Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL10-004 - RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL - PLANNED ACTIONRAISBECK AVIATION HS PLI 0-004 E10-002 & E10-009. PLANNED ACTION March 12, 2010 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development NOTICE OF DECISION To: Caroline Lemay/Bassetti Architects 71 Columbia Street, Ste 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Jack Pace, Director This letter serves a notice of decision that the application for the Raisbeck Aviation High School cannot be considered as a planned action is pursuant to TMC 21.04.156. A SEPA threshold determination is required prior to approval of the building permit. PROJECT BACKGROUND FILE NUMBER: E 10-002 Planned Action APPLICANT: Caroline Lemay for Bassetti Architects REQUEST: Designation as a Planned Action LOCATION: Vacant Lot, Tax Parcel Number 542260020 ZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: MIC/H PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Highline School District is planning to construct a new high school building as home to the relocated Aviation High School (AHS) program. The construction will take place on land leased from the Museum of Flight, a site chosen to take advantage of the adjacent Museum's facilities and King County International Airport. The site is currently vacant. Pending approval, the new high school will be a 3 -story, 86,000 square foot building with frontage improvements and associated parking. Future plans include incorporating the school building into a Museum of Flight structure and utilizing the school's parking and facilities to serve the Museum outside of school hours. DETERMINATION: The project does not meet the criteria to be designated as a planned action. In order for a project to qualify as a planned action, this project must meet all of the planned action criteria under TMC 21.04.152 including that the proposal is not "an `essential public facility' as defined in RCW 36.70A.200." This project is an "essential public facility" as defined by RCW 36.70A.200 which states: SM (1) The comprehensive plan of each county and city that is planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities. Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in-patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020, ...and, Page 1 of2 03/12/2010 H:\A Aviation High School\SEPA Planned Action\20100310 NOD.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206- 431-3665 • • (4) The office of financial management shall maintain a list of those essential state public facilities that are required or likely to be built within the next six years. The office of financial management may at any time add facilities to the list. The Office of Financial Management's list of essential state public facilities includes Aviation High School. A link to the OFM list is available at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget09/capital/tenyear.asp. A SEPA threshold determination is necessary prior to the issuance of other permits for this project. A SEPA application is attached to this notice. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at the Tukwila Department of Community Development; 6300 Southcenter Boulevard; Suite 100; Tukwila, WA; from Monday through Friday, between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM. The project planner is Stacy MacGregor who may be contacted at (206) 433-7166 for further information. Property owners affected by this decision may request a change in valuation for their property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. ck Pace, DCD Director City of Tukwila SEPA Responsible Official cc: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner attachment: SEPA Application SM Page 2 of 2 H:\A Aviation High School\SEPA Planned Action\20100310 NOD.doc 03/12/2010 IP &V of gulitatia Department Of Community Development AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION I, _Teri Svedahl HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non -Significance Project Name: Raisbeck Aviation High School Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance Stacy MacGregor Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Mailer's signature: Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice (//Ce ( ) (� Board of Appeals Agenda Packet Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 X Other: Notice of Decision Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this _23 day of _April in the year 2010 W:\USERS\TERI\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC // Project Name: Raisbeck Aviation High School Project Number: E10-009 Mailing requested by: Stacy MacGregor // Mailer's signature: % /, (//Ce ( ) (� W:\USERS\TERI\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC // City of Tukwila Department of Community De Bassetti Architects settiarch.com on, Ex Director of Facilities e School District johnsoas@hsd401.org Museum of Flight Foundation 9404 East Marginal Way S Tukwila, WA 98108 Seattle Public Schools Office of Attorney General Office of Archeology USEPA WSDOT NW Region King County Assessor's Office NOTICE OF DECI 4 • Sharyn Parker Noise Officer/Sound Insulation Program Airport Administration King County International Airport/Boeing Field Department of Transportation AIR -TR -0200 7277 Perimeter Road South Seattle, WA 98108-3844 sharyn.parker@kingcounty.gov www.kingcounty.gov King Canty International Airport Boeing Field 206-296-7437 Fax 206-296-0190 TTY Relay: 711 King County Health Dept Port of Seattle King County Transit: SEPA Official State Department of Ecology SEPA Division Tukwila School District Muckleshoot Tribe Cultural Resources Program Wildlife Program Fisheries Program Duwamish Tribe Duwamish River Clean Up Coalition Puget Sound Clean Air Agency .e :oxw .21 PROJECT: FILE NUMBERS: ASSOCIATED FILES: APPLICANT: REQUEST: LOCATION: Raisbeck Aviation High School E10-009 D10-031 Caroline Lemay for Bassetti Architects SEPA DNS (Optional DNS Process) Vacant Lot, Tax Parcel Number 542260020 This notice is to confirm the decision reached by Tukwila's SEPA Official to issue a Determination of Non- significance (DNS) using the Optional DNS process for the above project based on the environmental checklist and the underlying permit application. Project materials including the application, any staff reports, and other studies related to the permits are available for inspection at: Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. The project planner is Stacy MacGregor, who may be contacted at (206) 431-3670 for further information. The decision is appealable to the Superior Court pursuant to the Judicial Review of Land Use Decisions, Revised Code of Washington (RCW 36.70C). SM Page 1 of 1 04/21/2010 H:W Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\SEPA NOD.DOC 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 File Number: Applied: Issue Date: Status: Cityitf Tukwila Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 Tukwila, Washington 98188 Phone: 206-431-3670 Fax: 206-431-3665 Web site: http://www.ci.tukwila.wa.us DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE (DNS) E10-009 03/25/2010 04/21/2010 PENDING Applicant: RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL Lead Agency: City of Tukwila Description of Proposal: The proposal is to build Raisbeck Aviation High School. Its is a 3 -story, 86,000 square foot stucture with parking and site improvements. Location of Proposal: Address: Parcel Number: Section/Township/Range: 9229 EAST MARGINAL WY S TUKW 5422600020 Section 33/ Township 24/Range 04 The City has determined that the proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21c.030(2) (c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request. This DNS is issued under the option DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period. Jack Pa esponsible Official City of ila 6300 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 (206)431-3670 Any appeal shall be linked to a specific governmental action. The State Environmental Policy Act is not intended to create a cause of action unrelated to a specific governmental action. Appeals of environmental determinations shall be commenced within the time period to appeal the governmental action that is subject to environmental review. (RCW 43.21C.075) .lnn• nnicno_am7 C�n_nno o.cnlerd. (IA _)')_')n1n City of Tukwila • • Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST File No: E 10-009 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposal is to build a new high school that will be a 3 -story, 86,000 square foot building. The proposal includes frontage improvements and associated parking. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Raisbeck Aviation High School Applicant: Caroline Lemay for Bassetti Architects Location: Vacant Lot, Tax Parcel Number 542260020 Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: MIC/H The following information was considered as part of review of this application. 1. SEPA Checklist dated March 19, 2010. 2. Building Permit application and plan set submitted to the City of Tukwila, File D10-031. 3. GeoEngineers Geotechnical Report dated October 5, 2009. 4. GeoEngineers Phase I ESA Executive Summary dated February 19, 2007. 5. USEPA Final Decision and Response to Comments letter dated December 2, 2006. 6. USEPA Rhone-Poulenc Inc. Marginal Way Facility letter dated January 19, 2007. 7. Sparling Schematic Design Narrative Memo dated August 19, 2009. 8. Heffron Transportation, Inc Traffic and Parking Analysis Memo dated October 30, 2009. 9. Sparling Aviation HS Mechanical Email dated March 16, 2010. NOTE: Technical reports and attachments referenced above may not be attached to all copies of this decision. Copies of exhibits, reports, attachments, or other documents may be reviewed and/or obtained by contacting Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, 98188, Phone: (206) 433-7166. III. REVIEW PROCESS The proposed action is subject to State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review as the project does not meet the exemptions listed under WAC 197-11-800. The proposal includes an estimated cut and fill of 5000 cubic yards, a building over 86,000 square feet, and a parking lot with 173 stalls all of which exceed the categorical exemptions -flexible thresholds established by Tukwila Municipal Code 21.04.110 (A3-5). The project is an Essential Public Facility as defined in RCW 36.70A.200 and does not meet the criteria to be designated as a planned action. SM Page 1 of 4 04/22/2010 H:\A Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\SEPA_SR.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 • • IV. BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL Highline School District is planning to construct a new high school building as home to the relocated Aviation High School (AHS) program. The construction will take place on land leased from the Museum of Flight, a site chosen to take advantage of the adjacent Museum's facilities and King County International Airport. The new High School is considered an accessory use to the Museum. Future plans include attaching a new viewing gallery for the Museum to the High School building. Agreements between the two entities include a long term ground lease and a shared parking agreement. The site is currently vacant. Site development work includes improving the intersection/access from the site to East Marginal Way; landscaping and frontage improvements in front of the high school with future frontage improvements to be deferred until the remainder of the site develops; and parking lot development to the west of the building. A portion of the site falls within the 200 foot shoreline buffer. The project stays outside of the shoreline zone and will not require a shoreline substantial development permit. V. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements contained within the Environmental Checklist submitted for the proposed project. The numbers in the staff evaluation correspond to the numbers in the Environmental Checklist. If staff concurs with the applicant's response, this is so stated. If the response to a particular item in the checklist is found to be inadequate or clarification is needed, there is additional staff comment and evaluation. A. BACKGROUND: 1-5. Concur with checklist. 6. While the highschool is not discussing expansion plans in the future, future site work includes adding a viewing gallery for the Museum of Flight. The gallery would extend from the south side of the high school to the library on the parcel to the south. The timeframe for this expansion is 5-10+ year. The construction on the high school will follow issuance of a SEPA determination and after obtaining all required permits from the City of Tukwila or other agencies. 7. Phase I Environment Site Assessment is dated February 19, 2007. EPA's Correction Action Complete is dated January 19, 2007. EPA's Final Decision and Response to comments dated December 20, 2006 is included. 8. Concur with checklist. 9. The construction of the high school will follow issuance of a SEPA determination and after obtaining all required permits from the City of Tukwila or other agencies. King County Health Department Approval is required per WAC 246-36-040. 10. The parcel is owned by the Museum of Flight Foundation. 11. The City's mapping program lists the address as 9404 East Marginal Way South. 12. Yes. While the project is not directly adjacent to the shoreline, the southeast corner of the site is within the 200' buffer of the shoreline. No work is proposed within the 200 foot buffer. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: a -d. Concur with checklist. e. Concur with checklist. All impacts associated with hauling the grade and fill amounts including the truck route and number of trips shall be addressed as part of the construction permit. f -g. Concur with checklist. h. Project is to comply with Geotechnical Engineering Report by GeoEngineers dated October 5, 2009. ESC measures as recommended in the 1998 KCSWM must be utilized along with specific and general recommendations as detailed in the Geotechnical Report. SM Page 2 of 4 04/22/2010 H:\A Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\SEPASR.doc • • 2. Air: a -c. Concur with checklist. 3. Water: a -b. Concur with checklist. c(1). The project shall meet all 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual drainage requirements. c(2). Best Management Practices must be followed to ensure that no construction debris enters the storm drainage system. All impacts related to construction debris will be mitigated as part of the construction permit. The application states that soils runoff from roofs will be discharged into the infiltration system. Storm water will be treated and then collected in a detention vault and discharged to the City's storm water system. d. The project shall meet all 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual drainage requirements. All impacts associated with drainage will be mitigated as part of the construction permit. Storm water will be treated and then collected in a detention vault and discharged to the City's storm water system. 4. Plants: a -c. Concur with checklist. d. Landscaping shall be required per Tukwila Municipal Code. 5. Animals: a. Birds — Many common species of birds may be on the site on occasion. Mammals — Many common species of rodents and small mammals may be on the site on occasion. b. Coho Salmon and Bull Trout in the Duwamish Waterway. c. Yes — This area is part of the Pacific Flyway, a primary corridor for migratory bird species. d. Concur with checklist. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a. Electricity will also be used. b -c. Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: a. Concur with checklist. b(1). Traffic noise from East Marginal Way South will also be present. b(2) Concur with checklist. b(3). The project is subject to King County Health Department approval per WAC 246-36-040 including design to address noise impacts. The project must meet City of Tukwila noise ordinance requirements. Compliance with applicable local, state and federal noise regulations will mitigate any potential adverse noise impacts associated with the project. The design of the project follows recommendations in the Acoustical Noise Analysis report and Chiller Noise Level Report. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a. A shared access easement exists along the north property line for the benefit of the parcel to the west. b -e. Concur with checklist. f. The Duwamish Waterway is a sensitive area and is not on the site. Approximately 150 feet of the 200 foot river buffer is on the property. g. The shoreline designation on the site is Urban. The project avoids the 200' shoreline buffer. h -k. Concur with checklist. 1. The project will be reviewed for compliance with existing plans and established allowed uses. SM Page 3 of 4 04/22/2010 H:\A Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\SEPA_SR.doc 9. Housing: a -c. Concur with checklist. 10. Aesthetics: a -c. Concur with checklist. 11. Light and Glare: a -c. Concur with checklist. d. Light shall be designed for no off-site spill over. 12. Recreation: a. The nearest park is Grandmother's Hill approximately 1.5 miles away. Access to the Interurban Trail is 1.5 miles away via city streets. b. Concur with checklist. c. Park Impact fees apply per City of Tukwila Ordinance 2220. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a -b. Concur with checklist. c. Applicant will comply with all local, state, and federal laws in the case that archaeological or paleontological artifacts are encountered. 14. Transportation: a -b. Concur with checklist. c. The project has received administrative parking variance approval to allow 173 parking stalls on the site. d. Frontage improvements will be required per TMC 11.12 and include approximately 665 LF of Private Street with new cul-de-sac. Improvements to West side of E. Marginal Way South / S. 92"d Place intersection to include — signage, channelization, signal timing improvements, pedestrian heads upgrade, traffic loops, utilities, and new asphalt pavement. e. The project is across the street from the King County International Airport. f -g. The applicant has applied for a traffic concurrency certificate. The certificate will determine the amount of traffic mitigation fees required for this project. Traffic mitigation fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. All temporary traffic impacts associated with construction shall be mitigated as part of the construction permit. 15. Public Services: a. Concur with checklist. b. Fire and Park impact fees will apply and shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. 16. Utilities: a -b. Concur with checklist. VI. COMMENTS: On April 6, 2010, notice of application was posted on the site and mailed to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the project. No comments were received during the 14 day comment period VII. CONCLUSION The proposal can be found to not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment and pursuant to WAC 197-11-355 a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) is issued for this project. This DNS is based on impacts identified within the environmental checklist, attachments, and the above Final Staff Evaluation for Environmental Checklist File No. E10-009, and is supported by plans, policies, and regulations formally adopted by the City of Tukwila for the exercise of substantive authority under SEPA to approve, condition, or deny proposed actions. Prepared by: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner Date: April 21, 2010; SM Page 4 of 4 04/22/2010 HAA Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\SEPA_SR.doc • • MEMORANDUM www.ci.tukwila.wa.us Development Guidelines and Design and Construction Standards TO: PLANNING DEPT. — Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner fctYY1 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — David McPherson, Development Engineer DATE: April 12, 2010 SUBJECT: Raisbeck Aviation High School 9229 E. Marginal Way South TL no. 542260-0020 SEPA Comments SEPA — E10-009 SEPA meets Public Works requirements. Project to comply with the Geotechnical Evaluation, by GeoEngineers, Inc. dated October 5, 2009; and subsequent geotechnical evaluations / reports. The Environmental Checklist should be revised as follows: A. Background 9. Building Permit, Plumbing Permit, Street Use Permit B. Environmental Elements 5. Animals a. Birds — Many common species of birds may be on the site on occasion. Mammals — Many common species of rodents and small mammals maybe on the site on occasion. c. Yes — This area is part of the Pacific Flyway. A primary corridor for migratory bird species. 14. Transportation d. Approximately 665 LF of Private Street with new Cul -de -Sac. Improvements to West side of E. Marginal Way South / S. 92"d Place intersection to include — signage, channelization, signal timing improvements, ped heads upgrade, traffic loops, utilities, and new asphalt pavement. Page 1 of 1 SQL Query SEPA Register Horne Environmental Review Horne Ecology Home Page Page 1 of 2 The SEPA Register is updated each state business day. New records are indicated by green text. Additional information describing the contents of the SEPA Register is available if needed. Documents for listing in this Register should be sent to the Department of Ecology, Environmental Coordination Section, PO Box 47703, Olympia WA 98504-7703. Telephone (360) 407-6924. The SEPA Register is displayed in "County" sequence. 2 records returned County: Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact: Lead Agency Phone: Lead Agency File #: Ecology File #: Document Type: Description: Location: Applicant: Issue Date: Mail Date: Comment Due: Enter Date: King Tukwila City of Stacy MacGregor (206) 431-7166 E10-009 201001765 ODNS/NOA Raisbeck Aviation High School; construct an 86,000 sq ft public high school with 173 parking spaces and site improvements on 6.46 acres owned by the Museum of Flight; school is an accessory use to the museum 9229 E Marginal Way S Caroline Lemay of Bassetti Architects 04/06/2010 04/20/2010 04/07/2010 County: Lead Agency: Lead Agency Contact: Lead Agency Phone: Lead Agency File #: Ecology File #: Document Type: Description: Location: Applicant: Issue Date: King Tukwila City of Jack Pace (206) 431-3670 EA09-005 201001767 DNS Install a 1 q2 inch sewer line below Interurban Ave S to provide emergency overflow to pump station 7 which is located on the northwest side of Interurban Ave S 14601 Interurban Ave S City of Tukwila, Mike Cursick 04/02/2010 http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/sepa/query2.asp 04/08/2010 • City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director DRAFT REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST File No: E10-009 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION Pending approval, the new high school will be a 3 -story, 86,000 square foot building with frontage improvements and associated parking. Future plans include incorporating the school building into a Museum of Flight structure and utilizing the school's parking and facilities to serve the Museum outside of school hours. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Raisbeck Aviation High School Applicant: Caroline Lemay for Bassetti Architects Location: Vacant Lot, Tax Parcel Number 542260020 Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation: MICIH The following information was considered as part of review of this application. 1. SEPA Checklist dated March 19, 2010. 2. Building Permit application and plan set submitted to the City of Tukwila, File D10-031. 3. GeoEngineers Geotechnical Report dated October 5, 2009. 4. GeoEngineers Phase I ESA Executive Summary dated February 19, 2007. 5. USEPA Final Decision and Response to Comments letter dated December 2, 2006. 6. USEPA Rhone-Poulenc Inc. Marginal Way Facility letter dated January 19, 2007. 7. Sparling Schematic Design Narrative Memo dated August 19, 2009. 8. Heffron Transportation, Inc Traffic and Parking Analysis Memo dated October 30, 2009. 9. Sparling Aviation HS Mechanical Email dated March 16, 2010. III. STAFF REVIEW OF THE ENVIRIONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following lists the elements contained within the Environmental Checklist submitted for the proposed project. The numbers in the staff evaluation correspond to the numbers in the Environmental Checklist. If staff concurs with the applicant's response, this is so stated. If the response to a particular item in the checklist is found to be inadequate or clarification is needed, there is additional staff comment and evaluation. A. BACKGROUND: 1-5. Concur with checklist. 6. While the high school is not discussing expansion plans in the future, future site work includes adding a viewing gallery for the Museum of Flight. The gallery would extend from the south side of the high school to the library on the parcel to the south. The timeframe for this expansion is 5- 10+ year. The construction on the high school will follow issuance of a SEPA determination and after obtaining all required permits from the City of Tukwila or other agencies. Initials Page 1 of 4 04/02/2010 H:\A Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\DRAFT review of SEPA.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fac: 206-431-3665 • • 7. Phase I Environment Site Assessment is dated Februrary 19, 2007. EPA's Correction Action Complete is dated January 19, 2007. EPA's Final Decision and Response to comments dated December 20, 2006 is included. 8. Concur with checklist. 9. The construction on the high school will follow issuance of a SEPA determination and after obtaining all required permits from the City of Tukwila or other agencies. King County Health Department Approval is required per WAC 246-36-040. 10. The parcel is owned by the Museum of Flight Foundation. 11. The City's mapping program lists the address as 9404 East Marginal Way South. 12. Yes. While the project is not directly adjacent to the shoreline, the southeast corner of the site is within the 200' buffer of the shoreline. This entire project stays outside the buffer area. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS: 1. Earth: a -d. Concur with checklist. e. Concur with checklist. All impacts associated with hauling the grade and fill amounts including the truck route and number of trips shall be addressed as part of the construction permit. f -g. Concur with checklist. h. Project is to comply with Geotechnical Engineering Report by GeoEngineers dated October 5, 2009. ESC measures as recommended in the 1998 KCSWM must be utilized along with specific and general recommendations as detailed in the Geotechnical Report. 2. Air: a -c. Concur with checklist. 3. Water: a -b. Concur with checklist. c(1). The project shall meet all 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual drainage requirements. c(2). Best Management Practices must be followed to ensure that no construction debris enters the storm drainage system. All impacts related to construction debris will be mitigated as part of the construction permit. The application states that soils runoff from roofs will be discharged into the infiltration system. Storm water will be treated and then collected in a detention vault and discharged to the City's storm water system. d. The project shall meet all 1998 King County Surface Water Design Manual drainage requirements. All impacts associated with drainage will be mitigated as part of the construction permit. Storm water will be treated and then collected in a detention vault and discharged to the City's storm water system. Stacy MacGregor Page 2 of 4 H:\A Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\DRAFT review of SEPA.doc 04/02/2010 • 4. Plants: a -c. Concur with checklist. d. Landscaping shall be required per Tukwila Municipal Code. 5. Animals: a. Concur with checklist. b. Coho Salmon and Bull Trout in the Duwamish Waterway. c. Yes This area is part of the Pacific Flyway, a primary corridor for migratory bird species. d. Concur with checklist. 6. Energy and Natural Resources: a. Electricity will also be used. b -c. Concur with checklist. 7. Environmental Health: a(1-2). Concur with checklist. b(1). Traffic noise from East Marginal Way South will also be present. b(2) Concur with checklist. B(3). The project is subject to King County Health Department approval per WAC 246-36-040 including design to address noise impacts. The project must meet City of Tukwila noise ordinance requirements. Compliance with applicable local, state and federal noise regulations will mitigate any potential adverse noise impacts associated with the project. The design of the project follows recommendations in the Acoustical Noise Analysis report and Chiller Noise Level Report. 8. Land and Shoreline Use: a. A shared access easement exists along the north property line for the benefit of the parcel to the west. b -f. Concur with checklist. g. The shoreline designation on the site is Urban. The project avoids the 200' shoreline buffer. f. The Duwamish Waterway is a sensitive area and is not on the site. Approximately 150 feet of the 200 foot river buffer is on the property. g -k.. Concur with checklist. 1. The project will be reviewed for compliance with existing plans and established allowed uses. 9. Housing: Stacy MacGregor Page 3 of 4 H:\A Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\DRAFT review of SEPA.doc 04/02/2010 a -c. Concur with checklist. 10. Aesthetics: a -c. Concur with checklist. 11. Light and Glare: a -c. Concur with checklist. d. Light shall be designed for no off-site spill over. • 12. Recreation: a. The nearest park is Grandmother's Hill approximately 1.5 miles away. Access to the Interurban Trail is 1.5 miles away via city streets. b. Concur with checklist. c. Park Impact fees apply per City of Tukwila Ordinance 2220. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation: a -b. Concur with checklist. c. Applicant will comply with all local, state, and federal laws in the case that archaeological or paleontological artifacts are encountered. 14. Transportation: a -b. Concur with checklist. c. The project has received administrative parking variance approval to allow 173 parking stalls on the site. d. Frontage improvements will be required per TMC 11.12. e. The project is across the street from the King County International Airport. f -g. The applicant has applied for a traffic concurrency certificate. The certificate will determine the amount of traffic mitigation fees required for this project. Traffic mitigation fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. All temporary traffic impacts associated with construction shall be mitigated as part of the construction permit. 15. Public Services: a. Concur with checklist. b. Fire and Park impact fees will apply and shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. 16. Utilities: a -b. Concur with checklist. Prepared by: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner Date: April 2, 2010 Stacy MacGregor Page 4 of 4 HAA Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\DRAFT review of SEPA.doc 04/02/2010 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Raisbeck Aviation High School 2. Name of Applicant: Caroline Lemay for Bassetti Architects 3. Date checklist prepared: March 19a', 2010 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): September 2010 through January 2012 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No, no additions for the High School 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Febuary 28, 2007 EPA' Corrective Action Complete without Controls' determination, December 20, 2006 Ground water monitoring results, December 2008 Geotechnical and Subsurface Exploratory Evaluation , October 5, 2009 Acoustical Noise Analysis for Windows, August 19, 2009 Chiller Noise Levels, March 15, 2010 Traffic and Parking Analysis, October 30, 2009 Agency Comments J:\JOBS\Raisbeck Aviation HS\Admin\3_Government Agencies\P_Planning\SEPA Environmental Review\ 1 00310_AHS SEPA State Environmental Policy Act Checklist.doc 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals oother proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. VICINITY MAP • PROJECT DATA PROJECT ADDRESS: -RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL 9229 EAST MARINAL WAY S. TUKWILA, WA 98108 OWNER: HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT # 401 SCOPE OF WORK: NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A +/- 86,000SF, 3 -STORY HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING AND MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE. JURISDICTION: CITY OF TUKWILA FIRE: TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT WATER AND SEWER: CITY OF TUKWILA POWER: SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ZONING: MIC/H KING CO. OCCUPANCY: GROUP E INTL. AIRPORT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TYPE I -B RAISBECK AVIATION LOT SIZE: 281,605 S.F. OR 6.46 ACRES HIGH SCHOOL SITE TAX I.D. NO./ASSESSORS 542260002002 PARCEL NO.: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NO. L05-057, RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 2007 UNDER RECORDING # 20070228900007 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON STATE. (SEE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY; THIS SET) GROSS BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE: LEVEL 1: LEVEL 2: LEVEL 3: MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE: EXTERIOR TERRACES: TOTAL: 21,005 SF 25,033 SF 26,283 SF 12,726 SF 1,310 SF 86,357 SF Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. None 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. New construction of 86,357 sq ft, 3 story High School builing on 6.46 acres of property owned by the Museum of Flight. The school is an accessory use to the Museum. 11. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit application's related to this checklist. Address: 9229 East Marginal Way S., Tukwila WA Tax ID No/ Assessors Parcel No: 542260002002 Legal Description: Lot 2, City of Tukwila short plat No. L05-057, Recorded February 28, 2007 under recording #20070228900007 in King County, Washington State 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one)(Flat oiling, hilly, steep slopes mountainous, other: b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? A small area near the center of the site has a slope of approximately 6%. Most of the site has slopes between 1% and 3%. 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. Fill, Upper Alluvial Deposits Finer grained Lacustrine Silt and Clay Dense Estuarine Deposits d. Are. there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate, vicinity? If so, describe. From the geotechnical report prepared for the project by Geoengineers, "The results of our liquefaction analyses indicate that layers of sand and silt are susceptible to liquefaction during a design -level earthquake to an approximate depth of 60 feet. Liquefaction is characterized by the loss of soil strength in soils located below the groundwater level during seismic shaking which results in ground settlement. We estimate that ground settlement in the range of 6 to 10 inches could occur during a design earthquake." e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. To prepare the subgrade, approximately 3,500 CY will be cut and 1,500 CY will be used for fill. Any necessary import will be clean fill. Specific source is to be determined. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion can occur r during earthwork activities if soils are exposed during wet weather events. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Only part of the site will be developed. Approximately 4.1 acres of the 6.46 acre site will be disturbed. Of the 4.1 acres for the project site, approximately 3.25 acres will be impervious surfaces. This equates to 79% of the construction area and 50% of the overall site. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: See Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed and will be onsite during construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, automobile odors will be emitted into the air from construction equipment. If earthwork is done during dry conditions, dust may become transported aerially. Upon completion of the project emissions from the high school may include kitchen exhaust and automobile exhaust from vehicles used to commute to the school. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The contractor chosen for the proposed project would be required to comply with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations. Regulations that apply to the porposed project include Reglation I, Section 9.11 prohibiting the emission of air contaminants that would or could be injuroius to human health, plant or animal life, or property; and Regulation I Section 9.15 prohiniting the emission of fugitive dust, unless reasonable precautions are employed to minimize the 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. There is no surface water body on site but the site is situated about 700 to 800 feet east of the Duwamish River, with the exception of the southwest corner which is located about 30 feet northeast of Slip No. 6 on the Duwamish River. Storm drainage from the site is conveyed to an existing 27 -inch King County storm sewer that discharges into Slip #6 of the Duwamish River. 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. NA • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments . Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. Only excessive subsurface water will be removed through the foundation drainage system. The foundation drainage system will be located above the seasonal high groundwater elevation to reduce the risk of groundwater being directed into the stormwater conveyance system. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve: None c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water flows are the only anticipated runoff source. The conveyance system was designed to convey flows up to the 25 -year, 24-hour storm event per the 2005 KCSWDM. The precipitation for the 25 year storm event is 3.50 inches, obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and used in the rational method for calculating the runoff flow rate for each of the subbasins. The on-site runoff consists of the following areas and storm drainage components: 1. The parking lot and drive aisles: The parking lot and drive aisles will consist of asphalt concrete and will be graded to direct runoff to catch basins. The runoff will enter the storm system and be directed to the flow splitter and water quality facilities before being discharged to the existing 27 -inch storm system. 2. Roof: The runoff from the roof which is non -pollution generating will be directly discharged to the existing separate storm water system and will be directed to an existing storm water system near the center of the site. Runoff from the roof will not be treated for water quality. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Waste contaminants such as dirt, oil, or gasoline from automobiles may come in contact with surface waters prior to conveyance into the storm water conveyance system. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Catch basins are proposed to help prevent sediment from being conveyed beyond the catch basin. A vortexual water quality structure will provide primary removal of sediment, floating debris, and free oil. After which, the stormwater will undergo treatment to remove suspended solids and other particulate matter through a StormFilter vault with 29 Zeolite, Perlite, and Granular Activated Carbon (ZPG) cartridges. This system will treat the storm water and then discharge to the existing 27 -inch storm line, which will flow approximately 350 -feet to an existing outfall at the inlet for Slip #6 on the Duwamish River. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? One small conifer will be removed. There are several weed species such as equisetum (horsetail) growing within the gravel areas, which will also be removed. 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: Currently, there is minimal existing vegetation on-site. New planting areas are being created to enhance the site. These include streetscape plantings of shrubs and groundcovers along East Marginal Way South, as well as shrub and groundcover planting areas associated with the school building. Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X ' Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? One small conifer will be removed. There are several weed species such as equisetum (horsetail) growing within the gravel areas, which will also be removed. 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: Currently, there is minimal existing vegetation on-site. New planting areas are being created to enhance the site. These include streetscape plantings of shrubs and groundcovers along East Marginal Way South, as well as shrub and groundcover planting areas associated with the school building. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Crow Mammals Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: None Fish Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None Other 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. None d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural Gas - heating Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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: 1. Irrigation Water Reduction (50%) 2. Potable Water Use Reduction (30%) 3. Mid -efficiency boilers — reduces gas consumption. 4. CO2 sensors and occupancy sensor interlocks reduce ventilation and associated heating/ cooling demand and associated gas/elec consumption. 5. Direct drive fans eliminate belt losses and reduce fan energy consumption. 6. Variable speed drives on fans and pumps reduce elec consumption. 7. High efficiency heat exchanger reduces heating/cooling loads and associated gas/ elec consumption. 8. High efficient building envelope reduces heating/ cooling loads and energy losses in building. 9. Direct digital control system for building that also meters building energy usage to allow for precise control and troubleshooting of energy usage in building. 10. Daylighting strategies and lighting fixture selection to reduce lighting power density and elec consumption. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. NA 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NA • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? • Project is located in close proximity to King County Airport with noise from large jet flyovers to and from SeaTac, private jet taking off from King County Airport, 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short Term Basis: Temporary construction activity would be restricted to hours and levels designated by the Tukwila Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22). Long Term Basis: Based on the Traffic Analysis, there would be an increase of 1,300 daily trips generated from the High School. The school's AM peak is expected to be from 8:00 to 9:00 and the PM peak is expected to be from 3:00 to 4:00. Based on the Chiller Noise analysis, the sound attenuated chiller will not exceed 51 dBA at the property lines. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: If consturction activities exceed permitted noise levels, the District would instruct the contractorto reduce noise impacts to comply with the Noise Ordinance, which may include additional muffling of equipment. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently a vacant gravel lot. It is sometimes used asoverflow parking for the nearby Museum of Flight. The adjacent property to the south is the outdoor airplane gallery for the Museum. The adjacent properties to the west and north are used for storage of damaged automobiles. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, the site was originally developed in the 1930's for industrial purposes. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no above -grade structures. There are two below -grade electrical vaults and two telephone vaults. There is also . an existing oil/water separator and several storm water catch basins and inlets. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? There will be selective demolition of some of the below grade vaults. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? MIC/H f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MIC/H g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NA. The project is outside of the Shoreline Overlay. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Per the July 24th draft of the Shoreline Master Program, "The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requires protection of critical areas (sensitive areas), defined as wetlands, watercourses, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and abandoned mine areas." As defined herein, there are no "environmentally sensitive" areas within the limits of construction. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approx 32 staff and 400 students . j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: It currently meets existing land uses and plans. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? None • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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: NA 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Tallest element is the roof ladder on the south side of the building at approx. 57'-6" from finish grade. Metal panels (standing seam & composite), glazing, concrete masonry units. 0 b. What views in the immediate vicinity would.be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NA Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light fixtures to be compliant with IES "cutoff' requirments and scheduled per building energy management system to be on during only during non- daylight hours 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? No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Use of IES compliant "cutoff' compliant light fixtures. Placement to eliminate direct light trespass beyond property boundaries. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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: NA 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comment; 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. The site for the new school is located on property owned by the Museum of Flight along the west side of East Marginal Way S at S 92nd Place. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? King County Metro Transit provides bus service near the proposed High School site. There are bus stops on East Marginal Way S. at S. 94th Place just south of the school side adjacent to the Museum of Flight. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? There are 173 proposed parking stalls. None will be eliminated since there are no striped spaces in existance on the site. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 1,300 daily trips generated from the High School. The school's AM peak is expected to be from 8:00 to 9:00 and the PM peak is expected to be from 3:00 to 4:00. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts; if any: The project is accomodating school bus loading/ unloading to reduce parent drop off and pickup. 15 bike rack spaces have been provided to encourage biking to school. • 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. The current site is undeveloped and the proposed project changes the use to a High School (an accessory to the Museum of Flight) therefore there will be a need for public services as in fire protection, trash/ composting service and utility services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The building is fully sprinklered and has smoke evacuation system in the stair wells and the main entry lobby. This will help with the life safety aspect of the building. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas,, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system . All utilities mentioned (except septic system) are available to the site, but not connected or in use. other: Storm sewer. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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. Water — City of Tukwila — A 2.5 -inch domestic service and an 8 -inch fire service are proposed. An existing 10 -inch service with a meter exists on the site. This will be used for the 8 -inch fire service. The 2.5 -inch service will be a new tap on the existing main in East Marginal Way. Sanitary Sewer — City of Tukwila and King County — Sanitary sewer flows will discharge into the existing 42 -inch diameter King County Elliott Bay Interceptor Sewer Main in East Marginal Way Storm Drainage — City of Tukwila and King County — Storm water runoff will be collected and connect to an existing 27 -inch diameter King County storm drainage line that crosses the site. Gas — Puget Sound Energy — Natural gas service will be provided by connecting the building to the existing 8 -inch wrapped steel, intermediate pressure (STW IP) gas main. Power — Seattle City Light — Primary power will be provided to the site by connecting from the existing overhead power lines along East marginal Way to the proposed building through underground conduits and a pad mounted transformer on the exterior of the building in an enclosed service yard. Telephone/ Telecommunications — Qwest — Telecommunications will be provided by connecting to existing Qwest lines located on above-mentioned overhead power poles. (NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). C. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of elements of the environment. oposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. D. SIGNATURE Under the penalty of perjury the above answers under ESA Screening Checklist and State Environmental Policy Act Checklist arc true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: /4 l { — >� !'= Date Submitted: r Agency Comments • 1. eitc4 Department Of Community AFFIDAVIT al .lu1 wiea • Development OF DISTRIBUTION I, Teri Svedahl HEREBY DECLARE THAT: Notice of Public Hearing Determination of Non -Significance Notice of Public Meeting Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance / Board of Adjustment Agenda Packet Determination of Significance & Scoping Notice Board of Appeals Agenda Packet,_ Notice of Action Planning Commission Agenda Packet Official Notice Short Subdivision Agenda X Notice of Application Shoreline Mgmt Permit Notice of Application for Shoreline Mgmt Permit _ _ FAX To Seattle Times Classifieds Mail: Gail Muller Classifieds PO Box 70 - Seattle WA 98111 X Other: SEPA Environmental Review Was mailed to each of the addresses listed/attached on this _5 day of _April in the year 2010 c N 0A SLleeaLcA\ n N -� Lz leo )\_9_4_52-0.0_& Gc ps.,1 ) ctf4 su0liz_.ex ,/`' LSA c s_ k-- Project Name: Raisbeck Aviation High School Project Number: E10-009, DP09-008 Mailing requested by: Stacy MacGreg, r' / "7 Mailer's signature: // �. / W:\USERS\TERI\AFFIDAVIT OF DISTRIBUTION.DOC City of Tukwila Notice of Application Raisbeck Aviation High School SEPA threshold determination Optional DNS You are receiving this notice because yo Location: 9229 East Marginal Way South, parcel 5422600020 File #'s: E10-009, DP09-008 Applicant:Caroline Lemay, Bassetti Architects Property Owners: Museum of Flight Foundation Project Planner: Stacy MacGregor, 206-433-7166 Project Description: The project is a new 86,000 square foot public high school with 173 parking spaces and site improvements. This request is for SEPA environmental review. Tukwila has reviewed the project for probable adverse environ- mental impacts and expects to issue a determination of non- significance (DNS). The optional DNS process in WAC 197- 11-35 is being used. There will be a single integrated comment period for the land use permits and the environmental review so this may be your only opportunity to comment on the environ- mental impacts of the project. If timely comments do not iden- tify probable significant adverse impacts that were not consid- ered by the anticipated determination, the DNS will be issued without a second comment period. Comments and Appeals: The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100.Your written comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100. Comments must be received by 5:OOpm on April 20, 2010. You may request a copy of any decision, and your ap- peal rights by calling 206-433-7166. u are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. City of Tukwila Notice of Application Raisbeck Aviation High School SEPA threshold determination Optional DNS SERUM Raisbeck Aviation High School • rr&@fiaR Von are rereivinv this nntire herance vn Location: 9229 East Marginal Way South, parcel 5422600020 File #'s: E10-009, DP09-008 Applicant:Caroline Lemay, Bassetti Architects Property Owners: Museum of Flight Foundation Project Planner: Stacy MacGregor, 206-433-7166 Project Description: The project is a new 86,000 square foot public high school with 173 parking spaces and site improvements. This request is for SEPA environmental review. Tukwila has reviewed the project for probable adverse environ- mental impacts and expects to issue a determination of non- significance (DNS). The optional DNS process in WAC 197- 11-35 is being used. There will be a single integrated comment period for the land use permits and the environmental review so this may be your only opportunity to comment on the environ- mental impacts of the project. If timely comments do not iden- tify probable significant adverse impacts that were not consid- ered by the anticipated determination, the DNS will be issued without a second comment period. Comments and Appeals: The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100.Your written comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100. Comments must be received by 5:OOpm on April 20, 2010. You may request a copy of any decision, and your ap- peal rights by calling 206-433-7166. u are a nrnnerty owner or tenant within 500ft of this oroiect. City of Tukwila Notice of Application Raisbeck Aviation High School SEPA threshold determination Optional DNS You are receiving this notice because you Location: 9229 East Marginal Way South, parcel 5422600020 File #'s: E10-009, DP09-008 Applicant:Caroline Lemay, Bassetti Architects Property Owners: Museum of Flight Foundation Project Planner: Stacy MacGregor, 206-433-7166 Project Description: The project is a new 86,000 square foot public high school with 173 parking spaces and site improvements. This request is for SEPA environmental review. Tukwila has reviewed the project for probable adverse environ- mental impacts and expects to issue a determination of non- significance (DNS). The optional DNS process in WAC 197- 11-35 is being used. There will be a single integrated comment period for the land use permits and the environmental review so this may be your only opportunity to comment on the environ- mental impacts of the project. If timely comments do not iden- tify probable significant adverse impacts that were not consid- ered by the anticipated determination, the DNS will be issued without a second comment period. Comments and Appeals: The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100.Your written comments on the project are requested and can be delivered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Ste 100. Comments must be received by 5:OOpm on April 20, 2010. You may request a copy of any decision, and your ap- peal rights by calling 206-433-7166. are aproperty owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. City of Tukwila Notice of Application Raisbeck Aviation High School SEPA threshold determination Optional DNS Location: 9229 East Marginal Way South, parcel 5422600020 File #'s: E10-009, DP09-008 Applicant:Caroline Lemay, Bassetti Architects Property Owners: Museum of Flight Foundation Project Planner: Stacy MacGregor, 206-433-7166 Project Description: The project is a new 86,000 square foot public high school with 173 parking spaces and site improvements. This request is for SEPA environmental review. Tukwila has reviewed the project for probable adverse environ- mental impacts and expects to issue a determination of non- significance (DNS). The optional DNS process in WAC 197- 11-35 is being used. There will be a single integrated comment period for the land use permits and the environmental review so this may be your only opportunity to comment on the environ- mental impacts of the project. If timely comments do not iden- tify probable significant adverse impacts that were not consid- ered by the anticipated determination, the DNS will be issued without a second comment period. Comments and Appeals: The application is available foi review at the City of Tukwila, Department. of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter. B1v< #100.Your written comments on the project are requester and can be delivered to DCD, 6300 Southcenter Blvd., Su 100. Comments must be received by 5:OOpm on April 20 2010. You may requesta copy of any decision, and your ap peal rights by calling 206-433-7166. You are receivine this notice because you are a property owner or tenant within 500ft of this project. NAME KING COUNTY MERRILL CREEK HOLDINGS LLC owner or tenant Insurance Auto Auctions Inc. King Co Dept of Elections Jet Set Northwest, Inc. Brace Point Railings Express N. America Couriers ENA Couriers, Inc. KING CO MUSEUM OF FLIGHT MUSEUM OF FLIGHT FOUNDATION McCormick & Schmick's Cater. owner or tenant BOEING COMPANY WOOD MEADOWS L L C BNSF King County Airport - - Sharyn Parker AIR-TR-0200 Andrea Johnson Ex Director of Facilities Highline Public Schools Caroline Lemay, Bassetti Architects US E.P.A. OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY WSDOT NW REGION/DEVELOPMENT SERVICES H WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL/ECOLOGY DEPT KC HEALTH DEPT/PERMITS PORT OF SEATTLE KC METRO TRANSIT/SEPA OFFICIAL KC METRO TRANSIT/SEPA OFFICIAL HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS MUCKLESHOOT Cultural Resources Program MUCKLESHOOT Fisheries Program MUCKLESHOOT Wildlife Program DUWAMISH INDIAN TRIBE PUGET SOUND CLEAN AIR AGENCY/SEPA REVIEW DUWAMISH RIVER CLEAN UP COALITION PROP_ADDRESS 500 K C ADMIN BLDG 600 UNIVERSITY ST 2820 6505 PERIMETER RD S 8801 E MARGINAL WAY S 9010 E MARGINAL WY S 9026 E MARGINAL WAY S 9100 E MARGINAL WY S 9112 E MARGINAL WY S 9126 E MARGINAL WY S 9404 E MARGINAL WAY S 9404 E MARGINAL WAY S 9404 E MARGINAL WAY S 9725 E MARGINAL WAY S PO BOX 3707 PO BOX 88198 PO BOX 961089 7277 Perimeter Road S 17810 8th Ave. S, Bldg A 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 1200 6th AVE PO BOX 48343 PO BOX 330310, MS 240 PO DOX 7$8 PO BOX 40117 401 FIFTH AVE, STE 1100 PO BOX 1209 201 S JACKSON ST., MS KSC-TR- 201 S JACKSON ST., MS KSC-TR- 15675 AMBAUM BLVD SW 815 4th N 39015 172nd AVE SE 39015 172nd AVE SE 39015 172nd AVE SE 4717 W MARGINAL WAY SW 1904 3rd AVENUE, STE 105 5410 FIRST AVE NE PROP_CITY SEATTLE SEATTLE SEATTLE TUKWILA TUKWILA TUKWILA TUKWILA TUKWILA TUKWILA SEATTLE TUKWILA TUKWILA TUKWILA SEATTLE TUKWILA FORT WORTH SEATTLE BURIEN SEATTLE SEATTLE OLYMPIA SEATTLE OLA PROP_ST) PROP_ZIP WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA TX WA WA WA WA WA WA 98104 98101 98108 98108 98108-4005 98108 98108-4028 98108-4028 98108-4028 98108 98108 98108-4097 98108 98124 98138 76161 98108 98148 98104 98101 98504-8343 98133-9710 LACEY SEATTLE SEATTLE SEATTLE SEATTLE BURIEN SEATTLE AUBURN AUBURN AUBURN SEATTLE SEATTLE SEATTLE WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA WA 98504-0117 98104 98111 98104-3856 98104-3856 98166 98109 98092 98092 98092 98106-1514 98101-3317 98105 CITY OF TUKWILA NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT INFORMATION Caroline Lemay of Bassetti Architects has filed an application to construct a new 86,000 square foot public high school with 173 parking spaces and site improvements. This request is for SEPA environmental review. Projects applied for include: E10-009 SEPA Threshold Determination, D10-031 Building Permit, L09-054 Administrative Parking Variance, C10-003 Traffic Concurrency Test Fee, associated building and public works permits Other known required permits include: None at this time Studies required with the applications include: An environmental checklist has been submitted with the application identified above. FILES AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW The application is available for review at the City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development (DCD), located at 6300 Southcenter Blvd #100. OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Your written comments on the project are requested. They must be delivered to DCD at the address above or postmarked no later than 5:00 P.M., Tuesday, April 20, 2010. Tukwila has reviewed the project for probable adverse environmental impacts and expects to issue a - determination of non -significance (DNS). The optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-35 is being used. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental impacts of the project. If timely comments do not identify probable significant adverse impacts that were not considered by the anticipated determination the DNS will be issued without a second comment period. The proposal may include mitigation measures under applicable codes, and the project review process may incorporate or require mitigation measures regardless of whether an EIS is prepared APPEALS You may request a copy of any decision, information on hearings, and your appeal rights by calling DCD at (206) 431-3670. For further information on this proposal, contact Stacy MacGregor at (206) 433-7166, smacgregor@ci.tukwila.wa.us or visit our offices at 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite #100, Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Application Filed: 3-25-2010 Notice of Completeness Issued: 3-26-2010 Notice of Application Issued: 4-6-2010 CITY OF TUKWILA Department ofCommunity Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY RECEIVED MAR 2 5 2010 COMMUNITY EVE DEVELOPMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF [UNG The undersigned being duly swom and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applicationshave been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents) engttt ers,contractors orotlter-representatives the right toenter, upon Owner's real property, located at. ':q 2 2 - . er4or if, 31P gaol IC7 t?Z, 11.4)// 774/L tU"(IA for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City 's entry upon the property , unl ess the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request fo r ninety (90) or more day s, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. Ss EXECUTED at . St -74 a e.— (city), (0A (state), on V }3/1% J� Print Name )n Address oNiu DY EA -sr //7 2010 1#1' Phone Number oft: t:.E - 7l' T r Signature fJ On this day personally appeared before ine l Ot Air 4- exccuted the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that , .P. s ed'thc Sam en and purposes mentioned therein, -.271:St1BSCRIBEL) AND SWORN 'i'O:BEFORE ME ON TIUUS; �''�" 'DAY -.271:OF '*s ,.40, \A"Mitttittl N (;,'( , S si 1N F,p• tq/ inti NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington a x i N �r .o(/B4�Ct Z. 49:(9,-7 . �J Pr// 4'''htt 1 f.1 1.," it1trP �1N� /.. e known to be the individual who unary act and deed for the uses 20. esiding at .' • 4 Commission expires on COMPLETE APPLICATION CHECKLIST The materials listed below must be submitted with your application unless specifically waived in writing by the Public Works Department and the Department of Community Development. Please contact each Department if you feel that certain items are not applicable to your project and should be waived. Application review will not begin until it is determined to be complete. ADDITIONAL MATERIALS MAY BE REQUIRED. The initial application materials allow project review to begin and vest the applicant's rights. However, the City may require additional information as needed to establish consistency with development standards. City staff are available to answer questions about application materials at 206-431-3670 (Department of Community Development) and 206-433-0179 (Department of Public Works). Check,items . submitted with application Information Required. May be waived in unusual cases, upon approval of both Public Works and Planning <y«, APPLICATION MATERIALS: X 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. X 2. Completed ESA Screening Checklist, SEPA Environmental Checklist and drawings (5 copies). X 3. One set of all plans reduced to 8 1/2" by 11" or 11" by 17". X • 4. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule. X 5. Underlying permit application that triggers SEPA review. PUBLIC NOTICE MATERIALS: X 6. Payment of a $365 notice board fee to FastSigns Tukwila or Provide a 4' x 4' public notice board on site within 14 days of the Department determining that a complete application has been received (see Public Notice Sign Specifications Handout). X 7. Provide two (2) sets of mailing labels for all property owners and tenants (residents or businesses) within 500 feet of the subject property. Note: Each unit in multiple -family buildings--e.g. apartments, condos, trailer parks --must be included (see Public Notice Mailing Label Handout). Or you may pay the City to generate the mailing labels. See Land Use Fee Schedule under `Public Notice Mailing labels" for the fee amount. 8. If providing own labels King County Assessor's map(s) which shows the location of each property within 500 ft. of the subject lot. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: X 9. Vicinity Map with site location. 10. Provide four (4) copies of any sensitive area studies such as wetland or geotechnical reports if needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). See the Geotechnical Report Guidelines and Sensitive Area Special Study Guidelines (online at www.ci.tukwila.wa.us/dcd/dcdplan.htm) for additional information. X 11. Any drawings needed to describe the proposal other than those submitted with the underlying permit. Maximum size 24" x 36". J:\JOBS\Raisbeck Aviation HS\Admm\3_Government Agencies\P_Planning\SEPA Environmental Review\100310_AHS SEPA State Environmental Policy Act Checklist.doc f City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Sent via email to carolinel@BassettiArch.com (no hard copy to follow) March 26, 2010 Caroloine Lemay, Applicant Bassetti Architects 9404 East Marginal Way S Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Raisbeck Aviation High School E10-009 Dear Ms. Lemay, Your application for SEPA Environmental Review is considered complete on March 29, 2010 for the purposes of meeting state mandated time requirements. This determination of complete application does not preclude the ability of the City to require that you submit additional plans or information, if in our estimation such information is necessary to ensure the project meets the substantive requirements of the City or to complete the review process. You expressed a desire to coordinate the required public notice for your project. The posting and notice of land use application will occur by April 9, 2010 and continue until the date of all decisions are final and appeal periods have been exhausted. Upon posting, the public comment period will start and will continue for fourteen days. Let me know as soon as you can the date you anticipate having the sign installed. If you are able to post before April 9 I will try to coordinate my mailing to go out sooner. This notice of complete application applies only to the permits identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. Your project is under review with various City departments. When the review is complete, I will be contacting you to discuss your project. If you wish to speak to me sooner, feel free to call me at (206) 431-7166 or via email at smacgregor@ci.tukwila.wa.us. erely, w.4 AKA � egor Stacy Assistant Planner SM H:\A Aviation High School\SEPA ODNS\NOC.DOC Page 1 of 1 03/26/2010 6300 Solid/center Boulevard, Suite 11100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 Reply To Attn Of AWT -121 • • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 January. 19, 200ft CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Bonnie Dunbar, President Museum of Flight Foundation 9404 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98108-4097 RECEIVED MAR 252010 DEVE MUNI T Re: Rhone-Poulenc Inc. Marginal Way Facility Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Administrative Order on Consent for Corrective Action, Docket No. 1091-11-20-3008(h) (Order) WAD 00928 2302 Dear Ms. Dunbar: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was pleased to learn that the Museum of Flight (Museum) is interested in expanding its operation onto the East Parcel of the former Rhone-Poulenc Facility (Facility), located at 9119 East Marginal Way South in Tukwila, Washington. This proposal is an excellent example of the type of projects that fulfill EPA's goal of facilitating the redevelopment of under -used property. This letter responds to a request from Anne DeVoe Lawler, counsel for the Museum, for a letter confirming that, if further work is necessary in the southwest comer of the parcel to address the remaining toluene in ground water, EPA will look to Container Properties and the other parties who previously owned or operated the Facility to complete that work. My response is provided solely for informational purposes, and is based on EPA's current knowledge of existing contamination at the site. Investigation and cleanup of the Facility is being conducted under the Order by certain current and former property owners: Container Properties LLC, Rhodia Inc., and Bayer CropScience. These entities are collectively referred to as the Respondents. In addition to the Respondents, Monsanto and its successors have potential liability for the contamination at this property based on past ownership of the property. The current property owner, Container Properties, is redeveloping the property, and has subdivided the property into two separate parcels (the West Parcel and the East Parcel). Both parcels are subject to the cleanup requirements of the Order. Cleanup work on the West Parcel is being conducted on a separate timeline. The Respondents completed an investigation of the East Parcel in June of 2006. This investigation confirmed that contaminants were present in the soils of some areas of the East Parcel. Contaminants detected included metals (arsenic, copper, and mercury), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons (cPAMs), and toluene. A small amount of toluene was also discovered in ground water in the southwestern comer of the East Parcel. Printed on Recycled Paper The Respondents conducted a voluntary removal action on the East Parcel in late summer, 2006. Approximately 5,000 cubic yards of soils containing contamination above cleanup levels set by EPA were excavated and removed. These cleanup levels are protective for unrestricted future use, including residential use. Confirmation sampling verified that all --"1„ contaminated soils exceeding the cleanup levels were excavated and removed. %twee After the Respondents completed the removal action, the only contamination in the East 0A Parcel that remains above the EPA cleanup levels is in a very small portion of the southwest corner of the facility where toluene is present in the ground water. During the removal action, the source of the toluene -contaminated ground water was removed and efforts were made to reduce the concentration of toluene contamination in the ground water there. The remaining toluene in ground water is expected to dissipate through natural processes. After providing an opportunity for public comment, EPA issued its Final Doision for the East Parcel on December 20, 2006. In that Final Decision, EPA determined that no further cleanup actions were needed throughout most of the East Parcel. Such a determination is called a "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" determination and in this case that determination. covered all portions of the East Parcel except the southwest corner where the residual toluene remains in ground water. The portion of the East Parcel which is excluded from this determination is shown on Figure I (enclosed). A "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" determination means that EPA, under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, has determined that human health and ecological risks have been appropriately addressed and that cleanup is no longer needed at this site. This determination confirms that the property is considered suitable for any future use, and may be redeveloped and/or transferred without restrictions. In its Final Decision for the East Parcel, EPA required a contingent remedy to address the residual toluene in ground water. Specifically, within six months of issuance of the Final Decision, the Respondents must submit either a demonstration that the concentration of toluene in ground water is below the final ground water cleanup level (1.0 melt.), or a work plan for additional cleanup actions to address the toluene in the ground coater. EPA anticipates that any toluene that may remain in the ground water at that time can be readily treated by air sparging or other conventional technologies. Based on information currently available to EPA, it appears that the concentration of residual toluene has been decreasing since the removal work was completed, as we expected. EPA will issue a determination of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" for the remaining portion of the East Parcel at such time as the Respondents submit data verifying that the concentration of toluene in ground water is below the final ground water cleanup level. Finally, it may be helpful for you to know that the Order requires the Respondents to sct aside $3,500,000 to assure that sufficient funds are available to complete all necessary cleanup work at the property. The Respondents are currently in compliance with this provision of the Order. The primary purpose of this financial responsibility requirement of the Order is to assure that funds will be available if needed to conduct necessary cleanup work in the event, for example, that the Respondents are unable or fail to do so. So far, EPA has not had occasion to draw on the funds set aside for this site. If you have questions or concerns regarding this information, please contact Christy Brown of my staff at (206) 553-8506, or your legal counsel may contact Jennifer MacDonald at (206) 553-8311 to discuss the matter further. Sincerely, ichard Albright, Director Office of Air, Waste and Toxics Enclosure cc: Anne DeVoe Lawler, Jameson Babbitt Stites & Lombard PLLC 3 • FIGURE 1: Area Excluded from Determination of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" Ai .1i WEST PARCEL { 7 TOTAL AREA 114AOar(20/1151) \\'s It \\ AFr cTcLNTA UNDWTOFTOLUENE \ AFFECTED GROUND WATCR(-4000 1J ,` t %. I./EMANATION A,wt4tl,ut�l� V -• -. - /OK[ t M•4008141.0 1101.• NIT AREA OF TO.IENRAFFECTTD GROUNDWATER form.. fttolskalnn. CAR Umbel Wry Fas9T 111n0a,Wsa4glen Gaon tcix 1 R..• Note: The portion of the East Parcel which is excluded from the Determination of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" is the area designated as "Approximate Extent of Toluene Affected Ground Water" on this Figure. 5 FINAL DECISION AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Rhone-Poulenc East Marginal Way Facility East Parcel WAD 00928 2302 December 20, 2006 Introduction FCEIVED MAR 252010 DEVELOPMITY ENT On November 14, 2006, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (EPA) issued a Statement of Basis for Remedy Selection and Corrective Action Complete without Controls Determination for the East Parcel of the Former Rhone-Poulenc Facility. The Statement of Basis was issued pursuant to Administrative Order on Consent 1091-11-20-3008(h) (Order) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Statement of Basis discussed proposed decisions regarding appropriate media cleanup standards, final corrective measures, and a determination that no further cleanup actions were needed throughout most of the East Parcel. A public comment period was held from November 15 to December 15, 2006. The purpose of the Response to Comments is to identify EPA's final decision, present concerns and issues raised during the public comment period, and provide responses. All of the comments received were carefully reviewed during the final selection of the remedy, and have been addressed in this Response to Comments. No additional alternatives were raised that were not considered in the Corrective Measures Study, and the proposed remedy was not altered as a result of public comments. Selected Media Cleanup Standards EPA is selecting the unrestricted use cleanup levels proposed in the Statement of Basis as the selected media cleanup standards for the East Parcel of the Former Rhone-Poulenc Facility. The final media cleanup standards are set forth below: TABLE 1: Sol! Cleanup Levels for Unrestricted Land Use CONSTITUENT CLEANUP STANDARD mg/kg Arsenic 20 Benzo(a)Pyrene (and other cPAHs) 0.1 Copper 36.4 Mercury (inorganic) 2 Total PCBs 1 Toluene 0.8 ote: mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram TABLE 2: Ground Water Cleanup Level for Unrestricted Land Use CONSTITUENT CLEANUP STANDARD mg/L Toluene 1.0 ote: mg/L = milligram per liter Selected Corrective Measure EPA is selecting source area excavation and removal as the final corrective measure for the East Parcel of the Former Rhone-Poulenc Facility. The selected corrective measure includes the following elements: • Removal of existing railroad tracks and ties for proper off-site disposal; • Excavation of approximately 4,200 cubic yards of copper -impacted soil and placement of soil on the West Parcel within the area enclosed by the barrier wall; • Excavation of approximately 600 cubic yards of soil impacted by toluene and PCBs for disposal at an off-site, permitted landfill; • Confirmation soil sampling of all excavated areas; • Grading of the East Parcel with existing, on-site material to promote drainage to the south; • Natural attenuation of the remaining toluene -impacted ground water. EPA is also requiring a contingent ground water remedy, as confirmation sampling has not yet demonstrated that toluene in ground water is below the final cleanup level. Specifically, within six months of issuance of today's final remedy selection, Respondents must submit either a demonstration that the concentration of toluene in ground water is below the final ground water cleanup level (1.0 mg/L), or a Corrective Measures Implementation Work Plan (as required by Paragraph 6.24 of the Order) for additional corrective measures for ground water, such as biosparging, bioventing, or ground water pump and treat. All of the proposed remedies initially screened in the Corrective Measures Study, with the exception of the "no action" alternative, would provide adequate protection of human health and the environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling risk through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls. However, the selected remedy will eliminate the risk posed to human health and the environment by removing all contamination to the unrestricted use cleanup standards. This remedy achieves this risk reduction more quickly than any of the other proposed remedies. The selected remedy provides the best balance among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria, including: • Long-term reliability and effectiveness; • Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste; • Short-term effectiveness; • Implementability; and • Cost. Determination of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" EPA is issuing a determination of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" for all portions of the East Parcel except for the southwest corner of the Former Maintenance Building Area. The portion of the East Parcel which is excluded from this determination is shown on Figure 1. A "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" determination means that EPA, under RCRA authority, has determined that human health and ecological risks have been appropriately addressed and that corrective action activities are no longer necessary at this site. This determination confirms that the property is considered suitable for any future use, and may be redeveloped and/or transferred without restrictions. Public Participation Activities A public comment period was held from November 15 through December 15, 2006. A public meeting was not requested. Comments were received from the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition (DRCC). The comments received are presented below. Public Comments and EPA's Response Comment: DRCC does not object to the designation of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" for the majority of the East Parcel, as it appears that this parcel does not currently pose a significant threat to human health or wildlife associated with the Duwamish River. DRCC is concerned about the possible exception of toluene in ground water in the southwestem comer of the East Parcel, and supports EPA's proposal to require a contingent remedy to address any residual toluene in ground water, if source removal does not prove to be an effective groundwater remedy within six months. Response: EPA has included the proposed contingent ground water remedy in the final remedy selection for the East Parcel, as recommended by the commenter. Future Actions If Respondents are required to implement a contingent remedy, information will be provided to the public through Fact Sheets or by other appropriate means, such as on EPA's web site. If Respondents submit data verifying that the concentration of toluene in ground water is below the final ground water cleanup level, EPA will issue a determination of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" for the remaining portion of the East Parcel. Declarations Based on the administrative record complied for this corrective action, I have determined that the selected remedy to be ordered at the Rhone-Poulenc East Parcel is appropriate and will be protective of human health and the environment. Y)/0 Richard Albright, Director Office of Air, Waste and Toxics EPA Region 10 Date • FIGURE 1: Area Excluded from Determination of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" 1 1r el . WEST PARD . gram, l 81WE T PARCEL TOM. .pezvatey A/PRO:MATSOREMOrTOLUENE MEM d10tM0WAIEAc-uct o EccotolArOff -- R.OMAWut N MI 1110LOOM. n w.mwu _•_._maCa i AREA Of VOLUMAMECM> OROIMD WATER Ew..rWcn.3b.., Elm throw vvwaca Wools. WAfLgM ypf ▪ Geoirtatrlx A►.. Note: The portion of the East Parcel which is excluded from this Determination of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" is the area designated as "Approximate Extent of Toluene Affected Ground Water" on this Figure. ■ MAr 9 L T(' MW48 $ 0M3A UfDM38 D 1 � 1MW-47 U• MY38R U �11 1 . kk X ORDINARY HIGH 1 WATER LINE V 1 I DUWAMISH WATERWAY 0 50 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET SVE/AS EQUIPMENT BETWEEN EXISTING BUILDING AND FENCE (SEE DETAIL 1) Mw -59 U 4MW-58 A2 U PZ.61 U PZ -62 L 41/'Ex_1 u 1 Y MW49 U NW' L . mw -so L : DM -'a • MW -20 PZ-60 MW-13MW-13L MW -17 U MW -27 u PZ -63 L 4 MW -28 U 1 •` My S U Mw -51U ' yMW52L MW -40 L / Groundwater Pretreatment Building 4, EX -2 U .4DM4U 1410 U EX -3 U DETAIL 1 8180 Mw -12u 0M-7 UU Mw -29 U MW -53 fits / MW -43L / au IAAI LEASE PROPERTY /j *11 /j. / /j u p MUSEUM, OF FLIGHT 04, PROPERLY RECEIV' ;25 CONINIUNI DEVELOPM T X_ PROPANE TANK • /. i X VENT -1 I I � 3i. AS -1 1 VENT -2 x O I '2 MW -646.1610 ``A BX VENT -3 .. Is_s /1 / 6� // I 4ANHOL£ �/ x �/ vas! // / AS•13• I bi O c�� As.// VENT -6 MW -65 t 6.18 W-66 6.04 VENT -4 MW / •/ v / SLIP 6 041V 45 1 /I GAC CANISTERS GROUNDWATER PRETREATMENT BUILDING MIRO BIOSPARGE VENT EQUIPMENT SKID DETAIL 1 • 0 5 10 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET 41 FENCE OPENING ling County 36" Outfall (approximate). Explanation AS. Blospa'gIng location VENT Vent Well Locution MW -66 h Groundwater Monitoring 6.04* W�IlocaUbn'with Groundwater Elevation (feet) — ----- Property Boundary 2" SCH 40 PVC Vent Line Fixed Fence Temporary Fence Subsurface Banter Wall Sewer Line CMI Project Area 5 —x--x— ��` DETAIL 2 KEY B = Benzene T = Toluene E = Ethylbenzene X = Xylenes MA MW -85 B 2.6 T 50 E 0.66. X 1,.9 VENT -7/ //� ,MW -86i rB71:U 2�U v %//I ITC I0E251U. ."DUWAMISH // 1 WATERWa v // hl IES 1025 SUP6 .11 Xi 1R75 Notes:. Results are in pgIL (micrograms per Liter). U = not detected at reporting limit indicated. J = The analyte was positively identified; the associated numerical value Is the approximate concentration of the analyte in the sample. Water Ievels.colected December 15, 2008 (feet, NGVD29). Water samples collected December 16 and 17, 2008. Air Sparge System was on during this period. 0 20 40 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET D 010 NT GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS DECEMBER 2008 Museum of Flight Parcel - Former Rhone-Poulenc Site Tukwila, Washington 81r: APS I Date: 02/12/09 j ProjectNo. 8769 — { AMEC Geomatrix Figure 2 Memorandum • 720 Olive Way a Suite 1400 Seattle, Washington 98101-1853 206/667-0555 800/667-0610 Fax: 206/667-0554 www.sparling.com To: Caroline Lemay, Bassetti Architects From: Mike Walter Date: August 19, 2009 Subject: Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative • S -)A NG WORK TOGETHER ( S'TAN D KRAUT' ECEVE MAR 2 5.2010 COMMUWiTY DEVELOPCJ1ERIT The Highline School District is planning on constructing a new high school geared specifically towards the study of the aviation industry. In order to provide valuable resources to the students, the school will be located in close proximity to both the Museum of Flight and the King County Airport in Seattle. Figure 1 below shows the relationship of the location of the school to some of the surrounding landmarks. This report documents acoustical considerations for the schematic design phase of the Aviation High School project. Included within this report will be architectural and mechanical system considerations. Figure 1: Aviation High School Location A*.f 4 ,2 °' King County \ . Airport Runway Aviation High School Site �,... ---"lir. - (iO Museum of Flight Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 2 of 17 Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) The American National Standards (ANSI) Committee S12, Noise, published an acoustical design guide for schools in light of significant research stressing the importance of an appropriate acoustical environment in the classroom setting. Among the important findings cited by the publication are: • Language input and language proficiency form bases for most cognitive skills. • 60% of typical classroom activity involves students listening to and speaking with the teacher and other students. • Successful communication with spoken language depends on speech intelligibility within a room. This depends on the level of background noise and the level of reverberation in the room. • Intelligibility decreases when the Speech to Noise Ratio (SNR) is low. Students with impaired hearing, speech and language abilities require an additional 3 dB of SNR to offset their susceptibility to the negative effects of reverberation. In response to the evidence that improved acoustics can contribute to a significantly better learning environment, ANSI has recommended the criteria listed in Table 1 for the core learning areas in schools. Table 1: Recommended Interior Acoustics Criteria for Core Learning Areas Classroom Volume Background Noise Level Reverberation Time 10,000 ft3 or less 35 dBA1 0.6 sec 10,000 to 20,000 ft3 35 dBA 0.7 sec The Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) v.2 2006 sites the ANSI guidelines as one of their resources when creating the protocol for new schools in the state of Washington. The required acoustic performance criteria under the WSSP are listed in Table 2 below. Table 2: Required Interior Acoustics Criteria for Classrooms Background Noise Level Reverberation Time 45 dBA 0.6 sec The WSSP also includes an Improved Acoustic Performance condition which more closely follows the ANSI design guide for schools. The Improved Acoustic Performance condition includes one portion relating to the background noise levels within the classroom and another section relating to the minimum sound transmission class for partitions separating adjacent instructional spaces. These Improved Acoustic Performance conditions are listed in Table 3 below. Table 3: Improved Acoustics Performance for Classrooms Background Noise Level Partition Sound Transmission Class (STC) 35 dBA 50 The biggest challenge in meeting the required 45 dBA background noise level (or the improved 35 dBA background noise level) is intruding aircraft noise from the nearby King County airport. Noise from airplanes flying over the site on their way to and from SeaTac Airport also affects the ambient noise level on the site. In order to design to the WSSP guidelines, the noise An A -weighted sound level (dBA) is a sound pressure level measured with a conventional frequency weighting that roughly approximates how the human ear hears different frequency components of sounds at typical listening levels for speech. The A -weighting attenuates the low -frequency (or low pitch) content of a sound. Sound Presw re Level (dB) 100 Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 3 of 17 reduction capabilities of the exterior skin of the building must be increased. Typically, the weakest part of the exterior skin of any building (acoustically) is the windows. In order to meet the WSSP guidelines, upgraded window assemblies will be required. However, before appropriate windows can be selected for this project, it is necessary to better understand both the level of noise intruding on the site as well as the frequency content. For this reason, sound level measurements were taken on two separate occasions to better understand the noise produced by the two nearby airports. The types of airplane noise that are most prevalent on the site can be broken down into the following categories: • Large jet flyovers to and from SeaTac • Private jets taking off from King County Airport • Small propeller driven planes taking off from King County Airport • Large jets taking off from King County Airport Noise levels from other activities such as helicopters taking off and airplanes landing at King County airport were also taken; however, these noise levels are significantly quieter than the ones listed above. Figure 2 below shows the maximum noise levels produced by each of type of event listed above. Since noise levels were taken in multiple locations, the levels shown in the chart have been normalized to 1200 feet which is the approximate distance between the site and the nearest point on the King County Airport runway. Data for the jet flyovers to and from SeaTac was not altered since these measurements were taken on the site and the distance between the ground and the planes will remain relatively constant. Figure 2: Maximum Aircraft Noise Levels Max Noise Levels . 30 20 10 0 —filet flyovers to/from SeaTac —*—Private jets taking off from King County Airport at 1200 feet —di—Propeller driven planes taking off from KingCountyAirport at 1200 feet —*—Large jets taking off from King County Airport at 1200 feet se' r1 ,r1. ,r1 •,1 •,1 �y r1 ,r1. Z1 Z1 x\1. . ,r1 r1 �� �ti rh r1 ,rti r1 r, r1 �ti r1 h° e� 95' •,5P ,; ti� ticP e ,,ti`' a� h� ��� q� e 45) ti ti� tiy� ,o) o) h) e Frequency (Hz) Sound Pressure Level (dB) 100 90 80 70 60 50 ao 30 20 10 Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 4 of 17 The measured noise levels shown in Figure 1 were consolidated into a single curve. This "design" noise level, which is shown in Figure 3 below, takes the maximum noise level at each frequency to create an overall maximum noise level. Figure 3: Maximum Noise Level of Aircraft Activities Design Noise Level •61. �ti +% +% 0. 0. �~ tititititi�ti ti •r%tifl•61.ti�titi x`.% + •• ti io• � • h° oSp �"'° �hCO �° ti�t 0.63 i Frequency (Hz) The results shown in Figure 3 above give the 1/3 octave band frequency data for the maximum noise levels (at the site) created by airplane activities in the area. However, the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol (WSSP) guidelines calls for the unoccupied background noise levels to be a noise average Leq, where x is thirty seconds or more. An Leq represents an average sound level over a period of time which is always less than the maximum. Since most of the airplane activities have a duration of approximately 30 seconds, the measured maximum noise levels (Lmax) were compared to the measured Leq data (the sound level meter used for these measurements can measure both simultaneously) for several events to find the difference. For this comparison, events were picked that did not include other intruding background noises (such as traffic) that would affect the Leq but not the Lmax. Figure 5 below shows an example of three measurements with both the Lmax and Leq plotted. The dotted line is the Leq which corresponds to the solid line (Lmax) of the same color 90 Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 5of17 Figure 5 shows a difference of about 10 dB between the maximum noise levels produced by aircraft events and the 30 second Leq produced by an aircraft event. This large of a difference means that the maximum noise level happens for a very short duration within the 30 second window. Since the WSSP guidelines specify designing to a 30 second Leq and not the maximum noise level, 10 dB was subtracted from the maximum design noise levels to come up with more realistic design noise levels for this project. This is shown in Figure 6 below. Figure 5: Measured Leq vs. Measured Lmax leq/Lmax Comparison - Lmax:Ov• erallzdBA level 1111.1101. toni Leq,Oyerall dBAievel 10 dR 10 jt 1,t 4.+,t +,t ,fit �t +1- jg ,rt +1. 4,t tt tt :t ,fit +% rt tt 4.% rt ,It 4.% Frequency (H:) loci 80 io 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 6 of 17 Figure 6: Final Design Noise Levels Design Noise Level t Maximum Noise Levels due to Aircraft Activities tDesign Noise Levels •ti ,rti is" , sr% , , is" is% p, . is% sti , , is"' pati pati , , pis" �Q, is' , . , h2 �°� NcP N. N. Ft. �y0 �tih 0" �o'� 0� 'ti6P tit'() ,(s LCY L 47c) bCS h" roe) e A: Frequency (Hz) Window Selection There are two factors that determine the acoustical performance of an insulated window assembly. The first is the mass of each plate of glass. The heavier the glass in the assembly, the better the assembly performs from an acoustical standpoint. The second factor is the size of the airspace between the two panes of glass. More airspace between the panes of glass also translates into a higher acoustical performance. Using the design noise levels shown in Figure 6, predictions were made into a standard classroom using different window configurations. There were several factors which went into picking window types for this project. The first was whether or not the glazing configurations come as sealed units. If a unit is unable to be sealed, it is possible that one of the panes of glass would have to be removed for maintenance purposes. This can be a difficult and expensive process, so only sealed units were considered. The next factor that was looked at was the thickness of the glass within each insulated unit. A single pane of glass has a resonance frequency at which it performs poorly from an acoustical standpoint. Itis important to note that two different thicknesses of glass be used in the glazing system so both panes of glass are not weak at the same frequency which would compound the systems' weakness at that frequency. By installing two different thicknesses of glass, the weak frequency is staggered which reduces the liability of a weak point in the glazing system. The result is a better window performance in the resonance frequency range. • • Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 7 of 17 The last factor taken into account was the location of the windows with respect to the runway, as well as the sensitivity of the spaces with windows. To evaluate this, the building was broken into the following areas and window types were selected for each. • North and East Facade - These two facades both have direct exposure to the runway as well as the most noise sensitive spaces (classrooms, commons, etc.). • South and West Facade - The south facade has noise sensitive spaces but less exposure to air traffic and the west facade has very few noise sensitive receivers and has the least exposure to airplane activity. With the building separated into these divisions, window types were selected for each. For the north and east facades the following two window assemblies were evaluated: • 3/8" GI - 3/4" Airspace - 1/2" Lam • 1/2" Lam - 1/2" Airspace - 5/16" Lam Both of these glazing configurations will reduce the noise level produced by airplane activity to approximately 41 dBA. In order to increase the acoustical separation further, it was recommended that the airspace in both of these assemblies be increased to 1-1/2". After further research, it was determined that in order for the unit to be sealed, the maximum allowable airspace of the unit is only 1". Although test data for the above window assemblies with the 1" airspace is not available, the increase in airspace will improve the performance of the window and is recommended. Also, the first unit listed above is preferred from an architectural standpoint since only one side of the unit is laminated. Laminated glass on both sides makes putting LOW -E coating on the units difficult. The recommended unit for the south and west facades is: • 1/4"GI - 1/2" Airspace - 3/8" Gl If the above unit was used on the north and east facades of the building, it would reduce the noise level to approximately 44 dBA in the occupied spaces. However, the south and west facades of the building have less exposure to noise from aircraft events. When the King County airport is in north flow mode, the south and west facades of the building are shielded from aircraft events by the building itself. The noise level inside the rooms on the south and west during this time is expected to be approximately 36 dBA. When the airport is in south flow mode, airplanes are already off the ground by the time they pass the school. This means that they are further away than the 1200 foot distance used in our analysis. Since sound decays with distance, the noise level impacting the south facade is lower than the noise level impacting the north and east facade. Noise levels on the south and west facades of the building when the airport is in south flow mode are expected to be 40 dBA. ARCHITECTURAL ACOUSTICS Architectural acoustics consists of the control of sound between spaces, and creation of desired acoustical environments within rooms. On the Aviation High School project, there are adjacencies that deserve special attention to provide proper acoustical separation, and rooms that will need the proper interior acoustic environment. Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 8of17 Classrooms Surface Treatments In order to meet the WSSP acoustics criteria, the reverberation time in classrooms will need to be reduced below 0.6 seconds. An acoustical tile ceilings with a rating of NRC2-0.55 or higher and carpeted floors reduce the reverberation time in typical classrooms below the required 0.6 seconds. However, this school could be used to explore different teaching strategies. Teaching techniques could be recorded and studied for their effectiveness. In order to ensure that the teacher's voice on the recordings is intelligible, it makes sense to add additional absorptive material to the classrooms. The most likely place to add additional sound absorptive material is the walls. The sound absorptive material can be in the form of acoustical wall panels equal in height to the blackboard (a list of acoustically absorptive materials is given in Appendix I). These panels are recommended on two perpendicular walls and can double as tack -boards, but admittedly, if the tack -board is full of paper, the acoustical effectiveness is reduced. Budget $15.00 per square foot for acoustical wall panels. Large Project Lab/Machine Shop Standard acoustical tiles with a rating of NRC -0.55 or higher along with 1" thick acoustical wall panels with a minimum NRC of 0.8 on two perpendicular walls (3'-7' AFF) will provide adequate absorption in these spaces. Budget $15.00 per square foot for acoustical wall panels. Labs Standard acoustical tiles with a rating of NRC -0.55 or higher along with 1" thick acoustical wall panels with a minimum NRC of 0.8 on two perpendicular walls (3'-7' AFF) will provide adequate absorption in these spaces. Budget $15.00 per square foot for acoustical wall panels. Gymnasium Design Goals Gymnasiums are difficult spaces for instruction because they have such a large volume. Sound absorption in the gymnasium will reduce reverberation. Controlling reverberation will improve the ease of understanding voice instruction. Sound absorption will also help reduce overall noise levels. Surface Treatments The most effective and least costly method of reducing the reverberation time is to add absorption material to the underside of the roof structure of the gymnasium. This can be easily achieved, by using an acoustical roof deck. Although the most effective acoustical decks can cost an upwards of $13 per square foot, sufficient absorption will result from the least expensive acoustical deck at around $5 per square foot. Fireproofing will compromise the acoustical performance of the deck. Absorption is also necessary on the walls of the gym to prevent reverberation from persisting in horizontal sound paths, which may occur between parallel hard -surfaced walls. Budget' for 6' tall panels on all four walls. Commons In order to reduce the overallnoise level and to reduce the reverberation time in the Commons, acoustically absorptive material is needed on the ceiling. Since the commons is open to the gym, the two spaces will share an acoustical metal deck ceiling. 2 NRC is the noise reduction coefficient of an absorptive material • Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 9 of 17 Offices and Administrative Areas Standard acoustical tiles with a rating of NRC -0.55 or higher in the hung ceiling grid and carpeted floors in offices and workrooms will provide adequate absorption within these areas. Lobby Standard acoustical tiles with a rating of NRC -0.55 or higher in the hung ceiling grid will provide adequate absorption in the Lobby. Conference Rooms Standard acoustical tiles with a rating of NRC -0.55 or higher in the hung ceiling grid will provide adequate absorption in the Conference Rooms. Also, budget for 1" thick acoustical wall panels with a minimum NRC of 0.8 on two perpendicular walls (3'-7' AFF). Budget $15.00 per square foot for acoustical wall panels. Corridors Corridors should have acoustical tile ceilings with a rating of NRC -0.55 or higher. ACOUSTICAL SEPARATION Audibility of intruding sound depends on the amount of acoustic separation produced by the architecture separating two adjacent spaces. It also is directly related to the amount of background sound present in the room receiving the intruding sound. People in rooms with higher background sound levels, typically produced by the HVAC system, are less able to hear intruding sounds. Conversely, people in rooms that are quieter can hear intruding sounds more easily. Determination of appropriate wall and floor /ceiling types requires an assumption regarding expected background HVAC levels in the receiving room. Classroom Acoustical Separation In addition to maintaining a low level of background noise in a learning space, it is also necessary to minimize the noise that enters a classroom from an adjacent space. This is done to allow for good communication between the instructor and student and also to minimize the distraction of activities within the classroom. Several factors work together to determine how intruding sounds will be perceived in a receiving space. • Source Levels: When discussing audibility, we must provide a reference level for our analysis. We typically speak in terms of "normal" voice level, which is measured at approximately 60 dBA. As with any statistical analysis, this number is representative of an average value, but may not fit every person. Each voice is unique, and may be louder or softer at different frequencies. A "raised" voice might occur during while teaching a class, during a lively conversation, or while using a "sound field" voice enhancement system. For calculation purposes, we consider raised voice to be approximately 66 dBA. • Wall Construction: When calculating the amount of sound that passes through a wall, we use Transmission Loss (TL) data, which describes how much sound passes through at various frequencies. Transmission loss data has been measured in laboratories for most common wall constructions. In describing how the wall will perform,. we use a single number rating, Sound Transmission Class (STC), which is calculated from the TL data. The STC rating represents the reduction through the wall in the human speech frequency range. A higher STC value means that less sound is transmitted through the wall. • Background Noise Levels: Typically given in terms of NC rating, the background levels present in the receiving space help to mask intruding sounds. We typically consider levels produced by the mechanical system, and not other intermittent sources. Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 10 of 17 By combining these factors, the level of audibility within a receiving room (a classroom, in this case) can be determined. For classrooms, it is common to design the wall assemblies and background noise such that intruding noises (voices, multimedia systems, etc.) are either barely audible or inaudible. Intruding noise that is barely audible is defined as noise that can only be heard if the listener is concentrating on the intruding noise, rather than on the task in the receiving classroom. If there is speech in the receiving classroom, intruding noise from the source classroom seems to disappear and does not intrude upon the attention of the people in the receiving classroom. WSSP requires an STC 50 wall in order to qualify for the improved acoustic credit. Recommended Wall Types Table 4 below presents recommended wall types and STC ratings for each space to reduce intruding sounds to levels that are inaudible to barely audible. STC stands for Sound Transmission Class and is a single number rating that represents the decibel reduction provided by the separating assembly; it is provided here to indicate the performance of the assembly. Wall types are given in Appendix II. Table 4: Recommended Wall Tvves Source Room Receiving Room STC Assembly Type Classroom Classroom 50 Type 3 Classroom Corridor 40 Type 1 Classroom Pro Learning 50 Type 3 Pro Learning Staff Lounge 50 Type 3 Computer Lab Terrace 45 Type 2 Computer Lab Classroom 50 Type 3 Lab Corridor (No Door) 45 Type 2 Lab Prep 40 Type 1 Lab Classroom 50 Type 3 Kitchen Commons 45 Type 2 Counselor Office Counselor Office 50 Type 3 Counselor Office Corridor 50 Type 3 Counselor Office Classroom 50 Type 3 Gymnasium. Admin 63 Type 6 Gymnasium Corridor (No Door) 55 Type 4 Admin Classroom 50 Type 3 Large Project Lab Machine Shop 50 Type 3 Large Project Lab Corridor (No Door) 45 Type 2 Machine Shop Corridor (No Door) 45 Type 2 Office Office 45 Type 2 Type 1 Office Corridor 40 Door Seals Sealed doors consist of adding seals to a typical door. To completely seal a single door, a top seal, jamb and hinge seal, bottom seal, and threshold will be required. To completely seal a double door, an astragal is needed in addition to the components for the single door. A more in-depth description of door seals is given in Appendix III. The cost for each full seal assembly is approximately $350. A minimal seal assembly consisting of perimeter seals only (no threshold) is acceptable at some locations. The cost for a minimal seal assembly is approximately $150 per door. Table 5 indicates the doors on the project that should have seals installed to create the desired acoustic separation between adjacent spaces. Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 11 of 17 Table 5: Recommended Locations for Sealed Doors Location Seal Type Doors between Classrooms and Corridors Minimal Doors between Labs/Corridor Minimal Doors between and Large Project Lab/Machine Shop and Corridor Minimal Doors between Administrative Offices and Corridors Minimal Doors between Counselors Offices and Corridor Minimal Mechanical System Noise and Vibration Control Criteria The acoustical design goal for HVAC systems is the achievement of a level of background noise that is unobtrusive in quality (frequency content) and low enough in level (amplitude) that it does not interfere with the function of the space being served. To be unobtrusive the background noise should exhibit the following characteristics: • A balanced distribution of sound energy over a broad frequency range to create a sound that is bland in character. • No audible tonal characteristics such as a whine, hum, or rumble. • No noticeable time -varying levels from system induced aerodynamic instability or air turbulence. To achieve this goal, the NC (Noise Criteria) family of curves was used. The HVAC noise criteria shown in Table 6 are intended to provide the necessary sense of quiet quality, while still providing the needed masking noise in rooms with adjacent noise sources. Table 6: Sueeested HVAC Noise Criteria Area Noise Criteria Classrooms 30 Pro Learning 30 Lab 35 Computer Lab 35-40 Commons 35 Gymnasium 35 Offices 35 Machine shop 35 Large Project Lab 35 Corridors 38-42 Kitchen 40-45 HVAC NOISE TYPES HVAC system noise received in occupied spaces is a combination of fan -generated noise and airflow generated noise. Fan noise is generated by the fan itself and is transmitted to occupied spaces via three mechanisms or paths: • Ductborne noise, which is created by fans and which transmits down attached ductwork, and which radiates out of the ductwork walls or grilles, into occupied areas. • Airborne noise, which is created by the equipment and which travels through the air surrounding the equipment, through surrounding walls or floors, and into occupied areas. Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 12 of 17 • Struchireborne noise, which is created by the vibration of equipment, and which travels as vibration into the walls, ceilings or floors surrounding occupied areas, and which then radiates as noise from those surfaces. Although the major source of noise in HVAC systems is the fans, they are not the only source of noise. Aerodynamics noise is generated at duct elements, such as elbows, transitions, branches, sound silencers, dampers, grilles, etc. The level and character of aerodynamic noise generated at duct elements depends on the airflow velocity and the geometry of the element. The higher the airflow velocity the more noise is generated. Care should be taken in sizing, selecting, and locating duct elements so that aerodynamics noise is minimized. The section entitled "Minimizing Turbulence in Ductwork" presents guidelines for minimizing aerodynamic noise in ductwork. Air Handling Equipment Some types of fans are quieter than others. For centrifugal fans, the preferred type of fan is a plug fan equipped with airfoil blades. Plug fans generate lower noise levels at low frequencies, plus have a plenum effect to reduce noise levels on the discharge side of the fan, and are the least susceptible to creation of excess noise from turbulent discharge conditions. The second most desirable centrifugal fan is a scroll fan with backward inclined airfoil blades. Third, and least favorite, is the centrifugal fan with forward curved blades, which tends to generate higher noise levels at low frequencies, and is very sensitive to anything but ideal discharge conditions. For this project, plug fans are planned for the air handling units. Duct Silencers The HVAC design should accommodate the following: • Minimum 5 foot long duct silencers (sound traps) on the supply and return side of each air handling unit. Locating silencers close to fans and duct fittings will cause excess turbulence that leads to higher silencer's pressure drop and self -noise. To perform at or near the ratings given in the manufacturer's catalogs, silencers should be installed in accordance with the following guidelines: • When installed downstream of a centrifugal fan, allow for a straight duct between the silencer and the fan equivalent to 3/4 fan wheel diameter for each 1000 fpm of exit velocity. Silencer's baffles should perpendicular to the fan's shaft. • When installed upstream or downstream of a radiused elbow or mitered elbow with turning vanes, allow for a straight duct between the silencer and the elbow equivalent to 1.5 duct diameters. Silencer's baffles should be parallel to the elbow cheeks. • When installed upstream or downstream of a mitered elbow without turning vanes, allow for a straight duct between the silencer and the elbow equivalent to 2 duct diameters. Silencer's baffles should parallel to the elbow cheeks. • When transitions are needed before and/or after silencers, the transition angle should not exceed 30 degrees when entering the silencers and 15 degrees when exiting. We will refine our recommendations for the silencers as the design progresses; however, all of the silencers mentioned herein should be included in the project budget and incorporated into the design. The length of the trap and the distance between the trap and other mechanical system elements should be reflected in the drawings. Duct Liner Plan on internally lining the following ductwork with 1" duct liner: Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 13 of 17 • The first 20' from the supply and return openings of each air -handling unit. • Minimum 10' downstream of each air terminal box. Other Acoustical Duct elements • Round ductwork is desirable for medium or high-pressure ductwork. Round sheet metal ducts resist low frequency breakout noise that can be a problem near mechanical equipment rooms. • Flat oval ductwork with aspect ratios of not more than 2.5:1 is a compromise between rectangular and round ductwork. • Rectangular ductwork should be avoided on high and medium pressure ducts. • ,Allow 3 to 5 feet of lined straight ductwork between the diffusers/grilles and any volume control damper. • Allow 1 to 2 feet of straight ductwork between volume dampers and any duct element (such as junction, elbow, etc). • Allow for larger sizes and longer runs of ductwork for service at and near the music rehearsal rooms. • Flex ductwork shall be installed with the following conditions: • Flex duct turn radius shall be no greater than 2 times the radius of the flex duct. • Flex duct offset angle shall be no greater than 25 degrees. • Flex duct shall be minimum 5 feet long. Supply and Return Air Grille Selection The acoustical rating of the selected diffusers and grilles should be 5 to 10 points less than the NC rating of the room that they serve. Vibration Isolation Most equipment located will need to be isolated on spring vibration mounts or hangers. Internally isolated equipment may not need additional, external isolation. We will refine our vibration isolation recommendations as more information about the mechanical system becomes available. Please feel free to call with any questions. • • Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 14 of 17 APPENDIX 1: ACOUSTICALLY ABSORPTIVE MATERIALS The following lists examples of acoustically absorptive products and manufacturers that can be used on walls: 1. Fabric -wrapped acoustical wall panels with NRC z 0.8 • Quiet Touch www.jasco-usa.com • 1" thick ACT www.conweddesignscape.com • 1" thick A100 www.walltechnology.com 2. Tackable/Impact Resistant acoustical wall panels • HIR #1 www.decoustics.com • Quiet Touch Extra www.jasco-usa.com ' • LSS-OFP www.perdueacoustics.com • Respond High Impact www.conweddesignscape.com • A108 www.walltechnology.com • Fabri-Tough www.tectum.com 3. High -impact Resistant acoustical wall panels • Kinetics KNP www.kineticsnoise.com 4. Perforated wood panels with 1" fiberglass backing • Quadrillo www.decoustics.com • Topakustic www.rpginc.com 5. Gypsum wallboard look-alike sound absorptive material • BASWAphon www.rpginc.com • Claro and Ceilencio www.decoustics.com • Snap -Tex Stretch Fabric System www.snaptex.com • New Dimensions www.walltechnology.com • Eurospan www.walltechnology.com • Hunter Douglas Techstyle www.hunterdouglascontract.com 6. Perforated metal panels with 1" fiberglass backing • Alpro www.alproacoustics.com 7. Perorated GWB with 1" fiberglass backing • Danoline http://danoline-uk.com/ 8. Acoustical Ceiling Tile with NRC >_ 0.7: • USG Frost #450 http://usg.com/ • USG Eclipse #78775 http://usg.com/ • USG Mars #88785 http://usg.com/ • USG Halcyon #98243 http://usg.com/ • USG Sandrift #808 http://usg.com/ • USG Millenia http://usg.com/ • Armstrong Ultima http://www.armstrong.com/ • Armstrong Fine Fissured #1811 http://www.armstrong.com/ • Armstrong Fine Fissured #1824 http://www.armstrong.com/ Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 15 of 17 APPENDIX II: WALL TYPES The following lists the wall types used in this narrative. STC stands for Sound Transmission Class and is a single number rating that represents the decibel reduction provided by the separating assembly for speech. The higher the STC rating is, the more acoustical separation the assembly provides. Wall Material General Notes about Wall Types �, y STC -40 • • 1 layer 5/8" GWB • 25 ga. 3 5/8" metal stud 1. Type 1 walls are not required to run up to the structure. Type 2 walls require 1 layer up to structure. Type 3 walls require 1 inner layer up to structure. Type 4 walls require inner 2 layers up to structure. Type 5 & 6 walls require all four layers up to structure. 2. Wall Type 1, 2, 3, and 4 walls will achieve their respective STC ratings only if 25 gauge ' ' • R-11 insulation in cavity • 1 layer 5/8" GWB T e2 STC -45 • 1 layer 5/8" GWB • 25 Ra. 3 5/8" metal stud • R-11 insulation in cavity • 1 layer 5/8" GWB Type 3 STC -50 • 2 layers 5/8" GWB • 25 gn. 3 5/8" metal studs studs are used. If 25 gauge studs cannot be used for structural reasons, the wall assembly will need to be improved (acoustically) by means of additional layers of GWB, larger stud width, and/or resilient channels. This is represented visually on the next page. 3. All walls (except Type 1) with STC ratings should be caulked and sealed airtight at the top and bottom. In addition, Wall Type 5 reqglass sill sealer between the wall bottom and top plates and the structure. uires fiber 4. For Types 5 and 6 walls, the STC rating degrades significantly when blocking is added in a wall bridging the two sides of the double- stud wall. Such blocking is added to support plumbing or other objects and should not be allowed to bridge the two sides of the wall. • R-11 insulation in the cavity • 1 layer 5/8" GWB Type 4 STC -55 • 2 layers 5/8" GWB • 25 ga. 3 5/8" metal studs t • R-11 insulation in cavity • 2 layers 5/8" GWB __-. a. F STC -58 •2 layers 5/8" GWB •" l d •staggina4ere"dtrack 3 5or/8larmetag larger stud • R-11 insulation in cavity • 2 layers 5/8" GWB L r L Type 6 STC -62 • 2 layers 5/8" GWB • 3-5/8" metal studs • R-11 insulation in cavity • minimum 1" air space • R-11 insulation in cavity • 3-5/8" metal studs • 2 layers 5/8" GWB. 1-2---...........1 L. Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4- Type 5 Type 6 STC 40 STC 45 STC 50 STC 55 STC 58 'STC 63 20 Gcuye Mt 3 e' Netal Studs , _ _ — — '•;� 't f G I 1 T T 11 i, f 1 f 1, 7 T T! I f f 1����1� ��11�1����������j/1+) ���1 AAA C �4 ,!fi3C�.�t 1 t r i 77 f I T) 11} 1 Y •� / ����� I�1 jj (f�(�!t}jI ����Ot} �� C.At.l1. SIC Ai ) (( 7 ii ! T T“ T (T' f � (jJ411 1 �� jJ{}II �1�1 ( S A II1C.iI/ ��(l1��A1�CT A MCA/ '1,'4\ ([ X f Y 1 (i' T i T.,°,,. t I���J„ 'ft t�111�(jj�� �,�E . ���1 t F{ C . I i�A}:1, � .�A { S C ���, , r .. , �7 i (�1, 1 La La Note: Stud gouce does net affect STC rating of wall. Note: Stud gauge does riot affect STC rating of wall. Studs ore shown lined up with 111 airspace for illistration purposes but should be stcgge-ed. En 6, (.29 a.) LI) Nt 1°° L �� •� ••• -- — — — — ::.::...:....''..'..:......':.'..:::.'.:.::. --- — — — — — — — — --- — — — , ....... ...................._ — --- ------ — — — -- --- — — — — — ... ..7 :f LEGEND j '' ''' Underside of Structure Outer Laye• af8"tom fffAcce Mineral Fiber Fil Tile Innsr Layer af$,.NIB i ; WenT T T W.� t;� �tiC�1�C�� ' T 1�1 1 ��� s T 1 T T E1st. r �'%1!i'�t� 1 hr 11�C�r�� t“�ICte ,' 1 ! �� b !' t s �T f, ti,.�� �, ,1?", ,,� 1; Ir' ��� t �.0 ��A ��A�Cz�I Notes 20 Guuye 6" Metal Std . ._._ :.:::..::..:..:..:: :. ._ ..._ ._ — — _._'_. — ...... — — 1. All wall types require for G" studs) with approx.mately Avoid-efererwes to'Anrrn 2. All laye-s of 61V9 shown thick. 3. Layers of CWB that extend structure should to sealed mud or caulk. S PA RI WORK TOOETRER 18 stancard R—'1 butts {R-19 0.75 pcf density. rsticnl insu lotion'. in wa I types should ie i:” to the uncerside of the airtight with regular crywell I N G 51.21th WEvarb1 SD D 1- 133 206.6M0/3 1100.3“.0610 mam.ywaegenny -AND APP.PT ... .. :. — — — — �� 'Fi� �1t����1����l 11�4 )T T 1YY_fC t[Y\t'\'\IV[ �1 �1 11 JJJ 1 1 1y 1} ` %�tii��� 1���� 1 �� f\i Aviation High School Schematic Design Narrative Page 17 of 17 APPENDIX III: DOOR SEALS Sound can transmit easily around unsealed doors. Doors can be treated acoustically if greater acoustics separation is required. Adding full or partial acoustical seals or replacing the door with an acoustical door will substantially improve the noise reduction capabilities of the door. Sealed doors consist of adding seals to a typical door. Another option is to create a vestibule. This would allow for an additional separation before entering the room. t^!=___ I;;;;; ilioI �a ou--- it nil EAs I I - Sd-8/32 Vis " Description Material Full Seals Full seals around a standard door consist of a top seal, jamb and hinge seal, bottom seal and a threshold. An automatic drop bottom seal is needed if threshold is not used Cost is approximately $250 per door • Perimeter seal: Pemko 379. • Bottom Gasket (Automatic Drop Bottom): Pemko 411, 430, or 434. • Astragal Gasket (for pair of doors): Pemko 354. 7a m 1g 1 p. A minimal seal assembly consists of top, jamb and hinge seals. Cost is approximately $150 per door • Perimeter Seal: Pemko S88. • No bottom gasket required t^!=___ I;;;;; ilioI �a ou--- it nil EAs I I - Sd-8/32 Vis " i'/2" n __ 30.3A9 3033005 ;;;Ti 1 I 30339 30303 : ; 3o3PW9 3039N9 abaft tel-- Compression Bulb / Stabilizer (6.4) t ,tiI , Adhesive 1/2 t "1 Backing (12.7) Pemko S88 } -.I WI.— 7/8"--.1Lye" (n.z) (IIA) Pemko 303 - non adjustable -1.1" --'1 F--1 _� ---4 H.a) N.[) Pemko 379 - adjustable ..—.. a a., 1 1 • .d1awf.f"y�SAic 'AlU11111F _ -� i s Pemko 1 Arr,„ Bottom 434 112%. 1 Gasket Pemko ci � Bottom 411 I [e. I Gasket r _ __ f .mro 1C1 I71:• 11 ,1B 1 I .al Pemko Bottom 430 ., )-=`", I Gasket . I" 21/�5�8 , .n Pemko Astragal Gasket 354 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL AT THE MUSEUM OF FLIGHT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON OCTOBER 5, 2009 FOR BASSETT! ARCHITECTS GEOENGINEERS RECEIVE, KR 2 1010 vtkL-01- n •=,,- { File No. 2820-003-00 • • Geotechnical Engineering Services Aviation High School at the Museum of Flight Tukwila, Washington File No. 2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Prepared for: Bassetti Architects 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 Attention: Caroline Lemay Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410154" Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 (425) 861-6000 Nancy L. Tothko, PE Senior Geotechnica E er King Chin, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer cFadden, PE, LEG ncipal NLT:JJM:csv REDM:\2\2820003100\Finals102820003OORdocx Four Copies Submitted (one copy via email) 4 d� Disclaimer. Any electronic form, facsimile or hand copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GcoEngineers, tnc. and will serve as the official document of record. Copyright° 2009 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. File No. 2820-003-00 4 Sa TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 PREVIOUS STUDIES 1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING 2 FIELD EXPLORATIONS 2 LABORATORY TESTING 2 SITE CONDITIONS 2 SETTING AND SITE HISTORY 2 SITE GEOLOGY 3 SURFACE CONDITIONS 3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 Soil Conditions 3 Groundwater Conditions 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 GENERAL 4 EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING 5 Regional Seismicity 5 Site Response 5 Liquefaction 6 Lateral Spreading 6 Surface Fault Rupture 7 DEEP FOUNDATIONS 7 General 7 Axial Pile Capacity 7 Lateral Pile Capacity 8 Pile Settlement 9 Pile Drivability Analysis 9 Pile Load Testing 10 Construction Considerations 10 SHALLOW FOUNDATION SUPPORT 11 UNDERSLAB UTILITY SUPPORT 11 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS 11 Foundation/Slab Drain 11 Capillary Break 12 Underslab Drain 12 RETAINING WALLS 12 Cast -in -Place Walls 12 Drainage 13 EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL 13 Excavation Considerations 13 Temporary Cut Slopes 13 File No. 2820-003-00 ' Page i GEOENGINEERSJ; October 5, 2009 • 1 Subgrade Preparation 14 Erosion and Sedimentation Control 14 Structural Fill 15 PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 16 Subgrade Preparation 16 Asphalt Pavement 16 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement 16 DESIGN INFILTRATION RATES 17 LIMITATIONS 18 REFERENCES 18 List of Tables Table 1. Infiltration Parameters 17 List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan Figure 3. Cross Section A -A' Figure 4. Deflection VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, Lateral Spreading Figure 5. Moment VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, Lateral Spreading Figure 6. Shear VS Depth, Liquified Soil Profile, Lateral Spreading Figure 7. Deflection VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, No Lateral Spreading Figure 8.- Moment VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, No Lateral Spreading Figure 9. Shear VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, No Lateral Spreading Figure 10. Deflection VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, Lateral Spreading Figure 11. Moment VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, Lateral Spreading Figure 12. Shear VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, Lateral Spreading Figure 13. Deflection VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, No Lateral Spreading Figure 14. Moment VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, No Lateral Spreading Figure 15. Shear VS Depth, Fixed -Head Condition, Liquified Soil Profile, No Lateral Spreading Figure 16. Lateral Soil Pressure Against Piles from Lateral Spreading APPENDICES Appendix A — Field Explorations Appendix A Figures Figure A-1 — Key to Exploration Logs Figure A -2...A-7 — Log of Borings Figure A-8 — Log of Monitoring Well Figure A -9...A-11 — CPT Logs Appendix B — Laboratory Testing Appendix B Figures Figure B-1 — Sieve Analysis Results Figure B-2 — Sieve -Hydrometer Analysis Results Figure B-3...13-4 — Sieve Analysis Results Figure B-5 — Atterberg Limits Test Results File No. 2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page ii GEOENGINEER_O .f Appendix C — Site -Specific Seismic Response Analysis Appendix C Figures Figure C-1 — 2475 -yr, Scaled Rock Outcrop Response Spectra Figure C-2 — Shear Wave Velocity Profile Figure C-3 — 5% Damped Ground Surface Response Spectra Figure C-4 — Site Amplification Factors Figure C-5 — 5% Damped Site Specific MCE Response Spectra Figure C-6 — Sensitivity of Ground Surface Response Spectra Appendix D — Report Limitations and Guidelines For Use File No. 2820-003-00 October 5. 2009 Page tU GEOENGINEERS_O • • GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL AT THE MUSEUM OF FLIGHT TUKWILA, WASHINGTON FOR BASSETTI ARCHITECTS INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface explorations and geotechnical evaluation for design of the Aviation High School at the Museum of Flight in Tukwila, Washington. The project site is shown relative to surrounding physical features on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1) and the Site Plan (Figure 2). The purposes of this study were to review existing geotechnical information and to complete additional subsurface explorations at the project site as a basis for providing geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations for the final design and construction of the proposed high school. Our services were completed in general accordance with our proposal dated June 22, 2009. Our specific scope of services for the geotechnical engineering services included: • Reviewing previous explorations completed at the site; • Completing additional borings and cone penetrometer tests (CPT) to characterize the subsurface conditions at the site; • Performing analyses for seismic design, pile design, stormwater infiltration and pavement recommendations; and • Preparing this geotechnical engineering report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GeoEngineers understanding of the project is based on information provided by Bassetti Architects, PCS Structural Solutions, and KPFF Consulting Engineers through telephone conversations and email transmittals. The Seattle School District has entered an agreement with the Museum of Flight (MOF) to construct a three story high school building on property owned by the Museum of Flight on the west side of East Marginal Way South immediately north of MOF property which is currently used for an outdoor display of airplanes. The high school building will be placed across the eastern portion of the subject property, and a large parking lot, which will also be used by the MOF, is planned for the western portion. Previous environmental cleanup actions have occurred across portions of the subject property. Additional details are provided in the Setting and Site History section. We understand that the high school building will likely be a three story structure configured in a long/narrow shape with column loads on the order of 400 to 800 kips. Pile foundations are planned to support the building in conjunction with a structurally supported floor slab. Porous concrete pavement is being considered for portions of the driveway and/or parking areas. PREVIOUS STUDIES GeoEngineers reviewed the logs of explorations completed as part of previous studies in the vicinity of the project site. The majority of the previous explorations are located west of the project site as part of previous environmental studies. The location of one boring (DM -1A) located near the east end of the File No.2820-003-00 October S. 2009 Page 1 GEOENGINEERS� Sfl planned building that was completed by Dames and Moore in 1986 is shown in Figure 2. The log of boring DM -1A is presented in Appendix C. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING FIELD EXPLORATIONS The subsurface conditions at the site were further evaluated by completing seven borings (B-1 through B-7) and two CPT soundings (CPT -1 and CPT -2). The boring in the building area (B-1) extended to a depth of about 118.5 feet and the borings in the west portion of the site (B-2 through B-7) extended to depths of about 14 to 19 feet. The two CPTs extended to depths of 100 and 107 feet. The approximate locations of these explorations are shown in Figure 2. A detailed description of the field exploration program and the logs of the borings and the CPT soundings are presented in Appendix A. LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples were obtained during the drilling and taken to GeoEngineers' laboratory for further evaluation. Selected samples were tested for the determination of moisture content, percent fines, gradation characteristics and Atterberg limits (plasticity characteristics). The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). A description of the laboratory testing and the test results are presented in Appendix B. SITE CONDITIONS SETTING AND SITE HISTORY The project site is located in the Duwamish Valley along the west side of East Marginal Way South in Tukwila, Washington, as shown in Figure 1. The project site is relatively flat and situated about 700 to 800 feet east of the Duwamish River, with the exception of the southwest corner which is located about 30 feet northeast of Slip No. 6 on the Duwamish River. The Duwamish River, which historically meandered throughout the valley (including beneath the subject property) was channelized to its current position west of the property, in the late 1800s to early 1900s. The subject property is currently used as an overflow parking area for the MOF. The subject site was originally developed in the 1930's for industrial purposes, and was originally part of a larger parcel consisting of west and east parcels. The west parcel, abutting the Duwamish River, is where a large chemical processing plant operated. The east portion of the property (the subject site, now owned by the MOF)' was used primarily for offices and lesser industrial facilities. The west and east parcels have been subject to numerous environmental assessments and cleanup actions. GeoEngineers previously completed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) on behalf of the MOF, the results of which are presented in our report for the MOF dated February 28, 2007. The Phase I ESA was completed as part of the MOFs due diligence prior to purchasing the east parcel from Container Properties, the previous property owner. At the time of the Phase I ESA, GeoEngineers concluded that the cleanup action had been successfully completed at the subject property and that no known or suspect environmental conditions were identified for the Site with the exception of residual toluene in groundwater (and soil at the base of a remedial excavation) in the southwest portion of the Site. These previous environmental cleanup actions consisted of remedial excavation of toluene and metals -contaminated soil across portions of the western half of the property. Additionally, an air sparging/vapor extraction system (AS/VE) is still operating in the southwest corner of the property to remediate toluene -contaminated groundwater remaining in this. area of the property. This environmental action is ongoing under the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is being conducted by the prior property owner, Container Properties. This remedial effort is unrelated to, and File No.2820-003-00 Page 2 October 5. 2009 GEOENGINEERS.g will not affect, the Aviation High School redevelopment project. GeoEngineers' Phase I ESA also concluded that "soil at the site may contain residual concentrations of hazardous substances (less than MTCA cleanup levels) that may require special handling and disposal procedures during site redevelopment." And as a result, we also recommended planning on designing site redevelopment for zero net soil export or plan on off-site disposal contingencies should soil need to be exported for construction purposes." SITE GEOLOGY Published geologic information for the project vicinity includes a United States Geological Survey Map titled "Geologic Map of Surficial Deposits in the Seattle 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Washington" (Yount et al., 1993) and "The Geologic Map of Seattle — A Progress Report" (Troost et al., 2005). The surficial soils in the vicinity of the site are mapped as alluvial deposits and modified land. The alluvial deposits generally consist of interbedded layers of soil ranging from clay to sand and gravel. These soils were deposited across the valley by the meandering of the Duwamish River, are as much as 250 feet thick and are poorly consolidated. The modified land in this area is typically dredged fill placed to develop Boeing Field and adjacent industrial areas. SURFACE CONDITIONS The site is relatively level and mainly covered with crushed gravel. An existing asphalt driveway extends from the existing gate along the northeast side of the site back to the west edge of the site. The eastern third of the site is covered with short grass and some trailers were present in the southwestern portion at the time our explorations were completed. The entire site is fenced, and includes an additional area near the southwest corner that is fenced off where an existing vapor extraction system is operating. Many utilities are present across the site. Notably, an existing 36 -inch -diameter King County storm drain crosses the center portion of the site from the northeast to discharge at Slip 6. The location of the storm drain easement is shown on Figure 2. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil Conditions In general, four soil types were encountered in the explorations completed across the site: fill, upper alluvial deposits, finer -grained lacustrine silt and clay, and dense estuarine deposits. The upper 5 to 6 feet of soil across the site consists of loose to medium dense sand with variable amounts of silt. This material is likely fill derived from native soils placed during past dredging activities along Slip 6 and/or the Duwamish River, or placed as part of past development or cleanup activities. The fill is underlain by 4 to 6 feet of soft clay and silt with a trace of organic matter. This deposit is likely an alluvial or flood -related deposit. These upper sand fill and silt/clay layers are underlain at depths of about 10 to 14 feet by granular alluvial deposits consisting of loose to medium dense sand to silty sand with occasional interbedded layers of silt and sandy silt. Below a depth of about 40 feet, the silt layers are thicker and more numerous. At a depth of about 65 feet, the interbedded granular and fine-grained alluvial deposits are underlain by soft silt and clay with varying amounts of silt and organic matter (lacustrine fine-grained soils). This deposit was encountered to depths of about 90 to 92 feet across the proposed high school building footprint. The lacustrine fine-grained soil deposits are underlain by dense to very dense sand and gravel deposits which contain some shell fragments, suggesting that they were deposited in an estuarine environment. In boring B-1 and cone CPT -2, the upper 5 to 10 feet of the sand and gravel is medium dense in File No.2820-003-00 Page 3 GEOENGINEERS...0 October 5. 2009 consistency, grading to very dense at a depth of about 96 to 100 feet. These soils graded to very dense gravel in cone CPT -1 at a depth of about 92 feet, but encountered a medium dense sand layer from about 98 to 102 feet, and then graded back to very dense sand. Boring B-1 and cones CRT -1 and CPT -2 were terminated in the very dense deposits. A generalized subsurface profile along the east -west axis of the building area is shown in Figure 3. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was generally encountered during drilling at depths ranging from 5 to 11 feet below the ground surface. The measured ground water levels in the monitoring wells varied from a depth of about 7 feet in a previously installed well in boring DM -1A to 12 feet in boring B-7 measured on August 5, 2009. Groundwater conditions should be expected to fluctuate as a function of season, precipitation, and tidal fluctuations of the Duwamish River and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and our geotechnical engineering evaluations, it is our opinion that the planned high school may be developed successfully as planned. In our opinion, deep foundations will be necessary to support the high school structure because of the magnitude of liquefaction settlement and the potential for lateral spreading that could occur during the design earthquake. In addition, a significant amount of consolidation settlement could occur below buildings supported on shallow foundations because of the compressible silt deposit underlying the site. A summary of the primary geotechnical considerations related to site development is provided below. The summary is presented for introductory purposes only and should be used in conjunction with the complete recommendations presented in this report. • The site meets the characteristics of Site Class F in the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) Publication and the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Publication 7-05. The results of the site-specific seismic analysis indicate that the building should be designed using the recommended site-specific response spectrum presented in Figure C-5 in Appendix C. • The results of our liquefaction analyses indicate that layers of sand and silt are susceptible to liquefaction during a design -level earthquake to an approximate depth of 60 feet. Liquefaction is characterized by the loss of soil strength in soils located below the groundwater level during seismic shaking which results in ground settlement. We estimate that ground settlement in the range of 6 to 10 inches could occur during a design earthquake. • The project site also has a high risk of lateral spreading with the potential of ground movement toward Slip No. 6 during a large event earthquake. If the site soils were to liquefy during an earthquake, then the factor of safety against lateral spreading would be less than one for a ground acceleration of 0.1g or more if sustained after soil liquefaction. We recommend that the building pile caps be interconnected with grade beams to stiffen the response of the piles should lateral spreading occur. Batter piles may be necessary to further resist lateral loads in the direction of potential lateral spreading. However, we understand that the pile system will likely be designed based on our earth pressure recommendations to resist these lateral forces without the use of batter piles. • We recommend that the building and building slab be supported on pile foundations. Recommendations are presented for driven steel pipe piles which extend through the liquefiable upper alluvial deposits and the compressible lower lacustrine deposits, and bear in the lower File No.2820-003-00 Page 4 October 5, 2009 GEOENGINEERS alluvial/estuarine deposits. We anticipate that the required pile length will be 95 to 100 feet, depending on the design depth of the pile cap. The piles should be designed to withstand potential soil loads from lateral spreading. • Measures such as predrilling may be necessary to reduce vibrations and the risk of damage to the existing King County storm sewer line where piles are placed close to the utility. Specific recommendations for design and construction of the bridge are presented in subsequent sections of this report. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING Regional Seismicity The Puget Sound region is located at the convergent continental boundary known as the .Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), which extends from mid -Vancouver Island to Northern California. The CSZ is the zone where the westward advancing North American Plate is overriding the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate. The interaction of these two plates results in three potential seismic source zones: (1) a shallow crustal source zone; (2) the Benioff source zone; and (3) the CSZ interplate source zone. The shallow crustal source zone is used to. characterize shallow crustal earthquake activity within the North American Plate at depths ranging from 3 to 19 miles below the ground surface. The Seattle Fault Zone is considered a shallow crustal source zone. The site is located very close to the current geologic interpretation of the southernmost strand of the east -west trending Seattle Fault Zone. The most recent major earthquake on the Seattle Fault Zone is estimated to have occurred about 1,100 years ago. The Benioff source zone is used to characterize intraplate, intraslab or deep subcrustal earthquakes. Benioff source zone earthquakes occur within the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate at depths between 20 and 40 miles. In recent years, three large Benioff source zone earthquakes occurred that 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 and had a Richter magnitude of 7.1. The second earthquake, which was centered between Seattle and Tacoma, occurred in 1965 and had a Richter magnitude of 6.5. The third earthquake, which was located in the Nisqually valley north of Olympia, occurred in 2001 and had a Richter magnitude of 6.8. The CSZ interplate source zone is used to characterize rupture of the convergent boundary between the subducting Juan de Fuca Plate and the overriding North American Plate. The depth of CSZ earthquakes is greater than 40 miles. No earthquakes on the CSZ have been instrumentally recorded; however, through the geologic record and historical records of tsunamis in Japan, it is believed that the most recent CSZ event occurred in 1700. Site Response Site-specific response analyses were completed to evaluate the response of the site for the 2 percent probability of exceedance (PE) in 50 years (2,475 -year return interval) maximum considered earthquake (MCE). An acceleration response spectrum for the MCE has been developed for 5 percent structural damping. The methodology used for the site-specific ground response analyses is presented in Appendix C. The recommended MCE site-specific response spectrum is presented in Figure C-5 and is defined using the SMS and SMI spectral response coefficients as outlined in ASCE 7-05 Sections 21.1.3 and 21.4. File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 5 GEOENGINEERS.g Liquefaction Liquefaction is a phenomenon where soils experience a rapid loss of internal strength as pore water pressures increase in response to strong ground shaking. The increased pore water pressure may temporarily meet or exceed soil overburden. pressures to produce conditions that allow soil and water to flow, deform, or erupt from the ground surface. Ground settlement, lateral spreading and/or sand boils may result from soil liquefaction. Structures, such as buildings, supported on or within liquefied soils may suffer foundation settlement or lateral movement that can be damaging to the buildings. Based on our analyses, the potential exists for liquefaction within zones of the loose to medium dense sand deposits encountered in the borings completed at the site. The evaluation of liquefaction potential depends 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 developed by R.E. Moss (2003) based on CPT results obtained during field explorations. Estimated ground settlement resulting from earthquake -induced liquefaction was analyzed using empirical procedures by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) that relate settlement to the CPT data. Liquefaction potential of the site soils was evaluated using accelerations specified in the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) Publication Section 1802.2.7. As the liquefaction potential was evaluated prior to completing the site-specific response analyses, we used an acceleration equal to S05/2.5, where SEs is determined in accordance with Section 21.2.1 of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7. Analysis of the CPT data indicates that there is a potential for liquefaction in silt and sand layers within the upper alluviul deposits. We estimate that the factor of safety is less than 1 during the design -level earthquake for most of the deposits above a depth of about 50 feet, and for isolated layers of sand and silt present at depths of 50 to 65 feet. Liquefaction -induced free -field ground settlement of the potentially liquefiable zones is estimated to be on the order of 6 to 10 inches for a design -level earthquake. The magnitude of liquefaction -induced ground settlement will vary as a function of the characteristics of the earthquake (earthquake magnitude, location, duration and intensity) and the soil and groundwater conditions. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading involves lateral displacements of large volumes of liquefied soil. Lateral spreading can occur on near -level ground as blocks of surface soils are displaced relative to adjacent blocks. Lateral spreading also occurs as blocks of surface soils are displaced toward a nearby slope or free -face such as the nearby waterfront by movement of the underlying liquefied soil. The Duwamish River west of the site and Slip No. 6 of the Duwamish River waterway to the southwest represent free face conditions. Slip No. 6 is a rip -rap faced cut slope which extends about 30 feet below the surrounding adjacent grades, based on available bathymetric information. The southwest corner of the proposed high school is about 380 to 400 feet from the top of the slope forming the slip. The northeast corner of the building is about 700 feet from the slip. The evaluation of lateral spreading at the site was initially completed using a simplistic empirical model that incorporates earthquake, geological, topographical and soil factors that affect ground displacement. The model was developed from compiled data collected at sites where lateral spreading was observed. The key parameters are the Richter magnitude, the horizontal ground acceleration, the thickness of the File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 6 GEOENGINEERS...0 liquefied zone, the grain size distribution of the liquefied deposit and the location of the free face to the planned structure. The results of our analyses indicate that lateral spreading could be greater than 18 inches if spreading were to occur. The potential for lateral spreading was further evaluated by completing a slope stability analyses with reduced soil strength properties modeling post -liquefaction conditions. The residual strengths of the liquefiable soils were modeled per recommendations by Idriss and Boulanger (2008). The factor of safety for lateral spreading using residual soil strengths was evaluated using the slope stability program Slope/W Version 5.2 (GEO Slope International, Ltd, 2004) using a wedge type of failure, with the bottom of the wedge at the same elevation as the bottom of Slip No. 6. The results of our analyses indicate that the factor of safety against lateral spreading is greater than 1.0 if no acceleration is sustained after liquefaction, and that yield acceleration, corresponding to a factor of safety of 1.0, is only 0.07g. Therefore; we conclude that the foundation system should be designed to withstand potential lateral loads if lateral spreading were to occur. Our recommendations for earth pressures for deep foundation design area presented in the following sections. Surface Fault Rupture Based on USGS maps of active faults in the Puget Sound region, the site is located close to the Seattle Fault zone. As the depth to bedrock in this area is on the order of about 150 to 250 feet, there is some risk for potential surface fault rupture. However, in our opinion the risk for surface fault rupture at the project site is still relatively low considering the length and width of the Seattle Fault and the uncertainties associated to the fault location. DEEP FOUNDATIONS General Based on the presence of potentially liquefiable soils in the upper 40 to 60 feet of the site and underlying compressible soils, we recommend that the building and building slab be pile supported. At this time, we understand that steel pipe piles will be selected for support of the building due to the length of piles required and the potential need for batter piles for lateral seismic loading conditions. We have analyzed axial and lateral capacities for 16- and 20 -inch -diameter piles. Axial Pile Capacity Axial pile load capacity in compression for support of the high school building is anticipated to be developed from a combination of side frictional resistance and end bearing capacity, with most of the capacity developed from end bearing in the lower sand and gravel deposits. Downward capacity developed through side frictional resistance in the upper 60 feet was ignored due to the potential for liquefaction. Uplift pile capacity will be mainly developed from side frictional resistance in the lower lacustrine deposits. We therefore recommend that the piles be driven 5 to 10 feet into the lower dense sand layer. For planning purposes, GeoEngineers recommends that the piles be driven to a tip elevation below Elevation -80 feet. The driving resistance will be observed once the pile tip is located below Elevation -75 feet, and the pile should then be driven either to a depth of 90 feet below the pile cap or to a point at which threshold driving resistance is observed. The threshold driving resistance will be evaluated based on the results of the pile load test program described below. We recommend that allowable downward and uplift capacities of 200 and 100 kips, respectively, be used for 16 -inch -diameter steel pipe piles. For 20 -inch -diameter piles, the allowable downward and uplift capacities may be increased to 300 and 125 kips, respectively. Allowable pile capacities are provided for File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 7 GEOENGINEER/2 Allowable Stress Design (ASD). The allowable pile capacities take into account the effects of liquefaction -induced settlement and the estimated resultant downdrag forces. As a result, the allowable pile capacities are for combined dead plus long-term live loads, and it is recommended that the allowable pile capacities not be increased by one-third when considering seismic design loads. The allowable capacities are based on the strength of the supporting soils and include a factor of safety of 3, for end bearing and 2 for side resistance for static loading conditions. For seismic loading conditions, we estimate that the factor of safety is greater than 1.5. The pile capacities should be verified by completing up to two pile load tests on production piles. If the pile load tests indicate that the required pile capacity has not been achieved, additional piles should be added on an as -needed basis. For production piles, GeoEngineers recommends that restrikes be completed on approximately 1 in 20 piles to compare with restrike data on the test piles. GeoEngineers recommends that restrikes be completed at least one week after initial driving to allow for pile setup. The capacities apply to single piles. If piles are spaced at least three pile diameters on center, as recommended, no reduction for group action is needed, in our opinion. The structural characteristics of pile materials and structural connections may impose limitations on pile capacities and should be evaluated by the structural engineer. Lateral Pile Capacity Typically, lateral loads can be resisted by passive soil pressure on the vertical piles and by the passive soil pressures on the pile cap. Because of the potential separation between the pile -supported foundation components and the underlying soil from settlement, and due to the potential for lateral spreading, base friction along the bottom andpassive pressure on the face of the pile caps should not be included in calculations for lateral capacity. At this time, we understand that steel pipe piles will be used to support the building. Thus, we analyzed the lateral capacity of single 16- and 20 -inch -diameter steel piles using the computer software program LPILE 5 produced by Ensoft, Inc. Each pile was assumed to be 95 feet long with the top of the pile fixed and located at the bottom of the pile. cap. As discussed previously, we conclude that the foundation system should be designed to withstand potential lateral loads if lateral spreading were to occur. We recommend that the building pile caps be interconnected with grade beams to stiffen the response of the piles should lateral spreading occur. If lateral spreading is triggered by an earthquake, the direction of the lateral spreading will likely be toward Slip 6. Therefore, we recommend that the piles be designed to withstand lateral spreading in the southern and western directions. In the northern and eastern directions, the soil should be assumed to be liquefied but no additional forces acting on thepiles from lateral spreading. We completed analyses for a single pile for a fixed -head condition for two loading conditions - 1) assuming that lateral soil forces from lateral spreading are acting on the pile, and 2) assuming a liquefied soil profile but no lateral spreading. The results of our analyses are presented in Figures 4 through 15. The table below describes the information presented in the figures: File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 8 GEOENGINEERS...0 Lateral Pile Analyses Results Figures 4, 5 and 6 16 -inch diameter piles Deflection, moment and shear, respectively Liquefied condition with lateral spreading loads on piles Figures 7, 8 and 9 16 -inch diameter piles Deflection, moment and shear, respectively Liquefied condition without lateral spreading loads on piles Figures 10, 11 and 12 Figures 13, 14, and 15 20-inch diameter piles Deflection, moment and shear, respectively Liquefied Condition with lateral spreading loads on piles 20-inch diameter piles Deflection, moment and shear, respectively Liquefied condition without lateral spreading loads on piles Figure 16 presents recommended lateral soil pressures acting on the pile if lateral spreading was to occur and the pile is fixed in place by using batter piles. The lateral soil pressures presented in Figure 16 are incorporated into the lateral pile results for the case of liquefied soil conditions with lateral spreading. Piles spaced closer than eight pile diameters apart will experience group effects that will result in a lower lateral load capacity for trailing rows of piles with respect to leading rows of piles for an equivalent deflection. We recommend that the lateral load capacity for trailing piles in a pile group spaced three pile diameters apart be reduced by a factor of 0.6. Reductions of the lateral load capacity for trailing piles at spacings greater than three pile diameters but less than eight pile diameters apart can be linearly interpolated. Pile Settlement We estimate that the postconstruction settlement of pile foundations, designed and installed as recommended, will be on the order of %Z inch or less. Maximum differential settlement should be less than about one-half the postconstruction settlement. Most of this settlement will occur rapidly as loads are applied. For seismic loading conditions, we estimate that the post -earthquake pile settlement will be less than 1 inch. Pile Drivability Analysis The computer program GRLWEAP Version 2005 was used for preliminary pile driveability analyses. The analyses were performed for 16V2-inchdiameter and 20 -inch diameter steel pipe piles with a minimum wall thickness of 'A inch for 75 and 122 kip -foot hammers, respectively. Based on the results of our analyses, it is our opinion that these hammers will be capable of driving the steel pipe piles to the design tip depth. The drivability analyses indicated the maximum compressive strength induced in the piles will range from approximately 17,000 to 37,000 pounds per square inch (psi) for the 75 kip -foot hammer driving the 16 -inch diameter pile, and approximately 25,000 to 42,000 psi for the 122 kip -foot hammer driving the 20 -inch diameter pile at the driving conditions that are correlated to a pile capacity of 200 and 300 kips, respectively. The range of the compressive stress reflects a range of operating hammer stroke height and the effectiveness of the pile cushion. We recommend that the analyses be completed again when the contractor confirms the choice of hammer to be used during construction. We recommend that the pile driving operation be observed by GeoEngineers and that File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 9 GEOENGINEERSQ 4 GeoEngineers work closely with the contractor in the effort to keep the maximum compressive stress induced by pile driving to a tolerable level. Pile Load Testing GeoEngineers recommends that up to two dynamic load tests be completed in general accordance with the ASTM D 4945 test procedure in order to provide direct measurement of the pile load -deflection performance. Dynamic testing should be completed during initial driving and during restrike of the test piles. The restrike testing should be completed at least seven days after the test pile or piles are installed. Construction Considerations The piles for the proposed high school building should be installed using an appropriately sized pile -driving hammer. The pile -driving hammer should be of sufficient size to drive the piling to the minimum embedment depth without damaging the pile. Because the pile contractor has control of the pile/hammer configuration and the driving equipment, we recommend that the pile contractor be made responsible for selecting the appropriate pile -driving hammer and installing the piles to design embedment depth without damaging the piles. Pile drivability analysis for the specific pile type and pile -driving hammer should be finalized once a pile -driving hammer has been selected. GeoEngineers can assist with pile drivability analysis. The installation of driven piles produces a significant level of noise and ground vibration in the vicinity of the pile -driving operations. The proximity of nearby existing buildings and the outdoor airplane display may pose a concern as a result of vibrations during pile installation. In particular, pile driving can cause measurable vibrations for up to several hundred feet from the pile. Minor architectural or cosmetic damage (that is, small cracks in walls) at moderate distances and structural damage at close distances from pile -driving operations can occur. Humans are able to detect and feel vibrations at a level much lower than that required to cause damage. The level of ground vibrations induced by pile driving depends primarily on the hammer energy, pile type and size, soil type and distance from the pile. The propagation of waves induced by vibrations through soil deposits is a complex phenomenon. Variations in building construction, age and other factors would be expected to have a significant effect on the sensitivity of a given structure to vibration levels. To reduce potential claims regarding alleged damage resulting from construction, we recommend that a preconstruction damage survey of nearby structures be completed to document structural and cosmetic building conditions before construction begins. The current layout of the building may place piles within about 10 to 20 feet of an existing 36 -inch -diameter King County storm sewer line. We recommend that the contractor perform a video inspection of this line prior to driving piles. In addition, it might be necessary to predrill and case holes to a depth of 5 to 10 feet below the bottom of the sewer at each pile location to reduce the risk of vibration damage to the sewer during driving. We recommend that the need for predrilling be further evaluated prior to construction. We recommend that ground vibrations be monitored starting from the beginning of construction. The information obtained from this program can be used to modify the pile installation program if the level of vibration becomes too high. The depths and thicknesses of the interpreted soil units vary across the site. If pile resistance encountered during driving indicates that the soil conditions may differ significantly from those assumed for design, it may be necessary to reevaluate the recommended axial and lateral capacity of the piling. We therefore File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 10 GEOENGINEERS_O • • recommend that a monitoring program be implemented for the pile -driving operations. This program should include full-time observations of driven pile installations. GeoEngineers should be retained to observe the pile driving and to evaluate driving records to determine whether the soil conditions encountered during pile installation are consistent with those assumed for final design. If soil conditions are significantly different from those assumed, it will be appropriate for GeoEngineers to develop revised design criteria. A load test program is recommended as described below. The load tests should be completed to confirm design assumptions and to identify appropriate refusal criteria or restrike criteria. SHALLOW FOUNDATION SUPPORT At this time, it is unknown whether there might be small retaining walls or other non -pile supported structures included in the design. If small non -pile -supported structures are planned, we recommend that all spread foundations be founded on at least 2 feet of structural fill. The zone of structural fill should extend laterally beyond the footing edges a horizontal distance at least equal to the thickness of the fill. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf may be used for the footings, provided that the foundations have a minimum width of 2 feet and bear on a minimum of 2 feet of compacted structural fill. These bearing pressures apply to the sum of all dead plus long-term live loads, excluding the weight of the footing and any overlying backfill. These values may be increased by one-third when wind or seismic loads are considered. Foundation settlement for these support conditions under static loads is estimated to be on the order of 'Y2 to 1 inch. This type of support might result in significant settlement of retaining walls or structures if liquefaction of underlying soils occurs during an earthquake, or horizontal movement if lateral spreading occurred. Foundation settlements if liquefaction occurs could be as high as 6 to 10 inches as discussed above. UNDERSLAB UTILITY SUPPORT We understand that the lowest -level floor slab is to be structurally supported. To mitigate the potential for damage to utilities below the slab resulting from post -earthquake settlement of the underlying soils, we recommend that underslab utilities be structurally suspended from the slab. Pea gravel should be placed as backfill above the underslab utilities in order to reduce the soil loads acting on the suspended utilities. The pea gravel is anticipated to flow around the suspended utilities as settlement occurs. GeoEngineers should be consulted to provide estimates of loads acting on the suspended utilities once the details regarding the depth and size of utilities are known. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Foundation/Slab Drain We recommend that a perimeter foundation drain be installed around the new high school building. The perimeter drains should be installed at the base of the exterior pile caps/grade beams, if possible. However, perimeter foundation drains should not be located below the seasonal high groundwater level to reduce the risk of groundwater being directed into the stormwater conveyance system. The perimeter drains should be provided with cleanouts and should consist of at least 4 -inch -diameter perforated pipe placed on a 3 -inch bed of, and surrounded by 6 inches of, drainage material enclosed in a non -woven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 140N (or approved equivalent) to prevent fine soil from migrating into the drain material. We recommend that the drainpipe consist of either heavy -wall solid pipe (SDR -35 PVC, or equal) or rigid corrugated smooth interior polyethylene pipe (ADS N-12, or equal). We recommend against using flexible tubing for footing drainpipes. The drainage material File No.2820-003-00 October S. 2009 Page 11 GEOENGINEERY; should consist of "Gravel Backfill for Drains" per Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Section 9-03.12(4). The perimeter drains should be sloped to drain by gravity, if practicable, to a suitable discharge point, preferably a storm drain. We recommend that the cleanouts be covered, and be placed in flush mounted utility boxes. Water collected in roof downspout lines must not be routed to the footing drain lines. Capillary Break We recommend that the structural slab be underlain by a 6 -inch -thick capillary break consisting of material meeting the requirements of Mineral Aggregate Type 22 (%-inch crushed gravel), City of Seattle Standard Specification 9-03.16, with the exception that this material should have less than 10 percent sand and less than 3 percent fines (material smaller that the No. 200 sieve). A commercial vapor retarder (10 -mil minimum thickness with lapped and sealed seams) should be placed below the slab in areas where moisturecontrol is critical, such as occupied space or areas where adhesives are used to anchor carpet or tile to the slab. Underslab Drain At this time, we do not anticipate the need for an underslab drain. We recommend that we reevaluate the need for an underslab drain system if permeable pavement is used for the access driveway along the north side of the building. RETAINING WALLS Cast -in -Place Walls Conventional cast -in-place walls may be necessary for small retaining structures at grade transitions located on-site. The lateral soil pressures acting on conventional cast -in-place subsurface walls will depend on the nature, density and configuration of the soil behind the wall and the amount of lateral wall movement that can occur as backfill is placed. For walls that are free to yield at the top at least 0.1 percent of the height of the wall, soil pressures will be less than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. Assuming that the walls are backfilled and drainage is provided as outlined in the following paragraphs, we recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf (triangular distribution), while non -yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf (triangular distribution). For seismic loading conditions, ,a rectangular earth pressure equal to 6H psf, where H is the height of the wall in feet, should be added to the active/at-rest pressures presented above. Other surcharge loading should be applied as appropriate. Traffic surcharges can be approximated by increasing the wall height (H) by 2 feet. GeoEngineers can assist in developing recommendations for other surcharge loading, as necessary. Lateral resistance for conventional cast -in-place walls can be provided by frictional resistance along the base of the wall and passive resistance in front of the wall. For walls founded on native soils, the allowable frictional resistance may be computed using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 applied to vertical dead -load forces. The allowable passive resistance may be computed using an equivalent fluid density of 350 pcf (triangular distribution). The above coefficient of friction and passive equivalent fluid density values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. r The above soil pressures assume that wall drains will be installed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the walls, as discussed below. File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 12 GEOENGINEER.g • • Drainage Positive drainage should be provided behind cast -in-place retaining walls by placing a minimum 2 -foot -wide zone of gravel backfill for walls (WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(2)). A minimum 4 -inch -diameter perforated pipe should be located at the base of the wall and should be surrounded by a minimum of 6 inches of gravel backfill for drains (WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(4)), or an alternative approved by GeoEngineers. The gravel backfill for drains material should be wrapped with a geotextile filter fabric meeting the requirements of construction geotextile for underground drainage (WSDOT Standard Specification 9-33). The drainpipe should be placed with adequate slopes to drain and should discharge to an appropriate location. EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL Excavation Considerations The near -surface soils encountered in the explorations typically consist of sand with variable amounts of silt, and silt below a depth of about 5 feet. We anticipate that these soils can be excavated with conventional excavation equipment such as backhoes, trackhoes and dozers. We anticipate that most excavations required for the project will be relatively shallow, on the order of 4 to 6 feet in depth for the pile caps. At this time, we do not anticipate the need for shoring other than the use of trench boxes or trench shields for utility trenches. We anticipate that the depth of the excavations required for the pile caps will generally be above the water table. Perched groundwater may be encountered above this depth if work takes place during or immediately after extended wet weather. We anticipate that the perched water can be handled during construction by sump pumping, as necessary. All collected water should be routed to suitable discharge points. Temporary Cut Slopes All temporary cut slopes and shoring must comply with the provisions of Title 296 Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The contractor performing the work has the primary responsibility for protection of workers and adjacent improvements. We recommend temporary cut slope inclinations of 1 %H:1 V (horizontal to vertical) in the existing fill and alluvial deposits encountered at the site. Some caving/sloughing of the cut slopes may occur at this inclination. The inclination may need to be flattened by the contractor if significant caving/sloughing occurs. These cut slope recommendations apply to fully dewatered conditions. For open cuts at the site, we recommend that: • No traffic, construction equipment, stockpiles or building supplies be allowed at the top of the cut slopes within a distance of at least 5 feet from the top of the cut. • Exposed soil along the slope be protected from surface erosion using waterproof tarps, plastic sheeting or flashcoating with shotcrete. • Construction activities be scheduled so that the length of time the temporary cut is left open is reduced to the extent practicable. • Erosion control measures be implemented as appropriate such that runoff from the site is reduced to the extent practicable. • Surface water be diverted away from the excavation. • The general condition of the slopes be observed periodically by GeoEngineers to confirm adequate stability. File No.2820-003-00 October S. 2009 Page 13 GEOENGINEERS_a Because the contractor has control of the construction operations, the contractor should be made responsible for the stability of cut slopes, as well as the safety of the excavations. The contractor should take all necessary steps to ensure the safety of the workers near slopes. Subgrade Preparation The planned building will be fully pile supported; therefore, the required site preparation for the building area consists of improving the subgrade conditions to allow for pile -driving equipment traffic and for casting of the structurally supported slab. Areas outside the building footprint (parking areas and hardscape areas) should be cleared of surface and subsurface deleterious matter, including any debris, organic soils, shrubs, trees and associated stumps and roots. Existing asphalt should be left in place during construction, where feasible, to protect subgrade soils from disturbance and to aid in control of erosion and sedimentation in unexcavated areas of the site. Where existing asphalt is removed, we recommend that the excavated material be removed from the site. We recommend that the upper 12 inches of the existing soils exposed at subgrade elevation below new pavements, sidewalks and other structures be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. If the subgrade soils are loose or soft, it may be necessary to excavate the soils and replace them with structural fill. If the subgrade soils will be used for infiltration of surface runoff, we recommend that the upper 12 inches be compacted to only 90 percent of maximum dry density (MDD) estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. The on-site soils below the existing pavement contain a significant amount of fines (silt) and are very moisture -sensitive. Operation of equipment on these exposed soils will be difficult under wet conditions. Disturbance of shallow subgrade soils should be expected if subgrade preparation work is done during periods of wet weather. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Potential sources or causes of erosion and sedimentation depend upon construction methods, slope length and gradient, amount of soil exposed and/or disturbed, soil type, construction sequencing and weather. Implementing an erosion and sedimentation control plan will reduce the project impact on erosion -prone areas. The plan should be designed in accordance with applicable city, county and/or state standards. The plan should incorporate basic planning principles, including: • Scheduling grading and construction to reduce soil exposure; • Retaining existing asphalt whenever feasible; • Revegetating or mulching denuded areas; • Directing runoff away from denuded areas; • Reducing the length and steepness of slopes with exposed soils; • Decreasing runoff velocities; • Preparing drainage ways and outlets to handle concentrated or increased runoff; • Confining sediment to the project site; and • Inspecting and maintaining control measures frequently. In addition, we recommend that sloped surfaces in exposed or disturbed soil be restored so that surface runoff does not become channeled. Some sloughing and raveling of slopes with exposed or disturbed soil should be expected. File No.2820-003-00 October 5. 2009 Page 14 GEOENGINEERS� • • Temporary erosion protection should be used and maintained in areas with exposed or disturbed soils to help reduce erosion and reduce transport of sediment to adjacent areas and receiving waters. Permanent erosion protection should be provided by paving or landscape planting. Until the permanent erosion protection is established and the site is stabilized, site monitoring should be performed by qualified personnel to evaluate the effectiveness of the erosion control measures and to repair and/or modify them as appropriate. Provisions for modifications to the erosion control system based on monitoring observations should be included in the erosion and sedimentation control plan. Structural Fill Materials. Materials used to backfill around pile caps to support footings, sidewalks, pavement or other structures are classified as structural fill for the purpose of this report. At a minimum, structural fill should meet the criteria for common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Common borrow will be suitable for use as structural fill during dry weather conditions only. If structural fill is placed during wet weather, imported structural fill should consist of gravel borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(1) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications, with the additional restriction that the fines content be limited to no more than 5 percent. Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below pavements should meet the requirements of Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. Use of On-site Soils. The existing fill and upper soils that will be excavated for the pile caps and shallow foundations contain a high percentage of fines and are moisture -sensitive. This material will only be suitable for use as structural fill if placed during dry weather and protected from rainfall while stockpiled. Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria. Structural fill should be mechanically compacted to a firm, non -yielding condition. Structural fill should be placed in loose lifts not exceeding 8 to 10 inches in thickness. Each lift should be conditioned to the proper moisture content and compacted to the specified density before placing subsequent lifts. Structural fill should be compacted to the following criteria: • Structural fill against the pile caps or in new pavement or sidewalk areas, including utility trench backfill, should be compacted to 90 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557, except that the upper 2 feet of fill below final subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD. • Structural fill placed below foundations and around pile caps to develop passive soil resistance should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. • Structural fill placed as crushed rock base course below pavements should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. • Nonstructural fill, such as fill placed in landscape areas, should ' be compacted to at least 85 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. In areas intended for future development, a higher degree of compaction should be considered to reduce the settlement potential of the fill soils. • Structural fill placed against subgrade walls should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of the MDD. Care should be taken when compacting fill against subsurface walls to avoid overcompaction and hence overstressing the walls. We recommend that a representative from our firm be present during placement of structural fill. Our representative will evaluate the adequacy of the subgrade soils and identify areas needing further work, perform in-place moisture -density tests in the fill to evaluate if the work is being done in accordance with File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 15 GEOENGINEERS.g the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to procedure that may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Subgrade Preparation We recommend that the subgrade soils in new pavement and parking areas be evaluated as described above in the "Subgrade Preparation" portion of the "Earthwork" section of this report. We recommend that the upper 12 inches of the existing site soils be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557 prior to placing additional fill or pavement section materials. If the subgrade soils are loose or soft, it may be necessary to excavate the soils and replace them with structural fill. We anticipate that the existing soils will only be able to be compacted 95 percent during dry weather. If pavement subgrade preparation is completed during wet weather, it will likely be necessary to remove 12 inches of the on-site soil and replace it with imported clean granular fill to achieve the 95 percent compaction. A. layer of suitable woven geotextile fabric may be placed over soft subgrade areas to limit the thickness of structural fill required to bridge soft, yielding areas. Asphalt Pavement In light-duty pavement areas (for example, automobile parking), we recommend a pavement section consisting of at least a 2 -inch -thick layer of V2 -inch hot mix asphalt (HMA) (PG 58-22) conforming to Sections 5-04 and 9-03 of the WSDOT Standard Specifications, over a 6 -inch -thick layer of densely compacted crushed rock base course conforming to Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. In heavy-duty pavement areas (for example, entry driveways, school bus lanes or delivery areas) around the building, we recommend a pavement section consisting of at least a 3 -inch -thick layer of 1/2 -inch HMA (PG 58-22) over a 6 -inch -thick layer of densely compacted crushed rock base course. These pavement sections must be underlain by at least 12 inches of either on-site soil or imported structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density as discussed above in the Subgrade Preparation section. We recommend that proof -rolling of the compacted subgrade be observed by a representative from our firm prior to placing the crushed rock base course. Soft or yielding areas observed during proof -rolling may require overexcavation and replacement with compacted structural fill. The pavement sections recommended above are based on our experience with similar educational building developments. Thicker asphalt sections may be needed based on the actual traffic data, intended use of various portions of the site, and performance expectations. We understand that portions of the pavement may be occasionally utilized to store airplanes. We therefore recommend that the pavement section be thicker if planes will be moved across portion of the parking lot. The actual design thickness would depend on the size of airplane. Portland Cement Concrete Pavement GeoEngineers understands that the project team may consider Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement in portions of the site. We recommend that these pavements consist of at least 6 inches of PCC over 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course. We recommend that sidewalks consist of at least 4 inches of PCC over 4 inches of crushed surfacing base course. This PCC pavement and/or sidewalk sections should bear on a minimum thickness of 12 inches of compacted clean granular fill, as described above in the "Subgrade Preparation" portion of the "Earthwork" section of this report. The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 16 GEOENGINEERS We recommend that PCC pavements incorporate construction joints and/or crack control joints that are spaced maximum distances of 12 feet apart, center -to -center, in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. Crack control joints may be created by placing an insert or groove into the fresh concrete surface during finishing, or by sawcutting the concrete after its initial setup. We recommend that the depth of the crack control joints be 'approximately one-fourth the thickness of the concrete, or about 1 %2 inches deep for the recommended concrete thickness of 6 inches. We also recommend that the crack control joints be sealed with an appropriate sealant to help restrict water infiltration into the joints. DESIGN INFILTRATION RATES We understand that the project team may incorporate permeable pavement into the project. Infiltration rates were estimated using correlations with laboratory test data based on ASTM gradation analyses, as discussed in Chapter 4-5.3.2 of the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual (2008) and Chapter 3.3.6 of the Department of Ecology (DOE) Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (2005). This method is also recommended in the Low Impact Development .(LID) Technical Manual for Puget Sound (Puget Sound Action Team, 2005) for determining infiltration rates for soils under large permeable paving installations. Table 1 presents estimated infiltration rates based on ASTM soil classifications for selected soil samples obtained from the site. Gradation analyses was completed for samples at a depth of 2.5 feet for most of the borings in the parking area (Borings B-2 through B-6). However, the gradation analyses only measures soil particle which are 0.075mm (No. 200 sieve) in size or larger. A hydrometer analyses was completed on one of the samples to evaluate the distribution of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve. The fines content (amount passing the No. 200 sieve) for this upper layer at the site typically varies from 17 to 34 percent, suggesting relatively low infiltration characteristics. Based on our analyses and the laboratory test results from sieve analyses and a hydrometer performed across the site, we recommend a design (long-term) infiltration rate of 0.2 inches/hour. This recommendation is based on the LID Manual guidance that the "lower bound" line in the WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, Figure 4-17 be used for estimating infiltration rates for permeable pavement subgrade soils. Field infiltration testing may be performed to determine if higher infiltration design rates are possible at the site. Table 1. Infiltration Parameters Notes: 'Based on extrapolation of gradation curve 2Refer to WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, Figure 4-17. Based on actual or extrapolated D10 values. File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 17 GEOENGINEERS. Estimate of Design Infiltration Rate Sample USCS ASTM Approximate (inches/hour) Depth Percent Soil D10 ASTM D10 ASTM Lower ASTM Upper Exploration (feet) Fines Classification (mm) (mm)1 Bound2 Bound B-1 2.5 17 SM <0.075 .02-.06 0.2to0.3 2.5to3 B-2 2.5 27 SM 0.027 0.2 3 B-3 2.5 . 29 SM <0.075 .008 - .02 0.15 to 0.2 2 to 3 B-4 2.5 34 SM <0.075 .004 - .02 0.15 to 0.2 2 to 3 B-5 2.5 9 SP -SM 0.08 0.28 5 B-6 2.5 19 SM <0.075 .009 - .03 0.15 to 0.2 2 to 3 Notes: 'Based on extrapolation of gradation curve 2Refer to WSDOT Highway Runoff Manual, Figure 4-17. Based on actual or extrapolated D10 values. File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 17 GEOENGINEERS. LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of Bassetti Architects and other members of the design team for the Aviation high school project at the Museum of Flight in Tukwila,, Washington. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with generally accepted practices in the field of geotechnical engineering in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be. understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official document of record. Please refer to the appendix titled "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" for additional information pertaining to use of this report. REFERENCES City of Seattle, 2000, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." Ensoft, Inc., 2006, "LPile Plus, Version 5.0.27." GeoEngineers, 2007, " Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, 9229 E Marginal Way S, Seattle, Washington." Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008), "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes." Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), Monograph MNO-12. International Code Council, 2006, "International Building Code." King County Parcel Information <http:// www.metrokc.gov/gis/iMAP. Moss, R.E.S. (2003). "CPT -Based Probabilistic Assessment of Seismic Soil Liquefaction Initiation," Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley Puget Sound Action Team, Washington State Univeristy Pierce County Extension, 2005, "Low Impact Development, Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound" Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B. (1987). "Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking," Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, August 1987, pp. 861-878. Troost, K., Booth, D., Wisher, A., and Shimal, A., 2005, "The Geologic Map of Seattle — A Progress Report" U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 2005-1252. United States Geological Survey — Earthquake Hazards Program — Quaternary Fault and Fold Database of the United States, accessed via http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults on May 18, 2007. File No.2820-003-00 • October 5, 2009 Page 18 GEOENGINEENS� • • United States Geological Survey — National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project — Interactive Deaggregations, accessed via http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/deaggint.html on May 18, 2007. United States Geological Survey, "Earthquake Hazards Program, Interpolated Probabilistic Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States by Latitude and Longitude, 2002 data. Washington Administrative Code (WAC), Title 296, Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." Washington State Department of Transportation, 2008, "Highway Runoff Manual M 31-16.01." Washington State Department of Transportation, 2006, "Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction." Yount, et al., 1993, "Geologic Map of Surficial Deposits in the Seattle 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Washington", U.S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 93-233. File No.2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page 19 GEOENGINEERSQ -S Othello -St— E LL 0 0 0 0 0 N CO N -SPortland -St -S Chicago St - S Kenyon St l VE S Elmgrove St S niElmgrovetstSWvaterwSt _a)Par ai RN _ a. DUis SSouthern SI I Q -S lose St t P-ar .PJayground_N\ema "es Q -Tren onSt- onm W co Q S Donovan St O • STrentanSl- =� S / [S Concord St SHenderson SI -S Director St— S Director St 1. 0 0 0 N CO N_ N 0 0) O v c 0 E 0) a) tY .0 Ta a Office: Redmond \\ �S Austin. St S:1\` • S PortlandrMSt1La V11. rS Chicago St Q 6i11 w QEk E I N 0) m a Iv. � o S Cambridge, St Sa96thsSt -S 96th Si I y I 1 =S OthelloiSt v, CC'lello•Playground g---' g—� a1(0) -a - Q D � f S HoldenSt- u) S Chicago St S Chicago St - S Orchard St S ThlsttI St ro r ISSullivanSt_� S Cloverdale St v rn N N 1 < r a � v .S 99th St S i 00th\\Sl_ L4 -^s•lolstSt, I I D1. S•102nd:Str-- to of tjurdps ho91._„ Rob so S 1o3rd•St' S Burns St-, LPilgrim St- i S Perry St -a -7S Norfolk St co ish Wate in a E- -a ?2'co" i • . 5 108th,St KJbota Gar l -S Gazelle•St- S,C Iper\St S Victor St co 1 < '— St.'�dr2th.Stp I Southern Heights ary Sctaol S 114th PI Q N Sjlitth P1 Sj114th St S 112th St S 113th St - Duwarhish River w Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. Data Sources: ESRI Data & Maps, Street Maps 2005 Transverse Mercator, Zone 10 N North, North American Datum 1983 North arrow oriented to grid north 1,000 S 0 1,000 Feet Vicinity Map Aviation High School Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure 1 IGH.SLNOot: Ei m 7 N /, ®DM -1A STORM DRAIN EASEMENT (161 K� ; ; ,�� •�' •( r •,♦ ire .J_ 200' SHORELINE SETBACK Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist in showing features discussed in an attached document. GeoEngineers. Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files. The master file is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the official record of this communication. Legend B-1-$- Bonng by GeoEngineers DM -1 ® Bonng by Dames and Moore (1980) CPT -1 Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) Completed for this Study A A' Reference: Base drawing provided by KPFF Consulting Engineers. Topographic elevations based on survey by 4 4 Cross Section Location Bush. Reed 8 Hatchings, dated April 29. 2009. w N *) n w 60 0 eo Feet Site Plan Aviation High School Tukwilla, Washington GEOENGINEERS...0 Figure 2 OFFICE REDM ELEVATION (FEET) HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING Notes: 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate 2. This drawing is for information purposes It is intended to assist in showing features dismissed in an attached document. GeoEngineers, Inc. cannot guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic ties The master the is stored by GeoEngineers, Inc. and will serve as the ott c,al record o1 this conmunicabon 0 Qc TSF (Tons per Square Foot) 400 25 u Legend BORING INFERRED GEOLOGIC CONTACT MEASURED GROUNDWATER LEVEL SOIL CLASSIFICATION BLOW COUNT Horizontal Scale 11=40' Vertical Scale: 1'-20' NAV D88 0 Qc TSF 400 Cross Section A -A' Aviation High School Tukwilla, Washington GEOENGINEERla Figure 3 7°. 0. a) -o a) w 0. c a. -J 01 0 0 0 0 76). -0 2820-003-00 -1 9 Aviation High School 16 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile With Lateral Spreading Deflection (in) 14 19 24 29 34 60 70 80 90 100 - - - No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEERS.g Earth Science + Technology DEFLECTION VS DEPTH, FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 4 Redm:\2820003\00\Working\Analysis\LP I PLE\16inPipeFixed_Laterat Spread.xls Aviation High School 16 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile With Lateral Spreading Moment (kip -ft) -1,200 -1,000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 10 20 30 40 al 50 a w 0 60 70 80 90 100 200 400 1 1 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEERS Earth Science + Technology MOMENT VS DEPTH, FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 5 Redm:\2820003\00\WorkingWnalysis\LPIPLE116inPipeFixed_Lateral Spread.xls rn 0 co 0 0 c%) 0 4 0 N N J z_ 0 0 co • 10 20 30 40 w w = 50 4- a 60 70 80 90 100 -30 -20 Aviation High School 16 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile With Lateral Spreading -10 Shear (kips) 0 10 20 30 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips -20 kips GEOENGINEERS Earth Science + Technology SHEAR VS DEPTH, FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 6 2820-003-00 0 10 20 30 40 70 80 90 100 -1 Aviation High School 16 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile No Lateral Spreading Deflection (in) 0 1 2 3 4 5 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEERS Earth Science + Technology DEFLECTION VS DEPTH , FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, NO LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 7 Redm:12820003\00\Working\Analysis\LPIPLE\216inPipeFixed_No Lateral Spread.xls 4 0o 2820-003-00 -J 1— z_ 0 0 - CO Aviation High School 16 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile No Lateral Spreading Moment (kip -ft) -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 0 10 20 30 40 60 70 80 90 100 1 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips -20 kips GEOENGINEERSIP Earth Science + Technology MOMENT VS DEPTH, FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, NO LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 8 0) 4 r cb 2820-003-00 -5 0 0 10 20 30 40 G 60 Aviation High School 16 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile No Lateral Spreading Shear (kips) 5 10 20 70 _____ 80 90 100 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEERS,0 Earth Science + Technology SHEAR VS DEPTH, FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, NO LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 9 Redm:\2820003\00\Working\Analysis\LPIPLE206inPipeFixed_Lateral Spread.xls m 4 0 2820-003-00 0 10 20 30 40 w d t 50 4.0 60 70 80 90 100 -1 1 Aviation High School 20 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile With Lateral Spreading Deflection (in) 5 7 9 11 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEER Earth Science + Technology DEFLECTION VS DEPTH, FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 10 Redm:\2820003\00\WorkingWnalysis\LPIPLE206inPipeFixed_Lateral Spread.xls 2820-003-00 J F z 0 a 0 Aviation High School 20 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile With Lateral Spreading Moment (kip -ft) -750 -650 -550 -450 -350 -250 -150 -50 50 150 250 350 450 0 10 20 30 40 m t 50 au 0 60 70 80 90 100 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEERLO Earth Science + Technology MOMENT VS DEPTH , FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 11 N nal Cr) To no J 5) m x LL m cc 0 N W J 0. a J w U1 ra en C_ N C.6). V a) d' 2820-003-00 J z 0 a 0 0 10 20 30 40 60 70 80 90 100 -25 -15 Aviation High School 20 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile With Lateral Spreading Shear (kips) -5 5 15 25 35 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEERS.../1 Earth Science + Technology SHEAR VS DEPTH, FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 12 ti' 2820-003-00 J H z_ 0 a 0 10 20 30 40 t 50 60 70 80 90 100 -0.5 0 Aviation High School 20 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile No Lateral Spreading Deflection (in) 0.5 1 1.5 2 25 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEERS Earth Science + Technology DEFLECTION VS DEPTH, FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, NO LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 13 Redm:\2820003\00\Working\Analysis\LPIPLEUOinPipeFixed_No Lateral Spread.xls 0 11 - co 2820-003-00 • Aviation High School 20 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile No Lateral Spreading Moment (kip -ft) -300 -250 -200 -150 -100 -50 10 20 30 40 4▪ .0 w a) — - 50 . c 0 60 70 80 90 100 50 100 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEERS....0 Earth Science + Technology MOMENT VS DEPTH , FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, NO LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 14 Redm:\2820003\00\WarkingWnalysis\LPIPLE\2OinPipeFixed_No Lateral Spread.xls 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 N N co1— z 0 0- c0 0 10 20 30 40 a) w t 50 a) c 60 70 80 90 100 -5 0 Aviation High School 20 -inch Diameter Steel Pipe Pile No Lateral Spreading Shear (kips) 5 10 15 20 25 1 No Shear 5 kips 10 kips 20 kips GEOENGINEERS� Earth Science + Technology SHEAR VS DEPTH, FIXED -HEAD CONDITION, LIQUIFIED SOIL PROFILE, NO LATERAL SPREADING FIGURE 15 P:\2\2820003\OO\CAD\282000300FI6.DWG\TAB:FI MODIFIED BY LKNOWLTON ON OCT 01, 2009 - 11:26 Depth Ground Surface 10- 20- 30- 40- 50 - Non-liquified soil experiencing lateral spreading Liquified soil experiencing lateral spreading 1 1500 psf 20' Liquified soil, no lateral spreading Notes: 1. Soil pressures above the water table should be applied to two times the pile diameter or the pile center -to -center spacing, whichever is less. 2. Soil pressures below the water table should be applied to one times the pile diameter or the pile center -to -center spacing, whichever is less. 975 psf (See Note 1) 350 psf (See Note 2) Lateral Soil Pressure Against Piles from Lateral Spreading Aviation High School Seattle, Washington GEOENGINEERS� Figure 16 GEOENGINEER APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS GENERAL Subsurface conditions at the site were explored on July 21 and 22, 2009 by advancing two CPT probes (CPT -1 and CPT -2) and seven borings (B-1 through B-7) at the approximate locations shown on Figure 2. The approximate exploration locations were established in the field by measuring distances from existing site features. The cones were completed to depths of about 100 and 107 feet using truck -mounted equipment owned and operated by In Situ Engineering of Snohomish, Washington (previously Northwest Cone Exploration). The borings were completed to depths ranging from 14 to 118 feet using truck- mounted drilling equipment, owned and operated by Geologic Drilling of Nine Mile Falls, Washington. Mud -rotary drilling techniques were used to advance all borings. The borings were continuously monitored by a geotechnical engineer from our firm who examined and classified the soils encountered,, obtained representative soil samples, and observed groundwater conditions. Our representative maintained a detailed log of each boring. Disturbed samples of the representative soil types were obtained using a 2 -inch outside diameter Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split -spoon sampler. The soils encountered in the test borings were typically sampled at 5 -foot vertical intervals with the SPT split -spoon sampler through the full depth of the explorations. SPT sampling was performed using a 2 - inch outside diameter split -spoon sampler driven with a standard 140 -pound hammer in accordance with ASTM D 1586. During the test, a sample is obtained by driving the sampler 18 inches into the soil with a hammer free -falling 30 inches. The number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration is recorded. The Standard Penetration Resistance ("N -value") of the soil is calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration (blows/foot). This resistance, or N -value, provides a measure of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils. If the high penetration resistance encountered in the very dense soils precluded driving the total 18 -inch sample interval, the penetration resistance for the partial penetration is entered on logs as follows: if the penetration is greater than 6 inches and less than 18 inches, then the number of blows is recorded over the number of inches driven; 30 blows for 6 inches and 50 for 3 inches, for instance, would be recorded as 80/9". The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. The Standard Penetration Test is a useful quantitative tool from which soil density/consistency was evaluated. Soils encountered in the borings were classified in the field in general accordance with ASTM D 2488, the Standard Practice for Classification of Soils, Visual -Manual Procedure, which is summarized in Figure A-1. The boring log symbols are also described in Figure A-1, and logs of the borings are provided as Figures A-2 through A-8. Boring locations were determined in the field by measuring from existing site features. Ground surface elevations were estimated from the site survey map titled "Topographic Survey, Aviation High School, Highline School District" prepared by Bush, Roed & Hitchings dated April 29, 2009. Boring locations should be considered accurate to the degree implied by the method used. Ground surface elevations at the boring locations were not surveyed and were estimated from the site survey map; therefore, the elevations may only be accurate to the nearest foot. File No. 2820-003-00 Page A-1 October 5, 2009 GEOENGINEERSQ CONE PENETROMETER TESTS The CPT is a subsurface exploration technique in which a small -diameter steel tip with adjacent sleeve is continuously advanced with hydraulically operated equipment. Measurements of tip and sleeve resistance allow interpretation of the soil profile and the consistency of the strata penetrated. The tip resistance, friction ratio and pore water pressure are recorded on the CPT logs. The logs of the CPT soundings are presented in Figures A-9 and A-10. A shear wave analyses was completed for CPT -1, the results of which are presented in Figure A-11. The CPT soundings were advanced to a depth of about 100 and 107 feet below the existing ground surface. The CPT soundings were backfilled in general accordance with procedures outlined by the Washington State Department of Ecology. File No. 2820-003-00 Page A-2 October 5, 2009 GEOENGINEEHS� SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONSSYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% RETON NO. �� 200 SI AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% of COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO.4 SIEVE CLEAN GRAVELS 5 -MIX OR ND FINES) D V U O oQ°° ) no GW WWAENLGEZI2RAVELS, GRAVEL -GRAVEL O 0 O 0 O C D 0 0 GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH FINES (MPRo FNESSMOUNT ) D o ' D GM SLTVGRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND -SILT MIXRIRES GC 5 MDGRAREs ,GRAVEL -WAND - SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN sou OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO. SIEVE CLEAN SANDS LITTLE OR NO FINES) SW WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY • • SP POORLYGRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY WAND SANDS WITHSM FINES (APPR O� P AMOUJT OF FINES) -, J. SILTY SANDS, SAND -SILT MIXTURES Jy J(%� SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -(]AV MIXTURES FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE TMA 50'%INORGANIC PASSING NO. SIEVE SILTS LIOUID UMR AND LESS TAN EO CLAYS ML INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR. CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY / // / CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW LL MEDIUM PLASTICA', GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAUS, LEAN CLAYS OL ORGANIC sats AND ORGANIC SLAV CLAYS OF LOW PL ST1Cm SILTS AND LIQUID UMR CLAYSGREATER THAN 50 MH SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS Sart/ SOLS / CH PORGANryCLAVS OF HIGH OH ORGANMEDIUMIC TO HIGH CLAYS ANDPLASTICITY SILTS OF HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILSPT HIGH ' HUMUS, SWAMP sons WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications Sampler Symbol Descriptions ® 2.4 -inch I.D. split barrel Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ■ Shelby tube • Piston Direct -Push • Bulk or grab Blowcount is recorded for driven samplers as the number of blows required to advance sampler 12 inches (or distance noted). See exploration log for hammer weight and drop. A "P" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the drill rig. ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER /\/\//\ /\ i\ii\ CC Cement Concrete AC Asphalt Concrete 11- • w • CR Crushed Rode/ quant' Spalls • TopsoiL/ Forest Duff/Sod ▪ Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer VGroundwater observed at time of exploration 7 Perched water observed at time of exploration It Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic LOQ Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units /Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit VoF AL CA CP CS DS HA MC MD OC PM PP SA TX UC VS NS SS MS HS NT Material Description Contact Distinct contact between soil strata or geologic units Approximate location of soil strata change within a geologic soil unit Laboratory / Field Tests Percent fines Atterberg limits Chemical analysis Laboratory compaction test Consolidation test Direct shear Hydrometer analysis Moisture content Moisture content and dry density Organic content Permeability or hydraulic conductivity Pocket penetrometer Sieve analysis Triaxial compression Unconfined compression Vane shear Sheen Classification No Visible Sheen Slight Sheen Moderate Sheen Heavy Sheen Not Tested NOTE: The reader must refer to the discussion in the report text and the logs of explorations for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. Descriptions on the logs apply only at the specific exploration locations and at the time the explorations were made; they are not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations or times. • • KEY TO EXPLORATION LOGS • GEOENGINEERS FIGURE A-1 • • Start End Total 118.5 Depth (ft) Logged By BPD Checked By NLT Driller Geologic Drill Drilling Hollow -stem Auger/SPT ` Method Drilled 7/21/2009 7/21/2009 Surface Elevation (ft) 18 0 Vertical Datum Hammer Rope and Cathead Data 140 lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling XL Trailer Rig Equipment Latitude Longitude System N/A Datum Groundwater Elevation (ftl Depth to pate Measured Water (ftl Notes: Auger Data: 3Y. inches ID, 7 inches OD • 7/21/2009 8 10.0 i Elevation (feet) _h .-O o Depth (feet) FIELD DATA Recovered (in) MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 18 21 5 — j 18 3 10 — 1 18 8 15 — 18 10 20 — II 12 10 25 — I8 13 30 — •;r, •,'r •;r•• ti , 2 2 / 3 SM Dark reddish brown silty fine sand with trace gravel (medium dense, moist) (fill) CL Gray clay with trace silt and organic matter (soft, wet) • • • ti rti •. • • 4 • 5 6 ••'r,•• • • Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. SM Black silty fine to medium sand with occasional lenses of silty sand (loose, wet) _ 2 inch silt lense with trace organic matter 16 SA, %F=17 47 12 SA, %F=14 36 %F=16 • Log of Boring B-1 G EO E N G I N E E RS Project: Project Location: Project Number: Aviation High School Seattle, Washington 2820-003-00 Figure A-2 Sheet 1 of 4 , I Elevation (feet) by FIELD DATA 30 1 a0 Water Level 8' V t7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Pa �QQ REMARKS 18 16 35 — 11 18 5 40 — 45 — 18 7 _ 1 18 15 50 — —3 18 4 55 — 60 — _yh � IS 16 65 — 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • • f . 2 inch organic layer at 33 feet Black fine sand with silt (loose, wet) Note: See Figure A-1 fo explanation of sym SP -SM Dark gray sandy silt (medium stiff, wet) _ Dark gray fine sand with silt and trace organic matter (medium dense, wet) • ML _ Dark gray sandy silt (soft to medium stiff, wet) _ MUSM Dark gray interbedded sandy silt and silty fine sand (medium stiff, loose, wet) SM Black silty fine sand with lenses of silt (medium dense, wet) bols ML Dark gray clayey silt (very soft to soft, wet) 27 31 34 SA, %F=5 %F=I1 Log of Boring B-1 (continued) • G EO E N G I N E E R S. Project: Aviation High School Project Location: Seattle, Washington Project Number: 2820-003-00 Figure A-2 Sheet 2of4 , 1 0 i Elevation (feet) `yh _ 60 _15 • FIELD DATA 0 a o73 Recovered (in) > S' 3 J m c 11-) C. I, . E'm MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 70 — 1 18 4 75 — 80 — 14 15 18 3 16 1118 4 17 85 — 1 18 0 90 — 18 21 95 — II 18 36 100—. 18 MLCL Dark gray clayey silt to clay with trace organic matter (soft, wet) •• SM 19 • Pte•. SW -SM •0•. 20 •O•. Dark gray silty fine to medium sand with fine shell fragments (medium dense, wet) Gray gravelly fine to medium sand with silt (dense, wet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. 35 AL 50 AL 26 %F=13 16 Rough drilling Log of Boring B-1 (continued) G EO E N G I N E E (... Project: Aviation High School Project Location: Seattle, Washington Project Number: 2820-003-00 Figure A-2 Sheet3of4 OENGINEERS8.G13T/GEI8 GEOTECHSTANDARD ' Elevation (feet) FIELD DATA E . > 8' MATERIAL m �, DESCRIPTION $ Z 1.2) y n coe a m 1 w m E Q is 0 S. 0 i Start End Total 14 Depth (ft) Logged By BPD Checked By NLT Driller Geologic Drill Drilling Hollow -stem Auger/SPT , Method Drilled 7/21/2009 7/21/2009 Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 18.0 Hammer Rope and Cathead Data 140 lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment XL Trailer Rig Latitude Longitude System N/A Datum Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water ft vati fileon (81 Notes: Auger Data: 3'/.inches ID, 7 inches OD 7/21/2009 11 7.0 I Elevation (feet) _•h _h FIELD DATA Recovered (in) s a. 0 E 75 ra O H m J 2 m J U .81- E n °Lo m m 0 U) 1- 3 (0 114 10 5- 1 0 tT 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION SM Dark brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) i�- Mt- Gray silt with trace organic matter (medium stiff, 118 5 2 wet) 10 — 1 18 15 3 Q SP Black fine to medium sand (medium dense, wet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. REMARKS 10 SA, HA, %F=27 • Log of Boring B-2 G EO E N G I N E E R Project: Project Location: Project Number: Aviation High School Seattle, Washington 2820-003-00 Figure A-3 Sheet 1 of 1 , Start End Total 14 Depth (ft) Logged By BPD Checked By NLT Driller Geologic Drill Drilling Method Hollow -stem Auger/SPT Drilled 7/21/2009 7/21/2009 Surface Elevation (ft) 18.0 Vertical Datum Hammer Rope and Cathead Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling XL Trailer Rig Equipment Latitude - Longitude System N/A Datum Groundwater evation (ftl Depth to Date Measured IrliteLial Notes: Auger Data: 3/ inches ID, 7 inches OD • 7/21/2009 7 11.0 o Elevation (feet) o Depth (feet) FIELD DATA V To c 0 core 2 C7U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION e '180 REMARKS 18 17 5 --I 18 8 .1 18 4 10 — 2 3 4 SM Dark brown silty fine to coarse sand with lenses _ of sandy silt (medium dense, moist) ML Grayish black silt with sand and occasional wood fragments (medium stiff to stiff, moist)- — Grades to gray and wet Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Black fine sand with lenses of silt (medium dense, wet) 10 SA, %F=29 • Log of Boring B-3 G EO E N G I N E E R SI Project: Project Location: Project Number: Aviation High School Seattle, Washington 2820-003-00 Figure A-4 Sheet 1 of 1 Start End Total 14 Depth (ft) Logged By BPD Checked By NLT Driller Geologic Drill Drilling Method Hollow -stem Auger/SPT Drilled 7/21/2009 7/21/2009 Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 19.0 Hammer Rope and Cathead Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling XL Trailer Rig Equipment Latitude Longitude System N/A Datum Groundwater Elevation (ft1 Depth to Date Measured Water (ft% Notes: Auger Data: 3Y. inches 10, 7 inches OD • 7/21/2009 .6 13.0 • • Elevation (feet) _h • o Depth (feet) FIELD DATA F o N l0z > J a To o -60 12 J . i n Cr c - m d a P3% l0 2 a c tr to u re 1- 3 0 0 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION p 8 g8 REMARKS v 5- 10- 18 2 118 10 SM Dark reddish brown silty fine sand with chunks of silt (loose, moist) (fill) • • ML _ Gray clayey silt with organic matter (soft, wet) 2 !fC7‘ SP -SM Grayish fine to medium sand with silt and lenses of clayey silt (loose to medium dense, wet) 3 15 SA, %F=34 Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring B-4 • G EO E N G I N E E R Project: Project Location: Project Number: Aviation High School Seattle, Washington 2820-003-00 Figure A-5 Sheet 1 of 1 Redmond: Date Start End Total 14 Depth (ft) Logged By BPD Checked By NLT Driller Geologic Drill Drilling Hollow -stem Auger/SPT + Method Drilled 7/21/2009 7/21/2009 Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 19 0 Hammer Rope and t^,athead Data 140 lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment XL Trailer Rig Latitude Longitude System N/A Datum Groundwater Elevation (ft) Depth to pate Measuredate• ft Notes: Auger Data: 3% inches ID, 7 inches OD • 7/21/2009 5 14.0 • i Elevation (feet) -,y o Depth (feet) FIELD DATA Recovered (in) 8 m Collected Sample Z t J a � � fp 0 0U m U C . 7 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION REMARKS 1 18 6 5 18 3 11 18 3 10 — 2 3 4 SP -SM • • Black fine to medium sand with silt (loose, moist) (fill?) ML Dark gray silt with trace fine sand (soft, wet) 3 inch black organic silt layer at 6 feet Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Black to fine sand (medium dense, wet) 14 SA, %F=9 i ) Log of Boring B-5 • G EO E N G 1 N E E R S Project: Project Location: Project Number: Aviation High School Seattle, Washington 2820-003-00 Figure A-6 Sheet 1 of 1 ) ) Start EndTotal 14 Depth (ft) Logged By BPD Checked By NLT Geologic Driller Ic Drill Drilling Hollow -stem Auger/SPT Method 9 Drilled 7/22/2009 7/22/2009 Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 19 0 Hammer Rope and Cathead Data 140 lbs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment XL Trailer Rig Latitude Longitude System N/A Datum Groundwater Depth to pate Measured Water Mk Elevation (ttl Notes: Auger Data: 3'h inches ID, 7 inches OD 7/22/2009 8.5 10.5 -- .s ._ wIT, w O. 0 FIELD DATA g' 2 r B 0 o a `� 2 0U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION e 38 r g o 0. y REMARKS v > cc m E H z i m E 0 wH co c Xi 5 _ - -18 .....:3_ - 5 — - —`° - 10— _'./..,. - —3 ill 18 II 14 J 13 4 10 1• 2 3 2 •'` ./..N. tiL • Dark brown fine sand with silt (medium dense, - moist) - - — — 17 , SA, %F=19 Gray silt with trace organic matter (soft to medium stiff, moist to wet) - 6 inch layer of black organic silt - - — — SM - Black silty fine sand with lenses of silt (loose to - medium dense, wet) _ _ _ • Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbbls. Log of Boring B-6 G EO E N G I N E E R Project: Project Location: Project Number: Aviation High School Seattle, Washington 2820-003-00 Figure A-7 Sheet 1 of 1 , 0 5 e 5 Start End Total 19 Depth (ft) Logged By BPD Checked By NLT Driller Geologic Drill o9 Drilling , Method Hollow -stem Auger/SPT Drilled 7/22/2009 7/22/2009 Hammer Rope and Cathead Data 140 (lbs) / 30 (in) Drop D illing Equipment XL Trailer Rig • A 2 (in) well was Well was devebped Groundwater installed on 7/22/2009 to a depth of (ft). on 7/22/2009. Depth to Water ma Elevation (8) Surface Elevation (ft) 19.0 Vertical Datum Top of Casing Elevation (ft) Latitude Longitude System Datum N/°` pate Measured 8/5/2009 12.1 6.89 Notes: Auger Data: 4% inches ID, 8 inches OD W _O o Depth (feet) FIELD DATA 1 C ce .2 J3 E U Sample Name -J 47 ie 3m V U .0 j N 00 U9O MATERIAL DESCRIPTION WELL LOG locking J -plug I / 5- 10 — j 18 15 — 18 5 3 19 12 2 3 4 -^ AC � 2 inches asphalt concrete and 1 %-inch base SM - \ course Dark brown silty fine sand with chunks of silt (fill) Brownish gray clayey silt with trace sand (soft, wet) Dark brown fine sand with silt (medium dense, moist) SP Dark gray fine sand with trace silt (medium dense, wet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. 6.0 8.0—•• Flush -mount steel monument 'k—Concrete surface / • seal Bentonite seal 2 inch Schedule 40 PVC well casing •-'-10-20 silica colorado sand —2 -inch Schedule • •40 PVC screen, 0.02 inch slot width 18.0, .:: end cap plug 19.0 • Log of Monitoring Well B-7 G EO E N G I N E E RS Project: Project Location: Project Number: Aviation High School Seattle, Washington 2820-003-00 Figure A-8 Sheet 1 of 1 , GEOENGINEERS`O APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples obtained from the explorations were transported to our laboratory and evaluated to confirm or modify field classifications, as well as to evaluate engineering properties of the soil samples. Representative samples were selected for laboratory testing consisting of rnoisture content testing, percent fines (material passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve), sieve analyses and Atterberg Limits. The tests were performed in general accordance with test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other applicable procedures. MOISTURE CONTENT TESTING Moisture' contents tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 for representative samples obtained from the explorations. The results of these tests are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A at the depths at which the samples were obtained. PERCENT PASSING U.S. No. 200 SIEVE (%F) Selected samples were "washed" through the No. 200 mesh sieve to estimate the relative percentages of coarse and fine-grained particles in the soil. The percent passing value represents the percentage by weight of the sample finer than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. These tests were conducted to verify field descriptions and to estimate the fines content for analysis purposes. The tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM D 1140, and the results are shown on the exploration logs at the respective sample depths. SIEVE ANALYSES Full sieve analyses were performed on selected samples in general accordance with ASTM D-422. The wet sieve analysis method was used to determine the percentage of soil greater than the U.S. No. 200 mesh sieve. The results of the sieve analyses were plotted, classified in general accordance with the USCS, and presented in Figures B-1 through B-4. HYDROMETER ANALYSES Hydrometer analyses were performed on one selected sample in general accordance with ASTM D-422 63 to determine the grain size distribution for fine-grained particles smaller than the U.S. No. 200 sieve. The results of the hydrometer analyses are presented in Figure B-2 in conjunction with the sieve analyses also performed on the sample. ATTERBERG LIMITS Atterberg limits tests were used to classify the soils as well as to help determine the consolidation characteristics of the soils. The liquid limit and the plastic limit were determined in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The results of the Atterberg limits testing are summarized on Figure B-5. The plasticity chart relates the plasticity index (liquid limit minus the plastic limit) to the liquid limit. File No. 2820-003-00 Page B-1 October 5. 2009 GEOENGINEERQ 2820-003-00 NLT : NLT : WBH 07-29-09 (Sieve.ppt) SZ133NI9N3O3 . 7,l:E=L% . 7 »a*4111'JlaziMit varlIACeIa1 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SEE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #I00 #200 • • s s • lib • • 100 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SEE IN IWLLINETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL COARSE I FINE COARSE SAND MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY SYMBOL • 0 EXPLORATION NUMBER B-1 B-1 B-1 DEPTH (ft) 2.5 12.5 37.5 SOIL CLASSIFICATION Brown silty fine sand (SM) Black silty fine to medium sand (SM) Black fine sand with silt (SP) 2820-003-00 NLT : JJM : WBH 7-30-09 (Sieve-Hydro.ppt) m 0 m z z m m 73 Z-8 321f101i Sl1fS32I SISA1VNV 2I313WO2IOAH-3A3IS PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1000 100 10 1 0.1 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #I00 #200 • • GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL DEPTH (ft) SOIL CLASSIFICATION SAND B-2 SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER DEPTH (ft) SOIL CLASSIFICATION ♦ B-2 2.5' Brown silty fine sand (SM) • 2820-003-00 NLT : NLT : WBH 07-29-09 (Sieve.ppt) E-8 32If1DIJ Sllf1S]d SISA1VNV 3A3IS PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE ' 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #I00 #200 1000 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.1 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL DEPTH (ft) SOIL CLASSIFICATION SAND B-3 SILT OR CLAY COARSE FINE COARSE I MEDIUM FINE SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER DEPTH (ft) SOIL CLASSIFICATION B-3 2.5 Dark Brown silty sand (SM) M B-5 2.5 Dark -brown fine sand with silt (SP -SM) 2820-003-00 ZAS : AMD : AMD 8-11-09 (Sieve.ppt) m m Gs z m m i, fmm*11=1if'irV/NIW&II 100 90 ig 80 70 m 60 z 50 40 a.a a 20 30 10 0 1000 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #I00 #200 1111■■■Ir�iii:����i 1111.■■■ 11111■■■ 11111■■■ I111i■■■ I111�■■■ 1111u■■■ I111i■■■ 11111■■■ 1111■■■■ 11111■■■ II11■■■■ I111i■■■ 1111■■■■ 11111■■ 1111■■■■ I111i■■■ 1111■■■■ 11111■■■ 11111■■■ I111l■■■ 1111■■■■ 11111■■■ 11111■■■ 11111■■■ 1111.■■■ Hill■■■ 11111■■■ 11111■■■ 1111111111 1111u■■■ I111i■■■ I111i■■■ 1111■■■■ I111i■■■ 1111■■■■ 1111.■■■ 1111■■■■ 11111■■■ 100 %!1I■■■ IiNia■■■ 1111`'■■ 1111■11■■ 1111■SE 1111■■17■ 1111■■IV■ 1111■■1Va 1111■■■ t 1111■■■iii 1111■■■f1\ 1111■■■.\ 1111■■■1111\ 1111■■■S 1111■■■■ 1111■■■■ 1111■■■■ 1111■■■■ 1111■■■■ 1111■■■■ 1111■■■ 11111■■ II11■■■ 1111■■■ 1111■■■ 1111■■■ 1111■■■ 1111■■■ 1111■■■ 1111■■■ 1111■■■ 1111■■■ ;111■■■ MIME 11111■■■ 11111■■■ II711■■■ 11111■■■ 11111■■■ II111■■■ 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND 11111■■■ 11111■■■ 111111■■ 11111■■■ I1111l■■ 11111■■■ 11111u■■ 11111■■■ 11111u■■ 11111■■■ 111111■■ 11111■■■ 111111■■ 11111■■■ 11111u■■ 11111■■■ 111111■■ 11111u■■ I1111u■■ 111111■■ 0.01 0.001 COARSE I FINE SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER B-4 B-6 DEPTH (ft) 2.5' 2.5' COARSE MEDIUM I FINE SILT OR CLAY SOIL CLASSIFICATION Brown silty fine sand (SM) Brown silty fine sand (SM) 2820-003-01 NLT : ZAS : AMD 08-05-09 (Atterbergs.ppt) 6.1) m 0 m z cI z m 111 xi 9-8 311f101A S11fS32J .1.831 SIIINII 0213821311V 60 50 .40 6 30 U a 20 10 0 0 PLASTICITY CHART • 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTICITY INDEX (%) S. • B-1 67.5' 34.8 27 3 Dark gray silt (ML) • B-1 CH or OH 36 12 Dark gray clayey silt (ML) OH or MH • . CL or 1` OL ML or OL CL -ML • • 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT SYMBOL EXPLORATION NUMBER SAMPLE DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT (%) LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTICITY INDEX (%) SOIL DESCRIPTION • B-1 67.5' 34.8 27 3 Dark gray silt (ML) • B-1 82.5' 49.7 36 12 Dark gray clayey silt (ML) GEOENGIN:EERS� APPENDIX C SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS APPENDIX C SITE-SPECIFIC SEISMIC RESPONSE ANALYSIS GENERAL A site specific seismic response analysis was completed for this project to evaluate the site effect and to develop the ground surface design response spectra for use in the design of the three story high school building planned at the project site. The analysis was completed and the design response spectra were developed in general accordance with the procedures outlined in Chapter 21 of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-05 code. The following presents the general approach in completing the analysis and development of the ground surface design spectra: • Developing a target rock outcrop response spectrum using the probabilistic ground motion parameters determined from the 2002 United States Geological Survey (USGS) Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Model. • Selecting representative earthquake time histories with source zones, magnitudes and site to source distance that are consistent with the site regional tectonic setting and seismicity. • Scaling the selected time histories so that the average of their response spectra is a good match to the target rock outcrop response spectrum. • Developing a soil model using subsurface soil information obtained from the explorations completed at the project site. • Propagating the scaled time histories through the soil model developed to assess the amplification and damping effect of the site soils and developing response spectra at the ground surface (top of the soil profile). • Establishing site specific design spectra using the results of the seismic response analysis per ASCE 7-05 code. DEVELOPMENT OF TARGET ROCK OUTCROP RESPONSE SPECTRUM The USGS 2002 probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation was completed and used to evaluate the seismic hazard at the project area (122.300 W, 47.521 N). Using the spectral acceleration values estimated by the USGS for periods between 0 and 2 seconds, a maximum considered earthquake (MCE) response spectrum for rock site condition was constructed and was used as the target spectrum in scaling our selected input motions used in our site response analysis, as described below. SITE -RESPONSE ANALYSIS Selection of Input Ground Motions In order to provide representative earthquake acceleration time histories for the site -response analysis, we reviewed the percent contribution of the regional source zones to the estimated seismic hazard at the project area using the USGS 2002 probabilistic seismic hazard deaggregation for ground motions with a 2 percent PE in 50 years. From the USGS deaggregation, we observed that 70 percent of the seismic hazard was attributed to the shallow crustal sources, 20 percent was attributed to deep Benioff sources and 10 percents was attributed to the CSZ interpolate sources. The USGS deaggregation results also determine that Seattle Fault Zone nearby is the controlling source that account for about 60 percent of the total seismic hazard. Based on this evaluation, we selected three shallow crustal events, two Benioff intraplate (IP) events, and two interplate (IF) subduction zone event to be used as input ground motions File No. 2820-003-00 October 5. 2009 Page C-1 GEOENGINEERS...0 • • for the site response analysis. The ground motions selected using the criteria described above are presented in Table C-1. Scaling of Input Ground Motions The selected input motion time histories were scaled prior to completing site response analysis. Each selected time history was scaled so that its response spectrum is, on average, approximately at the level of the target rock site response spectrum as defined by USGS over the period range of 0 to 2 seconds. The scaling factors applied to each earthquake are shown in Table C-2. Figure C-1 shows the response spectra for each orthogonal pair of scaled input motion time histories, their average and the target response spectrum used as a guide for scaling the input motions. Table C-1. Ground Motions Earthquake, Year Recording Station Magnitude Distance (km) Unscaled PGA (orientation of orthogonal component) Scale Factor Fault Mechanism San Orion 8244 6.6 16.5 0.26 (360) 2.7 Crustal Fernando, 1971 0.14(090) Nisqually, 2001 Maple Valley 6.8 75.2 0.08 (000) 6 Benioff, Intraplate 0.10 (090) Iran, 1978 Tabas 7.4 3 0.84 (NS) 0.9 Crustal 0.85 (EW) Loma Prieta, Los Gatos 7 6 0.97 (NS) 0.8 Crustal 1989 0.59 (EW) El Salvador, 2001 Santiago de Maria 7.6 52.2 0.72 (090) 1 , Benioff, Intraplate 0.88 (360) Mexico, 1985 Michoacan 8.1 80 0.17 (180) 2 Subduction La Union Zone, Interplate 0.15 (090) Tokachi-Oki HKD122 8.0 246 0.05 (NS) 5 Subduction 2003 0.04 (EW) Zone, Interplate Soil Profile A site -response model based on low -strain shear wave velocities was developed for this project. The explorations completed at the project area extend to an approximate maximum depth of 107 feet and were terminated in medium dense to very dense sand and gravel. Based on our review of the regional geology at the site, the bedrock was modeled at depth of 165 feet. The shear wave velocities of the soil for the site were determined using a seismic cone penetrometer test (CPT). Shear wave velocity below the exploration depth was assumed to increase linearly in accordance with measured shear wave velocities within thin same geologic unit (USGS Open -File Report 2004-1419). The design shear wave velocity profile and the shear wave velocity profile used in D-MOD2000 are shown in Figure C-2. Also shown in Figure C-2 are the lower and upper bound shear wave velocity profiles developed to evaluate the sensitivity of the ground surface response to uncertainty in soil shear File No. 2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page C-2 GEOENGINEERS...0 r. wave velocity and depth of soil model. Table C-2 summarizes the soil type, unit weights (y), shear wave velocity (Vs) and shear modulus reduction and damping curves used in the D-MOD2000 model for the soil profile used in our analysis. Table C-2. Soil Profile Model for East Profile Depth (ft) Start End Material Type y (pcf) Vs (ft/s) Shear Modulus Reduction and Damping Curves 0 85 Sandy Silt (Alluvium) 120 700 to 1050 EPRI: Deep, Cohesionless soils 85 180 Sand & Gravel (Alluvium) 130 1105 to 2110 EPRI: Deep, Cohesionless soils > 180 Bedrock 150 2500 Site -Response Analysis and Computed Results The site -response analysis was completed using the computer program D-MOD2000 (GeoMotions, LLC. 2007). D-MOD2000 is a computer program for nonlinear, one-dimensional seismic -response analysis. Response spectra for 5 percent structural damping were developed for the site by propagating the scaled input motions through the soil profile using D-MOD2000. Figure C-3 shows the MCE response spectra calculated at the ground surface calculated. The amplification factor (AF), which is the ratio of the surface spectral acceleration to the scaled input rock spectral acceleration, was then calculated for 'each profile and shown in Figure C-4. The average AF at the ground surface was then used to construct the site-specific design spectra for the project, as described below. Site -Specific Design Spectrum The site-specific design spectrum for the project area was determined by applying the average AF for each profile to the target rock spectrum in accordance with the procedures outlined in the ASCE 7-05 code, Sections 21.1.3 and 21.4. Figure C-5 shows the average AF computed by D-MOD2000 x target rock spectrum per USGS. Also shown in Figure C-5 are the site class E generalized design response spectrum per the ASCE 7-05 and 80 percent of the site class E generalized response spectrum per the ASCE 7-05. As shown in Figure C-5, the recommended site-specific response spectrum for the project site is slightly higher than 80 percent of the site class E generalized response spectrum for period less than about 0.9 seconds; the 80 percent of the site class E generalized response spectrum is used as the site- specific response spectrum for period longer than 0.9 seconds. The recommended site-specific response spectrum for the project is shown in Figure C-5. Sensitivity of Ground Surface Response to Soil Depth and Shear Wave Velocity Per Section 21.1.3 of ASCE 7-05, sensitivity of the ground surface response of the site was evaluated using the lower and upper bound soil profiles. The scaled Orion time histories recorded during the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake were used as input motions for the sensitivity analysis. Figure C-6 shows the ground surface response spectra calculated using Orion time histories. As shown in Figure C-6, the difference in the ground surface response near the period of interest of 0.3 seconds are relatively small for the lower, upper and best estimate soil Vs profiles. For periods between 0.6 and 1.1 seconds, there are some differences in the ground surface response spectra between the three soil profiles. To accommodate the variability of the ground surface response spectra for longer periods, a higher amplification factor was used to develop the site-specific response spectrum for period longer than 0.6 seconds, as shown in Figure C-5. File No. 2820-003-00 October 5, 2009 Page C-3 GEOENGINEER.g 2820-003-00 09/22/09 WLT RED:\2820003\00\Working\Site Response Analysis\Aviation High School_Rock Outcrop Target Spectra Match.xls ' Raisbeck Aviation High School, Tukwilla, Washington (Response Spectra of Scaled Rock Outcrop Ground Motions, 2475 -yr Earthquake) A An al Acceleration (g) o c o c I II • T 1 -1- • I I - ---i- :-- I —-- j t�-_.___ 11 I L II iii\ih, , 1 .--1°1-711.1.-- -",:f4Ahlir:--4-- 1 --I —1 — -- F - L. — � -- - r a I I 1I v\ 0.10 ..___._.____.-._i--_- __ 1 1 ;\ I , , I ...1 I I -._-... 1 _.. _ .. �_....-._ i -- I 1 1 0.01 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 Period (seconds) - Loma Prieta 1989 - Los Gatos AVG - Nisqually Maple Valley AVG - San Femando 1971 - 8244 Orion AVG - Iran 1978 - Tabas AVG - El Salvador Santiago de Maria AVG - Michoacan La Union AVG - Tokachi-Oki 122 AVE Avg of 7 eqs USGS Rock Outcrop G EOE NG I N E E R S� Earth Science + Technology 2475 -yr, Scaled Rock Outcrop Response Spectra Figure C-1 X 0 0 N 2 of • 0 O [n 0) 0. 0 0 0 O 0 �n i 0 s fa ai O d al to m 0 0 0 CO rn O O O co 0.00 - 20.00 - 40.00 - 1 60.00 - I .1 80.00 - 1 • Raisbeck Aviation High School, Tukwila, Washington (Shear Wave Velocity Profiles) 100.00 - — ••• • • I. .a` 1_ 0 1 m 120.00 -. o I 1 3 140.00 to I a, a CO 160.00 - 180.00 - 200.00 - 220.00 240.00 L L 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 Period (seconds) Best Estimate Vs Profile — — Lower Bound Vs Profile Upper Bound Vs Profile GEOENGINEERLO Earth Science + Technology Shear Wave Velocity Profiles Figure C-2 2820-003-00 09/22/09 WLT RED:\2820003\00\Working\Site Response Analysis\Aviation High School_Surface Response Spectra.xls Raisbeck Aviation High School, Tukwilla, Washington (MCE Response Spectra at Ground Surface) .1 n n„ Spectral Acceleration (g) P C oc 0 o c 1----1---1—I 1 1 011404114NA.kiler - fr..k 00. -Ark ,Ali, - i *1;'' _ _ _ : Al f A....4,:i./ 0 0 0 I ‘kA __J_ _ \ \ \ L I_ _ ,\t/1/4: . _ _ _ _ . . - __ li,' L . 1V 11 _, \l 0.01 ii 1 ' i I, 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00 Period (seconds) — Loma Prieta 1989 - Los Gatos NS [C] — Loma Prieta 1989 - Los Gatos EW [C] — Nisqually Maple Valley 000 [C] — Nisqually Maple Valley 090 [C] —San Femando 1971 - 8244 Orion 360 [C] — San Femando 1971 - 8244 Orion 270 [C] — Iran 1978 - Tabas NS [C] — Iran 1978 - Tabas EW [C] — El Salvador Santiago de Maria 090 [IP] — El Salvador Santiago de Maria 360 [IP] — Michoacan La Union 090 [IF] — Michoacan La Union 180 [IF] — 2003 Tokachi-Oki 122 NS [IF] — 2003 Tokachi-Oki 122 EW [IF] Average [IP] = Subduction Zone, Intraplate [IF] = Subduction Zone, Interface [C] = Crustal G EO E N G I N E E RS Earth Science + Technology 5% Damped Ground Surface Response Spectra Figure C-3 2820-003-00 09/22/09 WLT RED:\2820003\00\Working\Site Response Analysis\Aviation High School_Surface Response Spectra.xls Raisbeck Aviation High School, Tukwilla, Washington MCE Amplification Factor (Surface Sa / Scaled Rock Outcrop Sa) 10.00 [ ] ----_— 1 1 01.10A 0 ! An*, 1f�iy�,'!`^ / it iJ —,,,..•7.N , 4 1.00 Milk P., -Iir,A0 • n'1.494'1.::",1A o Amplification Factor o ____.....imetrop:177:1, ,.._il„. _-414.4.A.. --- 01 irtrif ti - -- {- - � P t, - - -- — __L. _ _ L�� ._ �---- .------_-.. - 0.01 0.10 1.00 10 Period (seconds) 00 - Loma Prieta 1989 -.Los Gatos NS [C] - Loma Prieta 1989 - Los Gatos EW [C] - Nisqually Maple Valley 000 [IP] - Nisqually Maple Valley 090 [IP] - San Femando 1971 - 8244 Orion 360 [C] - San Femando 1971 - 8244 Orion 270 [C] - Iran 1978 - Tabas NS [C] - Iran 1978 - Tabas EW [C] - El Salvador Santiago de Maria 090 [IP] - El Salvador Santiago de Maria 360 [IP] - Michoacan La Union 090 [IF] - Michoacan La Union 180 [IF] - 2003 Tokachi-Oki 122 NS [IF] - 2003 Tokachi-Oki 122 EW [IF] Average [IP] = Subduction Zone, Intraplate [IF] = Subduction Zone, Interface [C] = Crustal G EO E N G 1 N E E R ._...01.4Site Earth Science + Technology Specific Amplification Factors Figure C-4 Raisbeck Aviation High School, Tukwilla, Washington (MCE Response Spectra at the Ground Surface) n nn Spectral Acceleration (g) o c O c 0 0 c � L- .moi _+- � 1 I 1 r L 1 I - ____—.— _ I,—t_—.— —.—_ _--H__-- -I _ — ---;_L I I ._ _ -- 1--- i -.. - _- -H-_ -f- - I 1 I I J.01 0.01 0.10 1.00 10 00 Period (seconds) Site Class E General Response Spectrum (ASCE 7 Approach) ----0.8 x Site Class E General Response Spectrum (ASCE 7 Approach) Average 2475 -YR AF X USGS Response Spectrum (ASCE 7 Approach) Recommended Response Spectrum G EO E N G I N E E R S Earth Science + Technology 5% Damped Site Specific MCE Response Spectra Fi 9 Figure C-5 Raisbeck Aviation High School, Tukwilla, Washington (5% Damped Response Spectra at Ground Surface) 4f nn Spectral Acceleration (g) D 0 _. C R -- b o C 0 C , , i _ • 4 ..1 --1 1 _ - ___. _ _ ._ _ . • • / .'.. ..1 . ... % • ..,_. •'. "^•! %. i L_ t___ .-.-- ___ r-------11.::- EL— •• i ..... , % T 1 • f 1 ,... -I • 4- — . - .-1- - • 1 - . 1 - -. - 1 v.v. 0.01 0.10 1.00 10 00 Period (seconds) San Femando 1971 - 8244 Orion AVE, Best Estimate Vs Profile — — San Femando 1971 - 8244 Orion AVE, Lower Bound Vs Profile San Femando 1971 - 8244 Orion AVE, Upper Bound Vs Profile GEOENGINEERS Earth Science + Technology Sensitivity of Ground Surface Response Spectra Figure C-6 GEOENG1NEERS APPENDIX D REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE APPENDIX D REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR USE1 This appendix provides information to help you manage your risks with respect to the use of this report. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES, PERSONS AND PROJECTS This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Bassetti Architects and other project team members for the Aviation high school 'in Tukwila, Washington. This report may be made available to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. This report is not intended for use by others, and the information contained herein is not applicable to other sites. GeoEngineers structures our services to meet the specific needs of our clients. For example, a geotechnical or geologic study conducted for a civil engineer or architect may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer or architect that are involved in the same project. Because each geotechnical or geologic study is unique, each geotechnical engineering or geologic report is unique, prepared solely for the specific client and project site. Our report is prepared for the exclusive use of our Client. No other party may rely on the product of our services unless we agree in advance to such reliance in writing. This is to provide our firm with reasonable protection against open-ended liability claims by third parties with which there would otherwise be no contractual limits to their actions. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have been executed in accordance with our Agreement with the Client and generally accepted geotechnical practices in this area at the time this report was prepared. This report should not be applied for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS This report has been prepared for the Aviation High School in Tukwila, Washington. GeoEngineers considered a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of services for this project and report. Unless GeoEngineers specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on this report if it was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. For example, changes that can affect the applicability of this report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure; • elevation, configuration, location, orientation or weight of the proposed structure; • composition of the design team; or • project ownership. If important changes are made after the date of this report, GeoEngineers should be given the opportunity to review our interpretations and recommendations and provide written modifications or confirmation, as appropriate. Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org . File'No. 2820-003-00 Page D-1 October 5, 2009 GEOENGINEER SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. The findings and conclusions of this report may be affected by the passage of time, by manmade events such as construction on or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, slope instability or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoEngineers before applying a report to determine if it remains applicable. MOST GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on field observations from widely spaced sampling locations at the site. Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoEngineers reviewed field and laboratory data and then applied our professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ, sometimes significantly, from those indicated in this report. Our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL Do not over -rely on the preliminary construction recommendations included in this report. These recommendations are not final, because they were developed principally from GeoEngineers' professional judgment and opinion. GeoEngineers' recommendations can be finalized only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoEngineers cannot assume responsibility or liability for this report's recommendations if we do not perform construction observation. Sufficient monitoring, testing and consultation by GeoEngineers should be provided 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 activities are completed in accordance with our recommendations. Retaining GeoEngineersfor construction observation for this project is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING OR GEOLOGIC REPORT COULD BE SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. You could lower that risk by having GeoEngineers confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain GeoEngineers to review pertinent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering or geologic report. Reduce that risk by having GeoEngineers participate in pre-bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do NOT REDRAW THE EXPLORATION LOGS Geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering or geologic report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. File No. 2820-003-00 Page D-2 October S. 2009 GEOENGINEERLO GIVE CONTRACTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE Some owners and design professionals believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering or geologic report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with GeoEngineers and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre-bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might an owner be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. Further, a contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in your project budget and schedule. CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SITE SAFETY ON THEIR OWN CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS Our geotechnical recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's procedures, methods, schedule or management of the work site. The contractor is solely responsible for job site safety and for managing construction operations to minimize risks to on-site personnel and to adjacent properties. READ THESE PROVISIONS CLOSELY Some clients, design professionals and contractors may not recognize that the geoscience practices (geotechnical engineering or geology) are far less exact than other engineering and natural science disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that could lead to disappointments, claims and disputes. GeoEngineers includes these explanatory "limitations" provisions in our reports to help reduce such risks. Please confer with GeoEngineers if you are unclear how these "Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use" apply to your project or site. GEOTECHNICAL, GEOLOGIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS SHOULD NOT BE INTERCHANGED The equipment, techniques and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study and vice versa. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Similarly, environmental reports are not used to address geotechnical or geologic concerns regarding a specific project. BIOLOGICAL POLLUTANTS GeoEngineers' Scope of Work specifically excludes the investigation, detection, prevention or assessment of the presence of Biological Pollutants. Accordingly, this report does not include any interpretations, recommendations, findings, or conclusions regarding the detecting, assessing, preventing or abating of Biological Pollutants and no conclusions or inferences should be drawn regarding Biological Pollutants, as they may relate to this project. The term "Biological Pollutants" includes, but is not limited to, molds, fungi, spores, bacteria, and viruses, and/or any of their byproducts. If Client desires these specialized services, they should be obtained from a consultant who offers services in this specialized field. File No. 2820-003-00 Page D-3 October 5, 2009 GEOENGINEERSQ • heffron trans •. o r t a t i o n, i n c. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: Highline School District's Aviation High School Subject: Traffic and Parking Analysis Date: October 30, 2009 Author: Tod S. McBryan, P.E., Principal & Vice Preside RECEb NAR 252010 COMMU�r�; •. woPr The Highline School District is planning to relocate its existing Aviation High School program to a new building it proposes to construct in Tukwila, Washington. The existing Aviation High School is currently housed at the former Olympic Middle School site in Des Moines. The site for the new school is located on property owned by the Museum of Flight along the west side of East Marginal Way S at S 92"d Place. City of Tukwila staff has noted that this project could be an accessory use to the existing Museum of Flight; a museum expansion has been evaluated separately under SEPA as part of a Planned Action. The Aviation High School project is applying to be included as part of the Museum of Flight's Planned Action, and if approved, no additional SEPA traffic analysis would be required.' However, a review of parking and site access was prepared to assist the project team with site planning and to address the City's code requirements for parking. This technical memorandum provides the traffic and parking analysis to support the SEPA Planned Action and permit applications being prepared for this project. 1. Site and Project Description Aviation High School is an aviation -themed high school that was opened by the Highline School District in 2004. With the proposed project, Aviation High School would be housed within a new 60,000 -square -foot (sf) building that would be an accessory use to the existing Museum of Flight. The new building would be constructed on the southwest corner of the S 92" Place/East Marginal Way S intersection. The school would maintain its maximum enrollment capacity of 400 students. For reference, the school had a total enrollment of 368 students at the end of the 2008-2009 school year.2 Since 2004, enrollment has grown from 103 students to a peak of 387 students in October 2008. The proposed Aviation High School project would provide parking capacity for a total of 177 vehicles including long-term parking for 150 vehicles west of the building, short-term parking for 19 automobiles along the north side of the access drive, and parallel parking for eight vehicles along the south side of the access drive. The spaces along the south side of the access drive would be restricted to school -bus loading/unloading during peak morning and afternoon periods. Vehicular access will occur from an existing driveway on East Marginal Way S at its signalized intersection with S 92"d Place. The project would also provide a school -bus loading / unloading area along the south side of the access driveways and an automobile loading / unloading area along the north side. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 1 (attached). City of Tukwila Planning staff (Stacy MacGregor), May 19, 2009. 2 Email from Bonnie Lefevre, Aviation High School, June 16, 2009. 6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206) 523-4949 • • Highline School District's Aviation High School Traffic and Parking Analysis • heffron trans sortation, inc. 2. Traffic Generation The following describes the existing and estimated future traffic generation for Aviation High School. These values are utilized later to analyze traffic operations of the proposed site access driveway for the new school building. 2.1. Existing School Traffic Traffic generation for development projects is typically estimated using published rates and equations in Trip Generation.3 However, since Aviation High School already exists and operates in Des Moines (about 10 miles to the south of the proposed site), the best way to determine its traffic generating characteristics is through counts at the existing site. Therefore, to determine the existing school traffic generation, new 24-hour machine traffic counts were performed at the site's driveways in June 2009. The driveway counts were compiled to determine daily, peak morning, and peak afternoon trip generation. Table 1 summarizes the resulting existing weekday site traffic generation with the June 2009 enrollment level of 368 students. Table 1. Aviation High School — Existing Trip Generation (Enrollment at 368 Students) AM Peak Hour 1 School PM Peak Hour 2 Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Aviation High School 1,200 158 87 245 71 127 198 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc. based on 24-hour counts at the existing Aviation High School driveways June 4, 2009. 1. The school AM peak hour occurs from 8:00 to 9.00 A.M. 2. The school PM peak hour occurs from 3:00 to 4:00 P.M. Based on these trip generation results, the existing Aviation High School generates higher levels of traffic than would be estimated using published rates for High Schools (Land Use 530) from Trip Generation. The actual AM peak hour rate was 0.67 -trips -per -student compared to the published average rate of 0.42 -trips -per -student. The actual school PM peak hour rate was 0.54 -trips -per -student compared to the published rate of 0.29 -trips -per -student. The daily rate was also higher than the published rate. The higher rates are expected due to the unique program offered at Aviation High School and its relatively small enrollment level. The reported daily trip value is likely higher than on typical average day conditions because the counts reflect an evening event that occurred at the site beginning at about 6:00 P.M. and ending after 8:00 P.M. This event contributed to the higher than expected traffic volumes during the evening hours. When the number of trips that appeared to be related to the event is subtracted, the existing school is estimated to generate a total of 800 trips (400 in, 400 out) on days without an evening event. 2.2. Future School Traffic The proposed new school building will maintain the school's maximum capacity of 400 students. To estimate traffic volumes for the new school at the Museum of Flight in Tukwila, the existing school volumes were increased to reflect full a capacity enrollment of 400 students. Table 2 summarizes the 3 Institute of Transportation Engineers, 8th Edition, 2008. - 2 - October 30, 2009 Highline School District's Aviation High School Traffic and Parking Analysis • heffron trans. ortation, inc. forecast weekday site traffic generation with the full capacity enrollment of 400 students. As shown, the school is expected to generate up to 1,300 trips per day (on days with evening events), 265 AM peak hour trips (170 in, 95 out), and 215 school PM peak hour trips (75 in, 140 out). Table 2. Aviation High School — Future Trip Generation (Enrollment at 400 Students) Source.' Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2009. 1. The school AM peak hour is expected to continue to occur from 8.00 to 9:00 A.M. 2. The school PM peak hour is expected to continue to occur from 3:00 to 4:00 P.M. It should be noted that the Highline School District plans to continue providing bus transportation to students living in the District's service area. Students in nearby districts can also use Highline School District transportation with arrangements through the District's Transportation department. Students from other area school districts will need to provide their own transportation. Some students may elect to use King County Metro Transit. 3. Site Access Operations This section evaluates the potential future operations of the site access proposed at the S 92" Place/East Marginal Way S intersections. The intersection has two adjacent west legs—each controlled separately by the traffic signal. The northern leg serves as an access driveways for an automobile auctioneer (IAA). The southern leg serves the project site, which is currently vacant. To facilitate this analysis, new morning and afternoon manual turning movement counts were performed at the existing signalized intersection on Wednesday, June 3, 2009. The counts (attached) were performed at times that would coincide with the peak traffic flows at the school -7:30 to 9:30 A.M. and 2:30 to 4:30 P.M. Future conditions with the proposed Aviation High School were evaluated to document the potential impact of the project and to ensure that the site access intersection would operate acceptably. The new school is expected to be complete by January of 2012. To reflect 2012 conditions without the project, through traffic volumes along East Marginal Way S were increased using a 3% annual growth rate. This growth rate was selected based on a comparison of historical counts (2005 and 2007) performed by the Seattle Department of Transportation along East Marginal Way S south of 4th Avenue S—about 2 miles north of the site. Forecast 2012 traffic volumes along East Marginal Way S were combined with the potential project traffic described previously to represent future conditions with the school project. School traffic was assigned to East Marginal Way assuming about half would approach from the north (using SR 509 to the Michigan Street exit and then south to the site) and about half would approach from the south (using I-5 and the Boeing Access Road exit then north to the site). Operations of the site access intersection at East Marginal Way S were evaluated for conditions with the proposed school. The forecast 2012 with -project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 2 (attached). The quality of traffic flow and intersection operations is defined by levels of service (LOS). Levels of service are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions and are designated with letters ranging from "A," which is indicative of good operating conditions with little or no delay, to "F," which is indicative of stop -and -go conditions with frequent and lengthy delay. Traffic operating conditions of the access driveways were analyzed for peak morning and afternoon periods using the - 3 - October 30, 2009 Daily Trips AM Peak Hour 1 , School PM Peak Hour 2 In Out Total In Out Total Aviation High School 1,300 170 95 265 75 140 215 Source.' Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2009. 1. The school AM peak hour is expected to continue to occur from 8.00 to 9:00 A.M. 2. The school PM peak hour is expected to continue to occur from 3:00 to 4:00 P.M. It should be noted that the Highline School District plans to continue providing bus transportation to students living in the District's service area. Students in nearby districts can also use Highline School District transportation with arrangements through the District's Transportation department. Students from other area school districts will need to provide their own transportation. Some students may elect to use King County Metro Transit. 3. Site Access Operations This section evaluates the potential future operations of the site access proposed at the S 92" Place/East Marginal Way S intersections. The intersection has two adjacent west legs—each controlled separately by the traffic signal. The northern leg serves as an access driveways for an automobile auctioneer (IAA). The southern leg serves the project site, which is currently vacant. To facilitate this analysis, new morning and afternoon manual turning movement counts were performed at the existing signalized intersection on Wednesday, June 3, 2009. The counts (attached) were performed at times that would coincide with the peak traffic flows at the school -7:30 to 9:30 A.M. and 2:30 to 4:30 P.M. Future conditions with the proposed Aviation High School were evaluated to document the potential impact of the project and to ensure that the site access intersection would operate acceptably. The new school is expected to be complete by January of 2012. To reflect 2012 conditions without the project, through traffic volumes along East Marginal Way S were increased using a 3% annual growth rate. This growth rate was selected based on a comparison of historical counts (2005 and 2007) performed by the Seattle Department of Transportation along East Marginal Way S south of 4th Avenue S—about 2 miles north of the site. Forecast 2012 traffic volumes along East Marginal Way S were combined with the potential project traffic described previously to represent future conditions with the school project. School traffic was assigned to East Marginal Way assuming about half would approach from the north (using SR 509 to the Michigan Street exit and then south to the site) and about half would approach from the south (using I-5 and the Boeing Access Road exit then north to the site). Operations of the site access intersection at East Marginal Way S were evaluated for conditions with the proposed school. The forecast 2012 with -project traffic volumes are shown on Figure 2 (attached). The quality of traffic flow and intersection operations is defined by levels of service (LOS). Levels of service are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions and are designated with letters ranging from "A," which is indicative of good operating conditions with little or no delay, to "F," which is indicative of stop -and -go conditions with frequent and lengthy delay. Traffic operating conditions of the access driveways were analyzed for peak morning and afternoon periods using the - 3 - October 30, 2009 • Highline School District's Aviation High School Traffic and Parking Analysis heffron trans. ortation Inc. Synchro 7.0 traffic operations model. The Synchro 7.0 analysis software is used for analyses within the City of Tukwila for evaluating traffic operations. Based on these analyses, the intersection currently operates at LOS A during both peak periods (morning and afternoon). This very good level of operation occurs because there is very little traffic generated by either driveway that is controlled by the signal. In 2012, with the school operating at its assumed capacity of 400 students, the intersection is expected to operate at LOS B during both the morning and afternoon peak periods. The forecast volumes, intersection operation assumptions, and LOS results are included in the attached LOS calculation sheets. These analysis conditions reflect the peaking characteristics typically found at schools where most of the traffic flow occurs over about 30 minutes—peak flows when students arrive and depart school. To account for this, a peak hour factor (PHF) of 0.50 was applied to all school traffic. It is also recognized that peak hour school traffic could fluctuate based on the availability of school bus transportation, the origins of students in the program, the availability of public transit to serve students, and participation from outside volunteers. Therefore, intersection operations were also tested with a 30% increase in peak hour school volumes. With this increase, the intersection is still forecast to operate at LOS B during both morning and afternoon peak conditions. 4. Transit King County Metro Transit provides bus service near the proposed Aviation High School site. There are bus stops on East Marginal Way S at S 94th Place just south of the school site adjacent to the Museum of Flight. The stops serve three existing bus routes: Route 154, 173, and 174. Route 154 provides service from Auburn, through Kent, to Boeing Field and ends at the Federal Center South. It operates with four northbound trips in the morning (between about 6:00 and 8:00 A.M.) and four southbound trips in the afternoon (between about 2:50 and 4:45 P.M.). Route 173 provides service from Federal Way, through Kent -Des Moines, to Boeing Field and ends at the Federal Center South. It operates with two northbound trips in the morning (between about 6:00 and 7:30 A.M.) and two southbound trips in the afternoon (between about 3:00 and 4:45 P.M.). Route 124/174 provides all -day service from Federal Way, through Kent -Des Moines, to Boeing Field, the Federal Center South, and into Downtown Seattle. It operates nearly 24 -hours per day with headways (time between consecutive buses) of 15 to 20 minutes during peak periods, and 30 minutes during off-peak periods. Route 124/174 could be used by students of the proposed high school. The northbound trips on Routes 154 and 173 may be too early to serve the students at the proposed high school (since classes will not likely start until 8:30 or 9:00 A.M.), but the afternoon trips could work for some students. 5. Parking The following section outlines the existing and forecast parking demand for Aviation High School and documents the planned parking supply for the project. A review of the City of Tukwila's code requirements follows the analysis of the school's demand and supply. Finally, analysis of the Museum of Flight parking needs is provided. - 4 - October 30, 2009 Highline School District's Aviation High School Traffic and Parking Analysis 5.1. School Demand and Supply • heffron trans ortation, Inc. A parking demand rate for Aviation High School was developed using counts performed at the existing school in Des Moines. A field parking demand count was performed at 10:15 A.M. on June 4, 2009. The parking demand at that time was 92 cars and 1 motorcycle (93 vehicles total). The 24-hour driveway counts were used to calculate hourly parking accumulation on the site throughout the day. The calculated parking demand from the existing accumulation analysis matched the observed parking demand for the hour between 10:00 and 11:00 A.M. Based on the accumulation results, the existing peak parking demand of 99 vehicles occurred between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. Using the existing enrollment of 368 students, the school had a peak parking demand rate of 0.27 -vehicles -per -student. This is slightly higher than the average peak parking demand rate of 0.26 -vehicles -per -student published in Parking Generation' for High Schools (Land Use 530). These values are reasonable given the school's staffing level and number of student parking passes issued. At the end of the 2008/2009 school year, the school had issued a total of 72 parking passes to students and there is a total of 32 staff (including custodial and kitchen staff) working at the school. These values reinforce the peak parking demand after considering typical absenteeism and variations in daily schedule. The parking demand rate developed for Aviation High School was applied to the future enrollment capacity of 400 students. As a result, the school is expected to have a peak demand of 108 vehicles. The future demand and parking accumulation profile are presented in Table 3 below. As shown, the future peak parking demand is expected to occur between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. Table 3. Forecast Hourly Parking Demand Time (hour begin) % of Peak Demand Estimated Parking Demand 4:00 AM 2.0% 2 5:00 AM 4.0% 4 6:00 AM 2.0% 2 7:00 AM 8.1% 9 8:00 AM 79.8% 86 9:00 AM 90.9% 98 10:00 AM 94.9% 103 11:00 AM 100.0% 108 12:00 PM 80.8% 87 1:00 PM 80.8% 87 2:00 PM 65.7% 71 3:00 PM 9.1% 10 4:00 PM 21.2% 23 5:00 PM 50.5% 55 6:00 PM 74.7% 81 7:00 PM 65.7% 71 8:00 PM 9.1% 10 9:00 PM 1.0% 1 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., September2009. 4 Institute of Transportation Engineers, 3`d Edition, 2004. - 5 - October 30, 2009 • Highline School District's Aviation High School Traffic and Parking Analysis • heffron trans ortation Inc. The proposed Aviation High School site plan includes a total of 177 parking spaces. Long-term parking for 150 vehicles would be provided in a lot located west of the school building. Short-term parking for 19 automobiles is proposed along the north side of the access drive. This would include a small cell -phone waiting lot with seven (7) parking spaces and parallel parking for 12 vehicles that would be signed for short-term load/unload only during peak arrival and departure times at the school. The project also proposes parallel parking for eight (8) vehicles along the south side of the access drive. These spaces would be restricted to school -bus loading/unloading during peak morning and afternoon periods. The proposed parking supply is expected to be more than adequate to accommodate the expected peak parking demand and would be approximately 61% utilized during the peak period between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. Even if all parking demand occurred only in the long-term parking spaces, that lot would only be 72% utilized during the peak period. The excess parking supply would be provided to accommodate seasonal or annual variations and would be used occasionally for evening events that would occur at the school. 5.2. City of Tukwila Code Requirement The City of Tukwila outlines its Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations in Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) Section 18.56. The minimum number of off-street parking spaces for specific land uses is outlined in Figure 18-7. For high schools, City code requires one space for each staff member, plus two spaces for every five students or visitors. Based on the planned 400 -student school capacity and the expected number of employees (32), the City would require a minimum of 192 spaces. However, this is far more than would be required based on the parking study results presented in the previous section. The City has established a process by which an administrative variance to the parking requirement can be granted. TMC Section 18.56.140 outlines the process for a variance and lists the criteria for approval. The code states that: "A reduction may be allowed, pursuant to either an Administrative variance or requests to the Planning Commissions, after: a. All shared parking strategies are explored. b. On-site park and ride opportunities are fully explored. c. The site is in compliance with the City's commute trip reduction ordinance or, if not an affected employer as defined by the City's ordinance, agrees to become affected. d. The site is at least 300 feet away from a single-family residential zone. e. A report is submitted providing a basis for less parking and mitigation necessary to offset any negative effects." The code also states that, in addition to the above requirements, "...the Director may require specific measures not listed to ensure that all impacts with reduced parking are mitigated. Any spillover parking which cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director will serve as the basis for denial." As described previously and as shown in Table 3, the proposed Aviation High School is expected to generate typical school -day peak parking demand of 108 vehicles. The proposed supply of 177 parking spaces is anticipated to be adequate for typical school -day conditions and would provide excess parking supply for seasonal or annual variations and occasional evening or weekend events. 5 City staff has indicated that Code was recently revised to state that variances over 10% would be addressed in a hearing before a Hearing Examiner rather than before the Planning Commission. - 6 - October 30, 2009 Highline School District's Aviation High School Traffic and Parking Analysis • heffron trans. ortation, inc. A variance from the City's parking code requirement should be granted for the following reasons: 1) The District proposes to construct 177 on-site parking spaces. This parking supply would exceed the forecast typical school -day peak demand by nearly 64%. Of the 177 spaces proposed, 19 along the north side of the access driveway would be designated as short-term parking and/or loading/unloading spaces during peak arrival and departure times. The eight parallel parking spaces on the south side of the access driveway would be restricted to school - bus loading/unloading during peak periods. However, all of the spaces could be used for parking during off-peak times. The total on-site supply of 177 spaces would be available for midday, evening, or weekend use. 2) The minimum parking required by Tukwila code is nearly 76% higher than the peak demand forecast for Aviation High School and nearly 85% higher than the peak demand that would be forecast using rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers in Parking Generation6 for a high school. 3) Since the school would not generate demand beyond the supply that is proposed, no shared parking strategies would be required for school demand. 4) The Highline School District plans to provide school bus transportation for students living in the District service area. Students in nearby districts can also use Highline public school transportation with arrangements through the school district transportation department. 5) The school would be located adjacent to East Marginal Way S and within 900 feet of an existing Metro bus stop. The bus stop serves three routes including one that operates nearly 24 -hours per day with headways of 15 to 20 minutes during peak periods, and 30 minutes during off-peak periods. 6) The school would not be an affected employer under the City's Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) ordinance, since it would not employ 100 or more full-time employees. Since the proposed parking supply is anticipated to meet the peak demand, the school's participation in a CTR program would not be effective. 7) The site is more than 300 feet from any single family zone. 8) Since the school would be located on a site owned by the Museum of Flight and is expected to be an accessory use to the museum, the school would have a shared parking agreement with the museum. This agreement would allow museum use of the school parking lot during occasional peak events when school demand does not occur. 5.3. Museum of Flight Parking The proposed Aviation High School would be an accessory use to the existing Museum of Flight. Since the project proposes fewer than the City's code required minimum number of parking spaces for a high school, the City of Tukwila has requested an analysis of the Museum of Flight's parking conditions to ensure that the Aviation High School project would not result in adverse impacts to parking. Museum of Flight parking conditions were analyzed based on data provided by the Museum 6 Land Use 530, 3`d Edition, 2004. - 7 - October 30, 2009 • Highline School District's Aviation High School Traffic and Parking Analysis • heffron t:rans•ortation Inc. and based on data in the Traffic Impact Assessment – Museum of Flight Expansion' report. This report included the results of detailed traffic and parking studies performed at the museum in April 2001. The Museum of Flight8 staff provided information about average daily visitors during school months (September thru May) and summer months (June thru August). Museum staff also provided information about weekend visitor levels and peak events. These values were compiled with the historical data from the 2001 report to estimate typical museum parking demand on weekdays during the school year. Weekday attendance at the museum during the school year averages about 500 visitors per day. Peak hours for the museum are from 10:00 A.M. until 1:00 P.M. The highest hourly volume—about 15%—of daily visitors enters at between 10:00 and 11:00 A.M. The 2001 report found peak weekday parking demand at the museum to be just over 270 vehicles just after 11:00 A.M. on a busy Thursday. Saturday demand was just under 300 vehicles at about 2:00 P.M. The museum has about 375 on-site parking spaces. During summer months, weekday demand increases since the average daily attendance is closer to 800 visitors per day. Attendance on weekend days ranges from about 1,000 per day during the school year, and 1,500 to 2,000 during weekend days in summer months. The museum also hosts occasional evening events that can draw relatively large groups. For weekends and evenings, the museum has overflow parking available (about 260 spaces) to the south of its main lot in the Boeing parking lot. When combined with the main museum parking lot, the museum has about 635 spaces available near the building and on the east side of East Marginal Way S for peak weekend and evening events. The Museum has also used its property on the west side of East Marginal Way S (including the site proposed for the Aviation High School) for overflow parking for peak events. The only times this area has been used for overflow parking demand generated by the Museum is for the week when the Blue Angles are in Seattle for SeaFair— typically the last week in July or the first week in August. It is anticipated that Highline School District would maintain a shared parking agreement that would allow Museum of Flight overflow parking to occur on the Aviation High School parking lots during times when they are not needed for school activities. This would include summer months and weekends, especially during SeaFair week. Based on the above analysis and on previous findings from data collection in 2001, the proposed Aviation High School project is not expected to adversely impact parking generated by the Museum of Flight and would not result in any new parking impacts. 6. Findings and Recommendations The proposed Aviation High School, at its maximum capacity of 400 students, is expected to generate up to 1,300 trips per day (on days with evening events), 265 AM peak hour trips (170 in, 95 out), and 215 school PM peak hour trips (75 in, 140 out). It is expected to generate a peak parking demand of 108 vehicles between 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. on typical school days. The proposed parking supply of 177 on-site spaces (150 long-term and 27 short-term and/or loading/unloading spaces) is expected to accommodate the school's peak parking demand. Access would be provided to the school from an existing signalized driveway on East Marginal Way S at S 92" Place. Since the existing intersection has two west legs that are controlled separately by the signal, the school access driveway, its intersection with East Marginal Way S, and the traffic signal would require modification to accommodate the school project. The following should be considered as part of the design for the access intersection: ' David I. Hamlin and Associates, May 2001. 8 Museum data provided via phone conversation with Clark Miller, Director of Facilities, October 6, 2009. - 8 - ' October 30, 2009 Highline School District's Aviation High School Traffic and Parking Analysis • heffron trans • ortation inc. • Work with the city to develop an acceptable signage package. Extensive signage, roadway markings, and channelization would be included to clearly identify the school entrance and the proper vehicle paths to access the site. Advance signage for the school should be provided on East Marginal Way S. • Signage, roadway markings, and channelization should be provided to clearly identify the IAA property entrance and the proper vehicle paths to access that site. • Right turns on red should be prohibited for southbound turns from East Marginal Way S to the school and from the IAA property to southbound East Marginal Way S. • Revise the traffic signal to provide pedestrian actuated pedestrian signals, crosswalks, and ADA compliant curb ramps for crossing the driveways. We understand City staff has recommended that no crosswalk be provided across East Marginal Way and that signage should be installed directing pedestrians to use the Museum of Flight sky bridge. • The traffic signal should be modified to serve school traffic during morning and afternoon peak periods. This could include changes to signal operations to provide a protected -only left - turn phase from northbound East Marginal Way S to the site. It will require revisions to the timing to provide adequate green time for the school approach. It may also include installation of actuation devices (loop detectors or video detection) for affected movements. • The access design should include a path that will allow vehicles turning into the IAA property driveway to have an exit path for drivers without access to the security gate. • Maintain a shared parking agreement that would allow Museum of Flight overflow parking to occur on the Aviation High School parking lots during times when they are not needed for school activities. This would include summer months and weekends, especially during SeaFair week. Attachments: Figure 1. Proposed Site Plan Figure 2. Forecast 2012 With -Project Peak Hour Volumes Traffic count data sheets LOS Worksheets TSM/tsm Aviation HS Traffic and Parking Analysis - FINAL - 9 - October 30, 2009 PYwuetM \ _ -" mar RkM . AVIATION HIGH SCH004 \\\\\\\\\::F 1111111fi11 1 ,1\ ,,1 1 \ \ \ 1 111 \ ‘%, ; 1 \ 1 1 1 1 1 \ \ 11.1 111.-.l 1 11 n \ , \' \ \ �yti.�+4 I. • fr'4,11 I!'i/��p Ni}' s P Source: Site plan from October 15, 2009 provided by Bassett' Architects Aviation High School Traffic & Parking Analysis Figure 1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN heffron trans•ortation, inc. Forecast 2012 With -Project AM Peak Hour Volumes � >+ ca N C ea LLI L() LC) M s • %. ccess 45y � `+0\:011 P' . , , , , ' I ,1 " „ 11 11 ooe , } 1 1 1 i , , c cn n T O O n Q N ca Z. O O i r-;') O _C C N n , O O -b n /My / 3 n co N ti y N z1 '''`� E780East Marginal Way S o- -,....z—=---:--:---:--:--7_-----=---- - East Marginal Way S 40-''' 400+ , 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 11 II „ 1 1 o 11 O° o (�� SI 5 O c 'R t ca as W Aviation High School Traffic & Parking Analysis FORECAST 2012 PEAK HOUR Figure 2 heffron WITH -PROJECT trans o r t a t i o n, i n c. VOLUMES Peak Hour Summary All Traffic Data n 1 0 1 01 1 0 e 7'1' : tlr Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 E Marginal Way S & 93rd PI/Parking Lot 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM Thursday, June 04, 2009 311 4 307 577 93rd PI/Parking Lot 15 1 0 1 308 Approach PHF HV% Volume EB 0.25 0.0% 1 WB 0.00 0.0% 0 NB 0.86 6.8% 588 SB 0.96 7.4% • 311 Intersection 0.91 7.0% 900 Count Period: 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM 11 577 588 E Marginal Way S Total Vehicle Summary All Traffic Data O =I= n0101011 0 Serncec Inc Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 E Marginal Way S & 93rd PI/Parking Lot Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM 15 -Minute Interval Summary 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM Out 15 In 1 In Out 311 577 4 307 HV 0.0% PHF 0.00 HV 0.0% PHF 0.25 11 577 Out In 308 588 Peak Hour Summary 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM Interval Start Time Northbound E Marginal Way S Southbound E Marginal Way S Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Interval Total L T Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot I -1V T R HV L HV R HV I -1V In Out Total HV 7:30 AM 1 169 588 10 40 75 1 8 0 15 16 0 0 0 0 900 %HV 0 246 7:45 AM 6 121 10 0.0% 80 1 6 0 PHF 1 0 0.96 0.00 209 8:00 AM 1 141 0.00 10 78 2 5 0 0 0 222 8:15 AM 3 146 10 74 0 4 0 0 0 223 8:30 AM 3 120 19 66 0 8 0 0 0 189 8:45 AM 2 109 16 83 1 11 0 1 0 196 9:00 AM 1 106 9 62 0 3 0 1 0 170 9:15 AM 2 103 14 88 0 15 0 2 2 195 Total Survey 19 1,015 98 606 5 60 0 5 2 1,650 Peak Hour Summary 7:30 AM to 8:30 AM 8 y Approach Northbound E Marginal Way S Northbound E Marginal Way S Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Southbound E Marginal Way S L T Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Total Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Total In Out Total HV In Out Total I -1V In Out Total HV In Out Total Volume 588 308 896 40 311 577 888 23 1 15 16 0 0 0 0 900 %HV 0 6.8% PI -IF 0 46 7.4% 0.86 0.0% 0 96 0.50 0.0% 7.0% PHF 0 25 0.86 0.96 0.00 0 91 . 0.25 9 516 0.00 0.91 By Movement Northbound E Marginal Way S Southbound - E Marginal Way S Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Total L T Total T R Total L • R Total Total Volume 11 577 588 307 4 311 0 1 1 0 900 PI -IF 0 46 0 85 0.86 0 96 0.50 0-96 0 00 0 25 025 0.00 0 91 Rolling Hour Summary 7:30 AM to 9:30 AM Interval Start Time Northbound E Marginal Way S Southbound E Marginal Way S Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Interval Total L T HV T. R HV L R HV 7:30 AM 11 577 40 307 4 23 0 1 +0 900 7:45 AM 13 528 49 298 3 23 0 1 0 843 8:00 AM 9 516 55 301 3 28 0 1 0 830 8:15 AM 9 481 54 285 1 26 0 2 0 778 8:30 AM 8 438 58 299 1 37 0 4 2 750 0 In 0 Out Peak Hour Summary All Traffic Data O O Q a a 1010110 Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 E Marginal Way S & 93rd PI/Parking Lot H 0 c X W 93rd PI/Parking Lot 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM Wednesday, June 03, 2009 717 1 716 it 369 2 6 2 4 720 Approach PHF HV% Volume EB . 0.50 50.0% 6 WB 0.00 0.0% 0 NB 0.80 8.2% 368 SB 0.67 7.0% 717 Intersection 0.71 7.6% 1,091 Count Period: 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM 1 367 368 E Marginal Way S Total Vehicle Summary 7 All Traffic Data ®® M O 1010110 Mark Skaggs (206) 251-0300 E Marginal Way S & 93rd PI/Parking Lot Wednesday, June 03, 2009 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM 15 -Minute Interval Summary 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM Out 2 In 6 R In Out b m 717 369 i i o. 1 716 FIV 0.0% PHF 0.00 HV 50.0% PHF 0.50 1 367 Out In 720 368 Peak Hour Summary 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM Interval Start Time Northbound E Marginal Way S Southbound E Marginal Way S Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Interval Total L T Total HV Total T R HV L Out Total R HV Out Total HV In Out Total 2:30 PM 0 115 30 10 389 1,086 266 1 11 2 0 1 1 %HV 8.2% 1,091 385 2:45 PM 1 89 0.80 7 0.0% 152 0 14 0 0.50 2 1 0.50 0.00 0.71 244 3:00 PM 0 84 7 1 150 0 13 0 1 1 1 952 3:15 PM 235 3:15 PM 0 79 6 3 148 0 12 0 0 0 0 950 3:30 PM 227 3:30 PM 0 103 8 3 161 0 5 0 1 1 0 1,067 265 3:45 PM 0 61 5 161 1 9 0 2 0 225 4:00 PM 0 87 7 144 2 9 0 0 0 233 4:15 PM 2 115 9 225 0 7 1 1 1 344 Total Survey 3 733 59 1,407 4 80 3 8 4 2,158 Peak Hour Summary 2:30 PM to 3:30 PM 8 y Approach Northbound E Marginal Way S Northbound E Marginal Way S Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Southbound E Marginal Way S L Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot HV Total Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Total In Out Total HV In Out Total HV In Out Total HV In Out Total Volume 368 720 1,088 30 717 389 1,086 50 6 2 8 3 0 0 0 1,091 %HV 8.2% 1,091 PHF 7.0% 0.80 50.0% 0.80 611 0.0% 7.6% PHF 0.25 0.80 0.50 0.50 0.67 0.50 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.71 By Movement Northbound E Marginal Way S Southbound E Marginal Way S Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Total L L T HV Total T T R Total L R R Total Total Volume 1 367 30 368 716 716 1 717 2 4 4 6 0 1,091 PHF 0.25 0.80 28 0.80 611 0.67 0.25 0.67 0.25 4 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.71 Rolling Hour Summary 2:30 PM to 4:30 PM Interval Start Time Northbound E Marginal Way S Southbound E Marginal Way S Eastbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Westbound 93rd PI/Parking Lot Interval Total L T HV T R HV L R HV 2:30 PM 1 367 30 716 1 50 2 4 3 1,091 2:45 PM 1 355 28 611 0 44 0 4 2 971 3:00 PM 0 327 26 620 1 39 0 4 1 952 3:15 PM 0 330 26 614 3 35 0 3 0 950 3:30 PM 2 366 29 691 3 30 1 4 1 1,067 0 In 0 Out Page 1 All Traffic Data Services Inc. 2225 NE 27th St Renton, WA 98056 Ph. 206-251-0300 Site Code: 02 AVIATION HS EAST DW Start Time 01 -Jun -09 02 -Jun -09 03 -Jun -09 04 -Jun -09 Mon RT LN LFT LN RT LN LFT LN RT LN LFT LN 05 -Jun -09 Fri 06 -Jun -09 Sat 07 -Jun -09 Sun Week Average RT LN LFT LN 12:00 AM* * * * 0 0 0 0 • * 0 0 01:09 * ** * * 01' 0 0 0 * * *I * 0 01 02:00 * * ** • * 0 0 0 0 • * 0 0 L__oa:oo * * * * * * * * * * * o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * • * • *1* * o 0 o f 0 04:00 * l—o5:oo* * * * * * * * o1 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 • * * * *1 *• * 0 2 al 1 06:00 * * L * ��'! * * * * * 21 11 3 19 67 1* 24 * * * •* 20 66 21 20 , -07:Q0 08:00 * * * * * * 65 15 1 09:00* * * * * * * * * * 5 " 4 3 0 5 2 2 0 * * * ' * * 5 3 21 0 10:00 11:00 * • * * * 3. 0 " * * * *0 * 3 01 12:00 PM - * * * * * • 9 0 * * * • 9 0 1__-00 * * *• * * 4 * 0 5 10 2 2 13 4 * * * * * * * * * * * 5 7 21 1 6 2 02:00 * * 1 03:00* * * 5 1 0 53 17 * * * * * 4 * 29 _ 8 04:00 * * * * 0 0 * * * * * • L____05Q0 * • * 2 0 20 2* * * * * I; * 11 11 06:00 * * ** 2 0 12 3 * * * * 7 2 1 07:00 * ** 0 0 8 I' 2 * * * * • : * 4 i- I 08:00 * * * 1 0 2 0 12 3 * * * * * 6 2 L�t)�0 * * * * ^ f 6 li 0 * * * * * ;` * 3 1 1 10:00* * * 0 1 0 *•* * 0 0 1 11:00* • 0 0 0, 0 * * * 0 01 Total Day AM Peak Vol. PM Peak Vol. 0 0 0 0 14 2 255 0 0 16 309 54 95 122 08:00 08:00 67 24 08:00 08:00 65 15 15:00 21:00 15:00 15:00 5 2 53 13 27 0 0 0 0 188 0 0 231 43 08:00 08:00 66 20 15:00 15:00 29 6 Comb. Total 0 ADT Not Calculated 0 16 309 122 0 0 231 Page 1 All Traffic Data Services Inc. 2225 NE 27th St Renton, WA 98056 Ph. 206-251-0300 Site Code: 03 AVIATION HS WEST DW Start Time 01 -Jun -09 Mon 02 -Jun -09 NB SB 03 -Jun -09 NB SB 04 -Jun -09 NB SB 05 -Jun -09 Fri 06 -Jun -09 Sat 07 -Jun -09 Sun Week Average NB SB 12:00 AM * * * * 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 1 01:00 ' * * * * * * * * * Or 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * * * *l * 0 o1 0 0 02:00 03:09 * * * * 0 0 0 0 * * * * 0 01 04:00 * * * * * * 0 2 0 0 * 0 1 05iQ0 * * * * 0 i 2 1 2 * * * 0 21 06:00 * * * * * 5 7 2 3 * * * 4 5 1_07:00 * * * * * 9 N 12 37 158 2 10 40 145 * ` * * * •* 6 381 11,152, 08:00 * * * * 1 Q9:00 * * * * 9 ` 26 14 1 30 * * * * 12 L______laJ 10:00 * * * * 7 15 7 14 * * 7 14 11:QQ * * * * * 1 9 * * * * * ' * 1 91 12:00 PM * * * * * * 32 22 * * ` 32 22 L_4tQ0 * * * * * * 14 20 * * * * * 14 201 02:00 * * * 8 14 24 20 * * * * 16 17 1_03;00 * * * 15 8 64 _ 10 71 41 * * * * * : * 40 401 04:00 * * * * 6 4 37 16 * •* 8 22 1_05:a0 * * * 12] 17 I; 67 * * * * * * 141 52 ' 06:00 * * * 10 21 59 * * * * * 16 38 L___0.00 * * * 10 6 16 !! 17 * * * * * ; * 13 121 08:00 * * * * 37 4 59 18 * •* 48 11 I 09.00 * * * * 2 2 10 " 8 * * * * * '* 6 51 10:00 * * * * 0 2 0 0 * * * * * 0 1 1 11:00 * * * 0 0 0, 0 0 01 Total Day AM Peak Vol. PM Peak Vol. 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 193 93 310 599 36 234 0 0 0 0 248 909 270 0 0 737 08:00 08:00 09:00 08:00 09:00 08:00 12 158 14 145 12 152 20:00 17:00 15:00 15:00 20:00 17:00 37 37 64 71 48 52 489 Comb. Total 0 0 193 909 270 0 0 737 ADT Not Calculated Aviation High School Forecast 2012 With Project AM Peak Hour Conditions 3: Aviation HS Access & East Marginal Way S Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lane Group EBL EBR NBL2 NBL NBT SBT SBR SBR2 SEL SER Lane Configurations vi r A +$ +?t il r Volume (vph) 50 45 85 11 630 335 85 4 0 1 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 75 400 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.97 0.99 Frt 0.850 0.951 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1703 1509 0 1730 3374 4599 0 0 1900 1615 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1703 1463 0 1730 3374 4599 0 0 1900 1615 Right Tum on Red No No Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) .30 30 30 30 Link Distance (ft) 302 586 574 279 Travel Time (s) 6.9 13.3 13.0 6.3 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.91 0.91 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Heavy Vehicles (%) 6% 7% 4% 7% 7% 7% 4% 7% 0% 0% Adj. Flow (vph) 100 90 170 22 692 368 170 8 0 2 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 100 90 0 192 692 546 0 0 0 2 Tum Type Perm Prot Prot . Perm Protected Phases 4 5 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 4 3 Detector Phase 4 4 5 5 2 6 3 3 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 42.0 42.0 8.0 8.0 46.0 46.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 42.0 42.0 12.0 12.0 58.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 35.0% 35.0% 10.0% 10.0% 48.3% 38.3% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% Maximum Green (s) 38.0 38.0 8.0 8.0 54.0 42.0 16.0 16.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag . Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 12.0 12.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 26.0 26.0 35.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 10 10 10 Act Effct Green (s) 12.3 12.3 10.3 32.7 15.7 7.1 Actuated gIC Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.20 0.65 0.31 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.25 0.54 0.31 0.38 0.01 Control Delay 19.4 19.9 33.8 8.2 15.4 33.0 Aviation High School 7:30 am 6/3/2012 Forecast 2012 With Project AM Peak Hour Conditions Heffron Transportation, Inc. - TSM Synchro 7 - Report Page 1 Aviation High School Forecast 2012 With Project AM Peak Hour Conditions 3: Aviation HS Access & East Marginal Way S Lanes, Volumes, Timings Lane Group EBL EBR NBL2 NBL NBT SBT SBR SBR2 SEL SER Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 19.4 19.9 33.8 8.2 15.4 33.0 LOS B B C A B C Approach Delay 19.7 13.7 15.4 Approach LOS B B B Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 17 38 32 34 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 47 44 #145 206 128 6 Internal Link Dist (ft) 222 506 494 199 Tum Bay Length (ft) 75 400 Base Capacity (vph) 1446 1242 353 3030 4030 658 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.07 0.07 0.54 0.23 0.14 0.00 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 50.3 Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.54 Intersection Signal Delay: 15.0 Intersection LOS: B Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.1% ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min) 15 # 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer. Queue shown is maximum after two cycles. Splits and Phases: 3: Aviation HS Access & East Marginal Way S t 02 03 04 ® ® 11111® 05 06 Aviation High School 7:30 am 6/3/2012 Forecast 2012 With Project AM Peak Hour Conditions Synchro 7 - Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. - TSM Page 2 Aviation High School Forecast 2012 With Project PM Peak Hour Conditions 3: Aviation HS Access & East Marginal Way S Lanes, Volumes, Timings f N 4\ 'i t 1 4' ,t.1 Lane Group EBL EBR NBL2 NBL NBT SBT SBR SBR2 SEL SER Lane Configurations r A ?? ++t, ' r Volume (vph) 70 70 40 1 400 780 35 1 2 • 4 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Storage Length (ft) 0 75 400 0 0 0 Storage Lanes 1 1 1 0 1 1 Taper Length (ft) 25 25 25 25 25 25 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 Ped Bike Factor 0.97 1.00 Frt 0.850 0.991 0.850 Flt Protected 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (prot) 1736 1553 0 1671 3343 4789 0 0 1203 1077 Flt Permitted 0.950 0.950 0.950 Satd. Flow (perm) 1736 1505 0 1671 3343 4789 0 0 1203 1077 Right Tum on Red No No Satd. Flow (RTOR) Link Speed (mph) 15 35 35 15 Link Distance (ft) 302 586 574 279 Travel Time (s) 13.7 11.4 11.2 12.7 Confl. Peds. (#/hr) 20 5 5 Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.71 0.71 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Heavy Vehicles (%) 4% 4% 8% 8% 8% 7% 9% 7% 50% 50% Adj. Flow (vph) 140 140 80 ' 2 563 1099 70 2 4 8 Shared Lane Traffic (%) Lane Group Flow (vph) 140 140 0 82 563 1171 0 0 4 8 Tum Type Perm Prot Prot Perm Protected Phases 4 5 5 2 6 3 Permitted Phases 4 3 Detector Phase 4 4 5 5 2 6 3 3 Switch Phase Minimum Initial (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Minimum Split (s) 42.0 42.0 8.0 8.0 46.0 46.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (s) 42.0 42.0 12.0 12.0 58.0 46.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 Total Split (%) 35.0% 35.0% 10.0% 10.0% 48.3% 38.3% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 16.7% Maximum Green (s) 38.0 38.0 8.0 8.0 54.0 42.0 16.0 16.0 Yellow Time (s) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 All -Red Time (s) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Lost Time Adjust (s) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Lost Time (s) 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Lead/Lag Lag Lag Lead Lead Lag Lead Lead Lead -Lag Optimize? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Recall Mode None None None None None None None None Walk Time (s) 12.0 12.0 7.0 Flash Dont Walk (s) 26.0 26.0 35.0 Pedestrian Calls (#/hr) 10 10 10 Act Effct Green (s) 15.2 15.2 9.0 36.2 26.7 7.2 7.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.24 0.24 0.14 0.58 0.43 0.12 0.12 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.38 0.34 0.29 0.57 0.03 0.06 Control Delay 24.5 25.8 38.4 8.9 17.1 38.5 38.5 10/6/2009 Synchro 7 - Report Heffron Transportation, Inc. - TSM Page 1 Aviation High School Forecast 2012 With Project PM Peak Hour Conditions 3: Aviation HS Access & East Marginal Way S Lanes, Volumes, Timings 4/ 1J Lane Group EBL EBR NBL2 NBL NBT SBT SBR SBR2 SEL SER Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 24.5 25.8 38.4 8.9 17.1 38.5 38.5 LOS C C D A B D D Approach Delay 25.1 12.6 17.1 38.5 Approach LOS C . B B D Queue Length 50th (ft) 38 39 24 33 100 1 2 Queue Length 95th (ft) 64 65 60 127 222 8 12 Internal Link Dist (ft) 222 506 494 199 Tum Bay Length (ft) 75 400 Base Capacity (vph) 1183 1026 255 2886 3508 367 329 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced v/c Ratio 0.12 0.14 0.32 0.20 0.33 0.01 0.02 Intersection Summary Area Type: Other Cycle Length: 120 Actuated Cycle Length: 62.2 Natural Cycle: 120 Control Type: Actuated -Uncoordinated Maximum v/c Ratio: 0.57 Intersection Signal Delay: 16.9 ' Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.2% Analysis Period (min) 15 Intersection LOS: B ICU Level of Service B Splits and Phases: 3: Aviation HS Access & East Marginal Way t 02ir 03 04 ® ® • 05 06 10/6/2009 Heffron Transportation, Inc. - TSM Synchro 7 - Report Page 2 • GEOENGINEERS February 19, 2007 Museum of Flight 9404 E. Marginal \Vay South Seattle, Washington 981.08-4097 REcENED MAR 25 2010' CTY DEVELOPMENT Attention: Mr. Gene McBrayer Subject: Phase! ESA Executive Summary Container Property -Site, 9229 Last Marginal Way, Seattle, Washington File No. 8039-006-00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This executive summary (ES) was requested by Gene McBrayer of the Museum of Flight during February 2007. These services .are being completed as part of our proposal dated July 24, 2006 which was authorized on September 5, 2006 by Anne Lawler of Jameson, Babbitt, Stites and Lombard, the Museum's legal counsel. This ES summarizes the results of our Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the Container Properties property located at 9229 East Marginal Way South in Seattle, Washington that has been completed over the period from December 2006 to Febntary 2007. The property is identified by tax parcel identification (ID) number 5422600010 referred to herein as the "Subject Property, Site and/or East Parcel." SITE HISTORY The review of available historical information indicates that the Subject Site (East Parcel) and western - adjacent parcel (West Parcel) were developed in the late 1930s for industrial purposes. The West Parcel was initially developed by 1.F. Laucks to produce glue for use in plywood manufacturing. In 1946 Monsanto Chemical Company continued glue manufacturing and added production of paintsi resins, wood preservatives and later vanillin, until 1986 when the property was sold to Rhone-Poulenc. Rhone-Poulenc (currently known as Bayer Crop Science) ceased operation and closed the facility in 1991, transferring ownership to Rhodia in 1998 who subsequently sold the West and East Parcels to Container Properties (the current owners). Large aboveground tanks, piping and industrial facilities were located on the West Parcel. The Subject Site (East .Parcel) has been primarily used as support and operational facilities and vehicular parkin; for the industrial and chemical facilities since the 1.930s. Fortner laboratory, maintenance and office buildings occupied the East Parcel as well as a former sulfuric acid tank, a solids waste disposal area and a compressor shed. The historical use of the adjacent west parcel has resulted in soil and groundwater impacts beneath that parcel as well as the Subject Site (East Parcel). SITE ASSESSMENT AND CLEANUP Although assessment and cleanup actions have been ongoing at the former Rhone-Poulenc facility under the oversight of EPA for 2 decades, GeoEnginecrs reviewed five recent reports pertaining to the soil and groundwater investigation and cleanup that were conducted under an EPA Administrative Order (1091-11-20-3008h) at the East Parcel. The primary contaminants present at the East Parcel Site included Eanh Science 4 T001110100 GOO Stewart Sluel Seita 1700 SoJltle, WA 90101 td.plma 206.710.2074 tlI SlTtfe 200.720.2732 woosite www.gooengletete.colo • N' usiiurii of Flight February 19, 2007 Page 2 metals (arsenic, copper and mercury), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (cPAHs), petroleum hydrocarbons and toluene. Soil characterization results indicated that five areas: I) maintenance building; 2) compressor; 3) laboratory; 4) sulfuric add tank and 5) waste solids disposal areas were impacted with contaminants of concern (COC), generally at shallow depths (less than 4 feet). A remedial excavation and offsite disposal remedy was used to remove COC. Washington State Department of Ecology's (Ecology) Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) unrestricted use cleanup levels (Methods A and 13) were followed. Copper -contaminated soils (about 4,040 cubic yards) were transferred to the West Parcel for capping and containment. In two localized areas of the maintenance and compressor areas, approximately 650 cubic yards of toluene contaminated soil was discovered during excavation activities and removed for offsite disposal at a subtitle D landfill. These excavations resulted in removing contaminated soil down to the groundwater table (depths of 12 and 17 feet below ground surface [bgsJ, respectively). A multi-level soil eompositing methodology, approved by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was completed for the shallow contaminated soil COC (metals. PCI3s, PAl ls) while discrete soil sainpling was completed for the deeper toluene contaminated soil excavations. Based on these methodologies, the studies indicated that cleanup action was successful and samples from the final limits of the remedial excavations met the established MTCA cleanup levels for this project. However, there were two locations where toluene exceeded MTCA cleanup levels tier soil at the final limits of the maintenance arca excavation; at the base and south wall of the remedial excavation. The Corrective Measures Study states that the south wall of this excavation extended to the south property boundary, therefore, all contaminated soil was removed from the subject Site. In conversations between GeoEngineers and GcoMatrix during January 2007, we understand that two discrete groundwater samples were obtained during December 2006 from within the backfilled maintenance arca toluene excavation. The toluene concentrations were 8 and 210 mg/l. The MTCA cleanup level is 1 mg/l. . CORRECTIVE ACTION COMPLETE After remedial action and a public comment period, EPA issued a "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" determination on .December 20, 2006 that included all portions of the East Parcel with the exception of southwest corner where residual toluene remains in groundwater: As stated in the letter, "this determination means that under R.CRA authority, EPA has determined that human health and ecological risks have been appropriately addressed and that corrective action activities are no longer necessary at this site. This determination confirms that the property is considered suitable for any future use, and may be redeveloped and/or transferred without restrictions." l3ased on our conversations with 13yung Macng, the Ecology representative, the state of Washington has been involved with this cleanup action and neology is in agreement with actions taken and [PA's determination. CONTINGENT REMEDY FOR GROUNDWATER Note that EPA is requiring a contingent remedy to specifically address the residual toluene in groundwater located in the southwest corner of the Site. EPA indicates in their December 20,2_006 letter that "within six months of this letter [December 20, 20061, "the Respondents [Container Properties, Bayer Crop Science and Rhodiaj must submit either demonstration that the concentration of toluene in groundwater is below the final groundwater cleanup level (1.0 mg/1) or a Corrective Measures File No. 8039-006-00 GEOENGINEERS Museum of Flight February 19, 2007 Page 3 Implementation Work Plan (as required by Paragraph 6.24 of the Order) for additional. corrective measures for groundwater, such as biosparging, biovcnting or groundwater ptrntp and treat." A final determination of "Corrective Action Complete without Controls" will be issued by EPA for the remaining portion of the East Parcel after the• submittal of data indicating concentration of toluene below the final groundwater cleanup level are met. Because there were concerns related to the remaining contamination at the Site, Geolingineers, the Museum of Flight and EPA met during January 2007 to discuss the potential for tong -term environmental • liability associated with the Museum's possible ownership. EPA prepared a "contort letter" dated January 19, 2007 that outlined that EPA would look to Container Properties and past owners/operators of the Site to complete the cleanup in the southwest corner of the Site. EPA also indicated that the Respondents set aside sufficient funds to complete cleanup actions. OPINION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of our study, the cleanup action has been successfully completed and no known or suspect environmental conditions were identified for the Site with the exception of residual toluene in groundwater (and soil at the base of the excavation) in the southwest portion of the Site. We understand that the next groundwater monitoring event will occur in June 2007. We expect that toluene -contaminated groundwater will be observed at that time prompting Container Properties to implement additional remedial action. In our experience, of the possible groundwater remedies suggested by EPA, the most likely to remediate remaining toluene contaminated groundwater (and soil in the zone of water table fluctuation) is air sparging. We recommend that additional soil sampling be completed in addition to groundwater monitoring if supplemental remedial action is needed in 2007. Finally, the Museum of Flight should also be aware that remaining soil at the site may contain residual concentrations of hazardous substances (less than MTCA cleanup levels) that may require special • handling and disposal procedures during site redevelopment. As a result, we recommend that the Museum plan on designing site redevelopment for zero net soil export or plan on offsite disposal contingencies should soil need to be exported for construction purposes. LIMITATIONS This Phase 1 ESA executive summary has been prepared tbr use by Museum of Flight. GeoEngineers has performed a Phase 1 ESA of the property located at 9229 East Marginal Way South in Scanle, Washington in general accordance with the scope and limitations of our proposal dated July 2,1, 2006 and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) E 1527-05, Standard Practice for Phase 1 ESAs and EPA's Federal Standard 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 312 "Standards and Practices for All Appropriate inquiries (AAI)," Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget, our services have.been executed in accordance with the generally accepted environmental science practices for Phase 1 ESAs in this area at the time this report was prepared. No warranty or other conditions, express or implied, should be understood. Any electronic form, facsimile or hard copy -of the original document (email, text, table, and/or figure), if provided, and any attachments are only a copy of the original document. The original document is stored by Gcol ngineers, inc. and will serve as the official document of record. . File 5039-006-00 GEOENGINEERs Museum olFlight February 19, 2007 Page 4 If you have any questions regarding this Executive Summary, please feel free to contact me.. Very truly yours, GeoEngineers, Inc. Dave A. Cook, L,.G., RBP Principal DAC:gaw I'O127 T:\GAW}SO39OOGOOI:S_P4useum Flight.doc Diclaimer, Any electronic liana. facsimile or hard copy of the original documanl (email, tent, tablr and/or figure). if provided. and any attachments are onit a copy of the ori.r,inal document The original document is torcd by [)cotnnincers. Inc and wilt .erre as theofficio! document of record. CopyrighW 2007 by (icol::nginccrs, Inc All ri4lus reserved. e A. 8039-006-00 GEOENGINEERS • Judy Yeoh From: Mike Walter. [mwalter@sparling.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 1:41 PM To: Judy Yeoh Subject: FW: Aviation HS Mechanical FYI Mike Walter Acoustician SPARLING 206/224-3672—Direct www.sparling.com Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED MAR 2 5 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT From: Mike Walter Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 4:42 PM To: 'Michael Daley' Cc: Josh Robischon; 'Caroline Lemay' Subject: RE: Aviation HS Mechanical Mike, This email is a follow up to our phone conversation: Chiller Noise Levels Because the Aviation HS site and surrounding properties are zoned industrial, the maximum permissible sound level due to equipment running is 70 dBA both during the day and at night. Below is a chart showing the noise levels at each property line with both the Petra standard and sound attenuated chiller. The noise levels in the table are mitigated by distance only. The actual noise levels could be lower due to obstructions (the building for example) in the path between the chiller and the property line. As for the noise level to the school, we expect the noise levels through the windows to be below NC 30 for the standard chiller and below NC 25 for the sound attenuated chiller. Intake In order to help prevent airplane noise from getting into the building through the mechanical system, we would like to line the first 20 feet of ductwork attached to each of the outside air intakes with 1" thick ductliner. We would also like to line 20 feet of ductwork attached to the exhaust fans. As we talked about, I am still working out possible solutions to for the smoke evac. fans. 3/19/2010 Standard Chiller Sound Attenuated Chiller Maximum Permissible Noise Level North 60 dBA 51 dBA . 70 dBA South 57 dBA 48 dBA 70 dBA East 49 dBA 40 dBA 70 dBA West 54 dBA 45 dBA 70 dBA As for the noise level to the school, we expect the noise levels through the windows to be below NC 30 for the standard chiller and below NC 25 for the sound attenuated chiller. Intake In order to help prevent airplane noise from getting into the building through the mechanical system, we would like to line the first 20 feet of ductwork attached to each of the outside air intakes with 1" thick ductliner. We would also like to line 20 feet of ductwork attached to the exhaust fans. As we talked about, I am still working out possible solutions to for the smoke evac. fans. 3/19/2010 Mike Walter Acoustician SPARLING 206/224-3672—Direct www.sparling. coni From: Michael Daley [mailto:MichaelD@Hargis.biz] Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:53 AM To: Mike Walter Cc: Michael Daley; Josh Robischon Subject: RE: Aviation HS Mechanical Mike, • Page 2 of 2 Thanks for the recommendations, we'll make sure to include them in the construction documents. It looks like the chiller will need to be the acoustical Petra that we've spec'd on other jobs since this wasn't mentioned in the report? Please let us know when you get a chance. Sincerely, Mike Daley From: Mike Walter [mailto:mwalter@Sparling.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 3:20 PM To: Michael Daley Cc: Josh Robischon; 'Judy Yeoh'; Caroline Lemay Subject: Aviation HS Mechanical Mike, Please find attached our recommendations for the mechanical system. I am still looking into the airplane noise through the smoke exhaust fans but I suspect using K-27 is a good start. We may also want some type of mechanical damper that fully closes when the fan is not in operation. Mike Walter Acoustician SPARLING 206/224-3672—Direct www.sparling.com 3/19/2010 • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: tukplan@ci.tukwila.wa.us RECEIrEC MAR 252010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW APPLICATION NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Aviation High School LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. 9229 East Marginal Way S. Tukwila, WA 98108 LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 542260002002 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Caroline Lemay Address: 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500, WA 98104 Phone: 206 340-9500 E-mail: clemay, Signature: bassettiarch.com FAX: 206 340-9519 Date: O3 . /9 • /c J:UOBS\Raisbeck Aviation HS\Admin\3_(Jovcmment Agencics\P_Planning\SEPA Environmental Review\100310 ANS SEM State t:nvrconmental Policy Act Checklist.doc FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus TYPE P-SEPA Planner: File Number: f jo_00GI Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: 1900}—c4 p Application Incomplete (Date: ) Other File Numbers: NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Aviation High School LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. 9229 East Marginal Way S. Tukwila, WA 98108 LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). 542260002002 DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Caroline Lemay Address: 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500, WA 98104 Phone: 206 340-9500 E-mail: clemay, Signature: bassettiarch.com FAX: 206 340-9519 Date: O3 . /9 • /c J:UOBS\Raisbeck Aviation HS\Admin\3_(Jovcmment Agencics\P_Planning\SEPA Environmental Review\100310 ANS SEM State t:nvrconmental Policy Act Checklist.doc • CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: tukplanaci.tukwila.wa.us • AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn and upon oath states as follows: I . I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, 1t) en toners, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at Q 2 . 13:417-13:417-lg./ /t! I�'L , 7U/6 tV, Ct for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City 's entry upon the property , unl css the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request fo r ninety (90) or more day s, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. SS EXECUTED at 3C74 i- (city),^(a'tate), on V /JA./ S , 20 L Print Name - IL —ROAM; F J NIA) to Address DY E4 -sr L' Phone Number ca2 , —7(0 Y- 0 Signature/ Oa this day personally appeared before me o�^"j- "• executed the foregoing: instrument and acknowledged that Leh 31 cd the soul cas and purposes mentioned therein.. „4 e known to be the individual who untary act and deed for the uses SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN To BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OE „440„1"Nr1/4WMII4ltl eosioN 'I3.+4.i NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington ' — r S � 404 4090) 1fit47— WASO°- eliding at SGo........4—/ Nq Commission expires on "` / 1 - At / fI CL/t7 • R YLYY�J V City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: October 12, 2009 Applicant Name: Caroline Lemay for Highline School District Street Address: 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 City, State, Zip: Seattle WA 98104 Telephone: 206-340-9500 Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. • • Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project -'including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1-0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (TMC 18.06.370). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 YES - Continue to Question 1-1 (Page 3) 2-0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (18.06.145). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 YES - Continue to Question 2-1 (Page 4) 3-0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18-15). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4-0 YES - Continue to Question 3-1 (Page 5) 4-0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173-303 (TMC 18.06.385). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on-site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 5-0 YES - Continue to Question 5-0 5-0 • Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 6-0 YES - Continue to Question 6-0 • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A (continued) 6-0 Will the project involve landscaping or re -occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one-time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (TMC 18.06.490). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. NO — Checklist Complete YES — Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1-1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1-2 YES - Continue to Question 1-2 1-2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1-3 YES - Continue to Question 1-3- 1-3 -3 1-3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development. Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development (TMC 18.06.445). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 1-4 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part B (continued) 1-4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2-1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2-2 2-2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self-supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast -height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-3 YES - Continue to Question 2-3 2-3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means anyy tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-4 YES - Continue to Question 2-4 2-4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2-5 2-5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish/Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3-1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-2 YES - Continue to Question 3-2 3-2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man-made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-3 YES - Continue to Question 3-3 . 3-3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-4 YES - Continue to Question 3-4 3-4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross-sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross-sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-5 YES - Continue to Question 3-5 3-5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-6 YES - Continue to Question 3-6 • • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 3-6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow/groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-7 YES - Continue to Question 3-7 3-7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-8 YES - Continue to Question 3-8 3-8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT CHECKLIST Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Raisbeck Aviation High School 2. Name of Applicant: Caroline Lemay for Bassetti Architects 3. Date checklist prepared: March 19th, 2010 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): September 2010 through January 2012 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No, no additions for the High School 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Febuary 28, 2007 EPA' Corrective Action Complete without Controls' determination, December 20, 2006 Ground water monitoring results, December 2008 Geotechnical and Subsurface Exploratory Evaluation , October 5, 2009 Acoustical Noise Analysis for Windows, August 19, 2009 Chiller Noise Levels, March 15, 2010 Traffic and Parking Analysis, October 30, 2009 Agency Comments J:UOBS\Raisbeck Aviation HS\Admin\3_Govemment Agencies\P_Planning\SEPA Environmental Review\I00310_AHS SEPA State Environmental Policy Act Checklist.doc • • 8. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No VICINITY MAP • OT BA HARE ISILAND� PROJECT DATA PROJECT ADDRESS: -RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL 9229 EAST MARINAL WAY S. TUKWILA, WA 98108 OWNER: HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT # 401 SCOPE OF WORK: NEW CONSTRUCTION OF A +/- 86,000SF, 3 -STORY HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING AND MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE. JURISDICTION: CITY OF TUKWILA FIRE: - TUKWILA FIRE DEPARTMENT WATER AND SEWER: CITY OF TUKWILA POWER: SEATTLE CITY LIGHT ZONING: MIC/H KING CO. OCCUPANCY: GROUP E INTL. AIRPORT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TYPE I -B RAISBECK AVIATION LOT SIZE: 281,605 S.F. OR 6.46 ACRES HIGH SCHOOL SITE TAX I.D. NOJASSESSORS 542260002002 PARCEL NO.: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2, CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NO. L05-057, RECORDED FEBRUARY 28, 2007 UNDER RECORDING # 20070228900007 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON STATE. (SEE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY; THIS SET) GROSS BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE: LEVEL 1: LEVEL 2: LEVEL 3: MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE: EXTERIOR TERRACES: TOTAL: 21,005 SF 25,033 SF 26,283 SF 12,726 SF 1,310 SF 86,357 SF • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. • Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 9. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal. None 10. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. New construction of 86,357 sq ft, 3 story High School builing on 6.46 acres of property owned by the Museum of Flight. The school is an accessory use to the Museum. 11 Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, the tax lot number, and section, township, and range. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. . Address: 9229 East Marginal Way S., Tukwila WA Tax ID No/ Assessors Parcel No: 542260002002 Legal Description: Lot 2, City of Tukwila short plat No. L05-057, Recorded February 28, 2007 under recording #20070228900007 in King County, Washington State 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site (circle one)(F1ai)olling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: Agency Comments b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? A small area near the center of the site has a slope of approximately 6%. Most of the site has slopes between 1% and 3%. 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. Fill, Upper Alluvial Deposits Finer grained Lacustrine Silt and Clay Dense Estuarine Deposits d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. From the geotechnical report prepared for the project by Geoengineers, "The results of our liquefaction analyses indicate that layers of sand and silt ate susceptible to liquefaction during a design -level earthquake to an approximate depth of 60 feet. Liquefaction is characterized by the loss of soil strength in soils located below the groundwater level during seismic shaking which results in ground settlement. We estimate that ground settlement in the range of 6 to 10 inches could occur during a design earthquake." e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. To prepare the subgrade, approximately 3,500 CY will be cut and 1,500 CY will be used for fill. Any necessary import will be clean fill. Specific source is to be determined. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion can occur during earthwork activities if soils are exposed during wet weather events. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Only part of the site will be developed. Approximately 4.1 acres of the 6.46 acre site will be disturbed. Of the 4.1 acres for the project site, approximately 3.25 acres will be impervious surfaces. This equates to 79% of the construction area and 50% of the overall site. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: See Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed and will be onsite during construction. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (for example, dust, automobile odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. During construction, automobile odors will be emitted into the air from construction equipment. If earthwork is done during dry conditions, dust may become transported aerially. Upon completion of the project emissions from the high school may include kitchen exhaust and automobile exhaust from vehicles used to commute to the school. b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. No Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The contractor chosen for the proposed project would be required to comply with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations. Regulations that apply to the porposed project include Reglation I, Section 9.11 prohibiting the emission of air contaminants that would or could be injuroius to human health, plant or animal life, or property; and Regulation I Section 9.15 prohiniting the emission of fugitive dust, unless reasonable precautions are employed to minimize the 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. There is no surface water body on site but the site is situated about 700 to 800 feet east of the Duwamish River, with the exception of the southwest corner which is located about 30 feet northeast of Slip No. 6 on the Duwamish River. Storm drainage from the site is conveyed to an existing 27 -inch King County storm sewer that discharges into Slip #6 of the Duwamish River. 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. NA Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments . Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. Only excessive subsurface water will be removed through the foundation drainage system. The foundation drainage system will be located above the seasonal high groundwater elevation to reduce the risk of groundwater being directed into the stormwater conveyance system. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 2. Describe waste materials that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals...; agricultural; etc). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve: None c. Water Runoff (including storm water): 1. Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. Storm water flows are the only anticipated runoff source. The conveyance system was designed to convey flows up to the 25 -year, 24-hour storm event per the 2005 KCSWDM. The precipitation for the 25 -year storm event is 3.50 inches, obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and used in the rational method for calculating the runoff flow rate for each of the subbasins. The on-site runoff consists of the following areas and storm drainage components: 1. The parking lot and drive aisles: The parking lot and drive aisles will consist of asphalt concrete and will be graded to direct runoff to catch basins. The runoff will enter the storm system and be directed to the flow splitter and water quality facilities before being discharged to the existing 27 -inch storm system. 2. Roof: The runoff from the roof which is non -pollution generating will be directly discharged to the existing separate storm water system and will be directed to an existing storm water system near the center of the site. Runoff from the roof will not be treated for water quality. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Waste contaminants such as dirt, oil, or gasoline from automobiles may come in contact with surface waters prior to conveyance into the storm water conveyance system. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: Catch basins are proposed to help prevent sediment from being conveyed beyond the catch basin. A vortexual water quality structure will provide primary removal of sediment, floating debris, and free oil. After which, the stormwater will undergo treatment to remove suspended solids and other particulate matter through a StormFilter vault with 29 Zeolite, Perlite, and Granular Activated Carbon (ZPG) cartridges. This system will treat the storm water and then. discharge to the existing 27 -inch storm line, which will flow approximately 350 -feet to an existing outfall at the inlet for Slip #6 on the Duwamish River. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? One small conifer will be removed. There are several weed species such as equisetum (horsetail) growing within the gravel areas, which willalso be removed. 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: Currently, there is minimal existing vegetation on-site. New planting areas are being created to enhance the site. These include streetscape plantings of shrubs and groundcovers along East Marginal Way South, as well as shrub and groundcover planting areas associated with the school building. Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other X ' Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other Shrubs Grass Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other X Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? One small conifer will be removed. There are several weed species such as equisetum (horsetail) growing within the gravel areas, which willalso be removed. 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: Currently, there is minimal existing vegetation on-site. New planting areas are being created to enhance the site. These include streetscape plantings of shrubs and groundcovers along East Marginal Way South, as well as shrub and groundcover planting areas associated with the school building. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 5. Animals a. Circle any birds or animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: Birds: Hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Crow Mammals Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: None Fish Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: None Other 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. None d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None 6. Energy and Natural Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Natural Gas - heating Agency Comments Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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: 1. Irrigation Water Reduction (50%) 2. Potable Water Use Reduction (30%) 3. Mid -efficiency boilers —'reduces gas consumption. 4. CO2 sensors and occupancy sensor interlocks reduce ventilation and associated heating/ cooling demand and associated gas/elec consumption. 5. Direct drive fans eliminate belt losses and reduce fan energy consumption. 6. Variable speed drives on fans and pumps reduce elec consumption. 7. High efficiency heat exchanger reduces heating/cooling loads and associated gas/ elec consumption. 8. High efficient building envelope reduces heating/ cooling loads and energy losses in building. 9. Direct digital control system for building that also meters building energy usage to allow for precise control and troubleshooting of energy usage in building. 10. Daylighting strategies and lighting fixture selection to reduce lighting power density and elec consumption. 7. Environmental Health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe. No 1. Describe special emergency services that might be required. NA 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NA • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise 1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Project is located in close proximity to King County Airport with noise from large jet flyovers to and from SeaTac, private jet taking off from King County Airport, 2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. Short Term Basis: Temporary construction activity would be restricted to hours and levels designated by the Tukwila Noise Ordinance (TMC 8.22). Long Term Basis: Based on the Traffic Analysis, there would be an increase of 1,300 daily trips generated from the High School. The school's AM peak is expected to be from 8:00 to 9:00 and the PM peak is expected to be from 3:00 to 4:00. Based on the Chiller Noise analysis, the sound attenuated chiller will not exceed 51 dBA at the property lines. 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: If consturction activities exceed permitted noise levels, the District would instruct the contractorto reduce noise impacts to comply with the Noise Ordinance, which may include additional muffling of equipment. 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? The site is currently a vacant gravel lot. It is sometimes used asoverflow parking for the nearby Museum of Flight. The adjacent property to the south is the outdoor airplane gallery for the Museum. The adjacent properties to the west and north are used for storage of damaged automobiles. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No, the site was originally developed in the 1930's for industrial purposes. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no above -grade structures. There are two below -grade electrical vaults and two telephone vaults. There is also an existing oil/water separator and several storm water catch basins and inlets. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? There will be selective demolition of some of the below grade vaults. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? MIC/H f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MIC/H g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NA. The project is outside of the Shoreline Overlay. h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. Per the July 24th draft of the Shoreline Master Program, "The Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A) requires protection of critical areas (sensitive areas), defined as wetlands, watercourses, frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and abandoned mine areas." As defined herein, there are no "environmentally sensitive" areas within the limits of construction. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Approx 32 staff and 400 students j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NA 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: It currently meets existing land uses and plans. 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? None • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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: NA 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? Tallest element is the roof ladder on the south side of the building at approx. 57'-6" from finish grade. Metal panels (standing seam & composite), glazing, concrete masonry units. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would.be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NA • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Light fixtures to be compliant with IES "cutoff' requirments and scheduled per building energy management system to be on during only during non- daylight hours 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? No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Use of IES compliant "cutoff' compliant light fixtures. Placement to eliminate direct light trespass beyond property boundaries. 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None • • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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: NA 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, National, State, or Local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. No b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. NA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: None • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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. The site for the new school is located on property owned by the Museum of Flight along the west side of East Marginal Way S at S 92nd Place. b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? King County Metro Transit provides bus service near the proposed High School site. There are bus stops on East Marginal Way S. at S. 94th Place just south of the school side adjacent to the Museum of Flight. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? There are 173 proposed parking stalls. None will be eliminated since there are no striped spaces in existance on the site. d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). No e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. No • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. 1,300 daily trips generated from the High School. The school's AM peak is expected to be from 8:00 to 9:00 and the PM peak is expected to be from 3:00 to 4:00. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts; if any: The project is accomodating school bus loading/ unloading to reduce parent drop off and pickup. 15 bike rack spaces have been provided to encourage biking to school. 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. The current site is undeveloped and the proposed project changes the use to a High School (an accessory to the Museum of Flight) therefore there will be a need for public services as in fire protection, trash/ composting service and utility services. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. The building is fully sprinklered and has smoke evacuation system in the stair wells and the main entry lobby. This will help with the life safety aspect of the building. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system All utilities mentioned (except septic system) are available to the site, but not connected or in use. other: Storm sewer. • • Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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. Water — City of Tukwila — A 2.5 -inch domestic service and an 8 -inch fire service are proposed. An existing 10 -inch service with a meter exists on the site. This will be used for the 8 -inch fire service. The 2.5 -inch service will be a new tap on the existing main in East Marginal Way. Sanitary Sewer — City of Tukwila and King County — Sanitary sewer flows will discharge into the existing 42 -inch diameter King County Elliott Bay Interceptor Sewer Main in East Marginal Way Storm Drainage — City of Tukwila and King County — Storm water runoff will be collected and connect to an existing 27 -inch diameter King County storm drainage line that crosses the site. Gas — Puget Sound Energy — Natural gas service will be provided by connecting the building to the existing 8 -inch wrapped steel, intermediate pressure (STW IP) gas main. Power — Seattle City Light — Primary power will be provided to the site by connecting from the existing overhead power lines along East marginal Way to the proposed building through underground conduits and a pad mounted transformer on the exterior of the building in an enclosed service yard. Telephone/ Telecommunications — Qwest — Telecommunications will be provided by connecting to existing Qwest lines located on above-mentioned overhead power poles. (NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (E.G., SUBURBAN PLANS AND ZONING CODE TEXT CHANGES) MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING PAGES). C. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON -PROJECT PROPOSALS (do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of elements of the environment. • oposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. Ilow would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. D. SIGNATURE Under the penalty of perjury the above answers under ESA Screening Checklist and State Environmental Policy Act Checklist are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. • Signature: Date Submitted:�j/_mss % 10 Agency Comments Ten Year Capital Plan Project Listing by County, Agency Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Prior Reapprop. New Approp. New Approp. New Approp. New Approp. New Approp. Estimate Total Expenditures 2009-11 2009-11 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17 2017-19 King County 225 Washington State Patrol 20081001 Minor Works - Preservation 480,000 399,947 80,053 20082002 Fire Training Academy Sanitary System 3,500,000 2,836,820 663,180 20082003 Replace Existing Dormitory 1,360,000 1,229,284 130,716 20092102 Seattle Crime Laboratory Expansion 7,111,000 734,000 6,377,000 30000015 Minor Works Projects 945,000 375,000 195,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 Washington State Patrol Total 13,396,000 5,200,051 873,949 6,752,000 195,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 227 Criminal Justice Training Commission 20081002 Minor Works - Preservation 598,000 475,977 122,023 30000002 Dormitory Construction 16,745,000 16,745,000 30000004 Fire Alarm Upgrade/Replacement 369,000 369,000 30000006 Firing Range Upgrades 309,000 309,000 30000007 Physical Training Building 100,000 100,000 30000008 Firing Range Addition 9,608,000 300,000 1,100,000 8,208,000 Criminal Justice Training Commission Total 27,729,000 475,977 122,023 17,723,000 1,200,000 8,208,000 300 Department of Social and Health Services 20064353 Mental Health Division -CUP Facilities: Preservation 3,700,633 2,700,633 1,000,000 20081041 Echo Glen Children's Center - Housing Units 5,400,000 1,200,000 4,200,000 30000415 Fircrest School -Site: Back -Up Power & Electrical Feeders 4,285,000 4,285,000 30000812 Echo Glen Children's Center: Housing Units Remodel, Phase 3 17,955,000 3,600,000 2,984,000 3,856,000 4,130,000 3,385,000 Department of Social and Health Services Total 31,340,633 3,900,633 5,200,000 3,600,000 2,984,000 8,141,000 4,130,000 3,385,000 303 Department of Health 20081002 Public Health Laboratory HVAC Systems Upgrades 4,912,000 412,000 4,500,000 20082003 Public Health Laboratory Addition 10,177,000 2,012,000 8,165,000 20122001 Public Health Laboratory: Laboratory and Support Wing Addition 16,504,000 300,000 1,184,000 15,020,000 30000002 Public Health Lab:Laboratory and Support Wing Remodel 4,117,000 4,117,000 30000015 Minor Works - Facility Preservation 597,000 597,000 Department of Health Total 36,307,000 2,424,000 4,500,000 8,762,000 300,000 1,184,000 15,020,000 4,117,000 Ten Year Capital Plan Project Listing by County, Agency Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Prior Reapprop. New Approp. New Approp. New Approp. New Approp. New Approp. Estimate Total Expenditures 2009-11 2009-11 2011-13 2013-15 2015-17 2017-19 350 Superintendent_of Public Instruction 20081002 Aviation Nigh.Schoolit 1,175,000 275,000 900,000 20084855 Northeast King County Skills Center 19,737,000 550,000 11,710,000 7,477,000 30000016 Northeast Vocational Area Cooperative- Bellevue 2,851,000 428,000 2,423,000 30000017 Puget Sound Skills Center 27,465,000 1,178,000 1,262,000 25,025,000 ,--.,* Superintendent of Public Instruction Total 51,228,000 825,000 900,000 13,316,000 11,162,000 25,025,000 -VQ0(\s- 4ctsbz. CITY OF TUKWILA Department ofCommunity Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 E-mail: tukplan <t ci.tukwila.wa.us AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY dm m0 3 -pC m- 4 STATE OF WASHINGTON -1 COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly swom and upon oath states as follows: 1. I am the current owner of the property which is the subject of this application. 2. All statements contained in the applications have been prepared by me or my agents and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 3. The application is being submitted with my knowledge and consent. SS 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, en topg,ers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter. ) upon Owner's real property, located at q 2 i e3xlsi {}')/¢/1.G1 %y1 Wz 1))5 y� 74 / to //A ,104 for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to complete that purpose. 5. Owner agrees to hold the City harmless for any loss or damage to persons or property occurring on the private property during the City 's entry upon the property , unl ess the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request fo r ninety (90) or more day s, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. —f EXECUTED at c}(sC741-%L e.- (city), O4 (state), on V 19A?n2 J� , 20 / �rt�7 ovAv /E 990Y EAs; J iMLyin C�.�y, J'iw.T14 avrf 76r4Gcr' a?t2'e -740 Y- O / Print Name Address Phone Number Signature On this day personally appeared before me '—'c,\A-A.A'I executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that h and purposes mentioned therein. ed the sain a as hi er SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS DAY OF "--Z-t: N%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% \\w 11l "Yz ll�h e known to be the individual who untary act and deed for the uses • NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of Washington n' Commission expires on 1 — I esiding at _ • CITY OF TUKWILA • Department of Community Development r r # r m 9m SEPA .d."aml? za 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 u SEPA Telephone: (206) 431-3670 FAX (206) 431-3665 1 JAN 2 9 2010 E-mail: tukplan@ci. tukwila. wa. us AC TION COMMUNITY DEVELOP J,ENT APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P -PACT Planner: 1/4(-L, „&eno r File Number: £ (0 — 002_ Application Complete (Date: ) Project File Number: Ve — O0.— Application Incomplete (Date: ) MIC Planned Action EIS File Number: E96-0034 Other File Numbers b\O - ` D to -031 NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Raisbeck Aviation High School LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. —.�f$4 East Marginal Way S., Seattle WA 98108 LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement). -=5.4.a3977nfiR Gy 22(49o0 -2- z DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR : The individual who: • has decision making authority on behalf of the owner/applicant in meetings with City staff, • has full responsibility for identifying and satisfying all relevant and sometimes overlapping development standards, and • is the primary contact with the City, to whom all notices and reports will be sent. Name: Caroline Lemay/ Bassetti Architects Address: 71 Columbia Street, Ste 500, Seattle WA 98104 Phone: 206-340-9500 FAX: 206-340-9519 E-mail: carolinel@bassettiarch.com Signature: Date: Oct 12, 2009 PLANNED ACTION CRITERIA CHECKLIST To determine if the proposed project meets the criteria for consideration as a planned action please answer the following questions: 1. Is the proposal a permitted and/or accessory use located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36) or MIC/H (TMC 18.38) zones? Uses listed as "conditional" or "unclassified" are not eligible for the planned action process. ACCESSORY 2. Will all of the impacts of the proposal be mitigated by the time the project is complete? Please document all mitigation measures, using attachments if necessary. YES 3. Is the proposal consistent with the applicable sections of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan? YES 4. Is the proposal any of the following: a. an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200 or TMC 18.06.270; NO b. a development related to the Regional Transit Authority light rail or commuter rail system; NO c. a decision about the 16th Avenue Bridge improvement or disposition which would normally require a SEPA threshold determination; or NO d. a development in which any portion includes shoreline modifications waterward of the ordinary high water mark? NO If the answer to any of questions a through d is yes, the proposal is not eligible for the planned action process. NI o to h. vh ev, S .Gbu- AlAn 3-9- /0 • • City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: October 12, 2009 Applicant Name: Caroline Lemay for Highline School District Street Address: 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 City, State, Zip: Seattle WA 98104 Telephone: 206-340-9500 Directions This Screening Checklist has been designed to evaluate the potential for your project to result in potential "take" of Chinook salmon, Coho salmon, or Cutthroat trout as defined by Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. The checklist includes a series of "Yes" or "No" questions about your project, organized into four parts. Starting with Part A on Page 1, read each question carefully, circle "Yes" or "No," and proceed to the next question as directed by the checklist. To answer these questions, you may need to refer to site plans, grading and drainage plans, critical areas studies, or other documents you have prepared for your project. The City will evaluate your responses to determine if "take" is indicated. Part A: Please review and answer each question carefully. Consider all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1-0 Will the project require any form of grading? Grading is defined as any excavating, filling, clearing, or creation of impervious surface, or any combination thereof, which alters the existing ground surface of the earth (TMC 18.06.370). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 ES Continue to Question 1-1 (Page 3) 2-0 Will the project require any form of clearing? Clearing means the removal or causing to be removed, through either direct or indirect actions, any vegetation from a site (18.06.145). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 ® Continue to Question 2-1 (Page 4) 3-0 Will the project require work, during any time of the project, below the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers or in wetlands? Ordinary high water mark is the mark that is found by examining the bed and banks of a stream and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual as to distinctly mark the soil from that of the abutting upland, in respect to vegetation (see TMC Chapter 18.06, Page 18-15). Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 4-0 YES - Continue to Question 3-1 (Page 5) 4-0 Will the project result in the processing or handling, storage, or treatment of hazardous substances? This does not include the proper use of fuel stored in a vehicle's fuel tank. Hazardous substances are any liquid, solid, gas, or sludge, including any material, substance, product, commodity, or waste, regardless of quantity, that exhibits the characteristics or criteria of hazardous waste as defined by Washington Administrative Code 173-303 (TMC 18.06.385). This includes fuel or other chemicals stored on-site during construction. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 5-0 YES - Continue to Question 5-0 5-0 Will the project result in the withdrawal, injection, or interception of groundwater? Examples of projects that may affect groundwater include, but are not limited to: construction of a new well, change in water withdrawals from an existing well, projects involving prolonged construction dewatering, projects installing French drains or interceptor trenches, and sewer lines. For the purpose of this analysis, projects that require a geotechnical report pursuant to the requirements of TMC 18.45.060 or would require a geotechnical report if not exempt should answer Yes. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 6-0 CD Continue to Question 6-0 City of Tukwila EJ'A Screening Checklist Part A (continued) 6-0 Will the project involve landscaping or re -occurring outdoor maintenance that includes the regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides? This does not include the one-time use of transplant fertilizers. Landscaping means natural vegetation such as trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other landscape materials arranged in a manner to produce an aesthetic effect appropriate for the use of the land (TMC 18.06.490). For the purpose of this analysis, this includes the establishment of new lawn or grass. Please circle appropriate response. (NO> Checklist Complete YES — Checklist Complete Part B: Please answer each question below for projects that include grading. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 1-1 Will the project involve the modification of a watercourse bank or bank of the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers between the ordinary high water mark and top of bank? This includes any projects that will require grading on any slope leading to a river or stream, but will not require work below the ordinary high water mark. Work below the ordinary high water mark is covered in Part C. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 1-2 YES - Continue to Question 1-2 1-2 Could the construction, operation, or maintenance of the project result in sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in watercourses, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or the Black River? Most projects that involve grading have the potential to result in increased erosion and/or sedimentation as a result of disturbances to the soil or earth. If your project involves grading and you have not prepared a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan specifically designed to retain 100 percent of the runoff (including during construction) from impervious surface or disturbed soils, answer Yes to this question. If your project is normally exempt under the Tukwila Municipal Code and would not require the preparation of a Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, BUT may still result in erosion or sediment transport off site or beyond the work area, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1-3 Continue to Question 1-3 1-3 Will the project result in the construction of new impervious surfaces? Impervious surfaces include those hard surfaces which prevent or restrict the entry of water into the soil in the manner that such water entered the soils under natural conditions prior to development; or a hard surface area that causes water to run off the surface in greater quantity or at an increased rate of flow from the flow presented under natural conditions prior to development. Such areas include, but are not limited to, rooftops, asphalt or concrete paving, compacted surfaces, or other surfaces that similarly affect the natural infiltration or runoff patterns existing prior to development (TMC 18.06.445). Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) Continue to Question 1-4 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part B (continued) 1-4 Will your project generate stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site? For the purpose of this analysis, infiltration includes the use of a stormwater treatment and management system intended to contain all stormwater on site by allowing it to seep into pervious surface or through other means to be introduced into the ground. If your project involves the construction of impervious surface and does not include the design of a stormwater management system specifically designed to infiltrate stormwater, answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) Part C: Please review each question below for projects that include clearing. Review each question carefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 2-1 Will the project involve clearing within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 2-2 2-2 Will the project involve clearing of any trees within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? A tree is defined by TMC 18.06.845 as any self-supporting woody plant, characterized by one main trunk, with a potential diameter - breast -height of 2 inches or more and potential minimum height of 10 feet. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 2-3 YES - Continue to Question 2-3 2-3 Will the project involve clearing of any evergreen trees from within 200 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis evergreen means any tree that does not regularly lose all its leaves or needles in the fall. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 2-4 YES - Continue to Question 2-4 2-4 Will the project involve clearing within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. 0 Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 1) YES - Continue to Question 2-5 2-5 Will the project involve clearing within 40 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) 1 • City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each question below for projects that include work below the ordinary high water mark of watercourses or the Duwamish/Green or Black Rivers or in wetlands. Review each questioncarefully, considering all phases of your project including, but not limited to, construction, normal operation, potential emergency operation, and ongoing and scheduled maintenance. Continue to the next question as directed for each No or Yes answer. 3-1 Will the project involve the direct alteration of the channel or bed of a watercourse, the Green/Duwamish rivers, or Black River? For the purpose of this analysis, channel means the area between the ordinary high water mark of both banks of a stream, and bed means the stream bottom substrates, typically within the normal wetted -width of a stream. This includes both temporary and permanent modifications. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3-2 YES - Continue to Question 3-2 3-2 Will the project involve any physical alteration to a watercourse or wetland connected to the Green/Duwamish River? For the purpose of this analysis, "connected to the river means" flowing into via a surface connection or culvert, or having other physical characteristics that allow for access by salmonids. This includes impacts to areas such as sloughs, side channels, remnant oxbows, ditches formed from channelized portions of natural watercourses or any area that may provide off channel rearing habitat for juvenile fish from the Duwamish River. This includes both temporary construction alterations and permanent modifications. Watercourses or wetlands draining to the Green/Duwamish River that have a hanging culvert, culvert with a flap gate, diversion, or any entirely man-made or artificial structure that precludes fish access should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3-3 YES - Continue to Question 3-3 3-3 Will the project result in the construction of a new structure or hydraulic condition that could be a barrier to salmonid passage within the watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, a barrier means any artificial or human modified structure or hydraulic condition that inhibits the natural upstream or downstream movement of salmonids, including both juveniles and adults. Please circle appropriate response. (NO) Continue to Question 3-4 YES - Continue to Question 3-4 3-4 Will the project involve a temporary or permanent change in the cross-sectional area of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, the cross-sectional area is defined as a profile taken from the ordinary high water mark on the right bank to the ordinary high water mark on the left bank. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3-5 YES - Continue to Question 3-5 3-5 Will the project require the removal of debris from within the ordinary high water mark of a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers? For the purpose of this analysis, debris includes, but is not limited to fallen trees, logs, shrubs, rocks, piles, rip -rap, submerged metal, and broken concrete or other building materials. Projects that would require debris removal from a watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers as part of a maintenance activity should answer Yes to this question. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3-6 YES - Continue to Question 3-6 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 3-6 Will the project result in impacts to watercourses or wetlands that have a surface connection to another watercourse or the Green/Duwamish or Black Rivers but do not contain habitat conditions that support salmonid use? Such areas may include, but not be limited to hillside seeps and wetlands isolated from the watercourse or river that have a surface water connection to the watercourse or river but are not assessable, nor would be assessable to salmonids under natural conditions. Wetlands with a "functions and values" rating for baseflow/groundwater support of 9 and above (or moderate) as described in Cooke (1996) should be included. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3-7 YES - Continue to Question 3-7 3-7 Will the project include the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands connected to a watercourse containing salmonids? For the purpose of this analysis, the construction of artificial waterways or wetlands includes wetlands, channels, sloughs, or other habitat feature created to enhance wildlife use, particularly waterfowl use, or may be attractive to wildlife, particularly waterfowl. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 3-8 YES - Continue to Question 3-8 3-8 Will the project include bank stabilization? For the purpose of this analysis, bank stabilization includes, but is not limited to, rip -rap, rock, log, soil, or vegetated revetments, concrete structures, or similar structures. Please circle appropriate response. NO Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) YES - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) • CRANED AREA ----- --^--d - 242000reAFFK CURB 742. PANTET LURE PAMTCD4M ACCESSIBLE PATH 1PAFFY_VPTS —PA PANTED GR, OSWALK ); NOefAyECEPES7 UNG / / j —FAINTLD 51Cv{3AP TAP. PAOPEO SIPoPING RP. //� CURB DAMP rvP. AC-L,ARLEAM PATH BOLDE"P TYO SEEUNCSCAPE _. / / / / 2 - NG sEAI SEP SEE LANDSCAPE - POO SNORE -Leff —, SETBACK WAR OF CONSTRUED. 10- STORM CRAN EASEMENT DISI GHANIAN, FENCE D151 CONCRETE SGEWAL PANIEDCROSSWALK PAINTED MARY; ARROW TTP. LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY LINE ACTO NEUTRALISATION TANK, SEE MECHANICAL • •1rre �, \s0. 0 GOURDS AND PAVERS. SEE LANDSCAPE GMG CURB. SEE CNII • GENOA TIP. SEE U . _ OSC-PE PLANTNO 473 PE T". SEE IANO,n;I.PE FLAGPOLE BOLLARD rYP, SEE \ UITE:APE 1 urY RDVNVUNrvG \ / STRIP. SEE LANDSCAPE \ ROW PEDESTRIAN r\ PATH. SEE LANDSCAPE \ • • 1 SF, M . • - wNHOL I.n SEE CNS\ 1...`� j�. ;1 I I I / I ,S61L TV SR \ L1 AL1 i..ra;:- • TO WNE GATE MN KNOX ECM Mai SOUTH BULOP13 SET BACK LNE MOF EAST DAWN0 SET SACK LNE (ANON LEVEL 0OVERHANG)_ CONCRETE SEATING. SEE LANDSCAPE K LANDSCAPE DUFFER LINE FRWT YARD SETBACK MI6 • OSITE PLAN 1 = 30'-0 V12/2010 1:44:53 PM SITE PLAN GENERAL NO1FS: 1. FEE 16-0. 60. SITE PLAN LEGEND , MUSEUM OF FUCA it TMC TUKVAA MLNKIPAL�JDE EN6F BURLINGTON NCEV'RN AND SANTAAE RALWAY RWl PGHTOFnWY M FIRE HYDRANT PARKING NOTES: t£E VARIANCE APPUCAr0ON rA 'UTAL PARKPAG VALES._ PARKNG SPACE OO1Ni (FROM SIE RATA. -0FAMANEM PMKIG. 156 (35COL0PACT AND SAM ®ACES -TEMPORARY PARKING B -PARALIELPARKNG' 7 TOTAL 173 (35 COMPACT. 21x) PLIts- 50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F 1206) 34D 9519 CML ENGINEER KPFF ION FON Ave. 614e 1. Seale 121201 i CON 01,10220_. FCL.)62, 6110 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 56eWOdiilrop LLC 197.7 Pest Ake Se. WA 96101 T(206)2115 3071 F(DM, CM 3629 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER P006500580) 611 FAN Aven-e. SOU 630 Seems WA 96194 T (2031207 5073 F12O6)4i777E6 MECHANICAL 8 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Engineers WSW.. S. 1061 Some. V 96601 OA T(.3 F(fi61 AN 4e531 AGDUSTIC CONSULTANT Spading MC. Ww, 5P@ 1400 Se..VA e6 1 I: 455 T N) GU MF INNER 065N FOOD SERVICES 319 Deign Gmup 551 Roy SM..LPU01190 Seavle. Ne sem (2x1625 nam F (2T615� 9On HARDWARE Adalre C0rm490 3714.570 SIM 7 )206(21544244 F (2&)1204210 REVISIONS HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL (WM/ 091319 IOSUF DATE_ /Ans12,2010 PRy21200 CL CHF -SEMEN CL SITE PLAN G4.00 0 Lu w • • E 171.2'3 rrr .-aur re, n1 1^'A Xe SHC4. 13,1 ae 6"E SILT FENCE. (TTP.) r OMIT OF WORK, (TTP.) _y--+F1E LOCATE AND INSTALL TEMPORARY -v 1 rti e i /I INTERCEPTOR DICKS TO O0ECT-SRTdADF3{ — ''c- .44 �1 - �1 S e •�1 . ��i -WATER FROM THE DISTURBED -AREAS -TO -THE �T --T. -j,--.. SEDIMENT TRAP. ----_YDEPTH OF 12 c i_1 (�.', -•snA, xxr �9 -. 9`I �`I ''.4•� LI '9r�• _/ - ) 1:s�31— •�- V \ — — — — INLET PROTECTION SHALL 1f— _r�1,A.1 r+no- BE USED UNTIL REMOVAL. ) OF STRUCTURES. ,- ��, / _ - - -r..e5 ..,' \ r7 INLE7.1801ECnON SHALL CONSI900I1ON ENTRANCE, USED UNTIL REMOVAL - CONTRACTOR TO nao -59960TURE LOCATE -Air x1- 4=193390.97 .. E=1637308.60 N=193364.24 (=163734286 55X1154_ 55) Wll OO. -- MO,. TO LP. _. n 1.11661AzE mo""`" , ,onu At CE 11.1.1/ x51 R6- +:}E 000 NOT Fr:NA TO -� - FLUE 401"01 fCM1. rlNJ . DISCHARGE CLEAN STORM DRAINAGE; TO DI. SOMH. 15 1,?' (S='T0 3 555 . v, n - 05-517 ,L,1 .'a-y).x.5 cs.. (Sg16.:a. ,EJhI N=193363,95 (=163735733 ) r :ex r QUARRYISP FOR. -o BANK FID('� � ke,•. :24 =� SWALE 44E1,. LT7P II' "_ ..4=493301..s -- — ▪ E 1637357 09 / --. 5 N=193344.08 i` / - x'1637496 27 _L_— . 'r.__ y;, ▪ L _..- - _ --- = .._ _ i 24=193376 i'- {i%. E=163749,572 - 07. CATOi BASIN INSERT, (TYP.p ar ▪ T =19336218 r � � ;E', `� N =193381. 08 `• \.' E=1637722.39 V,1 _�✓ �•� E=1637973,60 am mom moo T•TE. 11 N Q - 71=193359.93 1i�9331598' �y'" - E=163783445 r✓'E-163771907 _ } cr,r w •�..sq:�i,C- _T=i c -t.. l•1 s j _. — s ,.._. 91` ` t (IYP -�"- !.16377397 INLET PROTECTION, ) dt, `y • . I CULVERT TO CONVEY FLOW FROM INTERCEPTOR DITCH UNDER CONSTRUCTION 41USFUM OF sL'CHT ENTRANCE 4 FOUND.A I.':N ! 9444 EAST MARGINAL W.Ar S N419',EP TILE WA -21"5 E=1637897.91 E=1637958.67 7 PARCEL C -\I 542.260002002 „t.31 -- 1 �ro (554t�n4155) 4 A31 1 N=193232.09 E=163775877 ...,L. naa4lc OUT 1 y P OUTTATT DO NOT DISTURB AREA NOM 200 SI)ORFIINE SETBACK `x3 T. .41,1 C. ,61.16ta65 • ORM Gwyn. / oaao,6 � :CR.:i1./ SLIP NO. 6 9=193214:05 E=1637580.64 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION STORAGE POND �'l+r • 8=193197.99 E=163775808 (187,589 GAL) DESIGN FON 10YR DEVELOPED UNOETAINED ' 0= 1.37 OS REWIRED VOLUME = 055 Ac -FT (179,381 GAL) FRONDED VOLUME = 0.57 AC -FT (187,589 GAL) L ^L^, ..APT A71.1t1 P'01 'Oa 4�OAT 0.11 Oi1L%4 STADVI v 1 euo. ,.,5as; T.E.S.C. LEGEND — — UNIT OF WORT( 0 SRT FENCE QUARRY SPALLS CATCH BA9N INSERT • INLET PROTECTION INTERCEPTOR DITCH T.E.S.C. NOTES 1. SEE SHEET C302 FOR TESL NOTES �'_ r ( 9T 6.0. ewe. 'a y 3" \ A rtUrr "VeC \\ t 9Ub GRAPHIC!i0 GO SCALE 1ha= 3015 rCA111W0 BI SS" DAYS BYRE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5555 50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT bassetti strAltects 71 Columbia Stree4 Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER KPFF 1601F9A.Y,5*10W SUM. W696101 i 12061 6.21 6521 F (4141622 8100 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Se5Workslop LLC 11127 PoT1336 Sara WA Mel T 140612151021 1(006)215 MSC STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Structural 611 RW A.a,=e,S,aeem Sere, WA end T p06)7,rt son016 papa) TM MECHANICAL 0 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER HOMO Steen lam SUM. WA W101 i 9061 441030 14061446 waw ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Steeling 7003 Wry, We 1400 SW*. WA03101 1 (oe) SG 0515 F (20616670554 FOOD SERVICES JLR n Gnsup 50 Pa7�se.a. S. ,75A SSSWAVH09 906)11250310612661125 0.1T3 HARDWARE Adana CensuSInp 1237 Saw M .WA9�6103 (MC R Sw 1906)5060116 REVISIONS HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL Ina en 1016610 1ada0ATE Mad,,z 0010 Format, tow TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (T.E.S.C.) PLAN C3.01 RECEIVED RAA 1000 OR EQUAL • FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL,' SE STAPLES 0R WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE 2'«2'.14 G0. WELDED VIRE FABRIC OR EQUAL STEEL FENCE POSTS 0 4'O.0 (Tr.) A NOISNRBED €$4 OROUND • 5ECIION A -A NOTE. UPON COI,U'LETION O THE PROJECT OR WHEN DIRECTED BY THE OWNER, THE FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND DISPOSED OF BY THE CONTRACTOR. SILT FENCE DETAIL BURY FUER FABRIC IN TRENCH FILLED 001H GRAVEL BACK- FILL FCR DRAINS ADAPTER SKIRT TRIM TO WITHIN 5' CF GRATE (I1P.) NTS RETRIEVAL STRAP OVERFLOW BYPASS FOR PEAK STORM VOLUMES GEOIDTIIE FABRIC INSERT SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION NOTES: 1. INSERT SHALL BE INSTALLED P808 TO CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITY, OR UPON PLACEMENT OF A NEW CATCH BASIN. 2. SEDIMENT 91A11 BE REMOVED FROM THE UMI W1EH IT BECOMES HALF TULL 3. SEDIMENT REMOVAL 9011 BE ACCOIAPU91ED BY REMOVING PIE NSERT, EMPTYING TO TRUCK FOR OFF-STE DISPOSAL, AND REINSERTING It INTO THE CATCH BASIN. CATCH BASIN INSERT N15 NOTE PROVIDE STRAW WATTLES OR 0LT DIKES. PERPENDICULAR TO DITCH CENTERLINE, A5 REQUIRED TO 8041612E THE 40BIUZATION OF SEDIMENT TEMPORARY INTERCEPTOR DITCH NTS A5 REWIRED, 100' (MIN.) ELEV. = 18.0 R=25' MIN. 4' TO 8' QUARRY SPALLS CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL 5' MIN. • PROVIDE FULL NM OF INGRESS / EGRESS AREA DI GROUND 10 INLET NTS INLET PROTECTION FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL UNDER CRATE MNNI 1401 0R EQUAL MAX. WATER SURFACE ELEV. = .0 BOTTOM ELEV. = 11.25 NTS 3.0 8415 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOME 1. TIE ER000N PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (IE5C) MEASURES ON THE APPROVED PUNS ARE 8741808 REQUIREMENTS. , 2. BEFORE BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION *CRAPES, ESTABUSH THE CLEARING LIMITS AND INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 3. BEFORE ANY GROUND DISTURBANCE OCCURS, ALL DOYN5TREAM ER090N PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES (TE51) MUST 6E CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ALL ESC NEAS1RES ACCORDING TO THE ESC PLAN. 4. ESC MEASURES, INCLUDING ALL PERIMETER CONIRO5, SHALL REMAIN IN PUCE UNTIL FINAL SHE CONSTRUCTION 15 COMPLETED AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION IS ESTABLISHED. 5. FROM WAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30. PROVIDE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT COVER MEASURES TO PROTECT DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN UNWORKED FOR SEVEN DAYS OR MORE. 6. FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30, PROVIDE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT COVER MEASURES TO PROTECT DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN UNWORKED FOR 1100 DAYS OR MORE IN ACTION TO COVER MEASURES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL • PROTECT STOCKPILES AND STEEP CUT A10 ETU SLOPES IF UNWOPoED FOR MORE 111AN 12 HOURS • 51004000, CN SITE, ENOUGH COVER NATURALS TO COVER AIL DISTURBED AREAS. 7. BY OCTOBER 8, SEED ALL AREAS THAT MIL REMAIN UNWORKED DURING THE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30). MULCH A11. SEEDED AREAS D. APPROVAL OF THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND 010041NTA110N CONTROL (1E5C) PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF PERMANENT ROAD OR DRAINAGE DE90N (E.G. SIZE AND LOCATION OF ROADS, PIPES, RES1RIC10RS, CHANNELS, RETENTION FACILITIES, UTILITIES. ETC.). 9. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE TESL PIANS AND TIE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND UPGRADING OF THESE 1ESC F,AOUTES IS THE RESP045B1TY OF THE APPLICANT/CON1RACTOR UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND APPROVED AND VEGETATION/LANDSCAPING IS ESTABLISHED. t 10.111E BOUNDARIES OF THE CLEARING UNITS SHOWN CN THE TE5C PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY FAGGED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PETKOD, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE FLAGGED CLEARING UNITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE FLAGGING SHALL BE RAPTURED BY THE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRICTION. 11. THE 1ESC FACTURES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN CDNJUNC110N WITH ALL CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES, AND IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT AND SEDIMENT LADEN WATER DO NOT ENTER THE DRAINAGE 5YSTEL, ROADWAYS, OR VIOLATE APPLICABLE WATER STANDARDS 12. THE IE5C FACTURES SHOWN ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTICIPATED SITE CONDITIONS CURING DIE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, THESE TE5C FACILITES SHALL BE UPGRADED AS NEEDED FOR UNDIPEC1ED STORM EVENTS AND TO ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT MID SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER DO NOT LEAVE THE 571E 13. THE TESC FACILITES SHALL BE INSPECIED DAILY BY THE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR AND YAINTNNED AS NECESSARY TO EN5181 THEIR CONTINUED FUNCTIONING 14. TIE MSC FACILITIES ON INACTIVE SEES SHALL. BE INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED A 1015008 OF ONCE A MONTH CR 'WHIN THE 48 HOTS FOLLOMNG A MAJOR STORM EVENT. 15. AT NO ME SHALL MORE IRAN A FOOT OF SEDIMENT 8E ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE WITHIN A TRAPPED CATCH BASIN. ALL CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING AND 06051MTIAL COMPLETION. THE 0EAVING OPERATION SHALL NOT FW51 SEDIMENT LADEN WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM 5154 W. 16. STABILIZED CO451050TKN ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 114E BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTOR AND MAINTAINED FOR 1HE CURAH5N.OF THE PRO.ECT. 005014NAL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED TO INSURE THAT A11. PAYED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROECT. 17. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR ACQUIRING NECESSARY PERMITS. 141 SIE SHE C1.Q.FOR CO.T. GRADING AND ER0500N CONTROL NOTES PIAD LUNE r PVCSCH 40 LI) ELEV. = 17.5 55 GAL STEEL DAM PROVIDE COYER WITH WEEPHDES OR SDA LID (ENGINEER 10 MODE) PUMP ON ................ T WRAP STEEL DRUM WITH FUER FABRIC MATERIAL 9NAF1 1000 OR EQUAL OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC MIN 6' AND FASTEN MTH STAPLES OR ME RINGS 54.0' -FAKER FABRIC FENCE (100) SILT LADEN WATER TYP. POND SETTLING VOLUME ABOVE SEDIMENT STORAGE AREA SHALL BE 25,077 CF MIN. 3 SEDIMENT STORAGE AREA. 1.5' ION. DEPTH=5,164 IT SUB/1E69E1LE PUMP HYDROIAHC 5845 0R EQUIVALENT W/ FLOAT ACTIVATION SYSTEM CEMENT BLOCK PLACED UNDER PUMP TEMPORARY SEDIMENT POND & 55 GALLON STEEL DRUM W/ PUMP NTS NOTES 1. PUMPS SHALL BE 91BNERSIBLE,'AND HAVE A MIL CAPACITY OF 1.37 OS (615 GPM). • PSroRERFORATEAGEMSTEELEA DRUM ABOVE SEDIMENT 2. NAIMUR STORMWATER AND GROUNDWATER 55CHM0E 8010 FROM SITE IS 1.37 CFS 3. OICAVA1ON MAYBE 01101VED TO STORE WATER DURING PERIODS OF HIGH 0RCUNDWATER. CONSTRUC104 MAY BE SUSPENDED DURINGPQIODS O HIGH GRDUIAWATER. 4, SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED RCM THE TRAP WHEN REACHES 12' IN DEPTH. 5 MY DAMAGE TO THE TRAP EARN(ID ENT OR SLOPES 9160. BE REPAIRED. 1;t30 COLi CAII iIYO BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE YOU BIG 1-800-424-5555 50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT bassetti 8/Li1�l8C18 71 Columbia Street Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F (208) 3409519 CML ENGINEER K PFF w1 Awe, S.. tem 742re103502t6502 40320104 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT S26Wak6Htp LLC 10270* /1147 6•4194, WA 90101 T (3001205306 412061205 3039 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS 0010musl $11 First Aw7620 0.00.07 201042 7000)204627614004007120 MECHANICAL NICAL A ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis en Engineers m mm 6•00.0406101 1440644210470 40x614404450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT 564Hkp 72000•W.2.4►1400 000 .0400701 T 0001007 0500 0 44,011107 0554 FOOD SERVICES 1104 Decpn Crap 50�,510941.5.11.115.4 T 8061@5067240x616350372 HARDWARE Mane Consigning 2xl NrN SI%St* 7803•. WA9e103 T 00015144140 000015234100 REVISIONS HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL MICE {666 DOE MD 60 O 060400 ST Mag. 12,010 10 VP TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (T.E.S.C.) DETAILS AND NOTES C3.02 COMMUNITY • 14) (13 123(12)1 (11) 10.3 (10 (3) • (g( MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE LEVE, 3 _igi 30'-0"' LEVE-L2ti 15'0. I -Pt LEVELoi s ,k =III=111=III=III= .=III=III -III= 11=II=11 III=1 =III I =III=III=III-III= 11=III=III I 1 17=-11E_11==.11 -III IIIA1=111=111 In111:M7.1 -=111=1 1=III= I=III=11 =111=}111III=11 II X111=III=III=III=III=III=III=1. 11=III-111-111IIIIII-111 III-111311-11!-111-I,-111-111-111-111-III-III-111111-111-111-16-11-111-111EVIL161-111=111=1'1-III-III-III-I I111311-111-111x111-III11111-III-11- 1 -II -III -111-111-111-111-111-111- =1 I=111=1I I=1I I= 1 111=111 I I i t I—III—III—i I I�I I I-111--III-111=I 11-1=11=I 1�LI-I1111 1I=I11 1I •=`I=l 11-111I=111`11=I111=1 =111I=111 1=11-I11=III 1=111--1q—11I I I== -L1 I-I11=III-111=III-111=� 1 -111=1 1=111= 111=11 =111=111 1I 1=1I 11 111=1 1=111=111=11 1E11 1E11 1=11 I�I � I—III—III--I , I�t I I—I I I�I I I�I I I—I i l— I�—III—III—III—III—I I I—I I I—I I I --I 1I- (7,) ELEVATION NORTH MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE .& ds -o �I LE;/j_3 lln 30' ,:f6 ' LEVE__ --' -I I I1 L-111-111- 1111111-111-1 1-I 11-11 +-I 11-=1 I -1 111 11-1 I--1 1 1 -. I--1 11-1 1--111=1III--111=11 111-1 I-1 1 -11I- 1=1 I-11IIIIJII RLL -A 114 1=111 11-11 1=I1=11-II=11=11I-111L ELEVATION - EAST/ (A.9) (13-7) (A)(A-2AA .6.7 (B )Tc) (D)(D-5) E rTTJ Y TYTT y21H:ZZ■ I=ISI - = ■•E I ��i!�i ®�1b,2 U U UI— LEVEL3 - - _ x= 221_ 30,-0.. fiziii B ...E nI.-��1 11 oily lin l/1E2IIIP.Ma.— MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE 45'-D" LEVEL2 15'-0" LEVEL 1 =1I 1 1 1=111 11 111 111 III 1 111-:1 I -.I I I 1 -111=11r -1E-1 1-t4111--ne1111 1=111-111-111=111=111=111=111-111-111-111-1I1N-III=1 I -1I -III-111-111=111-111-I I ;111-111=111-111-I I II ;111-111-11 -1111x1 I-11I�111-11-1I I-111- I1=1 1-111-1111-111,=_I C) ELEVATION WEST (1 ) (8(9) (9.6(10)1 3 11.6 (12) 12.3 (13) (14) MATERIALS LEGEND Q GRAY; W MPOSITE METAL LL PANEL LIGHT BLUE COMPOSITE METAL• WAIL PANEL ME0IUE COMPOSITE METAL WALL PANEL MEI CAPP BLUE OGMPOS/TE METAL VAN t PANEL MN VERY CAIRN BLUE COMPOSITE METAL ...NEL FACTORY GLA2m FACE BLOCK CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT STRUCTURALLY REINFORCED CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT ] 11 1 7 1 ( _ _ _�.. __ _,1_.. T..- . / _. _. 1 -T __' _..._- T _... ;_1j-�NT'. I Ellin' �_ ® �.- -- r El E —I -I ■I�' - -- iiiIE MECHANICAL ����a-:T-'fr .L.--1 — _ _ PENTHOUSE _ j - - - 45,_0" � b IIS ILII— I 1 I I aI Iuu 0 II '\ b b L $ 1 - JOE -0' 1 i t •I b 1 NN "'■' !„! 11111 �! LEVEL. 6+ -� L ItLou [_•.._ JAN J [ 7111 ... rI���__!I. ]� � II= — - __-■T_r.--,-_-' L _- - /�__ ■ 2.222__ ________ _- ��___- •-_ _-:_ V b - -.- 11111 1 =_t ]f. L:: __I ..1tIv. ��E--' --_-..• 2222. .. ...Ic =__.� 1 LEVELI LEVE =111=111=111=111-111=111=111-111=1 11=111=111=111=1 11=111=111=111=1 1 1=11 =111=111=111=111111=111=111=1 I 1 I IIII-III-IIIIII—III—III—III—I I I�I 1=11=11-111=11 I=I I IE1 111= I I�I I I} 1=11=111=111=111=1d 11=111 -I II , I��I —11=111 11 =1 I I IIII-I 111-111=111-11-111-111-111-1 1=11=111111111=1 ,=7 -op 11=1110 p IIII1 i vi 1=111-111=11 I II I I�I I-111=11=111=111=111=11=111=111111=111=111=111=111=111=111=11 I=1 I II IIII I I�I 1=11=1 =11= I I IIII—III—I III 111-l111=1 I' 111-111=111-111=111 -I I I�I 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I1 I IIIII ��y _..�_-.-fit___ 111-111-11-111=111 I 1-111-1 L-1 I it i i 1 I 111 I IIIII p 1119111=1 IIIII 111-1 1=11-111=111-111-1 =I11�111=111=111=11=111=111=111=1 a I =111�i I I�I I II 1 II 11111=111=11=11 p I-1 I 1 I I�I 1=11=111=111=111= I I�I I II 1=11=111=111=111=1 111=111=1 p II I I I I�I 1=111=111 1=111=111-111=111-111=1 I IIIIIIIIIIIIII S \ \ 111=111111=_1 1=111111=111= 11- : , ELEVATION SOUTH 1/16" = 1•-0" 01 1700- 50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (206/ 340 9500 F (206)34D 9519 CML ENGINEER KPsP1 PST FF ame . 9E1e. 01 a 1.1/191/6:250_:1F (705)625 2130 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT S4eWorkshop LLC 1?27 P.Ak/ See18r. VA 96101 7(2061 TM 3026 F 21 3620 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Stru0uraI 611 Ertl ...S. 220 Seat7708/. WA 07101 1 ( /MT 5077 6/283/4/77710 MECHANICAL& ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Haws Engineers 6099 Sm Sl SS. 1090 See. WA 1 1/202 048 3326E 2206) 442 4450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sparing 72001.1 Way, Sum 1400 5....96101 .20.2611655F12061.20254 FOOD SERVICES JLR Design Group 557 RAT Sbeet 6o 7.1751 Sesbb,Ne 8e10- .) 6250070 F1206)625 0022 HARDWARE Adams Constrirg 2137 Nor. 52P 51.441 Seattle,. 9210 T 120615254144 F/206/1234134 REVISIONS HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL 153313 09819 ISSUE DATE- March11.4010 PRAWN BY. 6T /PECKED BY Checker EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.01 3112/2010 9:51:41 AAI FM REOUIRED OBSTRUCTCN LIGHT tL5:00 • METAL MIL 0741,3 METAL ROO PANELS 074711 COMO:ENE PANEL 055000 PERFORAT METAL PANEL 076MC-DO,MISHW -III IIII 12.3 • 11.6 cap • wl ® 8 M�o; ' dna.:zJ HIS \I 2'a I -_ —_ _ I _ —_ I 7I 1 �____ ��_—___ 1IIT I 1 _ 1-._____i-_ 1 1 1 1I T 1- _.___ _—__�_ -. I 1 T1. _ flo Vkil I' I 1 �N11.P1O ' '11111_ 5555I - -6) i I 11111111 0 -111�T 1! , I I___ I O Gil ® ® I CtsO®I� 1 ■m,..m.1 _-_—.— ' ; I� ---- - I; 7l 1 - ;1_. 11 i - 1f 1- - - 011h6. : 11'___-1' 1l t i 11 I 1 - - FAT— id ,L ��... --- _ •�-- _ i En.,,,,,., 1 e I:e HHI I1L1! III --�•---.� [_I• t .. I-------5555-- _- ___ _- ='== ---� I I. e-----------�—�-� = I : -N..-------------5 , �I — IIII_===== .,�-- � I Il �, Mrr�e+�l'1' � •� ,555 .---555-. mac- -- =•� ---- ---555- I --- ===� �3 ?= ,•--------------�-• w�=====��-- _z _ _= ===='=v-' 5555-- � =--::. --� ---= jY\WW---YY---Y—YICJYfYLt�� sllr--- :5N - .�. Ir----- 1. — - - - 111-_7_111911=111=111=111=111=111-1_11191 I21111111l 111111111111 111=111=111=111=111=1 1=111=111=111=111 —111-111-111-111-111-111=111=111=111=M-111=111=111=111=111=1 ��k u I -III �I 11 111 I l 111I11111111111I 11111II111I1'• =111=111=111=111=1 1=111=111=111=111=1 n -I 11==-1 1=111=11=111=111-111=111=111=111-=-111-111=-111— DI I I 11 � ICI Ii l II -I I I_l Il � 11 II I =-111=111=111=111=1 I -III- L I I I �I i I I � IWC111_11i jjT 1111-1-1-111=IIl 11 I "-'°9 °�I� 1=11-';�.. a ' N si i I'I I�1 uCE�NDRETE, �I I I LI111E111_111=c I`=111=111=111=111--11=111=1 L=1I -1 I I-1 III .MEI E E' i i i i i 1—I 11-1 11-11 -1 -1 I-1 I-1 1=1 1 s t L.- I I=I I I=I 11=1 =I I III I—I 11-1 I I-111-111-11 I—I 11-1 I 1 -1 I I=I —III—III—III—III—III-11 1=11-1ll�= I1�1T�111=1 =1 I I=I 11 1=1 1=1 1E1.11=111=111=111=11=1 Ia l 11=1 1=1 I =1 -914=17=-11== ===I 1=1 I- s I I=I I=I =I I I=I 11=1 III I =I I 1 11—I 1 —11 —I �1 1-111 O NORTH ELEVATION - EAST w z • MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE as -o S' LE30.VEL..0.. '_\�n - LE15' 0"l/VEL 2 n 04220051E EER CONCRETE MASONRY toms LEVEL l p FM REOl14ED OBSTRUCTOR LIGHT (PT IY ® I I 1 lY FM REWIRED OBSTRUC110N L4HT 11 III •l 11 11 1' 1 11 _k_V_1 A.T_1_0 N_ H.I a H -._.S C_H_(l_O_L__. I111111 __ LEVEL 074113.'FETAL ROOF PANELS 4111 -BREAK METAL GADDING / UMNCQJER 04x200- VENEER CONCRETE MASONRY UMiE 1 .. 200. 10' CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT0 �� c g� 1 N] FM I USW MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE — 45-0 Ei _-.•-r_rs-- _r___ll 5555- fl- - ,. I -- ._ll5555 _ ___•-=r.._� VL 1� • wi�—Ie ILR�IY[Mf1Yl9Yn%Af'CI 6 — — _ • �—� � —'715555— _� ��S�S5555—. ��_�: _:L � �5���_i_--- �CS�� �--: �R�—S�1 ��.:� �A_ �---1� _ _awe _. �FF�I��� _ — BEVEL 1 n FI -1 LJ I I-1111- �I- = 1-111-=111=111E-11 1 I-110=111=1 � 1=11 LI 1 I-1 11 I-111-11 L=11 L=1-111 _- "'_"'_"'_"'=�I-1 I I-1 I'- -1 I I -I I-"_° °° " 5P0Yi =1 I I I LI 11=1 I I-1 I -1 I L I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I= I I-1 I _ I I I-111=11=11 1 111-11 I X6111]- a YEi.L...RBA - _ ,-1Ui� DDNCPET - I -I I -III-I I -III -III �I I I -I I -III -III III -III -III- �M I -I 11 -III -I III -III -I I t=III-I I I I -III III -III -I III -III -III -III-III-III-I I L -III -III -III -I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I III I I I 111 11 � 1---1 ��-1�-�-I--T-1-�_I � � � I-1-_. NORTH ELEVATION - WEST 1/8" = 1'-0" MATERIALS LEGEND I 1 WIRE COMPOSITE METAL WALL PANEL E34004L04#0461E 42046 0E CO4705PE ME1AL WALL PANEL MER LBLUECOWALLPANESITE VERY DARN BLUE COMPOSITE METAL VNLL PANEL FACTORY CAKED FACE BLOCK CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT STRUCTURALLY REINFORCED CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT 50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street, Sole 500 Seattle, WMShirgton 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F 1206( 340 5519 CMI. ENGINEER KPFF 1601 M ifs Se. VW Vf 101 T Cast 6.2 562. F I--0616: MS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT S4eW4rkshoP LLC Sea. VW 4711 1.Eq.26330x, FDOD :Osm. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Structural FrtA543(061O. 6:0 946 WA 04 TME) 3.307: 1(.1.1 1711 MECHANICAL 8 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Flar94 Engineers 03 SMw, St Sae 1000 1 l 4101 110.4461 2]1 6'76 FIx061 MI 440 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sparing 720 CAN WY SUM 1400 xA6 yr serol (EIEC 657055' F (:lE)E670554 FOOD SERVICES JLR Design Gnaw .7 Roy 4050 S. 1I5A 6.868.. 98109 TDO 76730070 160. 630071 HARDWARE Adams ComWrg 2337 Nc0657 6.4 5406 Ya4 MM] 3.16132943214 F 720.32e0135 REVISIONS HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL norm 06!19 RSUF HATE- Much 1x 2010 08)50101 6T LHECAE001. 0necker ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - NORTH A3.11 RECEIVED II I I� II-1IHI�I11=111-111-111--III-II-III-111=11I�I1=III11=111=1III1=111=111=111=11-111= (1.3� (1.6) I ' Ax (2 ;(22) (2.4) 1 T 1. (4) (5.6) (6) �8 a�. �_.._ I I _._ - -- -:'-1 j .. 059100- LOUVERS � II _ O7"00-Cb4111CT'I"EAD --' ��I\ • • \_ 076200 -cCPar — _ ..._ ,,. _�{�_' 7-7- _I._... -. _..�- __._ AAAA....... �-. ._AAAA ,. ... I .. ..• ,. •. - 1 j � �, ; -_ i 1: ..._AAAA_ AAAA.._-. ._ AAAA.. AAAA AAAA... �.. _ .- .• _ ....__........ AAAA. f.• . .._ _AAAA. -... �. ..._... AAAA AAAA AAAA ., ._.�( AAAA. T - I i .. ._ ..�, W. .. ( - - - I 7...-; i .. _. ...F - -- _. I 1 ■® mil ■__■ 'I'7J , �: I=6 •- -■ 56. S5 Al 1 _ I.AI SA 56 q5♦ 1110 r... -C7 tit T Tax-: 076200_CO.WSPWT --— 07.1213. Ctss0,SITE - 1—I1 1 1 I PETAL IVALL sac.-}��_ . - - i _ �_ .� _ • — a:n.6V..6PCRETE IM50NRYN,tS I I I -L U i I I '■ 1 (wJ ( J r ^ 1 iJ 1 _ _.. AAAA... 1111111M — I t a 1 — — ' _1 _ e1 �.- �...5t:".,,_--C1�r'-'1- s Y-�.' 11 1—...: x'f 'T• '.2T_., J-.+ L.y tx r.reI �o o�Z moo_ \ �.a._„inzw .'. 'e ': _mss 7 -1,---r 'I. `rl. Y2�' Y, f £` n_-T� `-l-L_e�i1r^' ,L [ _r _,_y_1.T:.r]. �S_ J _• _•_T iT-TT >� 7Y.'Fri i'�ee �� _ _ _ r .11 _ - } -i `'a's 6'.S, v=. fit;;% .L -r-[._.. J.b tiL 1 �T- C7 1. , _T. Ys. -r1 . ja0.'. AZT'"Y. s y- �i i` �.l1 ..-_-_E T,_„..._,...._,L,-..•,...r. -Y ir, - L;-;— x L_ 311111111..1...111110"SY it. -S �� �.-� 6- �i `�" .-i-.i-.- r . Y -d' C--• 3.'[�`•: { 1-7--=[r, -:-fr.3-r:1 - ,-- 1 -r t.. -±-,,,,+-:•==-2r.,--L FT,'--�'LTL;:E L�,'= ,.- T; F-1 - --r-•• :�-1-x4 .o 1 .'T. ru_ ?-rs :�---- �- t=J �d-� r"..- `� �i.,, ._._•-.,1._)}.:-4.-.71..7,.,,,-, - - - - - - - - - = 1- � X31 II I I=III=111-111 l=-11 Ii I1111=1 1-1I I31h I L_! Elx1 I L=1 I IE 1131 Il I I1 I I_I I H I f=1 I =n 111 11=I I1 1: 11=1 1 111 1=1-=1 I I 1 I IIII-I I� I II I1=1 11=1 I1=1 I I=III-1 11=III-1 I L=1 I I I I- I H I H I I—I 111 L=111=1 - 1- , = 11=1 1=1H11=11111-1�11-III-III=III=III=:III-III-1� Ij 1 I I =I I- II -11 I I I I___I 1 111 I LI I I1 I—�'—'I� 111=11111=111=111... - - 111'-"E',;04.11.,. IHI1aIHIIEiI1�14r1II-III-1 -1 ==I_ -I -11-11131 h I I3I h 1131 111 I ITL 11 i I-II I -III I I I ____ L�I I e,A� I I� I I� I I-1 I I� I1=1 11=1 I I—III—I „, l 1=111=111=111=111=111-11 311E 11,11=1 11- ,,,,,,,,,,�„-,,,„,,I,-„,-,I,-,I,__,I-„,I,I-I,I-III-II�II-Ilr�lll-111-11111-III-II-III-III-III-II-IIIIIII-III-III=III-IIIII-III-III-III--111-III-III- _ I-III-11III" hi I IJ I I = 11- __ A —I I I—I I_ 11p 12 Ip - '1 »»_i II -111=11 I1__177=113 I1=1I I= 1 I-1 I- I a I H I -- —_—— 11111-111= 11_1 11=111=111& - JIIa I I=I I1=1I'IE Gh11a - — 11 1 13 1 1-1I -11131 131131131 I13I13 I3I1=11=1113 I I5l I Il I I- 1131 I5II I5lI I�111=I I1=I I'I=I 1E111_111-11M11-_-7,11E-111191M411, i 11=11 I=11 =111=1 I I I1=11 Ia I I I� I Il I IJ I Ia I H 11=1.1 111111p 11p 1100 I I p 11a 11311=111=111=II=111=111= I (-1 — 1=1 I-1I1=111-1I1=1IISII I_R 11a _ - __ - 3' =1 II 1I 1=1 1I 11p 112011=1 IaIII - = I- 06 (1 SOUTH ELEVATION - WEST B"=1'0” (9.6) (10) 10.3 (11) T('71,� 655000•a11MnUN FRED VmA11 ,PO ER 11,"00. CDe6 LISTOP KRA. \�_' \\ II -' '-�- _L_. - T _._ - -- -:'-1 j II�rI�■rlrrrlrl� null ms ■ rte- -. _. I 1 ■® mil ■__■ 'I'7J , �: I=6 •- -■ 56. S5 Al 1 _ I.AI SA 56 q5♦ 1110 r... -C7 tit T Tax-: IS/A L-; _-9�.CORING MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE 45'-0” MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE RAWSCREF_N METAL WALL PAIR LEVVEL_33 30•-0' LEVVEEL_2 1 LEVEL 1 _ LEVEL 3-' LEVEL 2� 07.:,1. COMPOSITE METAL MALL Pains I1=11'1 13�-1I I-1 -111- I -I IL-11 L-111 .III -III -I III -1 i 131 i?1 II I I� Ij1-111=1 I -111,-111-1;1.-1I 1-1-1 GI I IJ I I A l=I i 11=+11-_=-111E-111-11-E1 I -I I1=111 -111-I I -III -III -III 1 111=1 P x 1111NEER_ _EMA54N „311_ I n -I I - - - -ILII I I -III -III -I I III I I III III 11=111-111=1 I=11111-1 1 I L I!=111-111= ITT -111-111=111=111=11 -III-I I I� I I -I 11=1 11= I-1I'I4:-----111=111=-111=1 II1-111-111-11-1I'L=.,111-111=11-.11=111. 11�11I111-111=11'1-111311=111-1I 1I 1IJII-11-=111=111-111-111=111-111-,11'1-111-111;=111=111-111, III I1II11;2,7,111_1I� 111-111-111=111=1�I=111=1 1-11-11 DINTS_— — — I1= =111-111=111-111=113=111=1 ITL I �f FJ IIIA I I -I i1 li- 11=1I I--III-I I1=1I ITI,I I,I� 11=1I I'I I -1I 11- 11 1 -1il 111 111 11711=111=11=111-IITLI�11=11HII=11311=1111=1�i�1=177=177-III- =111= �IT1li-I�1=1�1=1fL=1�1 1�I-�I�TI�I-1�I- 17-_-1E-1---2111_111_=.1 SOUTH ELEVATION - EAST 1/8" = 1'-0" LEVEL 1 5) 0�� MATERIALS LEGEND r i Y.M,E COMPCSRE NEPAL N6ILLPANEL LIGHT BLUE COMPOSITE WEAN:SAL PANEL N1ED SLUE COMPOSITE METAL PALL PaE L_JIZAL INAU. PANEL VWVDARSBLUECOMPOSRE METAL VALL PANEL FACTOM G,AxBJFACEBL00! 0O610it1E MASdAY U64T STRUCTURALLY RE6FORC 0 CESCRETE IAASOIAY uA7 bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98101 T (206) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER I1PFF 601 Fella 6iee 1600 Suds NA 911101 112061 622 5623 f 12051622 8170 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SiteWorkshop LLC 927 Po069ry Beal VN 96101 TOM x653026 F(MIMS Mn STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Samara! 1 Fat Avenue Ste 620 Sea1M.9A 68106 71211)2975076 F(206)66777911 MECHANICAL& ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 60031/1573�urnmoo area, mA 66101 7)266)4463076 F(206)NB N50 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT 5parf,p 0600* 211600 5956)6470553F114)0475754 FOOD SERVICES AR L55DGroupesign 1 w street Gro 75A BUOY IW MIN 712061 ES 0070 F120616250973 KARSONARE Adams Con118ry 2337 NaS651111Sied Seads,116" SNOT 7(206)72.4266 Fp06)5204,36 REVISIONS HIGHUNE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL IBBIIE DATE: Mums BY 7TgCFE'06'V ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SOUTH A3.12 w w 0 3/12/2010 10:06:27 AM • • I reg aM.'Lti`il e "�NALLb OSI K]LE 10 V6:1V - a 13J-11131 I= I I13I I -1I I -III- I lEI I l =1I I-111 111311311311— I I -1I 1311 111=111=111=1111 1 111=111-111-111=11 IRI 1=1 I I -I 113 11311311=I 1 13113 11=11311= I (=1113 113111-1113 113113 11- —I 1 3 1 1 311=1 I I3I I-11-1 I I=III= 11=1 11=1 11=1I IRI IR 113 I IJ 1 I_ ,1=111x11-111=1 1131 1=111=1 I III --mI=---1I=11=1I I=I 11311311-11=1 I I=111=111=111311=11=116 I l311=111=1I 1=1I IRI I3 (1=111= I = i II— = I IJ 11 1 1-1 I I— I I—III—I —III -111=1 II —I=1 I—III—I I= 1=1 I—III-11 I-111-1 I EAST ELEVATION - ANGLED LEVEL . .FLED STEEL ( ' ) BENNE, 4 IP .5 TAP A. OW NLURE-‘I / n 1-1.11-11-111—I11.—I11-41T—I11-111—H1---111-111_ — 11-11131131131131 3 I I—I 11-111-111-111-111-1113 IE le 11 111 311=11131131131 611111311311311311-111 rTt11 r'r C> -0 NORTH ELEVATION AT LOADING DOCK 0 oe :`m MOCINOINTE MUM.uNR6 Dry 26 SFORYBR 161.OPID1 \ FON 73. CHILLER LEVEL 1 , 1 0- - _LEVEL 2 r` I Lill ; 1 . , I ...Y ,Y. 1 ',' fes` LEVEL011 , �Mr 1=111-111-111=111=1I13113I1311)II SIIIII-1113IUf1111-11 = 113 1331 I3 11=1 11-I I I-1 I I—I 11-1 I I-1 I —I 1-1 I I-1 I H 31LN3 I -1_I=11 1 =111-11 r I I=1 � 1=I � i -I Tim � 1=1T1=111 11 I� I=I I=III= 11=11I—Ti= 0550. -FIXED 6IEEL PPE BOLARO SOUTH ELEVATION AT LOADING DOCK 118" = 1'-0- 0163. PIG Pµ13 -co Po52TE METAL YOU ias `•• . 09]61.- SECTIONAL OVERHEAD COON 674213.COLPWtE METAL PALL PANELS • (B fA.9 (Z66) 0 0 0450 -VERSE? CV NCRETE LOSOPA LENS sL-' 4 1 /r_ E'i��� O=IEi 1 1-111=111 111 111=111 I±lu ..mo ;1=11IT111=111J 1-111— ll—�1I_1 4jJ II ISI SII -III= II—III—III=III=III-111 11=11I11—III-IIIA°i= I E1 1131111-111-111= —1111 I=1 I I -A I I-1 I I I� 11— I 101011-1 I-111=11 =111-11 I-11 I-11 a I I� L E I IE I Ia L E I Ia 11=1 11=1 I i-E-rn �=1 I I -1I 1-1 f IR I a 1131 IR I IR I I3 1 11311!11=1 1121 I I=1 I I=1 III= I I 1 31131 IRI 113 I L=1 I H I1=1 11=1 11311=1 11=1 IR I IR 113 I I—I I I3 I C-1 I13I I- _ -1 I CI I I-P11E111111-111-I I I-11131! 31 H 11 T -.ii -1 311 I ISI I II I-111-1 I I-111-1131131131131131 IRI IRI IRI I-1 I I -T -m -A i i II I-11 _11111 L _ __ I=1 I I=11131 131131 L=1�1-1 11311=1 11=III-1 11-1 I I-1TI- �-111=1 I=III=111=1 I I- 113 I I� I I -III -1 I I -III -III -I I I-! 11=1 I Ia I I-1 113 I I-1 I I-1 I o I I -I I IT -METAL ROOF PANELS MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE LEVE30_L0S '- LE�VE�L 2�� __ WPM -CCMPOSRE METAL WALL PAELS 4450-VEIEFR CONCRETE WSONRV LINTS • PA.11]-ICTAL ROOF NEtscttuMN COPER GSTJMUCECCNCAEfE -- —a LEVEL 1 EAST ELEVATION ( A) (A.2 MAT -E -RIALS LEGEN PMT. COMPOSITE METAL 041 PANEL LIGHT $UE OOMPOSOE METAL WALLPAB LED SLUE COLPmOSRE WIN WN1 PANEL GRE BWECO2POSIE ME1A'MLL PANEL 1- 1 ......--076200-COP40 07413. COMP081E METAL YR41 PaN¢s CAS 13-OSTEREKHAUS 05103. LOUVERS C6511.1—FIXE STEL PPE 13.1.213 PRETAL ER? DAR1E BIDIP E COOSITE ALL PAREL FACTO. E+�FTIFACE BLOCK couEr9TE MAsoNRY uN1r STRUCTURALLY RE]NFORC® WRCRETE MASONRY LMR MECHANICAL PENTH45'-0 OUSE LE30•.0' VVE1L� !���\ ` 01413-ETSCOMP0511E METAL WALL PA1LEVEL 2_ i ^-0.2200. VENEER CONCRETE MASONRY 15'•R' s . 7-04=3 • IN CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT i s RE..15 7 1M �S': Ill r �L 7 rARO LEVEL 1 ,\ � 1=1 I I-111311=111 I L L=1 I L=1 I1=11 L—I 1131 I—III—III-1 I i-, I LI 1—I I I—I I1=11_11 I— 11=1 I LI I —I I LI I LI I I__I I I—I I IJ_Ti=1 I1=111=1 11=1 I i—III—III: 1—I1I 111—IL3II I -113 I t -113I I I�—i31 11—I1—I 11-1I111—I1=i l lI-111=III-111=1 I F-III1I 1LI1=I I I JI I IJ LIC11_I IillIlI _ t11= II=1-1111(1--111ITLI 111 E111( 1HI1_11I11111=1III11-(11_1I111_1III 111 111i11111t11111111II111111 1111 IIIl111111 lllll lllly11111 �111111i 11111 1111 1111111 111 111 1111111 111 1�h1111i1 1111111 Illirt h-11111 11/17111 1111 11111 11111 11 LOUVERS 055.3-REMO/A. STEEL PPE BOLLARD OWEST ELEVATION 1/8"= 1'-0" bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street. Sudo 500 Startle, Washington 98154 T (206) 340 9500 F (36) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER 15'FF 1601 p6) Ave, sue 1606 &20),51256101 T 156)435622 FM) 61261]0 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Si/Modish" LLC Ira Nat./ 5.20.512 9.01 T ME 305 NEC NS 309 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS S000.0l 611 F gMru.8Y 6m s..m).w. 0716. 15031792 5 075 F(56) 7783 MECIV LAICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Halls EnpeeOr6 Ho SYnO st Sum 1600 6.0).U503161 1(206)..6]])6 F156).6.30 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sonar' 120012. V4y.6u61.00 5711,512.101 T (A6) 661 6355 7.155, 655. FOOD SERVICES RR Orion Glow 57 17.TME.a INA SAM, 51207105 T(3.625 COM F(206)625 COO HARDWARE Pe.fe Constar') 2337 li7.3731 55.7 wm.50 2014 1156) 5202. TRH)5264135 REVISIONS DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL Mao 1s)E DATE PRAAMBY: PECKED BY —.619 Mr. 12. MCI ST c1MR1m ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EAST & WEST A3.13 Ot)tA OSOUTH PENTHOUSE ELEVATION - WEST 1/8" = 1•-0•• ZIP; Q FIS I 1 1 I I 1 1 0— 1 �' c 1 Z. 1 r- 1 i 1' 1 1 1 , 1 I — �j I 4 - 5.8 O 4 I I I 10 WALL LINUJA D6EP 10.3 11.6 12.3 I 2 O SOUTH PENTHOUSE ELEVATION - EAST 1/8"= 1.-0" LEVEL 1 0" OSOUTH ELEVATION @ SM SPOJ LAB 1/8"= 1•-0' 1' NORTH ELEVATION AT SM PROJ LAB 1/8" = 1•-0" 17— T MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE 45'-0" LEVEL 3 30' VEL2 15'-0 V MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE 4OU5'-0" LE30'L 3 VE -0 LE15EL VEL 2 L EVELL SOUTH ELEVATION AT CORRIDOR MECHANICAL PENT H45• OUSE -0" LE30E0'L3L LEVEL 5'52 LEVEL 0" OWEST ELEVATION PT LOBBY 1/8"=1.0" LEVEL 2 15'-0" J WEST ELEVATION AT VESTIBULE 1/8" = 1'-0" LEVE_ L S LEVEL_ 1_n 0�I EAST ELEVATION AT VESTIBULE EAST ELEVATION AT NORTH TERRACE 1/8" = 1'-0" 50% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street, Surto 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (2081340 9500 F (2061 340 9519 CML ENGINEER KPFF 1501 FmlW.&0. 100 See.020 YY9E101 1 71 OMs =es FGT..,WO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 584Wor8Y1o9 LLC 9:7 F.4kv Se19e YY M101 i llo6l 115 00.2: PBS/ 2.1020 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Structural .. Sub 610 sees IrcNA M1a 1...SOW F(70.411 !!69 MECHANICALS ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Maga Engrneers SW SawM15tSb loon 1 (lm)14144i1 ]6FI26) uE 0150 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Spar9rg 720W2WF1, S*1410 6utk,YY 18101 T W. Ml MSS F (31616. P54 FOOD SERVICES 21R Design Group S37 Fay Eaeel1uk 1752 T74).96109 /a06) T 0US 1810 FN616n 00TE HARDWARE Adam Comllbng .1712418518 S9etl Seate,W(MEI 05111181/0 (MEI160114 F (2015160111 REVISIONS HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL "NW 01019 IEb6O left' 1E 3312,4010 .1.111 BY JY SHECFED BY Checker ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - MECH PENTHOUSE SOUTH A3.14 oFF SI1.E \ UEF ..cam .. 151 `'_. • - C 15 ..'_ATF ••-:h: ~ YID 1 I VERTICAL CURB 54RKNG STALLS .07 -STANDARD (9'.19•) ry 09947E PAVEMENT ARROW PER COT 51D DETAIL RS -18. (7W.) STA 65.7123 STOP 89,8 PER CO STD OE1NL INTEGRAL 0,498 AND CS OS 9DEWAU(, (IYP.) SIA 65+24 60 BEGIN PARKING S 92740 51REF7 CONTROL uNE 51A 65.28 73 = PARKING ROAD STA 80+00 12 _ _ FC 5.) • y'i �C �y tia ECRESS STA 64.76 23 2C,77.i2.:'cCi: O3 `BEGIN 60N07E ILC 5O ,F STA 62+99.05 BEGIN PARKING SII= PROPERTY / I (10i_ _/_�_t,4•,4�, , f.✓ utc. (TIP). j- - \ I• (14� PAVEMENT 0PIPING, (TTP.) 1 (1 + .I • It\ i10' 110 4�.•3 FIRE LAZE PER C01. MUNICIPAL CODE 16.16.070 .13.b., r, y <i• (nP) 8 -PARALLEL (8'.20') 63+ 03 AD1'1'y7[NG - 041FIl STOP k OL 01. Jot M. T STA 80.2646. CURB RAND P0R,C0.11 STD PLAN 95-02 CRO55WALc.k SJOP BAR, PER CO.T.. SID. DETAIL RS -19. (3YP,).• •r \ BUS LOADING AREA PATTERNED CEMENT CONCRETE 00EWALIC SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS DETECTABLE WARNING PAVERS PER LANDSCAPE PLANS (11P.) RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL 1-_ \:.A.. 2,n ash. '.._ dx,, li A • �_�=1 169.. r\..•_ 152,: • PARKING STALLS 5 N 13 -STANDARD (9'419') .3EE�). 1. a'_. -) )Y. GRAVEL ACCESS PATH PER LANDSCAPE PUNS FIRE LANE PER COT. M(NICIPA1. COOE \ 1616, 070.8.13.b. _:5VPEL,../ STA 72+68.30 i \ i IPE I�, END FIRE TRUCK ACCESS LANE 2 \7_-17.7` TTI ITI ICF 1:.4; ,.^U E7...1,_,:',)____-- -- - --- 33S - 3NI1H31VW ,l -4' PANTt7S-- : SART, (rYP) 12- PANTED TEXT j' 'COMPACT', (719) :;(`1Tv0E5 Yd5T ^' TE AEF'. :'5'51516 -� J.W. r- 1501.8:50. 54,1,,^.H 5TA565,5 W7TR IN PIPES T5. 51.1.1 _ TI/IE 91517 5525 11,/5517,30 )!7 p0T 3PFEAR i0 AYF VUCUL 1/7 FGU:..) . 0610741 OF FU MUSEUM GALLERY 099441^,5 G ;NA PAVEMENT 191069055, (ETP ) 7,, 1' A: f:= _t: E-41•.40,,7 _. 1111 2397 P960040 S7A115 12 -STANDARD (9'.19') 0=) tli NOTES: I. STATIONS, OFFSETS, k DIMENSIONS 0609 ARE TO FACE OF CURB, UHE50 OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 2. 35' INGRESS, EGRESS, AND UTILITY EASEMENT GRANTED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 20070228002893. LEGEND FICM LIGHT-DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT HEAVY-DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CEMENT CONCRETE 0DEWAIX Iik qiW CURVE TABLE CURVE PC PCC PT LENGTH RADIUS C9 --- 62+84.68, 17.50 LT 62+98.99, 22.00 LT 14.34 2500 010 --- 62+83.94, 1700' RT 62+97.50, 21.00' RT 1434 2500 011 64+59.11, 22.00' LT 64+73.42, 17.50' LT --- 15.23 25 30 C12 --- 64+73.42, 1750' LT 64+87.73, 13.00' LT 15.23 25.00 013 64+89.81, 13.00' LT 80+36.00, 13 92' LT --- 39.27 2500 014 --- 80+38.00, 18.92 LT 80+48.00, 23.92' LT 15.71 1000 C15 64+60,60, 21.00' RT 64+74.17, 17.00'17T --- 14.34 2500 076 --- 64+74.17, 17.00' RT 64+87.73, 13.00' RT 14.34 25 00 017 64+9073, 13.00' RT 65+04.30, 1700' RT --- 14.34 2500 C18 --- 65+04.30, 1700 RT 65+17.86, 21.00' RT 74.34 25.00 019 66+15.97, 21.00' RI -- 66+3329, 31.00' RT 20.94 20.00 GRAPHIC SCALE 4,0 p 10� 1WO• 201 ' CAWI TWO BOSUIESS DAYS BEFORE TOR OIG I-800-424-5555 , 4- U) 4- 0 bassetti aidiMects 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER KPFF 1801 FAT Mt&4 WM 5...WA OW01 T9061635ea FReweaello LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SiteWM.hop LLC sa Ar Wry 15 WA WWI TROW 3.3. (9012853.29 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS S0Cural Fea Anuo, 829 Sob. WA 06101 TDM)2905078 F(206)WW a0 MECHANICAL 8 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Engineers MD Sw1 A 5i0100D 5130. WA WW1 T 006j448 KM i906)44a 4450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sparing 7cee seam Sl* WA 08101 Tf2 (M70555F90007oi61 F000 SERVICES AR Design 557Ne, Ala S&817SA 6a, WA01W T9999003107509902073 HARDWARE Adams CmsWtbq MN. AW sr.! Sm. WA0 T90)V.W44.4F901518013. REVISIONS H IGHPE SCHOOL OL9TRET 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL Bra Na ',ELATE' PRAWN BY' O5f2®a1. '245 nrenverm10 6101.0 HORIZONTAL CONTROL AND PAVING PLAN C5.02 0 m0 1.g 02, T? m --1 1 0 • INTEGRAL CURB AND SIDEWALK (TMP) Le f. \ *--FOUND TACK IN CONCRETE MONUMENT DOWN 1.0' 0=196016.52 V2 E=163702869 STA. 10+00, 12.00' LT INSTALL DETECTABLE WARNING \\ ` „\; \''..1 Q�\:(,.i' /_•-•<, `=o\ \2j\ nE ` PATTERN S&IRAR TO C.O.T. \ \ \ \\\',`J \ ' C a ` \Z \ _1 �\ A01 ) STD PLAN RS -I2 CROSSWALK AND STOP BARS ` \ \•\. \� \'\\\ \�\ PER C.O.T. STD PLAN RS -19 N `,, \ �n MT PMENDIT ARROW PER CO T. cP'STD. DETAIL RS -18, (TTP.) '\( `'• �`.�INSTA8L�N0UC0 NNpPS (TRAFOC \ . •x RAISED TEXTURED CROSSWALK .«10%15) PER YC.O.TrS00,,.aANI)4=28 ` \ I t'" 'A \ ^ \\ PER LANDSCAPE PLANS '61� 1+1 0115 ARROW on,5?N0�\ ` \' N A - "\'- T 17, ELF`J. = tEX,93(NCTION BO �.� \ \-51,.\-74 \�(P AD,USTAnNATp-_'- - -I� \\ P ,RF., 1a PER LANDSCAPE PLANS,(TYP.) MATCH iYVAL ` \\ \ ....0,,„ PA .t.'..1.,,_...� )\;yam i\ tp\0r: STA 62+3&65 ZT_ 4N - BECN CONCRETE SIDEWALK STA 60196:29 ,Tr \ ) DIN c AND PAVEMENT 15CNT TAPER 11r �. • , \ DOUBLE YELLOW r BUTTONS PER I o I -1. CO.T. STD. DETAIL - F., RS-16 & R5-13 ;;'\ u+5"o *k1V'65' 05011'4V SC n,5114 S 9,370 ` SSti 6M0 ety. Ca' Of' 4645TC°. Tse ,,ate t 93. STA 61+68.: 13' RTAPER! fp, SOUTH 92ND PLACE N :: 1'56 PATTERNED 03,091 CONCRETE SIX -WALK, SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS STA 61+71.65 END BU RCVS STA 61+71.65 PC 0NGLE MOTE SOLID LUNE PER C.O.T, SID DE1A0. R5-16 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL NIUISLCRON DF GRID UNES F AND 15 N 19341419 E 1637960.47 HT1 D`U-5ij \ \ \ter A011 / JJ 00471.'1_,• EXTENT O NTIIRE\'� \ MUSEUM GALLERY1. \ :`al IK iPROPERTY p _ \) el . LF=17,0: 0.7 l\ TS _ \ S fA \\ 1 / _F. tS RAILS, J ---C \-. \ 3\. i::a \ 6\\\. • • fi1.'I1 CR. LNL 711.. . ..1.0 CITY '71 7,. 1 \ \ \N" \S": \t'& cc. '!88.1 8 /--FOUND TACK IN CONCRETE MONUMENT DOWN 1.0' N=192226.23 E=1638001.99 STA. 51+05.70, 12.00' LT NOTES: 1, STATIONS, OFFSETS, & DIMENSIONS GIVEN ARE TO FACE OF CURB, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 2. ADUU51MEN15 TO TIMING AND POSITIONING OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH 111E C.O.T. 3 35' INGRESS EGRESS, AND UTUTY EASEMENT GRANTED UNDER KNG COUNTY RECORDING NUMBER 20070228002893. LEGEND •� ``JSJSl' 0C1T-DUTY ASPHALT PAVEAIFIIT HEAVY-DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT CEMENT CONCRETE SIOENALK (EXCEPT SIDEWALK N PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE PER C.O.T. STD PUN RS -11) CURVE TABLE CURVE PC PCC PT LENGTH RADIUS 01 37+3532, 20.80' RT --- 60+70.80, 2200' LT 78.54 50.00 C2 60+75.26, 2200 LT --- 60+9593, 2200 LT 79 76 7200 C3 60+75.26 --- 60+95.93 20.67 50.00 04 60+75.26, 15.00' RT --- 60+94.50, 15.00' RT 13.50 35.00 05 61+71.76. 22.00' LT 61+86.07, 17.50' LT -- 15.23 25.00 C6 --- 61+86.07, 17.50' LT 62+00.38, 13.00' LT ,5,23 25.00 C7 62+70.38, 13.00' LT 62+84.68, 17.50' LT -- 15.23 25.00 08 62+70.38, 1300' RT 62+83.94, 16.50' RT -- 13.39 2500 GRAPHIC SCALE o to m 40 1 20 IL� ' CA111WO BILES DAIS MORE YOU DIG 1-800-424-5S55 , bassetti BTR 4111X18 71 Columbia Street, State 500 Seattle, Washington 98154 T (206) 340 8500 F (206) 340 0519 CML ENGINEER KPFF MI FP M. (161000 T puat'@ WA sda'F milia elm LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SAeWodehop LLC t56/ Noy Nom,.AWA Se. 1Tm4)295 MIS Fta1 )Me lib STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Saucexal 011 FM4wne, sur Bm sono. WA seta TMS) ffi S61a F (206)49 nae MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Engineers a 0. ' .m. W .101 NCO T )ms) 4N 1115 F RN). 4450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Spading 720 0. Wal, as 1406 06 t124117ms5F finelewoes4 F000 SERVICES RoGroup y 00 TIm0)00m10 F RON9smn HARDWARE Adams Consulting =Nem9P sees ssml.5Aselm T pawl 910144 F pons) elan ne REVLSOLS NK'd4AE SCHOOL DISTRICT401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL TM If@10 Ra. MTF' 410107Rn.0 D0A7NM' 5R 0 r.,FF✓Fn eY' 4FNe5TTI INIA\4937 HORIZONTAL CONTROL AND PAVING PLAN C5.01 • 10 (9 6) r 71 Columbia Street. Suite 500 Seattle. Wachilytno 99104 T (206) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE 45-0' LEVEL 3 _ _ _ — 30'-0- • e LEVEL 2 15-0-� LEVELI D-O- I111N�I1I/�1S :.r I.RIlIIIIIUI•IIE Iiiiiiiii i MECHANICAL P TNOOSE� 45' 0 LEp VE1+09 LEVEL. LEVEL t ll 4rI2•159Qiv111t21 ,111111111111111111111111111 1vT_____� ,inesinwarnmenEmmillin 1;11=111AIIEFI laraardegliSla MATERIALS LEGEND oR v 12o=Povre NETa0 uL ua3 VAL Qw m nierE NIFL QLag& EVE COLPOSITS5tt. I.ET WALLPtB ' ©AsTrwsLLP.WEL E iFACTORY G4.21ED AHCRETEr/�NRCE Sl OCN CD SEPTORCIEllTRUCTURAL, CML ENGINEER IIPFF IBM S.1.00 1(5040801i17(00(90Nto LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 5I.VM1shop LLC 111711,..y 10 Y(106)265302.1000181%n STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Structural .11 RV Mao. Sut• 1111 TS.a.ID4m2280taw 0d04.117ee MECHANICAL a ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Haq's Ermirom1 CO Semen SI,Suislea 4 wel 1120 t 099( 888450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Spading ree Sunk au way....I.10481209,54 i 811prl8120u0 FOCO SERVICES .AR Deayn C+r9 4978 r m IRA T (204 774 9970 i (281 5925 99 77 REVISIONS ELEVATION WEST 10 1034 MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE 4S -D' HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL 1012 1550 -0' 0.19 Amu, 20, 4110 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS • 1/2700101152 Fn4 REOWID OBSTRUCTION LIGHT 117E u4 04316 SST CtiiES MCGNEGSTTEMETwWALL C1 LET, PATEL ('1'4G� 1 11 6' REDOBSTRUCTION LIGH< 103 (1o�MT Yui 1 9 1 118 MaM �) �) (;) (6I T \\\ ala I 1 f ' Cl - III ,� I11 I_ }I = NORTH ELEVATION - EAST NORTH ELEVATION - WEST I2) ,�_, MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE n 45-0 V _ LEVEL 01.01w„ERTOOFPAWLS 0.12a73. VENEER CONCRETE T 1 I \ 1. 1 i -.1 I --I L ._ 1-1 _ MASONRY ursrs LEVEL01 0' Oesra+x.CEm4CRETE R ETTH 06114 . HOLLOW METAL COORS.. MALES i (-6) (4 . I a I } R a L 0NW1 4) (2 1.6 «) 7 IIT ! II o UII uiC1II� IU�IIU11 �, /AZV�IS9IYTlIt, J7NI�Fi11LGi H�ESi(�Fil OCL=�/ �I I II��'� _ — _ m ti 9 _L. Lomo, GwORETI77 ._ " RECluIPEDIESSTR.1GnGHLIGHT 1111860,5swuucHaua3 655.61655.611611:501621 l COUPOS TE.TALWALL 12.2 vower.mere MATERIALS LEGEND L .] „HT PGSTTEMETTAL uGHTELLE EGI®G9TE METAL WALL 6,ED,aUE Cd.6V9TE METAL WALL MM. °ETAL. WALL 17441. VERY DARK BLUE COMPTI.SITE METAL WALL PANEL FACTORY G E GUN6T GR ,A MECHANICAL PENTHOUS) LEVELS LE15' 0'VEL2 bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street, State 500 Seattle, Wa2hbgton 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER KPwa 0en, 6666 1600 TIME) c ,aSpe'el]m1,Yi „x LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SIeV.NT4bop LLC len vee me, sae.TM* 00287 IMO NS 54M STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS SOuduN 011F. Anna, .1600 7I206,6113606 IMA 47 nee NECHANOAL 6 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis �Eryneen 71Myuev78'7,20443450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sparing � n4,R,40 TTIM4n,4 1220H44TW64 FOOD SERVICES JLR DeNan Group i7 Ray fir. WY 1110 on0616M 020 HARDWARE Adana T;IDq S1aRu„12616].011. HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL VT T4.MID plummy22. ano ST 6.p7/Rma. ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - NORTH A3.11 Pio- cog 062103 LO 076733 - CONDUCTOR 0552607AL AALIN 6200-COPNG l T l 1.3 (1.6 ( 2 )(2 2) (2 4) T T T T i T it (7 (5 6) a) (7 ) T T Q i(..a) ~Ia 1 I' l\) • 076SO• DOWNSPOUT MioSmEMETAL WALL 06726, 1 6726.1 P CONCRETE MAS0666 i)-98.) ( ELEVATION - WEST LI . f 1 16 ... I. .I If- MECHANICAL PENTH,O�USEE i5•.0'V :ET. WALL LE3VEL 33 - V LEVEL2 1 LE0 n g. 96 (10 10.3 T cSfrP DMP i 12 3 1 -- '- I �._ ■�M■ ■M __■.__ ■■■ ® I I®•I ' Ir�ft ® ill 117r■i ' 111I E ® ® IIIII 1 �� H 1 - -.. .:. .1 .. .-1 _. ; ■11- — 1111 IIII - i)-98.) ( ELEVATION - WEST LI . f 1 16 ... I. .I If- MECHANICAL PENTH,O�USEE i5•.0'V :ET. WALL LE3VEL 33 - V LEVEL2 1 LE0 n g. 96 (10 10.3 T cSfrP DMP i 12 3 1 -- '- I �._ ■�M■ ■M __■.__ ■■■ ® I I®•I ' IC ® ill 117r■i ' 111I E ® ® IIIII 1 �� 1 ; ■11- — 1111 IIII =■ ■iimi■ m■ I ____■■____ 1 ■■mom■ 1 1 '11M■1 I I o X711lo I1 �1, ® 1 IN�� ii -I, I , il SOUTH ELEVATION - EAST ( - -06.0-+ENC P 66.66.4,1• 6E6M MALIcS MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE LE30-M> 13. LfOSIITE METAL VAMC A6113.5 LEVEL 15-0' 13 -COLLW161006#1,165 LEV0L1EL /�1 MATERIALS LEGEND WHITE r160su511£ METAL WAIL PANEL LIGHT FUJECobV9IE METAL WALL1,663. BLUE COLwvTE METAL WALL PANEL 1.116 BLUE METAL WAIL PAWL cOVPO4iE MET. WALL PANEL FACTORY 01,62E16 FACE eLoca CONCRETE 6.1.6306666 Urn CONCREaEon m ETEM YiLSONRY UHi PERMIT SET bassetti/ architects 71 Columbia Street, Sule 500 Seattle. Washington 99104 T (206)340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER KPFF 0o0 5.6.W6116101 1.00610225622 ,2s14242e LANDSCAPE ARCHTECT 59400504198 LLC tI2tPP Sutl•WAW 100E 981981 140lt 215 r4a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS S,Ilctud 700e1246070 6,206 w Nee MECHANOLL 6 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER HMWEnaiwen Ao a.n% SM.1me 11200 WA vie1F,melw use ACOIATIC OC NSULTANT Swing no ow. eoar. Ism Sal,MON 607 6 M ,2051640556 F0305ERVK.EES AR Design Gm. ss68ibrw Y.Sr UM 2,20516. 2010006145 DM HARONMRE Adam Consollig 66.5716 616. 212161 W5> M120e152wty REVISIONS HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL awN- C E DALE Jam, 79, 2010 Mawn51 - GIx96nm- um ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - SOUTH A3.12 duo- ootiok MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE 1, 45 0- `J LEIV: Lt 5EL0- LEVEL t � V.G J SOUTH ELEVATION AT CORRIDOR SOUTH ELEVATION AT LOADING DOCK O1/5'=1-0' LEVELd- V NORTH ELEVATION AT SM PROJ LAB EAST ELEVATION AT VESTIBULE 6 WEST ELEVATION AT LOBBY 115-=,'d' =1-0' E) SDS) Y Y osum.1.1 LaNGwF OM=• NNo P AWLSC09EOS1RENE1NwtaL �„x2Nove1NEa9 (--2--)z) (A.7) �741W NET AL ROOF PANELS ¢•sen coLLuu COVERs—�_�: OCNCO• VENEER CONCRETE FINSONFIV LRCM I 055203- INS TYPE 11,13. Me SST CABLES P MOSTE NEIN 641 ANIELS zat9.-VENEER CONCRETE 1.50FIRY UNITS ——COLura COVE,ROOF PAWLS PONTH -CAST4aPvCECOWRETE MECHANICAL PENTM�USE r, 30E LEVEL 3S _LEVEL2 1 EVEL 1 I I I. I I _. II. C,_EAST ELEVATION MATERIALS LEGEND .501E CONDOM E METAL L I 17 I I' -1 SITE 4[rN BLUE NCO BLUE CouwwrE LET, I.vAL PANEL OAF Mr. WALL PANEL VERY IND ACIDITY GLAZED FACE DLO.,SINUCTIAIKLY REINFORCEDCONCRETE•VSONRY ONO (- WEST ELEVATION PERMIT SET bassetti/ architects 71 Columbia Street. Sute 500 Seattle. Washington 95104 T (206) 040 9500 F (206) 040 9519 CML ENGNEER 1CPFF An, Sue. NOD Dude01 11455 5 SIM F ]59/5n1142 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SIeWortalnp LLC Pea in6ta91011Flm6les ten STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS 5tncwal ON RN Nava. 9.620 1 /245/ 292 5VA 075 F,055/ 2917151 MECHANICAL &ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Engineers Sun NOB TOON w1115 5 06 241450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT SparGq rNlaw *NW WA MOCK/05 5 FIA65170551 7000 SERVICES JLR Nate Gnaw 52750425257254.1154 LOOM en DOFF DODOS Wn HARDWARE Adams Consulting =INF. Sloe i DON L¢tuNF I1Ml52S415e REVISIONS HIGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL ZS NO �1N,E Nuso MO rutraen Pr 01•0•1 ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - EAST & WEST A3.13 uo cfi1 0 OSOUTH PENTHOUSE ELEVATION - WEST 1/8•a 1.0. 10.3 11.6 12.3 a, 1 1 I I I I I = ; i SOUTH PENTHOUSE ELEVATION - EAST PERMIT SET bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F (206(1419519 CML ENGINEER KPFF WNm4 0 lovvea elN LANDSCAPE ARCIITECT SeleWorIcelnp LLC 102i Pod 1n (2061265 3020 F110e106550n STRUCTURALENQNEER moSStna l RVIRreir 100e1m150>'4p,Ae NOt nN MECHANICAL 6 ELEC1RICAL ENSINEER .— .- En9nea 600a. 9 la 100als61wvle(Nm1u81450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sparc Saa,TIM ,0555 006,7 a FOOD SERVICES 113 Dap Gap 551pq mw.1151 � HARDWARE Maim Consap Sma A 98103 i 1105 WSm0,u F 18%15»01. REVISIONS DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL aa�.16 Jam a 2010 paErKill eflan ENLARGED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - MECH PENTHOUSE SOUTH A3.14 ,77 z af CITY OF TUKWILA GENERAL NOTES: GENERAL 1. AT LEAST ONE WEEK BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS UTI3TIES INSPECTOR AND SCHEDULE A PRECONSTRUC1ON MEETING 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD NOTIFY THE UTIUTIES INSPECTOR AT 206-433-0179 AT LEAST 48 HOURS (2 WORKING DAYS) BEFORE STARTING PROJECT SITE WORK. 3. REQUEST A PUBUC WORKS UTILITY INSPECTION AT LEAST 24 HOURS (1 WORKING DAY) W ADVANCE BY CALLING 206-433-0179. 4. THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMES SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORKER SAFETY, AND DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE THE PERMIT(S) AND CONOTONS, 111E APPROVED PLANS, MND A CURRENT COPY OF CITY OF TUKWILA DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE 6. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THESE APPROVED DRAYANGS. ANY CHANCES FROM THE APPROVED PUNS REWIRE PRE -APPROVAL FROM THE O'MNER, THE ENGINEER, AND THE CITY OF TUKWILA. 7. ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL MEET CITY Cr TUKWILA DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY 111E PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. • & CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A CURRENT SET OF RECORD DRAWNGS ON-SITE 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE RECORD DRAWINGS PRIOR TO PROECT FINAL APPROVAL 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STREET MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION. 11. ALL SURVEYING FOR PUBLIC FAOUTES SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A WASHINGTON UCENSD LAND SURVEYOR VERTICAL DANM SHALL BE NAVD 198& FOR PROJECTS WITHIN A FLOOD CONTROL ZONE, THE PERMITTEE SHALL PROVIDE CONVERSION CALCULATIONS TO NM 1929. HORIZONTAL DATUM STALL BE STATE PLANE COORDINATES 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE OR RELOCATE ALL SIGNS DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION. WADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (ESC) MEASURES ON THE APPROVED PUNS ARE 816608 REOI6DIENTS. 2. BEFORE BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, ESTABLISH THE CLEAR1NG LIMITS AND INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3. BEFORE ANY GROUND DISTURBANCE OCCURS, ALL DOWNSTREAM 1ESC MEASURES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ALL ESC MEASURES ACCORDING TO THE TE5C PLAN. 4. 1ESC MEASURES, INCLUDING ALL PERIMETER CONTROLS, SHALL REMAIN IN PUCE 01111L FINAL SITE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND PERMANENT STABNZATION 15 ESTABLISHED. 5. FROM MAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, PROVIDE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT COVER MEASURES TO PROTECT DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN UNWORKED FOR SEVEN DAYS OR MORE FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30, PROVIDE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT COVER MEASURES TO PROTECT DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN UNWORKED FOR TWO DAYS OR MORE IN ADDITION TO COVER MEASURES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL: • PROTECT STOCKPILES AND 5(111 CUT AND nu_ SLOPES IF UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS • STOCKPILE, ON SEE ENOUGH COVER MATERIALS N COVER ALL DISTURBED AREAS. BY OCTOBER 8, SEED ALL AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN UNWOR0ED DURING TIE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30). 93101 ALL SEEDED AREAS. 8. ALL SWPPP REQUIREMENTS TO 111E DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) AND ALL 60180801160 HA8NG JURISDICTION ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY 04 THE CONTRACTOR, INCLUDING A CERTIFIED EROSION MID SEDIMENT CONTROL LEAD (OEM). UTIUTY NOTES 1. ALL TRENCH EXCAVATION OPERATIONS SHALL 1EE1 OR EXCEED ALL APP3CABLE SHORING LAWS FOR TRENCHES. ALL TRENCH SAFETY 5YS1680 SHALL MEET 1115110 REQUIREMENTS. 2. PUCE POWER, CABLE, FIBER OPTICS, AMA TELEPHONE LINES IN A TRENCH WITH A 5' MINIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM OTHER UNDERGROUND U00TES. 3.- ADJUST ALL MANHOLES, CATCH 8A5115, AND VALVES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY OR EASEMENT AFTER ASPHALT PAVING. 4. THE CONTRACTOR 15 RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT AND COORDINATION OF ALL PERMITS, FEES, AND INSPECTIONS, INCLUDING SIDE SEWER. WORK IN RIGHT-OF-WAY 1. WHEN ACTIVITY IS UNATTENDED, INSTALL A SIGN WITH willful/ TWO -Nal LL11Ut5 STAINING PERMITTEE OR COMPANY NAE, AND DAY AND EVENING PHONE NUMBERS. 1110 11.08.140. 2. INSTAL BARRICADES, SIGNS, WARNING UGHTS, AND SAFETY DEVICES SIFECIENT TO NOTIFY PUBLIC OF OBSTRUCTION OR TRAFFIC HAZARD. DEVICES MUST RERAN UNTIL 11E OBSTRUCTOR I5 GEARED AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY 15 RESTORED. DAC 11.08.170.& 3. MAINTAIN ACCESS TO FIRE STATORS FIFE HYDRANTS, ERE ESCAPES, AND ERE FIGHTING EOIPMENT. TIC 11.08.180. 4. MAINTAIN ACCESS TO PROPERTY ADJOINING EXCAVATION OR SITE 8(88. S PRESERVE AND PROTECT ALL PROPERTY ADJOINING EXCAVATION OR SITE WORK. 6. RESTORE DISTURBANCE TO PRIVATE AND PUBLIC PROPERTY. TMC 11.0&220.8 7. DISTURBANCE OF SURVEY MONUMENTS MND MARKERS REOARE3 THE DIRECTOR'S PREAPPROVAL A UCENSED SURVEYOR SHALL REPLACE DISTURBED MONUMENTS AND MARKERS 8. COMPLY WIN ALL STATE AND CITY LAWS AND PROCEDURES TO PROTECT PUBUC FROM AIR, WATER AND NOISE POLLUTION. 1110 11.08.210. 9. INSTALL TE8PORAR11 9DEWALK 0R CUE RAMP IF PERMANENT I5 BLOCKED. TNC 11.08.220. 10. COVER OPEN EXCAVATION WITH NON-9CD STEEL PLATES RAMPED N ELEVATOR OF 0010060)5 RIGHT OF WAY SURFACE TIE 11.0&220. 11 STORE ALL STOCKPILE MATERIAL SHAT BE STORED N A SAFE MANNER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. PAVEMENT RESTORATION 1. COMPACT BACKFILL TO COMPACTION OF UNDISTURBED GROUND OR COMPACT BACKFILL TO MEET CITY STANDARDS 2. RESTORE PAVEMENT TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING BAa0UJNG OR MEIN CONCRETE 15 GRED. A. EXCEPT FOR WEATHER CONDITIONS MHICH PREVENT PAVING, THE CONTRACTOR 9ULL COMPLETE PAVING RESURFACING, OR FACMTY REPLACEMENT: • CP4 PRINCPAL ARTERIAL, MAJOR OR COUECTOR 511(616 8911NN 3 CALENDAR DAYS • ON OTHER 5115115 11111614 7 CALENDAR DAYS 8. FOR WORK PREVENTED DUE TO WEATHER • PROVIDE A TEMPORARY PATCH. • PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTOR SCHEDULE ADDRESSING LEANS AND METHODS TO MINEOZE TRAFFIC DISRUPTION AND TO COMPLETE WOR AS DUICKLY AS P0598LE S10RN DRAINAGE NOTES I. ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL MEET OTT OF TUKWILA DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTOR STANDARDS, AND THE CURRENT KING COUNTY S10'ACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL. UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED. 2. MARK ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS WITH DUMP NO WASTE' AND ETHER GRANS N STREAMS'. DRAINS TO WETLANDS'. CR DRAMS N GROUNDWATER', AS APPLICABLE 3. COORDINATE FINAL 5108 -OJT LOCATIONS W11(1 THE UTILITIES 6SPECTOR PROVIDE A DUDE OR OTHER DETECTOR DEVICE AND MARK SNB -OUT LOCATION VAN A 5 -FOOT 2X4' STAKE. BURIED 4-6650 AND LABELED 'STORM ' OR 'DRAIN SANITARY SEWER NOTES 1. ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL MEET CITY OF 1UK1MU DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED. 2. THE CONTACTOR SHALL MARK THE END OF THE SIDE SEVER, BEIM THE PROPERTY UNE, WITH A 5 -FOOT PRESSURE TREATED 2 X 4, BURIED IN THE GROUND 4 FEET. THE BORED END SHALL HAVE A 2 X 4 CLEAT NAILED TO IT TO PREVENT WITHDRAWAL O THE STAKE THE E>P(75ED 1 -FOOT SHALL BE PANTED TRAFl1C 191108 AND THE DEPTH TO 111E SDE SEWER 0R TEE SHALL BE INDICATED IN BUCK PANT. 3 INSTALL SANITARY SEWER LINES AT LEAST 10 FEET HORIZONTALLY, MEASURED EDGE TO EDGE, FROM ANY 680060 OR PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY AND AT LEAST 18 INCHES BELOW TIE BOTTOM OF A WATER UNE 6467E11 SUPPLY NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CORPORATE STOPS, WATER SERVICE ONES, AND METERS THE CITY OF TUKWILA WILL INSTALL THE METERS. 2 PRESSURE TEST ALL WATER MAINS AND APPURTENANCES. 3. FLUSH AND DISINFECT NEW. CLEANED, OR REPAIRED WATER MAINS 4. INSTALL RESTRAINED JOINTS AT ALL BENDS TIES, AND ODER DIRECTION CHANGES 5. ALL WATER MAINS 91ALL HAVE A BLOW -OFF ASSEMBLY AT LOW POINT AND AN AR VACUUM REIAF VALVE AT HIGH PONT OF MAIN. 6. INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY SO IT STANDS PLUMB AND SO THAT THE LOWEST OUTLET IS AT 18' ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE THE ASSEMBLY SHALL HAVE A CLEAR ZONE AROUND HYDRANT CF AT LEAST 36' AND THE PUMPER PORT SHALL FACE STREET OR FIRE ACCESS 7. 711E INSTALLER OFA FIRE LRE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE INSTALLED OUTSIDE THE BUILDING AND UNDERGROUND, SHALL HAW A LEVEL 11 CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY OR A 10541 U CONTRACTOR'S CERTIFICATE 04 COMPETENCY. IF 711E INSTALLER IS DIFFERENT FROM THE BACKFLOW PREWNTON DE9GNER. THE INSTALLER MUST 01611P, SIGN, AND DATE THE PLANS, IN ADDITION TO THE DE9GNER'S STAMP, 9G46106 , AND DATE & INSTALL WATER MARKS CROSSING SEWER UNE5 SO THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER MAN 15 AT LEAST 18 INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE SEWER. LOCATE FULL SEMEN O WATER PPE SO NAT ITS MIDPOINT IS ABOVE THE SEWER PPE AT THE CROSSING. ME NSTALLATION MAY REWIRE SPECIAL STRUCTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE WATER AND SEWER PIPE. 9. INSTALL 601ER SUPPLY ONES AT LEAST 10 FEET HORIZONTALLY, MEASURED EDGE TO EDGE, FROM ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED SEWER AND AT LEAST 18 NCHE5 ABOVE THE TOP OF A SEWER. RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL DATUMS: HORIZONTAL DANA: NAD 83/91 BASED ON KING COUNTY AIRPORT DARPA 0960 SOUTH 28'42'09' EAST FOR THE CENTFRUNE OF THE RUNWAY. VERTICAL DATUM NAND 88. OTT OF SEATRE BENCHMARK NUMBER 22078 'SCRIBED 'X IN TOP OF WESTERLY BASED:LT FOR ARCO AM/FM SIGN BASE IN THE EASTERLY CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST MARGINAL WAY AND EL115 AVENUE SOUTH. ELEVATION = 17.87 FEET LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2, CITY Cr TUKWILA SHORT PLAT N0. L05-057, RECORDED FEBRUARY 28 2007 UNDER RECORDING N0. 20070228900007 IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TILE REPORT REFERENCE TTS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE DESCRIPTION SHOWN, FURRI9HED BY FIRST AMERICAN 07LE INSURANCE COMPANY, COMMITMENT NO, 1405-389491-WA1, DATED MARCH 11. 2009. THE EASEMENTS 840144 OR NOTED HEREON 60110 TO THIS COMMITMENT. NOTE EASEMENTS CREATED OR RESCINDED AFTER THIS DATE ARE NOT SHOWN OR NOTED HEREON. LEGEND EXISTING ALT PLASTIC' FIFE (Pi PAINT LSCI,001 (-'00EPC?GUND) ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PF POWER "OLE I // ' G.,ILC:NL, UNE PVC POLY VI -:1 CHLOFID= CP '"AITCH BASIN RECOFD --�-' CH.4IT.LINK FENCE (SP) SHORT ' LA; CONCRETE SURFACE o,. SIC -RIA DRAIN CONIFEF TREE (SI;E NOTED) SERAH 5TOR14 GRAIN MAr:HOLE CONCRETE PIPE ;C SA'IT,1F , SEWER 0111)0500511 TREE ' 5:7E NOTED) SSM(' 54{107411, SEWER ,)ANHO.E ELEC'"PICi L CGIID'i)T BURIED SSE SA1IT\P' SIDE SEWER EA ELEC1RICAL VAUL1 T TELEPHC15 UNE FF FINISHED 40700. TC TELEFHC NE 50501'!? FIRE '1,D0AV'T Tk-H-101E4H0':E MANH:ILE a, GAS VALVE 0 TRAFF,C "OLE 01'31 LUMiI'i AYIE 111 J.." A10CHOR T -;H TRAFF'0 '115111_ e:....5 JEOX LIGHT .4:NOT:CN 105 Tr15 TP.AF1' C '.101111 V.=ULT 0)11 WIRE W WA TE:7 1•.11 IS IRON P.41. W WATEP .�.� N'.. MONO CR WELL WFI WATER HETEF 7.11 1004,85115 WMH NATER ,<ANFICLE _ .E4 LI, :E. 'A'4 WATER :,ULT 11 WDM WATER _OWN 1,14-75ER PROPOSED 12 S0 8'W 8 -SS 8'FS PROPERTY LINE CENTERLINE EASEMENT STORM DRAIN PIPE WATERMAIN SANITARY SEWER ERE SERVICE 80 PROPOSED CONTOUR • 0 ■ O • 0 SPOT ELEVATION ABBREVIATIONS AC BC NSF co CFS 0. co CMP COMM CONC CONST CONT C.O.T. DDCVA DEPT DIA DIP EX FD FDC FDCO FFE SANITARY MANHOLE PH LL • STORM DRAIN CATO1 BASIN GP/4 GV NB IE KC LF LT MECH NH MJ YIN NTS OC FIRE DEPT. CONNECTION PC PERE RV PSE PT PVC PNET PVF RCP RB RDC0 RJ RR RT Sa. SD SEW 910 SSS S5C0 STA STD 51R TB 1C TESL T08 T1'P VC W W/ 141E 0 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 0- CAP N GATE VALVE • CLEANOUT • N REDUCER A A N X X sir FENCE WATER METER ERE HYDRANT . POST INDICATOR VALVE REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE ASSEMBLY SWING T1PE CHECK VAN - ...F_ ...F SWALE/DITCH ..••••• 1 /SHT. CX.02 I VICINITY MAP N.T.S. VvF64\ w ' \ J / KEY MAP SCALE: 1'=200' LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE ACRE BOTTOM OF CLIRB 8053801ON NORTHERN SANTE FE CLIME CATCH BASIN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND CENTERLINE CLEANOUT CORRUGATED METAL RPE TELECOMMUNICATION/COMMUNICATION CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUATION aTY OF TUKWILA DOUBLE DETECTOR CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY DEPARTMENT METER DUCTILE IRON RPE UST, EASTING EXISTING FOUNDATION DRAINAGE FIRE DEPARTMENT Cal/1E0110N FOUNDATION DRAINAGE CLEANOUT FIN191 FLOOR ELEVATION FIRE HYDRANT FLANGE GAS GALLONS PER MINUTE GATE VALVE HORIZONTAL BEND INVERT ELEVATION KING COUNTY 0NEAR FOOT LEFT MECHANICAL MANHOLE MECHANICAL JOINT. MINIMUM NORTH, NORTHING NOT N SCALE ON CENTER POWER PONT OF CURVATURE PERFORATED POST -INDICATOR VALVE PUGET SOUND ENERGY PONT 04 TANGENCY POLYVINYL CHLORIDE/POINT OF VERTU/ CURB PAVFMEHT POINT OF VERTICAL TANGENCY RADIUS REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE ROOF DRAIN ROOF DRAM CLEANOUT RESTRAINED JOINT RAILROAD RIGHT SOUTH SEATTLE CITY UGIT STORM DRAM STORM/ DRAINAGE MAINC E 9EET SANITARY SUE SEWER SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT STATEN STANDARD STRUCTURAL TELEPHONE THRUST BLOCK TOP OF RIM TEMPORARY EROSION It SEDIMENTATION CONTROL TOP Cr BANK 1111041. VERTICAL CURVE WATER/VEST MTH WATER METER AT CAI11110 BUSINESS DAIS BEFORE YOU DIG -800-4 -SSSS W 1- W Q_ bassetti e,vIdtects 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Single, Washington 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER KPFF tm1FMA..Sw 1600 Senile. WA 0101 it -Room sem F(m6169e1m LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SitoWatk hap LLC 199 Pok NW 66601I. WA 99101 (206)286 3026 FMOMS 3629 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Structural 611 19.61 Menu, sw69 S.I66 WA 716ot i (206)292 smF (006) 467 nee MECHANICAL 6 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Ergines mo s..866101 mo Seems. WA 00101 i (260)440 3376 F (20)4164150 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT 20tting 00 W 76. ay.Sub 1400 S.A 101 40 T (201)667007MSS F (266) 6610551 FOOD SERVICES JLR Design Group 557 suet® 1754 1306)62590200906)6260373 HARDWARE Mans Consulting 292 N.W W. SO* T(206)536-02. MA) 0201004 REVISIONS HIGH NE SOMA DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL ,6"41rM 6012 t591=nA1E' 01s1.11 Aga �A�l' 111f: KHfG NOTES, LEGEND, ABBREVIATIONS, AND INDEX C1.01 S°350'55"E 211 ~\ — • ✓- CAP Ex W. 6 ACNE. • 5/ .311 .111:111,S,•1 s'.(3)4 OF FU.:.T 10.11.10/.7(0% 9 :0» (:<•• >T :t; (. WA 1 5 84.19 53 :(741;5', WA i3;03 E 1637�9MO0 } f'ARCEI 1 542260002002 (17:"---4.193358:34 E-1� N=193347.152 E=1637308.61 OTT ST F,Esr I0/ • ,ECOfC ' 1 I ti/ 4� JE' PRC 0 - CFS TO ST. CT YAM., TOO WO( 1 ES i0 PW I, POE .10oL c'�>1LCnn�(.1.111,7-‘0 WTI--.. 3001 I i /` — - coo Nor 5.51URB AREA *DON 200' SHORELINE SETBACK CAP EX GAS 6 ACRE „t.• . •0,1(1 s. L__�.-kANDSCAPE RUNS FOR 1 N=19335714 �4 E=163782392 .d1 � *00(CRON OF PROPOSED CE 10 EDSDNG FENCE i ;... N=19321328 E=163758143 4.. 7.s-.-& L. L. i�-'•3 N= 19319722/_.'- -- /�1 • �.., ,.,. (\ 8=133776107 '.O. __ \ v 5cW �_mo"=s ;��`•'ys-1, es\em 2.4�9=i- ...2,:j-.=-41:- �_(1-acG__-os as54oI ,' ..c7.i2-4(- o �_ ,—` 1,1_1, 1 13 / \ Y mer�iL'�iab Jct 0 SLIP NO. 6 KEY NOTES FOR REMOVAL AND PROTECTION: REIAOVE COSTING IRRIGATION CONTROLS/64NDHOLE O REMOVE E/351INc UDur., POE, GUY *RES. TRAFFIC CONTRA BOX, STREET U015 MID BRACKET ARM 0 REMOVE RMROAD DEBRIS (116 AND FASTENEFS). 0 REMOVE 0051NG TREE 0 REMOVE EASING 1RAFTIC LOOPS © REMOVE AND 10.115E EXISTING SICK O REMOVE 0951IN0 ELECTRICAL VIIR1. BO 8031050 COSMIC FENCE. OSI REMOVE EXISTING STOW DRAIN LNC 10 REMOVE 035DNG STORM CATCH BASIN 11 REMOVE EXISTING CURB. 12 110105E EXISTING CONcot1E SDE WAUc/PAD/F001NG 13 REMOVE 0051846 ELECTRICAL INE BENEATH PROPOSED 866DNG FOOTPRINT. COSTING ELECTRICAL UNE OUTSIDE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT TO BE ABANDONED -IN-PLACE 14 REMOVE E/3011N0 ASPHALT PAVEMENT. IS REMOVE EASING WATER METER AND 1' WATER UNE TO PONT OF REDUCIICN FROA 10' WATER STUB 10' WATER FOR PROPOSED EXTENSION OF 10' WATER TO PROPERTY UNE UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. SEE UTILITY PLAN. 16 ABANDON -N -RACE - EIECI1OCAL INE 17 ABANDON -IN-PLACE - GAS UNE CAP AS SHOVE IF ACME le ABANDON -IN -RACE - WATER INE CAP AS SHOWW. 6 ACRE. G PROTECT EX3S11110 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE(S), CATCH BA08(0), OIL WATER SEPARATOR OPROTECT MING STORM DRAIN UNE q' PROTECT MING UTILITY POLES), HANDHOIE(5). GUY WORE(S) O^ PROTECT D35TING TRAFFIC HANOIOLE \� PROTECT FASTING FIRE HYDRANT O6 PROTECT EX/STING WATER MAIN 184E OPROTECT ENSING WATER METER(S) OPROTECT COSTING 100004084E/COWMOCATIONS VAULT OPROTECT 8001816 IBM GROUND REYMATNN PIPE(S) <0> PROTECT 0301040 ELECTRICAL 1046 0 PROTECT MEG IEIEPHONE/COMMUIOCADONS UNE PROTECT EXISTING FENCE 0 PROTECT ENSTNG MONITORING WELL 14. PROTECT EASING INDUCTION LOOPS T.,: sex LINO_. _- (TOY. DEMOLJ11ON LEGEND ChxC> • ASPHALT PAVEMENT CONCRETE P4YEMENT/UTUTY VAULT WATER LE so STORM DR4NA(i UNE ,F4-I-{-,vp-1-F•I- STOREY DRAINAGE INE REMOVAL GIS UNE CHNN-1116 FENCE CHAIN -R➢( FENCE REMOVAL CURBRFMOVAL 0ECTRI x UNE / / / ElEC1PoGIL UNE =OVAL oo co, TELEPHONE/COIIAUNICADONS UNE METER VALVE FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY STORM ORANA0 CATCH BASIN SRR IRE - - -- PROPERTY UNE 00AOIDON AND QEARING UNITS ® TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE P HANOHOLE s PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL POLE GENERAL DEMOUTION NOTES 1 CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY UTUTY LOCATIONS EXISING UTILITIES MAY EX35T THAT ARE NOT 9(04.44 ON PLANS ALL UIWIIE5 AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES SHOWS TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE. 2 UNDOCUMENTED URINES SHALL BE RECORDED AND PROTECTED. 6 RE1100AL 5 NECESSARY, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ENGINEER PRIOR TO REMOVAL 3. TRENCHES FROM UTUTY LME REMOVAL TINDER THE PROPOSED BUILDING SHALL BE 600 616D *144 STRUCTURAL FTU MATERIAL PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE (EOIEONICAL REPORT. 4 CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONTINUED 006801100 CF EXISTING AND TEMPORARY STORM SYSTEMS GRAPHIC SCALE 0 156DXi I bassetti ei,,tects 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle. Washington 91104 T (206)340 9500 F (206)340 9519 CML ENGINEER KPFF mop e.mb,WASMM • 1(306)8861122 F(2061622 5130 IANOSCAPE ARCHITECT SiOeWM.90op LLC : 0/W ( Sea TIm51 mon f11661 MTNA STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS SWCWFa1 511 0204.. a 8 .am 66m.. WA 0610/ T Me( ffi 6016 F13061 bATIM MECHANICAL 8 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER 1.16160 Engineers Scab. WWAt0il 1000 T(21:6)41113378 f (86X44*450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Spall.53 Way, 0—tw4O1 um *la WA 0M01 i p05)657 F(1116166f 0684 FOOD SERVICES JLR Design 062u0 .A Rey Sen10a..11 4 scab, WAm100 T (E6)11251:10711f (206)65 OTO HARDWARE Adams CmnMSng MTN.AM Met Scar. WA WO 1(2057 F(2ml®o,m DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL 09 NO. ns1. ry,TE: t01AWNBn ,•JFrvTOex 18,11 Etcoommzo MW11n VISPTI DEMOLITION PLAN C2.01 • • 7 ST 001 '51(,7 sx, rr7.61. TO- -5 JP Tr SLI r4HCE (r'IP.) UNIT OF WORK, (115.) Ea li II maw (.000 - - L 4.7.,:____� F—...� @—' 5E- _ E ,,,, ---1,_:,E 4-- f—"-,�.,.i- —FlEID LOCPIE AND wSrALL i, uEv ��� ='7� 1. (�1 _.-- -INTERCEPTOR 01101ES TO DIRECT-LADE,If.�_---�` y -44;"4_4.:--WATER-FROM THE.OISTl1RBED=AREAS• 0 -THE--_ „/ - -R _ - ___ -- ,,: + �•,. SEDIMENT TRAP IMMIX DEPTH OF 12 NOES. _ ^ . • c __. - _ -- -_—. _—_ _—. .. INLET PROTECDON SHALL — EHE USED UNTIL REMOVAL ,��- `.i •s' OF SIRUCIURES _ - w0ELPROTECI1ON SHALL 8E -USED 89111 REMOVAL - - 0E-STRUCTURE ,—C4I11. BASIN INSERT. 11YP) t7 �ca±smuCnDN 4F ANa. J \\ •i9i.' CONTRACTOR 10 FlE7D,� LOCATE �� A N-P1P9P33C5E7L t }8 ICS .f+'r i uENCrULTRVERANTE O CONVEY EEir1' Ot ., FROM INNR =195OR DITCH 1.1)069 CONSTRUCTION ,, qM`\ J DF m-\17,vEV SEAT 7E. ^' 11=9631904,00 1 \5<2:60r. 002 m --_-- \\ 7 / cln • 1 _ ` __ F=1637761,31 sI 1 <—_ —_� `. 1\ •'i N=193347.56 E=1637308.25 7 00 57 VC? C11000, 70 P. TOO WO+ 51,101•0 W.7157 7O 707 T07.u r)101 L 0.0 FE4 TO HATIE ...0.7711 N=19371291 E=1637580 98 \-SW SLIP HO. 111APORARY C00S1RUCTION STORAGE PWD (187,589 GAL) DESIGN FOR 10YR DEVELOPED UNDETAINED 0 137 CES REWIRED Aim = 055 AC -FT (179,381 GAL) PROVIDED VOLUME > 057 AC -FT (187,589 GAL) ■ UNIT OF WORK 9LT FENCE WARRY SPALLS CATCH BASIN INSERT INLET PROTECTION INTERCEPTOR 0ITCH 1. SEE SHEET 0302 FOR 7 ESC. NOTES. 0GRAPHIC SCALE 00 6M. 30M1 E --- W 1n Cd111WO BUSINESS ` 1= DAIS BEFORE YOU D� 1-800-424-5S55 , ii bassetti sichltects 71 Columb., Street, Saito 500 50090, Washington 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CIVIL ENGINEER I0'FF 1001 71110...10 10D0 S2Ws. WA 00101 7970)675092 7(20619229100 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SifeWmk hap LLC tat Pos., S4 WA 35101 1(06)2 59926 F(76)7850620 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS SWc6ual 9110B01A 0010.1 704 7 3•000,100 0 1(791792 507878 7(206)46T MS MECHANICAL 8 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Engineers 804135%& 1000 aewe,44035101 1(76149977% Fp35)4494450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT SPaNng rma,. Way. Sub 1.35 1204,48135151 (2001061.555F FOOD SERVICES R Design 551•11.0050.sus 1750) SSW* LE109 11761824e0740(2351970.73 HARDWARE Adams Consulting 021 5.01 sesame T)4 %)52728447 9255) 5260118 REVISIONS IIGIINEI OOL 1T RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL = an Imn9 SATE 580680115026 WWII BY• 95410 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (T.E.S.C.) PLAN C3.01 • FLIER FABRIC MATERIAL MNM1 100X OR EOM SE STAPLES OR 'MRE RINGS TO ATTACH FABRIC TO IMRE 27•2'.14 GA WELDED VIRE FABRIC OR EQUAL STEEL FENCE POSTS 0 4'0 C (TYP,) 0 IA KIT 110N A -A NOTE UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT OR WREN DIRECTED BY THE OWNER TINE FUER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE REMOVED IN IIS ENTIRETY AND DISPOSED OF BY TINE CONTRACTOR ADAPTER SKIRT TRIM 70 -� W171161 5' OF GRAZE, (1111.) SILT FENCE DETAIL NTS • NDISTURRED GROUND BURY 017ER FABRIC N TRENCH FILLED WITH GRAVEL BACK- FILL FOR DRAINS RETRIEVAL STRAP VERFIOW BYPASS FOR PEAK STORM VOLUTES Ip2I\»IIVIII/I//, 11016011E FABRIC INSERT SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION NOTES: 1. INSERT SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR 10 CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITY, OR UPON PLACEMENT O A NEW CATCH BASIN 2. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ME UNIT WHEN N BECOMES HALF FULL 3 SEDIMENT REMOVAL SHALL BE ACCONPU9ID BY REMDNNG INE INSERT. EMPTYING TO TRUCK FOR OFF -SUE DISPOSAL AND RENSERING IT INTO THE CATCH BASH. CATCH BASIN INSERT NTS - EXISTING IODIC PI0R 04701 GROUND / CUTIN COSTING GRADE 21 MAXIMUM-' SIDE SLOPES 12' MN. LEVEL BOTTOM NOTE PROVIDE STRAW WATTLES OR SILT DIKES, PERPENDICULAR TO DITCH CENTERLINE. AS REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE THE MOBL)7000N OF SEDIMENT TEMPORARY INTERCEPTOR DITCH NTS ELEV. = 18.0 NG`yOp9/ R=25' MIN. '''-------•...... 1111 ,.•: 4' TO 8' \ / QUARRY SPALLS AS REQUIRED. 100' (MN.) CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL 5' MIN. PROVIDE FULL ROTH OF INGRESS / EGRESS AREA NTS INLET PROTECTION FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL UNDER GRATE 118140 1401 OR EQUAL NTS 3.0' 88.5' TEMPORARY ER090N AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES I. THE ER090N PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (IESC) MEA9U015 ON THE APPROVED PLANS ARE MINIMUM REOUIRENENTS. 2. BEFORE BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. ESTABUSH THE CLEARING 011175 AND INSTALL CONSTRUCTOR ENTRANCE 3. BEFORE ANY GROUND DISTURBANCE OCCURS, ALL DOWNSTREAM ER090N PRE101ON AND SEDIMENT CONTRA MEASURES (ESC) MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND N OPERATION. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ALL ESC MEASURES ACCORDING TO THE ESC PLAN. 4. ESC MEASURES INCLUDING ALL PERIMETER CONTROLS SHALL RE14AIN IN RACE 01111 FINAL SITE CONSTRUCTION IS CC1.0'tEIED AND PERMANENT STABWZATION IS ESTABLISHED. S FROM MAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, PROVIDE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT COVER MEASURES TO PROTECT DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN UNWORKED FOR SEVEN DAYS OR MORE 6. FROM OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30, PROVIDE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT COVER MEASURES TO PROTECT DISTURBED AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN UNWORKED FOR TWO DAYS OR MORE. IN ADDITION TO COVER MEASURES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL: • PROTECT STOCKPBES AND SILLY CU7 AND FILL SLOPES IF UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS • STOCKPILE. ON 91E, ENOUGH COVER MATERIALS TO COVER ALL DISTURBED AREAS. 7.131 OCTOBER 8, SEED ALL AREAS THAT MILL REMAIN UNWORKED DURING THE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30). MULCH AL1 SEEDED AREAS. & APPROVAL O 111 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL (TESL) PLAIN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN APPROVAL OF PERMANENT ROAD OR 0OMNALE DESS (E0. 97E AND LOCATION OF ROADS PIPES RESTRICTORS, CHANNELS RETENTION FACTURES 81101110, ETC.). 9. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE ESC FLANS AND THE CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT, AND UPGRADING OF THESE TE5C FACILITIES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY O 7HE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR UNTIL ALL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND APPROVED AND VEGETATION/LANDSCAPING IS ESTABLISHED. 10 THE BOUNDARIES OF THE GEARING UNITS SHOWN ON THE IE5C PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY RAGGED IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. DURING TUE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, NO DISTURBANCE BEYOND THE RAGGED GEARING UNITS SHALL BE PERMITTED. THE FLAGGING SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY TIE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURA0ON OF CONSTRUCTION. 11. THE TESL FACILITIES MUST BE CONSTRUCTED IN CO INCTON 11111 ALL CLEARING AND GRADING ACTIVITIES, AND IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO INSURE THAT SEDIMENT AND moon UDEN WATER DO NOT ENTER THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, ROADWAYS, OR VIOLATE APPUCABLE WATER STANDARDS 12 THE 1ESC FACTURES SHOWN ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTICIPATED 9TE CONDITIONS DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD, THESE ESC FAOUIIES SHALL BE UPGRADED AS NEEDED FOR UNEXPECTED STORM EVENTS AND TO ENSURE THAT SEDIMENT AND SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER DO NOT LEAVE THE STE. 13. THE MSC FACTURES SHALL BE INSPECTED DAILY BY THE APPLICANT/CONTRACTOR AND MAINTAINED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THEIR CONTINUED FUNCIERINO 14. THE TES: FACILITIES ON INACTIVE SITES BULL 8E INSPECTED MID MAINTAINED A MOBNUM OF ONCE A 110110 OR WIIHN 10 48 HMS FOLLOWING A MAJOR STORM EVENT. 15. AT NO TIME SHALL MORE THAN A FOOT OF SEDIMENT BE ALLOWED TO ACCUMULATE 111101 A TRAPPED CATCH 8ASN. ALL CATCH BASINS AND CONVEYANCE LINES SHALL BE CLEANED PRIOR TO PAVING AND SIBSTANTAL CONPLEMIN. THE CLEANING OPERATION SHALL NOT FLUSH SEDIMENT LADEN WATER INTO THE DOWNSTREAM SYSTEM. 16. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 114E BE(I80NG OF CONSTRUCTOR AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. ADDITIONAL MEASURES MAY RE REOURED TO INAIFE THAT ALL PAVED AREAS ARE KEPT CLEAN FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. 17. SEE 917 0.01 FOR C.O.T. GRADING AND FR0901 0141R01. NOTES 3.0' MAL WATER SURFACE EIEV. = 17.0 BOTTOM EL1V. = 11.25 PUMP UNE 3' PVL SCH 40 LID 0.EV.-17.5 55 GAL STEEL DRUM PROVIDE COVER 841)1 k WEEPHGLES OR SOLID UD (ENGINEER TO s DECIDE) RUMP ag 3 WRAP STEEL DRUM 10114 FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL MIRAFl )00X OR (DUAL OVERLAP FILTER FABRIC MN 6' AND FASTEN 19111 STAPLES OR TUNE RINGS 54.0' E FlL7ER FABRIC FENCE (1117) S LT LADEN WATER TIP. POD SETTLING WIDE ABOVE SEDIMENT STORAGE AREA SHALL 8E 25,077 CF MIN SEDIMENT STORAGE AREA. 1.5' 684. DEP1H-5,164 CF SUBMERSIBLE PUMP HYDROMATIC 9345 OR EOUVAL(NT W/ BOAT ACTIVATION SYSTEM DEMENT BLOC( PLACED UNDER PUMP TEMPORARY SEDIMENT POND & 55 GALLON STEEL DRUM W/ PUMP NTS NOTES 1. PUMPS SHALL BE SUBMERSIBLE, AND HAVE A MN. CAPACITY OF 1.37 CFS (615 GPM). ' PERFORATE STEEL DRUM ABOVE SEDIMENT STODGE AREA 2. MAXIMUM 5109480160 AND GROUNDWATER 01501ARGE RAZE FROM SITE IS 1.37 CFS 3 EXCAVATION MAYBE ALLOWED TO STORE WATER DURING PERIODS O NIGH GROUNDWATER 1045112.10E0 MAY BE S19'EDEO DURING PERIODS OF HIGH GROUNDWATER. 4. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE TRAP WHEN IT REACHES 12' N DEPTH. • 5. ANY DAMAGE TO THE TRAP EMBANKMENT OR SLOPES SHALL BE REPAIRED. bassetti 8ltects 77 Columbia Street. Suite 500 Seaga. Washington 98104 T (205) 34D 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CIVIL ENGINEER KPFF MI FM M 3,,Mo aA s.W11lr,a T (MOM Sea f finel.2311130 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SM0Woa3Mp LLC 9 •�W M,3, T(SONA7]0}11 f MANS WM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Saudaal 111, F.n*a. ar@p T(208) .125075 (2X)4677me MECHANICAL A ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Enghsn Ao* 123 air 1000 s••a•.WAoe,o, T(Eq. vA e1121)44114450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sparing TAC. WM.Or,ue 546WA11Fa T 80 MU oSi. MINI f63N F000 SERVICES 3LR Design Group SPRoRSa•LS USA 1(206)025a3704N0.780073 HARDWARE Adams CasNno a37N•WA'9w M SAm. Ye107 i(21:6157Aaa F73a)57aa13. REVISIONS NIGRO&S00OL DISTRICT4N RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL AMID- P&WLBY LEN ar 1380 ELM 0888844 2226B2 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT :IT CONTROL CONTROL DETAILS AND N NOTES / 110 BU9HESS oar BEt You o; W C3,02 • 1-800-121-5555 , a r1 • c l.. ll 14,E 743-LF.s. .. CV U W W S E N Cn pmao0000mlG ( LIMIT OF GRADING, (TW.) / W J Q I _ (w) T.1 T RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL FFE=19.25 ,23 cAs O � • tr o o p G GAG �Cn o+�no p�jG \ O O . O � nr,s1 F,. e 1- '• NOTES : 1. ALL CATCH BASINS AND AREA DRAINS SHALL HAVE LACKING UDS 2 TRENCHING AND BEDDING FOR STORM DRAINAGE SHALL BE PER C.O.T. STD PLAN DS -148 3. IF PAVEMENT SUBGRADE PREPARATION 15 COMPLETED DURING WET WEATHER, IT WILL LIKELY BE NECESSARY TO REMOVE 12 -RICHES OF 1HE ON-9TE SOIL AND REPLACE R 'MIH CLEAN GRANULAR RLL TO ACHIEVE RECOMMENDED COMPACRON. SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (OCTOBER 5, 2009, CECENGINEERS). 4. SEE SHEET 01.01 FOR C.O.T. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND STORM DRAINAGE NOTES EARTHWORK ESTIMATE ACIMTY 001 EBL N.U. DEMO ASPHALT 515 CY --- 515 CY CUT (WASTE) STRIPPING (GRASS/GRAVEL) 1,203 CY --- 1,203 CY CUT' SUBGRADE PREPARATION 3,169 CY 1,829 CY 1,340 CY CUT" NOTE EARTHWgIX OUANRRES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD NOT TO BE USED BY CONTRACTOR FOR BIDDING. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 0644 OUANRTY TAKEOFFS 0RA55 AND GRAVEL STRIPPING MAY BE USED FOR FILL BY DIRECTION OF GEOTECHFBCAL ENGINEER. "INCLUDES VOLUME FOR BUILDING SLAB AND CAPILLARY BREAK DRAINAGE STRUCTURES: C> TIRE 1 CB PER WSDOT STD PUN 8-5.20-00 N=226368.93 0=1633688.24 RN=16.75 IE=14.75 (4) \/ TYPE 1 C8 PER W500T STD PIAN 13-5.20-00 N=22640230 (=1633688.21 RIM=16.92 8• IE=14.55 (S) 8• IE=14.50 (W) w GRAPHIC SCALE CAII 16,0 BUST SS DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG 15°2° K 1-800-424-5555 a O` bassetti artli!te xs 71 Columbia So.), &Re 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (208) 340 9500 F (206)340 9519 CIVIL ENGINEER KPFF 1401 Feb Aa, 96,.1880 Sm.. WA 96101 11200) len 5821 0(266)622 8150 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SitoWatkshop LLC 1. Pm A6" Sam., WA 08101 r (206) 255 3021 7(556)2655580 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Stocks& 811 81.6 Menus AW 821 some. WA 60. 0 R20O2585078 7(86)1611.6 MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hage Engineers e0051.6181..81000 S.ak, WA 98101 T(2%)4183376 7(04)448450 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Spading 720 W.a W.7.9M 1100 Se... WA 98101 T (2061 667 0555 71286166, 05 61 FOOD SERVICES JLR Design Group 2 WA98i09 1158 2 T (206)00 008 F)04) 0.6 00+3 HARDWARE Adams Consulting 33318.618 sob 8261 Sea. WA9810 r(2081MOSS F ROM 52601.8 REVISIONS 6184.840 soca. DISTRICT401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL SAN, ffifo koro SATE' 0. ED MAWS 110- KAE0) GfrLaEO ar GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN C4.01 ES •7.97 ir L r.7, OE 0` • 61 Lf TO' SO \64600 0 06x (4N) 8 6 +O0 f SOUTH-9.2ND._PLACE __64+DD ...N8850'S6• J4\ \:d 24 11 8.3D- 0,06% (MIN) 243 LF Jr 50 0 63+00 20 16 8• SD 0 0611 (416) I � :SO,LT 8•. SOL 1 0,2 6 IN) 20 18 I 0 0 (WN)' RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL FFE=19.25 1 D a (1) m 16/) m m :1 Sq.= N1c: 0411 OL GRADING. (TYP), 36" P P_ CH.:'iG!'.' 10 OF ?. ha,, amIn . rs 1;4 +,r .. Al TI A: 7.51) i 1.4?7:'.44. DID0044! 1�TF7. ::4L 1n D'.',71, W'%`EF t 11J41 :'V'�• NOTES : 1. All CATCH BASINS AND AREA DRAINS SHALL HAVE LOCKING UDS. 2. 1RENCHING AND BEDDING FOR STORM DRAINAGE SHALL DE PER C.O.T. STD PLAN DS -14A. 3. IF PAVEMENT SUBG ADE PREPARATION 15 COMPLETED DURING NET WEATHER. IT WILL LIKELY BE NECESSARY TO REMOVE 12 -INCHES OF THE ON-SITE SOIL AND REPLACE IT W1111 CLEAN GRANULAR FILL TCE ACHIEVE RECOMMENDED COMPACTION. SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (OCTOBER 5. 2009, GEOEN0NEER5). 4. SEE SHEET 64.01 FOR EARTHWORK ESTIMATE 5. SEE SHEET C1.01 FOR C.O.T. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 0140 STORM DRAINAGE NOTES. DRAINAGE STRUCTURES: TYPE 1 CB PER WSDOT STD PLAN B-5.20-00 N=226377.93 E=1637662.83 864=17.90 8• (=15.62 O TYPE 1 C8 PER WSDOT STD PUN B-5.20-00 6=193542.19 E=1637663.30 RIIA=17.74 8• (=13.04 (E) 8• (=13.04 (5) 8• (=1299 (W) O48. 0 TYPE 2 00 PER WSDOT SID PLAN 8-10.20-00 N=193545.77 E=1637469.23 ROA=16.91 8• IE=11.82 (E) 10. 0=11.77 (S) O TYPE 1 CB PER WSDOT SID PLAN B-520-00 9=193485.75 E=1637448.02 RILL=17.05 8• IE=14.05 (E) 70.48. 0 TYPE 2 CB PER MOOT SID PLAN 6-10.20-00 9=193485.35 E=1637468.02 R51=16.65 10• (=11.42 (N) 8. 0=12.05 (W) 10• (=11.37 (5) OTYPE 1 CB PER WSDOT STD PUN 9-520-00 9=193423.76 E=1637446.78 RWI=17.08 8• IE=14.08 (E) OTYPE 1 CB PER WSDOT SID PUN 0-520-00 N=19342136 E=1637466.77 R91=16.65 6 1E=13.95 (W) 8. 1E=1190 (E) I(> TYPE 1 CB PER W5000 511) PUN B-5.20-00 N=193383.67 E=1637703.83 ROA=17.25 7 (-1525 (591) <1)).TYPE 1 CB PER WSDOT v STD PLAN B-5.20-00 N=193266.67 E=1637645.88 RIM=16.80 8• IE=1480 (NW) (`2> TYPE 1 CB PER WSDOT STD PLAN B-5.20-00 N=193335.51 E=16376)0.20 RIM=16.60 7 E=14.15 (NE) 8. 1E=1415 (SE) 8. 1E=1410 (NW) FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE W/ 16tH -FLOW BYPASS 9=193418.04 E=1637495.74 RIM=17.21 10• IE=10.93 (NW) 8• IE=1250 (W) 8' E.10 47 (SW) (TO AQUA -SWIRL) 8• 1E=12 50 (SE) 17 IE=985 (S) (NIGH -FLOW BYPASS) 12• BYPASS RISER EL=11.30 14 AQUA-fi94R1. AS -2 (FOR H-20 LOADING) 81=193414.88 E=1637487.36 RIM=17.17 8• (=10 42 (NE) 8• IE=10 42 (W) 5 STORMFIIIER VAULT (29 ZPG CARTRIDGES) 1J=193408.41 E=1637478.23 CENTER R111=17.12 OUTER Po94=17.08 8• tE=1039 (NE) 7 (=8.09 (SE) EX SOW RIM=17.46 EK 27 (=5.76 (NE -SW) Ex 8• IE=11.66 (N) EX 17 (=1206 (E) EX 7 (=14.26 (5W) 17 (=9.75 (N) 6• IE=6.01 (W) GRAPHIC SCALE i I DAE11000 mos ollllll DAYS I''I ORE YOU DIG 20 ft. i I-800-411-555 / bassetti atchltects 71 Columbia Street. Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (208) 340 9500 F (206)340 9519 CIVIL ENGINEER NPFF laE1 F88 Me, 94181E Seattle. .98101 i NOW BII 5822 1956)6108103 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SA8Walkshop LLC 192719.119, 9ae0, WA 98101 T088)215.93 FN06)2851829 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS &Wese1 811 FMMaw. SW* 620 SWUM 28104 182)292 5016 FFNW40777. MECHANICAL Si ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Ramis Engineers 800 5..1St. 941000 108.WA90101 )4 T NpW441T la FNEWW WO ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT S ding MOWN.�94149E 1WA 98101 T)200N0W8670555F (MOW 0554 FOOD SERVICES ,119 Design Group 55430F58.1941130 409, WA 98109 10036)e1500709(236)8250e13 HARDWARE Adams CmsMlelg 23077 05104.1 100.. WA199103 T pas) 528@44 F (206) 5x(90138 REVISIONS HIGH. !SCHOOL 001810/401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL 109612 IS0W nATF. '=035 00y® OAAWN eY: clfacE➢BY' MEYME11=11617 GRADING AND STORM DRAINAGE PLAN C4.02 \ •,`\ /• \'q ,•:N. Eie` �U TL i E RCLT \ ,, i ,;F: 9!L- ` F — _ L ` I raj:./ \ \1 \ — SOUTH 92N) PLACE --- _ \‘.3r,---' : \ss.::.: _IO1l537 1 -1E-15 58 IE=15.80_ ; - 'Tat: O TI D 1, ©1lDGD r;• Ii : I (E=15.89 ^ , A IE=16.19 N 1 ®i I =16.66 I _ 17 POGO ROOF DRAIN. DOKNSPOUT 11E,;. A0� -- , I_: ; . , , ,I -5i,1 ,- -. __L ONTO PUNIN BY, ARCH._TYP. . -T-, L- ID 1 , I ! `a' '( 1- —, - —rFDCO 1 =806_ ( i l RAISBECW AVIATION i1IGH SCHOOL ,j'17°°:_ \ _, �J 11 1';,—� FPE119.25; I 1111 II t' I �- TD 1, ®CONNECT DONMSPOUT 10 I 1E -r788 :�_ I ROOF DRAIN.: (TYP) , , 1 'T (/ N:=- O U 1--- W W (=i) W W Cr) N U -E=17.64 ~Q ; IE=111 ,e 10 (E&5 5W) FOCO FDCO IE=15.90 IE=16.24 RDCO 10.1489 i �\ 1C=1531 RDCO IE=1470 \-E=15.12 At_V--S.OLTD PVC RD COLLECTOR PIPE 00.7%(TYR) o LOCO I(=1697 RDCO 0=15.03 4' POT7 P00 FD COLLECTOR RPE 0 055 (9N), (119.) ACO MODS TRENCH DRAM BODY ALONG SEAT WALL MIH 5'-940E 3AMISON GRATE BY URBAN ACCESSORIES SEE •, LANDSCAPE PUNS FOR RIM ELEVATION 27 -T\ T r _ F 1 5 1E' 5 LIGHT NOTES : 1. TRENCHING AND BEDDING FOR ROOF DRAINAGE SHALL BE PER C.O..T. STD PLAN DS -14A. 2. SEE 5RT C1.01 FOR C.O.T. STORM DRAJNAGE NOTES. GRAPHIC SCALE 1W0 BUSINESS DAYS BEEORE YOU OIG i2 H� - 20 R 1-800-424-5555 , bassetti 8Icn/aecrs 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (206)340 9500 F (206)340 9519 CIVIL ENGINEER KPFF 001 Fm A.. Sam 1600 sm.. 1,11e101 (206)621 sea F(20.18II61]o LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT S)tsWakshap LLC 3987, 2267 WA 01 7 (2 6)285 3025 F (106) 265 0620 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER ' PCS 56811a0881 .11 8181Arettle.5WY 630 58.10, WA OM. T(30612.¢5076 F(306),61 Tree MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Engineers sw4.na Sm Iwo sena w896101 (206) 483 3370 9F21:0188e 8830 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Snarling MOW Way.S. um Bern. WA 0.101 7(206)6670555 F1 COP 0501 FOOD SERVICES JLR Design Group 5671107 Sr. ® 1150 SasT (206)623 0070 9206) eu 2073 HARDWARE Adamsm s.. Consulting tR06111 -004w400 (23e)5360138 REVISIONS HIGHJNE SCHOOL OGTRICT 401 RAI BS ECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL eq Mr IOM 1.810 051.8. sff9803064 9 1618W1137' 68170 CHECKED 818. 96101F7)59070498 FOUNDATION & ROOF DRAINAGE PLAN C4.03 303119,23 t.5T �� C 0`•F S.' S' -'C 1)1 ?' ,F1 \ \ \ \I\ \ \ \\ \ • ., %2 - - '•d\^:nT EL3VAT10• SHDVe1 17 57_Er.._ c R+A,:,•O-_C / %IPc DE'Alt. S3'9 4 1,-17.61 IE=6 31(27.0 341 & NS) 66.00 -e- 8 NB850.56 1' / • I .a,•of I 5-1 .1 S85'50'SS"E 542.82 SOUTH 92ND PLACE E ; CO 5.C=14 9090 !! ._� I ! r -'-F; R0' DRMN,DONNSP011Ti i I 1 I _ _ j1532�� 1 , ! 1 ! I ONTO PLINTH BY ARCH, Thr. I I -.1 !FDCO '-+-' 1' uJ.r I i 1 1 ! j r 11�- I I II 1 ;' 1 1 I I "7 414 ,,,IJ ISS , 'i, `:'-RAISBECK-!-AVIATON IiIDH SGh00LIT i i i ` 1 1 -.7 1 1 1 1 1 I' , i I I 1 1 T, ITrFFE= 9.25,) i �: 11 II -..:CT TO I -i L;i i1 ,71-1--c0NNEC2D0NNSPOUT1®. E9 8•`573 'II! %. , r - jTV'ROOE�RAIN ( )�( E-13.28 RDCO E=13721 I N0C0 1 1 RDCO i I I (ESLD SDW11) 1 483483 1 1 / 1Et1383 ! E 1433±, 1I 1 4 t,-,1IImo' ca+�r€ILCT I 1 4 R6 TO 1` , a E 117; C. ,e•74t2C8 111 . N=1)3374j711667 7 8• IE=12.,_5„7 . , T T it r i . 70*00 l 1 xl ) 69+00 J SDS {-f-h-- =1329 \5.,-=1'...0.3 - .)1.00 :$0850'56• _ 1X72+n ^'! . - 8• SCUD PVC RD COLLECTOR PIPE 0 0.716 (T1P.) E=14.14 4• PERF. PVC FD COLLECTOR PIPE 0 I 0.50 (NTN.), (79P.) C�7 m Cr" 9 n. CT TO EK CB. PLUG rm CONNECDONS AS NOIm. .r9 .Y;E ! EX 0=113.13 (N) 2 0E=77.75 EN. E=13.13 (EXPLUG) m f1'1 !_'r13.^.5 (N)_ELFEa1303-110- C•) CONNECT TO EX ICS. PWG EX CONNECTION A5 NOTED. EX 1 NE E:1258 (NXPWG) ! / . E%. E=13.48 (5) ------r- _C`- •1 - - - ��7x -_12-1238 (E) ~----! ,,1'137'2=1218 (NVB .3,5 ,'i _ _- CA:aNUES'A?.SI OFF 5!T` REC1�D -�- 3O^ PIPE i05.W_ - CHANGE5 TL I.P. S.W. OF MA'1C1. E. J MUCH 57 AHDI93ieA L0 PIPES 1992E O: FIELD._' VISIT 105 n7AVH::!- 35 9.3; APPEAR TO U' AVE FLOWING 4119737. =oUl;: 5H01.1.'" .o7B;,it ]B T �(.83 IC' SC LE A yam) r , r ' o -GH TIDE NOTES : 1. TRENCHING AND BEDDING FOR ROOF DRAINAGE SHALL BE PER C.0.7. S10 PUN 85-14A 2. SEE 0017 C1.01 FOR C.O.T. STORY DRAINAGE NOTES w GRAPHIC SCALE / CAI. two 855 DAYS 8ff08F YOU DIG e . 20 h. ` I-800-121-5555 , a bas�..s/Fetti e44a4I[ects 71 ColumNio Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 99104 T (206) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CIVIL ENGINEER 10111 SMI Ren Ave. 96IDA .1. WA4110, r (2u6)ea 5812 F(2Oe).11120 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SrteWarkshop LLC G1 Pad/4q 0006) WA atm T 006)lm 5cm )(X6)245 3e24 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Structural 8,1 FM MMFa.9ra24 ere.. WA Sna T gag ma mm Fp05)AVMS MECHANICAL 8 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hama Engineers HO Earn SI. SOY 1CO3 Soak, WAIN -101 T Remus Fpall) 4u..93 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Wing 220 own WV, Sub 0 ems,WAa101 T Mb) 0565Flm5l e51 OW F000 SERVICES AR Design Grcup 127123306351.2171* UMW. WA 06109 TRC6)eM0010 F I21,ele2e1:013 HARDWARE Adams Consulting Tv1Nor0,aawla eFra, WA MOS TWO 52114244 f (2a6) 52aatY OOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL "For GRID 005770512. 0.611P000 ram Cffi 6850 D€0 eT FOUNDATION & ROOF DRAINAGE PLAN C4.04 1X10-- Cnt DOWNSPOUT, SEE ARCH PLANS BUILDING COLUMN, SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS PIJNTH, SEE ARCH PLANS WATERPROOF ISOLATION JOINT 24 WIDE JAMISON TRENCH GRATE PER URBAN ACCESSORIES PERIMETER FRAME 'R' RETRO RT SIDEWALK PER URBAN ACCESSCRIES -.11Ibl 4% Baa 1' P TIL CONCRETE SLAB 2C -WIDE POLYDUCT BY ABT, INC., 41111 MODIFIED POLYWALL I SLDEw4l1 EXTENSION TO ALLOW FOR INSTALLATION OF GRATE 6' OUTLET BEYOND CONCRETE TO OVERHANG TRENCH DRAIN BODY AS NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR PERIMETER FRAME �TALIATION. BUILDING COLUMN, SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS DOWNSPOUT. SEE ARCH PLANS PUN1H. SEE ARCH PLANS 24' WIDE JAMISON IRENCH GRATE PER URBAN ACCESSORIES CONNECTION TO COLLECTOR PRE BEYOND TRENCH DRAIN DETAIL �t1 SCALE: 1'=2' FACE Of BUILDING / DOWNSPOUT, SEE ARO N PLANS a CAST IRON CAP. OUT HOE TO ALLOW DOWNSPOUT TO PENETRATE 41TH T/8' CLEARANCE. 4' CAST IRON COUPLER CLEAOOUT W/ BRASS CAP FINISH GRADE RLE CAP, SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS x1 ommo-iuvrn\ osr o 4' CAST RON 45' BEND 4 CAST IRON TEE PVC PIPE (off A5 INDICATED ON PIANS) SLOPE TO CONNECT TO STORM DRAIN 911E (201 MAIL SLOPE) CAST IRON TO PVC COUPLER ROOF DRAIN DOWNSPOUT CONNECTION SCALE. NTS C4�304 C4.03, C4.04 SECTION A CONNECT TO ROOF GRAN COJECTOR PIPE. PROVIDE FITTINGS AS NECESSARY TO \ MAKE 111E CONNECTION. TRENCH DRAIN PAST ELEV. AS NOTED ON PLAN AY•FCS COVER W/ LADDER DOWN TURNED TEE W/ CAPS AND ORIFICE 60' DIA TYPE 2 C8 J PER COOT SID PLAN 9-10.20-00 PEAK FLOW 131PA55 STAND RPE FLEXIBLE ADAPTER COUPLING 12' DIA HIGH - FLOW BYPASS ABOVE CRAVE (TYP) THREADED CLEANOUT (SAME DIAMETER AS PPE) 45' BEND PL10 OR PIPE CONTINUATION PER PLAN PLAN INVERT ELEVATION 4' JR SMITH 4020 CLEANOUT W/BRASS COVER OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT PERFORATED PVC DRAIN 45' BEND PIPE PER PLANS LANDSCAPE AREAS SECTION A 01.091OW EL. 11.30 ID=9.05 REMOVABLE CAP 12' LEE REFER TO ASPHALT 14 = CONCRETE O2 WENT3eF�. CONCRETE SECTION FOR SURFACING AND SUB(RADE PLUG OR PIPE CONTINUATION PER PLAN HARDSCAPE AREAS FOOTING DRAIN CLEANOUT DETAIL SECTION B FLOW CONTROL STRUCTURE DETAIL (-4- SCALE N.T.S. 04.02 SCALE N.T.S. C4.03. C4.04 \-PERFORATED PVC DRAIN PPE PER PILINS CRAWL 8A0OLL FOR DRAINS 4' PERFORATED PVC DRAIN PPE W/ PERFORATIONS FACED DOWN GEO1051E FILTER FABRIC 'WRAJI 1400 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT FOOTING DRAIN SECTION %n1 SCALE: N.T.S. C4.0` / cAIL IIID BUSES" DAYS BEFORE YOU DIC I-800-414-5555 W F- EC EC W a. bassetti .1tects 71 Colombia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (200) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER 1111 E ,m FFP Amt. aW 1e00 WA 98101 r poem 5m F0e6)me1]3 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SeeWorkshop LLC 1000002 55.e7)445 WAm,m T Ros)265ao26 Epee mis® STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS S9800*l e, FPFAWF.e. Poem 2WA 10 5475 F 14 F4206)457 7100 MECHANICAL 8 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Ewa aLaaSaae1A00 1 1a a.. WA Fele 1(2404444475 F2ee0404M ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sparing 770 45.101 ce rpopr5r oseMI 4Fm W. FOOD SERVICES 1.0 Design Group 5571577 30•01. 5.1755 5•2100,55 aum TTAemee74Fp0e5250n HARDWARE Adams Corla4Wp wPe7Pea.+ 137.5.00550103 We 5260440044 F (a6)1240114 REVISIONS IOGIRff SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL 775)42E' o[f.1AL'♦70 pPAWNm' .+=rFmm WINErt rn ala.Nm DRAINAGE DETAILS C4.05 TUU- CY�4 : oR �3 co 191 j ASPHALT P822909T HMA (PC 58-22) DENSELY COMPACTED CRUSHED ROCK BASE COURSE •0°0•0 0 00 • 0 00 • 0 00 • 0 00 • 0 00 e 0°0 • 000 • 0 00 • 0 00 • O • 0 00 • 0 00 • 0 00 • 0 00 >':/C2:"✓T"2Y�:>/v'n:.i.�r.,.�.��r.`�;�r.�;eL?t�..Z';.? COMPACTED MORALE -/ ON -91E SCR OR IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED TO MIN 9517 aF 97,0809 DRY DENSITY LIGHT-DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT (Th FOR P WNC SECRON SEE SCALE: ALT S. 0501. C5.02 r- ASPHALT PAVEMENT 1/2' HMA (PG 58-22) ///- DENSELY COMPACTED CRUSHED EOG( BASE COURSE / )� 0 0 0 • 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 • 0 • 0 0 0• 0 0 0• 0 0 0• 0 0 0• 0 0 0• O 0 0• o • 0°0 • 000 • 0 0-4?•0 00 • 0 00 • 000. 00 COMPACTED SUBGRADE - `ON-9TE 500. OR unarm STRUCTURAL FEL COMPACTED 10 WN 95% CF MAXIMUM ORY DEN9TY HEAVY-DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENT SCALL 1115 C5.0�1, 0 2 TROWEL JOINT, (RP) INTEGRAL CURB •AND SIDEWALK DETAIL (51 N.T.S. C501, C5.02 14 0 12 0.5 0.2 TO 0.4 INCH 1190( PREMOLDED JOINT MATERIAL CONCRETE SIDEWALK ISOLATION JOINT DETAIL 11.5. cp NOTE WENT STRIPING AS SHOWN ON PLANS PAVEMENT STRIPING DETAIL 5.1.5. 7. VERTICAL CURB DETAIL NTS 05.01, C5.02 SIGN MUST CONFORM TO 5UTC0 i--0 / STANDARD 87-814 8/0/1 R7 -8o METAL SIGN: ear TO PIPE COLUMN 8/ U-BRACAETS SIGN FOR VAN PARKING STALLS MUST CONTAIN THE WORDING *VAN ACCFS0Po E- 2 SCHEDULE 40 GALV APE THREADED ONE CND Y 1HRLADED COUPLING SET FLUSH WITH F1N191 \ GRADE 51/16' 7-2' 504000)E 40 GALV. PPE (161EN954) THREADED ONE END 4. 9810I15 STUDS • WFIDED TO E7TEN90N 1 58 CONCRETE FOOTING ADA PARKING SIGN SCALE NTS 05.01. C5.02 SIDEWALK AND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT INTERFACE SECTION A C5.01, C5.02 - PORRAND CEMENT CONCRETE DENSELY COMPACTED CRUSTED ROCK BASE COURSE • 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 O. 0 0 0. 0 00 • 0 00 • 0 00 0 00 0 00 • 0 00 • 0 00 • 0 000.000.0 • 000. 000.000. 00 COMPACTED 5118GRADE -/ ON-SITE 001 OR IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED TO (05. 9517 OF 580MUAI DRY DENSITY BROOM FINISH CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT (i SCALE: N.T.S. C5.01, 05.02 CONCRETE SIDEWALK DETAIL 9.1.0, ATTACHMENT DETAIL 6' j6 BAR (2) NON -SHRINK GROUT 9' 73/15' DIA. NOES am 05.01, NOTES 1. THE Na1-99221( atom. MED 10 ATTACH THE PRECAST CURB SHALL CON9ST OF 3:1 SAND AND CCJENT. GROUT TO A DEPTH OF 1' FROM THE 102 OF 11E BUMPER. 2 LOCATIONS FOR NEEPHCES, AND V-9.015 SHALL BE IDENTIFIED ON THE DELIVERY ORDER DRANINGS 3 CONCRETE SHALL HAVE A WORM COMPRESSVE STRENGTH OF 3000 P9 AT 28 DAYS CONCRETE WHEEL STOP DETAIL tt N.T.S. PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE DENSELY COMPACTED CRUSHED ROCK BASE COURSE • 0 0 0 • 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 • O 0) 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 0 0. 0 • 0°0 • 0°0 • 0°-,0 • 0°0 • 0°0 • 0°0 • 0°0 COMPACTED SUBGRADE ON-SITE SOIL OR IMPORTED STRUCTURAL FILL COMPACTED TO MIN. 958 OF 86090M DRY DENSITY CEMENT CONCRETE SIDEWALK (Th 1/8' TO 1/4' SCALE: N.T.S. F7-siDoTOOLILJIffT FOR r� CONCRETE SIDEWALK CONTROL JOINT DETAIL C5.01, C5.02 N T.S. 101 r (Tr) ■■■■■■■■■■■■ ■■■►-■■■■■■G ■■■1. ■■■■■■■ ■■■� I■■■■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■■■■ EWA mi°1■■■■ WANE AIM I ■■■L�� 1■■■ i■■■■■•J al■■■■■r► ■10411•■!I\L/■ ■■\n.Z.4■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■■■■■ GRID IS FOR LAYOUT MID IS NOT TO BE PAINTED wm n 147 ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL MOST CONFOFB4 1D MUT00 STANDARDS ADA STALL MARKING DETAIL t2 SCALL N T.S. C5.02 L - Eu En CN1 NO BUSPIESS" BAYS BEM YOO Dlc 1-800-424-S555 , PU° bassetti 71 Columbia Street, Sate 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F (209) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER LIPFF ImN Fm Are,lw tem 08)6 6328 rtIDNea mea 1(2661622etm LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SBeWor8sln7 LLC 1927 Aw wmt 108)2652026 F(220)x653w STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Sbodo9 61) FY5Aw•a SON VD 6586, WA 1(296) NE eon076 F00437 nee MECHANICAL A ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Engineers 5.20, WA 36761 T(206)441133111 F(228)4411.50 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sperling lm OM 457.. 5.251403 6•s11.. WA 911101 7085812055108)0172502 F000 SERVICES AR Design 015N7 SUR,SemA 5.175 Aeetm ".1..)625 OM F p.m, OOa HARDWARE Adams Consulting Stred 545N0.04011 3 108)526-0244 F 08)525.4105 REVISIONS 201311L*E SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL Rat DATE' 0F1s6.1130 1 Watt= &DM PAVING DETAILS C5.03 Ole 173 0 s it FiN 7s 01 55 CD U H W W C/1 `\\ , W CTI W S - C5 FV- 4E-47 64 Q 1 r 3 "(ESS' EX. OWEST DELIPHONE VAULT TO BE REMAIN. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE 911H MST FOR ANY ADJUSTMENT. EX SCI. VAULT TO BE REMOVED. SEE SHEET C2.01. CONT BY LANDSCAPE 8�SSMN N==193513515.30 6=1637958.55 RIM=17.55 8" I6=9.24 (Vi 3" IE=9.24 (NW) r f CO;:: 8' I6=843 (6) DIES \ 3= SS CONNECT TO t.\,-- 6176 \ ACID NUETRAUZATION - CONNECTION TO Ex, 8" GAS BY PSE ' 9=193569.33 E=1638079.77 CONNECT TO Fx. 42 KING COUNTY INTERCEPTOR SANITARY SEVER MAIN. SEE NOTE 3 N=19356488 E=1638073 90 EX 42' K=59 8' 8=021 TANK BY MECH. 4r a \:.14. o' WATER DEDUCT METER WITH WEATHERPROOF SENSUS GEC IRONIC COMMUNICATIONS REGISTER. PERMANENT EASEMENT REQUIRED FOR CITY TO ACCESS METER EX 8' COMBINATION METER TO BE REUSED FOR FIRE SERVICE CONT BY MECH. IE=13 4 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL .4=114,:. 1=1 _HT \ a UTILITY NOTES : 1. FOR STATIONING CONTROL, SEE HORIZONTAL CONTROL AND PAVING PLAN. 2. AU. UTILITY LIDS SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO FINAL GRADE 3. EXISTING UTIUTY DEPTHS AND LOCATIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR. 4. TRENCHING IN ROADWAY OF EAST MARGINAL WAY SOUTH MUST BE DONE AT NIGHT. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE MN THE (0TY OF TUKWILA. 5. TRENCHING AND BEDDING OF SMEARY SEWERS SHALL BE PER C.O.T. STD PLANS 05-148 AND D5-148. 6. TRENCHING AND BEDDING FOR FIRE/DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE SHALL BE PER C.O.T. STD PLAN WS -18. 7. SEE SIT C1.01 FOR C.O.T UTILITY, WATER SUPPLY, AND SANITARY SEWER NOTES. KING COUNTY SEWER CONNECTION NOTES: 1. CONTACT MR. BOB ISAAC (206/684-1029) AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO KING COUNTY& 42 -INCH, RBNFCRCED (09(60TE PIPE (RCP) EU JOLT BAY INTERCEPTOR UNE. 2. DURING CONSTRUCTION, NO DEBRIS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ENTER KING COUNTY'S ELLIOTT BAY INTERCEPTOR UNE 3, CONNECTION TO KING COUNIYS ELLIOTT BAY INTERCEPTOR UNE SHALL NOT BE BACKFILLED UNTIL IT HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY A KING COUNTY REPRESENTATIVE 4. KING COUNTY DOES NOT GUARANTEE PINE LOCATION, DIAMETER CR INVERT ELEVATION; THEREFORE, FIELD VERIFICATION IS RECOMMENDED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 5. THE PROPOSED CONNECTON SHALL BE MADE BY CORE DRILLING AND USE OF A NSERTA-TEE, MANUFACTURED BY FOWLER MANUFACTURING INC.. 1NE CONNECTION MUST BE A MINIMUM or 2 -FEET FROM THE NEAREST PIPE JOINT. 6. THE PROPOSED CONNECTION SHALL BE SEALED OFF UNTIL UPSTREAM CONSTRUCTION IS FIN1SHFD, TESTED, CLEANED AND ACCEPTED. ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS MID WATER SHALL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO OPENING THE SEAL. ALL TV INSPECTION AND/OR PRESSURE TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED N THE PRESENCE OF A CITY OF 11.110M1A REPRESENTATIVE. .0•-- In IN II/ 1-90' HB \ 2.5"x2' REDUCER 1 OUTSIDE WALL OF PIPE. (TVP.) EX ABANDONED 21' W TO REMAN REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE ASSEMBLY 0/ HOT BOX •♦ 2' 6LI hit PER CITY OF TUKWILA SID PLAN WS -02, INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR. METER TO BE INSTALLED BY CITY OF TUKWIA 1 TAP CONNECTION TO EX 18= WATER BY CONTRACTOR. SEE C.O.T. STD PLAN W5-03. 15 ■ COORDINATE WITH SCL PRIOR TO TRENCHING NEAR EX UIIUTY POLE DOMESTIC WATER LAYOUT DETAIL 0 SEE SHT C6.03 FOR WATER UNE PRO11E WHIM ROW w cn GRAPHIC SCALE / N'0 BUSINESS " DAYS FORE YOU DIG I Ind n 2e A. 1-800-424-5555 , a bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (206)340 9500 F (206)340 9519 CML ENGINEER KPFF 161 F4T AN Nile me 0516. WA 06101 Tf 616II SBa FROOM 6130 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SiteWorkshop LLC 1s°21338Aw 7101 T 506)265 MN sops/ems STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS &mature] 611 F9.1Awn. S.= Smb. WA 26144 1 NON. 1616 ANON. 177.5 MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hage Engineers ere animist son. 1000 NNW 1 304101 1 0161 444 3370(NNW 4416 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Spo 1Ing T[0 OM Way. SON 1400 Snub, WA 96101 T 804)662". NON. O. FOOD SERVICES AR Design Group 557 a..etw 1758 1420)460557014255)640073 HARDWARE /dams Consulting 261714ub S.* MIN T BON WAWA F 8as15a016e REVISIONS HIGHINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 . RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL NNE DATE LV1x4W8212083 I 26 sNse UTILITY PLAN C6.01 .00,1 C F r.11L -0.111401 11.,03. WEST , i - OFF ETE. •11 •V - 4- - _771: _--7----f..'1 , - v • 7 7 q - a • - 411k-; SD' Ex 04451 IIIEPHONE vA001 TO BE RDAAIN 4(77400 Ex COVER 11171.1 7I-20 RATED UD CONTRACTOR 10 COORDNATE WIN OwEST - FOR ADUSIMENT FT411 11.11"ED -.-7 • .. 66 00 SOUTH 92ND PLACE 1, -•, - _•• ;-•- 3357553674; !=...'":":_••••• .. _ • _ _ _ EY. FH 10 REMAIN • - - -7' ' i •• 1- r"----"" ,, , ,_ , , I I LLI 1_,,i,,±,L, __L'1„. ,, i ',„_= • ', i, -.:4,-,-.-z ' - ,E ' ; \ I I • . I . 1 EXTEND TO 10' W TO -.7" PROPERTY UNE ARD / • ti TURE SE. / L... „ I SlfiFRUU. i• l _ 411"-=H191T314,5 1008" 09 \1411,ATER TO 1/E=16::52354 .1, 0744710 (FRE 04))7 REMOVE EX WATER 4E1ER, 1ERVICAND ASSOCATED APPURTENANCES a461) V -:, _______-___ 48' SDOLI N=193521 74 1=163758396 014=18 48 6' 10=13 16 (6) 8 0=1311 (E) • ".7 -, S PR A L 1 48SSAI1 N=9351840 0=1637756.28 RA=1857 1E=1131(W) e (=1731 (S) lE=, 26 (E) 63+ 00 - • WI O•i • -13 LF l SS EX. ID WATER TO LF 25' 38004 11 410 •;1 mE0E7 0 „0131 :3161 S Er c Bt I ! 1 1 1 li 1; c -1. 1 I 1 I I s sa_ uto 40. 7/ 1 ei1 coN_2115::BY 8 1.F 8' V( I • • 7 SEE FRC SVNICE a I -Docv 69_IlIIIll 111 I11 I I I ).• III •/1; ;9340 4Ir s I ! Li i'-- r•;e1,7 I II I .1: • , AA -3• 637521 • _ 1 / 4'• 1 / !70400I s885, N7 --- rr- ri 0/36990 '1 . 111 6 liDR \ 6SS CONNEL COT BY MEM (.13.40 COT. BY MECH. IE=13.6 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL OL : UTIUTY NOTES 1. FOR STATIONING COTROL SE HORZOTAL CONTROA D PAVING PLAN. 2ALUUTY UDS SALBE AMSTED TO 0608 GRADE 3. E801140 LBUTY DEPTHS MO LOCATIONS %Ma BE VERIFIED BY COTRACTO. 4. TRENHING AND BEDDNG OF SANITARY SWERS SHALL BE PER C.O.T. SID PLAS DS -14A AD 05-148. TRN0110 AND BEDDING FOR FIRE/DOMESTC WATER SRVICSHALL BE PER C.O.T. SID PLAN W5-18 6. SEE SHT C1.01 FOR 00.T. UTILTY. WATER SUPPLY, AND SANITARY SVER NOTES. - --- --- - / 7 i 1. l'''''' •• • - '''''.'''..- -- l' 1: i'll'''t ;-'t , ''1, .,L; •-f"- ' • ‘ .... ,""1," ''''' 1 1"'-'11_.-.; ' 71 I 1 I , , ---e ..-- _ - \ vr€T-cr:_;71.7.../5 i(,•'-4.,5 If ) INSTAU_ VAULT STRUCTURE OUTSIDE OF 6' DOCVA ANO VAULT PFR CITY OF TUKWILA STD. PLAN eS-15 REDUCER 6'46' 1 0'.1...' '. i .. rri r-ri , I ..t , 1 • i ;,--., " 3.4 5 (r,) E.D.1•19-- - cnc)-1 - - 7 -211-•:' 9 EASEMENT i - ....----- ---- ) 1 1 ..---- I _...-- - -7. .. '111'' ''' ....-"• \ --- CU-ITiN..T.f. DSItTi:OSRI-:FE -"•.,',' -,- 7 ..), .'• ....-__ ..-..:.4',_' .,_ ..„.. ..._ 4F., - -E ( Li .....„ ........_,-,- A 1 -al AVEi- S AS !r`.---,..........,. -__--- ‘ -•:..,-_:..,,...../..•..,-,„ r • •,,,./.,„.,,,,..„.• • ..• .,•. „- • - • -IF , • - !-•c-)- -_- • A _..•-. - 1 /1 • -1o_ f, . 1 . • . „ 1 ! -,,, %,1 . c . ; •.. --..... .'". \ i! --- 36PIPE 11 .Y --•._ CHANCES D .7 i 311. -. UCH STAIIDIIr 007E4 It. PPES MHU Tm, OF 10100 -.-,' V519 THIS.445HLE ID NOT APPEAR Tt 17.10 101457 W, --- ,III !0T ,.. , •-• • L.F = 3 v" 5, 1 = 1 IN 1=111-4 1 / I 2 / 8 W/ 9-808 6'/ DUC11111TE (RJ) 8'46' I/ 1 RDUSR ... III / • 111 / SWING TYPE 1-90' HB CHEO( VALVE (RJ) 1 1 k FDC 1 m 07$- 1-90' KB 1 -FH ASSRIBLY 1 1 /7 (RJ) 1-6 GATE VALVE m r 6' W 1 1 REDUCER 10"46. I *a. ..... FIRE SERVICE LAYOUT DETAIL E/D GRAPHIC SCALE / all. Bio miss 01001° DAIS ENE You olc 74.21 .71 14)-424-555 lee RAC\ -mko‘ bassetti architects 71 Columbia Street, Suite 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (206)34D 9500 (206)340 9519 CIVIL ENGINEER KPFF 1E01 Aftl, IMO Satbe, WA 08101 mega: saxx RN) (<22 9130 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SiteWorkshop 11C 1921 Peal Me, S... 1)8101 01206)265.8 (2(16)23510211 STRUCTURAL E14GINE(R PCS Seuctural 811 Flest Minn. 5.620 Ses..WA WIN 0(.6)102 5014 000 467 77815 MECHNJICAL 8 ELECTRICAL ENGINEER Hargis Engineers 6�674464.067920 6..aWA92lOI 706)44 3.3713 F(19B). WO ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT SPaNa9 720 OM NW Suft1400 Sesale. WA 0(092)20) 0555 FOC6)1147 0554 F006 SERVICES JLR Design Groan 027 nor steer sam176* rSeMe..9171109 (../ F (2,15) QS OM HARDWARE 6047419 04464874 0131691931I92110 Sesals, 143103 (233)516,1344 F 5.26013/1 REVISIONS HIGHUNE SCHOOL 010186700 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL In, NO- • 121211/ SSFOAI7 n017402191 PRAWN BY. 601.5 0000390, 80.2€71160303601 UTILITY PLAN C6.02 A 30 25 20 15 10 5 PA PROJECT SITE :NSF RAI1R0 SEE NOTE 1 17.0' 2.5' W PA RIGHT OF WAY EK. 412 COMM DUCT BANK CONT. TO DIMING E%. Etd i- Ex 10' W 1-2.5x2' REDUCER 1-90' HB REDUCED PRESSURE PRINCIPLE ASSEMBLY IX ABANDONED 21' W 1-90' HB 1-2' DOMESTIC WATER METER NOTES: 1. SEE 011 SURVEY FOR TRANSNATION ENOCRSEMENT AND WIT CLAIM DEED, FILED WITH KING COUNTY (/20091214000963). 2. FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS. DOMESTIC WATER PROFILE SCALE:HORL 1'=10; VERT. 1'=5 30 30 25 20 15 10 25 20 15 10 P/L Pt PRO.ECT Y —711C41:1117— R RAILROAD NOTE 1 I7.0' 9(811 -0E -WAY EAST MARGINAL WAYSOUTHRIGHT OF -WAY SITE BOEING EASEMENT d0' CA I COMM 48' SSIAH PROPOSED GRADE EX GRADE 1 I E ECd T1Cd 16 1EIJPHONE FIBEROPBC FIBFROPRC 9 FIBEROPTIC 8' GAS 4x2 COMM L DUCT BANK EDI 1 6 TELEPHONE J 21' W J ( - 1 STORMThso E=9.3'1 7-Y TELEPHONE _i 18 W • we i r a' C.C. w n cr 5 5 NOTES: 1. SEE SITE SURVEY FOR TRANSNATION ENDORSEMENT AND QUIT CLAIM DEED, 91ED WITH KING COUNTY (/20091214000963). 2. FIELD VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS SEWER PROFILE SCALE:HORZ. 1'-10; VERT. I'=5 30 25 20 15 10 5 IX 425 KING CC NTY INTERCEPTOR SLYER (0000T BAY INTERCEPTOR) IE=5.9'± ?Lk° CAL IVO :' NESS DAYS BEFORE 00D DIG 1-800-424-5555 bassetti alchltects 71 Columbia Street SIAM 500 Seattle, Washington 98104 T (206) 340 9500 F (206) 340 9519 CML ENGINEER ICPFF tem s—. Aw 401ol tom 1/405)/225522 F 170011.11130 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SileW4tks6op LLC spm.. Are 05101 T 5001255 3025 F (206)255 5529 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS StreNAal 571002n,9WY900 5.402 WA 05101 1511612@5015 117069 4494 MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL ENGINEER . .2505 80061 8 .1000 am.. WA 53101 TOM). am 7/405)4111150 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Sperling 120 Ohs Way, 9u081102 T5051O510353 (2001007 1409 FOOD SERVICES JLR Design Group 551 Rw85..L @*1752 90810..44001® 112551625 ONO (206)000 Gen HARDWARE Marro Consu9419 U. 9•4114.90400103 1506152&0211 F f206152141311 REVISIONS MG/UNE SCHOOL DISTRICT401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL 20eno- "MK DATE OFmef1A&p gym' 4402 0g1280 111. -111E83120805583 UTILITY PROFILES C6.03 P AREA, TTP. PEDESTRIAN POLE U04T, REF. ‘..............4.K..9..% SCHEDULE Y WAIT OF CONSTRUCTION -- (2) 1.101 110 DO •;a : a Qjk ,FORINIIIII © BUS TURN. ROUND CONCRETE SEAT WALL REF. ys CAR DROP-OFF 181NN, iYP. ELEC. FUTURE SCHEDULESIA \ REF,. COAL SPECS. FOR CEO LK14TS. BOLLARD TP.. . • 4 PEDESTRIAN POLE LICHT, REF. ELEC. R8TURE SCHEDULE COY OF 11.11OV3A STANDARD SIDEWALK 6' HT. CHAN U01 FENCE h GATE STEEL LD0N6 AYAFION HIGH SCHOOL SIGN, REF. ARCH. LAWN HERM COSTING FENCE TO • TRASH RECEPTACLE • RECYCLING RECEPTACLE 0 SHRUB / GROUNOCO8£R • 11GPOLE • • BOLLARDS PROPOSED FENCE --.. - EXISTING FETKE TO REMAIN 0 O BOULDERS: 2-3 TOTS EA STEP / BENCH LIGHT, RTS. MC, FIXTURE SCHEDULE & SPECS PEDESTRIAN POLE UGFR, REF. ELEC. FIXTURE SCHEDULE & SPECS. CIVIL ENGTEFR 60r ▪ F▪ q 4Y,YIY,.Moi 6R Ob1 1ram saa fP6p@66 LML9CAP£ ARCIVELT SMWorti IND LLL bOA00. elm 1001,}6 FM)215110 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER PCS Simard 60 .001.4 MOM 1104 f WM* CCOE 1YPE COLOR FINISH NOTES D-� .1010. 1OEW'AL 6 NATURAL GRAY / NEDEiI D PEAR uETAIL, OTAHROAR 0ETAA. RSR15N - t1EN Cd1NI ALK, RNIS�I A NATURAL GRAY NDN/ NEO, 4 T CRVE DATING DAMS COLOR N y Ub4 4OSIDEWALN _,, PAVEMENT. C6FlII A 62 N*98N 3 j�,�5• lU� 01 P CONCRETE 36VCR)SAiOKA�f 4 - ,N74PRECAST CETAixT CavCRETE SIDEWALK, FlNI$H B 601016f SILVERSNOKE �' NIDIUU ' ',,'PEB9LE. STDNEK 3" DEPTH OF r MAIMITACIURER'S IdNERALS IANC. DETECTABLE WARNING PAVERS 12' • 12' PT.ERS IN 2' WO134EMA 0.1510t1 OMARIIAVHBN1'At6 1LMAS T 0-59 (213) 04 GRAVEL PATH CaPn4 a E h+: mr1 NNRONYARE . Adam OmwBp ims•ra10�MPPm,0016 REVISIONS NMI I UM O 15' 30' 60' T20"FT -- 1 _ _ _EA(E-MGLS FOGHLINE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL nFn 0114 MUM anus. A AIR maw ••1 SHE SS LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN OUTDOOR CLASSROOM PUNTLNO AREA ISP. SUS TURN -AROUND PEDESTRIAN POLE UGHT, TEF. g..12 L�IRr SCHEDULE a . ©a, PARKING (2) UGHTED 80 ELEC. FIXTURE SCHEDULE CONCRETE SEAT WALL REF. EIEC: FIGURE SCHEDULE FOR RECESSED LIGHTS. PEDESTRIAN POLE LCHT, REF. ELEC. FIXTURE LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE EAST TERRACES (A1 LEVELS 7 AN4) 3) AT -GRACE NECH. TANK. REF. MECN FAGS OLANDSCAPE SITE PLAN SCALE: 1' - 30' LOADING AREA RNSBEC(AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL OUTDOOR CLASSROOM CITY OF IUK'MA STANDARD SIDEWALK \\ • • • • \♦ • • • 6' NT. CHAIN LINK FENCE k COTE Fut EDCNG --- FIRE ACCESS J PATHWAY I44 e --- LIMIT OF ODHSTRUCTION TRENCH DRAIN, TM. REF. CML SPECS. AYATION HIGH SCHOOL SIGN, REF. ARCH. LAWN 0000 0X6'1540 FENCE TO REWL'N °OUTDOOR CLASSROOM SCALE: 1- - 10' MEII I' -1 LEGEND - BENCH TRASH RECEPTACLE 5ECYCUNG FECEPTACLE C sums / GR0UNCCFNE11 FL/CAW 012)07435 PROPOSED FENCE 0111011NG FENCE TO REW31 Q d B001.00 S: 2-3 TONS EA STEP / BENCH L1141, REF, ELEC. FIXTURE SCHEDULE k SPECS PEDESTRIAN POLE UGk1, REF. 1.C. FIXTURE SCHEDULE & SPECS. CODE "TYPE COLOR( FINISH NOTES (n1' -CRY V ; OF NKW'U S10. SIDEWALK NATURAL (FAY 00DAJ),, woo)'MED PER D ML, REFERENCE 011 OF TUK'AAA STANDARD GE1� R5-1 I . _ CfAENT CONCRETE SIOEMALK, FINISH A W'TURAL 0060 00100 / SCCRED. NE0N1N 00008 51 31 CMooi CONCRETE SIDEWALK 3AN03IG G5q�y5CNOKP / NEP.UN 8R,.. 4 5.5. .• � T.NT 010REi{EA CPA,, 51 5 CANT CONCRETE BARN N6 OONPAV:G DNN V003000T 0..G.,,,,,,,, SIDEWALK. FINISH 0 COLOR SSYERSUOKE 9ROONFED' 0©1UN 4 5.. r 7 .GU9409 OLACK PEBBLE STONE 3' OEPM OF r �FACRIRER'S M86RALS PRECAST CONC. WAR/ING PA1hT5 WAR/II1 0 12' r IT RY.L0 IN 0. RDM B+M. 1QOM44104 11.0 10 NA10N SIlVF76N0E 81NtlIIt, 300 TECH. PN: (213) 300-5560 {�g� V GRAVEL PAD? N ir"OFr 1JAN 2 9 2010 COP.!,A.."';r PERMIT SET bassetti arx►neCra 71 ComWA SMA 944 50D $AAok wwlDv: 93104 T (203) 340 070D F (206)340 9310 CIVI ENG EER IFF P I!►W 114101 TMem ®r001m II LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 8u1 OB IOP NI 44024 • rwr _ VIA STRUCTURAL ENGIMER PIS Swami An Rol Mamma S. ...W MOS pq mss VPN1tINr IECHANCAL 3 E./GCMG/1 WWI BWAwn ILO MEM 4.11413 4.41100 1111101 mILW SP" (41.00.41. ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Nam 11s • ;W111101 r TOMMY OIs FPO.); WA FOOD BERMES LR Delp Gov �MCCAW 4101I14010n HARDWARE . A6eo Cus4610 • 14)4 wep07-07 am. pm)ems ail .rr� twos REVISIONS reOM1NE SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL fen 4®v gl3rsrc ..- ', m)) @11113.11 11r+0D9l: RR LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN L 1.00 PLANING AREA. TVP. BUS TURN -ROUND PARI(ING _____________ PEDESTRIAN POLE LIGHT. REF. FIX1 SCHEDULE (2) LK71TED BOU) ELEC. FIXTURE SCHEDULE CONCRETE SEAT 781. RET. ELEC: FIXTURE 504701/10 FOR RECESSED LIGHTS. LIMIT OF CONSTRUCTION PEDESTRIAN POLE L 4. REF. ELEC. FIXTURE SCHEDULE EAST TERRACES (41 LEVELS 2 M43 3) AT -GRACE MECH. T1N0. REF. MECH D405 .,f ••• OLANDSCAPE SITE PLAN SCALE: I- . 30' • \•\ • • • • • 6' HT. CHAIN JAI( FENCE & GATE STEEL EDGING FIRE ACCESS LIMIT OF CO8ISTRUCTION PAM. AY -- TRENCH ORAN, EYP. _ REF. CIVIL SPECS. WAREN HIGH SCHOOL SIGN, RG. ARCH. LAW. BM EX2SDNG FENCE TO RELNNJ OUTDOOR CLASSROOM SCALE: , 10' • • OUTDOOR CLASSROOM C171 OF IJK'ARA STANDARD SIDEWALK LEGEND • BENCH TRAM' RECEPTACLE RECYCLING f• CEPTAGLE p SIE114) / GROLNOCO'2ER • FLAG OLE •• BOLLARDS -- PROPOSED FENCE EX511NG FENCE TO REMANI 0 t7 BOULDERS: 2-3 TONS EA STEP / BENCH LCHT, REF. ELEC. FIXTURE SCHEDULE & SPECS PEDESTRANN POLE Will, REF. 7100. FIXTURE SCHEDULE & SPECS. CODE TYPE COLOR /F99SF NOTES VV -,SD. IIDEN/KULA E0 PATD/ SCN4I0TRAL AIL NE@.1N BROOM TNOE1GIRORS9KNA SARD O S414.44ALK, 018191 A NATURAL GRAY 1 40104 [ FIEO. t/� Cy r I C£NEN1 0ONCRETE SOEYIALK 34NF1iIG 04615 COOK N�(D,'T JNSMO�K 061 9 (U/13�1) V-CQF,LKREISH A , NEDIU4 j S7 CEMENT CONCRETE;�RS PAWL BANDING go- / Ft= I/ D 9 01E SICEM'ALK.40007FINISH B -COLOR 0EVERSMOKE BTOOM�• 9©IUM 9 ..ri. Y rgpST 'EK 3• DEPTH OF r LLATAIFICTURERS 'OVALS 0 • - (AR Nc oa, UEtEc12611 WARNING PAVERS 12- r it PafiS IN j Alnico MIMR3II1NSLNIDR LWINO TRE 1004, PH. (213) 380-5560 09 CRAVD. PATH y CV r () i JAN 2 9 2010 COMMUNITY _DEIJELOPIifENT_-_ bassetti 71 ColtwOls SUN. WY SOD Sue* WA IWGion 93104 T (206)3109300 F ODD) 3409519 OVA ENG1ffii KPFF cFn rAl 4. 1114.. 1f Marl T 910@9a r0a110A1a LAFOSYAPE ARCHITECT 1311AVonahop LAC TO1 4a X101 M=as F mama= 9TRUC URN. ENGINEER PCS WW1 911 Fat Poor 11r1213 SOK MA ala ,919+919 POaAallra 4EC14MO(AL £ ELECTRIC/LL ENGINEER WM Mira 111.11.1033 Il gaga Da 9941r W0 ACOUSTIC CONSULTANT Swam Arwa t�OM 57I01OIm F0006ERVICE3 AR Own Wow AIT Omar( Ar OM tt a01p0P*ARAM HARDWARE . Mena Cnslbp ns mu N. T�lla P9a9aC1a logogram REVISIONS 0901812.E SCHOOL DISTRICT 401 RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL AIM 0.019 95141961. ,..,., 21 2111 OWN owrom R9 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN