The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSEPA E99-0020 - BOEING - TRANSONIC WIND TUNNELBOEING TRANSONIC WIND TUNNEL BUILDING DEMOLITION & RECONSTRUCTION 8123 E. MARGINAL WAY S. E99-0020 AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION Notice of- Public Hearing Notice of Public Meeting Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Planning Cauuais s ion Agenda Packet Short Subdivision Agenda Packet here Notice of Application for Shoreline Management Permit Shoreline Management. Permit y declare that: Determination of Non-. significance' Mitigated Determination of Nahs i gni ficance _Determination of Significance and Sooting -Notice Notice of Action Official Notice (Either 7/446) /)c/P Othe was mailed to each of the following addresses Name of Prajec File Number 299,60 on NAM cnatu- .e City of Tukwila Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION August 6, 1999 To: Mr. Rick. Ford, The Boeing Company (Applicant) King County Assessor, Accounting Division (HB2567 Sec. 1) John W. Rants, Mayor Steve Lancaster, Director RE: E99-0020 (Planned Action Application for Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade). Dear Mr. Ford: This letter serves as a notice of decision for your application to designate the Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade as a "planned action", per TMC 21.04.156. PROJECT BACKGROUND a. Project file number: E99-0020 (Planned Action Application for Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade). b. The name of the applicant who is also the current property owner(s): The Boeing Company, Rick Ford. c. Project Description: The project involves upgrading existing building areas including demolition (including slab removal) and rebuilding a northerly building (35 ft. length) (Checklist pg. 2). The horizontal construction area is 11,160 S.F. (see attached plan view). No increase in enclosed area, new exterior towers, etc. are proposed (Ford, 7/26/99). Reconstruction will include grubbing to a few inches below the existing slab being removed (Ford, 7/26/99), augcasting 40+ deep piles per the geotech report, and otherwise satisfying all construction code requirements. d. Project location: 8123 East Marginal Way South. e. King County Assessor Parcel Number: 000160-0020 f. Permits submitted concurrently with this application: None. g. Comprehensive Plan designation: MIC/H (Manufacturing Industrial Center -- Heavy). h. Zoning designation: MIC/H (Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy, TMC 18.40). 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • (206) 4131-3670 • Fax (206) 431-3665 SEPA PLANNED ACTION No• of Decision E98-0020: Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade Page 2 CONCLUSIONS Based on the above description, the proposed industrial and off ce,uses are "permitted uses" in the. MIC/H zone, and otherwise satisfy the use characteristics of a planned action per TMC 21.04.152. The scale of development is within the range of impact analysis envisioned in the subarea plan E.I.S. (E96-0034) and all significant adverse impacts have been avoided or will be mitigated. The project description also demonstrates consistency with the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan as the uses are permitted and no significant adverse environmental impacts are generated. DECISION Pursuant to. TMC 21.04.156, the proposed project is determined to be consistent with the provisions for a Manufacturing Industrial Center planned action. SEPA review is determined to be complete with the qualification of this proposal as a planned action. Please note that SEPA review relies upon the proposed action.. satisfying all adopted development standards to avoid or mitigate many, negative environmental impacts. This SEPA review has determined that all development standards can probably be satisfied. However no detailed analysis has been done. A detailed review of project consistency with all development standards will be completed during review of construction drawings. For instance, a five foot wide front landscape strip must still be incorporated into the proposed development. This decision is final with no administrative appeal. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permit(s) are available for inspection at the Tukwila Dept. of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Blvd.; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. The project planner is Vernon Umetsu, who may be contacted at 206-431-3684, for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. Decision Issued by: Steve Lancaster, Director Attachments Planned Action Qualification and Consistency Checklist. Q:\99\boeingwndtnl\NOTICE OF DECISION.doc • o jtiir t s(►� `ala City of Tukwila John W Rants, Mayor J' •�. 10:: ;:' epartment of Community Development Steve Lancaster, Director 1906 MEMORANDUM To: Jack Pace, Planning Manager From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Date: August 6, 1999 RE: File No. E99-0020: (SEPA Planned Action Application for Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel) Project File No. E99-0020 Applicant: The Boeing Company Project Location: 8123 East Marginal Way South Project Description: The project involves upgrading existing building areas including demolition (including slab removal) and rebuilding a northerly building (35 ft. length) (Checklist pg. 2). The horizontal construction area is 11,160 S.F. (see attached plan view). No increase in enclosed area, new exterior towers, etc. are proposed (Ford, 7/26/99). Reconstruction will include grubbing to a few inches below the existing slab being removed (Ford, 7/26/99), augcasting 40+ deep piles per the geotechnical report (Exhibit B), and otherwise satisfying all construction code requirements. Comments to the SEPA PLANNED ACTION Checklist: The SEPA PLANNED ACTION Checklist is modified in the following elements. A.7 The project site address is 8123 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington. 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 0 Tukwila, Washington 98188 0 (206) 431-3670 0 Fax (206) 431-3665 SEPA PLANNED ACTION Sta�eport • E99-0020: Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade Page 2 B.5.a. Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons are occasionally present in the area. Chinook Salmon use the Duwamish River (800 ft. to the west) as a migratory route. Other animals include Coho Salmon, Chum Salmon, Sea -run Cutthroat and miscellaneous rodents and reptiles. B.5.b. Bald Eagles and Peregrine Falcons are occasionally present. No nesting activities in the construction area are likely due to the noise generated by the existing wind tunnel and human activity. Should nesting activity become known, then additional measures to protect the species per State and Federal statutes shall be implemented. B.5.c. The site is in the Pacific Flyway. The Duwamish River (800 ft. to the east) is also a fish migratory route (see B.5.a.). B.7.b. Exhibit C (Acoustic Analysis of BTWT Upgrade) indicates a possible 5 to 10 dBA increase in sound at the wall if acoustical insulation is not provided and possible increased pure tone sound due to a the fan. No analysis of sound levels at the property line are provided. However, the report states that: "The building enclosure will be designed to meet existing codes." (ibid., pg. 9). Property line sound analyses will be required to demonstrate consistency with City Of Tukwila noise standards per TMC 8.22 at the time of building permit review. \\TUK2\VOL3\HOME\VERNON\99\boeingwndtnl\SEPASTF.doc PUBLIC WAS PROJECT REVIEW COMM Project Name: Location: File#: Action: Date: /wok— Gt&— 0020 SaA Reviewed By: '(cd.Pal cl.w PRIOR HISTORY AND CORRESPONDENCE FRANCHISE UTILITY COORDINATION CODE REQUIREMENTS OVERLAY PROGRAM RFA PW STANDARDS o�SbL`1)- COMP PLAN MISC. STUDIES WD 125 PRE -APP OT; yr.\ A Nj Fel -Cccx 4a14 -A [TS CIP MAINTENANCE NEEDS VAL-VUE PROBLEM AREAS OvQ-fi--to4; — /`I0 2i0 Gct-.'t-SvA-43 -r• Q (i Dios `tai assess ; c 0001;r riaist caa- (ad_ pito 5 4:rt. Cort T2- (u. id_v1 RyArsi Ok 'pu.t-S. a S 1 A- Co rs Wal ynp-"T i® -Y1 �4. P4-0)044..-)1,oL ® FecL.,St, Sep Pr tut(..Kt S1 - Si et r Sid (_w"Trn-i Salovlsm In►C6dGt► <41-T%4ovl 4 CPA 1.1 docs NT Mat gat -'D ea-eq.A:- r•I 6.-pPbei) trt swt_ou_iy. Ga1rG-w. Gda ..j o o Ic S a ‘-‘44-ctv-% 6i2 -N A -We& , `-PAC- Bay ocLA-Si O ,4,1,-1) (Al 1 1�1 i •.i -r k (L 1ST - T11eXe Spec-,• c� ~�11•�s or -1617. A{ -S 0. .L..( oak. SAL...,(r•- Arm,. ; , k.v owr,' 70 t t1 I -tat pay ,a.., (vviPa-c-7). t wV01� 4.0tto SAL.M un Caw., S Pl.ww un SE79 2w► &')77.4o Ar- t. t.St-(tope/MS/ ri A.., g N c._U ear' otteier. q11$' Sill,. _iv 0+aY74+01.11 =49 6710,-5 3i19 --r)?arvd - -v40..aN rs, P tQ s1'L al �'�a10► Al a 199 41 .3.V I I T». V .law 6 -1/1 -LV ^'wl S %'J c1 r»—'o 15 s►�t ""07.0d on.1.44Nka 9 -wailr 1h wo71 01s Nwsty 14`, 1 51 _. % "leo Mond ,'i 1M "►mal. -to M S I I'LL G,l N 1 T 1 j 1 +-to 7n=+t1 10 N "0 - ' yla w, d a _a -D-0 n o'5 a j L =1`0 ,-U - 10 N 010.'1 m • Gm -e1 O +g-w'o 9 v►-na/yg wr�-?n-ulr Pup rvLte U 4 9 ?T,oN cv.) d s ► 9 yt=1 011.11/ �M '7�� 1 N "V */'►-Ua' -0=1-%1-va4 W,+0 N ''-��, fro , -u p 16 LLIV ' n"► '—ds �►-7�c a t� ( 7/r1. ?,1c N'1ze/M i't1+i2ot/ 1Kav n� /tr o cv.ue.) . &� �-b"w+ooS►d 17 '/ �D'14)1 719 •"taVwlL, wM+Aq 9N 11g1aa e Sy Is /ze 1_r -9°►vt° a�,a +�v y �/ 1l. Myu ',LI 44-1A Li-ov iv 2S 34 44/ ?8 101/ vN ?'uara. /' /11Aaoiy au),yeqy 9/%1 saN tht 4 .w✓o ?1.1..s11/0( "ft, ftido ,4"4.11teti -1.140V0 1-07-1-0j fir' )"11v1a0d �nJ a''NaN5 `MLe, rw..5v',1p 9-19b1q m'IV -rO Q-+'Ic►o 15 AA/4) vaag .10N .2 Pk, It 5_00 1 5 -77 -47;r4„, -,v0/ 1 s 1-0"1-1-0 i-ww-vv at, Q -v0-1475 X10 0 .4 lrro rt.t. -171 SS/ -"s - /alt Jas , -w"Ck-W% . -10%- C73^"1't973 rAya >1ao7voy $--'IV--yS -71170N in rroif aOna' • •S 11 th . , , ' • MEMORANDUM To: Plan Reviewers From: Vernon Umetsu, Associate Planner Date: 7/26/99 RE: E99-0020 Boeing Wind Tunnel Planned Action Project Summary. SEPA PLANNED ACTION PROCESS This is a SEPA Planned Action review. The applicant proposes that environmental review for his project be covered by the umbrella EIS for projects in the MIC (1998). This EIS generally determined that existing regulations for projects out of the river avoids or mitigates all environmental impacts except for site access and archaeology. Specific site access and archaeology development standards were adopted (see me for further EIS information). The purpose of this review is to determine if project impacts are adequately avoided or mitigated by each department's development standards. If an impact is not adequately mitigated, the applicant will be asked to modify his project or go through normal SEPA review where impact mitigating requirements will be imposed as needed. PROJECT SUMMARY The project involves upgrading existing building areas including demolition (including slab removal) and rebuilding a northerly building (35 ft. length) (Checklist pg. 2). The horizontal construction area is 11,160 S.F. (see attached plan view). No increase in enclosed area, new exterior towers, etc. are proposed (Ford, 7/26/99). Reconstruction will include grubbing to a few inches below the existing slab being removed (Ford, 7/26/99), augcasting 40+ deep piles per the geotech report, and otherwise satisfying all construction code requirements. Elevation dimensions are in INCHES (Ford, 7/26/99). The Boeing inventory of storm water pipes does not indicate pipes in this area (Ford, 7/26/99). Q:\99\boeingwndtnl\routel .doc Di 11 I i 1 goe-/p4c cottayruw•teez- urcp_A-De, 6??-oozo Pen- R -t roftp, 7 /2-C (F? 3Aco 14-101-P tS Sewn 1<2-YpcA (fttr 1 OF ?(.Aa PAC, -r) • fir -8/TfaCD MK • 1111 11129 110111:11 or AirI7EZAVAI7* PLANNED ACTION INITIAL QUALIFICATIONS AND CHECKLIST Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade Boeing - Plant 2 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development The Boeing Company P.O. Box 3707, M/S 19-35 Seattle, WA 98124-2207 July 15, 1999 Rick Ford 206 655-9888 • CITY OF TUKWILA CACEIVED F TUKWILA JUL 1 51999 Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (2060 431-3665 e-mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us PERMIT CENTER EPA PLANNED ACTION APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Planner: V ` K014 __ - 14g Cc.) Receipt Number: File Number: 6' ??-00. Project File #: © 1 OApplication Complete (Date: SEPA File #: .......... O Application Incomplete (Date: Shoreline File #: I. PROJECT BACKGROUND A. NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Bee/NL TIZAi/SoAvi1' l.✓/N D TI/Nivlt L- dp6,2pPE B. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: (give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision; or tax lot number, access street, and nearest intersection; if proposal applies to several properties, list the streets bounding the area.) 3/23 E. MA2G/N4L wpY 40. coo 16o-ok 2_0 E6at Pesc,2/Qrrow /5 A7rACHE� Quarter: Section: 31 Township: e2* Range: 4 - (This information may be found on your tax statement) C. DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR: The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. NAME: %liCL' rb2D ADDRESS: R 0. 50 X 37 0 7 PHONE: ZL ' tiv 55- 988$ SIGNATURE: Cj o EiivCe ? o. i9-35 Fax 4/4_,.// (6./ rn/s SE4 rmLE, `✓p 98!24 got. 544-724 7 DATE: 5 - /4 -99 FRE got- o 5 II. QUALIFICATION AS A POTENTIAL PLANNED ACTION Planned actions are developments which satisfy all of the criteria in TMC 21.04.152, which are summarized below. Please answer the summary questions to help demonstrate qualification. Additional explanation may be attached on separated pages as needed. t cvtew for consistency `s i cs onateJ panned actions. 1. The action is a "permitted use" located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36.020) and MIC/H (TMC 18.38.020) zones and/or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively) -- "conditional" and "unclassified" uses are not planned actions and YE 2. The action is: a. not an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200 and TMC b. not a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC/L or MIC/H zones'. c. not a development any portion of which includes shoreline modifications waterward of the ordinary high water mark, Ye 5 d. not a development associated with 16th Avenue Bridge construction activities, Y� s Such uses are more complex and require case by case review and approval by the City Planning Commission and City Council respectively. No time savings in permit review would result from designating them a planned action and their greater potential for significant adverse impacts make such a designation inappropriate at this time. CNSIST3.DOC-VU 11/18/98 Pa PLANNED ACTION INITIAL QUALIFICATIONS (TMC 21.04.152) A. BACKGROUND 1. Date checklist prepared: July 15, 1999 2. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): See Wind Tunnel Upgrade Schedule, Exhibit C 3. 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. 4. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None 5. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. Federal: None known at this time State of Washington: Electrical permits King County: None known at this time City of Tukwila/Local: State Environmental Policy Act Review/Approval Construction Permits Utilities Approvals 6. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 1 07/14/99 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 Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel (BTWT) has operated continuously since 1942 as a primary facility used by Boeing and other customers for development and validation of various airplane aerodynamic designs. The BTWT is a heavily used facility providing timely aerodynamic data critical to Boeing's primary products. Modifications to the existing BTWT are to include: • Replacement of the existing wooden air exchanger tunnel cooling system with a water-cooled heat exchanger for tunnel temperature control. • Modification of the flow circuit from the aft fan nacelle to the contraction that would result in improved airflow characteristics. This includes replacement of the fan nacelle and nacelle cooling, the 3`d and 4th corner turning vanes, the turbulence reduction system (TRS), and the contraction. • To accommodate these or other modifications, an extension of up to about 35 feet beyond the tunnel's current length is available. 7. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. The project is located in the City of Tukwila on: Site address: 7755 East Marginal Way South, Tukwila, Washington. For specific location within Plant 2, refer to drawings in Exhibit A, Location in Region, Vicinity Map, Site Plan and Legal Description. Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 2 07/14/99 8. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive land Use Policy Map as environmentally sensitive? No 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 B 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 50 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. Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 3 07/14/99 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 Tined 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. During construction, vehicle and construction equipment emissions and dust will be released. Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 4 07/14/99 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 800 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. Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 5 07/14/99 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 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 a 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 Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 6 07/14/99 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. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: None 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 Duwamish Waterway Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 7 07/14/99 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 and natural gas. 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. Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 8 07/14/99 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 the 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 Tong -term basis (for 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 d.b.a. at 50 feet from the specific equipment. Noise impacts of the wind tunnel during its operation are addressed in the Acoustic Analysis of the Wind Tunnel upgrade. See Exhibit D. 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 aircraft manufacturing facility. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 9 07/14/99 No c. Describe any structures on the site. Plant 2 is a large aircraft manufacturing facility, consisting of many buildings and ancillary uses. The project site is located within Plant 2 d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? Yes. Demolition of the existing wooden air exchanger tunnel cooling system to make room for the water-cooled heat exchanger for tunnel temperature control. 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 - Heavy (MIC/H) 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? 3 j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 10 07/14/99 I. 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 materials) proposed? 46 feet 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? Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 11 07/14/99 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 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? There is a Targe 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 1 3.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 Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 12 07/14/99 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. 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 through Gate B-18 for entrance. 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, will be 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 buildings. 464 plus 12 handicapped parking stalls will be created on the site to replace 8 stalls displaced 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. Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 13 07/14/99 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 occupy the proposed demolished buildings will be relocated back into the completed structures, 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. 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. Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 14 07/14/99 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 Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 15 07/14/99 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: r —4—Re—lard J. For Date Submitted: ✓% - i1' —C f Planned Action Checklist Transonic Wind Tunnel Upgrade 16 07/14/99 Exhibits Location in Region, Site Plan, Vicinity Map & Legal Description A Geotechnical report B Wind Tunnel Master Schedule C Acoustic Analysis D Exhibit A LOCATION IN REGION ISSAQUAH PROJECT SITE VICINITY MAP GATE B-18 SfTE ACCESS 2-55 % 4. SCALE: NONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION APN: 000160-0020 A TRACT OF LAND BETWEEN THE DUWAMISH WATERWAY AS ESTABLISHED BY COMMERCIAL WATERWAY DISTRICT #1 OF KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON AND EAST MARGINAL WAY IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M., AND IN THE JOHN BUCKLEY DONATION CLAIM NO. 42; SAID TRACT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHERLY PORTION OF A LARGER TRACT COMMONLY CALLED THE BOEING COMPANY'S PLANT NUMBER TWO SITE, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SECTION CORNER COMMON TO SECTIONS 28. 29, 32, AND 33; THENCE SOUTH 88'08'07" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 33, A D�TANCE OF 982.00 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY; THENCE SOUTH 47'51'53" EAST ALONG SOUTHWESTERLY MARGIN 684.62 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE TRACT HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE SOUTH 42'25'24" WEST 1215.02 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY MARGIN OF SAID DUWAMISH WATERWAY, SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE FROM WHENCE THE CENTER BEARS SOUTH 42'16'23" WEST 1969.12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH- EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 397.99 FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A LINE LYING 825.00 FEET SOUTH, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, OF THE NORTH LINE OF THE JOHN BUCKLEY DONATION LAND CLAM NO. 42. THENCE SOUTH 89'09'36" EAST ALONG SAID LINE, PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 42, A DISTANCE OF 1387.45 FEET TO THE WESTERLY MARGIN OF EAST MARGINAL WAY; THENCE NORTH 22'32'15" WEST 160.30 FEET, FOLLOWING SAID WESTERLY MARGIN TO THE POINT OF CURVATURE 'OF A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS 2828.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, A DISTANCE OF 1250.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF TANGENCY OF SAID CURVE; THENCE NORTH 47'51'53" WEST 76.82 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THIS TRACT CONTAINING AN AREA OF 2,897,955 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. Exhibit B rll �'.•` ,;` �1f;` • 71j `.1 1 ;lt f -.Q k !/ ( 1' t �f '• 6 I } ��. ,1 ,;�,� 4. ..V:�. \ ', Ihi• i+� �' /� �1� ( ., 1 1`et":,.,,, -.."?-..4( �rJr . ^ :� ^ 1i .. 4• ?',/(-- . \ V. .I . � _, I �F Irl,.:**?4,(,...(•,,.:;„:7));:::-'1 f r. \ - '.• •:l1}; 1 L•i,t -- ' l'.- • � P-'- 11 �y' �V -'‘.1,•'- .. )t t. l l ! i \ :1 . All••y„...,,,,;.pt...-9,-.7-••til r' .,'„*--,1:•:--...,-*<./ j f 1.,t� % ; > r1 1 . . ,,1 r 1 ,11,"x, r , - - `Y• y I ^,�;' �'` r 'tE,: !' � ,;` 1:.n.., ,c cat ji hge. pgs r'v c '., , ,, 2,y,fi : .:• •„ �.” ,r ,..7i�r att�e ��lllash( to .,4*...-.!,..,-.:',..-...,, .,-..1).--,*(----„ .,,.. � Y • }� i , .•>'.--•.,'••-•;...••• 'v Q4.toO'O 204'19 &..? ., . , ► ,a 11'.- � i ; �'• tiff / / " . r � . i Y```eport try+ � �^.. t,f✓.':��'F,''J,4;, =� �`fe • 1. r � l Y l� •F; �.�f. ,; ;� v• � ,�� `i(adPlh..Iltliri 1*`; , r • t l.. • 1 ' 7v l • t t � �.•''r• Y1-�.i-� � �,:�1.( 1,t - ? � s i I 11` ;�, .1 /,-\.IK�&4 �)1 � • • ( . .1 • \11� } `�. j � ��✓ J 1 he r f L l�} ' ,.: {. � / / �. Y 1 } .:�� ( a li I r i- 'ft �• v 1 _ en • • • -111 ' y.)— 4.- ...`,....,:....•77:::).,c,i'.4,.,,-,,! ',• ..);.,,,,i:,,.11:‘)•1...).,-.4. �IHI!\ )' k,1 ,L r:Y` "•. �,rl ��h ;. '� � •4'. '+Y��r � : 1i- " 1 � r �' j �# fy / y � �.r � J \i �:i xc.'r. S,(... 1 \, ,\r• .F^:'>4. �. A. --1,)..;/..),.1:1.„,s,, /, �*.v..---:-!'‘,6-,4Hr: �•fir'`:� r lt�•- .>a a .'j'� '1 �y� ' , , a�...: • %. , {,:4;,„, r+ j Jyal 1�7 � '� ``•�rY ,c��r C' ��a ', �t : l \ ( 14si, Geo J Engineers Boeing Support Services P.O. Box 3707, MS 19-35 Seattle, Washington 98124-2207 Attention: Michael J. Prittie October 20, 1998 Consulting Engineers and Geoscientists Offices in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska Report Geotechnical Engineering Services South Yard Plant 2 Buildings Seattle, Washington File No. 0120-230-02 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering services for the proposed South Yard Buildings at Boeing Plant 2 in Seattle, Washington. The site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1 and the Site Plan, Figure 2. Our services have been conducted in general accordance with our proposal dated August 21, 1998 which was authorized by Michael Prittie on September 1, 1998. Our understanding of the project is based on information provided by Michael Prittie of Boeing Commercial Airplane Group and Tom Lee of Harris Group, Inc. We understand that 3 buildings are planned in the south yard area of Plant 2. These include a CUB (utility building) located near the southeast end of the existing 2-80 Building, a new building to replace the existing 2-83 and 2-87 Buildings, and an extension of the Wind Tunnel Building. Foundation load information is currently unavailable at this time. However, we understand that pile support is anticipated for all of the new construction. The column spacing in the new buildings will vary between about 30 to 55 feet. PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of our geotechnical engineering services will be to evaluate subsurface conditions as a basis for providing recommendations for the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the three South Yard Buildings. Our scope of services addresses the design information needs in the Project Memorandum No. 98-1420/01 dated August 17, 1998 to the extent applicable for the subsurface conditions encountered. Our services include the following: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410154th Avenue N.E. Redmond, WA 98052 Telephone (425) 861-6000 Fax (425) 86116050 www.geoengineers.com 1 Boeing Support Services ' October 20, 1998 Page 2 1. Evaluate subsurface conditions by reviewing Togs of nearby borings and test pits available in our files and provided by The Boeing Company. 2. Coordinate our explorations with Boeing Environmental staff as needed for their assessment of possible soil contamination. 3. Complete three borings to depths ranging from 59.5 to 119.5 feet with a truck -mounted drill rig to determine subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the locations indicated on the site plan provided by Mike Prittie. 4. Install a piezometer in one of the borings to observe the ground water level after the level has stabilized in the borehole. 5. Complete laboratory tests on representative soil samples obtained from the borings. The tests include moisture and density determinations and grainsize analysis. 6. Provide recommendations for site preparation and earthwork including use of on-site soil for structural fill, requirements for imported structural fill, compaction criteria, utility trench excavation and backfill, slope inclinations and/or shoring requirements for excavations, and wet weather considerations. 7. Develop recommendations for pile support of the structures including pile penetration - capacity relationships, lateral capacity, settlement performance and installation criteria or other foundation types as appropriate. 8. Provide recommendations for on -grade slab support. 9. Evaluate seismic design considerations including site liquefaction potential. 10. Attend one meeting with Boeing and the design team. 11. Prepare a written report containing our conclusions and recommendations along with the supporting field data. 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 bounded by East Marginal Way South on the east, the Duwamish River on the west and other Boeing facilities on the north and south. The ground surface is generally level at the site. Existing buildings generally consist of 1- to 4 -story steel and concrete buildings. The 2-80 Building, which is adjacent to the northwest side of the site, is currently under construction. The existing buildings are generally surrounded by Portland Cement and asphalt concrete pavement. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling three borings to depths ranging from 59.5 to 119.5 feet. The locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. A description of the filed exploration and laboratory testing procedures, logs of the borings and results of the laboratory tests are presented in Appendix A. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 Boeing Support Services October 20, 1998 Page 3 Pavement sections were encountered at the ground surface in each of the borings. The pavement consist of 2.5 to 6.5 inches asphalt concrete or Portland Cement concrete overlying about 2.5 inches of gravel base. Fill, consisting of loose to medium dense sand with varying amounts of gravel, was encountered below the pavement sections to a depth of about 10 feet. Alluvial deposits were encountered below the fill in each of the explorations. The alluvial deposits generally consist of loose to medium dense sand, sand with silt and silty sand to a depth of about 66 feet. Thin interbedded layers of silt were encountered within the sandy layers between depths of 45 to 60 feet. Borings B-1 and B-3 were completed in the loose to medium dense alluvial sand deposit. In boring B-2, soft to medium stiff silt was encountered below the sand between depths of 66 to 89 feet. The underlying soil consists of very soft to soft clay. The clay layer was encountered to a depth of 114 feet. Loose to medium dense silty sand was encountered below the clay and extended through the depth explored, 119.5 feet. Ground water was encountered during drilling at depths of 12 to 13 feet below the ground surface. The ground water level was measured in the piezometer in boring B-3 at a depth of 12.5 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, experience on other nearby project sites, and analyses, it is our opinion that the proposed buildings may be constructed satisfactorily at the site provided that the considerations and recommendations presented in this report are incorporated into the project planning. We recommend that the buildings be supported using augercast piles. Shallow foundation support of retaining walls or other lightly loaded structures may be considered for the project. The loose to medium dense sand encountered below the site has a moderate to high potential for liquefaction during an earthquake. Supporting the buildings on augercast piles will minimize the risk of liquefaction induced settlements. Differential settlements will likely occur between pile supported structures and structures supported on shallow foundations. We recommend that this issue be addressed as part of the design process. The onsite soils generally consist of fine sand and silty sand which are somewhat moisture sensitive. We recommend that site preparation and earthwork activities be completed during the drier summer months, if feasible, to reduce grading costs. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS Regional Seismicity The Puget Sound region is seismically active and lies within Seismic Risk Zone 3 with a Seismic Zone Factor (Z) of 0.30 as classified by the 1997Uniform Building Code. Based on the results of our explorations, it is our opinion that the soil profile may be characterized using Soil G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 Boeing Support Services ' October 20, 1998 Page 4 Profile Type SE, as defined in the Uniform Building Code. This soil profile results in the following seismic coefficients, Ca=0.36 and Cv=0.84. Seismicity in this region is attributed primarily to the interaction between the Pacific, Juan de Fuca and North American plates. The Juan de Fuca plate is subducting beneath the North American Plate. Each year, numerous earthquakes occur in Oregon and Washington. However, only a few of these are typically felt because the majority of recorded earthquakes are smaller than magnitude 3. In recent years, two large earthquakes occurred which resulted in some liquefaction in loose alluvial deposits and significant damage to some structures. The first earthquake, which was centered in the Olympia area, occurred in 1949 with a Richter magnitude of 7.1. The second earthquake occurred in 1965, was centered between Seattle and Tacoma, and had a Richter magnitude of 6.5. Liquefaction Potential Liquefaction refers to a condition where vibration or shaking of the ground, usually from earthquake forces, results in development of excess pore pressures in saturated soils and subsequent loss of strength in the deposit of soil so affected. In general, soils which are susceptible to liquefaction include loose to medium dense clean to silty sands which are below the water table. The evaluation of liquefaction potential is complex and is dependent on numerous site parameters, including soil grain size, soil density, site geometry, static stresses, and the design ground acceleration. Typically, the liquefaction potential of a site is evaluated by comparing the cyclic shear stress ratio (the ratio of the cyclic shear stress to the initial effective overburden stress) induced by an earthquake to the cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction. The cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction was estimated using an empirical procedure based on blow count data obtained during sampling in the borings. This method relates the cyclic shear stress ratio required to cause liquefaction to the blow count value and the fines content of the soil. We have evaluated the earthquake -induced cyclic shear stress ratio at this site using an empirical relationship developed by researchers for this purpose. Our analysis indicates that the loose to medium dense sand which underlies the site to depths of about 40 feet has a moderate to high risk of liquefying under a magnitude 7.5 design earthquake with a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.3g. The potential ground settlement caused by liquefaction will vary depending on the actual levels of ground shaking, the duration of shaking, and site-specific soil conditions. We estimate that ground surface settlements on the order of 4 to 8 inches may occur during an earthquake with a magnitude of 7.5 and a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.30g. We expect that differential settlements will be on the order of 2 to 4 inches. In order to minimize the risk of liquefaction induced settlements damaging the buildings, the buildings should be supported on deep foundations that carry the structural loads below a depth of 40 feet. The foundation support G e o E n g i n c c r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 Boeing Support Services October 20, 1998 Page 5 recommendations for augercast piles take into account the potential Toss of frictional support around the upper portion of the piles so that support for the building superstructure would be maintained Liquefaction -induced settlement could result in cracking or subsidence of slabs -on -grade requiring repairs but should not require widespread reconstruction. Slabs may be supported on augercast piles to reduce the risk of liquefaction -induced settlement. SITE PREPARATION AND EARTHWORK Site Preparation We recommend that all concrete slabs and footings, and asphalt and Portland Cement concrete pavements be removed from proposed building areas. Existing abandoned buried pipe, if present, should either be removed or left in place and filled with a sand or lean grout slurry. Any existing voids or new depressions created during site preparation should be cleaned of loose soil or debris and backfilled with structural fill. If desired, asphalt concrete and Portland Cement concrete pavement removed from within the new building areas can be stockpiled and reused as fill provided that they are broken down as recommended in a subsequent section of this report. The surficial soils are somewhat sensitive to moisture but should be adequate for support of construction equipment during most weather conditions. However, we recommend that earthwork take place during the normally dry period of the year (summer to early fall). We recommend that temporary trenches in the near -surface soils encountered in our explorations be sloped no steeper than 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical). This slope inclination should be made flatter by the contractor if significant seepage or sloughing occurs. The recommended slope inclination assumes that traffic, construction equipment or construction materials will be located no closer to the top of the slope than a distance equal to one-half the depth of cut. Since the contractor has control of the construction operations, he should be made responsible for the dewatering methods used, stability of cut slopes, and safety of the excavations. All shoring and temporary cut slopes should conform to applicable local, state and federal safety regulations. After demolition of remaining existing structures within the new building footprint and filling of depressions are complete, any pavement subgrade areas should be proofrolled with heavy, rubber -tired equipment if site preparation is done during prolonged dry weather. If this work is done during wet weather, the exposed subgrade soils should be probed and all but lightweight equipment kept off the surface. Any soft, loose or otherwise unsuitable areas detected should be recompacted, if practical, or removed and replaced with structural fill. We recommend that proofrolling and probing of subgrade areas be observed by a representative of our firm to identify areas needing remedial work and to assess the adequacy of subgrade conditions. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 Boeing Support Services October 20, 1998 Page 6 Structural Fill All new fill placed to achieve design grades within the building areas or beneath pavement and slabs -on -grade should be placed as compacted structural fill. Structural fill should be free of debris, organic or man-made contaminants, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches. The suitability of soil for use as fill will depend on its gradation and moisture content. As the amount of fines (particles passing the No. 200 sieve) increases, soil becomes increasingly more sensitive to small changes in moisture content and adequate compaction becomes more difficult to achieve. Granular soils with less than about 5 percent fines will be suitable for fill in most weather conditions. Use of excavated soils as backfill will be largely dependent on the moisture content, weather conditions during construction, and the presence of surface or ground water. Silty sand and sandy silt soils will be difficult to impossible to compact when more than 1 or 2 percent wetter than optimum moisture content. Relatively clean (low percentage of fines) sand should be suitable for use as structural fill under most weather conditions. If on-site soils cannot be adequately compacted due to excessive moisture content, or if backfill must be placed in wet weather conditions, it might be necessary to use imported fill. We recommend that import fill consist of clean sand and gravel with less than 5 percent fines relative to the fraction passing the 3/4 -inch sieve. Asphalt concrete and Portland Cement concrete removed during demolition can be used as fill provided that they are crushed to particles 6 inches or less in largest dimension and mixed with on-site or imported soils. Particle sizes greater than 3 inches should be excluded from the top 1 foot of fill. All utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-1557. The top two feet of fill that will support pavements or other lightly loaded structures should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. All fill placed in the building areas should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. All structural fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding about 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness. Care should be taken not to overcompact the fill against the subsurface walls to avoid causing excess lateral soil pressures or deflections. We recommend that a representative of our firm monitor excavation and backfilling operations on a sufficiently frequent basis to evaluate whether the intent of our recommendations outlined in this section are met. Erosion Control The exposed ground surface will be subject to erosion during wet weather. Preventive erosion control measures that should be implemented on the site include minimizing the area of site disturbance and site grading to avoid concentrated runoff. Preventive sediment transport measures that should be implemented along the site boundaries include installation of silt fences, straw bales, or other devices that will trap sediment and prevent it from moving off site. G e o E n gine e r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 Boeing Support Services October 20, 1998 Page 7 PILE FOUNDATION SUPPORT Vertical Capacity The proposed buildings can be satisfactorily supported on augercast piles that extend below the potentially liquefiable soils. The piles will derive their capacity largely from friction within the soils encountered below a depth of about 40 feet. We recommend that the piles extend at least 10 feet below the potentially liquefiable soils. Structural loading information is not currently available; therefore, recommendations are presented for a range of loads and for two augercast pile diameters. A tabulation of the pile lengths and allowable axial pile capacities for 16- and 18 -inch diameter piles are presented in the following table. We recommend against installing longer piles because the soils in the area typically became softer and looser below the recommended pile lengths. Pile Diameter Pile Length (feet) Allowable Pile Capacity (kips) Downward Uplift 16 -inch augercast 50 80 20 55 95 31 18 -inch augercast 50 95 23 55 115 35 These allowable pile capacities apply to all long-term live and dead loads and may be increased byone-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 potentially liquefiable sands encountered to a depth of 40 feet below ground surface. The allowable pile capacities are based on the strength of the supporting soils for the penetrations indicated and include an appropriate factor of safety. The capacities apply to single piles. If piles within groups are spaced at least three -pile diameters apart on center, no reduction for pile group action need be made. The structural characteristics of the pile materials and structural limitations may impose more stringent limitations and should be evaluated by the structural engineer. If the piles are designed to resist uplift loads, we recommend that a single reinforcing bar be centered in the pile and installed the entire length of the augercast pile to develop uplift capacity. It should be noted that the recommended pile penetrations and allowable capacities presented above are based on assumed uniformity of subsurface soil conditions at the site. There may be unexpected variations in the depth to and characteristics of the supporting soils across the site. Accordingly, we recommend that pile installation be monitored by a member of our staff to observe installation procedures and evaluate the adequacy of individual pile installations. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 . Boeing Support Services October 20, 1998 Page 8 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 Toads 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 Toads are transferred to the piles will be a function of the design of the foundation system. The allowable lateral capacity for 16 - inch -diameter augercast piles may be taken as 8 kips. For I 8 -inch -diameter augercast piles, the allowable lateral capacity may be taken as 10 kips. These capacities are based on a maximum pile head deflection of about 1/2 inch at the ground surface. The maximum bending moment in the pile will be 33 kip -feet and 45 kip -feet for 16- and 18 -inch -diameter piles, respectively. The maximum bending moment will occur approximately 7 feet below the top of the pile and will diminish with depth. We recommend that reinforcing be installed to a minimum depth of 20 feet and 23 fee for 16- and 18 -inch -diameter piles, respectively to resist bending moments associated with lateral loading. Passive soil resistance of the pile caps and buried grade beams can be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for a level backfill surface, provided the backfill is compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). This value incorporates a factor of safety of about 1.5. Sliding friction on the base of pile -supported foundation elements should be ignored. Pile Installation Augercast (cast -in-place) concrete piles should be installed to the recommended penetration using a continuous -flight, hollow -stem auger. As is common practice, the pile grout is pumped under pressure through the hollow stem as the auger is withdrawn. Reinforcing steel for bending and uplift is placed in the fresh grout column immediately after withdrawal of the auger. An advantage of the augercast pile installation method is that it causes relatively little vibration. We recommend that the augercast piles be installed by a contractor experienced in their placement and using suitable equipment. Grout pumps should be fitted with a volume -measuring device and pressure gauge so that the volume of grout placed in each pile and the pressure head can be easily determined. While grouting, the rate of auger withdrawal should be uniform and controlled such that the volume of grout pumped is equivalent to at least 115 percent of the theoretical hole volume. A minimum grout line pressure of 100 psi and a minimum grout head of 10 feet (depth of auger in ground when grout return is observed) should be maintained. We recommend that there be a waiting period of at least eight hours between installation of piles G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 • . Boeing Support Services October 20, 1998 Page 9 spaced closer than 10 feet center -to -center in order to avoid disturbance of concrete undergoing curing in a previously cast pile. There may be unexpected variations in the depth to and characteristics of the supporting soils across the site. In addition, no direct information regarding the capacity of augercast piles (e.g., driving resistance data) is obtained while this type of pile is being installed. Accordingly, we strongly recommend that we be retained to monitor drilling operations, record indicated penetrations into supporting soils, monitor grout injection pressures, record the volume of grout placed in each pile relative to the calculated volume of the hole, and evaluate the adequacy of each pile installation. SHALLOW FOUNDATION SUPPORT We understand that shallow foundations may be used for lightly loaded structures (i.e. canopy foundations) and retaining walls. We recommend that conventional spread footings bear on a minimum of 1 foot of structural fill, placed and compacted as described in a previous section. Exterior footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade; interior footings should have a minimum embedment of 12 inches. Individual spread footings should have a minimum width of 2 feet. Continuous strip footings should be at least 18 inches wide. Isolated and continuous footings dimensioned as recommended above and underlain by at least 1 foot of compacted structural fill can be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf. This bearing pressure applies to the sum of all dead plus long-term live Toads, excluding the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. These values may be increased by one-third when earthquake or wind loads are considered. We anticipate that settlements of structures supported on footings designed and constructed as recommended will not exceed about 1 inch. Differential settlements should be less than about 1/2 inch. These settlements are expected to occur rapidly as the loads are applied. As discussed in the section entitled "Seismic Considerations," additional settlement resulting from liquefaction of underlying soil may occur during an earthquake. We recommend that, where practical, structures not be supported by combined piles and shallow footings to limit the potential differential settlement between the two support systems. Where structures are supported by a combination of shallow footings and piles, we recommend a hinge be provided to allow for differential settlements on the order of 1/2 to 1 inch.. Lateral resistance on the face of embedded foundation elements can be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for a level backfill surface, provided the backfill is compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). Frictional resistance should be evaluated using 0.4 for the coefficient of base friction. These values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. G e o E n g i n e c r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 Boeing Support Services • October 20, 1998 Page 10 FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT In our opinion, the floor slabs may be supported on -grade over a compacted structural fill pad. However, in order to reduce the potential for distress related to liquefaction -induced settlement, the floor slabs should be supported on piles. The relative merits, costs and risks of these support alternatives should be considered in the design of the buildings. For on -grade floor slabs, the exposed subgrade should be proofrolled, preferably during dry weather, to achieve a density of at least 92 percent of maximum 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. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pci (pounds per cubic inch) is recommended for concrete slabs supported on at least 1 foot of compacted structural fill. We recommend that the on -grade or pile supported slabs be directly underlain by 6 inches of granular base course material consisting of 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. RETAINING WALLS We recommend that for building walls and other retaining walls which will provide grade transitions be designed for lateral pressures based on an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). This assumes that the walls will not be restrained against rotation when backfill is placed. If the walls are restrained against rotation, we recommend using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf. The above -recommended lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of surcharges such as floor loads, traffic loads or other surface loading. A lateral force coefficient of 0.4 should be used for accounting for surcharge effects. The lateral pressure experienced by the wall due to surcharge loading is calculated by multiplying the lateral force coefficient and the surcharge load. In settlement sensitive areas behind walls (e.g., beneath on -grade slabs), the upper 2 feet of fill behind the walls should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with ASTM D-1 557. At other locations and below a depth of 2 feet, wall backfill should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of ASTM D-1557. Measures should be taken to prevent overcompaction of the backfill behind the wall. G e o E n g i n e e r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 •1 . Boeing Support Services October 20, 1998 Page 11 The recommended equivalent fluid density assumes a free -draining condition behind the wall. This may be accomplished by placing an 18- to 24 -inch -wide zone of sand and gravel containing less than 5 percent fines behind walls where there is a potential for accumulation of water. We recommend that perimeter drains be installed at the base of subsurface walls to remove water for the granular backfill as described below in "Drainage Considerations." DRAINAGE CONSIDERATONS Ground water was encountered in the explorations at depths ranging from 12 to 13 feet below the ground surface. Excavations at the site are not expected to extend below this depth. "Perched" ground water may be encountered above this depth if work takes place during or immediately following extended wet weather. We anticipate that the "perched" water can be handled during construction by ditching and sump pumping, as necessary. All collected water should be routed to suitable discharge points. We recommend that retaining wall footings be constructed with drains. The drains should consist of perforated pipe a minimum of 4 inches in diameter enveloped within a minimum thickness of 4 inches of washed gravel drain rock. A nonwoven geotextile fabric will not be needed provided the granular drain rock is placed with structural fill. A nonwoven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N, Polyfelt TS600 or Trevira 1112 should be placed between the drain rock and native soils to prevent movement of fines into the drainage material. We recommend that finish surfaces adjacent to the buildings be sloped so that surface drainage flows away from the buildings. All roof drains and retaining wall drains should be connected to tightlines that discharge into the storm sewer disposal system. Roof drains should be kept separate for retaining wall drains. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for use 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 considerations to see that our recommendations have been interpreted and implemented as intended. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the locations of the explorations and also with time. Some contingency for unanticipated conditions should be } G e o E n g i n c e r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 Boeing Support Services October 20, 1998 Page 12 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., 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. Yours very truly, GeoEngineers, Inc. Shaun D. Stauffer, P.E. Project Engineer SDS:JKT:ja P:\02\finals\012023002r. doc Four copies submitted Jack K. Tuttle, P.E. Principal G e o E n g i n c c r s File No. 0120-230-02-1130 012023037:102897 8X11THOM.DWG -J 0 0 1 2400 4800 SCALE IN FEET Reference: This map reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. This mop is copyrighted by THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resole, without permission. Geoff Engineers VICINITY MAP FIGURE 1 BUILDING 2-81 BUILDING 2-80 Note: The locations of all features shown are approximate. Reference: Drawing provided by Boeing. dated 08/14/98. yi BUILDING 2-84 BUILDING 2-83 / 0 EXPLANATION: B-1 + BORING 1 200 SCALE IN FEET Geo Engineers SITE PLAN FIGURE 2 J • r :/rl` • 1"- �s J T_ • . a>i:. • • .. •1• \\\ • �I , (' 4 l % " •� t �. 1,; •'ti• Z Tip APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS Subsurface soil and ground water conditions at the site were evaluated by drilling three borings to depths ranging from 59.5 to 119.5 feet. The borings were completed by Holt Drilling using a Mobil B-59, continuous flight, hollow stem auger drill rig. The locations of the explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The locations were determined in the field by taping distances from the existing site features. The explorations were monitored on a full-time basis by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who visually examined and classified the soils encountered, obtained representative soil samples, observed ground water conditions, and maintained a detailed log of the boring. Soil samples were obtained at 5 -foot intervals using a 2.5 -inch -inside -diameter split barrel sampler. The sampler was driven into the soil using a 300 -pound winch driven hammer free -falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The number of hammer blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches, or other indicated distance, is recorded on the boring Togs. The soils encountered were visually classified in general accordance with the classification system shown in Figure A -I. A key to the boring log symbols is presented in Figure A-2. Logs of the borings are presented in Figures A-3 through A-5. The logs are based on our interpretation of the field and laboratory data and indicate the various types of soil encountered. They also indicate the depths at which the materials or their characteristics change, although the change may actually be gradual. The densities noted on the boring logs are based on correlating hammer blow counts with published data, laboratory analyses and our experience and judgment. A 1 -inch -diameter piezometer was installed in boring B-3 after drilling was completed. The piezometer was installed to a depth of 20 feet below existing surface grade. Screened well casing was installed between 10 and 20 feet below ground surface. The piezometer is protected by a flush -mounted cast iron well monument. 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, in-place dry density and gradation characteristics. The results of the moisture content and density determinations are presented on the boring logs. The gradation test results are summarized in Figures A-6 through A-8. G e o E n g i n e e r s A-1 File No. 0120-230-02-1130 GEI 85-85 Rev. 05/93 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Retained on No. 200 Sieve GRAVEL More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Retained on No. 4 Sieve CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL-GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVEL GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL GC CLAYEY GRAVEL SAND More Than 50% of Coarse Fraction Passes No. 4 Sieve CLEAN SAND SW WELL-GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY-GRADED SAND SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND FINE GRAINED SOILS More Than 50% Passes No. 200 Sieve SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit Less Than 50 INORGANIC ML SILT 3 CL CLAY ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY SILT AND CLAY Liquid Limit 50 or More INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS: 1. Field classification is based on visual examination of soil Dry - ' Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch in general accordance with ASTM D2488-90. Moist - Damp, but no visible water 2. Soil classification using • laboratory tests is based on ASTM D2487-90. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from below water table 3. Descriptions of soil density or consistency are based on interpretation of blow count data, visual appearance of soils, and/or test data. { Geo1O Engineers SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FIGURE A-1 LABORATORY TESTS AL Atterberg Limits CP Compaction CS Consolidation DS Direct shear GS Grain size %F Percent fines HA Hydrometer Analysis SK Permeability SM Moisture Content MD Moisture and density SP Swelling pressure TX Triaxial compression UC Unconfined compression CA 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: 221 SM Soil Group Symbol (See Note 2) SZ Distinct Contact Between Soil Strata Gradual or Approximate Location of Change Between Soil Strata Water Level Bottom of Boring Location of relatively undisturbed sample 12 ® Location of disturbed sample Location of sampling attempt with no recovery 17 10 0 Location of sample obtained in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test (ASTM D-1586) procedures 6 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 Togs for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 2. Soil classification system is summarized in Figure A-1. - Geo Engineers KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS FIGURE A-2 0 G .,,,-,30-02 DEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density I31ow Group Lab Tests (%) (pct) Count Samples Symbol BORING B-1 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft): 0- -- 5- 5- 10- 10- 15- 15- 30- 30- 35- 35 40— 40— MD MD 25 98 MD 29 77 5 1 6 5 ■ 15 ■ 13 ■ AC 2.5 inches of asphalt concrete 24 ■ 25 ■ Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols GP 2 inches gravel base SP Brown fine to medium sand with occasional line gravel (loose, moist) (fill) SP -SM Black fine sand with silt (loose to medium dense, wet) SP -SM Black fine to medium sand with silt (medium dense, wet) DEPTH IN METERS Geo‘� Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-3 10/1../o DEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group lab "l csts (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING B-1 (Continued) DESCRIPTION 40 45 50 — 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80— MD 0— MD 24 102 9 1 13 12 1 9 1 SM Black silty line to medium sand (loose, wet) ML Gray silt with fine sand (medium stip wet) SM Black silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, wet) Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols Boring completed at 59.5 feet on 9/28/98 Ground water encountered at 12.0 feet during drilling — 13 — 14 —15 — 16 — 19 —20 —21 —22 —23 —24 Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-3 LTJ 10/14, `JO Gicv-4s0-02 DEPTH IN FEET 0- 5- 10- 15- 20 — 25 — 30 — 35 — 40 — TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density E3loss' Group Lab Tests (%) (pct) Count Samples Symbol BORING B-2 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): MD 20 86 MD,GS 30 91 MD,GS 23 102 5 5 1 3 1 9 14 24 15 1 1'CC SP 6.5 inches Portland Cement concrete Brown fine to medium sand (loose, moist) (fill) SM Brown silty fine sand (very loose, wet) SP -SM Black fine sand with silt (loose to medium dense, wet) SP -SM Black fine to medium sand with silt (medium dense, wet) 1 Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols 0 —1 —2 —3 —4 —5 —6 —7 —8 — 9 —10 — 11 — 12 DEPTH IN METERS Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-4 0 0 i zu-LJJ-02 DEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Glow Group Lab Tests (94) (pcf) Count Samplcs Symbol BORING B-2 (Continued) DESCRIPTION 40- 45 50- 55 — 60 — 65 — 70 — 75 — 80 — MD,GS 27 96 MD 30 83 MD 33 81 10 11 10 1 5 ■ 4 ■ 5 ■ 3 1 7 0 Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols SM • .Black silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, wet) ML Gray silt with fine to medium sand (medium stiff to stiff wet) SP Black fine to medium sand with occasional organics (loose to medium dense, wet) ML Dark gray silt with fine sand (soft, wet) SM Black silty fine sand (loose, wet) ML Gray silt with fine sand (soft to medium still; wet) —13 —14 —15 —16 —17 _ v) tr w F- - w i —18� 0 w 0 —19 —20 —21 —22 — 23 — 24 Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-4 TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density I3Iow G oup Lab Tests (°ib) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING B-2 (Continued) DESCRIPTION 80-- 85 90 — 95 — 105- 110 115 O v 6 120 MD 43 72 4 3 2 ■ ■ 5 ■ 6 2 10 ./ CL Gray clay with silt and occasional organics (very soft to soft, wet) Note: Sec Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols SM Gray silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, wet) Boring completed at 119.5 feet on 9/25/98 Ground water encountered at 12.5 feet during drilling — 25 — 26 — 27 — 28 — 29 — 32 — 33 — 34 — 35 — 36 Geo ,Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-4 .J VJ 1O/14/vo 01'ty-tiO-02 DEPTH IN FEET TEST DATA !Moisture Dry Content Density I31ow Group Lab Tests (%) (pcf) Count Samples Symbol BORING B-3 DESCRIPTION Surface Elevation (ft.): 0- 5- 10- 15 -� 20- 0- 25- 25- 30- 30- 35- 35-- 40— 40— MD MD 6 96 MD . 26 97 10 4 3 8 22 19 4 3 PCC 3.5 inches Portland Cement concrete z GP 2.5 inches gravel bast SP Brown fine to medium sand (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) SP -SM Black fine sand with silt (loose, wet) SP -SM Black fine to medium sand with silt (medium dense, wet) SP Black fine to medium sand with occasional organics (loose, wct) Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols DEPTH IN METERS Geo ,Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-5 TEST DATA Moisture Dry Content Density Blow Group Lab Tests (%) (pct) Count Samples Symbol BORING B-3 (Continued) DESCRIPTION 40- 0- 45- 45- 50— 50— F-- 111 FF- w - u - _Z - S a p 60—, 65 — 70- 0- 75- 75- 80— 80— MD MD 20 95 5 ■ 11 1 9 1 8 ■ Note: See Figure A-2 for explanation of symbols SM Black silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, wet) —13 —14 —15 —16 —17 to w 1— _ _ i —18— Boring completed at 59.5 feet on 9/18/98 n~= Ground water encountered at 13.0 feet during drilling - w 1 inch piezometer installed from 0.0 to 20.0 feet —19 —20 —21 —22 —23 —24 Geo Engineers LOG OF BORING FIGURE A-5 0120-230-02 SDS:PDR:jrs 10/08/98 (sievc.ppt) 9-V 3af1013 Sflf1S9Z1 SISA1VNV 3/GIS PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 ,000 U.S. S IANUAKU SIEVE SILL a0 100 10 o Ito illim Ill 111111 I 1111011 111111.0= I li Ilprg iihrho iris moo , 1 ..T. Eli u_i_ j_i__ 6 111111 rim pillillp1 E. NT w p' ill did GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION SAND B-2 SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION • B-2 13.5 Brown silty fine sand (SM) 0120-230-02 SDS:PDR:jrs 10/08/98 (sieve.ppt) CD 0 tTi CD CD L -V 321f10Id S11f1S321 SISA1VNV 3A2IS PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 3" 5" /4" 8" U.S. S IANUAKL) SIEVE SIZE #*0 # 0 N �0 >Y60 #l0 #2Q0 —r 1000 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION SAND 13-2 SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION • 13-2 23.0 Black fine sand with silt (SP -SM) 0120-230-02 SDS:PDR:jrs 10/08/98 (sieve.ppt) 8-v 323f1013 S11f1S3H SISA1VNV 3/GIS PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 - 60 50 40 30 20 _ 10 0 U.S. S IANUANU SIEVE SIZE ' /4" :48" 1000 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0 1 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION SAND B-2 SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) SOIL CLASSIFICATION • B-2 43.5 Black silty fine sand (SM) Exhibit C Boeing Transonic Wind Tunnel Up -grade Task Name Duration 1998 1999 2000 2001 7/19 IlTmlimmigils. 7/19 1©/1 a 9/24 3/2 BTWT Up -grade 85w Planned Action Checklist low Building Permit 16w ::,:, 1/2o Construction 58w 1/24 --" 3/2 wind tunnel Exhibit D Acoustic Analysis of BTWT Upgrade Boeing Purchase Order FM-65306-09LHN Prepared for: The Boeing Company Aero/Noise/Propulsion (ANP) Laboratories Prepared by: ASE Aero Systems Engineering, Inc. 358 East Fillmore Avenue St. Paul, MN 55107-1289 612-227-7515 21 May 1998 BTWT Circuit Upgrade Acoustic Analysis Introduction The BTWT is a closed circuit transonic wind tunnel. The test section measures 12 ft by 8 ft with 2 ft corner fillets. Motive power is provided by a two stage compressor located in the back leg driven by a 51,000 HP motor set. Temperature is controlled by an air exchange system at corner #3. A fraction of the tunnel circulating air is exchanged with fresh outside air though a vent tower. As part of a forthcoming circuit modification, the air exchange system will be replaced and an air -water heat exchanger located in the back leg just upstream of corner #3. The existing concrete shell between the fan and the test section will be replaced with a stiffened steel shell. These two features will DUWAM BLASTF 0 markedly alter the noise radiated to the environment. Removing the air exchange tower will eliminate a direct airborne noise path. The steel shell will have a significantly lower transmission loss than the existing concrete shell. This report documents results of a noise analysis aimed at predicting the noise levels of the modified circuit. A plan view of the existing wind tunnel is shown on Figure 1. The location of the relevant circuit components and the principle measurement stations are identified using an X,Y,Z, coordinate system. The fan is located at the origin. X measures positive downstream toward corner #3, Y measures transverse, and Z measures upward. Distance is measured in meters. Figure 1. BTWT Circuit Layout page 2 EMM 0 0 DRN6 BTWT Circuit Upgrade Acoustic Analysis The important features concerning the noise radiation are the diffuser wall, the air exchange vent tower and the air exchanger wall. The diffuser wall is modeled as a 100 m- noise source parallel to the X direction with coordinates: -20<X<30, Y=5, Z=5. The specific axial coordinate is based on the closest distance to the measurement location. The vent tower is modeled as an omnidirectional source located at X=50, Y=0, Z=15. The tower wall is modeled as a 60 m2 source located at X=50, Y=8, Z=5. The calibration procedure described below is used to determine the transmission loss characteristics between the interior and each of these sources. The prediction scheme is based on standard procedures for calculating reverberant room characteristics, wall transmission losses, source directivity, geometrical divergence, and atmospheric attenuation. The basic procedure has been calibrated against several engine test cells which are large concrete structures. It has been modified for use with the BTWT wind tunnel 'circuit. Existing noise measurements have been used to calibrate the procedure. Concern has been raised over the existence of a tone from the fan which emanates from the air exchange tower. This feature is not given special treatment. It is assumed that the appropriate acoustic energy is contained in the measured data and that the calibration described below is sufficient to capture this energy. Calibration Figure 2 describes the acoustic power level generated by the main chive fan at the M=0.9 operating condition. The JOY curve represents a semi -empirical calculation based on extensive measurements of the sound power from small scale mine ventilation fans.' The operating conditions have been scaled to a 60 inch diameter JOY fan with a 30 inch diameter hub, operating at 1770 RPM to determine the noise level. The scale factor for the BTWT fan is 5. For instance the model data at 625 Hz is used to estimate the BTWT fan noise at 125 Hz. The AMES curve also represents a semi -empirical calculation procedure based on measurements conducted at NASA Ames on subscale versions of the fans installed in the 40ft by 80ft wind tunnel.- The actual curve is based on recent SPL measurements in the BTWT diffuser,' and extrapolated to the source power using relevant reverberant room parameters. dB 10"-12W 150.0 145.0 140.0 135.0 130.0 125.0 120.0 115.0 110.0 FAN POWER VELS 10 100 1000 fnqu.ncy (H:) Figure 2. Fan Acoustic Power Le�'e1 10000 Reasonable agreement exists between the actual curve and the Joy curve in the frequency range between I25Hz and 2 kHz. The difference at 250Hz is assumed to be the blade passing tone. The lack of agreement outside this range is of less concern as these differences will contribute little to the radiated noise. The actual curve will be used for all subsequent calculations. Figure 3 demonstrates the enforced agreement between the diffuser SPL measurements and the reverberant room calculations. page 3 a 0 N CO 140 130 120 110 100 90 BTWT Circuit Upgrade Acoustic Analysis noise level inside tunnel interior - - data 10 100 Hz 1000 10000 Figure 3. Noise Level Inside ('inuit f1.ickleg (exi,tiug Loncrete) Figures 4 - 8 show results of calculations made to calibrate the calculation procedure against the measured data at the locations defined on Table 1. Each curve shows the actual measurement as a heavy solid line. The three additional curves represent the noise generated by each of the relevant noise paths from the tunnel interior out to the environment. The curve labeled "concrete shell" refers to noise transmitted directly through the concrete diffuser wall. The curve labeled "tower" represents noise radiated through the open air exchange tower. The curve labeled "tower wall" represents noise radiated directly through the wooden air exchange tower. LOCATION X Y Z Near Wall BLASTF EMM DRN6 DUWAM 15 -10 80 55 -200 7 1.5 20 1.5 20 1.5 7 1.5 0 1.5 11:51 AMTable I. Measurement Locations The concrete wall calculations are based on a measured transmission loss for the BTWT. The difference between the interior noise measured inside the diffuser and ,noise level directly outside the wall is taken as the wall transmission loss. The exterior noise is derived from acoustic intensity measurements which measures only the noise emanating directly from the wall. This is compared with our standard procedure for calculating transmission loss through concrete walls on Figure I I . The transmission loss between the tunnel interior and the air exchanger vent is empirically derived from the measured level at EMM and DRN6 with consideration for geometrical divergence. The transmission loss for the exhaust tower wall is established using two 1 inch thick plywood walls. The first wall separates the tunnel flow from the inlet plenum. The second wall separates the inlet plenum from the exterior. The calibration procedure is accomplished by trial and error until the noise levels at all locations given on table 1 are in reasonable agreement with the measured data. This establishes the characteristics and constants for evaluating the upgrade changes. Figure 4 demonstrates the comparison at the near wall location. The noise is transmitted through the concrete shell diffuser wall. The other two noise sources are not important. composite noise level dB • 20 e•6Pa 100 90 80 70 60 50 near wall concrete shell tower tower wall 40 10 100 1000 Hz fi.• Ire 4 Noise ai Near \Vail Luc;unm. v=l;. ,=7 10000 Figure 5 demonstrates the comparison at the blast fence. The hulk of the noise is from the concrete diffuser hut the tower noise is becoming more significant. page 4 dB 20 a-6Pa 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 composite noise level 13'fWT Circuit Upgrade Acoustic Analysis — BLASTF concrete shell lower tower wall 10 100 1000 Hz Figure 5. Noise at BLASTI, Location: s=• 1(). v=20 10000 Figure 6 demonstrates the comparison at the EMM location. The hulk of the noise is from the air exchange tower. dB - 20 e•6Pa 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 composite noise level —EMM .. concrete shell I tower tower wall i 10 100 1000 Hz Figure 6. Noise at li:\INI Lr,:anon: s=YO. y=21) 10000 Figure 7 demonstrates the comparison at the DRN6 location. The bulk of the noise is from the air exchange tower. The noise through the wooden tower wall may also be a contribution factor. composite noise level 100 r 90 80 70 60 dB - 20 e•6Pa 50 40 —DRN6 concrete shell tower tower wall 10 100 1000 Hz Figure 7 Nor<e at 1 tItNrt Loc:mon s.55. r=7 10000 Figure 8 demonstrates the comparison at the DUWAM location. The calculation does not properlyaccount for actual measurements. Of the three source under consideration the tower noise is the most likely candidate. However if the tower noise were adjusted to match the pleasured data at this 'location then the levels at .EMM and DRN6 would he too high. Until there is sufficient reason to believe otherwise it is assumed that an additional noise source or noise path is present. Since this is not likely involved with the present upgrade the measured level will remain after the upgrade is completed. This will he addressed again during the discussion on the steel wall diffuser modification. •Composite noise level j -DUWAM 71 dBA concrete shell tower 90 tower wall dB - 20 e-6Pa 100 80 70 60 50 40 10 100 1000 Hz Figure 8. Norse al DU\VAN1 Location:. 200. y=0 10000 Figure 9 demonstrates the comparison at the operators station. The calculated results are derived from two different noise paths. 110 - dB • 20 e-6Pa 100 90 80 70 60 50 noise level in test area \\ 5. — — measured: 85 dBA —calculated 84 dBA 10 100 Hz 1006 Figure 9. Noise at OIk•rimus Slawm 10000 First is the noise generated by the' fan which travels around the circuit to the test leg and is transmitted through the plenum shell into the room. The other is the noise generated by the fan which is transmitted through the common wall that serves as the harrier between the diffuser and the test page 5 BTW•f Circuit Upgrade Acoustic Analysis area. The noise from the first path dominates by approximately 2() dB. Analysis of Modified Circuit The noise analysis of the modified circuit is simplified due to the lack of the air exchange tower. The analysis of the modified circuit starts with the noise level within the diffuser downstream of the fan. The expected noise level will be different than that for the existing circuit due to the differing characteristics between concrete and steel. As shown on Figure 10, the noise level with an untreated steel shell will be approximately 5 dB higher for the same fan operating conditions than that measured for the existing tunnel (curve marked "DATA"). For reference, if the entire interior surface of the backlog circuit were treated with standard 4 inch thick acoustic panels the noise level would drop by approximately 10 dB. 150 noise level inside steel shell tunnel 140 a 130 o 120 N v 110 100 90 10 100 Hz 1000 10000 Figure 10. Nuisc Level Inside Circuit Baelarg (steel shell) The proposed steel shell consists of 5/16" thick plate with stiffeners located 4 to 8 ft apart. The ratio between the stiffener spacing and the shell thickness is sufficiently high that the wall can be considered' as a continuous homogeneous wall. The stiffeners only serve to alter the very low frequency noise well outside the audible range of interest. Thus the calculation can proceed along similar lines to the homogeneous concrete wall with appropriate values for the density and critical frequency. Figure II shows the difference in wall transmission Toss between the existing concrete wall and the proposed steel shell. Both the measured value and that from a previous calculation before the measured data were available show a 15 dB reduction in transmission loss. When coupled with the 5 dB increase in interior noise level due to increased reverberation an increase in noise level of approximately 20 dB will result. dB - 20 a-6Pa 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 wall transmission loss — steel TL•measured • • • original calculation 10 100 Hz 1000 10000 Figure 11. Wall Transmission Loss Results of noise calculations for each of the reference locations are shown on figures 12 through 16. The measured results for each location are shown for comparison. Each figure includes results for the steel shell alone and with an acoustic enclosure surrounding the entire shell. Noise sources for other auxiliary equipment such as wind tunnel valves, piping, pumps, cooling -towers, and other process equipment is not included in this analysis. For the purpose of this calculation the enclosure consists of a 2 mm thick metal skinned huilding with several inches of fiberglass insulation applied to the interior surface. The fiberglass serves to increase page 6 BTWT Circuit Upgrade Acoustic Analysis interior absorption and also to increase the effective mass of the metal wall. As shown by these figures the enclosure reduces the noise level by a significant amount. The spectrum is different than that for the existing wind tunnel but the overall reduction in the A -weighted level is approximately 20 dB. This produces a noise level at each location which is not significantly different than the current levels. The noise level at the DUWAM location deserves special attention. The original calculation shown on figure 8 does not agree with the measured levels. This discrepancy has been attributed to an additional noise source or noise path not considered in the analysis. The presence of this additional noise will not change as a result of the modification. As shown on Figure 16 the calculated level with the enclosure is 49 dBA. However, the true noise level is not expected to be reduced below the current level of 71 dBA. Without the acoustic enclosure the noise level will increase slightly. 130 120 i 110 o 0 100 D 90 80 70 1 —steel shell only 110 dBA with enclosure 87 dBA -----•- near wap 88dBA d8 • 20 e-6Pa 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 —steel shell only. 101 dBA with enclosure 78 dBA • BLASTF 7700A • 10 100 Hz 1000 Figure 13. Nome at BLAS'F Location: x=• 111. y='ll .120 110 a 100 dB • 20 e•6Pa 90 80 70 60 10 —steel shell only 104 dBA with enclosure 87 dBA DRN6 83 dBA 100 Hz 1000 Figure 15. Noise at DRN6 Location: . =55. y=7 10000 10000 —steel shell only 73 dBA with enclosure 49 dBA DUWAM 71 dBA 10 Hz Figure 16. Noise at DUWAM Location: x=-300. y=0 110 \ 100 10 100 1000 10000 Hz Figure 12 Nuns a1 near w II Toe: um: x= 15. y=7 A 90 0 m o 80 0 70 60 50 noise lest in test area — — original: 85 dBA \ — steel shell 97 dBA 10 100 Hz 1000 Figure 17 Test Rouen 10000 The expected noise level at• the operators station is shown on Figure 17. As per the page 7 BTWT Circuit Upgrade Acoustic Analysis previous discussion there arc two noise paths into the test room. That which propagates around the circuit and enters the test room through the test section plenum, and that which propagates directly through the diffuser wall. With the original concrete wall between the backleg interior and the test room replaced by the stiffened steel shell, the second noise path dominates and the noise level will increase. To maintain the current levels the noise from the diffuser wall must be reduced by approximately 20 dB such that the original noise path is dominant. More detailed acoustic analysis and design of the acoustic details must be addressed in the final design stage. Acoustic Enclosure Cost Estimate Scope - The cost estimate for the acoustic enclosure assumes a full turnkey supply of an acoustic enclosure surrounding the wind tunnel from the motor building around through corners 3 and 4 to the contraction. This includes all necessary acoustic analysis and acoustic detailed design, building and foundation design (including a ground floor slab), acoustic enclosure furnish and install, engineering oversight during installation, and validation of acoustic performance. Consistent with the remainder of the project, it does not include the supply and installation of the foundations and ground slab. The cost estimate is based on ASE guaranteeing the acoustic performance of the wind tunnel. ASE would be responsible for providing all necessary acoustic treatment for the new wind tunnel circuit to meet the specified noise levels. The specified noise levels are identified in this report as the measurements taken for the existing wind tunnel at the Duwamish waterway boundary and the East Marginal Way boundary. (Please note that the Duwamish measurements are suspected to be in error and it is assumed that this problem will he resolved). The wind tunnel generated noise shall meet this specification, other noise sources such as noise generated from piping, valves, any auxiliary process equipment, or other facilities are excluded from this specification. No other acoustic requirements or treatments for the wind tunnel project are included in this cost estimate. Treatment of specific tones are not included in this scope. A detailed specification should be developed to support a firm price quote. Acoustic Enclosure Description - The enclosure will he a steel frame with a metal skin. Sound attenuation blankets or acoustic fiberglass batts will be installed on the inner surfaces of the enclosure. If fiberglass batts are used, it will be covered with a 1 mil thick layer of plastic. No other covering is included in this estimate. The enclosure will interface with the existing buildings. No equipment is assumed to be mounted to, or supported by the enclosure. Provisions will he made for piping and ductwork which penetrate the sides of the building. The volume of the building will he as small as possible yet meet code requirements for clearances. Provisions will he made in the roof to allow removal of the heat exchange modules with an mobile overhead crane. Other access requirements to the fan system should also he defined in the final specification. The Boeing Technical Requirement Specification (Section 4.2.) to be able to replace a module in an 8 hour period can not he satisfied due to the added complexities with the acoustic enclosure. page 8 BTWT Circuit Upgrade Acoustic Analysis The building enclosure will be designed to meet existing codes. Lighting will he provided but the space is assumed not to he heated or air conditioned. An access door that matches the largest door in the wind tunnel will be installed in the acoustic enclosure. Modifications or demolition to existing buildings to accommodate the interface with the acoustic enclosure are not included. The estimated cost for the described scope is $1,334,000. This cost includes travel, warranty, and markups. References Joy Mfg Sound Power (Catalog Engineering Data) 2. Soderman, P.T., & Mort, K.W. "Aeroacoustic Characteristics of a Large Variable -Pitch, Variable -Speed Fan System," NASA TM 84333, 1983 3. BTWT noise data, (supplied by Boeing, May 1998) page 9 Occupancy (hours) 8000 7000 6000 • 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 • 0• 1 BTWT Occupancy 0 GC) C) rn rn rn Year co 7) n rn 7) < three shifts/day level .._6240 occ. hrs. (2400 - 0700) < two shifts/day level 4160 occ. hrs. (1530 - 2400) < one shift/day level 2080 occ. hrs. (0700 - 1530) 8000 7000 6000 5000 0 } 4000 0 3000 2000 1000 0 BOEING TRANSONIC WIND TUNNEL (1970-2000) 1970 1975 1980 1985 CALENDAR YEAR (Occupancy includes calibrations) 1990 1995 2000 • ../\ /X\t Z / ■ Zit 1 Niv ■ \ / x r ■ X ■ j I ■ •N ■— ACTUAL 21 "ESTIMATE" 1970 1975 1980 1985 CALENDAR YEAR (Occupancy includes calibrations) 1990 1995 2000 • BEBtC ENGINEERS RAC PLANT 2 sEarTLE, wet 01000' 1 i i . t J 1 1 i 1 SCALE BUILDINGS 2-83.. & 2-8 O1S-02 2.10 i t s :, / o- „ 6 , 1. 2.0I 2.18 2 23 ra 209 2-30 IBOEING CO IH00TRS 2• 2IATE ••22 • I�i cc1• G 2-40I` I •.f j 1 1 �.a .4 lEti e • • l 1 044oKAs.1 FAOUTr •• imam CONSTR. 2.50 r 0 •5 *�a1� ji It 2•tt4.I • ... :I 1 in 231 2.83% (3 2.73}11 2.108 2.''72\\ �.— a cz2-0e o I 271 "��7 270 241' I1 73 2412 iill 0 i 2.2.91A 241 „7" 2-91'" \2-117-Q1;117112 .� ,. 1 2.101 2.118 2-102 1 !. 2-110 103 • J 2-109 2.89 \, :f , N 2-16 1 tl' 2- I CREDIT Ell UNION BCATC SOUTH PARK SITE VICINITY MAP FAA TOWER FIGURE • Ib ON iESi FLOO R Ed MICS OI - I©. INSIDE bTWT CIY.C.L11T r 2-81 Construction Area 2-80 F (G. 3 — C_O(\AMUNA 7 - NA M C, L_D LPA i I 0 N.5 City of Tukwila Pre -Application Process MEETING ATTENDANCE RECORD City of Tukwila Department of Community Development - Building Division Phone: (206) 431-3670 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Pre -Application File Number PRE99-015 Project: BOEING WIND TUNNELL UPGRADE Meeting Date: 3-18-99 Time: 2:30 PM Site Address: 8123 EAST MARGINAL WYS Date Checklist Mailed: 4-9-99 By: BRENDA HOLT CITY STAFF PRESENT DEPARTMENTS PHONE #'s NAMES/TITLES X X X X X Building Fire Planning Public Works Parks & Rec Police Environmental Permit Center Other: 431-3670 575-4404 431-3680 433-0179 433-1843 433-1804 431-3662 431-3670 DUANE GRIFFIN, BUILDING OFFICIAL NICK OLIVAS, ASSISTANT CHIEF CAROL LUMB, ASSOCIATE PLANNER JOANNA SPENCER, DEVELOPMENT ENGINEER BRENDA HOLT, PERMIT COORDINATOR APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVES PRESENT CONTACT Name: RICK FORD PERSON Phone: 206-655-9888 Company/Title: THE BOEING COMPANY Street Address: PO BOX 3707 M/S 19-35 City/State/Zip: SEATTLE, WA 98124 OTHERS Name: GARY SMITH Phone: 206-655-3387 PRESENT Company/Title: THE BOEING COMPANY Street Address: City/State/Zip: Name: MICHAEL PRITTIE Phone: 206-544-0212 Company/Title: THE BOEING COMPANY Street Address: City/State/Zip: Name: Phone: • Company/Title: Street Address: City/State/Zip: Name: Phone: Company/Title: Street Address: City/State/Zip: Name: Phone: Company/Title: Street Address: City/State/Zip: CITY OF TICWILA • Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431-3670 Pre Application Checklist The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements/regulations may need to be met. BUILDING DIVISION The following is meant to be general information related to the requirements of the Tukwila Building Division for the processing of building permits. Specific code issues will be addressed through the normal plan review process after the permit is applied for. nJ 1. Comply with the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition, as adopted and amended by the State (Table 10-B, Section 1607, and Section 3003 of the 1997 UBC are not adopted). 2. Comply with the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997 Edition, as adopted and amended by the State. 11 11 11 11 3. Comply with the Uniform Plumbing Code, 1997 Edition, as adopted and amended by the State. 4. Comply with the Washington State Energy Code, Chapter 51-11 WAC, 1997 Edition. Energy code specifications and data must be included on the building plans. 5. Comply with Washington State Regulations for Barrier Free Facilities or Design (State amendment replaces UBC Chapter 11 in its entirety). 6. All applications and plan submittals must be complete in order to be accepted by the Permit Center for plan review. Use the Plan Submittal Checklist provided on the reverse of the application as a guide to the necessary materials and information needed. 7. Plans submitted for approval must be stamped by a Washington State licensed architect or engineer and shall specifically contain the name of the person designated as the architect or engineer of record for the project. This person shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating all submittal documents prepared by others, including deferred submittal items, for compatibility with the design of the building. (See UBC Section 106.3.4) 8. Temporary erosion control measures shall be included on the plans. Normally, no site work will be allowed until erosion control measures are in place. 9. Rockeries are not permitted over 4' in height. Retaining structures over 4' in height must be engineered retaining walls, and require a separate building permit. 10. All rack storage requires a permit and rack storage over 8' high must be designed for Seismic Zone 3. A Washington State structural engineers stamp will be required on plans and structural calculations submitted for rack storage over 8' high. 11. Construction documents shall include special inspection requirements as specified in UBC Section 106.3.5 and 1701. The architect or engineer's inspection program required by Section 106.3.5 shall be included with plan submittal documents when permit application is submitted. Notify the Building Official of testing lab hired by architect or owner prior to permit issuance date. The contractor may not hire the testing lab. 12. Structural observation shall be required as specified in UBC Section 1702. cibldglisi.doc 12/99 BUILDING DIVISION • • Pre -Application Checklist File No.: PRE99-014 Page 2 of 2 13. Construction documents shall contain soils classification information specified in Table 18-1-A of the Uniform Building Code on the copies stamped and signed by Washington State licensed architect or engineer in responsible charge of the structural design work. 14. Separate demolition permits are required for removal of any existing buildings or structures. 15. Comply with UBC Appendix Chapter 12, Division II - Sound Transmission Control. 16. Addresses are assigned by the Tukwila Fire Prevention Bureau. 17. Obtain approvals and permits from outside agencies: ❑ ELEVATORS are regulated by State Department of Labor and Industries. Permits and inspections for elevators are obtained through the elevator section of that agency (reference RCW Chapter 70.87). Phone: (206)248-6657. 14 ELECTRICAL PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS are obtained through the Department of Labor and Industries. Phone: (206)248-6630. ki/ PLUMBING PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS are obtained through King County Health Department. Inspections: (206)296-4732; Permits: (206)296-4727. ❑ PUBLIC POOLS/SPAS AND FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES - King County Health Department must approve and stamp plans prior to submittal to the Tukwila Building Division. Phone: (206)296-4787. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM plans are reviewed through the Tukwila Fire Department. Phone: (206)575-4404. 18. 19. 20. :hecklist prepared by (staff): Da \-4(-Q.- CV rdbldglisl.doc 12/99 Date: /R5 ?'?" CITY OF TIFWILA • Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431-3670 Pre Application Checklist ,rrolec t ar�e:Boei'n` �SSi a tldress ! i',; artie8Pas M'r t , J, i.�:. •ems � K1iS1 The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements/regulations may need to be met. ENVIRONMENTAL e'N4,nA±C :hecklist prepared by (staff): e' rclenvlisi.doc 12/99 V -114d-1-, _AA s , Date: CITY OF TO:WILA • Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431-3670 Pre Application Checklist • IPre-A�ppleationl�ile;Nb= ;PRE99"015 1 gMeetmg Dia efllpa�nd T,un'J, xr � ~25-99yCa� 2:30ip'm'r ej ,.L 1 14;1 VI., sP o �Q 9...e k- •-.s -•3 L ��..� �_-. i•t � ,.TVirf{Ia{r , me � Boemg . ,i d' i el U. iteAdd ess'w � . ag•°v A�,tJA �: ti' �%%811 .2�3 - .s•M,� ..gi' a �.il:-.;s:iL'Lg.IY�Wf:rif1�,�tr.�tT..�.OYw�::r a r The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements/regulations may need to be met. FIRE DEPARTMENT - Construction Information 1Z 1. 'The City of Tukwila has adopted the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. This and other nationally recognized standards will be used during construction and operation of this project. (City Ordinance No. 1846) 2. Fire hydrants will be required. (City Ordinance No. 1692) 3. Required fire hydrants shall be approved for location by the Fire Department, approved for purity by the Water Department, and fully in service prior to start of construction. By line of vehicular travel, a fire hydrant must be no further than 150 feet from a structure; and no portion of a structure to be over 300 feet from fire hydrant. (Uniform Fire Code 903 and City Ordinance No. 1692) Automatic fire sprinklers, audible and visual devices, and a minimum of one pull station per floor are required for this project. Sprinkler system and fire alarm shall comply with N.F.P.A. #13, #72, and ADA requirements. Sprinkler plans shall be submitted to Washington State Surveying and Rating Bureau, Factory Mutual or Industrial Risk Insurers for approval prior to being submitted to Tukwila Fire Marshal for approval. The fire alarm plans are to be submitted directly to the Tukwila Fire Marshal for approval. Submit three (3) sets of drawings. This includes one for our file, one for company file, and one for the job site. (City Ordinance No. 1742) 5. Maximum grade is 15% for all projects. 6. Hose stations are required. (City Ordinance No. 1742) 7. A fire alarm system is required for this project. (City Ordinance No. 1742). Plans shall be submitted to the Tukwila Fire Marshal for approval, prior to commencing any alarm system work. Submit three (3) sets of complete drawings. This includes one for our file, one for company file, and one for the job site. 8. Special installations of fixed extinguisher systems, fire alarm systems, dust collectors, fuel storage, etc. require separate plans and permits. Plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal prior to start of installation. (City Ordinance Nos. 1742 and 1846). / 9. Portable fire extinguishers will be required in finished buildings per N.F.P.A. #10 (Minimum rating 2A, 10 BC). 10. Buildings utilizing storage of high piled combustible stock will require mechanical smoke removal per Article 81 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. During construction, an all-weather access will be required to within 150 feet of the building. (City Ordinance No. 1846) No building will be occupied, by people or merchandise, prior to approval and inspection byFire and Building Departments. P 13. Adequate addressing is required. Fire Department will assign all new addresses. Number sizes will be determined by setback of building from roadway. Four inch numbers are minimum. Numbers will be in color which contrasts to background. (Uniform Fire Code 901.4.4) irdfirelist.doc /12/99 FIRE DEPARTMENT Pre -Application Checklist File No.: PRE99-015 • • Page 2 of 2 V14. Designated fire lanes may be required for fire and emergency access. This may requirementbe established at q the time of occupancy and/or after the facility is in operation. (City Ordinance No. 1846) a15. Special Fire Department permits are required for such things as: storage of compressed gas, cryogens, dry cleaning plans, repair garages, places of assembly, storage of hazardous materials, flammable or combustible liquids or solids, LPG, welding and cutting operations, spray painting, etc. (Uniform Fire Code 105) [------16. Fire Department vehicle access is required to within 150' of any portion of an exterior wall of the first story. Fire Department access roads in excess of 150' require a turn around. Fire Department access roads shall be not Tess than 20' wide with an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13'6". (City Ordinance No. 1846) 17. Adequate fire flow availability will need to be demonstrated for this project. 18. Checklist prepared by (staff): Irclfirelisl.doc '12/99 Date: ��;' y CITY OF TkWILA • Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431-3670 Pre Application Checklist *�.ii t " "•� wirpJ Z4,` t1X. '.e /'r r ),,P? a 11 t r� , rnww ru � tl'R', �.fY '•� b•N! �'ai Pre-APliea iofn hile�No °P,RE99015'?.•,tra�t'•.4 :''r -� • ka. tio. r 1 �'i r r -•:. .'` 1 I�leetmg>Datetand Time 1 +, 3'25-:99t[� 2•30'pm; ;f,, u;(IVIS .t a ,e� t� 4 • oei Wind T nn .i „ 1ti"a r... $ a'} 11X11, �7 Site A. d gss:i :8 2s3 as M. �gi a r.r i1 °,`g. r° .ui;\,4 t,i `,'0'�d`iSr,`��1 U The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements/regulations may need to be met. n FIRE DEPARTMENT - Inspections Overhead sprinkler piping a. Hydrostatic test b. Trip test c. Alarm system monitoring test d. Fire Department approved plans e. Sprinkler head location and spacing f. Materials and test certificate 2. Underground tank a. Location b. Distance between tanks c. Distance to property line d. Depth of cover e. Vent piping, swing joints, fill piping, discharge piping f. Anchoring g. Hydrostatic test h. Separate Fire Department approved plans 3. Fire alarm a. Acceptance test b. Fire Department approved plans 4. Hood and duct inspections a. Installation b. Trip test 5. Spray Booth a. Location b. Fire protection c. Ventilation d. Permit 6. Flammable liquid room a. Location b. Fire protection c. Permit 7. Rack storage a. Permit b. Mechanical smoke removal c. Rack sprinklers d. Aisle width drdfirelis(doc 1/12/99 8. Fire doors and fire dampers a. Installation b. Drop testing 9 Fire Final a. Fire Department Access b. Building egress and occupancy Toad c. Hydrants d. Building address e. Fire protection systems: (1) Halon systems (2) Standpipes (3) Host Stations (4) Fire Doors 10. Other a. b. c. d. e. f. (5) Fire Dampers (6) Fire Extinguishers FIRE DEPARTMENT • • Pre -Application Checklist File No.: PRE99-015 Checklist prepared by (staff): dreVirelisl.doc /12/99 Page 2 of 2 Date: -3/z CITY OF TOICWILA • Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431-3670 Pre Application Checklist The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements/regulations may need to be met. PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT The Parks and Recreation Department has no comment on this project. Checklist prepared by (staff): Date: drelprlisl.doc !/12/99 CITY OF TOKWILA • Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431-3670 Pre Application Checklist The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements/regulations may need to be met. PLANNING DIVISION - Land Use Information 1. Comply with Tukwila Municipal Code (zoning, land use, sign regulations, etc.) ET2. Obtain the following land use permits/approvals: Boundary Line Adjustment/Lot Consolidation Binding Site Improvement Plan Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Design Review Design Review -Interurban Environmental (SEPA) P 1a.nM )'r"\ Planned Mixed Use Development's Planned Residential Development ❑' n Rezone Shoreline Management Permit Tree Permit Short Subdivision Sign(s) Subdivision Unclassified Use Variance Other: 3. Zoning designation: MIC_— i-(— Site located in sensitive area? n4. Minimum setback requirements: N /A... Front: Side: Side: n 5. Maximum Building Height: Ia6 ' 6. Minimum parking stalls required: Height exception area? Rear: Yes ❑ No ❑ Yes ❑ No Handicap stalls required: 7. No more than 30% of required parking stalls may be compact. No landscape overhangs into compact stalls are permitted, although no wheel stops prior to hitting the curb will be required. 8. Minimum landscaping required: N 14_ Front: - Front: Side: Side: Rear: 9. Landscape plans must be stamped by a Washington State licensed landscape architect. All landscape areas require a landscape irrigation system (Utility Permit Required). 10. Roof -top mechanical units, satellite dishes and similar structures must be properly screened. Provide elevations and construction details as part of building permit application submittal. Trash enclosures and storage areas must be screened to a minimum of 8' in height. Provide elevations and construction details as part of building permit application submittal. n 11. n 12. Building permit plans which deviate from that already approved by the Board of Architectural Review may require re-application for design review approval. Checklist prepared by (staff): drclplanlist.doc 3/12/99 Date: 3/?1/ql CITY OF 4KWftA • Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431-3670 Pre Application Checklist `,;'!r'n M:.� • `�i::•�:.�:i 4. B•'�'� .•rj�'Yy i ANG Prolee`t Name• . oemg%Wind neI`U n gad .a �:1' �• i'1�� t s ' y' kyr�Kwts �tGt�1"tr��Ss` t 1�4P'i� �'3�+''..R• e y i, Sitel tdd ss,tu ss .81a1,2 `Ma genal Wa 5 rz :c�kw,►:.. 1:, t rctl, iiask :... ..... ., iia•dataira;zi,r)ixiitti The following comments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other requirements/regulations may need to be met. POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME PREVENTION SECURITY RECOMMENDATIONS The Police Department has no recommendations at this time. R. W. Abbott 03-22-99 Checklist prepared by (staff): Date: drdpollist.doc 3/12/99 CITY OF 10IKWILA i • Department of Community Development Building Division - Permit Center 6300 Southcenter BoL levard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Phone: (206)431-3670 Pre Application Checklist P / o F n eIIUpgradeiv' yrbr.0:40; t, ,vs, IN a y s ite.-:,p The follow' Y mments are based on a preliminary review. Additional information may be needed. Other ECCIv "-' requirements/regulations may need to be met. MAR 1 91999 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Urivv 1.-., PUBLIC- WORKS 1. Apply for and obtain the following permits/approvals through the City's Permit Center: Fl n ❑ ❑ Channelization/Striping/Signing Curb Cut/Access/Sidewalk Land Altering Fire loop/Hydrant (main to vault) Flood Zone Control Hauling (2,000 Bond, Cert of Ins) Landscape Irrigation Moving an Oversized Load Sanitary Side Sewer 0 ❑ Sewer Main Extension (private) Sewer Main Extension (public) Storm Drainage Water Main Extension (private) Water Main Extension (public) Water Meter (exempt) Water Meter (permanent) Water Meter (temporary) Other: 2. Hauling Permit required prior to start of any hauling of material on public right-of-way ($2,000 bond, $1,000,000 certificate of insurance, route map and $25.00 permit fee required). MOuiNa 13-4)Du, siLE WAD PEA -Mir gEa/fry TS AS /415411),E r 80,00 S/14u- .BF,z'rj',00„�, 3. All applications and plan submittals must be complete in order to be accepted by the Permit Center for plan review. Use the Plan Submittal Checklist provided on the reverse of the application forms to verify that all the necessary materials and information has been supplied. A -MY (477t- rY SITE wool;. - IF }1S s /oi.J P,eopose() (4774. L/NES Altib/ore L/mss re4 keky 62(..c./e...E i2F—LoC.477oti (2.2 CAP,A/,Vc 4. Water and sewer assessments may apply and will be determined during the utility plan review process. 5. Provide sidewalks per Ordinance Nos. 1158, 1217, and 1233, or obtain waiver. 6. Provide Hydrological -Geotechnical analysis. 7. Provide erosion control plan as part of grading/fill permit application. 8. Identify building elevation above 100 year flood elevation per FIRM maps (use NGVD datum and recognized benchmarks). 9. Provide a traffic analysis/trip generation study for: 0 10. Provide developers agreement for: n11. Provide the following easements and maintenance agreements: n12. Provide water/sewer availability letters or certificates from districts serving your development. n13. Obtain King County Water and Land Resources Industrial Waste Program for a Waste Discharge permit of approval (206-689-3000). CQUIP1-tE,UT 5/ 2.e M/tr /GG , Afoul ive, Ovee-57 Lo446 wrcw1.:1.doc >t'EieM /r /,v / rtf 72? / 1.f OA PW 5H L VML /o.9 -TE the Wsbor m0N.//n edmi 6,-. NO MoV/'VC Sid' tae coH/vE,)c&& LINT/L TN/s V4 /64T/ON Hiis B poie,/y,g L L Y ,E CS/ vg0 O, 7 -Re lt'l oVEg. /-/As coiu 779 c; THE FL) LoPM&IUi FNf;/tigete f3 r /vnil ii-,- _ n I' -In 3/12/99