Sepa Checklist for Car Toys Site and Appendixes by Mary Welk

PLEASE USE THE PDF BOOKMARKS FOR EASY ACCESS TO THE APPENDIX CONTENTS

307 BROAD STREET APARTMENTS PERKINS + WILL ARCHITECTS BRAD HINTHORNE, AIA 1221 SECOND AVENUE, SUITE 200 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206.381.6019

9/10/15 City of Seattle DPD

The Proposed Action that is analyzed in this Environmental Checklist involves

site preparation work, building construction, and operation of the proposed 307 Broad St Apartments. Site preparation and construction are proposed to begin in Quarter 3, 2016 with building occupancy in Quarter 4, 2017.

No future plans for further development of this site are proposed at this time.

- City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet (see Appendix attached to this document) - Geotechnical Report (see Appendix attached to this document) - Traffic Impact Analysis (pending)

Data contained in these reports have been incorporated into this Environmental Checklist except the Traffic Analysis which is currently pending. These reports are being submitted as part of the Master Use Permit (MUP) applications for the 307 Broad Street Apartments and are included in the project files at DPD. These analyses are also included as appendices to this Environmental Checklist.

There are no other applications that are known to be pending approval for the project site.

Local Agencies City of Seattle - Department of Planning and Development - Master Use Permit - Building Permit - Mechanical/ Elevator/Electrical Permit - Certificate of Occupancy Permit

The proposed project is located in Seattle's Belltown neighborhood (see figure 1 in the Appendix for a regional map and figure 2 for a vicinity map. ) The project area is approximately 15,330 sq. ft. The project site is bounded by Broad Street and Denny Avenue on the north, by 3rd Avenue on the West and by an alley on the east. The north portion of the site along Broad Ave is occupied by a one-story masonry building of approximately 6,640 sq. ft., former location of the retail chain store Car Toys, permanently closed (see figure 3 in the Appendix) The south portion of the site contains 26 surface parking spaces. Construction of the 307 Broad Street Apartments would entail the demolition of the existing building and surface parking on the site. A nine-story residential structure is proposed that would include approximately 149 apartment residences, ground level lounge and leasing office, and four levels of structured below grade parking accessed from the alley, for approximately 128 vehicles. The proposed development is represented in the plans and text contained in MUP permit application #3016806. The proposed site plan for the project is shown in figure 4, proposed building elevations are depicted in figure 5, and a rendering in figure 6. The building has been designed in accordance with the requirements of the Seattle Land Use Code (zoning designation DMC-85), and the Design Guidelines for Downtown and Belltown in conjunction with Citywide Design Guidelines to assure that the building responds to the character of the surrounding area.

The project site is located on a portion of a half block in Belltown neighborhood (see figures 1 and 2), containing approximately 15,330 sq. ft., and bounded by Broad Street and Denny Avenue on the north, 3rd Avenue on the west and an alley on the east. The site is identified by King County Parcel ID number 065600-0306 and the legal description is: "The north 22 feet of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 and 4 in Block 31 of second addition to that part of the city of Seattle as laid off by A.A. Denny and W.N. Bell (commonly referred to as Bell & Denny's 2nd Addition to the City of Seattle), as per plat recorded in Volume 1 of plats, page 77, in King County, Washington; except the soutwesterly 12 feet thereof, as condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 52280 for 3rd Avenue, as provided by Ordinance No. 13776 of City of Seattle."

gently sloping

The site slopes up along Broad Street approximately 5 ft from west to east. The steepest slope on the site is approximately 5%.

The soil conditions at the site consist of several feet of fill, overlying glacially consolidated hard silts and clays, and dense sands and gravels consistent with Vashon glacial till, pre-Fraser nonglacial lacustrine, and pre-Fraser nonglacial fluvial deposits. Other than the fill, the soil underlying the site has been consolidated/ compressed to a dense/hard state by several thousand feet of glacial ice during the last glaciation more than 12,000 years ago (glacially consolidated). One to three feet of fill was encountered in the soils borings completed at the Site. The fill was observed to consist of loose to medium dense, gravelly, silty sand (SM). The presence or thickness of fill is anticipated to vary across the Site. The fill exhibits low to moderate shear strength and moderate compressibility. For more detailed information, please refer to the geotechnical report attached in the Appendix to this Environmental Checklist.

No, there are no surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. For more detailed information, please refer to the geotechnical report attached in the Appendix.

It is estimated that excavation for the Proposed Action would result in the removal of approximately 22,720 cubic yards of earth as part of construction activities on the site. The total affected area would be an estimated 15,330 sq. ft. Any fill, if needed, will come from onsite cut volume or suitable off site sources, but none is anticipated at this time.

Erosion is possible in conjunction with any construction activity. Site work would expose soils, but the implementation of a Temporary Erosion Sedimentation Control (TESC) plan would mitigate potential impacts. Once the building is operational, no erosion is anticipated.

Approximately 98 percent of the site would be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction. However, sidewalks and the proposed rooftop will contain several areas of plantings.

Comprehensive Drainage Control Plan approvals (including Best Management Practices, Erosion and Sediment Control approvals) would be submitted as an element of the Building Permits. Additionally, the contractor(s) involved in removal, transport, or placement of soils would be required to fully comply with all federal, state, and local environmental statutes, ordinances, and regulations.

During construction, there will be some potential emissions such as dust particles and heavy equipment exhaust. Upon project completion there may be some pollution associated with the use of personal vehicles by tenants. The emissions estimate is based on number of units: the estimated lifespan emissions estimate for the project is approximately 173,354 MTCO2e, see the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Worksheet in the Appendix attached to this checklist. The proposed project has been designed to conform to the applicable regulations and standards of agencies regulating air quality in Seattle. These include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington State Department of Ecology, and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA).

No off-site sources of emissions or odors that may affect the proposed project have been identified.

The following measures could be implemented to control emissions and/or dust during construction: - during demolition, excavation, and construction, sprinkling debris and exposed areas, as necessary, to control dust; and covering truck loads to minimize dust-related impacts. - using well maintained equipment would reduce emissions from construction equipment and construction-related trucks as would avoiding prolonged periods of vehicle idling. - using electrically operated small tools in place of gas powered small tools, wherever feasible. - scheduling and coordinating trucking building materials to and from the project site to minimize congestion during peak travel times associated with adjacent roadways.

The nearest water body is Puget Sound, located approximately 0.3 miles southwest of the site.

No. The project will not require any work over, in or adjacent to Puget Sound.

No fill or dredge material would be placed in or removed from any surface water body as a result of this proposed project.

No. The Proposed Action would not require any surface water withdrawals or diversions.

No, the site does not lie within a 100-year floodplain and is not identified as a flood prone area on the City if Seattle critical areas map.

No. There would be no discharge of waste materials to surface waters.

Construction dewatering could be required and could be accomplished with conventional sump pumping procedures and collection trench system. A final dewatering methodology and permanent and specific long-term groundwater management provisions would be determined during later design phases.

Waste material would not be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources.

Existing and new impervious surfaces constructed on the site are and would continue to be the source of runoff from the proposed project. Stormwater runoff would be managed with on-site detention and flow control and mitigated to the maximum extent feasible by implementing Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI). The project would be designed to meet all City of Seattle stormwater drainage requirements.

No. The proposed storm water collection system and associated mitigation measures would prevent waste materials from entering the ground water or surface waters. All applicable City of Seattle stormwater control regulations would be followed during construction and operation of the project.

No. The proposal would not alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the site vicinity.

The Proposed Action would comply with applicable requirements relating to surface water runoff control and water quality, including the City's Drainage Control Ordinance. Green Stormwater Infrastructure (GSI) would be implemented to the maximum extent feasible per Seattle drainage requirements. Possible GSI measures could include trees, and dispersion landscape strips. The proposed project would also require City approval of a Comprehensive Drainage Control Plan (including Construction Best Management Practices, Erosion and Sediment Control approvals) as part of the building permit process.

There are currently one tree and several shrubs onsite that will be removed.

No known threatened or endangered plant species are located on or near the project site that we are aware of.

The proposed 307 Broad Street Apartments project would include a total of approximately 1330 sq. ft. of planting at the street level. New shrubs and ground covers would be planted in expanded planting strips along Broad Street and 3rd Avenue. The project will also provide one new street tree on Broad and one on 3rd Avenue.

Noxious weeds known to be in the City of Seattle include giant hogweed and English ivy. However, the site is currently mostly covered with impervious surfaces except for one existing tree and a few shrubs.

seagulls, pigeons rodents none Birds and small mammals tolerant of urban conditions may use and may be present on and near the site. Mammals likely to be present include: racoon, eaterm gray squirrel, mouse, rat, opossum, muskrat, and feral cats.

There are no threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site that we are aware of.

No. The site is not known to be part of a migration route.

No specific measures are proposed to preserve or enhance wildlife and/or habitat.

Invasive species known to be located in King County include European starling, house sparrow and eastern gray squirrel.

Electricity and natural gas are the primary sources of energy that would serve the proposed development. During operation, these energy sources would be used for project heating, cooling, power, hot water and lighting. There will not be any manufacturing on site.

No. The Proposed Action is not expected to affect solar energy access associated with adjacent properties.

The proposed development has been designed to meet or exceed the requirements of the 2012 Seattle Energy Code. Potential energy savings will include measures to control air infiltration, efficient heating systems, design to maximize use of natural light, use of efficient lighting fixtures.

No environmental health hazards are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project.

Regulated Building material Surveys will be completed for all of the existing buildings on-site to identify possible asbestos-containing materials (ACMs), lead-based paints, and universal waste. If any such materials are identified, they would be removed and remediated in accordance with applicable regulations.

No hazardous chemicals/conditions are anticipated to affect project development or design.

No toxic or hazardous chemicals are anticipated to be stored, used or produced during the project's development, construction or operation.

No special emergency services are anticipated to be required as a result of this Proposed Action. As is typical of urban development, it is possible that normal fire, medical, and other emergency services may be needed on occasion from the City of Seattle.

No environmental health hazards are anticipated and no measures to reduce or control hazards are proposed.

Vehicular traffic noise associated with adjacent streets (Broad St, Denny Avenue and 3rd Avenue) can be relatively high at certain times of day. Vehicular traffic is not expected to adversely affect the Proposed Action.

Construction-related noise would occur as a result of on-site construction activities associated with the Proposed Action. Construction noise would be short-term and would be the most noticeable noise generated by the proposed project. This includes construction activity on-site, at associated off-site construction staging areas, and noise associated with construction-related traffic. The Proposed Action would comply with provisions of Seattle's Noise Code (SMC, Chapter 25.08); no noise variances are anticipated. Once the project is operational, no significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated; the development would comply with provisions of the City of Seattle's Noise Code. Indirect noise impacts from the Proposed Action may include traffic-related noise associated with vehicles operating in and around the development.

As noted above, the project would comply with provisions of the City's Noise Ordinance; specifically: construction hours would be limited to weekdays (non-holiday) from 7 AM to 10 PM and Saturdays and Sundays from 9 AM to 10 PM. If extended construction hours are necessary, the applicant would seek approval from DPD in advance. However, the need for extended construction hours is not anticipated.

The project site is currently occupied by surface parking and a one-story building, former location for the retail chain store Car Toys, currently permanently closed. Surrounding land uses include: - East: Wells Fargo Bank - North: Pacific Science Center - North-East: 76 Gas Station and 7-Eleven - West: office building - South-West: Kiro 7 News - South-East: surface parking lot, and further South-East, across from Clay Street, Mosler Lofts.

No, the site has not been used as working farmlands or forest lands for over 100 years.

No. The site is located in an urban area and would not affect or be affected by working farm or forest land; no working farm or forest land is located in the vicinity of this urban site.

The project site contains one low rise building, which is one of the former locations of the retail chain store Car Toys, currently permanently closed. The structure is a one-story masonry building, approximately 6,640 sq. ft, built in 1957.

The proposed development would require demolition of the single building that presently occupies the site and which is vacant.

The project site is zoned DOWNTOWN MIXED COMMERCIAL 85 (DMC-85).

The site is located within the Belltown Urban Center Village, as designated in the current City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan.

The project is not located within a shoreline master program area.

No part of the site has been classified as a critical area by the city or county.

There will be approximately 150 residential units, a mix of 2-bedrooms, 1-bedrooms, urban 1-bedrooms and studios.

No residential uses are located on the site; therefore, the Proposed Action would not displace any residents. The business location formerly located in the existing buildings is permanently closed.

No displacement impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.

The project site is located in the DMC zone, which is characterized by lower scale office, retail and commercial uses related to activity in the office core, retail core or other moderate-scale commercial cores in the Downtown Urban Center, and with use patterns that may include housing. The project site is also located in the Belltown Urban Center Village. Urban Center Villages are intended to provide mixed-use neighborhoods with concentrations of employment and housing, with direct access to high-capacity transit and a wide range of supportive land uses including retail, recreation, public facilities, parks and open space. The proposed 307 Broad Street Apartments would promote increased land use density (multi-family housing) on a site that is currently under-developed from a land use perspective, with access to transit, and tenant recreation on the rooftop.

The project site is not located near agricultural or forest lands. As noted previously, the site is located in the Belltown area of Seattle, directly north of Downtown.

Approximately 150 units would be provided, middle income housing. There will be a mix of 2-bedrooms, 1-bedrooms, urban 1-bedrooms, and studios.

No housing currently exists on the site, and no units would be eliminated. The current structure on the site was a former location for the retail chain store Car Toys and is now permanently closed.

No housing impacts would occur and no mitigation would be necessary.

The project will be built to the 85-foot height limit, measured from 3rd Avenue, with a 15 foot enclosed structure on the rooftop. The tallest height of the proposed 307 Broad St Apartments would be 106 feet (228') including rooftop mechanical. Exterior materials will include vision glass, masonry, concrete, and opaque cladding panels.

The project is not immediately adjacent to any existing buildings, though views to/from buildings in the neighborhood may be slightly impacted.

The south wall facing Mosler Lofts will be treated with a masonry pattern. In addition, the south wall is designed with vertical notches in the middle of the wall and at both west and east corners, which mitigate the scale of the south wall and reveal different materials and colors (see south elevation included in figure 5 in the Appendix.) Landscaping and open space on the rooftop would be provided to improve the aesthetic character of the site and the views from Mosler Lofts. If the property adjacent to 307 Broad Street Apartments is developed in the future, the South wall will become a party wall, and will no longer affect Mosler Lofts.

At times during the construction process, area lighting of the job site (to meet safety requirements) may be provided, which would be noticeable proximate to the project site. When the project is operational, stationary sources of light would include interior lighting, building lighting, and security lighting. Sources of glare would include the glazed building facade materials. Seattle's SEPA policies aim to "minimize or prevent light blockage and the creation of shadows on open spaces most used by the public". The nearest open space / park to the project site is the Seattle Center park south of the Space Needle. Based on the sun + shadow studies showing shadow cast for various times of the day on key days of the solar year (see figure 7 in the Appendix), no shadow impacts are anticipated to occur to the open space adjacent to the Space Needle. Neither the length nor the direction of the shadows would reach the park south of the Space Needle.

No. Light and glare associated with the Proposed Action is not expected to cause a safety hazard nor interfere with views.

The project is in an urban area, so there will likely be some light and glare from existing buildings that surround the site and from traffic on surrounding streets.

The 307 Broad Street Apartments development proposes that exterior (artificial) lighting would be shielded/directed to minimize spillage beyond the project site.

The project site is adjacent to the Seattle Center, and specifically to the Pacific Science Center.

No. the Proposed Action would not displace any existing recreation uses.

No impacts to existing recreation facilities or opportunities are anticipated and no mitigation is proposed.

Directly diagonal from the site at the intersection of Broad and Denny is the Pacific Science Center which was designated as a Seattle Landmark in 2010. The original buildings date from 1962 and were designed by Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, with NBBJ as the local architect. On the site, there is a one story masonry building built in 1957, of approximately 6,640 SF. The Historic Property Inventory Report done by the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (report included in the Appendix) is "unable to determine" whether the property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places. As part of the Proposed Action, a MUP Appendix A report was also prepared for the Department of Neighborhoods for the building on site, included in the Appendix to this Environmental Checklist. The City's Historic Preservation Officer will review the Appendix A report and make a determination on whether any of the buildings meets any of the criteria for landmark designation. Please see the MUP Appendix A report, attached to this SEPA document.

There are no known landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation of the project site.

Potential impacts to historic resources on or near the site were evaluated by consulting the City of Seattle database of historic properties, the "My neighborhood map" (http://web6.seattle.gov/mnm/), and the DAHP WISAARD.

No loss, changes to, or disturbance of historic or cultural resources are anticipated to occur, and no mitigation measures are proposed. In the unlikely event that ground disturbing or other activities were to result in the inadvertent discovery of archaeological deposits, work would be halted in the immediate area and contact made with the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Work would be halted until such time as further investigation and appropriate consultation were concluded.

The project site is served by Denny Avenue, Broad Street and 3rd Avenue (see Figure 1 in the Appendix). Vehicular access to the site is proposed via the alley between 3rd Avenue and 4th Avenue, on the east of the building. The alley extends between Denny Avenue and Clay Street. Alley access would provide one driveway to the proposed underground parking garage.

Yes, the site is currently served by public transit. Bus transit service is provided by King County Metro Transit along both Denny Avenue and 3rd Avenue. Bus stops are located within one block of the site.

The proposed 307 Broad Street Apartments would include approximately 128 parking spaces. Approximately 26 existing surface parking spaces would be eliminated by the project.

Sidewalk improvements would be required by SDOT under the Street Improvement Plan (SIP)

No. The project will not occur in the immediate vicinity of water, rail or air transportation.

The Transportation Impact Analysis is currently pending and will be submitted to you as soon as it is complete.

No. The proposal would not interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on streets in the area.

A Transportation management Program (TMP) would be developed for the project as required by City of Seattle Municipal Code. If necessary, additional mitigation measures will be defined through the Traffic Impact Study in coordination with the City staff.

It is anticipated that the Proposed Action may result in an incremental need for increased public services due to the addition of tenants and staff associated with the project. To the extent that emergency service providers have planned for gradual increases in service demands, no significant impacts are anticipated.

While the potential increase in tenants and staff associated with the Proposed Action may result in incrementally greater demand for public services, it is anticipated that adequate service capacity is available within the Belltown Neighborhood area and adjacent neighborhoods to preclude the need for additional public facilities/services.

The City of Seattle provides water, sewer, stormwater, power and refuse sewers to the site. All these services will be required for the proposed building. Typical open trench utility cuts will be required to bring many of these services to the building.

BRAD HINTHORNE (submitting ellectronically) BRAD HINTHORNE PERKINS WILL, SEATTLE 09/10/2015

APPENDIX - GHG EMMISSIONS WORKSHEET - HISTORIC PROPERTY INVENTORY REPORT - GEOTECHNICAL REPORT - APPENDIX A FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS (pending, will be submitted as soon as it is ready)

Figure 1: Regional Map

PROJECT SITE

Figure 2: Vicinity Map

307 BROAD PROJECT PROJECT SITE

SITE

H RT NO

PROJECT SITE Figure 3: Project Site Aerial - Existing Conditions

Figure 4: Site Plan ER AT "W 12

IN MA

I) (C

ER EW "S 12

IN MA

S) (P

142' - 0"

16' - 0"

2' - 0"

129.31' EXIST. GRADE

PROPOSED BUILDING LENTGH

" '-0 129

ALLEY

(E) ALLEY

129' - 0"

129.20' EXIST. GRADE

" '-0 129

P.L. S 47 42' 33" E

ADDRESS: 307 BROAD STREET, SEATTLE WA

13' - 9"

LINE OF BUILDING AT GROUND LEVEL TO REQUIRED ALLEY HEIGHT CLEARANCE

LINE OF 2 FT ALLEY SETBACK

5' - 10 5/8"

128' - 0"

EXIST. CURB CUT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north 22 feet of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3 and 4 in Block 31 of second addition to that part of the city of Seattle as laid off by A.A. Denny amd W.N. Bell (commonly referred to as Bell & Denny's 2nd Addition to the City of Seattle), as per plat recorded in Volume 1 of plats, page 77, in King County, Washington; except the southwesterly 12 feet thereof, as condemned in King County Superior Court Cause No. 52280 for 3rd Avenue, as provided by Ordinance No. 13776 of City of Seattle.

EXIST. STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED APPROX. 64'

EXIST. POLE

128' - 0"

ROOFTOP FEATURES PARAPET 127' - 0"

P.L. N 42' 17' 17" E

SIDEWALK

125' - 0"

107' - 10"

307 BROAD

PROPOSED BUILDING WIDTH

P.L. N 42' 17' 21" E

127' - 0" 2' - 6"

(PER LANDSCAPE SHEET L01-01)

BROAD STREET

126' - 0"

LINE OF ACCESS RAMP TO PARKING

EXIST. STRUCTURE TO BE REMOVED 108' - 0"

PROPOSED NEW TREE

PROPOSED NINE STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

OWNER: BROAD STREET APARTMENTS LLC 200 CONNELL DRIVE BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ 07922

126' - 0"

125 PROPOSED BELOW STR PARKING STALLS SEE LEVELS P1 - P4 FOR EXTENTS

SURFACE PARKING TO BE REMOVED

DMC-85

40' - 0"

KING COUNTY ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: 0656000306

12' - 0" (E) SIDEWALK

125 '-0 "

124' - 0" EXIST. 4" DEC. TO REMAIN

T.O. ROOFTOP ENCLOSURES 222' - 0"

T.O. ROOF DECK 207'-9"

NOTES: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING TO BE SHIELDED AND DIRECTED AWAY FROM ADJACENT USES PER SMC 23.47A.022 LIGHT AND GLARE STANDARDS

BUILDING LINE AT GROUND LEVEL

124 '-0 "

123' - 0"

8' - 0"

TYP

4' - 0"

EXIST. POLE /4" 13

P.L. S 47' 42' 36" E

6' - 9"

EXIST. CURB CUT

10' - 0"

5' - 0"

10' - 6"

5' - 0"

10' - 6"

5' - 0"

10' - 6"

5' - 0"

8' - 0"

5' - 0"

10' - 6"

(ASPHALT)

SIDEWALK 123.26' EXIST. GRADE

(PER LANDSCAPE SHEET L01-01)

44' - 11 3/4"

123.69' EXIST. GRADE

EXIST. CURB CUTS TO BE REMOVED SECONDARY BUILDING ENTRY

3RD AVENUE

PRIMARY BUILDING ENTRY

122' - 0"

12" WATER MAIN (CI)

EXIST. 12" DEC. TO REMAIN 12" SEWER MAIN (PS)

EXIST. 16" DEC. TO REMAIN

EXIST. 12" DEC. TO REMAIN

PROPOSED NEW TREE

EXIST. 12" DEC. TO REMAIN

12" SEWER MAIN (PS)

MUP SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"

PROJECT NORTH

UE H TR RT NO

FOR DPD USE

Figure 5: Building Elevations

T.O. PARAPET (ROOFTOP ENCL) 222' - 0"

ROOF DECK 208' - 9"

HEIGHT LIMIT 208' - 4 1/2"

T.O. STRUCTURE 207' - 6"

L9 197' - 9"

L8 188' - 6"

L7 179' - 3"

L6 170' - 0"

L5 160' - 9"

L4 151' - 6"

L3 142' - 3"

L2 133' - 0"

L1 EAST 127' - 0" L1 WEST 123' - 0"

NORTH ELEVATION A

L9 197' - 9"

WEST ELEVATION F

T.O. PARAPET (ROOFTOP ENCL) 222' - 0" ROOF DECK 208' - 9"

HEIGHT LIMIT 208' - 4 1/2"

T.O. STRUCTURE 207' - 6" L9 197' - 9"

L8 188' - 6"

L7 179' - 3"

L6 170' - 0"

L5 160' - 9"

L4 151' - 6"

L3 142' - 3"

L2 133' - 0"

L1 EAST 127' - 0" L1 WEST 123' - 0"

P1 113' - 6"

SOUTH ELEVATION

EAST ELEVATION

Figure 6: Architectural Rendering

Figure 7: Sun + Shadow Studies 10 AM

WINTER SOLSTICE

EQUINOX

SUMMER SOLSTICE

NOON

2 PM

City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development SEPA GHG Emissions Worksheet Version 1.7 12/26/07 Introduction The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requires environmental review of development proposals that may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. If a proposed development is subject to SEPA, the project proponent is required to complete the SEPA Checklist. The Checklist includes questions relating to the development's air emissions. The emissions that have traditionally been considered cover smoke, dust, and industrial and automobile emissions. With our understanding of the climate change impacts of GHG emissions, the City of Seattle requires the applicant to also estimate these emissions. Emissions created by Development GHG emissions associated with development come from multiple sources:  The extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of materials and landscape disturbance (Embodied Emissions)  Energy demands created by the development after it is completed (Energy Emissions)  Transportation demands created by the development after it is completed (Transportation Emissions) GHG Emissions Worksheet This GHG Emissions Worksheet has been developed to assist applicants in answering the SEPA Checklist question relating to GHG emissions. The worksheet was originally developed by King County, but the City of Seattle and King County are working together on future updates to maintain consistency of methodologies across jurisdictions. The SEPA GHG Emissions worksheet estimates all GHG emissions that will be created over the life span of a project. This includes emissions associated with obtaining construction materials, fuel used during construction, energy consumed during a buildings operation, and transportation by building occupants. Using the Worksheet 1. Descriptions of the different residential and commercial building types can be found on the second tabbed worksheet ("Definition of Building Types"). If a development proposal consists of multiple projects, e.g. both single family and multi-family residential structures or a commercial development that consists of more than on type of commercial activity, the appropriate information should be estimated for each type of building or activity.

2. For paving, estimate the total amount of paving (in thousands of square feet) of the project. 3. The Worksheet will calculate the amount of GHG emissions associated with the project and display the amount in the "Total Emissions" column on the worksheet. The applicant should use this information when completing the SEPA checklist. 4. The last three worksheets in the Excel file provide the background information that is used to calculate the total GHG emissions. 5. The methodology of creating the estimates is transparent; if there is reason to believe that a better estimate can be obtained by changing specific values, this can and should be done. Changes to the values should be documented with an explanation of why and the sources relied upon. 6. Print out the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Total Emissionsâ&#x20AC;? worksheet and attach it to the SEPA checklist. If the applicant has made changes to the calculations or the values, the documentation supporting those changes should also be attached to the SEPA checklist.

Section I: Buildings Emissions Per Unit or Per Thousand Square Feet (MTCO2e) Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Single-Family Home............................. Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ...... Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ...... Mobile Home........................................ Education ............................................ Food Sales .......................................... Food Service ....................................... Health Care Inpatient ........................... Health Care Outpatient ........................ Lodging ............................................... Retail (Other Than Mall)....................... Office ................................................... Public Assembly .................................. Public Order and Safety ...................... Religious Worship ............................... Service ................................................ Warehouse and Storage ...................... Other ................................................... Vacant .................................................

Square Feet (in thousands of # Units square feet) 0 150 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Embodied

Energy 98 33 54 41 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39

672 357 681 475 646 1,541 1,994 1,938 737 777 577 723 733 899 339 599 352 1,278 162

Transportation 792 766 766 709 361 282 561 582 571 117 247 588 150 374 129 266 181 257 47

Lifespan Emissions (MTCO2e) 0 173354 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section II: Pavement.......................... Pavement.............................................

Version 1.7 12/26/07

0.00

Total Project Emissions:

173354

Square Feet (in thousands of # Units square feet) 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Embodied

Energy 98 33 54 41 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39

672 357 681 475 646 1,541 1,994 1,938 737 777 577 723 733 899 339 599 352 1,278 162

Transportation 792 766 766 709 361 282 561 582 571 117 247 588 150 374 129 266 181 257 47

Lifespan Emissions (MTCO2e) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Section II: Pavement.......................... Pavement.............................................

Version 1.7 12/26/07

0.00

Total Project Emissions:

Definition of Building Types Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Description Single-Family Home................................... Unless otherwise specified, this includes both attached and detached buildings Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ............ Apartments in buildings with more than 5 units Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ............ Apartments in building with 2-4 units Mobile Home.............................................. Buildings used for academic or technical classroom instruction, such as elementary, middle, or high schools, and classroom buildings on college or university campuses. Buildings on education campuses for which the main use is not classroom are included in the category relating to their use. For example, administration buildings are part of "Office," dormitories are Education .................................................. "Lodging," and libraries are "Public Assembly." Food Sales ................................................ Buildings used for retail or wholesale of food. Buildings used for preparation and sale of food and beverages for Food Service ............................................. consumption. Health Care Inpatient ................................ Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for inpatient care. Buildings used as diagnostic and treatment facilities for outpatient care. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they use any type of diagnostic Health Care Outpatient ............................. medical equipment (if they do not, they are categorized as an office building). Buildings used to offer multiple accommodations for short-term or long-term Lodging ..................................................... residents, including skilled nursing and other residential care buildings. Retail (Other Than Mall)............................. Buildings used for the sale and display of goods other than food. Buildings used for general office space, professional office, or administrative offices. Doctor's or dentist's office are included here if they do not use any type of diagnostic medical equipment (if they do, they are categorized as an Office ......................................................... outpatient health care building). Buildings in which people gather for social or recreational activities, whether in Public Assembly ........................................ private or non-private meeting halls. Public Order and Safety ............................ Buildings used for the preservation of law and order or public safety. Buildings in which people gather for religious activities, (such as chapels, Religious Worship ..................................... churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples). Buildings in which some type of service is provided, other than food service or Service ...................................................... retail sales of goods Buildings used to store goods, manufactured products, merchandise, raw Warehouse and Storage ........................... materials, or personal belongings (such as self-storage). Buildings that are industrial or agricultural with some retail space; buildings having several different commercial activities that, together, comprise 50 percent or more of the floorspace, but whose largest single activity is agricultural, industrial/ manufacturing, or residential; and all other Other ......................................................... miscellaneous buildings that do not fit into any other category. Buildings in which more floorspace was vacant than was used for any single commercial activity at the time of interview. Therefore, a vacant building may Vacant ....................................................... have some occupied floorspace. Sources: ........ Residential 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html Commercial

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), Description of CBECS Building Types http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/pba99/bldgtypes.html

Embodied Emissions Worksheet Section I: Buildings # thousand Type (Residential) or Principal Activity sq feet/ unit or building (Commercial) Single-Family Home.................................. 2.53 Multi-Family Unit in Large Building .......... 0.85 Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ........... 1.39 Mobile Home............................................. 1.06 Education ................................................. 25.6 Food Sales ............................................... 5.6 Food Service ............................................ 5.6 Health Care Inpatient ............................... 241.4 Health Care Outpatient ............................ 10.4 Lodging .................................................... 35.8 Retail (Other Than Mall)............................ 9.7 Office ....................................................... 14.8 Public Assembly ....................................... 14.2 Public Order and Safety ........................... 15.5 Religious Worship .................................... 10.1 Service ..................................................... 6.5 Warehouse and Storage .......................... 16.9 Other ........................................................ 21.9 Vacant ...................................................... 14.1

Life span related embodied GHG missions (MTCO2e/ unit) 98 33 54 41 991 217 217 9,346 403 1,386 376 573 550 600 391 252 654 848 546

Life span related embodied GHG missions (MTCO2e/ thousand square feet) - See calculations in table below 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39

Section II: Pavement............................... All Types of Pavement..............................

Intermediate Columns and Beams Floors Average GWP (lbs CO2e/sq ft): Vancouver, Low Rise Building

Average Materials in a 2,272-square foot single family home MTCO2e

Sources All data in black text

5.3

0.0 0.0

Exterior Walls

Windows

Interior Walls

Roofs

19.1

51.2

5.7

21.3

7.8

2269.0 8.0

3206.0 27.8

King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov

Residential floorspace per unit

2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html

Floorspace per building

Average GWP (lbs CO2e/sq ft): Vancouver, Low Rise Building

Average Materials in a 2,272-square foot single family home

Average window size

Athena EcoCalculator Athena Assembly Evaluation Tool v2.3- Vancouver Low Rise Building Assembly Average GWP (kg) per square meter http://www.athenasmi.ca/tools/ecoCalculator/index.html Lbs per kg 2.20 Square feet per square meter 10.76

Buildings Energy Data Book: 7.3 Typical/Average Household Materials Used in the Construction of a 2,272-Square-Foot Single-Family Home, 2000 http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/?id=view_book_table&TableID=2036&t=xls See also: NAHB, 2004 Housing Facts, Figures and Trends, Feb. 2004, p. 7.

Energy Information Administration/Housing Characteristics 1993 Appendix B, Quality of the Data. Pg. 5. ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/residential/rx93hcf.pdf

285.0 6.6

6050.0 15.6

3103.0 30.0

Total Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e) 88.0

Total Embodied Emissions (MTCO2e/ thousand sq feet) 38.7

Pavement Emissions Factors MTCO2e/thousand square feet of asphalt or concrete pavement

50 (see below)

Embodied GHG Emissions…………………….Worksheet Background Information Buildings Embodied GHG emissions are emissions that are created through the extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of building materials as well as emissions created through landscape disturbance (by both soil disturbance and changes in above ground biomass). Estimating embodied GHG emissions is new field of analysis; the estimates are rapidly improving and becoming more inclusive of all elements of construction and development. The estimate included in this worksheet is calculated using average values for the main construction materials that are used to create a typical family home. In 2004, the National Association of Home Builders calculated the average materials that are used in a typical 2,272 square foot single-family household. The quantity of materials used is then multiplied by the average GHG emissions associated with the life-cycle GHG emissions for each material. This estimate is a rough and conservative estimate; the actual embodied emissions for a project are likely to be higher. For example, at this stage, due to a lack of comprehensive data, the estimate does not include important factors such as landscape disturbance or the emissions associated with the interior components of a building (such as furniture). King County realizes that the calculations for embodied emissions in this worksheet are rough. For example, the emissions associated with building 1,000 square feet of a residential building will not be the same as 1,000 square feet of a commercial building. However, discussions with the construction community indicate that while there are significant differences between the different types of structures, this method of estimation is reasonable; it will be improved as more data become available. Additionally, if more specific information about the project is known, King County recommends two online embodied emissions calculators that can be used to obtain a more tailored estimate for embodied emissions: www.buildcarbonneutral.org and www.athenasmi.ca/tools/ecoCalculator/. Pavement Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed in slightly different ways; however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manufacture of paving materials, construction related emissions, and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycle. For specifics, see the worksheet.

Special Section: Estimating the Embodied Emissions for Pavement Four recent life cycle assessments of the environmental impacts of roads form the basis for the per unit embodied emissions of pavement. Each study is constructed in slightly different ways; however, the aggregate results of the reports represent a reasonable estimate of the GHG emissions that are created from the manufacture of paving materials, construction related emissions, and maintenance of the pavement over its expected life cycle. The results of the studies are presented in different units and measures; considerable effort was undertaken to be able to compare the results of the studies in a reasonable way. For more details about the below methodology, contact matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov. The four studies, Meil (2001), Park (2003), Stripple (2001) and Treolar (2001) produced total GHG emissions of 4-34 MTCO2e per thousand square feet of finished paving (for similar asphalt and concrete based pavements). This estimate does not including downstream maintenance and repair of the highway. The average (for all concrete and asphalt pavements in the studies, assuming each study gets one data point) is ~17 MTCO2e/thousand square feet. Three of the studies attempted to thoroughly account for the emissions associated with long term maintenance (40 years) of the roads. Stripple (2001), Park et al. (2003) and Treolar (2001) report 17, 81, and 68 MTCO2e/thousand square feet, respectively, after accounting for maintenance of the roads. Based on the above discussion, King County makes the conservative estimate that 50 MTCO2e/thousand square feet of pavement (over the development’s life cycle) will be used as the embodied emission factor for pavement until better estimates can be obtained. This is roughly equivalent to 3,500 MTCO2e per lane mile of road (assuming the lane is 13 feet wide). It is important to note that these studies estimate the embodied emissions for roads. Paving that does not need to stand up to the rigors of heavy use (such as parking lots or driveways) would likely use less materials and hence have lower embodied emissions. Sources: Meil, J. A Life Cycle Perspective on Concrete and Asphalt Roadways: Embodied Primary Energy and Global Warming Potential. 2006. Available: http://www.cement.ca/cement.nsf/eee9ec7bbd630126852566c40052107b/6ec79dc8ae03a782852572b90061b9 14/$FILE/ATTK0WE3/athena%20report%20Feb.%202%202007.pdf Park, K, Hwang, Y., Seo, S., M.ASCE, and Seo, H. , “Quantitative Assessment of Environmental Impacts on Life Cycle of Highways,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management , Vol 129, January/February 2003, pp 25-31, (DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:1(25)). Stripple, H. Life Cycle Assessment of Road. A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis. Second Revised Edition. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute Ltd. 2001. Available: http://www.ivl.se/rapporter/pdf/B1210E.pdf Treloar, G., Love, P.E.D., and Crawford, R.H. Hybrid Life-Cycle Inventory for Road Construction and Use. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. P. 43-49. January/February 2004.

Energy Emissions Worksheet

Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Single-Family Home.............................. Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ....... Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ....... Mobile Home......................................... Education ............................................. Food Sales ........................................... Food Service ........................................ Health Care Inpatient ............................ Health Care Outpatient ......................... Lodging ................................................. Retail (Other Than Mall)........................ Office .................................................... Public Assembly ................................... Public Order and Safety ....................... Religious Worship ................................ Service .................................................. Warehouse and Storage ...................... Other ..................................................... Vacant ..................................................

Energy consumption per building per year (million Btu) 107.3 41.0 78.1 75.9 2,125.0 1,110.0 1,436.0 60,152.0 985.0 3,578.0 720.0 1,376.0 1,338.0 1,791.0 440.0 501.0 764.0 3,600.0 294.0

Sources All data in black text

King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov

Energy consumption for residential buildings

Energy consumption for commercial buildings and Floorspace per building

Carbon Coefficient for MTCO2e per Buildings building per year 0.108 11.61 0.108 4.44 0.108 8.45 0.108 8.21 0.124 264.2 0.124 138.0 0.124 178.5 0.124 7,479.1 0.124 122.5 0.124 444.9 0.124 89.5 0.124 171.1 0.124 166.4 0.124 222.7 0.124 54.7 0.124 62.3 0.124 95.0 0.124 447.6 0.124 36.6

Floorspace MTCE per per Building thousand (thousand square feet per square feet) year 2.53 4.6 0.85 5.2 1.39 6.1 1.06 7.7 10.3 25.6 5.6 24.6 5.6 31.9 241.4 31.0 10.4 11.8 35.8 12.4 9.7 9.2 14.8 11.6 14.2 11.7 15.5 14.4 10.1 5.4 6.5 9.6 16.9 5.6 21.9 20.4 14.1 2.6

MTCO2e per thousand square feet per year 16.8 19.2 22.2 28.4 37.8 90.4 116.9 113.6 43.2 45.6 33.8 42.4 43.0 52.7 19.9 35.1 20.6 74.9 9.5

Lifespan Energy Lifespan Energy Average Related MTCO2e Building Life Related MTCO2e emissions per Span emissions per unit thousand square feet 57.9 672 266 80.5 357 422 80.5 681 489 57.9 475 448 62.5 16,526 646 62.5 8,632 1,541 62.5 11,168 1,994 62.5 467,794 1,938 62.5 7,660 737 62.5 27,826 777 577 62.5 5,599 62.5 10,701 723 62.5 10,405 733 62.5 13,928 899 62.5 3,422 339 62.5 3,896 599 62.5 5,942 352 62.5 27,997 1,278 62.5 2,286 162

2007 Buildings Energy Data Book: 6.1 Quad Definitions and Comparisons (National Average, 2001) Table 6.1.4: Average Annual Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Various Functions http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/ Data also at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001_ce/ce1-4c_housingunits2001.html

EIA, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2003) Table C3. Consumption and Gross Energy Intensity for Sum of Major Fuels for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set9/2003excel/c3.xls Note: Data in plum color is found in both of the above sources (buildings energy data book and commercial buildings energy consumption survey).

Carbon Coefficient for Buildings

Residential floorspace per unit

Buildings Energy Data Book (National average, 2005) Table 3.1.7. 2005 Carbon Dioxide Emission Coefficients for Buildings (MMTCE per Quadrillion Btu) http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/?id=view_book_table&TableID=2057 Note: Carbon coefficient in the Energy Data book is in MTCE per Quadrillion Btu. To convert to MTCO2e per million Btu, this factor was divided by 1000 and multiplied by 44/12. 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html

Single Family Multi-Family Units in Large and Homes Small Buildings

average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method New Housing Construction, 2001

1,273,000

329,000

All Residential Buildings

1,602,000

Existing Housing Stock, 2001 73,700,000 26,500,000 100,200,000 Replacement (national time: 57.9 80.5 62.5 average, 2001) Note: Single family homes calculation is used for mobile homes as a best estimate life span. Note: At this time, KC staff could find no reliable data for the average life span of commercial buildings. Therefore, the average life span of residential buildings is being used until a better approximation can be ascertained. Sources: New Housing Construction, 2001 Quarterly Starts and Completions by Purpose and Design - US and Regions (Excel) http://www.census.gov/const/quarterly_starts_completions_cust.xls See also: http://www.census.gov/const/www/newresconstindex.html Existing Housing Stock, 2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) 2001 Tables HC1:Housing Unit Characteristics, Million U.S. Households 2001 Table HC1-4a. Housing Unit Characteristics by Type of Housing Unit, Million U.S. Households, 2001 Million U.S. Households, 2001 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/hc_pdf/housunits/hc1-4a_housingunits2001.pdf

Transportation Emissions Worksheet

Type (Residential) or Principal Activity (Commercial) Single-Family Home.................................... Multi-Family Unit in Large Building ............ Multi-Family Unit in Small Building ............. Mobile Home............................................... Education ................................................... Food Sales ................................................. Food Service .............................................. Health Care Inpatient ................................. Health Care Outpatient .............................. Lodging ...................................................... Retail (Other Than Mall)............................. Office .......................................................... Public Assembly ......................................... Public Order and Safety ............................. Religious Worship ...................................... Service ....................................................... Warehouse and Storage ............................ Other .......................................................... Vacant ........................................................ Sources All data in black text

# thousand # people/ unit or sq feet/ unit building or building 2.8 2.53 1.9 0.85 1.9 1.39 2.5 1.06 30.0 25.6 5.1 5.6 10.2 5.6 455.5 241.4 19.3 10.4 13.6 35.8 7.8 9.7 28.2 14.8 6.9 14.2 18.8 15.5 4.2 10.1 5.6 6.5 9.9 16.9 18.3 21.9 2.1 14.1

# people or employees/ thousand square feet 1.1 2.3 1.4 2.3 1.2 0.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 0.4 0.8 1.9 0.5 1.2 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.2

vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes CO2e per person per year) 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9

MTCO2e/ year/ unit 13.7 9.5 9.5 12.2 147.8 25.2 50.2 2246.4 95.0 67.1 38.3 139.0 34.2 92.7 20.8 27.6 49.0 90.0 10.5

MTCO2e/ year/ thousand Average square Building feet Life Span 5.4 57.9 11.2 80.5 6.8 80.5 11.5 57.9 5.8 62.5 4.5 62.5 9.0 62.5 9.3 62.5 9.1 62.5 1.9 62.5 3.9 62.5 9.4 62.5 2.4 62.5 6.0 62.5 2.1 62.5 4.3 62.5 2.9 62.5 4.1 62.5 0.7 62.5

Life span transportation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e/ per unit) 792 766 766 709 9247 1579 3141 140506 5941 4194 2394 8696 2137 5796 1298 1729 3067 5630 657

Life span transportation related GHG emissions (MTCO2e/ thousand sq feet) 313 904 550 668 361 282 561 582 571 117 247 588 150 374 129 266 181 257 47

King County, DNRP. Contact: Matt Kuharic, matt.kuharic@kingcounty.gov

# people/ unit

Estimating Household Size for Use in Population Estimates (WA state, 2000 average) Washington State Office of Financial Management Kimpel, T. and Lowe, T. Research Brief No. 47. August 2007 http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/brief047.pdf Note: This analysis combines Multi Unit Structures in both large and small units into one category; the average is used in this case although there is likely a difference

Residential floorspace per unit

2001 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (National Average, 2001) Square footage measurements and comparisons http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/sqft-measure.html

# employees/thousand square feet

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey commercial energy uses and costs (National Median, 2003) Table B2 Totals and Medians of Floorspace, Number of Workers, and Hours of Operation for Non-Mall Buildings, 2003 http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set1/2003excel/b2.xls Note: Data for # employees/thousand square feet is presented by CBECS as square feet/employee. In this analysis employees/thousand square feet is calculated by taking the inverse of the CBECS number and multiplying by 1000.

vehicle related GHG emissions Estimate calculated as follows (Washington state, 2006)_ 56,531,930,000 2006 Annual WA State Vehicle Miles Traveled Data was daily VMT. Annual VMT was 365*daily VMT. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tdo/annualmileage.htm 6,395,798 2006 WA state population http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/53000.html 8839 vehicle miles per person per year 0.0506 gallon gasoline/mile This is the weighted national average fuel efficiency for all cars and 2 axle, 4 wheel light trucks in 2005. This includes pickup trucks, vans and SUVs. The 0.051 gallons/mile used here is the inverse of the more commonly known term â&#x20AC;&#x153;miles/per gallonâ&#x20AC;? (which is 19.75 for these cars and light trucks). Transportation Energy Data Book. 26th Edition. 2006. Chapter 4: Light Vehicles and Characteristics. Calculations based on weighted average MPG efficiency of cars and light trucks. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Edition26_Chapter04.pdf Note: This report states that in 2005, 92.3% of all highway VMT were driven by the above described vehicles. http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb26/Spreadsheets/Table3_04.xls 24.3 lbs CO2e/gallon gasoline The CO2 emissions estimates for gasoline and diesel include the extraction, transport, and refinement of petroleum as well as their combustion. Life-Cycle CO2 Emissions for Various New Vehicles. RENew Northfield. Available: http://renewnorthfield.org/wpcontent/uploads/2006/04/CO2%20emissions.pdf Note: This is a conservative estimate of emissions by fuel consumption because diesel fuel, 2205 with a emissions factor of 26.55 lbs CO2e/gallon was not estimated. 4.93 lbs/metric tonne vehicle related GHG emissions (metric tonnes CO2e per person per year) average lief span of buildings, estimated by replacement time method See Energy Emissions Worksheet for Calculations Commercial floorspace per unit

307 BROAD STREET DEVELOPMENT Prepared for: Paragon Real Estate Advisors, Inc.

Project No. 130075  September 2, 2015 Draft

pect

CONSULTING

e a r t h + w a t e r

GEOTECHNICAL REPORT

307 Broad Street Development Prepared for: Paragon Real Estate Advisors, Inc.

Project No. 130075 ď&#x201A;&#x; September 2, 2015 Draft

Aspect Consulting, LLC

PRELIMINARY

Nicholas C. Szot, PE Project Geotechnical Engineer nszot@aspectconsulting.com

Erik O. Andersen, PE Senior Associate Geotechnical Engineer eandersen@aspectconsulting.com

V:\130075 307 Broad Street\Deliverables\307 Broad Street Report\307 Broad Street Report_Draft.docx

earth+water

Aspect Consulting, LLC 401 2nd Avenue S. Suite 201 Seattle, WA 98104 206.328.7443 www.aspectconsulting.com

ASPECT CONSULTING

Contents 1

Introduction ................................................................................................. 1

Project Description ..................................................................................... 1

Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing............................................... 1

Site Conditions ............................................................................................ 2

Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................... 2 5.1 Geology and Stratigraphy ........................................................................... 2 5.1.1 Fill ...................................................................................................... 3 5.1.2 Glacially Consolidated Soils .................................................................. 3 5.1.3 Additional Observations and Considerations......................................... 3 5.2 Groundwater ............................................................................................... 4

Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations and Conclusions ........... 4 6.1 Earthquake Engineering ............................................................................. 4 6.1.1 Seismic Hazards ................................................................................... 4 6.1.2 Seismic Design Parameters.................................................................. 4 6.2 Temporary Shoring ..................................................................................... 5 6.3 Soldier Pile and Tieback Anchor Walls ....................................................... 5 6.3.1 Lateral Pressures.................................................................................. 6 6.3.2 Soldier Piles.......................................................................................... 6 6.3.3 Lagging................................................................................................. 7 6.3.4 Tieback Anchors ................................................................................... 9 6.4 Soil Nail and Shotcrete Walls ..................................................................... 9 6.4.1 Soil Nails ............................................................................................ 10 6.4.2 Temporary Shotcrete Wall .................................................................. 11 6.4.3 Additional Shoring System Selection Considerations .......................... 11 6.4.4 Excavation and Temporary Shoring Monitoring .................................. 12 6.4.5 Utility Conflicts .................................................................................... 12 6.5 Building Foundations ................................................................................ 12 6.5.1 Settlement .......................................................................................... 13 6.5.2 Subgrade Preparation and Construction ............................................. 13 6.6 Slab-on-Grade Floors ............................................................................... 13 6.7 Under-Slab Drainage System ................................................................... 14 6.8 Permanent Below-Grade Walls ................................................................ 14 6.8.1 Drainage ............................................................................................. 15 6.9 Earthwork Considerations......................................................................... 15 6.9.1 Structural Fill....................................................................................... 15 6.9.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation ........................................................ 16

PROJECT NO. 130075 ď&#x201A;&#x; SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

6.9.3 6.9.4

Temporary Excavations and Slopes ................................................... 17 Temporary Erosion Control................................................................. 17

Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services .................................18

References .................................................................................................19

Limitations..................................................................................................20

List of Tables 1

Seismic Design Parameters (in text)

List of Figures 1

Site Location Map

Site and Exploration Map

Earth Pressure Diagram, Soldier Pile Wall with Multiple Levels of Tieback Anchors

List of Attachments 1

Anchor Load Testing Program and Shoring Monitoring Program

List of Appendices

Subsurface Exploration Logs for Soil Borings B-1, B-2, and B-3

Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results for Soil Borings B-1, B-2, and B-3

Nearby Explorations Completed by Others

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075 ď&#x201A;&#x; SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

1 Introduction This report presents the results of a geotechnical engineering investigation by Aspect Consulting, LLC (Aspect) in support of design and construction of the 307 Broad Street (Site) project, located in Seattle, Washington. The Site location and nearby features are shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2. This report provides our geotechnical engineering recommendations in support of design and construction of the project. This geotechnical study and report is in addition to our Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) (Aspect, 2013).

2 Project Description The proposed development is a 9-story (above grade) multi-family residential building with 3-1/2 to 4 levels of below-grade parking. The structural footprint of the building is about 142 feet long, and 106 feet wide and will occupy the entire site. Based on the proposed design, we understand that excavation for below-grade parking will extend about 40 feet deep. Temporary shoring will be required on all four sides of the excavation.

3 Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing Aspect explored subsurface conditions at the Site by drilling three soil borings (B-1, B-2, and B-3) in 2013 as part of a Phase II ESA (Aspect, 2013). Each boring was advanced to a depth of 71 feet below Site grade. The locations of our borings are shown on Figure 2. Details of the methods used to complete the borings and the exploration logs are presented in Appendix A. Selected soil samples obtained during drilling of B-1, B-2, and B-3 were submitted for geotechnical laboratory testing to characterize index and engineering properties. Geotechnical laboratory test results are included in Appendix B. As part of this study, we also evaluated existing available geotechnical data (exploration logs and laboratory testing results) by others near the Site. The locations of previous explorations are shown on Figure 2 and include: â&#x20AC;˘

Two soil borings (B-1 and B-7) by Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. in 1981, located to the west of the Site at 2901 3rd Avenue.

PROJECT NO. 130075 ď&#x201A;&#x; SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

•

Two soil borings (HC-1 and HC-1A) by Hart Crowser in 1996, located to the north of the Site at the Pacific Science Center project (200 2nd Avenue N.); and

•

Two soil borings (B-2 and B-3) by The Riley Group in 2004, located to the south of the Site at the Mosler Lofts project (2703 3rd Avenue).

4 Site Conditions The Site is generally rectangular in shape totaling approximately 1/3-acre. The approximate northern-half of the Site is occupied by the Car Toys building, and the approximate southern-half is a paved parking lot. The Site is bounded to the northwest by Broad Street, to the southwest by 3rd Avenue, and to the northeast by private property that is developed with a commercial building and parking lot owned and occupied by Wells Fargo Bank. A City of Seattle Right-of-Way (City ROW) alley separates the Site from the Wells Fargo Bank property. A private property parking lot borders the Site to the southeast and is also owned by Wells Fargo Bank. We anticipate numerous buried utilities are present at and around the Site. The Site is gently sloping from the northwest to the southeast with an elevation difference of about 5 feet.

5 Subsurface Conditions Our characterization of subsurface conditions is based on the results of three soil borings (B-1 through B-3) completed by Aspect in 2013, and supplemented with logs of soil borings completed by others near the Site.

5.1 Geology and Stratigraphy The most current geologic map (Troost et al, 2005) indicates the Site area is underlain by regraded or modified lands, which are in turn underlain by Vashon glacial till and/or preFraser glaciation age deposits. The soil borings completed at the Site and logs of explorations completed nearby, indicate subsurface conditions generally consist of several feet of fill, overlying glacially consolidated hard silts and clays, and dense sands and gravels consistent with Vashon glacial till, pre-Fraser nonglacial lacustrine, and pre-Fraser nonglacial fluvial deposits. Other than the fill, the soil underlying the site has been consolidated/compressed to a dense/hard state by several thousand feet of glacial ice during the last glaciation more than 12,000 years ago (glacially consolidated). The primary geologic units encountered and a brief description of each is shown below.

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

5.1.1 Fill One to three feet of fill was encountered in the soils borings completed at the Site. The fill was observed to consist of loose to medium dense, gravelly, silty sand (SM). The presence or thickness of fill is anticipated to vary across the Site. The fill exhibits low to moderate shear strength and moderate compressibility.

5.1.2 Glacially Consolidated Soils 5.1.2.1 Vashon Glacial Till Vashon glacial till consisting of very dense silty sand (SM), hard sandy silt (ML) with variable gravel content, and very dense silty, sandy gravel (GM), was encountered below the fill soils in the explorations completed at the Site. The Vashon glacial till was 12 to 17 feet thick in our borings. The glacial till exhibits very high shear strength and very low compressibility. 5.1.2.2 Pre-Fraser Nonglacial Lacustrine Hard, fine-grained material, which we interpret as pre-Fraser nonglacial lacustrine, was encountered below Vashon glacial till. These deposits generally consist of hard silt and clay (ML, CL), with variable sand content and occasionally with interbedded sand and silty sand. This deposit was observed to be between 20 and 30 feet thick at the Site. Although not observed in the soil samples collected from the Site, hard silt and clay soils were noted to be fissured or trace slickensided in the logs of some of the explorations completed near the Site by others. This material exhibits high shear strength and low compressibility. 5.1.2.3 Pre-Fraser Nonglacial Fluvial Very dense coarse-grained material, which we interpret as pre-Fraser nonglacial fluvial, was encountered beneath the hard silt and clay deposits (pre-Fraser lacustrine deposits) at the Site. These deposits extended the full depth explored (71 feet below grade). These deposits generally consisted of very dense sand and gravel with variable silt content (SPSM, SM, GW, GW-GM) and were occasionally interbedded with hard silt and clay. This material is anticipated to exhibit high shear strength and low compressibility.

5.1.3 Additional Observations and Considerations In our explorations hard silt/clay (lacustrine) deposits were observed to overlie very dense sand/gravel (fluvial) deposits. Logs of nearby explorations completed by others indicate these deposits to be â&#x20AC;&#x153;interbeddedâ&#x20AC;? with one another. We consider this variability in stratigraphy sequence to be consistent with our understanding of the geologic setting of the area, and we considered this in the development of our geotechnical engineering recommendations. A thin layer of hard peat interpreted to be a pre-Fraser nonglacial wetland deposit was encountered at a depth of 45.0 to 45.5 feet below ground surface in B-1. Given this deposit is quite thin and was not observed in other borings, we do not consider it to be a primary geologic unit that warrants special design or construction considerations.

PROJECT NO. 130075 ď&#x201A;&#x; SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

5.2 Groundwater Downhole measurements taken through a temporary well screen at the time of drilling (ATD) indicated groundwater at 25.3 and 26.8 feet in Aspect borings B-2 and B-3, respectively. All three borings B-1, B-2, and B-3 encountered groundwater (as measured through the hollow-stem auger ATD) at depths of 58.9, 62.2, and 62.5 feet, respectively. Also, zones of “moist to wet” and “wet” soil were encountered at various depths in all three borings, typically within sand and gravel soils, or sandy or gravelly interbed soils. These moist to wet and wet zones were typically a few feet thick. We interpret that the groundwater and wet soil zones observed in the borings likely represent discontinuous perched/trapped groundwater zones. We interpret the true static groundwater table to be below the planned excavation depth. Perched/trapped waterbearing zones are anticipated to drain relatively quickly when exposed in the mass excavation and should be managed using trenches and/or sumps and trash pumps. Fluctuations in static and perched groundwater conditions may occur locally due to fluctuations in precipitation or seasonal and tidal influences.

6 Geotechnical Engineering Recommendations and Conclusions The building may be supported using conventional spread foundations or rafted structural slabs bearing on very dense/hard glacially consolidated soil. Soldier pile and tieback shoring walls, or soil nail and shotcrete walls, will be required for temporary excavation support. The excavation is anticipated to be above the true static groundwater table, but perched groundwater is expected to be encountered during excavation and can likely be controlled with sumps and trenches.

6.1 Earthquake Engineering 6.1.1 Seismic Hazards Based on the location of the Site, topography, and the hard/dense nature of the soils, we consider the risk of liquefaction and associated settlements, lateral spreading, and surface fault rupture to be very low.

6.1.2 Seismic Design Parameters Development at the Site will be designed in accordance with the seismic design provisions presented in the 2012 Seattle Building Code (City of Seattle, 2013) with input from the International Building Code and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 (ASCE, 2013). In accordance with these publications, we classify the Site as Seismic Site Class C. •

The seismic design parameters obtained from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Interactive Deaggregation (USGS, 2015) for a seismic event with an

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

exceedance probability of 2 percent in 50 years (mean return time 2,475 years), adjusted for Site Class C, are shown below in Table 1.

Table 1 – Seismic Design Parameters Design Parameter

Recommended Value

Mean Magnitude, Mw

6.99

Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), g

0.56

Site Coefficient Fpga

1.00

Adjusted Peak Ground Acceleration (As = PGA*FPGA)

0.56g (Site Class C)

Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration (SDs)

0.86g (Site Class C)

Design 1-Second Period Spectral Acceleration (SD1)

0.40g (Site Class C)

6.2 Temporary Shoring The City of Seattle Department of Planning and Development mandates that temporary shoring lateral deflections be less than 1 inch to avoid adverse impacts to adjacent structures, utilities, and streets. Appropriate temporary shoring systems for this project include soldier pile and tieback anchor walls, and soil nail and shotcrete walls. Design and construction recommendations for both soldier pile and tieback anchor walls, and soil nail and shotcrete walls, are presented in the following sections.

6.3 Soldier Pile and Tieback Anchor Walls Soldier pile and tieback anchor walls consist of wide-flange steel beams that are concreted into vertically drilled shafts. The solider piles are spaced at a uniform horizontal spacing of about 8 feet along the perimeter of the excavation and shoring wall alignment. As the excavation is advanced, timber lagging is installed between the steel beams to retain the soil between the concreted soldier piles, and tieback anchors are installed at vertical spacing of 8 to 10 feet and structurally connected to the soldier piles to provide additional lateral support. Tieback anchors are installed by drilling and grouting into place steel tendons (solid bars or wire strands) into the soil behind the shoring wall. The tieback anchors are installed at a slight declination (typically about 15 to 25 degrees) from horizontal. The tieback anchors are installed far enough behind the wall to establish adhesion within the stable soil that is not influenced by the temporary excavation. Soldier pile and tieback anchor wall shoring is considered an “active” system because the tieback anchors are loaded and “locked off” prior to advancing the excavation further.

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

Once the interior bracing and horizontal diaphragm elements are in place, the tieback anchors are destressed. It is conventional practice to leave destressed tieback anchors in the ground.

6.3.1 Lateral Pressures The soldier pile and tieback anchor walls must be designed to resist lateral forces exerted by retained soil and other surcharges imposed on the wall from traffic, equipment, stockpiles, and nearby building foundations. Seismic earth pressures are not included for temporary shoring wall design. Lateral earth pressures for the design of the soldier pile and tieback anchor walls depend on the wall’s ability to deform and proximity to settlement-sensitive elements (utilities and structures). If the top of the wall is allowed to deform on the order of 0.001 to 0.002 times the retained height, the wall may be designed for active earth pressures. Alternatively, if the wall stiffness does not allow lateral deformation or settlementsensitive elements are located within the zone of potential movement, then the wall should be designed using at-rest earth pressures. Based on our understanding of the Site and nearby elements (primarily streets, an alley, and paved parking), we anticipate that active earth pressures can be assumed for design. In developing design earth pressures for the shoring wall, we make the following additional assumptions and recommendations: •

The maximum exposed shoring wall height will be about 40 feet.

•

The shoring wall has the ability to yield slightly to invoke an active earth pressure condition.

•

A level backslope will exist behind the shoring wall.

•

The shoring wall will be free draining with no buildup of unbalanced hydrostatic pressures anticipated.

•

Multiple-level tieback anchors walls should be designed using a trapezoidal apparent earth pressure distribution where the ordinate (P) is calculated in accordance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 (FWHA, 1999), as shown on Figure 3.

•

A traffic surcharge to account for relatively light street loads, small equipment, and small material stockpiles should be added to the apparent earth pressure distribution, as shown on Figure 3.

•

No seismic earth pressures are applied because the shoring wall is assumed to be temporary.

•

Concentrated loads from mobile cranes or other heavy construction equipment operating along the shoring walls will need to be considered on a case-specific basis.

6.3.2 Soldier Piles The soldier piles must be adequately design to resist forces from lateral earth pressures, lateral and vertical tieback anchors loads, and other surcharges. We make the following recommendations for soldier pile design:

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

•

Design the soldier piles based on the apparent earth pressure diagram presented in Figure 3.

•

Soldier pile embedment should be determined to provide moment equilibrium of the soldier pile below the lowest brace and should account for excavation of footings.

•

Soldier piles should be embedded a minimum of 10 feet below the base of the excavation and should be set in concreted shafts with a minimum diameter of 2 feet.

•

Design solider piles to resist vertical loads from tieback anchors using an allowable soldier pile end bearing of 25 kips per square foot (ksf), and allowable side friction 1.0 ksf acting over the portion of the solider pile embedded below the excavation.

The soldier piles must be properly constructed in order to perform as designed. We make the following recommendations for soldier pile construction: •

Perched groundwater or caving soil may be encountered during drilling of soldier piles shafts, and the contractor should be prepared to use a temporary casing to prevent caving and soil loss. Drilling mud should not be used unless approved by the design team. If there is standing water in the shaft, concrete should be placed with a tremie pipe placed at the bottom of the hole.

•

Soldier piles with center-to-center spacing of less than 3 pile diameters should not be drilled in sequence. Rather, every other pile should be drilled, and the concrete should be placed and allowed to cure at least 24 hours before adjacent piles are drilled.

•

The bottom of the soldier piles shafts should be relatively undisturbed glacially consolidated soils and should be cleared of loose or slough soils that may have accumulated during drilled prior to installing the soldier pile.

•

A qualified geotechnical engineer should provide special inspection services during soldier pile installations. Special inspection should include monitoring pile shaft drilling, acceptance of the pile shafts, and inspection of the pile and concrete installation. Acceptance of the soldier pile installation should be the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer.

6.3.3 Lagging We recommend temporary timber lagging be designed in accordance with the FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4 (FWHA, 1999), Table 12—Recommended Thickness of Temporary Timber Lagging. We recommend assuming the “Soil Description” as “Competent Soils,” which yields a lagging thickness ranging from 3 to 4 inches for clear spans of less than 8 feet. Excavation should not exceed an exposed height of 5 feet before installing lagging. When the first level of lagging is complete, the contractor can continue with the excavation and lagging in 5-foot lifts until all required lagging has been installed. The excavation should

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

not exceed an exposed height of 2 feet below planned tieback anchor or bracing elevations to limit deflection of the shoring wall. If caving, sloughing, or slickensided soils are encountered during excavation, the contractor should be prepared to install the lagging in short vertical increments and backfill behind the lagging to fill voids. The City of Seattle mandates voids be backfilled the same working day. To prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures, the backfill must not prevent drainage of perched water or seepage behind the shoring wall. Lean mix concrete is a suitable option for backfilling voids behind the shoring wall. It may be necessary to cut weep holes in the lagging in areas of seepage to create a drainage path. Drainage board is typically attached to the lagging face prior to construction of permanent walls against the shoring walls to collect and convey seepage to a suitable drainage system discussed more in the Drainage section of this report.

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075 ď&#x201A;&#x; SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

6.3.4 Tieback Anchors We recommend assuming an allowable tieback adhesion of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for bond zones located within glacially consolidated soil. This recommended value assumes low pressure (gravity) grout injection methods. Higher adhesion values may be achieved with alternate anchor installation techniques, but ultimately the tieback adhesion values should be verified in the field using a tieback anchor testing program. Tieback anchor bond zones should be entirely beyond the “no-load” zone illustrated in Figure 3. Tieback anchors should carry no loads within the “no-load” zone. The tieback anchors should be inclined downward at 15 to 25 degrees from horizontal. The tieback anchor layout and inclination should be checked against the location of adjacent utilities to avoid impacting them and maintain City of Seattle minimum clearances. Tieback anchors will require approval and easement agreements in the City ROW and private property. In the event of ground loss or caving, the tieback anchors should be drilled with a temporary casing to keep the hole open and clear. Corrosion protection is not required for the temporary tieback anchors. Tieback anchors should be installed with centralizers to keep the anchor tendons in the center of the shaft during grouting. Structural grout should be used to infill the bond zone of the tieback anchors. A sand slurry or other noncohesive material can be used to fill the “no-load” zone. Alternatively, a bond breaker, such as plastic sheathing/tubing, can be placed around the portion of the anchor located within the “no-load” zone. Tieback anchor testing is recommended to verify design assumptions and adequate installation. Refer to Attachment 1 and the summary of testing requirements below. •

The contractor shall be required to complete at least two successful verification tests per soil type and tieback anchor installation method. The verification test shall load the tieback anchor to 200 percent of the design load.

•

The contractor shall be required to complete proof tests on each tieback anchor. The proof test shall load the tieback anchor to 130 percent of the design load.

A qualified geotechnical engineer should provide special inspection services during tieback anchor installations. Special inspections should include monitoring shaft drilling, acceptance of the shaft, inspection of the tendons, bond breakers (if used) and centralizers, anchor installation, grouting, and testing. Acceptance of the tieback anchors should be the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. The project contractor should be required to submit a tieback installation and testing plan, which should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to construction.

6.4 Soil Nail and Shotcrete Walls Soil nail and shotcrete walls are typically constructed by making a 4- to 5-foot-tall vertical excavation (cut face), and then drilling and grouting soil nail bars (anchors) into the soil behind the cut face. Soil nails are grouted over their full length. After the soil nails are installed, steel reinforcement mesh and drainage board is hung against the cut face, and lightweight concrete is “shot” (referred to as “shotcrete”) using a pressurized hose onto the cut face and over the steel reinforcement mesh creating a 4- to 8-inch-thick

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

shotcrete wall. A washer plate and nut is placed over the soil nail bar and seated against the shotcrete wall. This process is repeated until the bottom of the excavation is reached. This system is considered to be a “passive” system because the soil nail bars are typically not loaded prior to advancing the excavation, and soil and wall movement is required to engage the resistance of the soil nails. In some cases, a passive system can result in more lateral wall deflection than a soldier pile and tieback anchors wall (active system). Design must also consider surcharge loading from nearby street traffic and construction loads. As detailed in Section 6.4.3, soil nail and shotcrete wall construction is more susceptible to complications arising from excavation seepage, sloughing, over-break, and soil loss than soldier pile and tieback anchor walls, and may increase overall costs and construction duration if encountered. We recommend the shoring contactor be consulted about the Site conditions before design and construction of soil nails and shotcrete walls.

6.4.1 Soil Nails We recommend soil nails be designed in general accordance with the FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7—Soil Nail Walls (FHWA, 2003). The soil nail design should meet the minimum factors of safety for global stability, sliding, soil nail pullout, and bar tensile strength. For planning purposes, we recommend assuming a typical vertical and horizontal soil nail spacing of about 5 feet with average soil nail length equal to about 80 to 100 percent of the final wall height. The bond (adhesion) between the soil nail and the surrounding soil can vary significantly with the contractor’s method of installation and must be verified by load testing. The soil nail layout should be carefully checked to avoid impacting utilities and maintain City of Seattle minimum clearances. Soil nails will require approval and easement agreements in the City ROW and private property. We recommend drilling of the soil nail shafts be accomplished using a method that will minimize caving and soil loss. A temporary casing should be considered in soils prone to caving. The shafts should be thoroughly cleaned of loose drill cuttings and slough prior to soil nail bar installation and grouting. Soil nail bar installation and grouting should take place as soon as possible and shafts should not be left open overnight. We recommend grout placement in the shaft using tremie methods and/or with hollow soil nail bars. The soil nail bars should include centralizers to keep the bar centered in the shaft during installation. Soils nails should be load tested to verify that the design adhesion value assumed for soil nail design is achieved by the contractor’s means and methods of installation. Refer to Attachment 1 for soil nail verification and proof load testing requirements. Soil nail testing is recommended to verify design assumptions and adequate installation. Test soil nails should include a short unbonded zone near the face established using a temporary sleeve or casing. A large-area, stiff reaction plate to bear against the soil face should be provided by the contractor for verification testing. Refer to Attachment 1 and the summary of testing requirements below.

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

•

The contractor shall be required to complete two successful verification tests per soil type and soil nail installation method. The verification test shall load the soil nail to a load equal to 200 percent of the design bond strength.

•

The contractor shall be required to complete proof tests on at least five percent of production soil nails. The proof test shall load the soil nail to 130 percent of the design load.

A qualified geotechnical engineer should provide special inspections during soil nail installations. Special inspections will include monitoring shaft drilling, acceptance of the shaft, inspection of the soil nails, centralizers, bar installation, grouting, and testing. Acceptance of the soil nail should be the responsibility of the geotechnical engineer. The project contractor should be required to submit a soil nail installation and testing plan, which should be approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to construction.

6.4.2 Temporary Shotcrete Wall We recommend the shotcrete wall be designed in general accordance with the FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7—Soil Nail Walls (FHWA, 2003). The mesh reinforcement and shotcrete thickness must be designed to meet the minimum factors of safety for facing flexure, punching shear, and nut and washer plate failure. The duration that a cut face is left open (stand-up time) before the shotcrete wall is constructed should less than 24 hours. Cut face height should not exceed 5 feet. The contractor should complete excavation test sections in each soil type to evaluate the stability and adjust the allowable stand-up time as necessary to maintain safe working conditions and prevent sloughing and soil loss. In some cases, a thin layer of shotcrete can be applied to localized cut face areas to promote longer stand-up times, soil nails can be installed after the shotcrete wall to reduce the required stand-up time, or temporary soil berms can be placed for stabilization. Shotcrete wall test panels should be completed along with core testing using the proposed means and methods, and a qualified nozzle-man used for production fo shotcrete wall construction. Temporary wall drainage is required to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the shotcrete wall. Temporary wall drainage typically consists of vertical geocomposite drainage board that is placed against the exposed vertical soil face cut between soil nails before hanging mesh reinforcement and shotcreting. The drainage board is typically 16 to 18 inch wide and extends to the base of the excavation by overlapping the drainage board as the excavation advances downward. The drainage board can be terminated at the bottom of the excavation and weep holes cut into the shotcrete wall to convey drainage to an under-slab drain system as discussed in the Drainage section of this report.

6.4.3 Additional Shoring System Selection Considerations The subsurface conditions at the Site carry specific risks which are potentially more adverse for soil nail and shotcrete wall shoring, including: •

Perched groundwater was encountered in the borings completed at and near the Site. Perched groundwater may result in seepage, sloughing, and raveling from

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

the excavation sidewalls and significantly reduce the time the excavation can remain stable during soil nail and shotcrete construction (commonly referred to as stand-up time). •

Although not observed in the borings completed at the Site, fissured or slickensided hard clay soils were reported in exploration logs in the area, and have been encountered in other deep excavation projects in downtown Seattle. Fissured or slickensided soils encountered during excavation could exhibit sudden lateral deformations or “over-break” of the excavation sidewalls during soil nail and shotcrete construction.

Mitigation measures for these conditions typically include installation of soil nails at a closer spacing, reducing excavation stand-up time, application of a thin application of shotcrete immediately after excavation, and construction of a thicker shotcrete wall to fill areas of soil loss, all of which will result in higher construction costs and longer construction duration. In general, soldier pile and tieback anchor walls typically provide a more rigid temporary shoring system that, if properly designed and constructed, are not as susceptible to risks associated with perched groundwater seepage and slickensided soils. We recommend consulting with a soil nail and shotcrete shoring wall designer and/or experienced contractor prior to selection, to further evaluate the practicality and cost implications of construction of soil nail and shotcrete walls at the Site.

6.4.4 Excavation and Temporary Shoring Monitoring Excavation and temporary shoring performance should be monitored by implementing a monitoring program consisting of a preconstruction survey before construction, and optical survey and inclinometer readings during construction. Refer to Attachment 1 for additional shoring monitoring program details.

6.4.5 Utility Conflicts Specific considerations and construction practices will be necessary to limit the impacts of the project at the Site and surrounding areas, specifically nearby utilities in this urban setting. Multiple underground utilities exist at and around the Site, which will need to be considered in design and in construction.

6.5 Building Foundations The excavation will expose glacially consolidated soils consisting of hard silt and clay, and/or very dense sand and gravel at its base. The building may be supported on glacially consolidated soils using spread footings or rafted structural slabs. We recommend a maximum net allowable bearing pressure of 10 ksf for design of foundations bearing directly on the glacially consolidated soils at depths greater than 30 feet below existing grade. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for short-duration loading, such as wind and seismic loading. To resist lateral forces, we recommend using an allowable passive equivalent fluid density of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and an allowable base friction coefficient of 0.35 for design. These allowable design values include a factor of safety equal to 1.5, and

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

are appropriate for footings poured directly onto glacially consolidated soils, or approved structural fill placed and compacted over glacially consolidated soils.

6.5.1 Settlement From the project structural engineer (Coughlin Porter Lundeen), we understand building column loads will be in the range of 700 to 1,300 kips. Column footings supported on discrete/isolated spread footings (with bearing areas of the order of 70 to 130 square feet) will experience total settlements of 1 inch or less. Differential settlements between adjacent column footings can be assumed to be about one-half of the total settlement. Differential settlement along continuous strip footings should be assumed to be approximately Â˝ inch per 25 feet of footing length. Total and differential settlement will occur rapidly as loads are applied. Aspect should be provided the opportunity review the foundation plans and load schedules to revisit the settlement estimates above.

6.5.2 Subgrade Preparation and Construction We recommend that an Aspect representative observe foundation subgrade areas prior to foundation construction to evaluate preparation and subsurface conditions. Foundation subgrades should be firm and unyielding glacially consolidated soils, and be clear of any loose, disturbed soil or standing water prior to foundation construction. Soft subgrade areas identified during evaluation should be excavated and replaced with lean-mix or structural concrete. During periods of wet weather, it may be necessary to cover exposed subgrades with a thin layer of lean-mix concrete to prevent worker and equipment traffic, and water from disturbing the subgrade surface.

6.6 Slab-on-Grade Floors Floor slabs at the lowest levels of the parking garage should be supported over a drainage layer and glacially consolidated soils, or structural fill placed directly over glacially consolidated soils. Slab-on-grade subgrade should be observed and evaluated by Aspect prior to slab construction. Slab-on-grade subgrade should be firm and unyielding under the proofrolling load of heavy equipment, and should be clear of any loose soil or standing water prior to slab construction. Soft subgrade areas identified during evaluation should be excavated and replaced with lean-mix or compacted structural fill. Slab-on-grade floors prepared as described above can be designed assuming a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 pounds per cubic inch and an allowable sliding coefficient of friction of 0.35. We recommend the drainage layer beneath the slab-on-grade floors consist of a 12-inchthick free-draining material meeting the requirement of City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16 Type 22 (3/4-inch Crushed Gravel) mineral aggregate.

PROJECT NO. 130075 ď&#x201A;&#x; SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

6.7 Under-Slab Drainage System We recommend installation of a permanent under-slab drainage system to collect and remove water from below the foundations and slab-on-grade floors. The under-slab drainage system should consist of an interior perimeter foundation drain and two additional drains that are parallel and oriented longitudinally beneath the slab. The drain pipes should be connected to a central drainage sump and pump. The under-slab drainage system should tie in with the permanent wall drainage system described in the “BelowGrade Walls – Drainage” section of this report. The drain pipe should consist of rigid, 4-inch-diameter, perforated pipe placed in trenches that are at least few inches deeper than the base of the 12-inch-thick drainage layer and should include cleanouts for maintenance. The drain pipe should be surrounded by City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16 Type 5 (Washed Gravel) or Type 22 (3/4” Crushed Gravel). The under-slab drainage system may not completely prevent seepage or leaks that could manifest as wet slab areas. We recommend consulting with a building waterproofing expert to implement waterproofing elements, in addition to the under-slab drainage system, if wet slab areas are not acceptable.

6.8 Permanent Below-Grade Walls We assume that permanent below-grade walls along the site perimeter will be formed and constructed against the temporary shoring wall. Permanent below-grade walls with bracing from multiple levels of parking garage slabs should be designed for the apparent earth pressure distribution shown on Figure 3, plus a seismic surcharge pressure. The apparent earth pressure distribution shown on Figure 3 assumes that adequate drainage is provided such that hydrostatic pressure is not allowed to build up behind the wall. Refer to the Drainage section of this report for additional details. Cantilevered cast-in-place walls that are not constructed against the shoring wall may be needed as retaining structures near the surface or interior grade transitions in the parking garage. Cantilevered walls retaining level, compacted structural fill can be designed using active and at-rest pressures assuming an equivalent fluid unit weight equal to 35 and 55 pcf, respectively, plus a seismic surcharge pressure. The active earth pressure value should be used only if the wall is allowed to yield laterally a minimum of 0.001 times the height of the wall. These values assume hydrostatic pressure is not allowed to build up behind the wall by installing adequate drainage. A seismic surcharge pressure (rectangular distribution acting over full height of wall) of 10H psf, where H is the height of the permanent wall, should be added to the earth pressures distributions presented above for permanent walls. An allowable passive equivalent unit weight of 350 pcf and an allowable base friction coefficient of 0.35 can be used for design of walls that bear against level glacially consolidated soils, or compacted structural fill. The upper 2 feet of passive resistance should be neglected if the surface is not protected by permanent pavement or slab.

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

6.8.1 Drainage We recommend installation of a drainage board, such as MiraDrain6000 or equivalent, to the face of the temporary shoring wall to provide positive drainage behind permanent belowgrade walls that are constructed directly against the shoring wall. The drainage board is typically 16 to 18 inches wide and should be installed vertically (with overlap) down the timber lagging between soldier piles, or at a horizontal spacing of about every 5 to 6 feet on shotcrete walls. Drainage board should not be installed closer than about 3 feet from the top of the wall to prevent the introduction of surface water into the drainage system. The drainage board should extend down to the foundation elevation. Seepage that is carried downward by the drainage board to the foundation-level elevation should be conveyed by a weep hole through the permanent wall and a tight-line connected to the foundation and under-slab drainage system, all routed to the central sump and pump, or other suitable outlet. The drainage board spacing and coverage described above should be adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures; however some wet wall areas should still be expected. Full drainage board coverage could reduce the likelihood of wet wall areas, but not eliminate it entirely. A building waterproofing expert should be consulted to recommend additional waterproofing elements, such as bentonite board or concrete additives, if wet wall areas are not acceptable. Drainage behind cast-in-place walls that are not constructed against temporary shoring walls should be backfilled to include a with a 24-inch-wide “drainage curtain” consisting of free draining sand and gravel with no more than 5 percent fines (material passing the US No. 200 sieve) by weight based on the portion of the soil passing the ¾-inch sieve. A slotted or perforated drain pipe should be installed at the base of the wall to collect and convey water to a suitable outlet. The drain pipe should be surrounded by at least 6 inches of free-draining gravel and include a cleanout for periodic maintenance.

6.9 Earthwork Considerations 6.9.1 Structural Fill Soils placed beneath or around foundations, walls, utilities, slabs-on-grade, or below paved areas should be considered structural fill. In these fill areas, we recommend the following: •

Use on-Site soils as structural fill may be difficult due to high fines (material passing the US No. 200 sieve) content and moisture sensitivity. See the On-Site Soils section below.

•

Imported material to be used as structural fill should generally consist of a wellgraded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent fines (material passing the US No. 200 sieve) by weight, such as City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16 Type 17 (Bank Run Gravel).

•

Imported structural fill to be used below foundations should consist of lean-mix concrete.

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

•

Structural fill should only be placed on a relatively firm and unyielding subgrade. The exposed subgrade soils should be compacted (in-place) to a relatively firm and unyielding condition to a minimum density of 95 percent of the maximum dry density using the modified Proctor method (ASTM D-1557) prior to placement of structural fill.

•

Structural Fill should be compacted to a relatively firm and unyielding condition to a minimum density of 95 percent of the maximum dry density using the modified Proctor method (ASTM D-1557).

•

Structural fill placed against below-grade walls should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density. Care should be taken when compacting fill against subsurface walls to avoid overstressing the walls.

•

Place and compact all structural fill in lifts with a loose thickness no greater than 12 inches when using relatively large compaction equipment, such as a vibrating plate attached to an excavator (hoe pack) or drum roller. If small, hand-operated compaction equipment is used to compact structural fill, lifts should not exceed 6 inches in loose thickness.

•

Control the moisture content of the structural fill to within 2 to 3 percent of the optimum moisture. Optimum moisture is the moisture content corresponding to the maximum modified Proctor dry density.

•

Fill placed in softscape, general grading, landscape, or common areas that are not beneath or around structures, utilities, slabs-on-grade, or below paved areas that can accommodate some settlement should be compacted to a relatively firm and unyielding condition.

6.9.1.1 Use of On-Site Soils as Structural Fill The suitability of excavated Site soils for use as structural fill depends on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (the portion passing through a No. 200 sieve) increases, the soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Soil containing more than about 5 percent fines cannot be consistently compacted to a dense nonyielding condition when the moisture content is greater than about 3 to 4 percent above or below optimum. Soil considered for use as structural fill must also be free of organic and other compressible materials. Results of laboratory analysis (grain size analysis) indicate that the majority of the on-Site soils have a fines content that is great enough to make them moisture-sensitive when wet. However, if they are properly moisture conditioned and used during dry periods the on-Site soils may be acceptable to reuse as structural fill. This should be evaluated during construction on a case-specific basis.

6.9.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation Pavement subgrade should be observed and evaluated by the geotechnical engineer prior to placement of the pavement section (base course and asphalt pavement). Pavement subgrade should firm and unyielding under the proof-rolling load of heavy equipment, and should be clear of any loose soil or standing water prior to slab construction. Soft

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

subgrade areas identified during evaluation should be excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill.

6.9.3 Temporary Excavations and Slopes Temporary excavation and slopes should not exceed the limits specified in the local, state, and federal regulations. The stability of temporary excavations and slopes shall be the responsibility of the contractor. We recommend that temporary slopes made in fill or thicknesses of disturbed native soils not be steeper than 1.5H:1V (horizontal to vertical), and temporary slopes made in glacially consolidated soils not be steeper than 1H:1V. The presence of seepage may require the slopes be flattened further to remain stable. We also make the following recommendations: •

Surface water be diverted away from slopes.

•

Protect slopes using plastic sheet, flash coating, or tarps as necessary to control erosion and stability.

•

Limit the duration the excavation or slopes is open to the shortest time possible.

•

Traffic, equipment, and material stockpiles should not be allowed near the top of excavations or slopes.

•

The conditions of the excavations and slopes should be periodically observed by a geotechnical engineer to evaluate stability.

6.9.4 Temporary Erosion Control Temporary erosion control measures should be implemented to prevent the migration of soil, dust, and turbid water off-Site or into stormwater systems. Such measures should include silt fences and straw wattles at the Site boundary, silt socks in nearby catch basins, wetting exposed soil during dry periods, and quarry spalls and wheel wash stations at truck and equipment exits.

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

7 Recommended Additional Geotechnical Services We are available to discuss our recommendations with the design team. We recommend Aspect be afforded the opportunity to review the design plans and specifications to verify that our geotechnical engineering recommendations were properly interpreted and implemented. Recommendations included in this report, specifically foundation settlement estimates, should be revisited once the structural loads and footing schedule has been developed. During construction, we recommend that Aspect review contractor submittals related to geotechnical items and be on-Site to observe, evaluate, and document the following construction activities:

•

Excavation, subgrade preparation, and drainage installation (if applicable) prior to the placement of foundations and slabs-on-grade.

•

Temporary shoring installation and anchor testing.

•

Movement and vibration monitoring.

•

Installation of permanent wall and under-slab drainage system.

•

Evaluation and proof rolling of subgrades.

•

Structural fill placement and compaction.

•

Other geotechnical issues that may arise on-Site.

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

ASPECT CONSULTING

References American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2013. ASCE/SEI 7-10, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. March 15, 2013. Aspect Consulting, LLC, 2013. Phase II Environmental Assessment, Car Toys Seattle, 307 Broad Street, Seattle, Washington, Aspect Project No. 130075-02. May 3, 2013. City of Seattle DPD, 2013. 2012 Seattle Building Code. November, 2013. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 1999. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 4—Ground Anchors and Anchored Systems, 1999. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2003. Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7—Soil Nail Walls (FHWA, 2003). Troost, Kathy; Booth, Derek; Wisher, Aaron; Shimel, Scott, 2005. The Geologic Map of Seattle – a Progress Report. April 2005. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2015. Geologic Hazards Science Center, 2008 Interactive Deaggregations. http://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008. Accessed February 24, 2015.

PROJECT NO. 130075  SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

DRAFT

ASPECT CONSULTING

Limitations Work for this project was performed for Paragon Real Estate Advisors, LLC (Client), and this report was prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature and conditions of work completed in the same or similar localities, at the time the work was performed. This report does not represent a legal opinion. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. All reports prepared by Aspect Consulting for the Client apply only to the services described in the Agreement(s) with the Client. Any use or reuse by any party other than the Client is at the sole risk of that party, and without liability to Aspect Consulting. Aspect Consultingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s original files/reports shall govern in the event of any dispute regarding the content of electronic documents furnished to others.

DRAFT

PROJECT NO. 130075 ď&#x201A;&#x; SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

FIGURES

n Queen Anne

Was hing to

SITE LOCATION

West Seattle

Lake

( Seattle Elliott! Bay #

Rainier Valley

Kirkland !

GIS Path: T:\projects_8\ParagonRealEstate\Car Toys Seattle\Delivered\GeoTechReport\SiteLocationMap.mxd

Woodinville

. ish R mm a m Sa

Puget Sound

KENMORE

Shoreline

Bellevue

Mercer Island

|| Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet || Date Saved: 8/5/2015 ||

SITE LOCATION

User: ecrumbaker ||

2,000

Print Date: 8/5/2015

4,000

Feet !

Bellingham

Port Angeles

SITE LOCATION

( ! # Seattle Olympia

Site Location Map 307 Broad Street Seattle, Washington

Spokane

Tacoma

W A S H I N G T O N !

Yakima

AUG-2015 C O N SU LTI N G

PR OJECT NO .

BY :

NCS / EAC REVISED BY :

FIGURE NO.

130075 --Basemap Layer Credits || Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Copyright:© 2014 Esri

Union 76 Gas Station

HC-1 (Hart-Crowser, 1996)

Denny Way 4t h

06 KC 56 Par 00 ce 03 l # 06

St re et Br oa d

@ B-7 (Converse, 1981) ?

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet

B-1 @ ?

B-2 @ ?

Commercial Office Building

Wells Fargo Bank

B-3 ? @

Si te

@ B-2 (Converse, 1981) ?

Av en ue

Wells Fargo Parking

Soil Boring by Aspect (2013)

Site and Exploration Map 307 Broad Street Seattle, Washington

Feet Basemap Layer Credits || Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community

C O N SU LTI N G

BY :

AUG-2015

NCS / EAC

130075

SCC

PR OJECT NO .

REV BY:

FIGURE NO.

Print Date: 8/5/2015

Other King Couty Tax Parcels

307 Broad Street Seattle King County Parcel Boundary and Parcel Identification Number (PIN)

@ B-2 (Riley, 2004) ?

User: ecrumbaker

@ ?

KIRO Commercial Building

Soil Boring by Others for Nearby Studies

Mixed Use Building

Date Saved: 8/5/2015

@ ?

B-3 (Riley, 2004) ? @ Legend

GIS Path: T:\projects_8\ParagonRealEstate\Car Toys Seattle\Delivered\GeoTechReport\SiteAndExplorationsMap.mxd

@ ? @ ? HC-1A (Hart-Crowser, 1996)

Ground Surface H1

Anchor or Brace H

Locate All Tieback Anchor Bond Zones Behind this Line

Anchor or Brace

62Â°

Hn+1

2 3

Base of Excavation

Hn+1

350 1

H/4

350D psf

Net Allowable Passive Pressure

H-(13

22HÂ˛ H1)-(13 Hn+1) psf

65 psf

Active Earth Pressure

Traffic Surcharge Pressure

Diagram Not to Scale

Notes: 1. Apparent earth pressure and surcharge act over the pile spacing above the base of the excavation. 2. Passive earth pressure acts over 2.5 times the concreted diameter of the soldier pile, or the pile spacing, whichever is less. 3. Net allowable passive pressure includes a factor of safety of 1.5. 4. These pressure diagrams are appropriate for soldier pile and tieback anchor walls with relatively light traffic loading. Aspect Consulting, LLC should be consulted to provide revised surcharge pressures to account for relatively heavy loading near the wall such as cranes, large material stockpiles, and other heavy equipment on a case-by-case basis.

Legend No Load Zone H D H1 Hn+1 P

= = = = =

Height of Excavation (Feet) Soldier Pile Embedment (Feet) Distance from Ground Surface to Uppermost Anchor or Brace (Feet) Distance from Base of Excavation to Lowermost Anchor or Brace (Feet) Maximum Earth Pressure Ordinate (Pounds per Square Foot)

Earth Pressure Diagram Soldier Pile Wall with Multiple Levels of Tieback Anchors 307 Broad Street Seattle, Washington BY:

AUG-2015

NCS/SCC

PROJECT NO.

REVISED BY:

130075

FIGURE NO.

CAD Path: Q:\_GeoTech\130075 307 Broad Street\2015-08 Earth Pressures Diagrams\130075-04 Earth Pressures 3.dwg 8.5x11 Landscape || Date Saved: Sep 01, 2015 11:15am || User: scudd

2 3

ATTACHMENT 1

Attachment 1—Anchor Load Testing Program and Shoring Monitoring Program Soil nail and tieback anchor testing methods and equipment should meet the requirements detailed in Post-Tensioning Institute Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors (2004), and highlighted herein. Verification Tests The shoring contractor should be required to complete a minimum of two successful anchor verification tests per soil type and installation method to verify the design adhesion value in general accordance with the following recommendations: •

The geotechnical engineer shall be responsible for selecting the location of the verification tests.

•

Verification testing should not exceed 80 percent of the ultimate tensile strength of the anchor tendon or bar.

•

Verification testing should load the anchor up to 200 percent of the design load (DL). The anchor should be incrementally loaded and unloaded in accordance with the schedule below. Load

Hold Time (minutes)

Alignment Load (AL)

0.25 DL

0.50 DL

0.75 DL

1.00 DL

1.25 DL

1.50 DL

1.75 DL

2.00 DL (maximum test load) 10 •

Anchor deflections should be measured and recorded to the nearest 0.001 inch at each load increment. Deflections should be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 minutes at the 1.50 DL load, and at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 minutes at the 2.00 DL.

Proof Tests The shoring contractor should be required to complete proof testing of every production tieback anchor, and/or a minimum of five percent (5%) of production soil nails in general accordance with the following:

•

Proof testing should not exceed 80 percent of the ultimate tensile strength of the anchor tendon or bar.

•

Proof testing should load the tieback anchor or soil nail up to 130 percent of the DL specified on the shoring drawings. The anchor should be incrementally loaded and unloaded in accordance with the schedule below.

•

Load

Hold Time (minutes)

Alignment Load (AL)

0.25 DL

0.50 DL

0.75 DL

1.00 DL

1.30 DL

Anchor deflections should be measured and recorded to the nearest 0.001 inch at each load increment. Deflections should be recorded at 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 10 minutes at the 1.30 DL.

Test Anchor Acceptance Criteria A tieback anchor or soil nail should be deemed acceptable, if it meets the following criteria: •

The total elastic movement obtained from the verification tests and proof tests exceeds 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation of the unbounded length.

•

The total elastic movement obtained from the performance tests and proof tests does not exceed the theoretical elastic elongation of the unbounded length plus 50 percent of the bonded length.

•

Total anchor movement (creep) between the 1- and 10-minute intervals should not exceed 0.04 inches, regardless of the tendon length or load. Total anchor movement between the 6- and 60-minute intervals (if required) should not exceed 0.08 inches.

•

For tieback anchors only, the “lift-off measurement” indicates an anchor load within 5 percent of the design lock-off load.

Shoring Monitoring Program The purpose of the shoring monitoring program it to establish baseline conditions at and around the project Site and actively monitor deflections and settlement during construction. Preconstruction Survey A preconstruction survey should be completed to document preconstruction conditions at the Site. At a minimum, the preconstruction survey should consist of video or

photographic documentation of the adjacent streets, buildings, existing cracks or signs of settlement. Optical Survey Optical survey of the Site and surrounding areas should be completed before and during construction to continually observe and evaluate the performance of the shoring wall. The optical survey should be accurate to at least one-hundredth of a foot (0.01 feet) and made available to the design team and geotechnical engineer within 24 hours for immediate review. Optical survey points should be located around the perimeter of the shored excavation at the top of every other soldier pile, or spaced about every 15 feet along the top of soil nail walls. Optical survey points should also be placed along the curb-line, alley, or parking lot areas behind the wall, and along the centerline of adjacent streets, spaced about every 25 to 50 feet. Construction of the shoring walls should be temporarily stopped if the shoring wall is observed to deflect more than 1 inch total, or successive readings show deflection of more than Â˝ inch, in which case remedial action may be required This optical survey program should be completed twice a week during excavation and shoring wall construction. This should occur until the shoring wall is complete and optical survey deflections have stabilized. After stabilization the optical survey, frequency can be reduced to occur once every other week. Inclinometers We recommend two inclinometer casings be installed along the shoring wall to monitor lateral deformations. The inclinometer casings can be affixed to the back of the solider piles or drilled and installed behind soil nails and shotcrete walls. The inclinometers should extend at least 10 feet beyond the final excavation depth. One inclinometer should be located near the middle of the northwest shoring wall along Broad Street, and the other near the middle of the southwest shoring wall along 3rd Avenue. Inclinometers should be read once a week during shoring wall construction, and once a month after the shoring is completed and deflections have stabilized.

APPENDIX A Subsurface Exploration Logs for Soil Borings B-1, B-2, and B-3

Field Exploration Program A.1.1 Geotechnical Borings On April 8 and 9, 2013, Cascade Drilling (under subcontract to Aspect) completed three soil borings, designated B-1, B-2, and B-3 to a final depth of 71 feet each below the existing ground surface. The location of the soil boring is shown on Figure 2. The borings were drilled using hollow-stem auger methods. The borings were backfilled with bentonite and surface patched with concrete. See Figures A-2 through A-4 for the boring logs. Soil sampling was completed at selected depth intervals using various sampler and automatic trip hammer combinations. All hammer drop heights were 30 inches. â&#x20AC;˘

Boring B-1, soil samples S-1a (5.0 feet), S-1b (7.0 feet), and S-2 (10 feet) were taken using a 2-inch-outer-diameter split-spoon sampler and 300-pound hammer.

â&#x20AC;˘

All other samples were taken using a 3-inch-outer-diameter split-spoon sampler and 300-pound hammer.

The number of blows for each 6-inch interval was recorded and the number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils or the relative consistency of fine-grained soils. An Aspect engineering geologist was present throughout the field exploration program to observe the drilling procedure, collect soil samples, and to prepare descriptive logs of each boring. Soils were classified in general accordance with ASTM D-2488 Standard Practice for Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-Manual Procedure). The summary exploration log represents our interpretation of the contents of the field logs. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the individual summary logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The subsurface conditions depicted are only for the specific date and locations reported, and therefore, are not necessarily representative of other locations and times.

Terms Describing Relative Density and Consistency

(5)

5% Fines (5)

15% Fines

FineGrained Soils

Clayey gravel and GC clayey gravel with sand

FC = Fines Content G = Grain Size M = Moisture Content A = Atterberg Limits C = Consolidation DD = Dry Density K = Permeability Str = Shear Strength Env = Environmental PiD = Photoionization Detector

(2)

SPT blows/foot

Very Soft Soft Medium Stiff Stiff Very Stiff Hard

0 to 2 2 to 4 4 to 8 8 to 15 15 to 30 >30

Descriptive Term

Poorly-graded sand SP and sand with gravel, little to no fines

(5)

SM silty sand with

gravel

Clayey sand and SC clayey sand with gravel

Size Range and Sieve Number

Boulders Cobbles

Larger than 12" 3" to 12"

Gravel Coarse Gravel Fine Gravel

3" to No. 4 (4.75 mm) 3" to 3/4" 3/4" to No. 4 (4.75 mm)

Sand Coarse Sand Medium Sand Fine Sand

No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm) No. 4 (4.75 mm) to No. 10 (2.00 mm) No. 10 (2.00 mm) to No. 40 (0.425 mm) No. 40 (0.425 mm) to No. 200 (0.075 mm)

Silt and Clay

Smaller than No. 200 (0.075 mm)

Estimated Percentage Percentage by Weight

Modifier

Silt, sandy silt, gravelly silt, ML silt with sand or gravel

Trace

5 to 15

Clay of low to medium CL plasticity; silty, sandy, or gravelly clay, lean clay

15 to 30

Slightly (sandy, silty, clayey, gravelly) Sandy, silty, clayey, gravelly) Very (sandy, silty, clayey, gravelly)

30 to 49

Organic clay or silt of low OL plasticity

Sampler Type

Elastic silt, clayey silt, silt MH with micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand or silt Clay of high plasticity, CH sandy or gravelly clay, fat clay with sand or gravel Organic clay or silt of OH medium to high plasticity Peat, muck and other PT highly organic soils

2.0" OD Split-Spoon Sampler (SPT) Bulk sample

Blows/6" or portion of 6"

Moisture Content

Dry - Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch

Slightly Moist - Perceptible moisture Moist - Damp but no visible water Very Moist - Water visible but not free draining Wet - Visible free water, usually from below water table

Symbols

Cement grout surface seal Bentonite chips

Sampler Type Description

Grout seal

Continuous Push

Filter pack with blank casing section

Non-Standard Sampler 3.0" OD Thin-Wall Tube Sampler (including Shelby tube)

Grab Sample

Grouted Transducer

End cap

Portion not recovered (1) (2) (3)

(4)

Screened casing or Hydrotip with filter pack

(5) Percentage by dry weight Combined USCS symbols used for (SPT) Standard Penetration Test fines between 5% and 15% as (ASTM D-1586) estimated in General Accordance In General Accordance with with Standard Practice for Standard Practice for Description Description and Identification of and Identification of Soils (ASTM D-2488) Soils (ASTM D-2488) Depth of groundwater ATD = At time of drilling BGS = below ground surface Static water level (date)

Classifications of soils in this report are based on visual field and/or laboratory observations, which include density/consistency, moisture condition, grain size, and plasticity estimates and should not be construed to imply field or laboratory testing unless presented herein. Visual-manual and/or laboratory classification methods of ASTM D-2487 and D-2488 were used as an identification guide for the Unified Soil Classification System. DATE:

earth + water

Exploration Log Key

DRAWN BY:

www.aspectconsulting.com

PROJECT NO.

REVISED BY:

FIGURE NO.

A-1

Q:\_ACAD Standards\Standard Details\Exploration Log Key A1.dwg

(5)

5% Fines

Well-graded sand and SW sand with gravel, little to no fines

Silty sand and 15% Fines

of Coarse Fraction

(1)

Retained on No. 4 Sieve

Gravels - More than 50%

Consistency

Silty gravel and silty GM gravel with sand

Test Symbols

0 to 4 4 to 10 10 to 30 30 to 50 >50

Component Definitions

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit Less than 50

Sands - 50% (1)or More of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve

Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense Very Dense

CoarseGrained Soils

Poorly-graded gravel

(2)

SPT blows/foot

Density

little to no fines

Silts and Clays Liquid Limit 50 or More

Fine-Grained Soils - 50%

Highly Organic Soils

no fines

GP and gravel with sand,

(1)

or More Passes No. 200 Sieve

Coarse-Grained Soils - More than 50%

(1)

Retained on No. 200 Sieve

Well-graded gravel and GW gravel with sand, little to

Boring Log Project Name:

307 Broad Street

Location:

Seattle, WA

Driller/Equipment:

Cascade / HSA (8.25" OD, 4.25" ID)

Project Number

Boring Number

Sheet

130075

B-1

1 of 3

Ground Surface Elev

Borehole Completion

Sample Type/ID

Tests

Blows/ 6"

Blows/foot Water Content % 10 20 30 40

Concrete

S-1a

S-1b

Backfilled with 3/8" hydrated bentonite chips

S-2

_GEOTECH BORING LOG 307 BROAD ST.GPJ August 25, 2015

Material Type

Start/Finish Date

4/9/2013 Depth (ft)

Description

ASPHALT FILL Soil cuttings observed to be moist, gravelly, silty SAND (SM) VASHON GLACIAL TILL No sample recovery. Soil cuttings observed to be moist, gravelly, silty SAND (SM). Harder drilling at 1.5 feet

Asphaltic concrete patch

58.9

Depth to Water (ft BGS)

Sampling Method/Hammer: Split spoon (3" OD, 2.5" ID) & SPT (2" OD, 1.5" ID) / 300 lb / 30" Depth / Elevation (feet)

Approx. 125 feet

50/1"

(Sampler refusal on object in borehole)

50/1"

(Sampler refusal on object in borehole)

50/1"

(Sampler refusal on object in borehole)

S-3

PID = 0.2 38 PID = 0.2 50/6"

S-4

PID = 5.0 27 PID = 7.5 50/6"

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL LACUSTRINE Hard, slighlty moist, gray, sandy SILT (ML); very thinly laminated to laminated bedding, fine sand, very thinly laminated interbeds of fine sand, rare fine organic fragments, non-plastic

Sampler Type: 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586)

Drilling Method: HSA: Hollow Stem Auger

20 Soil sample: B1-21-040913

No Recovery

Logged by:

JRB

Approved by:

NCS

Figure No.

A-2

MR: Mud Rotary

Boring Log Project Name:

307 Broad Street

Location:

Seattle, WA

Driller/Equipment:

Cascade / HSA (8.25" OD, 4.25" ID)

Project Number

Boring Number

Sheet

130075

B-1

2 of 3

Ground Surface Elev

Borehole Completion

Sample Type/ID

Backfilled with 3/8" hydrated bentonite chips

_GEOTECH BORING LOG 307 BROAD ST.GPJ August 25, 2015

3" OD Split Spoon Sampler Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586)

Material Type

Start/Finish Date

4/9/2013 Depth (ft)

Description

8 18 21

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL LACUSTRINE (CONTINUED) Becomes slightly sandy, clayey at 25' BGS; fine sand, low to medium plasticity

15 30 34

Becomes sandy; fine sand, trace clay, low plasticity

S-6

PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0

S-7

PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0

18 15 18

Very dense and hard, very moist to wet, gray, silty SAND interbedded with CLAY (SM/CL); fine sand, thinly laminated interbeds, low to medium plasticity Hard, slightly moist, gray silty CLAY (CL); scattered very thin laminations of fine sand, medium plasticity

S-8

PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0

15 21 28

Very dense and hard, slighlty moist, gray, silty SAND interbedded with CLAY (SM/CL); fine sand; interbeds are very thinly laminated to laminated, scattered fine to medium sand interbeds, medium plasticity

S-9

PID = 0.0 22 PID = 0.0 50/6"

Sampler Type:

Blows/foot Water Content % 10 20 30 40

PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0

No Recovery

Blows/ 6"

S-5

Tests

58.9

Depth to Water (ft BGS)

Sampling Method/Hammer: Split spoon (3" OD, 2.5" ID) & SPT (2" OD, 1.5" ID) / 300 lb / 30" Depth / Elevation (feet)

Approx. 125 feet

Drilling Method: HSA: Hollow Stem Auger

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL WETLAND Hard, slighlty moist to dry, dark brown PEAT (PT); fibrous organics in a fine matrix, wood fragments PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL FLUVIAL Very dense, slighlty moist, to moist, gravelly, very silty SAND (SM); subround to subangular sand and gravel

Logged by:

JRB

Approved by:

NCS

Figure No.

A-2

MR: Mud Rotary

Boring Log Project Name:

307 Broad Street

Location:

Seattle, WA

Driller/Equipment:

Cascade / HSA (8.25" OD, 4.25" ID)

Project Number

Boring Number

Sheet

130075

B-1

3 of 3

Ground Surface Elev

Borehole Completion

Sample Type/ID

Tests

58.9

Depth to Water (ft BGS)

Sampling Method/Hammer: Split spoon (3" OD, 2.5" ID) & SPT (2" OD, 1.5" ID) / 300 lb / 30" Depth / Elevation (feet)

Approx. 125 feet

Blows/ 6"

PID = 0.3 21 S-10 PID = 1.1 50/6"

Blows/foot Water Content % 10 20 30 40

Material Type

Start/Finish Date

4/9/2013 Depth (ft)

Description

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL FLUVIAL (CONTINUED) Very dense, moist to very moist, gray purple, slightly silty, gravelly SAND (SP-SM); fine to medium subround to subangular sand, trace angular sand, fine to coarse gravel Soil sample: B1-50-040913 Groundwater sample: B1-53-63-040913

PID = 0.4 20 S-11 PID = 1.4 50/6"

Becomes very moist to wet, very gravelly; granitic and basaltic gravel

(ATD depth to water measured at 58.9' BGS and rising slowly on 4/9/13 at 14:40 with the auger at 60' BGS and open hole 60' to 71' BGS)

_GEOTECH BORING LOG 307 BROAD ST.GPJ August 25, 2015

Backfilled with 3/8" hydrated bentonite chips

PID = 0.0 23 S-12 PID = 0.0 50/6"

Becomes wet, gravelly; serpentinitic gravel, coarse subangular quartz sand

PID = 0.0 28 S-13 PID = 0.2 50/6"

Becomes slightly gravelly; subround to subangular granitic gravel

B-1 70-71 22 G S-14 PID = 0.2 50/6" PID = 0.0

Sampler Type: No Recovery 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D1586)

Drilling Method: HSA: Hollow Stem Auger

Becomes trace gravel; fine subangular dioritic gravel Bottom of boring at 71' BGS

Logged by:

JRB

Approved by:

NCS

Figure No.

A-2

MR: Mud Rotary

Boring Log Project Name:

307 Broad Street

Location:

Seattle, WA

Driller/Equipment:

Cascade / HSA (8.25" OD, 4.25" ID)

Project Number

Boring Number

Sheet

130075

B-2

1 of 3

Ground Surface Elev

Borehole Completion

Sample Type/ID

Tests

25.3

Depth to Water (ft BGS) Start/Finish Date

Sampling Method/Hammer: Split spoon (3" OD, 2.5" ID) / 300 lb / 30" Depth / Elevation (feet)

Approx. 129 feet

Blows/ 6"

Blows/foot Water Content % 10 20 30 40

Material Type

4/8/2013 - 4/9/2013 Depth (ft)

Description

ASPHALT FILL Soil cuttings observed to be moist, gravelly, silty SAND (SM)

Asphaltic concrete patch

Concrete

VASHON GLACIAL TILL Harder drilling at 3 feet

Backfilled with 3/8" hydrated bentonite chips

_GEOTECH BORING LOG 307 BROAD ST.GPJ August 25, 2015

S-1

PID = 0.0 19 PID = 0.4 50/6"

Very dense, slighlty moist, gray and brown mottled, gravelly, silty SAND (SM); fine to coarse sand, fine round to angular gravel, iron-oxide staining

S-2

PID = 0.0 17 PID = 0.0 29 PID = 0.0 50/6"

Hard, slightly moist, green gray, slightly gravelly, slightly sandy SILT (ML); fine to coarse round to subangular sand and gravel, scattered iron-oxide staining, non-plastic to low plasticity Very dense, slightly moist, gray and brown yellow mottled, silty, sandy GRAVEL (GM); subround gravel, fine to coarse angular sand, frequent iron-oxide staining

S-3

PID = 0.0 50/6"

Soil sample: B2-15-040813

S-4

B-2 20-21 38 G PID = 0.0 50/6" PID = 0.0

Sampler Type: No Recovery 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler

Drilling Method: HSA: Hollow Stem Auger

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL LACUSTRINE Discontinuous, perched water-bearing zone Hard, wet, gray, very sandy SILT (ML); fine sand, scattered very thinly laminated interbeds of brown fine sand and dark brown fine sand, gold mica, rare fine organic fragments, non-plastic Groundwater sample: B2-20-30-040813

Logged by:

JRB

Approved by:

NCS

Figure No.

A-3

MR: Mud Rotary

Boring Log Project Name:

307 Broad Street

Location:

Seattle, WA

Driller/Equipment:

Cascade / HSA (8.25" OD, 4.25" ID)

Project Number

Boring Number

Sheet

130075

B-2

2 of 3

Ground Surface Elev

Borehole Completion

Backfilled with 3/8" hydrated bentonite chips

Sample Type/ID

Start/Finish Date

_GEOTECH BORING LOG 307 BROAD ST.GPJ August 25, 2015

3" OD Split Spoon Sampler

Blows/foot Water Content % 10 20 30 40

Material Type

4/8/2013 - 4/9/2013 Depth (ft)

Description

PID = 0.0 34 PID = 0.0 50/5"

S-6

PID = 0.0 50/5" PID = 0.0

Becomes slightly moist, slightly sandy; very thinly to thinly laminated beds, fine sand, low plasticity Becomes moist and sandy at 30.25' BGS; fine sand, non-plastic to low plasticity

S-7

PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0

Very dense and hard, slightly moist, gray silty SAND interbedded with slightly silty CLAY (SM/CL); fine sand, thinly laminated interbeds, undulating contacts, clay has low dilatency and medium plasticity

S-8

PID = 0.0 29 PID = 1.3 50/6"

S-9

B-2 45-56 50/6" G PID = 0.4 50/6" PID = 1.0

Sampler Type:

Blows/ 6"

S-5

No Recovery

Tests

25.3

Depth to Water (ft BGS)

Sampling Method/Hammer: Split spoon (3" OD, 2.5" ID) / 300 lb / 30" Depth / Elevation (feet)

Approx. 129 feet

12 25 38

Drilling Method: HSA: Hollow Stem Auger

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL LACUSTRINE (CONTINUED) Discontinuous, perched water-bearing zone (continued) Becomes no visible bedding (ATD depth to perched water measured at 25.3' BGS on 4/8/13 at 15:30 with temporary screen set 20' to 30' BGS)

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL FLUVIAL Very dense, very moist to wet, silty, gravelly SAND (SM); fine to coarse round to angular sand, fine to coarse round to subangular gravel (wet sluff)

Very dense, very moist to wet, brown yellow to brown, slightly silty, sandy GRAVEL (GW-GM); fine to coarse subround to subangular sand and gravel, scattered iron-oxide staining, thin clay coatings on clasts indicating partial in-situ weathering

Logged by:

JRB

Approved by:

NCS

Figure No.

A-3

MR: Mud Rotary

Boring Log Project Name:

307 Broad Street

Location:

Seattle, WA

Driller/Equipment:

Cascade / HSA (8.25" OD, 4.25" ID)

Project Number

Boring Number

Sheet

130075

B-2

3 of 3

Ground Surface Elev

Borehole Completion

Sample Type/ID

Tests

Blows/ 6"

PID = 2.4 50/6" S-10 PID = 1.4 50/6"

Backfilled with 3/8" hydrated bentonite chips

25.3

Depth to Water (ft BGS) Start/Finish Date

Sampling Method/Hammer: Split spoon (3" OD, 2.5" ID) / 300 lb / 30" Depth / Elevation (feet)

Approx. 129 feet

Blows/foot Water Content % 10 20 30 40

Material Type

4/8/2013 - 4/9/2013 Depth (ft)

Description

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL FLUVIAL (CONTINUED) Very dense, moist, brown yellow, slightly silty SAND (SP-SM); fine to medium sand, trace coarse sand Soil sample: B2-50-040913

PID = 0.4 50/6" S-11 PID = 0.6 50/6"

Becomes moist to very moist, light gray to blue gray, gravelly; fine to medium subround to subangular sand and gravel

PID = 0.3 50/6" S-12 PID = 0.5 50/6"

Becomes very moist to wet and slightly gravelly to gravelly

_GEOTECH BORING LOG 307 BROAD ST.GPJ August 25, 2015

(ATD depth to water measured at 62.15' BGS and rising slowly on 4/9/13 at 08:45 with auger at 65' BGS and open hole 65' to 71' BGS)

PID = 0.1 38 S-13 PID = 0.2 50/6"

Becomes wet and gravelly

PID = 0.2 38 S-14 PID = 0.1 50/6"

Very dense, wet, gray purple, very sandy GRAVEL (GW); fine to coarse subround to subangular sand and gravel, trace silt, scattered pockets of wet gray brown silty CLAY (CL) Bottom of boring at 71' BGS

Sampler Type: No Recovery 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler

Drilling Method: HSA: Hollow Stem Auger

Logged by:

JRB

Approved by:

NCS

Figure No.

A-3

MR: Mud Rotary

Boring Log Project Name:

307 Broad Street

Location:

Seattle, WA

Driller/Equipment:

Cascade / HSA (8.25" OD, 4.25" ID)

Project Number

Boring Number

Sheet

130075

B-3

1 of 3

Ground Surface Elev

Borehole Completion

Sample Type/ID

Tests

26.8

Depth to Water (ft BGS) Start/Finish Date

Sampling Method/Hammer: Split spoon (3" OD, 2.5" ID) / 300 lb / 30" Depth / Elevation (feet)

Approx. 129 feet

Blows/ 6"

Blows/foot Water Content % 10 20 30 40

Material Type

4/8/2013 Depth (ft)

Description

ASPHALT FILL AND REWORKED TILL Soil cuttings observed to be moist, gravelly, silty SAND (SM)

Asphaltic concrete patch

Concrete

VASHON GLACIAL TILL Harder drilling at 3 feet

Backfilled with 3/8" hydrated bentonite chips

S-1

30 50/6"

S-2

PID = 0.2 24 PID = 0.1 50/6"

Sand becomes fine to coarse and round to angular

S-3

PID = 0.3 PID = 0.1 PID = 0.1

28 34 40

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL LACUSTRINE Hard, slightly moist, brown to light gray, very sandy SILT (ML); fine sand, non-plastic

S-4

B-3 20-21 G PID = 0.0 PID = 0.1 PID = 0.0

21 34 45

Becomes moist, gray; trace coarse sand Soil sample: B3-20-040813 Groundwater sample: B3-20-30-040813 Thinly laminated beds of hard, slightly moist, gray blue, silty CLAY (CL) from 21' to 21.1' BGS; low to medium plasticity

_GEOTECH BORING LOG 307 BROAD ST.GPJ August 25, 2015

Sampler Type: No Recovery 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler

Drilling Method: HSA: Hollow Stem Auger

Very dense, slightly moist, light gray to red brown mottled, slighlty gravelly, very silty SAND (SM); fine to coarse sand, predominanlty fine to medium sand, fine to coarse round to subangular gravel

Logged by:

JRB

Approved by:

NCS

Figure No.

A-4

MR: Mud Rotary

Boring Log Project Name:

307 Broad Street

Location:

Seattle, WA

Driller/Equipment:

Cascade / HSA (8.25" OD, 4.25" ID)

Project Number

Boring Number

Sheet

130075

B-3

2 of 3

Ground Surface Elev

Borehole Completion

Sample Type/ID

Backfilled with 3/8" hydrated bentonite chips

_GEOTECH BORING LOG 307 BROAD ST.GPJ August 25, 2015

Sampler Type: No Recovery 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler

Blows/ 6"

Start/Finish Date

Blows/foot Water Content % 10 20 30 40

Material Type

4/8/2013 Depth (ft)

Description

S-5

PID = 0.0 31 PID = 0.0 50/4.5"

S-6

PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0 PID = 0.0

S-7

PID = 0.5 28 PID = 1.2 50/5"

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL FLUVIAL Very dense, moist, gray and light brown mottled, slightly gravelly to gravelly, silty SAND (SM); fine to coarse sand, fine to coarse round to subround gravel Soil sample: B3-35.5-040813

S-8

PID = 0.8 50/6"

Very dense, moist, brown to yellow brown, slightly silty, gravelly SAND (SP-SM); fine to medium sand, fine gravel, iron-oxide staining

S-9

PID = 0.7 50/6" PID = 0.6

Becomes trace gravel; subround to angular fine to medium sand

Tests

26.8

Depth to Water (ft BGS)

Sampling Method/Hammer: Split spoon (3" OD, 2.5" ID) / 300 lb / 30" Depth / Elevation (feet)

Approx. 129 feet

15 19 34

Drilling Method: HSA: Hollow Stem Auger

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL LACUSTRINE (CONTINUED) Discontinuous, perched water-bearing zone Becomes wet; fine to coarse sand, predominantly fine to medium sand (ATD depth to perched water measured at 26.8' BGS on 4/8/13 at 10:00 with screen set 20' to 30' BGS)

Hard, slighlty moist, gray blue to light gray, silty CLAY (CL); thinly laminated beds, scattered very thinly laminated beds of fine sand, scattered pockets of fine to medium sand, medium plasticity

Logged by:

JRB

Approved by:

NCS

Figure No.

A-4

MR: Mud Rotary

Boring Log Project Name:

307 Broad Street

Location:

Seattle, WA

Driller/Equipment:

Cascade / HSA (8.25" OD, 4.25" ID)

Project Number

Boring Number

Sheet

130075

B-3

3 of 3

Ground Surface Elev

Borehole Completion

Sample Type/ID

Tests

Blows/ 6"

PID = 0.1 39 S-10 PID = 0.1 50/6"

Backfilled with 3/8" hydrated bentonite chips

26.8

Depth to Water (ft BGS) Start/Finish Date

Sampling Method/Hammer: Split spoon (3" OD, 2.5" ID) / 300 lb / 30" Depth / Elevation (feet)

Approx. 129 feet

Blows/foot Water Content % 10 20 30 40

Material Type

4/8/2013 Depth (ft)

Description

PRE-FRASER NONGLACIAL FLUVIAL (CONTINUED) Very dense, slighlty moist to moist, red brown and brown yellow mottled, sandy GRAVEL (GW); well-graded fine to coarse round to subround gravel, fine to coarse round to subangular sand, iron-oxide staining

PID = 0.0 32 S-11 PID = 0.3 50/6"

Very dense, very moist to wet, gray to gray purple, slightly silty SAND (SP-SM); fine to medium sand, trace fine gravel

S-12 PID = 0.0 50/6" PID = 0.1

Becomes moist and slighlty gravelly to gravelly

_GEOTECH BORING LOG 307 BROAD ST.GPJ August 25, 2015

(ATD depth to water measured at 62.5' BGS on 4/8/13 at 12:30 with auger at 65' BGS and open hole 65' to 71' BGS)

PID = 0.0 39 S-13 PID = 0.0 50/6"

Becomes wet and slightly gravelly

PID = 0.3 43 S-14 PID = 0.9 50/6"

Becomes gray blue to gray purple; fine gravel Bottom of boring at 71' BGS

Sampler Type: No Recovery 3" OD Split Spoon Sampler

Drilling Method: HSA: Hollow Stem Auger

Logged by:

JRB

Approved by:

NCS

Figure No.

A-4

MR: Mud Rotary

APPENDIX B Geotechnical Laboratory Test Results for Soil Borings B-1, B-2, and B-3

B.1 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing Geotechnical laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples collected during drilling and sampling of soil borings B-1, B-2, and B-3. The tests performed and the procedures followed are outlined below.

Water Content Determination Water contents were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 on selected soil samples collected from the soil borings. The results are shown in Appendix B and on the boring logs.

Grain Size Analysis (G) Grain size analysis was analyzed in accordance with ASTM D 422 on selected soil samples (B-1, S-14; B-2; S-4; B-2, S-9; and B-3, S-4) collected from the soil borings. The results of the tests are presented in Appendix B, plotting percent finer by weight versus grain size.

FRIEDMAN & BRUYA, INC.

_________________________________________________

ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTS Date of Report: 04/16/13 Date Received: 04/12/13 Project: 130075, F&BI 304259 Date Extracted: NA Date Analyzed: 04/15/13 RESULTS FROM THE ANALYSIS OF THE SOIL SAMPLES FOR PERCENT MOISTURE USING ASTM D2216-98 Sample ID

% Moisture

Laboratory ID

B1-15-16

304259-01

B1-20-21

304259-02

B1-25-26.5

304259-03

B1-30-31.5

304259-04

B1-35-35.5

304259-05

B1-35.5-36.5

304259-06

B1-40-41.5

304259-07

B1-45-45.5

304259-08

B1-45.5-46

304259-09

B1-50-51

304259-10

B1-55-56

304259-11

FRIEDMAN & BRUYA, INC.

_________________________________________________

% Moisture

Laboratory ID

B1-60-61

304259-12

B1-65-66

304259-13

B1-70-71

304259-14

B2-5-6

304259-15

B2-10-11

304259-16

B2-11-11.5

304259-17

B2-15-15.5

304259-18

B2-20-21

304259-19

B2-25-26

304259-20

B2-30-30.25

304259-21

B2-30.25-30.5

304259-22

FRIEDMAN & BRUYA, INC.

_________________________________________________

% Moisture

Laboratory ID

B2-35-36.5

304259-23

B2-40-40.75

304259-24

B2-45-46

304259-25

B2-50-51

304259-26

B2-55-56

304259-27

B2-60-61

304259-28

B2-65-66

304259-29

B2-70-71

304259-30

B-3-5-6

304259-31

B-3-10-11

304259-32

B-3-15-16.5

304259-33

FRIEDMAN & BRUYA, INC.

_________________________________________________

% Moisture

Laboratory ID

B-3-20-21

304259-34

B-3-25-26.5

304259-35

B-3-30-31.5

304259-36

B-3-35-36

304259-37

B-3-40-40.5

304259-38

B-3-45-45.5

304259-39

B-3-50-51

304259-40

B-3-55-56

304259-41

B-3-60-60.5

304259-42

B-3-65-66

304259-43

B-3-70-71

304259-44

APPENDIX C Nearby Explorations Completed by Others

September 10, 2015 Historic Preservation and SEPA Review - Appendix A (Seattle DPD TIP #3000) Additional Information to determine whether a structure appears to meet any of the criteria for landmark designation I. Building Location: 307 Broad Street

Parcel # 0656000306

II. Physical Description: Provide a physical description of both the interior and exterior of the structure(s). The building was constructed in 1957 by the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company to serve as their Washington-area headquarters, with leasable space on the second floor. The architect was John Graham Jr. & Company, a well-known Seattle architecture firm. The subject building predates the Century 21 / Seattle Center campus, constructed in 1962, which is located across the street. Before the early 1960s, that neighborhood was considered to be an underdeveloped and somewhat blighted group of blocks just south of the nascent Civic Center at about Third and Mercer. The building is rectangular, two stories with basement, and has a flat roof. The structure has four complete elevations; three facing Third Avenue, Broad Street, and Denny Way beyond a fragment of an alley, and the fourth facing an adjacent parking lot. The building structure is concrete masonry unit and steel frame exterior walls. East and west elevations were originally solid walls with no fenestration or openings, while the north and south elevations were extensively glazed with window panels of aluminum sash and spandrelite (a colored glass product). Exterior walls, including spandrels between windows, were originally entirely clad in pale green ceramic tile. In later years, the building was occupied by Car Toys, a car stereo retailer, and the building interior was adapted to receive automobiles for stereo installations, with two garage doors installed on the east elevation. The exterior had numerous signs placed on each elevation. In 2013, the building was sold and around that time the exterior was altered. Original ceramic tile cladding was removed at the west elevation at two locations, and replaced with two vertically-oriented sections of inset metal panels which each feature a decorative projecting grid (as though to support climbing plants, but no plant wells were installed at the sidewalk). On the north and south elevations, at approximately half of the window spandrels, the original ceramic tile was covered with stucco board cladding. Additionally, a continuous band of sheet metal coping/flashing was added at the roof parapet.

Â 310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM Â

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 2

III. Architect or Builder: Provide information about the architect/builder; i.e., regarding education, career, other works in Seattle. If other structures were built in Seattle, indicate whether they remain and their location. The title sheet of drawings on file indicate that the original designer of the building was “John Graham & Company, Architects Engineers, Seattle and New York.” Graham was well known for the design of shopping centers and skyscrapers. Attached are biographies of John Graham Jr. from HistoryLink.com and Docomomo-Wewa. Below is a list of John Graham Jr. works from UW Pacific Coast Database; the list is likely not comprehensive of his works, but rather shows a representative sample: Northgate Shopping Center, Northgate, Seattle, WA Park Royal Shopping Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada Seattle Public Schools, Lafayette Elementary School #2, West Seattle, Seattle, WA

19481950 1950 1950

19531956 1954Gulfgate Shopping Center, Houston, TX 1956 Bellevue Square Shopping Center, Frederick and Nelson, Incorporated, 1955Department Store, Bellevue, WA 1956 Lewis and Clark Theatre and Bowl, Tukwila, WA 1956 1958Ala Moana Shopping Center, Honolulu, HI 1960 1959College Grove Shopping Center, San Diego, CA 1960 Seattle 1st Methodist Homes, Incorporated, Bayview Manor, Queen Anne, 1959Seattle, WA 1960 1960Seattle World's Fair, Space Needle, Seattle, WA 1962 1961Channing House Retirement Center, Palo Alto, CA 1964 Capitol Court Shopping Center, Milwaukee, WI

Cable Car Lodge Project, South Sandia Peak, NM

1962

19621964 Judson Park at Zenith Retirement Home, Apartment Building, Des Moines, 1962WA 1963 Olympic Hotel #2, Parking Garage Project, Downtown, Seattle, WA 1963 University of Washington, Seattle (UW), Van de Graaf Accelerator 1963 Building, Seattle, WA 44 Montgomery Street Office Building, Financial District, San Francisco, CA 1967 Western International Hotels Company, Washington Plaza Hotel, 1967Downtown, Seattle, WA 1969 Ilikai Hotel, Waikiki, Honolulu, HI

Seattle

Vancouver

Seattle

Milwaukee

Houston

Bellevue

Tukwila

Honolulu

San Diego

Seattle

South Sandia Peak

Honolulu

Des Moines

Seattle

San Francisco CA Seattle

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 3

19711974 United States Government, Federal Office Building #3, Downtown, Seattle, 1971WA 1974 1972State of Alaska, Office Building, Downtown, Juneau, AK 1975 1 Capital Center, Boise, ID 1975 1978Sheraton Hotel and Towers, Downtown, Seattle, WA 1982 United States Navy (USN), Naval Regional Medical Center, Bremerton, 1978WA 1981 Bellevue Athletic Club, Bellevue, WA 1979 1111 3rd Avenue Office Building, Seattle, WA 1980 United States Army (USA), Fort Lewis, Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort 1985Lewis, WA 1987 Seattle Public Schools, Whittier, John Greenleaf, Elementary School #3, Ballard, Seattle, WA

Bank of California, Office Building, Downtown, Seattle, WA

Seattle

Juneau

Boise

Seattle

Bremerton

Seattle

Fort Lewis

IV. Statement of Significance: Current and past uses and owners of the structure(s). The role these uses and/or owners played in the community, city, state or nation. The building was constructed in 1957 by the owner and occupant, Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company, to serve as their Washington-area headquarters, with leasable space for tenants on the second floor. A review of title abstracts, or a title search, was not performed to determine building ownership. At least by the late 1980s the property was owned by PB Investments, an occupant of the building since the 1970s. In 1990, they sold the site to the Brettler & Walker Partnership. In late 2013, the successor to that entity, Brettler Properties LLC, sold the property to Broad Street Apartments LLC, the current owner. Attached is a summarized history of Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company. The site has had multiple tenants listed for some years, and was addressed as 301-309 Broad. Tax records, newspaper items, and Polk’s Directories provide some indication of the property’s residents for the following years, listed below. 1957

Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company

1967

Dow Chemical Co. manufacturers Dow Chemical Co. flexible packaging division Dow Metal Products Co. alloys Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company Seattle agency Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company claims division

1977

Tellus Inc. serv contrs recreation prop P B Investment Company Inc. real estate Pacific Mutual Life group sales

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 4

1987

Seattle Jewelry Exchange Seattle Horological Clinic watch and clock repair P B Investment Company Inc. real estate Vacant Champion Escrow Service Seattle Mortgage Hancock Building Company Inc. property inv

1996

Car Toys Inc.

After the original owner of the property, Pacific Mutual Life, none of the later owners or occupants above were found to be of significance, based on cursory internet searches.

Bibliography of sources  DPD Microfilm Library  Puget Sound Regional Archives, tax assessor records and photos.  Sanborn maps, various dates  Historic Seattle Times searchable database

SEPA Appendix A summary prepared by: David Peterson Nicholson Kovalchick Architects david@nkarch.com ph: 206-494-9791

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 5

V. Photographs: Clear exterior photos of all elevations of the building; interior photos of major or significant spaces; available historic photos; neighborhood context photos. Note: All photos by NKA from August 2015 unless noted otherwise.

Subject parcel located by red box. North is up. Pacific Science Center is the large building northwest of the site. (2015, Google Maps)

Subject building located by the yellow shading. North is up. (2015, Seattle DPD GIS Maps)

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 6

1957 tax assessor photo showing the building under construction.

1958 tax assessor photo showing completed building, showing north and west elevations.

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 7

c.1980 tax assessor photo showing west and south elevations.

2013 image of the building (not current)

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 8

2013 image of the northwest corner of the building (not current)

2013 image of the south elevation of the building (not current)

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 9

2013 image of the west elevation of the building (not current)

Context: View northward along Third Avenue, KIRO TV building (1968) at left, constructed 11 years after the subject building.

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 10

Context: View north towards site, with Pacific Science Center (Yamasaki & Assoc.,1962) and the Space Needle (John Graham & Assoc., 1962) in the background, on the grounds of the former Century 21 Exposition, now Seattle Center, built 5 years after the subject building.

Context: Wells Fargo Bank (1951) directly west of site, across alley. 310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 11

Context: View westward across intersection of Broad Street and Third Avenue

North elevation

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 12

East and North elevations

North and west elevations

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 13

South elevation

South and east elevations

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 14

South and east elevations

East elevation

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 15

West elevation at sidewalk

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 16

West elevation detail of light green ceramic tile cladding. At right, tile appears to have been removed and replaced with metal panels and grid.

West elevation detail of light green ceramic tile cladding. At right, tile appears to have been removed and replaced with metal panels and grid. 310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 17

West elevation detail of light green ceramic tile cladding. At right, tile appears to have been covered by a thin stucco board cladding.

North elevation, entry detail. 310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 18

North elevation, detail of exterior entry alcove and main entry.

North elevation, detail of exterior entry alcove awning. 310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 19

South elevation, view eastward across face. Black chain link fence to basement visible at lower left.

(Left) South elevation, west part. Note some window piers clad in stucco board. (Right) South elevation, showing stair to basement. 310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 20

North elevation, detail of marble bulkheads, original windows, and ceramic tile cladding at window piers.

North elevation, detail of marble bulkheads, original windows, and ceramic tile cladding at right window piers, and stucco board cladding at left window pier. Reflective glass may be a non-original coating. 310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 21

North elevation, detail of notch at stucco board cladding over original ceramic tile. Notch corresponds to former signage location. Stucco board was attached c. 2014.

North elevation, detail of ceramic tile condition at one location. 310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

307 Broad Street (Seattle, Washington) – historical review Nicholson Kovalchick Architects

September 10, 2015 Page 22

West elevation, detail of ceramic tile condition at one location.

East elevation, detail of ceramic tile condition.

310 FIRST AVENUE S / SUITE 4S / SEATTLE, WA 98104 T: 206.933.1150 / F: 206.933.1154 / E: INFO@NKARCH.COM / WWW.NKARCH.COM

HistoryLink Essay:Graham, John Jr. (1908-1991)

Home

About Us

Education

Page 1 of 4

Bookstore

Tourism

Advanced Search

HistoryLink.org is the first online encyclopedia of local and state history created expressly for the Internet. (SM) HistoryLink.org is a free public and educational resource produced by History Ink, a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt corporation. Contact us by phone at 206.447.8140, by mail at Historylink, 1411 4th Ave. Suite 803, Seattle WA 98101 or email admin@historylink.org

Printer Friendly Version Sponsored by: King County Library HistoryLink File #140

Graham, John Jr. (1908-1991) Architect John Graham Jr. won international acclaim for his design of Seattle's celebrated Space Needle and for his large-scale shopping complexes. Combining architectural skill with business acumen, Graham helped shape Seattle's commercial environment after World War II. In his Father's Footsteps Son of John Graham Sr. (1873-1955), architect of a number of Seattle's landmark buildings, John Graham Jr. was a native of Seattle. In 1926, he enrolled in the University of Washington's architecture program. Transferring to Yale after two years, Graham graduated in 1931. He emerged with a fine arts degree in the midst of an economic depression and initially pursued a career in merchandising rather than architecture. This experience significantly affected the direction of his highly lucrative career in design and development. When the economy began to recover in 1937, Graham joined his father's architectural firm. He left to practice in New York City soon thereafter, but, when his father retired in 1946, he returned to Seattle to take over the family firm. Enter the Shopping Mall The post-World War II economy spurred suburban growth and expansive commercial development in Seattle and King County. Graham, groomed in retail management, recognized the potential for innovative design strategies. Collaborating with Bon Marché president Rex Allison, Graham began his long career as a developer and architect. Together, Allison and Graham conceived the Northgate Shopping Center (1946-1950). Its scale, concentration of shops, commodious parking, and easy highway access became a model for the suburban shopping center. Graham's firm immediately became a leader within this highly lucrative niche. Graham produced designs for numerous North American shopping complexes including: • • • • •

Capitol Court (1957) in Milwaukee Gulfgate (1962) in Houston Northshore (1958) in Peabody, Massachusetts Wellington Square (1960) in London, Ontario Clackamas Town Center (1981) in Portland, Oregon

Accomplishments

http://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/pf_output.cfm?file_id=140

8/30/2015

HistoryLink Essay:Graham, John Jr. (1908-1991)

Page 2 of 4

Of Graham's many designs and enterprises, the most singularly famous is the Space Needle, part of the Century 21 Exposition (1960-1962). Although Victor Steinbrueck (1911-1985) contributed to the final design, Graham is generally its acknowledged author. He submitted a patent for the revolving restaurant in 1961 while working on Ala Moana Shopping Center in Honolulu. which incorporated this novel design. In 1974, he became partners with Roderick Kirkwood. This merger resulted in more than 1,000 largescale, profitable commercial designs. The productivity of Graham and Kirkwood stemmed from the organization of their extensive offices, capable of managing all stages of development. Theirs was a quintessentially corporate design firm. Examples of Graham and Kirkwood's designs in Seattle include: • 1600 Bell Plaza (1976) • Westin Hotel and Towers (1979-1982) • Sheraton Hotel and Towers (1978-1982)

The firm was also partially responsible for: • The Alaska State Office Building (1972-1975) in Juneau, Alaska • Bremerton's Naval Regional Medical Center (with Sherlock, Smith and Adams, 1978-1981) • Madigan Army Medical Center (1984-1986) in Tacoma

Graham retired in 1986 and died on January 29, 1991, at the age of 82. Graham's legacy appears in Seattle's metropolitan skyline. The corporate skyscraper and residential highrise were new to the city in the late 1970s. Like Eiffel's Tower, Graham's Space Needle has become an emblem of its city and a landmark treasured by most Seattle residents.

Sources: Meredith L. Clausen, "John Graham Jr. in Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects ed. by Jeffrey Karl Ochsner (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1994), 258-263. By Heather M. MacIntosh, November 03, 1998

http://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/pf_output.cfm?file_id=140

8/30/2015

HistoryLink Essay:Graham, John Jr. (1908-1991)

Page 3 of 4

John Graham Jr. (1908-1991), n.d. Courtesy John Graham Associates Collection

Model of Northgate, John Graham Jr. architect, ca. 1949 Courtesy Jim Douglas

http://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/pf_output.cfm?file_id=140

8/30/2015

HistoryLink Essay:Graham, John Jr. (1908-1991)

Page 4 of 4

Washington Plaza Hotel (John Graham Associates, 1969), with monorail, Seattle, 1969 Postcard

Related Topics: â&#x20AC;˘ Biographies Licensing: This essay is licensed under a Creative Commons license that encourages reproduction with attribution. Credit should be given to both HistoryLink.org and to the author, and sources must be included with any reproduction. Click the icon for more info. Please note that this Creative Commons license applies to text only, and not to images. For more information regarding individual photos or images, please contact the source noted in the image credit.

http://www.historylink.org/_content/printer_friendly/pf_output.cfm?file_id=140

8/30/2015

(From Docomomo-wewa.com)

Graham, John Jr. (1908 - 1991)

Born and raised in Seattle, John Graham Jr., attended the Moran Military Academy and then Queen Anne High School, graduating in 1925. He began his formal architectural education at the University of Washington in 1926, and then transferred to Yale, where he received his Bachelor’s in Architecture degree in 1931. Due to the Depression, Graham worked in the retail business before joining his father’s architectural practice as a partner in 1937. Business was booming for the firm and at the age of 30, Graham Jr. opened a branch office in New York City with engineer Wilfred Painter as a partner. During the late 1930s, Graham focused his work on designing retail spaces. With the outbreak of WWII, the New York office closed and Graham turned to the design of war housing, developing several large FHA housing projects including Suburban Heights (1944) and Sunny Brook (1942) in the suburbs of Washington DC, and Edgewater Park (1939) in Seattle. During this time, Graham Sr. had begun transferring the practice to his son, and officially retired from active practice in 1946. After his father’s retirement, John Graham Jr. changed the name of the firm to John Graham & Company and began to design large shopping malls, a new concept at the time. By 1949, the firm employed thirty-two draftsmen, designers, structural, mechanical and electrical engineers. Among the more noteworthy projects were Northgate Shopping Center in Seattle (1950), Capitol Court in Milwaukee (1957), and Northshore Mall in Peabody, Massachusetts (1958). The firm went on to specialize in multi-million dollar regional shopping centers and designed over seventy throughout the country. They also designed a variety of schools, churches and factory buildings. Graham had a reputation for correctly assessing a project's schedule, budget and feasibility, and this earned him the title "a businessman's architect." He was licensed to practice in ten states and was favored by many developers, corporations, and institutional clients. Among the over 1,000 projects by the firm is Washington Natural Gas Headquarters (1964), Olympic Hotel parking Garage (1965), the 42-story Bank of California Building(1974), the Westin Towers (1969, 1982), 1600 Bell Plaza (1976) and the 44story Wells Fargo Building in San Francisco (1966). Graham’s most well-known project was the 600 ft tall Space Needle for the Seattle World’s Fair. While the initial design was claimed by Graham and fellow architect Victor Steinbrueck, it was Graham’s firm that executed the final design. Under Graham’s leadership the firm became one of the premiere commercial architectural firms in the United States. John Graham Jr. died in Seattle on January 29, 1991.

(From Docomomo-wewa.com)

John Graham, Sr.

Space Needle, Seattle (1961)

Mason Clinic, Seattle (1954)

Bank of California Building, Seattle (1974)

Pacific Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page 1 of 3

Pacific Life From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pacific Life Insurance Company is an insurance company providing life insurance products, annuities, and mutual funds, and offers a variety of investment products and services to individuals, businesses, and pension plans. Pacific Life also counts more than half of the 100 largest U.S. companies as clients.

Contents ◾ ◾ ◾ ◾

1 History 2 Sponsorships 3 External links 4 References

History

Pacific Life Insurance Company

Type

Mutual insurance

Industry

Insurance; life investment products

Founded

1868

Founder

Leland Stanford

Headquarters Newport Beach, California, USA Key people

James T. Morris, Chairman, President & CEO

Parent

Pacific Mutual

Slogan

The Power To Help You Succeed

Pacific Mutual Life was founded in 1868 by former Website California Governor Leland Stanford in Sacramento, California. Stanford also was the first policy holder of the company. After Stanford died and his university (Stanford University) was strapped for money, his wife used the money from the policy to pay for professors. Starting in 1885, Pacific Mutual Life began issuing accident insurance, this was an innovative move for a life insurance company at the time. In 1906, Pacific Mutual Life merged with Conservative Life, a Los Angeles-based life insurance company. Following the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, Pacific Mutual Life's board of directors moved the company to Los Angeles.

www.pacificlife.com (http://www.pacificlife.com/)

Pacific Life headquarters in Newport Beach, California

During the Great Depression, the company was hit with hard times and in 1936 in an effort to save both the policy holders and the company the insurance commissioner, Samuel L. Carpenter, encouraged the policy holders to become part owners of the company through mutualization. In 1955, Pacific Mutual Life became the first company west of the Mississippi River to use the brand new technology of Univac I. At Pacific Mutual Life's one-hundredth birthday the company celebrated with keynote speaker Ronald Reagan. In 1971, the company started Pacific Investment Management Company (PIMCO). The company moved its headquarters to their current Newport Beach, California location in 1972 when management decided that Newport Beach would provide a higher standard of living for their families. In 1997, the company dropped mutual from its name, changing it to Pacific Life Insurance Company. This reflects the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Life

9/10/2015

Pacific Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page 2 of 3

company structure's change from a mutual ownership to a mutual holding company structure. Also in 1997, the company adopted the humpback whale as symbol of the company because of the whale's persistence, performance, and strength.[1] On May 30, 2007 Pacific Asset Management was created. Pacific Asset Management offers advisory services and institutional fixed income management. Pacific Asset Management focuses on credit oriented fixed income. Pacific Asset Management's investment team manages bank loans, high yield corporate bonds, investment grade bonds and money market securities. Pacific Asset Management provides their clients the ability to invest with an entrepreneurial, boutique investment group focused on fundamental credit analysis and supported by the scale and infrastructure of Pacific Life. Pacific Asset Management currently manage registered investment companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940 as well as separate accounts. The Pacific Life Foundation was established in 1984 and is headquartered in Newport Beach, CA. At year-end 2011, the Foundation's trust principal was approximately $63.5 million. In 2011, $5.5 million was contributed to over 400 agencies in the areas of health and human services; civic, community, and environment; education; and arts and culture[2] and $5.6 million is committed through 2012.[3]

Sponsorships ◾ Pacific Life Pacific-10 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament (2003–2012) ◾ Pacific Life Holiday Bowl (2002–2009), now Bridgepoint Education Holiday Bowl ◾ Pacific Life Open (2002–2008), now BNP Paribas Open

External links ◾ Pacific Life official site (http://www.pacificlife.com/) ◾ Pacific Life Foundation overview (http://www.pacificlife.com/PL/FoundationCommunity/Overview/Corp_PLF_Home.htm)

References 1. "About Pacific Life, Our Brand Icon: The Humpback Whale" (http://www.pacificlife.com/PL/About+Pacific+Life/Overview/BrandIcons.htm). Pacific Life. 2012. Retrieved November 20, 2012. 2. "Frequently Asked Questions about the Foundation’s Funding" (http://www.pacificlife.com/PL/FoundationCommunity/HowToApply/Corp_PLF_FAQ.htm). 2012. Retrieved 19 November 2012. 3. "Pacific Life Foundation Announces $2.4 Million in Grants to Nearly 200 Nonprofit Agencies in Southern California During Annual Grants Reception" (http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120124005645/en/Pacific-Life-FoundationAnnounces-2.4-Million-Grants). NEWPORT BEACH, Calif.: Business Wire. January 24, 2012. Retrieved 19 November 2012.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacific_Life&oldid=660062251"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Life

9/10/2015

Pacific Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page 3 of 3

Categories: Insurance companies of the United States Mutual insurance companies Companies established in 1868 Companies based in Orange County, California Companies based in Newport Beach, California Life insurance companies Mutual insurance companies of the United States ◾ This page was last modified on 30 April 2015, at 14:19. ◾ Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Life

9/10/2015

Historic Property Inventory Report

Location Field Site No. 0656000306

DAHP No.

Historic Name: Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. Common Name: Property Address: 307 BROAD ST, SEATTLE, WA Comments: Tax No./Parcel No. 0656000306 Plat/Block/Lot BELL AND DENNYS 2ND ADDN 22 FT OF 2 & ALL 3 & 4 LE Acreage 0.361233 Supplemental Map(s)

Township/Range/EW T25R04E

Section 1/4 Sec 1/4 1/4 Sec 30 SW

County King

Coordinate Reference Easting: 1184099 Northing: 838645 Projection: Washington State Plane South Datum: HARN (feet)

Monday, August 03, 2015

Page 1 of 4

Quadrangle SEATTLE SOUTH

Historic Property Inventory Report Identification Survey Name:

Date Recorded: 07/03/2011

Assessors Data Project: King County E

Field Recorder: Artifacts Consulting, Inc. Owner's Name: Owner Address: City:

State:

Zip:

Classification: Building Resource Status: Survey/Inventory

Comments:

Within a District? No Contributing? National Register: Local District: No National Register District/Thematic Nomination Name: Eligibility Status: Not Determined - SHPO Determination Date: 1/1/0001 Determination Comments:

Description Historic Use: Unknown

Current Use:

Plan: Unknown

Stories: 2

Commerce/Trade - Business

Structural System: Unknown

Changes to Plan:

Changes to Interior:

Changes to Original Cladding:

Changes to Windows:

Changes to Other: Other (specify): Style:

Cladding:

Roof Type:

Roof Material:

Unknown

Foundation:

Form/Type:

Unknown

Commercial

Narrative Study Unit Architecture/Landscape Architecture Date of Construction:

1957 Built Date

Other Builder:

Jencroft & Forbes

Engineer: Architect: Graham, John, & Co. Monday, August 03, 2015

Page 2 of 4

Historic Property Inventory Report Property appears to meet criteria for the National Register of Historic Places:Unable to Determine Property is located in a potential historic district (National and/or local): Unable to Determine Property potentially contributes to a historic district (National and/or local): Unable to Determine Statement of Significance:

Data included on this historic property inventory form (HPI) detail stemmed from County Assessor building records imported by the Washington State Department of Archaeology of Historic Preservation (DAHP) into WISAARD in 2011. This upload reduces data entry burden on community volunteers and historical societies participating in the survey and inventory of their communities. The intent of this project is directed specifically to facilitating community and public involvement in stewardship, increasing data accuracy, and providing a versatile planning tool to Certified Local Governments (CLGs). Project methodology entailed use of the University of Washington's State Parcel Database (http://depts.washington.edu/wagis/projects/parcels/development.php) to provide the base parcel layer for CLGs. Filtering of building data collected from each county trimmed out all properties built after 1969, as well as all current, previously inventoried properties. Translation of building data descriptors to match fields in HPI allowed the data upload. Calculation of point locations utilized the center of each parcel. Data on this detail provides a snapshot of building information as of 2011. A detailed project methodology description resides with DAHP. Project team members: Historic Preservation Northwest, GeoEngineers, and Artifacts Consulting, Inc. (project lead).

Description of Physical Appearance:

The building at 307 Broad Street, Seattle, is located in King County. According to the county assessor, the structure was built in 1957 and is a commercial business. Also according to the county assessor, the structure was remodeled in 1985. The 2-story building has a commercial form.

Major Bibliographic References:

Life Insurance Firm to have New Building on Broad Street - Seattle Times: April 14, 1957.

Monday, August 03, 2015

Page 3 of 4