Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSEPA E98-0003 - BOEING - BUILDING 2-81BOEING BUILDING 2-81 CONSTRUCT BUILDING FOR OFFICES & LABS 8123 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH E98-0003 City of Seattle • t Paul Schell. Mayor Paul Schell, Mayor Seattle City Light Gary Zarker, Superintendent April 13, 1998 Steve Lancaster City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear Mr. Lancaster: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group New Building 2-81 RECEIVED. APR 16.1998 DEVELOPMENT Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DNS for the above -referenced project. Seattle City Light (SCL) has the following comment regarding this project: The project proponent may be eligible for design assistance and financial incentives offered through our Energy Smart Design Program. If they have not already done so, please encourage someone from Boeing Commercial Airplane Group to call John Roberts of our Energy Management Services Division at 206-684-3761 to investigate these programs and opportunities for energy conservation. If you have any questions, please call Michelle Dewey at 206-233-2170. Sincerely, n Mulder, Acting Manager atural Resources and Environmental Planning MD:cw 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3100, Seattle, WA 98104-5031 Tel: (206) 625-3000, TTY/TDD: (206) 684-3225, Fax: (206) 625-3709 An equal employment opportunity, affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request. AFFIDAVIT 1, WefricLi 43G( I I IlNotice of Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Commission Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: Determination of Non- significance IlMitigated Determination of Nonsignificance Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action Official Notice Other Other was mailed to each of the following addresses. on3-2-- Name of Project 4I G c2 -3 I ( A )ignature r File Number G qg.n3 City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director March 23, 1998 Rick Ford, Permit Coordinator Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 Re: Environmental Review (E98-0003) Boeing 2-81 Building located at 8123 East Marginal Way South Dear Rick: A Determination of Non -Significance ("DNS") for the above referenced project was issued on March 20, 1998. Per your conversation with Deb Ritter, you will post the DNS on March 25, 1998. The DNS twenty-one day appeal period begins on the date of posting. Following the completion of this appeal period, the final processing for the foundation permit (D98-022) can proceed. You may request that the foundation permit be processed prior to the expiration of the DNS appeal period (which ends on April 15, 1998). The Department of Community Development will approve this request if you agree to hold the City of Tukwila harmless from all expenses or delays resulting from any appeals filed during the appeal period. If you wish to make this request, please complete the section provided below and return to my attention. Sincerely, ck Pace nior Planner BOEING REQUESTS THAT THE FOUNDATION PERMIT (D98-022) BE PROCESSED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE DNS APPEAL PERIOD. BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP BY: ITS: cc: Kelcie Peterson, Permit Coordinator Deborah Ritter, Assistant Planner 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 m Tukwila, Washington 98188 m (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665 • • CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF 125,000 SO FT BUILDING AT BEOING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP - NEW BUILDING 2-81 PROPONENT: RICK FORD, PERMIT-,COURD,I-NATOP LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INC L1JDINt STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 81.3 EAST MARGINAL WY:.S PARCEL NO: ; OUO160-0020_ SEC/TWN/RNG- LEAD AGENCY:,•= CITY OF TUK::WILA FILE',',NO:" E98-2003 The City has determined that ',the proposal does. not have =a, probable signiticant adVerse_impact.an th:e__enVironment. An environmenta,T impact statement (EIS) is not requ`i`red_. under RCW 43.21c 030(2) (,.c),. This deci icon was cmade at"ter-�:r�eview of-:,. completed envir•nnrental� . ched 1 i�.t and other information on ti l�e ,.wi:th, the lead agency. Thy`is information is av_ailatle 'to' the publ,i.c;o'n 'reque t. •k •4 k 4 •4 •k :k k k * •k'k •k •k k k :k k •k * •4 k 4 .k * k -44*.* k"74;'k. k •k :k •k* k •k •k :k':k * *-4 k'•k * •k •k •k •k •k •k k * k * • k**** .4 •k. •k •k :4 :k •k * ThisdeterMination is f"inal and "signed this Z� day of -�1, ift 199 Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (20b 4J1-3670 6.300 Southc'enter Buu 1evar'd._ Tukwila, WAi 9818 ,, Copies of the pr O 014res. for 'SEPA appea1's ",;are avai La'ble[with the Department of Commiir�.j ty-.Deve l opment�.. • City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM To: Steve Lancaster From: Deborah Ritter Date: March 17, 1998 Re: E98-0003 Boeing 2-81 Building 8123 East Marginal Way South Project Description: This SEPA review is for the construction of a two-story, steel frame, 125,000 s.f. building (62,000 s.f. per floor). The building height will be approximately 45 feet. The proposed use of the building is office and laboratory for noise tests and model build-up. The first floor will consist primarily of labs and an 80 seat cafeteria (supporting the building occupants as well as other Plant 2 employees. The second floor will consist primarily of office space with some electronic testing labs and research rooms. The building will be built in an area of Boeing's Plant 2 facility made vacant by the earlier demolition of a portion of the 2-80 building. This demolition was part of a permitted action in the summer of 1997. Agencies with Jurisdiction: None. Background: The proposed project complies with the following documents: 1) Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal dated April, 1993; and 2) Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Mitigation Agreement between Boeing and the City of Tukwila dated October, 1993. Summary of Primary Impacts: • Earth The proposed site is generally level. Per the soils report, prepared by Geotechnical Engineering Services on November 17, 1997, the site is mantled by a layer of structural fill material overlying alluvial deposits of silt and sand with 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 E98-0001 Boeing 2-81 Building 8123 East Marginal Way South March 17, 1998 Page 2 • varying amounts of silt. The fill material consists of medium dense gray find sand. The fill blanketing this general area is typically underlain by alluvial deposits of silt and sand with silt to a depth of 90 feet or more. The site will be graded and approximately 200 cubic yards of soil will be excavated for building foundation and utilities. Under the requirements of the Boeing -Plant 2 RCRA Facility Investigation Report (dated August, 1997) and the associated Boeing -Plant 2 Corrective Measures Study Work Plan (dated August, 1997) any hazardous materials in the excavated materials will be managed, handled and disposed of in accordance with all applicable Municipal, State and Federal standards and permits. Approximately 200 cubic yards of fill will be required to replace the excavated material. The site is currently a 100% impervious, paved surface. Earthwork will expose the soil to erosion. The Applicant's temporary erosion control plan is outlined in the attached SEPA checklist. • Air Dust and exhaust emissions will be generated during construction. Mitigation measures will be implemented as required to meet or exceed Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and Department of Ecology standards. • Water The project site is approximately 400 feet west of the Duwamish Waterway (200 feet beyond the required river setback). Stormwater runoff will be collected in the existing Plant 2 stormwater control system. No additional impervious surface runoff will be created by the project. • Plants The site is currently 100% impervious surface with no existing plants. The completed project will have a limited decorative landscape adjacent to the cafeteria area. • Animals No known threatened or endangered species. • • E98-0001 Boeing 2-81 Building 8123 East Marginal Way South March 17, 1998 Page 3 • • • Energy/Natural Resources Not applicable. Environmental Health Noise generated by construction equipment will occur on a short term basis. Land/Shoreline Use. The proposed project site is currently vacant and is zoned Manufacturing/Industrial Center -Heavy. The surrounding land uses are associated with Boeing's Plant 2 (a large airplane manufacturing facility, consisting of many buildings and ancillary uses). The existing Boeing 2-80 Building will be adjacent to, and along the eastern wall of, the proposed building. The Duwamish River is west of the proposed site and East Marginal Way South (a major north -south arterial) is to the east. Approximately 300 people (who have been temporarily located during demolition and construction) will continue to work at this Plant 2 facility. Housing No housing is proposed nor will any residential structures be removed. Aesthetics The proposal is not subject to Board of Review design review and standards. The top of the second story parapet will be 45 feet high. The exterior building surface will be beige pre -cast concrete panels with a painted accent color on doors and railings. • Light and Glare It is not anticipated that any light or glare will be produced by the project. E98-0001 Boeing 2-81 Building 8123 East Marginal Way South March 17, 1998 Page 4 • • • Recreation A Targe, existing recreational facility is located in the Plant 2 building nearby. Additionally, the Boeing Oxbow Recreation Facility (which includes a shoreline trail) is located approximately one mile to the south of the proposed site. Historic and Cultural Preservation No known places or landmarks. Transportation The proposed project is served by East Marginal Way South and Boeing Entrance Gate B-18. A Metro bus stop is adjacent to this gate. The project will be served by existing on-site parking and parking lots east of Marginal Way South (accessible via a pedestrian tunnel). No existing parking stalls will be eliminated. No additional trips will be generated by the project. • Public Services No increase in public services is expected. • Utilities Project will not increase demand on the utility systems. Recommendation: Determination of Non -Significance. Date: 4 -Mar -98 14:32:34 From: DEBORAH (DEBORAH RIT ) To: JOANNA Copies -to: GARY-B,JACK,DEBORAH Subject: Boeing 2-81 Technical Review Message -id: 0266FD3401000000 Application -name: MHS Importance: HIGH The original deadline for substantive comments was set for March 5th (packet routed on February 19th). Per our conversation this morning, I understand your need for more time to review the file. If at all possible, I would appreciate getting your comments by March 10th. Please let me know if there is other information you need to expedite your review. To: Joanna Spencer From: Deb Ritter Date: March 3, 1998 Re: MEMORANDUM E98-0003 Boeing 2-81 Building 8123 East Marginal Way South Attached are some documents that may address your questions on the above - referenced project. The 10/26/93 Mitigation Agreement referred to in the SEPA Checklist is part of a packet that was provided to Public Works at the time. Jack believes that your department has two sets. To expedite an answer to your question, I have copied the Agreement for your reference. . The SEPA Memo referred to in the Checklist is attached. It covered the demolition of 11 structures located at 8123 East Marginal Way South. RCRA stands for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. I have attached the intro pages from Volume 1 of the Boeing Plant 2 Groundwater Investigation conducted in January, 1996. There are several volumes (white binders) and they are located on the second shelf of the library (kitchen area). I left a message with the Rick Ford at Boeing regarding the conflicting information regarding groundwater as well as the purpose of the NPDES permit. I will let you know what he says. (I've also attached generic information I have regarding NPDES permit from a DOE handbook I have.) Date: 3-Mar-98 12':04 From: JOANNA (JOANNA SPENC ) To: DEBORAH Copies-to: JOANNA Subject: Boeing 2-81 Bldg E98-0003 Application-name: MHS Message-id: B4F1 FB3401 DEDEDE Re-sent-by: JOANNA; on 3-Mar-98 12:04 • Pg 2 #10 lists DOE permits : Ground Water Removal -however pg 7 #3 b.1) states that no ground water be withdrawn; & NPDES Permit - for discharge from the lab?? jjs Date: 3 -Mar -98 11:52 From: JOANNA (JOANNA SPEW.) To: DEBORAH Copies -to: JOANNA Subject: Boeing 2-81 Bldg E98-0003 Application -name: MHS Message -id: FEEEFB3401 DEDEDE Sepa pg 2 #8 calls for related Mitig Agrmt (10/26/93) & proj Sepa memo #97-1141/01, can PW get copies ? What does RCRA stand for ? jjs CITY OF TLTKWILA 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98138 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Telephone: (206) 431-3670 AFFIDAVIT OF INSTALLATION AND POSTING OF PUBLIC INF'ORMATIO\ SIGNS) State of Washington County. of King City of Tukwila zrr s/E (Print Name) understand that Section 18.104.110 of the Tukwila Municipal Code requires me to post the property no later than fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the Notice of Completeness. I certify that on /`O the Public Notice Board(s) in accordance with Section 18.104.110 and other applicable guidelines were posted on the property located at 8/23 C. /04 2A/ "iw t wY so as to be clearly seen from each right -of -way providing primary vehicular access to the property for application file number E 9B- 0003 Affiant (Applicant Signature) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ;Adday of /ca. , 19 ?r 7464mica— NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington residing at My commission expires on `1 e4,4 ,. .2..- NI I, AFFIDAVIT Notice of Public Hearing O Notice of Public Meeting Board of Packet Board of Packet Planning Packet Adjustment Agenda Appeals Agenda Commission Agenda Short Subdivision Agenda Packet Notice of. Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management Permit OF DISTRIBUTION hereby declare that: ODetermination of Non- significance fJ Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance flDetermination of Significance and Scoping Notice Notice of Action j Official Notice ✓Other, oa_ ArpAte,t-o.y. Other was mailed to each of the following addresses on-�� A- Eco)\01 , L.C. Ffmv'iz. Su -u) -G2.4. 1 H Name of Project File Number E9?- ) fE9S-CniDS signature A.P. 3 o f • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development • NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED FEBRUARY 24, 1998 John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director The following applications have been submitted to the City of Tukwila Department of Community Development for review and decision. APPLICANT: The Boeing Company LOCATION: 8123 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington FILE NUMBERS: E98-0003 (SEPA) PROPOSAL: To construct a two-story 125,000 s.f. office -lab building OTHER REQUIRED Development Permit PERMITS: These files can be reviewed at the Department of Community Development, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., #100, Tukwila, WA. Please call (206) 431-3670 to ensure that the file(s) will be available. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT You can submit comments on this application. You must submit your comments in writing to the Department of Community Development by 5:00 p.m. on March 10, 1998. If you have questions about this proposal contact Deborah Ritter, the Planner in charge of this file at (206) 431- 3663. Anyone who submits written comments will become parties of record and will be notified of any decision on this project. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 431-3670 • Far (206) 431-3665 site plan boeing building 2-81 • City of Tukwila • John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 20, 1998 NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Rick Ford Permit Administrator Facilities Asset Management Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707, MS 19-35 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 RE: SEPA (E98-0003) Two-story 125,000 s.f. office -lab building 8123 East Marginal Way South Dear Rick: Your application, on behalf of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, for the above -referenced permit was found to be complete on February 20, 1998 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. As you know, the project has been assigned to Deborah Ritter. The next step is for you to install the notice board on the site within 14 days of the date of this letter. You received information on how to install the sign with your application packet. We are enclosing a laminated copy of the Notice of Application to post on the board. After installing the sign with the laminated notice, you need to return the signed Affidavit of Posting to our office. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. I will be contacting you soon to discuss this project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at 431- 3663. Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Assistant Planner cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 m (206) 431-3670 e Fax (206) 431-3665 D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 1 7 1998 PERMIT CENTER The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: 1. The Boeing Company is the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at Zeif rr/e ehRu/94,/ I i , 1998. (city), 1/11/4.57)//4/- i4S /)/ /4l q )1,01 (state), on Met (421 F M arfinson (Print Name) "?©, box 3`707, (Address) (Zo) 544 — w (Phone Number) s 19-01 ,9001.e.,0 - (Signature) Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of ,1998 Notary Public in and for the�State of Washington, residing in My Commission expires: i//2 517 . • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2-81 Building 8123 east Marginal Way South, Boeing Plant II City of Tukwila The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, m/s 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 • February 17, 1998 Rick Ford 206 655-9888 CITY oiennoviul Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 RECVED CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 1 7 1998 PERMIT CENTER SEPA APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: Wo File Number: E00Q3 Receipt Number:. Cross-reference files: bN-. ppm '. Applicant notified of incomplete application: a \O °We Applicant notified of complete application: Notice of application issued: A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: 130 �i , $ t,..) I L D i Nt 4 -- 2-- 81 B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (address and accessors parcel number(s)) S/23 £•4st •/71At24/nv+4L w,4✓ So. OOb/4,O--D,620 Quarter: Section: Township: 24 A/ Range: alkeoi 4 (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: LI oNf .r2 vz-r A 2 • s roe Y , /2-6f ods sq .ter moi vvs En f=ob DFp f :$ - L4 BS D. APPLICANT:. NAME: t ,80E/A/G A0114 p,4i y' — i k 1-0 2 ADDRESS: PA &'x 3 7 D 7 /01, /9-,.35/ ,S q 77Z /,t/14` ?2/Z` - PHONE: 2 2b 6 6 t✓" " 1.egg SIGNATURE: DATE: 2 " 9$ • • ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2-81 Building 2. Name of applicant: The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Rick Ford Facilities Asset Management Organization The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 4. Date checklist prepared: February 17, 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Construction start: Spring 1998 Occupancy: December 1998 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? if yes, explain. Future additions, or expansions of the project are not anticipated at this time. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING 1 C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 02/17/98 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS (1992) and related Mitigation Agreement (10/26/93) Geotechnical Study, Exhibit D Project SEPA Memorandum # 97-1141/01 (attached to plans) A RCRA Consent order for Corrective Action has been completed for Plant 2. The proposed building is within the RCRA Consent order area. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approva/s of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? /f yes, explain. None 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Federal: None known at this time State of Washington: None known at this time King County: King County Health Permit City of Tukwila/Local: State Environmental Policy Act Review/Approval Foundation Permit Construction Permits ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING 2 03/19/98 C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc • • 11. 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. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) The proposed building will be built in an area of Boeing's Plant 2 facility made vacant by the earlier demolition of a portion of the 2-80 building, a two-story, wood frame structure that was demolished as part of a permitted action (Demolition Permit, City of Tukwila; Notice of Intent, Puget Sound Pollution Control Agency) in the summer of 1997. The proposed project is to construct and operate a noise test and model build-up facility. The proposed building will occupy roughly the same footprint as the previously demolished building. The building will be a two-story125,000 sf, (62,000 sf each floor), steel frame building with a height of approximately 45 feet. The first floor will consist of primarily labs, and an 80 seat cafeteria. The cafeteria will support the proposed building occupants and other Plant 2 employees. The second floor will consist primarily of office space, with electronic testing Tabs and research rooms in the remainder. The functions and people (approximately 300) who will occupy this building have been temporarily relocated in other buildings on site since the demolition, and will occupy the proposed building upon completion 12. 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. Site address: 3123 East Marginal Way South, Boeing Plant 2 Refer to Exhibit A, Location in Region; Exhibit B, Vicinity Map; and Exhibit C, Site Plan for exact location within Plant 2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 3 02/17/98 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 0% c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. Refer to geotechnical report, Exhibit D. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. The site will be graded and excavated as required for building foundations and utilities. Some fill (approximately 200 yd of engineered base) will be required to replace the excavated material. The source of fill has not yet been determined. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes. Precipitation and surface runoff may cause erosion during grading and construction. At project completion erosion impacts are not anticipated, as the site will be fully built out including landscaping. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BU/LD/NG 4 02/17/98 C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The site is currently a 100% impervious, paved surface and, except for small landscape features, will continue to be impervious when the project is complete. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Some or all of the following standards methods of mitigation will be used, as appropriate: 1. Silt fencing where large exposed soil surfaces may have runoff concerns. 2. Filter fabric will be laid between the frame and grate of all catch basins and manholes that may be subject to silt laden runoff. The filter fabric physical condition will be inspected continuously to ensure it is properly functioning. 3. Straw bales will be installed around catch basin grates or in drainage paths when silt laden runoff conditions become too heavy for the filter fabric and silt fencing methods listed above. 4. Daily cleaning of asphalt and concrete surfaces will occur to minimize silt laden storm water runoff potential. 5. Excavated soil stockpiles will be stored in lined containment areas so that storm water runoff within the containment area can be monitored prior to discharge. Additionally, the soil stockpiles will be fully covered to minimize its contact with rainfall. 6. Disturbed areas that are exposed for over a week will be stabilized and covered with straw to minimize the contact with rainfall. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING 5 02/17/98 C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc • • 2. Air - a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (Le., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? if any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, vehicle and construction equipment emissions and dust will be released. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Mitigation measures will be implemented as required to meet or exceed all applicable standards as required by the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency and the Department of Ecology. Additional potential mitigation measures to reduce emissions include ensuring that machines and equipment used during construction are well maintained, and wetting the site as required to reduce fugitive dust emissions. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? if yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The project site is approximately 400 feet west of the Duwamish Waterway. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING 6 C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev e Checklist.doc 02/17/98 • • 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 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. None ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING 7 02/17/98 C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc c. Water runoff (including storm -water): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will be collected in the existing Plant 2 storm - water control system. No additional impervious surface or runoff will be created by the project. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? if so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Utilize existing onsite storm water system to mitigate potential runoff water impacts. Appropriate mitigation measures will be initiated during construction to reduce and control surface water runoff impacts. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types 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 types of vegetation None b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING 8 C:\USER1AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 02/17/98 None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Completed project will have limited decorative landscaping adjacent to the cafeteria area. 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 and animals which have been observed on or near the site are listed below: birds: seagulls, crows mammals: none observed fish: in the nearby Duwamish Waterway b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None c. Is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain. Unknown d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Utilize temporary erosion, long term storm water and hazardous materials control systems and best management practices to prevent contaminated discharges into the Duwamish Waterway. 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 Natural Gas ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING 9 C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 02/17/98 • • b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: The design will be in compliance with the energy codes and minimize the wasteful use of energy. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. Usual oils, greases, fuel and solvents will be present during construction. 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required. The hazardous materials involved are commonly used and are reasonably expected to be within the capability of existing emergency service operations. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 10 02/17/98 example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Temporary noise impacts during construction are anticipated. Construction projects of this type typically produce noise levels which range from 68 to 98 dba at 50 feet from the specific equipment. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None. The site is not near residential uses. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is fully developed as an airplane manufacturing facility. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. Plant 2 is a Targe airplane manufacturing facility, consisting of many buildings and ancillary uses. The project site is within Plant 2 and consists of a large paved area where the previously demolished building stood d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Heavy Manufacturing f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 1 1 02/17/98 • . g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No 1. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 300 people, already located at Plant 2. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 12 02/17/98 • • c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The top of the second story parapet will be 45 feet high. The exterior building surface will be beige pre -cast concrete panels with painted accent color doors and railings. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light and glare impacts are not anticipated. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None anticipated. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BU/LD/NG C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 13 02/17/98 • • 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is a large Boeing recreational facility in a nearby Plant 2 building. In addition, the proposed building will be located approximately one mile north of the main Boeing Oxbow recreational facility, which includes a shoreline trail. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? if so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None have been identified on the project site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Although previous excavations have disclosed no indications of archeological significance, if artifacts are uncovered, work in that area will be halted pending notification and response from appropriate agencies. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 14 02/17/98 • • 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This portion of Plant 2 is served by East Marginal Way South and entrance Gate B-18. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, there is a large Metro bus stop adjacent to Gate B18, which serves the southern half of Plant 2 and the project site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposed building, like the previously demolished building, is served by existing on-site parking and parking lots east of East Marginal Way South, which are accessible via a pedestrian tunnel under E. Marginal Way South. Handicapped parking stalls will be designated for the new building. No parking stalls will be eliminated by the proposal. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No additional trips will be generated. The people who occupied the previously demolished building will be relocated back into the proposed structure, when completed. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BU/LD/NG C:\USER\AARICKS\2.81 rev a Checklist.doc 15 02117/98 g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None in addition to mitigations contained in the 1992 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS and related Mitigation Agreement (10/26/93). 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. None is anticipated. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. Electricity, natural gas, domestic water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer and storm sewerage are currently available with sufficient capacity to accommodate the requirements of this proposal. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Needed utility distribution systems for the project are already in place. Utility Purveyor Water Tukwila Electricity Seattle City Light Natural Gas Washington Natural Gas Telephone US West Refuse Service Boeing Transportation Sewer Tukwila ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 16 03/19/98 • • C. SIGNATURE 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: --,i 7 /,,z Richard J..Ford Date Submitted: 2- -/ '2—'9:6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BOEING 2-81 BUILDING C:\USER\AARICKS\2-81 rev a Checklist.doc 17 02/17/98 D. PROPERTY OWNER DECLARATION The undersigned makes the following statements based upon personal knowledge: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. I understand that conditions of approval, which the City and applicant have jointly agreed may not be completed prior to final approval of the construction (e.g., final building permit approval) will be incorporated into an agreement to be executed and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any construction permits. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington and the United States of America that the foregoing statement is true and correct. EXECUTED at (city), (state), on , 199 (Print Name) (Address) (Phone Number) (Signature) Use additional sheets as needed for all property owner signatures. • • Exhibit A LOCATION IN REGION • • Exhibit B VICINITY MAP SH WATERWAY 2-41 2-40 GATE B-18 SITE ACCESS 2-55 a PROJECT SITE SCALE: NONE 2-84 2-117 2-116 1 • • Exhibit C EX619IG WATER L11E w AMORE re lirrktroglFc stizetawa Otkdkdn / / NIP ONe DIEL wao MAO ACCEPT/BURY <A67 1.6 9 •A•A•wr. i O ..=., WE FLAN pax 11,75.97 SERA 4AS113 B1ADNK; 2-81 CLi PEWIT SEPA-1 72197-00 07-C61-SEPA-1 • WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpsof checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all go ernmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal be re making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) mut be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse acts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checkliis to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal,Xit can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks yku to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environ ental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation f an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise informa 'on known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be\ble to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if \question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does\not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zon shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. g, Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." in addition, complete the supplemental sheet for nonproject actions (part D). For nonproject actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: 2-81 Building RECEIVEh, CIN OF TUKWILA FF9021938 Mafia CENTER £qg• oco -5 2. Name of applicant: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Boeing Commercial Airplane Group West Region Facilities P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Contact: 4. Date checklist prepared: January 21, 1998 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Spring 1998 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS (1992) and related Mitigation Agreement (10/26/93) Geotechnical Study ( ). Pi -45 Project SEPA Memorandum # 97-1141/01(attache d, 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Foundation Permit Construction Permits 11. 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. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Construct a new a 125,000 sf, two-story (55,657 sf each floor), steel frame building on a fully developed industrial site. The building will replace a portion of an old, two-story, wood frame structure that has already been demolished. The first floor will consist of shops, testing and research rooms and cafeteria. The second floor will have office, testing and 7 research rooms. The functions and people (approximately 125) who will occupy this structure have been temporarily relocated in other buildings on site since the demolition, and will move back into the proposed building when completed. 12. 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. Site address: 3123 East Marginal Way South Boeing Plant 2 Refer to vicinity map, and site plan for exact location within Plant 2. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other Flat EVALUATION FOR AGENCY USE ONLY b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? N/A c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. ( ) Refer to -geotechnical report. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No e. Describe dip -put -pose, type, 'aiid. \pproximate quantities of any filling or gradingproposed: Indicate source of fill. ( �� � tl f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Yes, site soil erosion could occur during wet periods of construction. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The site is currently a 100% impervious, paved surface and, except for small landscape features, will continue to be impervious when the project is complete. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Some or all of the following standards methods of mitigation will be used, as appropriate: 1. Silt fencing along the shore lines or in areas where large exposed soil surface area runoff presents concerns. 2. Filter fabric will be laid between the frame and grate of all catch basins and manholes that may be subject to silt laden runoff. The filter fabric physical condition will be inspected continuously to ensure it is properly functioning. 3. Straw bales will be installed around catch basin grates or in drainage paths when silt laden runoff conditions become too heavy for the filter fabric and silt fencing methods listed above. 4. Daily cleaning of asphalt and concrete surfaces will occur to minimize silt laden storm water runoff potential. 5. Excavated soil stockpiles will be stored in lined containment areas so that storm water runoff within the containment area can be monitored prior to discharge. Additionally, the soil stockpiles will be fully covered to minimize its contact with rainfall. 6. Disturbed areas that are exposed for over a week will be stabilized and covered with straw to minimize the contact with rainfall. 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. Construction activities could generate minor amounts of dust. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: Use best management practices to control dust, as necessary. 3. Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The project site is approximately 400 feet west of the Duwamish Waterway. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. No 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. None • • 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No 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. None c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water runoff will be collected in the existing Plant 2 storm water control system. No additional impervious surface or runoff will be created by the project. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Utilize onsite storm water system to mitigate potential runoff water impacts. 4. Plants a. Check or circle types 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 other types of vegetation None b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Completed project will have limited decorative landscaping adjacent to cafeteria area. 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: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Seagulls, crows There are fish in the nearby Duwamish Waterway b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. Unknown c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Unknown d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Utilize temporary erosion, long term storm water and hazardous materials control systems and best management practices to prevent contaminated discharges into the Duwamish Waterway. 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. Natural Gas � 7 Would your project affect the potentia use p of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No • • c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: Compliance with all energy related code requirements. 7. Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: No b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or a long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term - typical construction related noise 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: None - the site is not near residential uses. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is fully developed as an airplane manufacturing facility. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No c. Describe any structures on the site. Plant 2 is a large airplane manufacturing facility, consisting of many buildings and ancillary uses. The project site is within Plant 2 and consists of a large paved area where the previously demolished building stood. The proposed building will occupy roughly the same footprint as the previously demolished building. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? No e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Heavy Manufacturing • • f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Manufacturing Industrial Center (MIC) g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approximately 125 people, who already work at Plant 2, and who previously worked on the project site in the building that was demolished. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: None 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The top of the second story parapet will be 41 feet high. The exterior building surface will be beige precast concrete panels with painted accent color doors and railings. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: • • None 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Evening safety lighting around doors and pedestrian designated areas. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: None 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is a large Boeing recreational facility in another nearby Plant 2 building. The site is also approximately one mile north of the main Boeing Oxbow recreational facility which includes a shoreline trail. b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None 14. Transportation • • a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. This portion of Plant 2 is served by East Marginal Way South and entrance Gate B-18. b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Yes, there is a large bus stop adjacent to Gate B18, which serves the southern half of Plant 2 and the project site. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? The proposed building, like the previously demolished building, is served existing on-site parking and parking lots east of East Marginal Way South, which are accessible via a pedestrian tunnel under E. Marginal Way South. Handicapped parking stalls will be designated for the new building. No parking stalls will be eliminated by the proposal. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No additional trips will be generated. The people who occupied the previously demolished building will be relocated back into the proposed structure, when completed. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: None in addition to mitigations contained in the 1992 Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment EIS and related Mitigation Agreement (10/26/93). 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. None 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. Needed utility distribution systems for the project are already in place. Water - City of Seattle Electricity - Seattle City Light Natural Gas - Washington Natural Gas Telephone - US West t Refuse Service - 1 lV Sewer -; City of Seattle C. SIGNATURE 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: ._ — • l��'�` `-- Date Submitted: a 9 J D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural. sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. [Statutory Authority: RCW 43.21C.110. 84-05-020 (Order DE 83-39), Section 197-11-960, filed 2/10/84, effective 4/4/84.] • • • f, J�\j' iLL.` .'/�lv -.1&./.••-: City of Tukwila 1:(:). V V v�`.. c(�y��: ;_� Department of Community Development .. 1908 ,, John W Rants, Mayor DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT MITIGATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BOEING COMPANY AND THE CITY OF TUKWILA Rick Beeler, Director MITIGATION RATIONALE The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop portions of its property in the Duwamish Corridor area of Tukwila, Washington. A .specific proposal and application for redevelopment has not been submitted for approval of a specific project; rather, The Boeing Company and Tukwila agreed to evaluate a more generally -defined ten-year master plan in a non -project or programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS). This voluntary review process allowed for broaderpublic and agency review of the redevelopment proposal. Numerous public meetings and agency discussions have been held since the proposal was first announced. The EIS evaluated the environmental impacts of the proposal and alternatives. Mitigation measures to address impacts likely to result from full implementation of the redevelopment plan have been identified for transportation, stormwater, and shoreline public access. The mitigation discussed in this mitigation agreement (Agreement) is based on project impacts identified during the environmental review process. Aron S„ trp MO • Tukw11a. Washlnvtnn 02188 • 12061 431-3670 • Fax: (206) 431-3665 !`f In early 1991, The Boeing Company and the City of. Tukwila signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) referencing the Duwamish Corridor Programmatic EIS. The MOA made it clear that the EIS, in addition to assessing the impacts of the ten-year redevelopment proposal, was intended to reassess prior environmental impacts and permit conditions for earlier development projects in the Duwamish Corridor as well, consistent with a programmatic review of the corridor's transportation improvement needs. The Boeing Company and the City of Tukwila thus recognize that several aspects of this Agreement address previous development not otherwise included as part of the redevelopment proposal. The 1991 MOA is included as Attachment 1. It is the mutual intent of the City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company that this Agreement fully discharge the obligations of the 1991 MOA by clarifying the responsibilities and timing for completion of project permit conditions and mitigation of environmental impacts, as well as new mitigation resulting from the redevelopment proposal. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL The Boeing Company proposes to redevelop approximately 30 percent of its existing manufacturing facilities in the Duwamish Corridor over the life of the proposal. Full buildout of the proposal is currently anticipated to occur in ten years, although changing business conditions may result in a longer or shorter period for project completion. Future construction is expected to emphasize laboratory, office, and developmental manufacturing 2 uses. Workforce population in the corridor is not expected to exceed 25,000 employees, a number consistent with recent employment levels. Square footage changes for enclosed space are expected to include up to 3.7 million square feet of demolition and up to 4.3 million square feet of new construction. Net square footage of Boeing -owned and -leased property in the Corridor is expected to increase from 9.9 million to 10.6 million square feet. Full buildout is understood to mean the completion of 4.3 million square feet of new enclosed space, or an increase of total enclosed space in the corridor to 10.6 million square feet, whichever occurs first. The proposal is more fully described in the Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal and Design Guidelines (the Proposal), a separate document published with and accompanying the Draft EIS (May, 1992). The Proposal includes project goals and objectives and other proposal details, as well as a set of design guidelines and standards that will apply to individual projects implementing the redevelopment proposal along the street and river frontages, and internally on Boeing property. The proposal document is included by this reference as part of this Agreement. The Draft EIS (May, 1992) and Final EIS (April, 1993) are also included by this reference as part of this Agreement. The Duwamish Corridor as discussed in this Agreement is illustrated in the Draft EIS on page 2-2 (Figure 2-1). That figure is reproduced as Attachment 2 of this Agreement. 3 MITIGATION TRANSPORTATION Mitigation of transportation impacts reviewed in the EIS will consist of a Transportation Management Program and fair share participation in a set of physical improvements described in this section of the Agreement. Transportation Management Program (TMP) The Boeing Company agrees to implement a TMP for the Duwamish Corridor with a focus on reducing single occupant vehicle (SOV) miles travelled through a combination of rideshare and transit incentives, facility design, and SOV disincentives. The TMP will be consistent with that described in the EIS and the Proposal and is included as Attachment 3 of this Agreement. It is expected to be amended over time to remain consistent with the state's commute trip reduction law (RCW 70.94.524-551) and applicable ordinances of Tukwila, Seattle, and King County that implement that law. Physical Improvements. The City of Tukwila and The Boeing Companyagree to participation in four transportation improvements at the levels indicated in Table 1. The discussion below provides additional explanation of the transportation mitigation indicated in Table 1. 4 PROJECT 1. Reconstruction of East Marginal Way S from BAR to Seattle city lint. 2. Pacific Hwy/116th Intersection (aka: SR599 ramps) 3. Pacific Hwy Bridge 4. E Marginal Way S, south of BAR TABLE 1 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT - TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION TRIGGER TOTAL COST BOEING COST , RATIONALE COMMENTS . Transportation. improvements assumed as Existing Conditions or as Frontage Improve- ments required by local Ordinance. . Current estimate is . $11.2 million ° . $3.7 million . Safety . Capacity . LOS . Assumed existing 'condition . Will likely include sidewalks on west side to north city limits for safety " ii . Assumed as Existing Condition . $2.5 million . Total cost minus grant funding or $2.5 million, whichever is less . Assumed existing condition " . Broader corridor traffic benefits than Oxbow ramp . Possible HOV component . Possible HOV component may improve grant funding chances . Assumed as Existing Condition . $4.2 million ' . Total cost minus grant funding or $1.4 million whichever is less . Timing uncertain; not before 1996 . Assumed existing condition . Broader corridor traffic benefits than Oxbow ramp f • 1 . 7,850 peak hr trips . $2.5 million . $100,000 . 4 percent share of improvements . Only mitigation requirement from Programmatic EIS • Project 1. Reconstruction of East Marginal Way South from Boeing Access Road to Seattle City Limit. Capacity, level of service and safety improvements associated with a reconstruction of east Marginal Way South from the Boeing access Road (BAR) intersection northward to the Seattle city limit were assumed during environmental review to be necessary baseline conditions for the redevelopment proposal to proceed. Thus these transportation improvements are indicated in Table 1 to be "assumed existing conditions." The specific improvements included in the reconstruction are described more fully in Attachment 4 of the Agreement, and include new northbound lanes from BAR to approximately S. Norfolk Street; a new southbound lane from near the PACCAR site to the Developmental Center; new signals, controllers and interconnections; curbs, gutters and sidewalks; and new street surfacing. The City of Tukwila has prepared cost estimates for the reconstruction of East Marginal Way South. The current cost estimate for full reconstruction from the BAR to Seattle city limits is $11.2 million. Because the redevelopment plan will not cause impacts to the existing stormwater drainage system, the Boeing Company has no responsibility for the costs of drainage separation. The City and Boeing agree that a $3.7 million contribution from Boeing for street improvements willsatisfy the obligations of both prior project environmental impacts and permit conditions and frontage improvements required for implementation of the redevelopment proposal. 5 • • Construction of Project 1 could begin as early as 1994. The Boeing payment schedule is agreed to be $1.7 million within 60 days of Tukwila award of the first construction contract, or in January, 1995, whichever is last. An additional $2.0 million will be paid within 12 months of the first payment. Project 2. Pacific Highway South/South 116th Intersection. Project 2, also referred to during EIS review as the southbound on -ramps to SR599, was studied as part of the reassessment of the Duwamish Corridor's transportation needs authorized in the 1991 MOA. This project is more fully described in the SR599/SR99 Interchange Feasibility Study (October 1992), Alternative D; the study is included by this reference as part of this Agreement. The reassessment ultimately concluded that Project 2 and Project 3 were feasible improvements that should be included in the assumed baseline conditions for traffic analysis. This project was thus assumed to be an existing condition, as indicated in Table 1. The preliminary feasibility study estimated costs of the SR599 ramp improvements at $2.5 million. This estimate does not include potential mitigation for environmental impacts of the transportation improvements. The Boeing share of these costs, as indicated in Table 1, is the lesser of total cost minus grant funding, or $2.5 million. Boeing's maximum contribution to the project is thus $2.5 million. The payment schedule for the Boeing contribution for Project 2 will include three payments. The first payment of $350,000 will be due within 60 days of Tukwila award of the first 6 • construction contract for the project. The second payment, of $1.0 million, will be due 12 months after the first payment. The third payment, of $1.15 million, will be due 12 months after the second payment. Project 3. Pacific Highway Bridge. Project 3 is the replacement of the bridge over the Duwamish River at Pacific Highway South between the BAR and SR599. Also as part of the reassessment of the corridor's transportation needs, the EIS process identified a need for additional capacity on this bridge. This project, like Projects 1 and 2, was assumed to be part of the baseline or existing conditions for traffic analysis. Total costs for replacing the existing bridge with a six -lane bridge are estimated at $4.2 million. The Boeing share of project costs is the lesser of total cost minus grant funding, or $1.4 million. Thus, Boeing's maximum contribution is $1.4 million. This contribution will be required within 60 days of Tukwila award of the first construction contract for the project, or in December, 1996, if construction beings before 1996. Project 4. East Marginal Way South, South of BAR. During EIS review of the redevelopment proposal, a pro -rata share of costs for completion of roadway improvements on that portion of East Marginal Way South, south of the BAR was identified as a potential mitigation measure, and is required by this Agreement. Although the improvements along East Marginal Way South between the BAR and SR599 have been substantially completed by King County, the portion between BAR and South 112th Street has not been finished. The Boeing share of these improvement costs has been established at $100,000. This payment is 7 • • due when Boeing -originated peak -hour Duwamish Corridor travel reaches 7,850 daily trips. This threshhold will be calculated in a manner consistent with the Tukwila ordinance that implements the state's commute trip reduction law. This ordinance has not been adopted at this time. It is anticipated that the ordinance will specify the methodology for calculating peak -hour trips. Payment Schedules and Costs All cost figures discussed in this Agreement represent 1993 dollar amounts. The figures will be adjusted from 1993 dollars at time of payment by the annual Engineering News Record construction cost index for Seattle, to account for project cost changes due to inflation. Both parties to this Agreement recognize that outside funding opportunities may become available for one or more of the four projects identified in Table 1. If the Boeing Company and Tukwila agree to accelerate payment to take advantage of.these funding opportunities, the City will maintain a record of these payments and credit them toward other obligations identified above. The annual escalation factor from the Engineering News Record's construction cost index will be applied to the credits accrued by any prepayments. Other Obligations The transportation mitigation established by this Agreement fully satisfies all obligations between the City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company as they apply to the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment.Proposal and prior environmental impacts and permit conditions, 8 • • except that it is not intended to release the Boeing Company from the previously required pro -rata share of costs for the First Avenue South Bridge replacement. STORMWATER Regional Basin Planning The Final EIS (pages 2-6 and 2-7) identifies the stormwater mitigation for impacts associated with the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment proposal. The Boeing Company agrees to participate in a regional stormwater basin planning effort to be initiated by the affected jurisdictions (assumed to include Seattle, Tukwila, King County, Metro, and WSDOT). Master Drainage Plan The Boeing Company agrees to develop a stormwater drainage master plan for its properties in the Duwamish Corridor, consistent with the regional basin planning effort. It is anticipated by this Agreement that development of the stormwater master plan would follow completion of the regional stormwater basin plan. SHORELINE PUBLIC ACCESS The Redevelopment Proposal includes design guidelines for development along the shoreline of the Duwamish Waterway and a location map of public access improvements on page 31. In addition, the Final EIS identifies on page xvii the area proposed for enhancement of shoreline access that will remain available for use by the general public. Further clarification is provided in the Final EIS, pages 2-1 and 2-2. In summary, the proposal anticipates 9 • • redevelopment along about 4,800 linear feet of shoreline frontage, and enhancement of about 4,800 linear feet of frontage along the shoreline of the Oxbow site on the western side of the water -way. Revised Figure 3-6 from page xvii of the Final EIS is included as Attachment 5 of this Agreement. This Agreement recognizes that the proposal is consistent with the emphasis on the western shoreline that has characterized the recreational trail planning of the affected jurisdictions. It is also understood that future development in the Duwamish Corridor will be required to comply with Shoreline Master Program provisions in effect at the time of application. Individual projects that implement the Redevelopment Proposal will include shoreline public access enhancements along the Oxbow site that meet or exceed the proposed 1,:1 ratio of public access frontage to redeveloped non -water dependent frontage not available for public access. The City will maintain a record of the cumulative total of enhanced shoreline frontage. The timing of the enhancements of public access frontage will be simultaneous with or prior to redevelopment of shoreline frontage not available for public access. Credit will be given for development of public access prior to individual projects that trigger the requirements, and additional public access beyond that described in this Agreement will not be required for projects implementing the proposal reviewed in the EIS. The City of Tukwila has concluded that this proposal is consistent with applicable provision of the Shoreline Master Program it administers along the Duwamish Corridor. 10 • • In addition to the public access frontage at the Oxbow site, the Redevelopment Proposal includes a connection from the Museum of Flight along East Marginal Way South to the Green River Trail at the Oxbow site. The location of this connection is shown in the Final EIS on page xvii (Figure 3-6). The East Marginal Way South portion of this connection will be constructed as part of or simultaneously with adjacent East Marginal Way South reconstruction (Project 1). The full link to the Green River Trail will be completed at the same time as the Oxbow site public access enhancements. In addition to the public access enhancements described above, The Boeing Company will provide employee access to the shoreline on all sites not otherwise available for public access, as indicated in the Redevelopment Proposal. While the 1:1 public access ratio and locations identified on page 31 of the Redevelopment Proposal and page xvii of the Final EIS establish the public access requirements of this Agreement, it is understood that the City will entertain alternatives to the 1:1 ratio or to public access locations. The intent of this understanding is to incorporate flexibility and allow The Boeing Company and the City to take advantage of equal or better opportunities that are not currently identified. Equal or better public access opportunities could include new locations, enhanced existing locations, or habitat enhancements available for public access with appropriate signage. The City will not delay processing of applications that otherwise comply with the 1:1 ratio to require such public access alternatives. 11 Performance of this Agreement will not replace the separate requirement for shoreline public access at the cafeteria site (9303 E. Marginal Way South), identified as Condition 7 of Tukwila Shoreline Substantial Development Permit No. 90 -2 -SMP (August 7, 1990). If this Agreement is not performed, Condition 7 survives. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Compliance with Proposal and Agreement The EIS and proposal lack detail on individual projects in terms of location and size of structures, location, quantity and layout of parking facilities, access locations and design, uses, and other project -specific issues. It is anticipated that supplemental environmental information included with specific project applications will provide sufficient documentation on these details for the City to satisfy SEPA requirements prior to permit issuance. As part of a specific project description included with an environmental checklist, The Boeing Company will include information describing how the project complies with the proposal reviewed in the EIS and this Agreement. The City will review that description and the rest of the application for consistency with the proposal and this Agreement. The review will focus on consistency with the pedestrian and vehicular circulation guidelines and the bulk, scale, and landscape guidelines of the Proposal, as well as compliance with the mitigation described in this Agreement. 12 • • SEPA Compliance The EIS will serve as the "umbrella" SEPA document for redevelopment in the Duwamish Corridor through the life of the Proposal. Project -level review. for SEPA compliance will consist of City review of an environmental checklist, addendum, or other supplemental information for consistency with the Proposal and impacts reviewed in the EIS. For projects consistent with the EIS and proposal, the City will expedite environmental review and permit processing. - Future Requirements. For projects that implement the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal and are consistent with the proposal reviewed in the programmatic EIS, the City agress that no additional off-site mitigation of transportation impacts beyond the four projects identified will be imposed. 13 AMENDMENTS TO THE DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL No Boeing development is currently anticipated that would be inconsistent with the Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal. Because the proposal covers a multi-year period,.however, and because the airline industry and customer needs are dynamic and difficult to predict, it is understood that future development that is not consistent with the proposal may be proposed during the life of the redevelopment proposal. The Boeing Company will prepare a description of any proposed amendment to the Proposal and meet with the Director of Community Development to identify additional environmental review or other requirements to be met before the proposed amendment is incorporated into the approved Corridor Redevelopment Plan. It is understood that some amendments will be minor, while others may be more significant. It is the intent of the City and Boeing to simplify the review of minor amendments by means of a clear description of the proposed amendment and an expedited administrative review. 14 DUWAMISH CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT MITIGATION AGREEMENT The signatures below are provided by official representatives with the authority to commit and obligate the City of Tukwila and The Boeing Company to the terms of this Agreement. The City's SEPA Official and The Boeing Company's Vice President of Facilities are such representatives. Accepted for City of Tukwila Date O , 26, / f 3 Accepted for The Boeing Company By Title Date c.-Tbi3E. j2.4___0_93 15 List of Referenced Documents Included in Mitigation Agreement 1. Boeing Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal and Design Guidelines (May 1992) 2. Draft EIS, Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (May 1992) 3. Final EIS, Duwamish Corridor Redevelopment Proposal (April 1993) 4. SR599/SR99 Interchange Feasibility Study (October 1992) LISPS OF ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 1991 Memorandum of Agreement Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Duwamish Corridor Properties Included in Redevelopment Proposal Duwamish Corridor Boeing Transportation Management Program East Marginal Way Reconstruction Project Description Areas Proposed for Shoreline Public Access Enhancement • • ATTACHMENT 1 1991 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Washington State Department of Transportation District 1 15325 S.E 30th Place Bellevue. Washington 98007.6568 (206) 5624000 January 30, 1991 Mr. J. Terry Lewis Corporate Director Local and Community Relations The Boeing Company P:O. 'Box 3707 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Duane Berentson Secretary of Transportation SR 99 MP 23.68 CS 172900 The Boeing Company Oxbow Corporate Park Memorandum of Understanding K.C. File No. C87-0531 Dear Mr. Lewis: This is a Memorandum of Understanding between the Washington State Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the "State", King County, hereinafter referred to as the "County", the City of Tukwila, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and The Boeing Company, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer". The Developer has developed property in the vicinity of the SR 99/S. 102nd St. intersection, bordered by S. 102nd St. to the north; the Duwamish River to the east and south; and W. Marginal Place S./27th Ave. S. to the west. This development, referred to as Oxbow .Corporate Park, consists of 4 manufacturing/storage/office buildings containing approximately 880,000 sq. ft. along with associated parking. The Developer has agreed to the .0ay 26 1987 King County Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) for construction on the Oxbow site that includes a southbound interchange to connect the Oxbow site and SR 99. The MDNS contains the following provision: "Pay a pro rata share of the cost of providing a southbound on ramp to SR 99 at S. 102nd St. which would be a staged portion of completing that interchange including the southbound off ramp to the satisfaction of the Washington State Department of Transportation. If full funding for the southbound on ramp has not been acquired by December 31, 1989, then the developer shall provide funds for the full cost of constructing the southbound on ramp without regard to pro rata share." • • January 30, 1991 Mr. J. Terry Lewis Page 2 It is understood that the City is working on a traffic model as part of the City's non -project traffic EIS for the Duwamish Valley. This model will now include the entire Oxbow Corporate Park along with the proposed interchange location, and will address all traffic concerns in the immediate vicinity. The State has concluded that no immediate implementation of improvements to the Oxbow interchange is necessary. The State 'agrees that the Developer's appropriate required mitigation responsibilities will be more adequately addressed as part of the above mentioned EIS. It is agreed by the State, County, and City that the Developer will be allowed to fulfill his obligation by participating in the cost of transportation improvement needs as determined by the non -project traffic EIS. This participation in cost will either be actual design and construction of the southbound interchange to connect the Oxbow .site and SR 99, or the Developer's pro rata share to be paid into a transportation benefit district (TBD), local improvement district (LID), or other mitigation fee program. This determination will be made upon the completion of the non -project traffic EIS which is scheduled for completion by September 1991. The Developer accepts responsibility for mitigating his traffic impacts to the SR 99/S. 102nd St. intersection and hereby agrees to either fully fund the design and construction of the southbound interchange to connect the Oxbow site and SR 99, or participate on an equal share basis to fund the areas transportation improvements needs. The estimated amount of participation is $7.8-8.3 million (see attachment). Therefore, it is mutually agreed by the parties hereto as follows: Developer's Responsibility 1. If, as a result of the Duwamish Valley EIS, it is determined that the Developer's mitigation should be the actual design and construction of the southbound interchange to connect the Oxbow site. and SR 99, then the Developer will submit a Design Report, and Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) package to the State for review and approval. Upon approval, the southbound interchange would then be constructed. January 30, 1991 Mr. J. Terry Lewis Page 3 2. If, as a result of the Duwamish Valley EIS, it is determined that the Developer's mitigation should be to participate on a equal share basis to fund the areas transportation improvement needs, then this equal share will be paid into a transportation benefit district (TBD), local improvement district (LID), or other mitigation fee program in lieuof the mitigation described in paragraph 1 above. County Responsibility 1. Require the Developer to fulfill the mitigation requirements spelled out in the County's May 26, 1987 MDNS. 2. Participate in the City's Duwamish Valley EIS. City Responsibility 1. Require the Developer to fulfill the mitigation requirements spelled out in the County's May 26, 1987 MDNS. 2. Put together and publish the Duwamish Valley EIS. 3. If, as a result of the Duwamish Valley EIS, it is determined that the Developer's mitigation should be to participate on an equal share basis to fund the areas transportation needs, the City will set upa mitigation fee program in order to collect the participating share. 4. Collect the equal share contribution from the Developer for the areas transportation needs. State's Responsibility 1. Participate in the City's Duwamish Valley EIS. 2. If, as a result of the Duwamish Valley EIS, it is determined that the Developer's mitigation should be the actual design and construction of the southbound interchange to connect the Oxbow site and SR 99, the State will review for approval the Design Report, and Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) package. Upon approval, the State and Developer will enter into a developer agreement in which the Developer will then construct the southbound interchange. January 30, 1991 Mr. J. Terry Lewis Page 4 Sale of Protect This Letter of Understanding is binding upon the Developer and any purchaser, successor or assigns. The Developer shall fully disclose the existence of, and the obligations assumed under, this Letter of Understanding to any succeeding purchaser of their project prior to any sale. The deed in any such sale shall include acovenant identifying the Letter of Understanding and evidencing the assumption of the obligations of the Letter of Understanding by the purchaser. The Developer, County, and City, by counter signing and returning the original copy of this Letter of Understanding, agrees to the terms and conditions as outlined above. If any party to this letter has any questions, please feel free to contact James L. Lutz (562-4267) or Robert Eichelsdoerfer (562-4297) of the Utilities/Developer Services section. Sincerely, RTE:rte Attach. aA76.‘- JAMES W. GUENTHER, Manager Planning and Local Coordination • • January 30, 1991 Mr. J. Terry Lewis Page 5 ENDORSEMENT The undersigned, their successors and assigns, hereby acknowledge, agree and accept the provisions, conditions and stipulations as set forth in this Letter of Understanding. TUKWILA: KING COUNTY: WSDOT: Date: NAME/2i L. , \ig vt sek/ Title: Date: NAME By: So 7/ Title: Date: NAME By: Title: King County Building 6z land Development Division Parks. Planning and Resources Department 3600. 136th Place Southeast Bellevue. Washington 98006-1400 July 15, 1991 The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, M/S 14-49 Seattle, WA 98124 ATTN: J. T. Lewis RE: Memorandum of Understanding re. Construction of Southbound Ramp to SR 99 at South 102nd Street Dear Mr. Lewis: We have received your proposed Memorandum of Understanding to be executed by the State of Washington Department of Transportation, City of Tukwila, The Boeing Company and King County dated January 30, 1991. The purpose of the document is to defer a requirement of The Boeing Company to construct a new southbound ramp to SR 99 at S. 102nd Street as per a May 26, 1987, King County Mitigated Determination of Non Significance (MDNS), un- til such time that a Duwamish Valley Environmental Impact Statement is complete. In the opinion of King County the responsibility to require the developer to fulfill the mitiga- tion requirements of the May 26, 1987 MDNS now rests with the City of Tukwila, since they have annexed the area in question into their city. For this reason we no longer have jurisdic- tion and will not be party to the Memorandum of Understanding. Sincerely, Greg Ki Manager GK:RCC/ck cc: Tom McDonald, Manager, Commercial Products Ralph Colby, Manager, Technical Services RCC:memunder MASTER TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 Purpose and Authority At major work sites Boeing employees represent a significant proportion of the local work force and have a corresponding influence on the local traasportation network The Master Transportation Management Plan offers a cooperative, voluntary P g p and mutual statement of principals for use in guiding future transportation planning efforts designed to rninimi7e the influence of Boeing employees on the Puget Sound regional transportation network. That network includes all forms of surface, roadway transportation. 2.0 Problem Statement A. Transportation networks serving Boeing sites within the region typically arc at or approaching capacity. B. Pressure on the regional transportation network caused by regional growth make action imperative. 3.0 Objectives The Objectives of the proposed Master Transportation Management Plan are to: 1) Improve the ingress and egress of Boeing employees at their workplaces in a timely manner 2) Demonstrate a commitment by The Boeing Company to address regional transportation issues in cooperation with local, regional and state jurisdictions. 3) Either reduce or achieve zero growth in vehicle trips generated from Boeing sites during the Peak P.M. Traffic period (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.). 4) Decrease Single Occupant Vehicle (SOV) use at The Boeing Company work sites. 4.0 Strategies Strategies used in achieving the stated objectives may differ for various Boeing sites. Guidelines for the applicability of specific strategies may be found in Table A.1 (Attached) which identifies appropriate strategies for Urban, Suburban, and Scattered sites. B-2 06/22/90 4.I ecifi e used in achievin ecivel: • Parking Management • Best Engineering and Site Design Practices • Monitoring ' Modal separation 4.2 ecifi tra e 'e t e u e in achievin "e iv 2: ' Transportation Coordinators ` Preferred car pool and van pool parking ▪ Continued involvement in regional transportation issues ' Adoption of site specific Transportation Management Plans ` Establish focal point for generating regional and inter -local agreements on transportation issues. 4.3 eci fit trate �ies to he used in achievmo Ob—i-r t- eve ; • BicycIe facilities ▪ Work scheduling and facilities locations ▪ Mode split goals • Exploration of new technologies ▪ Cooperative agreements with local and state transportation agencies • Evaluations 4.4 .ecifi d ' achi ▪ Promotional Campaigns • Commuter information centers ctive 4 ▪ Improved facilities to support transit rideshare and carpool services • Fixed route transit service • Ridematch service ▪ Vanpools • Customized Bus Service ▪ Incentive Program R_2 ; • • 5.0 Implementation 5.1 ,bite Specific TMP'5 ▪ Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will undertake development of a site specific Transportation Management Plan (TMP). These TNT's will include: .00 - mode split objective - promotion plan - specific strategies ▪ Major Boeing sites within the Puget Sound Region will appoint an on-site Transportation Coordinator, to implement the TMP's. ▪ Site TMP's will be closely coordinated with the local transit authorities and municipal agencies for consistency with the local transportation goals and objectives. ▪ Site TMP's will develop a comprehensive monitoring and reporting schedule for measuring the effectiveness of the initiatives in accomplishing the objectives. ▪ Site TMP's will be attached to this plan as addenda. 52 Measurements Monitoring schedules for all sites will report measurements which provide an aggregate level of performance in attaining the goals and objectives of this plan. Specific measurements include, but are not limited to: Baseline vehicle count during P.M. peak (3:00 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.) Site Population (and rate of change) Site Acreage (and rate of change) On Site Parking Stalls (and rate of change) On Site preferential parking stalls Site HOV use (and rate of change) 53 Periodic review with affected agencies Quarterly meetings will be held with Iocal and regional jurisdictions and authorities affected: by this Master Transportation Management Plan. The purpose of these meetings is for regular updates on progress, problems and program activities which have regional impact and significance. All parties to this plan will meet annually to review the goals, objectives and strategies of this plan and target further specific regional goals. 5.4 Periodic reports on regional progress The findings, conclusions and opinions of the parties to this plan will be summarized annually and reported to all affected agencies. Support Programs Promotion Annual focused campaign Bus zone near building entrances Preferential Parldng HOV support facilities Shift scheduling to support HOV use Cost share passes Company -wide passes Restrict parking supply Carpool incentives 06/22/90 B-5 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PLAN (THP) Boeing North Duwamish Campus (NDC) Goal Boeing has entered into an agreement with Metro to jointly pursue methods to reduce single occupant vehicles (SOV) generated by Boeing Company facilities. This master TMP outlines objectives and strategies to achieve this goal as outlined in Attachment A. Objective The objective of the NDC TMP is to reduce volume exiting from the NDC site during the p.m. peak traffic period (3:00 p.m.) by 5 percent. The existinge1,310.s to T5he 0 objective of the TMP is to reduce thatOvolumemtoinotmore than 1,235. Program Actions and incentives The following specific strategies and incentives are proposed as part of the TMP. These elements are consistent with Directors Rule 24-88. 1. The owner/tenant shall provide subsidies in the amount of $15 to employees purchasing a monthly bus pass or partic- ipating in a registered public transit agency vanpool. 2. The owner/tenant shall provide preferential parking for carpools and vanpools. 3. A minimum of 10 percent of the long-term parking spaces shall be designated for carpools. 4. Space for secure and convenient parking for 20 bicycles including locking bicycle racks shall be provided on site. 5. The TMP shall include the following general actions as outlined in DR 24-88. A. Building Transportation Coordinator b. Periodic Promotional Events c. Commuter Information Center d. Tenant Participation e. Ride Match Opportunities f. Employee Survey g. Reporting h. Program Evaluation ee/cc003/NDCTMP mo Aped So So.it6,° CO CI 440inee Wey SO. I pi, SO ,6t vow $0 +0°° so il% DEVEWFWENUMWER lawmal_wm / so a0.4" Eos' 00.9'n LEGEND Existing Boeing Shoreline Public Access Proposed Enhancement of Existing Access Nms Proposed Connection to Green River Trail Proposed Employee Shoreline Access Museum of Flight ATTACHMENT. 5 AREAS PROPOSED FOR SHORELINE PURPOSE ACCESS ENHANCEMENT LEGEND Owned Leased ATTACHMENT 2 Duwamish Corridor Properties Included In Redevelopment Proposal ) • • ATTACHMENT S UUWAMISII CORRIDOR BOEING TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is entered into as of June 25, 1990 between The Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle ("Metro") and The Boeing Company. 1. Metro and Boeing are parties town Agreement dated as of December 18, 1989 (the "Agreement") which created an administrative framework for addressing traffic problems of mutual concern to the parties. Addendum No. 1 to the Agreement, also dated December 18, 1989, provided that Boeing and Metro would co-operate to develop, define, and ratify a Master Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to serve as the foundation document for all jurisdictions of Boeing located within King County that require a TMP as part of an Environmental Impact Statement. 2. Attached to this Memorandum of Understanding as Attachment A is a Master Transportation Management Plan. Boeing and Metro each hereby acknowledge, accept, and approve the terms of the Master TMP as attached, and"each party hereby agrees that such TMP, as attached, fulfills the parties' respective obligations to develop, define, and ratify a TMP, as provided in the referenced Addendum No. 1. The parties•have executed this Memorandum of Agreement as of the date first written above. THE BOEING COMPANY MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN SEATTLE GLB1:062:062290 B-1 By Its / . 7-F/S , Report ,, Geotechnical Engineering Services ' f 1 Buildings 2-80,\2-81 and LASF. Seattle, Washington November '1'7, 1997 'RECdEIVp' .� CITY OF TUKWILA FEB 17 1998 PERMIT 'CENTER J File No,! 0120-230=38-1130 Geo 1/40...S Engineers Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707, MS 19-35 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 Attention: Michael J. Prittie November 17, 1997 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Report Geotechnical Engineering Services Buildings 2-80, 2-81 and LASF Seattle, Washington File No. 0120-230-37 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed 2-80, 2-81 and LASF Building at Boeing Plant 2 in Seattle, Washington, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The site is located as shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. Our services have been conducted in general accordance with our proposal dated October 17, 1997 which was authorized by Michael Prittie on October 21, 1997. Our understanding of the project is based on information provided by Michael Prittie of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group, Keith Moore of Coughlin, Porter and Lundeen, and a preliminary plan provided by Coughlin, Porter and Lundeen. We understand that Buildings 2-80 and 2-81 will consist of two two-story steel frames on the former building location. The columns will be spaced at 32 and 30 feet for Buildings 2-80 and 2-82, respectively. Improvements to the LASF Building include constructing a new roof over the existing LASF Building and demolishing the existing roof. The loads on the foundations are likely to remain about the same. GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone (425) 861-6000 Fax (425) 861-6050 www.geoengineers.com Boeing Support Sells November 17, 1997 - Page 2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our geotechnical engineering services is to evaluate the subsurface conditions as a basis for providing recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of Buildings 2-80, 2-81 and the LASF Building. Our specific scope of services includes: 1. Evaluate subsurface conditions by reviewing logs of nearby borings and test pits available in our files and provided by The Boeing Company. 2. Complete one boring to a depth of 60 feet within the Building 2-80 footprint using a truck- mounted drill rig to observe subsurface soil and ground water conditions. 3. Install one piezometer in the boring to a depth of 20 feet below existing surface elevations to measure the ground water level after the ground water level has stabilized. 4. Complete laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings. 5. Provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork, including use of on-site soil for structural fill, requirements for imported backfill, compaction criteria, utility trench excavation and backfill, slope inclinations or shoring requirements for excavations, and wet weather considerations. 6. Develop recommendations for new piles including pile penetration -capacity relationships, lateral capacity, settlement performance and installation criteria. We understand that augercast piles will be installed to minimize vibration impacts on adjacent facilities. 7. Provide recommendations for on -grade slab support. 8. Evaluate seismic design considerations including liquefaction potential. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is located within Boeing Plant No. 2 in Seattle, Washington, at an elevation of approximately 15 feet above mean sea level. The site is rectangular in shape and is surrounded by other Boeing facilities. The Duwamish River is located west of the site. The ground surface is generally level an contains a concrete slab. The slab is surrounded by asphalt pavement. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the site were explored by advancing one boring on October 24, 1997. The boring was advanced to a depth of 59 feet using a Mobil B-59 drill rig mounted on a truck. The location of the exploration is shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The location was determined in the field by taping distances from the corners of the existing concrete slab. The exploration was monitored on a full-time basis by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who visually examined and classified the soils encountered and maintained a detailed log of Geo Eng i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-37-1130 Boeing Support Seilts November 17, 1997 - Page 3 the boring. The soils encountered were visually classified in accordance with the system shown in Figure 3. Soil samples were collected at 5 -foot intervals using split -spoon and Dames & Moore samplers. The split -spoon sampler was driven with a 140 -ib hammer utilizing a 30 -inch drop. The Dames & Moore sampler was driven with a 300 -ib hammer utilizing a 30 -inch drop. The boring log is presented in Figure 4. The log is based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicates the various types of soil encountered. It also indicates the depthsat which the materials or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. The soil consistencies noted on the boring log are based on correlating hammer blow counts with published data, laboratory analyses and our experience and judgment. A 2 -inch -diameter piezometer was installed in the boring after soil samples were collected. The piezometer was installed to a depth of 20 feet below existing surface grade. Screened well casing was installed between 5 and 20 feet below ground surface. The piezometer is protected by a flush -mounted cast iron well monument. The elevation of the monument and the top of the well casing relative to the Building 2-80 floor slab was determined using a laser level. LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were returned to our laboratory and visually examined to confirm or modify field classifications. Selected soil samples were tested to determine their natural moisture content and in-place density. The results of the moisture content and density determinations are presented on the boring log in Figure 4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Based on the conditions encountered in our explorations, the site is mantled by a layer of structural fill material overlying alluvial deposits of silt and sand with varying amounts of silt. The fill material consists of medium dense gray fine sand and was encountered to a depth of about 7 feet. The fill blanketing this general area is typically underlain by alluvial deposits of silt and sand with silt to a depth of 90 feet or more. Organic silt in a medium stiff condition was encountered between depths of 7 and 12 feet. Loose to very loose gray silty sand was encountered beneath the silt layer and extended to a depth of about 22 feet. A layer of medium dense sand was encountered beneath the silty sand and extended to a depth of approximately 27 feet. Dense gray sand with silt was encountered beneath the sand layer and extended through a depth of about 40 feet. A thin layer of medium dense silt was encountered beneath the dense sand layer and extended through a depth of about 45 feet. Loose sand with silt was encountered at a depth of 45 feet and extended through the depth explored, 59 feet. 0eo Eng i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-37-1130 Boeing Support Sells November 17, 1997 Page 4 GROUND WATER CONDITIONS Ground water was encountered during drilling at approximately 10 feet below ground surface. Ground water level was measured in the piezometer at 10.89 feet below the existing ground surface approximately 1.5 hours after drilling was completed and at 10.44 feet approximately one week after drilling was completed. In general, ground water conditions should be expected to fluctuate as a function of season, precipitation and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on our explorations, it is our opinion that the proposed structure can be supported on augercast piles founded in the dense granular soils encountered between 25 and 40 feet in our boring. Design recommendations are presented below. Subsurface explorations indicate that the site is underlain by potentially liquefiable soils extending from about 10 to 25 feet below the existing ground surface. In our opinion, ground water levels are not likely to affect the construction or serviceability of the proposed structures. The fill material on the site is predominately sandy and can be reworked as necessary, except possibly during extended wet weather. We recommend that earthwork be undertaken during normally dry periods of the year. If any excavations are made into the underlying moisture -sensitive silt soils, we recommend that the silt excavated be wasted off-site and imported granular material be used to supplement the on-site granular fill for utility backfill and general site grading. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Several investigations (Dames & Moore, various; Rasmussen, et.al.; USGS; Shannon & Wilson, Inc.; Algermissen; GeoEngineers and others) have evaluated earthquake magnitudes and intensities as a function of return period. The result of those investigations is the use of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake with approximately a 10 -percent probability of being equaled or exceeded in 50 years for design. The duration (acceleration time history) of this earthquake is generally assumed to be in the range of 23 to 30 seconds and is based largely on California models. Peak ground accelerations developed by previous investigations vary significantly, mostly because of changing site conditions and the assumed distance to the epicenter. Factors such as the depth to bedrock, thickness of glacially consolidated soil, and thickness of recent alluvium or fill also influence peak ground accelerations. In our opinion, for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake, a maximum peak ground acceleration of approximately 0.3g is appropriate for this site. Geo Eng i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-37-1130 Boeing Support Seipp November 17, 1997 Page 5 SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA As defined in the Uniform Building Code (UBC), 1994 Edition, the project site is located in Seismic Zone 3 with a Z factor of 0.3. In our opinion, subsurface conditions at the site classify as Soil Profile Type S2. LIQUEFACTION Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually induced by earthquake forces, results in the development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils and subsequent loss of strength. Liquefaction potential of any given soil deposit is determined by a combination of soil properties, environmental factors and characteristics of the earthquake to which it may be subjected. In general, soils subject to liquefaction include loose to medium dense silty sands and sands below the water table. Our analyses of liquefaction potential at this site indicates that for peak ground accelerations of about 0.3g, portions of the sand soils encountered between 10 and 25 feet in the exploration could liquify. In our opinion, liquefaction of these soils could result in reduced soil strength which would be of short duration. Liquefaction -induced settlement could result in cracking or subsidence of slabs -on -grade requiring repairs but should not require widespread reconstruction. The following pile foundation recommendations take into account the potential loss of frictional support around the upper portion of the piles so that support for the building superstructure would be maintained. PILE CAPACITIES We understand the vertical column loads for this project are expected to range up to approximately 200 kips for dead load plus long-term live load. For this loading, it is our opinion that two -pile groups will be sufficient. However, base shear requirements could increase the number of piles in a pile group. The recommended capacities for 16- and 18 -inch -diameter augercast piles are presented in the following table. We recommend against installing longer piles because the soils in the area typically become less dense below a depth of 40 to 45 feet. G e o Eng i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-37-1130 Boeing Support SeSs November 17, 1997 Page 6 Table 1 - Recommended Allowable Pile Downward Capacities Pile: Type Pile Penetrating 30 Feet Below the (kips) Pile Penetrating 35 Feet Below the Pile Cap (kips) 16 in. Augercast Concrete 80 95 18 in. Augercast Concrete 90 115 Allowable pile capacities presented above 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 recommended penetrations also take into account the potential loss of in frictional capacity in the loose sands between about 10 and 25 feet below ground surface due to liquefaction. 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. 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. PILE SETTLEMENT Pile settlements are expected to be essentially elastic in nature and occur as loads are applied. Total settlement of piles constructed as recommended is not expected to exceed about 3/4 inch, while differential settlements between comparably loaded piles are not expected to exceed about 50 percent of this value. LATERAL CAPACITY Lateral loadings due to wind or seismic forces can be resisted by lateral loading on the piles or lateral soil resistance of the pile cap. The manner in which these loads are transferred to the Geo E n g i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-37-1130 Boeing Support Ser. November 17, 1997 Page 7 • piles will be a function of the design of the foundation system. The recommended capacities for 16- and 18 -inch -diameter augercast piles are presented in the following table. These values are based on a horizontal deflection of 1/2 inch. Table 2 - Recommended Allowable Pile Lateral Capacities Pile Size Lateral Capacity (kips) 3 Diameter Pile Spacing 6 Diameter Pile Spacing 16 -inch -diameter Augercast Pile 10 18 18 -inch -diameter Augercast Pile 14 25 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. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS General As indicated on the boring log, near -surface site soils are typically in a loose condition. Water level measurements at the site indicate that ground water is relatively shallow. We understand that soil and ground water to depths of approximately 15 feet below ground level is potentially contaminated. Evaluation of potential contamination is not a part of our scope of services. However, in view of the above, we believe it would be prudent to determine the chemical characteristics of any soils which may be exported from the site to avoid a potential contamination claim. If deep excavations are required, shoring and dewatering could be necessary. The contractor should be prepared to deal with such conditions. All temporary slopes should conform to applicable WISHA and OSHA regulations. Since the maintenance of stable excavations is related to job safety, the contractor should have the primary responsibility for the decision as to whether or not to use an open -cut slope rather than a retention system and for determining the safe slope angle. Site Preparation and Earthwork Site Preparation. We recommend that the existing building slab be removed prior to installing the augercast piles. Asphalt may be broken up and incorporated into structural fill Geo Engineers File No. 0120-230-37-1130 Boeing Support Serfs November 17, 1997 Page 8 • material according to our recommendations contained in the "Structural Fill" section. Any material encountered in this process, such as wood or construction materials or abandoned utilities, should also be removed. We recommend proofrolling during dry weather of all subgrades to be improved. The purpose of the proofrolling will be to densify the surface and identify any areas that may require over -excavation and replacement with compacted structural fill. We recommend that our representative be present during site grading activities to observe the work and perform field density tests as required. Temporary Erosion Control. The exposed ground surface will be subject to erosion during wet weather. Temporary erosion control should be provided by placing hay bales as needed around the site perimeter to direct surface runoff to storm drains. Disturbed areas should be graded to a smooth surface and compacted or be protected against erosion with a temporary covering, as appropriate. Structural Fill All fill placed to achieve design grades within the building area or beneath pavement and slabs -on -grade should be placed as structural fill. Structural fill should be placed in lifts of appropriate thickness for uniform compaction. We recommend that structural fill placed in the building area be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. Appropriate lift thickness will depend on the fill characteristics and the compaction equipment used. We recommend that appropriate lift thickness be evaluated by our field representative during construction. Suitability of soils for use as structural fill depends primarily on the gradation of the soil and its moisture content when placed and compacted. In general, as the amount of fines (material smaller than the No. 200 mesh sieve) increases, the ability to achieve adequate compaction becomes increasingly sensitive to small changes in moisture content. Soils containing greater than about 5 percent fines generally cannot be consistently compacted to a dense, nonyielding condition when water content is significantly above or below the optimum level. If construction is performed during wet conditions, we recommend using fill consisting of free -draining, well graded sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines based on the minus 3/4 inch fraction., If prolonged dry conditions exist during the earthwork and foundation installation phase of construction, a higher fines content may be acceptable. All structural fill material should be free of organics, debris, trash and cobbles greater than 6 inches in diameter. Particle sizes greater than 3 inches in diameter should be excluded from the top 1 foot of fill. Moisture content of the fill should be adjusted as necessary for proper compaction. Geo Eng i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-37-1130 Boeing Support Se. November 17, 1997 Page 9 We recommend that a representative from our firm evaluate and observe the placement and compaction of structural fill. A sufficient number of in-place density tests should be made as the fill is being placed to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Slabs -on -Grade We conclude that on -grade floor slabs can be supported on compacted structural fill placed directly on the existing fill provided the exposed soils are thoroughly proofrolled. The exposed subgrade should be proofrolled, preferably during dry weather, to achieve a density of at Least 92 percent of maximum in the upper 1 foot, if at least 1 foot of new fill will be added. If less than 1 foot of new fill is to be added, we recommend that the top foot of the existing fill be compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. This could require excavating a portion of the existing fill and recompacting it in two lifts. 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. We recommend that the slabs -on -grade be directly underlain by 6 inches of granular base course material consisting of crushed rock or well graded sand and gravel containing less that 3 percent fines based on the minus 3/4 inch fraction. 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 and immediately below the slab to protect the barrier. 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. Additional settlements could occur if deeper soils liquify during a seismic event. Utility Trench Backfill In our opinion, imported soil used to replace site soils removed at utility trench locations should consist of well graded sand and gravel with less than 5 percent fines, (material smaller than the No. 200 mesh sieve). We recommend placing and compacting this material to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557 to within 2 feet of final grade and to 95 percent above this level in floor slab and paved areas. Trench excavation, pipe bedding, and trench backfilling should be completed using the general procedures described in WSDOT Standard Specifications, Section 7-17, or other suitable procedures specified by the project civil engineer or utility manufacturer. G e o Engineers File No. 0120-230-37-1130 Boeing Support Seies November 17, 1997 Page 10 Drainage Considerations We recommend that finish surfaces adjacent to the building be sloped so that surface drainage flows away from the building. We recommend that all roof drains be collected in tightlines for diversion into the storm drain system. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use 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 recommendations. 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 considera- tions 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. 1 O t. Geo Eng i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-37-1130 Boeing Support Seri's November 17, 1997 Page 11 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. DLH:MSR:JKT:wd Document ID: P:\0120230.R Two copies submitted cc: Coughlin Porter and Lundeen (2 copies) 217 Pine Street, Suite 520 Seattle, Washington 98101 Attn: Keith Moore Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Jack K. Tuttle, P.E. Principal Geo Eng i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-37-1130 0 0 0 X LIO N (1) -J 0 ., £ . l s usu. r • kr .1 N `a 8 3200 rNLE \ s OTHELLO INTERN/RQNAI ,%\\ 0 T( , FONTANELLE • • .* p''' CO ;N� -r\. '‘'11111111r • 1 29 AIRPORT ...�; ', so ,.. sr ,- •. � S�,��I 0®M� ' U . �.,, •. s ,&.11, �125 lTd A 5 HOLDEN ®F$>� �j l., • t_.1M1ri51rTr:1t � Iii ER S �I xSF FC1V' KENYON 100 Si yl F.'.,,n,;•s S 7000 13 g '• s. �' . 1NGi?'. \\\ l."4 s °M $T 1 PORTLAND ST all .^ ST , TINST203 <T 1 tS / N 1600 EN o p V1 CHICAGO !��.��I'.T� _ >•.- sl. RfMrq S �'� 1-K-�' v IELLpO4•`\\\ II S KEMYON41300 N. ` <GENE \ BOEINGo R ` o _ \ `� �I �� r t' 1> s P '` 1 a \t . ` i"1 �1 :L� I�Ii i o ST�/ kci CLO E so0s = Walk ening.. ST 1000 M�\ i. t ' `-- 33 ` y11 �' i':' \\\ -, t r \ s ENV" ✓ ST < d 1, �t1+s ��}111� ,orm , T 32 = sT = : t, AI % ♦ } \�� 34 "S T NE .5000� .600 MID ■ DIREc \�,� ST ` S'`'' \\\ `+1 1.'© S 'HENDERSON --, -4-, IIR ,illfi_rriK ; s LER ji \ FpOTF \ 1` E9 1^ ILJlliri C�\•, �!)iFI1'' S 93RD L� ST ; • L ! Si ? \ .- i \\ 1 \ r �7++= k y \951N \ SBE Vll�l� [LiiST , I INIEI ST . \\\ 1. .. n s N' MTh A, 49Th N 50TH ' :15 `\ 1 .,. y Si \ IT 23N.Yf �.. , S � i ✓', _ ®� 1200 O "r &,\. l _ •'�,"e.L• \\\\\ �.\ �� n s': 5 900 1 � "~\\ �. .; r> e a -, .`�.' ?�\\ S NORFOLX ST • $ �1y he Im,e = x S "Ij 1/00. 0 'y0 A •� -/p -4A ti ' I\\ i S U2EL ST CO <ISiO3RD. f � ~ S • $T IFIIili S ,3RD ST Ml`I \V\ L' > S: r /t - 100 SSN sr ,• < TN h I0116 $T )` - `] S ,'� zit ."P r� Yla t. S*{ t 1 ,\� «- t- ;iL \\-a} S$: l'.).,'\\' L -. ^, -< < .. s m =.la N 1 < o$ LES $ �` y. S I 'Kt\ Tf -._. -. x..,r .:. �1arm- O. STd 5 ., w.,,,,,:.;,.. 01 � CV!,1,2;110lL•1L! - '-- ‘\ 'L6t%r• `.fhS, ssjmY J"svf�7tga`.-1 p j`'.r'' ; t n 875S v:•.1:.;:: E �e,�.•�3�,,-, .1 1 t �� T� . .. . :. ��\3 i \ , ..6.0 W:7'; ,s 1 TN •izs'ST JLI Y3'Ypt. Q: ,y L } YF 41 ft. TsI.xs ~C! {.>•t11 r4'Cf 1{ VI [ ;r +". II [p{� IIM S \.ne. s6;?�•%112LN ST i".a'�' S 12TH• ffII 1 T\' \\ i' ,"\Z,yn i �i S> 7NJ.•'. 1: 7}LTN- A \5• F .1. of 1,•1:4.' Lh Lk '` 1x 3PL�5\V L� • 7,,,, LEO �D` "ii:'t` s / 44../. YFH111TN ;jL;:4, e1 \�* S A S 5�. 115TH 4�pr � i o h ,a 161„ aQ:.• S • 15TH -ST, 15M��\� N:. •- L Roti'--�'„+..-�. :.^.\\\ •S 11. • 116TH CT i s A.2 N 0 2400 DoCANISH 4800 P•n1 44314r. SCALE IN FEET Reference: This map reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. This map is copyrighted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. pi:, Geo Engineers • �`4/ VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 ,os) 20230.DWG Concrete Pad Building 2-80 B-1 EXPLANATION: Building H 2-86 Building 2-84 Building 2-83 I I Building 2-87 B_1+ BORING NUMBER AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION ti 0 1 800 1600 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. GeoEn Engineers j SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 0) m Ul0 0 r KBLSGEN.CDR LABORATORY TESTS: AL CP CS DS GS %F HA SK SM MD SP TX UC CA Atterberg limits Compaction Consolidation Direct shear Grain - size Percent fines Hydrometer analysis Permeability Moisture content Moisture and density Swelling pressure Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Chemical analysis BLOW-COUNT/SAMPLE DATA: Blows required to drive a 2.4 -inch I.D. split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 300 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. _ Blows required to drive a 1.5 -inch I.D. (SPT) split -barrel sampler 12 inches or other indicated distances using a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches. "P" indicates sampler pushed with weight of hammer or against weight of drill rig. SOIL GRAPH: SM Soil Group Symbol (See Note 2) Distinct Contact Between Soil Strata Gradual or Approximat Location of Change Between Soil Strata Water Level Bottom of Boring 22 ■ Location of relatively undisturbed sample 12 ® Location of disturbed sample 17 0 Location of sampling attempt with no recovery 10 0 Location of sample obtained in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D-1586) procedures 26 m Location of SPT sampling attempt with no recovery ® Location of grab sample NOTES: 1. The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text, the Key to Boring Log Symbols and the exploration logs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 2. Soil classification system is included. Geo !Engineers KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS FIGURE 3 DLH:MSR:vc: 0120-230-37 0 T1' z DEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA • BORING B-1 • Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol 0— 5- 10- 15- 20- 25-1 30- 35— MD 7 95 MD 39 77 MD 34 87 SM,%F 39 SM,%F 27 SM,%F 25 SM,%F 32 _ SM,%F 33% 40 — 11 6 3 6 0 24 0 39 34 38 0 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): 15.0 feet SP Gray fine sand with a trace of silt (medium dense, moist) OL Brown organic silt (medium stiff, moist) SM Gray silty fine sand (very loose, wet) SP Gray fine silty sand (loose, wet) (timber shards) % passing 11200, 21% Gray fine sand with a trace of silt (medium dense, wet % passing 3.5% SP -SM Gray fine sand with silt (dense, moist) % passing 5.78 r. J Note: See Figure for explanation of symbols Gray fine to medium sand with silt (dense, moist) % passing 80 % passing 10% —0 —5 — 10 — 15 — 20 — 25 — 30 —35 — 40 Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE 4 DLH:MSR:vc: 11/13/97 OM ME 0120-230-37 DEPTH IN FEET 40 TEST DATA. • Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING ,B-1 (Continued) • DESCRIPTION 45 — 50- 55- 60— MD 0— MD 38 86 MD 33 87 MD 33 87 MD 34 84 16 9 8 10 SM. SP -SM Gray silty fine sand (medium dense, wet) Gray fine sand with silt and a trace of organic material (loose, wet) Gray fine sand with silt and a trace of organic material (loose, wet) Gray fine sand with silt (loose, wet) Boring completed at a depth of 58.5 on 10/24/97 Ground water encountered at an approximate depth of 10.0 feet below ground surface during drilling 40 —45 — 50 —55 — 60 65— —65 70— — 70 75— —75 80— — 80 Note: See Figure for explanation of symbols „I.. Geo kiO Eng ineers ®a® LOG OF BORING FIGURE 4. Cityof Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director February 10, 1998 Rick Ford, Permit Coordinator Mike Prittie, Construction Administrator Boeing Commercial Airplane Group P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 VIA FAX: 206-655-5043 Re: Environmental Review (SEPA) Application at 8123 East Marginal Way South Tukwila File No. E98-0003 Gentlemen: We have received and reviewed your documentation for the above -referenced application, submitted to us on February 2, 1998 by Larry Allen. Your application packet for SEPA has been found to be incomplete. In order to begin processing your applications there are additional items that must be submitted to the Department of Community Development. These items are itemized below. ITEMS REQUIRED BY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 1. Two additional sets of the full size plans. Eight sets are required but only six sets were submitted. 2. One PMT set of plans reduced to 8.5" x 11". 3. Four copies of supporting studies, such as geotechnical and -environmental -studies. .1 One copy of the completed SEPA Application Checklist (see attached). One set of mailing labels listing the owners of record for all properties within 500 feet of the boundaries (not the center) of the subject property (see Attachment A). 6. One set of mailing labels listing the residents or businesses of any property within 500 feet of the subject property if they are different from the land owners (see Attachment A). 7 One copy of an assessor's map(s) showing the boundaries of the subject property and the 500 foot radius (see Attachment A). 8. A 4' x 4' public notice board will be required on the site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Attachment 8). 9. Completed Property Owner Declaration (see attached form). Rick Ford & Mike Prittie February 10, 1998 Re: E98-0003 (SEPA) Page 2 Upon receipt of these items, the City will continue processing your applications. These applications will expire if we do not receive the additional information within 90 days of the date of this letter, unless an extension is granted pursuant to Section 18.104.070(E) of the Tukwila Municipal Code. If you should have any questions regarding the within, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 431-3663. Sincerely, Deborah Ritter Assistant Planner cc: Joanna Spencer, Public Works Nick Olivas, Fire Department • ATTACHMENT lJ4 CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 ADDRESS LABEL REQUIREMENTS The City of Tukwila requires that neighboring residents, businesses and property owners be notified of certain types of pending applications in order to encourage citizen participation in the land use process. Applicants are therefore required to submit the following materials: • Mailing labels listing the owners of record for all property within 500 feet of the boundaries (not the center) of the applicant's site (2 sets). • Mailing labels listing the residents or businesses of any property within 500 feet of the property if they are different from the land owners (2 sets). • One copy of an assessor's map(s) showing the boundaries of the subject property and the 500 foot radius. ,Nn:.s�. Property owner names and addresses can be obtained from the King County Department of Assessment located on the 7th floor of the King County Administration Building, Room 700, 500 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. To compile the information required: • Obtain the assessor's map(s) which contain(s) your property and all neighboring properties within 500 feet (See example diagram). You may use the maps on file in the Assessor's Office or purchase a set from the King County Department of Public Works Map Counter on the 9th floor of the Administration Building. Purchased maps must be ordered several hours in advance of the time you would like to pick them up. • After securing the assessor's maps, obtain a "Real Estate Inquiry Batch Request Sheet" from the Department of Assessment. On this form provide the tax account number for each affected property as shown on the assessor's map(s) and submit the completed form to the Department of Assessment with the appropriate fee. Applicants can request that the information be printed in mailing label form or on standard paper. To obtain occupants/resident/business names and addresses, consult the Kroll maps located in the Tukwila Department of Community Development and then visit the site to determine resident names and unit numbers. The information on the mailing labels may refer to "Resident" or "Tenant", with the proper mailing address, if the specific name is unknown. ItTACHMENT BO CITY OF TUKWILA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 PUBLIC INFORMATION SIGNS Public Information Signs are intended to make the public aware of land use and development actions which are being considered by the City and to facilitate timely and effective public participation in the review process. SIGN INSTALLATION AND SPECIFICATIONS Sign Size and Placement The sign(s) shall be 4'x4' in size, placed no closer than five (5) feet from the right-of-way at the mid -point of the more heavily traveled public street fronting the property (see Figure 1). A minimum of one sign is required at each project site. Additional signs may be required for larger sites or for properties with several street frontages. The signs) cannot be located within the clear vision area (site triangle) depicted in Figure 2. The sign shall be prepared using the official templates provided in this packet or attachable letters. Hand lettered signs are not acceptable. Signs meeting the established criteria may be obtained from any professional sign company. Signs Now in Tukwila (206) 271-5465 and Fast Signs in Seattle (206) 368-7331 are two sign companies providing this service. You may consult the yellow pages to obtain quotes from other sign companies. Sign Content Include the following information on your sign(s) (see Figure 1 for correct layout). • The title "Notice of Land Use Action". • Type of land use or development action which is proposed. • Name of the proposed project. • Address of project site. • Name of the Applicant. • City of Tukwila logo (copy attached). • City of Tukwila address and phone number. • A graphic or written description of the site boundaries, and space for the Notice of Application and Notice of Public Hearing. • Additional information as the Director of Community Development may determine to be necessary to adequately notify the public of the pending land use application. 7/2/96 4' NOTICE OF LAND USE ACTION lype of Action: Project Name: Site Address: Applicant: Site Map 21'x14' Lingneed Notice of Application 8.5' x 14' Lamineet Publlc Notice 8.5' x 14' Laminrrad TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER AT (206) 431-3070 AAwb Rornhp 06patner* 6310 Sau cor"u 14A. 1Jwla. WA 96166 See Figure 4 for a copy of the City seal. • Top of Notice Sign shall be T to 9' above grade 7to9feet SIGN MATERIALS — Use 4'x4'x12' Post — Use 4'x4' Plywood — Use 1/2" x 3" GaIv. Lag Bolts W/ Washers SIGN LETTERINQ • — Use Helvetica Lettering. — Black Lettering on White Background for all but the Board Title. Red Lettering on White Background for the Board Title "Notice of Land Use Action". — Logo 8 inch. Diameter — See Figure 3 fo'r lettering sizes and placement PUBLIC NOTICE BOARD EXAMPLE TPosts should be placed 2I6" no Tess than 2 feet 1 6 Inches below grade. Baker Street Notice Slpn stat be boated at ale midpoint of ale Slle 16061 6oNope PUBLIC NOTICE BOARD SIGN LOCATION EXAMPLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT The applicant shall be solely responsible for the construction, installation, maintenance and removal of the notification signs) and the associated costs. The sign(s) shall be erected no later than fourteen (14) days after the Department of Community Development has issues the Notice of Completeness and will remain erected until the date specified by the Department. The applicant shall sign an affidavit, stating that the sign (s) were installed and posted in accordance with all City codes and ordinances. The affidavit of posting shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development by the applicant within fourteen (14) days following the issuance of the notice of completeness . If the sign is made illegible, removed or otherwise destroyed prior to the date of the final public hearing or final action by the City of Tukwila, the applicant is responsible for the immediate replacement of the sign. Failure to maintain the notice board in good condition is cause for the discontinuance of the review of the application until the notice board is replaced and remains in place for a specified time period. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The Department shall provide the applicant with all information necessary for the installation of the public notification board. These materials include a copy of the City logo, size and material requirements, and illustrated examples of a posting board. The Department will also determine the type of decision being rendered for this application and specify to the applicant the duration of the posting period. The Department shall post the Notice of Hearing on any posted notice board(s) erected pursuant to TMC 18.104.110 at least 14 days prior to any public hearings on Type 3, 4 and 5 decisions, open record appeal hearings on Type 2 decisions and closed appeal hearings on Type 4 decisions. No signs or sign supports which obscure vision between the heights of 3 and 10 feet within 40 feet of the intersection of streets or driveways will be allowed. S GN SIGN bl DI • • is um 0 Figure #2 7/.196 4 1908 8" Dia 2.75" (Lettering, Red) NOTICE OF LAND USE ACTION 15" (Lettering) Type of Action: Project Name: Site Address: Applicant: Site Map (11" x 14") (Boxes included on sign) (8.5" x 14") 1.5" (Lettering) TO SUBMIT COMMENTS OR OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER AT (206) 431-3670 Tukwila Planning Division 6300 Southcenter Blvd. Tukwila, WA 98188 10" (Lettering) • Figure #3 Figure #4 ECISION TYPE r • Typo`. 16441E06! Type 2 decision ape 3;';4 `or 6'decl;�on or any project requiring Shorline Substantial )evebpment Permit ON-SITE POSTING PERIODS DURATION OF POSTING PERIOD 1 (or projects triggering SEPA review, posting shall take place wtthtn 14 days otter notice of completeness until the later of (1) 14 days otter the Issuance of a decision, or (2) the date of any administrative appeal \ hearing. The Public Notice Board shall be posted fora minimum of 30 days. REMOVAL OF POSTING BOARD Applicant Is responsible for removing the posting board In a timely matter In accordance with the time limit described In the °Duration of Posting Period" section. 6/27/96 J • City of Tukwila Department of Community Development November 5, 1997 Keith Fareta The Boeing Co. P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, Wa 98134 John W Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director Re: Request for amending of SEPA determination regarding demolition of buildings at 8123 E. Marginal Way S. (E97-0032) Dear Mr. Fareta: We received your request to amend the SEPA determination, as referenced above, to include a 9,800 square foot partial demolition of the annex and mezzanine area -of the 2-62 building at 8123 E. Marginal Way S. It would appear that, based on your request and our subsequent review, the scope of work is consistent with those authorized under the SEPA determination. Accordingly, the determination is amended to include this demolition as well. The application for this demolition, File No. MI97-0190, will continue to be processed. I will notify Kelcie Petersen, the city's Permit Coordinator, that the SEPA determination has been amended for this project. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner cc: Larry.Allen • 6100 Snrrthrantar RnrrlaVarri inito Hint-) • Tukwila Wachinatnn O.Q15:111 • /7n/51 211.?A711 • Pay- i21715r 4 1-1MS RECEIVED CITY OF TUKWILA NOV 041997 PERMIT CENTER Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Keith Faretra The Boeing Co. P.O. Box 3707 M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98134 RE: Additional information required for revision to SEPA determination, 2-62 building. Dear Michael, As was discussed with Larry Allen, the permit we have requested is for the partial demolition of the 2-62 building. In order to complete the permitting process, we have provided additional information about the buildings historical and future use, The 2-62 building is located on the west side of East Margina�YWay approximately 1500 feet south of the 16`h Ave. bridge. The street address is $ East Marginal Way South (Tax ID 000160-0020). The building is located approximately 1000 feet to the east of the Duwamish waterway on zero degree sloping property. The site is zoned for heavy industrial manufacturing. The 8900 square foot area to be demolished is an annex of the 2-62 building. The annex was constructed approximately 35 years ago. The siding and canopy of the annex is metal. Inside the annex is a mezzanine that runs from east to west along the northwest corner of the area to be demolished. There are no utilities in the annex or mezzanine. The mezzanine will be demolished. After demolition of the annex and mezzanine the site will be paved. If you have any questions or need additional information please call Larry Allen at 544-1644. Sincerely, Keith Faretra City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director October 24, 1997 Larry Allen The Boeing Co. P.O. Box 3707 M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98134 Re: Revision to SEPA determination concerning demolition of 11 structures (E97-0032) Dear Larry: You had requested that the SEPA determination, as referenced above, be amended to allow for the partial demolition of another building within the area approved under the subject determination. Based upon our discussions and my review of the proposed area indicated in Attachment A, we can issue an Addendum to the original determination, under WAC 197-11-706. To complete this process, please submit a letter explaining the changes that includes the building name, its location and size, the area of demolition and other related factors that are specific to this additional action. There will be no fee for the amendment to your original SEPA checklist. Once this has been receive, the determination can be amended accordingly. As we also discussed, a new separate permit for this demolition must be obtained. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at 431-3685. Sincerely, Michael Jenkins Assistant Planner calmsoffice...sepa\9732amen.doc 6300 Southcenter Bnulevarri .Sritte 0100 • Tukwila Wach/nor,n OR1 RR • /7017) 411-1h7n • Fay- 170171 d31- /M PRELIMINARY LEGEND v INSIDE PARKING OUTSIDE PARKING 1ST SHIFT OUTSIDE PARKING 2ND SHIFT 96 TEWORARY STALLS • PERCENTAGE STALL 1,03COUNT OFTOTAL6 DISPERSED INSIDE PARKING AREA 3,063 70Z 111 OOUTSIIDEYPARKING,LOTNTIT 248 6X (iue Q�NTETYARKING,LOT f TOTAL SITE 4,347 150 600 1200 V=1 -30 -0 -1 -q0 -17517C NORTH BOEING FIELD MASTER PLAN - 1990 EXISTING PARKING INVENTORY 'FIGURE 8,4 CITY OF TUKWILA DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE (DNS) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: DEMOLITION OF 11 STRUCTURES AT PLANT 2: BUILDING #2-69 BUILDING #2-70 BUILDING #2-71 BUILDING #2-77 BUILDING #2-78 BUILDING #2-82 BUILDING #2-95 BUILDING #2-106 BUILDING #2-108 BUILDING #2-282 BUILDING #2-89 PROPONENT: LARRY ALLEN LOCATION OF PROPOSAL, INCLUDING STREET ADDRESS, IF ANY: ADDRESS: 8123 EAST MARGINAL WY S PARCEL NO: 000160-0020 SEC/TWN/RNG: LEAD AGENCY: CITY OF TUKWILA FILE NO: E97-0032 The City has determined that the. proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. ******************************,******************************************** This determination is final and signed this C1424= day of 6- [Hfl •2 199 7. Steve Lancaster, Responsible Official City of Tukwila, (206) 431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 Copies of the procedures for SEPA appeals are available with the Department of Community Development. To: From: Date: Re: City of Tukwila John W. Rants, Mayor Department of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director MEMORANDUM Steve Lancaster Michael Jenkins September 22, 1997 E97-0032, SEPA review of application by The Boeing Co. Project Description: This SEPA review is for the demolition of 11 structures located at 8123 East Marginal Way S. The structures are: 2-89 12,600 square feet 2-69 3,734 2-70 2,877 2-108 8,880 2-282 2,776 2-106 1,689 2-95 1,177 2-82 5,137 2-77/78 4,644 2-71 1,000 Agencies with jurisdiction: None Comments to SEPA checklist: Pg. 5, section 2(a): A permit from PSAPCA will be required prior to issuing of demolitions permits. Pg. 17, section 16(a): A permit to cap water and sewer services will be required from Public Works Summary of Primary Impacts: • Earth Soils are primarily sand and silt with no significant slope. up to 30 cubic yards of fill may be used on voids left by demolitions. 100% of the sites will be turned into impervious surfaces 6300Southr•enter Rnulevarrl Suite #100 • Tvkwfla_ Wachlnvtnn OR1RR • f206) 4?1-3670 • Fax /206) 431-3665 E97-0032 SEPA Checklist - The Boeing Co. - Demolitions 8123 East Marginal Way S. September 22, 1997 • Air Some dust may be generated by demolitions activities. A permit from the Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency (PSAPCA) will be obtained and must be presented prior to receiving demolition permit from City of Tukwila. • Water Buildings are located directly East of the Duwamish River, outside the Shoreline Zone. No dredging or filling of surface waters will occur. No diversions of surface water will occur. Project is not in a 100 year floodplain. No ground water will be withdrawn nor will waste materials be discharged into the ground. Runoff will be accommodated in existing storm water system. • Plants No vegetation will be disturbed • Animals No known species or migration routes nearby. • Energy/Natural Resources Other than machinery needed to complete demolitions, no energy will be used. • Environmental Health No known environmental health hazards will occur as a result of demolitions. Demolition will be limited to daylight hours to limit affect of noise crated by demolitions. • Land/Shoreline Use Site is zoned Manufacturing Industrial Center High (MIC/H). Site is used as an airplane manufacturing facility. Structures to be demolished are listed above in project description. Site is not classified as environmentally sensitive. • Housing No housing is proposed nor will development reduce housing. • Aesthetics No impacts. E97-0032 SEPA Checklist - The Boeing Co. - Demolitions 8123 East Marginal Way S. September 22, 1997 • Light and Glare No impacts. • Recreation No impacts. • Historic/Cultural Preservation No known places or landmarks. • Transportation East Marginal Way S. is closest public street, within 100 feet of project. No parking spaces will be eliminated. No new streets will be required nor will trips be generated after project is completed. • Public Services Proposed demolitions will not impact or require specific public services. • Utilities Buildings currently have storm water and sewer services. A Public Works permit to cap utilities will be required. Recommendation: DNS Corrective Measures Study Work Plan Boeing Plant 2 Seattle/Tukwila, Washington. Submitted To: The Boeing Company Boeing Information Support Services Safety, Health, and Environmental. Affairs August 1997 �:i -tii V vim 1 v BASEMAP EXPLANATION FLAW ROTH U. 0 b - .1* mil NOTES N Facility Boundary A/ Building A ' Former Boeing Building .... :. Non-BoeIng Building Bulkhead Road ."....f Rallroad P. 1 Fence i sa . - 1 SCALE 1:6061 100 0 100 200 300 400 4 11:ICIIIIIIII Feet Boeing Plant 2 wi .war, zacm.i, l DATE: December 10, 1908 12:40 PM JOB NUMBER: 03709-034-160-0010 LEAD OIS ANALYST: K. Palmer VIEW FILE: tacILvlew CHECKED BY: Facility Map FIGURE 1 Ns . . APPROVED BY: • • Corrective Measures Study Work Plan Section 4 • Soil treatment technology performance effectiveness • Interference from underground utilities • Soil properties Groundwater issues may be more numerous than soil issues as a result of wider COC dispersion in groundwater, mobility, COC removal difficulties from soil matrices, and other factors. Potential technical groundwater issues to be discussed in the CMS may include the following: • Placement of sparging/extraction wells • Fouling (iron, calcium or other insoluble inorganic species) • Time required to remediate the affected aquifer • Interference from underground utilities • Settlement due to physical containment wall installation • Treatment of extracted groundwater to meet discharge requirements • Distribution of in situ oxidation agents Sediment alternatives are not anticipated to be as complex as soil or groundwater alternatives. Sediment alternatives are anticipated to be focused on no action (natural recovery), containment, habitat mitigation and on-site disposal. Potential sediment technical issues that may be evaluated during the CMS include the following: • Maintaining water quality during the corrective action • Cap erosion • Disposal site construction requirements • Intertidal sediment removal • Cap structural stability • Water treatment requirements • Potential for transport of COCs from upstream off -Facility areas onto recently remediated sections of the waterway 4.3.2 Administrative Several administrative issues may need to be resolved prior to implementing the selected soil corrective actions. These issues will be discussed and may include the following: (1) waste code designation for the affected soil to support off-site disposal, (2) jurisdiction between Seattle and Tukwila over work that crosses city limits, (3) King County waste flow control restrictions, (4) implementation of institutional controls, and 5) long-term monitoring and reporting requirements. 97-702w.s4 4-7 19 August 1997 • • Corrective ;1 /ensures .S'ludv 11.ork Plan Section 4 Permits may be required by federal, state, or local agencies such as the EPA, Ecology, King County, the City of Seattle, Army Corps of Engineers, Natural Resource Trustees, and the City of Tukwila. Permits that may be needed for remediation of the Facility soil will be further identified in the CMS Report. The possible permits for soil remediation that may be required are, but not limited to, the following: • City of Seattle/Tukwila Grading Permit • Coastal Zone Management Consistency Determination (EPA or Ecology)—for projects located in counties within the coastal zone • Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Authority (PSAPCA)— for remedial actions that remove pollutants in the soil by volatilization • Shoreline Development Permit—may be needed for work within 200 feet of the shoreline • State Environmental Policy Act Permit (Ecology)—a SEPA Checklist may need to be filled out and filed • RCRA Part B permit—this permit may be needed if a treatment, storage, or disposal facility is operated on the site Administrative issues may need to be resolved in order to implement the selected groundwater corrective action. These issues may include the following: (1) City of Seattle/Tukwila jurisdiction over actions that cross city boundaries, (2) designation of treated water to allow local disposal, (3) future groundwater use, (4) reagent addition to in snit groundwater, (5) permitting for long- term operation of a wastewater treatment plant, and (6) long-term monitoring. Permits to implement groundwater alternatives may be required by the same agencies as stated above for soil remediation. Possible permits for groundwater remediation that may be required include, but are not limited to, the following: • Well Installation Permit—may be needed for the installation of groundwater extraction wells. • Water Rights Permit—may be needed before removal of groundwater from the aquifer • Grading Permit—may be required for soil removal to support containment wall or piping installation work • CZM Consistency Determination (EPA or Ecology)—for projects located in counties within the coastal zone • State Water Pollution Control Act (Ecology)—for remedial actions involving discharges into surface and ground water 97-702w.s4 4-8 19 August 1997 Corrective ,Measures Study Work • Section 4 • Metro District Wastewater Discharge Ordinance (City of Seattle)—for remedial actions involving discharges to publicly -owned treatment works (POTWs) • State Discharge Permit Program, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (Ecology)—for direct discharges of treated groundwater generated as part of the remedial action • PSAPCA Permit—for remedial actions that may remove groundwater pollutants by air stripping • Building Permits—may be needed for construction of wastewater treatment facilities or containment structures Sediment corrective action administrative issues will be discussed and may include the following: (1) determination of which entity has waterway ownership rights and will need to grant permission for the work, (2) work periods that do not interfere with fish migration/spawning, (3) location of the sediment confined aquatic disposal/nearshore disposal facility, (4) long-term monitoring, and (5) habitat mitigation requirements. Possible permits for sediment remediation that may be required include, but are not limited to: • Shoreline Development Permit (City of Tukwila)—for construction and development near shorelines • 401 Certification (EPA or Ecology)—needed to ensure water quality is maintained during in -water work • CZM Consistency Determination (EPA or Ecology)—for projects located in counties within the coastal zone • Hydraulics Permit Application (HPA) (WA Dept. of Fisheries)—for any project that may interfere with the natural flow of surface water • Right of Entry (WA DNR)—needed if DNR has jurisdiction over the river bottom • State Discharge Permit Program, NPDES Program (Ecology)—needed for direct discharges to surface water conducted as part of the remedial action • Clean Water Act, Dredge and Fill Requirements Under Sections 401 and 404 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)—required as part of the remedial action for dredge and fill operations and construction in navigable waters • Rivers and Harbors Appropriations Act (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)—needed for construction of marinas, piers, and outfall pipes, and for dredging, filling, etc. below the mean high-water line in navigable waters. 97-702w.s4 4-9 19 August 1997 Corrective ,1 /ensures Study /k Plan Section 4 This list may not include all permits that may be required to implement soil, sediment, or groundwater corrective action alternatives. Federal, state, and local agencies will be contacted and a complete list of the necessary permits will be included in the CMS Report to the extent possible. 4.4 COST ESTIMATE AND SCHEDULE 4.4.1 Capital Cost Estimate A detailed capital cost estimate will be prepared for the recommended soil, groundwater, and sediment corrective actions. This estimate will add an additional level of detail to the estimate provided earlier in the CMS Report. The purpose of this estimate is to provide a more accurate cost of the recommended alternative to verify no significant items have been overlooked. Below is a listing of some of the components that may be included in the soil, groundwater, and sediment capital cost estimates: • Soil — Mobilization Surveys Equipment costs — Materials Mobile office rental and supplies Small tools and equipment Bonds and insurance Decontamination facilities Utility installation — Demobilization Site preparation work (concrete, steel) Health and safety instrumentation — Institutional controls Engineering Project management • Groundwater — Mobilization — Extraction/sparging wells — Equipment costs — Pipeline costs Containment wall costs Wastewater treatment equipment Utility installation 97-702w.s4 4-10 19 August 1997 97-714w.cvr Submitted To: The Boeing Company Boeing Information Support Services Safety, Health and Environmental Affairs August 1997 • j • • stix 04 ties ih ‘•• • r. ' ••?, n, • • s•;* i • • :3 'V•‘ • .P N • It Ajte*ner•Da....—: tt% 114•4.,$ n 1 • . 1,, .:,. •,. . ,_.,„ T, , !: = , ‘• r- . , • .. ....-1 t ., .a, c; ee.,,.,,, . :7..7. ........... 7:........0:-.4....ki ..... ...... N .. :.: . ...; • i . ,L...• .. ,..1., , II ' • \ ; . , • •; ; t --k41L• ••• .1:.• -'..,1-1•1-11j..' 17.1 \ ".4t r: 1. • .,••• •:. r•-1 1111 ._Z..i., ! .1 c..le •-r,;,...• CFR AM ,•• ''.. .,i • . . I - ..•'-, tt---r---' : ' r - H : --- ... ..:,..,. ......-.-..TS..'...:r \ -10ParfC , .; ii.......f.._. .._...... I.• 4 Itt..w ••• . . $ • 1 \ t,, ....,74••• 1.. i. ti Alk \. ..... ,, ........ •-..4 \ •\ '.....1.4 1 -4, /;',4 N.I . ' P'cl.r.vVF;F.t.,-.••1•STt II ••••••••• -• • • i i 'Trfe'Fi4,N'&11 I • eitt.,•• —",.•""+"--, k :-. . • -•,•f li• •--:"..1 c. : t`, v.: \ •-tI '`r _,.• 1 ••• \ t: l ' ' •.:;.. 1, I . ‘•••• c:-: i :t •.:1? -/„Ii• ;', '. ‘•,....° ‘c.• ••••••Ve•terl:7,' i SP ;' 1-4. • *iir,k5 tr.' ''t•••••• • • •• •• A •• • • „ -r La. .... Ok.‘: 1"--\ • .40\ 'ti LIY " I•"•lc" , v • ".• , ....... ... • Ef+.4h/AL. • • ' (4 •Zt. . •••'• • 7•7.7-e- OP • ?k,L.L.A.11. I • t;j. Z• NA•\*•:•ek • • • . ••• n 0 250 500 750 1000 • - st `I —4- -•••••=1--.Slii?Niii- •••e.'' ; \ • : • • : Scale in Meters iG le Contour Interval iIn Meters kJ-- • Source. USGS 7.5 x 15 Minute Quadrangle. ‘;‘J tte..; Seatle South. 1983 44 fi •• • `.0°.7 •• %•.•• "tip C. • WETl S - VA% -)b 1 Il kINV;0111 011110MENISCONNULTPI f 3709-34-300-3508 July 1996 4J Facility Location Map Boeing Plant 2 Seattle/Tukwila, WA FIGURE 2-1 L i.. 77 6WY•J21121 FW261.11 Ar 31� 6Wtt.J J•e• 34 J 7 4, 31 0 SNVU771 41--r OM T. Tm1Arnra awuir 7q •.y ! N I,. Baldry/ . •oc 101/101 I 7 297 0 O 7.6C 14 6PVJ7. •'- N.1 2 6,1 ■ 2-83 o 76e 6J 00 ■ Nt1741 D .Jorgensen Forge Company BASEMAP EXPLANATION N Facility Boundary N SWMU/AOC / V Building Aft Former Boeing Building Non -Boeing Building Building Bulkhead Sheet Pile Alignment Fence Storm Drain ONO IN + 1501013/C0tRI �a,s SYMBOL EXPLANATION o Non -Detect p Sample location not exceeding PMCLs • Sample location exceeding PMCLs NO� p Soil sample p Groundwater sample * Sediment sample (Numerical PMCLs not developed for sediment) DATE: August 16, 1997 4:06 PM JOB NUMBER: 03709.034300-3820 LEAD GIS ANALYST: K. Palmer VIEW FILE: allpmclexod.vlew CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: SCALE 1.2660 60 0 60 103 160 203 tiL-==-111M1 Peel Boeing Piet 2 NOTES BoeingPlant 2 Groundwater and Soil Samples Exceeding Proposed Media Cleanup Levels 85.8WY0 • 11 II ■ 0A22A: Outfall 11i1 a Area OA«� .. ¢12 and B din ai.4• yetlstch 1 12-03 A r OA17, Transformer Vauhs PL2-321k ,- Ro44pl pA14. Building GP•044o2 -^� •49 Machine P11 l„AM Former ErL2 039A 2-51 el •31}'� UBTe PL16,17,1e OA sW U 78.8 jJ7�.•.' + 9•08821 OP�828 ] 9P•48820 6P•04001 18l1a,‘ •:�...EE2 028 1:1,C2•6158 P12.028C ( I GP -088246 088210 4A Qe • 2-49 P•04902 417: Tran onne Vaults r: C12.013A I PL2 GP•0882t1•`J' �P•oee41 WP SWSW, L2.009E P20 DA, �PQ.P1 e 2PL 9912.O 2• •00 P12•Jrb1I • OP•0883 qA 11: Budding 2.72 Area A P•08803 dE • sWfdr cf1.2•JF02A c9P-°8835 &P•OA115 \ .L2•JF03A \ 0 08831 I AOC 2•ee 59 +28k4113.42105 ,r;?12.0288I -08820 PL2 626 ; c.,"'4�6. Building Igg8011 e^t2•020AI 012A Ef12'4 2.011A 023A AC C 2 6 OP•044033 SWMU 78 d1P•08401 5 5TP•06504 2.325A SWMU 2-66 50 2-t50' 0 • WMU 2-64 48 GP -0820 0Al2• Building _„0Al2* 3�Area PL2314Ai S 2.84.49 SWMU 7 P•08301 e12.31 E A 315 62 �` K di -08303 • d,P-08502 A1:13 tiding 2.6e 8 uthwe Er12.0 2A r • .: PL2.032*".L2: 3A ae •09 0 C\P•06697� d1P•06836 '/. ;, P•09114 L2.0028 108.73 IV 2 004A �• 2.&sgg 108J]OB I II 2.282 SWMU ,40'•. r: r 6g -b630; 70 55 27cL ;2.317A 9.08203 YA1 P•081,02 4 0,3 ;< 1 t I - f I ' I: I 318C .AOC 262.45 2 18A P•08208 , PL2 318 P•06205 ; . ! �y P 8201 i ^lr L ! G I OP -08300 •, w ❑ ! I diQ A8 07 j I I Y AOC 2.62.43 ' ` I x p B/ 2 i 1! I '. :,f, f 3 I ,_� P•083 88 2-62 ! ! • 'I SWMU 2.53.47 � ! i _ I i ( cP•06501 2.69 7A 6P-0300018 L d AOC 2.80.56 \&P.06.40 P• \ 78.5 diP-08109 OP•09113:'1 +."rjP-09108 • 9P-09112 •r P12.1 GP•0800 6atis0a '<rd PL GP -0910' GP -0911 GP -09105• .EJf+P-00111 GP -080 d6P-08307 sp12.303A 2-80 0P48,001 SWMU 2.80.07 6 ai L2- 05A ' j. - 0A3: Former i I 1/::!! OA10: Former A t I U 2.68 CJ, PL20 > t k i... •\ \ \ rX l'1' EfI0301A I .....x.. "PL2.302A /tOC 2.86.63 U8T PL -23 2-86 '1 -l20A 0 ".. 2 1]]2.113A 2B 2.91.70 2-114A GPl tA36115A 2.110C Ci. OP -09107 \)./.. '.� 2-110A epp.09104'\ „°,ASWMU 78.1 \` oPsello GP+09901 foP•091 O8 .17 GP -08902® Jorgensen Forge Company `k/ ,•x....x+. ....1'•2-tb3A x ala [ : t+; i • i 4 2.84 L •104C L -104A 2-87 � '\ • e. Pl2.10: er 1111■ PL2-108B �{ 2'1P6A MU 71 -109.A' �li PL 1+ 2•lOeAa ; --a \ . 88118.82 7 OP -0800P 2-104 ---� '< OA 16: Central Waste f tar 2%05C 't1.2.10k. L2.105A SWMU 70 ', P12.101 l ;f /ii / ,7 2-83 /:t ; r/a/� i i7 *AOC 2-84.82 7 (;r 1 •t:? :t?Y it//7 • 1 `7 i i'''i''''‘.''' Q xi,i i'>J, • / g ifL2- A t'1 OP -0800 101Aj" dL2.11l /. 1 GP -08.g08 \ 905 r. i / / 7 .1 / / .r k/ P12•BF01b, EXPLANATION N Facility Boundary ii Point of Compliance Boundary N Building N SWMU/AOC '• Non -Boeing Building /4\/ Building Bulkhead/Fill Boundary At Sheet Pile Alignment PLAI7r N08Th 44-a•� CU C) la 1 NOTES o Non -Detect 0 Detected but not > PMCLs 0 Detected and > PMCLS 0 Seep Sample o Level A Monitoring Well A Level B Monitoring Well 1'r Level C Monitoring Well 0 Geoprobe Sample 1) Groundwater- Most Recent, All Depths 2) Historical and RFI Groundwater SCALE 1:1800 60 0 60 100 160 I 1t; _■ Feet Boeing Plant 2 rl{; WFS IMAO 45 t O15e7dA5/f.GAAA IAAI% DATE: July 16,19974:00 PM JOB NUMBER: 03709.034.300.3643 LEAD QIS ANALYST: K, Palmer VIEW FILE: pmclwatall.vlew CHECKED BY: Boeing Plant 2 Historical and RFI Water Samples Exceeding Proposed Media Cleanup Figure Levels 3c APPROVED BY: 0,4I P7•. 1 re89[' 6 0404 „Pl2 137 • i (a4 t'12 pnd .9 1(otphx i i i I 8 ---- 7 -049f�'S 8`6000 �.-0:902049 7 .4,91 b C5'81911ki912 2-49 rc l t fltdlrliot x•49 Machine 8:04908 804910 8.04915 (8+04918•••2 58.0880 ••c 58.04905 a. 081:813 1 0 4A W0 SB•06818J6•S 68.0880i 58,0 81 88013.-- _. 6 �12-02eA- gg 1'?7Ertr5 2028 -�B•06813 O (f12 3218 • (--1(-- OA9 Former 2-51 mcf12.311, USTs PL16,17,1e Stl1'i'U 78.8 58.04417x\ S8:04 -4110 --.-/ SB 0442(0 ••8.049 4 i 01417: Tran ormar Vfluits -512.013A r. c;.'08 06624 cp8.08623 'PL2.008C col eaPe9€8_,.._.., 8.8. 2 0- 88.0 268- 101tRAD • P12-021 C 2., cfi8 0662 Pl2 00� PL2 9 Cr 11. B-.iiding PZ � .1.72 Arda C. -06807- dB -08814 , ,OA2: Building 8.54c-02.' 2-66 Snil `18.06608 ''12-020A r'( S8•)8840 ._ c8•o660° 8-06821 1412 66 08816 r 82/86I `18.08'119 08804 52 ('12.1 ?°0238 �4A1? BiAiding 2-66 SI`j'uthwest 7(t P12.018/0 0.2-022A 7.85 :268: 07_i '�j07- 8 0 \ 0338 •002C 318 •10802 1:181-iOti 5 ' 88.0720 cl 2.2.132 c5 05 8.00 \•, A:: 2, 35.t::. 8.08502""- 2-61 58.065033 18.08501...-. SV4MII-7G 65 73 1 807002 l2.317A sWMU 7e r -..K1V0 2.66.48 YEA- cB-04405 08408 48.08301 __. .0Al2' 8uetlin _-..... Area Sy. ..2.84.49 - - 54'.111!, 7 (f808407 012.315 2-63 8.08302 .8.08305 S\')1,111 2-53.47 7A .9 o cr 28 1 �J 8.08003 •AOC 2.60 58 08.08004 S'rV,"1,1.1 2-80.51) :0800 EX - EX 8.06 01 79.5 4. E S8.088020 S 8 2• v 01.2.303A 2-80 SVJtY.i, 2.00.57 •••0.8009&8.08010 0A3. Former UST PL•23 s8•395 o S8. 2-86 09104 I041 2 9 ` 7(5 12.302A j8.08205 (11 'c 31_48 '•\ 2.8 .48 P12 3t6A� %08292 8• 21�i 1 tk' � '• 7r(1•0620 B-062 2-62 MIN 48.06 0 8.08209 AOC 2.6)..43 d8-06203 1.68 OAtC: Fidrrner --UST FLIP t) (54.431018 AOC 2P603 8.08804'•X.•..•'•'•'T 1c !08303 08801 LuJ ,58.0830 8(08302 58484.0 r "• • /084:03 08924'._ .:__-:=--- ('8.04,904 i 68-V8-08915 1 �...x,.., 091r •' : it ,1 r-' 0G00A8-2.08917'•, • d88.19 '•.• '-.,t• ' 5W:V.0 78.1 8� ��•gQ88.5 (58, 903 2.,•'.,.988-4 at/le-s BASEMAP EXPLANATIQN N Facility Boundary /\J Building SWMUTAOC Hon•Bottng Building au1laing Bulb tmanri Ht aounaary Shot% Pim 44nrrtprt t1 N W S,T` , 1 1 •LI 28421:84 08919 2-83 SB -0830 8.08307 58.0834 or: 2-94,82 SB -0831h ,e 18.115309- "5808308 S8.083110 08-':3 0:1 2-87 08•7 sit-t8T (188.2 8-Oa9Y0 1 1 8MF3 288,117 (1.2.143C1 (' 21[t�7� r �1aa• 4 \ d8-08822%'----� 2 •19 • %\�5A118• °r. C 8 aek '486- 288.1 88•289:1 SB -0892 Jorgensen Forge - Company SYMBOL EXPLANATION o Non -Detect 0 0 Soil locations not exceeding PMCLs Soil locations exceeding PMCLs • SHIA:1AOC ANE. 1:4& tj >JJIJI1!a=1C [Mir anti intim iota ;4 A :Ittsll®+Iwr "!! $01•110/41110Iiia.. P12.1 rr 21N S Vi; 7002.109 a(, �_8.0 7118 t ' a aloe 14CA118•&1-toC6en (sre .087i 4 16 tral Waste $totaayl22(05C 6,,•., -19 "• 1.0 CV 2.93A '�,S J1k7A" d8.08.f1D:, SBC •70 • Ji:jrt♦ �:�f:) 08' RANI 1•41.17N 7 4348:-i;cl .. 411• d ua •sass; f ries •b692 ' . P13803 S8-08928: (f12 I11A1 - f •r `IUI ubt (hiding Ram • 9. 929 8 27 NOTES 1) Historical and RFI SoII Depths: 0 • 12 reef BoeingPlant 2 Historical and RFI Soil Samples Exceeding Proposed Media Cleanup Levels hue 2C A A A A A Ail SWMU 2-31.22 -f SWMU 2-31.26 i +i i gm IA_______SWMU 2-41.:6 A Ai A SWMU 2-41.34 2-41 �+ ■ A +,1SWMU 2-41.35 ■ ■ A ®q' A A I +IF 0A17: Tran 0A20: au)alt-#23AMeq�+ r— 'Vaults- A. Vaults A AOC 2-41.29 A A ■ ■ SWMU 2-41.30 1+ A A s'ormer • SWMU-2=R A A A A A A A A A A 2-41 • ■ OA17: Transform Vaults III ■ — GM 7: -Transformer Vaults A A AA A A 0A22A: Outfall 0A14: Building . #l4 Area 4 chine Pit's 2.131 A A * 0A13: Building I —<2-44 Steam Drain 44:11-) + 2-44 OAt1{ Transformer Va4lts ., + +•AA9:F.r.:r *■•■ MU 78 61 ,1 SWMU 78.0 J 2_49 StfMU 2-65.5-0-4--44 ' AA9e iffal #12 and 1aultsA17: ransformer I. iyUldln�-4• Strtch iiiess+Plt 41fA� 2 66,6'33 -/ ---+OA2:Bu t +■ ;'2-66 Sol g 2-65 ' + * 4 C 2-8 �2--■ a +OA : Bl _I, 1/2-6; So * * A A A A A A C 08 72 tSWPIU 2-63.47 OA10: Former ST PL20 ■ WMU 2-80.57 OC 2-88.83 0A3: Former IO UST PL -23 2-86 ■ + + ■ ■ • • i•,;: ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ {SWMU 2-91.7x0_ + + o ,�++,Q11 SdVMU'1:8.1 2-87 \ + ++ .\.,--.1MU 2-= aril' it -+i- - 76.8 - ■ ?I *d >.s * OAlt: eptral Wa + Y..Stgjge Area lir'.e ;'SWMU 7 Jorgensen {Forge Company BASEMAP EXPLANATION Facility Boundary N SWMU/AOC N Building N N \1 SYMBOL EXPLANATION NOTES Former Boeing Building Non -Boeing Building Sheet Plle Alignment Other Area Other Area -t- Soil sample location • Groundwater sample location * Seep sample location A Sediment sample location NaRTh SCALE 1:2680 60 0 60 100 160 200 lC I--111MIll:-1111•11 Feet =, T( O)N ll• YANAD FS CIS 101i MS/CL141:01S DATE: July 02, 1887 6:07 PM JOB NUMBER: 03708.0343003820-00 LEAD GIS ANALYST: K. Palmer VIEW FILE: allslnsblganno.vlew CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY: Me Boeing Plant 2 Boein Plant 2 Historical and RFI Soil, Groundwater, Seep, and Sediment Sample Locations i . � RCRA Facility Investigation Groundwater Investigation Interim Report Boeing—Plant 2 Seattle/Tukwila, Washington Submitted to: The Boeing Company Boeing Information Support Services Safety, Health, and Environmental Affairs Seattle, Washington January 1996 Prepared by: Roy F. Weston, Inc. 700 Fifth Avenue Suite 5700 Seattle, Washington 98104 WO 3709-034-300-3450 • • . SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND This report has been prepared to partially fulfill the requirements of the Administrative Order on Consent (Order) issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to The Boeing Company (Boeing) under the authority of Section 3008(h) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended, 42 USC 6928(h). This Order [RCRA Docket No. 1092-01-22-3008(h)] became effective on 18 January 1994. The Order specified activities necessary to correct or evaluate actual or potential threats to human health and/or the environment resulting from the release or potential release of hazardous constituents from or at the Boeing Plant 2 Facility (Facility) located at 7755 East Marginal Way South in Seattle, Washington. The Order required that Boeing perform a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) at the Facility. A RCRA facility assessment, conducted by PRC (1992), identified units potentially requiring investigation during the RFI. A RFI Work Plan (WESTON, 1994e) was prepared to document the procedures and schedules used to conduct the RFI at the Facility. A phased approach consistent with the Order was implemented for the RFI. This report presents the results of the RFI groundwater investigation and physical hydrogeologic characterization activities conducted at the Facility. It documents the completion of the field investigation portion of the RFI and provides site characterization data to support a refined conceptual site model for the upland health and environmental evaluations. The investigations were completed in accordance with the RFI Work Plan (WESTON, 1994e), and work plan addenda (WESTON, 1994g,h,i; 1995e,f). 1.2 PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION The purposes of the RFI groundwater investigation and physical hydrogeologic characterization were to: Characterize the hydrogeologic regime underlying the Facility. • Evaluate the possibility of releases to groundwater of hazardous constituents at Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs), Areas of Concern (ADCs), and Other Areas (DAs) at the Facility. • Confirm the presence of a release of chemicals from a SWMU/AOC/OA and determine the nature of the release. • Identify and characterize groundwater contamination. 96-096.51 29 January 1996 1-1 PR LO/SEA • • Boeing Plant 2 RFI Groundwater Investigation Interim Report Section 1 • Characterize the nature, extent, rate, and direction of movement of contamination that originated at or from the Facility and that is present in any environmental medium off-site or on-site. • Support the development and analysis of groundwater corrective measure alternatives. 1.3 ORGANIZATION OF REPORT Volume I of the RFI Groundwater Investigation Interim report is organized into the following 10 sections, and associated tables and figures: • Section 1, Introduction. This section presents the purposes of the RFI groundwater investigation and describes the organization of the document. • Section 2, Background. The physical setting and geological background of the Facility are briefly described to provide a basis for the groundwater investigation. Additional environmental setting information gathered during the RFI was used to supplement descriptions provided from previous studies. • Section 3, Investigation Methods. The field methods performed to characterize the groundwater system and chemical conditions are identified and described. • Section 4, Geology. The geology and stratigraphy beneath the Facility are described in this section. • Section 5, Hydrogeology. The findings of the physical hydrogeological investigations are provided in this section. • Section 6, Geochemistry. The results of the general surface water, groundwater seep, and groundwater quality analyses are presented in this section. • Section 7, Conceptual Groundwater Model. The findings of the physical hydrogeological and geochemical investigations are used to describe the conceptual hydrological model for the Facility. Section 8, Nature and Extent of Contamination. This section presents discussions of the nature and extent of constituent releases on a Facility -wide and unit -by -unit basis. • Section 9, Contaminant Fate and Transport. A general discussion of contaminant fate and transport is presented in this section. • Section 10, References. 96-096.S1 29 January 1996 1-2 PR 10/SEA Boeing Plant 2 RFI Groundwater Investigation Interim Report Section 1 Volume II include the following appendices: • Appendix A—Field Methods and Procedures • Appendix B—Boring Logs • Appendix C—Slug Tests • Appendix D—Tidal Studies • Appendix E—Grain-size Analysis • Appendix F—Geochemical Modelling Inputs and Results Volume III consists of data tables for groundwater detections by unit. Volume IV contains the data validation results for RFI groundwater sample analyses and full data listings of historical and RFI sample analyses. Finally, Volume V consists of a map folio presenting historical and RFI analytical results. The results of the RFI soil investigation are presented under separate cover in the report RCRA Facility Investigation—Soil Investigation Interim Report (WESTON, 1996). 96-096.S1 29 January 1996 1-3 PR 10/SEA BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP PLANT 2 SEPA SUBMITTAL BUILDING 2-81 LOCATION IN REGION VICINITY MAP DESCRIPTION OF WORK: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 2 -STORY BUILDING. THE BUILDINGS FIRST FLOOR WILL INCLUDE SHOPS, TESTING AND RESEARCH ROOMS AND A CAFETERIA SECOND FLOOR WILL HAVE OFFICE AND TESTING AND RESEARCH ROOMS. CONTRACTOR: BAUGH CONSTRUCTION SITE ADDRESS: 8123 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH OWNER: BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP WEST REGION FACILITIES P.O, BOX 3707. 14/5: 19-35 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124-2207 ATTENTION: MIKE PRITTIE GENERAL NOTES 2-41 2-40 VICINITY, LEGAL, CODE. DAG LIST 02 -081 -GO 3 SITE PLAN 02-081-SEPA-I 2 ELEVATIONS 02-081-SEPA-2 2 Sy' 2-41 I�JI / z-09 2-06 1-1T. 2-65 o 2-63 1 - W 1.19i6 -62 65 1 ♦I GATE BAR SITE ACCESS • ♦., • 3081 2-80 PROJECT SITE LI,•4 2-86 J / IN 228U7 �'i� .CI7I 2T SCNE NONE 2-116 '250 „ 1 'a£+ ® , 7� LEGAL DESCRIPTION N41: 000160-0020. A TRACT OF LAND BETWEEN THE DIf4A11158 WATERWAY AS ESTABLISHED BY COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DISTRICT it OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON & E. MARGINAL WAY , IN SECTIONS 28, 29. 32 4 33. TOWNSHP 24 N. RANGE 4 FAST. N.M. IIICIIISED N: KROLL BOOK PAGE 79. TRACT CONTAINS AN AREA OF APPROX. 2.897.955 S0. FEET. MISOI novae 4448 TOR F*W0A2KW RAM *72197-00 6291 4101701 JI 971197-30 ROM SEPI 41&A111L 4 971197-09 GIA/Hu G2A/Wd .MAN MAN CODE SUMMARY BUILDING CODE DATA 1. 1994 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE (UBC) 2. 1994 MECHANICAL CODE 3. 1994 UNIFORM ELECTRICAL CODE 4. 1994 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE 5. 1994 UNIFORM FIRE CODE 6. 1994 WASHINGTON STATE ENERGY CODE 7. 1995 WASHINGTON STATE BARRIER FREE REGULATIONS 8. FEDERAL GUIDELINES OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISIBILITIES ACT 9. WASHINGTON STATE AMENDMENTS - SEISMIC ZONE: 3 OCCUPANCY TYPE: GROUP B OFFICE / TESTING AND RESEARCH CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE II - 1 HOUR. FULLY SPRINKLERED BUILDING AREA SEPERATION: 2 HOUR (SEC. 601.2 & 504.6.2) AT EXISTING BUILDINGS AND GRID L TABLE 5-B BASIC ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA 2 STORY WEST 2 STORY EAST OF GRID L OF GRID L SECTION 504.2 - 1007. INCREASE FOR 18.000 SF MULTIPLE FLOORS. ADD: 18 000 5F SUBTOTAL: 36.000 SF SECTION 505.1.2 - 1005 INCREASE FOR SEPERATION ON 3 SIDES, ADD: 36 000 SF SUBTOTAL: 72,000 SF SECTION 505.3 - 1007. INCREASE FOR FOR FULLY SPRINKLER, ADD: 72.000 SF 18,000 SF TOTAL ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 144.000 SF 18.000 SF BUILDING AREA: FIRST FLOOR: SECOND FLOOR: TOTAL BUILDING: 55.657 SF 55.657 $F 111.314 5F 7.171 5F 147 137142 5F 5F BUILDING HEIGHT: 45 FEET PROPOSED TABLE 5-6: 65 FEET ALLOWABLE FIRE RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS: 1. BEARING WALLS - EXTERIOR: 1 HOUR 2. BEAING WALLS - INTERIOR: 1 HOUR 3. NONBEARING WALLS - EXTERIOR: NR, NC (SEC.603.3.1 & TABLE 5-A) 4. STRUCTURAL FRAME: 1 HOUR 5. PARTITIONS - PERMANENT: 1 HOUR 6. SHAFT ENCLOSURES: 1 HOUR 7. FLOORS & FLOOR - CEILING: 1 HOUR 8. ROOFS & ROOF - CEILINGS: 1 HOUR (SEC. 603.5) 9. EXTERIOR DOORS AND WINDOWS NR. NC (SEC.603.3.2 at TABLE 5-8) 10. STAIRWAY CONSTRUCTION: NC (SEC.60} 4) -BOE/iv"' ACCEPTABILITY lus NAN AWN, 411.1.1109 .1799.1212 01.3,40 fr 1.07 PROJECT SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF WORK: CONSTRUCTION OF NEW 2 -STORY BUILDING. THE BUILDINGS FIRST FLOOR WILL INCLUDE SHOPS, TESTING AND RESEARCH ROOMS AND A CAFETERIA SECOND FLOOR WILL HAVE OFFICE AND TESTING AND RESEARCH ROOMS. CONTRACTOR: BAUGH CONSTRUCTION SITE ADDRESS: 8123 EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH OWNER: BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANE GROUP WEST REGION FACILITIES P.O, BOX 3707. 14/5: 19-35 SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98124-2207 ATTENTION: MIKE PRITTIE GENERAL NOTES DRAWING INDEX DRAWING 11311 SHIFT No 8EY. VICINITY, LEGAL, CODE. DAG LIST 02 -081 -GO 3 SITE PLAN 02-081-SEPA-I 2 ELEVATIONS 02-081-SEPA-2 2 VICINITY MAP, LEGAL DESCRIPTION CODE SUMMARY AND DRAWING INDEX BY: Karns Groui Inc. 51631511.1ANT: 02 ARCHITECTURE A..mm AFIROKII BUILDING 2-81 GENERAL W5TER SITE MIL GO 1.26.98 0 0 ./972197-00 mw nO 02 -081 -GO site plan O O O \J 210'-0' "J) © �) `8 30'-0' 30'-0' 30'-0' NEW BUILDING 30'-0' 30'-0' 30'-0' 30'-0' METAL RAIUNG PAINTED ACCENT COLOR GREEN TINTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED FRAMES NP. GREY TO BEIGE METAL COLUMN COVERS TYP GREY TO BEIGE METAL SIDING TIP _— •••.•,-...... =w•••••••===...........-- CLEAR TO GREEN TINTED VISION GLASS SET IN CLEAR - - ------ --__ _ TOP ELEV P4 R 0 * ANDOZIED FRAMES TYP. -E , , , BEIGE PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS TYP. I� -1 I- I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I i I I1 111 I III 1 t i I 2ND FLOOR ELEV 21-0" A _ _ _ T _ I GREY TO PANEL TYP BEIGE ABOVE�AL _ VISION GLASS --_ I -1 1111 -� � -I - � ,5T F149L� PAINTED ACCENT COLOR DOORS TW. GREY TO BEIGE METAL COLUMN CORNERS / TYP. GREY CANOPY TO BEIGE METAL FASCIA L� / CLEAR TO GREEN VISION GLASS SET TINTED IN ELEV 0 -0 6 WEST ELEVATION CLEAR ANODIZED FRAMES TIP, yy `SCA11 1' = 16.0• EXISTING BUILDING (`^-�) ) �) (/L� II// RJI �/) (v) .) O //�� 380'-0'( V) lir -) (�/;{ © © © O -) 32-0' 32'-0' 14'-0' 30'-0' 30'-0' NEW BUILDING 30'-0' 30'-0' 30'-0' GREY TO BEIGE METAL PANEL TYP CLEAR TO GREEN TINTED METAL RAILING PAINTED ACCENT COLOR GREY TO BEIGE NEIAL COLUMN COVERS T0, GREEN TINTED GLASS SET IN FRAMES EYP. PANOREL TEAR ANODIZED VISION CLEAR GLASS ANODIZED SET IN FRAMES TYP. I / GREY 0 BEIGE METAL SIDING TYP 1 P4 RA0�TB I/ _____._._ _. _ .__-._. _ .. _._._..... .. ____ _ __ _._._ __ ELEV -I -I _._ I I it 1 f I I 1 I 1 I I I_L_i� i_1_I_ 1_1_1_1_1_ J1_1_1.__ J I I. I 1 ; III i I_ I 1 I 11 ...1_1_1L1 _1....1_ ..i1.1_ _1_1_ _ _ _ .iii _I I i I_1_- _Iii ELEV 2�0'A IY _T-- _.. .'i NM I ._ 1 . __. _ _ - ___ __—_ _i_ BEIGE PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS TIP. BEIGE PRECAST aFIOOR 0 -0 PAINTED ACCENT PANELS CONCRETE PAINTED ACCENT TYP. NORTH ELEVATION COLOR DOORS PIP. COLOR DOORS TYP. OA B© © 0© ©© 284'-0 ( H ) ( J ) EXISTING BUILDING 30'-0' 30'-0' NEW BUILDING 30'-0' 30'-0' 30'-0' 30'-0' 30 -0' METAL RAILING PAINTED ACCENT COLOR GREEN TINTED SPANDREL GLASS SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED EXISTING BEIGE RIBBED METAL SIDING GREY TO BEIGE METAL SUING TYP I FRAMES TYP. �— -` I---9 �_=_C._ 1 I I = - TOP PARAPE7� ELEV 41-0 _f_L-ir1- ._:1-__._1_ _ ® II 1 IIlII�� ( 1 11 1111 i i I I ! I t i ) TI . lit l 1 1 l I r 0 .�1 ,TI—'t 1 l l I U r I1 T L U ' ITT ! 1CI I 1 --I 1 - 11.1! -_ I I I '1 A 0100 21000' T— ' -t _ 1 I I I 1- 1 7-1 1 I t-1 i I I I_ H }_ ,�•Cn;. �'_ 1 I I I"- I- -- II I/ 1 II i, II RI 9 1ST FIOO. ELEV 0 2 GREY TO - - BEIGE METAL FASCIA - —CLEAR TO GREEN TINTED VISION GLASS SET IN GREI TO BEIGE PANEL TYP VISION GLASS METAL ABOVE CLEAR TO GREEN TINTED VISION GLASS _ _ ' CANOPY SET IN CLEAR ANODIZED FRAMES TYP. CLEAR ANODIZED FRAMES TYP. BEIGE PRECAST CONCRETE SOUTH ELEVATION 1 BY Hants Grow Ix. PANELS TYP. SCALE: 1' I6'-0' N18WNSIA I MIT: 02 ARCHITECTURE w +,eo I=4.^ r"m m •m n �..o,m COI ACCEPTABILIT! .p+r swim, mM w, w,I YrA slsMlru JI 9m9T-ro cIJJBra JIN/RJ II.Is s} women In ceSni o0/0..o EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS I:~ 2 1,26.98 1 RL440) UM COMMA. Ji 91}19)-05 88140 JM/RJ 1.169! BO`��//1•� uep,>a n om. n n ri /�f/ SEPA-2 BUILDING 2-81 97-1142 `-°OdO ARCHITECTURAL MASTER PINT 2 -R "'