2820, SEATTLE WA 98101 CONTACT MIKE BRENDEN Phone: 425 - 452 -7413 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, 1750 112 AV NE, STE C -100, BELLEVUE WA CONSULTANT AGRA EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL Phone: (425)820 -4669 11335 NE 122ND WAY STE 100, KIRKLAND, WA 98109. CONTRACTOR GALL LANDAU YOUNG CONST CO INC Phone: 425 - 519 -4327 PO BOX 6728, BELLEVUE WA 98008 k * * * * ** k* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *•k ** * * * * * * * * * ** k* ** * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * *** k* * * * * ** * * * * * * * ** k Permit Description: INSTALLATION OF A 50 FT COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AND INSTALLATION OF ASSOCIATED RADIO EQUIPMENT INSIDE AN EXISTING STORAGE BUILDING INCLUDING LAND ALTERING FOR CAISSON (DRILLED PIER) FOUNDATION MINIMUM 17.5 FT DEEP. k* k******k******************************************* * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Construction Valuation: $ 70,000.00 PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS: *(Water Meter Permits Listed Separate) Eng. Appr: JJS Curb Cut /Access /Sidewalk /CSS: N Fire Loop Hydrant: N No: Size(in): .00 Flood Control Zone: N Hauling: N Start Time: End Time: Land Altering: Y Cut: 40 Fill: Landscape Irrigation: N Moving Oversized Load: N Start Time: End Time: Sanitary Side Sewer: N No: Sewer Main Extension: N Private: Public: Storm Drainage: N Street Use: N Water Main Extension: N Private: Public: k** k k************* k*********************************** ** * * * * * * * * ** ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * **k TOTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FEES: $ 1,182.59 k********************* * * ** * * * * * * * *** * * * * *ir * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * ** * * * * * * ** Permit Center Authorized Signature:_ Date: I hereby certify that I have read and examined this permit and know the sane to be true and correct. All provisions of law 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 provision of any other state or local laws regulating construction or the perfor ce of wor . I am authorized to sign for and obtain this development) mj. Signature: Print Name:_! Date: I— .e) This permit shall become null and void if the work is not commenced within 180 days from the date of issuance, or if the work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days from the last inspection. CITY OF T'IKWILA Perm/t Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 (206) 431 -3670 Miscellaneous Permit Application Application and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. Applications will not be accepted through the mall or facsimile. Project Name/Tenant: 634as;»,•,v frm./Iu.J# 4:v.4, -- /hex of Description of wprk to be done: I 11/2-f ,j,(.!(4 -i011 CrE ek., -fo -C-Dpi' 0-6)11-01-44-41-4 ' . ' -- f7,K?j 01)14-• Le / 1 L , P . / A At 4..4 r ■ . / .' ..._ / • . �/ 14 ! ... !' ..i Value of Construction" 70 ooa Site Address: l� 4/21/49/0- & ity State /Zip: �e,�w,)a. 14 9V96- Tax Parcel Number: .26 230 ¢- – ?c)-75— Property Owner: ,Gaav` 6•44yr;fe,- Address: Phone: ZO6- bz3 -0zoo Street Address: , OKa- (/n ;a.r$ . 6641;4 $ I City /State /Zip: C' y State /Zip: Sea ,// e 11/i • 8 /0/ Fax #: 2a4 (a Z3 -0600 Contac-t� ersor W? n � GeSSeri,,/ Phone: 2 DG - 216 -335f Street Address; /740 VedAke. /eve #¢za City State /Zip: ,5'w (e, (g /o9 Fax #: zed, - Z 9 s'- 9583 Contractor: G l-/ ‘c:,'•.5,41•41 c 'o Phone: ¢25- - iz -C/a -106 Street Address: Pa /'BX �, 7Z� . .0 ty �� //e vrie !//Y ??0°F ax #: ¢2c- ¢53 - 56 g'° Architect P/9 /e! C c �S Phone: 2 06 - ¢-¢..3 -9% 7 9 0 Street Address: 303 i 9 Sf City State /Zip: $$Ca,4e lf4 98/2-/ Fax #: 2 ©G - ¢¢-3- FS. 75 Engineer: EI.5: -- •mKS(0/ Phone: 24'0 - z8O -/i8/ Street Address: / %OU ie. eAi ev3o+r / /aee #2.0o City State /Zip: .SCE r aa# 9g/ • Fax #: &!o- 2'?/2-3t' MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT REVIEW AND APPROVAL REQUESTED: (TO BE FILLED OUT BY: APPLICANT) . Description of wprk to be done: I 11/2-f ,j,(.!(4 -i011 CrE ek., -fo -C-Dpi' 0-6)11-01-44-41-4 ' . ' -- f7,K?j 01)14-• Le / 1 L , P . / A At 4..4 r ■ . / .' ..._ / • . �/ 14 ! ... !' ..i Will there be storage of flammable /combustible hazardous material in the building? ❑ yes ■4 no / Attach list of materials and storage location on separate 8 1/2 X 11 paper indicating quantities & Material Safety Data Sheets ❑ Above Ground Tanks ❑ Antennas /Satellite Dishes ❑ Bulkhead /Docks ❑ Commercial Reroof ❑ Demolition ❑ Fence ❑ Mechanical ❑ Manufactured Housing - Replacement only ❑ Parking Lots ❑ Retaining Walls ❑ Temporary Pedestrian Protection /Exit Systems ❑ Temporary Facilities ❑ Tree Cutting APPLICANIREQUEST.FOR MISCELLANEOUS PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS ❑ Channelization/Striping ❑ Flood Control Zone CO Landscape irrigation ❑ Storm Drainage ❑ Water Meter /Exempt # ❑ Water Meter /Permanent # ❑ Water Meter Temp # ❑ Miscellaneous 117;;;;-/Access/Sidewalk LJ Fire Loop /Hydrant (main to vault) #: Size(s): Land Altering: 0 Cut YOcubic yards 0 Fill cubic yards 0 sq ft grading/clearing Sanitary Side Sewer #: ❑ Sewer Main Extension 0 Private 0 Public Street Use ❑ Water Main Extension 0 Private 0 Public 0 Deduct 0 Water Only Size(s): Size(s): Sizes : Est. quantity: gal Schedule: oue Moving Oversized Load/Hauling MONTHLY SERVICE BI GS TO:' ,GS Name: l Phone: Address: I City /State /Zip: 0 Water 0 Sewer 0 Metro 0 Standby WATER METER DEPOSIT /REFUND BILLING: Name: 7%j2- Address: Phone: ICity /State /Zip: Value of Construction - In all cases, a value of construction amount should be entered by the applicant. This figure will be reviewed and is subject to possible revision by the Permit Center to comply with current fee schedules. Expiration of Plan Review - Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation. 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 107.4 of the Uniform Building Code (current edition). No application shall be extended more than once. Date application accepted: 9 -.5 915 Date application expires: Applicat� ken by: (initials) ALL MISCELLANEOUS PE'r, ' IT APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUB ED WITH THE FOLLOWING: ➢ a ALL DRAWING' RAWING§ SHA,.L BE AT A LEGIBLE SCALE AND NEATLY DRAWN ➢ BUILDING SITE PLANS AND UTILITY PLANS ARE TO BE COMBINED ➢ ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED ARCHITECT ➢ STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS AND DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ➢ CIVIL/SITE PLAN DRAWINGS REQUIRE STAMP BY WASHINGTON LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER (P.E.) 71 SUBMIT APPLICATION AND REQUIRED CHECKLISTS FOR PERMIT REVIEW Submit checklist No:. M -9 Above Ground Tanks/Water Tanks - Supported directly upon grade exceeding 5,000 gallons and a ratio of height to diameter or width which exceeds 2 :1 ❑ Antennas /Satellite Dishes Submit checklist No M -1 ❑ Awnings /Canopies - No signage Commercial Tenant Improvement Permit ❑ Bulkhead /Dock Submit checklist 'No: M -10 ❑ Commercial Reroof Submit checklist No: M -6 _________i__‘11,114 Address: Demolition Submit checklist No M -3i M -3a ❑ Fences - Over 6 feet in Height Submit checklist No: M -9 ❑ Land Altering/Grading/Prefoads Submit checklist No: M -2 J Loading Docks Commercial Tenant Improvement Permit. Submit checklist No: H -17 Mechanical (Residential & Commercial) Submit checklist :.: No. M -8, Residential only. - H -6, H -16 0 Miscellaneous Public Works Permits Submit checklist No: H -9 0 Manufactured Housing (RED INSIGNIA ONLY) Submit checklist 'No: M -5' in Moving Oversized Load /Hauling Submit checklist : No: M -5 ❑ Parking Lots Submit checklist No: M -4 ❑ Residential Reroof - Exempt with following exception: If roof structure to be repaired or replaced Residential Building Permit Submit checklist . No:. M -6 ❑ Retaining Walls - Over 4 feet in height Submit checklist No: M -1 ❑ Temporary Facilities Submit checklist No: M -7 ❑ Temporary Pedestrian Protection/Exit Systems Submit checklist No: M -4 ❑ Tree Cutting . Submit bhecklist No: M -2 ❑ Copy of Washington State Department of Labor and Industries Valid Contractor's License. If not available at the time of application, a copy of this license will be required before the permit is issued, unless the homeowner will be the builder OR submit Form H -4, "Affidavit in Lieu of Contractor Registration ". 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. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, AND I AM AUTHORIZED TO APPLY FOR THIS PERMIT. BUILDING OWNER OR AUTHORIZED AGENT: Signature: �---./ _�� /� ,�, '� I Date: s / 9, 8- Print name: Phone: ax #: Grsser , G alt. CBrP• � mG - z. de,. -33.5-s— a. - .29 8'-' 9,5'8'3 _________i__‘11,114 Address: ��' Cily /S)41e/Zip: /70a /.dLff/Je. 19, _ :6¢2Cd Se ?`/e Lb4 ?O/ 0? CITY OF TUKWILA Address: 575 ANDOVER PI. W Suite: Tenant: Type: IIISC.PERM Parcel #: 262304 -9075 Permit No: MI98-0167 Status: Applied: Issued: ISSUED 09/03/1998 12/04/1998 k* k'k-b** k* k* k•k* k* k•*-k•.4 k k k•k•k•k* k•k*•k*•k•k k k•k k-k k• k- k*• k• k *•k•k•k•k•k•k'b-k-b-k*'b*-k•k•k *•k"k'k*-k 4 •k* :4-k•k•k Permit Conditions: 1. No changes will be made to the plans unless, approved by the "Architect or Engineer and the,,•Tuk,w,i•la Building Division. 2. Electrical permits shall h obtained, through the Washington, State Division of .Labor: ` ani= Iniiust r'iesd:a11, electrical work wi 11 be Inspected Thy ,that agency (24830Y. 3. 3. Ai l permits, ins-p.ec "tion records, and approved` pian's, shall be available at th•e "j ob 's i to ,pr i dr:: to' the s t,a,0 :;of any ,,con - struction. 'These- documents. are to he maint �`ined andavai f- able until 'final N<pection rapbr•aval' is. grant d 4. All st` Cr1 uEyural concrete shall be, special-inspected 'SUB Sec. U8 Sec . 3 ,A: ), 14, 5. Bolts,in'taied in 'concrete S1a1 1 by special 'inspected (UBC _•ac. 1701.5.2'). 6. When'special inspecti�on` is required either the ownet4, ", i : architect or' engineer i neer sha 1 l not i f _v.. the Tukwila Bu i l d i,ng,,. 4 Divtis,ion• of, ,appointment of.. th'e inspection agencie::.`'•pr for the f•irst\building, inpection. Cop•ieti:of "..all special.' ins pection' reports`,shal,l be, suhnitted to the Building t ' D iv -i'= i on i n a', t i me lv marirtier Reports sha 1i contain,,,a06?S's ' project na►ire t: p'ern►.tt number",and type ',, of 1 ns pest l on being performed 7. The Spec i a'1. tnspec,tor sha 1 1 subm i ,•�;`i final signed report , stating..whether the- work r=equi`r;i,n,g spec l;a`1�:: in .pection6,wa:=, to .th'e b e:a,t: •of,., the inspector's know l edge.i ;i n.- c-or for`'ra.n°ce,;,.r w1tf`,;nappr'oved p1ans and spec.if icoat'ions .and, th,e appfl icakle wor l ma`n.,hip', provisions. of the UBC 8. All con ,traction ;to be done in conforniance 'w,i.th approved plans.; :a,ki`d requirements of the Untifr;rli'" Bu11d1nLg,, -Code (1997;:' i'. Edition) yes ainepded,' ,Uniform Mechanii. 1 •r`od'e, (1997 Fdit3Etri "r)"'S°, and Wa :h.l`ilgton ate gy k. ",.y .' � <n e r Code d e (19 y 7 E d i � t' i o n) � �{:;; :� u• 9. Va l i d i tv '` :ot'%Peri i't The issuance ssucince of , a, cpe`rm i t obi apiprcjw ';i cif plans, speOf•i,cations, and ciir`pirtatl'ons shall not b :;trued to b'ljr,'- a: >permi t for c r•:%an kappro.va l of, any of any of the'-- prtvision of t'�he budding code or A t other ordinance af. the .Jur i'id.i.cti'on." :.:No per;nr i,,tjiG,• give authority to v,i;o l a =te r cancel the.pr '1 s ons of this code shall be valid. ,. 10. k * "k'k PUBLIC WOR1S .k "kk 1 1 . Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented as the first order of business to prevent sedimentation off- site or into existing storm drainage facilities, 12. The site shall have permanent erosion control measures place as soon as possible after final grading has been, completed and prior to the Final Inspection. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY TUKWILA PUBLIC .WORKS MINIMUM 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ANY DEWATERING ACTIVITY. ; Iati.on any esuming to C ciorrrital" CDoid. PLAN REVIEW /ROUTING SLIP ACTIVITY NUMBER: M198 -0167 PROJECT NAME: NEXTEL QUASIMOTO Original Plan Submittal DATE: 3 -16 -99 Response to Incomplete Letter Response to Correction Letter # Xi Revision # 1 After Permit Is Issued DEPARTMENTS: Builc.ing Division (/ 4411 Pu lic Works Fire Prevention Structural Planning Division Permit Coordinator le DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS: (Tues, Thurs) DUE DATE: 3 -18 -99 Complete Incomplete Not Applicable C Comments: TUES /THURS ROUTING: Please Route No further Review Required Routed by Staff n (if routed by staff, make copy to master file and enter into Sierra) REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: (ten days) DUE DATE: 4 -15 -99 Approved ❑ Approved with Conditions REVIEWERS INITIALS: Not Approved (attach comments) ❑ DATE: CORRECTION DETERMINATION: DUE DATE. Approved Approved with Conditions C Not Approved (attach comments) ❑ REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE. \PR- ROUTE.DOC 6/98 Date: `/J6 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 ❑ Response to Incomplete Letter 0-I Response to Correction Letter ❑ Revision after Permit Issued Plan Check/Permit Number: A'1 X99 -alb I- Project Name: it NTC QUItParla Project Address: ��� /4 i 'rte P4"I w 37- Or i�' �fi*P /r. %)%4-� _% .ar- X4%7/ Contact Person: it#(,Ji /; rf' hi Phone Number: J'9 G� Summary of Revision: /'�-E� Iif.�Q RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA REVISICN 14'J,L PERMIT CLN1ER Sheet Number(s) "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. Submitted to City of Tukwila Permit Center Entered in Sierra on c.' 1 7 "-qq Date: /6 c.. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 ❑ Response to Incomplete Letter Response to Correction Letter ❑ Revision after Permit Issued Plan Check/Permit Number: P/419-0/67- Project Name: Project Address: �15-- /0 xT Q1/4-37affo fee4 w ,37:1 .1 e / I14 Contact Person: Phone Number: .91-11-7 4? 7/ r� r Summary of Revision: 4,ep / /v[ n - c--o1 ,./Y/C7/-4/9 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA Sheet Number(s) f! t A3 1/ "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. Submitted to. City of Tukwila Permit Center Entered in Sierra on 2 17 4 ^ rii-IR + " 1aa. • No. PERMIT GOITER Sheet Number(s) f! t A3 1/ "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. Submitted to. City of Tukwila Permit Center Entered in Sierra on 2 17 4 Post- IIt NNoottee4778871 Dat' p„ ► 'FFa/x , Date c Special instructions: I- -i_fr't,oSo:e6 Co./Dept. V / • I Requ r; f Co I Phone M r� phone* ��iL/ r,. $0 7 [T�� 7 FaxM 4 74p IV i Fax // 7-: f //4 INSPECTION RECORD Retain a ropy with permit INSPECTION ■`'O. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300.Sauthcenter:Bkid, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 tktear--6A PERMIT NO. (206)431 -3670 Pt: r TyEla ecfio ress; T' 4-� Vv , Date c Special instructions: I- -i_fr't,oSo:e6 Date w a.n `i p.m. Requ r; f Ph KZ. --)r4f—orso Approved per applicable codes.. orrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: o 51 /? .,e, S/ '?/ _. 0''' f,C(C6 I- -i_fr't,oSo:e6 pe( 4io Imo- -- ce /xi/ r� / fits /� tom/ /e7 W $ // 7-: f //4 Af�: .... 1 A. Inspect Date. Q $47.00 EINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. Receipt No: Date: 1 PLA�/�,�,� c0 REV1 EdTIN1?LIP ACTIVITY NUMBER: M198-0167 PROJECT NAME: NERTEL COMUNICATIONS Original Plan Submittal Response to Correction Letter # XX Revision # 1 MO Permit Is Issued BEFORE DATE: 11 -19 -98 Response to Incomplete Letter DEPARTMENTS: Building Division Public Work Fire Preven ion Structural. C Pla nn ngDivision Permit( o� or�ina or ,DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS: (Tues, Thurs) Complete ❑ Incomplete ❑ Comments: DUE DATE: 11 -24 -98 Not Applicable ❑ TUES /THURS ROUTING: Please Route No further Review Required ❑ Routed by Staff ❑ (if routed by staff, make copy to master file and enter into Sierra) REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: (ten days) DUE DATE: 12-22-98 Approved ❑ Approved with Conditions E Not Approved (attach comments) n REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: CORRECTION DETERMINATION: DUE DATE: Approved Approved with Conditions .• Not Approved (attach comments) ❑ REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: too_oni ITC nnr CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Building Division-Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 REVISION SUBMITTAL DATE: 11111 PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER: r•-11 1 t C. 1 b 0 A1/4S1 ikAOTC) PROJECT NAME: 5-7 A I-4'r e , , 1 a--Te__ Li a-zzgr PROJECT ADDRESS: t 1 14 13te -G14 1=-1`i CONTACT PERSON: PHONE: 42-5) 41 5 Z -7 413 REVISION SUMMARY: C--)5 • °NIS 1-1 5 e, -17:30_D.--12. a.4.,0 AQ 6'7 s L-es 71 orNIS , SHEET NUMBER(S) "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revisions and date revisions. 'Waft (MY op rumvu N V 1 9 1998 SUBMITTED TO: Raw PLAN CDOPL �• Cop REVIEW/ROUTING ACTIVITY NUMBER: 14198 -0167 DATE:. 10- 23 -98. PROJECT NAME:.; NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS` Original Plan Submittal Response to Incomplete Letter XX Response to Correction Letter # 1 Revision #' After Permit Is Issued DEPARTMENTS: BuiINing'Division Pu is Works .1,15 b,2g No Fire Prev ntion �4-13 Structural,. C P anning Division V)-4 e it Coorrdiinnaator DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS: (Tues, Thurs) Complete DUE DATE: 10 -27 -98 Incomplete Not Applicable El Comments: TUES /THURS ROUTING: Please Route n No further Review Required Routed by Staff n (if routed by staff, make copy to master file and enter into Sierra) C REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: APPROVALS OR,CORRECTIONS: (ten days) DUE DATE: 11 -24 -98 Approved n Approved with Conditions Not Approved (attach comments) REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: CORRECTION DETERMINATION: Approved DUE DATE: Approved with Conditions Not Approved (attach comments) El REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 REVISION SUBMITTAL DATE: t 0 4 25 Q b PLAN CHECK/PERMIT NUMBER: M kB -O ( kfl PROJECT NAME: QJAS‘Ma O (ScYMC& CISL9 SQ ,Sfi,p23`it-3 PROJECT ADDRESS: 3 .1Z Cam. 0.1‘,4-Q_ N CONTACT PERSON: MWY C PHONE: VZS 2- Z 13 REVISION SUMMARY: I4. bC., CC Q■S\D �, �,.� 61-Ac. S \ 0 2 - L I D 2.0 `R.) 6i) SHEET NUMBER(S) T- I 1,, C_. 1 1 —) A-2 re "Cloud" or highlight all areas of visions a�d date revisions. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA C C T 2 :: 1998 SUBMITTED CENTER UBMITTED TO: CITY USE ONLY r4/1 Q /QR FentO Cooki Cori PLAN REVItW/ROUTINu SLIP ACTIVITY NUMBER: MI98 -0167 DATE: 9 -3 -98 PROJECT NAME: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS XX Original Plan Submittal Response to Correction Letter # Response to Incomplete Letter Revision # After Permit Is Issued DEPARTMENTS: . uifding Division 10 -4-i li Works J►2 6,2_1/Z. �v Fir Preven tipn„ Structura w• Planning Division g. ll��J p erordrn�t� DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENE : (Tues, Thurs) Complete Incomplete DUE DATE: 9-8-98 Not Applicable El Comments: TUES /THURS ROUTING: Routed by Staff Please Route 0 No further Review Required (if routed by staff, make copy to master file and enter into Sierra) REVIEWERS INITIALS. DATE: APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: (ten days) Approved Approved with Conditions DUE DATE: 10 -6 -98 Not Approved (attach comments Lfr4( /14 14 (—&q? 471 REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: CORRECTION DETERMINATION: Approved Approved with Conditions El DUE DATE: Not Approved (attach comments) IT REVIEWERS INITIALS: DATE: \PR•ROUTE.DOC 6/98 i INSPECTION NO. INSPECTION RECO( Retain a ropy with permit CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431 -3670 PERMIT NO. Project: i Address: 5 ^ A 1 Wc4) Type o pvkak Date called: Special instructions: c(4- `-`) C ortM4 Date wanted: 7? 01N I 99 . p Requester: ^`'�,. 0 _j f,v't ! _ ZJl-� C% Yet. I�l,�lvr Phone:' t c_ wq_Qc1 Approved per applicable codes. COMMENTS: ections required prior to approval. Inspector: Date: El $47.00 REINSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. I nntA• INSPECTION NO. INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit CITY OF TUKWIILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcentgr Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 017.:L 98r0/607 . /PERMIT NO, (206)431 -3670 Pr l�"� `l G e M Type of Insectio}� � „ Ad( J . 61 Date callry/ J qq Special instruc s: /icilion�r A /w �zZ c, ' . C '% /1/42 . 'S 1 Date we /3 / � a.m: Reque W &( , ,) ?1117/- o9s'o Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to appr . COMMENTS: a/ 61F y A c ,1. . L1 s c--a Inspector: v Date: a /�-/9. II $47.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection,,ffee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. 1 ao,-ni.•• Ales. I narn. • • INSPECTION NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit QAd PERMIT NO. (206)431-3670 Project: N ex 1 e 1 Cornmanicationg Type of Inspection: ena I Address: 575 Andover Pk IV Date called: 2 — 3 _ q9 Special instructions: Date wanted: 2-3- 9tt? a.m. P.m. Requester: Robert 6091 6 Phone: i2,5 go_015.0 Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. nstr. COMMENTS: pyvy (wed ,4A,tay. • Inspector: Date: rlt, • 4P-1/57,ii9 E:1 $47.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. I Rnraini I tpf 1 • r.. ... F^.^ INSPECTION RECO Retain a copy with permit INSPECTION NO, CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 PERMIT NO. - (206)431-3670 Inspectio Ptpj !"--1 eA f ( Y, 'CG Ty'pe ---7 ddress: ./247- ,Afe5-7 Acre cis» Date caU it Y Special instructions: Date wa a a �/ p.m. Requ r:// Ph /n' /7 J ~1 1 i6 I '"o750 CApproved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: 5'd — 7/(/ 40 0.-6?-4- r* .,Gc`,C/Ce• 6-.0 /crz.ose- '6 ./247- ,Afe5-7 Acre cis» 1/7 "4 - (-26 ,vc ,:,c_(- t/7 -7 zei/5.6r %= / //Q /t 76 ,/,t €-Ar 7,470_,S? c,,e1i 4./ ,/, , ,e' /5721, C 7 bt-) in/ 0/77-1 Z,(10-EA Op lied[.. (2 %C f75 &:1/4/7-5-7729-X0/i4 ■• A. Inspectce Date. $47,00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Cali to schedule reins ection. 1 Paraint NIn• Dal te: INSPECTION RECCO Retain a copy with permit INSPECTION NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd, #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 mq9-olui PERMIT NO. (206)431 -3670 Proje t� Q� ' .e 1 St Type pf-1{i pection: ; Jk'1Y IY 1 r. 11(Y•(1 Addr s: Date called: S ecial instructions; i,�-�t- C -�� fit, h3 uJ CO.< ne 4- Date wanted: D.- 4---q9 pc equa Rst7 'X' Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: Date: =iy /9•°7 El $47.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. 1 o wi 1 riafa• INSPECTION REC Retain a copy with INSPECTION NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 981 '9 PERMIT NO. (206) 431-3670 i P6Type ri of inspectfory A. Or:SS' .. . ' mg Date called: Date wanted: iZnACOM • Art Mirimiti. iarfew r,.: iir2ZIWKAIRMS=7.1 .a.( LiAte 0140 Requester: 0 A er+ Phoarcl.:: Approved per applicable codes. 1 1 Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: Az.sig sill Inspect E] $4 .00 INSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinsPection, �.i INSPECTION NO. CITY OF TUKWILA` BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 INSPECTION RECORD - Retain a copy with pernl ir)156- o 167 Project: / Il.'x / (d,,. -.-,, of inspection: 5fa, -•1- vv, t Address: Date called: Special instructions: ,51.- 1" e∎vjec/ 0 � it r,$' Date wanted: c� !l - /U' l a.m. p.m. Request ers d , �j Phone No.: 41A5 - ?bY -09s o Approved per applicable codes. COMMENTS: A/L*9V Corrections required prior to approval. cevget-01 4,1 f Inspector: cU 1 11178 rw ] $42.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to Inspec ion, fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection. Date: ,INSPI , ECTION REC Retain a copy with 1,-fnit INSPECTION NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA 98188 M4- PERMIT NO. (206) 431 -3670 • r.' ■ ' A.. ' - i . -s t: i . l ..1. AA U Typed inspection: f • �, ,. t ..b..s. `; t, , - (i ( r1 to . il►� h Date called. / / (� a . -S' Special Ins ructions: PC) \A r~ }} am. Date wantel 2 d J , v / V p.m. / 0 Req stet: Phone u CA 01570 Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: ,� - ` & -& G- 1-e Inspector: Date: P1 $42.0'EINSPECTIbN FEE REQUIRED. Prior to inspection, tee must • be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Cali to schedule reinspection. 0 /117"%MrPt.r.M.VIPTV74MpriinrfrrfmcglinAvrk-fimprmrszii,rnrierrtimmtKrYitrmitow,) City of Tukwila Fire Department John W. Rants, Mayor TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT FINAL APPROVAL .FORM Project Name \\Ve..".›C\-4?....L COW\ f'sA sj y t--.4c1•-%,A S Address S15 _ Thomas P. Keefe, Fire Chief Permit No. MT- C\ N-0161 Retain current inspection schedule Needs shift inspection Suite # Approved without correction notice Approved with correction notice issued Sprinklers: Fire Alarm: Hood & Duct: Halon: Monitor: Pre-Fire: Permits: Authorized Signature FINALAPP.FRM 51(3 Date Rev. 2/19/98 T F D Form F.P. 85 t {'J�} 4` •fr4•�.l`;•?�i.£5��,�„r�".!'': , .i.., ,, , ..emu �;w. "`,' ' ' ; *Ak•kA•* ** A***A** k• A** A* ** **A * *:kA** *14.*A*4tA**•kA* %* *A ***h ** *•k'A A ** CITY OF TUKWILA. WA TRANSMIT *kkh * *Ah *k* *Alt h ** * *k kkAhhh * *h *kEAIh A ***** * * * * *hA *k * *•k *.A*A *A4* TRANSMIT dumber: R9700E377 'Amauht : 673.15 12/0.4/9£1 15.09 Payment Method: • CHECK Notation:� WEXTEL CLMi4U1YICA: ir1itr 11LH. permit Not MI?t3- °0i(;7 Tvpe, MISCPER14 MI3CELLANEDUB . PI RMIT Parc'e1 NO4 26230:4-9.075 ' Site Addred3 5.'5 AN1)i1V.ER PK 14 Total E:.i »az -11.02.15'S 679.1,5 TOt;al ALL Pmt,;.c 1.�U82..'59•.. `11 a1 nice;,. .'00,.. * ** * * * *A *.* *1 4w*, ir**** s1**** it* k** Av1. t'. A'• kakitA• k** ****yltt'1•'#,* *'k**411.** #**.. Account :11 .edlic Descr'ipti.an - Ama:unt 000/32: , g, ,;(i BUILDING-- RF5 ::_i•.9.0:34 000 /34`.;•.i. a0 .PLAN ,CHECK-,.. RES.. ` 4;34.134 .000/306-'904 . STA`tE BUILDING SURCHARGE. 4:.510 :000/322±100 LAND ALTERING PERMIT.FEt; ;?3:a -50.;' This s Payment; ,;;r 04T, ti t•.: !r ; A.k *A A. * *AI*:A ** .ic ** *** *•! * *A:4.k *•k *A *A**** 4 :•k *IA *A *.* *A ;k * **A4b, *.:1Ahah.•k CITY OF T'U(CWJ:L;A. .yIA T ",R'rNSMIT. h4x:74(A�***,r *i•* ,k?r'A•k,k::t', *•Jl* *Wyk. *; 4; k• k' k- A. j*** k* A• h*• k *•kk/:h�'*�ifirq rF *:fir*knk•k*,: kAi(rt *i} T "RAN11t1IT- Nutmber R�7.Q.Q>3i4 ,Amoun le n 109 w. 4 :.Q��QJI..�.G7 l:/. 4h" Pdvmenl hodr "CHICi(" tatatfon: .pu ::.GARVE.Y • CDR PDR n�i;:d,QL11 Permit No M198.O1e7 Tvpc;. tiIBCPER 1.'MISCI LLAWLDU5 PI MI f , Parcel 1'!c . 2t,2 104. 9075.. ." Si 1:e :Address: ,575 ANDOVER PI( 14 Total has z. » "1 iy..09 Th ia: i'nvmeni �;()3 »44 Total ALL ..'Prnt 5Q ";I 44 13x1 once. ci4q 6m ********** Oir* AI**A k• AA***** k*A*. A> t+•kk* A0d..** *** **4%h ** * *A**fi>kAik*A* r•.' Acrnun u: Code: • LGsc;r .'pt ion A. • 090/.3220U0 BUILDING' -" RES 5Q9.44 i44A/∎•;A:.41A/AA..A.1A ': `••.TATA' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT NEXTEL - QUASIMOTO /SCS SITE NO: WA0234 -3 372 CORPORATE DRIVE NORTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON Submitted to: Nextei Communications, Inc. c/o D. Garvey Corporation 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 430 Seattle, Washington 98109 Submitted by: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc, 11335 N,E. 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034 -6918 31 July 1998 8-91M-12422-0 AGRA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS 31 July 1998 8 -91 M- 12422 -0 NEXTEL Communications, Inc. c/o D. Garvey Corporation 1700 Westlake Avenue North, Suite 430 Seattle, Washington 98109 Attention: Mr. Wayne Ussery Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Report NEXTEL - Quasimoto /SCS Site No. WA0234 -3 372 Corporate Drive North Tukwila, Washington Dear Wayne: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034 -6918 Tel (425) 820 -4669 Fax (425) 821 -3914 AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AEE) is pleased to submit this report providing the results of our recent geotechnical engineering evaluation conducted for the above - referenced project. The purpose of our evaluation was to derive conclusions and recommendations concerning site preparation, tower foundations, structural fill, and other considerations. In accordance with NEXTEL Communications requirements, our scope of work included a site reconnaissance, a limited exploration, limited laboratory testing, geotechnical research, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. We received verbal authorization to proceed with our evaluation on 24 July 1998. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of NEXTEL Communications and their consultants, for specific application to this project, in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project and would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Respectfully submitted, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. Rolf B. H lseth, P.E. Senior Project Engineer Distribution: NEXTEL Communications, Inc. (3) Attn: Mr. Michael Brandon D. Garvey Corporation (1). 8.91 M. 12422 Attn: Mr. Wayne Ussery TABLE OF CONTENTS 8 -91 M- 12422 -0 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS 2.1 Soil Boring Procedures 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS 3.1 Surface Conditions 3.2 Soil Conditions 1 1 2 2 2 3 3.3 Groundwater Conditions 3 3.4 Seismic Conditions 3 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 4.1 Site Preparation 3 4.2 Tower Foundations 4 4.3 Structural Fill 8 5.0 CLOSURE Figure 1 — Location Map Figure 2 — Site & Exploration Plan Boring Log B -1 Grain Size Analysis Report Liquid and Plastic Limits Test Report 10 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT NEXTEL - QUASIMOTO /SCS SITE NO. WA0234 -3 372 CORPORATE DRIVE NORTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 8-91M-12422-0 1.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is addressed as 372 Corporate Drive North in Tukwila, Washington, as shown on the enclosed Location Map (Figure 1). The leased parcel, which measures 20 feet by 30 feet, is part of a larger, developed commercial site. The proposed tower will be located in the parking area west of Building No. 12, near the west property line. Site boundaries are generally delineated by parking areas on the north, east and south, and by commercial property on the west. The site is accessible via the existing paved parking area. The enclosed Site & Exploration Plan (Figure 2) illustrates these site boundaries and adjacent existing features. Development plans call for construction of a new 100 - foot -tall monopole tower at the project site. We anticipate that site grades will remain virtually unchanged after stripping operations have been completed. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on our understanding of the currently proposed project, as derived from information provided to us. If any changes are made in the project, we should be allowed to review such changes to determine whether any modifications to our report recommendations are needed. 2.0 EXPLORATORY METHODS We explored surface and subsurface conditions at the project site on 27 July 1998. Our exploration and testing program comprised the following elements: • A visual surface reconnaissance of the site; • One soil boring (designated B -1) advanced at a strategic location on the site, to a depth of about 49 feet. • A review of published geologic maps and seismologic literature. The location and depth of our exploration was selected in relation to the proposed site features, under the constraints of budget and site access. The location of the proposed tower was surveyed and staked prior to our arrival. Our exploration elevation was estimated by interpolating between given elevations at the proposed tower location, which was provided in the Site Candidate Information Package (SCIP). Consequently, the location and elevation data presented in this report should be considered accurate only to the degree permitted by our data sources. It should be realized that our exploration revealed subsurface conditions only at a discrete location near the project site and that actual conditions at the specific tower location could vary. Furthermore, the nature and extent of any such variations will not become evident until construction activities have begun. If significant variations are observed at that time, we may need to modify our conclusions and recommendations to reflect actual conditions. 8.91M.12422 NEXTEL Communications, Inc. 8-91M-12422-0 31 July 1998 Page 2 2`1 Soil Boring Procedures Our exploratory boring was advanced with a hollow -stem auger, using a truck - mounted drill rig operated by an independent drilling company working under subcontract to AEE. A geotechnical engineer from our firm continuously observed the boring, logged the subsurface conditions, and collected representative soil samples. All samples were stored in watertight containers and later transported to our laboratory for further visual examination and testing, as deemed necessary. After each boring was completed, the borehole was backfilled with a mixture of bentonite chips and soil cuttings, and the surface was patched with asphalt or concrete (where appropriate). Throughout the drilling operation, soil samples were obtained at 21/2- to 5 -foot depth intervals by means of the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) per ASTM:D -1586. This testing and sampling procedure consists of driving a standard 2- inch - diameter steel split -spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140 -pound hammer free - falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6 -inch interval is counted, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or "SPT blow count." If a total of 50 blows is struck within any 6 -inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The enclosed Boring Log describes the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory examination and testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our log indicates the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our log also graphically indicates the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the borings, as well as any laboratory tests performed on these soil samples. If any groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth is depicted on the boring log. Groundwater depth estimates are typically based on the moisture content of soil samples, the wetted height on the drilling rods, and the water level measured in the borehole after the auger has been extracted. 3.0 SITE CONDITIONS The following sections of text present our observations, measurements, findings, and interpretations regarding surface, soil, groundwater, and seismic conditions at the project site. Interpretive logs of our subsurface explorations and graphic results of our laboratory tests are enclosed with this report. 3.1 Surface Conditions The site is level and paved and is currently serving as a parking area. An existing dumpster enclosure is located at the south end of the leased parcel. 1 NEXTEL Communications, Inc. 8- 91M- 12422 -0 31 July 1998 Page 3 3.2 Soil Conditions According to published geologic maps, soil conditions in the site vicinity are characterized by alluvial deposits, which our on -site exploration confirmed. Specifically, the soil profile observed in boring B -1 consisted of a 7- foot -thick layer of pre - existing fill material mantling medium stiff to stiff sandy silt and loose to medium dense silty sand to a depth of 22 feet, underlain by medium dense to dense, fine to medium sand extending to the maximum depth explored (49 feet). The pre - existing fill consisted of a medium- dense, sand and gravelly sand. A stiff silt was encountered between a depth of 32 and 40 feet. 3 .33 Groundwater Conditions At the time of exploration (July 1998), groundwater was encountered within our boring at a depth of approximately 10 feet. It should be noted, however, that groundwater levels typically fluctuate and may vary in response to season, precipitation patterns, on- or off -site construction activities, site utilization, and other factors. 3_4 Seismic Conditions According to the Seismic Zone Map of the United States contained in the 1994 Uniform Building Code, the project site lies within seismic risk zone 3. Based on soil conditions encountered at the site, we interpret the subsurface site conditions to correspond to seismic soil profile types S- 3 and S -D, as defined by Table 16 -J of the 1994 and 1997 Uniform Building Code, respectively. Soil profile types S -3 and S -D apply to a profile consisting of predominantly loose to medium - dense or soft to medium -stiff soil. Current (1996) National Seismic Hazard Maps prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey indicate that a peak bedrock site acceleration coefficient of about 0.30 is appropriate for an earthquake having a 10- percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (corresponding to a return interval of 475 years). 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical perspective, given the subsurface conditions disclosed in our field exploration. Our specific recommendations concerning site preparation, tower foundations, and structural fill placement are presented in the following sections. 4-_1 Site Preparation Site preparation will involve temporary drainage, stripping, preparing subgrades, and other construction activities. The following comments and recommendations apply to site preparation. Temporary Drainage: We recommend that initial site preparation involve intercepting and diverting any potential sources of surface or near- surface water within the construction zones. Because the selection of an appropriate drainage system will depend on the water quantity, season, weather conditions, construction sequence, and contractor's methods, final decisions regarding drainage systems are best made in the field at the time of construction. Nonetheless, we anticipate that berms or ditches placed along the uphill side of the work areas will adequately intercept surface water runoff. NEXTEL Communications, Inc. 8- 91M- 12422 -0 31 July 1998 Page 4 Clearing and Grubbing: Once surface runoff is controlled, site preparation should include clearing, grubbing, and removal of all vegetation, sod, topsoil, any organic -rich soils from foundation and fill areas. Based on the observed soil conditions, we estimate the stripping depths needed to remove vegetation and topsoil will range from approximately 0 to 3 inches. Subgrade Compaction: We recommend that subgrades for tower foundations be prepared by proof - rolling the exposed native subgrade to a firm, unyielding state. Proof - rolling can be done most effectively when the soils are at or very near their optimum moisture content. If the specified compaction level cannot be achieved due to high soil moisture conditions, the wet soil should be overexcavated and replaced with suitable, properly compacted, imported backfill. Frozen Subgrades: If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend that all exposed subgrades be allowed to thaw and then be recompacted, if necessary, prior to placing subsequent lifts of structural fill or foundation components. Subgrade Verification: Upon completion of stripping, excavation, and pre - rolling, all surfaces to receive structural fill should be proof - rolled with a heavy compactor under the observation of an AEE representative, to assess the subgrade conditions prior to fill placement. 4.2 Tower Foundations The foundation support for a self - supporting communications tower typically consists of either a drilled pier or a mat footing, in order to provide adequate resistance to vertical, horizontal and overturning forces. Due to the relatively low in -situ density and shear strength of the near surface soils encountered in our exploration, we recommend that the tower foundation consist of a drilled pier. Although adequate embedment for compressive, uplift and horizontal resistance can likely be achieved within the limits of our exploration, we recommend that AEE be present in the field during construction to confirm the soil conditions. The following comments and recommendations are provided for drilled pier design and construction purposes. Design Values: Table 1, below, summarizes the soil values utilized in our geotechnical engineering analysis for the soil layers encountered at this site. We derived these values from our explorations and field testing, as well as from laboratory testing performed on similar materials and established correlations for soil properties. These values are presented for background information only; the use of these soil values in cursory or supplemental analyses should be by knowledgeable geotechnical engineers only and should incorporate physical factors that may influence the allowable soil reaction for known loading conditions. NEXTEL Communications, Inc. 31 July 1998 8-91M-12422-0 Page 5 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SOIL VALUES FOR DESIGN OF DRILLED PIERS Depth Interval (feet) In -Place Density (pcf) Internal Friction Angle (degrees) Cohesion (psf) 0 to 8 8 to 10 10 to 23 23 to 32 32 to 41 41 to 50 125 125 63 63 68 73 35 28 28 35 30 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 Compressive Capacity: To limit settlements, we recommend that the drilled pier penetrate into the medium dense and stiff soils below a depth of 25 feet below the ground surface. Table 2 presents our recommended allowable compressive capacities for drilled piers of varying diameter. These values incorporate a safety factor of 2.5 and include reductions for the dead weight of the pier; as such, they represent groundline compressive capacities. TABLE 2 RECOMMENDED ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE CAPACITIES (TONS) Tip Depth Drilled Pier Diameter (feet) (feet) 4 5 6 7 8 25 205 299 409 537 682 30 211 298 400 515 645 35 205 280 364 458 562 40 460 669 915 1199 1520 45 503 779 1060 1382 1747 50 546 895 1212 1574 1983 Uplift Capacity: Our recommended uplift capacities are presented in Table 3, below. These values incorporate a safety factor of 2.5 and include the dead weight of the pier; as such, they represent groundline uplift capacities. A linear interpolation may be used between each depth interval to obtain the allowable capacity for specific depths not shown. 8.91M.12422.0 NEXTEL Communications, Inc. 31 July 1998 8 -91 M- 12422.0 Page 6 TABLE 3 RECOMMENDED ALLOWABLE UPLIFT CAPACITIES (TONS) Tip Depth (feet) Drilled Pier Diameter (feet) 4 5 6 7 8 25 30 35 40 45 50 48 63 78 94 113 132 68 88 109 130 157 185 91 117 144 171 205 241 117 150 183 217 259 304 147 186 227 268 318 372 Lateral Resistance: Drilled pier foundations for communication towers are typically rigid and act as a pole which rotates around a fixed point at depth. Although more complex and detailed analyses are available, either the simplified passive earth pressure method or the subgrade reaction method is typically used to determine the pier diameter and depth required to resist groundline reaction forces and moments. These methods are described below. • Passive Earth Pressure Method: The passive earth pressure method is slightly conservative by neglecting the redistribution of shear forces that develop near the bottom of the pier. Our recommended passive earth pressures for the soil layers encountered at this site are presented in Table 4. These values are expressed as an equivalent fluid unit weight to reflect the linear increase with depth and may be assumed to act over an area measuring two pier diameters wide by eight pier diameters deep. A lateral deflection at the ground surface equal to about 0.002 times the pier length would be required to mobilize the full allowable passive pressure presented below. The values listed in Table 4 incorporate a safety factor of at least 1.5, which is commonly applied to transient or seismic loading conditions. TABLE 4 RECOMMENDED ALLOWABLE PASSIVE EARTH PRESSURES Depth Interval (feet) Passive Pressure (pcf) O to 8 8 to 10 10 to 23 23 to 32 32 to 41 41 to 50 307 230 116 155 136 195 NEXTEL Communications, Inc. 8-91M-12422-0 31 July 1998 Page 7 • Subgrade Reaction Method: The subgrade reaction method is slightly more complex than the passive pressure method and is typically used to compute lateral design loads based on allowable lateral deflections. Using this method, the soil reaction pressure (p) on the face of the pier is related to the lateral displacement (y) of the pier and the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (kh); this relationship is expressed as p =khy. The calculation of kh depends primarily on the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction, the pier diameter, and the soil type as detailed below: ■ SAND and Soft CLAY: For soil layers consisting of sand or soft clay deposits, the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (kh) increases linearly with depth and is derived from the constant of horizontal subgrade reaction (nh) multiplied by the depth (z) below the ground surface and divided by the pier diameter (B); expressed as kh= nh(z/B). ■ Stiff CLAY: For soil layers consisting of stiff clay deposits, the coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (k5) remains uniform with depth and is considered directly proportional to the coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction (k5) divided by 11/2 pier diameters (B); expressed as kh= k5 /(1.5B). Our recommended constants of horizontal subgrade reaction (nh and k5) for the soil layers encountered at this site are presented in Table 5, below. These values do not include a factor of safety since they model the relationship between contact pressure and displacement. Therefore, the structural engineer or tower manufacturer should select an appropriate allowable displacement for design, based on the requirements of the communication antenna equipment. TABLE 5 RECOMMENDED HORIZONTAL SUBGRADE REACTION VALUES Depth Interval (feet) nh (pci) k, (pci) 0 to 8 8 to 23 23 to 32 32 to 41 41 to 50 90 25 70 N/A 90 N/A N/A N/A 500 N/A Coefficient of Horizontal Subgrade Reaction (pci) k,,= nh(z!B) (Sand & Soft Clay) kh= k, /(1.5B) (Stiff Clay) NEXTEL Communications, Inc. 8 -91 M- 12422 -0 31 July 1998 Page 8 Settlements: For the given pier diameters, we estimate that total post- construction settlements of properly designed and constructed drilled piers will not exceed 1 inch. Differential settlements between foundation elements may approach approximately half of the total settlement. Construction Considerations: Construction activities for drilled piers could encounter caving sidewalls, groundwater, and other physical difficulties. We offer the following comments and recommendations regarding these issues. • Borehole Stability: The foundation drilling contractor should be prepared to case all or part of the borehole to prevent caving of the sidewalls. If alternative methods of stabilizing the sidewalls are proposed, these should be reviewed and accepted by the owner, or their representatives, prior to installation. • Borehole Preparation: The foundation drilling contractor should be prepared to clean out the bottom of the borehole if loose soil is observed or suspected. We recommend that the drilling contractor have a cleanout bucket on site to remove loose soils and /or mud from the bottom of the borehole. Personnel entry into the borehole is not recommended. • Wet Excavation: Our exploration encountered groundwater at a depth of 8'/z feet. Coagulant admixtures used during drilling of saturated or wet soils should consist of materials that will not deposit deleterious coatings on reinforcing steel. Specifically, we recommend synthetic -based coagulants. • Concreting: Concrete should be placed by tremie methods if more than 3 inches of water has accumulated in the borehole. For concrete placement under water, we recommend that the foundation concrete be tremied from the bottom of the hole to displace accumulated water and reduce the risk of adversely impacting the concrete mix, 4.3 Structural Fill The following comments, recommendations, and conclusions regarding the use of structural fill are provided for design and construction purposes. Materials: "Structural fill" includes any fill materials placed under footings, pavements, driveways, and other permanent structures. Typical materials used for structural fill include clean, well - graded sand and gravel (pit -run); clean sand; crushed rock; controlled - density fill (CDF); lean -mix concrete; and various soil mixtures of silt, sand, and gravel. Recycled concrete derived from crushed parent material is also useful as structural fill. NEXTEL Communications, Inc. 8 -91M- 12422 -0 31 July 1998 Page 9 Soil Composition: Soils used for structural fill should not contain individual particles greater than about 6 inches in diameter and should be free of organics, debris, and other deleterious materials. Given these prerequisites, the suitability of soils used for structural fill depends primarily on the grain -size distribution and moisture content of the soils when they are placed. As the "fines" content (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 Sieve) increases, soils become more sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing more than about 5 percent fines (by weight) cannot be consistently compacted to a firm, unyielding condition when the moisture content is more than about 2 percentage points above optimum. The use of "clean" soil is necessary for fill placement during wet - weather site work. Clean soils are defined as granular soils that have a fines content of less than 5 percent (by weight), based on the soil fraction passing the U.S. No. 4 Sieve. On -Site Soils: We offer the following evaluation of the on -site soils in relation to potential use as structural fill or backfill for the tower mat foundation excavation: • Fill Soils - Gravelly Sand: The gravelly sand fill soils encountered in the upper 2 feet in our boring appear suitable for reuse as structural fill at their present moisture content. • Fill Soils - Sand: The sand with some silt and organics encountered between a depth of 2 and 7 feet in our boring will not be suitable for use as structural fill, given the presence of organics. Placement and Compaction: Generally, CDF and lean -mix concrete do not require special placement and compaction procedures. In contrast, pit -run, sand, crushed rock, soil mixtures, on -site soils, and recycled materials should be placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and each lift should be thoroughly compacted with a mechanical compactor. Using the Modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM:D -1557) as a standard, we recommend that structural fill used for various on -site applications be compacted to the minimum densities presented in Table 6. TABLE 6 RECOMMENDED COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS Fill Application Minimum Compaction (ASTM: D -1557) Wall and footing backfill Footing subgrade Gravel driveway subgrade (upper 1 foot) Gravel driveway subgrade (below 1 foot depth) 90 percent 90 percent 95 percent 90 percent NEkTEL Communications, Inc. 8 -91M- 12422 -0 31 July 1998 Page 10 Subgrades and Testing: Regardless of location or material type, all structural fill should be placed over firm, unyielding subgrades. We recommend that an AEE representative be allowed to observe all subgrades before fill placement begins, and to perform a series of in -place density tests during structural fill placement. In this way, the adequacy of soil compaction efforts may be evaluated as earthwork progresses, to minimize construction delays. 5.0 CLOSURE The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations that we performed for this study; therefore, if variations in the subgrade conditions are observed at a later time, we may need to modify this report to reflect those changes. AEE Is available to provide geotechnical monitoring, soils and concrete testing, steel and masonry inspection, and other services throughout construction. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report or any aspects of the project, please feel free to contact our office. Respectfully submitted, AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. EXPIRES 8 / 6 / Rolf B. Hyllseth, P.E. Senior Project Engineer RBH w 2 Z w IGN BY: RBH 0 ui z T `.15s 't'� p-' _ s SE :9.mm irJ t .. — S 11:11{ :: r < t f ,i 1 I:stN °I it ro S •IS � w�rt:t�itl• �•� '' \, i.. l' -,j{ °` SO.$4,,,,,....: is �� truer :t s t a } \I e stl[ + t -1 fie ._^ Sr N ;I .I Ct+ .•, rF •,l.W � t Ya sn�• �� t t4�•. by " � 1 �� !T V s s \� __ 5 'lt V��:1..•�3 Ni st� �• aor /4714, l it (-1 .1, ��y t. � -`s� '1 � �tA � S�,J 1 1��' ��?{ �I 17~ "� � 5 S_ �_ Any i I. ,f i �" &� t M. ..r .1- 23i�. ST �� ugRt, „tartar � -S.• -� Js��(%�, _c S•o� "✓\ USN ST 4 ,� , arcnaw�iNffr I� ST \\ /-'�,. sr�+'' EI • ; •ti 'i5;1; f inn. ST "� S 1��:. : —4` IL•!,� ��� � y1 i1.S, I• \`_, , ?MIN c'r•'fi: { i 699 ( 0 .f ! �" , STAL r:tr � u YaE , � � � r,�j:"atfr" ...� . _t_ - ;� BL, ��' 0 13 4 iM - Z w [. �k3` \ow _ � ‘ ]II N Nr Sr t..i...: .iL.JL' � r�r...• }. ;.may; `,r ti 1� ` _ t....-.__ ��•� � th t �/ ::11 �j ®I� frz )111 1 !1, 1 � "t too T z IS 11 ST �t'' v� i ,,,s, Folizawiermie TAcini sr p. n`�.,t -1 T S1 tr l+ rENTbN. 518 22 66 a J. i ',7,. v� � `•.` ' 24 .'. 15jry �,� H Y �= C 231_1y 1 1• i • s �160TN � � iwti „- r11RJ2.., �/ scvrxttatra me '! ;, ry � MAN t , � rn 3 �'� I, ,. Li; .:....t. tJ� r�Anr r 1 WW1 28 ,1 i EI'ffl 1 , 1 :, . luta 4cliniinmon - I , gr;, , H I tr. ►.' � � �� =r r~ f ;� �I,f>,tafta tN�� NCTIO�• NA..1'T /111°I■_I U, TT 1 � ti • RAM • -41 N 1 ) - � 4SRILL A: 8- 91M- 12422 -0 N, T. S. OAGRA Earth & Environmental LOCATION MAP FIGURE NEXTEL- QUASIMOTO /SCS TOWER SITE 4 FILE NAME:SITE.DWG I DESIGN BY: RBH vi 8 NO.: 8 -91M- 12422 -0 1_DWG DATE: 07 -31 -98 PARKING - PROPERTY LINE BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION W Q: N SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN NEXTEL - QUASIMOTO /SCS TOWER SITE z o 0 0z w= F- N 3 o . C J 0 U.1 N PROJECT: Nextel - Quasimoto /Southcenter BORING NO. B -1 SOIL DESCRIPTION Location: West side of Building 12; North of existing Approximate garowfwsurrfaceeelevation: Unknown 0 a PENETRATION RESISTANCE • 0 1 ot2 o 3 Standard Blows per foot Other 0 10 20 30 40 50 TESTING - 10 - - 15 - - 20 w co - 25 . JOB NO.: 8-91M 30 Asphalt Pavement over 1.25" Crushed Rock —Gravelly SAND (Pit Run Fill) Medium dense, moist, brown -gray SAND with some silt and organics (Fill ?) Medium stiff, wet, gray, sandy SILT Stiff, saturated, gray SILT with some sand and clay and prevalent Organics (wood) Loose, gray, wet to saturated, silty, fine SAND Becomes medium dense and saturated Medium dense, saturated, gray, coarse SAND Heave encountered (2 feet) l Dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND; approximately 1" of wood at 28 feet (Continued) S -1 S -2 S -3 S-4 S -5 S -6 S -7 ATD 3 li 23 `) LEGEND 2.00-inch 0.D. split spoon sample Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD XSample not recovered 200 wash (percent fleas shown) O 20 60 s0 100 MOISTURE CONTENT 1 • Plastic limit Natural Liquid limit OAGRA Earth & Environmental tucrntesa ataw satrtiwa 11335 NE 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034 -6918 r. .e. •nnn s .......d 6v. ICl/ PROJECT: Nextel - Quasimoto /Southcenter BORING NO. B -1 o -30, - 35 - 0 0 - 45 - SOIL DESCRIPTION Location: West side of Building 12; North of existing ApproximateggrotautQesuiece elevation: Unknown Dense, saturated, gray, fine to medium SAND a 1-� Stiff, wet, gray SILT with some sand and clay; 1" sand lens @ 33.5 feet Becomes wet Dense, wet, gray, fine SAND Becomes medium dense Becomes dense PENETRATION RESISTANCE • Standard Blows per foot Other 10 20 30 40 Page 2 of 50 TESTING • 9 - 55 - - 60 Boring tem,inated at approximately 49.0 feet LEGEND 2.00-inch 0.0. spit spoon sample Groundwater level at time of drilling ATD O 20 40 100 MOISTURE CONTENT Plastic limit Natural Liquid limit OAGRA Earth & Environmental 1NGW11M 0 1aU110N1 11335 NG4OSM E 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington 98034-6918 1 .lnw 1J.,...«._. ,...._. n.J/....,.J Moto. d.111o.,14 77 1,.h. 4000 I naeo.t� hV! LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT 60 50 40 0 z_ 30 U F a 20 7 Dashed line indicates the approximate upper limit boundary for natural soils - -- -- OHO GO - TO Oo ML or OL ■ • MH or OH i ct;ML '7 10 30 50 7• 9• .0 LIQUID LIMIT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL PI °4 <#40 %< *200 USCS • Grey sandy elastic /organic silt MC: 73.7% 61 44 17 MH /OH ■ Grey sandy elastic /organic silt MC: 56.1% 51 34 17 MH /OH Project No. 12422 Client: NEXTEL Protect: QUASIMOTO / SCS • Location: B -1 / S -3 • Location: B -1 / S -8 Remarks: •Tested by: AL,JR Reviewed by: ML 'Tested by: AL,MM Reviewed by: ML Plat OAGRA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLO/AL SOLUTIONS Grain s • F. j s s pps Size o Analysis Report 8 7 N 100 80 70 W 80 z u. z 50 W CC a 40 30 20 10 0 i 1 ,' Ic -- :r- — - 200 100 10 1 0 1 GRAIN SIZE - mm 0.01 0.001 % COBBLES % GRAVEL % SAND % SILT 1 1 CLAY 73.2 22.9 SOIL DATA SYMBOL SOURCE SAMPLE NO. DEPTH (ft) DESCRIPTION UM 0 B -1 S -2 7.5' Grey sandy elastic/organic silt MH/OH MC: 34.6% U B -1 S -4 17.5' Dk grey silty fine sand SM MC: 64.8% OAGRA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLOSAL SOLUTIOMS Client: NEXTEL Project: QUASIMOTO / SCS Pro ect.No.:. 12422 PI to POLE SHAFT & BASE PL. HEAVY HEX NUT 3" GAP (NO GROUT) wr P.O. BOX 8597 FORTWORTH, TX 76124 -0597 PHONE: (800) 433 -1816 FAX: (817) 429 -6010 (POLE & FOUNDATION ANCHOR BOLTS HEAVY HEX LEVELING NUT MW MIN I or MUM MINIM MIEN MINIM 1t 1V-6" MINIMUM CAISSON LENGTH TEMPLATE AND NUTS 4" CLR 10' -0V W.T. <=o , () cnb iaft-b 11.4 zr.. 2" CLR ww 0 0 20 0 w 0 a N FIN GRADE (12) - #5 TIES 0 6" C/C REM #5 TIES 0 18" C/C 2' -0" MIN LAP \-- (6) - #11 VERT REINF FULL HEIGHT 4' -0 "0 SHAFT 1 NOTES: 1. ALL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. CONCRETE SHALL BE AIR ENTRAINED (6±1.5%). CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM WATER /CEMENT RATIO OF 0.4. SLUMP OF CONCRETE SHALL BE UNITED TO A MINIMUM OF 2" AND A MAXIMUM OF 6 '. A SUPERPLASTICIZER MAY BE USED TO INCREASE THE FLOWABIUTY OF THE CONCRETE. ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 'THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE ", ACI 318, LATEST EDITION. 2. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A -615 (GRADE 60) EXCEPT THAT CAISSON ITS MAY BE ASTM A -615 (GRADE 40). ALL REINFORCING DETAILS SHALL CONFORM TO "MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR DETAIUNG REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES', ACI 315, LATEST EDITION, UNLESS DETAILED OTHERWISE ON THIS DRAWING. 3. SEE PAGE 1 FOR ANCHOR BOLT QUANTITY, SIZE, LENGTH, AND BOLT CIRCLE. [(4) /184 2.25'0 X 7' -0" LG ANCHOR BOLTS ON 25.000" BOLT CIRCLE] 4. TOTAL CONCRETE = 5.3 CUBIC YARDS. 5. FOUNDATION DESIGN IS BASED UPON GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT PREPARED BY: AGRA EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT NO.: 8- 91M- 12422 -0 DATED: 07 -31 -1998 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL READ THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND CONSULT THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS NECESSARY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 7. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT INDICATES GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 10' -0" BELOW GRADE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE PREPAIRED TO CONTROL GROUNDWATER INFILTRATION. 8. THE FOUNDATION WAS DESIGNED USIN LOADS: MOMENT: 170 SHEAR: 4 AXIAL: 2 RECEIVED OITV OF TUKWIltO V NOV 1 9 1998 171998 PERMIT CENTER cc CAISSON (DRILLED PIER) FOUNDATION (NOT TO SCALE) J O B D A T A Page 2 of 2 Job No. 17977 Design No. M98- 1818 —A Date 09 -04 -1998 Rev. No. Rev. Date By PS Chk'd By.T- Pole 50 FT MONOPOLE Site WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Owner NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Ref. No. Design ACCORDING TO TIA /EIA -222 —F 1996 NOTES: 1. ALL CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. CONCRETE SHALL BE AIR ENTRAINED (6±1.5%). CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM WATER /CEMENT RATIO OF 0.4. SLUMP OF CONCRETE SHALL BE UNITED TO A MINIMUM OF 2" AND A MAXIMUM OF 6 '. A SUPERPLASTICIZER MAY BE USED TO INCREASE THE FLOWABIUTY OF THE CONCRETE. ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 'THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR REINFORCED CONCRETE ", ACI 318, LATEST EDITION. 2. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM A -615 (GRADE 60) EXCEPT THAT CAISSON ITS MAY BE ASTM A -615 (GRADE 40). ALL REINFORCING DETAILS SHALL CONFORM TO "MANUAL OF STANDARD PRACTICE FOR DETAIUNG REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES', ACI 315, LATEST EDITION, UNLESS DETAILED OTHERWISE ON THIS DRAWING. 3. SEE PAGE 1 FOR ANCHOR BOLT QUANTITY, SIZE, LENGTH, AND BOLT CIRCLE. [(4) /184 2.25'0 X 7' -0" LG ANCHOR BOLTS ON 25.000" BOLT CIRCLE] 4. TOTAL CONCRETE = 5.3 CUBIC YARDS. 5. FOUNDATION DESIGN IS BASED UPON GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT PREPARED BY: AGRA EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT NO.: 8- 91M- 12422 -0 DATED: 07 -31 -1998 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL READ THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND CONSULT THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AS NECESSARY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 7. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT INDICATES GROUNDWATER WAS ENCOUNTERED AT 10' -0" BELOW GRADE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE PREPAIRED TO CONTROL GROUNDWATER INFILTRATION. 8. THE FOUNDATION WAS DESIGNED USIN LOADS: MOMENT: 170 SHEAR: 4 AXIAL: 2 RECEIVED OITV OF TUKWIltO V NOV 1 9 1998 171998 PERMIT CENTER cc CAISSON (DRILLED PIER) FOUNDATION (NOT TO SCALE) PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Thu Nov 12, 1998 - 10:36:04 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : S U M M A R Y O F C U R R E N T C A I S S O N D E S I G N Diameter (ft) 4.00 Compression (kips): 2.43 Friction S.F • 2.00 Min. Depth (ft) ...: 11.00 Horizontal (kips) : 4.30 Lateral S.F • 2.00 Depth Used (ft) ...: 11.00 Uplift (kips) 0.00 Concrete S.F • 1.30 Rebar Area (in"2) .: 9.36 Moment (Ft -kips) 170.3 Concrete F'c (psi) : 3000.0 Rebar Used • (6) #11 Full Cohesion (ft): 12.00 Steel Cover (in) ..: 4.00 Water at (ft) 10.00 Rock at (ft) 0.00 SOIL PROFILE . Soil Layer Unit Ult. Skin Allowable Friction Passive Cohesion Layer Thickness Weight Friction Bearing Angle- Phi Coeff.- KP (c) (ft) (pcf) (paf) (paf) (deg) (paf) 1 3.00 125.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.000 0.00 2 5.00 125.00 200.00 0.00 35.00 3.690 0.00 3 2.00 125.00 35.00 0.00 28.00 2.770 0.00 4 13.00 63.00 35.00 600.00 28.00 2.770 0.00 5 9.00 • 63.00 ' 0.00 0.00 35.00 3.690 0.00 6 9.00 68.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 3.000 0.00 7 9.00 73.00 0.00 0.00 37.00 4.023 0.00 LATERAL / MOMENT CAPACITY (CHECK) : Min Design Actual Design Caisson Diameter (ft) 4.00 4.00 Height Above Grade (ft) 0.50 0.50 Depth Below Grade (ft) • 11.00 11.00 Concrete Volume (CY) 5.35 5.35 Applied Moment From Loads (Working), Mwork(Ft -kip): 205.61 205.61 Resisting Moment From Soil (Ult), Mult(Ft -kip) ...: 441.46 441.46 Moment S.F. (Mult / Mwork) 2.15 2.15 Applied Horizontal Load (Working), Hwork (Kips) 4.30 4.30 Horizontal Soil Resistance (Ultimate), Hult (Kips): 8.77 8.77 Horizontal S.F. (Hult / Hwork) • 2.04 2.04 Center of Rotation (from grade) (ft) • 7.70 7.70 Inflection Point (Max Design Moment Location (ft) : 3.50 3.50 Maximum Factored Design Moment for Reinf. (Ft -kip): 300.02 300.02 Area Steel Required From Loads (inA2) 3.60 3.60 ACI Minimum Steel (0.5 %) (in "2) • 9.05 9.05 Area Reinf. Steel Provided (in "2) 9.36 9.36 UPLIFT CAPACITY CHECK : Actual Uplift on Caisson (Kips) Allowable Uplift Capacity (Kips) 0.00 24.28 0.00 24.28 COMPRESSION CAPACITY CHECK : Actual Compression on Caisson (Kips) Total Compression (Includes Concrete Wt.) (Kips) Allowable Compression Capacity (Kips) 2.43 10.28 14.48 CAISSON DESIGN: USE: 4.00 ft Diameter X 11.50 ft Long (Concrete Volume = 5.35 Reinf: (6) #11 Vert, w /Closed Ties: (12) #5 ®6.0 ", remaining NOV 17 1998 2.43 10.28 14.48 • JOB #17977 DESIGN #M98-1818-A WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA. NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 50' MONOPOLE I I rt6'cIrS,I,milid 110014 tivp, P:11.1 • APPROXIMATE WEIGHT OF GALVANIZED POLE SHAFTS (LBS) TO L.+ -L-p-.-=s'---1- KAFT 1 • NOTE WEIGHTS SHOWN DO NOT INCLUDE ANY ATTACHMENTS, MOUNTS, PLATFORMS, HANDHOLES, ETC. FIELD VERIFY WEIGHTS PRIOR TQ APPROXIMATE TOTAL_ 2100 _ UMW. 45' -6' 1 000' ACROSS FLATS T /FRN SHAFT 6t X 45.50' (r 65) (BLACK WI' = 1.403 KIPS) FWT P.O. BOX 8597 FORT WORTH, TX 76124 -0597 PHONE: (800) 433 -1818 FAX: (817) 429 -6010 J 61T-5747,t- CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 - oge 1 o Job No. Date Design No. Rev. No. Rev. Date 1 14198-1818-9-04-1998 A Sy JS /PS Chk'd By � 14 i v /0f% F Pole 50 MON LE SEP 1 -FT FACE) 4,(113 L. de /a Q+ OF WAS ,_ O bite WA( I , 20.1 3.475 Owner NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 1.142 Ref. No. Design ACCORDING TO TIA /EIA -222 -F 1996 FINAL DESIGN - FOR FABRICATION LOAD CASES CASE 1 CASE 2 CASE 3 90 MPH WITH NO ICE 77 MPH WITH 1/2” RADIAL ICE 50 MPH WITH NO ICE DESIGN WIND REDUCED WIND WITH ICE OPERATIONAL WIND POLE SPECIFICATIONS Pole Shape Type: 18 -SIDED POLYGON 0.150000 IN /FT taper: Shaft Steel: AST A572 GRADE 65 Base PL Steel: ASTM A633 GR. E (60 XSI) Anchor Bolts: 2 1 /-4-1r-0 x 7' -0" LONG #18J ASTM A6 „15 GRADE 75 A , A I Shaft Section No. lev. aesc rip tion • • - 1 -9 - TOP 47.00 47.00 314" LIGHTNING ROD (9) 06874H PANEL (3 ) CURVED ARM MOUNT (14 SEP 1 -FT FACE) 4,(113 L. de /a Q+ OF WAS ,_ O Z STEP BOLTS FULL HEIGHT FROM 9' -6' ABOVE BASE ANTENNA FEED UNES RUN INSIDE OF POLE. SHAFT SECTION DATA Shaft Section Section Length (feet) Plate Thickness (in.) Elevation Lateral Deflection (Inches) Rotot (sway) (degrees) 0 Bottom 1 Deflection (Inches) (sway) (degrees) TOP 20.1 3.475 6.7 1.142 SHAFT SECTION DATA Shaft Section Section Length (feet) Plate Thickness (in.) Lap Splice (In.) Diameter Across Fiats (inches) 0 Top 0 Bottom 1 45.50 0.1875 12.000 18.825 BASE Q 1 �2' X 25,000' SQUARE (WT. - 0.266 KIPS) . W /(4) 2,250 ANCHOR BOLTS ON 25.000' B.C. WITH MIN. V-0 EMBEDMENT INTO PIER (W /NUTS & TEMPLATE PLATE 0 SOT.) UNFACTORED BASE REACTIONS MOMENT = 170 ft -kips SHEAR = 4.3 kips AXIAL = 2.4 kips PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design • Owner • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : Engineer : PS MONOPOLE BASE ' P L A T E D E S I G N D ETA I L S Shaft Shape Base Dia, DF PT- to -PT, DP • Min Bolt Circle 18 Sided Polygon Stress Increase ...: 1.333 Factor 18.825 Inches Base Plate Shape ..: Square 19.115 Inches 25.825 Inches Use Bolt Circle ...: 25.000 Inches Base Reactions Moment • Axial Load DESIGN USER 170.351 Ft -Kips 170.351 Ft -Kips 2.434 Kips 2.434 Kips Anchor Bolt Details . Number of Bolts Bolt Diameter Bolt Type Y- Distance Mom. of Inertia Bolt Tension, T • Allowable Tension Bolt Compression, C DESIGN USER 4 2.250 Inches #18J ASTM A615 0 333.47 In''4 79.16 Kips 194.81 Kips 79.76 Kips 4 2.250 Inches #18J ASTM A615 0 312.50 In"4 81.77 Kips 194.81 Kips 82.38 Kips Base Plate Details . Plate Moment, MPL Bend Plane, W Plate Thickness, t Plate Width Plate Steel Gross Weight Net Weight Allowable Stress Actual Stress Act. /Allow Ratio DESIGN 279.18 In -Kips 15.49 Inches 1.431 Inches 24.261 Inches ASTM A633 GR. E (60 KSI) 238.90 Lbs 191.00 Lbs 52.79 Ksi 52.79 Ksi 1.00 USER 254.34 In -Kips 16.53 Inches 1.500 Inches 25.000 Inches ASTM A633 GR. E (60 KSI) 265.90 Lbs 215.70 Lbs 52.79 Ksi 41.03 Ksi 0.78 BASE P L A T E D E S I G N S U M M A R Y USE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS: Plate Thickness Plate Width /Diameter : Plate Weight 1.500 Inches Number of Bolts ..: 25.000 Inches (Square) Bolt Circle • 0.266 Kips Bolt Diameter Bolt Type 4 25.00 Inches 2.25 Inches #18J ASTM A615 2 (1 EA. TEMPLATE AND EMBEDMENT PLATE) W P- W g U s, E5 Eric' L t a. ao?mpm b 0) O O W 0 0 Z p LE z >- m O 0 W z 0 a, o) w N WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA ANCHOR BOLT BILL OF MATERIAL a 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DESCRIPTION TEUPLATE 0 TOP ANCHOR PLATE 0 BOTTOM /IBJ ASTL1 A615 GRADE 75 ANCHOR BOLT x 2 1/4 -0 HEAVY HEX NUT 1 TOTAL GALVANIZED WEIGHT/Ms 1 1 1 MI 1 1 1 - e'rl•∎• in 40 r. co o.9 NO11031'08d 1108 210HONd 83NM0 311S FWM )dId3A y0 l '.9 NOISN3WI0 304219 3A08V lYOIdAl Y :4;4,4s, �i Y \• ' ii\ \ice \�`ii \ii \iii , v,\i\%,,\ • 30Y 0 03HSINId SECTION A -A 0 5 n 1\ c, (7 CC) W N ce a PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No Description Design • Owner Status • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : S U M M A R Y O F ANALYSIS R E S U L T S Pole Height • 45.50 ft Top Diameter 12.000 in Bottom Diameter • 18.825 in Pole Shape 18 -Sided Polygon Splice Joint Type...: Taper shaft - Slip Joint Splice Shaft Taper • 0.150000 (in /ft) Shaft Steel Weight..: 1.403 kips POLE SHAFT PROPERTIES: Shaft Section Number 1. Section Length (ft) 1 45.500 Wall Thickness (t] (in) Steel Yield (Fy] (ksi) Top Diameter Mt] (in) Bottom Diameter (Db] (in) Slip Joint Overlap (in) 0.18750 65 12.000 18.825 POLE SHAFT SECTION MAXIMUM FORCES AND MOMENTS: Shaft Wind Wind Radial Sect. Section Load Speed Ice Elev. Number No. (mph) (in) (ft) At Base Axial Load (kips) of Section Horiz. Shear (kips) Bending Moment (ft -kips) Max. Ratio Actual/ Allowable (Ftot /Fb] 1. 1 90.0 0.00 0.00 2.434 4.295 170.351 0.7770 » MAXIMUM BASE REACTIONS : 2.434 4.295 170.351 « POLE DEFLECTION AND ROTATION AT TOP AND AT HIGHEST MICROWAVE DISH ELEVATION: Wind Load No. Wind Speed (mph) 1. 2. 3. Radial Ice (in) Elev Location (ft) Max. Allowable Deflection Rotation Rotation Limit (in) (deg) (deg) 90.0 77.9 50.0 0.00 0.50 0.00 Top Top Top 45.50 45.50 45.50 20.098 17.309 6.657 3.475 3.000 1.142 T • r PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Page 1 • Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner Status Engineer : PS NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : Pole Height : 45.5 ft Pole Shape : 18 -Sided Polygon Pole Type : Taper shaft - Slip Joint Splice Pole Taper : 0.150000 (in /ft) INPUT TUBE PROPERTIES: Tube Sect No. 1. Top / Bot Wall Splice Tube Tube Thick Elev Elev Length [t] (ft) (ft) (ft) (in) 45.50 0.00 45.500 0.18750 65 Steel (Fy] (ksi) Top Diam [Dt) (in) Bot Di am Mb] (in) Slip Joint Overlap (in) 12.000 18.825 TUBE SECTION PROPERTIES: Tube Section Sect Weight _ Elev No. (kips) Location (ft) Diam. Wall Across Thick Flats [t] (W /t] (in) (in) Ratio Diam/ Thick [D /t] Ratio Area Ix (inA2) (in"4) 1 1.403 @Top @Bot 45.5 12.000 0.1875 9.52 64.00 7.03 123.9 0.0 18.825 15.94 100.40 11.09 486.6 Total Shaft Steel Weight = 1.403 kips r Page 2 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : Segment Properties: ( @ Max Segment = 10 ft ) Diam. Wall Diam/ Tube Segment Segment Across Thick Thick Segmt Feature Elev. Flats [t] [W /t] [D /t] Area Ix No. Location (ft) (in) (in) Ratio Ratio (in"2) (in "4) 1. top 45.500 12.000 0.18750 9.52 64.00 7.03 123.9 2. <arm [1]> 45.500 12.000 0.18750 9.52 64.00 7.03 123.9 3. <arm [2]> 45.500 12.000 0.18750 9.52 64.00 7.03 123.9 4. <arm [3]> 45.500 12.000 0.18750 9.52 64.00 7.03 123.9 5. 40.000 12.825 0.18750 10.30 68.40 7.52 151.7 6. 30.000 14.325 0.18750 11.71 76.40 8.41 212.4 7. 20.000 15.825 0.18750 13.12 84.40 9.31 287.4 8. 10.000 17.325 0.18750 14.53 92.40 10.20 378.3 9. base 0.000 18.825 0.18750 15.94 100.40 11.09 486.6 Total Number of Antennas / Arms = 3 r• Page 3 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35 :20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design • Owner • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : ANTENNA AND ARM PROPERTIES AND LOAD DATA: LOAD CASE 1: BASIC WIND VELOCITY = 90.00 mph Arm Load Antenna Antenna Ant Mount. Applic. Arm Ice Area Force Antenna Arm Elev. Elev. Length Load [CaAa] [gzGhCaAa] Weight No. (ft) (ft) (ft) Case (sf) (lbe) (lbs) [1] 45.500 54.000 0.0000 No Ice: 0.60 24.20 15.00 Description: 3/4" Lightning Rod [ qz ] [ Gh ] [ Kz ] (psf) 1.69 1.151 No Ice: 23.869 [qz] [Gh] (psf) 40.339 [2] 45.500 47.000 0.0000 No Ice: 50.40 1953.99 126.00 Description: (9) DB874H Panel [ qz ] [qz] [Gh] [ Gh ] [ Kz ] (psf) (psf) 1.69 1.106 No Ice: 22.941 38.770 [3] 45.500 47.000 0.0000 No Ice: 25.00 969.24 750.00 Description: (3) Curved Arm Mount (14 -Ft Face) [ qz ] [qz] [Gh] [ Gh ] [ Kz ] (psf) (psf) 1.69 1.106 No Ice: 22.941 38.770 Page 4 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design • Owner • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT LOADS: LOAD CASE 1: BASIC WIND VELOCITY = 90.00 mph Design Loads per TIA /EIA -222 -F Standard; Gust Factor Gh = 1.69 Pole DL Overload Factor = 1.1 Per TIA /EIA Table 1: Note 3: For all cross sectional shapes, Force Coefficient [Cf] need not exceed 1.2 for any value of C. (Where C= sgrt(Kz) *V *D.) Top of Veloc Pole Projected Area Segment Shaft Segment Expos Press Veloc Force Shaft Segment Wind Segment Elev. Coeff (qz) Coeff Coeff Me] (Cf Ala] Force Weight (ft) (Kz) (psE) [C] (Cf] (s£) (sf) (lbs) (lbs) 45.500 45.500 45.500 45.500 40.000 30.000 20.000 10.000 1.000 1.096 1.096 1.096 1.096 1.057 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 22.73 22.73 22.73 22.73 21.91 20.74 20.74 20.74 20.74 94.23 94.23 94.23 94.23 98.87 107.44 118.69 129.94 140.06 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.650 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.502 6.262 11.438 12.688 13.938 13.613 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.326 4.071 7.434 8.247 9.059 8.848 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.52 153.28 264.92 289.00 317.48 310.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.20 164.89 301.55 334.96 368.37 360.10 Summation TOTAL = 1347.28 1543.08 ( END LOAD CASE 1 -- POLE SHAFT LOADS ) Page 5 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (0) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT SEGMENTS -- AXIAL AND SHEAR FORCES: LOAD CASE 1: BASIC WIND VELOCITY = 90.00 mph Cumulative Cumulative Tube Segment Axial Axial Horiz. Horiz. Segment Elevation Load Load Shear Shear No. (ft) (kips) (kips) (kips) (kips) 1. 45.500 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 2. 45.500 0.015 0.015 0.024 0.024 3. 45.500 0.126 0.141 1.954 1.978 4. 45.500 0.763 0.904 0.982 2.960 5. 40.000 0.165 1.069 0.153 3.113 6. 30.000 0.302 1.371 0.265 3.378 7. '20.000 0.335 1.706 0.289 3.667 8. 10.000 0.368 2.074 0.317 3.985 9. 1.000 0.360 2.434 0.310 4.295 Base 0.000 2.434 4.295 ( END LOAD CASE 1 AXIAL AND SHEAR FORCE ) Page 6 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design • Owner • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT SEGMENTS -- MOMENTS and DEFLECTIONS: LOAD CASE 1: BASIC WIND VELOCITY = 90.00 mph [ MOMENTS (ft -kips) 3 [ -- DEFLECTIONS (inch) ] Segmnt From From From No Total W/ Total Elev Ant/ Shaft P -Delta Total P -Delta P -Delta Rotation (ft) Arm Wind Effects Moment Effects Effects (deg) 45.50 45.50 45.50 45.50 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 4.591 4.591 4.591 4.591 20.802 50.276 79.750 109.225 138.699 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.450 3.289 8.873 17.475 29.381 0.000 4.591 19.769 20.098 3.475 0.000 4.591 19.769 20.098 3.475 0.000 4.591 19.769 20.098 3.475 0.004 4.595 19.411 19.734 3.475 0.353 21.604 15.180 15.431 3.329 0.993 54.558 8.867 9.010 2.743 1.611 90.235 4.032 4.094 1.921 2.082 128.783 1.022 1.037 0.985 2.271 170.351 0.000 0.000 0.000 ( END LOAD CASE 1 MOMENTS AND DEFLECTIONS ) PJF_Pole Page 7 (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No Description Design Owner Status • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA • • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS • Engineering Final Design Client: NEXTEL Revision: Engineer : PS COMMUNICATIONS Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT SEGMENTS -- ACTUAL VS. ALLOWABLE STRESSES: LOAD CASE 1: BASIC WIND VELOCITY = 90.00 mph Note: Per TIA /EIA Sec. 3.1.1.1: Allow a 1/3 stress increase for poles under 700 feet in height. The allowable stresses shown include the factor of 1.333 [ ACTUAL STRESSES Segmnt Bending Axial Torsion Shear Elev [fb] [fa] [ft] [fv] (ft) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) ] Allow. Actual/ Combined Stress Allowable [Ftot] (Fb] [Ftot /Fb] (ksi) (ksi) Ratio 45.50 2.709 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.50 2.709 0.002 0.003 0.007 45.50 2.709 0.020 0.282 0.561 45.50 2.711 0.129 0.420 0.840 40.00 11.126 0.142 0.367 0.826 30.00 22.417 0.163 0.294 0.801 20.00 30.267 _ 0.183 0.240 0.786 10.00 35.930 0.203 0.200 0.780 0.00 40.151 0.219 0.169 0.773 2.709 2.711 3.095 3.582 11.456 22.659 30.502 36.173 40.403 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 ( END LOAD CASE 1 ACTUAL VS. ALLOWABLE STRESSES ) 0.0521 0.0521 0.0595 0.0689 0.2203 0.4358 0.5866 0.6956 0.7770 .� PJF_Pole (tm Page 8 - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner Status Engineer : PS NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : ANTENNA AND LOAD CASE 2: Ant Arm No. [1] Arm Mount. Elev. (ft) ARM PROPERTIES AND LOAD DATA: WIND VELOCITY = 77.94 mph + 0.50 inches Radial Ice. Load Applic. Elev. (ft) Arm Length (ft) Ice Load Case Antenna Area [CaAa] (sf) Antenna Force [gzGhCaAa] (lbs) 45.500 54.000 0.0000 W/ Ice: Description: 3/4" Lightning Rod [ Gh ] [ Kz ] 1.69 1.151 W/ Ice: 1.14 [ qz ] (psf) 17.902 34.49 [qz] [Gh] (psf) 30.254 Antenna Weight (lbs) 21.00 [2] 45.500 47.000 0.0000 W/ Ice: 55.71 1619.90 Description: (9) DB874H Panel [ Ph ] [ Kz ] 1.69 1.106 W/ Ice: [ qz ] (psf) 17.206 [qz] [Gh] (psf) 29.077 405.00 [3] 45.500 47.000 0.0000 W/ Ice: 30.00 872.32 Description: (3) Curved Arm Mount (14 -Ft Face) [ qz ] [ Gh ] [ Kz ] (psf) 1.69 1.106 W/ Ice: 17.206 [qz] (GM (psf) 29.077 1200.00 Page 9 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT LOADS: LOAD CASE 2: WIND VELOCITY = 77.94 mph with 0.50 inches Radial Ice. Design Loads per TIA /EIA -222 -F Standard; Gust Factor Gh = 1.69 Pole DL Overload Factor = 1.1 Per TIA /EIA Table 1: Note 3: For all cross sectional shapes, Force Coefficient (Cf] need not exceed 1.2 for any value of C. (Where C =sgrt(Kz) *V *D.) Top of Veloc Pole Projected Area Segment Shaft Segment Expos Press Veloc Force Shaft Segment Wind Segment Elev. Coeff [qz] Coeff Coeff [Ae] [C£ Ae] Force Weight (ft) (Kz] (psf) [C] [CU (sf) (sf) (lbs) (lbs) 45.500 1.096 17.05 81.60 0.650 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 45.500 1:096 17.05 81.60 0.650 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 45.500 1.096 17.05 81.60 0.650 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 45.500 1.096 17.05 81.60 0.650 0.543 0.353 10.17 17.07 40.000 1.057 _16.43 85.62 0.650 6.762 4.396 124.14 213.12 30.000 1.000 15.55 93.04 0.650 12.271 7.976 213.18 389.34 20.000 1.000 15.55 102.79 0.650 13.521 8.789 230.99 432.01 10.000 1.000 15.55 112.53 0.650 14.771 9.601 252.34 474.68 1.000 1.000 15.55 121.30 0.650 14.362 9.336 245.37 463.69 Summation TOTAL = 1076.19 1989.90 ( END LOAD CASE 2 POLE SHAFT LOADS ) PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Page 10 1998 - 9:35:20 am Columbus, Ohio Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design • Owner • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Engineer : PS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT SEGMENTS -- AXIAL AND SHEAR FORCES: LOAD CASE 2: WIND VELOCITY = 77.94 mph with 0.50 Tube Segment Segment Elevation No. (ft) Axial Load (kips) Cumulative Axial Load (kips) inches Radial Ice. Horiz. Shear (kips) Cumulative Horiz. Shear (kips) 1. 45.500 2. 45.500 3. 45.500 4. 45.500 5. 40.000 6. 30.000 7. 20.000 8. 10.000 9. 1.000 Base 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.405 1.217 0.213 0.389 0.432 0.475 0.464 0.000 0.021 0.426 1.643 1.856 2.246 2.678 3.152 3.616 3.616 ( END LOAD CASE 2 AXIAL AND SHEAR FORCE ) 0.000 0.034 1.620 0.882 0.124 0.213 0.231 0.252 0.245 0.000 0.034 1.654 2.537 2.661 2.874 3.105 3.358 3.603 3.603 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Licensed to FWT, Inc., For Worth, Texas Page 11 1998 - 9:35:20 am Columbus, Ohio Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design • Owner NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT SEGMENTS -- MOMENTS and DEFLECTIONS: LOAD CASE 2: WIND VELOCITY = 77.94 mph Segmnt From Elev Ant/ (ft) Arm MOMENTS (ft -kips) From From Shaft P -Delta Wind Effects with 0.50 inches Radial Ice. ] (-- DEFLECTIONS (inch) ] No Total W/ Total Total P -Delta P -Delta Rotation Moment Effects Effects (deg) 45.50 4.031 45.50 4.031 45.50 4.031 45.50 4.031 40.00 17.928 30.00 43.195 20.00 68.462 10.00 93.729 0.00 118.997 ( END LOAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.365 2.659 7.156 14.059 23.581 CASE 2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.546 1.479 2.334 2.960 3.204 4.031 4.031 4.031 4.043 18.840 47.334 77.952 110.748 145.782 16.837 17.309 16.837 17.309 16.837 17.309 16.531 16.995 12.922 13.281 7.542 7.745 3.427 3.515 0.868 0.889 0.000 0.000 MOMENTS AND DEFLECTIONS ) 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 2.873 2.363 1.652 0.845 0.000 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Page 12 1998 - 9:35:20 am Columbus, Ohio Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT SEGMENTS -- ACTUAL VS. ALLOWABLE STRESSES: LOAD CASE Note: Per Segmnt Elev (ft) 2: WIND VELOCITY = 77.94 mph with 0.50 inches TIA /EIA Sec. 3.1.1.1: Allow a 1/3 stress increase 700 feet in height. The al shown include the factor of Bending [fb] (ksi) ACTUAL STRESSES Axial Torsion Shear [fa] [ft] [fv] (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) Combined [Ftot] (ksi) Radial Ice. for poles under lowable stresses 1.333 Allow. Actual/ Stress Allowable [Fb] [Ftot /Fb] (ksi) Ratio 45.50 2.379 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.50 2.379 0.003 0.005 0.010 45.50 2.379 0.061 0.236 0.470 45.50 2.385 0.234 0.360 0.720 40.00 9.702 0.247 0.315 0.706 30.00 19.449 0.267 0.252 0.682 20.00 26.147 . 0.288 0.206 0.666 10.00 30.898 0.309 0.171 0.657 0.00 34.360 0.326 0.145 0.648 2.379 2.382 2.728 3.219 10.105 19.782 26.478 31.240 34.713 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 ( END LOAD CASE 2 ACTUAL VS. ALLOWABLE STRESSES ) 0.0457 0.0458 0.0525 0.0619 0.1943 0.3804 0.5092 0.6008 0.6676 L'. Page 13 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design - Owner • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : ANTENNA AND ARM PROPERTIES AND LOAD DATA: LOAD CASE 3: BASIC WIND VELOCITY = 50.00 mph Arm Load Antenna Antenna Ant Mount. Applic. Arm Ice Area Force Antenna Arm Elev. Elev. Length Load [CaAa] [gzGhCaAa] Weight No. (ft) (ft) (ft) Case (sf) Ube) (1bs) [1] 45.500 54.000 0.0000 No Ice: 0.60 7.47 15.00 Description: 3/4" Lightning Rod [ qz ] [qz] [Gh] [ Gh ] [ Kz ] (psf) (psf) 1.69 1.151 No Ice: 7.367 12.450 [2] 45.500 47.000 0.0000 No Ice: 50.40 603.08 126.00 Description: (9) DB874H Panel [ qz ] [ Gh ] [ Kz ] (psf) 1.69 1.106 No Ice: 7.080 [qz] [Gh] (psf) 11.966 [3] 45.500 47.000 0.0000 No Ice: 25.00 299.15 750.00 Description: (3) Curved Arm Mount (14 -Ft Face) 1 qz 3 [qz] [Gh] (psf) (psf) 1.69 1.106 No Ice: 7.080 11.966 [ Gh ] [ Kz ] Page 14 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, 1998 - 9:35:20 am (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Columbus, Ohio Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT LOADS: LOAD CASE 3: BASIC WIND VELOCITY = 50.00 mph Design Loads per. TIA /EIA -222 -F Standard; Gust Factor Gh = 1.69 Pole DL Overload Factor = 1.1 Per TIA /EIA Table 1: Note 3: For all cross sectional shapes, Force Coefficient [Cf] need not exceed 1.2 for any value of C. (Where C= sgrt(Kz) *V *D.) Top of Veloc Pole Projected Area Segment Shaft Segment Expos Press Veloc Force Shaft Segment Wind Segment Elev. Coeff [qz] Coeff Coeff [Ae] [Cf Ae] Force Weight (ft) [Kz] (pef) [C] [Cf] (sf) (ef) (lbs) (lbs) 45.500 1.096 45.500 1'.096 45.500 1.096 45.500 1.096 40.000 1.057 30.000 1.000 20.000 1.000 10.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 7.02 52.35 1.164 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 7.02 52.35 1.164 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 7.02 52.35 1.164 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 7.02 52.35 1.164 0.502 0.584 6.92 13.20 6.76 54.93 1.130 6.262 7.170 83.33 164.89 6.40 59.69 1.075 11.438 12.597 138.57 301.55 6.40 65.94 0.650 12.688 11.250 121.68 334.96 6.40 72.19 0.650 13.938 9.059 97.99 368.37 6.40 77.81 0.650 13.613 8.848 95.70 360.10 Summation TOTAL = 544.19 1543.08 ( END LOAD CASE 3 -- POLE SHAFT LOADS ) PJF Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Page 15 1998 - 9:35:20 am Columbus, Ohio Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Status • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT SEGMENTS LOAD CASE 3: BASIC Tube Segment Segment Elevation No. (ft) -- AXIAL AND SHEAR FORCES: WIND VELOCITY = 50.00 mph Axial Load (kips) Cumulative Axial Load (kips) Horiz. Shear (kips) Cumulative Horiz. Shear (kips) 1. 45.500 2. 45.500 3. 45.500 4. 45.500 5. 40.000 6. 30.000, 7. 20.000 8. 10.000 9. 1.000 Base 0.000 ( END LOAD CASE 0.000 0.015 0.126 0.763 0.165 0.302 0.335 0.368 0.360 0.000 0.015 0.141 0.904 1.069 1.371 1.706 2.074 2.434 2.434 3 AXIAL AND SHEAR FORCE) 0.000 0.007 0.603 0.306 0.083 0.139 0.122 0.098 0.096 0.000 0.007 0.611 0.917 1.000 1.139 1.260 1.358 1.454. 1.454 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Page 16 1998 - 9:35:20 am Columbus, Ohio Job No • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS Description : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA Design Owner NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS, Status Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : POLE SHAFT SEGMENTS -- MOMENTS and DEFLECTIONS: LOAD CASE 3: BASIC WIND VELOCITY = 50.00 mph Segmnt Elev (ft) From Ant/ Arm MOMENTS (ft -kips) From From Shaft P -Delta Wind Effects ] ( -- DEFLECTIONS (inch) ] No Total W/ Total Total P -Delta P -Delta Rotation Moment Effects Effects (deg) 45.50 45.50 45.50 45.50 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 1.417 1.417 1.417 1.417 6.420 15.517 24.614 33.711 42.808 ( END LOAD 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.246 1.772 4.666 8.605 13.563 CASE 3 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.116 0.327 0.533 0.690 0.754 1.417 1.417 1.417 1.418 6.782 17.617 29.814 43.007 57.125 6.549 6.549 6.549 6.431 5.041 2.956 1.348 0.342 0.000 MOMENTS AND DEFLECTIONS ) 6.657 6.657 6.657 6.538 5.123 3.003 1.369 0.347 0.000 1.142 1.142 1.142 1.142 1.097 0.910 0.641 0.330 0.000 PJF_Pole (tm) - Monopole Design Program Windows Version 1.28.0090 Mon Sep 14, (c) 1993 to 1997 PAUL J. FORD AND COMPANY, Licensed to FWT, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas Page 17 1998 - 9:35:20 am Columbus, Ohio • 17977 Design No: M98- 1818 -A Engineer : PS : 50 FT MONOPOLE - WA0234, QUASIMOTO, WA • NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Client: NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS • Engineering Final Design Revision: Rev. Date : Job No Description Design Owner Status POLE SHAFT SEGMENTS -- ACTUAL VS. ALLOWABLE STRESSES: LOAD CASE 3: BASIC WIND VELOCITY = 50.00 mph Note: Per TIA /EIA Sec. 3.1.1.1: Allow a 1/3 stress increase for poles under 700 feet in height. The allowable stresses shown include the factor of 1.333 [ ACTUAL STRESSES Segmnt Bending Axial Torsion Shear Elev [fb] (fa] . [ft] [fv] (ft) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) (ksi) Combined [F to t] (ksi) Allow. Actual/ Stress Allowable [FL] (Ftot /Fb] (ksi) Ratio 45.50 0.836 0.000 0.000 0.000 45.50 0.836 0.002 0.001 0.002 45.50 0.836 0.020 0.087 0.173 45.50 '0.837 0.129 0.130 0.260 40.00 3.493 0.142 0.113 0.265 30.00 7.239 0.163 0.091 0.270 20.00 10.000 _ 0.183 0.074 0.270 10.00 11.999 0.203 0.062 0.266 0.00 13.464 0.219 0.052 0.262 0.836 0.838 0.968 1.178 3.694 7.428 10.201 12.215 13.694 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 ( END LOAD CASE 3 ACTUAL VS. ALLOWABLE STRESSES ) 0.0161 0.0161 0.0186 0.0227 0.0710 0.1428 0.1962 0.2349 0.2634 •AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS January 14, 1999 8 -91 M- 12422 -A M T 199 -c,167 GLY Construction P.O. Box 6728 Bellevue, Washington 98008 -0728 Attention: Subject: Mr. Duane Dunham RECERV1,77 JAN 21 1999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Final Summary of Special Inspections City of Tukwila Building Department Building Permit No. 98 -0167 NEXTEL Cell Site — Quasimoto /Southcenter WA0234 -3 372•.Corporate Drive N. Tukwila, Washington Dear Mr. Dunham: AGRA Earth 8 Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034 -8918 Tel (425) 820.4889 Fax (425) 821 -3914 AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AGRA) respectfully submits this final summary of special inspection services for the referenced project. Our services were performed as requested and scheduled by GLY Construction. Daily reports of our inspection were prepared at the time our services were provided. Our daily field reports form the basis for this final summary letter. AGRA performed special inspection services for reinforced concrete for the drilled pier foundation and equipment shelter thickened slab. We observed that the reinforcing steel and placement of concrete conformed with the approved plans and specifications. All concrete samples collected during construction met or exceeded the specified 28 -day compressive strength requirements. AGRA also performed inspection services for structural steel bolting. All bolts were found to conform with approved plans and specifications. S:IWOROPROC\981SeatU .\12000, \1242210ua,Imoto•Nextel Final Letter.wpd GLY Construction 8 -91M- 12422 -A January 14, 1999 Page 2 In our opinion, the work which was inspected and referenced above was performed in general conformance with the approved plans. If you have questions or require additional information, please call at your convenience. AyT S :. Sincerely, John F. Vice Project JFV /KSS /Iad Attachments: Daily Field Report Nos. 1 -3 Compression Test Results (2) I EXPIRES 12/18/_ Ktllvl�'ffa en) S. Sdhi, P.E. Associate cc: City of Tukwila Building Department Attn: Building Inspections NEXTEL Communications, Inc. Attn: Michael Brenden S,\ WOROPROCW 8\S eatUe 112000e \12422\Qua$ImotaNextel Final Letier.wpd.: AGRA :ENGINUftING GLOIAL SOLU110NS •AGRA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT nAE / i e></1 / i 4 6� - 5 .� CA tr C/jLp3Nb a 9 /2 zZ 4 FIELD REPORT ADDRESS 2 Co r4... O t I SAMPLE LOCATION Dr: I I 1 DATE PAGE ' OF CITY OR COUNTY 7 kk,.r. /a wA ! •a8 .2$ - 0 PERMIT NO. nit 98 -� 0167 WEATHER // C ertas- bir;ze ie CLIENT �n 4 ,Y•' �., �. .gip. . .S *ten t ... p�, AEE PROJECT ^R /PHQNcer4 (q 8zO- y6? J\ GENERAL ONTRACTOR /� / Ly COAS. C 27/c• AEE FIELD SENT TIVEE// PAG 1,0,' /blur., O. r 0ndeS TYPE OF SPECIAL P£ Ur , ) /d /Ltr ee,? vi C EW INSPECTION 0 RE•INSPECTION • A/r 'J C '.N It � • •. • • r_. a •. 411..• lob 1 clew- e. ur. i4 IN I liflreariffl • ' �• i. til %.�. •1c /' 31 dr de • • 1- 111 WAINIFS 01/ • ��� r r I i r • •fa C- 106y -143 orpd C -31. , '• ,• �" .,- -, :: e. _I _,� }}:s.., . — ,..'',nyrs'•,_. .l .'•, •..o..! . •1.4::1y Zh•• 'La.. . .�t.l..,_ - --� 'r,�,f.:_r3}�._Wv". - .x.11 .. ... "C6I.AT1l=lL• f, • 1 i. Y:. '4'1";'1" . .. SET NO. 1 OF TEST TYPE I CONCRETE 0 GROUT 0 MORTAR 0 PRISM SAMPLE LOCATION Dr: I I 1 n �J,er- %.t'?( g• Ade rs TEST AGE (DAYS) ! •a8 .2$ - 0 SPECIMEN (NO. I SIZE /TYPE) . .`` �., �. .gip. . .S *ten t ... p�, •` .. .tea '� ' DESIGN STRENGTH 3000 PSI ® -7 DAYS SLUMP (IN.) AIR CONTENT ( %) .2. G,, �+ SUPPLIER I ,� �S to ' MIX ID NO. 3y TRUCK NO. 078 1 TICKET NO. 55-2 ( 34 UNIT WEIGHT (PCF) BATCH SIZE (CU.YDS.) 3S WATER ADDED (GAL) 0 ; SAMPLE TIME Q: Saw,... AMBIENT TEMP. ('F) SAMPLE TEMP. ('F) - 9a ./G. •- 1-4 .3*- 7/ °/.. i BATCH TIME 9: 00 0.0% XThe contents of this field report were discussed with the contractor's on -site representative. All inspected items were in general conformance with the approved plans and specifications, 0 Certain inspected items were 1241 in general conformance with the AEE FIELD REPRESE ("AGRA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS DAILY FIELD REP PROJECT NAM w _ two PROJECT NO. : • rn�2�Zl' �_ DATE .12- 11-q8 FIELD REPOLO• PAGE 1 OF ADDRESS a72. G IV t t)r CITY OR COUNTY �..4.; a wA PERMIT NO. mi. city-016.7 WEATHER t d• Cas4 , d; L2 1 e CLIENT C t! r AEE P f MANACr rt!c �10 Cq2 3 820_ 1(C� IC VREPRE� GENERAL CO L. Y I - AEE FIELD rrr (,),..);11:0......-,,_ es TYPE OF SPEC INSPE9 ION t n / '� J rein OEW INSPECTION ❑ RE-INSPECTION L. '• -, n .. l.i. .� L_•Lp v, r�ra "lY.'!. '. .L;p� -)'h 0 MORTAR 0 PRISM, r•- _ , " _. girt r a ^a.7 '�; s4.. • .r.•1-. .. i_CjY C-ta...ty. A.NiY• • ., III A i' r� . �IE� /A��I • • TEST TYPE A CONCRETE 0 GROUT SAMPLE LOCATION % ��, • V _ Q ! ,}.. . 4- cans; _ cr # IF... 01 O. C...:. • SPECIMEN (NO. I SIZE 1 TYPE) r'If ' iti/ TEST AGE (DAYS) a - - N ELM. `. siee. ,Q2 r Q ✓Q . M7.1tlg1■ ° -_. it• a c• rill `k• S. a5 kr2 ci..^4 .5ftfir --t. DESIGN STRENGTH ? d vii . d MDY. - Q> s 4-Lc)iteS6f :X ie gq•O �C �P � rL�� {1t it .._a. QC ►�CJ►fi' • ' 1' • T' a.a_ t,' 1• . Idea r t\ t 1 aa. •a_•1111MIN�.. • ._ ,.P.�!!�' - 11 C-1064 y3 SAC -31, UNIT WEIGHT (PCF) .._...- .��• BATCH SIZE (CU.YDS.) C9r WATER ADDED (GAL) /`7i AMBIENT TEMP. ('F) -ea ° b''' BATCH TIME %O ■ OD i SAMPLE TIME 10656:. SAMPLE TEMP. ('F) L. '• -, n .. l.i. .� L_•Lp v, r�ra "lY.'!. '. .L;p� -)'h 0 MORTAR 0 PRISM, r•- _ , " _. girt r a ^a.7 '�; s4.. • .r.•1-. .. i_CjY C-ta...ty. A.NiY• • ., - _ ._ _ SET NO. 1 OF TEST TYPE A CONCRETE 0 GROUT SAMPLE LOCATION % ��, • V SPECIMEN (NO. I SIZE 1 TYPE) r'If ' iti/ TEST AGE (DAYS) a - - N i '.4',' . . S'% "'AGRA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS DAILY: FIELD PROJECT NAME ,r1 L -wEk •�/AD 2 7 y -- ?? quA5,�°T,k/4J-9/fN- PROJECT NO. /2422 DATE , _ S _ 99 FIELD NO. f ADDRESS .i 72 "o f R 4TE Dr . //. CITY OR COUNTY q'u'it t4//Z4 i wi PERMIT NO. MI 11- o/17 ArEEE PROJECT MANAGER / PHONE /� WEATHER etouor NO. CUM N Z GENERAL CONTRACTOR GLY e 57 e . .. AEE FIELUREPRESE� PAGE�G SA w .4 Kul' 5l.I -j TYPE OF SPECIAL INSPECTION t? LTS -TI 6- WT /,u /A/ '. EW INSPECTION ❑ RE4NSPECTION COMMENTS A Re' VED o. - s ' -i , As fRi Yu�s r i i y TJt✓E e-a.A•frTRA cTeR , T P./51'E- .r Of /, Ao#0/2aLE 8 4s6,42,g7^F_ 2 J � J � h&'A vY fl Ex ^. STS ('p1/ . -r- 172,1-7-c- t,vE.cc- 7-iG .w �EN�� u5/,v." 7 ' PIPE totie,ve , 144•0157 R, TuR,y o F— N �Ti --t7 c -ii TAN/ t'G 14E-r- L > • 1. r.'.� -' R A • a. Arlen -r G -rE.' As i' i SP. • • f • , ,.. . MATERIAL DATA..:.: �. ----; . �.. TESIZPE ❑ CONCRETE ❑ GROUT .. ❑ MORTAR ❑ PRISM r SET NO. OF SAMPLE LOCATION SPECIMEN (NO. I SIZE / TYPE) TEST AGE MAYS). .• FIELD DATA . • sPEC,D ACTUAL DESIGN STRENGTH PSI ® DAYS SLUMP (114.) • SUPPLIER MIX ID NO. AIR CONTENT ( %) TRUCK NO. TICKET NO. UNIT WEIG BATCH SIZE (CU.YDS.) WATER ADDED (GAL) AMBIENT TEMP. (•F) BATCH TIME SAMPLE TIME SAMPLE TEMP. (•F) ❑ The contents of this field report were discussed with the contractor's on -site representative. II inspected items were in general conformance with the approved ns and specifications. •AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Report of Compression Test Results Client: GLY CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 6728 BELLVUE, WA 980080728 Attn: DUANE DUNHAM Specimen Type: CONCRETE ASTM -C39 Report Date: Project #: Project Name: Project Address: Building Permit: Project Mgr: Architect: Engineer: PO Number: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034-8918 Tel (425) 820.4889 Fax (425) 821 -3914 January 14, 1999 8 -91 M- 12422 -B NEXTEL - WA 0234 -3 - QUASIMOT 372 CORPORATE DR. N. MI 98 -0167 JOHN VICENTE Mix and Field Data Cast Date: 12/10/98 Placement: DRILLED PIER. Strength (f'c): Required : 3000 psi @ 7 Days Mix ID: Supplier: Load #: Truck #: 098 Ticket #: 852934 Plant #: Batch Size: 9 YDS Water: 0 Admixture: Time Batch Time: 9 :00 Sample Time: 9:50 Finish Time: 3400 LONESTAR Contractor: Inspector: WILLIAM SANDES Actual Slump (inches) ASTM C -143: 5 Air Content (%) ASTM C -231: Unit Weight (pcf) ASTM C -138: Concrete Temp. ( °F): 71 $oasis 2-6 NA NA 50 -90 Ambient Temp. ( °F): 43 Weather: OVERCAST /DRIZZLE NA Remarks: CONCRETE PLACED VIA CHUTE AND MECHANICALLY CONSOLIDATED. REFERENCE REPORT #1, SET 1. Test Result Spec ID # ID 2313 A B C D Date Age Date Rec'd Tested (days) 12/11/98 12/17/98 7 12/11 /98 1/7/99 28 12/11/98 1/7/99 28 12/11/98 Nominal Specimen Size 4x8x0 4x8x0 4x8x0 Actual Area Compressive Strength (sq in) (lbs) (Psi) 12.57 49480 3940 12.83 76730 6080 12.63 79160 6270 Break Types -- (Cn) Cone, (CSp) Cone _Split, (CSh) Cone Shear, (Sh) Shear, (Co) Columnar �i�t» ►s-/01111111111111iir Reviewed B �.►�"��� -L-�� ��� Client: Ye File: Yes Producer: Yes Others: Distribution Brk. Type/ % of Cure Rigid CN CSP HOLD AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Report of Compression Test Results Client: GLY CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 6728 BELLVUE, WA 980080728 Attn: DUANE DUNHAM Specimen Type: CONCRETE ASTM -C39 Report Date: Project #: Project Name: Project Address: Building Permit: Project Mgr: Architect: Engineer: PO Number: AGRA Earth 8 Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034.8918 Tel (425) 820 -4889 Fax (425) 821 -3914 January 14, 1999 8 -91M- 12422 -B NEXTEL - WA 0234 -3 - QUASIMOT 372 CORPORATE DR. N. MI 98 -0167 JOHN VICENTE Mix and Field Data Cast Date: 12/11/98 Placement: EQUIPMENT SHELTER PAD. Strength (f'c): Required : 3000 psi @ 28 Mix ID: 3400 Supplier: LONESTAR Load #: Truck #: 011 Ticket #: 856123 Plant #: Batch Size: 9 YDS Water: 0 Admixture: Time Batch Time: 10:00 Sample Time: 10:45 Finish Time: Days Contractor: Inspector: WILLIAM SANDES Actual Secs. Slump (inches) ASTM C -143: 3.5 4 Air Content ( %) ASTM C -231: NA Unit Weight (pcf) ASTM C -138: NA Concrete Temp. ( °F): 69 50 -90 Ambient Temp. ( °F): 42 Weather: OVERCAST; DRIZZLE NA Remarks: CONCRETE PLACED VIA CHUTE AND MECHANICALLY CONSOLIDATED. REFERENCE REPORT #2, SET 2. Test Result Spec ID # ID 2315 A B C D Date Age Date Rec'd Tested (days) 12/12/98 12/18/98 7 12/12/98 1/8/99 28 12/12/98 1/8/99 28 12/12/98 Nominal Specimen Size 4x8x0 4x8x0 4x8x0 Actual Area Compressive Strength (sq in) (lbs) (PO 12.57 52120 4150 12.57 80390 6400 12.57 82990 6600 Break Types -- (Cn) Cone, (CSp) Cone _Split, (CSh) Cone Shear, (Sh) Shear, (Co) Columnar Reviewe Distribution der (11111116.- Client: Ye FIIe: Yes Producer: Yes Others: Brk. Type/ % of Cure Rigid 138% SH 213% CSP 220% HOLD AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS 11335 NE 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington, U.S.A. 98034 -8918 Tel (208) 820 -4669 Fax (208) 821-3914 RECEIVED JAN 21 1999 COMMUNITY FIELD DOCUMENT TRMISMITTAL To: GLY Construction P.O. Box 6728 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Attn: Duane Dunham Date: January 15, 1999 Project No.: 8-91M-12422-A Project Name: Nextel Cell Site Quasimoto /SCS Project Manages: John F. Vicente ermit No.: 98 -016 Enclosed for your review and records are our most recent Daily Field Reports and asso field correspondence pertaining to the above - referenced project. SUMMARY OF FIELD DOCUMENT TRANSMITTALS Document Type Document No. Document Date Transmittal Date Laboratory Reports Sets 1, 2 01/08- 01/11/99 01/15/99 cc: Nextel Communications Inc. attn: Michael Brenden City of Tukwila S:1W0RDPR0C1FIeld Document TransmIltaIs112000e\12422•A.wpd attn: Building Department (� AG RA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Report of Compression Test Results Client: GLY CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 6728 BELLVUE, WA 980080728 Attn: DUANE DUNHAM Specimen Type: CONCRETE ASTM -C39 Report Date: Project #: Project Name: Project Address: Building Permit: Project Mgr: Architect: Engineer: PO Number: AORA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034 -6918 Tel (425) 820 -4889 Fax (425) 821 -3914 January 11, 1999 8 -91M- 12422 -B NEXTEL - WA 0234 -3 - QUASIMOT 372 CORPORATE DR. N. MI 98 -0167 JOHN VICENTE Mix and Field Data Cast Date: 12/11/98 Placement: EQUIPMENT SHELTER PAD. Strength (f'c): Required : 3000 psi © 28 Days Mix ID: 3400 Supplier: LONESTAR Load #: Truck #: 011 Ticket #: 856123 Plant #: Batch Size: 9 YDS Water: 0 Admixture: Time Batch Time: 10:00 Sample Time: 10:45 Finish Time: Contractor: Inspector: WILLIAM SANDES Slump (Inches) ASTM C -143: Air Content (%) ASTM C -231: Unit Weight (pcf) ASTM C -138: Concrete Temp. ( °F): Actual ULM 3.5 69 Ambient Temp. ( °F): 42 Weather: OVERCAST; DRIZZLE 4 NA NA 50 -90 NA Remarks: CONCRETE PLACED VIA CHUTE AND MECHANICALLY CONSOLIDATED. REFERENCE REPORT #2, SET 2. Test Result Spec ID # ID 2315 A B C D Date Rec'd 12/12/98 12/12/98 12/12/98 12/12/98 Date Tested 12/18/98 1/8/99 1/8/99 Age Nominal (days) Specimen Size Actual Area (sq In) 7 4x8x0 28 4x8x0 28 4x8x0 12.57 12.57 12.57 Compressive (Ibs) 52120 80390 82990 Break Types -- (Cn) Cone, (CSp) Cone .Split, (CSh) Cone Shear, (Sh) Shear, (Co) Columnar Reviewed By �i ..0 Distribution Client: Yes File: Yes Producer: Yes Others: Strength Brk. Type/ % of (psi) 4150 6400 6600 Cure Req'd SH CSP HOLD 138% 213% 220% 0 AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Report of Compression Test Results Client: GLY CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 6728 BELLVUE, WA 980080728 Attn: DUANE DUNHAM Specimen Type: CONCRETE ASTM -C39 Report Date: Project #: Project Name: Project Address: Building Permit: Project Mgr: Architect: Engineer: PO Number: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034-6918 Tel (425) 820 -4869 Fax (425) 821 -3914 January 8, 1999 8 -91M- 12422 -8 NEXTEL - WA 0234 -3 - QUASIMOT 372 CORPORATE DR. N. MI 98 -0167 JOHN VICENTE Mix and Field Data Cast Date: 12/10/98 Placement: DRILLED PIER. Strength (f'c): Required : 3000 psi © 7 Days Mix ID: 3400 Supplier: LONESTAR Load #: Truck #: 098 Ticket #: 852934 Plant #: Batch Size: 9 YDS Water: 0 Admixture: Time Batch Time: 9:00 Sample Time: 9 :50 Finish Time: Contractor: Inspector: WILLIAM SANDES Actual Slump (Inches) ASTM C -143: 5 Air Content ( %) ASTM C -231: Unit Weight (pcf) ASTM C -138: Concrete Temp. ( °F): 71 $pscs• 2-6 NA NA 50 -90 Ambient Temp. ( °F): 43 NA Weather: OVERCAST /DRIZZLE Remarks: CONCRETE PLACED VIA CHUTE AND MECHANICALLY CONSOLIDATED. REFERENCE REPORT #1, SET 1. Test Result Spec ID # ID 2313 A B C D Date Rec'd 12/11/98 12/11 /98 12/11/98 12/11/98 Date Tested 12/17/98 117/99 1/7199 Age (days) 7 28 28 Nominal Specimen Size 4x8x0 4x8x0 4x8x0 Actual Area Compressive Strength (sq in) (Ibs) (psi) 12.57 49480 3940 12.63 76730 6080 12.63 79160 6270 Break Types » (Cn) Cone, (CSp) Cone _Split, (CSh) Cone Shear, (Sh) Shear, (Co) Columnar Reviewed By Z �� Distribution Client: Yes File: Yes Producer: Yes Others: Brk. Type/ % of Cure Req'd CN CSP HOLD AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS 11335 NE 122nd Way, Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington, U.S.A. 98034 -6918 Tel (206) 820-4669 Fax (206) 821 -3914 RE,CIEINCIPDOCUMENT TRANSMITTAL To: GLY Construction P.O. Box 6728 ME Bellevue, Washington 98004 DEVELOP— T ,JAN 12 1999 Attn: Duane Dunham Date: January 6, 1999 Project No.: 8 -91 M- 12422 -A Project Name: Nextel CeII Site Quasimoto /SCS Project Man .. • . - 'cente Permit No.: 98 -016 Enclosed for your review and records are our most recent Daily Field Reports an • associate • ield correspondence pertaining to the above - referenced project. All previous field documents transmitted from our office are listed in the summary table below. SUMMARY OF FIELD DOCUMENT TRANSMITTALS Document Type Document No. Document Date Transmittal Date Daily Field Reports Laboratory Reports 01 -02 Ref Rpt 1 set 1; 2 set 2 12/10- 12/11/98 12/21/98 01/06/99 01/06/99 cc: Nextel Communications Inc. attn: Michael Brenden City of Tukwila attn: Building Department SAWORDPROMPleld Document Transmlttala112000e112422-A.w0d AGRA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT NAME Nextel Tower WA0234 -3 Quasimoto /Southcenter PROJECT NO. 8-91M-12422-A FIELD REPORT NO, 1 ADDRESS 372 Corporate Drive North • DATE December 10, 1998 PAGE 1 of 1 CITY OR COUNTY Tukwila PERMIT NO. MI 98 -0167 WEATHER Overcast/Drizzle CLIENT GLY AGRA PROJECT MANA John Vincente ER/PHONE NO. 425 - 820 -4669 GENERAL CONTRACTOR GLY Construction Co. Inc. AGRA FIELD REPRESENTATIVE/PAGER NO. William Sandes TYPE OF SPECIAL INSPECTION Drilled Pier /Reinforced Concrete I ®NEW INSPECTION ❑ RE•INSPECTION COMMENTS • Arrived on site as requested to test/inspect/monitor drilled pier excavation, steel reinforcement, and concrete placement for cell tower foundation. • Foundation cage reinforcement consisted of (6) #11 vertical bars with (12) #5 circular ties at 6" top and #5 circular ties at 18" for remainder. Anchor bolt assembly consisted of (4) #18J 2.25 "0 X7'0" anchor bolts on a 25.00" bolt circle. Steel was observe din place per approved plans and specifications. • Excavated material was visually inspected and found to be consistent with material described in AGRA soils report dated 7/31/98. No significant crumbling, sloughing or water accumulation was observed prior to concrete placement. • Approximately 9 cubic yards of Lonestar mix #3400 was placed via chute and mechanically consolidated. Concrete was sampled tested and test cylinders cast per ASTM standards C -172, C- 1064, C -143 and C -31. MATERIAL DATA SET 1 TEST TYPE 0 CONCRETE ❑ GROUT ❑ MORTAR ❑ PRISM l SET NO. 1 OF 1 SAMPLE LOCATION Drilled Pier SPECIMEN (NOJSIZE/TYPE) (4) 4 "X8" cylinders TEST AGE (DAYS) 7, 28, 28, H MIX DATA FIELD DATA SPECIFIED ACTUAL DESIGN STRENGTH 3000 PSI ® 7 DAYS SLUMP (IN.) 2-6" 5" SUPPLIER Lonestar MIX ID NO. 3400 AIR CONTENT ( %) — — - TRUCK NO. 098 TICKET NO. 852934 UNIT WEIGHT — BATCH SIZE (CU. YDS.) 9 WATER ADDED (GAL.) 0 AMBIENT TEMP. (•F) — 43°F BATCH TIME 9 :OOam SAMPLE TIME 9:50am SAMPLE TEMP. ('F) 50. - 90°F 71°F ® The contents of this field report were discussed with the contractor's on- site representative. 0 All inspected items were in general conformance with the approved plans and specifications. ❑ Certain Inspected items were not in general conformance with the approved plans and specifications /'� William Sander AGRA FIELD REPR ../% — • -�- �-� G- P T•JECT ^►ri� :��� AGRA Earth & Environmental ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS DAILY FIELD REPORT PROJECT NAME Nextel Tower WA0234 -3 Quasimoto /Southcenter PROJECT NO, 8 -91 M- 12422 -A FIELD REPORT NO. 2 ADDRESS 372 Corporate Drive North DATE December 11, 1998 PAGE 1 of 1 CITY OR COUNTY Tukwila PERMIT NO. WEATHER MI 98 -0167 1 Overcast/Drizzle CLIENT GLY AGRA PROJECT MANA ER/PHONE NO. John Vicente 425 - 820 -4669 GENERAL CONTRACTOR GLY Construction Co. Inc. AGRA FIELD REPRESENTATIVE/PAGER NO. William Sandes TYPE OF SPECIAL INSPECTION Reinforced Concrete I E4 NEW INSPECTION ❑ RE•INSPECTION COMMENTS • Arrived on site as requested to test/inspect/monitor steel reinforcement and concrete placement for the Equipment shelter thickened slab on grade. • Steel reinforcement consisted of #4 bass at 12" o.c. each way for slab and (2) #4 bars top and bottom continuous with #4 ties at 16" for the thickened edges. Steel was placed per approved plans and specifications. • Approximately 9 cubic yards of Lonestar mix #3400 was placed via chute and mechanically consolidated, Concrete was sampled, tested and test cylinders cast per ASTM standard C -172, C- 1064, C -143, and C -31. MATERIAL DATA SET 2 TEST TYPE ® CONCRETE ❑ GROUT ❑ MORTAR ❑ PRISM I SET NO. 1 OF 1 SAMPLE LOCATION Equipment shelter pad cylinders TESTAGE(DAYS) 7, 28, 28, H SPECIMEN(NOJSIZE/TYPE) (4) 4 "X8" MIX DATA FIELD DATA SPECIFIED ACTUAL DESIGN STRENGTH 3000 PSI a 28 DAYS SLUMP (IN.) 4" 3121 SUPPLIER Lonestar MIX ID NO. 3400 AIR CONTENT (%) _ — TRUCK NO. 011 TICKET NO. 856123 UNIT WEIGHT — — BATCH SIZE (CU. YDS.) 9 WATER ADDED (GAL.) 0 AMBIENT TEMP. ('F) — 42°F BATCH TIME 10:00 SAMPLE TIME 10 :45am SAMPLE TEMP, ('F) 50° - 90° 69°F El The contents of this field report were discussed with the contractor's on- site representative. 0 All Inspected Items were in general conformance with the approved plans and specifications. ❑ Certain Inspected items were not in general conformance with the approved plans and specifications William Sandes AGRA FIELD REPRESENTAT �_ -•/ �% ���� • _ 1:� ' OJECT M/ J r� • i S:\W ORDPROC W8\Seattle112000s \12422■DFR 1.2.wpd (� AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Report of Compression Test Results Client: GLY CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 6728 BELLVUE, WA 980080728 Attn: DUANE DUNHAM Specimen Type: CONCRETE ASTM -C39 Report Date: Project #: Project Name: Project Address: Building Permit: Project Mgr: Architect: Engineer: PO Number: AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. 11335 NE 122nd Way Sulte 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034 -8918 Tel (425) 820-4869 Fax (425) 821 -3914 December 21, 1998 8 -91 M- 12422 -B NEXTEL - WA 0234 -3 - QUASIMOT 372 CORPORATE DR. N. MI 98 -0167 JOHN VICENTE Mix and Field Data Cast Date: 12/11/98 Placement: EQUIPMENT SHELTER PAD. Strength (fc): Required : 3000 psi © 28 Days Mix ID: Supplier: Load #: Truck #: Ticket #: Plant #: Batch Size: Water: Admixture: Time 3400 LONESTAR 011 856123 9 YDS 0 Batch Time: 10 :00 Sample Time: 10:45 Finish Time: Contractor: Inspector: WILLIAM SANDES Actual Sueca. Slump (Inches) ASTM C -143: 3.5 4 Air Content ( %) ASTM C -231: NA Unit Weight (pcf) ASTM C -138: NA Concrete Temp. ( °F): 69 50 -90 Ambient Temp. ( °F): 42 NA Weather: OVERCAST; DRIZZLE Remarks: CONCRETE PLACED VIA CHUTE AND MECHANICALLY CONSOLIDATED. REFERENCE REPORT #2, SET 2. Test Result Spec Date Age Nominal ID # ID Date Rec'd Tested (days) Specimen Size 2315 A 12/12/98 12/18/98 7 4x8x0 B 12/12/98 28 C 12/12/98 28 D 12/12/98 Actual Area (sq in) 12.57 Compressive (lbs) 52120 Break Types -- (Cn) Cone, (CSp) Cone - Split, (CSh) Cone Shear, (Sh) Shear, (Co) Columnar Reviewed By Distribution Client: Yes File: Yes Producer: Yes Others: Strength Brk. Type/ % of (psi) Cure Req'd 4150 138% HOLD � AGRA ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS Report of Compression Test Results Client: GLY CONSTRUCTION PO BOX 6728 BELLVUE, WA 980080728 Attn: DUANE DUNHAM Specimen Type: CONCRETE ASTM -C39 Report Date: Project #: Project Name: Project Address: Building Permit: Project Mgr: Architect: Engineer: PO Number: AGRA Earth & Envlronmantal, Inc. 11336 NE 122nd Way Suite 100 Kirkland, Washington USA 98034.8918 Tel (425) 820 -4889 Fax (425) 821-3914 December 21, 1998 8 -91 M- 12422 -B NEXTEL - WA 0234 -3 - QUASIMOT 372 CORPORATE DR. N. MI 98 -0167 JOHN VICENTE Mix and Field Data Cast Date: 12/10/98 Placement: DRILLED PIER. Strength (f'c): Required : 3000 psi @ 7 Days Mix ID: Supplier: Load #: Truck #: 098 Ticket #: 852934 Plant #: Batch Size: 9 YDS Water: 0 Admixture: Time Batch Time: 9:00 Sample Time: 9:50 Finish Time: 3400 LONESTAR Contractor: Inspector: WILLIAM SANDES ctua Slump (Inches) ASTM C -143: 5 Air Content ( %) ASTM C -231: Unit Weight (pcf) ASTM C -138: Concrete Temp. ( °F): 71 Ambient Temp. ( °F): 43 Weather: OVERCAST /DRIZZLE cs. 2-6 NA NA 50 -90 NA Remarks: CONCRETE PLACED VIA CHUTE AND MECHANICALLY CONSOLIDATED. REFERENCE REPORT #1, SET 1. Test Result Spec ID A B C D Date Rec'd 12/11/98 12/11/98 12/11/98 12/11/98 Date Tested 12/17/98 Age (days) 7 28 28 Nominal Specimen Size 4x8x0 Actual Area (sq in) Compressive (Ibs) 12.57 49480 Break Types -- (Cn) Cone, (CSp) Cone - Split, (CSh) Cone Shear, (Sh) Shear, (Co) Columnar Reviewed = ��� -41 ��� Distribution r'" Yes File: Yes Producer: Yes Others: Strength Brk. Type/ (psi) Cure 3940 HOLD TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Public Works NOTIFICATION OF UTILITY PERMIT ACTION Permit Center Public Works Engineering October 30, 1998 Nextel Communications Permit Number: MI98 -0167 Contact Person: Wayne Ussery Phone: (206) 216 -3355 Ross A. Eamst, P. E, Director THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC WORKS PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR ISSUANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS APPROVED ON OCTOBER 30,1998: Land Altering PERMIT FEE 23.50 TOTAL: $23.50 Two copies of the confirmed Utility Permit Application and plans are attached for inclusion in the permit file. JJS /tkf CF: Development File (with copy of application and plans) PW Utilities Inspector (with copy of application and plans) October 22, 1998, City of Tukwila Department of Public Works 6300 Southcenter Boulevard,Suite #100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Re: Premit #MI98 -0167 Attached please find plan revisions per Dept. of Public Works letters dated October 20, 1998. 2;1998 and;October '. Please not that there will be a new contact on this project. Send any notifications or the following address: Mike Brenden Nextel Communications ;.1750 112th Ave NE, Suite C =100 Bellevue, WA 425- 452 -7413 correspondence; to ;. October 20, 1998 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works Greg Coleman 1700 Westlake Ave N., Suite 420 Seattle WA 98109 Re: Nextel Communications 575 Andover Park W in Tukwila Permit #MI98 -0167 Public Works Comments dated October 2, 1998 John W. Rants, Mayor Ross A. Eamst, P. E., Director Per out phone conversation on 10 -15 -98 this letter is to confirm that comment #3 is no longer valid and has been deleted from the October 2, 1998 Public Works Department Comments letter. Please call me at (206) 433 -0179 should you have any questions. Sincerely, anna Spencer Development Engineer cc: Wayne Ussery `etalPetetsor#, Permit Coordinator Michael Jenkins, Planner Public Works Development File City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 6, 1998 Wayne Ussery 1700 Westlake Avenue, #420 Seattle, WA 98109 Dear Mr. Ussery: SUBJECT: CORRECTION LETTER #1 Development Permit Application Number M198 -0167 Nextel Communications 575 Andover Park W This letter is to inform you of corrections that must be addressed before your application for development permit can be approved. All correction requests from each department must be addressed at the same time and reflected on your drawings. I have enclosed review comments from the Planning Department and Public Works Department. At this time the Building Division and Fire Department have no comments regarding your application for permit. The City requires that four (4) complete sets of revised plans be resubmitted with the appropriate revision block. If your review does not require revised plans but requires additional reports or other documentation, please submit four (4) copies of each document. In order to better expedite your resubmittal a Revision Sheet must accompany every resubmittal. I have enclosed one for your convenience. Corrections /revisions must be made in person and will not be accepted through the mail or by a messenger service. If you have any questions please contact me at the City of Tukwila Permit Center at (206) 431- 3671. Sincerely, 4,PaLLiCilete Brenda Holt Permit Technician Enclosures File: M198 -0167 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431.3670.. Fix (206) 431-3665 City of Tukwila Department of Public Works John W Rants; Mayor PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Ross A. Eamst, P. E, Director DATE: October 2, 1998 PROJECT NAME: Nextel Communications PERMIT NUMBER: MI98 -0167 PLAN REVIEWER: Contact Joanna Spencer at (206) 433 -0179 if you have any questions regarding the following comments. 1. Revise the vicinity map. Show correct locations /call -outs for Southcenter Blvd., Southcenter Parkway, and label Tukwila Parkway. The call -out "lake" shall read "Tukwila Pond ". Show currently Corporate Drive North and Corporate Drive South and add Minkler Blvd. to the map. 2. Add call -outs for Corporate Drive North and Corporate Drive South on Survey - Overall Bite Plan on Sheet C -1. Show address of the existing building on Survey - enlarged site plan on sheet C -1. 3. The location of the communications tower falls into proposed future alignment called 62nd Street that would connect South 168th Street to Minkler Blvd. - refer to September 22, 1998 South 168th Street Design Report and 62nd Street Design Memo. Applicant shall move the tower to a different location. 4. The geotech report indicates that groundwater was encountered at 10'0" below grade. Fort Worth Tower (FWT) caisson (drilled pier) foundation detail calls for 17' 6" minimum caisson length. Will de- watering be required? If yes, where will the discharge go and what is the estimated quantity of groundwater that needs to be discharged. O/c P(:r4N,W,v City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS DATE: September 18, 1998 FILE: M198-0167 APPLICANT: Nextel Communications, Inc. LOCATION: 375 Corporate Drive If you have any questions about the following conditions, please contact Michael Jenkins at (206) 431-3685 1. The Geotechnical Engineering Report indicates that the monopole will be 100 feet. The monopole approved by the Planning Commission is for 50 feet. Please revise the report accordingly, City of Tukwila Fire Department Fire Department Review Control ##MI 98 -0167 John W. Rants, Mayor Thomas P. Keefe, Fire Chief September 14, 1998 Re: Nextel Communications - 575 Andover Park West Dear Sir: The attached set of building plans have been reviewed by The Fire Prevention Bureau and are acceptable with the following concerns: 1. Maintain a minimum 20 foot access between the project and the adjacent building (370 Corporate Drive South). This review limited to speculative tenant space only special fire permits may be necessary depending on detailed description of intended use. Yours truly, The Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau cc: TFD file ncd DEC -03 -98 THU 07:47 GLY iNSTRUCT ION GL.. YConstruction Post -it• Fax Note 7671 vale /2____34•81 pey:0 1 • To I 11i t l KC (SAILL.4 ■ F1°"1 ,i//�'l�O..twtf . 'ID"' N T j Co. `,+� L'y . Phone Y Phone #4245"`71 "(0. 2J_ [Oielrr 70Z /� f J� t� Fax*-9 q5z --74UT r~ FAX NO. 425 519 4394 Detach And Ditpiuy Certificetu • P. 01 10 0 • 1113th Avunuu Doutha¢:at Puvt Office Box 8728 Bellevue, Washington 98008 -0728 (425) 451.5377 FAX: (428) 483 5880 72701 GM-1.11.337V ro25.o53. u (8t91i DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES REGISTERED AS PROVIDED BY LAW AS CONST CONT GENERAL REdI8T. • # • ; .•;EXP: DATE:,.: 'CC01.QALLLI *337CF 09/30/1999 = EFFECTZVE,••DATE •, •.02/06/1967. GALL :LANDAU YOUNG CONST CO IN PO BOX 6728 • BELLEVUE WA 98008 -0728 �-- Detnctt And Disp:uv Ct:rtihcnta