The URL can be used to link to this page

010 Preliminary Technical Information ReportGreenline Warehouse B Preliminary Technical Information Report September 1, 2017 Prepared for Federal Way Campus, LLC 11100 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (310) 261 - 4382 Submitted by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC 33400 8th Avenue S, Suite 205 Federal Way, WA 98003 253.838.6113 tel 253.838.7104 fax www.esmcivil.com Table of Contents Section 1. Project Overview Section 2. Conditions and Requirements Summary Section 3. Off -Site Analysis Section 4. Flow Control & Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Section 5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design Section 6. Special Reports and Studies Section 7. Other Permits Section 8. ESC Analysis and Design Section 9. Bond Quantities, Facility Summaries, & Declaration of Covenant Section 10. Operations and Maintenance Manual List of Figures 1.1 Vicinity Map 1.2 Existing Site Conditions 1.3 Proposed Site Conditions 1.4 Soils Map 3.1 Site Topography 3.2 Drainage Complaints & Environmental Hazards 3.3 Downstream Analysis Flow Path A Basin Exhibits B Hydrology Model Output C Geotechnical Engineering Services Report \\es m8\engrlesm-jobs\1886\0011016-0011 \document\rprt-002.docx 1. Proiect Overview The purpose of this report is to encapsulate the documents and analysis required by the Drainage Review in the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (SWDM). Existing Site: The proposed Greenline Warehouse B project site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 21 North, Range 4 East, W.M. in the City of Federal Way, WA. More specifically, the project site is located between Weyerhaeuser Way S and the private loop road that serves the Headquarters building, and south of the proposed Warehouse A project. The property is zoned CP-1 and is subject to the Concomitant Pre -Annexation Zoning Agreement dated August 23, 1994. Figure 1.1 shows the Vicinity Map. Existing Site Hydrology: The existing site is generally forested with a mix of large evergreen and deciduous trees. There is approximately 34 feet of fall across the property from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the site (to Stream EA). The site is mostly undeveloped, with gravel trails and maintenance roads throughout, along with storage areas for landscape materials (topsoil, gravel, etc.) as shown in Figure 1.2. See Section 3 for more information. Proposed Site Improvements: The proposed development consists of a 44 foot tall, single story warehouse building with parking & landscaped areas around the building structure on a 16.95 acre parcel. Additionally, there will be frontage improvements along the west side of Weyerhaeuser Way S (landscape planter and sidewalk). The 50-foot wide managed forest buffer that extends along the property frontage on Weyerhaeuser Way S will be preserved with this development. The existing trail system is to be relocated where it can wind though the managed forest buffer along Weyerhaeuser Way S. The gravel roads and material storage areas will be relocated to other portions of the overall Weyerhaeuser site. Stormwater runoff from the proposed Warehouse B and Warehouse A previously submitted will be collected in a piped storm drainage system and conveyed to a proposed water quality and detention pond located at the south end of the property. Depending on timing for design and construction of the Warehouses A and B projects, the water quality and detention pond will either be constructed for both projects at one time, or with Warehouse A, to then be extended to the south for the Warehouse B development. Figure 1.3 illustrates the combined Warehouses A and B development site conditions. Proposed Site Hydrology: The proposed onsite stormwater conveyance system will collect and convey runoff from the combined developed Warehouses A and B project site south through the existing 24 inch diameter CMP culvert beneath highway 18. See Sections 4 and 5 of this report for more information. Stormwater Runoff Mitigation Standard: The project will be subject to Full Drainage Review per the City of Federal Way Addendum to the Surface Water Design Manual and the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual which has been adopted by the City. The stormwater requirements in these codes will collectively be referred to in this report as the SWDM. Based on the SWDM, the project site will comply with the conservation flow control design criteria generated by an approved hydrology model, included in software such as the DOE version of the 2012 Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM), and provide enhanced water quality treatment. Additionally, as detailed in the pre -application meeting notes and submittal comments, the proposed development must comply with Level 2 Flow Control standards per the SWDM. WWHM was used to design the proposed flow control and water quality facilities. Procedures and design criteria specified in the SWDM were followed to construct the hydrology model for this project. The resultant flow control and water quality facility sizes generated from that hydrology model are compliant with the required mitigation standards for the project site. Conservation flow control and enhanced water quality treatment for stormwater runoff will be provided within a combined water quality and detention pond, and a Modular Wetlands filter vault (or approved equivalent) that will be located along the south boundary of the site following detention. The flow control facility will discharge south to existing Stream EA and the associated 24 inch diameter corrugated metal pipe (CMP) culvert which eventually combines with Hylebos Creek. See Section 3 for the Level 1 Downstream Analysis and Section 4 for the flow control and water quality analysis. Soils on the Project Site: The Geotechnical Engineering Services Report (Appendix C) maps the soils onsite to include Vashon-age Glacial Till (map symbol Qvt). See Figure 1.4 and the Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for more information. Flow Control BMP's: All applicable Flow Control BMP's are listed and explained in Section 4 of this report. Figure 1.1 tolonial BW 5 328th P1 to S 330h St > ry S 333,rd St S 328th S.t North U) V ' &7 7 1;: 'Lake S 332 rd /-4,64 ."I� 41, .33401 St 333M !St"* 'I, 3-46M St =r 338th ri itU*1 Project Site TJ LA 340Mo, ,34 1 st P. V) pi 5 342no St if. Vs Law t ;74 344th SA St Pit$, QJ`v 14, W take Gene va P! VV.11 --47th St S 348w SL 34<kh St . 41 -$1 Ln 0-, a kf I'3491h rl Open da t S 3 5 2 rod St Lake Killamey S 354th St n C 355ti)v E r E, 35 6ti i -st.-I, S 35 7th St 'A UP The information included on this map has been compiled by King County staff from a variety of sources and is subject to change without notice King County makes no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or rights to the use of such information. This document is not intended N L;g King County for use as a survey King County be liable for product. shall not any general, special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages Including, but not limited to, lost revenues or lost profits resulting from the use or misuse of the information this Any GIS CENTER contained on map. sale ofthis map or information on this map Is prohibited except by written permission of King County. Date: 8/30/2017 Notes: FIGURE 1.2 n SCALE: 1 " = 200' r , J 0 100 zoo J WETLAND DZ _ - LOOP ROAD cl Vv OAp > �-- -- _ I -- — _ ! ♦ ♦O p WETLAND DWG ,1 X 1 WETLAND L ROAD DU E PROJECT SITE YJ*� PROJECT 4 .-- 3\d...\, � _ CT UNDER � � — -- �-•�.��- LE \s92 SEPARATE SUBMITTAL (o. WETLAND EC y WETLAND ED Y ✓' \ -WETLAND EE `4 ^ J WETLAND DP �\ - T- -�, ° �, 1 ,4 si — , J `�w � WETLAND EF ...._ `i �� STREAM EA �Gl a /J WETLAND DT - 7i,Aft�i,ir71RHAEUSER—WAY` S —1.. _ - WETLAND DR 1 WETLAND DQ r N Z E 0 Z U cn 0 Z W N _ 01 O N M o m E 4 0 O o ~ E LD J y� O N� ¢ a Z ao m >_ 3. O $ v V rai m E — m U. N 3 m N j 11 O Z W U 0 > z 3 0 6a 0 WETLAND DU WATER QUALITY CARTRIDGE SYSTEM •% j LOOP ROAD GREEW WAREHOUSE "B" BUILDING AREA: 214,050 SF 252 CAR STALLS (16.95 AC) r�WETLAND EF - DETAINED FOREST OP ggAll O77 FIGURE 1.3 OIL �v- n SCALE: 1 " = 200' 0 100 200 - � -RIGHT of WAY GREENLINE ' �� ; i� ,. DEDICATION. WAREHOUSE "All �� ,- � . UNDER SEPARATE SUBMITTAL � WETLAND DP - ' STREAM EA = ` WETLAND EC 1�. —INC----- s WETLAN D DT V ,-Jln ..�_ _ 4 LLI Of Ld OyEYERHAEUSER WAY',_..� �' o w S' 7" `o o m WETLAND DR a Of om EL c,1 — WETLAND DQ W N OZ E 2 0 W z 0C 8 Q c Wcn o _z ao J m za W W z rnE ol N 3 E Ea z� v > > >: o V �. u r m _ u Z O o; U M ) E LL 3 �' �4jq• �o b m; - c i wu o _a Z 0 Ud O `i Figure 1.4 _ a N O to m Ip U � d m ov c� �of� (U 3co` �C�pp n O f6 N 7 O. U j N 0 E .O a N L '0 ' - co N C O/ E Z n rn�mE tu o _ a o n O N _=xo O m E 0 E N D_ m- m O N N 7 `° 7 O) E N m o N O N C tEOn Em .mCm M C N N oLo�� U co m N w --7 H ao o m N m o C!1 d co Q :E N L� `-' o Q w y E o w a vyi j ' > o o m� ID io cun3C O U N ma�od - L m 0 o NENO7 cLi o o �OONm m o a`min Qrn m n m o�'Na °' Q U. a> N ��c> T�woo03 C �` N N o O �a.,;m nE ? a o -aL m N a) O V j y �.gm Eo-a o n E >' m o E aNi d L o _N � c o a o m m a > aL m o U w Z'o U a aE o aai :n _ rn o 4 a o N a ow 6 E n` E 7 J� m� � mQ m- c Y' a� m 3 Y moa)m E >L Z�E "o- :s a o O U_ ` cc rnm io m c° oa) Z o c m m N N o c cno 7� m m` m 5 �,a Na C �p Q l6 oa m n NO E Ln m _TE _� 'O" (U� E C 7 U 7-t`J 7 O � Qcu N E -O O N - C c N -0 m N C N N 7 C N U) E�� O p N m N O N am Q 7 >. n 0 O O m (o o a a O L N yv L <a70 ccdpp C�COU wm OO OOO NBC cu y oo :E coW .oj E� -�� 6N o=a�i�' O.O NEB L wE_c�N aE o) c v m Ho tn0) �- HcoiEy o o N m LL y� U t m u� m a rn g m O T C C C m = N y m a U O O J N .m. .m• O m � O a o c cn in m > a`> u O m o� m L" _ of ° co J Q y � 'O ��gp < o W m O/ W 3 m J ao C _ O Q T O m C C o m O N d J R N n Em U m o m o O Q m m m A m o 0_ 0 O_ a �. O _ o m cn U > m Q O LL 3 O O C O u) a E >. O m N > O L > "O m L C > J J L m L' C m C U U V m T C t O > Y m V C 0. x N co U U U U F 4 El J yy qy ,{ }� f- (o m Z Soil Map —King County Area, Washington Map Unit Legend Figure 1.4 King County Area, Washington (WA633) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI AgB Alderwood gravelly sandy 19.8 100.0% loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 19.8 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 8/31/2017 Page 3 of 3 r '-q Section Tab #2 2. Conditions and Requirements Summary Review of the 9 Core Requirements and 5 Special Requirements This section describes how the project will meet the SWDM Core and Special Requirements. Core Requirement No. 1 Discharge at the Natural Location For pre -developed conditions, the majority of the 16.95 acre Warehouse B project site drains to the south, overland, via sheet flow and generally collects at the southeast corner, in Stream EA, then continues in an existing 24 inch diameter CMP culvert beneath Highway 18 and into Hylebos Creek, within 1/4 mile downstream. A 4 acre portion of the Warehouse B project site is estimated to drain to the southwest corner of that parcel to the Weyerhaeuser Pond outlet channel with a pre -developed forested 100 year flow rate of 0.384 cubic feet per second (cfs). The stormwater runoff combines approximately 112 mile downstream in Hylebos Creek. For the combined proposed Warehouses A and B development, the combined discharge from the water quality and detention pond is proposed discharge pre -developed forested stormwater runoff to the same Stream EA location. While this is a slight deviation from the defined discharge at the natural location, stormwater does combine downstream in the same overall drainage basin. Furthermore, Stream EA takes the majority of the predeveloped flow from 28.15 acres and is therefore the more established stormwater discharge location. Alternatively, if the proposed option is not acceptable, a flow-splitter can be used to discharge a portion of the stormwater runoff to the Weyerhaeuser Pond outlet channel. For more information, see Section 4 of this report. Core Requirement No. 2 Off -site Analysis The off -site analysis has been documented in Section 3 of this report. Core Requirement No. 3 Flow Control The project is required to provide Level 2 flow control and to release stormwater at the rate that complies with the approved hydrology model (WWHM) per the SWDM, the pre - application meeting notes, and city comments for this project. That flow control standard is estimated to be met with a detention pond. See Section 4 of this report for more information. Core Requirement No. 4 Conveyance System Stormwater conveyance will be provided by the proposed conveyance system per Section 5. Calculations will be provided in the final Technical Information Report (TIR). Core Requirement No. 5 Erosion and Sediment Control Erosion and sediment controls to prevent the transport of sediment from the project site to downstream drainage facilities, water resources, and adjacent properties will be provided on the construction plans. Core Requirement No. 6 Maintenance and Operations The Operations and Maintenance manual will be included with the final TIR. Core Requirement No. 7 Financial Guarantees and Liability All drainage facilities constructed or modified for projects will comply with the financial guarantee requirements as provided in the King County Bond Quantities Worksheet. Bond Quantities will be provided in the final TIR. Core Requirement No. 8 Water Quality Water quality treatment will be provided in a combined water quality and detention pond followed by a media filter vault. See Section 4 of this report for details. Core Requirement No. 9 Flow Control BMP's All applicable Flow Control BMP's are listed and discussed in Section 4 of this report. Special Requirement No. 1 Other Adopted Area -Specific Requirements There are no master drainage plans, basin plans, salmon conservation plans, stormwater compliance plans, flood hazard reduction plan updates, or shared facility drainage plans for this project. Special Requirement No. 1 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 2 Flood Hazard Area Delineation The developed project site location is not in a 100-year floodplain. Special Requirement No. 2 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 3 Flood Protection Facilities The developed project site is not protected by an existing flood protection facility. The proposed site improvements do not include the modification of an existing flood protection facility. Special Requirement No. 3 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 4 Source Control The project will follow the King County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Manual and King County Code 9.12 to identify and implement source controls as needed. Due to the proposed use of the project site, source control is not required; therefore, Special Requirement No. 4 does not apply. Special Requirement No. 5 Oil Control The proposed development is commercial and (according to the definition provided in the SWDM) qualifies as a "high -use site" due to vehicle fleet size; therefore, Special Requirement No. 5 does apply. Implementation details regarding oil control will be provided in the final TIR. Section Tab #3 I Off -Site Analysis A Level 1 downstream analysis has been performed for the site. Task 1: Study Area Definition and Maps The study area consists of the project site and 114 mile downstream flow path for runoff released from the existing site. Figure 1.2 shows the existing site conditions. Figure 3.3 shows the extent of offsite analysis and the downstream flow path from the project site. Task 2: Resource Review Flow Control Map According the SWDM, the project site is required to meet Conservation Flow Control standards. Soil Survey Map The Geotechnical Engineering Services Report (Appendix C) maps the soils onsite to include Vashon-age Glacial Till (map symbol Qvt). See Figure 1.4 and the Geotechnical Engineering Services Report for more information. King County iMap According to iMap, the project site is NOT mapped in any of the following areas: - 100 Year Floodplains - Seismic Hazard Areas - Landslide Hazard Areas - Coal Mine Hazard Areas - Erosion Hazard Areas - Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Kinq County iMap and the Pre -Application Conference Notes The project site has the following areas mapped onsite and nearby: - Streams & Wetlands See Figure 3.2 for more information regarding the environmental hazards near the project site. Road Drainage Problems None noted Wetlands Inventory According to iMap, the Critical Areas Review, and the 1990 King County Wetlands Inventory Notebooks there are no recorded wetlands on the developed project site. However, the wetland biologist has located onsite wetland areas and there are wetland areas downstream of the developed project site. See Figure 1.2 for Existing Site Conditions and the wetland report for more information. Migrating River Study None noted Downstream Drainage Complaints According to iMap, there are no relevant downstream drainage complaints within the scope of this project. According to City of Federal Way staff, in 2011, the roundabout adjacent to the north side of the property flooded due to leaves blocking a catch basin grate. Once the leaves were removed the flooding subsided. This complaint was considered resolved and not relevant Task 3: Field Inspection (Level 1 Inspection) A Level 1 Downstream Analysis was completed by ESM Consulting Engineers, LLC in the afternoon on June 06, 2016, when it was partly cloudy and 74'F. During the inspection it was found that the project site has no apparent upstream offsite areas draining to the property. The flows from the project site drain to an offsite stream (Hylebos Creek). There did not appear to be any flooding issues over any of the roadways adjacent to the project site. The runoff from the project site collects along the north side of a gravel footpath that extends beyond the south boundary of the project site. From there, the runoff is estimated to flow along the path and through a culvert to the south side of the footpath. From there, runoff continues through vegetation, to Stream EA and into a 24 inch CMP culvert beneath the onramp of west -bound Highway 18 to rehydrate further downstream wetlands. Stormwater runoff from the southwest portion of the project site (4 acres) appears to drain to the southwest corner of that parcel to the Weyerhaeuser Pond outlet channel. The stormwater runoff combines approximately 112 mile downstream and continues to Hylebos Creek. See Figures 3.1 & 3.3 (Site Topography & Offsite Downstream Flowpath respectively) for further information. Task 4: Drainage Description and Problem Descriptions According to iMap, the project site is in the Hylebos Creek (King County WRIA number: 10) drainage basin. Hylebos Creek is located to the west of the project site and is approximately 1/4 mile downstream. No drainage problems are estimated to exist in the site's existing condition. Task 5: Mitigation of Existing or Potential Problems No existing or potential problems were observed with the existing drainage system within the scope of the downstream analysis. Therefore, no further mitigation is proposed. imKing County King County Districts and Development Conditions for parcel 6142600005 Parcel number 6142600005 Address Not Available Jurisdiction Federal Way Zipcode 98001 Kroll Map page 737 Thomas Guide page 745 Electoral Districts Drainage Basin Hylebos Creek Watershed Puyallup River WRIA Puyallup -White (101 PLSS NE-21 -21 -4 Latitude 47.29874 Longitude -122.29239 Voting district FED 30-3289 Fire district King County Council district District 7, Pete von Water district Reichbauer Sewer district (206) 477-1007 Congressional district 9 Water & Sewer district Legislative district 30 Parks & Recreationdistrict School district Federal Way #210 Hospital district Seattle school board district does not apply (not in Rural library district Seattle) District Court electoral district King County planning Southwest and critical areas designations King County zoning NA, check with jurisdiction Development conditions None Comprehensive Plan does not apply Urban Growth Area Urban Community Service Area does not apply Community Planning Area Federal Way Coal mine hazards? None mapped Erosion hazards? None mapped Landslide hazards? None mapped Seismic hazards? None mapped Potential annexation area Rural town Water service planning area South King Fire and Rescue does not apply does not apply Lakehaven Utility District does not apply does not apply Rural King County Library System u- Roads MPS zone Transportation Concurrence Management Forest Production district? Agricultural Production district? Critical aquifer recharge area? 100-year flood plain? Wetlands at this parcel? Within the Tacoma Smelter Plume? This report was generated on 6/7/2016 1:18:57 PM Contact us at giscenter(a)kingcountv.gov. ©2015 King County does not apply No does not apply 258 does not apply No No None mapped None mapped None mapped Under 20 ppm Estimated Arsenic Concentration in '' King Counter King County Districts and Development Conditions for parcel 6142600200 Parcel number 6142600200 Drainage Basin Hylebos Creek Address Not Available Watershed Puyallup River r' Jurisdiction Federal Way WRIA Puyallup -White 00) Zipcode 98001 PLSS NE-21 -21 -4 Kroll Map page 737 Latitude 47.29703y Thomas Guide page 745 Longitude -122.29286 Electoral Districts Voting district FED 30-3289 Fire district South King Fire and Rescue King County Council district District 7, Pete von Water district does not apply Reichbauer (206) 477-1007 Sewe r d i stri ct does not apply Congressional district 9 Water & Sewer district Lakehaven Utility District Legislative district 30 Parks & Recreation does not apply district School district Federal Way #210 Hospital district does not apply Seattle school board district does not apply (not in Rural library district Rural King County Library Seattle) System District Court electoral district Southwest King County planning and critical areas designations King County zoning NA, check with Potential annexation area does not apply jurisdiction Rural town No Development conditions None Water service planning area does not apply Comprehensive Plan does not apply Roads MPS zone 258 Urban Growth Area Urban Transportation Concurrence does not apply Community Service Area does not apply Management Community Planning Area Federal Way Forest Production district? No Coal mine hazards? None mapped Agricultural Production district? No Erosion hazards? None mapped Critical aquifer recharge area? None mapped Landslide hazards? None mapped 100-year flood plain? None mapped Seismic hazards? None mapped Wetlands at this parcel? None mapped Within the Tacoma Smelter Plume? Under 20 ppm Estimated Arsenic Concentration in This report was generated on 6/7/2016 1:17:55 PM - Contact us at giscenter an-kingcounty.gov. © 2015 King County Figure 3.3 N a rn�E � J C N - O D N 0 C U m L° t N C Ol O O N W L W U � J C l0 l0 Q N U O T 2 d U) W C J O U o O C C z O) N � ` W y C C O C J _ 0,0 cu _0 17 f AC:i O 0 Ol t! X W At Point #1 looking south along estimated drainage path At Point #2 looking south At Point #3 looking west along gravel footpath Storm water runoff from the project site is estimated to collect in along the west side of this gravel trail and flow south to Point #2. Runoff is estimated to continue in this ditch and flow southwest in parallel with a footpath to Point #3. At Point #3 looking west along drainage ditch At Point #4 At Point #4 looking south Runoff is estimated to continue southwest in this ditch to Point #4. Runoff in this ditch is estimated to flow across jIq the footpath at Point #4 through this culvert. white maker west -bound, At the white maker shown in the previous photo According to the wetland report, runoff continues offsite in this 24" CMP culvert beneath the onramp of west- bound Highway 18 to rehydrate further downstream wetlands. It is estimated to drain to Hylebos Creek. At Point #5 looking south Stormwater runoff is collected from the eastern portion of the project site and conveyed south in the roadside drainage ditch shown. That runoff is collected by a culvert and piped to Point #6. At Paint A16 looking south From here, runoff is pipe to the west and is estimated to be discharged into another drainage COO _ ditch. At Point #6 looking west At Point #7 Iookine east From Point #6, runoff is conveyed in the drainage ditch shown here. - Via_..-- - r _-. At Point #7 looking south a Runoff is directed to the south and joins the outflow from the Weyerhaeuser Pond. i Section Tab #4 4. Flow Control & Water Quality Facility Analysis and Design Existing Site Hydrology: The existing project site is generally forested with a mix of large evergreen and deciduous trees. There is approximately 34 feet of fall across the property from the northwest corner to the southeast corner of the site. The site is mostly undeveloped; however, it does contain gravel trails and maintenance roads throughout, along with storage areas for landscape materials (topsoil, gravel, etc.). There are thirteen small wetlands and a stream located on, or immediately adjacent to the site, which are hydraulically connected at high water levels, due to the existing soil type, and water moves laterally between them. These wetlands have all been delineated and classified by the wetland biologist, Talasaea Consultants. The project is proposing to fill some small wetlands, with a proposed mitigation of enhancement and maintenance of existing hydrology for the existing wetlands and wetland creation in another location on the Weyerhaeuser Campus. For more information, see the Critical Areas Report, Warehouse B by Talasaea Consultants, dated September 1, 2017, included with this submittal under separate cover. The existing combined drainage basins for Warehouses A and B are detailed below in Table 4.1. Developed Site Hydrology: The proposed drainage basins for Warehouses A and B are detailed below in Table 4.1 and shown on the Developed Basins Exhibit (Appendix A). Tnhln A 1 Pond Drainage Basin (Acres) Combined YIV Z.1 Warehouse A Under Se crate Submittal Proposed Warehouse B Total Detained Bypass Total Detained Bypass Total Detained Bypass Forest 1.87 1.87 0.00 1.15 1.15 0.00 0.72 0.72 0.00 Grass 2.40 2.40 0.00 2.10 2.10 0.00 0.30 0.30 0.00 Pond Tract Grass 1.16 1.16 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 Pond Tract Water 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.78 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Roof 10.10 10.10 0.00 5.19 5.19 0.00 4.91 4.91 0.00 Pavement 9.23 9.11 0.12 4.83 4.74 0.09 4.40 4.37 0.03 Pervious 5.43 5.43 0.00 3.98 3.98 0.00 1.45 1.45 0.00 Impervious 125.541 20.11 19.99 0.12 10.80 1 10.71 0.09 9.31 9.28 0.03 Total 25.42 0.12 14.78 1 14.69 0.09 10.76 10.73 0.03 For the combined proposed Warehouses A and B development, the combined discharge from the water quality and detention pond is proposed discharge pre -developed forested stormwater runoff to the same Stream EA location. While this is a slight deviation from the defined discharge at the natural location, stormwater does combine downstream in the same overall drainage basin. Furthermore, Stream EA takes the majority of the predeveloped flow from 28.15 acres and is therefore the more established stormwater discharge location. Alternatively, if the proposed option is not acceptable, a flow-splitter can be used to discharge a portion of the stormwater runoff to the Weyerhaeuser Pond outlet channel. The frontage improvements along the Weyerhaeuser Way S (0.48 acres of sidewalk) are proposed to bypass the detention pond, which is acceptable, because this area generates an increase in the 100 year peak flow rate of 0.36 cfs, which is less than 0.4 cfs. The detention pond also over -detains for the frontage improvements within the 10% factor of safety. Performance Standards: Stormwater systems onsite are to be designed to mitigate runoff generated from the project per the requirements of the SWDM, specifically the Flow Control Duration standards. The facility size is required to be determined by an approved hydrology model per the SWDM. The approved hydrology model used to size the stormwater detention and water quality facilities was the Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM). Due to the size and location of the proposed development, the project is required to comply with Flow Control Duration standards per Section 1.2.3.1.B of the SWDM. Those flow control requirements are estimated to be met with a stormwater detention pond, as described in this section under Flow Control System. Due to the type of development being commercial, the required water quality treatment standard is Enhanced Basic WQ treatment per Section 1.2.8.1.A of the SWDM. Those treatment requirements are estimated to be met with a combined water quality facility, as described in this section under Water Quality System_ Flow Control System: The default sizing from WWHM complies with the Flow Control Duration standards. The developed project site flow rates are given in Table 4.2 and comply with the Flow Control Duration standards. The proposed detention facility is approximately 10 feet deep (9 feet of live storage with 1 foot of freeboard). The volume required, volume provided, and safety factor are given in Table 4.3. Depending on timing for design and construction of the Warehouses A and B projects, the water quality and detention pond will either be constructed for both projects at one time, or with Warehouse A, to then be extended to the south, for the Warehouse B development. The WWHM output for Flow Control for the combined Warehouses A and B is provided in Appendix B. Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Return Period Predeveloped Combined cfs Mitigated Combined cfs 2 Year 0.7509 0.5083 5 Year 1.1793 0.7994 10 Year 1.4221 1.0384 25 Year 1.6793 1.3992 50 Year 1.8385 1.7151 100 Year 1.9739 2.0749 Stormwater Detention Volume Total Combined Cu Ft Required 422,200 Provided 471,300 Safety Factor 10% Water Quality System: Water quality treatment will be provided in water quality and detention pond, per Section 1.2.8 of the SWDM. Depending on timing for design and construction of the Warehouses A and B projects, the water quality and detention pond will either be constructed for both projects at one time, or with Warehouse A, to then be extended to the south for the Warehouse B development. The facility's Warehouse A and combined Warehouses A and B required and provided volumes are given in Table 4.4. The WWHM Water Quality output was calculated from the 701 - Inflow to Mitigated time series file. The project site requires enhanced water quality treatment which can be provided per SWDM using one of three different options. The current proposed design follows the Two - facility Treatment Train as described in Section 6.1.2 - Enhanced Basic Option 3. Table 4.4 Water Quality Warehouse A Volume cu ft Warehouse A Flow cfs Combined Volume cu ft Combined Flow cfs Required 62,900 0.2867 88,300 0.5083 Provided 66,000 0.2867 92,700 0.5083 Safety Factor 5% 0% 5% 0% A berm is required if the length to width ratio is less than 4:1 per Section 6.4.1.2. The proposed wetpond (approximate bottom dimensions: 150 feet long by 50 feet wide) has a length to width ratio of 3:1; therefore, a berm is required. The roof material to be used on the proposed warehouse will be TOP and is considered to be non -leaching which complies with the requirements specified in Section 1.2.8 of the SWDM. Oil control is required for the parking lot areas and implementation details will be provided in the final TIR. In summary, enhanced water quality treatment will be provided for Warehouses A and B using a combined wetpond followed by a Modular Wetlands filter vault (or approved equivalent). Based on the Washington State Department of Ecology approval, the filters will be sized with the 2-year mitigated flow rate (computed by WWHM). The WWHM output for Water Quality is provided in Appendix B. The frontage improvements along the Weyerhaeuser Way S are non -pollution generating and the resulting runoff is considered clean and will not need water quality treatment. Flow Control BMPs Flow control BMPs were evaluated for the Warehouse B project site as outlined in the SWDM under Section 1.2.9.2.2 - Large Lot BMP Requirements. These BMP's are described in order of precedence below with feasibility determined and the portion of applicable area credited as mitigated should be no less than 10% of the total site area - 1.70 acres. Full Dispersion Within the proposed project area, the native vegetated areas, including the managed forest buffer and wetlands and associated buffers are not large enough to accommodate a minimum flowpath of 100 feet in length. Therefore, Full Dispersion (specified in Section C.2.1.1 - minimum design requirements 3 and 5) cannot be met; hence, Full Dispersion is infeasible for this project site. Full Infiltration The Geotechnical Engineering Services infiltration potential at this site. Becau stormwater detention be used for site (specified in Section C.2.2.2.1) minimum Infiltration is infeasible for this project site. Report states that "...there is very limited >e of these factors we recommend that development." Therefore, Full Infiltration requirements cannot be met; hence, Full Limited Infiltration Limited Infiltration (specified in Section C.2.3) has the minimum design requirements for are the same as those for Full Infiltration. Since Full Infiltration has been deemed infeasible, Limited Infiltration is also infeasible for this project site. Bioretention Bioretention (specified in Section C2.6) may be feasible, using raingardens pending further geotechnical field investigation (to be completed with final design). Permeable Pavement, Permeable Pavement (specified in Section C2.7) may feasible for the onsite non - pollution generating impervious concrete sidewalk (approximately 0.4 acres) pending further geotechnical field investigation (to be completed with final design). Basic Dispersion As discussed above for Full Dispersion, the native vegetated areas to the north (managed forest buffer) and to the west are above the proposed development. The native vegetated areas to the east (managed forest buffer) and south that are lower than the proposed development (contain wetlands and associated buffers. Basic Dispersion (specified in Section C2.4) may be feasible for very small impervious areas above the managed forest buffer to the east and will be evaluated with final design. If the impervious area credited as mitigated is less than the threshold specified in Flow Control BMPs above, then (according to Section 1.2.9.2.2.5 of the SWDM) a fee in lieu must be paid OR one or more the following BMPs must be implemented to achieve compliance: Reduced Impervious Surface Credit This project is larger than 250,000 square feet (Section C.2.9.2), cannot use wheel strip driveways (Section C.2.9.3) due to the proposed parking layout, cannot implement a minimum disturbance foundation (Section C.2.9.4) due to the building type, and open grid decking over pervious surface (Section C.2.9.5) is not applicable. Therefore, minimum design requirement #1 (specified in Section C.2.9.1) cannot be met; hence, the Reduced Impervious Surface Credit cannot be claimed for the proposed site improvements. Native Growth Retention Credit The minimum design requirement that any area of target impervious surface credited as mitigated by this credit must be directed to vegetated pervious areas on the site or discharged through a perforated pipe connection in accordance with Section C.2.11. While it is not feasible to direct stormwater runoff to those surfaces due to the elevation difference of the applicable vegetated pervious areas, the perforated pipe connection will be provided to the roof downspouts. The Warehouse B onsite forest buffer area is 2.64 acres and undisturbed native vegetation area is 1.97 acres. The total 4.61 acres native vegetated area mitigates for 1.32 acres of impervious area which is equivalent to 14.1 percent of the total Warehouse B impervious area. The native vegetated area used for this credit requires specific covenants, per SWDM, and these requirements have been preliminarily compared with the Weyerhaeuser Company Concomitant Pre -Annexation Zoning Agreement (CZA). The requirements in the SWDM appear to not conflict with the CZA, therefore, native growth retention appears to be feasible for the project site and will be confirmed with final design. Soil Amendment Minimum Requirement #6 All new pervious surfaces will be amended per Section 12.9.2.2.6 of the SWDM to satisfy the requirements specified therein (notes will be added on the final landscape plans). Roof Downspout Minimum Requirement #7 All roof downspouts will be shown on the final construction plans to connect to the storm system via Perforated Pipe Connection (as specified in Section C.2.11 of the SWDM). In summary, the project site will implement, if determined feasible during final design the following flow control BMPs: Bioretention, Permeable Pavement, Basic Dispersion, for the project site, pending further geotechnical field investigation. If the impervious area credited as mitigated is not sufficient, a fee in lieu will be paid, or the Native Growth Retention Credit will be implemented. The project will also amend soils and use perforated pipe connections for downspouts. Section Tab #5 5. Conveyance System Analysis and Design Onsite Conveyance System: Runoff from the developed project site will be collected from the developed lot lawns, roofs, and sidewalks by the conveyance system located in the ROW. The proposed stormwater drainage system is composed of catch basin structures with connecting pipes. A conveyance and backwater analysis will be completed to verify the capacity of the critical pipes in the system. The proposed stormwater drainage system will be designed to convey the 25-year peak flow rate generated by the developed tributary basin as required in the SWDM. The system will contain the 100-year flow within the catch basin without any conveyance or backwater issues. Detailed conveyance calculations will be provided with the final TIR. Outlet Conveyance System: The water quality and detention pond will match the pre -developed condition and discharge pre -developed forested stormwater runoff at the Stream EA location. From this location, runoff continues into a 24 inch CMP culvert beneath the onramp of west -bound Highway 18 to rehydrate further downstream wetlands. The Stream EA cross-section is relatively wide and appears to have capacity for larger flows than the 24 inch CMP culvert, so the culvert is estimated to control the amount of stormwater runoff that can be discharged from the site. The 24 inch CMP culvert has an estimated capacity of 16 cfs, using a minimum slope of 0.5% and a Manning's n of 0.013. The total maximum 25.54 acre drainage basin mitigated 100 year flow from the combined Warehouses A and B water quality and detention pond is 2.07 cubic feet per second. Therefore, the existing 24 inch CMP culvert has sufficient capacity to accommodate the combined proposed development of Warehouses A and B. Section Tab #6 6. Special Reports and Studies The Geotechnical Engineering Services Report by GeoEngineers dated August 16, 2017, is included in Appendix C. The Critical Areas Report, Warehouse B by Talasaea Consultants, dated September 1, 2017, is included with this submittal under separate cover. Section Tab #7 7. Other Permits Building and NPDES permits will be required for this project, together with permits for utility connections. Section Tab #8 S. ESC Analysis and Design The Erosion and Sedimentation Control will be provided with the construction plans. Section Tab #9 9. Bond Quantities Facility Summaries and Declaration of Covenant The Bond Quantities worksheet will be provided with the final TIR. Section Tab #10 10. Operations and Maintenance The Operations and Maintenance manual will be provided with the final TIR. Blank Tab for Appendix Blank Tab for Appendix Appendix A WETLAND DW WETLAND DZC7 - I WATER QUALITY AND DETENTION POND WETLAND WATER QUALITY CARTRIDGE SYSTEM WETLAND DP —/ STREAM EA LOOP ROAD -----4_ wLAN D DT VVEYERHAEUSER WAYS DETAINED FOREST 0 L "' ir n.L WETLAND gDR om LEGEND MANAGED FOREST BUFFER FOREST NEW PERVIOUS (GRASS) NEW IMPERVIOUS STORM DRAINAGE — — — BASIN BOUNDARY SEE TABLE 4.1 FOR BASIN AREAS ��D om WETLAND DQ IL n SCALE: 1 " = 200' 0 100 200 RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. U J D CL U Q a W 0 W LL R Z 2 El O 9 0 Ln \ WO C 'o $� D ; o � U o� L3 = 00 Z co > a O 0m — LL tU N uy 7 T 3 u C C Z W � Z Z 3 Appendix B General Model Information Project Name: Greenline WH A & B Site Name: Greenline Warehouse A & B Site Address: City: Federal Way Report Date: 8/22/2017 Gage: Seatac Data Start: 1948/10/01 Data End: 2009/09/30 Timestep: 15 Minute Precip Scale: 1.000 Version Date: 2017/04/14 Version: 4.2.13 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Year Low Flow Threshold for POC2: 50 Percent of the 2 Year High Flow Threshold for POC2: 50 Year Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:40 Page 2 Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use PreDev, WH A Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 14.78 Pervious Total 14.78 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total p Basin Total 14.78 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Dummy Node Dummy Node Groundwater Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:40 Page 3 PreDev, WH B Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Forest, Flat 10.76 Pervious Total 10.76 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 10.76 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Dummy Node Dummy Node Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:40 Page 4 Mitigated Land Use Dev, WH A, Detained Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 3.98 Pervious Total 3.98 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 5.52 ROOF TOPS FLAT 5.19 Impervious Total 10.71 Basin Total 14.69 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Water Quality Node Water Quality Node Groundwater Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:40 Page 5 Dev, WH A, Bypass Bypass: Yes GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.09 Impervious Total 0.09 Basin Total 0.09 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:40 Page 6 Dev, WH B, Detained Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre C, Lawn, Flat 1.45 Pervious Total 1.45 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 4.37 Impervious Total 4.37 Basin Total 5.82 Element Flows To: Surface Water Quality Node Interflow Groundwater Water Quality Node Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:40 Page 7 Dev, WH B, Detained, Roof Only Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total p Impervious Land Use acre ROOF TOPS FLAT 4.91 Impervious Total 4.91 Basin Total 4.91 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Detention Pond Detention Pond Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:40 Page 8 Dev, WH B, Bypass Bypass: Yes GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre Pervious Total 0 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.03 Impervious Total 0.03 Basin Total 0.03 Element Flows To: Surface Interflow Groundwater Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:40 Page 9 Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing Dummy Node Bottom Length: 500.00 ft. Bottom Width: 5.00 ft. Manning's n: 0.03 Channel bottom slope 1: 0.01 To 1 Channel Left side slope 0: 2 To 1 Channel right side slope 2: 2 To 1 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 0 ft. Riser Diameter: 0 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Channel Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) lnfilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0556 0.059 0.003 0.201 0.000 0.1111 0.062 0.006 0.643 0.000 0.1667 0.065 0.010 1.272 0.000 0.2222 0.067 0.013 2.067 0.000 0.2778 0.070 0.017 3.019 0.000 0.3333 0.072 0.021 4.119 0.000 0.3889 0.075 0.025 5.365 0.000 0.4444 0.077 0.030 6.754 0.000 0.5000 0.080 0.034 8.284 0.000 0.5556 0.082 0.039 9.954 0.000 0.6111 0.085 0.043 11.76 0.000 0.6667 0.088 0.048 13.71 0.000 0.7222 0.090 0.053 15.80 0.000 0.7778 0.093 0.058 18.04 0.000 0.8333 0.095 0.063 20.41 0.000 0.8889 0.098 0.069 22.94 0.000 0.9444 0.100 0.074 25.60 0.000 1.0000 0.103 0.080 28.41 0.000 1.0556 0.105 0.086 31.37 0.000 1.1111 0.108 0.092 34.48 0.000 1.1667 0.111 0.098 37.75 0.000 1.2222 0.113 0.104 41.16 0.000 1.2778 0.116 0.110 44.73 0.000 1.3333 0.118 0.117 48.45 0.000 1.3889 0.121 0.124 52.34 0.000 1.4444 0.123 0.130 56.38 0.000 1.5000 0.126 0.137 60.58 0.000 1.5556 0.128 0.144 64.95 0.000 1.6111 0.131 0.152 69.48 0.000 1.6667 0.133 0.159 74.18 0.000 1.7222 0.136 0.166 79.05 0.000 1.7778 0.139 0.174 84.09 0.000 1.8333 0.141 0.182 89.30 0.000 1.8889 0.144 0.190 94.68 0.000 1.9444 0.146 0.198 100.2 0.000 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:40 Page 10 2.0000 0.149 0.206 105.9 0.000 2.0556 0.151 0.215 111.9 0.000 2.1111 0.154 0.223 118.0 0.000 2.1667 0.156 0.232 124.2 0.000 2.2222 0.159 0.240 130.7 0.000 2.2778 0.162 0.249 137.4 0.000 2.3333 0.164 0.258 144.2 0.000 2.3889 0.167 0.268 151.3 0.000 2.4444 0.169 0.277 158.5 0.000 2.5000 0.172 0.287 165.9 0.000 2.5556 0.174 0.296 173.5 0.000 2.6111 0.177 0.306 181.3 0.000 2.6667 0.179 0.316 189.4 0.000 2.7222 0.182 0.326 197.6 0.000 2.7778 0.185 0.336 206.0 0.000 2.8333 0.187 0.346 214.6 0.000 2.8889 0.190 0.357 223.5 0.000 2.9444 0.192 0.368 232.5 0.000 3.0000 0.195 0.378 241.8 0.000 3.0556 0.197 0.389 251.2 0.000 3.1111 0.200 0.400 260.9 0.000 3.1667 0.202 0.412 270.8 0.000 3.2222 0.205 0.423 280.9 0.000 3.2778 0.207 0.434 291.2 0.000 3.3333 0.210 0.446 301.8 0.000 3.3889 0.213 0.458 312.6 0.000 3.4444 0.215 0.470 323.6 0.000 3.5000 0.218 0.482 334.8 0.000 3.5556 0.220 0.494 346.2 0.000 3.6111 0.223 0.506 357.9 0.000 3.6667 0.225 0.519 369.8 0.000 3.7222 0.228 0.531 382.0 0.000 3.7778 0.230 0.544 394.4 0.000 3.8333 0.233 0.557 407.0 0.000 3.8889 0.236 0.570 419.9 0.000 3.9444 0.238 0.583 432.9 0.000 4.0000 0.241 0.596 446.3 0.000 4.0556 0.243 0.610 459.9 0.000 4.1111 0.246 0.624 473.7 0.000 4.1667 0.248 0.637 487.8 0.000 4.2222 0.251 0.651 502.1 0.000 4.2778 0.253 0.665 516.7 0.000 4.3333 0.256 0.679 531.5 0.000 4.3889 0.258 0.694 546.6 0.000 4.4444 0.261 0.708 561.9 0.000 4.5000 0.264 0.723 577.5 0.000 4.5556 0.266 0.738 593.3 0.000 4.6111 0.269 0.752 609.4 0.000 4.6667 0.271 0.767 625.8 0.000 4.7222 0.274 0.783 642.4 0.000 4.7778 0.276 0.798 659.3 0.000 4.8333 0.279 0.813 676.5 0.000 4.8889 0.281 0.829 693.9 0.000 4.9444 0.284 0.845 711.6 0.000 5.0000 0.287 0.861 729.6 0.000 5.0556 0.289 0.877 747.8 0.000 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:41 Page 11 Mitigated Routing Detention Pond Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Depth: Volume at riser head Side slope 1: Side slope 2: Side slope 3: Side slope 4: Discharge Structure Riser Height: Riser Diameter: Notch Type: Notch Width: Notch Height: Orifice 1 Diameter: Orifice 2 Diameter: Orifice 3 Diameter: Element Flows To: Outlet 1 215.00 ft. 180.00 ft. 10 ft. 9.6927 acre-feet. 2 To 1 2 To 1 2 To 1 2To1 9 ft. 24 in. Rectangular 0.026 ft. 2.100 ft. 2.45 in. Elevation:0 ft. 2.625 in. Elevation:5.1 ft. 3.375 in. Elevation:6.25 ft. Outlet 2 Pond Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) 0.0000 0.1111 0.2222 0.3333 0.4444 0.5556 0.6667 0.7778 0.8889 1.0000 1.1111 1.2222 1.3333 1.4444 1.5556 1.6667 1.7778 1.8889 2.0000 2.1111 2.2222 2.3333 2.4444 2.5556 2.6667 2.7778 2.8889 3.0000 3.1111 3.2222 Area(ac.) 0.888 0.892 0.896 0.900 0.904 0.908 0.912 0.916 0.921 0.925 0.929 0.933 0.937 0.941 0.945 0.949 0.954 0.958 0.962 0.966 0.970 0.975 0.979 0.983 0.987 0.992 0.996 1.000 1.004 1.009 Volume(ac-ft.) 0.000 0.098 0.198 0.298 0.398 0.499 0.600 0.702 0.804 0.906 1.009 1.113 1.217 1.321 1.426 1.531 1.637 1.743 1.850 1.957 2.065 2.173 2.281 2.390 2.500 2.610 2.720 2.831 2.943 3.055 Discharge(cfs) 0.000 0.054 0.076 0.094 0.108 0.121 0.133 0.143 0.153 0.162 0.171 0.180 0.188 0.195 0.203 0.210 0.217 0.223 0.230 0.236 0.242 0.248 0.254 0.260 0.266 0.271 0.276 0.282 0.287 0.292 Infilt(cfs) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:41 Page 12 3.3333 1.013 3.167 0.297 0.000 3.4444 1.017 3.280 0.302 0.000 3.5556 1.022 3.393 0.307 0.000 3.6667 1.026 3.507 0.311 0.000 3.7778 1.030 3.621 0.316 0.000 3.8889 1.035 3.736 0.321 0.000 4.0000 1.039 3.851 0.325 0.000 4.1111 1.043 3.967 0.330 0.000 4.2222 1.048 4.083 0.334 0.000 4.3333 1.052 4.200 0.339 0.000 4.4444 1.056 4.317 0.343 0.000 4.5556 1.061 4.435 0.347 0.000 4.6667 1.065 4.553 0.351 0.000 4.7778 1.070 4.672 0.356 0.000 4.8889 1.074 4.791 0.360 0.000 5.0000 1.079 4.910 0.364 0.000 5.1111 1.083 5.031 0.388 0.000 5.2222 1.087 5.151 0.437 0.000 5.3333 1.092 5.272 0.466 0.000 5.4444 1.096 5.394 0.489 0.000 5.5556 1.101 5.516 0.510 0.000 5.6667 1.105 5.639 0.528 0.000 5.7778 1.110 5.762 0.545 0.000 5.8889 1.114 5.885 0.561 0.000 6.0000 1.119 6.009 0.576 0.000 6.1111 1.123 6.134 0.590 0.000 6.2222 1.128 6.259 0.604 0.000 6.3333 1.132 6.385 0.706 0.000 6.4444 1.137 6.511 0.766 0.000 6.5556 1.142 6.638 0.813 0.000 6.6667 1.146 6.765 0.854 0.000 6.7778 1.151 6.892 0.890 0.000 6.8889 1.155 7.021 0.924 0.000 7.0000 1.160 7.149 0.959 0.000 7.1111 1.164 7.278 0.994 0.000 7.2222 1.169 7.408 1.029 0.000 7.3333 1.174 7.538 1.064 0.000 7.4444 1.178 7.669 1.099 0.000 7.5556 1.183 7.800 1.133 0.000 7.6667 1.188 7.932 1.167 0.000 7.7778 1.192 8.064 1.201 0.000 7.8889 1.197 8.197 1.233 0.000 8.0000 1.202 8.330 1.268 0.000 8.1111 1.206 8.464 1.302 0.000 8.2222 1.211 8.599 1.337 0.000 8.3333 1.216 8.733 1.409 0.000 8.4444 1.220 8.869 1.449 0.000 8.5556 1.225 9.005 1.488 0.000 8.6667 1.230 9.141 1.528 0.000 8.7778 1.235 9.278 1.568 0.000 8.8889 1.239 9.416 1.608 0.000 9.0000 1.244 9.554 1.649 0.000 9.1111 1.249 9.692 2.452 0.000 9.2222 1.254 9.831 3.891 0.000 9.3333 1.259 9.971 5.683 0.000 9.4444 1.263 10.11 7.638 0.000 9.5556 1.268 10.25 9.565 0.000 9.6667 1.273 10.39 11.27 0.000 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:41 Page 13 9.7778 1.278 10.53 12.64 0.000 9.8889 1.283 10.67 13.60 0.000 10.000 1.287 10.82 14.27 0.000 10.111 1.292 10.96 15.10 0.000 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17-41 Page 14 Water Quality Node Bottom Length: 10.00 ft. Bottom Length: 10.00 ft. Depth: 10 ft. Side slope 1: 0 To 1 Side slope 2: 0 To 1 Side slope 3: 0 To 1 Side slope 4: 0 To 1 Threshold Splitter Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Primary(cfs) Secondary(cfs) 0.000 0.002 0.000 1000 0.000 0.111 0.002 0.000 1000 0.000 0.222 0.002 0.000 1000 0.000 0.333 0.002 0.000 1000 0.000 0.444 0.002 0.001 1000 0.000 0.555 0.002 0.001 1000 0.000 0.666 0.002 0.001 1000 0.000 0.777 0.002 0.001 1000 0.000 0.888 0.002 0.002 1000 0.000 1.000 0.002 0.002 1000 0.000 1.111 0.002 0.002 1000 0.000 1.222 0.002 0.002 1000 0.000 1.333 0.002 0.003 1000 0.000 1.444 0.002 0.003 1000 0.000 1.555 0.002 0.003 1000 0.000 1.666 0.002 0.003 1000 0.000 1.777 0.002 0.004 1000 0.000 1.888 0.002 0.004 1000 0.000 2.000 0.002 0.004 1000 0.000 2.111 0.002 0.004 1000 0.000 2.222 0.002 0.005 1000 0.000 2.333 0.002 0.005 1000 0.000 2.444 0.002 0.005 1000 0.000 2.555 0.002 0.005 1000 0.000 2.666 0.002 0.006 1000 0.000 2.777 0.002 0.006 1000 0.000 2.888 0.002 0.006 1000 1000 3.000 0.002 0.006 1000 1000 3.111 0.002 0.007 1000 1000 3.222 0.002 0.007 1000 1000 3.333 0.002 0.007 1000 1000 3.444 0.002 0.007 1000 1000 3.555 0.002 0.008 1000 1000 3.666 0.002 0.008 1000 1000 3.777 0.002 0.008 1000 1000 3.888 0.002 0.008 1000 1000 4.000 0.002 0.009 1000 1000 4.111 0.002 0.009 1000 1000 4.222 0.002 0.009 1000 1000 4.333 0.002 0.009 1000 1000 4.444 0.002 0.010 1000 1000 4.555 0.002 0.010 1000 1000 4.666 0.002 0.010 1000 1000 4.777 0.002 0.011 1000 1000 4.888 0.002 0.011 1000 1000 5.000 0.002 0.011 1000 1000 5.111 0.002 0.011 1000 1000 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:41 Page 15 5.222 0.002 0.012 1000 1000 5.333 0.002 0.012 1000 1000 5.444 0.002 0.012 1000 1000 5.555 0.002 0.012 1000 1000 5.666 0.002 0.013 1000 1000 5.777 0.002 0.013 1000 1000 5.888 0.002 0.013 1000 1000 6.000 0.002 0.013 1000 1000 6.111 0.002 0.014 1000 1000 6.222 0.002 0.014 1000 1000 6.333 0.002 0.014 1000 1000 6.444 0.002 0.014 1000 1000 6.555 0.002 0.015 1000 1000 6.666 0.002 0.015 1000 1000 6.777 0.002 0.015 1000 1000 6.888 0.002 0.015 1000 1000 7.000 0.002 0.016 1000 1000 7.111 0.002 0.016 1000 1000 7.222 0.002 0.016 1000 1000 7.333 0.002 0.016 1000 1000 7.444 0.002 0.017 1000 1000 7.555 0.002 0.017 1000 1000 7.666 0.002 0.017 1000 1000 7.777 0.002 0.017 1000 1000 7.888 0.002 0.018 1000 1000 8.000 0.002 0.018 1000 1000 8.111 0.002 0.018 1000 1000 8.222 0.002 0.018 1000 1000 8.333 0.002 0.019 1000 1000 8.444 0.002 0.019 1000 1000 8.555 0.002 0.019 1000 1000 8.666 0.002 0.019 1000 1000 8.777 0.002 0.020 1000 1000 8.888 0.002 0.020 1000 1000 9.000 0.002 0.020 1000 1000 9.111 0.002 0.020 1000 1000 9.222 0.002 0.021 1000 1000 9.333 0.002 0.021 1000 1000 9.444 0.002 0.021 1000 1000 9.555 0.002 0.021 1000 1000 9.666 0.002 0.022 1000 1000 9.777 0.002 0.022 1000 1000 9.888 0.002 0.022 1000 1000 10.00 0.002 0.023 1000 1000 10.11 0.002 0.023 1000 1000 Discharge Structure Riser Height: 0 ft. Riser Diameter: 0 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Detention Pond Detention Pond Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:41 Page 16 Analysis Results POC 9 1.84 41 3 0 II 0.74 0381 . ° 7 Curnul�C�ve Pm'.icEi'ty Feraarit Timms Exoecdinp �� + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 25.54 Total Impervious Area: 0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 5.43 Total Impervious Area: 20.11 Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.750897 5 year 1.179313 10 year 1.422104 25 year 1.679319 50 year 1.838485 100 year 1.973863 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.508316 4�E` 5 year 0.799434 10 year 1.038395 25 year 1.399266 50 year 1.715096 100 year 2.074903 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.738 0.336 1950 0.920 0.524 1951 1.654 1.299 1952 0.521 0.306 1953 0.421 0.455 1954 0.647 0.358 1955 1.032 0.352 1956 0.821 0.789 1957 0.663 0.358 1958 0.747 0.470 M 33 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:17:41 Page 17 1959 0.640 0.340 1960 1.118 1.079 1961 0.631 0.586 1962 0.392 0.306 1963 0.539 0.402 1964 0.709 0.547 1965 0.508 0.725 1966 0.488 0.361 1967 1.021 0.520 1968 0.637 0.363 1969 0.623 0.356 1970 0.514 0.456 1971 0.550 0.438 1972 1.231 1.050 1973 0.559 0.666 1974 0.607 0.395 1975 0.823 0.346 1976 0.595 0.364 1977 0.071 0.330 1978 0.522 0.521 1979 0.315 0.285 1980 1.167 1.106 1981 0.466 0.369 1982 0.897 0.922 1983 0.804 0.381 1984 0.496 0.319 1985 0.295 0.331 1986 1.302 0.564 1987 1.151 1.009 1988 0.454 0.352 1989 0.296 0.328 1990 2.407 1.107 1991 1.449 1.038 1992 0.559 0.516 1993 0.582 0.307 1994 0.196 0.285 1995 0.835 0.585 1996 1.759 1.244 1997 1.471 1.220 1998 0.333 0.328 1999 1.379 1.078 2000 0.581 0.529 2001 0.104 0.282 2002 0.636 0.603 2003 0.812 0.361 2004 1.051 1.320 2005 0.754 0.366 2006 0.889 0.813 2007 1.787 1.816 2008 2.305 1.214 2009 1.132 0.741 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 2.4070 1.8165 2 2.3048 1.3201 3 1.7867 1.2989 Mitigated. POC #1 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:18:15 Page 18 4 1.7595 1.2444 5 1.6535 1.2196 6 1.4708 1.2140 7 1.4493 1.1066 8 1.3793 1.1061 9 1.3015 1.0794 10 1.2314 1.0779 11 1.1670 1.0505 12 1.1512 1.0376 13 1.1316 1.0087 14 1.1181 0.9221 15 1.0509 0.8132 16 1.0319 0.7893 17 1.0210 0.7415 18 0.9197 0.7252 19 0.8970 0.6660 20 0.8891 0.6027 21 0.8348 0.5862 22 0.8226 0.5851 23 0.8212 0.5639 24 0.8116 0.5475 25 0.8042 0.5288 26 0.7539 0.5242 27 0.7466 0.5214 28 0.7376 0.5201 29 0.7093 0.5158 30 0.6627 0.4703 31 0.6471 0.4556 32 0.6404 0.4548 33 0.6369 0.4383 34 0.6362 0.4020 35 0.6308 0.3947 36 0.6231 0.3812 37 0.6071 0.3687 38 0.5947 0.3657 39 0.5822 0.3636 40 0.5806 0.3627 41 0.5593 0.3615 42 0.5590 0.3610 43 0.5495 0.3581 44 0.5388 0.3580 45 0.5218 0.3557 46 0.5211 0.3516 47 0.5138 0.3515 48 0.5078 0.3456 49 0.4964 0.3401 50 0.4882 0.3360 51 0.4664 0.3311 52 0.4543 0.3298 53 0.4214 0.3284 54 0.3925 0.3280 55 0.3327 0.3187 56 0.3153 0.3073 57 0.2964 0.3057 58 0.2946 0.3056 59 0.1957 0.2855 60 0.1041 0.2852 61 0.0708 0.2822 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:18:15 Page 19 Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.3754 17603 15879 90 Pass 0.3902 16183 14318 88 Pass 0.4050 14964 13554 90 Pass 0.4198 13898 12936 93 Pass 0.4346 12842 12403 96 Pass 0.4493 11828 11691 98 Pass 0.4641 10902 10949 100 Pass 0.4789 10155 10205 100 Pass 0.4937 9411 9381 99 Pass 0.5085 8750 8545 97 Pass 0.5232 8158 7775 95 Pass 0.5380 7593 7069 93 Pass 0.5528 7086 6316 89 Pass 0.5676 6598 5484 83 Pass 0.5823 6154 4684 76 Pass 0.5971 5781 3963 68 Pass 0.6119 5450 3557 65 Pass 0.6267 5114 3456 67 Pass 0.6415 4815 3397 70 Pass 0.6562 4528 3328 73 Pass 0.6710 4252 3266 76 Pass 0.6858 4028 3215 79 Pass 0.7006 3794 3155 83 Pass 0.7153 3551 3076 86 Pass 0.7301 3339 2977 89 Pass 0.7449 3146 2877 91 Pass 0.7597 2956 2778 93 Pass 0.7745 2789 2676 95 Pass 0.7892 2599 2543 97 Pass 0.8040 2447 2436 99 Pass 0.8188 2312 2310 99 Pass 0.8336 2165 2220 102 Pass 0.8483 2028 2090 103 Pass 0.8631 1898 1968 103 Pass 0.8779 1793 1868 104 Pass 0.8927 1694 1772 104 Pass 0.9075 1590 1664 104 Pass 0.9222 1483 1544 104 Pass 0.9370 1379 1453 105 Pass 0.9518 1295 1373 106 Pass 0.9666 1225 1291 105 Pass 0.9814 1155 1203 104 Pass 0.9961 1098 1117 101 Pass 1.0109 1050 1029 98 Pass 1.0257 998 960 96 Pass 1.0405 930 873 93 Pass 1.0552 884 805 91 Pass 1.0700 837 734 87 Pass 1.0848 790 641 81 Pass 1.0996 743 553 74 Pass 1.1144 713 484 67 Pass 1.1291 668 453 67 Pass 1.1439 634 423 66 Pass Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:18:15 Page 21 1.1587 596 386 64 Pass 1.1735 567 347 61 Pass 1.1882 539 318 58 Pass 1.2030 496 285 57 Pass 1.2178 474 253 53 Pass 1.2326 436 229 52 Pass 1.2474 401 207 51 Pass 1.2621 366 189 51 Pass 1.2769 348 170 48 Pass 1.2917 323 151 46 Pass 1.3065 296 131 44 Pass 1.3212 272 115 42 Pass 1.3360 256 112 43 Pass 1.3508 235 110 46 Pass 1.3656 217 108 49 Pass 1.3804 197 107 54 Pass 1.3951 180 104 57 Pass 1.4099 158 103 65 Pass 1.4247 145 94 64 Pass 1.4395 129 88 68 Pass 1.4543 119 81 68 Pass 1.4690 109 74 67 Pass 1.4838 97 67 69 Pass 1.4986 91 63 69 Pass 1.5134 82 58 70 Pass 1.5281 76 54 71 Pass 1.5429 69 50 72 Pass 1.5577 61 45 73 Pass 1.5725 54 43 79 Pass 1.5873 48 39 81 Pass 1.6020 41 35 85 Pass 1.6168 38 32 84 Pass 1.6316 33 24 72 Pass 1.6464 27 16 59 Pass 1.6611 22 12 54 Pass 1.6759 21 12 57 Pass 1.6907 20 10 50 Pass 1.7055 19 8 42 Pass 1.7203 17 8 47 Pass 1.7350 13 6 46 Pass 1.7498 12 6 50 Pass 1.7646 9 5 55 Pass 1.7794 4 3 75 Pass 1.7942 3 3 100 Pass 1.8089 3 2 66 Pass 1.8237 3 0 0 Pass 1.8385 3 0 0 Pass Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:18:15 Page 22 POC 2 u 0 J 0.71 0.3 100.0 curxY99Ye ar.,�etA:ay am 21 P'�n�nt Tfm� Exoa�dinp 0.1 Y I 90 x {: k! L• ti M Y: K 5 5 9 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area: 25.54 Total Impervious Area: 0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #2 Total Pervious Area: 5.43 Total Impervious Area: 15.08 Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.742544 5 year 1.155853 10 year 1.380516 25 year 1.609233 50 year 1.745197 100 year 1.85701 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #2 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 6.096335 5 year 7.82877 10 year 9.020917 25 year 10.582834 50 year 11.788817 100 year 13.032607 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1949 0.737 8.234 1950 0.885 8.172 1951 1.653 5.127 1952 0.520 4.198 1953 0.421 4.537 1954 0.646 4.968 1955 1.033 5.550 1956 0.820 5.484 1957 0.663 6.436 1958 0.746 4.967 1959 0.636 4.874 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:18:48 Page 25 1960 1.100 5.306 1961 0.629 5.435 1962 0.392 4.520 1963 0.538 5.262 1964 0.662 4.935 1965 0.504 6.686 1966 0.488 4.268 1967 0.988 7.423 1968 0.635 8.457 1969 0.623 6.077 1970 0.512 5.694 1971 0.553 6.796 1972 1.214 7.464 1973 0.559 3.996 1974 0.605 6.312 1975 0.801 6.718 1976 0.594 4.882 1977 0.061 4.900 1978 0.521 6.063 1979 0.313 8.287 1980 0.895 8.432 1981 0.466 6.321 1982 0.862 9.149 1983 0.796 7.091 1984 0.494 4.605 1985 0.289 6.333 1986 1.300 5.341 1987 1.150 8.190 1988 0.451 4.864 1989 0.297 6.083 1990 2.424 12.287 1991 1.452 9.460 1992 0.538 4.562 1993 0.582 3.849 1994 0.188 4.059 1995 0.829 5.572 1996 1.630 6.324 1997 1.474 6.033 1998 0.317 5.757 1999 1.363 12.498 2000 0.577 6.079 2001 0.103 6.348 2002 0.636 8.101 2003 0.599 6.296 2004 1.044 11.611 2005 0.762 5.327 2006 0.891 4.780 2007 1.813 10.949 2008 2.106 9.288 2009 1.133 7.446 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #2 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 2.4241 12.4975 2 2.1060 12.2871 3 1.8125 11.6110 4 1.6528 10.9489 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:19:22 Page 26 5 1.6300 9.4600 6 1.4745 9.2882 7 1.4519 9.1494 8 1.3634 8.4568 9 1.3003 8.4319 10 1.2138 8.2870 11 1.1499 8.2344 12 1.1329 8.1905 13 1.1002 8.1722 14 1.0436 8.1010 15 1.0329 7.4637 16 0.9881 7.4463 17 0.8951 7.4234 18 0.8908 7.0912 19 0.8847 6.7963 20 0.8616 6.7185 21 0.8292 6.6859 22 0.8204 6.4361 23 0.8008 6.3482 24 0.7961 6.3328 25 0.7620 6.3240 26 0.7464 6.3212 27 0.7368 6.3117 28 0.6627 6.2962 29 0.6621 6.0835 30 0.6459 6.0795 31 0.6363 6.0771 32 0.6358 6.0632 33 0.6347 6.0326 34 0.6285 5.7574 35 0.6228 5.6941 36 0.6049 5.5717 37 0.5988 5.5496 38 0.5939 5.4835 39 0.5820 5.4346 40 0.5775 5.3405 41 0.5590 5.3274 42 0.5526 5.3060 43 0.5382 5.2618 44 0.5378 5.1271 45 0.5214 4.9679 46 0.5198 4.9674 47 0.5124 4.9350 48 0.5038 4.8995 49 0.4938 4.8823 50 0.4878 4.8740 51 0.4655 4.8644 52 0.4512 4.7796 53 0.4206 4.6049 54 0.3916 4.5622 55 0.3173 4.5366 56 0.3128 4.5200 57 0.2971 4.2680 58 0.2888 4.1980 59 0.1883 4.0593 60 0.1030 3.9958 61 0.0606 3.8488 Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:19:22 Page 27 Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #2 On-line facility volume: 2.0266 acre-feet <--I On-line facility target flow: 2.4142 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 2.4142 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 1.3588 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 1.3588 cfs. Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:19:22 Page 31 Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. The entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by: Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 2005-2017; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com Greenline WH A & B 8/22/2017 08:19:22 Page 52 Blank Tab for Appendix Blank Tab f n r Appendix Appendix C Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Proposed Greenline Warehouse B Federal Way, Washington for Federal Way Campus, LLC August 16, 2017 GMENGINEERS� 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 253.383.4940 Geotechnical Engineering Services Report Proposed Greenline Warehouse B Federal Way, Washington Prepared for: Federal Way Campus LLC 11100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 850 Los Angeles, California 90025 Attention: Tom Messmer Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 1101 South Fawcett Avenue, Suite 200 Tacoma, Washington 98402 253.383.4940 sqd�-- 1r Step n W. Helvey, & , LEG, LHG Senior Engineering Geologist Debra C. Overbay, PE Associate SWH:DCO:tt Flle No. 22247-001-03 August 16, 2017 217'1, C. 0 �wO of was p� 29?. 37 c'1STV-110 +c , \` 13 Disclaimer. Any electronic form, facsimile orhard copy ofthe original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy ofthe original document The original document Is stared by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. GEIDENGINEER� Table of Contents INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................................1 PROJECTDESCRIPTION...........................................................................................................................................1 SCOPEOF SERVICES.................................................................................................................. ...........2 ................. SITECONDITIONS.....................................................................................................................................................3 SurfaceConditions........................................................................... 3 ............................................... MappedGeologic Conditions................................................................................................ 3 .......... Subsurface Conditions ...................................... 4 ......................................................................................... Groundwater................................................................................. 4 ................................................... CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................5 General................................................................................................................. 5 ...................................... Site Development and Earthwork .................... 5 .... ........................ General........................................................................................ 5 ........................................... Strippingand Clearing..................................................................................................................................6 Subgrade Evaluation ................................ 6 ........................................................................ Excavation................................................... 6 ................................................................ Excavation Support ........................................... 7 ..... ....... Wet Weather Recommendations ................. 7 ............................................................................ Fill Materials ................................................... 8 ............................................................ On -site Soils.............................................................................................................................................. Select Granular Fill ................................................... 9 ..................................................................... PipeBedding.................................................................................................................................................9 CrushedRock............................................................... 9 ................................................................ Fill Placement and Compaction........................................................ 9 ................................................ General............................................................................................... 9 ....................................................... Area Fills and Bases........................................................... 10 ........................................................................ BuildingPad Subgrade........................................................................................................ ...................... 10 TrenchBackfill.................................................................................. 10 .......................................................... Temporary and Permanent Slopes11 ............................................................ Groundwater and Drainage Considerations11 ........................................................................... Seismic Design Considerations ...................................... 11 ............................................................... 2015 IBC Seismic Design............................................................................................. 11 Foundation Support....................................12 ................................................................................... ................... Shallow Foundations...................................................................... 12 ............................................................ BearingCapacity........................................................................................................... ............................. 12 FootingSubgrade Preparation.................................................................................................................. 12 Foundation Settlement............................................................................. 13 ................................................. LateralResistance..................................................................................................................................... 13 BuildingPad and Floor Slabs................................................................................................ .................... 13 RetainingStructures............................................................................................................ .... 14 ......................... Pavement Recommendations ...................................14 ..................................................................... PavementDesign..............................................................14 ............................................................... .......... Stormwater Infiltration Evaluation................................................................................................................... 15 GEOENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page i File No. 22247-001-03 LIMITATIONS..........................................................................................................................................................16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Existing Conditions Figure 3. Site Plan Proposed Conditions Figure 4. Schematic Drawing Hillside Fill APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2 through A-17 - Logs of Explorations Figures A-18 through A-20 - Sieve Analysis Results Appendix B. Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing-2016 Appendix C. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use GWENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page ii File No. 22247-001-03 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the Proposed Greenline Warehouse B development on a portion of the former Weyerhaeuser Campus Property in Federal Way, Washington. Figure 1 shows the site location. Figure 2 shows the approximate current layout of the site. The parcel is presently forested and mostly undeveloped. The site contains a relatively flat plateau in the west that generally slopes slightly downward to the south. The east margin of the plateau slopes downward to the east, to relatively flat to undulatory ground in the east part of the site. North -south oriented asphalt/ gravel -covered driveways are located in the east and west parts of the site. We understand that these features were access roads to a residential development that occupied portions of the site and ground to the north until about 1978. East -west oriented gravel -covered trails also exist at the site. These features are shown in Figure 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Our understanding of the proposed project is based on information provided by ESM, Inc. and our project meetings. The information includes a preliminarysite plan provided to us on June 22, 2017. We understand a proposed grading plan is not yet available for this site. Proposed Warehouse "B" will be located just south of proposed Warehouse "A". The northwest corner of proposed Warehouse "B" is within the former Victory Unlimited,19-acre parcel. We prepared a geotechnical design report for the proposed Victory development dated June 17, 2016. We also prepared a geotechnical design report for the Warehouse "A" site in on March 9, 2017. We understand that the currently proposed Greenline Warehouse "B" development will comprise a one- story (44-foot-high) 217,300-square-foot warehouse building with asphalt concrete (AC) pavement and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement in parking and access areas. Parking for up to 319 vehicles is planned for the development. Two stormwater detention ponds are planned for the south part of the site. The finish floor elevation for the structure is planned to be 393 feet mean sea level (MSQ. Cuts and fills will be required to create a level building pad. Proposed cuts are required in the west, and are typically less than 10 feet. One exception is in the northwest corner where cuts up to about 15 feet will be required in the proposed parking area. The central area is near the proposed grade of the slab subgrade, and fills of about 7 to 13 feet are required in the east. The greatest fill thickness (approximately 13 feet) is required in the northeast corner of the building footprint. We understand that 2H:1V (horizontal:vertical) cut slope will be used to establish planned grade along the northwest site boundary. An 8- to 10-foot high retaining wall is planned for the east and southeast margin of the site. We understand that the wall type has not been determined. The proposed Greenline Warehouse B project layout is shown in Figure 3. GWENGINEERS� August 16, 2017 Page 1 File No. 22247-001-03 SCOPE OF SERVICES The purpose of our services for this study is to review our previous studies, supplement the existing subsurface information with additional explorations, and prepare a geotechnical report specific to the proposed Greenline Warehouse "B" development. Our services have been provided in general accordance with the confirming agreement dated June 29, 2017. Specifically, GeoEngineers scope includes: 1. Reviewing preliminary Greenline Building B project plans provided by the design team. This drawing was provided by ESM on June 22, 2017. 2. Reviewing published geologic maps and historical aerial photographs for the site. The aerial photographs are dated the following years: 1943, 1956, 1965, 1968, 1972, 1978, 1980, 1986, 1990, 1991, 2005, 2006, 2009 and 2011. 3. Comparing the project plans with the previously completed explorations. 4. Reviewing subsurface data from explorations completed by us during the Victory phase of the project. Logs of these explorations and laboratory data are attached to this report. 5. Developing a subsurface exploration plan to supplement the previously completed explorations. The supplemental plan included thirteen test pit explorations and three borings. 6. Performing a brief geologic reconnaissance to evaluate current (August 2017) surface conditions at accessible portions of the site. 7. Performing geotechnical laboratory tests on representative samples obtained from the explorations. Tests included moisture content determinations and particle size analyses. 8. Describing site conditions based on our site observations, review of published maps/aerial photographs and laboratory test results, and subsurface soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the borings and test pits. 9. Developing recommendations for site preparation and earthwork based on the data and our understanding of the proposed site development. This includes an evaluation of the suitability of on - site soil for use as fill including structural fill beneath the building and pavement areas, and gradations criteria for imported fill. A discussion of possible adverse effects of weather on construction activities and suitability of on -site soil during wet weather conditions is also provided. 10. Providing recommendations for temporary and permanent slopes. 11. Providing recommendations for shallow foundation support, including footing size, allowable soil bearing pressure and estimated post -construction settlements. We have assumed typical foundation and slab loads for the proposed warehouse structure. 12. Discussing footing construction considerations including excavation, bearing surface preparation, material requirements and compaction requirements. 13. Providing subgrade preparation recommendations and modulus of subgrade reaction for design of slabs -on -grade. 14. Evaluating lateral earth pressures for design of below -grade structures, such as, dock -high walls. GWENGINEERS� August 16, 2017 Page 2 File No. 22247-001-03 15. Providing recommendations for seismic design in accordance with 2015 International Building Code (IBC) and local standards. This includes an assessment and discussion of liquefaction potential and estimated ground settlement, and a discussion of potential remedial measures, as applicable. 16. Providing recommendations for pavement subgrade preparation and AC pavement design sections for both automobile and truck traffic areas. 17. Discussing drainage considerations for construction based on the conditions encountered in our explorations. 18. Developing a preliminary opinion regarding feasibility of stormwater infiltration based on the soils encountered in our prior explorations. Our opinion is based on empirical relationships between the laboratory data and soil permeability and our experience. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The site occupies two relatively level areas, which are separated by a slope that descends downward to the southeast and east. Existing ground surface ranges from about Elevation 408 feet in the northwest to about Elevation 380 feet in the east. The existing site layout is shown in Figure 2. The site is currently vegetated with a thick stand of second or third growth fir, cedar and deciduous trees with a moderate to thick understory of brush. Conifer trees predominate in the central, south and west parts of the site. Deciduous trees are more prevalent in the east part of the site. The site appeared thickly vegetated in all but one of the historical aerial photographs reviewed. The southwest part of the site appeared partially cleared of trees in the 1943 photograph. Trees were re- established in this are in the 1956 photograph. Isolated small wetland areas are mapped in the east and south portions of the site as shown in Figure 2. We observed evidence of a north -south oriented drainage in the area of the wetlands during our site visits. Surface water was not observed in the drainage areas during our August site visits. Some surface water was observed in similar areas just north of the Greenline "B" site in March 2017. We observed some dark, organic -rich soils exposed at the ground surface within the wetland and drainage areas at the time of our site visits. Former residential street access roads were observed at the site, shown as north -south trails in Figure 2. The roadways appeared to be surfaced in gravel, however, it also appeared that AC pavement underlies the gravel in some places. The access roads were visible in all aerial photographs reviewed. A residential development occupied the property just north of the Greenline "B" site between 1943 and about 1978, based on a review of aerial photos. Mapped Geologic Conditions General geologic conditions in the site vicinity were evaluated by reviewing "Geologic Map of the Poverty Bay 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, King and Pierce Counties, Washington, 2004" prepared for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Native geologic materials mapped at and in the site vicinity consist of Vashon- age Glacial Till (map symbol Qvt). Vashon till was deposited by and directly beneath the advancing Vashon- GWENGINEER5� August 16, 2017 Page 3 File No. 22247-001-03 age glacier as it moved south through the site area. The deposit typically consists of a dense to very dense mixture of silt, sand, gravel, cobbles and some boulders. Subsurface Conditions Thirteen test pits and three borings were completed at the site on July 18 and 24, 2017. These explorations are supplemental to our May 2016 explorations completed as part of our study for the neighboring Victory development concept. Details of the field exploration and laboratory testing programs completed for the current development study are summarized in Appendix A. The exploration logs and results of the laboratory testing program are also presented in Appendix A. Exploration logs and laboratory testing results completed in 2016 are contained in Appendix B. The approximate location of all the explorations are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Relatively thin layers of fill were encountered in previously completed test pit TP-2 and boring B-5. The fill in these explorations extended to about 2 feet below ground surface (bgs) and appeared to comprise re- worked native materials. A greaterfill thickness (potentially 11 feet) was encountered in recently completed boring B-1. The fill comprised medium dense to dense silty sand with gravel, and may have been placed to construct the eastern -most trail/access road. Varying thicknesses of forest duff and/or topsoil and sod were encountered from the ground surface in the other explorations. The organic material/duff layer ranged from about 6 inches to about 2 feet thick in the explorations, and appeared to average about 1 to 1.5 feet in thickness. All explorations encountered and were terminated in glacial deposits. Dense to very dense glacial till was encountered beneath loose to dense or medium stiff to stiff weathered till and/or fill in most of the explorations. The unweathered glacial till, where present, was encountered to depths ranging from about 2.5 feet to about 10 feet bgs in the explorations. The glacial till deposits typically consist of a mixture of silty gravel and silty sand with varying amounts of gravel and occasional cobbles and boulders. Layers or lenses of stiff to hard silt with sand and gravel are occasionally present within the weathered and unweathered glacial till at some locations. Laboratory testing on select samples of the glacial soils yielded fines contents (material passing the U.S. #200 sieve) ranging from 8 to 87 percent. In -place moisture contents ranged from 6 to 35 percent. Groundwater Groundwater was not observed in any of the recently completed explorations for the Warehouse "B" project. Groundwater was encountered in the following explorations completed for the former Victory development. Borings B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-6 at depths ranging between about 6 feet and 19 feet bgs. Minor groundwater seepage was observed in TIP-3, TP-7, TP-8 and TP-9 at depths ranging between about 1.5 and 10 feet bgs. A seasonal, perched groundwater table often forms in glacial deposits. Based on the site geologic conditions, our experience and recent observations, we expect groundwater seepage amounts and the depths at which it occurs will vary with season and precipitation. Larger zones of perched groundwater should be expected during the wetter winter and early spring months. GWENGINEERS� August 16, 2017 Page 4 File No. 22247-001-03 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Based on the results of our subsurface exploration and testing program, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development. A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations for the proposed warehouse facility is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the detailed recommendations presented in this report. The native soils contain a moderate to high percentage of fines and are very sensitive to small changes in moisture content. These soils are susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic when the moisture content is more than a few percent above the optimum moisture content for compaction. These soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to work or compact when wet or if earthwork is performed in wet weather. Therefore, we recommend that earthwork be performed during the normally drier periods of the year. Moisture conditioning of site soils will likely be necessary in order to obtain the required compaction. We anticipate that the native soils will only be suitable for use as structural fill during extended periods of dry weather. We recommend imported granular soils be used for structural fill if construction occurs during periods of wet weather. Some cutting and filling is planned to establish site grades. We recommend graded areas be protected before the onset of rainy weather because of the highly moisture sensitivity of most of the on -site soil. We recommend constructing temporary haul roads underlain by quarry spalls or coarse crushed ballast material to help protect subgrades from disturbance and degradation under construction traffic. ■ The proposed warehouse structure may be satisfactorily supported on continuous and isolated shallow foundations supported on native soils or compacted structural fill that extends to undisturbed native soil. We recommend an allowable soil bearing pressure of 4,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for design of shallow footings. A higher bearing pressure can be achieved on the undisturbed glacial till at depth, if necessary. We can provide additional recommendations duringfinal design of the building, if needed. Floor slabs may be supported on -grade following subgrade preparation as recommended in this report. We recommend floor slabs be underlain by a capillary break layer consisting of a 4-inch thickness of well -graded sand and gravel or crushed rock that is a coarse -grained aggregate with negligible sand and silt that meets the criteria contained in American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Grading #67. Site Development and Earthwork General Site development work will include removing existing trees and vegetation, stripping of forest duff, topsoil and root layer, cutting in the west and north parts of the site and placing fill in the east/southeast portions of the site to achieve a level building pad. The site soils are highly moisture sensitive due to high fines content. Grading and reuse of the on -site soils is more practical duringthe dry season (typically July through September). Moisture conditioning necessary to obtain proper compaction of on -site soil will likely not be practical during the cooler and wetter winter months, and may still present challenges during the normally dry summer months. We recommend a contingency be included in the project budget and schedule for GWENGINEERS� August 16, 2017 Page 5 File No. 22247-001-03 export of unsuitable wet on -site soil and import of select granular soil if earthwork will be performed during periods of wet weather. The following sections provide our recommendations for earthwork, site development, and fill materials. Stripping and Clearing The existing trees, shrubs, topsoil, and unsuitable soils should be stripped and removed from all proposed building and pavement areas. Based on our explorations, the depth of stripping to remove unsuitable surface organic materials should generally vary between 12 and 24 inches. Greater stripping depths will be required to remove localized zones of loose or organic -rich soil and tree roots. Greater stripping depths may also be required in wetland areas. The primary root systems for trees and shrubs should be completely removed. Required stripping depths should be evaluated based on observations during the stripping operation. Stripped organic material should be transported off site for disposal or processed and used as fill in landscaping areas. Unsuitable organic -rich native soils should be expected in wetland areas. These soils may contain a high percentage of organic materials and must be removed where present in areas of proposed pavements or structures. Asphalt concrete within existing trail areas should be removed or pulverized and used in fills at the direction of the geotechnical engineer. Abandoned subgrade utilities beneath these trail areas should be anticipated and removed as necessary. Subgrade Evaluation After stripping and excavation to planned subgrade is complete we recommend the exposed soil be proofrolled or probed and then compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. If dry weather conditions persist, we recommend that the subgrade be evaluated by proofrolling with a loaded dump truck or similar heavy rubber -tired construction equipment to identify soft, loose or unsuitable areas. Proofrolling must be conducted prior to placing fill. If the subgrade is prepared during or exposed to wet weather, we recommend that it be evaluated by probing with a steel probe rod. The proofrolling/probing should be observed by a qualified geotechnical engineer, who will evaluate the suitability of the subgrade and identify any areas of yielding, which are indicative of soft or loose soil. If soft or otherwise unsuitable areas revealed during proofrolling cannot be compacted to a stable and uniformly firm condition, we recommend that: (1) the subgrade soils be scarified (e.g., with a ripper or a farmer's disc), aerated and recompacted; or (2) the unsuitable soils be excavated to firm soil and replaced with structural fill, as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. Excavation We anticipate large dozers with rippers may be required for mass grading where the subgrade comprises unweathered glacial till. Conventional earthmoving equipment in proper working order should be capable of making necessary excavations for utilities and footings. We recommend that footing and trench excavations be performed using a smooth -blade bucket to prevent excessive disturbance of the excavation base. Boulders and large cobbles are often present in glacial till deposits in the area and will likely be encountered during grading and/or utility excavations. Accordingly, the contractor should be prepared to remove GMENGINEER � August 16, 2017 Page 6 File No. 22247-001-03 boulders, if encountered. Boulders may be removed from the site or buried in landscape areas. Voids caused by boulder removal must be backfilled with structural fill. Excavation Support Shallow excavations (4 feet or less) in dense glacial deposits should stand at near vertical inclinations, provided groundwater seepage is not present in the cut face. Excavations deeper than 4 feet must be shored or laid back at a stable slope if workers are required to enter. Shoring for utility excavations must conform with the provisions of Title 296 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." Regardless of the soil type encountered in the excavation, shoring, trench boxes or sloped sidewalls will be required under Washington Industrial Safety and Health Act (WISHA). While this report describes certain approaches to excavation and dewatering, the contract documents should specify that the contractor is responsible for selecting excavation and dewatering methods, monitoring the excavations for safety and providing shoring, as required, to protect personnel and adjacent structures. Wet Weather Recommendations Trafficability of the on -site soils will be severely limited during wet weather, or if the subgrade moisture content is more than a few percentage points above optimum. When wet, the on -site soils are susceptible to disturbance and generally will not provide adequate support for construction equipment. The on -site soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to adequately work or compact during periods of wet weather. Site Grading If site grading and fill placement occurs during wet weather conditions the following recommendations should be included in the development plan. Stripping and site preparation should be accomplished using track -mounted equipment and subgrade protection measures should be used. For example, a track - mounted excavator equipped with a smooth -edged bucket could be used workingfrom a developed surface or a granular pad and loading into trucks supported on granular haul roads or working outward from the stripped surface. If the site subgrade is wet, it should be evaluated by probing with a steel rod, rather than by proofrolling. Soil that is disturbed during site preparation activities during wet conditions, as well as soft or loose zones identified during probing, should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. Granular Haul Roads and Working Blankets Wet weather construction in the silty native or fill soils will require granular haul roads and granular pads under the building structures to protect the subgrade. If the pavement areas are constructed during wet weather, they will also require a granular working blanket. The use of granular haul roads will be necessary for support of construction traffic during the rainy season (typically from October through June). Based on our experience, 18 to 24 inches of sand and gravel (which could be gravel base or fill material), crushed rock or quarry spalls with little to no fines will be necessary to provide support for construction equipment. Use of a geotextile fabric can reduce mixing of the subgrade and road support materials. It also may reduce the thickness of surfacing required. If gravel base material is used, the temporary roads could be constructed above the finished subgrades and extra material bladed onto other areas of the site when the roads are no longer necessary. GMENGINEERS� August 16, 2017 Page 7 File No. 22247-001-03 Wet -Weather Fill We recommend fill placed during wet weather be select granular fill (pit run) or crushed rock as described in the "Fill Materials" section of this report. Erosion and Sedimentation Control The site will be susceptible to erosion during wet weather conditions, particularly if large segments of exposed subgrades are exposed to rainfall. Development, implementation and adherence to an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan should reduce the project impact on erosion -prone areas. The Plan should be designed in accordance with applicable city, county and/or state standards. The Plan should incorporate basic planning principles, including: Scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure. ■ Re -vegetating or mulching denuded areas. ■ Directing runoff away from exposed soils. ■ Reducing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils. ■ Decreasing runoff velocities. ■ Preparing drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff. ■ Confining sediment to the project site. ■ Inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently. Some sloughing erosion and raveling of exposed or disturbed soil on slopes should be expected, particularly if the work is completed during the wet season. We recommend that disturbed soil be restored promptly so that surface runoff does not become channeled. Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to help reduce erosion and transport of sediment to adjacent areas and receiving waters. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by paving, structure construction or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring may be required by qualified personnel who will evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and recommend repairs and/or modifications as appropriate. Provision for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. Fill Materials The workability of material used as structural fill depends on the gradation and moisture content of the soil. As the amount of fines (material passingthe U.S. #200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, if not impossible to achieve. We recommend that select granular fill or crushed rock be used as structural fill during the rainy season. The following paragraphs summarize the material requirements for fill and backfill. GWENGINEERS� August 16, 2017 Page 8 File No. 22247-001-03 On -site Soils The native glacial till soils may be considered for use as structural fill during periods of extended dry weather, provided they can be properly moisture conditioned. The native soils may require moisture conditioning even during dry weather conditions. The on -site soils will be difficult, if not impossible, to work or adequately compact during periods of wet weather or if the in -place moisture condition of these soils is over optimum. On -site materials used as structural fill must be free of roots, organic matter and other deleterious materials and particles larger than 3 inches in diameter. Select Granular Fill Select granular fill (pit run) must consist of imported well -graded sand, sandy gravel, or crushed rock with a maximum particle size of 3 inches and less than 5 percent passing a U.S. #200 sieve. Organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material must not be present. Granular fill used during periods of prolonged dry weather may have up to 12 percent passing a U.S. #200 sieve. Pipe Bedding Trench backfill for the bedding and pipe zone must consist of well -graded granular material with a maximum particle size of 3/a inch and less than 5 percent passing the U.S. #200 sieve. The material must be free of roots, debris, organic matter, and other deleterious material. Crushed Rock Crushed rock fill must consist of clean, durable, crushed angular rock that has a maximum particle size of 4 inches, is well graded between coarse and fine sizes, and has less than 5 percent fines (material finer than a U.S. #200 sieve). A smaller maximum particle size will be required for some applications as discussed in other sections of this report. Gravel materials should be crushed to have at least two fractured faces. Organic matter, debris, or other deleterious material must not be present. FIII Placement and Compaction General Fill soils should be compacted at a moisture content near optimum. The maximum allowable moisture content varies with the soil gradation, and should be evaluated during construction. Fill and backfill material should be placed in uniform, horizontal lifts, and uniformly densified with vibratory compaction equipment. The maximum lift thickness will vary depending on the material and compaction equipment used, but should generally not exceed 10 inches in loose thickness. We recommend that density testing of the placed structural fill be completed by a qualified geotechnical engineer to check that the structural fill compaction requirements presented in this report are achieved. Relatively thin lifts will likely be required to adequately compact excavated native material, if used for structural fill. Loose -lift thicknesses on the order of 3 to 4 inches should be expected to adequately compact the native materials. Thicker lifts can generally be used when the structural fill comprises select granular fill as described earlier in this report. GWENGINEERi� August 16, 2017 Page 9 File No. 22247-001-03 Area Fills and Bases General Fill placed to raise site grades and aggregate base materials under foundations, slabs, and pavements should be placed on a prepared subgrade that consists of firm, inorganic native soils or compacted fill. Fill must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) determined by ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 (modified Proctor). In pavement areas, the compaction criteria can be reduced to 92 percent below a depth of 2 feet from finished grade. During wet weather or in areas that are particularly sensitive to subgrade disturbance, we recommend placing a woven geotextile between the subgrade and the first lift of fill. For this application, the first lift must comprise select granular fill. We recommend a 10-inch lift thickness and densification bystatic rolling for the initial lift. Slope Fill Placement Based on our review of preliminary grading plans, it appears that earth fills are to be placed on the eastern portion of property and adjacent to slopes inclined up to about 15 percent. The east and southeast portions of the proposed structure will be supported by the earth fill. The fill material should be placed and compacted using hillside grading techniques, as provided below. It is critical that the constructed fill is benched into the existing slope face. Bench excavations should be level and extend into the slope face until a vertical step of about 3 feet is constructed. The upper 1- to 3-foot thick layer of organic soil beneath the existing slope face should be removed and wasted. The remaining soil excavated from each bench can be spread into the next lift of structural fill. A typical cross - sectional drawing of slope fill is shown on Figure 4. If bench drains are required, they should be sloped to drain to a suitable discharge that does not result in erosion. Building Pad Subgrade The building pad will transition from cut to fill. In order to limit differential settlement to within 1/2 inch in 50 feet and provide uniform slab support we recommend the upper 1 foot of the pad subgrade be constructed with select import fill (granular soil with less than 5 percent fines). The select granular fill must be underlain by properly compacted on -site soil or undisturbed native soil prepared as recommended herein. Trench Backfill Backfill in the bedding and pipe zone should be compacted to 90 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557, or as recommended by the pipe manufacturer. In nonstructural areas, trench backfill above the pipe zone should be compacted to at least 85 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. Suitable native soils or select granular soils should be acceptable in non-structural areas. Within structural areas, trench backfill placed above the pipe zone must be compacted to at least 92 percent of the MDD as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557 at depths greater than 2 feet below the finished subgrade, and to 95 percent within 2 feet of finished subgrade. Trench backfill in structural areas should consist of select granular fill or crushed rock as described in the previous sections. GEoENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page 10 File No. 22247-001-03 Temporary and Permanent Slopes We recommend that permanent cut and fill slopes be inclined no steeper than 2H:1V. Flatter cut slopes may be necessary in areas where persistent groundwater seepage or zones of soft or loose soils are encountered. Temporary cut slopes should be inclined no steeper than about 11/2H:1V. Surface loads should be kept at a minimum distance of at least one-half the depth of the cut away from the top of temporary slopes. As previously stated, temporary cut slopes and shoring must comply with the provisions of Title 296 WAC, Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The contractor performing the work must have the primary responsibility for protection of workmen and adjacent improvements, determining whether shoring is required, and for establishing the safe inclination for open -cut slopes. Fill slopes should be carefully compacted on the slope face in accordance with our previous benching recommendations. To reduce the potential for erosion, newly constructed slopes should be planted or hydroseeded shortly after completion of grading. Some sloughing and raveling of the slopes should be expected until the vegetation is established. This may require localized repairs and reseeding. Temporary covering, such as heavy plastic sheeting, jute fabric, loose straw, or excelsior matting should be used to protect unvegetated slopes during periods of rainfall. Groundwater and Drainage Considerations We recommend that pavement surfaces be sloped so that surface drainage flows away from the building. We recommend that all roof drains be collected in tightlines and routed into the storm drain system. Perched groundwater will likely develop on top of the very dense glacial till in unpaved areas during the rainy season. We recommend a perimeter footing drain be constructed around the building footprint to capture the perched groundwater. Seismic Design Considerations 2015 IBC Seismic Design General We recommend the parameters in Table 1 for use in seismic design in accordance with 2015 IBC. TABLE I. SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 2015 IBC Seismic Design Parameters Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (Ss) 128g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Periods (Si) 0.49g Site Class C Design Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) 0.50g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods (SDs) 0.85g Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Periods (SDI) 0.43g GFoENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page 11 File No. 22247-001-03 Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in development of excess pore pressures in loose, saturated soils and subsequent loss of strength in the deposit of soil so affected. In general, soils that are susceptible to liquefaction include loose to medium dense sands to silty sands that are below the water table. Based on the soil type, groundwater conditions, and relative density of the soils encountered, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at this site is low. Lateral Spreading Potential Lateral spreading related to seismic activity typically involves lateral displacement of large, surficial blocks of non -liquefied soil when a layer of underlying soil loses strength during seismic shaking. Lateral spreading usually develops in areas where sloping ground or large grade changes (including retaining walls) are present. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered at this site, it is our opinion that the risk of lateral spreading is low. Ground Rupture Because of the anticipated infrequent seismic event recurrence, the site location with respect to the nearest known active crustal faults and the presence of thick glacial deposits overlying bedrock, it is our opinion that the risk of ground rupture at the site due to crustal faulting is low. Foundation Support Shallow Foundations The proposed warehouse building can be supported on continuous wall or isolated column footings established on undisturbed native soils or structural fill placed over undisturbed native soils. Isolated column and continuous wall footings should have minimum widths of 24 and 18 inches, respectively. The exterior footings should be established at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The recommended minimum footing depth is greater than the anticipated frost depth. Interior footings can be founded a minimum of 12 inches below the top of the floor slab. Bearing Capacity We recommend that footings founded as recommended be proportioned using an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. This bearing pressure applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering earthquake or wind loads. This is a net bearing pressure. The weight of the footing and overlying backfill can be ignored in calculating footing sizes. Footing Subgrade Preparation Footing excavations should be performed using a smooth -edged bucket to limit bearing surface disturbance. Loose or disturbed materials present at the base of footing excavations should be removed or compacted. Foundation bearing surfaces should not be exposed to standing water. If water infiltrates and pools in the excavation, it must be removed and the bearing surface reevaluated before placing structural fill or reinforcing steel. We recommend that an experienced geotechnical engineer observe all foundation excavations before placing reinforcing steel in order to confirm that adequate bearing surfaces have been achieved and that GEOENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page 12 File No. 22247-001-03 the soil conditions are as anticipated. Unsuitable foundation subgrade soils must be removed and replaced with structural fill as recommended by the geotechnical engineer. It may be prudent to place a thin mud mat of lean concrete to protect the bearing surface if footing excavations are to remain open in wet weather. Foundation Settlement We estimate that settlements of footings designed and constructed as recommended will be less than 3/4 inch, for the anticipated loading conditions. Differential settlements between comparably loaded isolated column footings or along 50 feet of continuous footing will be less than 1/2 inch. Settlement is expected to occur rapidly as loads are applied Lateral Resistance The ability of the soil to resist lateral loads is a function of frictional resistance which can develop on the base of footings and slabs and the passive resistance which can develop on the face of below -grade elements of the structure as these elements tend to move into the soil. For footings and floor slabs founded in accordance with the recommendations presented above, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 applied to vertical dead -load forces. The allowable passive resistance on the face of footings, grade beams or other embedded foundation elements may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for undisturbed on -site soils orstructural fill extending out from the face of the foundation element a distance at least equal to two and one-half times the depth of the element. The passive earth pressure and friction components may be combined provided that the passive component does not exceed two-thirds of the total. The passive earth pressure value is based on the assumptions that the adjacent grade is level and that groundwater remains below the base of the footing throughout the year. The top foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive lateral earth pressures unless the foundation area is covered with pavement or is inside a building. The lateral resistance values include a safety factor of approximately 1.5. Building Pad and Floor Slabs A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used for designing the building floor slab provided that the subgrade consists of structural fill that has been prepared in accordance with the "Building Pad Subgrade" section. Settlements for the floor slab designed and constructed as recommended are estimated to be less than 3/a inch for typical warehouse floor loading (approximately 300 psf). We estimate that differential settlement of the floor slabs, will be 1/2 inch or less over a span of 50 feet providing that the fill below the slab is compacted as specified. The subgrade soils are non - expansive, so heave is not anticipated beneath the floor slab. We recommend that on -grade slabs be underlain by a minimum 4-inch-thick capillary break layer to reduce the potential for moisture migration into the slab. The capillary break material should consist of a well - graded sand and gravel or crushed rock that meets the criteria for AASHTO Grading #67. The material should be placed as recommended in the "Fill Placement and Compaction" section. A vapor retarder should be used as necessary to control moisture penetration through the slab. This is especially important in areas where floor coverings, adhesives or tiles are planned. GWENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page 13 File No. 2224M01-03 Retaining Structures Retaining structures for loading docks or other building walls that are free to rotate slightly around the base should be designed for active earth pressures using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf. This value is based on the following assumptions: 1. The walls will not be restrained against rotation when the backfill is placed. 2. The backfill is level. 3. The backfill for a distance of at least 12 inches behind the wall consists of free -draining granular materials. 4. Hydrostatic pressures will be controlled by a back drain. If retaining walls are restrained against rotation during backfilling, they should be designed for an at -rest equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf. Surcharge loads applied closer than one-half of the wall height should be considered as uniformly distributed horizontal pressures equal to one-third of the distributed vertical surcharge pressure. Footings for retaining walls should be designed as recommended for shallow foundations. We recommend a rectangular pressure of 8H be utilized for seismic design. Backfill should be placed and compacted as recommended in the "Fill Placement and Compaction" section of this report. The backfill should include drainage provisions to prevent hydrostatic pressures from developing behind walls. Measures should be taken to prevent overcompaction of the backfill behind the wall. This can be done by placing the zone of backfill located within 5 feet of the wall in lifts not exceeding 6 inches in loose thickness and compacting this zone with hand -operated equipment such as a vibrating plate compactor or jumping jack. Settlement of up to 1 percent of the wall height commonly occurs immediately adjacent to the wall as the wall rotates and develops active lateral earth pressures. Consequently, we recommend that flat work adjacent to retaining walls be postponed until settlement is complete. We understand that the fill walls on the east perimeter of the site will reach heights from 8 to 10 feet. Mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls may be used for fill applications. However, structural foundations should not be located on the wall. They should be set back about 0.9h where h is the height of the wall. If on -site soil is used to construct the MSE wall, a friction angle of 30 degrees and a soil unit weight of 125pcf should be used in design. Higher strength values will result in excessive wall strain after construction. As discussed previously, all retaining walls should be constructed with a drainage layer and drain pipe behind the wall. We understand that rockery walls may be used to protect cuts in the west part of the site. If requested, GeoEngineers can assist in retaining wall selection and design once the grading plan is finalized. Pavement Recommendations Pavement Design General Based on our experience, we provide typical AC and PCC pavement sections below. These pavement sections are typical for commercial facilities in this area but may not be adequate for heavy construction GWENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page 14 File No. 22247-001-03 traffic loads such as those imposed by concrete transit mixers, dump trucks or cranes or for unusual design traffic conditions. Additional pavement thickness may be necessary to prevent pavement damage during construction or if anticipated truck traffic for this facility is higher than typical. We can provide a specific design if detailed truck traffic loading information is provided. The recommended sections assume that final improvements surrounding the pavement will be designed and constructed such that stormwater or excess irrigation water from landscape areas does not accumulate below the pavement section or pond on pavement surfaces. Pavement subgrade must be prepared as previously described. Crushed surfacing base course and subbase must be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD (ASTM D 1577). Crushed surfacing base course must conform to applicable sections of 4-04 and 9-03.9(3) of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Standard Specifications. Hot mix asphalt must conform to applicable sections of 5-04, 9-02 and 9-03 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. PCC must conform to applicable sections of 5-05, 9-01 and 9-03 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications Standard -Duty ACP - Automobile Driveways and Parking Areas ■ 2 inches of hot mix asphalt, class 1/2 inch, PG 58-22 ■ 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course ■ 6 inches of subbase consisting of select granular fill to provide uniform grading and pavement support, to maintain drainage, and to provide separation from fine-grained subgrade soil ■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared in accordance with the "Site Development and Earthwork" section Heavy -Duty ACP - Areas Subject to Truck Traffic ■ 3 inches of hot mix asphalt, class 1/2 inch, PG 58-22 ■ 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course ■ 6 inches of subbase consisting of select granular fill to provide a uniform grading surface and pavement support, to maintain drainage, and to provide separation from fine-grained subgrade soil ■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared accordance with the "Site Development and Earthwork" section PCC Pavement - Areas Subject to Heavy Truck Traffic iL 6 inches of PCC pavement (28-day compressive strength of 6,000 pound per square inch [psi] and a modulus of rupture of 600 psi) 6 inches of crushed surfacing base course ■ Native subgrade or structural fill prepared accordance with the "Site Development and Earthwork" section Stormwater Infil`vation Evaluation Soils encountered in the site area generally consists of weathered till over unweathered till. Grain -size distribution analyses of these soils indicate fines contents ranging between about 20 to about 60 percent. GMENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page 15 File No. 22247-001-03 The unweathered till is typically in a dense condition and has very low permeability with respect to the vertical flow of water. Outwash and glacio-lacustrine soils appear to have been encountered in borings B-2, B-3 and in test pit TP-11. Grain -size distribution data indicate these soils have fine contents ranging from about 15 percent to 87 percent. These soils appear limited in extent at the site. Based on the soil gradation data, and our experience, it is our opinion there is very limited infiltration potential at this site. Because of these factors we recommend that stormwater detention be used for site development. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this geotechnical report for use by Federal Way Campus LLC and their agents for the Proposed Greenline Warehouse B project in Federal Way, Washington. The project agents may distribute copies of this report to authorized agents and regulatory agencies as may be required for the project. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions express or implied should be understood. Please refer to Appendix C titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. GEoENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page 16 File No. 22247-001-03 . ® 32dth It S 3201h SI l a c.'vth common. v Y ` g S 321nd St J°rs r C ` TMe ►1 ✓ r a .- rNerNW1y � 53741h S( S3241h51 S324th i1 5323rd Sr p S .N,nprd funr Way n t 531sIh 5t � / Y s = W;ry 1 •.i` -a _ y� ? p t N •f c (rel,x�anln.i. � ♦ — $23Fth PI � _ 5i28th St J > S 33AI1, it v — s � S3 57 Sr _• 5332nd S� � ® S333td S, 't ' _ _ e� S 333.d Se a S33E4h it M Fl r+f H SITE r } o {MnlNnfy.th S Milt St 4. RITTS CORNER > a ^43auth5` e = i Sc � a a1: nd Sf ti 5 343rd it n S 344th St 5 34401 S' 344th Wa4 > 444th S' -41 d $, rir yx '� r, S 34bih SS a S 348th St 2' x4ath St j S m8th St v 3491h pr x Py4. S 3441h S1 1 c 351x45f � / r �2 ` 3S2nd S` S 3S2nd Sr S 352nd St S 352nd S: h3S61hSt JtswhS' = `. 5 }Soth St S 356th St S 3571h Seal > < w 4 �ctr'nt�i � Y t � S 354th SI s V e ; 3t4frh St 5 36(hh Sr S Mth it s 36911, )1 5 3hoth So Union Sent Shelton Tacoma Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Mapbox Open Street Map, 2017 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone ION RRR 0 2,0Ia Feet Vicinity Map Proposed Greenline Warehouse B Project Federal Way, Washington GEOENGINEER Figure 1 Ci Existingw;.L 1 Steep Cut • �, II I Slope _ yJE�LAN3 Dz Loop Road .: DrIV@Way — l;��r•�� WETLAND DX -^. WETLAND i �S'!► \::WEfLANDDV x Ji9NITP-2rail)•• '�� - TP-1_ TP5- iT1� ,\ ` j ✓ `�•�� " �` 6 t -_ w 1 r, • 1 I� t 1 - , yTP-7 Loop TP-12 e ' i 'I 1♦ "; TP-4�- % L, � i 1 �'� L 1 � ;�u, . -- -- - ------ - 7! 4 '' \ `i ♦♦ 1 1.1 `. 1 TP-8' \ '\ k� { � --- TP 11, TP-3 B-5-* 1 t 4 s,_ ; -; r .,,♦ : -..., . i Trail �i \ opo reen , 1 i / Pr sed line 1 Warehouse B Site \ \ _ �, / P 10 Trail -' _ - ' WETLAND DU \ , s a. -2 \ B 4 r>'Ir \ \ TP ` — Trail° ♦ °2... ----- P1 1 Y TP 1 � � � \.� - '' ♦- \ TP-12 TP-10 ��♦♦y ED \ `^ ' � � WETLAND ♦ ; ...emu ... Pro eenline p\ ♦� ,t\ wETLnND EF Warehouser"A" Site -�• \ ♦\ Trail wET \ i R _ a EC 1 - P7 a - WETLAND DP ., - _.-,`� �,♦-- ----' '�:. ..�.�,..\ I 1 . �r r w. I` Ii ♦ \ WE LAND EE Jr ' �. ��♦, CC -I /�- Trail i 7_ -* TP-5 \\\ `' \ \ ♦♦,' / !' I \; . TP_-9 \ . I ` E — —� \`; \ y� �?- = ✓ 1f� / rr r � { `� I, .n \' \ WETLANDDT I �I I \\ 1 l ,\ - _ �� / �, ;,r , -_�-- WETLANDE a Weyerha user Way S : �.... -' �B �� WETLAND DR _ J VqT 77 Y 9• I r � ' 3 Notes: Le end VCz y 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. v 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to B-1+ Boring by GeoEngineers, 2017 assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEnglneers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content TP-1- Test Pit b y GeoEngineers, 2017 1) of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, z Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. B-1+ Boring by GeoEngineers, 2016 Data Source: Base CAD files provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, TPA# Test Pit by GeoEngineers, 2016 � dated Wetlands wetlands by others. others. ■-------■ Site Boundary 150 0 150 YProjection: WA State Plane, North Zone, NAD83, US Foot Feet c Existing I ` Steep Cut Slope WETLAND DZ Loop Road — I WETLAND DX WETILAND DV / I TP-2 s` , �� !: Proposed , TP-1 / =f!•� 2HAVCut V ,■..- TPS- /+•��' . Slope Location , I ITP-6 a r / l r , / o ` Stormwater ' •.,. ♦ / � TP-8�." / / I � \ ,yxf 1 � \ ------- % Detention `. ♦ \ " x\/ Ponds ♦- TP 11. - I �, { ti♦ / , y Trail q.., Proposed Greenline TPA , r T` jc , r ' ♦ 83' /- Warehouse "B"Site \_ P 10 ♦� < I B-3 l r r , w j WETLAND DU •y� TP-9-� Tp 2 � < — i "� ------------- Trail , �_ -\ l i • — - ♦-46TPA , I , ''v�♦♦ a TP-12 —� � .•.. T& P.1 0* - - WETLAND ED � WET \; ,y � ?��- _.. . _ �-� _, � TP-8 I -- ;•.; Proposed Greenline \-------= - - �,/j z. \ ?�♦,� ;- a ' r WET I Warehouse "A" Site — 18 ♦� Trail I \ 13 \ / WET LalloDP „ �� ! B6 E t , TPA 1\ _ _ \ - \ WETLAND EEProposed Retaining �1 1 G 1' 1 r Wall Location {♦�` ' h 1 /,a4 1 Trail ` �— �. TP-5 411, �� TP 9 i �� A -�` I' l;; T��i P-6 _ '•. ,5 phi l,' �•� !. _ 1 ; I `4� t t a . �l r i �. \ 1 � C �; �. I ,r, m •.,, 1 I = , � WETLAND DT , , 1 - ,-,� _ /' (• I� � � �\ i r , 3 � a ------•.^,_---- __..... .��J v •s: - �._ '_�_/,':.. �i Y• ,.: � " �1 I�WETLAND EB WETLAND DR .�"�:�,.-'°•A ra' � � �;I s We erhauser Way Sy WETLAND DQyi�\ , WETLAND AA ppN ' { y V 11 7 .` � � . � ', lt / _ v.`•)t .... .,__ -"' \ .... .. it - Notes: Le end + 1 u_ y 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate, c 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to B-1+ Boring by GeoEngineers, 2017 c o assist in showing features discussed in an attached document GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content TPA* Test Pit by GeoEngineers, 2017 n of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the this B-1 Boring by GeoEngineers, 2016 z official record of communication. 51 Data Source: Base CAD files provided by ESM Consulting Engineers, TPA# Test Pit by GeoEngineers, 2016 � dated Wetlands Wetlands by others. others. ■.------■ Site Boundary 150 0 150 YProjection: WA State Plane, North Zone, NAD83, US Foot Feet Native Building Subgrade Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Data Source: Drawing created from sketch provided by GeoEngineers' personnel. Native Soil Cap Ground Surface Backfill: Freedraining Sand and/or Rock. Minimum I Enclosure of Pipe, Balance of Backfill Below Cap Should be Sand or Rock. Variable o Q . 00 p-Q.: `OC. 6"0 Pipe HDPE or PVC Perforated o �o 0 V. ppo0° o o•QO. L2'—J Bench Drain Not to Scale Final Fill Surface Profile Fill Soil Pre -development Ground Surface Conceptual Arrangement of --- Bench Cuts Into Native Soil. Native Soil _/ If Seepage Encountered During Benching, Place Drain At This Location. Drain Detail is Shown Above. 8' MIN. —I Not to Scale Keyway Schematic Drawing Hillside Fill Proposed Greenline Warehouse B Project Federal Way, Washington GMENGINEERS� I Figure APPENDIX A Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by drilling a total of 3 borings and excavating 13 test pits to supplement previous explorations completed at the site. The explorations were completed on July 18 and 24, 2017. Borings were drilled to depths of 16.5 to 21.5 feet. Test pits were excavated to depths ranging from 6 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). The site explorations were continuously monitored by a member of GeoEngineers geotechnical staff. Our representative maintained a detailed log of the soils encountered, obtained soil samples and observed groundwater conditions. Figures 2 and 3 show the approximate locations of the explorations. Explorations were mapped using commercial -grade GPS equipment and should be considered accurate only to the extent implied by the method used. Soil samples were obtained from the borings using Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) performed in general conformance with ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 1586. The sampler was driven with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches or other indicated distance, into the soils is shown adjacent to the sample symbols on the boring logs. Disturbed samples were obtained from the split barrel for subsequent classification and index testing. Bulk soil samples from the test pits were collected directly from the trackhoe bucket and placed in plastic bags. Soils encountered in the borings were classified in the field in general accordance with ASTM Standard Practice D 2488, the Standard Practice for the Classification of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), which is described in Figure A-1. Soil classifications and sampling intervals are shown on the exploration logs. Inclined lines at the material contacts shown on the logs indicate uncertainty as to the exact contact elevation, rather than the inclination of the contact itself. Figures A-2 through A-17 present the exploration logs. Laboratory Testing Soil samples obtained from the explorations were brought to our laboratory to confirm field classifications. Selected samples were tested to determine their moisture content and grain -size distribution in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards. The moisture content of selected samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 2216. The test results are presented in the respective exploration logs in Appendix A. Grain -size distribution (sieve analyses) was conducted in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D 422. The results of the grain -size sieve analyses are presented in Figures A-18 through A-20. GEOENGINEER� August16,2017 PageA-1 File N.. 22247-001-03 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL GRAPH I LETrER DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN GRAVELS ru C�o o GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES AND o 0 0 o GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVELLY (LITTLECRNOFINES) SOILS o 0 GRAVEL -S-SAND MIXTURES COARSE GRAINED GRAVELS WITH GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND - SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FINES SLT MIXTURES FRACTION RETAINE GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL- SAND - ON NO.4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OFFwES) 0 CLAY MIXTURES CLEAN SANDS SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS MORE THAN 50% SAND RETAINED ON NO, 200 SIEVE AND (LITTLEOR NO FINES) SANDY Sp POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SOILS SAND SM SILTYSANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES MORE THAN 50%FE OFCCARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO.4 SIEVE SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, ML CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY SILTS AND INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINE CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, GRAINED LEAN CLAYS SOILS QL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50% PASSING MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR NO. 200 SIEVE DIATOMACEOUS SILTY SOILS SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER /� CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH THAN 50 PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS - — • _ r _....,,- u'� �"Lu Niu,,mL uuluenme or eual Sou ciassitications Sampler Symbol Descriptions ® 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel ® Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ■ Shelby tube ® Piston UDirect -Push MBulk or grab ® Continuous Coring Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. "WOH" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the hammer. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER AC Asphalt Concrete CC Cement Concrete r, ,L r CR Crushed Rock/ Quarry Spalls SOD Sod/Forest Duff TS Topsoil Groundwater Contact Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer Measured free product in well or piezomete Graphic Log Contact Distinct contact between soil strata ' Approximate contact between soil strata Material Description Contact Contact between geologic units Contact between soil of the same geologic unit Laboratory/ Field Tests %F Percent fines %G Percent gravel AL Atterberg limits CA Chemical analysis CP Laboratory compaction test CS Consolidation test DID Dry density DS Direct shear HA Hydrometer analysis MC Moisture content MD Moisture content and dry density Mohs Mohs hardness scale OC Organic content PM Permeability or hydraulic conductivity PI Plasticity index PP Pocket penetrometer SA Sieve analysis TX Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression VS Vane shear Sheen Classification NS No Visible Sheen SS Slight Sheen MS Moderate Sheen HS Heavy Sheen NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. Key to Exploration Logs GMENG VEER FigureA-1 stag Drilled 7/24/2017 End 7/24/2017 TotalDepth(ft) Checked By SVM Driller Holocene Drilling Inc. DrilMelli d Hollow -stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 377 NAVD88 Hammer Data Automatic Drilling Diedrich D50 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Fasting (X) Northing M 1278069 111175 System WA State Plane North �410�g Depth to Datum fVAD83 (feet) 13erd[ion(8] Notes Gravel road, dense brush and trees beyond road r i � N rltw UAIA C_ N n w N C -0 N y0 E t0 VJ j ua 0 o d ,J o-- 0 a> W a> ¢ a m S U F m m l'Y3 o 0 U 0 sM 18 21 1 SA 5 sM 18 42 2 10 1 3 150/5" I 3 SA 3 1 50/3" 1 4 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION wn siltyfine to medium sand with (medium dense, moist) (fill?) wn siltyfine to medium sand with gravel (dense, wet) (weatherd till?) SM I Mottled gray -brown silty fine to medium sand gravel (very dense, moist) (till) 10 1 33 16 l 45 Nate: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Topographic Survey, Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey Log of Boring B-1 Project Weyerhaeuser Greenline Warehouse "Ir Development G M E N G N E E R J 1 // Project Location: Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 22247-001-03 REMARKS Figure A-2 iheet 1 of 1 Drilled 7/24/2 17 7/24/2017 otal TDB (ft) 16.5 Qieecckkeed By CRG S1NH Driller hlolocene Drilling Inc. DnlMet�w�d hollow -stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) 379 Hammer Automatic Drilling Vertical Datum NAVD98 Data 140 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Equipment Diedrich D50 Easting (X) 1278041 WA Plane e Sinuodt�te[ Depth to rig () 111330 Datum NAD8 NAD83 (feet) t) �1W i�rai�lttl Notes: FIELD DATA Ep b0 0 MATERIAL C w N O q J m DESCRIPTION (a L O V7 ti C L ilk o- a> 0 3 m a � 2 N C N o o (0 N 2 2 0 GM &own silty fine to coarse gravel with sand (very dense, moist) (glacial till) 161 62 1 1 5 q /I 161 82 I 2 SA SM I Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel (very r dense, moist) (till) "—M o 150/3' I 3 2 1 so/2" 1 4 15 O I %/3. I s REMARKS N " � c c � d m c do �3 LL3 3 1 15 Nate: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Topographic Survey, Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey Density may be exaggerated due to gravel Log clif Boring &2 Project Weyerhaeuser Greenline Warehouse "B" Development G EU E N G I N E E RProject Location: Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 22247-001-03 No recovery Figure A-3 iheet 1 of 1 aw Drilled 7/24/2017 Fad 7/24/2017 TDepth (ft) 21 Logged By Checked By CIRG SWH Driller Holocene Drilling, Inc. DrilMetlwd Hollow -stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 388 NAVD88 Flarnmer Data Automatic 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilli Equipmerrt Diedrich D50 Easting (X) Northing (Y) 1277716 110847 system Datum WA State Plane North NADS3 (feet) llQ1nammg Depth to water rRl oevation (ft) See Remarks Notes: r i rltLU UAIA 41 C w v E U o MATERIAL > J > DESCRIPTION REMARKS N �° _ n N y _O rIl l0 O ,p -6 V lLL sM I Brown silty fine to coarse sand with gravel (loose mast) (fill?) 1 I- I SA I R- L' I] 1 I 15 I 26 51 gravel (Ymedium dansenmoist—to�weathered till) 5 I 33 I 2 I I I 4-II 4- I 17 I 47 10 — I I I I N j" N GM L Brown silty fine to coarse gravel with sand j� I f J I clense. Est) (glacial till) 14I56I 3 1 pfl I8120 SA 151 I I I I I r IJ sm � Gray sden- illy firleto moist t oile sand lwh gravel (very 16 1 66/9- 1 4 20 176/9 I 5 I [I'.I d l I Grades to wet I I Groundwater observed at 20 feet Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Coordinates Data Source: Horizontal approximated based on Topographic Survey, Vertical approximated based on Topographic Survey Log Of Boling &3 Project Weyerhaeuser Greenline Warehouse "B" Development G M E N G I N E E R AJ /// Project Location: Federal Way, Washington —�� Project Number: 22247-001-03 Figure A-4 Sheet 1 of 1 Log of Test Pit TR3 Project Weyerhaeuser Greenline Warehouse "B" Development G EO E N G I N E E R AJ //�/ Project Location: Federal Way, Washington �s Project Number: 222.47-001-03 mFigure 1eet 1 of 1 0 O C; 0 T � N N L U L O. U L � c U � C7 C7 v m o 0 O U N p p Q ° � m f0 ((Cpp Uq N fn O l6 > � m N N 1if1 OD O *�' N 3 = m o 0 O o (D o o o b0 U) E V U a z O N O O N U a) U) 'Q p O O c m m W Z in (n fn O O � LL N L o (n i d N ` D W W I-- E N W 0 z ti +- W J 1% p _W LM J 0 m o c w^ C.I Z ➢CU _C w � m 0 cr `i W C7 0 co a 0 N w N to o N o m cl w o M GO a i z Z Q O 'o E N a (n P. Q p U `o. m L N p L 3 zi ;o C C 6 w 3 v M j u> cq M 3 `w N LO _ N W c a c � c O ax 0 m a U 0 p f0 s N m° m ei w a m m in W n a a in O .N O O T U c L c T y C O f0 l0 E m t' Q N o N C © 1] ® O N n F Q U)H Op 00 rO COO N It O O o Z cn CN COI 1HO13M AS JNISSVd 1N3383d ° a Sieve Analysis Results d r Weyerhaeuser Greenline Warehouse "B" Development o Federal Way, Washington m R N N GEOENGINEERS /// FigureA-18 0 0 3 N m T � Q1 N ----------- 4 - ----- O L Q O L O 3 N 4} c c J� p C a m o O W 0 3 m f0 1O 0 m W nU 1v0 21 j i L L N N A N Q i C C C N co co N C c 0 ca 0 C C> O N `O ?C, O 00 4= M N M m O c{ ±k W U) Z N o N N O � LL � L W N W 2 c d W N J Q L v W w m m � Z c c N m oit Ui Q N W m ui U1 o ti O) o aN o a .7 Z Z Q o 'om li C3 N L '3 o c,l^i V/ M O W 3 0 LL L > 00 \ L_ W (D c a d a 1p� � (y w 5 c ' C.) no a n M � O 0 !` a c� N C Y oE 'i ri CL !I In n a N N W Q J X O N c m LLJ 00 s v N 2 U 15 O O _T c h 16 T C a � m � m N 0 N C_ O ®010 E N � f0 N� °° — N 00 N ~ n ~ O OA 00 (fl (p It M 0 0 0 z rl N e0-I 1HJ13M AS JNISSVd 1NKE13d " s 9 Sieve Analysis Results r w Weyerhaeuser Greenline Warehouse "B" Development 0 Federal Way, Washington 0 r a N N N G]EOENGINEERFigureA-19 W N_ W I W_ N 0 Q 0 Z N 0 7 OM O (00 M 1H913M AS JNISSVd! 1N33d3d 0 0 0 rl O i ri i t M N TI O rl U) :E v LO -i M L w Lq Ln p M 00 Sieve Analysis Results Weyerhaeuser Greenline Warehouse "B" Development Federal Way, Washington GEOENGINEER FigureA-20 APPENDIX B Field Explorations and Laboratory Testing-2016 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS CLEAN ELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL GRAVELSRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES AND GRAVELS, GRAVELLY (UT%E OR "O FINES)OORLYGRADED SOILS ESILTY RAVEL -SAND MIXTURES COARSE GRAINED MORE THAN 50XSILT GRAVELS IMTHILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND SOILS OF COARSE FINESFRACTION MULTURES RETAINEDONNO.(APPRECUBLEAMWNT4 SIEVE oPFlNEs)LAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - AND -CLAY MIXTURES CLEAN SANDS `SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS MORE THAN 50Y. SAND RETAINED ON NO. 200 SIEVE AND (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDY Sp POORLY -GRADED SANDS, SOILS - GRAVELLY SAND SANDS WITH SM SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MOROF COARSE FRACTION FINES MIXTURES PASSING NO. 4 CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF RNES) `SC MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK ML FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS NTH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO FINEUMIT ``L MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY GRAINEDCLAYS, THAN SO CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY LEAN CLAYS SOILS OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY MORE THAN 50%I PASSING NO.200I ASO MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS SILTY SIEVESOILSUMIT `.H INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH HAN 50 PLASTICITY OH ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS —� PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS -- -_. ... ---1•••--•oVWenlne or auai Soli GasslBCations Sampler Symbol Descriptions ® 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel AStandard Penetration Test (SPT) ■ Shelby tube ® Piston F] Direct -Push ® Bulk or grab ® Continuous Coring Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. A "WOH" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the hammer. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER AC Asphalt Concrete CC Cement Concrete CR Crushed Rock/ Quarry Spalls TS TopsoiV Forest Duff/Sod Groundwater Contact TMeasured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic Loci Contact Distinct contact between soil strata /Approximate contact between soil strata %F %G AL CA CID CS DS HA MC MD OC PM PI PP PPM SA TX UC VS NS SS MS HS NT Material Description Contact Contact between geologic units Contact between soil of the same geologic unit Laboratory / Field Tests Percent fines Percent gravel Atterberg limits Chemical analysis Laboratory compaction test Consolidation test Direct shear Hydrometer analysis Moisture content Moisture content and dry density Organic content Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Plasticity index Pocket penetrometer Parts per million Sieve analysis Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Vane shear Sheen Classification No Visible Sheen Slight Sheen Moderate Sheen Heavy Sheen Not Tested NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at Other locations or times. KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS GWENGINEER FIGUREA-1 Rev. 02116 51ad Drilled 5/24/2016 End 5/24/2016 I Total 21.5 Depth (R) Logged By CDL Checked By S.WH Driller Holt Drilling Drillin g g Hollow -Stem Auer Method Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 468 NAVD88 Hammer Data Autohammer 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment Track -Mounted L-10-1 Landa Easting (X) 1277850.15 System WA State Plane, North Groundwater Northing (Y) 111995.64 Datum NAD83 (feet) Depth to Notes: Me asured easured Water (ft) Elevation (fl) See Remarks .51ad Drilled 5/24/2016 End 5/24/2016 Total 20 8 Depth (ft) Surface Elevation (ft) 448 Vertical Datum NAVD88 Easting (X) 1277673.44 Northing (Y) 112111.02 Notes Logged By CDL Checked By SWH I Driller Holt Drilling Hammer Autohammer Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop System WA State Plane,North Datum NAD83 (feet) Melthogd Hollow -Stem Auger Drilling Track -Mounted L-10-1 Landa Equipment Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water to Elevation (n) See Remarks Log of Boring B-2 Project: Proposed Victory Unlimited Project G E4 E N G I N E E R J/ // Project Location: Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 216"-001-00 Figure f1 Sheet 1 of 1 alaa Drilled 5/24/2016 EDd 5/24/2016 Total 20.9 Depth (ft) Surface Elevation (ft) 464 Vertical Datum NAVD88 Easting (X) 1277734.72 Northing (Y) 111818.94 Notes Logged By CDL Checked By SWH Driller Holt Drilling Hammer Autohammer Data 140 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop System WA State Plane,North Datum NAD83 (feet) Method fillingHollow-Stem Auger Drilling Equipment Track -Mounted L-10-1 Landa Groundwate Depth to Date Measured Water to Elevation fft) See Remarks .ald End Drilled 5/25/2016 5/25/2016 Total 20 5 Depth (ft) Logged By CDL Checked By SWH Driller Holt Drilling Drillin Method Hollow -Stem Auger Surface Elevation (ft) 474 Vertical Datum NAVD88 Hammer Autohammer Data 140 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Track -Mounted L-10-1 Landa Equipment Easting (X) 1277753.63 System WA State Plane,North Groundwater Northing (Y) 111713.67 Datum NAD83 (feet) Depth to Date Measured Water (ft) Elevation (ft) See Remarks Notes: FIELD DATA 0 U) m S MATERIAL C N a)o J DESCRIPTION o REMARKS m t > d N > � o _ U m u c b n m .� Q a— 7 N m -- j m m W a 0 c W m U H 3 0 aU �, LLU 0GP o Brown gravel with cobbles (loose, moist) (fill) o sM Gray silty sand with gravel (dense, moist) 16 36 1 (weathered till) �o 5 12 52 _ Possible groundwater observed at 5 feet SA SM Gray silty sand with gravel (medium dense to 12 42 very dense, moist) (glacial till) Gravel in end of sampler ey 10 16 28 3 Grades to medium dense a i i i ! ro0 i i i 15 Grades to moist 18 53 4 i yh SM Gray silty fine sand with gravel and fractured Hard drilling at approximately 19 feet; cobble (very dense, moist) possible cobbles/boulder 20 5 65/6' S Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. GEOENGPNEER� Log of Boring B-4 Project: Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Project Location: Federal Way, Washington Number: 21644-001-00 Figure A-5 Sheet 1 of 1 Blad End Total Drilled 5/25/2016 5/25/2016 1 Depth (ft) Surface Elevation (ft) 472 Vertical Datum NAVD88 Easting(X) 1277676.09 Northing (Y) 111517.75 Notes 21 Logged By CDL Driller Holt Drilling Checked By SWH Hammer Autohammer Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop System WA State Plane,North Datum NAD83 (feet) Drilling Equipment Groundwater Date Measured Methogd Hollow -Stem Auger Track -Mounted L-10-1 Landa Depth to Water (ftl Elevation (ft) See Remarks Log of Boring B-5 Project: Proposed Victory Unlimited Project G EO E N G I N E S RJ (// Project Location: Federal Way, Washington -�sv Figure A-6 Project Number: 21644-001-00 sneer 1 of 1 as Drilled 5/25/2016 Elid 5/25/2016 Total 20.8 Depth (ft) Surface Elevation (ft) 410 Vertical Datum NAVD88 Easting (X) 1278027.56 Northing (Y) 111879.51 Notes Logged By CDL Checked By SWH Driller Holt Drilling Hammer Autohammer Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop System WA State Plane,North Datum NAD83 (feet) D illingd Hollow -Stem Auger Metho Drilling Equipment Track -Mounted L-10-1 Landa Groundwater Depth to Date_ Measured Water (ft) Elevation (ftl See Remarks Date Excavated: 5/26/2016 Equipment: Track Excavator Logged By: Total Depth (ft) CDL 11.5 SAMPLE S m CD a a m s` MATERIAL - `� m Ol U `° U � DESCRIPTION F o REMARKS N a W O N N G1 N H F- N C7 O 66 U C W E C m pC ici .- O �C iLU ML Brown sandy sift with gravel and organic matter (roots down to 2 feet) (medium stiff, moist) (weathered till) 1 ,�. 1 SA 20 55 A 2 .10 3 2 SM Gray/brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (dense, moist) (glacial fill) M 4 A b 8 3 6° h 7 y' S 6 8 i .I 4 b� B uI u � 10 i i _ Becoming moist to wet at 101/2 feet; no visible water i V 11 I Test pit completed at 11 % feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered a—jmfa tn n 1; s + Log of Test Pit TP-1 (� Project: Proposed Victory Unlimited Project G W E N ►G M E E R J / �/� Project Location: Federal Way, Washington _sr Project Number: 21644-001-00 Figure Sheet 1 off 1 1 GEOENGINEERS� Log of Test Pit TP-4 Project: Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Project Location: Federal Way, Washington Number: 21644-001-00 ure A-11 Date Excavated: 5/26/2016 Logged By: CDL Equipment: Track Excavator Total Depth (ft) 11.0 SAMPLE d GEOENGINEERS� Log of Test Pit TP-7 Project: Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Project Location: Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 21644-001-00 A-14 1 of 1 Date Excavated: 5/26/201 Equipment: Track Excavator Logged By: CDL Total Depth (ft) 11 SAMPLE m A d w m a E o `s MATERIAL s m �' 0 `° U m DESCRIPTION REMARKS L G C L G y 7 om W UU W �U iLU SMloH Dark brown silty sand and organic sift (loose/soft, moist) t (forest duff) 5° SM Brown silty sand with gravel and cobbles (medium dense to dense, moist) (weathered MY) A� o- 2 3 2 4 �6 5 o- SM Gray silty fine to coarse sand with gravel and occasional o-o- 3 cobbles (very dense, moist to wet) (glacial till) B Wet at 8 feet ry 9 10 �O 11 Test pit completed at 11 feet Slow groundwater seepage observed at approximately 81/2 feet No caving observed Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot. Log of Test Pit TP-8 Project: Proposed Victory Unlimited Project G M E N GM E E R � Project Location: Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 21644-001-00 Figure off Sheet 1 of 1 Date Excavated: 5/27/2016 Equipment: Track Excavator SAMPLE m` m 3 u Logged By: Total Depth (ft) E o o m MATERIAL DESCRIPTION m CD U U > L C C L d 3 dN "N d 3 N U 0 F N 1° Qig I C7 0U W W TS Topsoivtorest duff, organic matter (roots) p0 A t SM Brown silty fine sand with gravel and occasional organi t matter/roots (medium dense, moist) (weathered fill) oA� 2 6 3 h zoo wash SM Gray silty fine to medium sand with gravel and occasior q cobbles (very dense, moist) (glacial til) 0 5 t«� P 6 uN 7 8 O g. Test pit completed at 11 feet No groundwater seepage observed No caving observed 10 1 39 CDL 11.0 REMARKS Metal pipe and electrical line at 1.5 feet Notes: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. The depths on the test pit logs are based on an average of measurements across the test pit and should be considered accurate to 0.5 foot Log of Test Pit TP-11 Project: Proposed Victory Unlimited Project G EO E N G I N E E R S Project Location: Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 21644-001-00 Figure A-18 Sheet 1 of 1 GEOENGINEER� Log of Test Pit TP-13 Project: Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Project Location: Federal Way, Washington Project Number: 21644-001-00 Figure A-20 Sheet 1 of 1 0 R o ! 2m q ®0 7 § \ / - a \\ b / - _ \ cc en - - TA Ga =0 - - L o m � f q LLJ Cf) o LU o z - LLJ> 2 j Q = w w § § _ E 2 LU _ f w e z z $ \E \ 2 2 S ƒ + }{k LU } / / /} m \ \k _ - § 3 ° ) m % k ° ) 2 � a r ¥ ${a6 - ) _ 2 ° j{ ƒ E% e tea. k 40 \ } \ E m (&r R k $ E 2 S R q q o\ z � 1 g]M AEI §Nes dl 33H 3 / Sieve SeeAnmymRResults +a Proposed aoryUG|mlidP Project ]$ eFdWam|Way, Washington ; 0 GENE NG|NEER� n2urA21 i O O O O O O O O O O O rI M 00 ti O LO I M N ci 1H913M AH JNISSdd 1N33a3d 3 m T N N N y U O n _U L O 3 N 0 c 0 to m n � 0 N N 0 > > 7 (0 O .O U N N U N 0 -0 a -0 0) T W _ O C C C toil CObito N CO m Cn ff) fn N S Q '�O N U tU O N O N O � tU N N N C � L " o o to c to aa, c c 0 7 O O N p p (� o _N Q a o N L n c o N N � C C 3 to 0 o p 0 N U .Ct _ `O CO > U N m C O C a � Nate+ N to a � o O N `m � � m EIL CI) V LOLC m m m na O 3 o Z Z LLl o c J N O O T O l0 t0 � N 0 N C � O [1 0 fU O Z Sieve Analysis Results Proposed Victory Unlimited Project Federal Way, Washington GEOENGINEERFigureA-22 � % ® 0 e «B � d \\ k {0 \ 0 § f _ - '0/ / \ � \ / / J /« D \ / \ \ \ COCN 3 7 a a £r ] o M LU } . � \\ � e { � 2 r o z - / jUi a 7 - Cr/ f \ m \ ® S Q = ° -CD / w ; 3 ®(2 « ¥ { t � Q k/§ m § #{ 0 ] $ f \ = m \ { Ca § - - L _ § A M m ° 0 { a 04 � )f § $ ƒ F- `® ® m L-0 _ [o 2 q Ecl �¥. /OO-1O\}\ \ m ® \ § 2 / % 2 leq k \ z ,IH913M AS 9NeSd M33H3d / Sieve Analysis Results Proposed Victory Unlimited Project ) Federal Way, Was\ngton } , G EoE NG|NEER$ Figure � 0 q o e !« g ®0 o § 0 ' - ® % { y CL 6 = r § \ 7 3 > = ` ° _ 0 / - CIJ g a = o LL ` Cr w k LLI LLJ �E q o § ƒ 2 LLJQ § § - o f=4== - §LLJ ° OD \L \ z z « � / \ k @ )/§ \ \ @ *{ 2 ƒ f e m , - _ L - & S - - \ k \ E / LLJ k 3z + \ S - ({ { tea. / '1 O \ } \ / m § k $ r- 2 2 % q TAo § 1 e]m AS BmSSd 1 338 ) Sieve Analysis Results \ Proposed 7coryUM|mildPoject Federal Way, WasGng on 9 } GEo E NG|NEER Figure A24 APPENDIX C Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use APPENDIX C REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE' This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. Read These Provisions Closely It is important to recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering, geology and environmental science) rely on professional judgment and opinion to a greater extent than other engineering and natural science disciplines, where more precise and/or readily observable data may exist. To help clients better understand how this difference pertains to our services, GeoEngineers includes the following explanatory "limitations" provisions in its reports. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you need to know more how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons and Projects This report has been prepared for Federal Way Campus LLC and for the Greenline Warehouse B project specifically identified and described in the report. The information contained herein is not applicable to other sites or projects. GeoEngineers structures its services to meet the specific needs of its clients. No party other than the party to whom this report is addressed may rely on the product of our services unless we agree to such reliance in advance and in writing. Within the limitations of the agreed scope of services for the Project, and its schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with Federal Way Campus LLC dated June 29, 2017 and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. We do not authorize, and will not be responsible for, the use of this report for any purposes or projects other than those identified in the report. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report is based on a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors This report has been prepared for Proposed Federal Way Campus, Greenline Warehouse B project located in Federal Way, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, it is important not to rely on this report if it was: ■ not prepared for you, ■ not prepared for your project, ■ not prepared for the specific site explored, or ■ completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: the function of the proposed structure; 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org. GEoENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page C-1 File No. 22247-001-03 elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; I.. composition of the design team; or project ownership. If changes in the proposed layout and or design of the project occur after the date of this report, GeoEngineers cannot be responsible for any consequences of such changes in relation to this report unless we have been given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations. Based on that review, we can provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Environmental Concerns are Not Covered Unless environmental services were specifically included in our scope of services, this report does not provide any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations, including but not limited to, the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by man-made events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, new information or technology that becomes available subsequent to the report date, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. If more than a few months have passed since issuance of our report or work product, or if any of the described events may have occurred, please contact GeoEngineers before applying this report for its intended purpose so that we may evaluate whether changed conditions affect the continued reliability or applicability of our conclusions and recommendations. Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies the specific subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied its professional judgment to render an informed opinion about subsurface conditions at other locations. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from the opinions presented in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations are not a warranty of the actual subsurface conditions. Geotechnical Engineering Report Recommendations are Not Final We have developed the following recommendations based on data gathered from subsurface investigation(s). These investigations sample just a small percentage of a site to create a snapshot of the subsurface conditions elsewhere on the site. Such sampling on its own cannot provide a complete and accurate view of subsurface conditions for the entire site. Therefore, the recommendations included in this report are preliminary and should not be considered final. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations in this report if we do not perform construction observation. GEoENGINEERS2 August 16, 2017 Page C-2 File No. 22247-001-03 We recommend that you allow sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation during construction by GeoEngineers to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes if the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether earthwork activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineers for construction observation for this project is the most effective means of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. If another party performs field observation and confirms our expectations, the other party must take full responsibility for both the observations and recommendations. Please note, however, that another party would lack our project - specific knowledge and resources. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report Could Be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by members of the design team or by contractors can result in costly Problems. GeoEngineers can help reduce the risks of misinterpretation by conferring with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report, reviewing pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications, participating in pre -bid and preconstruction conferences, and providing construction observation. Do Not Redraw the Exploration Logs Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. The logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but separating logs from the report can create a risk of misinterpretation. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance To help reduce the risk of problems associated with unanticipated subsurface conditions, GeoEngineers recommends giving contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, including these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use." When providing the report, you should preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal that: ■ advises contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that its accuracy is limited; and ■ encourages contractors to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. Contractors are Responsible for Site Safety on Their Own Construction Projects Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on -site personnel and adjacent properties. GEOENGINEER� August 16, 2017 Page C-3 He No. 22247-001-03 Biological Pollutants GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants, and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. A Client that desires these specialized services is advised to obtain them from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. GEoENGINEERS� August 16, 2017 Page C-4 File No. 22247-001-03