Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Permit D14-0134 - WASHINGTON PLACE - DEMOLITION
WASHINGTON PLACE DEMO 223 ANDOVER PARK El D14-0134 Parcel No: Address: City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206-431-3670 Inspection Request Line: 206-438-9350 Web site: httD://www.TukwilaWA.aov 0223100090 223 ANDOVER PARK E 1 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Project Name: WASHINGTON PLACE DEMOLITION Permit Number: D14-0134 Issue Date: 9/19/2014 Permit Expires On: 3/18/2015 Owner: Name: Address: Contact Person: Name: Address: Contractor: Name: Address: License No: Lender: Name: Address: SOUTH CENTER WALL C 8448 N MERCER WAY, MERCER ISLAND, WA, 98040 MATTHEW CHAN Phone: (425) 251-1600 18230 EAST VALLEY HWY, STE 195 , KENT, WA, 98032 ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO Phone: (253) 845-9544 1001 SHAW RD , PUYALLUP, WA, 98372 ABSHEC*345P5 Expiration Date: OWNER SELF FUNDED DESCRIPTION OF WORK: DEMOLITION OF OLD CIRCUIT CITY BUILDING. PUBLIC WORKS ACTIVITIES INCLUDE EROSION CONTROL, CAPPING OF WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE. Project Valuation: $196,000.00 Fees Collected: $5,298.61 Type of Fire Protection: Sprinklers: Fire Alarm: Type of Construction: VB Occupancy per IBC: M Electrical Service Provided by: TUKWILA FIRE SERVICE Water District: TUKWILA Sewer District: TUKWILA SEWER SERVICE Current Codes adopted by the City of Tukwila: International Building Code Edition: International Residential Code Edition: International Mechanical Code Edition: Uniform Plumbing Code Edition: 2012 2012 2012 2012 International Fuel Gas Code: WA Cities Electrical Code: WA State Energy Code: 2012 2014 2012 Public Works Activities: Channelization/Striping: Curb Cut/Access/Sidewalk: Fire Loop Hydrant: Flood Control Zone: Hauling/Oversize Load: Land Altering: Landscape Irrigation: Sanitary Side Sewer: Sewer Main Extension: Storm Drainage: Street Use: Water Main Extension: Water Meter: Volumes: Cut: 5000 Fill: 3500 Number: 0 No Permit Center Authorized Signature: Date: " l"(9" t 9 I hearby certify that I have read and examined this permit and know the same 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 provisions of any other state or local laws regulating construction or the performance of work. I am authorized to sign and obtain this development permit an• e to the conditionsattachedthis permit. Signature: Print Name: /7 / ' - This permit shall become null and void if the work is not commenced within 180 days for the date of issuance, or if the work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days from the last inspection. PERMIT CONDITIONS: 1: ***BUILDING PERMIT CONDITIONS*** 2: Work shall be installed in accordance with the approved construction documents, and any changes made during construction that are not in accordance with the approved construction documents shall be resubmitted for approval. 3: All permits, inspection record card and approved construction documents shall be kept at the site of work and shall be open to inspection by the Building Inspector until final inspection approval is granted. 4: Remove all demolition rubble and loose miscellaneous material from lot or parcel of ground, properly cap the sanitary sewer connections, and properly fill or otherwise protect all basements, cellars, septic tanks, wells, and other excavations. Final inspection approval will be determined by the building inspector based on satisfactory completion of this requirement. 5: A►1 plumbing and gas piping work shall be inspected and approved under a separate permit issued by the City of Tukwila Building Department (206-431-3670). 6: All electrical work shall be inspected and approved under a separate permit issued by the City of Tukwila Permit Center. 7: VALIDITY OF PERMIT: The issuance or granting of a permit shall not be construed to be a permit for, or an approval of, any violation of any of the provisions of the building code or of any other ordinances of the City of Tukwila. Permits presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the code or other ordinances of the City of Tukwila shall not be valid. The issuance of a permit based on construction documents and other data shall not prevent the Building Official from requiring the correction of errors in the construction documents and other data. 9: The attached set of building plans have been reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau and are acceptable with the following concerns: 10: Accumulation of combustible waste material is prohibited during the demolition phase of this project. Remove and properly dispose of all waste material prior to the close of the working day and as often throughout the day as needed. 11: All interior demo debris must be removed prior to demo of the automatic sprinkler system. Contact the Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau at 206/575-4407 for an inspection of the building prior to shut down of the automatic sprinkler system. 12: Fire Department access and existing hydrants shall be constantly maintained during demolition and construction. 13: Maintain coverage and operability of portable fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems and fire alarm systems during demolition and construction. 8: Contact The Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau to witness all required inspections and tests. (City Ordinances #2436 and #2437) 14: Any overlooked hazardous condition and/or violation of the adopted Fire or Building Codes does not imply approval of such condition or violation. 15: These plans were reviewed by Inspector 511. If you have any questions, please call Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau at (206)575-4407. 16: ***PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT CONDITIONS*** 17: Call to schedule mandatory pre -construction meeting with Dave Stuckle, Public Works Inspector, (206) 433-0179. Existing water meters shall be removed by the City of Tukwila Water Department prior to any demolition work; call 206 433-1860 to schedule removal of Water Meters. 31: Applicant shall obtain WA DOE Construction Permit since more than 1 acre of land will be disturbed as result of proposed demolition. 18: The applicant or contractor must notify the Public Works Inspector at (206) 433-0179 upon commencement and completion of work at least 24 hours in advance. All inspection requests for utility work must also be made 24 hours in advance. 19: Prior to construction, all utilities in the vicinity shall be field located. NOTE: For City of Tukwila utility locates, call 811 or 1-800-424-5555. 20: Permit is valid between the weekday hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. only. Coordinate with the Public Works Inspector for any work after 5:00 p.m. and weekends. 21: No work under this permit during weekend hours without prior approval by Public Works. Coordinate with the Public Works Inspector. 22: Work affecting traffic flows shall be closely coordinated with the Public Works Inspector. Traffic Control Plans shall be submitted to the Inspector for prior approval. 23: Flagging, signing and coning shall be in accordance with MUTCD for Traffic Control. Contractor shall provide certified flagmen for traffic control. Sweep or otherwise clean streets to the satisfaction of Public Works each night around hauling route (No flushing allowed). Notify Public Works Inspector before 12:00 Noon on Friday preceding any weekend work. 24: Any material spilled onto any street shall be cleaned up immediately. 25: Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented as the first order of business to prevent sedimentation off -site or into existing drainage facilities. 26: The site shall have permanent erosion control measures in place as soon as possible after final grading has been completed and prior to the Final Inspection. 27: From October 1 through April 30, cover any slopes and stockpiles that are 3H:1V or steeper and have a vertical rise of 10 feet or more and will be unworked for greater than 12 hours. During this time period, cover or mulch other disturbed areas, if they will be unworked more than 2 days. Covered material must be stockpiled on site at the beginning of this period. Inspect and maintain this stabilization weekly and immediately before, during and following storms. 28: From May 1 through September 30, inspect and maintain temporary erosion prevention and sediment at least monthly. All disturbed areas of the site shall be permanently stabilized prior to final construction approval. 29: Sewer and water utilities shall be plugged at the mains if they are to be abandoned. If they will be used again in the near future for a new building, they shall be capped at the property line and at the water meter respectively. 30: Work affecting traffic flows shall be closely coordinated with the Public Works Inspector. Traffic Control Plans shall be submitted to the Inspector for prior approval. PERMIT INSPECTIONS REQUIRED Permit Inspection Line: (206) 438-9350 1700 BUILDING FINAL** 5200 EROSION MEASURES 5210 EROSION MEASURES FNL 1400 FIRE FINAL 0101 PRE -CONSTRUCTION 1600 PUBLIC WORKS FINAL 5160 PUBLIC WORKS PRE -CON 5070 SANITARY SIDE SEWER 5090 STORM DRAINAGE 5100 STREET USE Tenant Name: CITY OF TUKWILA Community Development Department Public Works Department Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 http://www.TukwilaWA.gov Building Permit No. t d [3� Project No. Date Application Accepted: j '1 Date Application Expires: l 1-1' I 1 (For office use only) CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION Applications and plans must be complete in order to be accepted for plan review. Applications will not be accepted through the mail or by fax. **Please Print** SITE LOCATION King Co Assessor's Tax No.: 0,207 3/ODD 7o 'o Site Address: g 2. 1 A. n/-OVE-/2 PA-21< EA-1 7/ Play/4 Suite Number: New Tenant: PROPERTY OWNER Name: TO H TL1 Ci✓ivf&2 id , LL c Address: / er 2 3 O t:mJr ✓A' l.L�Y FEWr., */7 r City: K.N State: WA. Zip:9 0 3 2. CONTACT PERSON — person receiving all project communication Name: MA774ry✓ CE/A}n/ Address: It2.3 0giu 9 yyAu,.i 14.141 . , tr/f1"-- City: ICE,/T State: V✓4- Zip:fr 003Z Phone: ii xS , Zr/_/• b�O Fax: ears Zrl -/ / 00 Email: rY1a r rc,i,an, wfi�amaii.cam GENERAL CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Company Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: Contr Reg No.: Exp Date: Tukwila Business License No.: Floor: ❑ Yes ❑ .. No ARCHITECT OF RECORD Company Name: GR.o N ip W GJT Cool ('an/l S ?U- C Architect Name:. R t c G U l o n/ Address: 3 6 0 i FRZ-t'► a N T ke ., t✓ 1 *it S' City: SC—per—rm... State: Wik Zip: S j / 03 Phone: 2 06 .. h 6 - Otttf % Fax: 206 - ii.6 - 406 Email: e9 ti-•y4,e 5rovridestcokirAn;ss,Co✓rl ENGINEER OF RECORD Company Name: gA H G&) 4 i u" do„rrr►�i.: Elr / Engineer Name: D A ,✓ gA t M E L L 1 Address: l „A / r 7-1- h d A✓b. S City: k..N .r State: WA' Zi Phone: 42,r 2 Jb_ 2yz Fax. 4-7,1 = rJ f %,?1- Email: d ba/Me//I t oak LENDER/BOND ISSUED (required for projects $5,000 or greater per RCW 19.27.095) Name: & NZ�2 J&t-f- r--tiw phv6 Address: 1� City: State: Zip: H:Applic tione\Forma-Applications On Line\2012 Applicationa\Permit Application Revised - 2-7-12.docx Revised: Febnary 2012 bb Page 1 of 4 BUILDING PERMIT INFORMATION — 206-431-3670 Valuation of Project (contractor's bid price): $ /7f d 0 Existing Building Valuation: $ %, 243, ifoo Describe the scope of work (please provide detailed information): .�E-M o L %7 4/ err O L i C i 2otA 1, C t jr `13N11. 01 n/6 Will there be new rack storage? ❑ ....Yes C5KNo If yes, a separate permit and plan submittal will be required. Provide All Building Areas in Square Footage Below Existing Interior Remodel Addition to Existing Structure New Type of Construction per IBC Type of Occupancy per IBC 1" Floor z z!l coo si- 2"d Floor 3`d Floor Floors thru - Basement Accessory Structure* Attached Garage Detached Garage Attached Carport Detached Carport Covered Deck Uncovered Deck PLANNING DIVISION: Single family building footprint (area of the foundation of all structures, plus any decks over 18 inches and overhangs greater than 18 inches) *For an Accessory dwelling, provide the following: Lot Area (sq ft): Floor area of principal dwelling: Floor area of accessory dwelling: *Provide documentation that shows that the principal owner lives in one of the dwellings as his or her primary residence. Number of Parking Stalls Provided: Standard: Compact: Handicap: Will there be a change in use? ❑ Yes ❑ No If "yes", explain: FIRE PROTECTION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: ❑ Sprinklers ❑ Automatic Fire Alarm ❑ None ❑ Other (specify) Will there be storage or use of flammable, combustible or hazardous materials in the building? ❑ Yes ❑ No If "yes', attach list of materials and storage locations on a separate 8-1/2" x I1 " paper including quantities and Material Safety Data Sheets. SEPTIC SYSTEM ❑ On -site Septic System — For on -site septic system, provide 2 copies of a current septic design approved by King County Health Department. H:Upplicrtion Porms-Applications 0n Linel2012 AppliationsTermit Application Revived - 2-7-I2.docx Revised: February 2012 bh Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT INFORMATION — 206-433-0179 Scope of Work (please provide detailed information): DC -Al o L I T, on/ of- OL) C Z. c N 17 0 ; y II L D G , Call before you Dig: 811 Please refer to Public Works Bulletin #1 for fees and estimate sheet. Water District: ❑ .. Tukwila 0 ...Water District # 125 ❑ .. Water Availability Provided wer District .. Tukwila ❑ ...Valley View ❑ .. Sewer Use Certificate 0 ...Sewer Availability Provided ❑... Highline ❑... Renton ❑... Renton ❑... Seattle Sentic System: ❑ On -site Septic System — For on -site septic system, provide 2 copies of a current septic design approved by King County Health Department. Submitted with Application (mark boxes which amity): ❑ .. Civil Plans (Maximum Paper Size — 22" x 34") ❑ .. Technical Information Report (Storm Drainage) ❑... Geotechnical Report ❑ .. Bond ❑... Insurance 0... Easement(s) ❑... Maintenance Agreement(s) Proposed Activities (mark boxes that apply): ❑ .. Right-of-way Use - Nonprofit for less than 72 hours ❑ .. Right-of-way Use - No Disturbance ❑ .. Construction/Excavation/Fill - Right-of-way ❑ Non Right-of-way ❑ ❑ .. Total Cut cubic yards ❑ .. Total Fill cubic yards ❑ .. Sanitary Side Sewer ❑ .. Cap or Remove Utilities ❑ .. Frontage Improvements ❑ .. Traffic Control ❑ .. Backflow Prevention - Fire Protection Irrigation Domestic Water ❑• ❑• ❑• ❑• ❑ .. Traffic Impact Analysis ❑ .. Hold Harmless — (SAO) ❑ .. Hold Harmless — (ROW) El...Right-of-way Use - Profit for less than 72 hours El...Right-of-way Use — Potential Disturbance 0...Work in Flood Zone 0... Storm Drainage .. Abandon Septic Tank .. Curb Cut .. Pavement Cut .. Looped Fire Line ❑ .. Permanent Water Meter Size (1) ,, ❑ .. Temporary Water Meter Size (1) " ❑ .. Water Only Meter Size ,, ❑ .. Sewer Main Extension Public ❑ ❑ .. Water Main Extension Public 0 0...Grease Interceptor ❑... Channelization El ... Trench Excavation ❑...Utility Undergrounding WO # (2) " WO # (3) WO # (2) WO # (3) WO # ❑ .. Deduct Water Meter Size Private ❑ Private ❑ " WO# " WO# FINANCE INFORMATION Fire Line Size at Property Line Number of Public Fire Hydrant(s) ❑ .. Water 0 .. Sewer 0 .. Sewage Treatment Monthly Service Billing to: Name: Day Telephone: Mailing Address: Water Meter Refund/Billing: Name: Mailing Address: City State Zip Day Telephone: City State Zip H: Appliestions\Forms-Applications On L nek2012 ApplicstionsWennit Application Revised - 2-7-12.doex Revised: February2012 bh Page 3 of 4 PERMIT APPLICATION NOTES — 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 grant one or more extensions of time for additional periods not exceeding 90 days each. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated. Section 105.3.2 International Building Code (current edition). I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I 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 Signature: ZED AGENT: Date: MAy 6, 1oi Print Name: Lo vlr N ( #'1 &2 WA- , GL L Day Telephone: cLo 6 n'/" 6 'L7 7 Mailing Address: 0(4.3 A L; - % VIt L- 6 ' N.uy . / 5 r k N T tn%f 5ciO ./ Z City State Zip HAApplicatioesTonns-Applications 0n Line12012 Appbeationa'Permk Application Revised - 2_7-12.docx Revised: February2012 bb Page4of4 BULLETIN A2 TYPE C PERMIT FEE ESTIMATL PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FEES DUE WITH APPLICATION PW may adjust estimated fees PROJECT NAME Washington Tower PERMIT # If you do not provide contractor bids or an engineer's estimate with your permit application, Public Works will review the cost estimates for reasonableness and may adjust estimates. 1. APPLICATION BASE FEE 2. Enter total construction cost for each improvement category: Mobilization $8,750.00 Erosion prevention $8,750.00 Water/Sewer/Surface Water $3,500.00 Road/Parking/Access A. Total Improvements $21,000.00 3. Calculate improvement -based fees: B. 2.5% of first $100,000 of A. $525.00 C. 2.0% of amount over $100,000, but less than $200,000 of A. Moo D. 1.5% of amount over $200,000 of A. 4. TOTAL PLAN REVIEW FEE (B+C+D) 5. Enter total excavation volume 5,000 cubic yards Enter total fill volume 3,500 cubic yards $0.00 250 (1) $ 525.00 (4) Use the following table to estimate the grading plan review and permit fee. Use the greater of the excavation and fill volumes. CORRECTION QUANTITY IN CUBIC YARDS RATE Up to 50 CY Free 51 — 100 $23.50 101 — 1,000 $37.00 1,001 —10,000 $49.25 10,001 — 100,000 $49.25 for 1ST 10,000, PLUS $24.50 for each additional 10,000 or fraction thereof. 100,001 — 200,000 $269.75 for 1ST 100,000, PLUS $13.25 for each additional 10,000 or fraction thereof. 200,001 or more $402.25 for 1ST 200,000, PLUS $7.25 for each additional 10,000 or fraction thereof. GRADING Plan Review and Permit Fees 49.25 (5) TOTAL PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FEE DUE WITH PERMIT APPLICATION (1+4+5) $ 824.25 The Plan Review and Approval fees cover TWO reviews: 1) the first review associated with the submission of the application/plan and 2) a follow-up review associated with a correction letter. Each additional review, which is attributable to the Applicant's action or inaction shall be charged 25% of the Total Plan Review Fee. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILJ Approved 09.25.02 Last Revised 01.01.11 bLHO139 JUN 1 9 2014 PERMIT CENTER BULLETIN A2 TYPE C PERMIT FEE ESTIMATE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FEES DUE WITH APPLICATION PW may adjust estimated fees 6. Permit Issuance/Inspection Fee (B+C+D) $ 525.00 (6) 7. Pavement Mitigation Fee $ (7) The pavement mitigation fee compensates the City for the reduced life span due to removal of roadway surfaces. The fee is based on the total square feet of impacted pavement per lane and on the condition of the existing pavement. Use the following table and Bulletin 1B to estimate the p Approx. Remaining Years Pavement Overlay and Repair Rate (per SF of lane width) 20-15 (100%) $10.00 15-10 (75%) $7.50 10-7 (50%) $5.00 7-5 (33%) $3.30 5-2 (25%) $2.50 2-1 (10%) $1.00 0-1 $0.00 8. GRADING Permit Review Fee Grading Permit Fees are calculated using the following table. Use the greater of the excavation and fill volumes from Item 5. QUANTITY IN CUBIC YARDS RATE 50 or less $23.50 51 —100 $37.00 101— 1,000 $37.00 for 1st 100 CY plus $17.50 for each additional 100 or fraction thereof. 1,001 — 10,000 $194.50 for 1st 1000 CY plus $14.50 for each additional 1,000 or fraction thereof. 10,001 — 100,000 $325.00 for the 1st 10,000 CY plus $66.00 for each additional 10,000 or fraction thereof 100,001 or more $919.00 for Pt 100,000 CY plus $36.50 for each additional 10,000 or fraction thereof. Approved 09.25.02 Last Revised 01.01.11 2 303.25 (8) BULLETIN A2 TYPE C PERMIT FEE ESTIMATE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL FEES DUE WITH APPLICATION PW may adjust estimated fees 9. TOTAL OTHER PERMITS A. Water Meter — Deduct ($25) B. Flood Control Zone ($50) C. Water Meter — Permanent* D. Water Meter — Water only* E. Water Meter — Temporary* * Refer to the Water Meter Fees in Bulletin Al Total A through E $ 0.00 (9) 10. ADDITIONAL FEES A. Allentown Water (Ordinance 1777) $ B. Allentown Sewer (Ordinance 1777) $ C. Ryan Hill Water (Ordinance 1777) $ D. Allentown/Foster Pt Water (Ord 2177) $ E. Allentown/Foster Pt Sewer (Ord 2177) $ F. Special Connection (TMC Title 14) $ G. Duwamish $ H. Transportation Mitigation $ I. Other Fees $ Total A through I $ 0.00 (10) DUE WHEN PERMIT IS ISSUED (6+7+8+9+10) $ 828.25 ESTIMATED TOTAL PERMIT ISSUANCE AND INSPECTION FEE This fee includes two inspection visits per required inspection. Additional inspections (visits) attributable to the Permittee's action or inaction shall be charged $60.00 per inspection. WATER METER FEE Permanent and Water Only Meters Size (inches) Installation Cascade Water Affiance RCFC 01.01.2011-12.31.2011 Total Fee 0.75 $625 $6005 $6630 1 $1125 $15,012.50 $16,137.50 1.5 $2425 $30,025 $32,450 2 $2825 $48,040 $50,865 3 $4425 $96,080 $100,505 4 $7825 $150,125 $157,950 6 $12525 $300,250 $312,775 Approved 09.25.02 Last Revised 01.01.11 Temporary Meter 0.75" $300 2.5" $1,500 3 Clear Form 0 4 Cash Register Receipt City of Tukwila DESCRIPTIONS ACCOUNT QUANTITY PermitTRAK PAID $1,640 63 D14-0134 ` Address: 223 ANDOVER PARK E 1 Apn: 0223100090 $1,640.63 PUBLIC WORKS $1,601.75 BASE APPLICATION FEE R000.322.100.00.00 0.00 $250.00 PERMIT ISSUANCE/INSPECTION FEE R000.342.400.00.00 0.00 $525.00 CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW R000.345.830.00.00 0.00 $525.00 GRADING PLAN REVIEW R000.345.830.00.00 0.00 $49.25 GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE R000.342.400.00.00 0.00 $252.50 TECHNOLOGY FEE $38.88 TECHNOLOGY FEE TOTAL FEES PAID BY RECEIPT: R3108 R000.322.900.04.00 0.00 $38.88 $1,640.63 Date Paid: Friday, September 19, 2014 Paid By: OMAR LEE Pay Method: CREDIT CARD 015713 Printed: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:18 PM 1 of 1 SYSTEMS DESCRIPTIONS I ACCOUNT I QUANTITY PermitTRAK PAID $3,657.98 D14-0134 Address: 223 ANDOVER PARK E 1 Apn: 0223100090 $3,657.98 DEVELOPMENT $3,550.52 PERMIT FEE R000.322.100.00.00 $2,149.10 PLAN CHECK FEE R000.345.830.00.00 $1,396.92 WASHINGTON STATE SURCHARGE B640.237.114 $4.50 TECHNOLOGY FEE $107.46 TECHNOLOGY FEE TOTAL FEES PAID BY RECEIPT: R2062 R000.322.900.04.00 $107.46 $3,657.98 Date Paid: Thursday, May 08, 2014 Paid By: WASHINGTON TOWERS LP Pay Method: CHECK 001004 Printed: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 4:44 PM 1 of 1 INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila. WA 98188 (206) 431-3670 Permit Inspection Request Line (2080 438-9350 PrtIJA4\I �f� c n:. Type ►��of Inspection; r- Address: AArtov-ev, ?�-3 �- Date Called: Special Instructions: Date. Wanted: a.m.. Ttequester: Phone No: Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. OMMENTS: (x-- to -f( frvl I inspector.` .. REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRE©. Prior to next inspection. fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd.. Suite 100. Catt to schedule reinspection. P p'- a(31./ INSPE TION NO. PERMIT NO. CITY OF TUKWILA BUILDING DIVISION 6300 southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila. WA 98188 (206) 431-3670 Permit Inspection Request Line (206) 436-9350 INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit Pr ect: ej Walk P Aly Address: fOrtc E 172/3 ttkoperr. Date stied Special Instructions: coCr`rrc.4-6,y64 Date Wanted: 5- / - ` 01t, r6 �'7 P.m. Requester: ®' 4jbS Phone No: Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: Inspector. Date_ y_ (S REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. Prior to next inspection. fee must be paid at 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100. Call to schedule reinspection.. INSPECTION RECORD Retain a copy with permit INSPECTION NUMBER D/&1 o t `i PERMIT NUMBERS CITY OF TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT 206-575-4407 Project: ((�` �-tA PiG(f YQ {AtJ Type of Inspection: five 1 1k E Address: .D 30,, Suite #: _ & C-. Contact Person: dos i., Special Instructions: Phone No.: /Approved per applicable codes. Corrections required prior to approval. COMMENTS: F►r2 Fhq! Needs Shift Inspection: Sprinklers: Fire Alarm: Hood & Duct: Monitor: Pre -Fire: Permits: Occupancy Type: Inspector: S f / Date: Sw 9_ /5 Hrs.: / $100.00 REINSPECTION FEE REQUIRED. You will receive an invoice from the City of Tukwila Finance Department. Call to schedule a reinspection. Billing Address Attn: Company Name: Address: City: State: Zip: Word/Inspection Record Form.Doc 3/14/14 T.F.D. Form F.P. 113 PRELIMINARY TIR/DRAINAGE NARRATIVE Proposed Washington Place Hotel/Apartments 223 Andover Park East Tukwila, Washington REVIEWED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE APPROVED AUG 062014 City of Tukwila BUILDING DIVISION CORRECTION LTR# RECEIVED JUN 20 2014 PUBLIC WORKS Prepared for: AmWealth, LP 18230 East Valley Highway, #195 Kent, WA 98032 RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA JUN 19 2014 PERMIT CENTER bi4Ot?t1 ��HA Vto u E kG ENG‘�� March 6, 2014 Revised June 19, 2014 Our Job No. 16883 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA ♦ LONG BEACH, CA ♦ WALNUT CREEK, CA ♦ SAN DIEGO, CA www.barghausen.com TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION 2.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS APPENDIX EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map EXHIBIT B Assessor's Map EXHIBIT C FEMA Map EXHIBIT D Soils Survey Map EXHIBIT E Sensitive Areas Map EXHIBIT F Basin Map EXHIBIT G KCRTS Water Quality Calculations EXHIBIT H Off -Site Analysis and Downstream Drainage Course Map EXHIBIT I Grading Plan EXHIBIT J Geotechnical Engineering Report EXHIBIT K ESC Calculations and Plans 16883.001.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION 1.0 INTRODUCTION/GENERAL INFORMATION This project is an approximately 3.39-acre site located on the old Circuit City building site at 223 Andover Park East, Tukwila, Washington. Under existing conditions, the site is almost entirely impervious surface; however, under proposed conditions, there will be less impervious surface than currently exists on the project site. Flow control will not be a requirement for this project site. The City has indicated that the downstream drainage course has never exhibited any flooding or nuisance problems anywhere along the downstream drainage course. In addition, water quality will be provided for this project site in the form of a modular wetland system located in the northeast corner of the site and prior to discharge to the downstream drainage course in the right-of-way of Andover Park East. The site is bound on the north, south, and west by existing commercial developments and large buildings. Andover Park East forms the project site's eastern boundary. The City of Tukwila has adopted the.2009 King County, Washington Surface Water Design Manual for preparing storm drainage projects within the City; therefore, KCRTS calculations were performed for the runoff on the project site utilizing 35% of the 2-year developed flow rate adjusted for 15 minutes, which totaled 0.5355 cfs as the water quality flow rate. In addition, the 100-year peak flow discharging from the project site is 3.88 cfs. The modular wetland will contain a bypass system for peak flows contributing to it in excess of 35% of the 2-year developed flow rate. The proposal for this development is to construct a 20-story hotel/apartment building with an associated covered parking garage on the western portion of the site with the hotel located on the eastern portion of the site. In addition, a new pipe conveyance system will be provided with a catch basin collection system routing all runoff to the northeast corner of the project site where it will be treated prior to discharge. The on -site soils are mapped as urban land, which means fill has been applied to this site in the past. These types of soils are typically not conducive for infiltration. The FEMA Map indicates that the site is not impacted by any flooding areas during the 100-year peak event and the sensitive areas map also indicates that the site does not contain any sensitive areas, although the Green River lies several hundred feet east of the project site, which is a sensitive area. 16883.001.doc 2.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS 2.0 OFF -SITE ANALYSIS The downstream drainage course from this project site is almost entirely within the right-of-way of Andover Park East, where it courses in a northerly direction from the northeast corner of the project site into Gilliam Creek on the north side of Tukwila Parkway, which discharges almost immediately into the Green River after crossing under 66th Avenue South. The project site appears to be at the high point of the surrounding area; therefore, there are little to no upstream contributing areas to this project site. The City of Tukwila has indicated that there are no flooding or nuisance problems within this downstream drainage course, so this project assumes the downstream drainage course is adequate for this development. Also, since there will be less impervious surface under the redeveloped condition, there is likely to be Tess impact to the downstream drainage course than under existing conditions. 16883.001.doc APPENDIX EXHIBIT A Vicinity Map .1t, :WW1-N.^ Sou:hucrter Pkl, ,owady:noS 8 5 0 N n 7 REFERENCE: Rand McNally (2014) soot hcPnrn/ dh u Westfield Southcenter Mall Westfield 5outhcenter Mall Strander Blvd Tukwila Pond Tukwila Pond Park MInkler Blvd 3 tl M)Id tunopuV s Tukwila Park Baker Blvd > SITE :o Suaudrr Blvd is* Al Id Janopuy - Mk* Blvd beck Dr Andover Pk E. G 0 J )1d J.mopu\, Baker Illvd Andover Pk Green River Bfcentenlal Park Strander Blvd 4 i Lci i a1 Scale: Horizontal: N.T.S. Vertical N/A 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: Washington Place Tukwila, Washington Job Number 16883 Title: VICINITY MAP DATE: 02/24/14 P:116000s1168831exhibitlgraphicsl16883 vmap.cdr EXHIBIT B Assessor's Map Por Lot 1 9/gg° 5 04' S. LN. W. H. O(LtIAMS DC NO_40 Por Lot 1 TR2 °1p fual ° 1.11 AC Lot 2 TR 1 •ET-21 0 022310 ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL MCC n•114n A TR T 0a-15-- l SITE 1101-110 ie l:al lr 177 PARK NO. 2 1i40 sr y a. BARER BLVD 0.3 TR.a 016.•, 11 tr s^ =1 r 132.01 373.14 30 30 vu111 g 2 7' IL ... TR I!. rt 022320 ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL S1RANDER BLVD. 1.1.. L;.. co 100 flxl now up, I04Mt . 11 )i REFERENCE: King County Department of Assessments (Jan. 2014) .0240 IOW sr 1.1} 4' 6614 1.53 .uumn 10 li 100 ✓1 a ur 1.17 TOK BLA L-95-0006 11 1R 10 TUX. 05 m. L7 -01 1-01 1.34 • ..r1 err : Y1.11 3.40 sr 1514/IC1 41 yl hsi Scale: Horizontal: N.T.S. Vertical.: N/A GHA (j 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH •f lk KENT, WA 98032 CCI , j ' Z (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 `Trka ENG,t4- CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: Washington Place Tukwila, Washington Job Number 16883 Title: ASSESSOR MAP DATE: 02/24/14 P:116000$1168831exhibitlgraphics116883 amap.cdr EXHIBIT C FEMA Map x i ZONE AH (EL 23) SOUTH CENTER ZONE AH (EL 23) JDER BOULEVARD LEGEND OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500.yex floodpldn. REFERENCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency (Portion of Maps 53033C0959 F & 53033C0978 F, May 1995) Scale: Horizontal: N.T.S. Vertical: N/A HA U• 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 � 2 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 $ a� 9' CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, tr'Ne euate+64"a SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: Washington Place Tukwila, Washington Job Number 16883 Title: FEMA MAP DATE: 02/24/14 P:116000s1168831exhibit'graph1cs116883 fema.cdr EXHIBIT D Soils Survey Map REFERENCE: USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service LEGEND: Ur = Urban Land Scale: Horizontal: N.T.S. Vertical: N/A 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: Washington Place Tukwila, Washington Job Number 16883 Title: SOIL SURVEY MAP DATE: 02/24/14 P:{16000s1168831exhibitlgraphics116883 soil.cdr EXHIBIT E Sensitive Areas Map _1 x County Boundary Mountain Peaks Highways Streets rarnsmr Altman. Local Parcels 160 0 N Alaimo raistas... SAO Stream Cs l Class 2 Perm tE Class 2 S.si*r,an d Class 3 Unc`.x•.1 Lakes and Larfle Rivers Streams REFERENCE: King County iMAP (2014) Legend rfi D SAO Wetland SAO Landslide SAO Coal Kline SAO Seismic SAO Erosion 2009 Color Aerial Photos (6in) 2009 Color Aerial Photos (12in) t Scale: Horizontal: N.T.S. Vertical: N/A 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: Washington Place Tukwila, Washington Job Number 16883 Title: SENSITIVE AREAS MAP DATE: 02/24/14 P:1160D0s116883\exhibitlgraphics116883 sens.cdr EXHIBIT F Basin Map CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 • zr.nNORTH U'.t n"na, vai,}ay� EASE CUT 151E 2 23.9. (12" 23.90 (12" TYPE =2.44 24.75 (8" S IE - 24.44(2"N 27' 1010E EASEMET TO CAL ST. P. & P. AND !LP- RA/BROADS 1 PER PUT No. 12' EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO SUBJECT PROP -art NEC. RV. 9205291510 •2' FASEIAENT FOR ACCES TO A0JCINE9 REC. NO. 9205291516 p1q'"TEEn'1 1"5 17� os• n. %A' Date 1'=20' 0 10 20 �{I 40 T/l 022320-0055 EXSING 511I102+0 5.31M Y Cam- '_eRL a ma d"ROMIAIE LOCATION AREA "D" EASE7ILTT (CROSS HATCHED) FCR , . INGRESS AND EGRESS GRANNED 9Y REC. NO. 44/2251458 MA 440422192E 1I�5 it''s'�tyc cis+' By Ckd. 12" 00S 0 12' 5=24.}9 e" A05 W=24.55 Aopr. CS-1. wW.2T.54 7M_ :2 E' = 3. E-= 23. JE = 23. (12' 8 (12" 8 (12"E) Minn u!aN PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN FOR WASHINGTON PLACE PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SEC. 26, TWP. 23 NORTH, RGE. 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON 15' 91.1L011+G SETBACK PER REC. NO. 5E50443 AS AVE3,0-20 8Y REC. N0. 5332949 AS :0.1E140E0 BY REC. N0. 550040D. (REC. Ito. 940E061359 1178.1I4ATTD 0310.Ti(015 PER POLAR". 000U.MEN1S) RDA = 2B.oq ^11E = 23.2 12' IE -_ -2312 12 - R161 =28.0i IE 25.00 (B. 7.4 •p� asLI. falC13 f13 ,TYPE1 IE = 24.52-(n�.�= - - V -- '" IE = 24.52 (12" N) T-1- LE.CB41�41P�1 /� �I RRIIM2 28.00 . 26 0 -75' BUH024G SETBAC4 PER y/© 1-0 NEC. 55644} A5 11 BY RL NO.5332 Ec;�= • 39 Pe. T>t6t tl7 11`- �z'`1 .�` � tNJeCUtiG C A3-'N' !EW a' FY011 1RETAN'K3 WALL FENCE EXISTING JJLSI: 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .i 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 7 �r-i 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 3 7 3 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR E7EVA-RON VARIES x!�'1 �• ig rcp. = 3.22 Ae.. 7:•/I rass=017Ac 178v19i0ri Oemped _AS_ Dram MDT Checked AS .�yrcvd DNB Dole 2/14/14 State: Horizontal 1" 23' Vertical N/A PROPOSED BUILDING FF=29.5 6' ROOF DOWNSPOUT COLLECTION PPE (TYP.) BUILDING OVERHANG 588'25' t 505.43 EXISTING 9,a:91.0 ` CHA:N 1-900 FENCE 14CE 0U1510E OF . ROFCRIY JVIS AT THIS POOR RETAINING WALL o, �Ziy�k, 10' EASEMENT PER N01C FENCE VARIES FROM 0.5' TO 0.4' INSIDE OF 700OPr7TY UMIS CB43. TYPE •+�++ RIM = 28.00 IE = 22.60 (12' E) IE = 22.60 (12" 5) IE = 22.60 (12" W) CB42(TYPE1 RIM = 28.50 IE = 24.50 (12" N)1 . 10' F.ASE11EHT ?ER 0100. NO. 5259443, ANEDIDE5 O _l REC. NJ, 5332545 AND FURi1"E4. iNF_NO91) BY REC. N0. 5025901 11- . SO R15C• _a SO CHAIN LUN< FUZE 6" ROOF DOWNSPOUT COLLECTION PIPE (TYP.) PROPOSED BUILDING FF-29.5 C842ATYPEI =2', IE = 25.40 (12' S) BUILDING OVERHANG 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 -(425)251-8782 FAX CIVIL ENGINEERING, NAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: RM.- NO. 525E443, A67+DE0 BY REC. N0. 5332849 :AND FURTHER AMENDED BY RM. N0. 5500900. BUILDING OVERHANG 10011010.1 C8112, TYPE 1 f - IEE 23.33(12" W) : 5 C8 h W:1=27.26 c C21C_ E=24.63 CD-R. TYPE 2 R64"27.41 8" CONC. 0•=2 51 12' CONC. W=2,169 12" ADS S=21. 1 IT ADS -=20.um j5 i UGHB160X / .ER 3-LINES • .ram, STORM WATER QUALITY VAULT f'OTLT'T VAVLI I.Ik.H R,e WASHINGTON PLACE HOTEL/APARTMENTS 223 ANDOVER PARK EAST TUKWILA, WA SSMR-C FAI6=27.45 C PVC Nl0-22.75 6' PVC 5=22.81 S88'54247'E CB-C TYPE 2 RIL1=27.78 12" ADS N=21' 12" ADS 1Y=21 5D 10' CRUDES E150.ENT io2 : JS an SS148-B ROE=0.8J5 9' PVC 1Y=16.38 6' PVC S=15.40 1 Y BE PLLWED) B" Pde 1;=10.17 8' PYC E-15.45 WATER WANE 27.5 30' •UM IGR •=4 so .nn FCLCA1!.0r. W CASE E PO750R VAULTS 31.11 M .141 EX. 10" WATER Title: PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN WASHINGTON PLACE "I 4 .y •' 1 74 -,I �• I 1 Job Number 16883 Sheet 5 0 FlIe:P:\ I6000a\16883\preliminary \16603—pg n.drig EXHIBIT G KCRTS Water Quality Calculations KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Time Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : 16883dev15min.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Creating 15=minUte Time Series File tdott.k ; 'too PIAxe., I s'#3 oewe1°r ( coet4iiitip Fioi i •kotikywred 4-or Series Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_ Flow Path: Length Till Grass 0.17 acres Time of Concentration (32.841) exceeds maximum (10. Loading Time Series File:C:\KC_ Flow Path: Length Impervious 3.22 acres SWDM\KC_DATA\STTG15R.srf . 20.00 ft @ Slope 0.020000 for EI MOM \KC_DATA\STEI15R.rnf . 815.00 ft ® Slope 0.002500 Total Area : 3.39 acres Peak Discharge: 3.88 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:16883dev15min.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:16883dev15min.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16883dev15min.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:16883dev15min.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command eXit KCRTS Program Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16883dev15min.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Flow Rate (CFS) 1.53 1.07 2.95 1.23 1.64 1.73 2.09 3.88 Computed Peak Flow Rates --- Rank Time of Peak 6 8 2 7 5 4 3 1 Peaks• 8/27/01 9/17/02 12/08/02 8/23/04 10/28/04 10/27/05 10/25/06 1/09/08 18:00 17:45 17:15 14:30 16:00 10:45 22:45 6:30 - - Peaks - (CFS) 3.88 2.95 2.09 1.73 1.64 1.53 1.23 1.07 3.57 Flow Frequency Analysis - Rank Return Period 1 100.00 2 25.00 3 10.00 4 5.00 5 3.00 6 2.00 7 1.30 8 1.10 50.00 Prob 0.990 0.960 0.900 0.800 0.667 0.500 0.231 0.091 0.980 Jake Jacobs From Peter Evans <peter@modularwetlands.com> Sent Thursday, March 06, 2014 12:25 PM To: Jake Jacobs Subject Washington Place, Tukwila, WA. MWS-L 4-21 V (open top) Attachments: MWS-L-4-21-V.dwg; MWS-L-4-21-V.pdf Jake: --We'd-go with-two(2)-MWS-L-4-21-V-(open top planter) -to- meet -your -WQflow requirement.Looks-Iike_the-IEis-7_to 8'- down from grade. The standard depth MWS 4-21 are $30,600/each - delivered. You'll have to add in the cost of risers, ok? Add $1,500 to each for that to be safe. $33K/each or $66K in total. That's a good budget number. Sincerely, Peter J. Evans NW Technical Sales Engineer Email: peter@modularwetlands.com Direct: 503.403.9102 Bio Clean Environmental Services, Inc. Modular Wetland Systems, Inc. P.O Box 869, Oceanside, CA 92049 Phone: 760.433.7640 Fax: 760.433.3176 www.biocleanenvironmental.com www.modularwettands.com • ••><((((>� •..•' •...><((((> From: Jake Jacobs f mailto:uacobs@barghausen.coml Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:35 PM To: Peter Evans (peterCTmodularwetlands.com) Subject FW: MWS for Washington Place in Tukwila, WA.. Washington Place From: Jake Jacobs Sent Wednesday, March 05, 2014 1:33 PM To: Peter Evans (oeter@modularwetlands.com); Luis Magallon(luiis@biocleanenvironmentai..com); John Hayden (iohn@biodeanenvironmental..com); Ali Sadr Subject: MWS for Washington Place in Tukwila, WA. Hi Peter, We have a new project in Tukwila that we will need a new MWS for. There is no detention onsite and there will be 12 inch diameter pipe connecting upstream and downstream of the MWS. IEin=22.0 IEout =21.5 Rim elevation = 30.0 and we would like plantings on top. The total site area contributing = 3.39 acres which is 95% impervious. 1 If you use the same sizing criteria as King County requires for storm filter sizing which is to use 35% of the 2 year developed flow adjusted for 15 minutes. This is 0.5355 cfs. Will this flow rate require a double MWS? The 100 year flow rate = 3.88 cfs. We will need a sizing and cost estimate and detail by Thursday (tomorrow) afternoon at the latest as we are submitting Friday morning. Thanks in advance, Jake Jake Jacobs, P.E. Project Engineer Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. 18215 72nd Avenue South Kent, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 - Phone (425) 251-8782 - Fax http://www.barghausen.com This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 2 WETLANDS FLOWRATES PEAK TREA.TMEAIT FLOW RATE = .267 CFS OR 119.83 GPM PEAK BYPASS FLOW RATE = IV/A . SPEC/F/CAT/0NS INSTALL AT SURFACE O. D. DIMENSIONS = 22'X5'X 4.7' TOP OF CURB TO INVERT OUT = 4.13' SEDIMENT STORAGE CAPACITY 1000 1. as OR 23.5 CF 5' O' 4' O" INFLOW PPE SIZE AND LOCATION AMY VARY c/L MANHOLE COVER • • LEFT END VIEW PRETREA?RE'NT CHAMBER INFLOW CHAMBER TRANSFER PIPES /E /N PERVIOUS PAVERS LEGEND Dann 2" DRAIN CELL PERMITER INLET WATER TRANSFER SYSTEM WETLAND MEDIA PLANT ROOT MOISTURE RETENTION LAYER MANHOLE / ACCESS HATCH i *i••r� slti-. IE;��ftY NIKON BOTTOM 6°--- MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEMS - LINEAR 2.0 21' VAULT TYPE • • •• • • • • • • •• •• • • .. f.•..-...-t,._. %a" PVC DRAIN DOWN LINES PLUG AND CAP UNUSED LINE CARTRIDGE MEDIA FILTER CHAMBER SEPARATION BAFFLE ▪ , ▪ • 4' 0" PRB7REATMENT CHAMBER OUTLET WATER, TRANSFER SYSTEM PLAN VIEW [E1 IMIIIMINImnlnJl�nnIkgIllllnn111fIliiNi u iaiAumlittimiN .. `��^S: ' "' ;i•`S"� "''+ ► '; _ , �, ; a. - 'fir :+ir"-_ zn INLET WATER TRANSFER SYSTEM CHAMBER SEPARATION BAFFLE 111111111 tllfl1/1111 IIIIII1ui 111111111111U tn,,nrlll 13' BIOFILTRATION CHAMBER 21' 0" 22'-D' MN- J DRAIN DOWN LMfE SOS5Yi• PW.' PPE WITH FLOW CONTROL ORIFICE DR4W DOWN FILTER UTILIZING eloUodikLREEN FILTER MEDIA OUTLET PIPE SIZE AND LOCATION MAY Wile INLET WATER TRANSFER SYSTEM AGE CHAMBER ELEVATION VIEW �6a OUTLET FLOW CONTROL ORIFICE & RISER lE OUT BIOFILTRATION CHAMBER SURFACE AREA CALCS SIDES = 2 135'L x3.4'H= 45.9SF SIDE SURFACE AREA = 91.8 SF ENDS = 2 3.7'Lx34'H= 12.6 SF END SURFACE AREA = 25.2 SF TOTAL WETLAND MEDIA SURFACE AREA =117.0SF WETLAND MEDIA LOADING RATE 119.83GPM /117.0SF =1.O2 GPM/SF PRETREATMENTFILTER SURFACE AREA CALCS SIDES = 2 0.50' L x 1.67' H = 0.84 SF SIDE SURFACE AREA = 1.68 SF ENDS = 2 0.25' L x 1.67' H = 0.42 SF END SURFACE AREA = 0.84 SF TOTAL PRETREATMENT SURFACE AREA 2.52 SF x 28 ALTERS -70.56SF ACCESS HATCH 4' O" RIGHT END VIEW DISCHARGE CHAMBER PRETREATMENT ALTER LOADING RATE 119.83 GPM / 70.56 SF =1.69GPM/SF • RC LWA V DOWN UNES PLUG AND CAP UNUSED LAVE SECflON BIOFILTRATION CHAMBER INSTALLATION NOTES: 1. INSTALL UNIT ON LEVEL BED OF GRAVEL OF AT LEAST 5" !N DEPTH. 2. CONCRETE 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH fc = 5, 000 PSI. 3. REINFORCING: ASTM A-615, GRADE 60. 4. RATED FOR PARKWAY LOADING 300 PSF. 5. ALL WALLS ARE 6" THICK, BAFFLES ARE 4" THICK, BOTTOM 71' OR 8" THICK, TOP 8.5" THICK, 6. JOINT SEALANT: BUTYL RUBBER SS-S-00210 MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEMS INC. P.O. BOX 86'9 OCEANSIDE, CA 92049 www.lvtodularWetIonds.com NAME DATE DRAWN EDITED PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL THE: INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEMS INC. ANY REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE WITHOUT TILE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF MODULAR WETLAND SYSTEMS INC. IS PROHIBITED. 1ITLE. WS L I NFI 11 2.0 0 VA UL T TYPE COMMENTS: SIZE DWG. NO. MWS-L - 4 --2 1 - V REV SCALE 1:40 I UNITS = INCHES] SHEET 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT H Off -Site Analysis and Downstream Drainage Course Map S u btu fer iF�� NF.tliWel 4t ,Et rlinfo • fir;, IIu,.t M� l�ln� 5 � aim T►y -t t`tt y t r . e 1 •1 t EXHIBIT I Grading Plan CALL BEFORE YOU DIG: 1-800-424-5555 • • ¢.. Au:t 510 TYPE 24.14 12' S E-24.14 12"N) TYPE ▪ 2▪ 4.75 E 24.44 2' 10" 561568 0 FOR ACCESS r0 SUBJECT PROPERTY RED. N0. 926526157E 12' EASEMENT FOR ACCESS 10 ADJOINS& , REC. NO. 1120.5291316 T=20' 20 VC 022420-00E6 C MRNC 6011.1640 R6ai-z7.64 •a. •.1 N88'2528"N 206.89' 12 12" 12' E) Ca'/9,. E- 24. E - -3.97 (6' I= 24.04 12' PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN FOR WASHINGTON PLACE PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SEC. 26, TWP. 23 NORTH, RGE. 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON --16. 661.1I11.6 SE,9ACR PER REG NO. 5256443 AS AMENDED 3Y REC. NO. 833264E AS AIOb8EO BY REC. N0. 55WR00. (REO. N0. 940606136E TERMINATED CONomct4s PER ABOVE DOCULCNIS) -.. P9 0' ROM DOWAISPOUt 00E 12C1101 P1PE10'R)1 1 I 1 1 4 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 3 1 C i ` 1 1 ! 1 ♦oow a°v°ems 799 �A!113!fl651r1Ar610A■ Wr�,4n�4OH11�`GS� y `pep lE�f �'RN I- -tN 1YPE1 IE . 24.52 (127N) an 1 IL 15 ffie1J1N1G SEf9AC0 PER REG N0. 5266443 AS A0N2,00 NY REG ND. 633264E AS ANENO5 eY REC. N0. 85C0900. 020,j0).thJla CO NEW 8' KM RETADD40 WALL FENCE E315TW0 6U601Nr, • esetIAIL 'rent to\ 1 I 7 1 I 1 E 1 1 1 1 3,.. 1 -0--1 `CNU. i665 FENCE PROPERTY UNITS A7 6415 POINT 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX IXJI E36054EF78NG, LAND PIANNNO. SURVEYING. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NOTE FENCE `MU FROU 0.1' TO 0.4' 21567E OF PROPE,M LINES C8 ; 7YPE1 •+•- E 22.80 12' E) IE = 2260 (12' 5) IE . 2280 (12' W) 1 E = 23' (1 VI) -1E a •5 E) - - -Z 10' EASEMENT PER MI MED E wu, AND FUR11EN AMENDED 84 REC. N0. 08DD900. S,,,erai.-','O rCHAN UNIT FENCE E . 22.1 (12 5) WASHINGTON PLACE HOTEL/APARTMENTS 223 ANDOVER PARK EAST TUKWLA, WA 9164 R91=27.26 8' CONC. E624.63 3-INE5 510161 WA a. OIU(9Y 16MLT SS161-C Ra1.27.45 6' PVC NW-2275 o PVC 5.22.65 POWER 1AIR'S al-B.M0 2 R04-27.41 6• CONC. W.2 61 If CONC. 16457.6E TY AOS S.21 1 12' ADS E-20 6 A .'x 80, 5888054.4780E 30,00' MAI 8' 54 C6-C TYPE 2 ROA-27,76 12' ADS N421. 12' ADS 1V-21. SD 1 F4Q• PRELIMINARY GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN WASHINGTON PLACE L. 9 ii EXHIBIT J Geotechnical Engineering Report Geotechnical Design Services Washington Place Development Tukwila, Washington for Great Wall Development January 31, 2014 GEOENGINEERS Geotechnical Design Services Washington Place Development Tukwila, Washington for Great Wall Development January 31, 2014 GEDENGINEER 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Geotechnical Design Services Washington Place Development Tukwila, Washington Rio No. 21102-001-00 Prepared for. Great Wall Development 18230 East Valley Highway, #108 Kent, Washington 98032 Attention: Omar Lee Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Hamilton P a ak GeotechniWeer MOOR King Associate WLC:KHC:nld January 31, 2014 n Whitney L Trent, PE Geotechnical Engineer Disclaimer:Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/orffgure), If provided, and anyattachments are onlye copy of the original document The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve esthe official document of record. Copydgbte 2014 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. GEOENGINEERVg Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 Project Description 1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 Regional Seismicity 2 Benioff Source Zone 2 CSZ Iriterpfate Source Zone .............. 2. Shallow Crustal Source Zone 2 Surface Conditions 3 Subsurface Conditions 3 Groundwater Conditions 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 Summary 4 Earthquake Engineering 4 Site -Specific Response Spectrum 4 Liquefaction Potential 5 Ground Rupture 6 Lateral Spreading 6 Site Preparation 6 Temporary Dewatering 6 Pile Foundations 7 Axial Pile Capacity 7 Lateral Pile Capacity 8 Pile Settlement 9 Pile Load Testing 9 Construction Considerations 9 Lowest Level Floor Slabs 10 Subgrade Preparation 10 Design Parameters 11 Below -Slab Considerations 11 Earthwork 11 Structural Fill 12 Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria 12 Weather Considerations 13 Temporary Slopes 13 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services 13 LIMITATIONS 14 REFERENCES 14 GEOENGINEERSg January 31, 2014 Page i File No.2110240140 Table of Contents (continued) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Building Plan Figure 4. Site -Specific MCER Response Spectra (5% Damped) Figure 5. Lateral Deflection vs. Depth; 18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Figure 6. Shear Force vs. Depth; 18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Figure7. Bending Moment vs. Depth;18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Figure 8. Lateral Deflection vs. Depth; 18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Figure 9. Shear Force vs. Depth; 18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Figure 10. Bending Moment vs. Depth; 18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Figure 11. Lateral Deflection vs. Depth; 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Figure 12. Shear Force vs. Depth; 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Figure 13. Bending Moment vs. Depth; 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Figure 14. Lateral Deflection vs. Depth; 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Figure 15. Shear Force vs. Depth; 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Figure 16. Bending Moment vs. Depth; 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2 and A 3 - Log of Borings Figures A-4 through A-6 - CPT Logs Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Figure B-1 - Atterberg Limits Test Results Figures13-2 through B-4 - Consoidation Test Results Appendix C. Site Specific Response Analysis Figure C-1 - Response Spectra of Scaled Input Earthquake Time Histories, 2475-year Event Figure C-2 - Shear Wave Velocity Profiles with Measured and Correlated Data Figure C-3 - Discretized Shear Wave Velocity Profiles for Nonlinear Site Response Analyses Figure C-4 - Computed Ground Surface Response Spectra (5% Damped) Figure C-5 - Computed Amplification Factors at Ground Surface Figure C-6 - Site Specific MCE Response Spectra (5% Damped) Figure C-7 - Site Specific MCER Response Spectrum (5% Damped) Appendix D. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use Page II January 31, 2014 GeoEngineers, Inc. Rle No. 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of GeoEngineers' preliminary geotechnical engineering services for the Washington Place project in Tukwila, Washington. The site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the Site Plan (Figure 2), attached to this report. The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the design of the proposed development. Our scope of work includes: ® ... Providing site.. specific.. seismic design criteria.. in. accordance with. 2012..InternatiQnal Building Code (IBC); • Providing pile recommendations with axial and lateral capacities; • Providing earthwork recommendations; and • Preparing this report. GeoEngineers' geotechnical engineering services have been completed in general accordance with our services agreement for the project executed on January 9, 2014. GeoEngineers previously provided engineering recommendations for the project in a preliminary geotechnical letter report dated July 26, 2013. Project Description GeoEngineers understands that Great Wall Development is interested in developing a hotel and parking garage at the project site. The proposed development is shown on the Building Plan, Figure 3. Our understanding of the project is based on our conversations and discussions with the project team including Great Wall Development, MuivannyG2 Architecture, Group West Companies, PLLC, PCS Structural Solutions (PCS) and Absher Construction Company. The development will include a hotel with up to 19-stories and an adjacent above grade parking garage with up to three -stories. We understand that the parking garage and hotel building will be supported on either 18-inch- or 24-inch-diameter steel pipe piles with design capacities of 350 or 650 kips. FIELD EXPLORATIONS The subsurface soil and groundwater conditions at the site were evaluated by completing two geotechnical borings and three cone penetration tests (CPTs) at the project site. The approximate locations of the explorations completed for this project are presented on the Site Plan, Figure 2 and Building Plan, Figure 3. Details of the field exploration program and logs of the explorations are presented in Appendix A. Soil samples were obtained during drilling and were taken to GeoEngineers' labpratory for further evaluation. Selected samples were tested for the determination of gradation (sieve analysis), fines content, plasticity characteristics (Atterberg Limits Testing), consolidation and moisture content. A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B. GEOENGINEER1j January 31, 2014 Page 1 File No.21102-00I.00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington SITE CONDITIONS Regional Seismicity The Seattle area is located near the convergent continental boundary known as the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), an approximately 650-mile-long thrust fault that extends along the Pacific Coast from mid -Vancouver Island to Northern California. The CSZ is the zone where the westward advancing North American Plate is overriding the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate. The interaction of these two plates results in two potential seismic source zones: (1) the Benioff source zone, and (2) the CSZ- interplate source zone. A third seismic source zone, referred to as the shallow crustal source zone, is associated with the north -south compression resulting from northerly movement of the Sierra Nevada block of the North American Plate. Benloff Source Zone Benioff source zone earthquakes are also referred to as intraplate, intraslab or deep subcrustal earthquakes. Benloff zone earthquakes occur within the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate between depths of 20 and 50 miles and typically have no large aftershocks. Extensive faulting results as the Juan de Fuca Plate is forced below the North American Plate and into the upper mantle. The Olympia 1949 (M=7.1), the Seattle 1965 (M=6.5) and the Nisqually 2001 (M=6.8) earthquakes are considered to be Benioff zone earthquakes. The Benioff zone is characterized as being capable of generating earthquakes up to magnitude 7.5. The recurrence interval for large earthquakes originating from the Benloff source zone is believed to be shorter than for the shallow crustal and CSZ source zones; damaging Benioff zone earthquakes in Western Washington occur every 30 years or so. The deep focal depth of these earthquakes tends to dampen the shaking intensity when compared to shallow crustal earthquakes of similar magnitudes. CSZ interplate Source Zone CSZ interplate earthquakes result from rupture of all or a portion of the convergent boundary between the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate and the overriding North American Plate. The fault surfaces approximately 50 to 75 miles off the Washington coast. The width of the seismogenic portion of the CSZ interplate fault varies along its length. As the fault becomes deeper, materials being faulted become ductile, and the fault is unable to store mechanical stresses. The CSZ is considered to be capable of generating earthquakes of magnitude 8 to 9 and higher. No earthquakes on the CSZ have been instrumentally recorded; however, through the geologic record and historical records of tsunamis in Japan, it is believed that the most recent CSZ event occurred in the year 1700 (Atwater, 1996; Satake et al., 1996). Recurrence intervals for CSZ interplate earthquakes are thought to be on the order of 400 to 600 years. Paleogeologic evidence suggests that five to seven interplate earthquakes may have been generated along the CSZ over the last 3,500 years at irregular intervals. Shallow Crustal Source Zone The shallow crustal source zone is used to characterize shallow crustal earthquake activity within the North American Plate. Shallow crustal earthquakes typically occur at depths ranging from 3 to 20 miles. The shallow crustal source zone is characterized as being capable of generating Page 2 January31, 2014 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 21102-001.00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington earthquakes up to about magnitude 7.5. Large shallow crustal earthquakes are typically followed by a sequence of aftershocks. The largest known earthquakes associated with the shallow crustal source zone in Western Washington include an event on the Seattle Fault about the year 900 and the 1872 North Cascades earthquake. The Seattle Fault event was believed to have been magnitude 7 or greater (Johnson et al., 1999), and the 1872 North Cascades earthquake is estimated to have been between magnitudes 6.8 and 7.4. The location of the 1872 North Cascades earthquake is uncertain;. however, recent research.. suggests.. that.. the earthquake's intensity center... was.. near.. the south end of Lake Chelan (8akun et al., 2002). The Washington Place project site is located about 4 miles south of the Seattle Fault zone. The Seattle Fault zone is a 2- to 4-mile-wide, east -west trending zone of three or more splays of the south dipping reverse fault (Johnson et al., 1999). The Seattle Fault ruptured about 1,100 years ago and caused broad uplift and subsidence on both sides of the fault. The rate of recurrence of large earthquakes on the Seattle Fault is thought to be on the order of thousands of years. Surface Conditions The site is rectangular in shape and bounded by Andover Park East to the east and existing structures to the north, south and west. The site consists of a 3.4-acre parcel occupied by a single story retail/warehouse structure. The building was formerly used as a Circuit City retail store. Site grades are relatively flat. Numerous buried utilities are located within and near the existing building. These utilities include, but are not limited to, storm drain and sanitary sewer, water, and gas. Private buried electricity (for luminaires) is also present at the project site; however, it appears that most of the copper wiring has been stripped away/removed. Subsurface Conditions The soils encountered in our subsurface exploration program consist of fill and alluvium overlying glacially consolidated soils. Fill soils were encountered to depths of approximately 5 to 9 feet below existing site grades. The fill generally consists of silty sand with gravel and sandy silt with gravel. Alluvium was encountered below the fill to the depths explored in the two borings completed for this study. The alluvium generally consists of silty fine sand with occasional organic matter interbedded with layers of compressible silt. We identified three layers of compressible silt below the building footprint an approximately 5-foot-thick layer at a depth of 15 feet, an approximately 10-foot-thick layer at a depth of 45 feet, and an approximately 45-foot-thick layer at a depth below 70 feet. The three CPT's advanced at the project site met refusal in the glacially consolidated soils at depths ranging from about 130 to 155 feet below the ground surface. Samples of the glacially consolidate soils were not obtained in this study; however, based on our experience in the area the glacially consolidated soils generally consist of dense to very dense sand with variable silt and gravel content. GEOENGINEERS.g January31, 2014 Page3 File Na 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT < Tukwila, Washington Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered in the borings at a depth of approximately 13 feet. Groundwater conditions will likely fluctuate with season and are influenced by the water level in the nearby Green River, which is located approximately 0.15 miles east of the project site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. • Based on discussions with the project team, 18-inch- and 24-inch-diameter steel pipe piles are the preferred deep foundation alternative for this project. ■ The site is classified as Site Class F per 2012 IBC. A site -specific seismic response analysis was completed to develop site -specific risk targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) response spectrum in accordance with the IBC and the ASCE 7-10 code. The building should be designed using the recommended site specific MCER response spectrum presented in Table 1 and on Figure 4. • The site is underlain by moderately compressible soil to depths of about 100 to 120 feet. For floor slabs supported on grade, we anticipate long term post -construction consolidation settlement on the order of 1 to 3 inches may occur within the design life of the building. • The results of our liquefaction analyses indicate that the fill and recent alluvium are susceptible to liquefaction or loss of strength during a design -level earthquake. We estimate that free field ground surface settlement on the order of 6 to 15 inches could occur during a design level earthquake due to soil liquefaction. We anticipate that floor slabs supported on grade may experience post -earthquake settlement of 6 to 15 inches. Our specific geotechnical recommendations are presented in the following sections of this report. Earthquake Engineering Site-Speclflc Response Spectrum A site -specific response analysis was completed in accordance with the procedure outlined in Chapter 21 of the ASCE 7-10 code to develop the site specific risk -targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) response spectrum. The methodology used and the details of the site -specific ground response analyses is presented in Appendix C. The recommended MCER site -specific response spectrum for design of the proposed building is presented in Figure 4 and is defined in Table 1. The design spectrum is taken as two thirds of the MCER values presented in Table 1 per ASCE 7-10 Section 21.3. Page 4 I January 31, 2014 I GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington TABLE 1. RECOMMENDED SITE -SPECIFIC MCER DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM Perllod (sec) Sa (g) 0.01 0.56 0.15 1.12 0.90 1.12 1.00 1.04 1.35 077 2.00 0.62 2.66' 0.39 3.00 0.35 4,00 0.26 5.00 0.21 6.00 0,17 7.00 0.13 8.00 0.10 9.00 0.08 10.00 0.06 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction refers to a condition in which vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in development of high excess pore water pressures in saturated soils and subsequent loss of stiffness and/or strength in the deposit of soil so affected. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include loose to medium dense, clean to silty sands that are below the water table. Ground settlement, lateral spreading and/or sand boils may result from soil liquefaction. Structures, such as buildings, supported on or within liquefied soils may suffer foundation settlement or lateral movement that can be damaging to the buildings. Based on our analyses, the potential exists for liquefaction within zones of the loose to medium dense sand deposits encountered in the borings completed at the site. The recent cohesive soils may also experience loss of shear strength during seismic loading. The evaluation of liquefaction potential depends on numerous site parameters, including soil grain size, soil density, site geometry, static stresses and the design ground acceleration. Typically, the liquefaction potential of a site is evaluated by comparing the cyclic shear stress ratio (the ratio of the cyclic shear stress to the initial effective overburden stress) induced by an earthquake to the cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction. The cyclic shear stress ratio required to trigger liquefaction was estimated using empirical procedures developed by Youd et al. (2001) based on CPT results obtained during field explorations. Estimated ground settlement resulting from earthquake -induced liquefaction was analyzed using empirical procedures by Ishihara (1987). Liquefaction potential of the site soils was evaluated using the design PGA from the site specific response spectrum presented in Figure 4 and as outlined in Section 1802.2.7 of the 2012 IBC. GEOENGINEERS_O January 31, 2014 ; Page 5 Fie No. 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington Analysis of the CPT data indicates that there is a potential for liquefaction in silt and sand layers above the dense glacially consolidated soils. We estimate that the factor of safety is less than 1 during the design -level earthquake for most of the deposits above a depth of about 70 feet. Liquefaction -induced free -field ground settlement of the potentially liquefiable zones is estimated to be on the order of 6 to 15 inches for a design -level earthquake. The magnitude of liquefaction - induced ground settlement will vary as a function of the characteristics of the earthquake (earthquake magnitude, location, duration and intensity) and the soil and groundwater conditions. Ground Rupture Because of the anticipated infrequent recurrence of earthquake events, the project site's location with respect to the nearest known fault (Seattle Fault), and the relative thickness of the glacially consolidated soils below the site it is our opinion that the risk of ground rupture at the site resulting from surface faulting is low. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacements of large volumes of liquefied soil. Lateral spreading can occur on near -level ground as blocks of surface soils are displaced relative to adjacent blocks. Lateral spreading also occurs as blocks of surface soils are displaced toward a nearby slope or free -face such as the nearby waterfront by movement of the underlying liquefied soil. It is our opinion the risk of lateral spreading at the site is low due to the relatively flat ground surface at the site and is located relatively far away from free face (Le. Green River). Site Preparation Construction of the proposed development will require demolition and removal of existing structures, asphalt pavement, concrete sidewalks, tree wells, and other landscaping. Existing utilities to be abandoned should be removed and replaced with structural fill or abandoned in place. Minor cuts and fills on the order of Y2 feet to 6 feet are anticipated to bring the site to planned subgrade elevation. As a result, it is anticipated that the contractor will use the existing asphalt concrete pavement to support pile driving equipment and to serve as a working surface during pile driving and pile cap construction. The contractor should assess the condition of the site to support equipment loads prior to mobilizing equipment to the site. The fill soils present below the existing asphalt concrete pavement surface are highly variable and the available subsurface data indicates these materials to be soft,/loose. Temporary Dewatering Groundwater is anticipated to be encountered below a depth of approximately 13 feet below existing site grades. This conclusion is based on the boring and CPT data; however, groundwater levels may vary based on season and precipitation. For shallow excavations, temporary dewatering can be completed using sumps and pumps placed within the excavation. If excavations deeper than approximately 15 feet below existing site grades are planned, GeoEngineers should be contacted to evaluate the planned excavation to determine if temporary wells or well points are Page 6 I January31, 2014 ; GeoEngineers, Inc. FileNo. 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington required. Due to the nature of the site soils, extensive dewatering should not be completed without first assessing potential settlement impacts to adjacent improvements that may result from lowering the groundwater level. Pile Foundations The design team is planning to use driven, steel pipe piles to support the proposed building. GeoEngineers has estimated axial and lateral capacities for 18-inch- and 24-inch-diameter steel pipe piles, as described below. The following sections also provide discussion of general construction considerations: Axial Pile Capacity Axial pile load capacity in compression for the proposed hotel and garage is anticipated to be developed from a combination of side frictional resistance and end bearing capacity. Uplift pile capacity will be developed from side frictional resistance in these soils. For the 18-inch- and 24-inch-diameter open-end steel pipe piles considered, Table 2 presents the downward and uplift axial capacities for the proposed hotel. Table 3 presents the downward and uplift axial capacities for the proposed garage. TABLE 2. ALLOWABLE AXIAL PILE CAPACITIES FOR THE PROPOSED HOTEL 18-inch steel pipe pile 24-inch steel pipe pile Cfoptl 120 145 120 135 50 650 350 650 200 300 250 350 TABLE 3. ALLOWABLE AXIAL PILE CAPACITIES FOR THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE 18-Inch steel pipe pile 24-Inch steel pipe pile 125 30 120 125 200 0 250 350 Ipe) Allowable pile capacities are provided for Allowable Stress Design (ASD). The allowable pile capacities take into account the effects of liquefaction -induced settlement and the estimated resultant down drag forces. The allowable capacities are based on the strength of the supporting soils and include a factor of safety of 2 for the static loading conditions. The allowable pile capacities apply to the total of dead and long-term live Toads and may be increased by up to one-third for wind or seismic loads. The capacities apply to single piles. If piles are spaced at least three pile diameters on center, as recommended, no reduction for group action is needed. The structural characteristics of pile materials and structural connections may impose limitations on pile capacities and should be evaluated by the structural engineer. GEOENGINEERS January 31, 2014 Page 7 File No. 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington Lateral Pile Capacity Lateral loads can be resisted by passive soil pressure on the vertical piles and by the passive soil pressures on the pile cap. Because of the potential separation between the pile -supported foundation components and the underlying soil from settlement, base friction along the bottom of the pile cap should not be included in calculations for lateral capacity. We analyzed the lateral capacity of single 18-inch- and 24-inch-diameter steel pipe piles using the computer software program LPILE Plus 5.0.47 produced by Ensoft, Inc. Each pile was assumed to have -a wall thickness of/ -inch -and be 120 feet long with the top of the pile located at the finished grade for the proposed structures. We completed analyses for a single pile for both a free -head and fixed -head condition. In our analyses seismic conditions control the lateral pile capacities because of the effect of the liquefiable soils. An axial load of 650 kips was considered in our analysis. Figures 5 through 10 present the lateral deflection, shear force and bending moment verses depth for free- and fixed -head conditions for 18-inch-diameter steel pipe piles under seismic conditions. Figures 11 through 16 present the lateral deflection, shear force and bending moment verses depth for free- and fixed -head conditions for 24-inch-diameter steel pipe piles under seismic conditions. Piles spaced closer than five pile diameters apart will experience group effects that will result in a lower lateral load capacity for trailing rows of piles with respect to leading rows of piles for an equivalent deflection. We recommend that the lateral Toad capacity for trailing piles in a pile group spaced less than five pile diameters apart be reduced in accordance with the factors in Table 4 below per AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications Section 10.7.2.4. TABLE 4. PILE P-MULTIPLIERS, Pm, FOR MULTIPLE ROW SHADING Notes: 1. The P-multipliers in the table above are a function of the center to center spacing of piles in the group in the direction of loading expressed in multiples of the pile diameter, D. 2. The values of Pm were developed for vertical piles only. 3. The P-multipliers are dependent on the pile spacing and the row number in the direction of the loading. To establish values of Pm for other pile spacing values, interpolation between values should be conducted. We recommend that the passive soil pressure acting on the pile cap be estimated using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) where the soil adjacent to the foundation consists of adequately compacted structural fill. This passive resistance value includes a factor of safety of 1.5 and assumes a 4-foot-deep pile cap and a minimum lateral deflection of 2 inches to fully develop the passive resistance. Deflections that are less than 2 inches will not fully mobilize the passive resistance in the soil. Page 8 January 31, 2014 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington Pile Settlement We estimate that the post -construction static settlement of pile foundations, designed and installed as recommended, will be on the order of 1 inch or less. Maximum differential settlement should be less than about one-half the post -construction settlement. Most of this settlement will occur rapidly as loads are applied. For seismic loading conditions, we estimate that the post -earthquake pile settlement will be on the order of 1 inch or less. Pile Load Testing GeoEngineers recommends that six dynamic load tests, three for the hotel and three for the garage, be completed in general accordance with the ASTM International (ASTM) D 4945 test procedure for the 18-inch- and/or 24-inch-diameter piles in order to provide direct measurement of the pile load -deflection performance. Dynamic testing should be conducted on piles installed early in the production phase to confirm that the selected pile driving equipment and procedures do not generate stresses that may damage the pile and to confirm pile capacities. Dynamic testing should be completed during initial driving and during re -strike of the test piles. The re -strike testing should be completed at least 7 days after the test pile or piles are installed. We recommend that GeoEngineers assist the contractor in determining the size of the re -strike hammer to ensure that the restrike is able to demonstrate the full capacity of the piles. The re -strike hammer is typically larger than the hammer used to install production piles. ' Construction Considerations GROUND VIBRATION The installation of driven piles produces a significant level of noise and ground vibration in the vicinity of the pile -driving operations. The proximity of nearby existing buildings and utilities may pose a concern as a result of vibrations during pile installation. In particular, pile driving can cause measurable vibrations for up to several hundred feet from the pile. Minor architectural or cosmetic damage (that is, small cracks in walls) at moderate distances and structural damage to buildings and settlement of utilities at close distances from pile -driving operations can occur. The level of ground vibrations induced by pile driving depends primarily on the hammer energy, pile type and size, soli type and distance from the pile. The propagation of waves induced by vibrations through soil deposits is a complex phenomenon. Variations in building construction, age and other factors would be expected to have a significant effect on the sensitivity of a given structure to vibration levels. To reduce potential claims regarding alleged damage resulting from construction, we recommend that a preconstruction damage survey of nearby structures and utilities be completed to document structural and cosmetic building conditions before construction begins. Ground vibrations should be monitored starting from the beginning of construction. The information obtained from this program can be used to modify the pile installation program if the level of vibration becomes too high. Pile driving induced vibration levels at the location of vibration sensitive improvements are recommended to not exceed the vertical velocity of 1 inch per second. GEOENGINEERLO January 31, 2014 Page9 FIIe Nn.21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT < Tukwila, Washington PILE DRWADI LITYAND CAPACITY The piles for the proposed building should be installed using an appropriately sized pile -driving hammer. The pile -driving hammer should be of sufficient size to drive the piling to the minimum embedment depth without damaging the pile. Because the pile contractor has control of the pile/hammer configuration and the driving equipment, we recommend that the pile contractor be made responsible for selecting the appropriate pile -driving hammer and installing the piles to design embedment depth without damaging the piles. Pile drivability analysis for the specific pile type and pile -driving hammer should be completed once a pile -driving hammer has been selected. GeoEngineers can ,assist with ...pile drivability analysis. The depths and thicknesses of the interpreted soil units vary across the site. If pile resistance encountered during driving indicates that the soil conditions may differ significantly from those assumed for design, it may be necessary to install a longer pile or additional piles to achieve the recommended axial and lateral capacity used In the building design. We therefore recommend that a monitoring program be implemented for the pile -driving operations. This program should include completing full-time observations of driven pile installations to verify the pile capacities. For production piles, we recommend that re -strikes be completed on approximately 1 in 20 piles to compare with re -strike data on the test piles. GeoEngineers recommends that re -strikes be completed at least one week after initial driving to allow for pile setup. GeoEngineers should be retained to observe the pile driving and to evaluate driving records to determine whether the soil conditions encountered during pile installation are consistent with those assumed for final design and to verify pile capacities. If soil conditions are significantly different from those assumed, it will be appropriate for GeoEngineers to develop revised design criteria. A load test program is recommended as described above. The load tests should be completed to confirm design assumptions and to identify appropriate refusal criteria or re -strike criteria. Lowest Level Floor Slabs The lowest level of the planned hotel and garage will be supported near existing site grades. Given the potential for settlement resulting from long term consolidation and potential liquefaction, slabs supported on grade will likely experience damage over the design life of the structure and/or after a seismic event. Differential and total settlements below slabs on grade may result in cracking and may require maintenance and repair throughout the design life of the structure. To reduce damages, the owners may elect to support the lowest level of the hotel and garage with a structural slab. Subgrade Preparation The planned buildings will be fully pile supported; therefore, the required site preparation for the building areas consist of improving the subgrade conditions to allow for pile -driving equipment traffic and for casting of the slab on grade or structurally supported slab. Areas outside the garage/hotel building footprint (parking areas and hardscape areas) should be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious matter, including any debris, organic soils, shrubs, trees and associated stumps and roots. Page 10 : January31, 2014 GeoEngineers, Inc. FIe No. 21102.001.00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington In hardscape areas outside the building footprints, the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils should consist of structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) per ASTM D-1557. The existing fill soils can be used, provided the required compaction criteria is met and the existing fill soils have less than 40 percent passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve (fines) and do not contain organic material. The exposed hardscape subgrade should be evaluated after site grading is complete. Proof rolling with heavy, rubber -tired construction equipment should be used for this purpose during dry weather and if access for this equipment is practical. Probing should be used to_evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather or if access is not feasible for construction equipment. The exposed soil should be firm and unyielding, and without significant groundwater. Disturbed areas should be re -compacted if possible or removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. It is anticipated that the contractor will use the existing asphalt concrete parking lot for construction access. However, it may be necessary to utilize a granular work pad to facilitate construction activities, depending upon equipment loading, construction sequencing, weather conditions, soil conditions and/or the presence of perched groundwater at the subgrade elevation. The work pad will help prevent subgrade disturbance, facilitate construction traffic and aid in removal of rainwater and groundwater seepage. GeoEngineers can work with the contractors to identify whether a work pad is required based on conditions observed during construction, the thickness of the work pad and the work pad material gradation. Design Parameters We recommend that the structural slab be underlain by a 4-inch-thick capillary break consisting of material meeting the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (5/a-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, with the exception that this material should have less than 10 percent sand and less than 3 percent fines. We recommend that the slab on grade by underlain by a 6-inch thick capillary break consisting of material meeting the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (5/8-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, with the exception that this material should have less than 10 percent sand and less than 3 percent fines. Below -Slab Considerations The ground floor level is located well above the groundwater table and the ground floor level will be located at or above surrounding site grades. Given the low likelihood of groundwater collecting below the ground floor slabs, the presence of the capillary break layer, and the anticipated capacity for the existing fill soils to infiltrate water, no additional below slab drainage measures are considered to be required. A vapor barrier should be used below slab -on -grade floors located in occupied portions of the hotel. Earthwork The near surface on -site soils are anticipated to be highly variable and consist of silty sand and silt with variable sand and gravel. These soils are likely to be highly moisture -sensitive and generally have natural moisture contents higher than the anticipated optimum moisture content for compaction. Given the anticipated poor quality of near surface soils, the limited amount of fill GEOENGINEERg January31, 2014 Page 11 File No.21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington required to meet site grades, and specific gradation requirements for most of this fill, it is recommended that the on -site soils not be used as structural fill for this project. The on -site soils may be used in areas where structural slabs are present as backfill around pile caps and to bring the site to subgrade elevation. In areas where slabs -on -grade are present, imported structural fill should be used. Structural Fill Fill placed to support slabs -on -grade, placed as utility trench backfill, and placed below pavements arrd sidewalks will need to be specified as structural fill as described below: • Structural fill placed below pile caps and slabs -on -grade should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. • Structural fill places as capillary break below the lowest floor slabs should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (5/8-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, with the exception that this material should have less than 10 percent sand and less than 3 percent fines. ■ Structural fill placed within utility trenches and below pavement and sidewalk areas should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 17 (bank run gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. ■ Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements and sidewalks should meet the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 2 (11/4-inch minus crushed rock), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16. Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non -yielding condition. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 1 foot in thickness. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria: ■ Structural fill placed In building areas (around pile caps or below slab -on -grade floors) and in pavement and sidewalk areas (including utility trench backfill) should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. ■ Structural fill placed against subgrade walls should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent. Care should be taken when compacting fill against subsurface walls to avoid overcompaction and hence overstressing the walls. We recommend that GeoEngineers be present during probing of the exposed subgrade soils in building and pavement areas, and during placement of structural fill. We will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in -place moisture -density tests in the fill to verify compliance with the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to the procedures that may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. Page 12 January31, 2014 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT k. Tukwila, Washington Weather Considerations During wet weather, some of the exposed soils could become muddy and unstable. If so affected, we recommend that: • The ground surface in and around the work area should be sloped so that surface water is directed to a sump or discharge location. The ground surface should be graded such that areas of ponded water do not develop. ■ Slopes with exposed soils should be covered with plastic sheeting or similar means. • The site soils should not be left uncompacted and exposed to moisture. Sealing the surficial soils by rolling with a smooth -drum roller prior to periods of precipitation will reduce the extent to which these soils become wet or unstable. • Construction activities should be scheduled so that the length of time that soils are left exposed to moisture is reduced to the extent practicable. Temporary Slopes Temporary slopes may be used around the site to facilitate construction access and site grading. We recommend that temporary slopes constructed in the fill be inclined at 11/2H:1V (horizontal to vertical). Flatter slopes may be necessary if seepage is present on the face of the cut slopes or if localized sloughing occurs. For open cuts at the site, we recommend that: • No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allowed at the top of the cut slopes within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut; • Exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion by using waterproof tarps or plastic sheeting; ■ Construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is reduced to the extent practicable; • Erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to the extent practicable; ■ Surface water be diverted away from the slope; and • The general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by the geotechnical engineer to confirm adequate stability. Because the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. Shoring and temporary scopes must conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services GeoEngineers should be retained to review the protect plans and specifications when complete to confirm that our design recommendations have been implemented as intended. During construction, GeoEngineers should observe the installation of the piling, review/collect vibration monitoring data, evaluate the suitability of the foundation subgrades, observe installation of subsurface drainage measures, evaluate structural backfill and provide a summary letter of our GEOENGINEERSI; January31, 2014 I Page 13 File No.21102-001-00 WASHiNGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT °<Tukwila, Washington construction observation services. The purposes of GeoEngineers' construction phase services are to confirm that the subsurface conditions are consistent with those observed in the explorations and other reasons described in Appendix D, Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Great Wall Development, Group West Companies, PLLC, PSC Structural Solutions, and their authorized agents for the Washington Place development in Tukwila, Washington: ............................................................................................................................................ Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to Appendix D titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. REFERENCES ASCE 7-10, 2010. "Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures," American Society of Civil Engineers, January 1, 2010. Booth, D.B. and Waldron, H.H., 2004, Geologic map of the Des Moines 7.5' quadrangle, King County, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Map SIM-2855, scale 1:24,000. Buchanan -Banks, J.M. and Collins, D.S., 1994, Map showing depth to bedrock of the Tacoma and part of the Centralia 30' X 60' quadrangles, Washington: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2265, scale 1:100,000. City of Seattle, 2003, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." City of Seattle, 2003. "Seattle Building Code." COSMOS Virtual Data Center. URL:http://db.cosmos-eq.org/. Ensoft, Inc. 2006, "LPILE Plus, Version 5.0.47." GeoMotions, LLC. 2010, "D-MOD2000, Version 9.99.3 - October 2013." Page 14 January 31, 2014 ° GeoEngineers, Inc. Me No. 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington Hall, J.B. and Othberg, K.L., 1974, Thickness of unconsolidated sediments, Puget Lowland, Washington: Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Geologic Map GM-12, scale 1:250,000. International Code Council, 2012, "International Building Code." Ishihara, K., and M. Yoshimine, 1992. Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following liquefaction during earthquakes, Soils and Foundations 32(1), 173-188. Luco, N. (2012). Personal Communications. Matasovic, N. (1993) "Seismic Response of Composite Horizontally -Layered Soil Deposits," Ph.D. Dissertation, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of California, Los Angeles. Moss, R.E. 2003. 'CPT -Based Probabilistic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Initiation." Dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, University of California, Berkeley. NEHRP (2009). "Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures," FEMA P-750. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. Tokimatsu K., Seed H.B., 1987. "Evaluation of settlements in sands due to earthquake shaking," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1987, vol. 113, pp. 861-878. U.S. Geological Survey. (2009) "Earthquake Ground Motion Parameters, Version 5.0.9a-10/21/2009." GEOENGINEERLO January 31, 2014 Page 15 F2e No. 21102-001-00 1\2110200 Office: Redmond I Crysta Spn�tg5 Pars S 160ThSt I [ CresMeW Park m �'ckltat d I- Slade Way S 164Th St--P---_� I 1 co a02 S 166Th St �- - A. S 167Th S S 170Th St S 172Nd St --S 175Th St ■ --5-182Nd St— l� Tbursronl �a ' Se the l- Bellevue, Tacoma Gng --Strander Blvd Corporate Dr N —Triland Dr Segale-Park 'Dr Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005 Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 North arrow oriented to grid north 1,g!ack River_ Tukwila Saxon Dr Green R 182Nd-St- - 2,000 Black River Riparian Forst t I t I r // ` S. 3 / c 0 N 10"tl� ��. ,,:,, :: ThSt �a t ady,13i j —5ft 12 , tr�,SW•13fh sw 16Th St--- I i I '-SW 19Th St; aai 0 SW-7Th St — --SW-27Th St--- SW-30ThSt --SW(39Th St-- —SW 41St St 1 1 I I S1180rThtSt-- (SpringbrookGr e2 nbel?o I N N N 0 2,000 Feet Vicinity Map Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure 1 . DM* MOM 1 C.� Notes 1. The locations of at features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for Informatlan purposes. It Is Intended to assist In showing teatime discussed In an attached document. GsoEngireers. Inc. ca mot guarantee are accuracy and contend of electronic Mes. The n esbralN N stored by OsoEngtneera. Inc. and hit serva as are Mobil record of this oonsnunicallun. Reference: Bess survey by Banghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. dated B2685. Yaws at. 'MOM aar MOOT, rat --- .r aaaw aau.w Ii`L°B.L04.€i:.L coboP DMA NANO Legend B-1+ Boring by GeoEngineers CPT-1 A, Cone Penet ation Test by GeoErgineera MSC Ftwe VOW Ira WOK Lie' mom no cat?►ea E' a.. so o so FEET aucat eLw. Site Plan Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEER Figure 2 c 1 '1//////, ONOLGIRearaceie 20. MOUNT Notes 1. The locations of al features shown we approximate. 2. The dewing Is for infon adon purposes. It Is intended to assist in showing teatimes discussed In an slashed document GeaEnglrlows, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master Ile Is stored by GeoEngtwara, Inc. and wI1 serve as de official record of this communication. Referencs: Base drawing "Level 1 91r Plan of Washington Place by Group West Ccenpanles PLLC dated 1-2044. r 0 DATING aew10T0w 0e100W at17171 datatatal-a of.-17 at:tail:l0l7(114-441-11:1A.1 a afiato B-1 u C 0 C C 4-1 0 C a LI � i 01C101010101c1c0 l 144=14--4J.-1 aid 0 111LJ1L11I 1144 C C s • • Legend B-1+ Boring by GeoEnglneers CPT-1 6 Cone Penetration Test by GeoEngtreets CPT-1 ;gym la r ,.re 0 r 1• Ji-I-1- 50 0 CPT-1 50 FEET .. - i to Io I. c.4c4+4c 1C 7pJ L swamp fun Building Plan Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERSQ Figure 3 http://projectslsites/2110200100/Technical Analysis/Site Response/Surface Response Summary _DMOD2000 2475yrs.xlsx Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g) 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 0 0 Legend Recommended Site -Specific MCEr Response Spectrum 1 Period (s) 10 Site -Specific MCER Response Spectrum (5% Damped) Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEER Figure 4 N 4l N 00 O. Lateral Deflection (in) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 f f ti JL Fixed Head (0.5' deflection; Fixed Head (1.0' deflection; Fixed Head (1.5" deflection; Fixed Head (2.0' deflection; 18" Diameter Pile Lateral Deflection vs. Depth 18-Inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure 5 -30 -20 -10 0 n M N Shear Force (kips) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 J iiiiiiivrer— J r r r ti Fixed Head (0.5" deflection Fixed Head (1.0" deflection Fixed Head (1.5" deflection Fixed Head (2.0" deflection 18" Diameter Pile Shear Force vs. Depth 18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEER Figure 6 Bending Moment (in -kips) -1.1E4 -1E4 -9000 -8000 -7000 -6000 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 Fixed Head (0.5' deflection; Fixed Head (1.0' deflection) Fixed Head (1.5" deflection; Fixed Head (2.0" deflection; 18" Diameter Pilo 1000 2000 3000 Bending Moment vs. Depth 18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEER. Figure 7 Lateral Deflection (In) -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 . 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 • } } t L r r r r Free Head (0.5" deflection) Free Head (1.0" deflection) Free Head (1.5" deflection) Free Head (2.0" deflection) 18" Diameter Pile Lateral Deflection vs. Depth 18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS_.0 Figure 8 Slur Force (Yips) -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 I J N r T r J J Free Head (0.5° deflection) Free Head (1.0" deflection) Free Head (1.5' deflection) Free Head (2.0' deflection) 18" Diameter Pile Shear Force vs. Depth 18-Inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure 9 -1000 N M CO 01 -500 0 500 Bending Moment (in-k)pa) 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 1 r 1 f J--»�' J L 3 J a J t J J . L 1 } J J n r + r J L J L 1 r 1 r L • J L J Free Head (0.5" deflection) Free Head (1.0' deflection) Free Head (1.5' deflection) Free Head (2.0" deflection) 18" Diameter Pile Bending Moment vs. Depth 18-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERSI Figure 10 Lateral Deflection (in) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 r -r- r 1.4 1.6 1.8 1 I. L J Fixed Head (0.5 deflection' Fixed Head (1.0" deflection; Fixed Head (1.5" deflection; Fixed Head (2.0" deflection; 24" Diameter Pile Lateral Deflection vs. Depth 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure 11 0 Shear Force (kips) -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 -r -F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 I 1 I t 120 1. 4 r r L A J 140 160 J J 180 Fixed Head (0.5" deflection; Fixed Head (1.0" deflection; Fixed Head (1.5" deflection, Fixed Head (2.0" deflection; 24" Diameter Pile Shear Force vs. Depth 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERQ Figure 12 -1.6E4 n M vi 00 O O 0.1 Bending Moment (in -kips) -1.4E4 -1.2E4 -1E4 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 r J Fixed Head (0.5" deflection Fixed Head (1.0' deflection Fixed Head (1.5' deflection Fixed Head (2.0' deflection J- a l T } } 24.E Diameter Pile Bending Moment vs. Depth 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Fixed -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERQ Figure 13 -0.2 M Lateral Deflection (in) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 I I I 1 1 1 1' I 11 1 J I I! 1 r T L I. r L L L r L 24 Diameter Pile Free Head (0.5" deflection) Free Head (1.0" deflection) Free Head (1.5' deflection) Free Head (2.0" deflection) Lateral Deflection vs Depth 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERQ Figure 14 Shear Force (kips) -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 cv Kl 0 00 cv 40 50 60 70 80 90 r , F J i , I. s ♦ � -e J a J , i Free Head (0.5" deflection) Free Head (1.0" deflection) Free Head (1.5" deflection) Free Head (2.0" deflection) 24" Diameter Pile Shear Force vs. Depth 24-inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERI Figure 15 g -1000 a • gdfli 2 a 1000 Bending Moment (in -kips) 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 r - , L r r J J A Free Head (0.5" deflection) Free Head (1.0' deflection) Free Head (1.5" deflection) Free Head (2.0' deflection) 24" Diameter Pile Bending Moment vs. Depth 24-Inch Steel Pipe Pile, Free -Head Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure 16 GEOENGINEERS • • .••_ • • • APPENDIX A Field Explorations WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS General Subsurface conditions at the sites were explored by drilling two borings, B-1 and B-2, and by advancing three cone penetration tests (CPTs), CPT-1 through CPT-3. The borings were completed to a depth of 611/2 feet below the existing ground surface; the CPTs were advanced until the equipment ..met ..refusal ...i.n...dense ..soils. .....The ...CPT ...depths ..vaned ...from ...12.9...fo...153Yz...feet ...below .. the existing ground surface. The drilling was performed by Holocene Drilling, inc. and the CPT's were performed by inSitu Engineering, Inc. under subcontract to GeoEngineers on July 9 and 10, 2013. The locations of the explorations were measured from existing site features. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2 and the Foundation Plan, Figure 3. Borings The borings were completed using a Brainard Kilman BK-81 truck mounted drill rig with continuous flight, mud rotary drilling equipment. The borings were continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed groundwater conditions and prepared a detailed log of each exploration. The soils encountered in the borings were sampled at 21/2- or 5-foot vertical intervals with a 2-inch outside diameter split -barrel standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The samples were obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration was recorded. The blow count (°N-value") of the soil was calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. This resistance, or N-value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. Where very dense soil conditions precluded driving the full 18 inches, the penetration resistance for the partial penetration was entered on the logs. The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. Soils encountered in the borings were visually classified in general accordance with the classification system described in Figure A 1. A key to the boring log symbols is also presented in Figure A 1. The Togs of the borings are presented in Figures A-2 through A-4. The boring logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. The Togs also indicate the depths at which these soils or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. If the change occurred between samples, it was interpreted. The densities noted on the boring logs are based on the blow count data obtained in the borings and judgment based on the conditions encountered. Observations of groundwater conditions were made during drilling, and these observations represent a short-term condition and may or may not be representative of the long-term groundwater conditions at the site. GEOENGINEER Januar/31,2014 PageA-1 Fie No.21202-001-00 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% RETAINED V NO. .5..............SANDY GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE MAN 6D% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS o'- J 0 Cy.,...! n Gw WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES (LOTLEDR4°AHEM D O o 0 0 C O o o GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH FINES 4 Gm SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND - SILT MIXTURES (AFFIRMABLE MOUNT OF FINES) Or GC SSANo CYYMIXTUREESSVEL- SAND AND SOILS MORE FRACTION PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN SANDS •• • • • • •�•;•�•t �• sw WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS .(UTRE OR NOFR,ES)..: ,.':. , • •.. sP......._.............................._............................... POORLYd3RADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SAND SANDSwiTH FINES • : • •SM S�RSNDS,SAND -SILT (APPREGAatEAMOUNT OF MEM • /f•, (f sc CLAYEY SANDS. SAND - CLAY MIXTURES FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% PASSING2� SILTS AND CLAYS ML INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR. CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY i FSS THAN 192 / / CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLYL CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS OL SILTYCORGANIC LAYS SILTSOF LOANDW ORGANIC PLASTICITY SILTS CLAYS MH INORGANIC NODIATOMACEOUS NC SILTS SILTY SOILS LIOIAD LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 Z / CH INORGANIC PAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY i,,±OH of ac-oLAYsANDsILTsofGH m MEDIUM TO HIPLASTID Mitt PEAT HLS 4US SWAMP SOILS WITH'HIGH OIfGAMC CONTENTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications Sampler Symbol Descriptions 2.4-inch I.D. spilt barrel Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Shelby tube Piston Direct -Push Bulk or grab II II LI • 1J Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER AC Asphalt Concrete CC Cement Concrete v. S r+ CR Crushed Rock/ Quarry Spells TS TooiV Forrest Duff/Sod %F AL CA CP CS DS HA MC MD OC PM PI PP PPM SA TX UC VS NS SS MS HS NT Groundwater Contact Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic Log Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units Approximate location of soli strata change within a geologic soil unit Material Description Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units Approximate location of soli strata change within a geologic soli unit Laboratory 1 Field Tests Percent fines Atterberg limits Chemical analysis Laboratory compaction test Consolidation test Direct shear Hydrometer analysis Moisture content Moisture content and dry density Organic content Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Plasticity Index Pocket penetrometer Parts per million Sieve analysis Trlaxlal compression Unconfined compression Vane shear Sheen Classification No Visible Sheen Slight Sheen Moderate Sheen Heavy Sheen Not Tested NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GEOENGINEER� FIGURE A-1 a '§3 0 Sad Elk Driled 7 3 719/2013 Total61 5 Depth (ft) Logged By Checked By WLT Driller Holocene Drilling Inc. Dn''ng Mud Rotary Method Surface Elevation (ft) 30 Vertical Datum NAVD88 Hammer , Auto Hammer Data DriNng Truck Mounted BK 81 Equipment Easting (X) Northing (Y) System Datum Groundwater Depth to Water (fti Devotion (ft) Notes: Hammer efficiency = 54.4% Elevation (feet) FIELD DATA _ a E v itao •�+ o c ce co co 0 3 E. 3 0. o o0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION g3 1 cri REMARKS ♦ 8 14 1 5--I 14 18 =15!' 10 78 27 %F _` 15 18 2 2 _S:, zs--I 5 13 %F A AL 6 7 %F 30--I 14 17 8 35— Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of sym • AS SM 3inofies asphalt *Milled over crushed rook r base course Graywith brawn mottling silty fine to coarse sand - with occasional gravel (medium dense, moist) - (fill) ML — Gray with brown mottling fine sandy sift with occasional gravel (medium dense, moist) - (alluvium) SM , Gray silty fine to medium sand with occasional •.f: • _ gravel and wood debris (medium dense, moist) • • • • ML — Gray silt with fine sand (loose, wet) sM Dark gray fine to medium sand with silt (medium dense, wet) SP-SM - Dark gray fine to medium sand with silt and occasional ciasts of organic matter (medium . • dense to dense, wet) bols• 21 40 38 30 Approximately 2 Inch piece of wood in tip of sampler %F=47 Groundwater observed during drilling %F = 88 Shelby Tube pushed at 16.5 feet AL; non -plastic = 30 Log of Boring B-1 GEOENGINEERS.g Project Project Location: Project Number. Washington Place Tukwila, Washington 21102-001-00 Figure A-2 Sheet 1 of 2 9g 5 A 1 Elevation (feet) FIELD DATA s 's a o . cr m V F - 35 J 14 20 r -- o 40 12 36 a °%F 10 4A 14 40 50--I 12 34 55--I 13 24 60--I 14 30 11 13 14 Water Level 0 n 0 4 J a2 Q8 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ppx 91 REMARKS 21T %F=7 24 %F=T Note: See Figure A 1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring B-1 (continued) G EO E N G I N E E R S Project: Project Location: Project Number: Washington Place Tukwila, Washington 21102-001-00 Figure A-2 Sheet 2 of 2 Start €ad Drilled 7/9/2013 7/9/2013 Total DePth(ft) s1.s Logged By Checked By WLT ling Driler Holocene Drifting Inc. I MethodimMud Rotary s 5 Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 20 NAVD88 Hammer Data Auto Hammer Driling Equipment Truck Mounted BK 81 Fasting (X) Northing (Y) System Datum Notes: Hammer efficiency = 54.4% Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water (ftl Elevation (ftl Elevation (feet) o Depth (feet) FIELD DATA 2 a) 8 0 a 0 0 U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 1112 20 1 -.) 5 7025 �o h 15118 18 -A 10—I8.5 9 4!, 33 2 3 4 4 � %F 6 25--I12 22 8 30--I 14 35 - 35 — %F AS 3 indite§ asphait pavemeiit over &t thed.lock SM - \\ base cause Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel • - (medium dense, moist) (fill) • • ML - Gray fine sandy silt with occasional gravel (medium stiff to very stiff, moist) (fil) SP-SM - Light gray fine to medium sand with silt (medium - dense, moist) (alluvium) • • • SM Gray silty fine sand with occasional organics ••'.,, (roots) (loose, mast) ML - Gray silt with fine sand and occasional lasts of organic matter (loose, wet) SM Gray silty fine sand (loose, wet) • SP-SM Dark grayflne to medium sand with silt (medium dense to dense, wet) • Note: See Figure A 1 for explanation of symbols. 48 29 30 28 Driller noted gravel to 8 feet Driller noted concrete shavings at 7.5 feet Groundwater observed during drilling AL (PI =15); %F = 87 Shelby Tube pushed at 18.5 feet AL; non -plastic %F=17 %F=7 Log of Boring B-2 G EO E N G I N E E R S Project: Project Location: Project Number: Washington Place Tukwila, Washington 21102-001-00 ' Figure A-3 Sheet 1 of 2 FIELD DATA 8 A i 0 �O 35 13 23 a 1 0] Water Level MATERIAL DESCRIPTION at O REMARKS 40 J 10 13 4.51 18 24 5 10 11 SM Gray silty fine sand (medium dense, wet) 9 F " — ML Gray sandy silt interbedded with silly fine sand 37 (hose, wet) AL SP-SM _ Dark gray fine to medium sand with silt (dense, 40 14 • wet) 55 iy SM — Gray silty fine sand (medium dense, wet) 7 4 16 15 •� 32 16 Note: See Figure A 1 for explanation of symbols. SPSM Dark gray fine to medium sand with silt (dense, 35 %F=54 Shelby Tube pushed at 46.5 feet AL (PI = 4) Log of Boring B-2 (continued) G EO E N G I N E E R S i^ Project: Project Location: Project Number: Washington Place Tukwila, Washington 21102-001-00 Figure A-3 Sheet 2 of 2 GeoEngineers Figure A-4 Operator: Gerdes Sounding: CPT-1 Cone Used: DDG1238 Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Qt TSF Fs/Qt (%) 0 500 0 20 40 60 epth/80 \ft) 100 120 140 160 r T -1 — 1_ J - J__ CPT Date/Time: 7/9/2013 4:22:34 PM Location: Tukwila WA Job Number: 21102-001-00 Pore Pressure Soil Behavior Type` SPT N" Pw PSI Zone: UBC-1983 60% Hammer 12 -20 180 0 12 0 80 -f'� 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I --i I I I l I I LLJ I I I I _1_.-..�__-. I III - II , 1 I 1 I I 1 1 I 1, T T 1 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I__I 1 1 le--11 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 -1-�-1 1 _!_.._• _1 -r 1 1 T T11-I----' i I 14J 1 I -I___L 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I LLI_I_IJ.11 I 1 1 I 1111 1 1 I 1 I I 1 - In - _ _'11 - y III 11 1 III III II 'el III ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 III III III 1'I III III III -I-1 1 I I I 1 _1 I I 1 1 TTrr III III III III Ili III II' 1 1 I I 1 I 4._l_ 11 11 1 1 1 1 7T1rr 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 I 1 I I - I I I. 11 1 1 I I 11 II 11 II II II II II L 1 -1- 11 -1 1 4 --+-4--+-I- 1 1 I _ , , 1 I 1 I I 1 L J- I I' 1 I I I 1 I rT1-rT-`- - T 1-T_- I I I ..t- I I 1 I I .- I 1 I -I T 1 T IL I 1 1 a '1~ylr —, I 1 1 -- ' -+- I .-' —r 711 I I I —J_1_LJ_L__I_ Maximum Depth =128.77 feet Depth Increment = 0.164 feet ■ 1 sensitive fine grained 14 silty clay to clay ■ 7 silty sand to sandy silt • 10 gravelly sand to sand ■ 2 organic material NI 5 clayey silt to silty clay ■ 8 sand to silty sand ■ 11 very stiff fine grained (*) • 3 clay • 6 sandy silt to clayey silt • 9 sand • 12 sand to clayey sand (*) InSitu Engineering PreDri1121/2ft GeoEngineers Figure A-5 Tip Resistance QtTSF 0 0 20 40 60 ,epth 80 (ft) 100 120 140 160 Operator. Gerdes Sounding: CPT-2 Cone Used: DDG1238 CPT Date/Time: 7/9/2013 11:28:11 AM Location: Tukwila WA Job Number: 21102-001-00 Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Fs/Qt (%) Pw PSI 500 0 12 -20 Soil Behavior Type* Zone: UBC-1983 180 0 12 SPT N* 60% Hammer 0 80 ( I I I I I! I— i! I I ___-t-- I I -I 1- I ��� 1 1 _ I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I I I - I I I I 1 1 I I I I I �i--� 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1- 1 i 1 1 I I 1 1 1 T I I I 1 I I I I _- -----1 T 1 I- 1-i 1 1 I r-- I M -J 1 I 1 1 -1-1----r - I - JJ_1_-_. 1 - 111 1 1 1 1111 IIIII I I IIII _. - - - _ I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 it I 1 1 I I II I 1 I I - - 1111 r . - I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I Tr I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I 11 MI I 1 11 11 11 I I 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 _ . -I- _ i 1 I _ 1 I I J _1J_L1J- I I I 1 I -Ir --rr-- I I I 1 - I 1 I 1 I I -1-1 I I I 1 I 11 11 k - - • �.� I 1 1 I 1 1 _ 1 1 1 1 - I I -J___L- --I-Tr- I L I I I I .�_.! i I-4J. I I I L 1 -1 - 1 I I _ 1 I I 1 I 1 I - -1 -1----r-r-•r-1---- I 1 1 I 1 T++_ 1 1 I I 1 I 1 "I�i I� f'l I I �r- I I I 1 r-.� -1. 1 1____- . 1 1 J____L 1- .. I y� o1I _Li , 1 1 1111 1 11 1 1 -1 I 1 I I I I I 1111 1111 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 11 11 11 1 • 1 sensitive fine grained ■ 2 organic material • 3 clay InSltu Engineering Maximum Depth =153.38 feet • 4 silty day to clay • 5 clayey silt to silty clay • 6 sandy silt to clayey silt Depth Increment = 0.164 feet • 7 silty sand to sandy silt ■ 8 sand to silty sand • 9 sand PreDrill 2112 ft 10 gravelly sand to sand • 11 very stiff fine grained (*) • 12 sand to clayey sand (*) GeoEngineers Figure A-6 Tip Resistance Qt TSF 0 0 Operator: Gerdes Sounding: CPT 3b Cone Used: DDG1238 CPT Date/me: 7/9/2013 8:20:13 AM Location: Tukwila WA Job Number: 21102-001-00 Friction Ratio Pore Pressure Fs/Qt (%) Pw PSI 500 0 12 -20 1 1 I 20 40 60 epth 80 (ft) 100 120 4 4 - 4�. T 140 —1 1- 1 160 • 1 sensitive fine grained • 2 organic material ■ 3 clay InSitu Engineering r -1_ Maximum Depth =149.15 feet 4 silty clay to clay • 5 clayey silt to silty clay 6 sandy silt to clayey silt Soil Behavior Type* Zone: UBC-1983 180 0 12 I I 1 1 I 1 111 111 I I I11 111 I 1 1 1 1I 1 1 1 II II I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 111 III III III 1 III 111 I I I I 1 I I I III 111 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 111 1 I 1 1 I I -14+1- I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I 1 111 11 1 Depth Increment = 0.164 feet • 7 silty sand to sandy silt ■ 8 sand to silty sand • 9 sand Pre -pushed first 3.3 ft SPT N' 60°% Hammer 0 80 I I I I • 10 gravelly sand to sand • 11 very stiff fine grained (*) • 12 sand to clayey sand (*) APPENDIX B - • - ' Laboratory Testing • • 1 • (.073') WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT 01. Tukwila, Washington APPENDIX B PREVIOUS EXPLORATIONS Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to GeoEngineers' laboratory and evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples. We selected representative samples for laboratory testing including moisture content, fines content, sieve analysis, Atterberg limits, and consolidation tests. The tests were performed in general accordance with the test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (AST or of er app icable procedures. Moisture Content Moisture content tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained. Percent Passing U.S. No. 200 Sieve (%F) Selected samples were "washed" through the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve to estimate the relative percentages of coarse- and fine-grained particles in the soil. The percent passing value represents the percentage by weight of the sample finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. These tests were conducted to verify field descriptions and to estimate the fines content for analysis purposes. The tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1140, and the results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the respective sample depths. Atterberg Limits We completed Atterberg limits tests on three fine-grained soil samples. We used the test results to classify the soil as well as to evaluate index properties and consolidation characteristics. Liquid limits, plastic limits and plasticity index were obtained in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 4318. Results of the Atterberg limits tests are summarized in Figure B-1. Consolidation Tests We performed one one-dimensional consolidation tests on three samples of fine-grained soil in general accordance with the ASTM Test Method D 2435. The results of the test are used to evaluate the long-term consolidation settlement potential of fine grained soil deposits. The results of the tests completed for this study are included in Figures B-2 through B-4. GEOENGINEERQ January 31, 2014 I Page B-1 Fle No. 21102-001.00 SAS: SAS 7-19-13 21102-001-00 PLASTICITY CHART • • '•S 0 0 • • ••, V 02 O • 'jd- -I \\••.......\\ • CL-ML co co co N X3GNI AlI3LLStild 0 O O 0 O 0 00 ti co 0 0 O N O O LIQUID LIMIT SOIL DESCRIPTION J 2 a J - Silt with san Sandy silt U O 0 0— ' CI MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 4 to c� J ts EXPLORATION NUMBER N m m N SYMBOL u GEOENGINEERSi; ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-1 0 0.005 0.015 0 0.025 w 0 w 0 U 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.1 Pressure (psf 1000) 1 10 SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT INITIAL DRY DENSITY (LBS/FT3) B-1 S-5 16% Sandy silt (ML) 39.2 83.6 GEOENGINEERS CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-2 0 0.005 0.01 U a) t 0 v 0 0.015 co a 0 0 G 0 U 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.1 Pressure (psf`1000) 1 10 SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT INITIAL DRY DENSITY (LBS/FT3) B-2 S-6 16% Sandy silt (ML) 30.9 91.5 GEOENGINEERS; CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-3 Consolidation (inches/inch) 0.1 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 Pressure (psf 1000) 1 10 100 SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT INITIAL DRY DENSITY (LBS/FT3) B-2 S-13 46% Sandy silt (ML) 35.6 84.1 GEOENGINEERS CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE B-4 APPENDIX C Site Specific Response Analysis WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT + Tukwila, Washington APPENDIX C SITE SPECIFIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS General A site -specific seismic response analysis was completed for this project to evaluate the site effects and to develop the ground surface design response spectra for use in the design of the structure planned at the project site. The analysis was completed and the design response spectra were develope_din general-ccordance wlititlhe procedures outl nect in Chapter 21 of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 code. The following presents the general approach in completing the analysis and development of the ground surface design spectra: • Develop the target rock outcrop response spectrum for the maximum considered earthquake (MCE) with a 2 percent probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years (2,475-year mean return interval) risk level. in Select 7 pairs of representative earthquake time histories with earthquake characteristics (source zone, magnitude, etc.) that are consistent with the site regional tectonic setting and seismicity. • Scale the selected time histories so that the average of their response spectra is, on average, approximately at the level of the target rock outcrop response spectrum. • Develop a soil model using subsurface soil information obtained from the field explorations and testing completed at the project site. • Complete a nonlinear site response analysis by propagating the scaled time histories through the soil model developed to assess the amplification and damping effect of the site soils and to develop the response spectra at the ground surface (top of the soil profile). • Establish the site -specific risk -targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) spectrum using the results of the seismic response analysis per the ASCE 7-10 code. The MCER spectrum corresponds to a 1 percent probability of collapse within a 50-year period. Development of Target Rock Outcrop Response Spectrum We used the 2008 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Model to compute the target rock outcrop response spectrum for the MCE. The target rock outcrop response spectrum computed was then used to develop the scaling factors to be applied to the selected input motions used in our site -response analysis, as described below. Earthquake Time Histories Selection of Earthquake Time Histories We reviewed the results of the 2008 USGS seismic hazard deaggregation to evaluate the relative contribution of the various regional source zones to the seismic hazard at the project site and select seven pairs of representative earthquake acceleration time histories for the site -response analysis. The seven earthquakes presented in Table C-1 were selected to be representative of the seismic hazard for this project. Three of the selected records represent the crustal earthquake GEOENGINEERQ January31, 2014 1 Page C-1 Flle No.21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington hazard specifically the Seattle Fault events, two represents the Benioff (intraplate) earthquake hazard and two represents the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) interplate earthquake hazard. TABLE C-1. SUMMARY OF EARTHQUAKE TIME HISTORIES Northridge, 1994 6.7 Los Gatos Iran, 1978 7.4 Tabas Loma Preta,1989 7.0 Los Gatos El Salvador, 2001 7.6 Nisqually, 2001 6.8 Chile, 2010 8.8 Santiago de Maria Maple Valley Conception San Pedro Distance Unsealed PGA (km) (orientation) 0.84 (NS), 0.60 (EW) 0.84 (NS) 0.85 (EW) 0.97 (NS) 0.59 (EW) 0.72 (090) 0.88 (360) 0.08 (000) 0.10 (090) 0.65 (007) 0.60 (097) 0.28 (NS) 0.14 (EW) 52.2 75.2 36 Tokachl-Oki, 2003 8.3 HKD094 157 Scaling of Input Ground Motions NICE Scaling Factors 0.829 0.711 0.772 0.639 5.597 0.555 1.723 Crustal Crustal Crustal Subduction Zone, Intrapiate Subduction Zone, Intrapiate Subduction Zone, Interface Subduction Zone, Interface The selected input motion time histories were scaled prior to completing the site response analysis. Each selected time history was scaled so that its response spectrum is, on average, approximately at the level of the target rock site response spectrum. The scaling factors applied to each earthquake are shown in Table C-1. Figure C-1 shows the response spectra for each scaled input motion time history, the average response spectra of the scaled input motion time histories and the target response spectrum used as a guide for scaling the input motions. Soil Profile Based on field data from our subsurface explorations and previous experience in the area, we developed three soil profiles (lower -bound, best -estimate, and upper -bound) according to soil type and thickness, low -strain shear wave velocities and modulus degradation -damping characteristics. The explorations completed at the project area extend to an approximate maximum depth of 153 feet and were terminated in very dense alluvium. The depth to bedrock was determined using the depth to bedrock map of the Tacoma and part of the Centralia 30' x 60' quadrangles (Buchanan -Banks and Collins, 1994) and Thickness of Unconsolidated Sediments of the Puget Lowland (Hall and Othberg, 1974). Bedrock depths of 600-feet, 300-feet, and 200-feet were used for the lower -bound, best -estimate, and upper -bound soil profiles, respectively. An estimated bedrock shear wave velocity of 2,500 feet per second was used for the three profiles. The shear wave velocity profile of the explored soil was evaluated based on seismic cone penetration test (CPT) soundings and use of shear wave velocity correlations with static CPT data (NCHRP Synthesis 368) and standard penetration test (SPT) blow counts (NHI 2001). The shear Page C-2 January 31, 2014 GeoEngineers, Inc. Fle Na. 21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington wave velocity profile below the explored depth is assumed to increase linearly to bedrock. The Tower -bound, best -estimate, and upper -bound shear wave velocity profiles characterized for the site are shown in Figure C-2 with the measured and correlation shear wave velocity data. The discretized shear wave velocity profiles required as input for the nonlinear site response analyses are shown in Figure C-3. Site -Response Analysis and Computed Results Non -Linear Method The site -response analysis was completed using the computer program D-MOD2000 version 9.99.3 - October 2013 developed by GeoMotions, LLC. The D-MOD2000 program is used for nonlinear, one-dimensional seismic -response analysis completed in the time domain. Response spectra for 5 percent damping were computed for the site by propagating scaled input motions through the soil profile using D-MOD2000. Figure C-4 shows the average response spectrum calculated at the ground surface using the best -estimate and lower- and upper -bound shear wave velocity profiles. The amplification factor (AF), defined as the ratio of the ground surface spectral acceleration to the scaled input spectral acceleration, was calculated for each profile (Figure C-5). The AFs computed for the site were used to construct the site -specific design spectrum for the project, as described below. Site -Specific MCER Spectrum The site -specific soil spectrum for the project was evaluated by multiplying the average AF for the three soil profiles to the 2008 USGS rock spectrum. The 2008 USGS Rock Outcrop Spectrum, average AF, and site specific MCE response spectrum are shown in Figure C 6. We developed the site specific risk targeted MCER response spectrum by multiplying the site specific soil response spectrum by the maximum component adjustment factors and risk coefficients per ASCE 7-10 Section 21.2.1. The maximum component adjustment factors developed by NEHRP (2009) were used and are 1.1 for vibration periods less than 0.3 second, 1.3 for vibration periods from 1 to 2 seconds, and 1.4 for vibration periods at 4 seconds or longer. For the vibration periods between 0.3 and 1.0 second and between 2 and 4 seconds, the adjustment factors were computed based on linear interpolation. The risk coefficients were calculated using Method 2 per ASCE 7-10 Section 21.2.1.2 using a Matlab function provided by Nico Luco of USGS (personal communications) with the site specific seismic hazard curves computed using 2008 USGS probabilistic seismic hazard model for the site. Table C-2 presents the maximum component adjustment factors and the risk coefficients calculated for the site. GEOENGINEER_O January31, 2014 : Page C-3 File No.21102.001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington TABLE C-2. MAXIMUM COMPONENT ADJUSTMENT FACTORS AND RISK COEFFICIENTS Period (s) Maximum Component Adjustment Factor Risk Coefficients 0.01 1.10 0.916 0.1 1.10 0.924 0.2 1.10 0.924 0.3 1.10 0.922 0.5 1,16 0.912 0.75 1.22 0.904 1 1.30 0.901 2 1.30 0.889 3 1.35. 0.891 4 1.40 0.888 5 1.40 0.893 Figure C-7 presents the site specific risk targeted MCER response spectrum developed for the site and the recommended site specific risk targeted MCER response spectrum (smoothened response spectrum developed using the procedure outlined in ASCE 7-10 Section 21.4) for use in the structural design. Also shown on Figure C-7 is the ASCE 7-10 Site Class E generalized response spectrum and 80 percent of the ASCE 7-10 Site Class E generalized response spectrum for comparison purposes. As presented in Figure C-7, the site specific risk targeted MCER response spectrum meets the requirements specified in ASCE 7-10 Section 21.2.3 and 21.3. Page C-4 January31, 2014 GeoEngineers, Inc. File No. 21102-001-00 N • I 0 U l0 V) co Response/Rock Out Icai Analysis/Si tes/2110200100 aQ Response Spectra, Sa 10.00 1.00 0.10 0.01 0.010 ' I I ! 5% Damped — GOO 0.100 1989 Loma Arleta - Los Gatos AVE [C] 1994 Northridge -Sylmar Olive View Med FF EW AVE [C] 2001 Nisqually - Maple Valley AVE [IP] 1978 Iran-Tabas AVE [C] 2010 Chile - Conception San Pedro AVE [1F] 2003 Tokachl-Oil - HKDO94 AVE [IF] 2001 El Salvador -Santiago de Maria AVE DP] 2008 USGS Rock Outcrop. 2475-year Event — — AVE of All 7 EQ Time Histories 1.000 Period (s) Legend [C] Crustal Event [19 Interface Subductioon Zone Event [IP] lntraplate Subduction Zone Event (Bennloff) t 10.000 Response Spectra of Scaled Input Earthquake Time Histories, 2475-year Event Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERY Figure C-1 0 0 100 X a O. 200 d - 300 400 500 600 Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (feet/sec) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 . :• :,..,.W .a X'•,e■- MI aft • •• • Legend CPT-1 CPT-2 CPT-3 o B-1 O B-2 Seismic CPT • Lower Bound Vs Profile Best Estimate Vs Profile • Upper -Bound Vs Profile Shear Wave Velocity Profiles with Measured and Correlated Data Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEER Figure C-2 0 0 100 MOD Vs Profl O. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 300 a 0 400 500 600 Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (feet/sec) 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 ♦ ♦ ♦ .♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ I ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ ♦ Legend • Lower Bound Vs Profile Best Estimate Vs Profile — — — • Upper -Bound Vs Profile Dlscrettzed Lower -Bound Vs Profile Discretized Best -Estimate Vs Profile Discrefized Upper -Bound Vs Profile Discretized Shear Wave Velocity Profiles for Nonlinear Site Response Analyses Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERQ Figure C-3 http://projects/sites/2110200100/Technical Analysis/Site Response/Surface Response Summary DMOD2000 2475vrs.xlsx 10.00 ilikp Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g) 1.00 0.10 0.01 M_} A Poor 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 LeOend Average Spectral Acceleration. Upper Bound Profile Average Spectral Acceleratlon, Best Estimate Profile Average Spectral Acceleratlon, Lower Bound Profile Average Spectral Acceleration, 3 Profile Average Period (s) Computed Ground Surface Response Spectra (5% Damped) Washington Place Kent, Washington GEOENGINEER Figure C-4 http://projects/sites/2110200100/Technical Analysis/Site Response/Surface Response Summary_DMOD2000_2475yrs.xisx 3.00 2.50 45 yr n 2.00 0 iz u a5 0 N 1.50 vs E 1.00 a 0.50 0.00 0.01 Legend ---- -- 3 -- - • fill All° ---- --- ' 11 0.10 Average Amplification Factor, Upper Bound Profile Average Amplification Factor, Lower Bound Profile Average Amplification Factor, Best Estimate Profile Average Amplification Factor, 3 Profile Average 1.00 Period (s) 10.00 Computed Amplification Factors at Ground Surface Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure C 5 http://projects/sites/2110200100/Technical Analysis/Site Response/Surface Response Summary_DMOD2000 2475vrs.xlsx 10.00 1.00 to 0 cD a� 8 a c. 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 Legend, 2008 USGS Rock Outcrop Spectrum (2475-yr Event) Interpolated and Projected 2008 USGS Rock Outcrop Spectrum (2475-yr Event) SleSpedfic MCE Response Spectrum Period (s) Site -Specific MCE Response Spectrum (5% Damped) Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure C-6 0, >ri ti NI 0 0 0 N 0 2 0 E E N sis/Site Response/Surf Acceleration, Sa a>! a to 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 Legend 1 2 3 4 ASCE 7-10 MCEr Response Spectrum (Site Class E) 80% ASCE 7-10 MCEr Reponse Spectrum (Site Class E) Slte-Spedfic MCEr Response Spectrum Recommended Site -Specific MCEr Response Spectrum 5 Period (s) 6 7 8 9 10 Site -Specific MCER Response Spectrum (5% Damped) Washington Place Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERQ Figure C-7 • • APPENDIX D Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use • .t WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington APPENDIX D REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Geotechnical Services Are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Great Wall Development and other project team members for the Washington Place project. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with whom there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project -specific Factors This report has been prepared for the buildings planned for the Washington Place project in Tukwila, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: a not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or ■ completed before important project changes were made. i Developed based on material provided by ASFET Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org . GEOENGINEERSg January 31, 2014 ' Page D-1 File No.21102-001-00 WASH ill 6TO PLACEDEvaO?: Errr Tukwila, Washiagton For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: u the function of the proposed structure; in elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; n composition of the design team; or u project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity-to-review-our--interpretations-and-recommendations end -provide -written -modifications — or confirmation, as appropriate. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings Are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced . sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Geotechnicai Engineering Report Recommendations Are Not Final Do not over -rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional Judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those Indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. Page 0-2 January 3i, 2014 GeoEnginaers, In . FIeNo. 21102 ..)1-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT A Tukwila, Washington A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre -bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do Not--Redraw-the-Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing Togs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre -bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. Contractors Are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on -site personnel and to adjacent properties. Read These Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. GEOENGINEERV; January 31, 2014 I Page D-3 Rle No.21102-001-00 WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT Tukwila, Washington Geotechnical, Geologic and Environmental Reports Should Not Be interchanged. The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. Biological Pollutants .................... ............. . GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. Page D-4 January 31, 2014 GeoEngineers, Inc. Flle No. 21102-001-00 Have we de iive ed,Warld Class Client Service? Please let us know by visiting www. geaengineers co EXHIBIT K ESC CALCULATIONS AND PLANS Size the Sediment Pond and Appurtenances Pond Surface Area Require, S.A. = (2,080)(02) = (2,080)(1.53) = 3,182 SF S.A. Provided = 5,170 SF so OK Size the Principal Spillway Q10 = 2.09 cfs, Let H = 1 foot An 18-inch-diameter riser is more than sufficient Size the Emergency Overflow Spillway L = [Q1oo/(3.21)(H)1.5] - 2.4H, Let H = 0.5 feet L = [(3.88)/(3.21)(0.5)1'5] - 2.4(0.5) = 2.2 feet Use 6-foot-wide minimum Size the Dewatering Orifice Ao =(S.A.)(2h)0.5/(0.6)(3,600)(T)(g)°5 Ao =(3,182)(5)0'S/(0.6)(3,600)(24)(32.2)°.5 = 0.0242 SF Orifice Diameter = 13.54(A0)0 5 = 13.54(0.0242)°.5 = 2.11 inches Use 2-1/8-inch diameter 16883.001.doc KCRTS Command CREATE a new Time Series Production of Runoff Project Location : Sea-Tac Computing Series : 16883dev15min.tsf Regional Scale Factor : 1.00 Data Type : Reduced Cre ti1ig 15=Mtnute-Time ries File 600,41; "'too 1b8' oewttorr4 c,one(tikp Flab,/ 4.41 0,,Vtivei Time Series Loading Time Series File:C:\KC SWDM\KC DATA\STTG15R.srf . Flow Path: Length 20.00 ft 0 Slope 0.020000 Till Grass 0.17 acres Time of Concentration (32.841) exceeds maximum (10.) for EI Loading Time Series File:C:\KC SWDM\KC DATA\STEI15R.rnf ; Flow Path: Length 815.00 ft 0 Slope 0.002500 Impervious 3.22 acres Total Area : 3.39 acres Peak Discharge: 3.88 CFS at 6:30 on Jan 9 in Year 8 Storing Time Series File:16883dev15min.tsf Time Series Computed KCRTS Command Enter the Analysis TOOLS Module Analysis Tools Command Compute PEAKS and Flow Frequencies Loading Stage/Discharge curve:16883dev15min.tsf Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16883dev15min.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac Frequencies & Peaks saved to File:16883dev15min.pks Analysis Tools Command RETURN to Previous Menu KCRTS Command eXit KCRTS Program Flow Frequency Analysis Time Series File:16883dev15min.tsf Project Location:Sea-Tac ---Annual Peak Flow Rates --- Flow Rate Rank Time of Peak (CFS) 1.53 1.07 2.95 1.23 1.64 1.73 2.09 3.88 Computed Peaks 6 8/27/01 18:00 8 9/17/02 17:45 2 12/08/02 17:15 7 8/23/04 14c30 5 10/28/04 16:00 4 10/27/05 10:45 3 10/25/06 22:45 1 1/09/08 6:30 Flow Frequency Analysis Peaks - - Rank (CFS) 3.88 2.95 2.09 1.73 1.64 1.53 1.23 1.07 3.57 Return Prob Period 1 100.00 0.990 2 25.00 0.960 3 10.00 0.900 4 5.00 0.800 5 3.00 0.667 6 2.00 0.500 7 1.30 0.231 8 1.10 0.091 50.00 0.980 5.3.4 CONTROL STRUCTURES — METHODS OF ANALYSIS Riser Overflow The nomograph in Figure 5.3.4.H may be used to determine the head (in feet) above a riser of given diameter and for a given flow (usually the 100-year peak flow for developed conditions). FIGURE 5.3.4.H RISER INFLOW CURVES g. v 3 0 v a 100 10 1 01 1 / 72 54 '48 42 36 33 30 I </, 27 24 21 18 15 12. 10 HEAD IN FEET (measured from crest of riser) QWei,=9.739 DH 3/2 Q, Ce=3.782 D2H1n Q In cfs, D and H In feet Slope change occurs at weir -orifice transition 10 2009 Surface Water Design Manual 1/9/2009 5-47 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 0 20 40 80 HORIZONTAL DATUM - BASIS OF BEARINGS (NAD 83/91) THE HORIZONTAL DATUM FOR THIS PROJECT IS SOUTH 5721'32' EAST. AS MEASURED BETWEEN WSDOT MONUMENTS DESIGNATED AS 1517174'MM '25015'. VERTICAL DATUM - BASIS OF ELEVATIONS (NAVD 88) THE VERTICAL DATUM FOR THIS SURVEY 1S PER WSDOT MONUMENT DESIGNATED AS 1S17174', BEING A FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT IN CASE WITH A 5/8' BRASS PLUG & PUNCH, DOWN 1.20 FT. IN THE CENIERUNE OF TUKWILA PARKWAY ELEV.-25.896 US FEET PROCEDURE / NARRATIVE A FIELD TRAVERSE USING A "TOPCON OS' TOTAL STATION. YOPCON GR5' AND "D5 RANGER' DATA COLLECTOR SUPPLEMENTED WITH CAPS AND FIELD NOTES WAS PERFORMED, ESTABUSHING THE ANGULAR, DISTANCE. BETWEEN THE MONUMENTS. PROPERTY LANES, AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS SHOWN HEREON. THE RESULTING DATA MEETS OR OR EXCEEDS THE STANDARDS FOR LAND BOUNDARY SURVEYS AS SET FORTH IN WAG 332-130-090. DATES OF SURVEYS: FIELD SURVEY BY BARGHIAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. CONDUCTED IN JANUARY 2014. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS FOUND WERE VISITED AT THAT TIME TAX ACCOUNT NUMBERS: A.P.N. 022310-0090-00 CALCULATED AREA: 148,231* 50. FT. (3.402* ACRES) PROPERTY ADDRESS: 223 ANDOVER PARK EAST, TU5VALA, WA 98188 FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION: DESIGNATION OF THE FL000 ZONE IS SCALED PER FEW FIRM MAP NUMBER 53033C0978F, PANEL. 978 OF 1725 REVISED MAY 16, 1995 AND DOWNLOADED FROM FEW MAP SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE (http://mee.fema.gov) ON JANUARY 9, 2014: 1. ZONE X FLOODPLAIN AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 500-YEAR PARKING: 159 REGULAR STALLS 4 BARRIER FREE STALLS 163 TOTAL PARKING STALLS SURVEYORS NOTES: 1. R.O.S., BK. 44, PG. 26, REC. N0. 8503209003 SHOWS A 15' WIDE INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT PER AT. N0. 7210190143 WHICH IS NOT CONTAINED IN THE SUPPLIED 'RILE COMMITMENT AND IS NOT DEPICTED HEREON. 2. UNDERGROUND IJ0LRIES AND FEATURES DEPICTED HEREON ARE BASED ON FIELD OBSERVATION, MARKINGS, DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND/OR AVARABLE RECORD DOCUMENTS ONLY. THE TRUE LOCATION, NATURE AND/OR EXISTENCE OF BELOW GROUND FEATURES, DETECTED OR UNDETECTED, SHOULD BE VERIFIED. 3. ALL DISTANCES ARE IN US FEET 4. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF CURRENT EARTH MOVING WORK, BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING ADDITIONS AT THE TIME OF THE FIELD SURVEY. 5. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF SITE USE AS A SOLID WASTE DUMP, SUMP OR SANITARY LANDFILL AT THE TIME OF THE FIELD SURVEY. REFERENCE SURVEYS: 1. R.O.S., BK. 44, PG. 26, REC. NO. 8503209003 COVER SHEET FOR WASHINGTON PLACE PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SEC. 26, TWP. 23 NORTH, RGE. 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON N08'25'PA I I 1 I! I 11 1 1 1 1 IIIIIIIII - !, I i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 1y-Y--t7 1111 1 it I 1' 1 1_111-'�_J 1 Ji. 1-11 r7--1 1 ITT I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 I It I M • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LL 111111.1 TTl'T 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I PROPOSED GARAGE (- FLOOR ELEVATION VARIES 1 1 1 1 1 11 I t I I 1 I I I (qq 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,'N •I • PROPOSED BULDNQ PF-28.5 - t9AJ8N::A5.431- PROPOSED BULDWQ Fr-29.5 1 L • • S CO 1 8* W101 RIO MAP T8 > LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A: THAT PORTION OF TRACT 9, ANDOVER INDUSTRIAL PARK NUMBER 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 71 OF PUTS, PAGES 68 AND 69, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOUDWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SND TRACT 9; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY. ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 573.69 FEET, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 8637'32" EAST, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 15.07 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER 05 A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO JOSLYN MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 5580797 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 5825'27' EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID PARCEL, 208.90 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 5790710; THENCE SOUTH 8825'14' EAST, ALONG THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID PARCEL, 140.09 FEET, MORE OR LESS. TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., BY DEED RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 6514048; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 8825'27' EAST 224.93 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL AND A POINT ON THE EAST UNE OF SVD TRACT 9; THENCE ALONG THE PERIMETER OF SAID TRACT 9 AS FOLLOWS: SOUTH 01'05'08' WEST 273.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88'25'27' WEST 505.43 FEET; THENCE NORTH 14'39'30' WEST 184.47 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE TO THE RIGHT LAVING A RADIUS OF 573.69 FEET, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 97.91 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 8: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AS ESTABUSHED BY INSTRUMENTS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBERS 9205291516 AND 9404221926. INDEX TO SI-EETSI El OF 4 E2 OF 4 E30F4 E40F4 COVER SHIFT DEMOLITION PLAN TBIPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN NOTES AND DETALS Ui1LJTY CONFLICT NOTE CAUTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFIDO THE LOCATION,DikestoN, AND DEPTH OF AL OCISTND URRIFS W4E6SHOWN ON THESE PLANS DR NOT POTN0LtNG THE UDLLIES 3. SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSIRUCOON. THIS SHML INCLUDE CLING TRIM1 LOCATE 0 1-800-9.111 C55 MO THEN PORIOINC ALL OF THE COSTING UNADES AT LOCATIONS OF NOVOMUTT CROSSINGS TO PHY9CALLY VERIFY WHETHER AS SHOW ON THESE PLAT ARE ORNOT THE UNVERIFIECONFUCIS D PUS IACDRWms OUTIO 1 AND UTILITIES TO v 1108. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT BARMIAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. TO RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING PERMITS FROM THE WASHMGRON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES FOR MINN AND REPLACING ALL SURVEY MONUMENTATION THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTMIY. PURSUANT 70 WAG 332-120. APPUCATIOtS MUST BE COMPLETED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. APPUCAlON5 FOR PEWITS TO REMOVE MONUMENTS MAY BE OBTADLED FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DR BY CONTAOIIIG THEIR OFFICE BY TELEPHONE AT (208) 902-1190. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PUBLIC LAND SURVEY OFFICE 1111 WASHINGTON 51HHtl S.E P.O. BOX 47060 OLYMPW WASHINGTON 98504-7060 UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALL MONUMENTS DISPLACED, R5AWED. OR COST AND AT DIRECTION E TO THESBE REPLACED BY A REGISTERED LANDE RECUARVEYOR,AITIONS THE APPROPRIATE FORMS FOR REPLACEMENT OF SAD MONUMENTA11ON SHALL ALSO BE THE RESPONSISUIY OF THE CONTRACTOR. N0. Date BY Clad. A Revision Dosion•d Drown Urn' Checked Approved a6 �• 2/14 /4 Horizontal Vertical N/A 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For WASHINGTON PLACE HOTEL/APARTMENTS 223 ANDOVER PARK EAST TUKWILA, WA Tito COVER SHEET WASHINGTON PLACE Job Number 16883 Sheet E1 w 4 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 DEMOLITION PLAN PER 525644 BY REC. 48 AND WENDED O. No. 27' WIDE EASEMENT TO C.M. ST. P. & P. AND U.P. RAILROADS PER PUT 12' EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO SUBJECT PROPERTY REC. NO. 9205291516 1'-20' O 10 20 40 I T/L 022320-0085 E10500NG BUILDING LINE • . v.'• n.5W'.P� _- __. _ AF8N.l4 CMQL MR - ENT I . ».- 9 .�.' 1578 , sa zew .2909 LIGHT STANDARD N88'25'2814 208.89' AREA 0 PN64610 EASEMENT PEA 941229146E (4 SPACES)• aces Date BY EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO ADJOINER REC. NO920529105291518 APP808988TE LOCATION AREA b' EASEMENT (CROSS HATCHED) FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS GRANTED BY REC. N0. 9412291488 AND 9404221926 opO0.12,31 Ckd. ARP'. RIM-27.44 12" ADS S-24.38 8" ADS W-24.55 CB-K 0 GSKTRUDED FIRE HYDRANT `WATER VALVE 1s Revision 24.22 65.0' cosNECTION 10 COMPACTOR BUI POWER METER 0 TOP OF ROOF WALL HEIGHT.262'3 TOP OF ROOF HEART.2 BOWEN ARROWS NO PAWONC FIRE -"LANE. 72 FOR WASHINGTON PLACE PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SEC. 26, TWP. 23 NORTH, RGE. 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON -15' BUILDING SETBACK PER REC. N0. 5256443 AS AMENDED BY REC. N0. 5332848 AS AMENDED BY REC. NO. 5500900. (REC. N0. 9406061388 TERMINATED CONDITIONS PER ABOVE DOCUMENTS) sui FENCE • SPECIAL NOTE 1200 1 0123 ��W 1� � Cl^- N CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH UTILITY COMPANIES TO CAP ALL EXISTING UTILITIES AT R.O.W. LINE TO BE USED FOR PROPOSED NEW BUILDING. easnN0 BUILDING ONE STORY 40,500* eq.A. 0 DEMOLl11ON KEYNOTES 0 EX. BUILDING 70 BE DEMOL45HED. 0 EX. CURB/LANDSCAPE ISLAND TO BE REMOVED. 0 EX. DRNEWAY TO BE REMOVED. 0 08 LOT UGHT TO BE REMOVED. O EX. CONCRETE/SIDEWAU( TO BE REMOVED. 0 EX. STORM DRAM CATCH BASM/PIPE TO BE REMOVED. 0 EX. WATER FIXTURE/PIPE TO BE REMOVED. © EX. GAS FIXTURE/PIPE TO BE REMOVED. 0 EX. STORM VAULT/PIPE TO BE REMOVED. 0 EX. TELEPHONE FIRURE/PIPE TO BE REMOVED. 0 EC ASPHALT TO BE REMOVED. 0 Ex SIGN TO BE REMOVED. 191.0' WATER VALVE O NO PARKMG sax SD �r-��-- SO FIRE_HYDRANT \ A © >� t0� - W• NO PARKING, Ft - W-/'OORIAEB' CJUR� _ _ 1V 2934 O8 CAS METER cs®VJBINIIts c"- EXISTING BUILDING - - 14 140.09' bg nr ' 54. ri FF ELEV-30.17�.• .I TOP OF ENTRANCE FAME HE1CHT• 462'* MIME S OMALI( 15' BUILDING SETBACK PER REC. N0. 5256443 AS AMENDED BY REC. NO. 5332848 AS AMENDED BY REC. N0. 5500900. -AS- Dram MDT chmka Approwl Scab: Horizontal Vertical N/A 0010 (AWwTtG) OVERHANG I _ � e i v I . f\ - CHAIN UNK FENCE 0 IDES0 PROPERTY LIMITS AT THIS POINT 0 9: II AID F0519. >w UGH i STANDARD 0 ii-VO O/VER VALVE TOP OF ROOF WALL HEIGLR-262't aof 'v { O EXISTING BUILDING F10E GOYY" WATER VALVi RAO ....31R-r.-eti- -10' EASEMENT PER NOTE REC. N0. 5256443, FENCE TO 0.4' 1851DE 666. NCO. 5332848 TrBY �6lp e+�" 0.1' OF PROPERTY UNITS REC. FURTHER AMENDED BY BR.K REC. N0. 550,3900. CHM UNKFENCE s x 10 spaces 8 spaces 9 spaces 8 spaces 9 spoces 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX 7 spaces YARD DRAW so ��2NO',• 0�z1¢5t10�_,,.1N 6 CML ENGINEERING, LAND PUNNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For CB-B, TYPE 2 RIM-27.41 8' CONC. W.2 .81 12" CONC. W.20.88 12- ADS S.21.81 12" ADS E-20. 6 f 24272 60 CB -A RIM-27.26 8' CONC. E-24.83 • 8 spaces 8 spaces 8 spaces 9 spaces tlff HYDROSEED AREA� L10' EASEMENT PER REC. N0. 5256443, AMENDED BY REC. N0. 5332846 AND FURTHER AMENDED BY REC. N0. 5500900. 10 spoces SUI WASHINGTON PLACE HOTEL/APARTMENTS 223 ANDOVER PARK EAST TUKWILA, WA 3-LINES POWER VAU T TRANSFORMER SSMH-C RIM-27.45 6" PVC NW-22.75 6' PVC S.22.85 24.2 UGHQ80X n 79 588'54'47*E 30.00' 4 CB-C TYPE 2 RIM-27.76 12" ADS N.21.1 12" ADS W.21: 10' U11U IE5 EASEMENT PER PUT SSMH-B RIM-28.35 8" PVC W-16.38 8' PVC S-16.40 Y BE PLUGGED) 8' PVC N-16.17 8' PVC E-16.45 ATER VALVE -W- - 30' SIGNAL BOX . POWER VAULTS .22.07 2,14 DEMOLITION PLAN WASHINGTON PLACE EX. 10" WATER 1 1 0 .6 Job Number 16883 Sheet E2 o4 CALL BEFORE YOU DIG: 1-800-424-5555 CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND DETAILS No, Date GENERAL 1. Locations shown for existing utilities are approximate. 2. At least 48 hours before starting ptaje ,t site work, notify the Utriiii:.;; Inspector at 206-433-0179. 3- Request a Pubic Works utlity inspeclion at least 24 hours in advance by calling 206-433-0179. 4. The Contractor assumessde responsibility for worker safety, and damage to structures and improvements resultingfrom construction operations. 5. The Contractor shall have the permits) and conditions, the approved plans. and a current copy of Cdy of Tukwila Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards available at the job site. 6, All work shall conforrnn to these approved drawings- Any changes Gorr: the approved plans require pre -approval from the owner, the engineer, and the City of Tukwila. 7, Al methods and materials shall meet City ci Guidelines and C e.sign end Ccrairuc hors Siordo,t. unless olheenar, approved by the Public Works Director. 8. Contractor shot mol:hi do u current set o; ecr,;d dro„-toy, on-s,10( 9. Contractor shall provide record druvv!ngs prior lc project fr.4I opp:c':•ai. 10.Provide hnlsic ccn1r01 cad sireet maintenance o'•:so for Public Mn>ILi: approval berore irrpiernanrution. 11.Ali su:"cying public facilities -,,all be dare tic el- sircfruction of a Washington licensed Iona sun „'el-. Vet tc et Upturn shelf be !VAT, ; 9UH. Ho-izolrol acdum shall be Woshingion:tale (7 iel Coorrainetes, l•rorih Zara, using 1':AD' 63;9) Survey Control and ii50 to any hse City o! iuia •lu Horitrat dal COnhal MonuT!enls. F or ninec1;-,•5yhin 3iicrd control Lone, the Pam -thief, shall provir5i ccnverion caicuici;D:% is 0G01) ! 929. 12. Replace or relocate al sgns damaged or removee siu _ is censimc a(, 13,Retain, replace or restore existing vegetation In rights-01-:,:s- easem r:is. and Access Tracts. CONSTRUCTION 1. Ali walk: performed shall be peropproved plans and speciflcafiens onry. The Permit tee is required to maintain o set of approved plans. .p .,iticottor,s, and assncialed permits on the job Site. Work shall be performed in actor dunce with of federal. stare. anal local I0.vs. Permit lee shah apply fora Re.vison for any work not occordine io the opproved plans. 2. Permittee/Conrrocior shall al ange a preconstruction conference with the City's Inspectors) prior to aaginning any work. 3. Work in Roadways a. Al work In roadways shalt meet TMC 1 1 and the following: b. Prior to any activity in City right-of-way, the Pemtittee.shol provide the City a traffic control plan for review and opprovoL The ha ic control plan steal include the l0cetion, address and description of traffic Plow during the work and seal: meet MUTCD requirements. c. All work requiring tune closures must be by permit only. Frain the Chita Thursday in November to the foltowing January 2na, the Director does nor allow lone closures In the Tukwila Urban Cent _A. d.. Fire, pede:Irion. and wen cu!or access to buildings ;hail be maintained at al times, except `^iten Permit tee hos permission from the building owner and the Director 10 close on access. e. All roadways shall be kepi free of dirt and debris using street sweepers. Use of water trucks for cleaning roadways requoes preopproval from the Director. f. Instal steel plates over any trench, or any time ....fork is stopped and the trench is left open. B1' Ckd. Apr• E SLOPE CHECK DAA1 SPACING 5% - 102, > 10X top so 3' 3' SWALE ROWIJNE ROCK CHECK DAM 0.5' MIN. KEY ROCK INTO SWALE 0.25' (MIN.) VOLE X-8ECTION AT ROCK CHECK DAM 1.0' MIN. ROW GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. The erosion prevention 0:;o r:ec"a her, axnwl teSt.T4 nv>n;um.• ::n rho approved plans ore n:'nirVLn r-r. � rentr.: as. 2. Before Fe,r,;n;nya:,y cnnslrucilc:; inslall.:.�,;stu_iian en!rc:�ce. a,�-!i; ;::,h erosion=:•rnl:rr aria sediment CG nM :Tit 3. Ref.,: any c,ovrc olfilufe at too cccuit nil co•-:ruie0m erosion prevention c:nd ,r',anr conlrcl me:Kurer, (l'SC( n„<i be constructed ancl:n aper.Lv'SC n. �•c::v, 41 on:c,d'ng W the ESC. oLn. 4. ESC measures, including aI perinot r ca',trols, shall remain in place until final site construction is complei:ti one pennon:era 1Obr!: a,lon;s estobrshed. 5. From May 1 through September 30, provide te;rr o0raiy Orel D :rnlOno cover measures to protect disturbed arecs ri,_;; :;i!! te1,110 vnworl.ed 1cl days or moare, 6. Frosevenm October 1 ltouyh April 30, provide temporary and permoneni cover measures to protect disturbed cress that will r,- n';0i:1 ur o01l.ed ter Ave days or more. In addition to rover mc0svr._ in.., Con:roc Or shah: a. Protect stockpiles and steep cut and Olt slo,,cs it ua.vrrke0 farm are. than 12 hours. b. Stockpile, on silo. ereueh estn el- : n0t0L015 to -05041 all d!storeed areas. c. By October 8. seed all orecs ;not 1,111 remain u^,worked during the wet season (October 1 Ihuuy:t Apr! 7p). Much a',: seeded anus. 7, Failure to maintain LSC :real res An ecrardonce -illh ii10 0pproeed rnak,tenpnce scheck,:e racy ressu!' in Me w,ir being4 performed at the direction of fire Dr: khr and asset ie o as o Ten aaairrl the progeny where Sc.ch I oil z:: Orr; vcaieu. 8. Ounng the lie :.I Inc prrjeci, 11, 9onniti:;e shalt rricintain i;; good condition and promptly reps a, rna0re, or: c pl005 ail mane Surtace>; walls, dro,nr, dams, sirtrrurs, veneie;ior:, ere ion end sediment coeirct measures. one alk,er ;-noieciiue d'5vlcs.!c nC30foonce ,vita apereveo pigs. 9, The Permittee shc':l 1,,0n:rn0 the downstream drainage features, and shoe, wi;t, the 3irecicr's ep;xcv0!. rem(•: e 011 sad:menf deposition resulting irons project -related work. 10. Ail work per rerf 413 shali be per appros ed plans and spec:ifcoiiom only. The Pennlnce I, requited rot rrainfOin 0 Yet of epptrved pions and spe0itiCaii0n5 and chloci010d r'.errlrii'- o11 the jab site. Work silo) b,: pedcrmed in ci:covicnce with ail federal, stoic, and focal i[Yns. 11. As Inc iitsi (Adel- of business. the Permit tee- shall install erosion prevention and sedtrnent c0nit al meesu1es co: the ESC and shall in51a0 the downstream !emperor', ESC measures before ony site. disturbance occurs. Berate Ilse temp:Tory measures ore removed. instal and establish the upsteorn permanent ESC rneasures. 12. The Porrnillee shall al al, limes protect sensitive areas. !their butlers, and adjacent private properties and public rights -of -way or easements from damage during grading operohans. The Permitter, shalt resloTe. re1-1e standards in effect or the lime of the issuance of the pe,rrV1. sensitive areas, their butters. and public and private properties and improvements damaged by the Pernsiltee's apekations. 13. Perrnittee shall anar,gc ler and cornpl5 with like following: a. Notify the Public Works Department with;ir, 4n hours t0lo.,ing rnstallotion Oi ESC measures. b. Obtain permission in witirg fro:n the Public Work; Department prior to mo8Tyirg the ESC pion. 3. Maintain all road dra,noge systems, storm wale, drainage systems. control mecsul es and other loci:dies as identified in the ESC pion:. d. Repair any siltation or erosion damages I( adj0ininy properties and drainage facilities. e. Inspect according 10 Iris approved ESC inspection schedule and make needed repair, imrneciiolery, KEY ROCK INTO SWALE MIN. 0,25' ROCK CHECK DAM DETAILS NOT TO SCALE Revision SUMP BEHIND ROCK CHECK DM SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY, AND CLEANED WHEN COLLECTED DEBRIS EXCEEDS 1/2 OF TS DEPTH NOTE: ROCK SHALL BE 4' MINUS QUARRY ROCK. (WNW AS_ Gem TAM awFd Aeor,we DKB- D,M 2/14 14 Scale: fiorizootol N/A Vertical N/A FOR WASHINGTON PLACE PORTION OF THE NE1/4 OF THE NE1/4 OF SEC. 26, TWP. 23 NORTH, RGE. 4 EAST, W.M. CITY OF TUKWILA, KING COUNTY WASHINGTON 3, 6' MIN FLOW DEPTH-0.2' MAX TOP OF POND EL - TOP OF ROCK EL= BOTTOM OF ROCK EL= 6' MIN. DEPTH, 2'-6' DLL QUARRY SPACES OVERFLOW SPILLWAY DETAIL NOT TO SCALE POLYETHYLENE CM PERFORATED POLYETHYLENE DRAINAGE TUBING, 12' DIA TUBING SHALL COMPLY WITH ASTM 5667 & ASHTO M294 WATERTIGHT COUPLING 1, SEDIMENT FROM THE POND WHEN T REACHES 1 FOOT IN DEPTH. 2. ANY DAMAGE TO THE POND EMBANKMENTS OR SLOPES SHALL BE REPAIRED. PROVIDE ADEQUATE STRAPPING 18' MIN 18' DIAMETER TOP EL-28.0 CORRUGATED METAL RISER 2.5' MIN DEWATERING ORIFICE SCHEDULE 40 STEEL STUB MIN - 2 1/8' DLO PER CALCULATIONS -{ 2X RISER DIA MIN 1- SEDIMENT POND RISER RETE BASE ALTERNATIVELY, METAL STAKES & WIRE MAY BE USED TO PREVENT FLOTATION NOT TO SCALE TEMPORARY 'V' DITCH NOT TO SCALE 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251-6222 (425)251-8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING, LAND PUNNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For• FILTER FABRIC FENCE INSTALLATION NOTES: 1, THE FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PURCHASED IN A CONTINUOUS ROLL CUT TO THE LENGTH OF THE BARRIER TO AVOID USE OF JOINTS. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, FILTER CLOTH SHALL BE SPLICED TOGETHER ONLY AT A SUPPORT POST, WITH A MINIMUM 6-INCH OVERLAP, AND BOTH ENDS SECURELY FASTENED TO THE POST. 2. THE FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED TO FOLLOW THE CONTOURS (WHERE FEASIBLE). THE FENCE POSTS SHALL BE SPACED A MAXIMUM OF 6 FEET APART AND DRIVEN SECURELY INTO THE GROUND (MINIMUM OF 30 INCHES). 3, A TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED, ROUGHLY 8 INCHES WIDE AND 12 INCHES DEEP, UPSLOPE AND ADJACENT TO THE WOOD POST TO ALLOW THE FILTER FABRIC TO BE BURIED, 4. WHEN STANDARD STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC IS USED. A WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE SHA5 BE FASTENED SECURELY TO THE UPSLOPE SIDE OF THE POSTS USING taaw DUTY WIRE STAPLES AT LEAST 1 INCH LONG, TIE WIRES 0R HOG RINGS. THE WIRE SHALL EXPEND INTO THE TRENCH A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES AND SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE. 5. THE STANDARD STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE STAPLED 0R WIRED TO THE FENCE, AND 20 INCHES OF THE FABRIC SHALL BE EXTENDED INTO THE TRENCH. THE FABRIC SHALL NOT EXTEND MORE THAN 36 INCHES ABOVE THE ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE FILTER FABRIC SHALL NOT BE STAPLED TO cosnNG TREES. 6. WHEN EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC AND CLOSE POST SPACING ARE 0080, THE WIRE MESH SUPPORT FENCE MAY BE ELIMINATED. IN SUCH A CASE, THE FILTER FABRIC IS STAPLED OR WIRED DIRECTLY TO THE POSTS WITH AU OTHER PROVISIONS OF STANDARD NOTE 5 APPLYING. 7. THE TRENCH SHALL BE BACKFILLED WPM 3/4-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER WASHED GRAVEL 8. FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE REMOVED WHEN THEY HAVE SERVED TITER USEFUL PURPOSE, BUT NOT BEFORE THE UPSLOPE AREA HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. 9. FILTER FABRIC FENCES SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED RAINFALL ANY REQUIRED REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE IMMEDATELY. STAPLES OR WIRE RINGS (TYP) -� \ F CC 06 EO� EO WIRE FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL MIRAFI 100 X OR EQUAL 2-x4' DOUG. FIR 0R EO FILTER FABRIC MATERAL 211x2'x14 GA W.W.F. 3/4'-1 1/2' WASHED ROCK OR PEA GRAVEL NOTES: 1. PLACE 1' OF 3/4.-1 1/2" WASHED ROCK 0R PEA GRAVEL ON BOTH SIDES OF FENCE TO CREATE A BEVEL SLIME, 2, FABRIC SHALL COVER BOTTOM OF 6"s6' TRENCH AND EXTEND BEYOND THE OMITS OF THE GRAVEL IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AN EXCESS OVERLAP OF 2' MINIMUM AS SHOWN IN TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION. °FILTER FABRIC SILT FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 1 ESTABLISHED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES Stall 96 INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT IN A CONDITION THAT WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR ROWING OF SEDIMENT INTO PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 2 ADDITIONAL GRAVEL SEW,. BE ADDED PERIODICALLY, IF NECESSARY, TO IANT8N PROPER FUNCTION OF THE PAD. 3 ff THE GRAVEL PAD DOES NOT ADEQUATELY REMOVE DIRT AND MUD FROM VEHICLE WHEELS SUCH THAT MUD AND DIRT TRACKING IS EVIDENT OFF SIZE, ADDITONN. MEASURES MUST BE WON. SUCH MEASURES MAY INCLUDE HOSING OFF WHEELS BEFORE VEHICLES LEAVE THE SITE OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION TECIDe0UE5/WORK OPERATION MOD8ICA1WN5. WHEEL WASHING SHOULD BE DONE ON THE GRAVEL PAD AND WASH WATER 06001D DRAIN THROUGH A SLT-TRAPPING STRUCTURE PRIOR TO LEAVING THE CONSTRUCTION SIZE 4 REFER TO DETAIL 3 ON THIS SHEET FOR MORE INFORMATION. GEDTEXTp1. AS REQUIRED OSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NOT TO SCALE WASHINGTON PLACE HOTEL/APARTMENTS 223 ANDOVER PARK EAST TUKWILA, WA Title CONSTRUCTION NOTES AND DETAILS WASHINGTON PLACE Job Number 16883 Sheet E4of 4 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director February 13, 2015 Omar Lee Southcenter WA LLC 18230 E Valley Hwy Kent, WA 98032 RE: Request for Extension Permit Number D14-0134 Dear Mr. Lee, This letter is in response to your written request for an extension to Permit D 14-0134. The Building Official, Jerry Hight, has reviewed your letter and considered your request to extend the above referenced permit. It has been determined that the City of Tukwila Building Division will be granting an extension to the permit through September 20, 2015. If you should have any questions, please contact our office at (206) 431-3670. Sincerely, c Bill Rambo Permit Technician File: Permit No. D14-0134 W:\Permit Center\Extension Leners\Permits\2014\D14-0134 Permit Extension.docx 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 Bill Rambo From: Omar Lee <omarplee@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 11:53 AM To: Bill Rambo Cc: calvinclee85; Christine Lee; Marti May-Birge Subject: Washington Place Demolition Permit no:D14-0134 Hi Bill: I am writing to request an extension of our demolition permit for the above referenced project due to the schedule delays by our demolition contractor. As you know it's a pretty busy building season unfolding this year especially in Seattle and Bellevue, most of the bigger subcontractors are very busy therefore spread out. Thank you kindly for your understanding and co-operation, Sincerely yours, Omar Lee RECEIVED PAN' OFTUICWIA FEBO9 +M CENTER Request for Extension # Current Expiration Date: 3H 15 Extension Request: A/?pproved for "t 0 days Denied (provide explanation) Signature/Initials 1 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 2/2/2015 MATTHEW CHAN 18230 EAST VALLEY HWY, STE 195 KENT, WA 98032 RE: Permit No. D14-0134 WASHINGTON PLACE DEMOLITION 223 ANDOVER PARK E Dear Permit Holder: Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director In reviewing our current records, the above noted permit has not received a final inspection by the City of Tukwila Building Division. Per the International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and/or the National Electric Code, every permit issued by the Building Division under the provisions of these codes shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit has not begun within 180 days from the issuance date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work has begun for a period of 180 days. Your permit will expire on 3/18/2015. Based on the above, you are hereby advised to: 1) Call the City of Tukwila Inspection Request Line at 206-438-9350 to schedule for the next or final inspection. Each inspection creates a new 180 day period, provided the inspection shows progress. -or- 2) Submit a written request for permit extension to the Permit Center at least seven(7) days before it is due to expire. Address your extension request to the Building Official and state your reason(s) for the need to extend your permit. The Building Code does allow the Building Official to approve one extension of up to 180 days. If it is determined that your extension request is granted, you will be notified by mail. In the event you do not call for an inspection and/or receive an extension prior to 3/18/2015, your permit will become null and void and any further work on the project will require a new permit and associated fees. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Bill Rambo Permit Technician File No: D14-0134 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 June 19, 2014 Ms. Jennifer Marshall Permit Technician City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 RE: Responses to Correction Letter No. 1 Washington Place Demolition 223 Andover Park East City of Tukwila Development Permit Application No. D14-0134 Our Job No. 16883 Dear Ms. Marshall: CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING CORRECTION LTR# We have revised the plans and technical documents for the above -referenced project in accordance with your comment letter dated June 3, 2014. Enclosed are the following documents for your review and approval: 1. Four (4) sets Demolition and Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans 2. One (1) each Public Works Bulletin A-2 The following outline provides each of your comments in italics, along with a narrative response describing how each comment was addressed: PW DEPARTMENT: Joanna Spencer at 206-431-2440 if you have questions regarding these comments. 1) The legal size (8.5" x 14') demolition plan that was submitted is impossible to read. Minimum lettering size shall be 1/8" Please submit full size plan (24" x 36') since location of the utility lines and lines capping associated with building demolition is critical. Response: Enclosed is the full size (24x36) demolition plan showing utility lines and buildings for your review as requested. 2) Submit an erosion/sediment control and storm water pollution prevention plan. Response: Copies of the Erosion/Sedimentation Control Plan are included in this submittal. 3) Since more than 1 acre of land is involved applicant shall obtain a Department of Ecology (DOE) construction permit. Response: The NPDES permit is in process and a copy will be sent to the City under separate cover when issued. RECEIVED 114 CITY OF TUKWILA Ol JUN 1 9 2014 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425) 251-6222 (425) 251-8782 FAX BRANCH OFFICES • TUMWATER, WA • LONG BEACH, CA • ROSEVILLE, CA • SAN DIEGc'ERMIT CENTER www.barghausen.com Ms. Jennifer Marshall Permit Technician City of Tukwila Department of Community Development -2- June 19, 2014 4) Submit construction cost estimate for erosion control & capping of utility services; and enter the amount under item 2 on page 1 of the attached Public Works Bulletin A-2. Response: The completed fee estimate form for the grade and fill permit is enclosed as requested. We believe that the above responses, together with the enclosed revised plans and technical documents, address all of the comments in your letter dated June 3, 2014. Please review and approve the enclosed at your earliest convenience. If you have questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at this office. Thank you. Sincerely, ‘n,artee4' Daniel K. Balmelli, P.E. Executive Vice President DKB/dm/bd 16883c.001.doc enc: As Noted cc: Omar Lee, AmWealth, LP Mr. Ali Sadr, Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc. City of Tukwila Department of Community Development June 03, 2014 MATTHEW CHAN 18230 EAST VALLEY HWY, STE 195 KENT, WA 98032 RE: Correction Letter # 1 DEVELOPMENT Permit Application Number D14-0134 WASHINGTON PLACE DEMOLITION - 223 ANDOVER PARK E Dear MATTHEW CHAN, Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director This letter is to inform you of corrections that must be addressed before your 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 comments from the following departments: PW DEPARTMENT: Joanna Spencer at 206-431-2440 if you have questions regarding these comments. 1) The legal size (8.5" x 14") demolition plan that was submitted is impossible to read. Minimum lettering size shall be 1/8". Please submit full size plan (24" x 36") since location of the utility lines and lines capping associated with building demolition is critical. 2) Submit an erosion/sediment control and storm water pollution prevention plan. 3) Since more than 1 acre of land is involved applicant shall obtain a Department of Ecology (DOE) construction permit. 4) Submit construction cost estimate for erosion control & capping of utility services; and enter the amount under item 2 on page 1 of the attached Public Works Bulletin A-2. A2 Please address the comments above in an itemized format with applicable revised plans, specifications, and/or other documentation. The City requires that four (4) sets of revised plan pages, specifications and/or other documentation be resubmitted with the appropriate revision block. In order to better expedite your resubmittal, a 'Revision Submittal 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, I can be reached at 206-433-7165. Sincerely, Jennifer . arsh 11 Permit echnici 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax 206-431-3665 PERMIT COORD COPY PLAN REVIEW/ROUTING SLIP PERMIT NUMBER: D14-0134 DATE: 06/20/14 PROJECT NAME: WASHINGTON PLACE DEMOLITION SITE ADDRESS: 223 ANDOVER PARK E Original Plan Submittal Revision # before Permit Issued X Response to Correction Letter # 1 Revision # after Permit Issued DEPARTMENTS: Building Division ❑ Public Works Public Works Fire Prevention Structural PRELIMINARY REVIEW: Not Applicable ❑ (no approval/review required) Planning Division n Permit Coordinator II DATE: 06/24/14 Structural Review Required REVIEWER'S INITIALS: DATE: n APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: Approved Corrections Required (corrections entered in Reviews) Approved with Conditions Denied (ie: Zoning Issues) DUE DATE: 07/22/14 Notation: REVIEWER'S INITIALS: DATE: Permit Center Use Only CORRECTION LETTER MAILED: Departments issued corrections: Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW ❑ Staff Initials: 12/18/2013 PERMIT COORD COPY PLAN REVIEW/ROUTING SLIP PERMIT NUMBER: D14-0134 DATE: 05/07/14 PROJECT NAME: WASHINGTON PLACE DEMOLITION SITE ADDRESS: 223 ANDOVER PARK E X Original Plan Submittal Response to Correction Letter # Revision # before Permit Issued Revision # after Permit Issued DEPARTMENTS: /LO5tH Building Division f V" � Ivy Public Works Afv\Os' Si Fire Prevention II Structural O 2— I Planning Division Permit Coordinator ■ PRELIMINARY REVIEW: Not Applicable n (no approval/review required) DATE: 05/13/14 Structural Review Required REVIEWER'S INITIALS: DATE: APPROVALS OR CORRECTIONS: Approved Corrections Required (corrections entered in Revie ) Approved with Conditions Denied (ie: Zoning Issues) DUE DATE: 06/10/14 Notation: REVIEWER'S INITIALS: DATE: Permit Center Use Only CORRECTION LETTER MAILED: Departments issued corrections: Bldg ❑ Fire ❑ Ping ❑ PW)6. Staff Initials: 12/18/2013 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206-431-3670 Web site: http://www.TukwilaWA.gov Revision submittals must be submitted in person at the Permit Center. Revisions will not be accepted through the mail, fax, etc. Date: 06/20/2014 Plan Check/Permit Number: 014-0134 Response to Incomplete Letter # ✓ Response to Correction Letter # 1 Revision # after Permit is Issued Revision requested by a City Building Inspector or Plans Examiner Project Name: Washington Place Project Address: 223 Andover Park East Contact Person: Dan Balmelli, Barghausen Engineers Phone Number: (425) 251-6222 Summary of Revision: Updated plans and requested documents per Correction Letter #1 from the City of Tukwila dated June 3, 2014. RECtIVED CITY OF TUKW1U1 IJUN 2 0 2014 Pour corm Sheet Number(s): "Cloud" or highlight all areas of revision including date of revisi n Received at the City of Tukwila Permit Center by: .� ----Entered in Permits Plus on'��� Li H:\Applications\Forms-Applications On Lme\2010 Applications\7-2010 - Revision Submittal.doc Revised: May 2011 ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO Page 1 of 5 Washington State Department of Labor & Industries ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO Owner or tradesperson ABSHER, DANIEL R Principals ABSHER, DANIEL R, PRESIDENT ABSHER, THOMAS L, VICE PRESIDENT HELLE, GREGORY A, VICE PRESIDENT SAYRE, BRADLEY C, VICE PRESIDENT HELLE, CLARK E, VICE PRESIDENT WEHRY, JOSEPH R, AGENT SAYRE, BRADLEY C, SECRETARY (End: 01/18/2006) Doing business as ABSHER CONSTRUCTION CO WA UBI No. 275 003 716 PO BOX 280 PUYALLUP, WA98371 253-845-9544 PIERCE County Business type Corporation License Verify the contractor's active registration / license / certification (depending on trade) and any past violations. Construction Contractor Active. Meets current requirements. License specialties GENERAL License no. ABSHEC*345PS Effective — expiration 10/10/1966— 01 /08/2015 Bond Safeco Ins Co of America Bond account no. 69s009838 Received by L&I 05/11/2012 Bond history Insurance $12,000.00 Effective date 04/20/2012 Expiration date Until Canceled https://secure.lni.wa.gov/verify/Detail.aspx?UBI=275003716&LIC=ABSHEC*345PS&SAW= 09/19/2014