Final_Geotechnical_Memo_E_Marginal_Way_AAC_signed.pdf

1100 112th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Bellevue, Washington 98004 425.453.5000 www.jacobs.com

PROJECT: W3Y22700 Structural Services On-Call

TO: Stephen Wilson, PE, SE, Seattle Department of Transportation, 206-684-5183, stephen.wilson@seattle.gov

FROM: Joan Zhong-Brisbois, PE, Jacobs, 425-233-3079, joan.zhongbrisbois@jacobs.com

DATE: December 16, 2025

SUBJECT: Final Geotechnical Signal Pole Recommendations, East Marginal Way AAC Project, Seattle, WA

December 16, 2025

Attention: Joan Zhong-Brisbois

Jacobs

1100 112th Ave NE, Suite 500

Bellevue, WA 98004

SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL SIGNAL POLE RECOMMENDATIONS,

EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH PRESERVATION PROJECT,

SEATTLE WA

1 INTRODUCTION

This project proposed to improve the intersection of East Marginal Way S and Corson Ave S.

The project includes four new signal poles with deep foundations. We understand the signal pole foundations will be designed using SDOT’s Streets Illustrated Design Guide, Section 3.5.

1.1 Scope of Services

Our scope of services included:

Review existing geotechnical information within the vicinity of the signal pole project.

Identify mapped site features including “Standard Signal Pole Foundation Design

Zone”, geology, Environmental Critical Areas (ECAs), elevation and grade, and De-partment of Ecology confirmed contaminated sites.

Provide SDOT with recommendation if soils within the top 30 feet can be considered

“Lower Strength Soil” or “Higher Strength Soil” per the SDOT Streets Illustrated De-sign Guide, Section 3.5 for signal pole foundation design.

Provide construction considerations for signal pole foundations.

Submit draft and final memorandum including summary of subsurface conditions, mapped site features, and foundation recommendations.

Clarity Engineering LLC

Project No: 205-03 2 Geotechnical Memo, E Marginal Way AAC.docx

Our scope of services did not include:

Performing subsurface explorations at the site.

Seismic design recommendations.

1.2 Basis of Report

Our assessment and recommendations are based on:

The limitations of our approved scope, schedule, and budget described in 23-026QP

On Call Support Contract, Modification Number 01 dated January 27, 2025.

Our understanding of the project and information provided by Jacobs and SDOT. We assume this information is representative and accurate.

The requirements of the SDOT Streets Illustrated Design Guide.

Explorations performed by others. We did not review samples and cannot confirm that these explorations are representative of the site conditions.

Assumed construction methods for signal pole foundations.

1.3 Use of this Report

This letter was prepared for the exclusive use of SDOT, Jacobs, and their representatives for the E Marginal Way S Preservation Project. This report should not be used for other purposes without Clarity Engineering’s review.

This letter should not be used without our approval if any of the following occurs:

Conditions change due to natural forces or human activity under, at, or adjacent to the site.

Assumptions stated in this letter have changed.

Project details change or new information becomes available such that our assess-ments and recommendations may be affected.

If any of these occur, we should be retained to review the applicability of our recom-mendations.

2 SITE CONDITIONS

The intersection of E Marginal Way S and Corson Ave S is located in the Georgetown neigh-borhood as shown on Figure 1. The site is about 1,200 feet northwest of the Duwamish

Project No: 205-03 3 Geotechnical Memo, E Marginal Way AAC.docx

Waterway and lies at about elevation 20 (NAVD88). The intersection and locations proposed for signal poles are relatively level. The site is mapped as a Liquefaction-Prone Environmen-tal Critical Area which is defined as “areas underlain by cohesionless soils of low density usually associated with a shallow groundwater table, which lose substantial strength during earthquakes” (Seattle Municipal Code 25.09.020 A.2). This site will be susceptible to strength reduction during the earthquake and liquefaction-induced settlement.

The Washington Department of Ecology public website (https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/neigh-borhood) identifies the following nearby locations as known contamination sites:

Inland Transportation Company, 6737 Corson Ave S, Soil Contamination, Status:

Cleanup Complete, No Further Action

Fox Ave Building, 6900 Fox Ave S, Soil and Groundwater Contamination, Status:

Cleanup Underway

Whitehead Tyee, 730 S Myrtle St, Soil and Groundwater Contamination, Status:

Cleanup Underway

Perkins Lot, Soil and Groundwater Contamination, Status: Cleanup Complete, No

Further Action

These sites are shown on Figure 2. Due to the proximity of these sites to the project, there is a risk that contaminated soil and/or groundwater could be encountered in the excavations for the foundations. Additional research and site-specific environmental soil/groundwater sampling and testing would be required to quantify the risk.

3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Our understanding of the subsurface conditions is based on published geologic maps and existing subsurface explorations performed by others. The existing subsurface information was collected from the Washington Department of Natural Resources Geologic Information

Portal and the City of Seattle Services Portal. Approximate locations of the subsurface loca-tions, boring logs, and laboratory testing from the existing information are included on Fig-ure 1 and in Appendix A. The available subsurface information includes the following:

Earth Solutions NW, May 2019, Carlton Avenue Development: Three test pits, two borings, and laboratory testing.

Geotech Consultants, July 2016, 6726 Corson Avenue South: One boring.

https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/neighborhood https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/neighborhood

Project No: 205-03 4 Geotechnical Memo, E Marginal Way AAC.docx

Metropolitan Engineers, June 1969, Elliot Bay Interceptor: Two borings.

Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory, April 1962, Pacific Northwest Bell Boeing Centrex

Building, One boring.

The soil conditions at the site generally consist of the following soil units, listed beginning from the ground surface and proceeding down in elevation:

Fill (Hf): The top two feet likely consists of fill soils placed during construction of the existing road and sidewalks.

Alluvium (Qa): Alluvium consists of loose to medium dense poorly graded sand with trace silt and occasional silt lenses. This unit was encountered to the bottom of the borings and test pits. The deepest exploration was 51.5 feet below ground surface. Test pits observed caving of the sidewalls in this unit. These soils are susceptible to lique-faction as described in Section 2.

Groundwater was encountered between about 6 and 8 feet below ground surface.

4 DRILLED SHAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

We understand the drilled pier foundations must meet the design requirements of the 2013

AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaries, and Traffic Signals and the foundations will be designed to support axial, lateral, and tor-sional forces. In 2020, Seattle Public Utilities Geotechnical Engineering developed soil design parameters for standard signal pole foundation design for SDOT (SPU, 2020). These recom-mendations were developed so that SDOT could standardize design of signal pole founda-tions for the Streets Illustrated Design Manual. The City of Seattle was divided into three design zones: higher strength soil zone, lower strength soil zone, and site-specific design zone.

The East Marginal Way S and Corson Ave S intersection is mapped within the lower strength soil zone per Figure S2 of the SDOT Streets Illustrated Design Manual, Section 3.5. In our opinion, based on the subsurface conditions reviewed for the site the lower strength soil zone is appropriate for this project.

The groundwater level in the standard design approach was assumed to be 5 feet below the ground surface (bgs). For this site, groundwater was not observed higher than 5 feet bgs.

Project No: 205-03 5 Geotechnical Memo, E Marginal Way AAC.docx

Therefore, the standard design approach can be used for the groundwater conditions shown in the subsurface explorations.

5 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

We have identified considerations for foundation construction for the project to assist you in developing geotechnical related plans and specifications, however these considerations are not meant to dictate methods or sequences used by contractors. Prospective contractors should undertake their own independent review and evaluation of all information to arrive at decisions concerning the planning of the work; the selection of equipment, means and methods, techniques and sequences of construction; establishment of safety precautions; and evaluation of the influence of construction on adjacent sites. We understand the project will utilize the City of Seattle Standard Plan 541a and Standard Specifications, Section 8-32 for the drilled shaft construction.

The potential for encountering obstructions such as boulders, logs, and man-made objects during drilled shaft installation should be included in the project specifications. The selection of drilling equipment for construction of drilled shafts should consider the potential presence of obstructions. The contract documents should require the Contractor provide a unit cost to remove or drill past obstructions and abandon and restart a replacement drilled shaft in an-other location.

Subsurface explorations encountered groundwater at about 6 to 8 feet below ground surface with loose to medium dense sands below the groundwater table. During construction of the shafts the contractor should be required to use drilling mud/slurry to prevent caving and heaving and/or temporarily case the foundation excavations. The bottom of the drilled shaft excavation should be cleaned out with a bucket auger.

Concrete for the drilled shafts should be placed through a tremie pipe that extends to the base of the shaft excavation. The casing should not be withdrawn until the concrete produces a hydrostatic pressure greater than the groundwater and/or slurry that is outside of the cas-ing. The casing should be pulled slowly and smoothly so that the concrete flows out of the base of the casing to displace slurry and/or groundwater outside the casing. All voids or annular spaces that could exist between the casing and the subsurface materials should be

Project No: 205-03 6 Geotechnical Memo, E Marginal Way AAC.docx filled with concrete during this process. Concrete aggregate should be sized to allow unim-peded flow between reinforcing bars and spiral steel.

The presence of "running" or "caving" formations will require close monitoring of the con-crete level and volumes during casing extraction. During casing extraction, the concrete level should be at least 5 feet above the bottom of the casing or at the ground surface elevation, whichever is lower. Failure to maintain a positive head of concrete during extraction process could result in concrete contaminated with unmixed soil, groundwater, or slurry or the pres-ence of voids in the shaft.

6 UTILITY LOCATE

We understand that SDOT would like to perform a utility locate at each drilled shaft location prior to construction using a vactor truck. Due to the presence of loose to medium dense sand and groundwater, we make the following recommendations so that the future shaft construc-tion is not compromised:

We recommend not excavating to the full diameter and depth of the proposed shafts so that the sidewalls and bottom of the shaft remain undisturbed.

We recommend that the vactor truck operators be required to advance temporary cas-ing that is equal to the depth of the vactor hole at all times.

Once complete, the vactor hole should be backfilled with flowable controlled density fill (CDF).

CDF placed below the groundwater table should be placed through a tremie pipe that extends to the base of the vactor hole to displace groundwater.

Include notes on the drawings to inform the Contractor where the utility locates were performed and how they were backfilled.

7 LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES

This report for the E Marginal Way South Preservation Project was prepared in accordance with local generally accepted engineering principles, practices and standards. No warranty is expressed or implied. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the services you requested and approved.

Project No: 205-03 7 Geotechnical Memo, E Marginal Way AAC.docx

Geotechnical engineering requires the application of professional judgment, as no study can completely quantify subsurface conditions. Any interpretations of subsurface conditions in this report are based on our analyses, experience, and judgment. There is no warranty that these subsurface conditions occur anywhere on the site except at the exact location and exact time when and where the field tests were conducted. Groundwater levels can be especially sensitive to seasonal and other changes. Clarity Engineering is not responsible for interpre-tations others may make using this report.

The conclusions and recommendations in this report assume that field explorations and tests, and our interpretations accurately portray and represent subsurface conditions at the site. If, during excavation and/ or construction significantly different subsurface conditions are en-countered from that described in this report, our firm should be immediately notified and retained to review these conditions and, if necessary, revise our recommendations. Unantic-ipated soil conditions are commonly encountered during excavation and construction and cannot be fully anticipated by widely spaced subsurface sampling locations and testing in-tervals. The owner should be prepared to accommodate potential extra costs through the de-velopment of a contingency fund.

Clarity Engineering cannot be responsible for any deviation from the intent of this report including, but not limited to the nature of the project, the construction timetable, and any construction methods discussed in this report. The recommendations contained in this report are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, ex-cept as may be specifically described in the report. Clarity Engineering will not be responsible or liable for any construction, scheduling, or safety activity on this site.

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report assume that Clarity Engineer-ing be retained to perform the following services:

Review of contractor’s requests for information.

Review of the contractor’s geotechnical submittals.

Provide office support to geotechnical construction activities to evaluate the condi-tions observed during construction relative to those assumed in this report.

Project No: 205-03 8 Geotechnical Memo, E Marginal Way AAC.docx

Sincerely, Claire L R Gibson

Reviewed by: Matthew D Gibson, PhD, PE

Enclosures:

Figure 1: Site and Exploration Plan

Figure 2: Site Plan With Known Contamination Sites

Appendix A, Existing Subsurface Explorations

Digitally signed by Claire Gibson Date: 2025.12.16 08:21:13 -08'00'

Notes:

1. Elevation contours are from King County LiDAR (NAVD88)

2. ESNW = Earth Solutions Northwest, GC = Geotech Consultants, PTL = Pi+sburgh Testing Lab, ME = Metropolitan Engineers

Project Intersection

Existing Subsurface Explorations

Elevation Contours (5-foot)

Google Hybrid

Legend

East Marginal Way AAC

Sea+le DOT

Sea+le, Washington

SITE AND EXISTING

EXPLORATION PLAN

FIG. 1Clarity Engineering LLC Geotechnical Consultants

C

U se rs

C la ir e

G ib so n

C la ri ty E n g in e e ri n g

L L

C

C E

L L

C

P ro je ct s\

S D

O T

S tr u ct u ra l O n -C a ll

Ja co b s\ S ig n a l

P o le s\

E M a rg in a l W a y

A A

C

D e li v e ra b le

S it e

P la n .q g z\

S it e P la n

.q g z

December 2025 205-03

Notes:

1. Elevation contours are from King County LiDAR (NAVD88)

Project Intersection

WA DOE Sites

Cleanup Complete

Cleanup Underway

Elevation Contours (5-foot)

Google Hybrid

Legend

East Marginal Way AAC

Sea1le DOT

Sea1le, Washington

SITE PLAN WITH

KNOWN CONTAMINATION SITES

FIG. 2Clarity Engineering LLC Geotechnical Consultants

C

U se rs

C la ir e

G ib so n

C la ri ty E n g in e e ri n g

L L

C

C E

L L

C

P ro je ct s\

S D

O T

S tr u ct u ra l O n -C a ll

Ja co b s\ S ig n a l

P o le s\

E M a rg in a l W a y

A A

C

D e li v e ra b le

S it e

P la n .q g z\

S it e P la n

.q g

December 2025 205-03

Project No: 205-03 A-1 Geotechnical Memo, E Marginal Way AAC.docx

APPENDIX A: EXISTING SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS

Geotechnical Engineering, Construction Observation/Testing and Environmental Services

Drwn. CAM

Checked SHA Date May 2019

Date 05/16/2019 Proj. No. 6151.02

Plate 2

Earth Solutions NWLLCEarth Solutions

NWLLC

Earth Solutions

NW LLC

xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xxxxxxxx xxxxx x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x House

House

House

Shed

Shed

Wood Storage

Al le y c a r le to n a v en u e s.

TP-101

TP-102

TP-103

B-1

B-2

NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color. ESNW cannot be responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resulting from black & white reproductions of this plate.

NOTE: The graphics shown on this plate are not intended for design purposes or precise scale measurements, but only to illustrate the approximate test locations relative to the approximate locations of existing and / or proposed site features. The information illustrated is largely based on data provided by the client at the time of our study. ESNW cannot be responsible for subsequent design changes or interpretation of the data by others.

LEGEND

Approximate Location of ESNW Test Pit, Proj. No.

ES-6151.01, June 2018

Approximate Location of ESNW Boring, Proj. No.

ES-6151, June 2018

Subject Site

Existing Building

Board Fence

NORTH

0 15 30 60

Scale in Feet 1" =30 '

TP-101

x x

Subsurface Exploration Plan Carleton Avenue Development

Seattle, Washington

B-1

"'· t" j

~ET::R.OP,OLJ:T~ E:i:-,.;J"GI:I'..;J'EER.S

-410 WE;ST HAF.lAISON • SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 96119 • AT 4 .• ,ioo

December 22, 1969

Municipality of Met~opolitan Seattle 410 West Harrison Street Seattle, Washington 98119

Attention: Mr. James E. Hawthorn

FINAL REPORT

SOILS INVESTIGATION

ELLIOTT BAY INTERCEPTOR, SECTION 2

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

INTRODUCTION

A JOINT VENTURE 'OF

BROWN ANO CALDWELL

CAREY ANO KRAMER

HILL & lNGMAN

R. W. ElECK AND ASSOCIATES

M229C-19

This letter and ·attachments present the results of the soils investigation conducted along the proposed alignment of

Section 2 of the Elliott Bay interceptor in Seattle, Washington.

The purpose of this investigation was to explore the existing soil conditions along the alignment relative to the design of the facilities. These results were discussed with you during the course of the investigatidn.

As shown on the Vicinity Map, flate 1, the proposed alignment extends southeasterly along East Marginal Way from Michi~an Street . l . -~ to Othello Street. It is lo~ated· ad?acent to and some 2ito 30 feet east of the center line of an existing 42-inch sewer constructed in 1935 of the same e-levaticn and grade. The proposed route -consists of approximately 4,200 lineal feet of

42-inch diameter sewer with the invert varying from about elevation 101* at the north end-to elevation 106 at the south end.

*Elevation 100 = Mean Sea Level

·~t~-·· .J

:f· :~ .·

A . ...... ·~. '

C

~ .'V lr~ •

·- . • ~ 4

~...J...

"S--

'l), 'IQ •

0;V

DATE BV

..... :-·--~ l I • ~

"'Ir·- -.;>• - .. •'

;:1-.

CHECKED

i .. ~

~ ::-==- J:~ ~ .... ~ • ... ~~~--,.:..:•~.

D uWAM'! SH

'• T .r.- j;~7,-~;~- :-~ - ., - ...... -., ':"'--·~~ .. ~- ~ - - ' . ··- ~ "' -i a.. \ .._. _. '°u-J •.; I • , t,/ ... - .... "'- .. - ). . ., .A, ;n

~ep A~1CAIA4iiAIT OF ~ - -1 -=u~rr 84Y ,AJ'r.t!'RCePTO~. ~TION i?

Rt•,/£R .JA~Tt£RMIAV

METROPOLITAN ENGIN'EERS

SEATTLE,. WASti l 'NGTON

TITLE

"' Ii" \

~ -0,.

i

MP A

- -4 -.,.:

-4----~

"T;:.i:•

PJ.AT.t I

!>o n

I

, I I

NO.

;3 I

,33 t38 olcJ

7-,5~6-=J 1 8-8 _-6718-ZZ-6<7

JC/,8 I iCC-8 IOI. q

/03. 0 I 102.4 102.s

/0:j-. 2 I /03#/ /02. Cf .J , ..

/C':?.e,J' ·1 /02. 7 /02.6 ioq:3 I ;oo.,5 /0 J.6

I I

I - .,, n -i l> en ::u r 111 0 ()

~6 C -1 r r r - l> f1'I ---i

- l> -;

!Z 0 (/J

:I: fTI zZ

QG)

-1 -z n, fll ::0 (I)

'I • I J

P· e-.

I

A V l fO -W N''

CALCULATION SHEET

M ET RO POL IT AN . ENG I N· E E RS

SE/\1"TLE I V/AStilNGTON ·

BORING BG

Et.ti/AT/ON: //3,8 · f OC A 1 I01V: .5 T,4. 2 I ·12 I ( 37'R/.) /ll-?0 .?9S4_

.LJATE- OR/LI. ED: 6-1/- 0 9 E ;63/682.

2 13 ()' I° C) ~ 1----1 I I ' , .. · ffd pc( I I

. ;: -;-_· LIGHT BP.OWN GRAY Sit. T AND OA/?:.< GRA'I' Ft,VE-VER>_., PIN£= SAND TO S!L.J"r"" r/Ne·

YERY ,C/)./E 'SANO - SOFT TO MEO. S7!FF ~ •.·-

~ /10 127.f> ,, " \J) 14,9

9 I I 5 I SI 10r-~1~~~

9 1 10 I 12 n·::·::/:·

0/11?1< 6P.A Y. SOME B,('OWN, FII/E .$AND - M~t).

, ;. COt'.-!PAC'r - . , l(7"

'1-.

100 .,____ zc;.51 96 112 1 ,a I 14 1- 1:;}{ ,;

• ENCOUNTE·/~EO H14'7El? ,AT r180UT EL. /0.3

~ 90 ~ \.J.J lij

OAYE DY

I I I 27 128 I ~nn

;_o t I-IE-AVCO )

7 127 I 2.~1~'.~~1 ·· (NC-AVE{) 4') / 1 •••••. ,~

\?>. ' - (H_EAV20 5')

J ••• . . • ~ /1

27 l2£. I 3r;

JOr\ f\O.

"; ,.,,.,("/ C /VI f.C. >. •

,{/07/;!:

/. PIEZ0/.1ETEr.', A 6-//./CH lOr'./(;, POROUS SfONe

W/Tf..l Vt ·INCi·/ PVC R!5c.? PIPE E.~?E.VOIIIG ro 5'Ukf=,,.!'.C:E, J,V,49 !NS'TAL.!...EO J.·VITH u:~ AT El., 8G

E. t/POl-.1 COA/PLE-T/Oll !30Rtl!G0 l:ACl<Flt LED W/7/-1 PE/J c;,,?r1VEl ,-1NO l-./r1Tlf/E M/'~16?!//C.

·r1n.E _ .

Las Q,,: 8.o/?!lvc::,, Pl.A 71:

A-,~

lj. " , 1

CALCULATION SHEET

METROPOLITAN ENGINEERS

SE I\ TTL E t VI ASH I fHH ON

L_'', BORING 87 .

NoRN E'LEVAT/0/J: //4.3 tt~oo G

/20 - Jtll oa' .lOCATION.' STA. 2619:3 {38'/r>I) £;j3_t:'z8

I

~ ' _OATc Dl?ltl.c[)." G·ll·ro9 pcf. I 2 3 " ~ ~ i :.:= ~~- !)ARK GRA 'r, SOMt? 8ROJYA/, r/NE 'JA1v'O -lii -\ ~ "· . Ml?~, COlvlPACT ·

11 1/0 L- :-:: :5: 3 94 7 S B~t'J l •: .. · , , .• I .• . • ~.·

'-1 .i~·.:· 1 GRAOE.!I TO r/NE -M£/J. 9ANO Cl) IG.5 94 7 10 12 ~·. ·~'. r~

'Z ,, . I

~ /00 ~ 23.9 /0/ /Z 18 cG.__r:_ , ,· • .. . . ~,.: ~ 1-.:

~ 4 /0 15 ;

• : : { : I .~: : : - 'l 0

; .i :, 1, ~·:.:,1. ~ Gl2Ao.=.s !)A,?!< Gl?A 'r

~ b /2 ;q - [

~ ~· :·:, (HEAVC,? S')

~ 90 '- cY,4 •'• . , .... · {, \tJ "t! • I

~ I :.•. :-:,· Gf!,,.10.:-5' ro FINE $'AND

14 /q 25 [(·::'.· . (l-leAV,'-0 5 ') . ... :,O -

;./orr- s .I. u.:101.1 CO,',.f Pl..l: TIO/,,/ /30,'?!NG BAC!<,C/!.l ED fVltH lh1T/Vc- MATc,FIA!..

2, WA iclZ L t:"\/i·t. No7~ /f'cCoR1;)t:="1:J

DATE DY Jon NO. T l"f LE I P.!.47i- 1.1229.c LOG Or: /30,'?I l/G A-z

INFORMATION FROM WASHINGTON DNR GIS LAYER

Object ID 3094 Shape Point Borehole ID 3214 Document ID 1186 Borehole Name TH-1 Borehole Class Lithologic boring Borehole Type Boring / probe Borehole Depth (ft) 56 Borehole Diameter (in) Null Borehole Date 4/17/1962 Elevation (ft) 21 Elevation Method LiDAR Contractor Name Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Boring Method Unknown Latitude 47.540542 Longitude -122.323318 Location Confidence Less than 20 feet

Object ID 104318 Borehole ID 3214 Comment Number 1 Comment Depth (ft) 12 Comments water table 4/17/62

Object ID 11274 Borehole ID 3214 Layer Number 1 Top Depth (ft) 0 Bottom Depth (ft) 11 Description Brown medium grained sand, damp, with minor pea gravel Layer Type Single USCS Unknown Symbol Lithology Gravelly sand Interpreted Lithology Geologic Unit Geologic Unit Confidence Geologist Comments

Object ID 7773 Document ID 1186 Document Author Pittsburgh Testing Laboratory Document Source City of Seattle DPD Document Type Report Document Title Pacific Northwest Bell Boeing Centrex Building Document Date 4/13/1962 Project Type Retail / commercial building Project Address 7000 E Marginal Way S, Seattle WA Borehole Count 1

Document Link https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/geologydata/subsurface_pdfs/110 0-1199/001186.pdf

Comments Shape_Length Shape_Area