Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL17-0021 - BOEING DEVELOPMENT CENTER DEMO - SEPA / PLANNED ACTIONBOEING DEVELOPMENT CENTER - DEMO 0423049150 Associated Files: PL17-0021 This File: E 17-0004 SEPA/PLANNED ACTION City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION DATED JUNE 21, 2017 TO: John Murdoch, Permit Administrator, The Boeing Company King County Assessor, Accounting Division State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division This letter serves as a notice of decision that the application for planned action regarding the demolition of a structure and removal of impervious surfaces and some trees and vegetation at the Boeing Activity Center is issued pursuant to TMC 21.04.156. PROJECT BACKGROUND FILE NUMBER: APPLICANT: REQUEST: Location: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DETERMINATION: E17-0004 John Murdoch, The Boeing Company Determine that the proposed demolition of a structure (Building 9-150, Boeing Activity Center) and removal of all impervious surfaces immediately related to the structure and the removal of some trees and vegetation falls under the Manufacturing/Industrial Center -Heavy (MIC/H) planned action criteria and therefore no additional SEPA review is required. 10500 West Marginal Way South (tax account number 0423049150) The Boeing Company proposes to demolish building 9-150, a 52,500 sq. ft. structure currently used as an activity center/gym., remove related impervious surfaces for the area immediately around the gym, and remove a number of trees and formal landscaping associated with the structure. Most of the vegetation to be removed lies outside the shoreline jurisdiction. Ten trees within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction will also be removed — these trees are in close proximity to the building; the applicant will be required to replace these trees on -site, based on the replacement ratios found in TMC 18.44.080 B. 4. or pay into the City's tree replacement fund. The project falls under the planned action guidelines. The decision is final with no administrative appeal. Page I of 1 Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov E17-0004 Boeing Building 9-150 Demolition June 21, 2017 Page 2of2 ZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: MIC/H Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permit are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington, Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Carol Lumb who may be contacted at 206-431-3661 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. al,a00 Jack Pe, Director of Community Development Date CL 6/20/2017 4:28 PM H:\\E17-0004 Boeing Activity Ctr Demolition\NOD Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 2:14 PM To: 'sepaunit@ecy.wa.gov' Subject: Planned Action SEPA Attachments: E17-0004-Planned Action Application.pdf; Planned Action Checklist response.pdf; E17-0004 staff rpt.pdf; E17-0004 Revised plans.pdf; E17-0004 NOD.pdf Hello, I am attaching documents related to a Planned Action SEPA determination for the demolition of a 52,500 sq. ft. building in Tukwila along with the SEPA checklist. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Carol Lumb CarolLumb, AICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of 'rukwiCa 630o Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 7uklviCa, bV 98188 206-431-3661 CaroCCumb@Tuktivilawa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 2:18 PM To: 'Clement, Mark D' Cc: 'Murdoch, John S' Subject: Planned Action SEPA Attachments: E17-0004 staff rpt.pdf; E17-0004 NOD.pdf H I am attaching the notice of decision and staff report for the building demolition. Let me know if you have any questions. Hard copy will go in tomorrow's mail. I will work on the building permit for the demo tomorrow and hopefully be done with it by Friday. Carol Carolfumb, .7fCP, Senior PCanner Department of Community DeveCopment City of ?ukwiCa 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 'Tukwila, W..7l 98188 206-431-3661 CaroCCumb@lukwiCaiva.gov 7ukwiCa, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** i eitg of J ditto a Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, Carol Lumb , HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Application X Notice of Decision Notice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Determination of Non- Significance Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit Shoreline Mgmt Permit Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Official Notice Notice of Action Other: Was mailed to each of the addresses listed via email: SEPA Unit, Mark Clement and John Murdoch on this 21 day of June 2017 Project Name: Boeing Activity Center Demolition Project Number: PL17-0021 Associated File Number (s): E17-0004 Mailing requested by: Carol Lumb Mailer's signature: C:\USERS\SHANA-M\DOWNLOADS\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director MEMORANDUM June 20, 2017 To: Jack Pace, DCD Director From: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Re: Project File No. E17-0004: Demolition of Building 9-150-Boeing Employee Activity Center Project Description: Boeing is discontinuing the use of a leased building that has been used as an employee activity center — i.e. a fitness center and gym. The lease requires that upon termination, the site be returned to its original, undeveloped character. To comply with the terms of the lease, the project proposal will demolish a two- story, 52,500 square foot building, remove associated paved pathways, utilities, and vegetation, including trees. The demolition project area is part of a much larger site which is used primarily for parking not associated with the activity center. The majority of the building lies within the two hundred foot shoreline jurisdiction — a shoreline permit is not required for the demolition of a building. Proponent: Location: Lead Agency: Challenges to Document: John Murdoch, Permit Administrator, The Boeing Company 10500 West Marginal Way South (parcel #042304-9150) City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development None Other Agencies of Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology Zoning: Comprehensive Plan Designation: MIC/H MIC/H Recommendation: The proposal fits within the scope of a SEPA Planned Action according to the criteria set forth in TMC 21.04.152. The proposal is recommended for approval as a SEPA Planned Action. I. BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL Tukwila's Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) is one of the Puget Sound region's major industrial centers. Industrial development over most of the sub -area was evaluated in multi -site environmental review. In 1992, a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) was Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Jack Pace, DCD Director E17-0004, Oxbow Fitness Center Demolition June 20, 2017 Page 2 prepared for the Duwamish Corridor master plan, a proposal to redevelop Boeing properties in the MIC over a 10-year period. In 1998, sub -area plan/EIS updates extended the previous analysis of the corridor's Boeing properties (about 650 acres) to the entire MIC sub -area (about 1,370 acres). As part of this Planned Action review for the current proposal, the impacts of the current proposal are compared to the 1998 Integrated Growth Management Act Implementation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that all impacts have been mitigated. The current proposal is to demolish a 52,500 sq. ft. structure, the 9-150 building, located at 10500 West Marginal Way South. The building has been used as a fitness center for Boeing employees. The site is leased and the lease is being terminated. As part of the lease agreement, the applicant is required to restore the site to its original condition. The project will demolish the existing building, remove pathways and other impervious surfaces, remove utilities, and vegetation outside the shoreline jurisdiction and ten trees within the shoreline jurisdiction that are close to the building. The building to be demolished is within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction of the Duwamish River. The subject site is zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy (MIC/H). II. DECISION CRITERIA This proposal was identified as a potential Planned Action because of its location within the subarea subject to the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. The determination of whether a project fits the Planned Action criteria is divided into two phases. Each phase is described below, including a response that explains how the current proposal meets the criteria. 1) In the first phase, a determination is made whether the project satisfies all of the following characteristics (contained in TMC 21.04.152 Planned Actions Identified): 1. The action is a "permitted use" located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36.020) and MIC/H (TMC 18.38.020) zones and/or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively). 2. The action is: a. not an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200 and TMC 18.06.270, b. not a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC/L or MIC/H zones, c. not a development, any portion of which includes shoreline modifications waterward of the ordinary high water mark, d. not a development associated with 16th Avenue Bridge construction activities. Response: The proposal for this site is to demolitish an existing structure, which is permitted in the underlying zoning. Additionally, the project is consistent with items a-d H:\\Boeing\E17-0004\Fitness Center Demo Staff Rpt. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Jack Pace, DCD Director E17-0004, Oxbow Fitness Center Demolition June 20, 2017 Page 3 under number 2 above. There is no current proposed use for the site once the existing building is demolished. 2) Once the project has met the initial test to qualify as a planned action, it must then show the following: A. Will all of the impacts of the proposal be mitigated by the time the project is complete? Please document all mitigation measures, using attachments if necessary. Response: Based on the answers provided in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Screening Checklist, the project does not constitute a "take" under ESA. The following provides clarification for items answered "yes" in the ESA Screening Checklist. Compliance with existing codes will mitigate any impacts related to grading, erosion control and vegetation removal. (1) Grading and clearing: The project includes grading and clearing associated with demolition of the fitness center building, including removal of pavement, utilities, and vegetation. The checklist states that 60 trees, planted at the time the building was constructed in 1987, will be removed along with the building. These trees lie both within and outside the shoreline jurisdiction. The trees that existed at the time the building was constructed will be protected and remain. The Shoreline Master program does not permit the removal of trees unless they are defective or are being removed as part of a re -development proposal. The project plans have been revised to retain most of the trees in the shoreline jurisdiction planted as part of the activity center development. Trees immediately next to the building will be removed — replacement will be required on -site or payment made into the City's tree replacement fund as part of review of the demolition permit. (2) Vegetation: As noted above, the original proposal was to remove all vegetation planted as part of the site development, including approximately 60 trees that fall within the shoreline jurisdiction. The proposal has been modified to retain most of the trees — ten trees that are next to the building will be removed. The applicant will be required to replace these trees, using the tree ratios found in TMC 18.44.080 B.4., as part of the demolition permit. B. Is the proposal consistent with the applicable sections of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan? TMC 21.04.154 requires that the Comprehensive Plan policies that are to be reviewed are those identified in the "Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center." Specifically, the proposed project meets the following goals and policies: H:\\Boeing\E17-0004Witness Center Demo Staff Rpt. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Jack Pace, DCD Director E17-0004, Oxbow Fitness Center Demolition June 20, 2017 Page 4 Goal 11.1: Support the existing industrial activities in the MIC and development of new industrial activity in order to maximize the employment and economic benefits to the people to Tukwila in the region, while minimizing impacts on residential neighborhoods. Policy 11.1.1: Support the efforts of existing industries to expand and new industrial businesses to develop in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center by providing them with economic data, information on available development sites, help in understanding and getting through the permit processes, and other appropriate assistance. Policy 11.1.5: Allow uses that are commonly associated with manufacturing and industry, including those directly supporting such activity, such as offices and laboratories, while prohibiting unrelated uses. The demolition of the fitness center will provide a new development opportunity for a building or buildings with a use that is permitted in the Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy district. III. CONCLUSION The current proposal to demolish the 9-150 building is consistent with the criteria for approval as a Planned Action. Future development to replace the building is unknown at this time. The proposed demolition is consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, and all impacts associated with the current proposal will be mitigated. Prepared by: Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Date: June 20, 2017 H:\\Boeing\E17-0004\Fitness Center Demo Staff Rpt. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov gLArzze-ArAvia June 15th 2017 Carol Lumb Department of Community Development Planning Division City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, Washington 98188-8548 Subject Boeing Activity Center Demolition El 7-0004 Carol Please find the attached SEPA Supplement Form and updated drawing sheets. The second page show the preservation of the tree grove within the 200' shoreline area. Per our discussion, we are showing the individual trees adjacent to the building being removed, as they are likely to be damaged during demolition and could become a hazard. Also, please note that we do show a limited amount of the trees in the grove WITHIN the 200' shoreline protected areabeing removed since they are also within immediate proximity to building and likely to be compromised during demolition. If you have any questions or if you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (206) 617-2944 or via e-mail at Mark.d.clement@Boeing.com Sincerely yours, Mark Clement, ,Itaak?/.e„,ewi The Boeing Company 02 54'CO3� 5R'COT -FOUPUNCH MARK 3— /4- 8S DISK, IN CASE, 5 MPE TON DENNIS h AS SEATTLE WENATCHE ELEV = 17. (3/3/2017) AIL AND WASHERTB ` ELEV = 17. ``, TREES SITE DEMOLITION PLAN RIDGE=53.`V' R10GE=53.4 FFE=31.4' FFE=1E1.5' FFE=1R.3' SCALE: 1"=30 200' SHORELINE ZONE (APPR►X. t RIOGE=53.4' RIDGE=53.4' SYM REWSON APPROVED DATE SYM 00 APPROVED DATE DEMOLITION OF BUILDING 09-150 W4640620 CEI MS D6.02.17 A PERMIT REVISIONS W4640620 CEI MS 06.13.17 ce;i_ArArc-,Avc "4 / APPROVE TREE DRIP LINE FFE=32.6' 10-,16',18 4 I= e �COFFMAN NGINEEAS 1601 Fill Avenue, Suite 9001 Seattle, WA 98101 76206.623.07171 fax 208.04.2775 carmen. errl LEGEND RECEIVED , a CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVAL JUN 15 2017 SAWCUT Community Development SITE KEY PLAN Q NOT TO SCALE mom mom LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ASPHALT ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL PAVERS REMOVAL SIGN REMOVAL STREET LIGHT REMOVAL TREE REMOVAL PROTECT TREE GENERAL NOTES 1. SEE SHEETS C2—DEM, C3—DEM, AND C4—DEM FOR RELATED PROJECT NOTES. 2. MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES UNTIL COMPLETION OF PROJECT. 3. NOTIFY BOEING TWO (2) WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF WORK TO COORDINATE RELOCATION OF BOEING PROPERTY WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS TO AN APPROVED LOCATION. 4. PROTECT EXISTING PAVING FROM DAMAGE. CONTRACTOR MUST REPLACE ALL DAMAGED PAVING IN KIND OR BETTER. 5. ALL UTILITIES MUST REMAIN IN SERVICE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON DEMOLITION PLANS. CONSTRUCTION NOTES DEMOLISH BUILDING, CUT PILES. AND REMOVE BUILDING APPURTENANCES PER ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL REMOVAL PLANS. SAWCUT PAVEMENT, FULL DEPTH. REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT. ® REMOVE PAVERS AND RIBBON CURB. REMOVE VERTICAL CONCRETE CURB. © REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE. REMOVE AND SALVAGE WHEEL STOP, TYP. REMOVE BOLLARDS. REMOVE SIGN. REMOVE TREES TO ACCOMMODATE BUILDING DEMOLITION. REMOVE LIGHT POLE BASE. SEE ELECTRICAL FOR LIGHT POLE AND AND JUNCTION BOX REMOVAL. TRAIL LIGHTING TO REMAIN, TYP. ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER, CONCRETE PAD, AND FENCE TO REMAIN. PROTECT EXISTING JOGGING TRAIL TO REMAIN. PROTECT TREE TO REMAIN. REMOVAL 06/13/2017 PERMIT REVISIONS 30 15 0 15 30 60 SCALE: 1" = 30' DRAWN ACCEPTABILITY M. BOSILKOV THIS DESIGN AND/OR GOON 15 APPROVED D BYDEPT. DATE CHECKED A. HAZEN NUINLEH W. McHUCH CHECKED APPROVED AP -06, Ofi.02.17 06.02.17 06.02.17 SUBTITLE TITLE SITE DEMOLITION PLAN DEMOLITION OF BUILDING 09-150 09-YRD CURRENT REVISION W4640620 SYMBOL A DATE 06.13.17 5HEC31 R-DEM JOB N0. W4640620 COMP NO. CIVIL MASTER COL. DEV. CENTER, WA DwG No. 09—YRD—C31R—DEM S-PALLI SARCAIRE NOTE: CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE "FINAL STABILIZATION" AS DEFINED BY THE CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER GENERAL PERMIT. COORDINATE WITH OWNER AND DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY TO OBTAIN ECOLOGY ACCEPTANCE OF THE "NOTICE OF TERMINATION" (NOT) REQUEST. ALL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS MUST BE BE MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMIT TERMINATION. PWP CAO- 8 CL:?i1' A..S-STP.ANS BAROW'E REV1510 PO'AEN. 0AL'L C)ICW BY I APPROVED Top ON CONS ;LAB SYM BANK 40( WAWA v _L- REVISION STrP T. 4E E 'AA A. A D w 'NO FAPKJN0 >IGN. 88 APPROVED ORNER 9" RETA:N:NG ALL FLUSH, 'MTH CN; ,EN TEN' 5101 FLINCH MARK3-. / 5 5151, :5 CASE. Sj4 RTON DENNIS e SEA T1: 0ENA ECHE ELEV ." 17 t3/2, 20 0, SIG I 9'LENE a'DATE TESC PLAN 0 •:Oi ENTER i / --L Y:3 ENDS '0'%OG r;//i1 ENTER -ONE: wuv' SIGN P' SIGN1 TREE URP Yn7b�7'JyrrrJJ7ii7�,97iY, n>'ns^irr,L»r�rr.,r»�n,•�~ �; RE,I50 ('9-1ter' / -;TA PS HAVE A`u4'"--., METAL S'F'*ORT BEAMS. S'.' 5' CONIC BLOCKS CI•=F:D TO BLOC. '- IPRI0ATION to 0 5'!'II A 1. 65'W1DE RAINBIRD — WOOD BENCH 3�1(kc;uruut«.uwr ovFr- 000008RE -SAN-- „7t'..1i't SCALE: 1"=30' DATE DEMOLITION OF BUILDING 09-150 W4640620 CEI MS 06.02.17 PERMIT REVISIONS W4640620 CEI MS 06.13.17 IOU DPI^ i;NE- to ca___ArzrAcc. J.0 AFOFFMAN NGINEERS 1801 FM Avenue. Suite 9001 Seattle, WA 98101 ph 206.623.071,1 e.280.622in5 LASTING ACCEPTABILITY THIS DESIGN AND/OR CATION IS APPROVED APPROVED BY DEPT. DATE DRAWN M. BOSSILKOV A. HAZEN tNLINEU / G. McHUGH CHECKED APPROVED APPROVED DATE 06.D2.17 06.02.17 06.02.17 LEGEND i l E C E aV E Ym MATERIAL STOCKPILE AREA JUN 15 2D1� mi LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION —> SWALE WITH CHECK DAM Community Development - - SURFACE DRAINAGE FLOW , PROTECT TREE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NOTES EN01 15058 - BOEING OXBOW ACTIVITY CENTER IMPAIRMENT POLLUTANT: PH THE ONLY POTENTIAL PH ALTERING MATERIAL ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT IS THE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE BUILDING FOUNDATIONS AND FLOOR. MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDE THE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE BUILDING WILL BE CONDUCTED BY NOT ALLOWING RUN-OFF FROM THE CONCRETE REMOVAL AREA(S). THE WATER WILL BE INFILTRATED AT REMOVAL LOCATION. THE CONCRETE WILL BE DIRECT LOADED AND WILL NOT BE STOCKPILED FOR OFF -SITE DISPOSAL. SHOULD PH SAMPLE RESULTS BE OUTSIDE OF PERMIT RANGE, TREATMENT WILL BE IMPLEMENTED TO BRING PH RESULTS BACK INTO RANGE. SITE KEY PLAN C;) NOT TO SCALE GENERAL NOTES 1. SEE SHEET C2-DEM, C3-DEM, AND C4-DEM FOR RELATED PROJECT NOTES. 2. MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES UNTIL COMPLETION OF PROJECT. 3. NOTIFY BOEING TWO (2) WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF WORK TO COORDINATE RELOCATION OF BOEING PROPERTY WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS TO AN APPROVED LOCATION. 4. PROTECT EXISTING PAVING FROM DAMAGE. CONTRACTOR MUST REPLACE ALL DAMAGED PAVING IN KIND OR BETTER. 5. ALL UTILITIES MUST REMAIN IN SERVICE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON DEMOLITION PLANS. CONSTRUCTION NOTES L'y PROVIDE CATCH BASIN PROTECTION PER DETAIL 1/C500-DEM. FLAG CONTRACTION LIMITS AND INSTALL SILT FENCE PER DETAIL 6/C500-DEM. UTILIZE EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY DURING INITIAL PHASE OF MOBILIZATION AND SITE PREPARATION. REMOVE AS NECESSARY FOR SITE GRADING. INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER DETAIL 2/C500-DEM. CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY SEDIMENT POND PER THE 2009 KING COUNTY STANDARD DETAIL D.3.5.2. INSTALL STANDPIPE PER DETAIL 7/C500-DEM. INSTALL TEMPORARY POND OUTFALL PIPE (12" ADS). CONNECT PIPE TO EXISTING STORM STRUCTURE. INSTALL TEMPORARY SWALE PER DETAIL 4/C500-DEM. INSTALL CHECK DAMS AT 50' O.C. PER DETAIL 5/C500-DEM. GRADE SITE TO DIRECT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM WORK AREAS AND TOWARDS TEMPORARY SWALES AND SEDIMENT POND. PROTECT EXISTING TREE DURING CONSTRUCTION. COVER MATERIAL STOCKPILE AREA WITH PLASTIC COVERING PER DETAIL 2/C500-DEM. SWEEP PAVEMENT PERIODICALLY TO PREVENT OFF -SITE TRACKING OF DUST AND DEBRIS. a> PROTECT EXISTING ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER, CONCRETE PAD, AND FENCE. REMOVAL 06/13/2017 PERMIT REVISIONS SUBTITLE TITLE CIVIL MASTER TESC PLAN DEMOLITION OF BUILDING 09-150 09-YRD 30 15 0 15 30 60 SCALE: 1" = 30' CURRENT REVISION SYMBOL GATE W46406201 A 06.13.17 SHEEP C6-DEM JOB N0. W4640620 COMP N0. COL. DEV. CENTER, WA Ow0 N0. 09-YRD-C6-DEM M. BOSIKLOV: 03/30 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:51 PM To: 'Clement, Mark D' Subject: One More Attachment Attachments: Activity Ctr Aerial.pdf Hi, Sorry for all the emails — I forgot to include the aerial photo with the shoreline jurisdiction overlaid, so that you can see the trees that fall within the shoreline. Carol CaroCCumb, .9IICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of 7-uk-wiCa 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite moo 7-ukwila, "1/VA 98188 206-431-3661 CaroCL umb@Tu kwv ilawa.gov ?'ukwita, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 1 Tukwila iMap O tf) N • •co O June 6, 2017 n 0 Overlay Areas Addresses (Tukwila) co Potential An nexatio n Areas Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:34 PM To: 'Clement, Mark D' Subject: SEPA Materials Attachments: E17-0004-Planned Action Application.pdf; Golder Associates Technical Memorandum.pdf Hi Mark, In case you don't have the Planned Action SEPA application handy, I am attaching it for your use with filling out the Checklist. I am also attaching the Tehcnical Memorandum prepared by Golder Associates that came in with the application. Let me know if you have questions or I can provide any other information. Carol CaroCLumb, ..IICP, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 630o Southcenter Blvd., Suite too Tukwila, '1N.4 98188 206-43i-366i Caro CL uinb@Tuk-wirawa.gov ?'uklvia, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 1 Carol Lumb From: Carol Lumb Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:19 PM To: 'Clement, Mark D' Cc: 'Murdoch, John S' Subject: Correction Letter Attachments: E17-0004 Correction Itr.pdf; Planned Action Checklist.pdf Hi Mark, I am attaching a correction letter for the SEPA Planned Action for the proposed demolition of the Boeing Activity Center. The hard copy will go out in tomorrow's mail. I am out of the office tomorrow, but will be back on Friday in case you have any questions. Thanks, Carol CaroCLumb, .,AICP, Senior Planner Department of Community DeveCopment City of 7ukwifa 630o Southcenter Blvd, Suite too 7ukwiCa, -1N.7t 98188 206-431-3661 CaroCCumb@7uklvilalva.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice **My incoming and outgoing email messages are subject to public disclosure requirements per RCW 42.56** 1 City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director June 7, 2017 Mr. Mark Clement The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707 M\C 46-88 Seattle, WA 98124 RE: E17-0004 — Boeing Activity Center Demolition Dear Mark: The Department has received the SEPA Planned Action application for the demolition of the Boeing Activity Center, located at 10500 West Marginal Place South, in Tukwila. I understand you are filling in for John Murdoch, who is currently out of the office, as the contact for this project. A review of the application indicates that all the components of the application have been submitted except for a completed Planned Action Criteria Checklist. I am enclosing this Checklist - please respond to the questions and return the Checklist to this office. You may email the Checklist if that is more convenient. In addition, the project proposal must be revised to retain all trees that fall within the 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction. Tukwila Municipal Code 18.44.080 B. establishes regulations for tree protection, retention and replacement and states: "...Trees located on properties not undergoing development or re -development may not be removed except those that interfere with access and passage on public trails or that present an imminent hazard to existing structures or the public..." The proposed project is the demolition of a structure and does not involve the re -development of the site. I am enclosing an aerial photo of the site which illustrates the location of the shoreline jurisdiction — trees in this area must be retained per TMC 18.44.080 B. We would encourage the retention of all the trees indicated for removal, whether in the shoreline jurisdiction or outside, as it may be possible to incorporate many of these trees in whatever development is proposed in the future. Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 206-431-3661 or by email at carol.lumb@Tukwilawa.gov. Sincerely, Carol Lumb Senior Planner Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov H:\\Boeing\E17-0004\Correction Ltr 6/7/2017 5:00 PM 1 Golder Associates DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: March 16, 2017 Project No.: 1671618 To: Michel Sotura, PE, LEED AP Company: Coffman Engineers Kevin Wang, PE, LEED AP From: M. Birkan Bayrak, PhD, PE and James G. Johnson, LG, LEG cc: Allison Hazen, PE and Gwendolyn M. Email: bbavrakgolder.com McHugh, PE RE: 50 PERCENT DESIGN SUBMITTAL FOR BOEING 9-150 PILE REMOVAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CENTER SITE, BUILDING 9-150 10500 W MARGINAL WAY PLACE SOUTH TUKWILA, WASHINGTON 98108 This technical memorandum summarizes Golder Associates Inc.'s (Golder) geotechnical services to Coffman Engineers (Coffman) and The Boeing Company (Boeing) for the proposed pile removal project at the 9-150 Building at the Boeing Development Center (DC) site (Site). This technical memorandum has been prepared based on our discussions with representatives of Coffman; a geotechnical investigation report prepared for the Site; foundation plan and details provided by Coffman; and our experience on similar projects. 1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The Boeing Employees Activity Center (i.e., 9-150 Building) is located in the southern portion of the Oxbow Parking Lot property on the west side of the Duwamish Waterway at the Boeing DC in Tukwila, Washington as shown in the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). The 9-150 Building currently serves as a recreational facility (Boeing Oxbow Activity Center). The project boundary limits are shown in Figure 2. We understand that the 9-150 Building is proposed for demolition and Boeing is required to restore the Site to its "original condition." This will involve extracting the existing pile foundation system. The existing building was constructed between 1988 and 1989 and is supported on a pile foundation system consisting of 16-inch-diameter, 26-foot-long (from pile cap) augered cast -in -place (ACIP) piles. The piles contain a reinforcement/rebar cage 22-foot-long (full length reinforcement for tension piles). Based on the available foundation plan provided to us by Coffman, there are 191 ACIP piles supporting the 9-150 Building as shown in Attachment 1 (Sheet S-1). Foundation details (e.g., six different pile cap schedule with elevation, thickness, and reinforcement information) are provided in Attachment 2 (Sheet S-2). 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES Coffman retained Golder to provide geotechnical services to support the removal of the 9-150 Building pile foundation system and return the Site to "original condition," from a geotechnical standpoint. Golder's 1671618-tm-bldg 9-150 pile removal-031617-reva.docx Golder Associates Inc. 18300 NE Union Hill Road, Suite 200 Redmond, WA 98052 USA Tel: (425) 883-0777 Fax: (425) 882-5498 www.golder.com Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America and South America Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation Michel Sotura and Kevin Wang Coffman Engineers DRAFT March 16, 2017 2 1671618 services were provided in general accordance with the scope of services outlined in the proposal dated January 5, 2017 as listed below. • Develop an understanding of what the `original condition" of the Site was and how it will be assessed when demolition is completed. Coffman provided Golder with the Site geotechnical report (Converse 19851), which will be used to help understand the Site condition prior to building construction. Golder will work with Boeing and Coffman to clarify and define the meaning of "original condition" and how it will be evaluated in the field. ■ Determine methodology for removing the piles that meets the Site "original condition" criteria (see previous bullet). Golder will discuss the methodology with local demolition contractors familiar with this type of work. ■ Develop mitigation options that could achieve Site restoration to 'original condition." ■ Identify potential issues with mitigation options, including permitting requirements (shoreline, environmental). • Provide relative order of magnitude cost estimates for the options provided. • Prepare a report summarizing findings for Coffman and Boeing. 3.0 GENERAL SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Golder reviewed the geotechnical investigation report prepared by Converse Consultants (Converse) in 1985 for the existing 9-150 Building. Based on the Converse (1985) report, the site was relatively flat except for the bank along the Duwamish Waterway which had slopes up to about 20 feet high with inclinations of about 30 to 50 percent or steeper. At the time of explorations, the site was generally free of existing structures except for a jogging trail, related light standards around the perimeter and an existing radar tower at the north edge beyond the proposed building limits. Vegetation consisted of low to moderate weed growth, scattered brush and brambles to about 5 feet in height, and a few scattered trees up to maximum diameter and height of about 18 inches and 50 feet, respectively. Results of the explorations indicate the presence of very loose to medium dense, silt and sand alluvial deposits extending to the maximum depths explored of 82 feet in the building area. For the purpose of describing geotechnical engineering characteristics, these deposits were subdivided into four zones in the Converse (1985) geotechnical report. Considering the depths of the ACIP piles in the available foundation plans, only the upper two zones are presented below for simplicity. Refer to Converse (1985) report for more details. • Very loose to loose SILT and SAND: These soils were encountered in all explorations and extended generally from the ground surface to depths ranging from about 12 to 16 feet in the building area. 'Converse Consultants (Converse). 1985. Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Boeing Employee Activity Center. Prepared for BE&C Engineers. July 23. 1671618-tm-bldg 9-150 pile removal-031617-reva.docx Golder Associates Michel Sotura and Kevin Wany Coffman Engineers DRAFT March 16, 2017 3 1671618 ■ Medium dense SAND: These soils were encountered in all four explorations in the building area at depths below 12 to 16 feet and extended to depths ranging from approximately 38 to 44 feet. Based on the exploration log records presented in the Converse (1985) report, the ground surface elevation at the 9-150 Building location varied between elevation 11.0 and 13 feet (USGS MSL). It was also stated in the Converse (1985) report that it was anticipated that the grade of the building site would be raised 2 to 5 feet by placement of fill to establish the building slab -on -grade finish floor at elevation 15.0 feet MSL. Groundwater levels in two explorations in the building area were observed at depths of about 10 to 13 feet below the existing ground in 1985. Groundwater levels are likely to fluctuate as a result of seasonal variations and possibly due to the influence of tidal variations in the nearby Duwamish Waterway. 4.0 UNDERSTANDING OF ORIGINAL CONDITION Completion of this section is pending information from Boeing stating what the landowner defines as "original condition". 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This section summarizes Golder's findings, discussions, and recommendations regarding the removal of the ACIP pile foundation system supporting the 9-150 Building. 5.1 Golder's Initial Recommendations As part of the 9-150 Building's demolition, we understand that Boeing plans to remove the existing ACIP pile foundation system in their entirety. It's Golder's geotechnical opinion that less site disturbance would be achieved by leaving the existing ACIP piles in the ground and cutting and removing the tops of the piles at a nominal depth to avoid a hard --point developing (i.e., 4- to 6- feet below the grade). Leaving the piles in the ground would result in a more stable long- term condition compared to removing them in their entirety which would cause disturbing the surrounding soil. However, if the piles have to be removed due to contractual requirements, then the following recommendations apply to their removal. 5.2 Uplift Capacity The General Structural Notes in Attachment 1 states that 16-inch diameter ACIP piles shall provide 50 kips downward and 30 kips uplift capacity. We assume that these are design (allowable) capacities and a factor of safety of at least 3.00 should be used to calculate the ultimate uplift capacity. 5.3 Methodology for Pile Removing Based on the available foundation plan and details provided to us by Coffman, there are 191 ACIP piles supporting the 9-150 Building. The foundation system consists of pile caps supported by one, two, three, four, five, and six piles each, grade beams and tie -beams (Figures 1 and 2). The demolition contractor (Contractor) should first break and rubblize the concrete grade beams between the piles and pile cap to be 1671618-tm-bldg 9-150 pile removal-031617-reva.docx Golder Associates Michel Sotura and Kevin Wany Coffman Engineers DRAFT March 16, 2017 4 1671618 able to remove the individual piles from the ground. Then, the Contractor can try to extract the individual piles with a crane (size to be selected by the Contractor). If a static pulling force alone is not sufficient to extract the piles, then the Contractor should try other techniques to reduce the friction between the pile shaft and the surrounding soil (e.g., jetting around the piles using water and air to reduce the pile shaft friction or by using a correctly sized vibratory extractor). Please note that the pile removal technique is related to the Contractor's means and methods of construction and it is ultimately the responsibility of the Contractor. 5.4 Mitigation Options Completion of this section is pending information from Boeing stating what the landowner defines as "original condition". 5.5 Potential lssues ACIP piles are more commonly cut a few feet below grade and filled over during demolition leaving the lower portion of the pile in place. Extracting the entire ACIP pile comes with associated risks (e.g., breakage). The reinforcement/rebar cage that provides tensional strength to the pile, in general, does not extend to the full length of the piles. When high tension loads are applied during extraction there is a risk that the piles may break particularly at the point where the reinforcement terminates in the pile. This issue was discussed between Boeing, Coffman, and Golder during the project kick-off meeting on February 16, 2017 at the Boeing DC in Tukwila, Washington. We understand that if ACIP piles break during the extraction processes the portion of the piles left in the ground may be abandoned in place. The pile removal process will result in disturbance to the soil surrounding the piles depending on the pile removal technique. Keeping the pile holes open (i.e., preventing the caving) after removing the piles and before backfilling may be challenging due to the existence of the very loose alluvial deposits at the site with a possibility of a high groundwater table. The Contractor should consider and be prepared for these conditions during the pile removal process. Based on the discussions during the same kick-off meeting on February 16, 2017, it is our understanding that neither a shoreline permit nor any special environmental soil testing or post -pile extraction geotechnical soil testing will be required for this project. 5.6 Cost Estimates Completion of this section is pending information from Boeing stating what the landowner defines as "original condition". 6.0 UNCERTAINTIES Based on the Converse (1985) geotechnical report, a hydraulically operated elevator was planned with a 5 foot deep elevator pit. The casing for the elevator piston was expected to extend approximately 18 to 20 16716' 8-tm-bldg 9-150 pile removal-031617-reva.docx Golder Associates Michel Sotura and Kevin Wany Coffman Engineers DRAFT March 16, 2017 5 1671618 feet below the bottom of the elevator pit. It is unclear to us whether this elevator construction was completed as planned. We recommend that the site be inspected and the presence of the elevator pit and shaft be confirmed so that demolition of these structures can be planned. The Converse (1985) geotechnical report also noted that plastic pipe observation wells (i.e., piezometers) were installed in all borings (except Boring U-2) for subsequent water level measurements. Typically these are abandoned or "lost" during construction. We recommend that their disposition be determined as part of the project demolition in the event that one or more are discovered. 7.0 CLOSING This technical memorandum has been prepared for the exclusive use of Coffman Engineers and The Boeing Company and their design team to provide geotechnical services for the subject project. Use of this technical memorandum by others or for another project is at the user's sole risk. We appreciate this continuing opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have questions or if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC. DRAFT DRAFT M. Birkan Bayrak, PhD, PE James G. Johnson, LG, LEG Senior Project Geotechnical Engineer Principal and Senior Consultant MBB/JGJ/tp List of Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Vicinity Map Project Site Boundaries List of Attachments Attachment 1 Foundation Plan & General Notes (Sheet S-1) Attachment 2 Foundation Details (Sheet S-2) 1671618-trn-bldg 9-150 pile removal-031617-reva.docx Golder Associates FIGURES QUEEN ANNE Seattle 04 White Center PROJECT SITE Gole Bryn Mawr -Skyway K1rk1Dr d Bellevue Renton WEST BEl I rn' DRAFT PROJECT COFFMAN ENGINEERS BOEING 9-150 BUILDING PILE REMOVAL PROJECT YYYY—MM—DD 2017-03-16 TITLE VICINITY MAP PREPARED MEIO Golder Associates DESIGNED REVIEWED JGJ APPROVED 1671618 1 Notes: Project site boundaries are outlined in dashed red line. DRAFT COFFMAN ENGINEERS Golder Associates 3617.V116 NBB JOJ BOEING 9-150 BUILDING PILE REMOVAL PROJECT PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES ,ROVED 1671618 2 ATTACHMENTS roc to S-1 S-2 b Pc-3 83 IS. NICE CASE EON PC-3T 10.-7 I/O ENO OF Ca PC-4T S-1 S-1 E1 5• MIE GRACE MEIN 4EM Tro. u.o.N. IY MICE COME EM NOTE! TOP OF PILE CAP ELEV. 98.6" U.O.N. TOP OF CRAM BEAN ELEV. 98'6' TOP OF TIE BEN/ ELEV. 93'-6 FOUNDATION PLAN OEM PC-2 5-1 S-2 PC-3T GENERAL STRUCTURAL NDTES CLIPS NO SECIFICRT/CR9 A. ON3F09I 91ILOI3 COE - INT FORTS E. NEIIICM MTIOX STMDAA05 IMIITUTE - AEI ASE.1 - 1N2 C. KI 0•-43 SUILDIM OE AF0J1EEME FE EIKO® COOFTE 0. CR51 NEWAE 6 ST19090 PRICTICE - LATEST EDITION E. RISC MOIL CF STEEL C06TRCT101 - EIORN EDITION F. A6 STRUCTURE TENDING COE - A61/A6 DI AMR DESIGN CRITERIA A. RIM L90 - PER UNIFOM SD3LD3K 030E 1. SPASM RIM SPEED • SO N* 2. TOOLS C O. SEISMIC - ZOE M. 3 Ell INIFON WILDS 032 V • ZIACSM • TOTA. LATER/ RACE AT ERE EMCE ONE Z • 0.75 1 • 1 .0 cs C. MOP LIVE EDO SON LOO • 2 PSF PROVISION FCR 90 91IFT MI6 KEN 119E PC! N61 AE.1-1012. 0. FLNR LIVE L60 INS LIVE LOS SO OTIE APPLIED 1. SU43-06:60C: 2. %COO R06: T. STAIRS: •. TRICOT(/ 100 PS C •.0 KIP CRISIS FONLIFT 100 PS IIMLIDES 20 PE PARTITION 0.L.N 100 PS 103 PS E. SOILS DATA 1. AOEENF3 lamer 6 E01E041ICR INVEST301TId. 66166 SEIM EMLTATA TLE. 14MSHI IKTO1 OTTER. CONVERSE 10 5 07CENTERSLY 23. PINNING LOT. 2. IS. OIAETE* AEETCA0T PILES 911.E MOO TO A TIP ELEVA1IO1 MINE IS El 00 PMVIE SO KIPS OMITS MO 30 KIPS VLSI DAPK111 E9EC71HLr. 3. HIGH STRENGTH PERTS MIX TELL OEVEL6 A MINIMUM F'C • 4000 PSI AT 29 DAYS AO SMELL KITE A MINTN4M CEIENI CONTENT CP 10 SPCKS/OI ro. 4. SOIL OCIPEER TOL MONITOR RE FO IAT30N N619CTION A0 RSON MO OCTOPUS MIT AESTIE L 1W OE5303 IENTS ` NE LLFILLED. MTERIRS A. SR11CTIAR STEEL 1 SSTRUCHRL S1E ASTMIi ES D PLATES TALL E ASTII RD. SFNCIIMII TORS 2. ILL FASfICATION MO ERECTION 94E1 CORY WITH SIC SEMEIOTICS. 3. TOP ONMINS OF AL SDSCTCRR STEEL/CM SIR/ E 9YIITTEO TO 0E EICINIR F0 MPROVR PRIOR TO TIE FRM101TION. 4. ILL STEEL WIRRS MILL E DIVES OE TO NIT 6 APPROVED MIS. 9FIFPCES TO EEE EPOOIN MOOT OR FIELD MELE0 LOLL MT E INTO. S. TAFFE PREIM*TION FOR MIMING SHALL 0061ST 6 REST N0 ERE EMVR 01 C0EIRCIIE SNCILILSTII. SUSIICES TOE MINE MOT E 9RY. FREE 6 DIRT. OIL. pEAE. 6 OTHER i0Ei01 MTTEA. 9. 5TI01CTWl STEEL COIECT306 1. 9MMLLL CESORD IN /0: �ANMA'.E 0310SRISC 940371ECATI0�6.1E. 116TILLArla 2. ALL LOM31b3CCATDC3MISITMEIRS. DOSSSS SOOTIERMICE FRICTIONS/1 C04EttiOf 3. ALL NOON BOLTS SMELL E AS1M ATM 0 SS IEEE P01E0. 4. COLON MOON BOLTS TO E FUNI9EO CORN TO HEAVY MICA MIS NO 1M 14,31416 EACH MT MESS KITED OTWMME ON OUIIHLT. S. ALL EPETI 0 41 CERTIFOREL FIIED SUERS IN 01 PO TIE OUTINGS III *66 NO A3E SPEC1FICAT306. ELECTMOES TOLL E E-10 SHIES. C. CR1FIN-MAW COCIEIE 1. COSNER00ELPSDAAT DA�SSL, NSL COWLE1 A MOIST 2. F 1FL00T PSIRTOS NOSTRIOS ON00w.3. ma 0Ty A MINMM 1. ESI0 NA RT COCKS 9ILL E ESIITIE TO 0E OCIAIDI FM WOW/ PRIOR TO C06TACYION. 0. EDPOCIPC STEEL 1. COCIETE EIWORI06 OWL E MOILED. FTER3CMTED TO PUKED 1M 4CC9OME MIT* KI-31E-83. 2. EIWOCIM STEEL T•EL E EF9•ED MEET TDRL 133,6666 TO AEON A95 ARSE 40. 3. MELDED MIRE EATING TELL 00M05R TO SO Mi E. MIL MIE FADS ISLE E 5PR3E MO U110 IN FLAT SPEED NO TALL E 0131E0 10 PROEM POSITION IN RS. 4. SLIMS O TAOI IELDIM 6 E11E11C7C SEE TO 0!1[It ONE OI PEAIES. MAZES. ETC.. IS PRo11111E0 EXCEPT WERE 6EC3FICLLY MPMVED Br 1ME ESTEEM. E. up U TMis MINwn 6 NE M o1METE10 TUTS OTTONTE NEE. E. EISCIRTM0 STEEL 94E1 E NTOMMTELY PEELED ISO IROAITELI ECUED IN POSITION. LE4TION 6 EIWCRE301 TALL E AS IKIIURO ON TIE 6NM3NGS. TIE FQIONING 7051(0TION ION EIKOCEREM TILL E PROVIDED: MIN CODER TIN OD OW ICRIMST NO PERNIPENTLY OTDED TO EARTH 3 NO [DOSE TO EMTH CT WATER M AS NOSILLT ER RI-1 F2 ICI MT EDGED TO WRITER CR IN =PICT NIT* TIE 9061 SCRs. IRLS v4 E. ETD/ DAD( 1 • RS • ACTLRU 41 N.H. ROE Ta NN ORTEO NIP CECX SWILL OE TI21AFPROVEo FOAL. ▪ ITN 91LVM12E0 FINITE PER SPECIFICATIONS NAPLESS 0T0YIE _ MIE. 2 N®ERTSON COPMVP ARO.EOP DEAL. MIITTN CIIVMI000ED FRINISHH PERK TEC3FICATIO6. 3. TIE EL FFRON QUIEEDTOTO SUPPORT THECE PETAL03* SMELL/SOS DE COLDS. BMCING. CR AO OTWR INOWPT31N. •. TN METAL DEM SUPPLIER TOLL MOVIE 90 WMTTLS 6 TIE M160ED OEM LAMP. MNICH 9MLL INL1R THE SWELL/0E0M STEEL 96116S. S. iFAsTENET00IEL TSN6M4'EAE SUTON NM 36' OIMET01 P1mE MELDS SPACED 12. ON 1x*31R KMSS TW SCSI 6 TIE PAWL IMIM3MN 3 WLOS PER PAEL., 1 12' TON SENT HELD 5:E LAPS Cr ADJACENT PAWLS AT S'-0' ON CENTER. FASTEN EDGES TO PP/DUEL SEISM MIN 3/, OUSTER RECCE WOG AT 12. ON CENTER. S. 110:r CEO( FMTENOCI FASTEN TO ALL TR/DOERS 82POMS MIIH 3/4' OIAETEI 471901E PO S SPACE S.. CENTER /Clgs TIE MOTH Cr TIE PAWL IMIMM 7 NODS 6/1 Z' MIE PMELI . 1 3 /2' TOT EM MOO 5IM LOPS CV 101NENf PNELS AT 2, ON CEDER. FASTEN WOES i0 PMALLEL STAMM MITI 1/•' OINETER MZIOE 1ELf5 AT 12' 04 CENTS. 7. MINIMA EMIR SMALL E F. asap SDI EOOIT 91A11 E MI EEEE O K3E r STER TRLEAS. CR OTHER 0. OPEN Na STEEL JOISTS LOLL E Cr SIZE NO T1E NS POND ON 061163S A0 TO NEON TO STINTS SPECIFICATION AS MOTE BY STEEL JOIST INSTITUTE NO R O E161CM16 CS INSTITUTE MILL OE F1AN19E0TMILO3TIE OUEIN *4 STEEL V TIOSTS. N. DRSOMF 1 . COOED ORSOAT ITS TOLL E SUSI COOEDMtn NPONING TO GRIM C90 M NI ITN EC' • 1350 PSI. 2. NOON TILL E TYPE 5 NM SPANS COME553VE STOOLS 6 1630 PSI AT 25 MI5. 3. MONT 9OD 9WL OEVElm HIRS T COilESS1YE STERN M6 FC' • 2500 MI AT 25 015. 4. GROUT SOLID ALL WELLS FDDA3NIM REDWOODS N0 EIMOE0 ITE36. S. MINIMA EISCIETC: 45 • I'-0' 0.C. VERTICAL. K 9 3'-4. O.C. FONEZIMN�.O1S$A1111C466N(• ECM ON6.ZPRINICE}II/ 5 •5 YERTIDE AT 1N.L. PIS ORSIE FME TO M*W 10pi20NTIR 19LONEEIEMf. A0 AER5 M0 INERSECIIOS. AT DEL MILL 6ENINS PROVES 6 K FULL M a SION VEATICLE ERN SEE. •6 M OPENING RIOTH • 5'-0' WNITI OEIi FAO. MO OM SILL 1A0EA N0 IN LINTEL OEM PEA. PLAN COEETE FOOOITION TO MIDI VERTICR MILL EINCA'FNENT 512E N0 S ACING. PROJECT OWLS 2'-1'. LM YOPPIACAL MILL REIEMOCEIEM 30 OSPLICES c'ONO?RINN ROPER /MESS OTIIEEMIE LOCO ON WMINTS �-• 0M� S. UPLESS ATE. IERTI(JE ESOCIM IS TOE AT CODER 0 MEL. 1. SSDII TOE CONSTRICTED 1E1M ALMS BOO. 1. 7000 1. �ORSOFT TIE F3fEONA06 CROUP. TOLL SESOLOSTO TIE 1116 01mATTNTINI TIE MOOR. 2. AEOMR TOMS NO SKIM CP ILL S1ACNtll MOM CUM C061ACTION TOLL E PRWI®. NW PROPOSE f1ELU CHIMES TRW. NM PRIOR ARMOR FRON TIE EICIWER. 3. LOCATION FOR SUIITES MR. E TOWN FR91 MPZE OF MINOR INOS. DOER UM SILTS. VEN331111661CS NO DECKED R3TI 1W EQUIPS'S 91PLI0. 4. O]ETR0 COMICS/ TILL COPORN A0/CR PAN3E U ADOIT301E DENIMS. IIOEATS N0 EI•EN0O5 TERN ON Ma3*EC0ENl. 306I091. A0 ELECTNICR WN365. J. 700130N N0 TESTING 1. SWIM INSPECTION SC 011s TO TIE MDLITE3EM5 0, US ECTICR SOB 2. F01 TESTING EOIITET045 FCR EACH MTORIR. SE 'TONIC,/ STECIFICR6I06. ■' C rPL880. REVISION M111,43) COTE PI. SPIPIIPP PTILYIPP PAW FAST SAID/ TI WM B.8.05 SAME FOR 3031474LTOR RAW/ CRC A 40.22911 .4 301E FOR POSITS 15510E FOR C060EC11a ECOOCOMIM IoJ16 Awl POEL69I1.1MC/ RBNd/ SA sa SA JYL 9: PR 5.20.1& FN TS fl.11 .@ PO 1aN 2.Z1.l 101690 s 0 P ISSUS F F. $' 111 b.v$ N1`..IUMPw`1,4!"""" "'''" AECOMO OM4WINb se-I4 C/f 2Ad /A SL TINED 11C400 II.24 59 TMF TOE/RIG 10o..P.•17 FACILITIES DEPARTMENT ❑ AUBURN, WA. 98002 ❑ EVERETT, WA. 98201 ❑ KENT, WA. 98031 ❑ PORTLAND, OR. 97220 ❑ RENTON. WA. 98055 ■ SEATTLE, WA. 98125 ACCEPTS LID ' MEN. P( 30 AEC.063 IMAwou D 13; 09 FOUNDATION PLAN A GENERAL NOTES 14 BCEIPG ErmarEEs W_"rIVITV carrER CEMMWPrrLNTT L CENTER SEP.TTLE9 M0. PSI POPO.. 5-1 84021 0( 409-1 SO-I000. 4 LAP 1'-3' 1'•3. (c-0 PILE, 1 (G.PSs,c) 5 NGLE PILE- GAP PC- i (1(0" DIA. PILE) ( ' IP2 • 1'. 0" 6-116.2 3 T E�1 1-�r•Col. II .. 11 t - 4 w1 ou •., Y . - TWO PILE - GAP PC-2 4 2T(go. DIA. PILES) I/2" = 1'- 0" 5-I 6-2 PILE GAP SCHEDULE MARK NO PG-1 TOP BL 96.- o" THIGKNE55 2.-6" REINPORGEMENT (3)46OW 1RD PG-2 PG•2T PG-3 g0'-6" q0'-6" 21-6. 21-G. 2' 4. (5) 4 C. LONG WAY 2501'T "_) (62 4 6_64010.1. WAY 00TTE_J (6)064w.r (s) 9 T SEE DETAIL PG•3T PG-4 q5'-G.1404.4.6 PC-4T SEE DETAIL (5)'0 Elsa. q0'-6' 21-6r (1)•6 ("0 '6 U Ev.T PG-5 PG-6 C-� CAN 6 46'-6" 2'• 6" (1) •b c, EN.e• 90 = 6" Z'• f0' Loy*CD)w Y 602164 0).6 4 -2 eICRwY vrtuM NO+ YILE CONL.TO MW p, +nAo Fell10 s.C.R.OP44,•.BJf/cu.yNj 400. P ' , 1� � NJ Lo I1132I.�TPr R.. O ! 1.5Do'TOMS•So1 n21, 2. rs.. ON• fa34 TO D4 5. • 4n24 21(LYt 6N.A6 OF L@1D.R 1411VOU.Y122- WATER 6 6.L M..K riot NARN. UIJLEI+ Hi,. 010.146.1 AfPRMD 6,,, EN4IN®2 NJO CITY. uLLTTINAT6 2TRe161H CIE- 41J W/O UNm IN r.Lt L.P. L-! d .-tor Of LONGWAu. 1 9" BSI 100'•0" 660PE / (2)14 V4'- 1JOIN5oLAnow 3 C.l-e ra... r 414a� 2 6" 4- G•P.1M(26615) w/2' COMM• PG•ST)'�6/.16012014 4 fH12EE PILE -GAF' pG -S 4 ST(Ike DIA, PILES) f 1/2" • 1'• 0" 6.1 5-2 - - SF1N FL/4100%G. (+ 14.0' 1456 ) 44 NF PFR b �1 } 0.4 (Tyr ALL rll.@4) ,4oT6..1 COONTINU6 C-R. T)&li P1LA 0.r W/M LAP 4 5". KOOK REIIJ62 FA4 SIDE OF G.P A NF.J 66.6A0.5 Apo 6US I.IOf C ONTINUOUS. 0 4- CAP LA. LI G_rd7,, t'd ~5-- b N i- 1 " OF NB G1' i FIN F4- EL q'• DYD�B 4R c4 'K' A'0' M Goa -DE N4e112 13FAEL'10L" .11 SECTION ('- O" mit rf$ 10 4' A11e..RGAe'f rx (to• 4600(51) urur1 NLE4; ►e.-3T ro-4T RGOFAALS U) 4%TI[A" 6 (SrRA.64T) 6..4. FULL L6.I021 OF PILE FOUR PILE- .AP Pc- 4 4 4T (to DIA. PILES) I/2. = 1'- O" 5-1 5.2 160LA11014 J01N1-, F04 R. - 100'•0" CA 5.1 52 SL" - A ADf 66AM tL '•6" 0 6 (6)T9TAL) r PILE TIP SECTION L E1. -15.0'04s.) (" = 1 '- 0" TYP co4.IGRE_TE ILE s -ION I" • I' o" 64. 6EA1� EL SEAM 32,44 SECTION 1"• 11.0" 5-215 2 2' LLR .4 TIES Ni ie.' L(2)46 T4D 01.5 T06s6elo, 3e6.13114 e4 P. Inc e6.66 FNi pqE OF PO.2 3 SEEEEQA,-2`4 FOR GIAOR DI.agte6 V4 ( 74_,Zr FIRST RDVIOW SR s.Os 50 2 165NE FOR FERMII6 sA 4.20.05 A 155NE0 FOR CON51RJG110N R1COIRP OGLVIN4 SE PK AL. rA};1 S 10.11•05 1221.57 W SECTION I" = 1'• O" BIOS/Ar6 FACILITIES DEPARTMENT rTOP Of 4I105 101'.0" 6'-6" 2. to r 2'.10 FIVE PILE - GAP hG -S (I6" DIA, PILES TAT= 1''o. 6.1 6.2 GONL LURE WALL. 6E ARGN DW45 r 1N1FIN S YEEL= FOR F5N 8q'-BY9" G 6112 �441fE6 B I6' d �1154 6 5- 6.3. 5-14 FIN �fLEL. ioo •o" 6-3t6 O AUBURN, WA. 98002 O EVERETT, WA. 98201 ❑ KENT, WA. 98031 O PORTLAND, OR. 97220 O RENTON; WA. 98055 • SEATTLE, WA. 98124 61.4KENED SLAD, 6EE E 5.2 5.3 NOT6: roR 6ALANG6 of CALL 01416, 600 G•1 (2)3 p ►;. 5 SECTION ACCEPTABILITY ALI O 4. GAP 4, L01. 11 4'0' �• 4L0" yl'6 (,) - -/ \ - (_� ; SIX PILE - GAP 1'C- r!o ( ICJ DIA. PILES) 1/2' = 1, 0" 5-1 142 TOPOF (3)444T166 c9 I 7 P rGURO EI. B EA L-3 ^ ` IOILOn I,,NFE�t E%(kPf Da/RWAY C4)•(ODTAI.) T PILE GAP 10P 5µ Id)4P1L6 -1 656n 5• -2 ze,gF 4u28 1 1'-0" f 469OE 9EAM � NRD WALL, 0 R6 P62E 7pPe..1 SY 4 1 51 BF 6�"'L_ AROuNCEAR M204141 P11.E 22E1NP 1110.8 GAP -4d2ADE DEAM ii 12 Q TIE f4KENE0 NOM LAD 2 1,0" 4. 4> EA G-3 11E D6AM^ 600 6• 2 Fat pita CAP 5LNe0l7LE 1G,"INF SEa PILE REt; 525- SECTION /1 WIT- - 1 1- O. 6.1,5.216.2 0E&C Itruco ENGINEERS 015.. 044AAN4 --FOUNDATION DETAILS 653,9996 • 6 12.21. 81 6.6919 earl nn.v 10.1145 m, POEING ERTLOYEES ACTTTI Y CENTER REVELOPM1TENTAL CENTER SEATTLE.WA. �.;-2 mw---84001 104 3 104 - 150 - (000 CIT F TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX: (206) 431-3665 SEPA PLANNED ACTION INFORMATION In 1992 a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the Duwamish Corridor master plan, a proposal to redevelop Boeing properties in Tukwila's Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) over a 10 year period. This current subarea plan/EIS updates and extends the previous analysis of the corridor's Boeing properties (about 650 acres) to the entire MIC subarea (about 1,370 acres). It also builds on the information developed for the City's Comprehensive Plan and Comprehensive Plan EIS efforts of 1994. The Proposed Action applies the "planned action" option for SEPA review as the center of a permit streamlining program of early, comprehensive environmental review, and supporting capital and regulatory revisions. REQUIREMENTS: Planned actions are developments that satisfy all of the criteria in TMC 21.04.152 (Planned Actions Identified). A proposal must initially qualify as a planned action, then pass a second screen to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and mitigation of all significant negative environmental impacts. The initial qualification criteria are summarized below. 1. The action is a "permitted use" located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36.020) and MIC/H (TMC 18.38.020) zones and/or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively). 2. The action is: a. not an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200 and TMC 18.06.270, b. not a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC/L or MIC/H zones, c. not a development, any portion of which includes shoreline modifications waterward of the ordinary high water mark, d. not a development associated with 16th Avenue Bridge construction activities.. PROCEDURES: A Planned Action application form may be submitted with the underlying development permit. At the time you submit your application you must have all of the items listed on the attached "Complete Application Checklist." You may request a waiver from items on the checklist that are not applicable to your project. Please discuss this waiver request with City staff either at a pre -application meeting or at the time of application submittal. Within 28 days of receiving your application, City staff will determine if it is complete based on the attached checklist. If not complete City staff will mail to you a letter outlining what additional information is needed. If you do not submit requested materials within 90 days from the City's request for additional information the City may cancel your application. City staff will review the development for substantive impacts and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The SEPA Responsible Official will decide if a development qualifies as a planned action. COMPLY rE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206-431-3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206-433-0179 (Department of Public Works). Check items submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning APPLICATION MATERIALS: / 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. ►% 2. Completed ESA Screening Checklist and Planned Action Criteria Checklist. 1 3. One set of all drawings submitted with the Planned Action reduced to 8 1/2" x 11" or 11" x 17". 4. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule. 1 5. Underlying permit application that triggers SEPA Review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: V 6. Vicinity Map with site location. See Cover Sheet of plan set 1 7. Provide two copies of sensitive area studies such as wetland or geotechnical reports if needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). See Geotechnical Report Guidelines and Sensitive Area Special Study Guidelines for additional information. N/A 8. Provide four (4) copies of any drawings needed to describe the proposal other than those submitted with the underlying permit. Maximum size 24" x 36". PLANNh,I) ACTION CRITERIA CI-IECKLiSr To determine if the proposed project meets the criteria for consideration as a planned action please answer the following questions: 1. Is the proposal a permitted and/or accessory use located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36) or MIC/H (TMC 18.38) zones? Uses listed as "conditional" or "unclassified" are not eligible for the planned action process. The project site is zoned MIC/H. This project is to demolish the existing employee gym and restore the site to natural conditions, therefore the proposed use is not applicable. 2. Will all of the impacts of the proposal be mitigated by the time the project is complete? Please document all mitigation measures, using attachments if necessary. No mitigations, other than the project goal of the site restoration, are proposed 3. Is the proposal consistent with the applicable sections of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan? Yes 4. Is the proposal any of the following: a. an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200 or TMC 18.06.270,, No b. a development related to the Regional Transit Authority light rail or commuter rail system; No c. a decision about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would normally require a SEPA threshold determination; or No d. a development in which any portion includes shoreline modifications waterward of the ordinary high water mark? No If the answer to any of questions 4 "a" through "d" is yes, the proposal is not eligible for the planned action process. W1APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA\SEPA Planned Action App FINAL 5-9-l6.docx REC VED JUN 15 2011 Community Development City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: 05/23/2017 Applicant Name: The Boeing Company - John Murdoch Street Address: PO Box 3707 M/C 46-88 City, State, Zip: Seattle, WA 98124 Telephone: (253) 740-0214 DIRECTIONS: This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in adverse effects to salmonids - Chinook, Coho, Cutthroat trout or char - as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). If potential effects are identified, the project may need further evaluation. Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if additional action is indicated. W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc If ESA listed species are present or ever were present in the watershed where your project will be located, your project has the potential to affect them, and you need to comply with the ESA. The questions in this section will help determine if the ESA listings will impact your project. For more information on potential salmonid presence in your project area contact the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Biologist for your region, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife or use the SalmonScape tool, WDFW SalmonScape. 1. Are ESA listed salmonids currently present in the watershed within which your project will be located? Yes ✓0 No0 Please describe. Fall Chinook, Coho, Fall Chum, Winter Steelhead, Summer Steelhead, Sockeye, Pink Salmon, & Bull Trout 2. Has there ever been an ESA listed salmonid stock present in this watershed? YesE] No0 Uncertain Please describe. If you answered "yes" to either of the above questions you should complete the remainder of this checklist. W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Part A - PROJECT SPECIFICS:roject and Vicinity City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 1. Name of watershed: Duwamish-Green (Watershed Area 9) 2. Name of nearest water body: Duwamish River 3. What is the distance from this project to the nearest body of water? 100 feet 4. What is the current land use between the project and the potentially affected water body (parking lots, farmland, etc)? Wood chip walking/jogging trail 5. Is the project above a: • Natural permanent barrier (waterfall) Yes[ No1=1 • Natural temporary barrier (beaver pond) Yes= NoE✓ • Man-made barrier (culvert, dam) Yes[ No0 • Other (explain): 6. If answered Yes in #5, are there any resident salmonid populations above the blockage? Yesn Non Don't known lui n/a \\citystore\City Common\Teri - DCD\Kirby\SEPA to fix\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.docx W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part B - Project Specifics: Grading and Land Alteration 1. Does the project involve grading or land alteration of any kind? Yes 4 No_ El If your project DOES NOT involve grading please skip to Part C. 2. Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank between Ordinary High Water (OHW) and the top of the bank? If yes, which water course? This includes any ading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but does not require work below OHW Yes fNo I✓I 3. Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bottom below OHW? If yes, please explain. Yes n No 0 4. Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of equipment for the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses? If no, please explain. Most projects involving grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of land disturbance. Yes A No n Only temporarily during construction activities. The project has a TESC to mitigate any potential erosion and/or sedimentation. The land will be stabilizing and seeded at the conclusion of the work. 5. If the project involves grading, have you prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan? Yes 1 No n If no, are you exempt under TMC 16.54.90? Yes= No n 6. Will the project result in new impervious services? Include all hard surface are such as rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, etc. Yes n No I✓I The project is to demolish an existing building and paved areas. Approximately, 3,000 SF of impervious surface will be replaced and 54,822 SF on impervious surface will be removed. 7. What percent of the project will be impervious surface (including pavement & roof area)? 6.5% (Reduced from 40.1 %) W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part C — Project Specifics: Water Quality 1. Will the project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? Please explain. For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into the ground. Yes ❑ No The project will reduce impervious area and allow for additional infiltration. 2. Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include fuel properly stored in a vehicle fuel tank, but does include fuel or other chemicals stored on -site during construction. Yes ❑ No r 3. Will the project require long-term or re -occurring maintenance requiring the use of fertilizers, pesticides, or other chemicals? This may include landscape maintenance, bridge or parking lot cleaning, ice removal/melt, repeated chemical vegetation clearing, etc. Yes I I No No Tong -term fertilization is planned. 4. Will turbidity be increased during construction or operation of the project? Please explain any measures to be taken to ensure turbidity is not increased. Construction near the water or below OHW often will increase turbidity, both on -site and downstream. Yesll_No Construction activities do not impact the OHW nor come close to it. The construction will be approx 15 elevation above the OHW. 5. Will the project either reduce or increase shade along or over a water body? Removal of trees/vegetation or the building of over -water structures (docks or floats) will often result in a change to shade. Yes ❑ No 0 6. Will the project require debris removal from below OHW of a water course? Debris includes, but is not limited to, fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, riprap, submerged metal, broken concrete, pipes, or other construction material. Yes ❑ No 0 W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Cif,' of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D — Project Specifics: Flow Alterations and Fish Migration 1. Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a water course? This includes both tempora and ermanent modifications. If yes, please explain. Yes INo1 2. Will the project involve any physical alteration to a wetland which is connected to a water course? Few wetlands are isolated, most contain either surface or subsurface connection to a flowing water course. Yes ❑ No 4 3. Will water be rerouted, either temporarily or permanently as a result of the project? If yes, please explain. Yes n No 4. Will a culvert be installed or removed as part of this project? Yes n No 4 5. Will the project require withdrawal of surface water? If yes, please include amount and name or water body. Yes IT No 4 6. Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception or groundwater? Examples of projects that might affect groundwater include, but are not limited to, construction of a new well, changes in withdrawal from an existing well, projects involving prolonged dewatering, installation of French drains, swales, or sewer lines. Projects that require a geotechnical report ursuant to TMC 18.45.060 should answer Yes. Yes ❑ No I✓ 7. Will topography changes on the site affect the duration/direction of surface runoff flows? If yes, please describe chan �es. Yes n No I ✓ I 8. Will the project include bank stabilization? If yes, explain. Bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, riprap, rock, logs, soil, vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar. Yes n No 0 9. Will there be retention or detention ponds? If yes, will this be an infiltration pond or a surface discharge to either a municipal storm water system or a surface water body? Yes n No n 10. Will the project involve any reduction of the floodplain or floodway by filling or other partial blockage of flows? If yes, how will the loss of flood storage be mitigated by your project? Yes n No f 11. Will project include the construction of a new wetland or waterway that is connected by surface flow to an existing waterway that contains salmonids? Yes f' No ✓❑ W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part E — Project Specifics: Vegetation 1. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation? If yes, please describe existing conditions and the amount and a of vegetation to be removed. Yes ri No There are a few small tree areas that will be removed as a part of this project. These plantings were installed during the construction of the buildings and appurtenances. In order to return the property to it's original state, the trees will be removed. Older, established trees that were present when this facilities was originally built, will be protected and remain. 2. Will the project involve the removal of any vegetation within 200 feet of OHW of a water course? If yes, please describe type, size, method, and amount of vegetation to be removed. A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self-supporting woody plant, generally characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter o 2inches or more at breast height and a minimum height of 10 feet. Yes n No The tree areas above come as close as approx 50 feet to the OHW. The trees are positioned in a perpendicular formation to the river shoreline, so the area within the 200 ft range is minimal. 3. If vegetation is to be removed, do you plan to mitigate by replanting? Please explain. Yes I No The trees being removed are not native/original vegetation. The trees are being removed to return the property to pre -construction conditions. W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Department of Ecology provides a guidance on filling the SEPA checklist at Department of Ecology Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Demolition of Building 9-150 2. Name of Applicant: The Boeing Company 3. Date checklist prepared: May 23, 2017 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): It is expected that construction will commence the summer of 2017 and complete by December 31, 2017 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Building 9-150 Hazardous Material Survey Report (Draft), dated April 5, 2017 by NVL Labs 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None, just the construction permits directly associated with this work. Agency Comments \\citystore\City Common\Teri - DCD\Kirby\SEPA to fix\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.docx W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. City of Tukwila Construction (Demo) Permit 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. The scope of work is the demolition of Building 9-150 and all appurtenances including, the removal of all foundations, slab, structure, mechanical and electrical systems, and sidewalk paving. All utilities associated with the building will be removed and capped per the Ci1,y of Tukwila standards. The property will be regraded to smooth the demolished areas and restored with natural grass. 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. Building 9-150 is the current Boeing gym located on the Oxbox site. Site Address: 9725 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, WA 98108. Parcel number 04230499150. Please refer to the attached Cover Sheet (GO-DEM) for the vicinity and area maps, Sheet C31-DEM provides a Legal Description and Topographic Survey. Sheets C171-DEM and C241-DEM provide the finished conditions of the graded site and pavement replacement plan. 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description, of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 9% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Sand and silt d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. None known. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Approximately 700 CYD of clean fill will be needed to complete the regrade of the site after the building slab and foundations are removed. The regrading process will allow for positive drainage of the final site and will required clean topsoil to plant the proposal natural grass. W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, with any construction project that requires grading, the construction process result in a small amount of soil erosion. Attached is a TESC Plan to mitigate any soil erosion that may occur during construction activities. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Of the project area, 6.5% will be impervious surface at the final state of construction (reduced from 40.1%, as it is today). h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Catch basin protection, silt fence, stabilized construction entrance, temporary sediment pond, temporary swales, check dams, tree protection, plastic covered stock pile, and sweeping pavement tracking. Please refer to attached sheet C6-DEM for the TESC Plan. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, diesel -powered equipment (e.g. excavators, trucks, bulldozers, etc.) will be used, resulting in exhaust for diesel combustion vapors to the atmosphere. The volume of exhaust vapors that will be produced over the course of the construction phase is unknown. No air emissions resulting from the project will occur once construction activities are complete. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No. SEPA Checklist Agency Comments W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The project approach and design will be consistent with EPA Region 10 "Clean and Green Policy" to the extent practicable. 3. Water a. Surface: 1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. Yes, the project will occur near (as close at 50 feet to) the Lower Duwamish River, which discharges to Puget Sound. No construction activities will occur within the OHW or bank limits. 2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No. 3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. n/a 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. SEPA Checklist Agency Comments W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No, all work is within Flood Zone Zone X (per Panel 53033C0645 F) 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well? Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No. 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve: None. SEPA Checklist Agency Comments W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Currently, the building and immediate vicinity captures the runoff water through a series of roof drains and catch basins. This collect system is routed to a storm structure that freely discharges into the Duwamish River. The proposed project removed most of this system. The final existing storm structure will remain and will collect any surface runoff that does not infiltrate within the new grassy area. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No 3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts if any: Since the project removes impervious surfaces, the runoff will be reduced. Any water that makes it's way to the existing discharge point, will continue to be released to the same location without increasing the discharge rate. SEPA Checklist Agency Comments W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: Deciduous tjsealder, maple, aspen, other Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Generally, several trees (approx 60) were planted at the time of the construction of this building. Those trees will be removed along with the building. There are a few trees that existed prior to the building's construction. Those will be protected and remain. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known, other than nearby salmon and trout species. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The project scope is to remove a building and associated paving to replace with natural grasses. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None known. W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 5. Animals a. List any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Cormorants, dabbling and diving ducks. kingfishers Birds: other: Canadian geese, ospref Mammals: Deer, bear, e k,L6eaver other: river otter, rabbits, raccoon, squi Fish: Bass,almo trout erring,QhellfisD other: Starry flounder, s Other: Dungeness crab b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound Steelhead Trout, and Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout are all known to use the Lower Duwamish River. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. A number of salmonids use the Lower Duwamish Waterway as a migratory corridor, including Puget Sound Chinook Salmon, Puget Sound Steelhead Trout, and Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout. Also, Coho, Fall Chum,, Sockeye Salmon, and Pink Salmon reportedly use this water system. The Green/Duwamish River system is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other avian fauna. The Pacific Flyway extents from Alaska south to Mexico and South America. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None, the project will not impact these wildlife other than increasing grassy areas for land and air wildlife. e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site: None known. , crows, pigeons rrels culpins, pile perch and 6. Enemy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. The completed project will require no additional energy. Only an electrical transformer will remain on site to power a regional sanitary lift station. W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: None. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. There is a small amount of hazardous waste that has been identified. Asbestos, heavy metals (paint) and Tight fixtures containing mercury and PBCs have been noted. All hazardous materials will be abated and disposed of by local, state and federal regulations. 1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. None. SEPA Checklist Agency Comments 2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None. 3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. Other than petroleum products (diesel -powered equipment) during construction, none. W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Describe special emergency services that might be required. None. 5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any„ None. b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None. 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Project -related noise would be associated with the construction operations of the proposed project. Average maximum noise levels (dI3A) at 50 feet from construction equipment, per WSDOT, is: Backhoe: 78 dBA, Crane: 81 dBA, Excavator 81 dBA and Frontend Loader: 70 dBA. The construction hours have not yet been established, but will follow local permit requirements. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: The work will be done within the City of Tukwila pursuant to TMC 8.22. W:\APPLICATIONS - Lan@ Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The current use of the adjacent properties are a river to the east (northeast and southeast), parking area to the northwest and industrial to the west. No affects on current adjacent land use. b. Has the project sire been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? None known. 1. Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No c. Describe any structures on the site. The existing Building 9-150 is a two-story structure (33,700 SF footprint) 35 feet in height. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes, Building 9-150 will be demolished SEPA Checklist Agency Comments W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? M-2 Heavy Industrial f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MIC/H Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy Industrial g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Urban h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Zero SEPA Checklist Agency Comments W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? 10 employees k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: none 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: none m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of lon-termcommercial significance, if any: n/a SEPA Checklist Agency Comments W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? none b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. none c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: none 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? n/a b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? n/a W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: n/a 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? n/a, no lights are being installed as a part of this project. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? n/a c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? n/a d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: n/a W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is a wood chipped walking/jogging trail adjacent to the construction limits of the project. This project will be disturb that pathway. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Yes, the existing building is used as a gymnasium for Boeing employees. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: The Boeing Company has offered several nearby alternatives to their employees, including member -owned space, community centers, libraries, school gymnasiums, and local schools. Many of these locations offer a discount to Boeing employees. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe. no W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAM) USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation. This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. none known c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. If resources of potential archaeological significance are encountered during project construction, Boeing will stop work immediately in the vicinity of the resource encountered and will notify the proper authorities for an evaluation prior to resuming construction activities. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. If resources of potential archaeological significance are encountered during project construction, Boeing will stop work immediately in the vicinity of the resource encountered and will notify the proper authorities for an evaluation prior to resuming construction activitiies. 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site is served by South 102nd Street. There is a bridge spanning the Duwamish River from the east (Boeing), which is now closed. South 102nd Street is now accessed by W Marginal Way S only. There is a ramp directly to South 102nd Street from W Marginal Way S. The area immediately adjacent to the construction limits is a large parking lot that is private. W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\.SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? There are several transit stops along E Marginal Way South and Des Moines Memorial Dr S. Each of these stops do not provide direct pedestrian access to the site. the closest walking distance is approximately 1 mile. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project eliminate? This project only disturbs enough pavement to remove the utilities that serve Building 9-150. No parking stalls will be created or eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No, other than pass -by boat traffic and the King County Airport on the other side of the Duwamish River. Nothing directly associated with or impacting this site. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? None. W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\.SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: N/A 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No, it will reduce public services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: -� �.ci natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanita system other: eptic b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The project will remove all existing utilities to their respective mains. Only electric and water will remain that serve the nearby regional sanitary lift station. W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist (NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). C. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 1. How would the proposals be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? n/a Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: n/a 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? n/a Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: n/a W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? n/a Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: n/a 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitats, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? n/a Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: n/a 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? n/a Agency Comments W:WPPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: n/a 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? n/a Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: n/a 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. n/a D. SIGNATURE Agency Comments Under the penal • of perjury the above answers under ESA Screening Checklist and State Environmental Policy Act Checklist are t . nd c * plete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decisi /9�I��I Signature: Date Submi d: ay zoq- RoeNb avoiff W:\APPLICATIONS - Land Use Apps & Handouts\CURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS\SEPA Environmental Review Application FINAL 5-9-16.doc CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Ste 100, Tukwila, WA 98188 ACTION Telephone: (206) 431-3670 SEPA PLANNED APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P-PACT Planner: File Number: A Application Complete Date: Project File Number . ,©O(24 Application Incomplete Date: MIC Planned Action EIS File Number: E96-0034 Other File Numbers: ,P 1 9'' 0/4-6 ' NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Boeing Developmental Center (Oxbow Site) Demolition of Building 9-150 LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. �° S,5 9725 East Marginal Way South \Q Qd � Zti� � w,� 5 Tukwila, Washington 98108 s{ 23o yl I5O Z 571: Nt k LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 0423049150 ; (i DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. 7 Name: John Murdoch / �dik._ G Liftui 1— ---1. U Address: The Boeing Company,IPO Box 3707 M/C 46-88, Seattle, WA 98124k ? (,01 . (JZ11- ��'✓' Phone: (253) 7 -02 E-mail: John. g.c� i- - Signature: Dat� Tor /AI&I4P9Ai FAX: - 1 "q38Jk Ad 1383r 1+40 lorft 5'uffl S,44 'rM CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Ste 100, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at 9725 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, WA 98108 for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City's entry upon the property, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. EXECUTED at �i� K(ky \1 e` (city), ()J\ (state), on IY) al a Li , 20 1 ! �GL! fi7Y1 /i (Print Name) �j' 'E /lf}2(/Li, c 1C4 1' �. �Oircc k 4-f. (Address) 95.jaa- a?-� 7- 3 sTo (Phon (Signature On this day personally appeared before me _ �) I ¶ . Jc ck5 to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she signed the sa ea a as voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS-14\ �/� (�j U DAY OF I r \ O) , 20 - -. ---� LTERESA M ALBERT Notary Public I State of Washington My Appointment Expires Nov 18,-2020 I NOTARY P L in and for the State of Washington residing at �p 6DX 913'3 My Commission expires on Mpoeivi }tee' 1s� Lb an a� a\4:cc:c:k 11E90111109 OF 0111Y0190 09-150 94640620 56'C0 AIL AND W ELEV - 17. SITE DEMOLITION PLAN SCALE: 1 "=30 05.02.17 gLBOEiivc• TREE DRIP UNE C OFFMAN N6INEENS Avenue. 61.. 6,001..3111m. WA..,OI ACCEPTABILITY M. BOSILHOV Ms DE6MN AND/hOR TNXJ 19 MXOJED A. HAZEN APPROVED 6Y 0ET. DATE W. McHUGH CHECKED ',PROVED APPROVED 05.02.17 05.02.17 05.02.17 SITE KEY PLAN Q NOT TO SCALE LEGEND CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVAL SAWCUT LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL PAVERS REMOVAL SIGN REMOVAL STREET LIGHT REMOVAL TREE REMOVAL PROTECT TREE GENERAL NOTES 1. SEE SHEETS C2-DEM, C3-DEM, AND C4-DEM FOR RELATED PROJECT NOTES. 2. MAINTAIN ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES UNTIL COMPLETION OF PROJECT. 3. NOTIFY BOEING IWO (2) WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF WORK TO COORDINATE RELOCATION OF BOEING PROPERTY WITHIN PROJECT LIMITS TO AN APPROVED LOCATION. 4. PROTECT EXISTING PAVING FROM DAMAGE. CONTRACTOR MUST REPLACE ALL DAMAGED PAVING IN KIND OR BETTER. 5. ALL UTILITIES MUST REMAIN IN SERVICE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON DEMOLITION PLANS. CONSTRUCTION NOTES 12> DEMOLISH BUILDING WITH ALL ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES. SEE ARCHITECTURAL AND STRUCTURAL REMOVAL PLANS. SAWCUT PAVEMENT, FULL DEPTH. REMOVE ASPHALT PAVEMENT. ® REMOVE PAVERS AND RIBBON CURB. REMOVE VERTICAL CONCRETE CURB. © REMOVE CONCRETE SURFACE. REMOVE AND SALVAGE WHEEL STOP, TYP. ® REMOVE BOLLARDS. REMOVE SIGN. ® REMOVE TREES. REMOVE LIGHT POLE BASE. SEE ELECTRICAL FOR LIGHT POLE AND AND JUNCTION BOX REMOVAL TRAIL UGHTING TO REMAIN, TYP. ® ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER, CONCRETE PAD, AND FENCE TO REMAIN. ® PROTECT EXISTING JOGGING TRAIL TO REMAIN. PROTECT TREE TO REMAIN. RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA MAY 252017 PERMIT CENTER REMOVAL 90% SUBMITTAL ISSUED FOR PERMIT CIVIL MASTER SITE DEMOLITION PLAN , DEMOLITION OF BUILDING 09-150 09-YRD COL DEV. CENTER, WA 30 15 0 15 30 60 SCALE: 1' = 30 CURRENT RErTSION W4640620 C31 R-DEM • "D' W4640620 09-YRD-C31R-DEM 05.02.17