Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appendices.pdf
PHILIP ARNOLD PARK APPENDIX A City of Renton Parks & Trails Sign Panel Memorandum FONT SELECTION CITY OF RENTON - PARKS & TRAILS SIGN PANEL MEMORANDUM Arial Bold Uppercase: Uppercase: Lowercase: Lowercase: Arial Regular Letter Spacing: Letter spacing (kerning) shall be automatic per the standard typeface; Kerning may be adjusted for best fit. This memo provides design direction and guidance for uniform signage at City of Renton’s parks. Though it provides design guidance it does not include all detailing. Contractor must submit shop drawing of each sign to show the sign panel, sign graphics, sign text, sign post/support detail, footings, and connections of sign panel to post(s) for City of Renton approval. These items should be adapted to each specific park’s context: 1. Design detailing that should be customized include: fastenings, post attachments, post sizing, footings, and lighting for the entry sign. Double sided signs are shown. 2. Dependent on each park’s needs(location, orientation,visibility), signs may be single sided, in which case the rear panel would not be included or the rear side could be left blank. 3. Based on the length of park names, entry sign dimensions may need to be adjusted for best fit. 4. Content for signs is shown for illustrative purposes only. Names, icons, text, rules, and all content is determined by each project and should be verified and approved by the City of Renton. ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz SIGN PANEL DESIGN City of Renton - Parks and Trails: Sign Panel Memorandum October 5, 2021 1 of 6 PARK ICONS The following icons have been selected for City of Renton Park signs. Whenever possible, the icons should be accompanied by the nomenclature shown below. City of Renton - Parks and Trails: Sign Panel Memorandum October 5, 2021 2 of 6 PLAYGROUNDBASKETBALL PATHWAY/TRAIL RESTROOM TENNIS COURT PICNIC AREAPICNIC SHELTERBALLFIELD*A *G *H *B *C *D *E *F * Refer to project contract drawings for placement of park icons FONTS AND SYMBOLS PARK ENTRY SIGN Text/Symbol Font Size Park Name Arial Bold, All Upper Case 4” Height Park Address*Arial Regular, Sentence Case 3” Height “City of Renton” Text Arial Regular, All Upper Case 3” Height City of Renton Logo -8” Diameter Park Amenity Symbols -6”x6” Square MATERIALS Material Paint Type Protective Finish Main Panel High-Density-Urethane (HDU), Smooth Surface High Gloss Anti-graffiti, Clear Coat per Paint Manufacturer Accent Wave High-Density-Urethane (HDU), Smooth Surface High Gloss Anti-graffiti, Clear Coat per Paint Manufacturer City of Renton - Parks and Trails: Sign Panel Memorandum October 5, 2021 3 of 62’ - 4-1/2”3’ - 1”4” 1-1/2”, typ 5’-6” 4”Align left for front view Min. 4-1/2”; Verify minimum clearance based on site conditions Post/supporting structure detail, footing detail, and connections to Entry Sign Panel is by project. Main panel color HDU material Accent Wave color Align right for rear view4” 2-1/2”, typ 2-1/2”2”1/2”, typ2” 4” 2” 3-1/4” 1-3/4” 2-3/4” 4” 2” FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION *Use standard Postal Service abbreviations SIDE SECTION Arc Radius: 6’-8”Arc Length: 2’-8” Arc Radius: 14’-6-1/2” Arc Length: 1’-6-3/4” Arc Radius: 6’-7”Arc Length: 2’ Arc Radius: 2’-8” Arc Length: 1’-10-3/4” = End of Arc Arc Radius: 19’-2”Arc Length: 1’-7-3/4” Arc Radius: 5’-2”Arc Length: 1’-3-1/2” ACCENT WAVE DETAIL PANTONE 647 C Main panel color PANTONE 11-0601 TCX PANTONE 11-0601 TCX PANTONE 4152 C PANTONE 9 C PANTONE 7753 C PANTONE 730 C PANTONE 7737 C Accent Wave color Text and Icon color COLOR PANEL COLORS RENTON CITY LOGO COLORS City of Renton - Parks and Trails: Sign Panel Memorandum October 5, 2021 4 of 6 WAYFINDING SIGN FONTS AND SYMBOLS Text/Symbol Font Size Park Amenity Text Arial Regular, All Upper Case 2” Height Arrow Symbols -4”x4” Square Park Amenity Symbols -4”x4” Square MATERIALS Material Size Paint Type Protective Finish All panels Aluminum 6mm thickness High Gloss Anti-graffiti, Overlaminate City of Renton - Parks and Trails: Sign Panel Memorandum October 5, 2021 5 of 6 3’, typ 80” Clear Floor & Ground Space, typPer ADAAG4”, typ 2”2” 4”1-1/2”5-3/4” 1” 4”, typ 4”, typ3/8”, typ 1-1/2”, typ 47°, typ 1/2”, typ 4”, typ FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATIONSIDE ELEVATION ARROW SYMBOL DETAIL TYPICAL WAYFINDING PANEL BOTTOM WAYFINDING PANEL (SINGLE PANEL) 2-1/2”EQEQ 1-3/8”, typ 1-1/2” 1-1/2” 1”1” See Arrow Symbol Detail Fastener Location Symbol Location: Full bleed to 3 sides Symbol Location: Full bleed to 2 sides Fastener Location Arc Radius: 7’-3”Arc Length: 1’-8-1/4” Arc Radius: 8’-3” Arc Length: 1’-8” Arc Radius: 17’-4”Arc Length: 1’-4” Arc Radius: 18’-1/2”Arc Length: 1’ Corner Radius: 3/8” Corner Radius: 3/8” = End of Arc Provide two points of attachment per panel. Fasteners shall be stainless steel. Sizing and detailing for fasteners is by project and should be relative to the post and footing design. All fasteners shall be stainless steel. Any nuts, bolt heads, or washers used shall not damage the finish of the panels. Post and footing detail is by project. Color of posts to be black. Accent Wave PARK RULES SIGN FONTS AND SYMBOLS Text/Symbol Font Size Line Spacing Park Name/Welcome Arial Regular, All Upper Case 3” Height - Hours of Operation/Sunrise to Sunset/RMC Arial Bold, All Upper Case 1” Height - Call 911 to report...Arial Bold, Sentence Case 1” Height 1/2” Except for schedule activities/The following rules Arial Bold, All Upper Case 3/4” Height 1/2” For more information Arial Bold, Sentence Case 3/4” Height 1/2” Rules Text Arial Regular, Sentence Case 0.65” Height 0.325” “City of Renton” Text Arial Regular, All Upper Case 1-1/2” Height 1” City of Renton Logo -6” Diameter - MATERIALS Material Size Paint Type Protective Finish All panels Aluminum 6mm thickness High Gloss Anti-graffiti, Overlaminate City of Renton - Parks and Trails: Sign Panel Memorandum October 5, 2021 6 of 66’, typ4’-10”2-1/2” 2-1/2”2’4”8” 3’-0” 3” 1-3/4” 2-3/4” 2-1/2”1-1/2”, typ 3-1/4”1” 1-1/4” 1-3/4” 1-1/4”1” 1”2-1/2”1-1/2” 1’-2-5/8” 3/4”2-3/8” 1-3/4” 2” 1-1/2” Align left for front view Post and footing detail is by project. Color of posts to be black. Text taken from existing rule sign. To be confirmed by City of Renton 1. Provide minimum four points of attachment per panel. Sizing and detailing for fasteners is by project and should be relative to the post and footing design. 2. All fasteners shall be stainless steel. Any nuts, bolt heads, or washers used shall not damage the finish of the panels. Align right for rear view Arc Radius: 2’-4”Arc Length: 11-1/4” Accent Wave Arc Radius: 1’-6” Arc Length: 7-3/4”Arc Radius: 3’-6-1/2” Arc Length: 5-3/4” Arc Radius: 2’-7-1/4”Arc Length: 2’-3” Notes: Arc Radius: 2’-5”Arc Length: 1’-8-1/2” ACCENT WAVE FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION = End of Arc Min. 10-1/2”; Verify minimum clearance based on site conditions PHILIP ARNOLD PARK APPENDIX B Geotechnical Design Recommendations for Philip Arnold Park GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PHILIP ARNOLD PARK IMPROVEMENTS 720 Jones Avenue South Renton, Washington Project No. 2294.01 27 October 2020 Prepared for: City of Renton Parks Department and Hough Beck & Baird, Inc. Prepared by: Geoprofessional Consultants 19019 36th Avenue W., Suite E Lynnwood, WA 98036 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 PROJECT INFORMATION .....................................................................................................................1 Site Location ..................................................................................................................................1 Project Description .........................................................................................................................1 SITE HISTORY .....................................................................................................................................2 SITE CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................................................2 Surface Conditions .........................................................................................................................2 Subsurface Conditions ....................................................................................................................3 Groundwater .................................................................................................................................5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................5 General Geotechnical Considerations ..............................................................................................5 Geologically Hazardous Areas .........................................................................................................6 Earthwork ......................................................................................................................................9 Site Preparation .............................................................................................................................9 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction ..................................................................................... 11 Utility Installation Recommendations ........................................................................................... 13 Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations and Considerations ............................................... 14 Retaining Walls ............................................................................................................................ 16 Light Pole Foundations ................................................................................................................. 17 Seismic Design Parameters ........................................................................................................... 17 Stormwater Infiltration Considerations ......................................................................................... 18 Erosion Control ............................................................................................................................ 21 Pavement ........................................................................................................................................ 21 CLOSURE .......................................................................................................................................... 22 FIGURES Figure 1 – Site and Exploration Plan APPENDICES Appendix A – Subsurface Exploration Procedures and Logs Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Procedures and Results Page | 1 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT PHILIP ARNOLD PARK IMPROVEMENTS 720 JONES AVENUE SOUTH RENTON, WASHINGTON Project No. 2294.01 27 October 2020 INTRODUCTION This geotechnical engineering exploration and analysis has been completed for the proposed improvements at Philip Arnold Park in Renton, Washington. Seven borings and three test pit/infiltration test explorations were completed to depths ranging from approximately 3.5 feet to 11.5 feet below the existing ground surface to evaluate subsurface conditions. Three shallow hand auger borings were also completed extending to depths of about six inches for the purpose of determining stripping depths near proposed basketball court improvements. Descriptive logs of the explorations are included in Appendix A and Appendix B contains a summary of laboratory testing procedures and results. PROJECT INFORMATION Site Location The project site (Phillip Arnold Park) comprises two adjoining parcels (King County Parcel Nos. 202305- 9059 and 00072-0175) atop historic Renton Hill at 720 Jones Avenue South in Renton, Washington. The site is located directly southeast of the Beacon Way South and Jones Avenue South intersection. The triangular-shaped property encompasses 10.71 acres and is bordered by Jones Avenue South to the west, Beacon Way South to the northeast, and by Puget Sound Energy powerline easements and undeveloped land to the southeast. The project site is illustrated on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. Project Description Plans available at the time this report was prepared indicate that several improvements are proposed in the western half of the property. Site improvements are expected to include: • Looped ADA accessible walkways throughout the western site area and the possible installation of two culverts below the proposed walkway; • A short pedestrian bridge along the new trail as an alternative to the culverts; • Several new retaining walls which are expected to be 2.25 feet tall in exposed height or less; • Removal of the existing activity building and replacement with parent plaza, shelter, and Portland loo restroom; • Playground replacement; Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 2 • Basketball court renovation and installation of terraced seating; • Parking lot pavement repairs; • New park signage and new or relocated light poles, and; • Upgraded utility services and improved site drainage and stormwater management including infiltration features. SITE HISTORY The property was clear cut as part of initial park development and based on site topography, the site appears to have been graded by performing cuts in the eastern site area and grading material toward the west. The presence of fill material in the western site area was evidenced by fills up to approximately 4.5 feet deep encountered within two of our borings (B-1 and B-4). The surrounding historic Renton Hill area supported coal mining operations and the main portal led to associated shafts and adits extending below the park. The historic Renton hill coals were first discovered in 1873, and coal mines were operated until 1920, resulting in 1.3 million tons of coal removed. As a result of coal mining operations in the area, the site is located within a “moderate” coal mine hazard as defined by the City of Renton. Further discussion regarding the associated coal mine hazard can be found in the Geologically Hazardous Areas section of this report. SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions The subject site includes irregular inclinations across the site ranging from relatively level conditions to slopes inclined as high as 50 percent. The property includes approximately 63 feet of total elevation change grading from about 436 feet in the eastern site margin to about 373 feet in the northwestern site margin. The baseball field and surroundings in the east-central site area includes relatively level conditions. Site topography west and southwest of the baseball field is relatively gentle ranging from inclinations of about 3 percent to 26 percent, with the steepest slopes west of the baseball field being located west and southwest of the existing playground. Site topography east and southeast of the baseball field includes steeper slopes ranging from inclinations of about 26 to 50 percent. Some of the site slopes are mapped by the City of Renton as meeting the City definition for regulated steep slopes and landslide hazard areas; further discussion regarding site slopes can be found in the Geologically Hazardous Areas section of this report. The site surface is primarily covered by landscaped grass, with some brambles surrounding the existing basketball court and northwestern park sign, and deciduous trees scattered across the western half of the property. Existing trees on the property will remain in place as part of proposed improvements. The site includes two asphalt paved parking lots, the main parking lot being located in the northern site area with ingress and egress provided by Beacon Way South. A smaller four-vehicle hammerhead-shaped Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 3 asphalt paved parking lot is located in the west-central site area with ingress and egress provided by Jones Avenue South. The site also includes areas with concrete walkways extending from the main parking lot to the existing activity building and playground, an asphalted basketball court, an asphalted tennis court, imported sand material surfacing the baseball infield, and an existing playground surfaced with engineered wood fiber. Subsurface Conditions Local Geologic Conditions The publication Geologic Map of the Renton Quadrangle, King County, Washington (USGS, GQ 405, 1965) indicates that the subject site has been mapped as containing glacially consolidated ground moraine deposits (Qgt) in the northern and eastern site areas, with recessional stratified kame deposits (Qik) mapped in the central and western site areas. The ground moraine deposits are otherwise known as glacial till, which are glacially consolidated and heterogenous soils consisting of a mixture of clay, silt, sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders in varying amounts. Glacial till is colloquially termed “hardpan” in western Washington due to its compact and dense nature resulting from the deposit forming below the overburden of historical glaciers. As a result of the soil density and high fines content, such deposits typically include very low permeability potential. The recessional stratified kame deposits are outwash sands consisting of pebbly sand and gravels which were deposited in high energy glaciofluvial environments as the historic Puget glacial lobe receded. Granular outwash soils may have a relatively high permeability due to their low fines content (the soil fraction passing the US No. 200 sieve). Such deposits are major sources of construction materials in the Renton uplands east of the Green River Valley. The above-referenced map delineates an irregular contact between the glacial till and recessional kame deposits; in general the recessional kame deposits are mapped in the central and western site areas, including the majority of the baseball field, playground area, and tennis courts. Glacial till is mapped in the northern and eastern site areas including the areas east of the baseball field, the basketball court, northern parking lot, and existing activity building. We completed seven borings to approximately 11.5 feet, and three test pits between approximately 3.5 and 5 feet to characterize subsurface conditions on the property. Subsurface conditions disclosed by the borings and test pits are generally consistent with the published mapping, except outwash sands were encountered at the locations of B-4, B-5, B-6, and TP-2/IT-2, indicating that outwash sand and gravel deposits extend further north than depicted on the published geologic mapping. The outwash sands are a younger soil unit than the glacial till. Glacial till was not encountered in our explorations except for TP- 1/IT-1 and B-7 which were completed in the northeastern site area by the park sign. Seven of our explorations also disclosed a limited amount of undocumented fill material above the native soils at the subject site. Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 4 The soil descriptions presented below have been generalized for ease of report interpretation. Please refer to the exploration logs in Appendix A for detailed soil descriptions at the exploration locations. Variations in subsurface conditions may exist between the exploration locations and the nature and extent of variations between the explorations may not become evident until additional explorations are completed or until construction. Subsurface conditions at specific locations are summarized below. Fill: Seven of the borings and test pits disclosed undocumented fill material to depths of approximately 1.5 to 4.5 feet extending below the ground surface. Topsoil was not directly observed below sod, the likely result of previous stripping during initial park development. In particular, the deepest fills were encountered at the locations of borings B-1 and B-4. The fill material typically consisted of loose, moist, brown, silty sand some gravel, with fine organic material, thin roots, and scattered materials such as glass, concrete, and wood fragments, the origin of which is unknown. It should be noted that the composition and depth of uncontrolled fill material may vary over relatively short distances. The following table provides approximate depths and fill materials encountered at exploration locations: Summary of Fill Material Observations Exploration Approximate depth of fill (feet) Fill material description B-1 4.5 Silty SAND some gravel, thin root intrusions, wood fragments B-2 1.5 Silty SAND some gravel, thin root intrusions B-3 1.5 Silty SAND some gravel, thin root intrusions B-4 4.5 Silty SAND some gravel, thin root intrusions B-7 1.5 Silty SAND some gravel, thin root intrusions TP-1/IT-1 1.5 Silty SAND gravel, thin root intrusions, concrete and wood fragments TP-3/IT-3 2.5 SAND with silt and gravel, thin root intrusions, trace organics, glass fragments Outwash Deposits: Outwash soils were encountered at every exploration location besides B-7 and TP-1/IT-1, which were conducted in the north site corner. Such soils were encountered to the terminus of each exploration below fill material where present. The outwash typically consisted of medium dense to dense, moist, brown, sand with varying amounts of silt and gravel. Based on the low fines content of these soils and our in situ infiltration testing, the outwash has a moderate permeability. Glacial Till: Glacial till was only encountered in explorations TP-1/IT-1 and B-7, which were conducted in the northwestern site corner by the existing park sign. Glacial till was encountered below fill material at the exploration locations and extended to the terminus of exploration. The glacial till consisted of medium dense to dense, brownish gray, silty sand with gravel including weak cementation and light soil mottling throughout. Glacial till is located stratigraphically below the outwash sand deposits. Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 5 Groundwater Groundwater was observed while drilling two of the seven borings (B-2 and B-6). We observed groundwater at a depth of about 6.5 feet below existing grades while advancing B-2 and at a depth of about 9 feet below existing grades while advancing B-6. The groundwater was encountered within the relatively permeable outwash soils. Groundwater was not encountered within the lowest elevation boring B-7 where impermeable glacial till soils were encountered. Because the outwash is stratigraphy above the glacial till soils, the groundwater encountered during exploration is interpreted to represent a perched groundwater condition which may be occurring within the permeable sands due to the presence of hydraulically restrictive soils at greater depth. Based on our review of the Department of Ecology’s well report map, it does not appear that active public or private wells are located within one-quarter mile of the property. It should be noted that groundwater conditions will likely vary seasonally and in response to precipitation events, land use, and other factors, and its occurrence will be influenced by the composition and density/consistency of native material, in particular. In general, seasonal high groundwater in western Washington occurs toward the end of the local wet season, typically around the end of May. Groundwater will also be influenced by landscape irrigation which was occurring at the time the field exploration took place. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General Geotechnical Considerations Based on information gathered during the field exploration, laboratory testing, and analysis, we conclude that construction of the proposed improvements is feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided that the recommendations presented herein are followed during design and construction. Selected aspects of the site conditions that should be considered during design and construction are summarized below. • The relatively clean nature of the native outwash sand soils may be considered favorable from the stormwater management perspective in that the soils have a moderate permeability. • Existing grass and sod should be stripped below proposed improvements, as well as loose or unsuitable fills encountered during grading. • It will be feasible to use the native granular outwash soils with a low fines content as structural fill, negating the need to import these materials. Glacial till may be used as structural fill, although the material should be considered highly moisture-sensitive. • Some of the existing fill material and the native glacial till has a relatively high fines content and should be considered highly moisture sensitive. Attempting to grade soils with a high fines content will be difficult, if not impossible, during wet weather. Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 6 Geotechnical engineering recommendations for site grading, drainage, foundations, and other geotechnically-related aspects of the project are presented in the following sections. The recommendations contained in this report are based upon the results of and the field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, review of historical documents, and our current understanding of the proposed project design. ASTM and WSDOT specification codes cited herein refer to the current manual published by the American Society for Testing & Materials and the 2018 edition of the WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction (Publication M41-10). Geologically Hazardous Areas In general accordance with Chapter 4-3-050E.1 of the Renton Municipal Code (RMC), we utilized existing site plans, City maps, and online mapping applications to determine the presence of regulated geologically hazardous areas in the project vicinity. The maps are utilized as a general guide and the actual presence or absence and classification of critical areas on a specified site is determined in the field by qualified consultants. Our conclusions regarding geologically relevant hazardous areas are presented below, with italics indicating code definitions and our response: Steep Slopes Areas The City of Renton characterizes regulated steep slope areas into two categories, sensitive slopes and protected slopes. These categories are defined in the RMC as shown below: • Sensitive Slopes: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by: (a) an average slope of twenty five percent to less than forty percent as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City; (b) an average slope of forty percent or greater with a vertical rise of less than fifteen feet as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City, or; (c) abutting an average slope of twenty five percent to forty percent as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City. This definition excludes engineered retaining walls. • Protected Slopes: A hillside, or portion thereof, characterized by an average slope of forty percent or greater grade and having a minimum vertical rise of fifteen feet as identified in the City of Renton Steep Slope Atlas or in a method approved by the City. Based on our review of City mapping, several areas on the site are mapped as including steep slope areas. In particular, the slope complex south/southwest of the existing playground and east/southeast of the baseball field are mapped as regulated slopes. Based on our review of site topography, the slopes south/southwest of the existing playground area include average slopes of approximately 26 percent with vertical rise up to approximately 14 feet, but the majority of the slope includes 10 feet or less of total vertical rise. As such, the slope complex meets criteria A for sensitive slopes due to including average slopes of 25 percent to less than 40 percent. In accordance with RMC 4-5-050.G.2, sensitive slope do not include mandated buffers and the buffers and setbacks are Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 7 determined based upon the results of a geotechnical report. Proposed improvements near the slope includes a reflexology path offset approximately 15 feet from the top of slope, a concrete pathway extending through the slope complex, two culverts below the proposed concrete pathway or a small pedestrian bridge in lieu of culverts, and retaining walls approximately 2 or less feet in exposed vertical height. The proposed improvements will require removal of grass and sod, limited excavation to establish grades, and shallow fills to establish final grades. Two retaining walls are proposed within the south/southwestern steep slope complex. One retaining wall is proposed north of the existing tennis court, the other retaining wall located north of the hammerhead parking lot adjacent to Jones Avenue South. Both retaining walls are positioned along the downgradient side of the proposed concrete pathway and will likely require shallow cuts followed by backfill behind the walls to establish grades for the concrete pathway. Both walls will be 2 or less feet in exposed vertical height and include some embedment. Two culverts are proposed below the concrete pathway in proximity to the mentioned retaining walls. The culverts are positioned on or near the steep slope complex. The culverts will likely require shallow cuts to prepare subgrade and fills along the exterior to establish final grades for the concrete pathway. If the pedestrian bridge alternative is selected, there will be no culvert installation, just shallow foundations for the bridge. Provided proper erosion control measures are in place during construction along the sensitive slope, it is our opinion that the proposed construction can be undertaken safely without adversely affecting slope stability. In accordance with RMC 4-5-050.F.2, the proposed improvements will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent properties, will not adversely impact other critical areas on the site, and proposed development can be safely accommodated on the site. In accordance with RMC 4-5-050.G.5.g, ZGA anticipates that we will provide on-site inspection during construction on or near the sensitive slope complex. Based on review of site topography, the slope complex east/southeast of the existing baseball field include average slopes of approximately 34 percent with vertical rise up to approximately 16 feet, several isolated areas include slope inclinations up to about 50 percent. As such, the slope complex meets criteria A and C for sensitive slopes due to including average slopes of 25 percent to less than 40 percent, and including limited steeper areas which abut slopes that average between 25 percent and 40 percent. This slope appears to have been created via previous grading, in our opinion. The nearest proposed improvements to the sensitive slope include parking lot pavement repairs in the limits of the northern asphalted parking lot. The proposed work will not disturb any material along the sensitive slope and the sensitive slope area will remain in its existing condition during and after construction. In accordance with RMC 4-5-050.F.2, the proposed improvements will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent properties, will not adversely impact other critical areas, and proposed development can be safely accommodated on the site, in our opinion. Landslide Hazard Areas The City of Renton characterizes landslide hazard areas into four distinct categories, as defined below: Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 8 • Low Landslide Hazard: Areas with slopes less than fifteen percent. • Medium Landslide Hazard: Areas with slopes between fifteen percent and forty percent and underlain by soils that consist largely of sand, gravel or glacial till. • High Landslide Hazards: Areas with slopes greater than forty percent, and areas with slopes between fifteen percent and forty percent and underlain by soils consisting largely of silt and clay. • Very High Landslide Hazards: Areas of known mapped or identified landslide Based on our review of on-line City mapping, the slope complex east/southeast of the southeast portion of the baseball field is mapped as including a landslide hazard. As discussed in the previous section, the slope has average inclinations of approximately 34 percent with a vertical rise up to approximately 16 feet, with isolated areas include inclinations up to about 50 percent. Based on our subsurface exploration and geologic mapping, the area likely includes sand, gravel, or glacial till soils. Therefore, the slopes meet the definition of a medium landslide hazard due to including areas within slopes between 15 and 40 percent which are underlain by soils that consist of sand, gravel, or glacial till. In accordance with RMC 4- 5-050.G.2, medium landslide hazard areas do not include mandated buffers and the buffers and setbacks are provided based upon the results of a geotechnical report. The nearest proposed improvements to the slope include parking lot pavement repairs to the northern parking lot. The proposed work will not disturb the landslide hazard area during construction, and the slope will remain in its current state throughout and following construction. In accordance with RMC 4-5-050.F.2, the proposed improvements will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent properties, will not adversely impact other critical areas, and proposed development can be safely accommodated on the site, in our opinion. Coal Mine Hazard Areas The City of Renton characterizes coal mine hazard areas into three distinct categories, as defined below: • Low Coal Mine Hazards: Areas with no known mine workings and no predicted subsidence. While no mines are known in these areas, undocumented mining is known to have occurred. • Medium Coal Mine Hazards: Areas where mine workings are deeper than two hundred feet for steeply dipping seams, or deeper than fifteen times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by subsidence. • High Coal Mine Hazard: Areas with abandoned and improperly sealed mine openings and areas underlain by mine workings shallower than two hundred feet in depth for steeply dipping seams, or shallower than fifteen times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. These areas may be affected by collapse or other subsidence. Based on our review of City mapping, the entirety of the subject site is mapped within a medium coal mine hazard resulting from historical coal mine activities occurring in historic Renton hill. Based on our review of coal mine mapping of historic Renton Hill, the subject site is located approximately 2,150 feet east of the main coal mine entry near what is now I-405. The main slope extends at an approximate 10- degree slope into Renton Hill. Based on the elevations of the site and the approximate elevation of the Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 9 portal, we estimate that coal mine activities were occurring at depths of approximately 720 feet and greater below the existing ground site surface. As such, the subject site meets the City definition for medium coal mine hazard areas due to including mine workings deeper than fifteen times the thickness of the seam or workings for gently dipping seams. Given the depth of coal mine workings, it is our opinion that the risk of trough subsidence affecting the site is low. Based on our review of LiDAR imagery utilizing the King County online iMap tool, subsidence features such as sinkholes or ground cracking were unidentifiable on the site or surrounding area. Given the minimal extent of site improvements, distance from coal mine workings, lack of evidence for known coal mine workings near surface, and lightly loaded nature of improvements, it is our opinion that mitigation for coal mine hazards is unnecessary. In accordance with RMC 4-5-050.G.2, medium coal mine hazard areas do not include mandated buffers and the buffers and setbacks are provided based upon the results of a geotechnical report. In accordance with RMC 4-5-050.F.2, the proposed improvements will not increase the threat of the geologic hazard to adjacent properties, will not adversely impact other critical areas, and proposed development can be safely accommodated on the site, in our opinion. In accordance with RMC 4-5-050.G.5.i.ii, any coal mine hazards found during any development activities shall be immediately reported and coal mine hazards shall be mitigated prior to recommencing reconstruction. Earthwork The following sections present recommendations for site preparation, subgrade preparation and placement of engineered fills on the project. The recommendations presented in this report for design and construction of foundations and slabs are contingent upon following the recommendations outlined in this section. Earthwork on the project should be observed and evaluated by a ZGA representative. Evaluation of earthwork should include observation and testing of structural fill, subgrade preparation, foundation bearing soils, and subsurface drainage installations. Site Preparation Existing Structure Removal: The site includes a community center and restroom building which will be demolished. We recommend that any existing foundation elements or other below grade structures that may be present be removed from the building footprint. Void spaces remaining from demolition and foundation element removal should be filled in accordance with the recommendations in the Structural Fill Placement and Compaction section of this report. Stripping: In preparation for grading we recommend removal of all existing surficial vegetation (brambles and grasses) from the limits of proposed improvements. Based on our subsurface exploration, we estimate that grass and sod stripping will be limited to approximately three to five inches. Our subsurface exploration did not encounter highly organic topsoil-like material below sod, the likely result of previously Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 10 completed stripping during initial park development. Please note that the depth of surficial organics soils is likely to vary across the site. As part of park improvements, the basketball court will be renovated, and nearby brambles will be removed, and grass sod stripped. As part of our subsurface exploration we performed three hand auger borings to determine stripping depths in the proximity of the basketball court where the scramble is proposed. Based on our subsurface exploration, we estimate that grass and sod stripping in the area will be limited to approximately three to five inches. Subgrades for the new bleachers planned near the basketball court should be verified by a ZGA representative to verify that at least medium dense properly prepared fill or native soil is present. Existing Fill Removal: Site preparation may include selective removal of existing undocumented fill material containing organics or deleterious debris at the proposed retaining walls, plaza, shelter, Portland loo, pedestrian bridge foundations, and walkways. The presence and depth of fill across the site varies from approximately 1.5 to 4.5 feet below existing grades. The fill material typically consisted of loose, moist, brown, silty sand some gravel, with fine organic material, thin roots, and scattered materials such as glass, concrete, and wood fragments. The deepest fills were observed at B-1 and B-4 which disclosed fill to approximately 4.5 feet. B-1 was performed near a proposed culvert in the southern site area directly north of the tennis courts, and B-4 was completed near the proposed plaza. As such, these areas may require the most fill removal if necessary. A ZGA representative should verify the condition of subgrade soils to ensure that at least medium dense properly prepared fill or native soil are present. Variation in the fill depth and composition, and the depth of organics possibly below the fill, should be expected. These materials should be evaluated during construction and removed as necessary under the observation of a ZGA representative. Our representative will identify unsuitable materials that should be removed and those that may be re-used as structural fill. The resultant excavations should be backfilled in accordance with the subsequent recommendations for Structural Fill Placement and Compaction. Specific recommendations regarding removal of existing fill material at foundation and slab locations are provided subsequently in association with foundation design and construction recommendations. Site Preparation Scheduling: We understand that construction is anticipated to begin in 2021. We recommend that site preparation activities take place in the drier summer months if possible. Operating wheeled and tracked equipment when the existing moisture-sensitive surficial soils are wet will result in significant disturbance of the soil and this may require its removal and increase construction costs. Completion of site preparation and grading under dry site and weather conditions will reduce the potential for disturbance of the moisture-sensitive soils and reduce the likelihood of subgrade disturbance and the need to replace disturbed soils with other granular fill material. Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 11 Structural Fill Placement and Compaction Construction of proposed retaining walls, pathways, culverts, and structures will require placing limited structural fills to establish final grades. All fill material should be placed in accordance with the recommendations herein for structural fill. Prior to placement, the surfaces to receive structural fill should be observed by a ZGA representative to verify that at least medium dense properly prepared fill or native soil is present. In the event that soft or loose soils are present at the subgrade elevation, the soils should be compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition and to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) prior to placing structural fill. This may require partial to complete removal of existing material and replacing it as compacted structural fill. In the event that the soil cannot be adequately compacted, they should be removed as necessary and replaced with granular fill material at a moisture content that allows its compaction to the recommended density. The suitability of soil for use as structural fill depends primarily on the gradation and moisture content of the soil when it is placed. As the amount of fines (that soil fraction passing the US No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult, or impossible, to achieve. Generally, soils containing more than about 5 percent fines by weight (based on that soil fraction passing the US No. 4 sieve) cannot be compacted to a firm, non-yielding condition when the moisture content is more than a few percent from optimum. The optimum moisture content is that which yields the greatest soil density under a given compactive effort. Re-use of On-site Soils: Soils expected to be encountered in excavations across the site include native glacial till, outwash, and existing fill material. The materials typically consist of sand with a variable silt and gravel content, with the outwash including the least amount fines and the glacial till including the most. We anticipate that it will be feasible to re-use the outwash with a lower fines content under a relatively wide variety of weather conditions, but use of soils with more than about 5 percent fines will depend on the weather conditions at the time of placement and compaction. The native outwash is well- suited for use as structural fill. Please note that native glacial till and existing fill material may contain a relatively high silt content. Unless grading takes place during relatively dry weathers, using these materials as structural fill could be difficult due to the high fines content and moisture sensitivity. Re-using over- optimum soils during periods of wetter, cooler weather would likely require stabilization with Portland cement. We recommend that site soils used as structural fill have less than 4 percent organics by weight and have no woody debris greater than ½ inch in diameter. We recommend that all pieces of organic material greater than ½ inch in diameter be picked out of the fill before it is compacted. Organic-rich soil derived from earthwork activities should be used in landscaping areas or be wasted from the site. Imported Structural Fill: Imported structural fill may be required due to weather, wet soil conditions, or other reasons. The appropriate type of imported structural fill will depend on the prevailing weather conditions. During extended periods of dry weather when soil moisture can be controlled, we recommend Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 12 that imported fill meet the requirements of Common Borrow, Options 1 or 2, as specified in Section 9- 03.14(3) of the Washington State Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications. During wet weather, higher-quality (lower fines content) structural fill might be required, as Common Borrow may contain sufficient fines to be moisture sensitive. During wet weather we recommend that imported structural fill meet the general requirements of Gravel Borrow as specified in Section 9-03.14(1) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications although we recommend that the fines content be limited to 5 percent based on the soil fraction passing the ¾-inch sieve. Compaction Recommendations: Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to a firm and non-yielding condition using equipment and procedures that will produce the recommended moisture content and densities throughout the fill. Fill lifts should generally not exceed 10 inches in loose thickness, although the nature of the compaction equipment in use and its effectiveness will influence functional fill lift thicknesses. Recommended compaction criteria for structural fill materials, are as follows: Soil Compaction Recommendations Location Minimum Percent Compaction* Below foundations and slabs 95 Under pavements and sidewalks 95 Fill sections of the site 95 Trenches, foundation, slab, and retaining wall backfill 95 All other non-structural areas 90 * ASTM D 1557 Modified Proctor Maximum Dry Density Earthwork may be difficult or impossible during periods of elevated soil moisture and wet weather. If soils are stockpiled for future use and wet weather is anticipated, the stockpile should be protected with plastic sheeting that is securely anchored. Subgrade soils that become disturbed due to elevated moisture conditions should be overexcavated to expose firm, non-yielding, non-organic soils and backfilled with compacted structural fill. We recommend that the earthwork portion of this project be completed during extended periods of dry weather if possible. If earthwork is completed during the wet season (typically November through May) it will be necessary to take extra precautionary measures to protect subgrade soils. Wet season earthwork may require additional mitigative measures beyond that which would be expected during the drier summer and fall months. This could include diversion of surface runoff around exposed soils and draining of ponded water. Once subgrades are established, it will be necessary to protect the exposed subgrade soils from construction traffic during wet weather. Placing quarry spalls or crushed recycled concrete over these areas would further protect the soils from construction traffic. Protection of subgrades should be expected in the portions of the site where native glacial till and existing fill with higher fines content are present at shallow depths. Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 13 If earthwork takes place during freezing conditions, we recommend allowing the exposed subgrade to thaw and then recompacting the subgrade prior to placing subsequent lifts of engineered fill. Frozen soil should not be used as structural fill. Drainage: Positive drainage should be provided during construction and maintained throughout the life of the project. Uncontrolled movement of water into trenches or foundation and slab excavations during construction should be prevented. Final site grades should be sloped to carry surface water away from the building and other drainage-sensitive areas. Additionally, site grades should be designed such that concentrated runoff on softscape surfaces is avoided. Utility Installation Recommendations Below-grade utilities are expected to include conduits and storm drain piping and structures. We recommend that utility trenching conform to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations, such as OSHA and WISHA, for open excavations. The existing native soils in the park footprint are generally expected to be adequate for support of utilities. All trenches should be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of the pipe. If water is encountered in the excavations, it should be removed prior to fill placement. Materials, placement and compaction of utility trench backfill exclusive of CDF should be in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Structural Fill section of this report. In our opinion, the initial lift thickness should not exceed one foot unless recommended by the manufacturer to protect utilities from damage by compacting equipment. Light, hand operated compaction equipment may be utilized directly above utilities if damage resulting from heavier compaction equipment is of concern. Dewatering: Depending upon the time of year that the work takes place and the depth of the utilities, excavations may encounter perched groundwater. The contractor should be prepared to pump water from excavations as necessary to maintain a relatively dry trench condition. We anticipate that the likelihood of encountering water in excavations will be highest in in proximity to the locations of B-2 and B-6, where groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 6.5 feet and 9 feet, respectively, during our subsurface exploration conducted during the dry season. Temporary and Permanent Slopes: We recommend that utility trenching, installation, and backfilling conform to all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations such as WISHA and OSHA regulations for open excavations. In order to maintain the function of any existing utilities that may be located near excavations, we recommend that temporary excavations not encroach upon the bearing splay of existing utilities, foundations, or slabs. The bearing splay of structures and utilities should be considered to begin at the edge of the utility, foundation, or slab and extend downward at a 1H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) slope. If, due to space constraints, an open excavation cannot be completed without encroaching on a utility, we recommend shoring the new utility excavation with a slip box or other suitable means that provide for protection of workers and that maintain excavation sidewall integrity to the depth of the excavation. Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 14 Temporary slope stability is a function of many factors, including the following: • The presence and abundance of groundwater; • The type and density of the various soil strata; • The depth of cut; • Surcharge loadings adjacent to the excavation; • The length of time the excavation remains open. It is exceedingly difficult to pre-establish a safe and “maintenance-free” temporary cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe slope configurations since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and groundwater conditions encountered. It may be necessary to drape temporary slopes with plastic or to otherwise protect the slopes from the elements and minimize sloughing and erosion. We do not recommend vertical slopes or cuts deeper than 4 feet if worker access is necessary. The cuts should be adequately sloped or supported to prevent injury to personnel from local sloughing and spalling. The excavation should conform to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations. Based upon our review of WAC Chapter 296-155-66401 (Appendix A – Soil Classification), we have interpreted the existing fill and outwash soils disclosed by the explorations and likely to be present in most excavations as consistent with the Type C definition. We interpret the native glacial till only encountered in the northwestern site area as consistent with the Type A definition. The contractor should be responsible for determining soil types in all excavations at the time of construction and should be prepared to adequately shore or slope all excavations. Please note that some of the granular soils have a low fines content and that unsupported excavation sidewalls in these soils may slough or cave. We recommend that all permanent cut or fill slopes constructed in native or properly compacted fill soils be designed at a 2H:1V (Horizontal:Vertical) inclination or flatter. All permanent cut and fill slopes should be adequately protected from erosion both temporarily and permanently. Shallow Foundation Design Recommendations and Considerations We anticipate that new structures (shelter, plaza, retaining walls, and pedestrian bridge) may be supported by conventional shallow spread footings. Native granular soils, existing fill soils with no more than about 3 percent organics and lacking deleterious debris that are at least medium dense, and properly compacted structural fill are adequate for support of shallow foundations. Based on conditions observed at the locations of borings completed at or near the proposed shelter and plaza locations, we anticipate that foundation subgrade soils for the shelter will largely consist of dense native sand with a variable silt and gravel content. We anticipate that foundation subgrade soils for the proposed plaza may encounter loose silty sand with a variable gravel content fill soils. B-4 was completed at the proposed plaza location and disclosed approximately 4.5 feet of loose fill soils above dense native Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 15 soil. Boring B-1 was completed near the proposed location of culverts or pedestrian bridge and disclosed approximately 4.5 feet of loose fill soils above dense native soil. In the event that loose fill soils or soils containing organics material or deleterious debris are encountered at foundation subgrade elevation, the excavations should be extended deeper to adequate bearing soils. The footings could bear directly on suitable soils at the lower level, on lean concrete or CDF backfill placed in the excavations, or the footings may bear on properly compacted backfill extending down to the denser soils. Overexcavation of inadequate soils below footings should extend laterally beyond all edges of the footings a distance of 2 feet per 3 feet of overexcavation depth below footing base elevation. The overexcavation should then be backfilled up to the footing base elevation with the excavated material or other granular material placed in lifts of 10 inches or less in loose thickness and compacted to at least 95 percent of the material's modified Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). If excavations are backfilled with lean mix concrete or CDF, we recommend the material have a minimum compressive strength of 125 psi. When using CDF, the overexcavation need only be 1 foot wider than the foundation on all sides. Provided the recommendations in this report are adhered to, we recommend the following criteria for shallow foundations: • Net allowable bearing pressure: 2,500 psf for at least medium dense soils, or 4,000 psf for at least dense native glacial till soils. These values incorporates a factor of safety of 3. A one-third increase may be applied for short-term wind or seismic loading. • Minimum dimensions: 12 inches • Minimum embedment for frost protection: 18 inches • Estimated total settlement: ½ inch • Estimated differential settlement: One half of total settlement • Ultimate passive resistance: 425 pcf. This value assumes that foundations are backfilled with granular backfill compacted to 95 percent density and does not include a factor of safety. Neglect the upper 18 inches of embedment when calculating passive resistance. • Ultimate coefficient of base friction: 0.45 The base of all foundation excavations should be free of water, loose soil, or debris prior to placing concrete and should be compacted as recommended in this report. Concrete should be placed soon after excavating and compaction to reduce bearing soil disturbance. Should the soils at bearing level become excessively dry, disturbed, saturated, or frozen, the affected soil should be removed prior to placing concrete. A 6-inch thick lift of compacted crushed rock or a lean concrete mud mat should be placed over the bearing soils if the excavations must remain open for an extended period of time. It is recommended that a ZGA representative evaluate foundation subgrades prior to placing the crushed rock and prior to form and reinforcing steel placement. Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 16 Slab Base: We anticipate that proposed structures (shelter, plaza, and Portland loo) will incorporate slabs. To provide a uniform slab bearing surface, capillary break, and even working surface, we recommend the on-grade slabs be underlain by a 6-inch thick layer of compacted crushed rock meeting the requirements of Crushed Surfacing Top Course as specified in Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications with the modification that a maximum of 7 percent of the material pass the U.S. No 200 sieve. Vapor Barrier: Where potential slab moisture is a concern or where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, we recommend using a 15-mil, puncture-resistant proprietary product such as Stego Wrap, or an approved equivalent that is classified as a Class A vapor retarder in accordance with ASTM E 1745. Overlap lengths and the appropriate tape used to seal the laps should be in accordance the vapor retarder manufacturer’s recommendations. When conditions warrant the use of a vapor retarder, the slab designer and slab contractor should refer to ACI 302 and ACI 360 for procedures and cautions regarding the use and placement of a vapor retarder/barrier. Retaining Walls Several retaining walls approximately 2.25 feet tall or less in exposed vertical height will be installed along the proposed concrete pathway which will be constructed in the western half of the park. We anticipate that the retaining walls will require cuts of approximately 1 foot to establish the wall subgrade elevation, followed by fills of 3 feet or less for backfill. Additional recommendations for these structures are provided below. Lateral Earth Pressures: The lateral soil pressures acting on backfilled retaining walls will depend on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, and the ability of the wall to yield in response to the earth loads. Yielding walls (i.e. walls that are free to translate or rotate) that are able to displace laterally at least 0.02H, where H is the height of the wall, may be designed for active earth pressures. Non-yielding walls (i.e. walls that are not free to translate or rotate) should be designed for at-rest earth pressures. Non-yielding walls include walls that are braced to another wall or structure, and wall corners. Assuming that walls are backfilled and drained as described in the following paragraphs, we recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf (active earth pressure). Non-yielding walls should be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf (at-rest earth pressure). The above-recommended lateral earth pressures do not include the effects of sloping backfill surfaces. If such conditions exist, we should be consulted to provide revised earth pressure recommendations. Drainage: Backfilled retaining walls must be provided with adequate drainage measures installed to collect and direct subsurface water away from the walls and prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures. All backfilled walls should include a drainage aggregate zone extending one foot from the back of wall to within 6 inches of the top of the wall. The granular backfill should be covered with a geotextile fabric, such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent. Topsoil may be placed above the fabric. The drainage aggregate Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 17 should consist of material meeting the requirements of WSDOT 9-03.12(2) Gravel Backfill for Walls. Footing drains should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40, rigid, perforated PVC pipe placed at the base of the heel of the footing with the perforations facing down. The pipe should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of clean free-draining granular material conforming to WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4), Gravel Backfill for Drains. A non-woven filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent, should envelope the free-draining granular material. At appropriate intervals such that water backup does not occur, the drainpipe should be connected to a tightline system leading to a suitable discharge. Cleanouts should be provided for future maintenance. Alternatively, the walls may be equipped with weepholes. Light Pole Foundations Proposed site improvements include new or replaced light poles, which may include cast-in-place or pre- cast foundations. Vertical and lateral support for pole or post foundations will primarily be obtained primarily from medium dense to dense sandy soils typically encountered within the anticipated embedment depth of the foundations. Drilled shafts may require casing due to the caving of the native soils. If water is present in the bottom of the excavation, we recommend the concrete be tremied to the bottom to displace the water and not dilute the concrete. Light pole foundations supported in the native medium dense soils may be designed for a maximum allowable end bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. This value may be increased by 1/3 to resist short-term transient loads such as wind and seismic loads. An allowable lateral bearing pressure of 2,500 psf may be used for design completed in accordance with procedures described in Chapter 17 of the WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual. If the pole foundations are constructed with permanent casing, we recommend that the annular space between the casing and the native soil be backfilled with CDF unless there is sufficient space to place and compact structural fill around the form. Seismic Design Parameters Category Designation or Value 2012/2015 International Building Code (IBC) 1 Site Class D Ss Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.419g (Site Class B) S1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.53g (Site Class B) SMs Spectral Acceleration for a Short Period 1.419g (Site Class D) SM1 Spectral Acceleration for a 1-Second Period 0.795g (Site Class D) 1. In general accordance with ASCE 7, Table 20.3-1. 2. The 2012/2015 International Building Code, and by reference ASCE 7, considers a site soil profile determination extending a depth of 100 feet for seismic site classification. The current authorized scope did not include the required 100-foot soil profile determination. The explorations advanced Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 18 as part of our evaluation extended to a maximum depth of approximately 11-1/2 feet and this seismic site class definition considers that medium dense to dense and stiff soils as noted on the published geologic mapping exist below the maximum depth of the subsurface exploration. Additional exploration to greater depths could be considered to confirm the conditions below the current depth of exploration, if necessary. Stormwater Infiltration Considerations Field Testing: We performed three Small-Scale Pilot Infiltration Tests in general accordance with the 2016 King County Surface Water Design Manual (2016 Manual). The infiltration tests were completed by methods described in Appendix A. Soils disclosed at the elevations of the field infiltration tests consisted of native glacial till within TP-1/IT-1, and native outwash sand and gravel within TP-2/IT-2 and TP-3/IT-3. Testing data are summarized in the table below. Field Infiltration Testing Summary Infiltration Test Number Approx. Ground Surface Elevation (feet) Approx. Test Depth/Elevation (feet) Observed Unfactored Infiltration Rate (inches/hour) TP-1/IT-1 376 3 / 373 0.0625 TP-2/IT-2 384 4 / 380 21.4 TP-3/IT-3 382 4.5/388.5 1.24 Test IT-1 was completed at the far north end of the site near the park sign. We encountered medium dense to dense silty fine to medium sand with gravel (glacial till) at this location. IT-1 was completed at a depth of approximately 3 feet and we observed a water level drop of only approximately 1/8th inch over two hours and from the practical perspective this area should not be considered suitable for conventional infiltration. Test IT-2 was completed in medium dense granular outwash sands with a relatively low fines content at a depth of approximately 4 feet and was located downslope of the main parking lot accessed from Beacon Way South. We observed an unfactored infiltration rate of 21.4 inches/hour. We observed groundwater at approximately 9 feet while advancing boring B-6 (located adjacent to the infiltration test), so it appears that there should be at least 3 feet of separation between an infiltration BMP 4 to 5 feet deep and the seasonal high groundwater condition. We tested two soil samples from below the infiltration test depth for Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and organic content. Both samples had CEC values exceeding 5 meq/100g and organic matter contents exceeding 1 percent, so the material may be useful in terms of providing some treatment for groundwater protection outside of a groundwater protection area per the 2016 Manual. Test IT-3 was completed in the low area adjacent to Jones Avenue South and east of the intersection with South 9th Street. Boring B-2 disclosed medium dense granular outwash sands with a relatively low fines content, but groundwater was encountered at approximately 6.5 feet while drilling B-2 (located adjacent Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 19 to the infiltration test). Consequently, we completed the infiltration test at a depth of 3 feet. We observed an unfactored infiltration rate of 1.24 inches/hour. Two soil samples from below the infiltration test depth were evaluated for CEC and organic content and offered mixed results. Both samples included CEC values less than 5 meq/100g. However, the organic matter contents exceeded 1 percent. Design Infiltration Rate: The 2016 Manual provides the following methodology for determining a design infiltration rate based on field testing results and site conditions. The equation for determining the design infiltration is shown below: IDesign = IMeasured X FTesting X FGeometry X FPlugging, where: IDesign is the design infiltration rate. IMeasured is the observed field infiltration test rate in inches/hour. FTesting is a factor to account for uncertainties in the field testing methodology. The 2016 Manual calls for using a value of 0.5 for the small-scale Pilot Infiltration Test Method. FGeometry is a factor that accounts for the influence of infiltration feature geometry and the depth to the water table or impervious strata. FGeometry is defined as 4D/W +0.05 where D = the depth from the bottom of the infiltration feature to the maximum wet season groundwater table or nearest impervious strata, whichever is less, and W is the width of the infiltration feature. FGeometry must be between 0.25 and 1.0. FGeometry is a factor that is most applicable to pond-type infiltration features that have a relatively large width, W, relative to D, and is not particularly useful when assessing long and narrow features, such as ditches or swales. We considered an FGeometry value of 1.0 in our analysis. FPlugging accounts for reductions in infiltration rates over the long term due to plugging of the receptor soils. The Manual requires using the following values for FPlugging as a function of soil type: 0.7 for loams and sandy loams, 0.8 for fine sands and loamy sands, 0.9 for medium sands, and 1.0 for coarse sands or cobbles. We considered a value of 0.8 in our analysis based on our laboratory testing of soil samples. Based on the results of our field testing and considering the recommended factors provided in the 2016 Manual, we recommend utilizing a design infiltration rate of 8 inches per hour for infiltration facilities proposed in the location of IT-2 between depths of approximately 4 and 5 feet, and a design infiltration rate of 0.5 inches per hour for infiltration facilities proposed in the location of IT-3 at an approximate depth of 3 feet. We do not recommend utilizing conventional infiltration techniques in the location of IT-1 due to the observed very low infiltration testing results and high fines content of the glacially consolidated soil. USDA Soil Classification: We completed grain size distribution tests per the USDA testing procedure that considers the soil fraction passing the US No. 10 sieve (soil particles less than 2 millimeters) on select samples from borings conducted at the approximate locations of the proposed infiltration facilities. The Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 20 selected samples represent soil grain size distribution at and below proposed infiltration facility locations. The test results are summarized in the table below and grain size distribution curves are presented in Appendix B. Based on USDA sieve methodology, the tested soil samples generally meet the classification of Loamy Sand at the IT-1 location and Sand at the IT-2 and IT-3 locations. Groundwater Considerations: Groundwater was observed while drilling two borings in proximity to the location of proposed infiltration facilities. Boring B-2 was performed near IT-3 and extended to 11.5 feet below grade. We observed groundwater at a depth of about 6.5 feet below existing grade while advancing B-2. Boring B-6 was performed near IT-2 and extended to 11.5 feet below grade. We observed groundwater at a depth of about 9 feet below existing grade while advancing B-6. It should be noted that the site was being actively irrigated at the time we completed our explorations. We did not observe soil coloration mottling in the recovered samples that may suggest a seasonally higher groundwater condition. A better-defined extent of seasonal groundwater fluctuation would require monitoring groundwater conditions over at least one year (this was not included in our approved scope of services). Groundwater was encountered within the relatively permeable outwash soils. Groundwater was not encountered within the lowest elevation boring (B-7) where relatively impermeable glacial till soils were encountered. As such, the groundwater encountered during exploration is interpreted to represent a perched groundwater condition which may be occurring within the permeable outwash soils due to the presence of hydraulically restrictive soils at greater depth. Temporary Sedimentation Facility Considerations: The infiltration rate of the receptor soils will be reduced in the event that fine sediment or organic materials are allowed to accumulate on and within the exposed receptor soils. The use of an infiltration facility as a temporary sedimentation control feature during construction has the potential to substantially alter the infiltration rate of the soils. Use of an infiltration facility as a temporary construction phase sedimentation feature is not recommended. If site conditions are such that this cannot be avoided, it will likely be necessary to excavate the soils below the sedimentation pond bottom that have been contaminated with sediment, organic materials, or other deleterious materials that may reduce the permeability of the granular receptor soils prior to operation of the facility for infiltration purposes. Field testing may be necessary as well in order to verify that the USDA Grain Size Distribution Testing Results Exploration and Sample Percent Passing per US Standard Sieve 20 40 60 100 200 325 B-2, S-2 85 63 45 32 20 11 B-2, S-3 81 44 21 12 8 4 B-2, S-4 97 71 21 7 4 2 B-6, S-2 85 53 37 26 16 9 B-6, S-3 77 46 31 22 13 7 B-6, S-4 88 25 10 5 3 1 B-7, S-3 77 60 45 32 21 13 Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 21 restoration activity has been successful and that the infiltration rate of the receptor soils is consistent with that considered in the analysis. Erosion Control Construction phase erosion control activities are recommended to include measures intended to reduce erosion and subsequent sediment transport. We recommend that the project incorporate the following erosion and sedimentation control measures during construction: • Capturing water from low permeability surfaces and directing it away from bare soil exposures, keeping runoff velocities as low as possible. • Erosion control BMP inspection and maintenance: The contractor should be aware that inspection and maintenance of erosion control BMPs is critical toward their satisfactory performance. Repair and/or replacement of dysfunctional erosion control elements should be anticipated. • Undertake site preparation, excavation, and filling during periods of little or no rainfall. • Cover excavation surfaces with anchored plastic sheeting if surfaces will be left exposed during wet weather. • Minimize extent of exposed soil at one time. • Retain sediment within working areas. • Cover soil stockpiles with anchored plastic sheeting. • Provide an all-weather quarry spall construction site entrance. • Provide for street cleaning on an as-needed basis. • Protect exposed soil surfaces that will be subject to vehicle traffic with crushed rock or crushed recycled concrete to reduce the likelihood of subgrade disturbance and sediment generation during wet weather or wet site conditions. • Install perimeter siltation control fencing on the lower perimeter of work areas. Pavement Asphalt Pavements: The following pavement sections represent our minimum recommendations for an average level of performance during a 20-year design life; therefore, an average level of maintenance will likely be required. A 20-year pavement life typically assumes that an overlay will be placed after about 12 years. Thicker asphalt, base, and subbase courses would offer better long-term performance, but would cost more initially. Conversely, thinner courses would be more susceptible to “alligator” cracking and other failure modes. As such, pavement design can be considered a compromise between a high initial cost and low maintenance costs versus a low initial cost and higher maintenance costs. The native subgrade soils are anticipated to consist primarily of sand with variable silt and gravel content. Based on our experience with similar soils, we have estimated a California Bearing Ration (CBR) value of 15 percent for this project. Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 22 We recommend that the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrades be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Subgrade Preparation section of this report. We recommend that the crushed aggregate base course conform to Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. All base material should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM: D 1557. Asphalt Recommendations: The following asphalt pavement sections have been developed to be placed and compacted in one lift. For light duty pavements (parking stall areas), we recommend 2½ inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of crushed rock base course. For heavy duty pavements (main access roads, truck delivery routes, etc.), we recommend 3½ inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of crushed rock base course. We recommend that the asphalt concrete conform to Section 9-02.1(4) for PG 58-22 or PG 64-22, Performance Graded Asphalt Binder as presented in the WSDOT Standard Specifications. We also recommend that the gradation of the asphalt aggregate conform to the aggregate gradation control points for ½-inch mixes as presented in Section 9-03.8(6), HMA Proportions of Materials. We recommend that asphalt be compacted to a minimum of 92 percent and a maximum of 96 percent of the Rice (theoretical maximum) density. Concrete Pavements: Concrete pavement design recommendations are based on an assumed modulus of rupture of 600 psi and a minimum compressive strength of 4,000 psi for the concrete. For light duty pavements, we recommend 5 inches of concrete over 4 inches of crushed aggregate base. For heavy duty pavements, we recommend 6 inches of concrete over 4 inches of crushed aggregate base. We recommend that concrete pavements be lightly reinforced with 6x6-W2.0xW2.0 welded wire fabric or equivalent to control cracking and have relatively closely spaced control joints on the order of 10 to 15 feet. We further recommend that loading dock and trash enclosure pavements be reinforced with #4 bars at 15 inches on center each direction. CLOSURE The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based, in part, on the explorations completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within the constraints of budget and site access so as to yield the information to formulate our recommendations. Project plans were in the preliminary stage at the time this report was prepared. We therefore recommend we be provided an opportunity to review the final plans and specifications when they become available in order to assess that the recommendations and design considerations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and implemented into the project design. The performance of earthwork, structural fill, foundations, and slabs depends greatly on proper site preparation and construction procedures. We recommend that Zipper Geo Associates, LLC be retained to provide geotechnical engineering services during the earthwork-related construction phases of the project. If variations in subsurface conditions are observed at that time, a qualified geotechnical engineer Philip Arnold Park Improvements Project 2294.01 27 October 2020 Page | 23 could provide additional geotechnical recommendations to the contractor and design team in a timely manner as the project construction progresses. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the City of Renton Parks Department, Hough, Beck, and Baird, Inc. and their agents, for specific application to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excavation support, and dewatering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature, design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless ZGA reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. B-1 B-3 B-2 B-4 B-5 B-7 B-6 TP-3/IT-3 TP-2/IT-2 TP-1/IT-1 HA-1 HA-2 HA-3 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 080 8040 REFERENCE: URBAN DESIGN PLAN AND NOTES PROVIDED BY HBB, DATED AUGUST 17, 2020 FIGURE Job No. Zipper Geo Associates, LLC 19019 36th Ave. W.,Suite E Lynnwood, WA, 98036 SHT. of11 SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN 2294.01OCTOBER 2020 1 Phillip Arnold Park 720 Jones Avenue South Renton, Washington LEGEND BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION HAND AUGER NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION TEST PIT AND INFILTRATION TEST NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES AND LOGS FIELD EXPLORATION AND TESTING PROCEDURES AND LOGS Our field exploration program for this project included completing a visual reconnaissance of the site, advancing seven borings (B-1 through B-7), excavating three test pits and performing three infiltration tests (TP-1/IT-1 through TP-3/IT-3), and completing three hand auger borings (HA-1 through HA-3). The approximate exploration and infiltration test locations are presented on Figure 1, the Site and Exploration Plan. Exploration locations were determined in the field using steel and fiberglass tapes by measuring distances from existing site features shown on a preliminary site plan, dated August 17, 2020, provided by HBB. The ground surface elevation at each exploration location was interpolated from the topography shown on a survey, dated 4 February 2020, prepared by Bush, Roed, & Hitchings, Inc. As such, the exploration and field test locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the measurement method. The following sections describe our procedures associated with the explorations. Descriptive logs of the explorations are enclosed in this appendix. Boring Procedures The borings were advanced using a track-mounted drill rig operated by an independent drilling company working under subcontract to ZGA (Geologic Drill Partners). The borings were advanced using hollow stem auger drilling methods. A geologist from our firm continuously observed the borings, logged the subsurface conditions encountered, and obtained representative soil samples. All samples were stored in moisture-tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further evaluation and testing. Samples were generally obtained by means of the Standard Penetration Test at 2.5-foot to 5-foot intervals throughout the drilling operation. The Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D 1586) procedure consists of driving a standard 2-inch outside diameter steel split spoon sampler 18 inches into the soil with a 140-pound hammer free falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler through each 6-inch interval is recorded, and the total number of blows struck during the final 12 inches is recorded as the Standard Penetration Resistance, or “blow count” (N value). If a total of 50 blows are struck within any 6-inch interval, the driving is stopped and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows for the actual penetration distance. The resulting Standard Penetration Resistance values indicate the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. The enclosed boring logs describe the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each boring, based primarily upon our field classifications. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational, our logs indicate the average contact depth. Where a soil type changed between sample intervals, we inferred the contact depth. Our logs also graphically indicate the blow count, sample type, sample number, and approximate depth of each soil sample obtained from the boring. If groundwater was encountered in a borehole, the approximate groundwater depth and date of observation are depicted on the log. Test Pit Procedures An independent contractor working under subcontract to ZGA (NW Excavating and Trucking, LLC) excavated the test pits through the use of a small tracked excavator. Three geologists from ZGA continuously observed the test pit excavations, logged the subsurface conditions, and obtained representative soil samples. The samples were stored in moisture tight containers and transported to our laboratory for further visual classification and testing. The enclosed test pit logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in each test pit, based primarily on our field classifications and supported by our subsequent laboratory testing. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our logs indicate the average contact depth. We estimated the relative density and consistency of in situ soils by means of the excavation characteristics and by the sidewall stability. Our logs also indicate the approximate depths of any sidewall caving or groundwater seepage observed in the test pits, as well as all sample numbers and sampling locations. Hand Auger Procedures A geologist from our firm advanced a 3.5-inch diameter auger by hand, continuously observing the soil cuttings as they were retrieved. The enclosed hand auger logs indicate the vertical sequence of soils and materials encountered in the explorations, based primarily on our field classifications. Where a soil contact was observed to be gradational or undulating, our log indicates the average contact depth. The hand auger borings were performed near the proposed basketball court renovations and bleachers for the primary purpose of determining stripping depth. Field Infiltration Testing Procedures Three field infiltration tests were completed at the locations of test pits IT-1 through IT-3 on 27 August and 28 August 2020 by ZGA geologists working with a local subcontractor with a small tracked excavator (NW Excavating and Trucking, LLC). Water was sourced from the park’s irrigation system. The approximate infiltration test locations are illustrated on Figure 1. The field infiltration testing procedures were completed in general accordance with the Small-scale Pilot Infiltration Test (PIT) method as described in Reference 6A Infiltration Test Methods in the King County 2016 Surface Water Design Manual (KC Manual). The field infiltration testing procedures are summarized below. Test results are discussed in the report text. The excavator was used to excavate to a depth at or below the invert elevation of proposed infiltration systems. The test excavations typically had minimum dimensions of approximately 4 feet by 3 feet, extending 3 to 4 feet deep. Pea gravel was placed within the test pits to prevent siltation a length of slotted PVC pipe was placed on the excavation bottom, and water was introduced into the slotted PVC pipe by hose. An in-line flow meter and five-gallon buckets allowed measuring the rate at which water was introduced into the excavations as well as the total volume used for each test. Soils were pre-soaked for a minimum of 6 hours on 27 August 2020 and water utilized during the pre-soak was left in the infiltration test pits overnight. Constant head testing was completed for one hour at each infiltration test location on 28 August 2020. Once constant head testing was completed at each infiltration test pit, falling head tests with at least 6-inch water depth were completed. Following completion of the tests, the trackhoe was used to excavate below the test surface in order to observe soil conditions immediately below the test elevation and to determine whether perching layers were present or whether some other condition that could affect the infiltration rate was present. The excavations were then backfilled with bucket-tamped excavation spoils. Borings performed near the infiltration test locations and extended at least 5 feet below proposed infiltration facility bottoms. The borings were performed to verify groundwater and soil conditions below infiltration facility grades, and to minimize the amount of soil disturbance during test pit excavation. ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC 19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Hand Auger Boring HA-1 Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 389 Feet Project: Phillip Arnold Park Project No: 2294.01 Date Excavated: 8/28/20 Depth (ft) Material Description Sample NC %M Testing 1 Approximately 3 inches of grass and sod over loose, moist, brown, silty SAND, some gravel, thin root intrusions Hand auger terminated at approximately 6 inches below existing site grades following verification of sod depth. Groundwater was not observed at time of drilling. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Note: NC is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count per 1.75 inch interval measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC 19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Hand Auger Boring HA-2 Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 390 Feet Project: Phillip Arnold Park Project No: 2294.01 Date Excavated: 8/28/20 Depth (ft) Material Description Sample NC %M Testing 1 Approximately 3 inches of grass and sod over loose, moist, brown, silty SAND, some gravel, thin root intrusions Hand auger terminated at approximately 6 inches below existing site grades following verification of sod depth. Groundwater was not observed at time of drilling. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Note: NC is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count per 1.75 inch interval measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC 19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Hand Auger Boring HA-3 Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 386 Feet Project: Phillip Arnold Park Project No: 2294.01 Date Excavated: 8/28/20 Depth (ft) Material Description Sample NC %M Testing 1 Approximately 5 inches of grass and sod over loose, moist, brown, silty SAND, some gravel, thin root intrusions Hand auger terminated at approximately 6 inches below existing site grades following verification of sod depth. Groundwater was not observed at time of drilling. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Note: NC is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count per 1.75 inch interval measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC 19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Test Pit TP-1/IT-1 Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 376 Feet Project: Phillip Arnold Park Project No: 2294.01 Date Excavated: August 27, 2020 Depth (ft) Material Description Sample NC %M Testing 1 Approximately 4 inches of grass and sod over loose, damp to moist, brown silty SAND with gravel, concrete and wood fragments, thin root intrusions (Fill) Medium dense, moist, brownish gray, silty SAND with gravel, soil mottling, weakly cemented (Loam per USDA) Infiltration test performed at approximately 4.5 feet Test pit completed to approximately 5 feet. No groundwater observed at time of excavation. 2 3 S-1 @ 3 feet 4 S-2 @4.5 feet 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Note: NC is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count per 1.75-inch interval measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC 19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Test Pit TP-2/IT-2 Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 384 Feet Project: Phillip Arnold Park Project No: 2294.01 Date Excavated: August 27, 2020 Depth (ft) Material Description Sample NC %M Testing 1 Approximately 4 inches of grass and sod over loose to medium dense, moist, brown SAND some silt and gravel, thin root intrusions in upper two feet (Loamy Sand per USDA) Infiltration test performed at approximately 4 feet CEC 1-A: 5.4 meq/100g, OM 1-A: 2.0% CEC 1-B: 5.2 meq/100g, OM 1-B: 1.8% Test pit completed to approximately 4.5 feet. No groundwater observed at time of excavation. 2 3 4 S-1 @ 4 feet CEC/OM 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Note: NC is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count per 1.75-inch interval measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC 19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Test Pit TP-3/IT-3 Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 382 Feet Project: Phillip Arnold Park Project No: 2294.01 Date Excavated: August 27, 2020 Depth (ft) Material Description Sample NC %M Testing 1 Approximately 4 inches of grass and sod over loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown SAND with silt and gravel, thin root intrusions, trace organics, glass fragments (Fill) Medium dense, moist, gray, SAND with silt and gravel Infiltration test performed at approximately 3 feet (Loamy Sand per USDA) CEC 1-A: 3.7 meq/100g, OM: 1.3% CEC 1-B: 4.2 meq/100g, OM: 1.5% Test pit completed to approximately 3.5 feet. No groundwater observed at time of excavation. 2 3 S-1 @ 3 feet CEC/OM 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Note: NC is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count per 1.75-inch interval measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES AND RESULTS LABORATORY PROCEDURES AND RESULTS A series of laboratory tests were performed during the course of this study to evaluate the index and geotechnical engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Descriptions of the types of tests performed are given below. Visual Classification Samples recovered from the exploration locations were visually classified in the field during the exploration program. Representative portions of the samples were carefully packaged in moisture tight containers and transported to our laboratory where the field classifications were verified or modified as required. Visual classification was generally done in accordance with ASTM D 2488. Visual soil classification includes evaluation of color, relative moisture content, soil type based upon grain size, and accessory soil types included in the sample. Soil classifications are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Moisture Content Determinations Moisture content determinations were performed on representative samples obtained from the explorations in order to aid in identification and correlation of soil types. The determinations were made in general accordance with the test procedures described in ASTM D 2216. The results are shown on the exploration logs in Appendix A. Grain Size Analysis A grain size analysis indicates the range in diameter of soil particles included in a particular sample. Grain size analyses were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 6913. The results of the grain size determinations for the samples were used in classification of the soils, and are presented in this appendix. Cation Exchange Capacity Selected samples were tested for Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) by a subcontract analytical testing laboratory (AmTest Laboratories of Kirkland, Washington). The tests were completed in general accordance with the EPA Laboratory Method 9081 testing procedure. The test results are presented in this appendix and discussed in the report text. Organic Content Selected samples were tested for Organic Matter testing by a subcontract analytical testing laboratory (AmTest Laboratories of Kirkland, Washington). The organic content of selected samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2974. The results of the tests are discussed in the report text. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Comments: ASTM D 2487 Classification 36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200 Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER Project No.:PROJECT NAME: Philip Arnold ParkDATE OF TESTING: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-2 2.5 4.8 SANDS-2 10.8 2294.01 9/1/2020 ASTM D 422, USDATest Results Summary Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Comments: ASTM D 2487 Classification 36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200 Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER Project No.:PROJECT NAME: Philip Arnold ParkDATE OF TESTING: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-2 5.0 14.8 SANDS-3 3.6 2294.01 9/1/2020 ASTM D 422, USDATest Results Summary Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Comments: ASTM D 2487 Classification 36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200 Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER Project No.:PROJECT NAME: Philip Arnold ParkDATE OF TESTING: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-2 7.5 26.7 SANDS-4 2.0 2294.01 9/1/2020 ASTM D 422, USDATest Results Summary Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Comments: ASTM D 2487 Classification 36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200 Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER Project No.:PROJECT NAME: Philip Arnold ParkDATE OF TESTING: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-6 2.5 7.4 SANDS-2 9.0 2294.01 9/1/2020 ASTM D 422, USDATest Results Summary Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Comments: ASTM D 2487 Classification 36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200 Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER Project No.:PROJECT NAME: Philip Arnold ParkDATE OF TESTING: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-6 5.0 4.4 SANDS-3 7.0 2294.01 9/1/2020 ASTM D 422, USDATest Results Summary Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Comments: ASTM D 2487 Classification 36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200 Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER Project No.:PROJECT NAME: Philip Arnold ParkDATE OF TESTING: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-6 7.5 14.8 SANDS-4 1.4 2294.01 9/1/2020 ASTM D 422, USDATest Results Summary Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.0001000.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS Comments: ASTM D 2487 Classification 36"12"6"3"1 1/2"3/4"3/8"4 10 20 40 60 140 200 Coarse Medium Fine Silt ClayFineCoarse COBBLESBOULDERS GRAVEL SAND FINE GRAINED SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE HYDROMETER Project No.:PROJECT NAME: Philip Arnold ParkDATE OF TESTING: Exploration Sample Depth (feet)Moisture (%)Fines (%)Description B-7 5.0 16.8 Loamy SANDS-3 13.3 2294.01 9/1/2020 ASTM D 422, USDATest Results Summary Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants Am Test Inc. 13600 NE 126TH PL Suite C Kirkland, WA 98034 (425) 885-1664 www.amtestlab.com Professional Analytical Services ANALYSIS REPORT ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC Date Received: 09/01/20 19019 36TH AVENUE W Date Reported: 9/15/20 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 Attention: DAVE WILLIAMS Project Name: PHILIP ARNOLD PARK Project #: 2294.01 All results reported on an as received basis. _________________________________________________________________________________________________ AMTEST Identification Number 20-A013873 Client Identification TP-2, S-1A Sampling Date 08/27/20, 09:15 Conventionals PARAMETER RESULT UNITS Q D.L.METHOD ANALYST DATE Cation Exchange Capacity 5.4 meq/100g 0.5 SW-846 9081 JDR 09/14/20 Miscellaneous PARAMETER RESULT UNITS Q D.L.METHOD ANLST DATE Organic Matter 2.0 %SM 2540G DM 09/08/20 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ AMTEST Identification Number 20-A013874 Client Identification TP-2, S-1B Sampling Date 08/27/20, 09:20 Conventionals PARAMETER RESULT UNITS Q D.L.METHOD ANALYST DATE Cation Exchange Capacity 5.2 meq/100g 0.5 SW-846 9081 JDR 09/14/20 ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC Project Name: PHILIP ARNOLD PARK AmTest ID: 20-A013874 Miscellaneous PARAMETER RESULT UNITS Q D.L.METHOD ANLST DATE Organic Matter 1.8 %SM 2540G DM 09/08/20 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ AMTEST Identification Number 20-A013875 Client Identification TP-3, S-1A Sampling Date 08/27/20, 09:50 Conventionals PARAMETER RESULT UNITS Q D.L.METHOD ANALYST DATE Cation Exchange Capacity 3.7 meq/100g 0.5 SW-846 9081 JDR 09/14/20 Miscellaneous PARAMETER RESULT UNITS Q D.L.METHOD ANLST DATE Organic Matter 1.3 %SM 2540G DM 09/08/20 _________________________________________________________________________________________________ AMTEST Identification Number 20-A013876 Client Identification TP-3, S-1B Sampling Date 08/27/20, 09:50 Conventionals PARAMETER RESULT UNITS Q D.L.METHOD ANALYST DATE Cation Exchange Capacity 4.2 meq/100g 0.5 SW-846 9081 JDR 09/14/20 Miscellaneous PARAMETER RESULT UNITS Q D.L.METHOD ANLST DATE Organic Matter 1.5 %SM 2540G DM 09/08/20 _________________________________ Kathy Fugiel President 19019 - 36th Ave West, Suite E | Lynnwood, WA 98036 | Phone: 425.582.9928 | zippergeo.com 25 May 2021 Project No. 2294.01 Hough Beck & Baird, Inc. 215 Westlake Avenue North Seattle, Washington 98109 Attention: Ms. Rachel Dotson, WRPA, CPSI, Principal Subject: Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations Boardwalk Foundation Support Alternatives Philip Arnold Park Improvements 720 Jones Avenue Renton, Washington Dear Rachel: This letter supplements our geotechnical engineering report, dated 27 October 2020 and our memorandum dated 14 April 2021 for the proposed improvements to Philip Arnold Park in Renton, Washington. Current plans indicate that approximately 140 feet of boardwalk with a maximum height of 4 feet above existing grade will be incorporated into a new pedestrian trial planned for the southwestern portion of the park. The portion of the trail to include the boardwalk will extend from near the northwest corner of the tennis courts northward toward the small parking area adjacent to the Jones Avenue South and South 9th Street intersection as shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. The boardwalk will aid in establishing an ADA-compliant trail through the undulating topography in this portion of the park. This portion of the park has been graded in the past and fill material overlies the native granular recessional kame deposit soils. We understand that the boardwalk will incorporate the PermaTrak system of pre-cast concrete components. We also understand that due to concerns about disturbing tree roots, the use of helical pier foundations are being considered as their installation typically involves less ground disturbance than the use of conventional shallow foundations or cast-in-place reinforced concrete pier foundations. Based upon our recent conversation with a Permatrak representative, the foundations will have a vertical compressive load of 17 kips and a lateral load of 1 kip. Subsurface Conditions Borings B-1, B-2, and hand auger borings HA-4 and HA-5 were advanced along or very near the proposed boardwalk location as illustrated on Figure 1. The explorations disclosed between approximately 1.5 and 4.5 feet of very loose to loose fill material consisting of silty sand with a variable gravel content and Project No. 2294.01 Philip Arnold Park Improvements, Boardwalk Foundation Alternatives 25 May 2021 Page | 2 scattered wood and roots. The fill material was underlain by medium dense silty sand with gravel, characteristic of the outwash kame soils. Groundwater was not observed while advancing the explorations. Helical Anchors It would be feasible from the geotechnical perspective to use helical anchors (or piers) to support the foundations. Helical anchors consist of a high-strength hollow steel shaft to which helixes of varied diameter are attached. The anchors are screwed into the ground until sufficient resistance is provided by the soil to achieve the target axial compressive and uplift capacities. In our analysis we considered the helical anchors manufactured by the AB Chance Company. Helical anchor systems provided by other manufacturers would be acceptable provided that they meet the performance criteria described herein. We recommend using the SS5 shafts in combination with a 6-inch diameter helix at the tip and 14-inch diameter helix located 3 feet above the 6-inch helix at the tip. We recommend installing the anchors using a rotary driver that meets the AB Chance Company criteria for an installation driver by a contractor experienced with helical anchor installation. We recommend installing the anchors to a lower tip depth of approximately 12 feet below the adjacent grade based on conditions observed at borings B-1 and B-2. It should be recognized that actual installed helical anchor depths are likely to vary along the boardwalk alignment. Helical anchors meeting the above criteria are expected to develop an allowable axial compressive capacity of 9 kips. These values incorporate a factor of safety of 2. Consequently, two piers of the above- recommended configuration would be required for each foundation. We recommend that the installation be observed by a ZGA representative. The helical anchors may be installed below the foundations in either a plumb or battered orientation, depending on structural requirements. We recommend considering a batter no steeper than 1H:3V (Horizontal:Vertical). We anticipate that settlement of the boardwalk foundations supported by helical anchors installed as described above will be less than one inch. For verification of installed helical anchor compressive capacities, we recommend the contractor use the “installation torque” method as generally described in helical anchor supplier literature. Based on the equipment used, the contractor should determine the required hydraulic pressure to achieve an installation torque commensurate with the ultimate axial compressive capacity (i.e., the allowable compressive capacity multiplied by 2), or 18 kips for the above-recommended helical configuration. Driven Pin Piles We have included recommendations for the use of driven pin piles as an alternative to helical piers as they would be well-suited for the application and we suspect that they may be less expensive. As with helical piers, the purpose of installing driven pin piles is to transmit the boardwalk loads through load- Project No. 2294.01 Philip Arnold Park Improvements, Boardwalk Foundation Alternatives 25 May 2021 Page | 3 sensitive and compressible soils into underlying denser soils. There is some vibration associated with pin pile installation and the operation is generally quite noisy. Helical pier installation, in contrast, is a relatively quiet operation compared to pin pile installation. Pin piles comprise relatively small diameter steel pipes which are driven into the ground with a pneumatic or hydraulic jackhammer or percussion drivers to a designated “refusal” criterion. Pile lengths of about 5 to 11 feet are commonly used. Successive pile lengths are either compression coupled or welded. Once the piles are installed, they are cut off to a pre-determined elevation, and lengths of reinforcing steel or top plates are generally welded to the top for incorporation into a foundation, or the drive piles are attached to brackets that are attached to existing foundations. Allowable axial compressive loads for commonly used 2-inch, 3-inch, and 4-inch inside-diameter pin piles are listed in the table below along with pertinent hammer and refusal criteria. This axial compressive capacities incorporate a factor of safety of at least 2. As is the case with helical anchors, obstructions within the shallow soils may prevent pile penetration to the necessary depths, and may require relocating some piles or removal of obstructions. A lateral capacity should not be assigned to the plumb piles. Lateral loads should be accommodated by batter piles or some form of tieback anchor. Driven Pin Pile Recommendations Description 2-inch ID Schedule 80 Pin Piles Allowable axial compressive capacity1 6 kips Anticipated settlement <1/2 inch Minimum percussion driver weight (pounds) 90 ”Refusal” 2 Maximum 1 inch penetration over 60 seconds of sustained driving Description 3-inch ID Schedule 40 Pin Piles Allowable axial compressive capacity1 12 kips Anticipated settlement <1/2 inch Minimum percussion driver weight (pounds) 650 ”Refusal” 2 Maximum 1 inch penetration over 15 seconds of sustained driving Project No. 2294.01 Philip Arnold Park Improvements, Boardwalk Foundation Alternatives 25 May 2021 Page | 4 Driven Pin Pile Recommendations Description 4-inch ID Schedule 40 Pin Piles Allowable axial compressive capacity1 20 kips Anticipated settlement <1/2 inch Minimum percussion driver weight (pounds) 850 ”Refusal” 2 Maximum 1 inch penetration over 16 seconds of sustained driving 1. The recommended allowable axial pile capacity incorporates a minimum Factor of Safety of 2. 2. ”Refusal” recommendation is based upon the specific listed minimum driver weight. Heavier drivers will necessitate load testing in order to determine an appropriate refusal time. We recommend that the pin pile foundation underpinning design be prepared by a licensed structural engineer familiar with the use of driven pin piles. We also recommend engaging the services of a contractor experienced with the installation of pin piles. We recommend that a ZGA representative observe the pile installation and refusal criteria achievement. Closure We hope this letter meets you current needs. Please contact us should you have any questions. Respectfully submitted, Zipper Geo Associates, LLC Signed 5.25.21 Signed 5.25.21 Project No. 2294.01 Philip Arnold Park Improvements, Boardwalk Foundation Alternatives 25 May 2021 Page | 5 Attachments: Figure 1 – Site and Exploration Plan (updated) Descriptive logs of borings B-1 and B-2 and hand auger borings HA-4 and HA-5 Distribution: Addressee (1 pdf) Permatrak, Attention: Mr. Kyle Stanton (1 pdf) B-1B-3B-2B-4B-5B-7B-6TP-3/IT-3TP-2/IT-2TP-1/IT-1HA-1HA-2HA-3HA-4HA-5APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET0808040REFERENCE: HARDSCAPE PLAN AND NOTES, DATED OCTOBER 20, 2020, PROVIDED BY HBB.FIGUREJob No.Zipper Geo Associates, LLC19019 36th Ave. W.,Suite ELynnwood, WA, 98036SHT. of11SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN2294.01APRIL 20211Phillip Arnold Park720 Jones Avenue SouthRenton, WashingtonLEGENDBORING NUMBER ANDAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONHAND AUGER NUMBER ANDAPPROXIMATE LOCATIONTEST PIT AND INFILTRATIONTEST NUMBER ANDAPPROXIMATE LOCATION Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.: Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type: Drill Rig:Logged by: Standard Penetration Test Hammer Weight and Drop: SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Screened Casing TESTING KEY Blank Casing GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Project No.: Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits Boring Location:Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (In.)Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION Date Drilled: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information.GroundwaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) B-1 B-1 2294.01BlowcountsPhillip Arnold Park 720 Jones Ave. S. 19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E Lynnwood, WA Renton, WA Page 1 of 1 BORING LOG:TestingPlastic Limit Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or on date of measurement. Natural Water Content 0 20 40 60 24 4 4 10 8 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 See Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan 394 Feet 8/24/2020 Geologic Drill Hollow Stem Auger CAT track 8-inch Cathead 11/2/120 4 33 17 15 BST Approximately 4 inches of grass and sod over loose, damp to moist, brown, silty SAND some gravel, thin root intrusions, grab sample (Fill) Loose, damp to moist, silty SAND some gravel, wood fragments (Fill) Dense, moist, brown, silty SAND with gravel, blowcounts overstated (sampler tip on rock) Medium dense, moist, brown SAND, some gravel, trace silt Medium dense, moist, brown, SAND, trace silt Boring completed at approximately 11.5 feet. No groundwater encountered at time of drilling Drilling Company:Bore Hole Dia.: Top Elevation:Drilling Method:Hammer Type: Drill Rig:Logged by: Standard Penetration Test Hammer Weight and Drop: SAMPLE LEGEND GROUNDWATER LEGEND % Fines (<0.075 mm) 2-inch O.D. split spoon sample Clean Sand % Water (Moisture) Content 3-inch I.D. Shelby tube sample Bentonite Liquid Limit Grout/Concrete Screened Casing TESTING KEY Blank Casing GSA = Grain Size Analysis 200W = 200 Wash Analysis Project No.: Consol. = Consolidation Test Att. = Atterberg Limits Boring Location:Sample Number SAMPLES Recovery (In.)Depth (ft)SOIL DESCRIPTION Date Drilled: The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. The transition may be gradual. Refer to report text and appendices for additional information.GroundwaterPENETRATION RESISTANCE (blows/foot) B-2 B-2 2294.01BlowcountsPhillip Arnold Park 720 Jones Ave. S. 19019 36th Ave. W, Suite E Lynnwood, WA Renton, WA Page 1 of 1 BORING LOG:TestingPlastic Limit Groundwater level at time of drilling (ATD) or on date of measurement. Natural Water Content 0 20 40 60 24 14 8 18 12 S-1 S-2 S-3 S-4 S-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 See Figure 1, Site and Exploration Plan 383 Feet 8/24/2020 Geologic Drill Hollow Stem Auger CAT track 8-inch Cathead 11/2/120 25 10 13 22 GSA GSA GSA BST 8/24/20Approximately 4 inches of grass and sod over loose, damp to moist, brown, silty SAND some gravel, thin root intrusions, grab sample (Fill)Medium dense, moist, brownish gray, SAND some silt and gravel Medium dense, moist to wet, brown, SAND with gravel, some silt Medium dense, saturated, brown, SAND some gravel, trace silt Medium dense, saturated, brown, SAND, trace silt Boring completed at approximately 11.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at approximately 6.5 feet below grades at time of drilling USDA: SAND USDA: SAND ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC 19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Hand Auger Boring HA-4 Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 390 Feet Project: Phillip Arnold Park Project No: 2294.01 Date Excavated: 4/2/21 Depth (ft) Material Description Sample NC %M Testing Moist, dark brown, fine SAND with silt, trace gravel, and trace roots (Topsoil). Moist, brown, fine to medium SAND, some silt, trace gravel, and occasional charcoal and roots (Fill). Moist, olive-gray, medium SAND, some gravel, and trace silt (Qvr). Boring terminated at approximately 4 feet. Groundwater was not observed at time of drilling. 1 S-1 @ 0.5 feet 2 S-2 @ 2 feet 3 4 S-3 @ 3.5 feet 5 6 7 8 9 Note: NC is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count per 1.75 inch interval measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. ZIPPER GEO ASSOCIATES, LLC 19019 36th Avenue West, Suite E, Lynnwood, Washington 98036 Hand Auger Boring HA-5 Location: See Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1 Approx. Ground Surface Elevation: 390 Feet Project: Phillip Arnold Park Project No: 2294.01 Date Excavated: 4/2/21 Depth (ft) Material Description Sample NC %M Testing Moist, dark brown, fine SAND with silt, trace to some gravel, and trace roots (Topsoil). Moist, dark brown, fine to medium SAND, some cobbles, trace silt, and occasional 0.5-inch roots (Fill). Moist, brown, fine to medium SAND, some silt, and trace gravel (Fill). Moist, olive-gray, medium SAND, some gravel, and trace silt (Qvr). Boring terminated at approximately 6 feet. Groundwater was not observed at time of drilling. 1 S-1 @ 0.5 feet 2 S-2 @ 1.5 feet 3 4 S-3 @ 3.5 feet 5 6 S-4 @ 5.5 feet 7 8 9 Note: NC is the Dynamic Cone Penetrometer blow count per 1.75 inch interval measured in accordance with ASTM Special Technical Publication #399. PHILIP ARNOLD PARK APPENDIX C Building Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park 720 Jones Avenue Renton, King, Washington March 18, 2020 Terracon Project No. 81207090 Prepared for: PND Engineers, Inc. Seattle, Washington Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Mountlake Terrace, Washington Terracon Consultants, Inc. 21905 64th Avenue West, Suite 100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 P [425] 771-3304 F [425] 771-3549 terracon.com March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc. 1736 Fourth Avenue S, Suite A Seattle, Washington 98134 Attn: Mr. Chris Fornace Project Manager P: (206) 624.1387 E:cfornace@pndengineers.com Re:Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park 720 Jones Avenue Renton, King, Washington 98239 Terracon Project No. 81207090 Dear Mr. Fornace: The purpose of this report is to present the results of an asbestos and lead-containing paint (LCP) assessment performed on February 17, 2020 at the above referenced building in Renton, Washington. This assessment was conducted in accordance with Terracon proposal P81207090 dated February 11, 2020. We understand that the purpose of this assessment is to assist the Client with identifying asbestos and lead in the building that may require special handling, removal or abatement prior to demolishing. Asbestos was identified in samples collected from the subject building. Lead-containing paint (LCP) was identified in samples collected from the subject building. Please refer to the attached report for details. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If there are any questions regarding this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Terracon Consultants, Inc. Jacob Lindberg Scott Parker Environmental Technician Department Manager for TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Objective ...........................................................................................................1 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................2 3.0 ASBESTOS FIELD ACTIVITIES .......................................................................................2 3.1 Visual Assessment ........................................................................................................2 3.2 Physical Assessment ....................................................................................................2 3.3 Sample Collection .........................................................................................................2 3.4 Sample Analysis ...........................................................................................................3 4.0 ASBESTOS REGULATORY OVERVIEW .........................................................................3 5.0 LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT FIELD ACTIVITIES ..............................................................4 6.0 LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT REGULATORY OVERVIEW ................................................4 7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................5 8.0 GENERAL COMMENTS ..................................................................................................6 APPENDICES APPENDIX A TABLE 1.0: ASBESTOS SURVEY SAMPLE SUMMARY TABLE 2.0: ASBESTOS-CONTAINING MATERIALS TABLE 3.0: LCP SURVEY SAMPLE SUMMARY APPENDIX B ANALYTICAL REPORTS AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY DOCUMENTS APPENDIX C SAMPLE LOCATION PLANS APPENDIX D INSPECTOR CERTIFICATIONS APPENDIX E MATERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 1 ASBESTOS AND LEAD ASSESSMENT REPORT Philip Arnold Park 720 Jones Avenue Renton, Washington 98239 Terracon Project No. 81207090 March 18, 2020 1.0 INTRODUCTION Terracon conducted an asbestos and LCP assessment of the building located at 720 Jones Avenue in Renton, King, Washington. The assessment was conducted on February 17, 2020 by an Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA)-accredited asbestos inspector in general accordance with our proposal dated February 11, 2020. Interior building components in the building (project area) were assessed and homogeneous areas of suspect asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and LCP were visually identified and documented. This assessment included interior, exterior, and roof of the building. Although reasonable effort was made to survey inaccessible suspect materials, additional suspect but unsampled ACM and LCP could be located in walls, in voids, or in other concealed areas. Suspect ACM samples were collected in general accordance with the sampling protocols outlined in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation 40 CFR 763.86 (AHERA). Samples were delivered to an accredited laboratory for analysis by polarized light microscopy (PLM). 1.1 Project Objective The purpose of this assessment was to provide the client with information about suspected ACM and LCP prior to demolition of the building. EPA regulation 40 CFR 61, Subpart M, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), prohibits the release of asbestos fibers to the atmosphere during renovation or demolition activities. The asbestos NESHAP requires that potentially regulated asbestos-containing building materials be identified, classified and quantified prior to planned disturbances or demolition activities. The NESHAP authority for King County is the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA). The Department of Labor and Industries (L&I) enforces the Washington Industrial Safety and Health (WISHA)Standard for Lead in Construction, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296-155-176, which defines the lead exposure limits for all construction workers performing demolition and/or renovation activities. Should lead be detected at any concentration, WAC 296-155-176 provides the appropriate methods of compliance to ensure worker safety from potential lead exposure. The State of Washington Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction (HWTR) Program affects persons who generate, transport, transfer, recycle, treat, store, or dispose of regulated dangerous Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park 720 Jones Avenue ■ Renton, Washington March 18, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 81207090 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 2 wastes, as defined in the Dangerous Waste Regulations (173-303 WAC).Solid wastes, including demolition debris, must be evaluated to determine if the waste designates as lead-containing dangerous waste prior to disposal. 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION The project area consists of one building that is approximately 1,500 sf. The structure is a single- story building with public restrooms and a meeting/storage room. Heating in the building is provided by a central air system heated via a furnace in the storage room. Interior horizontal finishes in the building consist of carpet, vinyl floor tiles, vinyl floor sheeting, ceramic floor tiles, gypsum wallboard, and suspended wood paneling. Interior vertical finishes in the building consist of gypsum wallboard, concrete masonry unit (CMU), and ceramic wall tiles. Exterior finishes consist of CMU and painted wood. Roofing for this structure is asphaltic torch-down roofing. 3.0 ASBESTOS FIELD ACTIVITIES The survey was conducted by Mr. John McCaslin, an AHERA-accredited asbestos inspector.A copy of Mr. McCaslin’s asbestos inspector training certificate is attached as Appendix E. The survey was conducted in general accordance with the sample collection protocols established in EPA regulation 40 CFR 763, the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA). A summary of survey activities is provided below. 3.1 Visual Assessment Assessment activities began with visual observation of the interior project area of the building in order to locate and identify homogeneous areas of suspect ACM. A homogeneous area consists of building materials that appear similar throughout in terms of color and texture. The assessment was conducted throughout visually accessible areas of the building components in the project area. Building materials identified as concrete, fiberglass insulation, plastic, glass, wood, masonry, foam, metal or rubber were not considered suspect ACM. 3.2 Physical Assessment A physical assessment of each homogeneous area of suspect ACM was conducted to assess the friability and condition of the materials. A friable material is defined by the EPA as a material which can be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure when dry. Friability was assessed by physically touching suspect materials. 3.3 Sample Collection Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park 720 Jones Avenue ■ Renton, Washington March 18, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 81207090 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 3 Based on results of the visual observation, bulk samples of suspect ACM were collected in general accordance with AHERA sampling protocols. Random samples of suspect materials were collected in each homogeneous area. The surveyor collected bulk samples using wet methods, as applicable, to reduce the potential for fiber release. Samples were placed in sealable containers and labeled with unique sample numbers using an indelible marker. Terracon collected a total of 27 bulk samples from 10 homogeneous areas of suspect ACM. A summary of all samples collected is included as Appendix A. 3.4 Sample Analysis Bulk ACM samples were submitted under chain of custody to NVL Laboratories of Seattle, Washington for analysis by polarized light microscopy (PLM) with dispersion staining techniques per EPA methodology (600/R-93/116). The percentage of asbestos, where applicable, was determined by microscopic visual estimation or by the more accurate point count method (wall system sample). NVL Laboratories is accredited under the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP Accreditation No. 102063-0). 4.0 ASBESTOS REGULATORY OVERVIEW The NESHAP regulation for asbestos regulates asbestos fiber emissions and asbestos waste disposal practices. It requires the identification of existing asbestos-containing materials (ACM) according to friability prior to demolition or renovation activity. Friable ACM is a material containing more than 1% asbestos that, when dry, may be crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder by hand pressure. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173 400 075 adopts the federal NESHAP rule by reference. In the State of Washington, authority to administer NESHAP requirements is delegated to the regional air pollution authorities (e.g., the local Clean Air Agency or the Washington State Department of Ecology). In King County, the NESHAP requirements are administered by the Puget Sound Clean Air Authority (PSCAA). PSCAA must be notified at least 10 working days prior to the demolition of any structure with a projected roof area greater than 120 square feet, regardless of whether any asbestos was identified. Notification is not required for renovation projects, unless the project involves the disturbance of friable asbestos containing materials. The owner or operator must also provide the Washington State Department of Labor and Industry (L&I) with written notification at least 10 working days prior to the commencement of asbestos removal projects involving at least 10 linear feet or 48 square feet of ACM. Removal of ACM must be conducted by a State of Washington-certified asbestos abatement contractor. Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park 720 Jones Avenue ■ Renton, Washington March 18, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 81207090 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 4 In the State of Washington, worker exposures to asbestos are governed by L&I’s DOSH. The administrative rule WAC 296-62-07705 requires that employee exposure to airborne asbestos fibers be maintained below 0.1 asbestos fibers per cubic centimeter of air (0.1 f/cc) as an eight-hour time weighted average. State of Washington Occupational Safety and Health rules also classify construction and maintenance activities which could disturb ACM and specify work practices and precautions which employers must follow when their employees engage in each class of regulated work. 5.0 LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT FIELD ACTIVITIES In conjunction with the asbestos assessment Terracon personnel visually assessed the interior and exterior portions of the building and performed LCP sampling that consisted of collecting 6 paint chip samples from various painted components. All lead samples were submitted under chain of custody to NVL Laboratories in Seattle, Washington. The LCP samples were analyzed by flame atomic absorption spectrometry per EPA 7000B. 6.0 LEAD-CONTAINING PAINT REGULATORY OVERVIEW Lead is regulated by the EPA, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology), the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and WISHA (enforced by L&I). The EPA regulates lead use, while both the EPA and Ecology regulate removal, and disposal. OSHA and WISHA both regulate lead exposure to workers. For the purpose of the OSHA lead standard, lead includes metallic lead, all inorganic lead compounds, and organic lead soaps. A synopsis of the OSHA regulations (29 CFR 1926.62) and the applicability are as follows: §The OSHA Lead Standard for Construction (29 CFR 1926.62) applies to all construction work where an employee may be occupationally exposed to lead. All work related to construction, alteration, or repair (including painting and decorating) is included. The lead- in-construction standard applies to any detectable concentration of lead in paint, as even small concentrations of lead can result in unacceptable employee exposures depending upon on the method of removal and other workplace conditions. Similar to the OSHA standard, the WISHA Construction Safety requirements for lead, states that if lead is present in the workplace in any detectable quantity WISHA requires that demolition activities be conducted in accordance with the worker protection requirements of WAC 296-155- 176,Lead. In accordance with Ecology’s Dangerous Waste Regulations, solid wastes must be designated to see if they are dangerous wastes before disposal unless they are exempted or removed from the Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park 720 Jones Avenue ■ Renton, Washington March 18, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 81207090 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 5 dangerous waste regulations. If any of the samples are reported with leachable lead concentration of 5.0 mg/L or more, then the waste must be classified and disposed of as dangerous waste. 7.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Asbestos Asbestos was identified in samples collected from the subject building. Appendix A identifies the homogeneous areas sampled, sample identification numbers, material descriptions, and analytical results. Laboratory analytical reports and chains of custody are included in Appendix B. In addition, Appendix C contains sample location plans and Appendix D contains inspector certifications. This assessment was conducted for the purpose of evaluating interior of buildings involved in commercial real estate transactions, including, but not limited to, acquisitions, sales, leasing and financing. If activities are planned that may disturb ACM or suspect ACM (including maintenance, repair, renovation and demolition), the owner must conduct a more comprehensive assessment. Lead-Containing Paint Based on a review of the analytical results, the paint on 2of the 6 sampled components were identified to contain detectable concentrations of lead. Table 3.0 in Appendix A identifies the color sampled, substrate, building component, sample identification numbers, location, and analytical results. Laboratory analytical reports and chains of custody are included in Appendix B. In addition, Appendix C contains the sample location plans. This LCP survey was limited to readily observable and accessible surfaces. Terracon cannot guarantee a building or property to be LCP free as the possibility exists that LCP coated surfaces may be hidden from sight or in inaccessible locations, or the homogeneous construction areas identified may not be truly homogeneous. This LCP survey is not considered to be comprehensive in nature, and the results are not intended to be used to determine lead hazards, develop abatement plans, or prepare detailed cost estimates for abatement. Removal of LCP is not required prior to demolition. However, Terracon recommends that the results of this sampling be provided to contractors, who should subsequently be responsible for determining and controlling lead hazards. Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park 720 Jones Avenue ■ Renton, Washington March 18, 2020 ■ Terracon Project No. 81207090 Responsive ■Resourceful ■Reliable 6 In accordance with Ecology’s Dangerous Waste Regulations, solid wastes must be designated to see if they are dangerous wastes before disposal unless they are exempted or removed from the dangerous waste regulations. Therefore, Terracon recommends that representative samples of the building demolition waste stream be tested through laboratory analyses in order to determine if the waste is hazardous. Specifically, toxicity characteristics leaching procedure (TCLP) sampling should be performed and samples analyzed for leachable lead. If the samples are reported with a leachable lead concentration of 5.0 mg/L or more, then the waste must be classified and disposed of as hazardous waste. 8.0 GENERAL COMMENTS This asbestos and LCP assessment was conducted in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions in the same locale. The results, findings, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this report are based on conditions observed during our survey of the building. The information contained in this report is relevant to the date on which this survey was performed and should not be relied upon to represent conditions at a later date. This report has been prepared on behalf of and exclusively for use by PND Engineers, Inc. for specific application to their project as discussed. This report is not a bidding document. Contractors or consultants reviewing this report must draw their own conclusions regarding further investigation or remediation deemed necessary. Terracon does not warrant the work of regulatory agencies, laboratories or other third parties supplying information which may have been used in the preparation of this report. No warranty, express or implied is made. APPENDIX A TABLE 1.0 – ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT SAMPLE SUMMARY 720 Jones Avenue Renton, Washington 98239 HOMOGENEOUS AREA SAMPLE NO.DESCRIPTION MATERIAL LOCATION 1 01A Gypsum wall board (ND) with joint compound (2% Chrysotile) Joint compound positive result form HA2 Interior walls and restroom ceilings 01B 01C 01D 01E 2 02A 6” black rubber cove base (ND) and white mastic (ND) with brown residual mastic (ND) and residual joint compound (2% Chrysotile). Joint compound same as HA 1 Base of interior walls throughout02B 02C 3 03A Residual black asphaltic mastic (4% Chrysotile) below tan mastic (ND) under carpet squares Main Room Office03B 03C 4 04A Black vinyl floor sheeting (ND) and fibrous backing (ND) with leveling compound (ND) and residual black mastic (4% Chrysotile) South end of main room04B 04C 5 05A Black sink undercoat (ND) with yellow mastic (ND)South end of main room 6 06A White ceramic tile and white mastic with residual tan mastic and white grout and residual joint compound Restroom walls06B 7 07A White ceramic tile and white mastic with residual tan mastic and white grout and residual joint compound Restroom floors07B 8 08A Cement masonry units and grey mortar Exterior walls08B 08C 9 09A White sealant with residual cement granules Exterior restroom doors09B 10 10A Black asphaltic fibrous built up roofing with granules and wood flakes Throughout roof10B 10C 11 ASSUMED Asphaltic sealant at roof penetrations Throughout roof APPENDIX A TABLE 2.0 – ASBESTOS-CONTAINING-MATERIALS 720 Jones Avenue Renton, Washington 98239 SAMPLE NO.DESCRIPTION MATERIAL LOCATION PERCENT/ TYPE ASBESTOS FRIABILITY CONDITION EST QUANTITY 01A 01B 01C 01D 01E Gypsum wall board with joint compound Interior walls and restroom ceilings Gypsum wall board: ND with joint compound (2% Chrysotile) Friable Intact 2,000 SF 02A 02B 02C 6” black rubber cove base and white mastic with brown residual mastic and residual joint compound Base of interior walls throughout Cove base: ND White Mastic: ND Brown Mastic: ND Residual Joint Compound: 2% Chrysotile Non-Friable Intact 200 LF 03A 03B 03C Tan mastic beneath carpet tiles with residual black asphaltic mastic Main Room Office Tan Mastic: ND Black Mastic: 4% Chrysotile Non-Friable Intact 740 SF 04A 04B 04C Black vinyl floor sheeting and fibrous backing with leveling compound and residual black mastic In places in main room Vinyl: ND Fiber Backing: ND Compound: ND Black Mastic: 4% Chrysotile Non-Friable Intact 110 SF ASSUMED Asphaltic sealant at roof penetrations Roof Penetrations ASSUMED Non-Friable Good 10 SF ND – non-detect, LF – Linear Feet, SF – Square Feet, APPENDIX A TABLE 3.0 – LCP ASSESSMENT SAMPLE SUMMARY 720 Jones Avenue Renton, Washington 98239 SAMPLE NO.DESCRIPTION PAINT LOCATION RESULTS (PPM) Pb-01 White paint on gypsum wall board Interior walls throughout office <0.0061 Pb-02 Yellow paint on wood Interior doors and frames throughout office <0.012 Pb-03 Brown paint on metal Interior doors and frames throughout main room <0.0085 Pb-04 Yellow paint on metal Exterior doors and frames throughout <0.0054 Pb-05 Grey paint on cement masonry units Exterior walls throughout 0.015 Pb-06 Yellow paint on wood Exterior trim throughout 0.053 <: below reporting limit APPENDIX B ANALYTICAL REPORTS AND CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY DOCUMENTS Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor Client Project: 81207090 Location: Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Dear Mr. Parker, Enclosed please find test results for the 27 sample(s)submitted to our laboratory for analysis on 2/17/2020. Examination of these samples was conducted for the presence of identifiable asbestos fibers using polarized light microscopy (PLM)with dispersion staining in accordance with both EPA 600/M4-82-020, Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples and EPA 600/R-93/116 Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Building Materials. For samples containing more than one separable layer of materials,the report will include findings for each layer (labeled Layer 1 and Layer 2,etc.for each individual layer).The asbestos concentration in the sample is determined by calibrated visual estimation. For those samples with asbestos concentrations between 1 and 10 percent based on visual estimation, the EPA recommends a procedure known as point counting (NESHAPS,40 CFR Part 61).Point counting is a statistically more accurate means of quantification for samples with low concentrations of asbestos. The detection limit for the calibrated visual estimation is <1%,400 point counts is 0.25%and 1000 point counts is 0.1% Samples are archived for two weeks following analysis.Samples that are not retrieved by the client are discarded after two weeks. Thank you for using our laboratory services.Please do not hesitate to call if there is anything further we can assist you with. Sincerely, Enc.: Sample Results February 24, 2020 Scott Parker Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 RE: Bulk Asbestos Fiber Analysis; NVL Batch # 2003553.00 page 1 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 20033147Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 01A Layer 1 of 2 Description:White compacted powdery material with white paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous binder, Calcareous particles, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Perlite Layer 2 of 2 Description:White compacted powdery material with white paper Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous binder, Calcareous particles, Paint 20%Cellulose None Detected ND Perlite 20033148Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 01B Layer 1 of 3 Description:White thin compacted powdery material with white paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous binder, Calcareous particles, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Perlite Layer 2 of 3 Description:White thin fibrous material with light gray mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine particles, Mastic/Binder 35%Glass fibers None Detected ND 3%Wollastonite Layer 3 of 3 Description:Off-white chalky material with paper Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Gypsum/Binder 2%Glass fibers None Detected ND Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 2 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 20033149Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 01C Layer 1 of 3 Description:White thin compacted powdery material with white paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous binder, Calcareous particles, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Perlite Layer 2 of 3 Description:White thin fibrous material with light gray mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine particles, Mastic/Binder 28%Glass fibers None Detected ND 3%Wollastonite Layer 3 of 3 Description:Off-white chalky material with paper Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Gypsum/Binder 2%Glass fibers None Detected ND 20033150Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 01D Layer 1 of 2 Description:Beige thin fibrous material with cream paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Paint 17%Cellulose None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description:Off-white chalky material with paper Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Gypsum/Binder 25%Cellulose None Detected ND 20033151Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 01E Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 3 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Layer 1 of 4 Description:White compacted powdery material with multi-colored paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Calcareous particles, Fine particles NDNone Detected None Detected ND Mica, Paint Layer 2 of 4 Description:White thin compacted powdery material with white paper Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine particles, Mica 19%Cellulose None Detected ND Layer 3 of 4 Description:Beige thin fibrous material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler 16%Cellulose None Detected ND Layer 4 of 4 Description:Off-white chalky material with paper Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Gypsum/Binder 26%Cellulose None Detected ND 20033152Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 02A Layer 1 of 4 Description:Black rubbery material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Rubber/Binder <1%Spider silk None Detected ND Layer 2 of 4 Description:Cream soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Mastic/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 3 of 4 Description:Brown brittle mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Mastic/Binder 2%Wollastonite None Detected ND Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 4 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Layer 4 of 4 Description:White compacted powdery material with paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Calcareous particles, Fine particles <1%Cellulose Chrysotile 2% Mica, Paint 20033153Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 02B Layer 1 of 3 Description:Black rubbery material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Rubber/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 2 of 3 Description:Off-white soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Mastic/Binder, Starch grains NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 3 of 3 Description:Brown brittle mastic with white paint and trace debris Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Debris, Fine particles, Insect parts 2%Wollastonite None Detected ND Mastic/Binder, Paint <1%Spider silk 20033154Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 02C Layer 1 of 2 Description:Black rubbery material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Rubber/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description:Cream soft mastic with trace debris Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Debris, Fine particles, Insect parts <1%Spider silk None Detected ND Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 5 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Starch grains, Mastic/Binder <1%Wood fibers 20033155Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 03A Layer 1 of 2 Description:Tan thin soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Mastic/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description:Black asphaltic mastic with trace thin compacted powdery material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Calcareous particles, Fine particles 2%Cellulose Chrysotile 4% 20033156Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 03B Layer 1 of 2 Description:Gray crumbly material with tan soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Calcareous particles, Mastic/Binder 5%Cellulose None Detected ND 3%Synthetic fibers Layer 2 of 2 Description:Black asphaltic mastic with trace thin compacted powdery Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Calcareous particles, Fine particles 2%Cellulose Chrysotile 4% 20033157Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 03C Layer 1 of 2 Description:Tan soft mastic with trace white powdery material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Mastic/Binder 2%Synthetic fibers None Detected ND Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 6 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Layer 2 of 2 Description:Black asphaltic mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Calcareous particles, Fine particles 2%Cellulose Chrysotile 3% 20033158Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 04A Layer 1 of 4 Description:Black/gray linoleum Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Adhesive/Binder, Calcareous particles, Linoleum/Binder 12%Wood fibers None Detected ND Layer 2 of 4 Description:Tan woven fibrous mesh with yellow mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mastic/Binder 29%Wood fibers None Detected ND Layer 3 of 4 Description:Gray crumbly material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous binder, Calcareous particles 8%Cellulose None Detected ND Layer 4 of 4 Description:Black asphaltic mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder 2%Cellulose Chrysotile 4% 20033159Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 04B Layer 1 of 4 Description:Black/gray linoleum Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Adhesive/Binder, Calcareous particles, Linoleum/Binder 13%Wood fibers None Detected ND Layer 2 of 4 Description:Tan woven fibrous mesh with yellow mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mastic/Binder 25%Wood fibers None Detected ND Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 7 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Layer 3 of 4 Description:Gray crumbly material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous binder, Calcareous particles 6%Cellulose None Detected ND Layer 4 of 4 Description:Black asphaltic mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder 2%Cellulose Chrysotile 4% 20033160Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 04C Layer 1 of 4 Description:Black/gray linoleum Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Adhesive/Binder, Calcareous particles, Linoleum/Binder 13%Wood fibers None Detected ND Layer 2 of 4 Description:Tan woven fibrous mesh with yellow mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mastic/Binder 25%Wood fibers None Detected ND Layer 3 of 4 Description:Gray crumbly material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous binder, Calcareous particles 4%Cellulose None Detected ND Layer 4 of 4 Description:Black asphaltic mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder 2%Cellulose Chrysotile 3% 20033161Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 05A Layer 1 of 2 Description:Black asphaltic mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Calcareous particles, Fine particles <1%Wood fibers None Detected ND Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 8 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Insect parts Layer 2 of 2 Description:Trace thin yellow soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Mastic/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND 20033162Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 06A Layer 1 of 5 Description:Off-white ceramic tile Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Ceramic/Binder, Quartz NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 2 of 5 Description:Cream soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Mastic/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 3 of 5 Description:Tan/gray brittle/soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Mastic/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 4 of 5 Description:White brittle material with paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 5 of 5 Description:White thin compacted powdery material with paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous binder, Calcareous particles, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Perlite 20033163Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 06B Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 9 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Layer 1 of 4 Description:Off-white ceramic tile Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Ceramic/Binder, Quartz NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 2 of 4 Description:Cream soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Mastic/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 3 of 4 Description:Tan brittle/soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Calcareous particles, Mastic/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 4 of 4 Description:White brittle material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine particles, Mineral grains NDNone Detected None Detected ND 20033164Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 07A Layer 1 of 4 Description:Gary ceramic tile Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Ceramic/Binder, Quartz NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 2 of 4 Description:Tan soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Mastic/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 3 of 4 Description:Gray crumbly material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Calcareous particles 3%Cellulose None Detected ND Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 10 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Layer 4 of 4 Description:White/gray brittle material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine particles, Mineral grains NDNone Detected None Detected ND 20033165Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Comments:Qualitative analysis was conducted for the presence of asbestos fibers in layer 5 of this sample. 07B Layer 1 of 5 Description:Gary ceramic tile Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Ceramic/Binder, Quartz NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 2 of 5 Description:Tan soft mastic Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Fine particles, Mastic/Binder NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 3 of 5 Description:Gray crumbly material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Calcareous particles 3%Cellulose None Detected ND Layer 4 of 5 Description:White/gray brittle material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine particles, Mineral grains NDNone Detected None Detected ND Sand Layer 5 of 5 Description:Beige brittle material with trace debris Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Debris, Fine particles Cellulose None Detected ND Insect parts, Mineral grains, Sand Synthetic fibers Wood flakes Spider silk Wood fibers Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 11 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 20033166Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 08A Layer 1 of 2 Description:Brown crunchy/brittle material with gray paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine grains, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description:Gray sandy/brittle material with gray paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Sand 20033167Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 08B Layer 1 of 2 Description:Brown crunchy/brittle material with gray paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine grains, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Layer 2 of 2 Description:Gray sandy/brittle material with gray paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Sand 20033168Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 08C Layer 1 of 2 Description:Brown crunchy/brittle material with gray paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine grains, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Organic/binder Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 12 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Layer 2 of 2 Description:Gray sandy/brittle material with gray paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Paint NDNone Detected None Detected ND Sand 20033169Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 09A Layer 1 of 2 Description:White soft material with gray paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Calcareous particles, Fine particles NDNone Detected None Detected ND Paint Layer 2 of 2 Description:Trace off-white sandy material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Sand NDNone Detected None Detected ND 20033170Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 09B Layer 1 of 3 Description:White soft material with gray paint Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Calcareous particles, Fine particles NDNone Detected None Detected ND Paint Layer 2 of 3 Description:Trace brown brittle material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Fine particles, Fine grains NDNone Detected None Detected ND Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 13 of 18 <Client: Address: Attention:Mr. Scott Parker Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building Client Project #: 81207090 Samples Received: 27 By Polarized Light Microscopy Bulk Asbestos Fibers Analysis Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Method: EPA/600/R-93/116 & EPA/600/M4-82-020 Samples Analyzed: 27 Project Location: Batch #: 2003553.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Layer 3 of 3 Description:Trace off-white sandy material Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Binder/Filler, Mineral grains, Sand NDNone Detected None Detected ND 20033171Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 10A Layer 1 of 1 Description:Black asphaltic fibrous built-up material with granules with wood flakes Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Calcareous particles, Wood flakes 28%Glass fibers None Detected ND 20033172Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 10B Layer 1 of 1 Description:Black asphaltic fibrous built-up material with granules with wood flakes Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Calcareous particles, Wood flakes 30%Glass fibers None Detected ND 20033173Lab ID:Client Sample #: Location:Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 10C Layer 1 of 1 Description:Black asphaltic fibrous built-up material with granules with wood flakes Non-Fibrous Materials:Other Fibrous Materials:%Asbestos Type: % Asphalt/Binder, Calcareous particles, Wood flakes 28%Glass fibers None Detected ND Note:If samples are not homogeneous,then subsamples of the components were analyzed separately.All bulk samples are analyzed using both EPA 600/R-93/116 and 600/M4-82-020 Methods with the following measurement uncertainties for the reported %Asbestos (1%=0-3%,5%=1-9%,10%=5-15%, 20%=10-30%,50%=40-60%).This report relates only to the items tested.If sample was not collected by NVL personnel,then the accuracy of the results is limited by the methodology and acuity of the sample collector.This report shall not be reproduced except in full,without written approval of NVL Laboratories, Inc. It shall not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or any other agency of the US Government Client Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by: Matt MacfarlaneReviewed by: 02/24/2020 Date: 02/24/2020Date: Sampled by: Matt Macfarlane, Asbestos Lab Supervisor ASB-02 page 14 of 18 Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 2003553.00 27 Company NVL Batch Number Total Number of Samples Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 5 DaysTAT 2/24/2020Due Date 2:40 PMTime (425) 771-3549Fax scott.parker@terracon.comEmail Project Manager Mr. Scott Parker (425) 771-3304 (206) 714-7152Cell Phone Rush Samples Rush TAT NoAH 81207090Project Name/Number:Project Location: Sample ID Description A/RLab ID ASBESTOS LABORATORY SERVICES Subcategory Item Code PLM Bulk Metals ASB-02 EPA 600/R-93-116 Asbestos by PLM <bulk> 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Address 01A1 A20033147 01B2 A20033148 01C3 A20033149 01D4 A20033150 01E5 A20033151 02A6 A20033152 02B7 A20033153 02C8 A20033154 03A9 A20033155 03B10 A20033156 03C11 A20033157 04A12 A20033158 04B13 A20033159 04C14 A20033160 05A15 A20033161 06A16 A20033162 06B17 A20033163 07A18 A20033164 Office Use Only Print Name Company Date TimeSignature Faxed Emailed Company Date TimeSignature ClientSampled by Emily SchubertReceived by ClientRelinquished by Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by Results Called by NVL NVL 2/17/20 2/24/20 1440 Print Name Entered By: Kelly AuVu Date: 2/17/2020 Time: 4:02 PM Special Instructions: page 15 of 18 Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 2003553.00 27 Company NVL Batch Number Total Number of Samples Philip Arnold Park - Restroom Building 5 DaysTAT 2/24/2020Due Date 2:40 PMTime (425) 771-3549Fax scott.parker@terracon.comEmail Project Manager Mr. Scott Parker (425) 771-3304 (206) 714-7152Cell Phone Rush Samples Rush TAT NoAH 81207090Project Name/Number:Project Location: Sample ID Description A/RLab ID ASBESTOS LABORATORY SERVICES Subcategory Item Code PLM Bulk Metals ASB-02 EPA 600/R-93-116 Asbestos by PLM <bulk> 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Address 07B19 A20033165 08A20 A20033166 08B21 A20033167 08C22 A20033168 09A23 A20033169 09B24 A20033170 10A25 A20033171 10B26 A20033172 10C27 A20033173 Office Use Only Print Name Company Date TimeSignature Faxed Emailed Company Date TimeSignature ClientSampled by Emily SchubertReceived by ClientRelinquished by Alla PrysyazhnyukAnalyzed by Results Called by NVL NVL 2/17/20 2/24/20 1440 Print Name Entered By: Kelly AuVu Date: 2/17/2020 Time: 4:02 PM Special Instructions: page 16 of 18 page 17 of 18 page 18 of 18 Sincerely, Shalini Patel, Lab Supervisor RE:Total Metal Analysis Method: EPA 7000B Lead by FAA <paint> Item Code: FAA-02 February 18, 2020 Terracon - Mountlake Terrace Scott Parker 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Enc.: Sample results NVL Batch # 2003554.00 Client Project: 81207090 Location: Philip Arnold Park Dear Mr. Parker, NVL Labs received 6 sample(s) for the said project on 2/17/2020. Preparation of these samples was conducted following protocol outlined in EPA 3051/7000B , unless stated otherwise. Analysis of these samples was performed using analytical instruments in accordance with EPA 7000B Lead by FAA <paint>. The results are usually expressed in mg/Kg and percentage (%). Test results are not blank corrected. For recent regulation updates pertaining to current regulatory levels or permissible exposure levels, please call your local regulatory agencies for more detail. At NVL Labs all analyses are performed under strict guidelines of the Quality Assurance Program. This report is considered highly confidential and will not be released without your approval. Samples are archived after two weeks from the analysis date. Please feel free to contact us at 206-547-0100, in case you have any questions or concerns. page 1 of 4 Analysis Report Total Lead (Pb) Philip Arnold Park Terracon - Mountlake TerraceClient: 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Mr. Scott ParkerAttention: Address: Project Location:Samples Received: 6 Samples Analyzed: 6 Client Project #: 81207090 Batch #: 2003554.00 Date Received: 2/17/2020 Lab ID Client Sample # Sample Weight (g) Results in mg/Kg Results in percent RL in mg/Kg Matrix: Paint Method: EPA 3051/7000B 20033174 Pb-01 0.1641 61 <61 0.0061< 20033175 Pb-02 0.0425 120 <120 0.012< 20033176 Pb-03 0.1174 85 <85 0.0085< 20033177 Pb-04 0.1854 54 <54 0.0054< 20033178 Pb-05 0.1210 83 150 0.015 20033179 Pb-06 0.1973 51 530 0.053 FAA-02 ClientSampled by: Yasuyuki HidaAnalyzed by: Shalini PatelReviewed by: 02/18/2020Date Analyzed: 02/18/2020Date Issued: Small sample size (<0.05g) for Pb-02.Comments: Bench Run No:2020-0218-3 mg/ Kg =Milligrams per kilogram RL = Reporting Limit Percent = Milligrams per kilogram / 10000 '<' = Below the reporting Limit Note : Method QC results are acceptable unless stated otherwise. Unless otherwise indicated, the condition of all samples was acceptable at time of receipt. Shalini Patel, Lab Supervisor page 2 of 4 Terracon - Mountlake Terrace 2003554.00 6 Company NVL Batch Number Total Number of Samples Philip Arnold Park 5 DaysTAT 2/24/2020Due Date 2:40 PMTime (425) 771-3549Fax scott.parker@terracon.comEmail Project Manager Mr. Scott Parker (425) 771-3304 (206) 714-7152Cell Phone Rush Samples Rush TAT NoAH 81207090Project Name/Number:Project Location: Sample ID Description A/RLab ID LEAD LABORATORY SERVICES Subcategory Item Code Flame AA (FAA) Metals FAA-02 EPA 7000B Lead by FAA <paint> 21905 64th Ave. W #100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 Address Pb-011 A20033174 Pb-022 A20033175 Pb-033 A20033176 Pb-044 A20033177 Pb-055 A20033178 Pb-066 A20033179 Office Use Only Print Name Company Date TimeSignature Faxed Emailed Company Date TimeSignature ClientSampled by Emily SchubertReceived by ClientRelinquished by Yasuyuki HidaAnalyzed by Results Called by NVL NVL 2/17/20 2/18/20 1440 Print Name Entered By: Kelly AuVu Date: 2/17/2020 Time: 4:09 PM Special Instructions: page 3 of 4 page 4 of 4 APPENDIX C SAMPLE LOCATION MAPS BULK SAMPLE LOCATIONS Philip Arnold Park - Renton, WA 720 Jones Avenue Renton, WA 21905 64th Ave W, Ste 100 Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043-2251 81207090 Project Manager: Drawn by: Checked by: Approved by: JAL CAA SRP Not to Scale Feb 2020 Project No. Scale: File Name: Date: 1 Figure SRP N/A 08A 10A (roof) Pb-06 03C Pb-04 Pb-03 Pb-05 01A 10B (roof) 01C 06A 07A 09A 09B 07B 01B 06B 02A 03A Pb-01 Pb-02 01E 02C 03B 08C 10C (roof) 01D 04C 04B 05A 02B 04A 08B JMc APPENDIX D TRAINING CERTIFICATES APPENDIX E MATERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc.Terracon Consultants, Inc. #81207090 Philip Arnold Park, Renton, WA – Restroom Building HA No. 1. – Gypsum wallboard with joint compound Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc.Terracon Consultants, Inc. #81207090 HA No. 2. – 6” Brown vinyl covebase with mastic HA No. 3. – Mastic beneath carpet squares Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc.Terracon Consultants, Inc. #81207090 HA No. 4. – Black vinyl floor sheeting with mastic HA No. 5. – Black sink undercoating Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc.Terracon Consultants, Inc. #81207090 HA No. 6. – Ceramic wall tile with grout and mastic HA No. 7. – Ceramic floor tile with grout and mortar Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc.Terracon Consultants, Inc. #81207090 HA No. 8. – Concrete masonry unit with mortar HA No. 9. – Sealant at exterior restroom doors Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc.Terracon Consultants, Inc. #81207090 HA No. 10. – Asphaltic roofing material HA No. 11 – Asphaltic sealant at roof penetrations (assumed) Pb-01 – White paint on GWB Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc.Terracon Consultants, Inc. #81207090 Pb-02 – Yellow paint on wood – interior Pb-03 – Brown paint on metal Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc.Terracon Consultants, Inc. #81207090 Pb-04 – Yellow paint on metal Pb-05 – Gray paint on CMU Asbestos and Lead Assessment Report Philip Arnold Park March 18, 2020 PND Engineers, Inc.Terracon Consultants, Inc. #81207090 Pb-06 – Yellow paint on wood – exterior PHILIP ARNOLD PARK APPENDIX D Boardwalk Plans & Details PHILLIP ARNOLD PARKPROJECT COMPONENTSSUPPLIED BY PERMATRAKPRECAST CONCRETE TREADSPRECAST CONCRETE BEAMSRUBBER LEVELING PADS3/4" DIAMETER THREADED BARS WITH NUTS AND WASHERS (BEAM TO PIER CONNECTION)PROJECT COMPONENTSPROJECT COMPONENTSPROJECT COMPONENTSPROJECT COMPONENTSSUPPLIED BY CONTRACTORHILTI HY-200 EPOXY ADHESIVE (ANCHORING SYSTEM CONNECTION)SHIMS AND NON-SHRINK GROUT (LEVELING FOR PRECAST COMPONENTS)RAILING AND CONNECTION HARDWAREHELICAL PIERS AND CONNECTION HARDWARECLIP ANGLES WITH 3/4" DIAMETER RODS, WASHERS AND NUTS(6x6x3/8x0'-4")CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETEEXPANSION JOINT MATERIALPRECAST CONCRETE CURBS 3/4" x 10" LONG THREADED RODS WITH NUTS AND OVERSIZED WASHERS (ALL GALVANIZED) (CURB TO TREAD CONNECTION) 2. Piers shall be designed for lateral earth pressure, live load surcharge and structureloads.Applied Pier Loads:Compression: 17 kips (Service)Lateral: 1 kip (Service)3. Railing shall be designed in accordance with AASHTO specifications. The railingsupplier is responsible for the engineering of the detailed railing in accordance with theproject specifications.4. All geotechnical recommendations contained in the report of subsurface investigationshall be followed. Report "SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS -BOARDWALK FOUNDATION SUPPORT ALTERNATIVES - PHILLIP ARNOLD PARKIMPROVEMENTS" was dated 05/25/21 and produced by ZIPPERGEOGEOPROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS.5. PermaTrak is not responsible for the design of the helical piers. Helical pierfoundations to be designed by the helical pier supplier.2. All reinforcing shall be Grade 60 conforming to ASTM A615.1. All bolts, nuts, washers, and hardware shall meet ASTM A307 Grade A, and shall behot dipped galvanized after fabrication in accordance with ASTM A153. MATERIALGENERAL NOTES1. This structure has been designed in accordance with the project architects plan layoutand guidelines. Suitability for access and intended usage shall be the responsibility of thearchitect.2. Vehicular access larger than the design live load shall be limited by permanentphysical means.3. Prior to construction the contractor shall verify all elevations through the projectarchitect.4. Only PermaTrak North America may provide the precast structure shown on theseplans.1. Boardwalk shall be designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD bridge designspecifications and the LRFD guide specification for the design of pedestrian bridges.Design Live Load:Pedestrian Loading - 90 psf UniformVehicular Loading - H-5 Truck (10,000 lb. Vehicle Load)DESIGN DATAFOR REVIEW& APPROVALRailing By Others (Typ .)PROJECT TITLE:654321LOUISIANAOHIOTEXASNORTH CAROLINASHEET NO.CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATE:JOB NUMBER:PREPARED FOR:©2014 by PermaTrak®thisdrawing contains informationthat is proprietary to andproperty of PermaTrak® andshall be kept confidential. Noduplication or distribution of thisdrawing may be made withoutthe express written consent ofPermaTrak® except for thelimited purposes set forth in thecontract between PermaTrak®and party for whom thisdrawing was made.NO.DATEBY:DESCRIPTIONwww.permatrak.com TEL: 877-332-78622021-155609/01/2021KASKASRPUPHILLIP ARNOLD PARKRENTON, WAHBB LANDSCAPEARCHITECTUREOFFICE LOCATIONSFLORIDAPatented Product: U.S. Patent #5,906,084 #8,302,362 #8,522,505 #8,839,588 #9,096,975PT01APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF COMPONENTS REQUIRED - PIERSTRUCTURES*:BOARDWALKLENGTH# HELICALPIERS# BEAMS# CLIP ANGLES# CURBSRAILING LF144.00 FT +-2018584264.00 FT +- BOARDWALK PLANScale = 1/4" = 1'-0"5 1/2" Thick x Varies Wide x 8-0" LongPrecast Concrete PermaTrak TreadsPlus Joints @ 1/8"+- Per JointC BoardwalkLNOTE:1. Boardwalk Plan View Does Not Show Curved Alignment. For Curved Alignment Detail See Typical Skew Detail on PT05. 144'-0"8'-0"4'-0"4'-0"PermaTrakBeam (Typ.)HelicalPier (Typ.)C RailingBy Others (Typ.)LPermaTrak Curb (Typ.)1/8" Rubber Leveling Pad(Supplied By PermaTrak)PermaTrakTread (Typ.)PermaTrakBeamTYPICAL TREAD SPACING DETAILScale: Not To Scale 1/2" Max.Spacing1/8" Min.1/8" Rubber Leveling Pad(Supplied By PermaTrak)*Shim & Non-ShrinkGrout As RequiredPermaTrakTread (Typ.)TYPICAL SECTION - WITH RAILINGScale = 1/2" = 1'-0"8'-0"ApproximateGrade Line5 1/2" ThickPermaTrak TreadVariesVariesDETAILAPT047'-0" ClearPermaTrakBeam*Note:Due to tolerances and variance in precast production and installationaccuracy, shimming and grouting may be required. Where requiredthe entire bearing area and void shall be shim and grouted withnon-shrink grout.TYPICAL SHIM/GROUT DETAILScale: Not To Scale (UNDER TREAD)Helical Pier(By Others) (Typ.)Varies See Site PlansBattered Helical Pier & BracingAs Required By Helical Designer(By Others) (Typ.)TYPICAL SECTION -WITH CURBScale = 1/2" = 1'-0"8'-0"ApproximateGrade Line5 1/2" ThickPermaTrak TreadVariesVaries6'-9" ClearHelical Pier(By Others) (Typ.)VariesSee Site PlansBattered Helical Pier & BracingAs Required By Helical Designer(By Others) (Typ.)DETAILPT03A2'-6" Max.Railing(By Others)FOR REVIEW& APPROVALRailing By Others (Typ .)PROJECT TITLE:654321LOUISIANAOHIOTEXASNORTH CAROLINASHEET NO.CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATE:JOB NUMBER:PREPARED FOR:©2014 by PermaTrak®thisdrawing contains informationthat is proprietary to andproperty of PermaTrak® andshall be kept confidential. Noduplication or distribution of thisdrawing may be made withoutthe express written consent ofPermaTrak® except for thelimited purposes set forth in thecontract between PermaTrak®and party for whom thisdrawing was made.NO.DATEBY:DESCRIPTIONwww.permatrak.com TEL: 877-332-78622021-155609/01/2021KASKASRPUPHILLIP ARNOLD PARKRENTON, WAHBB LANDSCAPEARCHITECTUREOFFICE LOCATIONSFLORIDAPatented Product: U.S. Patent #5,906,084 #8,302,362 #8,522,505 #8,839,588 #9,096,975PT02 FOR REVIEW& APPROVALRailing By Others (Typ .)PermaTrakTread (Typ.)1/4" Minimum Shim & Non-ShrinkGrout As Required For Uniform BearingC 3/4" Dia. x 1'-6 ThreadedBar With Nut & WasherL1/2" ExpansionJoint MaterialBeginning Or Ending Of BoardwalkConcrete Approach Slab8"**45°TYPICAL APPROACH DETAILScale: 1" = 1'-0"Flat PlateHelical PierPermaTrakBeam* See Site Drawings For Dimensioning, Reinforcement, And Concrete Material Requirements Of Approach Slab.Note: Curb And/Or Railing Not Shown For Clarity.4"2" Clr.(Typ. All Around)#4 Hook Bar @ 18" o.c.Each Face(2) Rows of 2-#4 Bars2 - #4 BarsApproximateGround LineNotes:1. Nut Shall Be Securely Fastened Below HelicalFlat Plate. Use Locking Nut Or Deform ThreadsBelow To Prevent Loosening.2. Completely Cover The Threaded Bar, Nut &Washer At The Beam Connection And Fill TheVoid With Epoxy Adhesive Or Non-Shrink Grout.1/8" Rubber Leveling Pad(Supplied By PermaTrak)C 3/4" Dia. x 1'-6" ThreadedBar With Nut & WasherLPermaTrakTread (Typ.)1/8" Rubber Leveling Pad(Supplied By PermaTrak)PermaTrakBeam (Typ.)Flat PlateHelical Pier1/4" Minimum Shim & Non-ShrinkGrout As Required For Uniform BearingTYPICAL PIER CONNECTION DETAILScale: 1" = 1'-0"1/2"±Note: Curb And/Or Railing Not Shown For Clarity.Notes:1. Nut Shall Be Securely Fastened Below HelicalFlat Plate. Use Locking Nut Or Deform ThreadsBelow To Prevent Loosening.2. Completely Cover The Threaded Bar, Nut &Washer At The Beam Connection And Fill TheVoid With Epoxy Adhesive Or Non-Shrink Grout.8 1/2"Beam Bearing Requirement: Beam Shall Bear AMinimum Of 6" On Foundation System. ContactPermaTrak Engineering If This Bearing DistanceIs Not Achieved.Note:The Designs Shown Are Minimums.Modifications Are Permitted But ShallBe Supported By An EngineeredStamped Design And Submittal.1'-4"1'-4"3 3/4"3 3/4"8 1/2"8"8"2 1/2"x1 1/4"Slotted Hole (Typ.)1/2" Thick Gusset PlateStiffeners (Galv.) (Typ.)LC Thru Bolts1'-4"4"4"1/2" 10"3 1/4"I.D.3 3/4"O.D.HELICAL PIER FLAT PLATE DETAILScale: Not To Scale1'-4" x 1'-4" Min.Flat PlateThru BoltsHelical Pier Notes:1.Minimum Design Loads Are Noted On PT012.Helical Pier, Flat Plate Assembly, Gusset Plates, And Hardware Shall Be Hot-Dipped Galv. Flat Plate Assembly Shall Have (2) Slotted (2" x 1 1/4") Holes For Beam Connection.3.Depth Of Helical Pier To Be Designed ByThe Helical Pier Engineer.4.Cross Bracing Of Helical Piers May BeRequired For Stability And Shall Be DetailedBy Helical Pier Engineer.Helical PierSlottedHolePlate AssemblyDesigned ByHelical PierEngineerGusset PlateStiffeners AsRequiredTYPICAL HELICAL PIER FLAT PLATE DETAILScale: Not To ScalePROJECT TITLE:654321LOUISIANAOHIOTEXASNORTH CAROLINASHEET NO.CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATE:JOB NUMBER:PREPARED FOR:©2014 by PermaTrak®thisdrawing contains informationthat is proprietary to andproperty of PermaTrak® andshall be kept confidential. Noduplication or distribution of thisdrawing may be made withoutthe express written consent ofPermaTrak® except for thelimited purposes set forth in thecontract between PermaTrak®and party for whom thisdrawing was made.NO.DATEBY:DESCRIPTIONwww.permatrak.com TEL: 877-332-78622021-155609/01/2021KASKASRPUPHILLIP ARNOLD PARKRENTON, WAHBB LANDSCAPEARCHITECTUREOFFICE LOCATIONSFLORIDAPatented Product: U.S. Patent #5,906,084 #8,302,362 #8,522,505 #8,839,588 #9,096,975PT03 FOR REVIEW& APPROVALRailing By Others (Typ.)PT042SECTIONScale: 3" = 1'-0"LPL (Aluminum) 6 x 0'-6"2 1/2" x 2 1/2" PostWelded To Base PlateC 3/8" Dia.Hole (Typ.)1"(Typ.)6"3"3" 6"6"PT02ADETAILScale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"LC RailingThru Bolt W/Washer & Nut (Typ.)PL (Aluminum) 6 x 0'-6"PT042Notes:1. All holes shall be drilled by contractor.2. One (1) Clip Angle is required on each end of any tread with a handrail post attachment. Two (2) Clip Angles total per individual tread U.N.O. in plan view.3. Anchors shall meet the requirements of ACI 355.4.4. Installation of anchors must occur a minimum of 14days after delivery of concrete material.C 3/4"Ø Threaded Rod,Secured With HIT-HY-200Epoxy Adhesive AnchoringSystem Or Equal.Embedment 2 3/4" Into Tread.Two Anchors Req. Per Angle.L3/8x6x6x0'-4"Clip Angle (Galv.)PermaTrak Tread*PermaTrak Beam*4"Varies* Indicates Supplied ByBoardwalk Manufacturerand Installed by contractorPT041SECTIONScale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"4"4"Scale: Not To ScaleTREAD TO BEAM CONNECTIONPT041PT02ADETAILScale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"PT043SECTIONScale: 1 1/2" = 1'-0"PT043PermaTrak Curb4 1/2"C PermaTrak CurbL2"± Gap3"6"5 1/2" 5 1/2"3/4" Dia. x 10" Coiled Rodw/ Nut and Oversized Washer(Galvanized) (See Notes)Sikaflex -11 FCExpansive FillerMaterial (Typ.)Notes:1. 2" diameter preformed holessupplied by PermaTrak.2. Connection hardware suppliedby PermaTrak.3. Fill oversized dowel holes withSikaflex-11 FC or approved equal.4. After tightening nut, deform threadson rod to prevent loosening.5. Threaded rod shall be galvanizedand have Coarse Coiled Threads to fita Meadow Burke CX-28 Coil WingnutInsert.TYPICAL CURVED ALIGNMENT DETAILNote: Curb And/Or Railing Not Shown For Clarity.PROJECT TITLE:654321LOUISIANAOHIOTEXASNORTH CAROLINASHEET NO.CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATE:JOB NUMBER:PREPARED FOR:©2014 by PermaTrak®thisdrawing contains informationthat is proprietary to andproperty of PermaTrak® andshall be kept confidential. Noduplication or distribution of thisdrawing may be made withoutthe express written consent ofPermaTrak® except for thelimited purposes set forth in thecontract between PermaTrak®and party for whom thisdrawing was made.NO.DATEBY:DESCRIPTIONwww.permatrak.com TEL: 877-332-78622021-155609/01/2021KASKASRPUPHILLIP ARNOLD PARKRENTON, WAHBB LANDSCAPEARCHITECTUREOFFICE LOCATIONSFLORIDAPatented Product: U.S. Patent #5,906,084 #8,302,362 #8,522,505 #8,839,588 #9,096,975PT04 FOR REVIEW& APPROVALRailing By Others (Typ .)HELICAL PIER/ANCHOR NOTES V2.4 LAST MODIFIED AUGUST 20211.Design and Performance RequirementsA.Helical piers shall be designed to support the nominal compression and lateral load(s) as shown on the project plans. The overall length, helix configuration and minimum effective torsional resistance of ahelical pier shall be such that the required geotechnical capacity is developed by the helix plate(s) in an appropriate bearing stratum(s).B.All steel structure pier components shall be designed within the limits provided by the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Either Allowable Stress Design (ASD) or Load and Resistance FactorDesign (LRFD) are acceptable methods of analysis.C.Except where noted otherwise on the project plans, all piers shall be installed to provide a minimum factor of safety against ultimate compression resistance of 2.0, a maximum axial deflection at designcompression load of 0.5 inches, and must satisfy the deflection criteria as stated on the plans or drawings.D.Except where noted otherwise on the project plans, each pier shall be designed to meet a corrosion service life of 50 years.E.The anchorage design shall take into account such pier spacing, soil stratification, corrosion and strain compatibility issues as are present for the project.2.Qualifications of Installing Contractor and DesignerThe installing contractor and pier designer shall submit to the owner or owner's representative a proposal including the following documentation. Work shall not begin until all the submittals have been receivedand approved by the owner. All costs associated with incomplete or unacceptable submittals shall be the responsibility of the installing contractor.A. Evidence of installing contractor's competency in installation of helical piers shall be provided to the owner's satisfaction and may include any or all of the following:1.Pier manufacturer's certificate of competency in installation of helical piers, or2.A list of at least three projects completed within the previous three years wherein the installing contractor installed helical piers similar to those shown in the project plans, such list to include names andphone numbers of those project owner's representatives who can verify the installing contractor's participation in those projects, or3.A letter from the pier manufacturer, distributor or manufacturer's representative expressing ability and intent to provide on-site supervision of the pier installation.B.A listing of all safety violations logged against the installing contractor within the previous three years and the current status or final resolutions thereof. Descriptions of safety improvements instituted withinthe previous three years may also be submitted, at the installing contractor's discretion.C.Evidence of pier designer's competence in the design of helical piers shall be provided to the owner's satisfaction and shall include all of the following:1.Registration as a professional engineer or recognition by the local jurisdictional authority.2.A list of at least three projects completed within the previous three years wherein the pier designer designed helical piers similar to those shown in the project plans, such list to include names and phonenumbers of those project owner's representatives who can verify the engineer's participation in those projects.3.Recommendation from the pier manufacturer, distributor or manufacturer's representative.3.Pre-Construction SubmittalsA.Within two weeks of receiving the contract award, the installing contractor and/or pier designer shall submit the following helical pier design documentation:1.Shop drawing submittal including at minimum, the helical plate and specific helical pier cut sheet, which shall be signed and sealed by a structural engineer.2.Certification from the pier designer that the proposed piers meet the requirements stated herein.3.Qualifications of pier installer per sections 2A and 2B4.Qualifications of pier designer per section 2C5.Product designations for helix and extension sections and all ancillary products to be supplied at each helical pier location6.Individual anchorage nominal loads7.Individual anchorage pre-tensioning requirements (if any)8.Manufacturer's published allowable system capacities for the pier assemblies, including load transfer devices9.Calculated theoretical geotechnical capacity of piers10.Minimum effective torsional resistance criteria11.Maximum allowable installation torque of pier12.Minimum embedment lengths and other site-specific embedment depth requirements that may be appropriate for the site soil profiles13.Inclination angle and location tolerance requirements14.Copies of certified calibration reports for torque measuring equipment and load test measuring equipment to be used on the project. The calibrations shall have been performed within one year of theproposed starting date for helical pile installation or as recommended by the equipment manufacturer based on the proposed starting date.15.Complete calculation submittal displaying structural and geotechnical capacity of the helical pier and connection plate. Calulation submittal shall be signed and sealed by a structural engineer.4.Placement RequirementsA.When helical pier placement is shown on the project plans, production piers shall be placed such that the anchor head is within 1 inch laterally and 1 inch longitudinally, and the pier shaft alignment is within2 degrees of the inclination angle, shown on the project plans.B.When pier placement is not shown on the project plans, the placements, alignments and their respective tolerances shall be included as part of the design submittal.5.Pier InstallationA.Helical pier installation shall only begin after review and approval of the submitted testing data.B.Before entering the construction site to begin work, the installing contractor shall provide proof of insurance coverage as stated in the general specifications and/or contract.C.Installing contractor shall furnish and install all helical piers per the project plans and approved anchorage design documentation. In the event of conflict between the project plans and the approved anchoragedesign documentation, the installing contractor shall not begin construction on any affected items until such conflict has been resolved.D.The installing contractor shall conduct his construction operations in a manner to ensure the safety of persons and property in the vicinity of the work. The installing contractor's personnel shall comply withsafety procedures in accordance with OSHA standards and any established project safety plan.E.The installing contractor shall request marking of underground utilities by an underground utility location service as required by law and shall avoid contact with all marked underground facilities.F.The portion of the construction site occupied by the installing contractor, his equipment and his material stockpiles shall be kept reasonably clean and orderly.G.Installation of helical piers may be observed by representatives of the owner for quality assurance purposes. The installing contractor shall give the owner's representative at least 24 hours prior notice of pierinstallation operations.H.The helical pier installation technique shall be such that it is consistent with the geotechnical, logistical, environmental, and load carrying conditions of the project. The lead section shall be positioned at thelocation as shown on the pier design drawings. The helical pier sections shall be engaged and advanced into the soil in a smooth, continuous manner at a rate of rotation of 5 to 25 rpms. Sufficient downpressure (crowd) shall be applied to uniformly advance the helical pier sections a distance approximately equal to the pitch of the helix plate (typically 3 inches) per revolution. The rate of rotation andmagnitude of down pressure shall be adjusted for different soil conditions and depths. Extension sections shall be provided to obtain the required minimum overall length and minimum effective torsionalresistance as shown on the project plans.I.Installation tolerances are as follows: Piers shall be driven with a variation of not more than 1/4" per foot from the vertical or from the batter line indicated. Upon completion of driving and released fromleads, exposed piles shall not have a variation of more than 2 inches at the cut-off elevation from the position shown on the plans.6.Termination Criteria6.Termination CriteriaThe minimum overall length criteria and the minimum effective torsional resistance criteria as specified in the pre-construction submittals must be satisfied prior to terminating the pier installation. In the eventany helical pier fails to meet these production quality control criteria, the following pre-qualified remedies are authorized:A.If the installation fails to meet the minimum effective torsional resistance criterion at the minimum embedment length:1.Continue the installation to greater depths until the torsional resistance criterion is met, provided that, if a maximum length constraint is applicable, continued installation does not exceed said maximumlength constraint, or2.Demonstrate acceptable pier performance through proof testing, or3.Replace the pier with one having a different helix configuration. The replacement pier must not exceed any applicable maximum embedment length and either (a) be embedded to a length that places its lasthelix at least three times its own diameter beyond the position of the first helix of the replaced pier and meet the minimum effective torsional resistance criterion, or (b) pass proof testing.B.If the torsional resistance during installation reaches the helical pier's maximum allowable torque rating prior to satisfaction of the minimum embedment length criterion:1.Terminate the installation at the depth obtained if allowed by the owner's representative, or2.Replace the pier with one having a shaft with a higher torsional strength rating. This replacement pier must be installed to satisfy the minimum embedment length criterion. It must also be embedded to alength that places its last helix at least three times its own diameter beyond the position of the helix of the replaced pier without exceeding any applicable maximum embedment length requirements and itmust meet the minimum effective torsional resistance criterion, or3.Replace the pier with one having a different helix configuration. This replacement pier must be installed to satisfy the minimum embedment length criterion. It must also be embedded to a length that placesits last helix at least three times its own diameter beyond the position of the first helix of the replaced pier without exceeding any applicable maximum embedment length requirements, and it must meet theminimum effective torsional resistance criterion, or4.If allowed by the pier location tolerance or approved by the owner's representative, remove and reinstall the pier at a position at least three times the diameter of the largest helix away from the initial location.Original embedment length and torsional resistance criteria must be met. This pier repositioning may require the installation of additional helical piers with nominal loads adjusted for these spacing changes.C.If the installation reaches a specified maximum embedment length without achieving the minimum effective torsional resistance criterion:1.If allowed by the pier location tolerance or approved by the owner's representative, remove and reinstall the pier at a position at least three times the diameter of the largest helix away from the initial location.Original embedment length and torsional resistance criteria must be met. This pier repositioning may require the installation of additional helical piers with nominal loads adjusted for these spacing changes,or2.Demonstrate acceptable pier performance through proof testing, or3.De-rate the load capacity of the helical pier and install additional piers, as necessary. The de-rated capacity and additional pier location shall be subject to the approval of the owner's representative, or4.Replace the pier with one having a different helix configuration. This replacement pier must be installed to satisfy the minimum embedment length criterion and it must meet the minimum effective torsionalresistance criterion.D.If a helical pier fails to meet acceptance criteria in a performance or proof test:1.Install the pier to a greater depth and installation torque and re-test provided that, if a maximum embedment length constraint is applicable, continued installation will not exceed said maximum lengthconstraint, or2.Replace the pier with one having more and/or larger helix plates. It must be embedded to a length that places its last helix at least three times its own diameter beyond the position of the first helix of thereplaced pile without exceeding any applicable maximum embedment length requirements. This replacement pile must be re-tested, or3.If approved by the owner's representative, de-rate the load capacity of the helical pier and install additional piers. Additional piers must be installed at positions that are at least three times the diameter of thelargest helix away from any other pier locations and are approved by the owner's representative. Piers installed in cohesive soils shall not be spaced closer than four helix diameters.E.Proof testing to qualify a pier under any of the foregoing remedial actions shall not be used to satisfy proof testing frequency requirements shown in the project plans or the design documentation. If a helicalpier fails a production quality control criterion for any other reason, any proposed remedy must be approved by the owner's representative prior to initiating its implementation at the project site.7.Installation Record SubmittalsA.The installing contractor shall provide the owner, or his authorized representative, copies of individual helical pier installation records within 24 hours after each installation is completed. Formal copies shallbe submitted (within 5 days). These installation records shall include, but are not limited to, the following information:1.Date and time of installation2.Location of helical pier3.Actual helical pier type and configuration4.Pier reveal5.Total length of installed pier6.Actual inclination of the pier7.Actual effective torsional resistance8.Calculated geotechnical capacity based on actual torsional resistance9.Comments pertaining to interruptions, obstructions, or other relevant information8.Pier TestingTwo load tests shall be performed in accordance with the latest version of ASTM D1143 and the following criteria:A.Load tests shall be performed on two (2) helical piers after installation in accordance with the plans. The static load capacity test shall be conducted one at a time and shall consist of the following. An initialaxial setting force of 5,000 lbs shall be applied to the helical pier or helical pile. Load increments of 10 to 25% of the design allowable load shall be subsequently applied with a constant time interval betweeneach increment, in accordance with ASTM D1143 quick load test method for individual piles, until the proof load specified on the plans is reached. After the final hold period, the maximum pile headdisplacement shall be recorded. The test shall be deemed successful provided helical pier and helical pile maximum pile head displacement is less than one half (1/2) inch of the design load. In the event of anunsatisfactory test, the helical pier or helical pile shall be installed to additional length and torque until a successful proof load capacity test has been completed. Axial load shall be applied to the helical pierand helical pile during the proof load capacity test utilizing the final bracket assembly configuration. Through the duration of installation and testing, the horizontal movement of the structure to which thehelical piers are attached shall be limited as shown on the plans.B.The installing contractor shall furnish all labor, equipment and pre-production helical piers necessary to accomplish the testing as shown in the approved pier design documentation. Installing contractor shallapply the specified loads for the specified durations and record the specified data, for the specified number of piers. No deviations from the test plan(s) will be allowed without explicit approval in writingfrom the owner's representative.C.Installing contractor shall provide the owner, or owner's representative, copies of raw field test data or reports within 24 hours after completion of each load test. Formal test reports shall be submitted within(5 days) following test completion. Formal test reports shall include, but are not limited to, the following information:1.Name of project and installing contractor2.Name of installing contractor's supervisor during installation3.Name of third party test agency, if any4.Pre-production or production test5.Date, time, and duration of test6.Unique identifier and location of helical pier tested7.Type of test (performance of proof)8.Description of calibrated testing equipment and test set-up9.Actual helical pier type and configuration10.Steps and duration of each load increment11.Cumulative pier head movement at each load step9.CleanupWithin (2 weeks) of completion of the work, the installing contractor shall remove any and all material, equipment, tools, building materials, concrete forms, debris,or other items belonging to the installing contractor or used under the installing contractor's direction.PROJECT TITLE:654321LOUISIANAOHIOTEXASNORTH CAROLINASHEET NO.CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATE:JOB NUMBER:PREPARED FOR:©2014 by PermaTrak®thisdrawing contains informationthat is proprietary to andproperty of PermaTrak® andshall be kept confidential. Noduplication or distribution of thisdrawing may be made withoutthe express written consent ofPermaTrak® except for thelimited purposes set forth in thecontract between PermaTrak®and party for whom thisdrawing was made.NO.DATEBY:DESCRIPTIONwww.permatrak.com TEL: 877-332-78622021-155609/01/2021KASKASRPUPHILLIP ARNOLD PARKRENTON, WAHBB LANDSCAPEARCHITECTUREOFFICE LOCATIONSFLORIDAPatented Product: U.S. Patent #5,906,084 #8,302,362 #8,522,505 #8,839,588 #9,096,975Helical Notes FOR REVIEW& APPROVALRailing By Others (Typ.)PROJECT TITLE:654321LOUISIANAOHIOTEXASNORTH CAROLINASHEET NO.CHECKED BY:DRAWN BY:DESIGNED BY:DATE:JOB NUMBER:PREPARED FOR:©2014 by PermaTrak®thisdrawing contains informationthat is proprietary to andproperty of PermaTrak® andshall be kept confidential. Noduplication or distribution of thisdrawing may be made withoutthe express written consent ofPermaTrak® except for thelimited purposes set forth in thecontract between PermaTrak®and party for whom thisdrawing was made.NO.DATEBY:DESCRIPTIONwww.permatrak.com TEL: 877-332-78622021-155609/01/2021KASKASRPUPHILLIP ARNOLD PARKRENTON, WAHBB LANDSCAPEARCHITECTUREOFFICE LOCATIONSFLORIDAPatented Product: U.S. Patent #5,906,084 #8,302,362 #8,522,505 #8,839,588 #9,096,975Precast SpecsPermaTrak North America LLCPh: (864) 354-4870Ph: 877-332-7862www.permatrak.comContact: Mr. John Pylejpyle@permatrak.comPRECAST CONCRETE BOARDWALK SYSTEMPART 1-GENERAL1.1SUMMARYA.These specifications are for a precast concrete boardwalk and shall be regarded as minimumstandards for this project. These specifications are based upon products designed and supplied by:This item shall also include the design, specification, and construction of a railing and foundationsystem that is attached to the proposed boardwalk system.1.2 ALTERNATE REQUIREMENTS: Alternates are allowed provided that the followingminimum standards and these “Precast Concrete Boardwalk System” specifications are met.A.“Minimum Standards” as outlined in section 1.3 below must be met.B.A fully engineered drawing of the precast boardwalk system (including tread layout, structuraldetails designed for the design loads shown on the contract documents, foundation design, fullelevation view and layout) must be submitted 2 weeks before the bid date and signed and sealed by aProfessional Engineer licensed in the state of the above named project. Approved alternates will benotified by addenda prior to the bid date. Only pre-approved alternates will be considered.C.Submission of complete design calculations that are signed and sealed by a licensed ProfessionalEngineer in the state of the above named project. The design computations shall include referencesto all applicable AASHTO code references, documentation of computer programs (including designparameters), and a clearly detailed reinforcement rebar submittal (including sketches of all precastconcrete components.D.Submittal must meet the requirements set forth in section 1.6a.1.3MINIMUM STANDARDS: The selected boardwalk shall have the following minimumcharacteristics:A.The precast system shall be designed as a modular flexible system allowing a prescribed settlementat pier locations. Joints shall be designed for such movement to occur without damage to thestructural integrity of the system.B.Boardwalk system (beams, treads, and curbs if applicable) must be reinforced precast concrete. Amaterial change, including cast-in-place concrete, is not considered an equal to the design shown onthe bid documents.C.Walking surface (treads) shall be made of reinforced precast concrete, and supported by reinforcedprecast concrete beams. Where applicable, edges of treads will receive precast concrete curbs.D.Walking surface (finish) of top surface of treads shall have a formliner finish with one ofPermaTrak's standard textures. Texture must be integral with the concrete and shall not be an appliedpost pour wearing surface.E.Precast concrete treads shall be structural load bearing elements and shall interlock with one anothervia a “tongue and groove” connection.F.All precast shall consist of integrally colored concrete in a color selected by the owner from one ofPermaTrak's “standard colors”.G.DESIGN LOADS: See PT01 for pedestrian and vehicular design live loads.H.Treads shall maintain a “boardwalk appearance”, specifically meaning each tread shall have a width:length ratio ranging from a minimum of 3:1 to a maximum of 14:1. Width is defined as the treaddimension perpendicular to the normal direction of travel. Length is defined as the tread dimensionmeasured in the direction of travel.I.Tread width shall be as noted on the contract drawings. Alignment should follow the horizontal andvertical alignment shown on the contract plans. ELEVATED PRECAST CONCRETE BOARDWALKJ.Connectors for curbs (if applicable) to treads shall not be visible to boardwalk users while viewedfrom the top of the walkway.K.All tread-to-beam connectors shall be non-corrosive, and hidden from view. Metallic tread-to-beamconnectors are not acceptable for this project.L.Boardwalk supplier shall provide a field representative on site for a minimum of 2 days. Fieldrepresentative shall be knowledgeable in the installation of precast concrete boardwalks.1.4QUALITY ASSURANCEA.The contractor performing the installation of the pile foundations shall have installed piles of sizeand length similar to those shown on the plans for a minimum of three (3) years prior to the bid datefor this project. The contractor shall submit a list containing at least three (3) projects completed inthe last three (3) years on which the contractor has installed piles of a size and length similar to thoseshown on the plans. The list of projects shall contain names and phone numbers of owner'srepresentatives who can verify the Contractor's participation on those projects.B.Manufacturer Qualifications: Not less than 10 years experience in the actual production of precastproducts as described below.1.Components shall be factory fabricated and engineered by single entity. This entity shall beregistered to do business in the State of the project location.2.Boardwalk supplier (Precaster) for the boardwalk shall have in-house color mixing facilities forcolor pigmentation.3.Boardwalk supplier (Precaster) shall have either a minimum experience of 5 years or 50boardwalk projects in design, production, and field consultation.4.Boardwalk supplier (Precaster) must be certified by PCI or NPCA.5.Precast components must be manufactured with the use of hot rolled steel skin in reinforcedsteel forms. Temporary (i.e., Timber) and/or single use forms are unacceptable unless approvedin writing by the Boardwalk Engineer.C.Acceptability Criteria for Treads and Curbs (if applicable): The finished visible (in the final installedposition) surface shall have no obvious imperfections other than minimal color or texture variationsfrom the approved samples or evidence of repairs when viewed in good typical daylight illuminationwith the unaided naked eye at a 20 ft. viewing distance. Appearance of the surface shall not beevaluated when light is illuminating the surface from an extreme angle as it tends to accentuate theminor surface irregularities. The following is a list of finish defects that shall be properly repaired, ifobvious when viewed at a 20 ft. distance. Patching (by a trained skilled concrete repair person) is anacceptable repair method.1.Ragged or irregular surfaces.2.Excessive air voids (commonly called bug holes) larger than ¼ in. evident on the top surface ofthe tread or curbs (if applicable).3.Adjacent flat and return surfaces with greater texture and/or color differences than the approvedsamples or mockups.4.Casting and/or aggregate segregation lines evident from different concrete placement lifts andconsolidation.5.Visible mold joints or irregular surfaces.6.Rust stains on exposed surfaces.7.Units with excessive variation in texture and/or color from the approved samples, within theunit or compared with adjacent units.8.Blocking stains evident on exposed surfaces.9.Areas of backup concrete bleeding through the facing concrete.10.Foreign material embedded in the surface.11.Visible repairs at a 20 ft. viewing distance.12.Reinforcement shadow lines.13.Cracks visible at a 20 ft. viewings distance.D.Installer Qualifications: Firm with 3 years experience in installation of systems similar in complexityto those required for this Project.E.Mock-Up: Provide, if required by Architect/ Engineer, a mock-up for evaluation of the boardwalkshowing the surface preparation techniques and application workmanship.1.Finish areas designated by Architect / Engineer.2.Do not proceed with remaining work until mock-up is accepted by Architect / Engineer.3.Refinish mock-up area as required to produce acceptable work.1.5DESIGNA.For applications requiring minimum disturbance due to tree roots or other existing objects specifiedby the Owner to be avoided during construction, the Boardwalk Manufacturer requires theContractor or Engineer/Architect to provide a survey of the proposed boardwalk location identifyingitems of interest including tree roots that cannot be disturbed per the Owner.B.The designer of the boardwalk, foundation and railing system shall be a qualified registeredProfessional Engineer licensed in the State of the project location and having a minimum of 20 yearsof experience in the design of concrete structures, foundation and railing systems.C.The foundation design shown on the boardwalk drawings are based recommendations found in thegeotechnical report entitled referenced on PT01 (if applicable).D.DESIGN CRITERIA: The design of the boardwalk and railing system shall comply with thefollowing guidelines:1.AASHTO LRFD Guide Specifications for The Design of Pedestrian Bridges, 2nd Edition.2.AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition.3.American Concrete Institute - Building Code and Commentary, ACI 318-19 and ACI 318R-19.4.In addition to the dead loads of the system, the structure shall be designed for the live loadsdefined in Section 1.3.G above.1.6SUBMISSIONS: Prior to the start of fabrication or construction, the Contractor shall submit to theEngineer a design package, which shall include, but is not limited to, the following:A.FOR APPROVAL SUBMISSIONS: Prior to the start of fabrication or construction, the Contractorshall submit to the Engineer a design package, which shall include but not limited to the following:1.DETAILED PLANS:a.REGISTRATION / SEAL: Sealed by a licensed Professional Engineer in the state of theproject location.b.PLAN VIEW: Full plan view of the boardwalk, foundation and railing system drawn toscale. The plan view must reflect the proposed horizontal alignment as shown on thedesign plans.c.ELEVATION VIEW: Full elevation view of the boardwalk, railing and foundation systemdrawn to scale which reflect the actual vertical alignment. Elevation views shall indicatethe elevation at the top and bottom of the boardwalk and foundation system components,horizontal and vertical break points, and location of the finished grade.d.DETAILS: Details of all boardwalk and railing system components and their connectionssuch as the length, size and where changes occur; connections; etc.e.CODE REFERENCE: Design parameters used along with AASHTO references.2.DESIGN COMPUTATIONS (IF REQUIRED): computations shall:a.Be stamped by a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of the project location.b.Clearly refer to the applicable AASHTO provisions.c.Include documentation of computer programs including all design parameters.d.Clearly show that all reinforced precast treads and beams meet AASHTO requirements forthe loading per Section 1.3.F.e.Include sketches of reinforcement in treads and beams, shear and moment diagrams, andall equations used shall be referenced to applicable code.3.CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS:a.Construction methods specific to the boardwalk vendor chosen. Submittal requirementssuch as certification, quality and acceptance/rejection criteria shall be included. Details onconnection of boardwalk units and foundation system such that assurance of uniform loadtransfer shall be checked.B.FINAL SUBMISSION: Once a boardwalk, foundation and railing system design has been reviewedand accepted by the Owner, the Contractor shall submit the final plans. The designer of theboardwalk, foundation and railing system is responsible for the review of any drawings prepared forfabrication. One set of all approved shop drawings shall be submitted to the Engineer's permanentrecords.C.SUBMITTALS: Product Data: Submit Manufacturer's technical product data for railing componentsand accessories.Manufacturer to supply submittal drawings for approval to include the following:1.Section-thru details.2.Mounting methods.3.Typical Elevations.4.Key plan layout.D.SHOP DRAWINGS: Shop drawings shall:a.Be stamped by a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of the project location.b.Show actual field conditions and true elevation and location supplied after fieldverification.c.Clearly detail reinforcement in beams, treads and curbs including clear dimension fromconcrete edge, size and amount of rebar.d.Clearly state concrete compressive strength, steel type and strength, and a listing of allcomponent weights including lifting locations.1.7DELIVERY, STORAGE, AND HANDLINGA.Store products in manufacturer's unopened packaging until ready for installation.B.Field Measurements: Where handrails and railings are indicated to fit to other construction, checkactual dimensions of other construction by accurate field measurements before fabrication; showrecorded measurements on final shop drawings:1.Where field measurements cannot be made without delaying the railing fabrication anddelivery, obtain guaranteed dimensions in writing by the Contractor and proceed withfabrication of products so as not to delay fabrication, delivery and installation.C.Coordinate fabrication and delivery schedule of handrails with construction progress and sequence to avoid delay of railing installation.e.Air entrained composed of Portland cement, fine and course aggregates, admixtures andwater. The air-entraining feature may be obtained by the use of either an air entrainingPortland cement or an air entraining admixture. The entrained air-content shall be not lessthan four percent or more than seven percent.1.8WARRANTY:A.Contractor will be responsible for installation defects associated with the boardwalk and abutmentcomponents, foundation system, and railings for a period of 12 calendar months from the date offinal acceptance by the Owner.B.Boardwalk manufacturer shall warranty all precast concrete components against defects in material and workmanship for a period of 10 years.C.Railing manufacturer shall warranty the railing against defects in materials and workmanship for aperiod of 12 months.1.9MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENTA.Precast concrete boardwalk, railings, and foundations shall be paid for at the contract lump sum price as listed in the bid proposal for “Precast Concrete Boardwalk”. This price shall include all materials, equipment, labor and work necessary for and incidental to the design, construction, delivery, unloading, assembly, and placement of the boardwalk and foundation as shown in the contract plans including all railings on the superstructure.PART 2-MATERIALS & TESTING2.1PRECAST CONCRETE: shall conform to the following:a.The minimum compressive strength of the concrete shall be 4000 psi measured at 28 days.b.All precast concrete shall contain structural steel reinforcement as designed by theEngineer of record.c.All precast concrete components shall be air entrained composed of Portland cement, fineand course aggregates, admixtures and water. The air-entraining feature may be obtainedby the use of either an air entraining Portland cement or an air entraining admixture. Theentrained air-content shall be not less than four percent or more than seven percent.d.All reinforcing steel shall be standard uncoated steel conforming to ASTM A615PART 3 - EXECUTION1.1PRECAST CONCRETE BOARDWALKA.Installation of the precast concrete boardwalk system and railings, if applicable, shall be performedin accordance to the approved plans and manufacturers installation instructions. Boardwalkmanufacturer shall provide a field representative to review installation instructions with theContractor and Engineer and to certify that the installation has been performed according to theapproved drawings and manufacturer's instructions.PROJECT SPECIFICATIONSV4.0 UPDATED AUGUST 2020 PHILIP ARNOLD PARK APPENDIX E Picnic Shelters Plans & Details: Small Shelter (Alternate #2) Large Shelter (Base Bid) 21'-0"1'-6"1'-6"24'-0"2'-0" 24'-0" 10'-0" 20'-0" CENTERLINE OF POSTS HSS STEEL POST TYP. OF (6) OUTER EDGE OF EAVE FOUNDATION PLAN DOCUMENT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: - A FOUNDATION DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED BY AMERICANA OUTDOORS - A LICENSED ENGINEER FAMILIAR WITH SOIL CONDITIONS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE MUST PERFORM A FOUNDATION DESIGN A A SCALE: AS NOTED 24'-0" x 24'-0"MULTI SLOPE ILLINI SHELTER SHEET 1 of 2 95591-1 AMERICANA BUILDING PRODUCTS#2 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE - SALEM, IL 62881(800) 851-0865 - www.americana.com B D 8 7 56 4 23 1 DRAWN: MT 8/30/2021 C C D B A REVDWG NODATESIZE TITLE 7 345 1268 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSmall Shelter: Bid Alternate #2 HSS STEEL EDGE BEAM TYP. OF (8) HSS STEEL PURLIN BEAM TYP. OF (4) HSS STEEL RAFTER TYP. OF (6) ROOF PLAN 24'-0"8'-0"EAVE15'-0" 12 4 12 6 ELEVATION PLAN DECOR POST BANDS 24'-0" A 18" STANDING SEAM STYLE ROOF PANELS EXTRUDED ALUM. FASCIA TRIM EXTRUDED ALUM. GUTTER FASCIA DETAIL A 2x6 TONGUE N GROOVE WOOD ROOF DECK BOARDS A A SCALE: AS NOTED 24'-0" x 24'-0"MULTI SLOPE ILLINI SHELTER SHEET 2 of 2 95591-1 AMERICANA BUILDING PRODUCTS#2 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE - SALEM, IL 62881(800) 851-0865 - www.americana.com B D 8 7 56 4 23 1 DRAWN: MT 8/30/2021 C C D B A REVDWG NODATESIZE TITLE 7 345 1268 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONSmall Shelter: Bid Alternate #2 25'-0"1'-6"1'-6"28'-0"2'-0"2'-0" 36'-0" 10'-8" CENTERLINE OF POSTS HSS STEEL POST TYP. OF (8) OUTER EDGE OF EAVE FOUNDATION PLAN DOCUMENT NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION: - A FOUNDATION DESIGN HAS NOT BEEN PERFORMED BY AMERICANA OUTDOORS - A LICENSED ENGINEER FAMILIAR WITH SOIL CONDITIONS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE MUST PERFORM A FOUNDATION DESIGN A A SCALE: AS NOTED 28'-0" x 36'-0"MULTI SLOPE ILLINI SHELTER SHEET 1 of 2 95592-2 AMERICANA BUILDING PRODUCTS#2 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE - SALEM, IL 62881(800) 851-0865 - www.americana.com B D 8 7 56 4 23 1 DRAWN: MT 8/31/2021 C C D B A REVDWG NODATESIZE TITLE 7 345 1268 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLarge Shelter: Base Bid HSS STEEL EDGE BEAM TYP. OF (8) HSS STEEL PURLIN BEAM TYP. OF (4) HSS STEEL RAFTER TYP. OF (6) ROOF PLAN 28'-0"8'-0"EAVE16'-0" 12 4 12 6 ELEVATION PLAN DECOR POST BANDS 36'-0" A 18" STANDING SEAM STYLE ROOF PANELS DIE FORM ALUM. GABLE TRIM DIE FORM ALUM EAVE TRIM DETAIL A 2x6 TONGUE N GROOVE WOOD DECK BOARDS A A SCALE: AS NOTED 28'-0" x 36'-0"MULTI SLOPE ILLINI SHELTER SHEET 2 of 2 95592-2 AMERICANA BUILDING PRODUCTS#2 INDUSTRIAL DRIVE - SALEM, IL 62881(800) 851-0865 - www.americana.com B D 8 7 56 4 23 1 DRAWN: MT 8/31/2021 C C D B A REVDWG NODATESIZE TITLE 7 345 1268 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONLarge Shelter: Base Bid PHILIP ARNOLD PARK APPENDIX F Record Drawings for Picnic Shelter PHILIP ARNOLD PARK APPENDIX G Record Drawings for Community Building PHILIP ARNOLD PARK APPENDIX H Portland Loo Plans, Details, & Specifications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ight Hand Door Swing will be used Locate the recessed hand wash station on the side closest to the playground 7<3 66;; 32676 7<3 67$,1/(66 67((/$77$&+('72 3267:;66 6&5(:67<3 6((&211(&7,21 '(7$,/$ $ $ 67$,1/(6667((/ /289(56$77$&+('72 3267:;66 6&5(:67<3 )520 &2/801 726,*1 6 ))( 5,*+7(/(9$7,219,(: 6((&211(&7,21 '(7$,/$ 66522) 6((6(&7,216 $1''(7$,/6$ )5217(/(9$7,219,(: $//*(1'(5 %$7+5220 6,*1 5(675220 '2256,*1 ' & % $ % & ' $$5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( -RE1<&35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ 0DWHULDO QRWVSHFLILHG! $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216)5217 5,*+76,'( $ 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ '225+(,*+7'225667$,1/(6667((/ /289(56$77$&+('72 3267:;66 6&5(:67<3 6((&211(&7,21 '(7$,/$ 67$,1/(6667((/ 3,$12+,1*( 7/67./& %(676,1*/(&</,1'(5 '($'%2/7/2&. 67$,1/(6667((/ $77$&+('723267: 666&5(:6 7<3 3/80%,1*&+$6((/(&75,&$/&+$6( ))( 66;; 32676 7<3 67$,1/(66 67((/$77$&+('72 3267:; 666&5(:67<3 6((&211(&7,21 '(7$,/$ +$1''5<(5 $9$,/$%/( 5(&(66('+$1' :$6+67$7,21 &$1%(/2&$7(' 21(,7+(56,'( 2)/22 $ 62$3',63(16( 3/80%,1*&+$6(*,9(6$&&(66 72:$7(56(:(5&211(&7,216 3/80%,1*0$1,)2/'6+$536 ',6326$/$1'+$1'6$1,7,=(5 (/(&75,&$/&+$6(*,9(6$&&(66 7262$3',63(16(5$1'+$1':$6+ &20321(176 :+(1,167$//(' %$&.(/(9$7,219,(: $ 66522) 6((6(&7,216 $1''(7$,/6$ /()7(/(9$7,219,(: ' & % $ % & ' $$5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( -RE1<&35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ 0DWHULDO QRWVSHFLILHG! $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( (;7(5,25(/(9$7,216%$&. /()76,'( $ 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ ;'5$,1+2/(7<372'5$,1'2:1&2/801)$&( $$ '(7$,/ '(7$,/'(7$,/ 6(&7,21$$ 9(17,/$7,213,3( (/(&75,&$/%2; 3,3( &283/,1* 67$,1/(6667((/ 3,3(&283/,1* 3,3(&283/,1*6.</,*+7)5$0('(7$,/ *$66)5$0( 6$7,1(7&+('7(03(5(' */$66*/$=,1* 66 *0$:6+257$5&7<3$//),77,1*672522) '(7$,/ '(7$,/ 67$,1/(6667((/7<3 522)/$<287 ' & % $ % & ' $$5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( -RE1<&35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ 0DWHULDO QRWVSHFLILHG! $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( 522)/$<287 $ 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ 522)/$<287:,7+62/$53$1(/6 ' & % $ % & ' $$5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( -RE1<&35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP)5$&7,21$/ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ 0DWHULDO QRWVSHFLILHG! $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( 522)/$<287:"62/$53$1(/6 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ '(7$,/ 6.</,*+7 67$,1/(6667((/; ;326767<3 67$,1/(6667((/ /289(56$77$&+(' 7232676:; 666&5(:67<3 $1&+25'(7$,/ 6((6(&7,21$$ 6+((7$ '(7$,/ %2/7&211(&7,21 $&&(66+2/(&87287 7<3%()25$//%($06 ,17(5,25(/(9$7,219,(: ))( $ $ 7<3%($0723267 %2/721&211(&7,21 :;66%2/76 ' & % $ % & ' $$5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( -RE1<&35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ 0DWHULDO QRWVSHFLILHG! $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( ,17(5,256(&7,219,(: $ 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ 0,1 0,1 0,1 +$1'6$1,7,=(5 6+$536',6326$/+$1'6$1,7,=(5 73+2/'(5 6+$536',6326$/%$%<&+$1*,1*7$%/( 672:(' 7+,&. 66,1),//3$1(/ 02817)/86+72 663267: 666&5(:6 ;:$//66 3/66 72&(17(5 $$ 73+2/'(5 72,/(7 '5,//$1'&6. )/$7+' 6&5(:63/&6 21%&7<3 %2%5,&. % 6652%( +22. $;:$//66 3/66 6(&7,21$$ 6&$/( 72,/(7 $ 6(&7,21$$ 7<3*5$%%$572 3$1(/&211(&7,21 )+6&5(:6 3/&67<35$,/72 3$1(/&211(&7,21 $//*5$%%$56 &203/<:,7+&%&% 72:,7+67$1')25&( 2)32,17/2$' &/ &/ %$%< &+$1*( 23(1 326,7,21 +$1'6$1,7,=(5 6+$536 ',6326$/%,1 :$7(5&/26(75$,/,1*:$7(5&/26(75$,/,1* ' & % $ % & ' $$5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( -RE1<&35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ 0DWHULDO QRWVSHFLILHG! $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( ,17(5,256(&7,219,(:6 $ 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ 7<3/$7(5$/5(6,67,1*(/(0(17 /$7(5$/5(6,67,1*(/(0(17 $ /$7(5$/ )25&( 5(6,67,1* (/(0(17 %2/721&211(&7,21 %($072&2/8016(( '(7$,/21$7<3 66;;%($0 7<37<3 7<3 7<3 7<3 % %'(7$,/$ 6&$/( 6(&7,21%% 6&$/( )25/,)7,1*(<(86($1' %2/7,1*2)522)72 6758&785(7<3 66%2/77<3 &2/801/,)7,1*&$36667$3)25%2/7 60$:( / 60$:( / &2/801$1'%($0/$<287 ' & % $ % & ' $$5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( -RE1<&35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ 0DWHULDO QRWVSHFLILHG! $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((7 2):(,*+7 6&$/( &2/801$1'%($0/$<287 6 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ 125721 '225&/26(5 )25&($70$; $ $ % %& &$/80,180 /289(5:(/'('72'225 7$33('3/$7(6 :(/'('72'225$/,*1 :,7+'225+2/(6 /(9(5+$1'/( %$&.6,'( ,17(5,25 )/225 7<3 '(7$,/ '225675,.( 1(235(1( :($7+(5675,33,1* 6(&7,21$$ )5217'225 7<3 6(&7,21%% )5217'225 7<3 6(&7,21&& $/80,180 $/80,180 5(4 ' 5(4 ' 5(4 ' 5(4 ' )5217'225&203/,(6 :,7+$'$ /()7+$1'(175<'225 67$1'$5' 3/$/80,180 ' & % $ % & ' $$5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( -RE1<&35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ 0DWHULDO QRWVSHFLILHG! $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( )5217'225 6 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ *(1(5$/127(6 3URYLGHDOOPDWHULDOVDQGSHUIRUPDOOZRUNDFFRUGLQJWRWKHFXUUHQW HGLWLRQRIWKH6SHFLILFDWLRQVRIWKH$XWKRULW\+DYLQJ-XULVGLFWLRQ $OOFRQFUHWHVKDOOEH6WUXFWXUDO&ODVV)& SVL $OOUHLQIRUFLQJVWHHOVKDOOFRQIRUPWR$*UDGH 3ODFHEDUVLQFKHVFOHDURIWKHQHDUHVWIDFHRIFRQFUHWHXQOHVV VKRZQRWKHUZLVH &RQFUHWHIRRWLQJPD\EHSRXUHGLQWHJUDOO\ZLWKVLGHZDONSURYLGLQJ DGHHSFXWWRROMRLQWLVORFDWHGDURXQGSHULPHWHURIIRRWLQJ 6WDQFKLRQVVHFWLRQ$$$WREHIDVWHQHGWRWKHFRQFUHWH XVLQJ [6LPSVRQ7LWHQ+'$QFKRUV7KH/RRVFROXPQVWREH IDVWHQHGWRWKHVWDQFKLRQV /RFDWLRQRIDQFKRUEROWVWREHORFDWHGDQGGULOOHGXVLQJWHPSODWH SURYLGHGEHIRUHLQVWDOODWLRQE\0DGGHQ)DEULFDWLRQ )RU*UDGH6ORSHDQGORFDWLRQRIIORRUGUDLQVVHHFLYLOSODQV 3 3 :DVWHOLQH FRQGXLW SYFHOHFWULFDO URG5HEDUJUQG SLSH :DWHULQOHW 6LGHZDON #0D[ )RXQGDWLRQEORFNRXWIRUZDVWHOLQH #0$;%27+',5(&7,216 6LGHZDON 6LGHZDON 6LGHZDON %%$$%%$$7REHGULOOHGDIWHUFRQFUHWH 6(&7,21 )281'$7,21 $1&+25%2/7/2&$7,216 6(&7,21 :DVWHOLQH FRQGXLW SYFHOHFWULFDO URG5HEDUJUQG SLSH :DWHULQOHW 6LGHZDON #0D[#0D[ )RXQGDWLRQEORFNRXWIRUZDVWHOLQH 6LGHZDON 6LGHZDON 6LGHZDON %%$$%%$$ 6(&7,21 )281'$7,21 $1&+25%2/7/2&$7,216 6(&7,21 :DVWHOLQH FRQGXLW SYFHOHFWULFDO URG5HEDUJUQG SLSH :DWHULQOHW 6LGHZDON #0D[ )RXQGDWLRQEORFNRXWIRUZDVWHOLQH 6LGHZDON 6LGHZDON 6LGHZDON %%$$%%$$+ROHGHHS 6(&7,21 )281'$7,21 $1&+25%2/7/2&$7,216 6(&7,21 :DVWHOLQH FRQGXLW SYFHOHFWULFDO URG5HEDUJUQG SLSH :DWHULQOHW 6LGHZDON #0D[#0D[ )RXQGDWLRQEORFNRXWIRUZDVWHOLQH IRRWLQJSODQLQWRVLGHZDON 6DZFXWSURILOHRI 6LGHZDON 6LGHZDON 6LGHZDON %%$$%%$$+ROHGHHS IRUVWDQFKLRQV$QFKRUEROWORFDWLRQV 6(&7,21 )281'$7,21 $1&+25%2/7/2&$7,216 6(&7,21 KDVKDUGHQHG (;,67,1*81',6785%('62,/: 1(7$//2:$%/(%5*35(6685( 36,0,1 '5$,1)25 5(&(66('+$1':$6+ '5$,1)255(&(66('+$1':$6+ ,)5,*+76,'(,167$//$7,21 ' & % $ % & ' $5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( 35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( )281'$7,21 $1&+25%2/7/2&$7,216 6 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ 68**(67(' 127( 6((3 )' ),77,1*$1'75$335,0(56,=(287/(7:,7+375$3 5,6(5',$*5$0 )/22575(1&+'5$,16833/,('%<2:1(5&2175$&725 :& &+$6((/(&75,&$/&+$6(3/80%,1* )' 3/80%,1*)/2253/$1 58163(5&,7< 3/80%,1* %,//2)0$7(5,$/ ,7(0 47<'(6&5,37,21 0)* 21(9(173,3(78%(72522)9$5,286 21(:$67(3,3,1*6'539&6(:(5/,1(7232&9$5,286 21(5287(&:6833/<72)/225'5$,1375$3)52075$335,0,1*/2&$7(',13/80%,1*&+$6(-$<560,7+ 21(*5$'(&/($1287 47< /2&$7,213(5/2&$/&2'( 9$5,286 21(:$7(5,1/(7&:6833/<6+2:1216+((79$5,286 21(&:6833/<726296+2:1216+((79$5,286 21(6(:(5/,1(&$55,(56+2:2139$5,286 21(75$335,0(59$/9( 3(5/2&$/&2'( 35,0(5,*+7 21(:$6+%$6,1)/225'5$,1375$3)52075$335,0,1*/2&$7(',13/80%,1*&+$6(:+(1,167$//('9$5,286 21(6(:(5'5$,1)255(&(66('+$1':$6+9$5,286 ' & % $ % & ' $5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( 35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( 3/80%,1*)/2253/$1 3 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ (;3$16,21+$00(5'(9,&( Z0%):)/2:81,7 0$,16+872))9$/9( :&1'85$:$5(72,/(7 <&$55,(5 '85$%/(3/$67,&72,/(76($7 &$67,5216&+3,3( 6(:(5'5$,1 &86833/< 7<3(/ ,36&83,3( 7<3(/ 58%%(5&283/,1* '(*5(((/%2:3,3( +26(%,%$17,6,3+2162/'(5('7+5($'('),77,1* 7+5($'('&$3 725('8&,1*7(( 72)(0$/(7+5($'('&283/(5 725('8&(5 7(( '(*5(((/%2:3,3(&83,3( 7<3(/ 725('8&,1*7(( 725('8&,1*7((725('8&,1*7(( $'$),%(5*/$66*5$7( /22,17(5,25 :$7(5&/26(7 7R5RRI ,1/(7:$7(5 287/(7'5$,1 /22,17(5,25 :$7(5&/26(7 7R5RRI ,1/(7:$7(5 287/(7'5$,1 /22,17(5,25 :$7(5&/26(7 7R5RRI ,1/(7:$7(5 287/(7'5$,1 /22,17(5,25 :$7(5&/26(7 7R5RRI ,1/(7:$7(5 287/(7'5$,1 %,//2)0$7(5,$/ ,7(0 47<'(6&5,37,21 0)* 21(6/2$1 21(9$5,286 21($&251 21($&251 21(-$<560,7+ 21(9$5,286 21(27+(56 21(27+(56 21(9$5,286 21( 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 21(9$5,286 ' & % $ % & ' $5(9,6,21 &$'),/(1$0( 35235,(7$5<$1'&21),'(17,$/ 7+(,1)250$7,21&217$,1(',17+,6'5$:,1*,67+(62/(3523(57<2)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&$1<5(352'8&7,21,13$5725$6$:+2/(:,7+2877+(:5,77(13(50,66,212)0$''(1)$%5,&$7,21,1&,6352+,%,7(' .&285,$1 1:WK3ODFH3RUWODQG25 PDGIDEFRP0,//,0(7(56 >;@ >@ >;;@ >@>;;;@ >@ $1*8/$5 0$&+,1( %(1' 1$ 1$ 1$ 1$ 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< 00''<< ,1&+(6 ; ;; ;;; ',0(16,216$5(,1,1&+(6$1'0,//,0(7(56>00@72/(5$1&(6 *(20(75,&72/(5$1&,1*3(5 0$7(5,$/ $60(< '21276&$/( 81/(6627+(5:,6(63(&,),(' '5$:1 &+(&.(' (1*$335 0)*$335 4$ '$7(1$0( '(6,*1(' 6+((72):(,*+7 6&$/( 3/80%,1*'(7$,/ 3 7,7/( 5(9 %'5$:,1*6,=( $ 21(/RFN6ROHQRLG 9$5,286 21(6PDUW3DF 9$5,286 21(,QWHUPDWLF)0'6HULHV 9$5,286 )8)82876,'(/('/,*+7,16,'(/('/,*+7 21($PS%UHDNHU3DQHO%5/63 ($721 $XWRPDWLRQ'LUHFW $XWRPDWLRQ'LUHFW %DWWHU\V\VWHPPRQLWHU5021(0RUQLQJVWDU *UDSH6RODU:390RGXOH RUHTXDO *5$3(62/$5 0&&DEOH $:* 0.$/736HDOHG$*0%DWWHU\7:2 0.%DWWHU\ 21( 21(93KRWRFHOO(0$ 2FFXSDQF\6HQVRU)63 :DWW6WRSSHU :DWW6WRSSHU 21( 7:2 9/('/LJKW5RSH:KLWH:)W[IW 9:/('%OXH$FWLQLF ,PWUD&RUS &XUUHQW86$ $9)XVH/3&&%XVV 7:2 ϳϴϮͲϮͲϮϰ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age 1 of 9 January 01, 2020 SECTION 13 34 00 FABRICATED ENGINEERED STRUCTURES PART 1: GENERAL 1.1 DESCRIPTION This section includes all material and labor required in the fabrication and placement of the “Portland Loo” facility as shown in drawings. 1.2 SCOPE A. Building materials shall be supplied by Portland Loo Inc. Portland Loo Inc. 2550 NW 25th Place Portland, OR 97210 Phone: 503-226-3968; Fax: 503-242-2446, E-mail: emadden@theloo.biz or approved equal B. Generally, work will include site preparation, installation of underground plumbing, foundation, and pad construction, and building placement. C. Requests for substitution shall be submitted to the Owner a minimum of 10 days prior to bid date. The request shall be a complete package as noted below: i. Documents to be in CSI format. ii. Product literature/or brochure illustrating appearance, layout, building shape, materials, and assembly manual. iii. Certificate from manufacturer that the proposed substitution follows all provisions of this specification. iv. List of five (minimum) completed projects, including contact names and phone numbers, that are similar in scope and magnitude. v. Proof of at least five years of experience as a pre-engineered building supplier Page 2 of 9 January 01, 2020 1.3 DOCUMENTATION Provide all necessary documents for approval and installation. A. Construction documents include: i. Detailed plans ii. Specifications B. Floor plan dimensions: 6’-4” W x 10’-7” L x 8’-91/2” Tall 1.4 REFERENCES A. ASTM A-240 B. ASTM A-554 C. ASTM A650 Grade 60 D. ADAAG E. CBC F. CSFM G. ANSI H. ASME I. MILITARY SPECIFICATION V-29193 1.5 DESIGN CRITERIA A. Members to withstand dead load, design loads and wind loads as calculated in accordance with the latest version of state and local building codes. B. Portland Loo Inc. reserves the right to make substitutions of equivalent materials and items without notice. C. Design loads: Refer to drawings. D. Accessibility: Design shall meet the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and California Building Codes Page 3 of 9 January 01, 2020 1.6 SUBMITTALS A. Indicate profiles, sizes, spacing(s), location of structural members, connections, attachments, openings, fasteners, loads and reinforcements. B. Indicate wall and roof system dimensions, panel layout, general construction details, anchorages and method of anchorage, and method of installation. C. Submit manufacturer’s installation instructions, manuals, and data sheets. D. The “Portland Loo Restroom” building, and all its associated components shall be warranted against defects in materials and workmanship for a period of one year from date of final acceptance. 1.7 WORK SUPPLIED BY INSTALLER A. The items noted as “supplied by installer” shall be supplied by the building installer. B. Refer to drawings for quantities, dimensions, locations, and installations methods for items described in this section. C. The installer shall supply any parts not listed in the Portland Loo Inc. submittal, including but not limited to items specified in the final plans and items required by building codes. D. The installer shall be responsible for ensuring that the concrete foundation and slab are adequate for the site conditions and the purpose for which the building and foundation/slab are intended. E. All equipment, labor, and trades to unload the building, excavate the site, install the underground plumbing, build concrete forms, supply, and install the reinforced concrete footings and slab, and install the building and fixtures. F. 1-1/2” minimum water line is required to supply the toilet and hand wash facility shall be included. At 1-1/2” the water line must have no longer that 100’ run to the water meter. (All dimensions and will be site specific) G. 4” ABS sanitary sewer line is required to service the restroom shall be included. H. The building installer is responsible for the supply and installation of all other items indicated on final plans or required by building codes. Portland Loo Inc. does not supply these items. Page 4 of 9 January 01, 2020 PART 2: PRODUCTS 2.1 CONCRETE Slab and footings supplied by installer - 4000 psi strength at 28 days ii. ASTM A615 grade 60 rebar reinforcement 2.2 STEEL A. Prefabricated building frame posts supplied by Portland Loo Inc. - The prefabricated steel frame is to be constructed of 3” ASTM 304L stainless tube steel. B. Prefabricated roof system supplied by Portland Loo Inc. i. The prefabricated roof will consist of 3/16” ASTM A304L Stainless Steel plate, with 1/4” ASTM A304L Stainless Steel plate formed around the exterior for fascia. ii. The prefabricated roof system will include (4) 2000# lifting eyes that will act as pick points for the prefabricated roof system. In addition, (4) 1” x 3” slotted drains for water runoff shall be included. C. Wall panels supplied by Portland Loo Inc. i. The wall panels will be 3/16” ASTM A304 Stainless steel structural plate steel. ii. All wall panels are channel formed around the perimeter and bolted to the prefabricated building frame. iii. Water guards will be supplied to keep leaves and other debris from entering the loo from underneath the louvers. 2.3 OPENINGS A. Louvers supplied by Portland Loo Inc. The frame and louvers will be fabricated from 1/4” 304/304L ASTM A240A stainless steel plate. Louver panels will be bolted to steel fabricated frames and columns. B. Skylight supplied by Portland Loo Inc. Page 5 of 9 January 01, 2020 Pre-assembled 304/304L ASTM A240A stainless steel frame with 1/8” translucent double pane 1/8” tempered glass. Base frame to be seal welded to roof and glass panel secured using 304/304L ASTM removable cover plate with drip edge. C. Main door supplied by Portland Loo Inc. i. 3/16” 5052 Aluminum ASTM B209-14- aluminum plate with formed edges around perimeter, 3/16” Formed channel stiffeners, and an integrated door louver fabricated from 3/16” 5052 Aluminum-Alloy plate. ii. Door hinges shall be barrel hinges with zerk fittings welded to ¼” x 3” x 5” plates. Hinges shall be attached with 3/8-16 vandal resistant security screws. iii. Lever lock shall be Best HD door lever 9k series complies with ADA and California Fire Safety Code (CSFM). Dormitory locking feature to keep door from locking after departure. Satin Chrome finish. Installation on- site with supplied hardware. iv. Door closer shall be Norton 9540 689 inside surface mounted door closer with fast power adjust, shall comply with ADA requirements. Door closer shall be tested and certified under ANSI Standard A156.4, grade one. v. Electric door lock shall be a HES 1006 Series Electric Strike 24 volt controlled by an INTERMATIC FM1D14 timer. D. Mechanical room doors supplied by Portland Loo Inc. i. 3/16” ASTM A304 Stainless Steel plate. ii. Door hinges shall be type 304 stainless steel lift off hinges 1849A34. iii. Locks to be (2) Stanley BEST 8T-2-7-L-STK-626 Grade 1 Cylinder/Blank Deadbolt with a 2-3/8 Backset in Satin Chrome. Cores passed ANSI/BHMA A156.11, grade 1 testing. Satin chrome finish to accept Best large format IC cores by installer. Qty 1 per door. 2.4 PLUMBING A. Toilet supplied by Portland Loo Inc. Page 6 of 9 January 01, 2020 i. Acorn Dura-Ware 2105 Series wall hung, 16-ga. type 304 stainless steel. Seamlessly welded from a one-piece vandal resistant unit. Fully enclosed trap, Siphon Jet flushing action, and integral elongated seat. Designed for low consumption with appropriate flush valve. iii. Designed to meet or exceed UPC 407.1 for hydraulic performance and physical dimensions. iv. Exposed surfaces polished to a satin finish. B. Plumbing System i. Plumbing manifold and vent will be constructed with PVC (Schedule 40) in accordance with UPC Code 604.1 and 701.2. ii. Plumbing vent will be 4” wide to meet or exceed UPC 904.1 constructed out of Schedule 40 PVC. C. Exterior hand wash station supplied by Portland Loo Inc. i. Acorn BPH chrome plated brass filler spout with push button actuator and a pneumatic valve. ii. Acorn 03-M pneumatic metering valve iii. Acorn PBH air-trol push button requires less than 5 lb force operation. D. Flushometer supplied by Portland Loo Inc. i. Sloan manual concealed flushometer for wall hung water closets, 14.5" rough in, rear spud, offset activation, 1.28 gpf/4.8 Lpf, wall box. ii. Valve body, cover, tailpiece, and control stop shall be in conformance with ASTM alloy classification for semi-red brass. iii. Valve shall comply to the applicable sections of UPC 413.2, and military specification V-29193. Page 7 of 9 January 01, 2020 iv. ADA compliant non-hold-open feature type actuator. 2.6 FURNISHINGS A. Grab bars supplied by Portland Loo Inc. WH Cress 6800 series stainless steel grab bars, 4-ga, satin finish 1-1/2” outside diameter 22-ga round snap on concealed mount. B. Toilet paper dispenser supplied by Portland Loo Inc. One, 4-roll 12ga 304 Stainless steel, rolling dispenser with 1” long, lockable. C. Hand sanitizer dispenser supplied by Portland Loo Inc. i. McMaster 2783K26 Chrome-plated Gravity-Flow Valve fed from interior reservoirs. ii. High impact polystyrene soap vessel liner, chrome-plated brass soap valve with ABS mechanism that requires less than 5lbs of force. iii. 32oz bottle soap reservoir secured inside locked back water closet space. D. Signs supplied by Portland Loo Inc. i. Restroom entry signs shall be fastened to exterior walls alongside entry doors to meet ADA requirements, Hand Sanitizer sign on inside above hand sanitizer pump, Hand Wash sign on outside above hand wash control valve. Page 8 of 9 January 01, 2020 ii. Graphics and grade 2 Braille on injection molded plastic signs, black or blue color. Unisex design. iii. Dimensions: Qty (1) 9” wide by 8” tall by 1/8” thick. iv. Dimensions: Qty (1) 8” wide by 2” tall by 1/8” thick “Hand Sanitizer” sign v. Dimensions: Qty (1) 8” wide by 2” tall by 1/8” thick “Hand Wash” sign 2.8 FINISHES All exposed Stainless steel and steel surfaces are sandblast finish with powder coated using RAL 7037 for the tube, columns & stanchions. Panels, Door & Roof CARDINALS :S# 17187 P097- GRAY POLYURETHANE POWDER COATING SEMI-GLOSS GRAY CHARCOAL (ANTI-GRAFFITI). 2.9 ELECTRICAL Electrical system and components Supplied by Portland Loo Inc. - Furnished and wired by electrical contractor licensed in the state of Oregon. Wiring, conduit, electrical enclosures are UL listed. A. Exterior lighting – LED Flexlight light rope, 3 Watts per foot. Blue lighting. B. Interior Lighting – Two 24 Inch Current USA TrueLumen Pro Deepwater Blue 453nm Actinic LED Strip Lights C. Lighting control – Photoeye – 24 VDC Wattstopper Model #EM-24A2. D. Electrical heat trace and Thermostat – Heatline Kompensator heat trace with 6 watts per foot and 24V DC powered. Heat trace controlled by Engenity Solitat II Solid State DC thermostat set to close at 40 deg Fahrenheit or below, 6V to 24V operation and 20Amp load capability. E. Meter Panel (non-solar units if requested) – Cooper AW114TB UL 414 listed and complies with C12.7. Only on Non-solar Portland Loo. F. Sola 24 V DC power supply 110V AC input, 240 Watt – model SDN 10-24-100C. Only on non-solar Portland Loo Page 9 of 9 January 01, 2020 G. Electrical Enclosure - NEMA (include wording for grounding by others) Including breakers and fusing, wire terminations, Control relays and Sola 24V DC power supply (non-solar units). PART 3: EXECUTION 3.1 SITEWORK A. Refer to site plan. i. Structural fill per geotechnical reports (by others). ii. Site grading and structural fill (by others). iii. Building foundation structural fill (by others). iv. Structural fill to being the site to grade and compaction (by others) v. Structural fill for footing foundation and slab grading per plan (by installer). vi. Sidewalks (by installer). 3.2 BUILDING ERECTION A. Verify site conditions are prepared for building installation. B. Do not field cut or alter structural members without approval of architect or engineer. C. Install in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions. END OF SECTION 13 34 00 PHILIP ARNOLD PARK APPENDIX I Temporary Project Sign 1’-0” 4’-0” 8’-0” ” NOTES: 1.PAINTING. THE FACE AND EDGES OF THE ½ INCH PLYWOOD SIGN BOARD SHALL HAVE ONE PRIME COAT AND TWO COATS OF EXTERIOR ENAMEL. THE POSTS, BRACES AND BACK OF SIGN BOARD SHALL HAVE ONE COAT OF PRIMER AND EXTERIOR ENAMEL. THE BACKGROUND COLOR IS WHITE. 2.LETTER TYPES. THE LETTER TYPE SHALL BE CALIBRI EXCEPT THE LOGOS WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY. ALL LETTERS AND NUMBERS SHALL BE BLACK. 3. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ARTIST PROOF FOR APPROVAL. 4”x4”x12’ Vertical Posts, Treated (TYP.) 4’x8’ Exterior Plywood (Smooth both sides, ABX) 2”x4” Diagonal Brace D.F. Std.&Btr. (TYP.) 6’-0” Above FG (Min) 3’-0” (Min) PHILIP ARNOLD PARK SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARCHITECT: HBB LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTRACTOR: CONTRACT AMOUNT: $SCHEDULE: JUNE 2022 - MARCH 2023 FUNDING: 2019 PARKS BOND, KING COUNTY PROP 1 LEVY, PARKS IMPACT MITIGATION FEES PHILIP ARNOLD PARK