Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E2000-018 - BOEING REALTY - BOEING / ISAACSON - NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGE2000 -018 BOEING REALTY 8625 E. MARGINAL WY. S. To: • Ciz of Tukwila Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director NOTICE OF DECISION December 1, 2000 Len Zickler, Applicant King County Assessor, Accounting Division State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division This letter is issued pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 21- 04.156 and serves as a notice of decision that the application for constructing a 212,000 square feet building at 8625 East Marginal Way South is designated as Planned Action and no further SEPA review is required. Project Background FILE NUMBER: E2000 -018 APPLICANT: The Boeing Company REQUEST: Determine that construction of a 212,000 square feet building along with other site improvements is a Planned Action and all impacts have been mitigated as part of 1998 EIS. LOCATION: 8625 East Marginal Way South PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to construct a 212,000 square feet building and 160 parking stalls along with other site improvements. DETERMINATION: The project is designated as a Planned Action and no further SEPA review or threshold determination is required. This decision is final with no administrative appeals. ZONING /COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Manufacturing Industrial Center/ Heavy Project materials including the application, staff report and other studies related to the permit are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila WA from Monday Through Friday, between 8:30 am and 5:00 pm. The project planner is Minnie Dhaliwal who may be contacted at 206 -431 -3685 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Decision issued by: Steve Lancaster Director, Community Development Attachment C 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Boeing/Isaacson project at 8625 East Marginal Way South File No: E2000 -018 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposal is to construct a 212,000 square feet building and 160 parking stalls along with other site improvements at 8625 East Marginal Way South. The existing buildings on the subject site were demolished in 1989 and the site is currently all paved. A portion of the proposed project is within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Duwamish River and hence is subject to Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Boeing/Isaacson project. Applicant: The Boeing Company Location: 8625 East Marginal Way South Zoning: MIC/H Comprehensive Plan Designation: MIC/H The following information was submitted as part of the application. 1. SEPA Checklist, dated received September 11, 2000. 2. Site Plan, Landscaping Plan, Elevations, Lighting Plan prepared by AHBL. 3. Survey drawing, Storm drainage /grading plan, Water and Sewer Plan and Technical Information report dated July 14, 2000, prepared by Barghausen Consulting Engineers. 4. Geotechnical Engineering report prepared by Geoengineers dated August 10, 2000. 5. Soil reports prepared by The Boeing Company for Department of Ecology for No further Action Determination dated November 2000. • • NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced above may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, 98188, Phone: 206 - 431 -3685. III. REVIEW PROCESS This proposal was identified as a potential Planned Action as it met the requirements listed under Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 21.04.152. The current proposal is to build an industrial building or an Internet data center. Both these uses are permitted uses in MIC/H zone. As part of this Planned Action review process, the proposed project is analyzed to ensure that all impacts have been mitigated and also if the proposal is consistent with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan. IV. BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL Tukwila's Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) is an important regional center of industrial activity. Industrial development over the most of the sub -area was evaluated in multi -site environmental review. In 1992, a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) was 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 1998 Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement in order to ensure that all impacts have been mitigated. The proposed use of this building will be industrial /warehouse or an Internet data center containing a large number of computer switches and servers. For the purposes of this Planned Action determination, the most intensive use will be analyzed. All other impacts except traffic will be similar for both uses. Industrial /warehouse use will likely have more traffic related impacts than an Internet data center. Hence traffic impacts of industrial/warehouse use shall be analyzed for this Planned Action determination. V. CONSITENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The City of Tukwila Comprehensive Plan identifies the area surrounding the Isaacson site as a Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy. The proposed project meets the goals and policies listed in the Comprehensive Plan for MIC/H area. Specifically, the proposed project meets the following goals and policies: • • 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 11.1.5: 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. Policy 11.1.8: Improve public access and use of the west side of the river, protecting owner's rights to reasonable use and enjoyment, improve employee access to the east side of the river and emphasize restoration on both sides of the river. V. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements contained within the Environmental Checklist submitted for the proposed project. The numbers in the staff evaluation correspond to the numbers in the Environmental Checklist. If staff concurs with the applicant's response, this is so stated. If the response to a particular item in the checklist is found to be inadequate or clarification is needed, there is additional staff comment and evaluation. A. BACKGROUND: 1 -6 -- Concur with checklist. 7 — The address of the subject site is 8625 East Marginal Way South. 8 — The subject site is within 200 feet of Ordinary Highwater Mark of the Duwamish River. It is subject to King County Shoreline regulations and a Substantial Development Shoreline Permit is required for this project. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: a -b -- Concur with checklist. c — Applicant shall meet all Washington State Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency regulations related to contaminated soils. • • d -h – Concur with checklist. 2. Air: a -c– Concur with checklist. 3. Water: a(1) -a(2) —The site is situated along the Duwamish River Channel. An approximately 40 feet wide wooden pier with asphalt owned by the Port of Seattle separates the subject site from the river. No work will take place either over or in the Duwamish. The project is subject to Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and will meet all shoreline regulations. a(3) -(6) -- Concur with checklist. b(1) and (2) -- Concur with checklist. c (1) and (2) -- Concur with checklist. d -- Concur with checklist. 4. Plants: a -d -- Concur with checklist. 5. Animals: a —In addition to the animals listed in the checklist the following have been observed on or near the site: Birds- Bald eagle Mammals - River Otter Fish- Chinook, Cho, Chum, Steelhead, and Bull Trout b—Bald Eagle, Chinook Salmon, and Bull Trout are threatened species observed near the site. c— Chinook salmon use river for migration route and rearing. d -- Concur with checklist. • • 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: a – The applicant will be required to meet all established state and federal regulations related to contaminated soils. Applicant is responsible for obtaining all required permits from Washington State Department of Ecology and Environmental Protection Agency to address any contaminated soils issues. Compliance with state and federal standards will mitigate any potential environmental health hazards. a(1)- (2)— Concur with checklist. b (1) and (2) -- Concur with checklist. b (3) -- Compliance with applicable local, state and federal noise regulations will mitigate any potential adverse noise impacts, associated with the project. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a -e – Concur with checklist. f – The current comprehensive plan designation for the site is Manufacturing Industrial Center. 9. Housing: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 10. Aesthetics: a —The proposed building is 35 feet in height. b -c – The proposal is subject to Design Review by the City of Tukwila and all impacts related to aesthetics will be addressed during Design Review. 11. Light and Glare: a -d -- Concur with checklist. 12. Recreation: a -c – Concur with checklist. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a -c -- Concur with checklist. 14. Transportation: a -g -- Concur with checklist. 15. Public Services: a -b -- Concur with checklist. 16. Utilities: a -b -- Concur with checklist. V. CONCLUSION The current proposal to build a 21,000 square feet building is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. It is also determined that all impacts associated with the current proposal have been mitigated pursuant to the environmental impact statement. Prepared by: Minnie Dhaliwal, Associate Planner Date: November 30, 2000. CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 11 2000 SEPA 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 :V TPLANNED Telephone: (206) 431 -3670 FAX (206) 431 -3665 Ca E -mail: tukplan @ci.tukwila.wa.us ACTION APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Sierra Type: P -PACT Planner: File Number: Ci ),<M7 — O(C� Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Application Incomplete (Date: ) MIC Planned Action EIS File Number: E96 -0034 Other File Numbers 7 ^ aqc-lc-- p %_. , z- J -O -7 --€-" NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: 15P-A -c 5 oil LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS. if 5b O Eh- 5 r Al A / / L 4,04 `( X La /V ✓,' 6' o0v160 —oi'/ Quarter: - Section: .3 3 Township: 2 y^/ Range: 9c= (This information may be found on your tax statement.) DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the 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. Name: €RRD MEOR'D , /11#405 Li INC. Address: 22/s /14 .3 a Ty ST rF 36° 771" C6/4 A, WA ' 8 /0 Phone: (,25 -15) 3f13-2y2 Z FAX: (2S3) ; - -2s72 Signature: G:UPPNAMLINDUSEAPPi ,Ia,,/.Jac. 09 /30/99 Date: ilia o • Gity of Tukwila • Steven M. Mullet, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 31, 2000 Via Fax Brad Medrud AHBL 2215 North 30th Street Suite 300 Tacoma WA 98403 Re: Application for Boeing's Isaacson property at 8625 East Marginal Way South; File Numbers- Shoreline permit (L2000 -059), Design Review(L2000 -058) and Planned Action SEPA (E2000 -018). Dear Mr. Medrud: Based on review of your application to construct a 212,000 square foot light industrial and warehouse distribution facility at 8625 East Marginal Way South, the following information is required to further process your application: I) SEPA Application: 1) SEPA checklist item B 1. Earth (c), indicates that Boeing is working with Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that existing contaminated soils remain in a stable condition. Further, it is stated that existing soils would remain on -site and continue to be stabilized and capped by proposed building and parking uses. The geo- technical report (page 8) recommends that all asphalt concrete and cement concrete pavements be removed from proposed building areas. It also discusses site grading. It is also stated on page 10 that foundation and utility construction will include temporary open cut excavations. However based on recommendations of the geo - technical report, it is not clear how the arsenic contaminated soil will not be exposed to the environment. Please submit documentation from DOE and EPA showing their approval for this proposed project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone: 206 - 431 -3670 • Fax: 206 - 431 -3665 • • II) Shoreline Application: 1) The survey drawing shows a wooden pier and it is labeled as deteriorated. However the section drawing on sheet EX -3 shows landscaping over the wooden pier. Please clarify what is proposed for the wooden pier. Also, please indicate what analysis has been done of the wooden pier and bank stabilization. Any work waterward of the Ordinary High Water Mark requires federal and state permits and will be exempt from Planned Action SEPA. 2) Please clarify what measures are proposed to keep contaminated soil from exposing to the environment where landscaping is proposed. 3) Please submit a complete title report with complete description of all easements. Also, please clarify item #10 on page 5 of the title report that indicates rights of State of Washington over abandoned channel of Duwamish River (Slip No. 5). 4) Ordinary High Water Mark must be shown on the drawings. 5) The fire access road does not need to be paved. Since it is proposed within low impact area, it should be revised to be grasscrete path. 6) Pursuant to King County Code (KCC) Sec 25.16.030, maximum height of the building within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark in an Urban Environment is 35 feet above average grade level. The drawings show a height of 40 feet. 7) Trail and other landscaping improvements must be continued to the south property line. III) Design Review Application: 1) Parking: Pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Chapter 18.56, bicycle - parking spaces must be provided. One bicycle parking space per 50 automobile parking spaces is required to be provided near main entrance. 2) Building Design: Following is the list of design requirements that have not been addressed: a) Per TMC Section 18.60.50(B), monotony of design shall be avoided and variety of detail and form must be used to provide visual interest. Also, landscape treatment should enhance architectural features. b) Also, per Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Design Guidelines, IN6, appearance of building bulk and scale shall be reduced as seen from walkways by providing interest and variety at pedestrian level. This is listed to be achieved by use of canopies, color, landscaping, fenestration and facade modulation. c) Per Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Design Guidelines, SL7, Structures shall be designed to take advantage of the river frontage location by incorporating features • • such as- plazas and landscape open space that connect with a shoreline trail system; windows that offer view of the river; and pedestrian entrances that face the river. Based on the above listed requirements, the north and south facades of the proposed building must include additional articulation to avoid a monotonous design. Also, the proposed horizontal pattern further accentuates the long facade. Instead vertical pattern is recommended. Additionally, the vertical pattern must include additional variety in materials, colors and texture. It is also suggested to include some foundation landscaping at certain locations to break the long facade. The elevations submitted with the application include a number of alternatives. Please clarify which is the final version. In one of the alternatives no truck bay doors are proposed. In that case foundation landscaping must be included, walkway with canopy must be provided along the building facade and parking relocated from the property line to be adjacent to the building and walkway. The west elevation must include windows overlooking the water. The west facade must be linked to the proposed trail by a pedestrian plan. Also, please submit drawings of the east elevation. Also, per TMC Section 18.60.50(B), mechanical equipment must be screened and screening must be integral part of architecture of the building. Please indicate if any roof top HVAC units are proposed and what screening will be used. 3) Landscaping: a) Perimeter landscaping must meet tree spacing requirements. Also, shrubs and groundcover must be provided in the required perimeter landscaping area. Please refer to the landscape chapter for these requirements. Also, per Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Design Guidelines ROW Standard 3 (page 21), landscaping must incorporate a berm. The plans do not indicate any berm. b) Landscape island separating the truck aisle and parking needs to incorporate plants. It is not clear why a separate aisle is proposed instead of using the aisle between two rows of parking. c) Street trees are shown where there is an existing rail road track. Please clarify where the street trees are proposed. Additionally American Sweetgum is not an appropriate street tree. d) Detailed drawings showing the type, number and size of plants in the riparian zone and elsewhere must be submitted. Please refer to 18.52.030(D) for plant material requirements. Please note that evergreen trees and evergreen shrubs must be used to screen blank walls. e) Please clarify the methods to be used to avoid exposure to contaminated soil in the landscaped areas. • • f) Per TMC Section 18.52.040, all landscaped areas must be served by automatic irrigation system. 4) Site Design: a) Per Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Design Guidelines ROW3, major pedestrian entrances shall be provided to include drop off areas and covered pedestrian corridors. The proposed design shows a pedestrian connection from the sidewalk on East Marginal Way South to the entrance of the building. However it must be enhanced by providing a pedestrian plaza at the entrance of the building. Bicycle parking could be incorporated in the plaza. Further, per IN7, alternate - paving techniques will be used. The pedestrian path must be of colored concrete to highlight the pedestrian entrance. b) Per Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Design Guidelines IN1 and IN2: • Principal circulation will be at the perimeter of the site so that a pedestrian environment in the center of site. • Conflict between truck/passenger vehicles and pedestrians will be minimized. • Walkways will be aligned to minimize distance between the building entrance and parking areas. • Protection will be provided from rain along heavily traveled walkways. • Pedestrian amenities along walkways such as landscaping, lighting, benches will be provided. • Plazas will be provided along walkways and at building entrances. The current proposal of a long row of parking along north property line does not meet the above listed design guidelines requirements. Please revise the proposal to reflect the design guideline requirements. c) Also refer to the Internal Site Entry Class A section (Duwamish Corridor Design Guidelines pg. 36) to be used for major site entry. The existing entry to the Boeing building, which is proposed to be used as a shared access to the subject site must be revised to include clearer delineation of vehicular m ovement by use of landscape islands. IV) Process: 1) Typically, the Shoreline Permit decision is issued prior to Design Review hearing. At this time we have tentatively scheduled a hearing for Design Review on December 14, 2000. This is dependent on when the revised drawings and other information listed in this letter is received. Staff report for the Public Hearing is usually prepared at least three weeks prior to the hearing. 2) Please indicate how you want to proceed with the Boundary line adjustment application. Please note that the stairs to access the proposed building will be located • 1: • • on the adjoining lot after boundary line adjustment. If that is the case, access easement must be provided. 3) Please clarify the intended use of the proposed facility. The original application included a number of elevations. As indicated to you earlier, warehouse, light industrial and flex tech uses are all permitted in MIC/H zone. However development review must fully analyze all impacts associated with a proposal. Please clarify the proposed use of this facility in order to fully evaluate the impacts of this facility and complete our review. Also, the change of use from light industrial to flex tech telecommunications may exceed the thresholds of shoreline permit and a separate shoreline permit may be required at the time of change of use. Please call to discuss this issue further. V) Public Works: Please refer to attached comments from Public Works Department. After receipt of the requested information, we will notify you within 14 calendar days if any information is still needed to further process your application. It is important to note that this application will expire if we do not receive the additional information within ninety (90) days of the date of this letter unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.105.070(E). If you have any questions, you can reach me at 206 - 431 -3685. Sincerely, At , Minnie Dhaliwal Associate Planner Encl.: Comments from Public Works C: David McPherson • SEPA PLANNED ACTION CHECKLIST for Isaacson September 2000 Prepared For: Mr. Gene Warden Boeing Realty Corporation P.O. Box 3707 MC 2R -79 Seattle, WA 98124 -2207 Prepared By: Brad Medrud, AICP, Project Planner Reviewed By: Len Zickler, Principal 99339.30 Control No. Epic File No. Fee 96None Required Receipt No. PLANNED ACTION INITIAL QUALIFICATIONS (TMC 21.04.152) A. BACKGROUND 1. Date checklist prepared: September 8, 2000 2. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction will begin in March 2001 and be completed in September 2001. 3. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 4. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. To our knowledge, there are no other pending applications affecting our site. 5. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The applicant requires review of a SEPA Planned Action application to satisfy the all the criteria in TMC 21.04.152 (Planned Actions Identified), Design Review approval, and a Shoreline Management Permit from the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development, and various site development and building permit approvals. An NPDES Permit will be required from the Washington State Department of Ecology. 6. 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. Section E requires a complete description of the objectives and alternatives of your proposal and should not be summarized here. The applicant is proposing the construction of an industrial project on a 12.29 -acre site. A boundary line adjustment will be completed during the building permit review. Once the boundary review is complete, the existing 2.45 acres of parking used by Boeing along the south side of the site will no longer be part of the project and the total site area will be reduced to 9.84 acres. The project will feature one building with a four -hour firewall. The building would have a total footprint of 212,000 square feet with 72,000 square feet of industrial space and 140,000 square feet of warehouse area. A potential alternative use of the 212,000 square foot building would be for flex -tech telecommunications. There will be a total of 160 parking spaces for the project, which is more than the 143 required for the project. 72 parking stalls are required for the industrial use and 71 stalls are required for warehouse use. 55 dock high doors and 2 at level dock doors will be provided. The flex -tech telecommunication alternative shows no dock doors on the north building elevation. Public water and sewer systems will serve the site. There will be a 60 -foot wide no- build easement along the south wall of the building in the Boeing parking area to allow for emergency access. An existing easement for storm drainage traverses the site. 7. 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, and section, township, and range, if known. 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. The project is located at 8500 East Marginal Way in the City of Tukwila, Washington. The site is located in Section 33 Range 4 East Township 24 North on parcel number 000160 -0014. 8. Does this proposal lie with an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? The Duwamish River forms the western boundary for the project; therefore the project is within the Shoreline Urban Environmental as defined by the City of Tukwila. Design review through the Board of Architectural Review and a Shoreline Management Permit will be required for the project. 2 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. Earth: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY To our knowledge, there are no surface indications or any history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Grading and filling will be necessary to bring the site to the required elevations for drainage purposes, access, and function. A fill and grade plan prepared by Barghausen will be submitted to the City of Tukwila for review and approval. Approximately 15,000 cubic yards of balanced excavation may be required. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. Erosion is possible during site clearance and construction. Once the site is ready for use there will be very little potential for erosion. A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan will be submitted to the City of Tukwila for review. All approved mitigation measures will be implemented before and during construction, and include Best Management Practices. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? For the entire site, approximately 476,701 square feet (89 percent) of the 12.29 acres will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: All construction activity on site will conform to the City of Tukwila design criteria for sedimentation and erosion control. 4 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2. AIR a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. 5 • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY ground water is anticipated. • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 2. Describe waste material 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. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 4. PLANTS a. Check or circle type of vegetation found on the site. _ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other. ' _ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other. shrubs. _ grass. _ pasture. _ crop or grain. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other. _ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other. X other types of vegetation: ornamental landscaping ' b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? Most of the existing ornamental vegetation will be removed for the construction of the building and parking areas. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. To our knowledge, there are no threatened or endangered plant species on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The proposed landscaping for the site will include native and ornamental evergreen and deciduous shrubs, trees, and groundcover along with mulched planting beds and lawns. Native plantings will be predominant along the Duwamish Waterway. 5. ANIMALS a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or ' are known to be on or near the site: Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ' Mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: small rodents Birds: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: 8 ' • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. ' To our knowledge, no threatened or endangered animal species are on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. ' The site lies within the Western Flyway for Migratory Birds. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: No measures are proposed. ' 6. ENERGY 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. ' Electricity will be used for heating, power, and illumination. Natural gas is available at the site and may be used. 10 from sensitive areas and construction hours will roughly be limited to the normal workday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. ' 8. LAND AND SHORELINE USE a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The current use of the proposed site is a paved parking area. Industrial uses border the north side of the site. To the west is the Duwamish River and to the south are Boeing industrial uses. To the east is East Marginal Way and Boeing Field. ' b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. The site has not been used for agriculture in the recent past. c. Describe any structures on the site. ' There are no structures on the site d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? ' No. ' e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? The current zoning classification for the site is Manufacturing Industrial ' Center /Heavy Industrial (MIC /H) District. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? ' The current comprehensive plan designation for the site is Industrial. 11 12 T O BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 9. HOUSING a. Approximately roximatel how many units would be provided, If any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. ' No housing units will be provided. ' b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. ' No housing units will be demolished. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: ' No measures will be proposed. ' 10. AESTHETICS a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; 13 ' • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 11. LIGHT AND GLARE a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Lighting will be used for safety and security purposes in the parking area and along the exterior of the building. Lighting will occur from describe. The proposed project will not displace any recreational uses. ' c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or application, if any: 14 ITO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 16 TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY 17 • • TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT C. SIGNATURE: EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: Sep%?...6e r City of Tukwila SEPA Planned Action Checklist /41CP 11 L5oo 18 Report Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services Proposed Industrial / Office Buildings Isaacson Site 'Tukwila, Washington August 10, 2000 For Boeing Realty Corporation S P 11 2000 File No. 0120- 237 -00 -1130 1 Geo WEngineers • August 10, 2000 Boeing Realty Corporation P.O. Box 3707, MC2R -79 Seattle, Washington 98124 -2207 Attention: Gene Warden Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists We are pleased to present four copies of our "Report, Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Services, Proposed Industrial / Office Buildings, Isaacson Site, Tukwila, Washington." Our services have been conducted in accordance with our proposal dated June 28, 2000. Our services were authorized by Gene Warden of Boeing Realty Corporation on July 11, 2000. As discussed in the report lateral spreading during strong earthquake motions is expected to occur in the west portion of the site. This soil movement is expected to affect a portion of the proposed building. Final lateral support requirements and design recommendations must be developed after the project structural engineer has been selected. The development of the final recommendations will be an iterative process between us and the structural engineer. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you and look forward to continuing work on this project. Please call us if you have any questions regarding the contents of this report or when we may be of further assistance. SDS:JJM:pb P: \0 \0120237\00\Fi nals \012023700R -s.doc GeoEngineers, Inc. Plaza 600 Building 600 Stewart St., Suite 1420 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone (206) 728 -2674 Fax (206) 728 -2732 www.geoengineers.com Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, I cFadden, P.E. sociate CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 1 SCOPE OF WORK 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 SURFACE CONDITIONS 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3 GENERAL 3 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 4 Regional Seismicity 4 Uniform Building Code (UBC) Site Coefficient 4 Ground Shaking and Design Earthquake 5 Liquefaction Potential 5 Ground Rupture 6 Lateral Spreading 6 Conclusions 7 SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK 8 Demolition and Site Stripping 8 Site Preparation 8 Structural Fill 9 Temporary Open -Cut Excavations 10 Erosion Control 10 PILE FOUNDATION SUPPORT 11 General 11 Vertical Capacity 11 Lateral Capacity 12 Settlement 14 Pile Installation 14 SHALLOW FOUNDATION SUPPORT 16 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT 17 RETAINING WALLS 17 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATONS 18 LIMITATIONS 18 FIGURES Figure No. VICINITY MAP 1 SITE PLAN 2 G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0120- 237-00 -1130 CONTENTS (CONT.) APPENDICES APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS APPENDIX A FIGURES CONE PENETRATION TEST Page No. A -1 Figure No. A- 1...A -3 G e o E n gi n e e r s File No. 0120 - 237 -00 -1130 REPORT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL / OFFICE BUILDINGS ISAACSON SITE TUKWILA, WASH_ INGTON FOR BOEING REALTY CORPORATION INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical engineering services for the proposed industrial/office buildings to be constructed at the Isaacson site in Tukwila, Washington. The site is located at 8725 East Marginal Way South. The site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan, Figure 2. Our understanding of the project is based on conversations with and review of previous studies provided by Gene Warden, and information provided by AHBL (project civil and structural engineers). We understand that the project includes construction of approximately 200,000 square feet of industrial/office space in a two -story building. The building will be concrete tilt -up construction with on -grade floor slabs. Foundation loading information is unavailable at this time. However, we understand the building will likely be occupied by a telecommunications company. Roof and column loading will likely be heavier than typical tenants of this type of building. We understand that pile support is anticipated for the new building. SCOPE OF WORK The purpose of our geotechnical engineering services is to evaluate the subsurface soil and ground water conditions as a basis for providing geotechnical recommendations for design of the new building. Our specific scope of services includes the following tasks: 1. Obtain information from The Boeing Company to utilize in developing a site safety plan for use during site explorations. 2. Review existing subsurface information in our files for the site and nearby properties for which we performed geotechnical investigations. 3. Meet on site with a representative of The Boeing Company to discuss site access and identify suitable exploration locations. This includes obtaining the location of utilities in the area. 4. Explore subsurface conditions at the site by advancing three cone penetrometer test (CPT) probes to depths of about 100 feet below ground surface. 5. Provide preliminary recommendations for the following: a. Site preparation and earthwork including stripping depths, preloading and/or preparation of subgrade support of footings, floor slabs, and pavements. b. Earthwork criteria including wet weather construction considerations and use of on -site soils for fill. In addition, gradation criteria for structural fill material that may have to be imported, and placement and compaction requirements, will be provided. G e o E n g i n e e r s 1 File No. 0120. 237 -00 - 1130 \081000 c. Sedimentation and erosion control during and following construction, and permanent site drainage. d. Shallow foundation support (if appropriate for lightly loaded ancillary structures) including allowable soil bearing pressures, settlement estimates, minimum footing sizes, minimum depth of footings below finished grade, allowable increases in soil bearing when supporting seismic generated Toads, and a coefficient of base friction for resisting lateral forces. e. Deep foundation support for the proposed building including penetration versus capacity criteria for piles. Augercast piles are typically used to support buildings in the project area; however, our scope includes evaluation of other deep foundation support systems that would not generate soil cuttings during installation. f. Support of on -grade floor slabs including capillary break and vapor retarder as appropriate. g. Discuss seismicity at the site and provide seismic design parameters including soil profile type and site coefficient based on 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) criteria. h. Surface and subsurface drainage based on ground water conditions encountered or expected in the area. i. Comment on any anticipated construction difficulties identified from the results of our site studies and from our experience on projects at similar sites. 6. Attend one meeting to present our preliminary findings and the results of our analyses. 7. Prepare a written report presenting our conclusions and recommendations together with supporting field and laboratory information for incorporation into design of the project. Our services do not include completing explorations within the soil stabilization areas at the site, as shown in Figure 2. We will provide a separate proposal when requested to complete additional explorations and develop supplemental recommendations for earthwork within the soil stabilization areas. Our services do not include developing recommendations for environmental remediation or handling of potentially hazardous soils during construction. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The Isaacson site is approximately rectangular in shape and is located in the Duwamish Valley. The site is bordered by East Marginal Way and Boeing Field on the east, the Duwamish River on the west, the Jorgeson Steel Company to the north and other Boeing facilities on the south. The ground surface at the site is covered with either asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement concrete slabs. No buildings are currently present at the site. The ground surface is generally at about Elevation 14 feet above mean sea level, with the exception of the northern portion of the site. The ground surface in the northern portion of the site consists of a mound which varies from about Elevation 14 to 20 feet. The mound was formed in 1992 as part of the stabilization of arsenic contaminated soil at the site. G e o E n g i n e e r s 2 File No. 0120 - 237 -00 - 1130 \081000 • The southern portion of the site previously contained a portion of the Duwamish River Channel (Slip No. 5). Beginning about 1935 until 1966, portions of Slip No. 5 were dredge - filled. Based on historical records, the fill extended to about 22 feet below the existing ground surface and generally consisted of .silty sand with significant amounts of slag, fire bricks, and miscellaneous construction materials. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by reviewing available geotechnical information in our files and by advancing three CPT probes to depths of 100 feet. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown in Figure 2. Descriptions of the field exploration procedures and logs of the CPT probes are presented in Appendix A. Based on subsurface information obtained during this study and from review of available information, the site is underlain by fill overlying an undetermined depth of alluvial deposits. The fill consists of medium dense to dense sand and gravel with variable silt content. The fill extends to depths of 5 to 8 feet at the CPT probe locations. The underlying alluvial deposits generally consist of loose to medium dense sand, sand with silt and silty sand to depths between 60 to 65 feet. Thin interbedded layers of silt were encountered within the sandy layer between depths of 40 to 60 feet. Soft to medium stiff silt with silty sand layers was encountered below the sand deposits to depths of 75 to 80 feet. The underlying soil consists of very soft to soft clay. Two of the CPT probes were completed in this clay deposit. In CPT -3, the clay deposit was encountered to a depth of about 90 feet. The clay is underlain by medium dense to dense sand and silty sand. CPT -3 was completed in the medium dense to dense sand deposit. While not encountered in the explorations for this study, dredged -fill was placed in the southern portion of the site, as discussed under "Surface Conditions." Ground water was encountered at depths of 12 feet during advancement of the CPT probes. In general, ground water conditions should be expected to fluctuate as a function of season, precipitation, the rise and fall of the Duwamish River, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on our explorations, experience on other nearby project sites, and analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings may be constructed satisfactorily at the site provided that the considerations and recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project planning. We recommend that the buildings be supported using deep foundations. Shallow foundation support of retaining walls or other lightly loaded structures may be considered for the project. Potentially liquefiable sand and silty sand were encountered to depths of about 45 feet below the exiting ground surface at the site. Liquefaction induced settlement on the order of 3 to 6 inches may occur under strong ground shaking. Additionally, lateral spreading resulting from liquefaction will likely occur and may extend several hundred feet from the Duwamish River affecting the western portion of the site. We estimate that lateral spreading displacements may be G e o E n g i n e e r s 3 File No. 0120 - 237-00 -1130 \081000 • • on the order of 12 to 24inches at the western edge of the building. In order to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and lateral spreading, we recommend that the building be supported on pile foundations. Individual pile caps should also be connected together with grade beams to minimize differential lateral spreading across the building. However, further discussions with the project structural engineer during final design will be necessary to provide appropriate recommendations for mitigating the potential impacts to the buildings. The near surface on -site soils generally contain a high percentage of fines (silt) and are moisture sensitive. It may be difficult to operate heavy equipment on these soils in wet weather. It may also be very difficult to achieve adequate compaction with these soils to allow their use as structural fill due to their fine- grained composition, especially in wet weather conditions. Therefore, we recommend that you plan to use clean imported granular structural fill for all building pad, roadway and parking area fill. On -site soils may be used in extended dry periods if the soils are dried to a condition that will allow for proper compaction. A discussion of the potential for, and possible consequences of, liquefaction and lateral spreading follows in the "Seismic Considerations" section of this report. Our conclusions and recommendations for site development, foundation support and performance estimates for the proposed structure are presented following the "Seismic Considerations" section. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Regional Seismicity The Puget Sound region is a seismically active region and has experienced thousands of earthquakes during historical time. Seismicity in this region is attributed primarily to the interaction between the Pacific, Juan de Fuca and North American plates. The Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the North American Plate. Each year, numerous earthquakes occur in Oregon and Washington. However, only a few of these are typically felt because the majority of recorded earthquakes are smaller than magnitude 3. -In recent years, two large earthquakes occurred which resulted in some liquefaction in loose alluvial deposits and significant damage to some structures. The first earthquake, which was centered in the Olympia area, occurred in 1949 with a Richter magnitude of 7.1. The second earthquake occurred in 1965, was centered between Seattle and Tacoma, and had a Richter magnitude of 6.5. Potential seismic hazards from earthquakes include ground shaking, liquefaction, ground rupture from lateral spreading and surface fault rupture. Our opinions regarding the likelihood of these seismic hazards occurring at the site are presented below. Our evaluations are based on the seismicity criteria prescribed by the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Uniform Building Code (UBC) Site Coefficient The Puget Sound region is designated as a Seismic Risk Zone 3 in the 1997 edition of the UBC. For Zone 3 locations, a Seismic Zone Factor (Z) of 0.30 is applicable based on UBC Table 16 -I. Based on the results of the explorations and interpretation of UBC Table 16 -J, the site is characterized using Soil Profile Type SF. This profile type consists of "soils vulnerable to G e o E n g i n e e r s 4 File No. 0120- 237 -00 - 1130 \081000 potential failure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquefiable soils." For Soil Profile Type SF, a site specific response analysis is typically required. However, based on our experience and the results of site specific response analyses for similar sites, a Soil Profile Type SE will adequately characterize the site. It is our opinion that the soil profile used for design may be characterized using Soil Profile Type SE. This soil profile results in the following seismic coefficients, Ca =0.36 and Cv =0.84. Ground Shaking and Design Earthquake There is a risk of earthquake induced ground shaking at the site, as with all sites in the Puget Sound region, and the intensity of the ground shaking could be severe. The severity of ground shaking will be mostly a function of the earthquake magnitude and proximity of the epicenter to the site. In our opinion, strong ground shaking should be considered in the design of the building and improvements at this site. We recommend that the seismic ground shaking at the site be evaluated in accordance with the procedures presented in the 1997 edition of the UBC. The key seismic design parameters are the peak acceleration and the Richter magnitude of the earthquake. In general, a design earthquake is chosen based on the probability that the design earthquake will not be exceeded over a given time period. The level of seismicity recommended in the 1997 edition of the UBC for human occupancy buildings is an earthquake with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50 -year period. The design earthquake event that corresponds to this probability is an earthquake with a Richter magnitude of 7.5 and a peak horizontal ground acceleration of approximately 0.3g. Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from . earthquake forces, results in development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils and subsequent loss of strength in the deposit of soil so affected. Structures supported on soils that liquefy could suffer foundation settlement or lateral movement that could be severely damaging to the structures. In general, soils which are susceptible to liquefaction include loose to medium dense clean to silty sands which are below the water table. Such soil and ground water conditions are present at the site. The evaluation of liquefaction potential is complex and is dependent on numerous site parameters, including soil grain size, soil density, site geometry, static stresses, and the magnitude and ground acceleration of the design earthquake. Typically, the liquefaction potential of a site is evaluated by comparing the cyclic shear stress ratio (the ratio of the cyclic shear stress to the initial effective overburden stress) induced by an earthquake to the cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction. The cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction was estimated using an empirical procedure based on penetration resistance of the CPT probe during advancement of the probe. This method relates the cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction to the resistance values and the fines content of the soil. We have evaluated the G e o E n g i n e e r s . 5 File No. 0120- 237 -00- 1130\081000 • • earthquake- induced cyclic shear stress ratio at this site using an empirical relationship developed by researchers for this purpose. Our analysis indicates that there is a high potential for liquefaction occurring below the site if the site were subjected to the design earthquake event. Liquefaction could occur in the loose to medium dense sand which underlies the site to depths of about 45 feet. The potential ground settlement caused by liquefaction will vary depending on the actual levels of ground shaking, the duration of shaking, and site - specific soil conditions. If the site were subjected to the design earthquake event, we estimate that ground surface settlements on the order of 3 to 6 inches could occur if all of the potentially liquefiable soils were to produce settlement. However, between depths of about 35 to 45 feet, settlement is likely to occur in discontinuous pockets and layers. We expect that differential settlements will be on the order of 2 to 4 inches. Ground Rupture Because of the thickness of the Quaternary sediments below the site, it is our opinion that the potential for surface fault rupture is remote. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacements of large volumes of liquefied soil during an earthquake. Lateral spreading can occur on near -level ground as blocks of surface soils displace relative to adjacent blocks. Lateral spreading also occurs as blocks of surface soils are displaced toward a nearby slope (free face) by movement of the underlying liquefied soil. The bank of the Duwamish River, located as close as 200 feet away from the west side of the planned building, represents a free face condition for this site. Therefore, the topography of the site and underlying soil conditions indicate that lateral spreading is a possibility at the site. We have used two simple models to predict free -field ground displacements which might be associated with lateral spreading at the site. Free -field ground displacements are those that are not impeded by structural resistance, ground modification, or a natural boundary. The first model is based on a single- degree -of- freedom system that incorporates the residual strength of the liquefied deposits. The key parameters are the residual shear strength of the liquefied soil, the limiting shear strain of the liquefied soil, the thickness of the liquefied zone and the slope angle measured between the structure and the toe of the free face. The residual shear strength and limiting shear strain of the liquefied soils were estimated using an empirical relationship that is based on correlated blow count data obtained from the CPT probes. The second model is an empirical model that incorporates earthquake, geological, topographical and soil factors that affect ground displacement. The model was developed from compiled data collected at sites where lateral spreading was observed. The key parameters are the Richter magnitude, the horizontal ground acceleration, the thickness of the liquefied zone, the grain size distribution of the liquefied deposit, and the ratio of the free face height to the distance between the structure and the toe of the free face. G e o E n g i n e e r s 6 File No. 0120- 237 -00 - 11301081000 The results of our analysis indicate that lateral spreads may develop in the upper 35 to 45 feet of soil during the design earthquake. We estimate that free -field lateral displacements at the western edge of the structure (200 feet away from the Duwamish River) may be on the order of 12 to 24 inches. Lateral displacements will decrease further away from the Duwamish River. Our analysis indicates that free -field lateral spreading will be less than about 1 inch at distances greater than 400 feet from the Duwamish River. Lateral displacements at or near pile - supported structures are generally less than the free -field lateral displacements because the structure provides some resistance to the lateral spreading soil. The piles are typically constructed such that they have fixity in the soils below the level of lateral spreading. Observations of structural performance made by a representative of GeoEngineers, following the 1995 earthquake in Kobe, Japan, suggest that lateral displacements of pile - supported structures were on the order of 50 percent of the adjacent free -field lateral displacements. Conclusions The effects of liquefaction and lateral spreading are twofold: First, liquefaction and lateral spreading usually result in loss of bearing capacity and resulting settlement of structures which are not pile- supported. Second, liquefaction and lateral spreading will likely result in reduction of lateral support for structures supported on piles. In order to reduce the risk of liquefaction damaging the building, the building should be supported on deep foundations that carry the structural loads below a depth of about 45 feet. For this condition, we do not anticipate significant settlement of the building foundations during a seismic event. However, some minor differential settlement between columns is possible. Also, if the floor slab is supported on- grade, there is a possibility of differential settlement between the floor slab and the pile- supported portions of the building. Differential settlements may be on the order of 2 to 4 inches. We therefore recommend that the slab be allowed to move independently of the pile- supported structure if the slab is supported on- grade. Alternatively, slabs may be supported on piles to reduce the risk of liquefaction- induced settlement. Loss of lateral support for pile foundations can occur where zones of soil liquefy and spread laterally. Based on our analysis, the western 200 feet of the building is located within the potential lateral spreading zone. The piles outside of this lateral spreading zone will provide some lateral support to resist building inertial forces during the earthquake. However, the piles within the lateral spreading zone will only provide vertical load - carrying capacity (no lateral capacity) if lateral spreading occurs. Additionally, the lateral spreading will result in soil pressures developing on the piles within this zone as it moves away from the building. This could result in significant bending moments in these piles, potentially damaging or breaking the piles. The lateral spreading could also result in differential lateral movement across the building. In order to minimize the effects of lateral spreading, we recommend that the individual pile caps be tied together with grade beams. This will allow transfer of the lateral spreading soil loads to piles, pile caps and grade beams outside of the lateral spreading zone. Additionally, the piles G e o E n g i n e e r s 7 File No. 0120 - 237 -00- 1130 \081000 within the lateral spreading zone may need to have larger diameters because of the large bending moments imparted on these piles. The potential loss of soil support in the liquefiable and lateral spreading soil encountered at the site have been considered in development of our pile recommendations presented in the "Pile Foundation Support" section of this report. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK Demolition and Site Stripping We recommend that all asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete pavements be removed from proposed building areas. We estimate that stripping depths of the asphalt concrete will be on the order of 4 to 6 inches. Existing abandoned buried pipe, if present, should either be removed or left in place and filled with a sand or lean grout slurry. Any existing voids or new depressions created during site preparation should be cleaned of. loose soil or debris and backfilled with structural fill. If desired, asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete pavement removed from within the new building areas can be stockpiled and reused as fill provided that they are broken down as recommended in a subsequent section of this report. Site Preparation The existing soils at the site generally contain a relatively high percentage of fines (silt) and are very moisture sensitive. In wet weather it will be difficult to operate heavy equipment on the site because the moisture sensitive soils may be exposed at the surface after stripping and demolition. If the demolition operations cause disturbance of the underlying soil, additional excavation may be necessary. Disturbance of the shallow subgrade soils should be expected if site preparation work is done during periods of wet weather or when the subgrade soils are still wet from seasonal rainfall. We therefore recommend site grading take place during the drier summer months (July through September) to reduce grading costs. The exposed subgrades in building and pavement areas should be evaluated after the site is stripped of unsuitable materials. Proofrolling with heavy rubber -tired construction equipment should be used to evaluate the exposed subgrades. The site should be proofrolled only after an extended period (at least two weeks) of dry weather. Probing should be used to evaluate the subgrade during periods of wet weather or when the subgrade soils are more than two or three percent wetter than their optimum moisture content. Any soft areas noted during proofrolling or probing should be excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill. We also recommend that exposed subgrade in walkway areas be evaluated by probing, or by proofrolling if practical. Once the subgrade in building and pavement areas has been prepared, all traffic except that required to place subsequent layers of material should be kept off the area until paving is completed. We recommend that temporary access roads and Iaydown areas be constructed to reduce the risk of disturbing the subgrade soils. Temporary roads should consist of at least 12 inches of quarry spalls or clean granular structural fill placed over geotextile fabric. The G e o E n g i n e e r s 8 File No. 0120 - 237 -00- 1130\081000 geotextile should be a woven fabric intended for soil separation and reinforcement within roadway embankments, such as Mirafi 500X or Amoco 2002. Typically final pavement sections are not intended to support heavy construction traffic. If all or any part of the pavement sections are placed while building construction is still in progress, these areas should be barricaded and roped off to prevent vehicle access. This is to reduce the risk of softening of the subgrade, contamination of the subbase and base course materials, or pavement failure. Structural Fill All new fill placed to achieve design grades within the building areas or to support pavement and slabs -on -grade should be placed as compacted structural fill. Structural fill should be free of debris, organic or man -made contaminants, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. The suitability of soil for use as fill will depend on its gradation and moisture content. As the amount of fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Granular soils with less than about 5 percent fines will be suitable for fill in most weather conditions. Use of excavated soils as backfill will be largely dependent on the moisture content, weather conditions during construction, and the presence of surface or ground water. Silty sand and sandy silt soils will be difficult to impossible to compact when more than 1 or 2 percent wetter than optimum moisture content. Relatively clean (low percentage of fines) sand should be suitable for use as structural fill under most weather conditions. If on -site soils cannot be adequately compacted due to excessive moisture content, or if backfill must be placed in wet weather conditions, it will be necessary to use imported fill. We recommend that import fill consist of clean sand and gravel with less than 5 percent fines relative to the fraction passing the 3/4 -inch sieve. 'Asphalt concrete and Portland cement concrete removed during demolition can be used as fill provided that they are crushed to particles 6 inches or less in largest dimension and mixed with on -site or imported soils. Particle sizes greater than 3 inches should be excluded from the top 1 foot of fill. All utility trench backfill except the top 2 feet in pavement areas should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) D -1557. The top two feet of fill that will support pavements or other lightly loaded structures should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. All fill placed in the building areas should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. All structural fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding about 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness. Care should be taken not to overcompact the fill against the subsurface walls to avoid causing excess lateral soil pressures or deflections. G e o E n g i n e e r s 9 File No. 0120. 237 -00- 1130 \081000 1 • We recommend that a representative of our firm monitor excavation and backfilling operations on a sufficiently frequent basis to evaluate whether the intent of our recommendations outlined in this section are met. Temporary Open -Cut Excavations We understand that the building will be supported near existing grades and no significant cuts are planned. However, we expect that foundation and utility construction will include temporary open -cut excavations. The stability of temporary open -cut slopes is a function of soil type, ground water level, slope inclination, slope height and nearby surface Toads. The use of inadequately designed open cuts could impact the stability of adjacent work areas, existing utilities, and endanger personnel. In our opinion, the contractor will be in the best position to observe subsurface conditions continuously throughout the construction process and to respond to variable soil and ground water conditions. Therefore, the contractor should have the primary responsibility for deciding whether or not to use open cut slopes rather than some form of temporary excavation support, and for establishing the safe inclination of the cut slope. All open cut slopes and temporary excavation support should be constructed or installed, and maintained in accordance with the requirements of the appropriate governmental agency. For planning purposes only, we recommend that temporary cut slopes be no steeper than 1.5H:1V (horizontal:vertical) in the existing fill or alluvial deposits located above the ground water table. Stable cut slopes will be partially dependent on the time of year construction occurs and on ground water conditions. Acceptable slope inclinations should be determined during construction and should be in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Washington Industrial Safety and Health Administration (WISHA) guidelines. The above guidelines assume that surface loads such as equipment loads and storage loads will. be kept a sufficient distance away from the top of the cut so that the stability of the excavation is not affected. We recommend that this distance be not less than the depth of the cut. It should be expected that excavation faces will experience some sloughing and raveling. Berms, swales, or drainage ditches should be installed around the perimeter, of each excavation to intercept surface runoff and reduce the potential for flow over the top of slopes. If ground water seepage is encountered in the excavations or along the cut slopes then flatter slopes are recommended. At a minimum, slopes exposed to ground water seepage should be flatter than 2H: IV. Erosion Control The exposed ground surface will be subject to erosion during wet weather. Preventive erosion control measures that should be implemented on the site include minimizing the area of site disturbance and site grading to avoid concentrated runoff. Preventive sediment transport G e o E n g i n e e r s 10 File No. 0120- 237-00 -1130 \081000 1 • measures that should be implemented along the site boundaries include installation of silt fences, straw bales, or other devices that will trap sediment and prevent it from moving off site. PILE FOUNDATION SUPPORT General We have considered several deep foundation options for supporting the proposed building, including augercast piles and driven steel piles. Augercast piles are generally much more cost - effective than driven steel piles. However, disposal of cuttings will be required. This may significantly impact the cost of augercast piles because of the arsenic contaminated soils at the site. Driven piles may be appropriate for the site; however, ground vibrations from driven piles could damage the nearby structures. We recommend that these issues be evaluated as part of the pile foundation selection process. Vertical Capacity The proposed building can be satisfactorily supported on augercast piles or driven steel piles that extend below the potentially liquefiable soils. The piles will derive their capacity largely from friction within the soils encountered below a depth of about 45 feet. We recommend that the piles extend at least 10 feet below the potentially liquefiable soils. Structural loading information is not currently available; therefore, recommendations are presented for a range of loads and pile diameters. A tabulation of the pile lengths and allowable axial pile capacities for augercast and driven steel pipe piles are presented in the following table. We recommend against installing longer piles because the soils in the area typically become softer and looser below the recommended pile lengths. • Pile Diameter Pile Length (feet) Allowable Pile Capacity (kips) Downward Uplift 14 -inch augercast 55 46 40 60 • 66 55 18 -inch augercast 55 63 52 60 88 71 24 -inch augercast 55 106 80 60 126 95 14 -inch steel pipe 55 58 39 60 74 52 18 -inch steel pipe 55 81 50 60 104 66 These allowable pile capacities apply to all long -term live and dead loads and may be increased by one -third for transient loading conditions, such as wind or seismic forces. The G e o E n g i n e e r s 11 File No. 0120 - 237 -00 -1130 \081000 • • recommended penetrations also take into account the potential loss of frictional capacity in the potentially Liquefiable sands encountered to a depth of about 45 feet below ground surface. The allowable pile capacities are based on the strength of the supporting soils for the penetrations indicated and include an appropriate factor of safety. The capacities apply to single piles. If piles within groups are spaced at least three -pile diameters apart on center, no reduction for pile group action need be made. The structural characteristics of the pile materials and structural limitations may impose more stringent limitations and should be evaluated by the structural engineer. If the augercast piles are designed to resist uplift loads, we recommend that a single reinforcing bar be centered in the pile and installed the entire length of the augercast pile to develop uplift capacity. It should be noted that the recommended pile penetrations and allowable capacities presented above are based on assumed uniformity of subsurface soil conditions at the site. There may be unexpected variations in the depth to, and characteristics of, the supporting soils across the site. Accordingly, we recommend that pile installation be monitored by a member of our staff to observe installation procedures and evaluate the adequacy of individual pile installations. Lateral Capacity General. Resistance to lateral loads can be developed by passive pressure on the face of the pile caps and other below -grade foundation elements. Passive soil resistance of the pile caps and buried grade beams can be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 300. pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for a level backfill surface, provided the backfill is compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D- 1557). This value incorporates a factor of safety of about 1.5. Sliding friction on the base of pile- supported foundation elements should be ignored since full contact with the underlying soil cannot be assured. As discussed under the "Seismic Considerations" section of this report, lateral spreading is expected to occur in the upper 35 to 45 feet of the soil deposits. The potential lateral spreading zone is located within 400 feet of the Duwamish River. Based on the current development plan, the western 200 feet of the building is located in the lateral spreading zone. The piles outside of this zone will provide lateral support during an earthquake. However, the piles within the lateral spreading zone will only provide vertical load - carrying capacity if lateral spreading occurs. Additionally, lateral spreading will result in soil pressures developing on the piles within this zone. Lateral spreading will also result in differential lateral movement across the building. In order to reduce these effects, we recommend that the individual pile caps be tied together with grade beams. This will allow transfer of the lateral spreading loads and building internal forces to the piles and grade beams outside of the lateral spreading zone. These Toads will also be transferred to the grade beams located within the lateral spreading zone. Piles Outside of the Lateral Spreading Zone. The following table presents allowable lateral pile capacities and maximum bending moments for the augercast and driven steel pipe piles located outside of the lateral spreading zone. The capacities and moments are provided for a G e o E n g i n e e r s 12 File No. 0120- 237 -00 -1130 \081000 range of pile head deflections and assume that the piles are free to rotate at the pile cap. It should be noted that these capacities are preliminary since some of the piles may need to be designed to include transfer of load from the piles inside of the lateral spreading zone, as discussed below. Pile Diameter Pile Head Deflection (inches) Allowable Lateral Pile Capacity (kips) Maximum Bending Moment (kip -feet) 14 -inch augercast 'IA 7.5 26 1 15 53 18 -inch augercast %s 11 47 1 22 95 24 -inch augercast 'IA 18 97 1 36 195 14 -inch steel pipe' 'IA 11 46 1 22 91 18 -inch steel pipe' IA 15 70 1 30 140 Notes 'Analysis assumes steel pipe thickness of 0.375 inches. The maximum bending moment will occur approximately 7 to .9 feet below the top of pile and will diminish with depth. For augercast piles, we recommend that reinforcing be installed to a minimum depth of 21 feet, 25 feet and 32 feet for 14 -, 18 -, and 24- inch - diameter piles respectively to resist bending moments associated with lateral loading. The above values are based on a minimum pile spacing of six pile diameters. We can provide additional lateral pile design values if a closer pile spacing is used. - Piles Inside of the Lateral Spreading Zone. The evaluation of lateral pile capacities for piles located inside of the lateral spreading zone will be a function of the building inertial forces, the soil pressure applied to the piles as a result of lateral spreading, and the tolerable lateral displacement of the structure. In general, the piles should be designed to withstand the additional soil pressures resulting from lateral spreading soil. The piles will not provide lateral support for the building if lateral spreading occurs. Therefore, lateral load will be transferred to the pile caps and grade beams inside of the lateral spreading one and to the piles, pile caps and grade beams outside of the lateral spreading zone. An interactive design process with the structural engineer is required for these piles because the soil pressure applied to the piles is dependent on the tolerable lateral displacement of the structure and the distance of the pile from the Duwamish River. Lower soil pressures, and resulting bending moments, generally develop on the piles if the building is designed to account for larger lateral displacements. The bending moments in the piles are generally larger than the G e o E n g i n e e r s 13 File No. 0120 - 237 -00 -1130 \081000 moments on the piles outside of the lateral spreading zone. Therefore, it is likely that the diameter of the piles will be larger than the piles located outside of this zone. The design procedure generally consists of the following steps: 1. Determine tolerable lateral displacement of the structure. 2. Evaluate lateral load and bending moment in the piles based on tolerable building displacement and free -field lateral spreading displacement. As discussed previously, lateral spreading displacement decreases as a function of the distance between the building and the Duwamish River. This step should be completed once the pile type and pile cap locations have been selected for the project. 3. Evaluate contribution of lateral capacity from pile caps and grade beams inside the lateral spreading zone. 4. Determine amount of load transfer to the piles, grade beams and pile caps outside of the lateral spreading zone. 5. If the available lateral capacity cannot be achieved, then larger diameter piles and/or larger pile caps and grade beams need to be designed. Go back to Step 2 and select a larger pile diameter or go back to Step 3 and select wider and/or deeper embedded pile cap and grade beam elements. 6. Determine if grade beams are sufficient to allow for transfer of lateral load determined in Step 4. We are available to assist the structural engineer with this analysis as the building concept and design progresses. Settlement Pile settlements are expected to be essentially elastic in nature and occur as Toads are applied. Total settlement of piles constructed as recommended is not expected to exceed about 1 inch, while differential settlements between comparably loaded piles are not expected to exceed about 50 percent of this value. Post - construction settlements are expected to be less than 'A inch. Pile Installation Augercast Piles. Augercast concrete piles should be installed to the recommended penetration using a continuous- flight, hollow -stem auger. As is common practice, the pile grout is pumped under pressure through the hollow stem as the auger is withdrawn. Reinforcing steel for bending and uplift is placed in the fresh grout column immediately after withdrawal of the auger. An advantage of the augercast pile installation method is that it causes relatively little vibration. We recommend that the augercast piles be installed by a contractor experienced in their placement and using suitable equipment. Grout pumps should be fitted with a volume - measuring device and pressure gauge so that the volume of grout placed in each pile and the pressure head can be easily determined. While grouting, the rate of auger withdrawal should be uniform and controlled such that the volume of grout pumped is equivalent to at least 115 percent of the G e o E n g i n e e r s 14 File No. 0120- 237 -00 - 11301081000 • • theoretical hole volume. A minimum grout line pressure of 100 psi and a minimum grout head of 10 feet (depth of auger in ground when grout return is observed) should be maintained. We recommend that there be a waiting period of at least eight hours between installation of piles spaced closer than 10 feet center -to- center in order to avoid disturbance of concrete undergoing curing in a previously cast pile. Obstructions may be encountered during pile installation in the dredged -fill located along the southern portion of the site. If the auger cannot be advanced beyond the obstruction, the pile location will need to be moved during construction. There may be unexpected variations in the depth to and characteristics of the supporting soils across the site. In addition, no direct information regarding the capacity of augercast piles (e.g., driving resistance data) is obtained while this type of pile is being installed. Accordingly, we strongly recommend that we be retained to monitor drilling operations, record indicated penetrations into supporting soils, monitor grout injection pressures, record the volume of grout placed in each pile relative to the calculated volume of the hole, and evaluate the adequacy of each pile installation. Driven Piles. We recommend that the piles be installed with a pile - driving hammer having a minimum rated energy of at least 15,000 foot - pounds per blow. To develop the indicated downward capacity, the piles should be driven to the penetration recommended or to refusal, whichever occurs first. We should be notified if refusal occurs at less than the recommended penetrations so that we can consider potential reduction in the uplift capacity. Refusal criteria are dependent on the driving hammer characteristics, capacity required, group action and other factors. When the hammer has been selected, we can analyze these characteristics to evaluate appropriate refusal criteria. The recommended vertical capacities for the piles should be verified using pile driving criteria based on a minimum number of blows for the last 3 inches of driving. Driving to blow counts in excess of the recommended driving criteria should not be permitted so that the piles are not overstressed. We have not completed explorations within the 1992 soil stabilization area. Predrilling of the stabilized soils may be required into order to install the piles. The need for predrilling can be evaluated as the design of the project progresses. Also, obstructions may be encountered in the dredged -fill located along the southern side of the site. We recommend that the pile installation be monitored by a member of our staff who would observe installation procedures, maintain driving records, and evaluate the adequacy of each pile. Impact of Driven Pile Installation. The proximity of nearby existing buildings may pose a concern as a result of perceived vibration damage during pile installation. The level of ground vibrations induced by pile driving depends primarily on the hammer energy, pile type and size, soil type, and distance from the pile. In particular, pile driving can cause felt and measurable vibrations for up to several hundred feet from the pile. Minor architectural or G e o E n. g i n e e r s 15 File No. 0120- 237 -00 - 1130 \081000 cosmetic damage (i.e., small cracks in walls) at moderate distances and structural damage at close distances to pile driving operations can occur. We recommend that a detailed preconstruction condition damage survey of nearby structures be completed to document structural and cosmetic building conditions. We also recommend that ground vibrations be closely monitored at the beginning of pile installation. The information obtained from this program could be used to modify the pile installation program should the level of vibration become too high. Vibration monitoring can be accomplished by means of a portable oscillograph designed to measure velocity (or displacement and acceleration) in three orthogonal directions as a function of time. The stations for the oscillograph should be positioned at various distances from the pile driving operations in the direction of buildings. Measurement of vibrations on these structures would also be useful. We recommend that the average peak particle velocity during pile driving measured at the structures be limited to 0.5 inches per second. The maximum instantaneous peak particle velocity during pile driving should be Tess than 1 inch per second. SHALLOW FOUNDATION SUPPORT We understand that shallow foundations may be used for lightly loaded structures (i.e., canopy foundations) and retaining walls. We recommend that conventional spread footings bear on a minimum of 2 feet of structural fill, placed and compacted as described in a previous section. Exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade; interior footings should have a minimum embedment of 12 inches. Individual spread footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet. Continuous strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. Isolated and continuous footings dimensioned as recommended above and underlain by at least 2 feet of compacted structural fill can be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This bearing pressure applies to the sum of all dead plus long -term live loads, excluding the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. These values may be increased by one -third when earthquake or wind loads are considered. We anticipate that settlements of structures supported on footings designed and constructed as recommended will not exceed about 1 inch. Differential settlements should be less than about ''A inch. These settlements are expected to occur rapidly as the loads are applied. As discussed in the section entitled "Seismic Considerations," additional settlement resulting from liquefaction of the underlying soil may occur during an earthquake. We recommend that, where practical, structures not be supported by combined piles and shallow footings to limit the potential differential settlement between the two support systems. Where structures are supported by a combination of shallow footings and piles, we recommend a hinge be provided to allow for differential settlements on the order of 2 to 4 inches. Lateral resistance on the face of embedded foundation elements can be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for a level backfill surface, provided the backfill is compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D- 1557). G e o E n g i n e e r s 16 File No. 0120- 237 -00 - 1130 \081000 • • Frictional resistance should be evaluated using 0.4 for the coefficient of base friction. These values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT In our opinion, the floor slabs may be supported on -grade over a compacted structural fill pad. However, in order to reduce the potential for distress related to liquefaction- induced settlement, the floor slabs should be supported on piles. The relative merits, costs and risks of these support alternatives should be considered in the design of the buildings. For on -grade floor slabs, the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled, preferably during dry weather, to achieve a density of at least 92 percent of maximum dry density before placing additional structural fill. If less than 1 foot of new fill is to be added, we recommend that the top foot of the existing subgrade soil be compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. All new structural fill should be placed and compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density. We recommend that a representative from our firm observe the subgrade to assess the adequacy of surface preparation. Structural fill should be placed and compacted as described previously. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) is recommended for concrete slabs supported on at least 1 foot of compacted structural fill. We recommend that the on -grade or pile supported slabs be directly underlain by 6 inches of granular base course material consisting of 3h -inch minus crushed rock or gravel containing less that 3 percent fines. The base course will provide uniform support and serve as a capillary break to reduce moisture migration through the slab. A commercial vapor barrier should be placed below the slab in areas where moisture control is critical, such as where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab. A 2 -inch thickness of clean sand should be placed over the vapor barrier to protect it during construction and to aid in uniform curing of the concrete. The structural engineer should be consulted if the contractor proposes deleting the 2- inch -thick layer of sand. We estimate that settlement of floor slabs will be about 1 inch or less for floor loads up to 250 psf. We expect that settlements will occur fairly rapidly upon application of loads. During a seismic event, settlement of on -grade floor slabs will likely occur as discussed under "Seismic Considerations." RETAINING WALLS We recommend that for building walls and other retaining walls which will provide grade transitions be designed for lateral pressures based on an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). This assumes that the walls will not be restrained against rotation when backfill is placed. If the walls are restrained against rotation, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf. The above - recommended lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of surcharges such as floor loads, traffic loads or other surface loading. A lateral force coefficient of 0.35 should be used for accounting for surcharge effects. The lateral pressure experienced by G e o E n g i n e e r s 17 File No. 0120. 237 -00 - 1130 \081000 the wall due to surcharge loading is calculated by multiplying the lateral force coefficient and the surcharge load. In settlement sensitive areas behind walls (e.g., beneath on -grade slabs), the upper 2 feet of fill behind the walls should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D -1557. At other locations and below a depth of 2 feet, wall backfill should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of ASTM D -1557. Measures should be taken to prevent overcompaction of the backfill behind the wall. The recommended equivalent fluid density assumes a free - draining condition behind the wall. This may be accomplished by placing an 18- to 24- inch -wide zone of sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines behind walls where there is a potential for accumulation of water. We recommend that perimeter drains be installed at the base of subsurface walls to remove water for the granular backfill as described below in "Drainage Considerations." DRAINAGE CONSIDERATONS Ground water was encountered in the explorations at depths of about 12 feet below the ground surface. Excavations at the site are not expected to extend below this depth. "Perched" ground water may be encountered above this depth if work takes place during or immediately following extended wet weather. We anticipate that the "perched" water can be handled during construction by ditching and sump pumping, as necessary. All collected water should be routed to suitable discharge points. We recommend that retaining wall footings be constructed with drains. The drains should consist of perforated pipe a minimum of 4 inches in diameter enveloped within a minimum thickness of 4 inches of washed gravel drain rock. A nonwoven geotextile fabric will not be needed provided the granular drain rock is placed with structural fill. A nonwoven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Polyfelt TS600 or Trevira 1112 should be placed between the drain rock and native soils to prevent movement of fines into the drainage material. We recommend that finish surfaces adjacent to the buildings be sloped so that surface drainage flows away from the buildings. All roof drains and retaining wall drains should be connected to tightlines that discharge into the storm sewer disposal system. Roof drains should be kept separate for retaining wall drains. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use by Boeing Realty Corporation and their consultants in design of a portion of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. If there are any changes in the loads, grades, locations, configurations or type of facility to be constructed, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report may not be fully applicable. If such changes are made, we should be given the opportunity to review our conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification of these G e o E n g i n e e r s 18 File No. 0120 - 237 -00 - 1130\081000 conclusions and recommendations and to provide written modification or verification of these recommendations. We expect that additional consultation will be necessary to evaluate pile design requirements for the lateral spreading that may occur during the earthquake loading. The design recommendations in this report should therefore be considered preliminary, until our supplemental recommendations are developed. When the design is finalized, we recommend that we be given the opportunity to review those portions of the specifications and drawings which relate to geotechnical considerations to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of the explorations and also with time. Some contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the project budget and schedule. We recommend that sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation be provided by our firm during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation activities comply with the contract plans and specifications. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in this area at the time the report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. GeoEngineers 4 o ► 19 File No. 0120 - 237 -00 -1130 \081000 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. SDS:JJM:pb P: \O \0120237\00\Fi nals \012023700R -s. doc Attachments Four copies submitted r Yours very truly, GeoEngineer , Inc. un D. Stauffer, P.E. ior- Enginge�` 1 McFadden, P.E. sociate G e o E n g i n e e r s 20 File No. 0120 - 237 -00 - 1130 \081000 — . ` i �I' BRIGHTON \,(3. ST \. /S `r H -f \b 5 1011, s4.,\ a RR o °=�4 v • - 9f v > s �L < ^ , o �\�:.: 4e , ':,moo � < . S 4 s P•. > o IN �`2s�` M" MARSHY __ 1 1 HOLLY i -, , L S i 460 MIL S WILLOW �` ST�k �LIoW S l % ` • T{� \� •. - g J \- S MYRTLE, FS . s.4 � sp\ .rj_• i,s` 9 \ \ \ \ \, 11 t..., .yo • \ \ \\ \ t1:SArO1 DisY a= 1 \ `` 'VAN S l , \Q \� \\', °4x28 > �� 320„ '� \�� , m qC i I N \\ i, '., b Q¢ RMn,o s \ ,�. 5 OTNELLO ST rql /•4 , ► TPA\ s _i S ,n FRS ORCHARDS ST c 35 AV 5 • = H y p AD • ])TN �V S '^ l ' _38TH N ti r 9TH AV 5 421 �MIN 53 N > E MYRTLE VI < 0 I 460 5 S I— 460 N GARDEN KING COUNTY . S OTHELLO I ST INTERNATIONAL S AMLLE' i i \\ AIRPORT is / ! \ N AMU .TE• \ 29 , w,.:.,,I It _ ST t,!, ;f , ST kf8 J ' �'� !p _ E I - ■ w� � sr S r^, 2900 O . S O 't S a HOLDEN P 3000 \ `� `� :, S :�fING �\ of CH CA60 .PLME�1i5'TER ST, S F.,! i =7;/. AU ' d al$ HOLDEN: 4700 _ 4601 5t CH!( ' KEN o - ...N;o T aa; ty -2";1.--' S HOLDEN S PORtIAND OR , ` , ST �� ■7+li+l:' ST :� • ST ! �� 200 S , PORT; ST i_ n ST S ! -< - p +a S • _.. KENYON 700 s J/i • ;r a 1T S MONROE ST Ot111'AH15N : ; \ ;\ - \ 47 - - --- IELD 9! •\ `t -L" —s D xpnxt ktar0* :„;.�N _5 _ -� ST s 51 ttMAOV[''ROS[ l S ElfiROVE RI VR PK .Sr \ :A ST. 1. \\ ` BOEING , ` S MONRC m 1 Zi ■ ` T 0 5 !SOUTHERN 6 al t101 < I i t . \ S m ROSE _ � , STV; t-->'» ` r. a 700 s \ oar S PLGO s LIVAN ST ' ` Q T $'' ST �l ✓ ' .� y \:\ 1 33 r n 5'N `'— $,�,1 L..• THIS LE . =' L.: s- ..LOVERDALE I r5 a! ST \ �:� 5 snit v4N sr.> : -. .• • -�` ! + - °;; CLOVERDALE "[ °t I 1-I _ s. ST <: 500 S ?� DONOVAII 11200 r \ po ` 5 �� 5 '"1 TRENTON l T 11000 I jl o 41 - •' v \ 1 �� SITE '' U ,�I I 34 �£ ii - 46 -i?, TRENTON ._. ST _ I .nY,. :o`o _I„i I .. 5 -. ... s ;F ,ih 1 1 1 1 1 \', 1 I S CONCORD 0 32 _ 2 I ST HE OERSON I ^j ST ,���. 1 .... i.� --i '; 5 >l'^ ^IS 500 S g DIIRRECTO4 T S DIRECTOR SST / S 91ST 3 1 S `iQ' `^ _� >! r 11 s , ' __ I. <� -Co, ,PFM . >al ?Y-�' -0.j. ,v eT>t10N, _ BART., I I :I :- :L. 1 1 1 r < >I°' • 4•' \� Si l _, of ST', '' S = 92ND _ `,�` � Sr � 1. \ VPi ■n4 I> '.\ S BENEFIT 'ST , s ; wsprd y �I sI r _ �'.✓ .E500 fi '- WINERY �I ^I , v11 �- -l- - 9 1 w ` 1 S 93RD R sr 1 / ^I ! 957H STN' \ \\1 / \ 454 2 - •. \5 \<-1 - - - ,: s� ¢ kn 800 i s• /n ^` �J , �•'�' ;t T �JN '4 ``,i o 5 99TH ST ! �`n �.. \ - - - - - — 'L 1 MUSEUM � • FL 0 I ROM*/ 51 _ r 'rte - - - - 5 auRNS "sT '^ '�' �, 5 �, = .tom. °_tt�e1�_.e�'r m o \` 444.; ,- : '.!: _�' nra__. g s o, i �r� 1200 O �� \.'P�/ ` ST L.4 4? ;Ippr„' P ,qsr .'s 5 ' ' m Up sr " o;10 >� < ,: S 104TH t \ oI y..,sni ST * t/1. `., . `� h\ . • < s I-1 . \. ''',.-/ i B� S 1101ST ''` ST a s �a <1 / < \ y\`._ 1\ c' S N0?S > SG `''4 -1 `\,�, S NORFOLK ST '. GZ, S `�`'. N_ m L 5 CaZEIIE �', = " 5 ,\ z .'T', 3 rn S `-'1 :1,' Z' 5 102ND1 ...i .n $ 1400 ..,\.°i'^ /0 /7Of 00 yF O <. sr 5T ! .1/� 4 larx ST 'tj �.,' .., °o O ! aI$ '` S ICIT11 ST s� s t/+ . •,, I I'a 1 = i S 103RD . S 103RD m• a Ni .'-.,i .nl, ST ` �' 4�- 1 • 5i J s .5 ,�SZ� P. �^y - , 104TH ST . St -- �� S N ui �• = S 10679 vl Q`1./ `- '��/ .` / � ,, S -- NG - . — - ,,, �r - �1 S, 9 cn `� hp4;m1 PI v \,• • 1 4 r 2 p 4i � .,, BOEI -. �! ST /� sin i 1: ACC�,i' / St 107TH \`111 s _��/ -, y _ nom ST m .= S •-.> ., 4 0 �. . GOLF CLUB Ji s a y ., ^ '' RAIN ' X11 • . •. S ', •4 1ZTH ST ;N!") �-- - Lu111L ''•!! S f II A 1- t n � \ \,s < � (. i siI �:, vj : ;,—. � , �, I 112TH ST! _ oA % • GOLF COURSE { % �; lii „ \\ rA <I <� �\ I \ r s 1 TF .'1 6 , rn zl,i1 N / �. CLUB \' .:; s u,rx vt Si +N, ( Z \\` a !V UKWI� \ \ \. m \ s 111TH y<^P \\ ¢i I I I S1 112TH 1ST!•,=\ '.; �" Cl; CD \\\ .�1 N 1 : ,r ./ 1 v Ol a. : - 0 • T N S '7 \ rr S 1137H ST��is \ \� �~ ..5 .- lllix x`1.1 1. 2000 4000 • SCALE IN FEET N .1 1 Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale. without permission. Geo Engineers 1 VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 0 0 op 0 0120- 237 -00 0 En • 0 PROPOSED STEM W 1NE & EASWNI REID A110N SeP0.7'34E 588.57' APPROXIMATE LIMITS OF 1992 STABILIZATION 1.00 74• 1 —STORY : OFFICE 11,230 sq ft , EDGE OF MEZZANINE CPT -3 • _-I —_ - • I 1 / .;I SBP1 Y1 6-a 789.00' ' :I 35 • • • •• • •4 • • • • _ ••••••• _ •••• �•♦ RELOCATE E70S11NO STORY SEWER UNE t EASYENT 537 1 NEW BUILDING B FOOTPRINT: t5,989 sq ft WAREH 94,759 sq `___ —d EASING STORY SE11FR 1NE & EASDON �•• ••V ••V•WY7p,VV•VYVV VV•••?RI& • _.rte NEMTBtIi[61 111 1 1 1 11,;1-1111111!11111111 11,1111 1111111 i11111111111 11111,;!±,111 1ill!i111 ‘r,. NEW PROPERTY UNE �. 1 -1 71 411 `,d�;(WFiAIVAGITIAISElytraT 1 1- Fiiefl +l-57i082t qc !N Ig�o&a � �'�?1 �°"= r r 1‘.‘ �I I I -! 1 7'- I I- � -_ l� 7' 1 r :1 8� 2 i 6 1 i 1 I I.. I. .I� i 1 i I,P,� I Imo„ L i l l (4 F001PRINT: 106,011 sq it WAREHOUSE 96,059 sq ft CPT -2 EDGE CF 112ANNE ri J _r _...„.t- Rec_ `,� NY ' '02 NNiE EA5,}'147 OFFICE R H HFLT 7'l,� ! - I -�. 1 _I I 1 I-1 I-7' i f I- ' 1111111111111111, ! I 1 1 1 111'1,1 I I 1 1! 1 !I 1 1 11,f51s"`` 1 I I ! i ill I Iili III! 888'31.513'W -- 1422.28' Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. Reference: Drawing entitled "Boeing Site Plan, Single Building /Two Tenant Concept" by AHBL dated June 14, 2000. EXPLANATION: CPT -1 4,- CONE PENETRATION TEST 0 100 200 SCALE IN FEET Geo CO Engineers SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS File No. 0120 -237 -00 -1130 • • APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by advancing three cone penetrometer test (CPT) probes to depths of 100 feet. The CPT probes were completed by Northwest Cone Exploration on July 25, 2000. Locations of the explorations were determined in the field by measuring distances from existing site features. The locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The CPT probes were monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm. In the cone penetrometer tests, a small- diameter (1.4- inch - diameter) steel tip with adjacent sleeve was continuously advanced with hydraulically- operated equipment. Measurements of tip and sleeve resistance allow interpretation of the soil profile and the consistency of the strata penetrated. The Togs of the CPT probes are presented in Figures A -1 through A -3. The logs are based on our interpretation of the field data and indicate the various types of soils encountered. The also indicate the depths at which these soils or characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. The densities noted on the logs are based on correlating tip and sleeve resistance with published data and our experience and judgment. G e o E n g i n e e r s A -1 File No. 0120 - 237 -00 - 1130 \081000 Depth in feet bgs Test Date : Jul 25, 2000 Location : Boeing Isaacson Site 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Qt (tsf) 50 100 150 200 250 0 Qt normalized for trrtequal end area effects Cone Penetration Test - CPT -1 Fr. Ratio ( %) 1 2 3 4 5 - Fr Ratio 100•F /(Qt- Sigmav) Gomm a 110.1 pef Operator : Northwest Cone Exploration PWP (tsf) 1 3 5 7 10 1.5 IC 2.0 2.5 3.0 Ground Surf. Elev. : 0.00 Water Table Depth : 12.00 3.5 0 After Jeffeties and Davies (1991) le < 1.25 - Otavely sands 1.25 <lc< 1.90 -Clean to silty sand 1.90 <Ic < 2.54 - Silty sand to sandy silt 2.54 <le < 2.82 - Clayey silt to dry day 2.82 <le < 3.22 - Clays N1(60) (blows /ft) 10 20 30 40 50 After Jeffeues and Davies (1993) FIGURE A -1 PROJECT NO. 0120 - 237-00 DATE: July 28. 2000 DRAWN BY: Keith Brown GeoEngineers Depth in feet bgs 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 60 90 100 Test Date : Jul 23, 2000 Location : Boeing Isaacson Site Qt (tsf) 50 100 150 200 250 0 Cone Penetration Test - CPT -2 Operator : Northwest Cone Exploration • Fr. Ratio ( %) PWP (tsf) 1 2 3 4 5 -1 1 3 5 7 Qt normalized for Fr Ratio e. 100•F /(Qt-Sigmev) unequal and area effects Osmma .• 110.1 pef IC 9 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Ground Surf. Elev.: 0.00 Water Table Depth : 12.00 3.5 0 After lefties and Davies (1991) lc < 1.25 - Gravelly sands 1.25 <Ic < 1.90 - Clean to silty sand 1.90 <le < 2.54 - Silty said to sandy silt 2.54 <lc < 2.82 - Clayey ilt to silty day 2.82 <Ic < 3.22 - Clays N1(60) (blows /ft) 10 20 30 40 50 After Jefteaes and Davies (1993) FIGURE A -2 PROJECT NO. 0120-237-00 DATE: July 28, 2000 DRAWN BY: Keah Brown GeoEngineers r, Depth in feet bgs Test Date : Jul 25, 2000 Location : Boeing Isaacson Site 00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Qt (tsf) 50 100 150 200 250 0 Qt normalized for uroquel end area effects Cone Penetration Test - CPT -3 Fr. Ratio ( %) 1 2 3 4 Operator : Northwest Cone Exploration 5 -1 Fr Ratio 100•F /(Qt- Sigmev) Gamma = 110.1 pcf PWP (tsf) 1 3 5 7 9 1.0 Ground Surf. Elev. : 0.00 Water Table Depth : 12.00 lc N1(60) (blows/ft) 1.5 2.0 2.5 3 0 3.5 0 10 20 30 40 L After lefferiee and Davies (1991) lc < 1.25 • Gravelly send. 1.25 <lc < 1.90 - C1ean to silty said 1.90 <Ic < 2.54 - Silty .end to sandy gilt 2.54 <Ic < 2.52 - Clayey ilt to ally day 2.82 <Ic < 3.22 • Clays 50 Atter lefferies and Davies (1993) FIGURE A -3 PROJECT NO. 0120-237-00 ' DATE: July 28, 2000 DRAWN BY: Ket tt Brown GeoEngineers • • TECHNICAL INFORMATION REPORT Il-1- r7 rr\ S,,;. 11 2000 C7tCY. 7Y Boeing /Isaacson Site 8625 East Marginal Way Tukwila, Washington Prepared for: Boeing Realty Corporation July 14, 2000 Our Job No. 7413 EXPIRES 1f7 /gam CIVIL ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH, KENT, WA 98032 • (425) 251 -6222 • (425) 251 -8782 FAX www.barghausen.com • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION /GENERAL INFORMATION A. GENERAL INFORMATION B. RESPONSE TO CORE C. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS APPENDIX EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP EXHIBIT B EXISTING CONDITIONS BASIN MAP EXHIBIT C PROPOSED CONDITION BASIN MAP EXHIBIT D FIRM MAP • • • • • 1.0 INTRODUCTION /GENERAL INFORMATION A. GENERAL INFORMATION This report accompanies the application for SEPA determination and a Shoreline Permit. The proposal consists of a building warehouse development located on approximately 9.84 acres. The §ite is located within a portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian within the City of Tukwila. The address is 8625 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington. The property is rectangularly shaped and is situated between East Marginal Way South along the eastern frontage, and the Duwamish River along the westerly frontage. The entire property is currently paved. Storm drainage and other utility infra - structure currently exists. The southern, 75 feet more or less of the property, is being utilized as a parking lot. This portion of the property will be not a part of this development. The property contains a mound area within the north - central portion of this site. This approximate 50 -foot by 700 -foot mound, is generally 2 to 3 feet higher than the adjoining elevations. The mound was constructed as a part of a remediation plan during the early 1990's. The proposed project will consist of the demolition of some of the asphalt concrete on the property. The construction of the buildings will feature a dock -high warehouse facility as mentioned above. The construction and installation ofthe drainage infra - structure will also occur. This drainage infra - structure will convey runoff from roof drainage and related parking and driveway access areas. The project will add less than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface area. Due to the project's location, condition, and direct discharge into the Duwamish River, an exemption from some ofthe requirements is allowable. The 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual is utilized as a guideline for overall drainage requirements and discussion of Core requirements. 7413.005 /raw • • • B. RESPONSE TO CORE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Core Requirement No. 1: Discharge of the Natural Location: The drainage produced from the proposed project site must occur at the natural location. Response: As mentioned, the property currently discharges stormwater runoff to the Duwamish Rives" water way. The existing system currently conveys runoff to the Duwamish River via an existing 48 -inch diameter storm pipe system. The discharge outlet and significant portions of these conveyance facilities will remain. Therefore, the project is in compliance with this Core Requirement. Core Requirement No. 2: Off -site Analysis: All proposed projects must identify the upstream tributary drainage area and perform a downstream analysis, the level of analysis required depending on the problem identified or predicted Response: There is no significant off -site source of sheetflow tributary runoff from the adjoining properties. As mentioned, a 48 -inch diameter culvert does exist, which conveys stormwater runoff from offsite through the property. The 48 -inch pipe may be modified to accommodate the new construction and to continue the conveyance of the off -site runoff. The pipe modification will not change the existing discharge characteristics. There is no known report of flooding, clogging, erosion, and/or any other capacity problems given this existing storm facility. No capacity problems or other clogging is anticipated to occur within the new development. The project is exempt from Core Requirement No. 2, since the project does not change the rate, volume, duration, or location of discharge to and from the project site. The Core Requirement No. 2 task includes the downstream analysis for a Level 1 Report. Therefore, the project is exempt from this analysis as well. The stormwater do, however, enter the Duwamish River at the southeast corner of the site. Core Requirement No. 3: Proposed project must provide runoff control to limit the developed condition peak rate of runoff to the pre- development peak rate for a specific design storm event based on the proposed project site's existing runoff condition, and install biofiltration measure. Response: Since the project discharges to the Duwamish Rivers below mile 6 of the Boeing access road, this project is exempt from flow control performance, as outlined in the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. Regardless of the downstream position, the project is also exempt given the less than 5,000 square feet of new impervious area to be added. Core Requirement No. 4: Conveyance System: All new conveyance systems for a proposed project must be analyzed, designed, and constructed for existing tributary off -site runoff and developed on -site runoff from the proposed project. Response: All new pipe systems will be designed to convey and contain the 25 -year return storm peak flow. An analysis will be performed to provide for an overflow from a 100 -year runoff event to ensure that the project does not create or aggravate a flooding problem or severe erosion problem. The existing off -site conveyance system need not be -2- 7413.005 /raw • • • analyzed in accordance with the manual. All methodology utilized to size the conveyance system will be done in accordance with the acceptable practices. Core Requirement No. 5: Erosion /Sedimentation Control Plan: All engineering plans for the proposed project that propose to construct new, or modem existing drainage facilities, must .include a plan to provide all measures for the control of erosion and sedimentation daring construction and to permanently stabilize soils exposed during construction. Response: Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans will be provided for this project. The plan will be tailored to meet the requirements of this site and development criteria. The erosion control measures will include clearing limits, traffic area stabilization, sediment retention, surface water controls and dust controls. Provisions for sequencing, construction, maintenance, and final stabilization compliance will be included. Core Requirement No. 6: Maintenance and Operation: Maintenance of all drainage facilities constructed or modified by a proposed project is the responsibility of the property owner. Response: A new Maintenance and Operations Control Manual will be provided for this project. This new drainage facility will be maintained as private property and a manual will be prepared. This manual will be tailored to meet the facility requirements and maintenance of specific features. -3- 7413.005 /raw • • • C. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS Special Requirement No. 2: Water Quality Water quality controls are required for this project. This will consist of collecting and conveying the runoff from the parking driveway and vehicle operations area to a treatment system. The 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual will be utilized as a guide in the design of this system. Design of this facility will also be in accordance with the best management practices and tailored to fit the specific requirements of the pavement and the areas contributing. Special Requirement No. 3: Other Adopted Area Specific Requirements We know of no other area specific requirements for this project. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the Special Requirement No. 3. Special Requirement No. 4: Floodplain, Floodway Delineations The project is not situated within the 100 -year floodplain of the Duwamish River. Flood elevations are indicated to be approximately 8.5 given the FIRM map. Minimum property elevations are approximately 13 to 14. Special Requirement No. 5: Flood Proof Protection Facilities No flood levies, revetments, or berm, are evident on the property. Therefore, this project is in compliance with this requirement. Special Requirement No. 6: Source Controls This project is subject to a source control review. This project will provide water quality source controls applicable to the development. These features will be site - specific in accordance with the 1998 King County Stormwater Pollution Control Manual. Special Requirement No. 7: Oil Control Subject property development is considered as a high use site since greater than 100 vehicles per 1,000 feet of gross building area, and/or the possible maintenance storage and use of the site by a fleet of 25 or more diesel vehicles, heavy trucks, buses, etc, may exist. The project is required to treat the runoff from the high use portion site using oil control treatment options in accordance with the 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual. This facility treatment features may include catch basin inserts, sand filter, and/or oil /water separators. -4- 7413.005 /raw • • • • • APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP • • APPENDIX A VICINITY MAP 99 Vicinity Map .• o p v r� ti gc Q SITE �1r~ -r o K 74‘.. 4 \\ D r 99 599 GHAti No Scale Job Number 7413 fleet 1 of 1 Designed _ Drown Checked Approved Date Scale: Horizontal Vertical 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CML ENGINEERING, LAND PLANNING, SURVEYING, ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES For: Title: VICINITY MAP • • • APPENDIX B EXISTING CONDITIONS BASIN MAP 1 =100FT • EXISTIN CONDITIONS BISIN MAP 5OO'46'441V 1.00' 587O3'34 -E 586.5)' 7,2X4 J1 T-. f +� 775, C-0/4-c_7"- CoA/YV e-j 7 - a ntler? • 9 merewscew -15 0 , ,tea w ,e�zT -- _- \l_,. .rr ------ -‘..v^' '°_%'J __,...1- ~fir w___--J —.T rrnPr7-7- ,- sr,,-.— .-rrrrr- rr+s7': 1 • • • • APPENDIX C • PROPOSED CONDITION BASIN MAP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1=100FT DEVELOPED CONDITION t BASIN MAP /1`g6Pk(6 ae` /e63,,-(11,,,ie/#7,1/,A,4050Ae;) 63.0P0 60 to ri je\N4 if 566.57' 50046'441V 1.00' /71-Xe2Aeci...c5C7lc, ecsodtle7.47,ey A66,144: CV.<45 (141-9B? . i `... ______ 1 \ < . ) \ , , r -1------7----\ r K. `47 plre- 7C, Itreg — rTh \ 7 • A p' - • 1 1 1 1 N851'56'W-- - • r-- 1 1 I • fiXr 7Z _l'e-,4,6277A77G 07-0/1V, /M/O 4414/4?-4, fiLA"-Ar 7A ,e0A/e6777— 0■Cei /ql 447-z_rt/S f t-C—\ \ ( • 4 • • • APPENDIX D FIRM MAP • • • 1 /4?5c i/ 1X•4'/4 : .7—O-/to s�. W Q H z 0 � 1 �99c2 ZONE AE 1 CORPORATE LIMITS ZONE X CITY OF TUKWILA 530091 RM128 CORPOR, AVENUE SOUTH ZONI BOf ZONE X STREE TREE T A • B • 2 ELEVATION REFERENCE MARKS REFERENCE' ELEVATION MARK ,.(FEET NGVD) DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION RM128 14.93 A chiseled square on concrete footing of southwest corner of cyclone fence around Boeing Development Center. RM140 16.97 A chiseled cross on top_ concrete footing of southeast leg of steel tower for power line; 500 feet west of State Route 99 and 1,000 feet north of Duwamish Drive —In Theatre. RM142 26.27 A chiseled cross on top of left downstream end of concrete pier of steel highway bridge. r ISA4--soA /°? /.env► n/Aft tAlt 76/i p--2 F RING COUNTY UNINCORPORATED AREAS 530071 ZONE X 47 °30'00" 122 °15'00" „Et: -6-/;(7- • /5'.elx/-4/ To determine if flood insurance is available, contact an insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at (800) 638 -6620. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 1000 0 1000 F-1 H NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND INCORPORATED AREAS PANEL 645 OF 1125 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) CONTAINS: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX KING COUNTY, UNINCORPORATED AREAS 530071 0645 F SEATTLE, CITY OF 630089 0645 F TUKWILA, CITY OF 530091 0645 F MAP NUMBER 53033C0645 F MAP REVISED: MAY 16,1995 —Federal Emergeney— Management Agency/ • • 122 °15'00" 47 °33'45" Lake Washington KING COUNTY .... INCORPORATED AREAS 530071 LEGEND SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INUNDATED BY 100 —YEAR FLOOD ZONE A ZONE AE ZONE AH No base flood elevations determined. - Base flood 'elevations determined. Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually areas of ponding); base flood elevations determined. ZONE AO Flood depths of 1 to 3 feet (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain); average depths determined. For areas of alluvial fan flooding, velocities also determined. ZONE A99 To be protected from 100 -year flood by Federal flood protection system under .. . construction; no base elevations determined. ZONE V Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); no base flood elevations determined. ZONE VE Coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. FLOODWAY AREAS IN ZONE AE OTHER FLOOD AREAS ZONE X Areas of 500 -year flood; areas of 100 -year flood with average depths of Tess than 1 foot or with drainage areas Tess than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100 -year flood. OTHER AREAS ZONE X Areas determined to be outside 500 -year floodplain. ZONE D Areas in which flood hazards are undetermined. UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIERS k \\I Identified Identified Otherwise 1983 1990 Protected Areas Coastal barrier areas are normally located within or adjacent to Special Flood Hazard Areas. oa� (EL 987) RM7 X • M2 97°07'30 ". 32 °22'30" Flood Boundary Floodway Boundary Zone D Boundary Boundary Dividing Special Flood Hazard Zones, and Boundary Dividing Areas of Different Coastal Base Flood Elevations Within Special Flood Hazard Zones. Base Flood Elevation Line; Elevation in Feet. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. Cross Section Line Base Flood Elevation in Feet Where Uniform Within Zone. See Map Index for Elevation Datum. Elevation Reference Mark River Mile Horizontal Coordinates Based on North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27) Projection. NOTES This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurance Program; it does not necessarily identify all areas subject to flooding. particularly from local drainage sources of small size, or all planimetric features outside Special Flood Hazard Areas. Coastal base flood elevations apply only landward of 0.0 NGVD, and include the effects of wave action; these elevations may also differ significantly from those developed by the National Weather Service for hurricane evacuation planning. 4 1::co z • '33 ▪ osot, • ' .• . • • - . • two W4N-M-Ansi 634 Dat . L . "MoMkati ‘11' ._4:MEAR .r; gj giii3ORREMEEIVUENEROMEMIEEMMUMEMVEMMONVEHE LtgallaiRing . . -A ° %. . .: tti 04 ' r - • • .MTO f s \ NOTE: THE EXISTING OW/AMISH RIVER CHANNEL IS AN 9/PROVED, ARTIFICLALLY CONSTRUCTED NNAGABLE WATERWAY. SUBJECT TO TIDAL INFLUENCE,' AND IS LOCATED WITHIN A STRIP-OF-LAND 500 ft. IN mon, THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS ai A WATER BOUNDARY AND TITLE 10 .1910 PROPERTY DOES NOT NECESSARILY ANCLUDE ANY LITTORAL OR RIPARIAN RIGHTS TO THE WATERWAY OR THE SHOREUNE • • LEGEND-. -0- MO POLE • ET Al00 Oa DS MED) 10919191 999105 caw pm cce) STON LANIME DOIN) • 0 WOW SEW WNW (S916 • • • - • mds esSt Cfrd RAE MAW ITN at • roc Wag& Nod P9191911 9191 9199 . . • • 999101 9115 I" • • A-4- WS tINE -AWN -0- LW FORE SURVEY INFORMATION PROCEDURE 1 NARRATIVE ' A FIELD TRAVERSE USING A 'SOKKIA 3100 TOTAL STATION. AND SDR-33 DATA COLLECTOR SUPPLEMENTED WITH FIELD NOTES WAS PERFORMED. ESTABUSHING THE ANGULAR, DISTANCE. AND VERTICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MONUMENTS. PROPERTY UNES. AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS SHOWN HEREON. A 'LIEU B - 2A' AUTOMATIC LEVEL WAS USED TO CHECK AND ESTABIISH THE ELEVATION Of BENCHMARKS AND CONTROL POINTS. THE RESULTING DATA MEETS OR EXCEEDS THE STANDARDS FOR LAND BOUNDARY SURVEYS AS SET FORTH IN WAC 332-130-090 DATES OF SURVEYS FIELD SURVEYS BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. • CONDUCTED NOVEMBER, 1999. and JANUARY. 2000. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS FOUND WERE VISITED AT THAT TIME. • DOS WAVING DEPICTS FIELD CONDIDONS AS OF THOSE DATES, PRiOR CONORICANS ARE NOT SHOWN, UNU3S NOTED OTHERWISE. HORIZONTAL DATUM - BASIS OF BEARINGS • NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1927 990-27 WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM - NORTH ZONE • THE (OFFSET) CENTERUNE OF EAST MARGINAL WAY TAKEN AS North 2732'07 West. as per Book 72. of Survey.. Pogo 222, King County Records. NOTE I. UNDERGROUND UTIUTIES AND FEATURES DEPICTED HEREON ARE BASED ON FTELD OBSERVATION. MARKINGS. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. AND/OR AVAILABLE ' • RECORD DOCUMENTS ONLY. THE TRUE LOCATION NATURE AND/OR EXISTENCE . OF BELOW GROUND FEATURES, DETECTED OR UNDETECTED. SHOULD BE VERIFIED. • 2. NO DETERMINATION WAS IAADE BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS - WITH REGARD TO SOILS CONDMON AND SUBSURFACE MATERLAL.S. • • . • EXISTING BUILDING •OPER OR BLUM 0) CONTROL MAP ' Westerly Portions of Section 33 GB 120A1. DESCRIPTION • 3 As PER 1TT1E REPORT 1 • . . Ole P0011091 Of THE JOHN BUCKLEY DONATION CLAN 90 42 09- 109105119 24 NORTH. - RANGE A EAST. MIA, AND OF ABANDONED CHANNEL OF THE DUVINAISH RIVER DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW' S BEGINNING AT THE INIEFSECTION OF THE• SOUTH UNE' OF THE 05901 -0911 ASSELT . . DONATION CLAW ND. 50 WITH MIE SOUTHWESTERLY UNE OF EAST MARGIMAL WAY. SND. . - • POINT OF iNTERSECTON BENG 2,470.01 FEET. MEASURED ALONG SAO SOUTH UNE, • %stoic/as' oF THE EAST UNE OF' SECTION 13, TOWSHIP 24 NORIM RANGE 4 EAST. NAL: • THENCE NORTH 21 40' 40' WEST ALONG SND SOUTHWESTERLY UNE 379.39 FEET . TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND DEEDED TO ISAACSON -IRON WORKS BY •DEED RECORDED 'UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO 4739857, AND ME TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. . THENCE - FORTH 21 40' 40' WEST' ALONG SAID SOUTHwESTERLY UNE 987.259 FEET, IMRE OR LESS. TO AN INTERSECTION %NTH THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF A • TRACT OF. WM • . DEEDED TO BETHLEHEll PACIFIC COAST STEEL CORPORATION BY DEED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE- NO. 3935187; . . . THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF SAID DEEDED TRACT ON THE FCALOWING• • ' COURSES AND DISTANCES: NORTH 64' 49 45' WEST 186.64 . FEET; . . .. THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' 25* WEST 434 79 FEET. • . THENCE SOUTH 00' 20' 301 EAST 348 52 FEET. . . . THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' 25' WEST 490 00 FEET: - . • .. DEDICE SOUTH 00' 20' 35" EAST 80.82 FEET. • THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' 25' WEST 8543 FEET TO NE EASTERLY UNE Of THE RIGHT- OF -WAY OF COMMERCIAL WATERWAY NO 1. ICNOWN AS CUWAMISH WATERWAY. AND ' • MC SOUT/WIEST CORNER OF SND DEEDED TRACT, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY UNE TO TISE WESTERLY PRODUCTION OF DE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT DEEDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO 4739857: .- 714514GE EAST ALONG SAID 508114 UNE AND ITS PRODUCTION TO THE TRUE PONT OF BEGINNING; '1 • EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE JONN BUCKLEY DONATION LAND CLAIM • DJ TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST, W.M.- DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS • ' BEGINNING ON THE WEST LINE OF EAST WRGINAL WAY AT ITS POINT OF INTERSECTION - . • 0/1114 A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 1,497.9 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH UNE OF SAID LAND CLAIM AND RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID EAST MARGINAL WAY NORTH 21 40' 40' WEST 562.84 FEET. • • rHENcE NORTH 84' 49' 45' WEST 18084 FEET. , .. • ' • • ' THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' 25" 09E51 434 79 FEET. ' . • ' ' • THENCE SOUTH 00' 20' 35' EAST 348.52 FEET , ' ' ' - THENCE SOUTH 69' 39' 25" WEST 490 FEET. • - . . ' . . .. THENCE SOUTH 00' 20' 35' EAST .80 82 FEET. - . • THENCE SOUTH Bfr 39' 201 WEST 83.43 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY 'LINE OF . - . THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF COMMERCIAL WATERWAY NO 1. KNOWN PS 0110.414004 0)ATERWAY: THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SND EASTERLY UNE BY A CURVE ' TO THE RIGHT WITH , . A RADIUS OF 1,969.12 FEET, FOR A CHORD DISTANCE SOUTH 18' 21' 22* 'EAST 174.49 FEET: • • . THENCE NORTH 89' 45' 34' EAST 558 82 FEET. . , THENCE SOUTH- OCT 2035' FAST. 1.00 FOOT. • . ' . . • THENCE NORTH 87 39 25" .EAST 789.00 FEET. AsORE OR LESS. TO 1145 1005 Posa OF BEGINNING: SITUATE IN THE CRY OF TUKWILA, COUNTY• OF KING. ' STATE OF WASHINGTON. • . - . • -' • . . . TITLE REPORT SPECIAL EXCEFnONS TYPE OF DOCUMENT &• RECORDING INFORMATION STORM DRAINAGE EASENDR Far. KING COUNTY Rec No 5738283 (May 1964) . 9484G C068511 SUPERIOR COURT CAUSE K CS.C.C. No. 569496 (Sept. 1963) ' DESCRIPTION 05 595514597 Rec. No. 665817 .(April 1970) • ' PRIVATE- ROADWAY UDENSE de .AGREEMENT • • Rec. No. 7612210676 . Kenwceth k4Otor1Corp. •1 \s RECORD OF SURVEY FOR BOEING CORPORATION BIL 37, Stever, Pas. 200 & 200-A. Recording No. 8310049007 RECORD OF SURVEY for JORGENSEN CORPORATION ' BS 72. Surveys. Pg 222, Rec. No. 9004309031 • SURVEYOR'S COMMENTS 12 ft. Width STRIP-OF-LAND FOR DRAINAGE (STORM SEWER) CONNECTS TO DRAINAGE EASEMENTS RECORDED UNDER King County Rec. No. 3655381 (To United State of America) Rec. No. 5737082 & Rec. No. 5738282 (To King County) AFFECTS SOUTHERLY PORTIONS OF SUBJECT PROKRTY - JUDGEMENT OEIFYING KING COUNTY (Plaintrtf) THE RIGHT TO DISCHARGE DRAINAGE FROM XING COUNTY AIRPORT ONTO SOUTHWESTERLY PORTIONS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY • 10 ft. width Ship-of-Land for Sewer line AFFECTS NORTHERLY PORTTON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ROADWAY CROSSING RNIROAD TRACKS MAY AFFECT NORTHEASTERLY C'ORNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY mummy SURVEY or sumect PRoPERrr & OTHERS ACCEPTED SURVEY MONUMENTS TO ESTABUSH NORTHERLY & SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINES. BOUNDARY SURVEY NORIFI 55 508)551. PROPERTY DEPICTS NORTH PROPERTY LINE 1 ft. ± SOUTH FROM MUM MONUMDITS (NOT ACCEPTED). • PROJECT INFORMATION TAX LOT NUMBER : SITE ADDRESS AREA • 000160-00)14 • • 8625 EAST 'MARGINAL WAY 535,401i SO. FT. SEATTLE, WA 98108 • • (1229112± ACRES) CURRENT OWNER • - THE 005199 COMPANY; A DELAWARE • CORPORATION LAND US GOVERNING JURISDICTION • CITY OF 111 LA. WASHINGTON • „ FLOOD.IN ORMATION • • . . FEDERAL E ERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FDA) INFORMATION. . FIRM (FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP) ASAP No 5303300645 F . • . ' PANEL 645101' 1725. DATED MAY 16. 1995 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN ZONE X (AREAS DETERMINED TO 'BE ' • OUTSIDE 500-1EA14 FLOODPLAIN) AND ADJOINS ZONE AE ALONG -THE WEST BOU UNE (BASE FUDOD ELEVATION DETERMINED AT 8.5555) • • 1 um IION 7791.5 INSURANCE COMPANY COMMITISENT NO. 868382. (DATEDIMARCH 11. 1999 AT BOO AAA ) WAS RELIED UPON FOR TITLE . . INFOR TION AND SUPPORTING- DOCUMENTS. PLEASE REFER TO THAT REPORT FOR F ER INFORMATION REGARDING FINANCIAL MATTERS BEYOND THE SCOPE 09 THIS SURVEY. • . • ' - ALTA .1 AGSM LAND .TITLE SURVE-Y. • um' WI Nocsiolor. / Onaripe Ca.rws 19 9914*.1 9 Piyeq 9111 NNW., WAN PPIPIPPR S.M.= ' -BOEING PROPERTIES . • PORTIONS of .the N.W.114 & S.W.114 of SECTION 33,: Townstilp 24, North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian City of TUKWILA KING County 'State of WASHINGTON • SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE • • ' • , To: THE BOEING COMPANY. A DELAWARE . CORPORATION BOEING REALTY CORPORATION and • TRANSNATION 11TLE INSURANCE' COMPANY . • - DOS 6 TO CERnrr THAT Das YAP OR PLAT NO THE sm&-Y CN mini IT IS BASED 0505 .9165 (I) IN ACCORDANCE WITH "111/61/1.111 STANDARD DETAL REOLARDIENTS FOR'N.TA/ACSIA WM TITLE . SURVEYS; .1204110 ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED VT ALT*, ICSIA AND NEPS IN 1997. AND Palle 11136 1. 2, 2, 4, 7(9). 700. B. 9. 70 AND 11 OF TABLE A THEREOF. NO (6) FAIRSLLANT 'TO THE ACO)R/CY STANDARDS (AS ADOPTED BY ALTA NO AMA AND IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THS COTT1FIEATION) OF AN URBAN SURVEY. . „ II . 591.4 14/ /7/ 2.°C° 'RECEIVED • . • SEP 11 2000 DEVELOPMENT • • COMMUNDY F. M ;NOTES Professional 1ca10 Surveyor •• • . on 2.2 w.thinqt. ,Repistration No 30582 En &I; 566.57' NEW FRE NIDRANT.(T1P) LOCATION OF ACCESS EASEMENT UNDER RE1 EW VIH'UP. RAILROAD • S89•13'16'E 789.00' TENANT SPACE 'B' '. N88'51'56w 1422.28' • :NOUN AISLE PROPOSED'JOINT USE AGREDENT AND EASEMENT Iones 3/23/02 I Stamp • THAT PORTION OF THE JOHN BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM NO. 42 IN TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WJL• AND OF ABANDONED CHANNEL OF THE DUWAMISH RIVER DESCRIBED -AS'FOLLOWS - BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH UNE OF THE HENRY. VAN ASSELT DONATION CLAIM NO. 50 WITH THE.SO)THWESTERLYUNE OF EAST MARGINAL WAY. SAID'- : PONT OF INTERSECTION BEING - 2470.01 FEET, MEASURED ALONG SAID SOUTH UNE, • WESTERLY. OF THE EAST UNE OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 4 -EAST W.M.; THENCE NORTH 23'40' 40' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY • UNE 379.39 FEET • TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF A TRACT OF LAND DEEDED TO ISAACSON -IRON WORKS . '8Y DEED. RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 4739857, AND THE TRUE PONT OF BEGINNING - THENCE NORTH 23' 40' 40' WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHWESTERLY UNE 987.259 FEET,- MORE OR LESS, TO AN INTERSECTICN 61114 THE SOUTHERLY UNE OF A TRACT CF LAND DEEDED TO BETHLEHEM PACIFIC COAST STEEL CORPORATION BY'DEED RECORDED UNGER•. • AUDITOR'S RLE NO. 3935187; • THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID.DEEDED:TRACT ON THE FOLLOWING.- • . COURSES' AND DISTANCES: NORTH 64'. 49'. 45' WEST 186.84 FEET; • . THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' 25 WEST- 434.79 FEET ;... THENCE SOUTH 00' 20' 35' EAST 348.52 FEET; .. . THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' 25' WEST 490.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 20' 35" EAST 80.82 FEET; .• • THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' •25' WEST 85.43 FEET TO THE EASTERLY. UNE OF THE RIGHT- - OF -WAY OF COMMERCIAL WATERWAY NO. 1, KNOWN AS DUWAMISH WATERWAY, AND . THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID DEEDED TRACT; . ' . 'THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY UNE TO THE WESTERLY PRODUCTION 4F. THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID TRACT DEEDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FIE. NO. 4739857; ' • THENCE EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH UNE AND ITS PRODUCTION TO THE TRUE PONT OF BEGUOONG EXCEPT THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF THE JOHN BUCKLEY DONATION LAND CLAIM IN - TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH,. RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: - BEGINNING ON THE WEST UNE OF EAST MARGINAL WAY :AT ITS POINT OF INTERSECTION - VAN 'A UNE PARALLEL WITH AND .1,497.9 FEET SCUTH- OF- THE NORTH UNE OF SAID LAND: CLAIM'AND RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE WEST UNE OF SAID EAST 'MARGINAL WAY. • NORTH 23' .40'40' WEST 562.84. FEET; - THENCE NORTH 64'. 49' 45 WEST 186.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' 25' WEST 434.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 20' 35 EAST 348.52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' 25' WEST 490.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00' 20' 35' EAST-80.82 FEET; . THENCE SOUTH 89' 39' 25" WEST 85.43 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY UNE .OF . THE RIGHT -O' -WAY OF COMMERCIAL WATERWAY NO. 1, KNOWN AS DUWAWSH WATERWAY; ' • THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID EASTERLY UNE BY A CURVE TO THE RIGHT VIM • . A RADIUS •CF 1,969:12 FEET, FOR A CHORD DISTANCE SOUTH 18. 21'. 22' EAST.174.49 FEET;. THENCE NORTH 89' 45' 34' EAST 558.82 FEET; • THENCE SOUTH 00' 20'35' EAST, 1.00 MT:.. THENCE NORTH'89' 39'. 25' EAST 789.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS - 10.11HE TRUE PONT OF BEGINNING AND'EXCEPT-THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH 75.5 FEET THEROF; AS MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE FROM THE SOUTH UNE OF THE. DESCRIBED PARCEL: _ • - SITE STATISTICS - TENANT SPACE 'A' TOTAL STE AREA 535,416 sq ft (12.29 ACRES) . - PROECT SITE AREA (SPACE A & B COMBINED): 428,512 sq ft (9.84 ACRES) BOEING SOUTH PARKING AREA AFTER 106,904 sq ft- 2.45 ACRES) 105,989 sq ft 2.43 ACRES) • 36,000 sq ft 0.83 ACRES /34.0x) 69,989 sq 11 1.60 ACRES) 476,701 sq ft . 10.94 ACRES) BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT:' TENANT SPACE FOOTPRINT: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA: WAREHOUSE AREA IMPERVIOUS SURFACE - TOTAL SITE (BUILDING et PAVEMENT) UGHT INDUSTRIAL PARKING REQUIRED 1.0 STALLS/1,000 sq ft WAREHOUSE PARKING REQUIRED: :. 1 STALLS /2,000 sq 11 . . TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED: TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED: • DOCK HIGH DOORS PROVIDED: ' • POTENTIAL AT -GRADE DOORS PROVIDED: 36 STALLS: 35 STALLS • 71 STALLS . . SITE STATISTICS • TENANT SPACE 'B' TOTAL SITE AREA PROJECT STE AREA (SPACE A & B COMBINED): BOEING SOUTH PARKING AREA. AFTER . BOUNDARY UNE ADJUSTMENT.- - TENANT SPACE FOOTPRINT: UGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA ' WAREHOUSE AREA IMPERVIOUS SURFACE - TOTAL STE (BUILDING & PAVEMENT) OFFICE PARKING REQUIRED 1 STALLS /1,000 sq ft WAREHOUSE PARKING REQUIRED: 1 STALLS /2,000 sq ft . TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED' TOTAL PARKING PROWDED: • DOCK HIGH DOORS PROVIDED: • POTENTIAL AT -GRADE DOORS PROVIDED: . 535,416 sq ft (12.29 ACRES) 428,512 sq ft 9.84 ACRES). 106,904 sq ft (2.45 ACRES) 106,011 sq ft (2.43 ACRES) - 36,000 sq ft (0.83 ACRES/34.0%) 70,011 sq ft. (1.60 ACRES) sq ft (10.94 ACRES) 36 STALLS 36 STALLS 72'STALLS 85 STALLS ' VICINITY MAP - ?NET )• 1 loch - 60 It • Seale. r • 50' DeW9nsd. LEZ Dram: VdZ - Cheeks* LEZ Date: Sept. 8. 00- (w Joe 44. 99339.30 .- AECE(VEtokeet. No. .. SEP 1.1 WOO EX -1 ' 01' Sheets DEVELOPM 14T od-YM. TENANT SPACE B' FOOTPRINT: 106,011 sq. R -- F1N1SN FLOOR ELEV. 4.1 8.50.... SEE GAROCO OWING SPEC FICAU06 SHEET 24' - 26',.TAIL LIGHTS - - •• SAYE AS TYPE 'ADC EXCEPT 91114 NOUSE SIDE SKID 24' - 26', TALL UONTS • . . II 1il 1111 . uI III1F II °ml • IIIP 2-0 Lm1. PROWS POLE GR01190.' j6 AIR', COPPER • YODOAL.CADNDD 1O GROUND ROD. - PROVIDE REINFORCING RODS. 4 is VB211C41. . ' • • 111H r COVER AND 14 RES AT 16' ON • :CEN1ER imam DEPTH OF BASE. 0 0 a To o . V cc n co Ca o POLE BASE DETAIL. NOT TO SCALE LIGHT FIXTURE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE Scale: 1' • 60' Designed: DEW Drawn:.. VAZ Cneake° I.2 Date: Sept. 6. 00" job. 90. 99339.30 Shat NO. RECEIVED EX -2 SE? 11 2000 • _ of Sheet. 1. DEV-17Piv1.NT • FOO1PRINT: 105,989 sq. R • FINISH FLOOR ELEV. 16.50 FOOTPRINT: 106,011 sq R. - ' . FINISH FLOOR E]EV: 16.50 f 11 -1.1' • I I I` • CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE r 0 DUWAMISH RIVER BUFFER AND BUILDING SECTION /ELEVATION ILLS - .. (TYFICU SEC0aI FOR EN16E SHORELINE 101160101 011) Saate. r . 50' Deelgnem DEW Drawn, VCZ CAeoked: LEZ Dete•. Sept. G. 00 Sneete • DEVELUPIVialT • - ALPE U91DSCAPSIS LP TO OLDS AT EAST - NO TEST 0*W0 063 911Ei61AL DOIINSPOUIS TERM TNS ETEVATEI '5110EBOY uafT • F1I1IA2E TYPICAL • -. AT EAST AND . EST ELEVATION AT 07IWAC10R5 • TMS Alf OW EO EM -. 1919 191919191 I919I9191 IO191OIlI 1#1#1#1#I:1#1#1#1#1 ;1919191 10®011115r3L4110 9 911©©©111 9 ®9 ■ rarariusie 9 uus 9- Hill P;4RT I ALL 1�lOi�T+= -1: L 1/AT f Ol J. 1/16. rNHL PAN TYPICAL AT LOADING 000! .: . DOYNSPOUT PROTECTION AT MM HG DOCKS . • - • LI 11 Li 9 . 11111111111111111 PRE-0102 fA110PY TtP 111111 1 111111111 111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 on. f- • 1 27-0' 2t-;* It. 1111111 1111111111 111111 11111111111111111111111111111 111111 I! MOM 1111111111- ti 1111111111- 111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I! g 411111 111111111 11111111 111111 II 11111111111111111111111111 !1.177 -IE F=' A T 1 4 L. 1∎1 O iZT 4--4 L a \/.4.T f 01 1: 1/16' I•-0' PAD PROP( r.mitit SS E . WALL PAN TYPICAL - ATLOADING DOD( 11111111111111111 11111111 1111101111111 11111 P t 11111111111111111 t111111ll■11111111111111111 *1.177 -V : -1 25-V 5T 25d s-o• 75� 9 - -s .i 93100109T FOR . ROME AMON ' • ' @ ' R 2A'-11' 25 -3' • 2f-6' 1=.41=TIAL Noi=T4 -4 ELa"/ATI.c=n 1. /16' • . . ' 1•-0' Stoma • Of •• d 0 U Scale: . P • 60• Designed: LEZ.. Dnem: VdZ . Dheoked. LE2 Date: Seal 6. 00 .b0 Pb. 99339.10 ECE9ilt_D sheet No. SEP 1 1 2000 EX-4A DEVELOYI*I NT et -_ . Sheen SLOPE IRMSCAPING UP TO LOC AT EAST AND VEST BLUOIG EMS • INTERNAL 00INSFOUTS TYPICAL MS ELEVATION MAJ. PAIC.TWICAL • AT Loan DOOC 78712! CONCRETE IV (2) f3 EA WAY A 25-0' I,/ N 1=1- 1 AL 1■1 a L_ a %/A T I c±,1■1 I/15 - 0000cur FOR . FUTURE DOCK DOCR - P9091( zaAr CONCREIE PD FTC TV (2)'15 EA WAY FOR ST/StS MALL Pm mem. AT LOAONG DOCK .sHomor FIXTURE r- [o 25-0' 2s-o• L zr-T r,10403KOUT FOR • 1-0 20'4 I II rre Zr. zr-r 24.-r L 164 1=A 1=Z.T 1 AL 4-4 a L a 1 Ift 6' . Stem 1-; • . • .• 2 0. • 6 r • 60' OessIgnoo LEZ Draw. WIZ Chocks& LEZ Date: Sept. 6. 00 Job No. 99339.30 ECF.19VED Sheet No. SEP 1.1 2000.. • 1:ICVELOPiioaNT EX4B. of • Shoots 14 ,. • 1 ■ It It , # 0 # immitin 1r 5-Mir—r,:ii 111 1 ., __:..z- : 5E114.11: , # • au =7-.--.:7:=== ----= imEi ---- _ ___;•-----__=----• 11■.;•'' int 91-rf - • 26-0* . 7-0' • . HAPOOP RAMP 70'4 st-e • . 424-0. MAJ. PAIC.TWICAL • AT Loan DOOC 78712! CONCRETE IV (2) f3 EA WAY A 25-0' I,/ N 1=1- 1 AL 1■1 a L_ a %/A T I c±,1■1 I/15 - 0000cur FOR . FUTURE DOCK DOCR - P9091( zaAr CONCREIE PD FTC TV (2)'15 EA WAY FOR ST/StS MALL Pm mem. AT LOAONG DOCK .sHomor FIXTURE r- [o 25-0' 2s-o• L zr-T r,10403KOUT FOR • 1-0 20'4 I II rre Zr. zr-r 24.-r L 164 1=A 1=Z.T 1 AL 4-4 a L a 1 Ift 6' . Stem 1-; • . • .• 2 0. • 6 r • 60' OessIgnoo LEZ Draw. WIZ Chocks& LEZ Date: Sept. 6. 00 Job No. 99339.30 ECF.19VED Sheet No. SEP 1.1 2000.. • 1:ICVELOPiioaNT EX4B. of • Shoots SUPS LANDSC!➢Nr UP TO BLDG AT EAST AND VEST BIDDING ENDS • 'smear coif ENTRY FACADE .. FIXTURE TYPICAL AT EAST AND GLASS CANOPY -. .. VEST ELEVATION " 0 4 ©tiuur1• © ®4 ATE 4 4 IJ /A AMMO Minn AP 4 4 14141411 I 0 1 411 0 .4 4 -4 4 0 .4 7 7 -r mimeo RAMP t2(0• -r UJ ST TI OT-I • .MALL PAN TYPICAL - .. FDR PARIOTIG LIT.. b�. 0 IS -Y 19-0. 1101,10141. 11 25-0r 25-d 25d i=A T I Al_ SOI.UTa --I O. PROMDE YYYoQI • - PAD FIG W/ (2) /SSG FOR MAY \, ARS 10100KDR FOR 0 1 ti OOINSPDFT PROTECTION CCTIROL VALVES 1- KNOCKOUT FOR FUIIAE 19001 • . 1=',4!7 1 AL SOL- 1T1- -4 a L vAT 101∎1 • RECESSED REVEALS - TP, *S110030Y FIXTURE. lI lI L. lI 8 °. 0 SPRD90ER SYSrEA1 CONTROL VALVES 1- FROIECDCI 0100KOUT 002 MIRE WIDOW 0 11 PO 1=,A1t1=TIAL SOUT1: 4 OTT 0 ItItIrIti I\ItI�I.11 3,-Otb a-r x-r 2C-0. 25-Y Stems 40m C Nn 40 a m _om C ` 0 C O Ems0 co o 0 VA W 4 • cc y ES 7 I < =,m m 0 0 0 o Scale: • r • 90" . Dealwoed • LEZ • • Dram VIZ . Checked LEZ• Nato, • :Soot. 9. 00 b�- CEiVED SE? 1 1.2000 DE'vELUPMlj�1T Job No. 99339.30 Shoot No. • • .EX-5-A ot. Sheets . ' AGGRESS IYRCAL 11D$ ELEVATIORN SICK woSCAaMC • VW 10 .9.9 AT EAST' NO VEST OIKONG ENDS ENTRY FACADE. ` / MSS CANOPY • .910030 RIONT FIXTURE r TYPICAL • AT EAST ANTI VEST ELEVATION • LJEST a I01•1 1/+r _ ,•-r 1. • 141 PAX T,POAL F0 PAIKONG LOT. WALL PAK TIPMAL FAR PARKING LOT . - SPR900FR SYSIET • OOIRNSP0IT. PROTECTION --. CONTROL YALVFS 1. is -r -11 1=',..41=7 I AL_ OUT1 -4 a 1c 1 15d PRONDE rd•: • 75� L1 LI MOOOUT FOR FUTURE %MOOR 0 - DON/SPOUT PROTECTION • SPRNOER SYSIDI' CONTROL VALVES •0 KNOCKOUT FOR • MIRE WINDOW 11.171-0 1=',417 I AL. SOUT+ -•4 T 1 01.1 L1 RED PEVENS TYP. "manor Foam LI L 0 CONTROL vAtrtS' DONNSPan PR01EC110N• , 0 10100XOOT FOR FUTURE 1111009- 1 it ITS-If 0 LI SIMMER sYS1EL T5-0. • as a-r • 0 LItOM F. m. r -ir t7-o' , 2(-• - • 25 -r P.41=T_I'AL SOL.1T4.1 LE\ -ATI01 1 or • Q a- . a. W O�g CI- RE, cn 41 La' eu J —., A R >C.7 �yy —Z U w Stem 1. • K0. .. De.10e.d LEZ Dram: V4Z Chocked LEZ D.te: Sept K. 00 '1Oe No. 99339.30 Xr;ECE VEDsheet No. SEP:1121100 EX -5B DEVELOPMENT Sheet. r. IIII - Nun n,,,.I Ma 41 ___:___• �; M II FINIIICAP RAMP 4210 -0 LJEST a I01•1 1/+r _ ,•-r 1. • 141 PAX T,POAL F0 PAIKONG LOT. WALL PAK TIPMAL FAR PARKING LOT . - SPR900FR SYSIET • OOIRNSP0IT. PROTECTION --. CONTROL YALVFS 1. is -r -11 1=',..41=7 I AL_ OUT1 -4 a 1c 1 15d PRONDE rd•: • 75� L1 LI MOOOUT FOR FUTURE %MOOR 0 - DON/SPOUT PROTECTION • SPRNOER SYSIDI' CONTROL VALVES •0 KNOCKOUT FOR • MIRE WINDOW 11.171-0 1=',417 I AL. SOUT+ -•4 T 1 01.1 L1 RED PEVENS TYP. "manor Foam LI L 0 CONTROL vAtrtS' DONNSPan PR01EC110N• , 0 10100XOOT FOR FUTURE 1111009- 1 it ITS-If 0 LI SIMMER sYS1EL T5-0. • as a-r • 0 LItOM F. m. r -ir t7-o' , 2(-• - • 25 -r P.41=T_I'AL SOL.1T4.1 LE\ -ATI01 1 or • Q a- . a. W O�g CI- RE, cn 41 La' eu J —., A R >C.7 �yy —Z U w Stem 1. • K0. .. De.10e.d LEZ Dram: V4Z Chocked LEZ D.te: Sept K. 00 '1Oe No. 99339.30 Xr;ECE VEDsheet No. SEP:1121100 EX -5B DEVELOPMENT Sheet. DU tom :�` pES3;6flNH SCHEMATIC STORM DRAINAGE AND GRADING PLAI`�1► i. SDMH /'.�' SEWER EASEMENT 1,17.7 ,t 1 120' 1 t>o lE Weal ,ouo EY sees ®s 1"7'T�'1xr �. _ 1I ; C 4 ,cos) 4 E -95.5 �o +l►+.mo.. /� 0 I,{RTC�• GOAT Rec. No. 6658617 I. • xas r «t 1aC, M BQVNDARY _ L \� *r!•sj'sJUS +wr+r.An.w alw..m,., •Raa .��,..�., _n..c�...�. �• �. i • —zw 1 ' " ya-�! ,•" -�ai� `�!ulim culnI; ;;; ;I ?' 7 �'� 1'�It�111IY �: iiWllll,. _ = A�dP!'. ��c 1♦._ l� .1f .. , rc,1111 g I•�IA1 F° 2131ffaillb .,1,00,13•4 s . MS ' .� ,•.% ICDISE FDA R O T E R O A D tAOSSIC' , 1 -s1DRY • GTICE 11,730 q ft • C/re f ansfAli TYP.. 30 60 120 IE`Ij ' i .': nisi ti dx 339534 J is •. w•.Y.-.,�_.. - '."1' • 1^52 - , - ====.7. PROJECT JL11M c.aNR ; a - - :C m . _ r l.. F . d i6 IN �IYaiill • ■ . Fi in •i &! • t 1 ,j.i \l' /F Tall mu �( 77.E0 mg.m. lit �lll len , 111 1 7�I1 VIREO l�nl� Il'NplimIlf� otterscserw "saw v EYISTING BUILDING OEN CORM 1w, M On RUM 1H' • PROJECT INFORMATION'- TAX LOT NUMBER . 817E ADDRESS AREA 000160 -0014 8625 EAST MARGINAL ,WAY 535,4013 SO 'Fr. SEATRL WA 98108 - - (12.291123 ACRES) CURRENT OWNER - 111E BOEING COMPANY., A DELAWARE CORPORATION , LAND USE GOVERNING JURISDICTION CRY OF TUKWILA WASHINGTON . • 'SURVEY INFORMATION • PROCEDURE 1 NARRATIVE - - - A GELD TRAVERSE USING A SOKKIA 3100' TOTAL STATION. AND "SDR -33" DATA COU.ECTOR SUPPLEMENTED WIT+ FIELD' NOTES WAS PERFORMED. ESTABUSHING THE ANGULAR. DISTANCE: AND VERTICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MONUMENTS. PROPERTY,UNES. AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS SHOWN HEREON. A LETZ 0 -2A" AUTOMATIC LEVEL WAS USED •TO CHECK AND ESTABLISH THE ELEVATION OF BENCHMARKS AN0 CONTROL POINTS. THE RESULTING'OATA MEETS OR 10EEDS THE STANDARDS FOR LAND BOUNDARY SURVEYS AS SET FORM IN WAC .332- 130 -090. DATES OF SURVEYS • - FIELD SURVEYS BY BARGHAUSEN CONSOLTING ENGINEERS. WC. CONDUCTED NOVEMBER. )999. end 3ANUARV, 2000. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS FOUND WERE VISITED AT THAT TIME INS DRAWING OERC15 GELD CONDITIONS b OF THOSE 041ES, PRIOR CONDITIONS ARE NOT SHOWN, UNUSS NOTED OIHERVSE. • HORIZONTAL DATUM 13A518 OP BEARINGS NORM AMERICAN DATUM•OF 1927 NAD-27 - • - WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE, SYSTEM - NORM ZONE THE (OFFSET) CENTERLINE OF EAST MARG1NAl WAY TAKEN AS North 2732'07 Weal as Per Boob 72. M SNWNYN.'Poso 222. IOAg.County Re0unxa• NOTE I UNDERGROUND UTTUDES AND FEATURES DEPICTED HEREON ARE BASED ON GELD OBSERVATION. MARKINGS. DEVELOPMENT PLANS. AND /0R *NAMABLE RECORD. DOCUMENTS ONLY. ME TRUE LOCAnON. NATURE AND /OR• (6155(NCE • OF BELOW GROUND FFATURES. DETE1IED OR UNDETECTED. SHOULD 85 VERIG120. 2. NO DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS WITH REGARD TO SOILS CONDITION AND SUBSURFACE MATERIALS• LEGEND: 0--32( uses Ds.) • O ass sow (as • ® sae wool Paw) • O swov RIII EWnE NM • yD] of 622 . W r1S YOE CO ame sr so AA nE WIWI644 ON ' RIC ® .io MIMEO ME MO wE 051,1 ® - IP= 1E118 sD f® =CM KU COMTE • o • Revision Qey1 s. NW 6431144 e: Horizontal 1".60' Vertical 18215 72N0 AVENUE SOUTH KENT, WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX For. AOSw•a Deb 3/1D/00 CIVIL ENGINEERING. MOD PLANNING. 50811(WC. ENNRONMENTAL SERVICES BOEING. CORPORATION', P.O. BOX 3707 MC' 22 -79 SEATTLE, WA.- 98124 -2207 ' RECEF7r SEP 11 2000 Title: cw�u SCHEMATIC STORM ES„._.,- S„._..; DRAINAGE; AND GRADING PLAN BOEING PROPERTY. (ISAACSON: 8625 EAST . MARGINAL WAY Job Number.: 7413: E 0 5 5 ■ R.1.1081112. \1n17 T.. iYIY ]C 4s ass ,w ,120• SCHEMATIC WATER /SEWER PLAN �oo�a'u}r / 100 / 11 0, e. M %I F►r , SEWN Rum 1_y._ U.Syr U 176/ CtRURTE 9DD1 nmo 1Y s84 ®d LICENSE MINI RLYD 'I.e• X 1 F mP) Y 1SS slyer l..n, ...me SEWER EASEMENT FOR ) • . �s•� LE-2 .91 • ..�__ • O _ NCN Ree. No. 665B¢�7 �1 pU well) FR' .o..�..a iR w ■�1 "` ■ tX. WAit� 111111 TANI �q. iSt'>♦ - 1p�'■ Yl l/„ l••�,������n��E�a4rS7�S�T!1 —�`• r 4114[ 1 �• o` -- -. � C .. _ - -.•r �• EX 45 50 IITI -� , '. ='ate= 2t yj _ '�.:... 8 .. Ta nb01 }F - _ „ - inI CEESA fAM7 20.22 ■ • 1"60' 3O eD 12o i? \‘' / - - F001PRNT. 105.989 s0. R - O I , 1•r..y.•1�IRl �eS1i 9�1Q� �. .. .. k.: ] :Y. ]��.1� -. N�� l •'Ret��M4 � ►_` �Y� .:. tl: memmemonamemi >w^f X47 1 11111 ! ,r�p,8�\� N • Ali• itj rr' ..a "'C.', pi Peri, 41 `. N0. ,.,1...•` EVISTING BUILDING 1009 =mut ' a1 80.0042 H>' 1 f :PROJECT IN,FORMATION'I, =' TAX LOT NUMBER SITE ADDRESS AREA... 000160 -0014 8925 EAST MARGINAL WAY 535.401 5 SO. Fr, SEATTLE WA 98105 (12.291123 ACRES) CURRENT OWNER TNE BOEING COMPANY., A DELAWARE CORPORATION LAND USE GOVERNING JURISDICTION CRY OF 'TUKMU>, WASHINGTON Date Mansion • 0.eNt,yA ,4 E1.4zRY Ammo/ Dub 3/25/00 Sca)e: Horizontal +•-BtY Vertical 1'-6• 'SURVEY INFORMATION PROCEDURE / NARRATIVE • A RECD TRAVERSE VSINO A SOKKIA 3100- TOTAL STATION. MO - SDI -33- DATA COLLECTOR SUPPLEMENTED MTH RECD' NOTES WAS PERFORMED. ESTABLISHING THE ANGULAR, DISTANCE,. AND VERTICAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE MONUYENT9. PROPERTY,UNES. AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES AS SHOWN HEREON. A LJETZ AUTOMATIC LEVEL WAS USED TO CHECK AND ESTABLISH THE ELEVATION OF BENCHMARKS AND CONTROL POINTS THE RESULTING 'DATA MEETS' OR EXCEEDS THE STANDARDS FOR LAND BOUNDARY SURVEYS AS SET FORTH -IN RAC .332-130-090. DATES OF SURVEYS FIELD SURVEYS BY BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENGINEERS. INC. CONDUCTED NOVEMBER. 1999. and JANUARY. 2000. ALL MONUMENTS SHOWN AS FOUND WERE VISITED AT THAT TIME. THIS °RAYING DEPICTS MID CONDITIONS AS OF THOSE ORES, PRIOR CONDITIONS ARE NOT SHOWN. UNLESS NOTED OTNERW1SE HORIZONTAL DATUM - BASIS OP BEARINGS • NORTH AMERICAN DATUM•OF 9927 NAD-27 WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATE. SYSTEM - NORTH ZONE THE (OFFSET) CENTERLINE OF EAST MARGINAL WAY TANEN AS North. 2732'07- West. as per Boos. 73, of Surveys. 'Pogo 22Z, King County Records. NOTE • • 1. UNDERGROUND UTILRIES AND FEATURES DEPICTED 'HEREON ARE EASED ON RELD OBSERVATION. MARKINGS. DEVELOPMENT FLANS. DMECORO DOCUMENTS ONLY. TRUE LTI NNATURE AND /ORE5157514 E OF BELOW GROUND FEATURES. DETECTED OR UNDETECTED. SHOULD BE VERIRED. 2. NO DETERMINATION WAS MADE EN BARGHAUSEN CONSULTING ENO.. __ WITH REGARD ID SOILS COND1nON AND SUBSURFACE MATERWLS.' LEGEND; allmie CWW a PONJ1 P4L 131 MCOa1 Sal La 40110) . Q - -sap 8191(®) ® 9401 Nam mom/ . O mow mot 1W001 ts9.6 a r�� 03 1480. Fj Iac1' GS 9111 :43 MNR9*91*I��1., - • NB maw a. Ift OM/ MIDI MOW �O 93 911918TW a 9M ® =Or YOU • • • • =MI • �— cau[ •+1F!— too ammo �N 0- MEP 0111M -X— 001 Uu MICE 18215 72ND AVENUE SOUTH KENT. WA 98032 (425)251 -6222 (425)251 -8782 FAX CIVIL ENGINEERING. LAND PLANNING. SURVEYBIG. ENWRONMENTAL SERVICES For. BOEING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 3707 MC 22 -79 SEATTLE, WA 98124 -2207 SEP 1 1 MOO TItIe: const� 1 DEVELi,; -1, SCHEMATIC WATER AND -. SEWER PLAN BOEING 'PROPERTY (ISAACSON; 8625 EAST MARGINAL WAY. Job Number 7413