Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit PL16-0002 - MUSEUM OF FLIGHT / B-52 MEMORIAL PARK - PLANNED ACTIONMUSEUM OF FLIGHT BSIP Associated files PLI 6-0002 This File: E16-0001 — PLANNED ACTION APPR PLAN ACT LJ f Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION To: Nathan Messmer, Applicant The Museum of Flight, Owner King County Assessor, Accounting Division State Department of Ecology, SEPA Division Allan Ekberg, Mayor March 10, 2016 This letter serves a notice of decision that application number E16-0001 is designated as a Planned Action and is issued pursuant to TMC 21.04.156. PROJECT BACKGROUND FILE NUMBER: E16-0001, SEPA Planned Action APPLICANT: Nathan Messmer, Architect (obo Museum of Flight) REQUEST: Approval for designation of a Planned Action for creation of a landscaped area of plantings, pathways, and plaza to exhibit a restored B-52 aircraft. Project (Phases I and II) will include footings to distribute weight of aircraft, reconfigured adjacent parking, irrigation system, lighting, paths, interpretation, landscaping, etc. LOCATION: 9229 E Marginal Way S. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project proposal is to perform utility, parking, planting, and irrigation improvements (Phase I) and landscaping, footings, paths, interpretation, lighting, etc. (Phase II) in preparation for the future placement of the B-52 aircraft. Proposed construction activities associated with the underlying Public Works Type C1 grading perrrut will include grading the site and improving topsoil for a relatively flat condition, creating a water connection at an existing fire loop to supply irrigation water, installing an irrigation system and grass plantings, providing a small picnic area with permeable paving, and reconfiguring existing parking through asphalt and striping modifications. The proposed work covers the entire 3.4 acre parcel. The southwestern portion of the parcel is the only area of the parcel within the Shoreline Buffer. The majority of the parcel on which the work is proposed is located within the 200-foot regulated buffer of the Duwamish River. The proposed work is landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and does not involve any work on the river bank. Phase II may involve the removal of significant trees within the Shoreline Jurisdiction„ A Shoreline Tree Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Museum of Flight B-54 .demorial—SEPA Planned Action March 10, 2016 Page 2 Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit is required if any significant trees or native vegetation are proposedto be removed, with tree replacement ratios to be provided per TMC 18.44.080. DETERMINATION: Project is designated as a planned action. The decision is final with no administrative appeal. ZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION:: MIC/H (Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy) 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 Valerie Lonneman who may be contacted at (206) 433-7140 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. Ja Pace City of Tukwila DCD Director SEPA Responsible Official Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov / City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director FINAL STAFF EVALUATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST File No: E16-0001 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposal is to create a landscaped area of plantings, pathways, and plaza to exhibit a restored B-52 aircraft. Project (Phases I and II) will include footings to distribute weight of aircraft, reconfigured adjacent parking, irrigation system, lighting, paths, interpretation, landscaping, etc. II. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Name: Applicant: Location: Zoning: Comprehensive Plan Designation: Lead Agency: Museum of Flight B-52 Memorial Park Nathan Messmer, Architect 9229 E Marginal Way S. MIC/H (Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy) MIC/H (Manufacturing Industrial Center/Heavy) City of Tukwila, Department of Community Development Challenges to Document: None Other Agencies of Jurisdiction: Washington State Department of Ecology The following information was considered as part of review of this application. 1. ESA Screening Checklist, dated 12/2/2015 and SEPA Checklist, dated 12/2/2015. 2. Site plan and materials/landscaping renderings. 3. Plan set for permit PW16-0016 4. Geotechnical Report prepared by GeoEngineers, dated 2/5/2016 5. Aviation Pavilion Parking Determination, dated 12/17/2016. Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov SEPA Planned Action: Museum of Flight, Phases I & II March 3, 2016 Page 2 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 Valerie Lonneman, Assistant Planner, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, Washington, 98188, by phone at 206-433-7140. Recommendation: The current proposal fits within the scope of a SEPA Planned Action according to the criteria set forth in TMC 21.04.152. The proposal is recommended for approval as a SEPA Planned Action. III. BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL Tukwila's Manufacturing and Industrial Center (MIC) is one of the Puget Sound region's major industrial centers. Industrial development over most of the sub -area was evaluated in multi -site environmental review. In 1992, a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS) was prepared for the Duwamish Corridor master plan, a proposal to redevelop Boeing properties in the MIC over a 10 year period. In 1998, sub -area plan/EIS updates extended the previous analysis of the corridor's Boeing properties (about 650 acres) to the entire MIC sub -area (about 1,370 acres). As part of this Planned Action review for the current proposal, the impacts of the current proposal are compared to 1998 Integrated GMA Ilmplementation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement to ensure that all impacts have been mitigated. The project proposal is to perform utility, parking, planting, and irrigation improvements (Phase I) and landscaping, footings, paths, interpretation, lighting, etc. (Phase II) in preparation for the future placement of the B-52 aircraft. Proposed construction activities associated with the underlying Public Works Type C1 grading permit will include grading the site and improving topsoil for a relatively flat condition, creating a water connection at an existing fire loop to supply irrigation water, installing an irrigation system and grass plantings, providing a small picnic area with permeable paving, and reconfiguring existing parking through asphalt and striping modifications. The proposed work covers the entire 3.4 acre parcel. The southwestern portion of the parcel is the only area of the parcel within the Shoreline Buffer. The majority of the parcel on which the work is proposed is located within the 200-foot regulated buffer of the Duwamish River. The proposed work is landward of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and does not involve any work on the river bank. IV. DECISION CRITERIA This proposal was identified as a potential Planned Action because of its location within the subarea subject to the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. The determination of whether a project fits the Planned Action criteria is divided into two phases. Each phase is described below, including a response that explains how the current proposal meets the criteria. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov SEPA Planned Action: Museum of Flight, Phases I & II March 3, 2016 Page 3 1) In the first phase, a determination is made whether the project satisfies all of the following characteristics (contained in TMC 21.04.152 Planned Actions Identified): 1. The action is a "permitted use" located within the MIC/L (TMC 18.36.020) and MIC/H (TMC 18.38.020) zones and/or is an accessory use (TMC 18.36.030 and 18.38.030 respectively). 2. The action is: a. not an "essential public facility" as defined in RCW 36.70.200 and TMC 18.06.270, b. not a conditional or unclassified use, in the respective MIC/L or MIC/H zones, c. not a development, any portion of which includes shoreline modifications waterward of the ordinary high water mark, d. not a development associated with 16th Avenue Bridge construction activities. Response: The proposal for this site is to create a landscaped area of plantings, pathways, and a plaza to exhibit a restored B-52 aircraft. The project will include footings to distribute weight of aircraft, reconfigure the adjacent parking, an irrigation system, lighting, etc. Museums are permitted outright in the MIC/H zoning district. The use is not an essential public facility or a development associated with 16th Ave Bridge construction activities. The project does not involve work waterward of the ordinary high water mark of the Duwamish River nor on the river bank. 2) Once the project has met the initial test to qualify as a planned action, it must then show the following: A. 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. Response: Based on the answers provided in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Screening Checklist, the project does not constitute a "take" under ESA. The following provides clarification for items answered "yes" in the ESA Screening Checklist. Compliance with existing codes will mitigate any impacts related to grading, stormwater, and hazardous substances. (1) Grading and clearing —In Phase I of the project approximately 2,100 cubic yards of bioretention mix soil will be placed on top of existing soils to support the planting of a native meadow hydroseed grass mix. The soil will be sourced to ensure no heavy metals or contaminants are present. In Phase II, additional fill may be required to create slight Iandforms and/or support aircraft foundations. In all phases, retaining excavated soil for backfill and/or use on -site is prioritized. Temporary erosion control best management practices will be implemented during construction and permanent landscaping and vegetative cover will be installed to provide erosion control after construction is completed. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov SEPA Planned Action: Museum of Flight, Phases I & II March 3, 2016 Page 4 (2) Regular use of fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides —Proposed landscaping includes a native meadow hydroseed mix. Tukwila Municipal Code 18.44.080(D) regulates the use of pesticides within the Shoreline Jurisdiction (including herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides). Applicant proposes to apply approximately 710 lbs. of an organic, wetland -safe fertilizer on the 36,300sf meadow planting area. No use of fertilizer is proposed beyond the initial use and there will be no use of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, or fungicides for site maintenance. (3) Sediment transport off site or increased rates of erosion and/or sedimentation in the Green/Duwamish river —There is a potential for erosion related to removal of existing pavement for new pavement and utilities. Temporary erosion control best management practices will be implemented during construction and permanent landscaping and vegetative cover will be installed to provide erosion control after construction is completed. (4) Construction of new impervious surfaces— Within the approximately 43,000 sq. ft. area to be disturbed, 2.5% will be impervious. There will be a net decrease in the peak runoff flow rate from the project site due to a reduction in impervious area. All impervious area runoff is collected in catch basins, which are connected to an underground conveyance system that discharges to an existing outfall. (5) Generation of stormwater from the creation of impervious surfaces that will not be infiltrated on site —There will be a net decrease in the impervious area within the project boundary, resulting in a decrease in the peak runoff flow rate from the project site of approximately 0.2 cubic feet per second for the 25-year return frequency storm. The project is within a "no detention" zone of the city, therefore no measures to reduce or control surface, ground, or runoff water impacts is proposed. (6) Proximity to ordinary high water mark (OHWM)—Phase II of the project may involve clearing of significant trees within 200 feet of the Green/Duwamish River (no evergreen trees will be cleared). A Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit is required if any significant trees or native vegetation are proposed to be removed. Existing significant trees within 40 feet of the OHWM may be removed as necessary, however no significant vegetation removal will occur below the OHWM and the project will not include any work on the riverbank. Any significant trees that are proposed to be removed within the shoreline zone must be replaced according to the tree replacement ratio in TMC 18.44.080. Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov % 1 SEPA Planned Action: Museum -of Flight, Phases I & II March 3, 2016 Page 5 f " B. Is the proposal consistent with the applicable sections of the Tukwila Comprehensive Plan? TMC 21.04.154 requires that the Comprehensive Plan policies that are to be reviewed are those identified in the "Integrated GMA Implementation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Tukwila Manufacturing/Industrial Center." Specifically, the proposed project meets the following policies: Policy 11.1.1: Support the efforts of existing industries to expand and new industrial businesses to develop in the Manufacturing/Industrial Center by providing them with economic data, information on available development sites, help in understanding and getting through the permit processes, and other appropriate assistance. Policy 11.1.3: Develop appropriate permit processes that minimize lengthy public review and simplify the development permit process, while providing meaningful opportunities for citizen input and protecting the environment. Policy 11.1.7: Support the Duwamish River becoming a natural feature amenity in the MIC Policy 11.1.8: Improve public access and use of the west side of the river, protecting owner's rights to reasonable use and enjoyment, improve employee access to the east side of the river, and emphasize restoration on both sides of the river V. CONCLUSION The current proposal to create a landscaped area of plantings, pathways, and plaza to exhibit a restored B-52 aircraft is consistent with the criteria for approval as a Planned Action. The proposed use of the site is an extension of the 'museum' use, which is a permitted use in the MIC/H zone. Work proposed with the underlying permit satisfies all other criteria contained in TMC 21.04.152. Actions associated with the proposal are consistent with Tukwila's Comprehensive Plan, and all impacts associated with the current proposal will be mitigated. Prepared by: Valerie Lonneman, Assistant Planner Date: March 3, 2016 Phone: 206-433-1800 • Email: Mayor@TukwilaWA.gov • Website: TukwilaWA.gov 0400 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number E16-0001 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: 0 Building ❑ Planning v Public Works ❑ Fire Dept. Police Dept. Parks/Rec Project: Museum of Flight B-52 Memorial Park Address: APN 5729800010 Date transmitted: 2/18/2016 Response requested by: 3/3/2016 Staff coordinator: Valerie Lonneman Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) (puuc (voiCk S F i No CoynmE^r, S Dki Plan check date: Comments Update date: prepared by: RECEIVED FEB 222016 TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS 0400 l"N City of Tukwila Department of Community Development File Number E16-0001 LAND USE PERMIT ROUTING FORM TO: Building ❑ Planning Public Works ❑ Fire Dept. Police Dept. Parks/Rec Project: Museum of Flight B-52 Memorial Park Address: APN 5729800010 Date transmitted: 2/18/2016 Response requested by: 3/3/2016 Staff coordinator: Valerie Lonneman Date response received: REVIEWERS: Please specify how the attached plans conflict with your ADOPTED development regulations, including citations. Be specific in describing the types of changes you want made to the plans. When referencing codes, please identify the actual requirement and plan change needed. The Planning Division review does not supplant each department's ability to administer its own regulations and permits. However, project consistency at the Planning review stage is important to minimize significant later design changes. More than minimal design changes require further Planning Commission review, even if alteration is required to satisfy a City requirement. This further review is typically a minimum 60-day process. Requirements based on SEPA (e.g., not required by an adopted development regulation) MUST identify the impact being mitigated, the policy basis for requiring mitigation, and the method used to calculate the mitigation required. Calculations of project impacts and the mitigation required (e.g., water capacity, road level of service analyses, or turning analyses) may be required of the applicant. COMMENTS (Attach additional comment sheets and/or support materials as needed.) Plan check date: / Comments Update date: �7 , prepared by: (- City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg, Mayor Department of Community Development - Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION February 16, 2016 Nathan Messmer 110 Union Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 nmessmer@srgpartnership.com Subject: Planned Action SEPA Review — Museum of Flight B-52 Memorial E16-0001 Dear Mr. Messmer: Your application for a Planned Action SEPA review for a Museum of Flight parcel located at the 9229 E marginal Way S (Parcel # 5729800010) is considered complete as of February 16, 2016 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. This notice of complete application applies only to the permit identified above. It is your responsibility to apply for and obtain all necessary permits issued by other agencies. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (206) 433-7140. Sincerely, Valerie Lonneman Assistant Planner Tukwila City Hall • 6200 Southcenter Boulevard • Tukwila, WA 98188 • 206-433-1800 • Website: TukwilaWA.gov Geotechnical Engineering Services Museum of Flight B-52 Foundation Tukwila, Washington for Museum of Flight February 5, 2016 GEOENGINEERS, 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Geotechnical Engineering Services Museum of Flight B-52 Foundation Tukwila, Washington File No. 8039-010-02 February 5, 2016 Prepared for: Museum of Flight 9404 East Marginal Way Seattle, Washington 98108 Attention: Laurie Haag Prepared by: GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, Washington 98052 425.861.6000 Nancy L. Tocliko, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer Matthew W. Smith, PE Principal NLT:MWS:nld Disclaimer: 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. Copyright© 2016 by GeoEngineers, Inc. All rights reserved. GEOENGINEERS Table of Contents INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING 1 Field Explorations 1 Laboratory Testing 1 Additional Soil Characteristics 2 PREVIOUS STUDIES 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 B-52 Foundation Support 4 Lateral Resistance 5 Earthwork and Structural Fill 5 Excavation Considerations 5 Temporary Cut Slopes 6 Subgrade Preparation 6 Structural Fill 7 Erosion and Sedimentation Control 8 Utility Considerations 9 Shoring 9 Dewatering 9 Pipe Bedding 10 Trench Backfill 10 LIMITATIONS 10 REFERENCES 11 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Vicinity Map Figure 2. Site Plan APPENDICES Appendix A. Field Explorations Figure A-1 - Key to Exploration Logs Figures A-2 through A-3 - Log of Borings Appendix B. Laboratory Testing Figure B-1- Sieve Analysis Results Appendix C. Reports from OnSite and AgSource Laboratories Appendix D. Previous Studies Appendix E. Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use GEOENGINEERS� February 5, 2016 I Page i File No. 8039-010-02 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of GeoEngineers' subsurface explorations and geotechnical engineering design services for the Museum of Flight's proposed B-52 project 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). We understand that the Museum of Flight (Museum) is currently planning to permanently display a B-52 bomber west of the covered airpark currently under construction. The site for the B-52 will be immediately south of the Aviation High School parking lot and north of Slip 6. The wheel loads for the plane are approximately 125 kips in the back and 60 kips in the front. At this time, the project will entail constructing a foundation to support the B-52 bomber and landscaping around the display. At a later date, other landscape features might be added. Our understanding of the project is based on information provided by Nathan Messmer with SRG Architects and discussions with various team members. 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 design and construction of the B-52 foundation. Our services were completed in general accordance with our proposal dated December 1, 2015. Our specific scope of services for the geotechnical engineering services included: • Reviewing previous explorations completed at the site and on adjacent properties; • Completing additional borings to characterize the subsurface conditions at the site; • Performing analyses to evaluate various foundation support options; • Completing soil nutrient analyses; and • Preparing this geotechnical engineering report. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING Field Explorations The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by completing two borings (B-1 and B-2) to depths of 31.5 and 41.5 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 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. GEOENGINEERS� February 5, 2016 Page 1 File No. 8039-010-02 Additional Soil Characteristics The landscape architect for the project requested that the surficial soils at the site be tested for total metals and certain minerals and other plant nutrient characteristics. Composite soil samples were obtained by obtaining a soil sample from the upper 12 inches at three locations across the east and west half of the site. The samples from the three locations were mixed to develop two composite samples, one for the east half and the other for the west half. Composite 1 represents the west portion of the site and Composite 2 the eastern portion. OnSite Environmental tested the composite samples for total metals. AgSource Laboratories in Umatilla, Oregon tested the samples for nutrients and texture. The results of the soil tests are presented in Appendix C. PREVIOUS STUDIES GeoEngineers reviewed the logs of explorations completed as part of previous studies in the vicinity of the project site, including those completed by GeoEngineers for the design of the Covered Airpark and the Aviation High School. The location of the borings completed for the Aviation High School project closest to the project site are also shown in Figure 2. The boring logs from the borings shown on the Site Plan are presented in Appendix D. SITE CONDITIONS Setting and Site History The project site is locafed in the Duwamish Valley west of the Aviation High School and the Covered Airpark (currently under construction) in Tukwila, Washington, as shown in Figure 1. The project site is relatively flat. The south side of the project site is situated about 60 feet from Slip 6 which extends to the east off of the Duwamish River. The proposed plane foundation will be about 120 to 140 feet north and northeast of the slip. The site was originally developed in the 1930s for industrial purposes. The site 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 portion of the historical site, now owned by the Museum) 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 ESA on behalf of the Museum, the results of which are presented in our report for the Museum dated February 28, 2007. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was completed as part of the Museum's 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 property with the exception of residual toluene in groundwater (and soil at the base of a remedial excavation) in the southwest portion of the property. 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 GEOENGINEERS. February 5, 2016 Page 2 File No. 8039-010-02 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 will not affect, the Museum's proposed B-52 display plans. 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." As a part of past clean-up activities by Container Properties, most of the project area was previously excavated to a depth of about 3 feet to remove contaminated soils. These areas were backfilled with clean fill material, but the report does not comment on the degree of compaction applied to the fill soils placed to restore grades. 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 consists of exposed soil across much of the site and some crushed gravel across other portions of the site. The north and east portions of the site are adjacent to parking areas used for the high school. A 747 and a 737 are currently being stored on the east portion of the site. A fence is present along the south and west boundaries of the site. A large 27-inch-diameter King County storm sewer is present diagonally across the site. Based on existing information, it appears that the invert for this storm drain is about 12 to 13 feet below existing grade. Subsurface Conditions Soil Conditions Based on the borings completed near the proposed foundation pads for the B-52, the soils within 30 feet of the surface consist mainly of surficial fill overlying mainly granular alluvial deposits. The fill consists of loose to medium dense silty sand with some gravel to stiff sandy silt and appears to be about 4 to 5 feet in thick. The fill is underlain by granular alluvial deposits consisting of loose to medium dense sand to silty sand with occasional interbedded layers of silt and sandy silt. A thin (2- to 3-foot-thick) layer of medium stiff silt was encountered within the sand deposits. This upper layer of silt was thicker (5 to 7 feet) in the borings completed for the high school. A clean sand deposit was encountered at a depth ranging from about 11 to 14 feet. At a depth of about 24 feet, the alluvium transitions back to interbedded silty sand and sandy silt deposits. Based on our explorations completed for Aviation High School and the Covered Airpark, we anticipate that below a depth of about 30 to 40 feet, the silt layers are thicker and more numerous. At a depth of about 60 to 65 feet, the upper interbedded granular and fine-grained alluvial deposits are underlain by deposits of soft silt and clay with varying amounts of silt and organic matter (lacustrine fine- grained soils). The soft lacustrine fine-grained soil deposits are underlain by medium dense to very dense GEOENGINEERS February 5, 2016 Page 3 Ale No. 8039-010-02 sand and gravel deposits which contain some shell fragments, suggesting that they were deposited in an estuarine environment. Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was generally encountered during drilling at depths ranging from 7 to 9 feet below the ground surface. Based on observations during construction of the high school and the Covered Airpark, we anticipate that the groundwater is typically at a depth of 9 to 12 feet except during extreme high tide events or prolonged periods of precipitation. 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 Based on the results of our subsurface explorations and our geotechnical engineering evaluations, it is our opinion that the foundation for the B-52 bomber can be supported on shallow spread foundations as currently planned. We estimate that the foundations might experience 1 to 2 inches of settlement, but understand that the display can tolerate this amount of settlement. We understand that the Museum and project team are aware that the site is underlain by thick granular deposits which are susceptible to liquefaction during a large earthquake. Therefore, if a large earthquake event occurred, additional settlement or lateral spreading into Slip 6 could impact the foundations; we understand that the Museum is willing to accept this risk. The foundations will be close to the existing King County Storm drain. However, as the invert of the storm drain is 12 to 13 feet below existing grade, in our opinion the loads from the plane will have minimal impacts on the storm drain. The upper fill soils contain sufficient fines that they will become soft and easily disturbed if wet. To minimize disturbance of the near -surface soils and allow for amending these soils for landscaping purposes, we recommend that the earthwork and grading be accomplished during the dryer months of the year. It will be difficult to reuse excavated on -site soil during wet weather. We previously prepared a soil handling plan for the Museum's use during construction for the Covered Airpark. For this project, we have recommended to the Museum and project team members that it should be a goal to keep soil on the property. Although this portion of the Museum's property has been remediated, the soil likely still contains chemicals that, although not a regulatory condition, would need to be tested and handled appropriately if taken off site. B-52 Foundation Support We recommend that the shallow foundations used to support the B-52 bomber be founded on a zone of properly compacted structural fill to provide more uniform support near the base of the foundation. We recommend that the foundations be founded on a layer of structural fill or crushed rock with a minimum thickness of 18 inches. The structural fill/crushed rock should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density (MDD) in general accordance with ASTM International (ASTM) D 1557. If sand is exposed at the base of the excavation, we recommend the exposed surface be recompacted. If silt is exposed along the base of the excavation, we recommend that a woven geotextile fabric such as Mirafi 500X be placed between the exposed soil and the new structural fill. The fabric will aid as a GEOENGINEERS.I; February 5, 2016 Page 4 File No. 8039-010-02 separation layer between the silt soil and the 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 where possible. All loose or disturbed soil must be removed prior to placing the structural fill pad. An allowable soil bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used for support of the plane foundations supported on a zone of structural fill as described above. The allowable soil bearing value applies to the total of dead and long-term live loads and may be increased by up to one-third for wind or seismic loads. For this recommended bearing pressure, we anticipate that the footings will likely be about 7 to 10 feet in width and length to support the plane loads. We estimate that a new isolated footing subjected to a long-term dead load of 1,500 psf for a footing 10 feet square could experience between 1/2 and 1.5 inches of settlement. As discussed above, we understand that the owner recognizes that this type of foundation is susceptible to additional settlement if an earthquake induces liquefaction in the underlying soils. Lateral Resistance Lateral loads can be resisted by passive resistance on the sides of the footings and by friction on the base of the footings. Passive resistance should be evaluated using an equivalent fluid density of 350 pcf where footings are surrounded by structural fill compacted to at least 95 percent of MDD, as recommended. The structural fill should extend out at least a distance equal to two and one-half times the depth of the foundation element from its face. A passive pressure of 250 pcf should be used if the footing is poured directly against existing fill or native soils. These values also assume the ground surface in front of the footing will be level for a horizontal distance equal to at least two times the depth of the footing. If soils adjacent to footings are disturbed during construction, the disturbed soils must be recompacted, otherwise the lateral passive resistance value must be reduced. Resistance to passive pressure should be calculated from the bottom of adjacent paving or below a depth of 1 foot where the adjacent area is unpaved, as appropriate. Frictional resistance can be evaluated using 0.45 for the coefficient of base friction against footings which are underlain by structural fill. The above values incorporate a factor of safety of about 1.5. 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. 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 2 to 4 feet in depth. At this time, we do not anticipate the need for shoring other than possibly the use of trench boxes or trench shields for utility trenches, which is discussed in the "Utility Considerations" section of this report. We anticipate that the depth of the excavations required for the foundations will generally be above the anticipated water level. 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. GEOENGINEERS� February 5, 2016 Page 5 Ale No. 8039-010-02 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 11H:1V (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 or plastic sheeting. • 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. 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 on -site soils below the existing pavement contain a significant amount of fines (silt) and are 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. We anticipate that either existing sand fill or native silt and sand will be exposed across the excavation. If sand or granular fill is exposed, we recommend recompacting the exposed footing subgrade to a dense and unyielding condition. If silt is exposed, as discussed above we recommend thata woven geotextile be placed across the subgrade after all loose soil removed. We anticipate that the depth of the excavation required for the foundation will generally be above the water table. Perched groundwater may be encountered 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. GEOENGINEERS� February 5, 2016 Page 6 File No. 8039-010-02 Structural Fill We understand the Museum desires to limit the amount of soil exported from the site. The on -site soils in the upper 5 feet typically consist of fine to medium sand with a high percentage of silt. Thus, the on -site sand may be considered for use as structural fill only for placement during periods of dry weather. This will likely not be practicable unless site work is completed during the normally drysummer months (July through September. Even if reused in landscape areas, the fill will be difficult to place and compact during wet weather. The following sections of this report present options for structural fill placement that will be dictated by the weather conditions. On -site Solis The surficial on -site near -surface soils are anticipated to consist of mainly silty fine to medium sand with gravel with some areas of sandy silt. In general, most of the on -site sand is anticipated to contain sufficient fines as to be moisture -sensitive and thus will be difficult to reuse as structural fill unless protected from rain during storage and placed and compacted during extended periods of dry weather. The silt should only be reused in landscape areas. Wet Weather Conditions If construction is planned for the wet winter months, we recommend that imported structural fill be included for construction of the foundation pads. Materials Materials used to support foundations, structures, roadways and parking areas are classified as structural fill for the purpose of this report. Structural fill material quality varies depending upon its use, as described below: ■ Structural fill to support the plane foundations should meet the criteria for common borrow as described in Section 9-03.14(3) of the 2014 Washington State Department of Transportation (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, the 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 by limited to no more than 5 percent. Alternatively, the structural fill can consist of recycled concrete or crushed rock base course in conformance with Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. ■ Structural fill placed as crushed surfacing base course below sidewalks and pavements should meet the requirements of crushed rock base course in conformance with Section 9-03.9(3) of the WSDOT Standard Specifications. 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 placed below foundations should be compacted to 95 percent of the MDD estimated in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. GEOENGINEERS February 5, 2016 Page 7 File No. 8039-010-02 • Structural fill placed in 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 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. 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 the compaction specifications, and advise on any modifications to procedure that may be appropriate for the prevailing conditions. 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. 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. GEOENGINEERS February 5, 2016 Page 8 File No. 8039-010-02 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. Utility Considerations Shoring We anticipate that trench excavations required to install utilities and sewers will range from about 3 to 6 feet in depth. All temporary cut slopes and shoring must comply with the provisions of Title 296 WAC, Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shoring." The contractor performing the work has the primary responsibility for the protection of workers and adjacent improvements. Temporary shoring will be necessary to support excavations where space limitations restrict the use of open cuts. It may be desirable to excavate partially sloping cuts and use a trench box or other shoring for the lower few feet of the trench. Temporary trench shoring using internal bracing can be designed using active soil pressures. We recommend that temporary shoring be designed using a lateral pressure equal to an equivalent fluid density of 35 pcf for conditions with horizontal backfill adjacent to the excavation. These lateral soil pressures do not include traffic, structure or construction surcharges that should be added separately, if appropriate. Shoring should be designed for a traffic influence equal to a uniform lateral pressure of 100 psf acting over the depth of the trench. More conservative pressure values should be used if the designer deems them appropriate. These soil pressure recommendations are predicated upon the construction being essentially dewatered; therefore, hydrostatic water pressures are not included. If portions of the shoring use passive elements such as anchor or reaction blocks, available soil resistance can be estimated using passive soil pressures assuming an equivalent fluid density of 275 pcf above the water table and 130 pcf below the water table. The above -recommended lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of hydrostatic pressures or surcharges behind the wall. The effects of surcharge loads behind the shoring should be considered in design. If effective dewatering methods are used to lower the groundwater level below the bottom of the excavation, hydrostatic pressures need not be added to the soil pressures within the exposed height of shoring. Dewatering The groundwater across the project area is partially influenced by tidal fluctuations of the Duwamish River. In general, based on our observations during construction of the Space Gallery and the Aviation High School, we anticipate that the groundwater is typically 7 to 10 feet below existing grade. However, the groundwater levels could be higher during extreme high tides or during extended periods of heavy precipitation. Because the soils at the project consist mostly of sand with variable amounts of silt, we recommend that the groundwater table be maintained at least 2 feet below the planned bottom of the excavations during construction. Otherwise, excessive groundwater flow into excavations could cause lateral movement of the granular soils into the excavations, possibly destabilizing the excavations or causing excessive ground settlement adjacent to the excavations. We anticipate that the temporary dewatering system could likely consist of sumps, but other dewatering measures might be necessary GEOENGINEERS� February 5, 2016 Page 9 File No. 8039-010-02 depending on the construction sequence and time of year. The contractor should be responsible for the design and installation of the temporary dewatering systems required to complete the project. Pipe Bedding Pipeline bedding material should be placed and compacted on the trench subgrade or foundation material until a layer that is a minimum of 6 inches thick or one-fourth of the outside pipe diameter, whichever is greater, is achieved. Where soft or loose soils are encountered below the pipe alignment, we recommend they be removed to a depth of 12 inches below the invert, or to firm material as directed by the engineer. The pipe bedding material should conform to the pipe manufacturer's recommendations, the design engineer's recommendations, the 2014 WSDOT Standard Specification 9-03.12(3), Gravel Backfill for Pipe Zone Bedding or equivalent City standards. Precedence in case of a conflict should be with the design engineer. From a geotechnical standpoint, the native soils will not be suitable for bedding materials. If select import fill is used for the backfill, the trench backfill will be more permeable than the surrounding soils and will fill with water over time. In this case, we recommend that all buried structures such as manholes be designed for uplift assuming that water will pond to within 5 feet of the top of the manholes. Trench Backfill After the pipe has been laid in the trench, the embedment material should be uniformly placed in maximum 8-inch-thick loose lifts on each side of the pipe, vibrated or otherwise compacted around the pipe haunches (i.e., at and below the pipe spring line) to the top of the zone. We recommend that trench backfill be compacted as recommended in the "Fill Placement and Compaction Criteria" section of this report. A geotechnical engineer should observe the preparation for, placement, and compaction of structural fill. An adequate number of in -place density tests should be performed in the fill to evaluate if the specified degree of compaction is being achieved. At all times during the placement of the pipeline and placement/compaction of the pipeline embedment material, it is the contractor's responsibility to protect the pipeline from damage (e.g., overstressing or impacting the pipeline with heavy equipment, etc.). LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Museum of Flight and members of the design team for the B-52 Foundation project 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. GEOENGINEERSI February 5, 2016 Page 10 File No.8039-010-02 REFERENCES GeoEngineers, 2014, "Geotechnical Engineering Services, Museum of Flight Covered Airpark, Tukwila, Washington." GeoEngineers, 2009, "Geotechnical Engineering Services, Aviation High School at the Museum of Flight, Tukwila, Washington." GeoEngineers, 2007, "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, 9229 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, Washington." GeoEngineers, 2001, "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, 9725 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, Washington." GeoEngineers, 2000, "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, 9725 East Marginal Way South, Seattle, Washington." Idriss, I.M. and Boulanger, R.W. (2008), "Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes." Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Monograph MNO-12. 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. Washington Administrative Code, Title 296, Part N, "Excavation, Trenching and Shorting." Washington State Department of Transportation, 2016, "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. GEOENGINEERS February 5, 2016 Page 11 File No. 8039-010-02 Figures m 0 0 0 r S 0 sC E N P:\8\B039010\GIS\803901002 F1 a N L f S Austin St ' 9�cn S Holden St 'Nepr 5 Portland S 5 Chicago St S Monroe St Boeing field 3 rn qry S Elmgrove St 5 Elmgrove St S Southern St S Southern St 5 Rose St S Rose 5t a v, 00 a � S Cloverdale St 2SCloverdale 5t i S Donovan St `i, �, 5 Donovan S[t r.s4 S CUnCUi d St ✓, ▪ S Henderson St 5 Director St 0,• Deana-Desitrsuse rt Park 9_ 4 L S 116th Sim lama s5 4alnbridge Island 'Lands 131., take Anondaie t‘Tifar. 4 u S Orr Sr 5 87th PI a' 4 S Director St S 96th St 5 99th St 5 99th PI 5 91 st 5t S 93rd 5t S 95th St 5 96th 5t 5 100th 5t _ m u, 4 a: 5 101St St v, GLENDALE a L S 102nd Sta a' j^ in D c' u ^ n S 103rd St a Hamlin Robinson ., m School S 16fth St u, r 66/9'"a:•k Dr yN S Webster SE'o` c n VDU A d.� D S Austin St S Austin Sw us a 5 HOltlenSt s A S Portland St 1: S Chicago St,. • o0lhella Path ‘AO.' 5. PN o� a' L 5 Kenyon St 5 Kenyon St 5 Kenyon S c i Wing hike E▪ lementary c D 4 fE 2 # WWI n v Van Esstlt Elementary m. �S School a 3 0. %, m 5 Thistle St A a ry 'p n 5 Sullivah Stu a N._ ' 5 Cloverdale St 9 N %ES Cloverda m c 4 4 u STrenton St':` 0a 4 ,te5 L Le 3 ? m ry D5 Barton St E m m Museum of Flight of3th SC 5 98th4IcOo a9 Beverly Parts Elementary \\ School to a t. u 5' a D 4 O t r L 3�� a ,,o ry ao a S 107th 5t% �' e S 108th St3 o Glen acres Golf &Country Club SOUTHERN 0 HEIGHTS c D ✓` S 112th St y G, Rainier Goll&Country i '3 Club m P .. a 3 W t L ! ,pe' S 115th St a ry N 0 N rKent ` ! m« J S1I6th St O 5 1/7th St ova\ N v Snodualerde nNam Bend 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. Data Source: Mapbox Open Street Map, 2015 Projection: NAD 1983 UTM Zone 10N Sro °rh Sr S112thSt East Dash 5 9 S 8ene5t 5t uwGreenbeltmr Q .tee '^ i Burns St S Pilgrim St 5 Perry St 68 DUWAtAISH en Cover Trak 2,000 Dusvamish Hill 2,000 Feet Vicinity Map Museum of Flight B-52 Foundation Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS Figure 1 • } r ▪ 1 1 ' J l Date Exported: 02/04/16 - 9:37 by cstickel P:\S\8039010\02\CAD\GeoTech\8039010-02 Figure 2 (Site Plan).dwgTAB:Layout1 B-4 (2009) l� King County storm drain easement, rec. no. 9509180955 Existing manhole cover Area of monitonng bI osparging and wells, vents to remain undisturbed Raisbeck Aviation High School Exisgng Eelstino fire stal hydrant convened \ /' to accessible van parkingsti Install light pole and icD bollards 25 east Remove existing light Dole and bollards - B-7 (2009)4-- r--r- I - -1 I I 1 — New one way striping/ parking 1 I I I 1 l &22009)+ Picnic table-,typ (OFOI) - Future 5-52 aircraft \ (not in Ph I project) - Future slab foundation (not in Ph I project) ** O Property line, typ — Limits of work. tYP (59.360sf) Aviation Pavilion ew wheels Tye (65) Install Tight po = - bollafds- ' east Remove existing I pole and bol .. s Demolished striping (29 space total Fire lane, typ\ Connection to fire leo isting fire loop Location of new irriga infrastructure: Deduct Meter BacM1ow Preventer Exi 'ng)lviation vilion generator pad Uncom.. Ad gravel m' : rea (-00sl) Legend B 1 Boring, Completed for this Study B-2 (2009) - Boring, Completed for Aviation High school 40 0 40 FEET 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. Data Source: Base data provided by SRG Partnership, Inc Site Plan Museum of Flight B-52 Foundation Tukwila, Washington GEOENGINEERS.g Figure 2 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Field Explorations APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATIONS Subsurface conditions at the site were explored on January 8, 2016 by advancing two borings (B-1 and B-2) 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 borings were completed to depths ranging from 31.5 to 41.5 feet using mini -track drilling equipment, owned and operated by Geologic Drill of Nine Mile Falls, Washington. 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. One soil sample in each boring were obtained with a California sampler with a 3-inch outside diameter as a larger sample. 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, with the exception of where the California sampler was used. 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 blows for 3 inches, for instance, would be recorded as 80/9-inch. The blow counts are shown on the boring logs at the respective sample depths. The SPT 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 and A-3. GEOENGINEERS February 5, 2016 Page A-1 File No. 8039-010-02 SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SYMBOLS 1 MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON NO 200 SIEVE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION/LV RETAINED ON NO. 451EVE CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) OU U C 0 3o o ) nC GW WELL -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES D o 0o 0 C D o o GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -SAND MIXTURES GRAVELS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) 0 m GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND . sILT MIXTURES ,/ /" C o GC SAND CLAY MIXTGRAVELS, REVEL- SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING NO. 4 SIEVE CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) ° sw WELL -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS SP POORLY -GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND SANDS WITH FINES (APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES) 1 i SM SILTY SANDS, SAND - SILT MIXTURES / jS SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% PASSIINGN 200 SILTS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 ML INORGANIC SILTS, ROCK FLOUR, CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY / / / / / / ' , / // / CL INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEN CLAYS vY�vv` i_ OL ORGANIC SLASILYS TSOF ANDLOW ORGANIC PLASTICITY IL SILTS CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 I • MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS SOI SATOMACEOUS SILTY / 1 // / CI„I INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY I OH ORGANIC CLAYS AND SILTS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS _- .-- _ - PT NOTE: Multiple symbols are used to indicate borderline or dual soil classifications LI • 11 Eig Sampler Symbol Descriptions 2.4-inch I.D. split barrel Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Shelby tube Piston Direct -Push Bulk or grab Continuous Coring 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. A "WOH" indicates sampler pushed using the weight of the hammer. SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH LETTER AC Asphalt Concrete CC Cement Concrete CR Crushed Rock/ Quarry Spalls TS Topsoil/ Forest Duff/Sod Groundwater Contact Measured groundwater level in exploration, well, or piezometer Measured free product in well or piezometer Graphic Log Contact Distinct contact between soil strata /Approximate contact between soil strata Material Description Contact Contact between geologic units Contact between soil of the same geologic unit %F YoG AL CA CP CS DS HA MC MD OC PM PI PP PPM SA TX UC VS NS SS MS HS NT Laboratory / Field Tests Percent fines Percent gravel 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 Plasticity index Pocket penetrometer Parts per million 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.g FIGURE A-1 Rev. 02/16 Start End Drilled 1/8/2016 1/8/2016 Total 31.5 Depth (ft) Logged By CDL Checked By NLT Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling Hollow -Stem Auger Method Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum Undetermined Hammer Data Rope & Cathead 300 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment Mini Track Drill Easting (X) Northing (Y) System Datum 0 z s w 0 E F a 0 Notes: Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water (ftl Elevation (ftl o Depth (feet) FIELD DATA c '0 8 rt O O 0 O J C) 0 0. 0 0 z y 2 O o 0U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION N C 0 0 O REMARKS 10-1 5 201 251 18 30 — 1 1 10 34* 6 15 8 21 9 I %F 2 33 AL 33 4 5 %F 6 SM Gray silty sand with gravel and trace organics (loose to medium dense, moist) (fill) SM ML SP Gray to brown silty fine to medium sand (medium dense, wet) (fill?) Gray silt with occasional sand (medium stiff, wet) Black fine to medium sand (loose to medium dense, wet) With occasional thin layers of silt Trace wood fibers SM Black silty fine sand (medium dense, wet) 11 35 29 •s Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. s a a A 0 %F=30 *Blow count not representative - used sampler AL (non -plastic) %F=4 Log of Boring B-1 GEOENGINEERSII Project: Museum of Flight B-52 Foundation Project Location: Tukwila, Washington Project Number: 8039-010-02 Figure A-2 Sheet 1 of 1 0 0 NI = W I 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 1- 0 0 0 zz 6 s 8 9 0 / Start End Total 41.5 Depth (ft) Logged By CDL Checked By NLT Driller Geologic Drill, Inc. Drilling , Method Hollow -Stem Auger Drilled 1/8/2016 1/8/2016 Surface Elevation (ft) Undetermined Vertical Datum Hammer Rope & Cathead Data 300 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Mini Track Drill Equipment Easting (X) Northing (Y) System Datum Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water MI Elevation (ftl Notes: _, FIELD DATA o >fj 0 0 7'3 o w 2 m it 9 m — rn F U 7 y O C7 U MATERIAL DESCRIPTION o Ok N REMARKS - 11 12 20 �F SM/ML Brown to gray silty fine to medium sand with - gravel and sandy silt (medium dense/stiff, - moist) (fill)- _ - _ 13 %F=26 57 10 —1 15Al2 20 25--1 J - 30—i 35A - _ 40 18 18 16 18 18 8 5' 8 9 17 14 16 11 9 2 Mc MD 4 5 SA 7 8 9 10 SM ML SM/ML SP SM ML = Black silty fine sand (loose, wet) = Dark gray silt with organic matter (medium stiff, - moist to wet) Black interbedded silty fine sand and sandy silt - with trace organic matter (loose/medium _ stiff, wet)- _ Black fine to medium sand (loose, wet) _ J - - Black silty fine sand (medium dense, wet) Dark gray sandy silt (medium stiff to stiff, wet) - — — 25 12 31 27 110 'Blow count not representative SA (%F=43) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. 0 Log of Boring B-2 G EO E N G I N E E RS Project: Project Location: Project Number: Museum of Flight B-52 Foundation Tukwila, Washington 8039-010-02 Figure A-3 Sheet 1 of 1 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 moisture 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. Additional soil chemical analytical testing was completed on some of the soil samples to provide a basis for developing general recommendations for soil handling during construction. The results of this testing is provided in a separate report dated September 25, 2014. Moisture Content and Density Testing Moisture contents and/or density tests were completed in general accordance with ASTM D 2216 and D 2937 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 one selected sample 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 Figure B-1. 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 indicated that the sample tested was non -plastic. GEOENGINEERSI February 5, 2016 Page B-1 File No. 8039-010-02 8039-010-02 Date Exported: 01/13/16 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 #100 #200 l l 1000 100 10 1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 01 0.01 0.001 COBBLES GRAVEL SAND COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT OR CLAY Symbol Boring Number Depth (feet) Moisture (%) Soil Description • B-2 20 26.9 Fine to medium sand (SP) Note: This report may not be reproduced, except in full, without written approval of GeoEngineers, Inc. Test results are applicable only to the specific sample on which they were performed, and should not be interpreted as representative of any other samples obtained at other times, depths or locations, or generated by separate operations or processes. The grain size analysis results were obtained in general accordance with ASTM D 6913. APPENDIX C Reports from OnSite and AgSource Laboratories OnSite Environmental Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 • (425) 883-3881 January 13, 2016 Nancy Tochko GeoEngineers, Inc. 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 Re: Analytical Data for Project 8039-10-02 Laboratory Reference No. 1601-039 Dear Nancy: Enclosed are the analytical results and associated quality control data for samples submitted on January 8, 2016. The standard policy of OnSite Environmental, Inc. is to store your samples for 30 days from the date of receipt. If you require longer storage, please contact the laboratory. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning the data, or need additional information, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, David Baumeister Project Manager Enclosures OnSite Environmental, Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-3881 This report pertains to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody, and is intended only for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. 2 Date of Report: January 13, 2016 Samples Submitted: January 8, 2016 Laboratory Reference: 1601-039 Project: 8039-10-02 Case Narrative Samples were collected on January 8, 2016 and received by the laboratory on January 8, 2016. They were maintained at the laboratory at a temperature of 2°C to 6°C. Please note that any and all soil sample results are reported on a dry -weight basis, unless otherwise noted below. General QA/QC issues associated with the analytical data enclosed in this laboratory report will be indicated with a reference to a comment or explanation on the Data Qualifier page. More complex and involved QA/QC issues will be discussed in detail below. OnSite Environmental, Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-3881 This report pertains to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody, and is intended only for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. 3 Date of Report: January 13, 2016 Samples Submitted: January 8, 2016 Laboratory Reference: 1601-039 Project: 8039-10-02 Client ID ANALYTICAL REPORT FOR SAMPLES Laboratory ID Matrix Date Sampled Date Received Notes Comp-1 Comp - 2 01-039-01 01-039-02 Soil 1-8-16 1-8-16 Soil 1-8-16 1-8-16 OnSite Environmental, Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-3881 This report pertains to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody, and is intended only for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. 4 Date of Report: January 13, 2016 Samples Submitted: January 8, 2016 Laboratory Reference: 1601-039 Project: 8039-10-02 TOTAL METALS EPA 6010C/7471 B Matrix: Soil Units: mg/kg (ppm) Date Date Analyte Result PQL EPA Method Prepared Analyzed Flags Lab ID: 01-039-01 Client ID: Comp - 1 Arsenic ND 11 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Barium 49 2.8 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Cadmium ND 0.56 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Chromium 35 0.56 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Lead ND 5.6 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Mercury ND 0.28 7471B 1-12-16 1-12-16 Selenium ND 11 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Silver ND 1.1 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Lab ID: Client ID: 01-039-02 Comp-2 Arsenic ND 11 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Barium 43 2.8 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Cadmium ND 0.56 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Chromium 23 0.56 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Lead ND 5.6 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Mercury ND 0.28 7471B 1-12-16 1-12-16 Selenium ND 11 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 Silver ND 1.1 6010C 1-11-16 1-11-16 OnSite Environmental, Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-3881 This report pertains to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody, and is intended only for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. 5 Date of Report: January 13, 2016 Samples Submitted: January 8, 2016 Laboratory Reference: 1601-039 Project: 8039-10-02 TOTAL METALS EPA 6010C/7471B METHOD BLANK QUALITY CONTROL Date Extracted: 1-11&12-16 Date Analyzed: 1-11 &12-16 Matrix: Soil Units: mg/kg (ppm) Lab ID: MB0111 SM1 &MB0112S1 Analyte Method Result PQL Arsenic 6010C ND 10 Barium 6010C ND 2.5 Cadmium 6010C ND 0.50 Chromium 6010C ND 0.50 Lead 6010C ND 5.0 Mercury 7471B ND 0.25 Selenium 6010C ND 10 Silver 6010C ND 1.0 OnSite Environmental, Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 (425).883-3881 This report pertains to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody, and is intended only for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. 6 Date of Report: January 13, 2016 Samples Submitted: January 8, 2016 Laboratory Reference: 1601-039 Project: 8039-10-02 TOTAL METALS EPA 6010C/7471 B DUPLICATE QUALITY CONTROL Date Extracted: 1-11&12-16 Date Analyzed: 1-111 &12-16 Matrix: Soil Units: mg/kg (ppm) Lab ID: 01-039-01 Sample Duplicate Analyte Result Result RPD PQL Flags Arsenic ND ND NA 10 Barium 43.0 44.2 3 2..5 Cadmium ND ND NA 0.50 Chromium 31.0 36.6 17 0.50 Lead ND ND NA 5.0 Mercury ND ND NA 0.25 Selenium ND ND NA 10 Silver ND ND NA 1.0 OnSite Environmental, Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-3881 This report pertains to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody, and is intended only for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. 7 Date of Report: January 13, 2016 Samples Submitted: January 8, 2016 Laboratory Reference: 1601-039 Project: 8039-10-02 TOTAL METALS EPA 6010C/7471 B MS/MSD QUALITY CONTROL Date Extracted: 1-11 &12-16 Date Analyzed: 1-11 &12-16 Matrix: Soil Units: mg/kg (ppm) Lab ID: 01-039-01 Spike Percent Percent Analyte Level MS Recovery MSD Recovery RPD Flags Arsenic 100 96.5 97 97.1 97 1 Barium 100 153 110 151 108 1 Cadmium 50.0 52.7 105 53.0 106 1 Chromium 100 134 103 132 101 2 Lead 250 262 105 261 104 0 Mercury 0.500 0.455 91 0.451 90 1 Selenium 100 105 105 106 106 1 Silver 25.0 21.0 • 84 21.5 86 2 OnSite Environmental, Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-3881 This report pertains to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody, and is intended only for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. 8 Date of Report: January 13, 2016 Samples Submitted: January 8, 2016 Laboratory Reference: 1601-039 Project: 8039-10-02 Date Analyzed: 1-11-16 Client ID Comp - 1 Comp-2 % MOISTURE Lab ID % Moisture 01-039-01 01-039-02 11 10 OnSite Environmental, Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-3881 This report pertains to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody, and is intended only for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. 9 OnSite Environmental Inc. Data Qualifiers and Abbreviations A - Due to a high sample concentration, the amount spiked is insufficient for meaningful MS/MSD recovery data. B - The analyte indicated was also found in the blank sample. C - The duplicate RPD is outside control limits due to high result variability when analyte concentrations are within five times the quantitation limit. E - The value reported exceeds the quantitation range and is an estimate. F - Surrogate recovery data is not available due to the high concentration of coeluting target compounds. H - The analyte indicated is a common laboratory solvent and may have been introduced during sample preparation, and be impacting the sample result. I - Compound recovery is outside of the control limits. J - The value reported was below the practical quantitation limit. The value is an estimate. K - Sample duplicate RPD is outside control limits due to sample inhomogeneity. The sample was re -extracted and re -analyzed with similar results. L - The RPD is outside of the control limits. M - Hydrocarbons in the gasoline range are impacting the diesel range result. M1 - Hydrocarbons in the gasoline range (toluene-napthalene) are present in the sample. N - Hydrocarbons in the lube oil range are impacting the diesel range result. N1 - Hydrocarbons in diesel range are impacting lube oil range results. O - Hydrocarbons indicative of heavier fuels are present in the sample and are impacting the gasoline result. P - The RPD of the detected concentrations between the two columns is greater than 40. Q - Surrogate recovery is outside of the control limits. S - Surrogate recovery data is not available due to the necessary dilution of the sample. T - The sample chromatogram is not similar to a typical U - The analyte was analyzed for, but was not detected above the reported sample quantitation limit. U1 - The practical quantitation limit is elevated due to interferences present in the sample. V - Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate recoveries are outside control limits due to matrix effects. W - Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate RPD are outside control limits due to matrix effects. X - Sample extract treated with a mercury cleanup procedure. X1- Sample extract treated with a Sulfuric acid/Silica gel cleanup procedure. Y - The calibration verification for this analyte exceeded the 20% drift specified in method 8260C, and therefore the reported result should be considered an estimate. The overall performance of the calibration verification standard met the acceptance criteria of the method. z- ND - Not Detected at PQL PQL - Practical Quantitation Limit RPD - Relative Percent Difference OnSite Environmental, Inc. 14648 NE 95th Street, Redmond, WA 98052 (425) 883-3881 This report pertains to the samples analyzed in accordance with the chain of custody, and is intended only for the use of the individual or company to whom it is addressed. OnSite Chain of Custody Page of Analytical Laboratory Testing Services 14648 NE 95th Street • Redmond, WA 98052 Phone: (425) 883-3881 • www.onsite-env.com Turnaround Request (in working days) Number of Con3ainers Laboratory Number: v 1 - �./ A{+ 9 ❑ Same • 2 Days X Standard (TPH ❑ (Check One) Company: G-t O Eh4%-.✓ S NWTPH-HCID NWTPH-Gx/BTEX c. z ox x z Volatiles 8260C Halogenated Volatiles 8260C Semivolatiles 8270D/SIM (with low-level PAHs) IPAHs 8270D/SIM (low-level) PCBs 8082A Organochlorine Pesticides 80818 Organophosphonjs Pesticides 8270D/SIM Chlorinated Acid Herbicide3 8151A Total RCRA Me^als Total MTCA Metals TCLP Metals HEM (oil and grease) 1664A g a, Day • 1 Day Project Number: C) Ze-S 9 — 1 0 — ° �J I^ I♦ 3 Days (7 Days) analysis 5 Days) Project Name: MO 1}. " _5 Fovr�rt,a„ nn''s• Project Manager: Sampled by: Cc, \ d rKA�GY+ �J+ (other) Lab ID Sample Identification Date Time Sampled Sampled Matrix 1(V,6 ojioo 9 X Z. Cc i-2- )/6. iIC I100 1 x Si 'nature Date lime Comments/Special Instructions Relinquished {Coompany V GGt1nCGY ,/�/� 2�V� �M W. ��` �r Received "----`%* r 4'S [ `Cp f ((° s '�!..+'� - Relinquished Ow Received Relinquished Received Reviewed/Date Reviewed/Date Chromatograms with final report a P: one: :nda Le El Dnic a D< rabl EDD Hsu .3, Qe C Trdrnav, AgSource Laboratories Submitted by: UMG24544 GEO ENGINEERS, INC 8410 154TH AVENUE N.E. REDMOND, WA 98052 Date Received 13-Jan-2016 23 . ,fr.h q it ... Umatilla, OR 97882 Te1:541-922-4894 Soil Analysis umatilla@agsource.com Submitted for: GEO ENGINEERS Date Reported 18-Jan-2016 Laboratory Sample # AU01801 - AU01802 Information Sheet No. S9023 Field: COMPOSITE Crop: Sampled: 13-Jan-2016 Soil Analysis Report Lab No. AU01801 1 AU01802 2 Sample Id Ex Bray pH BpH SS OM Garb P minims % ppm 6.7 7.4 0.0 0.4 L 9 6.5 7.4 0.0 0.9 L 9 Olsen P PPm Ammonium Ace ate K ppm 41 Mg meq 1.7 45 1.5 Ca Na meq meq 3.7 0.08 3.8 0.08 NO3 NH4 N NSB Zn Mn Cu Fe lb/a Ibha ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm 0 3 1.9 0.1 0.6 4 0.7 19 3 4 3.4 0.1 1.0 9 1.1 32 Al ppm CI ppm Est. Base Saturation CEC H K Mg Ca Na % % % % 5.5 0.0 1.9 30.0 66.7 1.4 5.8 6.9 2.0 25.0 64.8 1.4 DISCLAIMER: Data and information in this report are intended solely for the individual(s) for whom samples were submitted. Reproduction of this report must be in its entirety. Levels listed are guidelines only. Data was reported based on standard laboratory procedures and deviations. Page 1 of 1 AgSource Laboratories MIMI*ro G.A.s4A.+ss+strmimi Submitted by: UMG24544 GEO ENGINEERS, INC 8410 154TH AVENUE N.E. REDMOND, WA 98052 Date Received 13-Jan-2016 323 Sixth Street Umatilla, OR 97882 Te1:541-922-4894 umatilla@agsource.com Submitted for: GEO ENGINEERS Date Reported 18-Jan-2016 Soil Analysis Laboratory Sample # AU01801 - AU01802 Information Sheet No. S9023 REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS Field COMPOSITE COMPOSITE COMPOSITE COMPOSITE COMPOSITE COMPOSITE COMPOSITE COMPOSITE Client Sample Identification 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Analysis Clay Sand Silt Texture Texture Silt Sand Clay Result 0.1 % 92.9 % 17.9 % SILT LOAM SILT LOAM 12.0 % 96.9 % 0.1 % DISCLAIMER: Data and information in this report are intended solely for the individual(s) for whom samples were submitted. Reproduction of this report must bi i it_ ltir . Li As I ed' gi. airs on. Darr iva; po' d b )d i sta and 3or rry' >'ce res. d 6 lati' 3. F a1c APPENDIX D Previous Studies APPENDIX D PREVIOUS STUDIES GeoEngineers reviewed logs of previous explorations completed in the general vicinity of the project. The locations of previous explorations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The logs of some of the previous explorations are presented in this appendix and include: • The Togs of four borings (B-2 through B-4, and B-7) completed in 2009 by GeoEngineers in the report entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Services, Aviation High School at the Museum of Flight, Tukwila, Washington." GEOENGINEERS February 5, 2016 Page D-1 File No.8039-010-02 Start End Total 14 Depth (ft) Logged By BPD Checked By NLT Driller Geologic Drill Drilling Hollow -stem Auger/SPT Method 9 Drilled 7/21/2009 7/21/2009 Surface Elevation (ft) 18.0 Vertical Datum Hammer Rope and Cathead Data 140 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling XL Trailer Rig Equipment Latitude Longitude System N/A Datum Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water ft Elevation (el Notes: Auger Data: 3% inches ID, 7 inches OD 7/21/2009 11 7.0 h U' R' U' E 0 6 3• FIELD DATA 5- 10 — c TO N c cc 14 18 18 10 5 15 1 2 3 d le -J O L O. l`0 c U O y 7 N O rs 0 0 SM MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Dark brown silty fine sand (loose to medium dense, moist) Gray silt with trace organic matter (medium stiff, wet) SP Black fine to medium sand (medium dense, wet) Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. t.) 10 REMARKS 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 Sheet13 o Start End Total Depth (ft) 14 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 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling XL Trailer Rig Equipment Latitude Longitude System N/A Datum Groundwater Elevation (ftl Depth to Date Measured Water (ftl Notes: Auger Data: 3% inches ID, 7 inches OD • 7/21/2009 7 11.0 A Elevation (feet) Depth (feet) FIELD DATA Graphic Log Group Classification MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content, g cp 0 z o- REMARKS Interval Recovered (in) w 3 o m Collected Sample Sample Name Water Level - 5� _No - 10— - - h 18 18 1184 Jl8 17 8 11 t 3 4• 2 SM Dark brown silty fine to coarse sand with lenses of sandy silt (medium dense, moist)il - 10 SA %F=29 . • MI- Grayish black silt with sand and occasional wood _ fragments (medium stiff to stiff, moist) _ Grades to gray and wet - - — — SP-SM Black fine sand with lenses of silt (medium dense, wet) _ _ Note: See Figure A-1 for explanation of symbols. Log of Boring B-3 G EO E N G I N E E R S% 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 Hollow -stem Auger/SPT Method Drilled 7/21/2009 7/21/2009 Surface Elevation (ft) Vertical Datum 19'0 Hammer Rope and Cathead Data 140 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling Equipment XL Trailer Rig Latitude Longitude System N/A Datum Groundwater Depth to Date Measured Water (ft) Elevation (ftl Notes: Auger Data: 3'Y inches ID, 7 inches OD 7/21/2009 6 13.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 S.`'0 'S' Elevation (feet) o cy, o Depth (feet) l 1 1 i 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 FIELD DATA Graphic Log Group Classification MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Moisture Content, Dry Density, (Pcf) REMARKS Interval Recovered (in) 15 w I 0 m Collected Sample Sample Name Testing Water Level 1 18 1 18 1 18 7 2 10 1 2- 3 2 • SM Dark reddish brown silty fine sand with chunks of _ silt (loose, moist) (fill) - 15 SA, %F=34 ML — Gray clayey silt with organic matter (soft, wet) — - - - - - — — / • Sr-SM Grayish fine to medium sand with silt and lenses _ of clayey silt (loose to medium dense, wet) _ - 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 Start End Depth (ft) 19 Logged ByBPD Checked By NLT Droller Geologic Drill Methnogd Hollow -stem Auger/SPT Drilled 7/22/2009 7/22/2009 Hammer Rope and Calhead Data 140 (Ibs) / 30 (in) Drop Drilling XL Trailer Rig Equipment A 2 (in) well was Well was developed Groundwater installed on 7/22/2009 to a depth of (ft). on 7/22/2009. Depth to Water ft Elevation (ftl Surface Elevation (ft) 19.0 Vertical Datum Top of Casing Elevation (ft) Latitude Longitude System N/A Datum Date Measured 8/5/2009 12.1 6.89 Notes: Auger Data: 4% inches ID, 8 inches OD FIELD DATA 0 is a w c _No h z w 0 w 0 2 0 0 �7 0 5 3• s a a 0 5- 10 — 15— Z d c 0) N 8 a) 18 18 18 18 0 0 0 0 in 5 3 19 12 0. E co u Sample Name 2 4 0 0. m 0 SM MATERIAL DESCRIPTION -2 inches asphalt concrete and 1'h-inch base course Dark brown silty fine sand with chunks of silt (fill) Brownish gray clayey silt with trace sand (soft, wet) SP-SM 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. 18.0 19.0 WELL LOG locking J-plug 1 • Flush -mount steel monument / Concrete surface seal x 6 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 end cap plug i Log of Monitoring Well B-7 G EO E N G I N E E RS O Project: Project Location: Project Number: Aviation High School Seattle, Washington 2820-003-00 Figure A-8 sheet 1 of 1 APPENDIX E Report Limitations and Guidelines for Use APPENDIX E 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 the Museum of Flight and other project team members for the Museum's B-52 project 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 Museum of Flight B-52 project 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. 1 Developed based on material provided by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences; www.asfe.org . GEOENGINEERSI February 5, 2016 Page E-1 Ale No. 8039-010-02 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. 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 GeoEngineers for 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. GEOENGINEERSQ February 5, 2016 Page E-2 File No. 8039-010-02 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. 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. GEOENGINEERS. February 5, 2016 Page E-3 File No. 8039-010-02 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. GEOENGINEERS� February 5, 2016 Page E-4 Ale No. 8039-010-02 January 30, 2015 City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION Special Permission Director, Parking Determination TO: Caroline Schuman, Applicant The Seneca Group 1191 Second Avenue, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98101 Washington State Dept. of Ecology I. Project Information Project File Number: Associated File Numbers: Applicant: Type of Permit Applied for: not specified Project Description: Location: L 14-0080 Community Development King County Museum of Flight 9404 E. Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98168 King County Assessor, Accounting Division L10-059 Parking Determination Caroline Schuman, The Seneca Group Special Permission Director, Parking Determination for a use Request to revise the minimum number of parking stalls for the Museum of flight originally established through L10-059. 9229 East Marginal Way South, tax parcel number 572980- 0010 and 573000-0010 Comprehensive Plan Designation/ Zoning District: MIC/H II. DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. Decision on application: The Department of Community Development Director has determined that Museum of Flight requires 568 improved, on -site parking stalls once the covered airpark is completed (389 on the CL Page 1 of 3 01/30/2015 10:12 AM H:\\Museum of Flight\Patking Determination\NOD Museum of Flight L14-0080 Special Permission -Parking Determination January 30, 2015 main Museum campus, 67 at the Space Gallery, 89 at the Covered Airpark, 23 at Raisbeck Aviation High School). Based on the 2014 Parking and Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc., this parking supply meets the Museum's demand for parking on all but four or fewer days per year. To meet the additional demand, the Museum has a shared parking agreement with Boeing for the use of 486 parking stalls on evenings and weekends; access to 150 improved parking stalls on the Aviation High School site for use outside of high school operating times and during the summer, and access to 1,171 stalls in other Boeing parking lots and King County International Airport subject to the following conditions set forth in the Decision: 1. Maintain the parking agreements with Boeing and King County International Airport for the use of 1100-1500 parking spaces during peak -season weekends and evenings as specified in parking determination L10-059. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code§18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. One administrative appeal to the Hearing Examiner of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Hearing Examiner's decision. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision, which is by February 13, 2015. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing parry's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. CL H:\\Museum of FlightlParking De(tenninationWOD Page 2 of 3 01/30/2015 10:12 AM -N. Museum of Flight L14-0080 Special Permission -Parking Determination January 30, 2015 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee of $591.00. V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. artme6?AO mm s'b,'S Harp Direc Or, Dep unity Development Date D CL CL Page 3 of 3 01/30I2015 10:12 AM H:\1Museum of rlightAPacking Dete minauon\NOD r City of Tukwila Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director Project File Number: Associated File Numbers: Applicant: Type of Permit: Request: STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR January 28, 2015 L14-0080 L10-059, Parking Determination for the Space Gallery; E14-0015 Caroline Schuman, Seneca Group Parking Determination for a Use Not Specified in the Tukwila Municipal Code Update to prior Notice of Decision (L10-059), for a parking determination to establish the minimum number of parking stalls for the Museum of Flight at the time a new structure was being added (Space Gallery). The Museum is adding a covered airpark structure to protect the airplanes that are currently on display in the open air; as a result, a new parking determination is needed for the museum complex. Location: 9229 East Marginal Way South, parcel numbers 572980-0010 and 573000-0010 Comprehensive Plan/ Zoning District: Recommendation: Staff: Attachments: MIC/H Approve parking determination Carol Lumb, Senior Planner A. Technical Memorandum, dated September 3, 2014, prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. B. January 14, 2015 Email Stream Laura Lohman, Seneca Group, Todd McBryan, Heffron, Carol Lumb, City of Tukwila re parking numbers C. L10-059 Parking Determination Notice of Decision and Staff Report D. Technical Memorandum, dated August 27, 2010, prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. CL Page 1 of 7 01/30✓2015 9:16 AM H:\\L14-0080 MOF Parking Detennination\Staff Rpt. L14-0080, Museum of Flight Covereu Airpark Parking Determination January 28, 2015 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Museum of Flight is adding a 135,000 square foot roof structure to protect large aircraft currently displayed in the open air on the Museum of Flight's west campus. The area devoted to outdoor display of aircraft will be expanded onto an adjacent parcel, currently a gravel parking lot that can accommodate 150 vehicles, when the roof structure is constructed. The covered airpark will house more than 20 aircraft, including very large airplanes such as a Boeing 747, Boeing 787 and Concorde as well as historic aircraft such as a Boeing B-17 and B-29. The covered airpark will expand the area for display of aircraft northward up to the Raisbeck Aviation High School site. The initial plan is to construct the structure without walls, with walls added at some future date. Because a structure is being added to the Museum's west campus site, and some of the area to be used to display airplanes is currently used for parking, which will cause the loss of 61 parking spaces, additional review is required on the amount of parking needed for the new covered airpark building and the remainder of the Museum campus. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT The Museum of Flight is located on a multi -parcel campus bisected by East Marginal Way South. The 285,000 square foot main museum building and the "Red Barn" (Boeing's original factory) are on the east side of the street on one parcel and the 33,000 square foot archives and library building (often referred to as the 9-04 Building), the 15,000 square feet Space Gallery, the current airpark and the 86,000 square foot Raisbeck Aviation High School are located on the west side of the street on two parcels. A Binding Site Plan has been recorded for the parcel containing the 9-04 building, airpark and Space Gallery. BACKGROUND A parking determination was issued for the Museum of Flight under land use permit L10-059, when the Museum added the Space Gallery building to house the Space Shuttle. The staff report for this permit is attached and provides details on the number of parking stalls available for use by Museum of Flight patrons, volunteers and staff at that point in time. The decision issued for L10-059 determined that the Museum should provide a minimum of 610 parking spaces on the Museum campus with access to an additional 1100-1500 spaces on surrounding properties during peak event times. This determination was based on a Technical Memorandum, dated August 27, 2010, prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. which calculated the parking demand and supply for the Museum campus and projected parking demand once the Space Gallery was constructed. At the time of the 2011 parking determination, 150 parking stalls in a gravel area north of the airpark were available for parking - this gravel parking area will be used to expand the airpark to display additional planes. The covered airpark project will construct 89 new paved parking stalls along with a fire lane and vehicular loop road connecting the Raisbeck Aviation High School entry and South 94th Place. This will reduce the number of permanent unrestricted parking stalls on the Museum campus by cL Page2of7 01/30120159:16AM H:\\L14-0080 MOF Parking Determnation\Staff Rpt / \ L14-0080, Museum of Flight Covered Airpark Parking Determination January 28, 2015 61 spaces. The Museum is requesting a new determination of the required number of parking stalls based on the experience of the last couple years with parking demand now that the Space Gallery is constructed and attracting visitors. DECISION CRITERIA — PARKING DETERMINATION Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations are found in TMC 18.56 and includes a table that lists the required number of parking stalls for automobiles and bicycles (Table 18-7). The table provides specific parking requirements for a number of common land uses. For example, fast food restaurants are required to have one parking stall for every 50 square feet of usable floor area; bulk retail sales requires 2.5 stalls for every 1,000 square feet of usable floor area. The required number of parking stalls for a museum is not specified under the City's parking regulations. Under TMC 18.56.100 "Uses Not Specified", the Director shall determine the required number of parking stalls for uses not specified in the City's parking regulations. The Director's determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable uses specified in the Parking chapter. Comparable Uses The following uses listed in table 18-7 of TMC 18.56 are comparable to a museum: 1. Places of public assembly, including auditoriums, exhibition halls, community clubs, community centers, and private clubs are listed in table 18-7, but no specific parking ratio is provided. Instead, the Director shall determine the minimum number of parking stalls, however in no case shall the minimum number be less than one stall for every 100 square feet of assembly area. The Director may require that a parking study be provided in order to determine the minimum parking requirements. In the code, parking is typically related to useable floor area or area of assembly. The displays of large aircraft both within buildings and at the airpark result in very large floor area relative to the quantity of items in the museum's collection. Using either useable floor area or assembly area is not applicable for this reason. PARKING SUPPLY The table below identifies the supply that was analyzed in the 2011 parking determination, the City's analysis of parking supply in 2011 and the 2014 Heffron parking supply analysis. The numbers are drawn from all three sources, and from subsequent emails to/from Heffron and the Seneca Group, the applicant for the Museum of Flight. CL Page 3 of 7 O1/30/2015 9:16 AM H:\ L14-0080 MOF Parking Dctermination\Staff Rpt L14-0080, Museum of Flight Covert.' Airpark Parking Determination January 28, 2015 MUSEUM OF FLIGHT UNRESTRICTED PARKING SUPPLY Location Heffron Analysis 2010 Supply City of Tukwila 2011 Notice of Decision Heffron Analysis 2016 Supply East Lot 389 287* 389 Space Gallery 67 Not Included 67 Raisbeck Aviation High School (RAHS) 23** 173 23** North Gravel Lot 150 150 0 Covered Airpark n/a n/a 89 TOTAL UNRESTRICTED 629 610 568 *Referred to as "on -site parking" in the City's Notice of Decision **Stalls available for exclusive use by MOF at RAHS 24/7 Evenings and weekends and during the summer, the 150 parking stalls at the High School are available for use by the Museum, for a total of 718 parking stalls available that are controlled by the Museum. In addition to the parking stalls permanently available for Museum patrons, employees and volunteers, there are several parking lots owned by Boeing that are available for Museum usage, under a license agreement between the Museum and Boeing. These lots, and the number of stalls available are: Boeing South Lot —189 spaces; and the Boeing West Lot — 297 spaces. Two, more remote lots owned by Boeing may also be used by the Museum during peak visitor times - Boeing Truck Inspection Lot — 895 spaces; Boeing Oxbow Lot — 200 spaces. There are also 76 parking stalls at King County International Airport, just north of the main Museum building, available on a "first come -first served" basis. In all, between unrestricted and restricted parking stalls, there are over 2,300 parking stalls available to the Museum. PARKING DEMAND The applicant submitted a "Parking and Trip Generation Analysis", prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. with the parkiing determination application. Heffron also prepared a parking demand and supply analysis in 2010, for the parking determination issued under L10-059. The 2010 analysis projected visitor attendance based on the museum's prior experience and showed that during the museum's peak season (June, July and August) the number of monthly visitors is nearly 50% higher than the monthly average overall. This analysis is discussed in the staff report for L10-059, which is attached to this report. New parking demand counts were undertaken in the lots surrounding the Museum for this current parking determination request. These lots are identified in Figure 1 of the 2014 Heffron analysis. The counts were taken on two Saturdays and two weekdays: May 24u' (Memorial Day weekend) and May 31, 2014 (Saturday counts) and weekdays, Tuesday, June 3 and Thursday, June 5,' 2014. The counts were taken in all lots every 30 minutes from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Museum operating hours, except cL Page 4 of 7 O1/30/2015 9:16 AM H:\\L14-0080 MOF Parking Determination\Staff Rpt � 1 L14-0080, Museum of Flight Covered Alrpark Parking Determination January 28, 2015 for Thursday, when the Museum was open until 9:00 p.m. as part of the "First Thursday Evening" program. The peak demand typically occurred between 12:00 and 2:00 p.m. The largest midday demand, 407 vehicles, occurred on June 5th at 1:00 p.m. This demand falls within the number of unrestricted parking stalls available to Museum ;patrons (568). The 2014 Heffron Parking and Trip Generation Analysis states: "During the period between 2009 and 2014, when the Space Gallery was added, annual visitor attendance increased by about 37%. —roughly 6.5% per year. This increase is less than was projected for the Space Gallery analysis; the Museum had forecast an increase of 53% or 8.8% per year. The lower growth is likely a result of the museum receiving a Space Shuttle trainer rather than a Space Shuttle orbiter for the Space Gallery. As a result, the museum's annual attendance in 2014 is well below the level used to evaluate traffic and parking impacts associated with the Space Gallery. That analysis for year 2015 was based on annual visitor projections that were over 35% higher than the current forecasts for year 2020. "The Museum expects that the Covered Airpark would not contribute noticeably to increases in visitor attendance, since attendance growth is driven by new airplanes or new major artifacts (such as the Space Shuttle trainer), special exhibits, and supporting advertising and promotions. The Covered Airpark would simply provide protection for the Museum's existing artifacts and is anticipated to only increase visitor attendance by a fraction of a percent. Such a small increase in annual visitor attendance is unlikely to change the visitor -related weekday PM peak hour trip generation of the overall museum. Average weekday PM peak hour trip is expected to remain below the level already evaluated for the Space Gallery." The Heffron analysis states that when the Covered Airpark opens in 2016, the museum will add between 6 and 10 volunteers to support tours and interpretation of the Air Force One, Concorde, 787, and 747 aircraft. No other changes to employees are anticipated. The additional volunteers can be expected to generate the need for 6-10 additional parking stalls. The analysis states that no changes in visitor - related or event -related trips are expected on an average weekday as result of the Covered Airpark construction, so there would be no increase in visitor- or event -related peak weekday parking demand. The Parking Demand Analysis prepared in 2010 determined that the Museum -owned supply was expected to meet the Museum's parking demand for all attendance scenarios except for those larger than the 90th percentile, which is estimated to be two peak -season, weekend days per year. The current Parking Demand Analysis anticipates that the loss of the 61 parking stalls currently available at the gravel parking lot could affect parking conditions on four or fewer days per year. On those days the overflow parking is expected to be accommodated at the Boeing lots for which the Museum has shared parking agreements in place. CL Page 5 of 7 01/30/2015 9:16 AM H:\\L14-0080 MOF Parking Determination\ Staff Rpt. L14-0080, Museum of Flight Covereu Airpark Parking Determination January 28, 2015 CONCLUSIONS 1. Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC 18.56.100) requires that the Planning Director determine adequate parking based on a list of comparable uses. Given the type of use — Museum - there are no comparable uses under TMC 18.56.100 that include a parking ratio. The comparable uses most similar to the museum uses include Places of public assembly, including auditoriums, exhibition halls, community clubs, community centers and private clubs; Outdoor sports areas or parks; Pubic facilities, including libraries, police and fire stations; and Colleges, Universities, Vocational Schools and other post -secondary institutions. These uses apply a parking ratio of one space for every 100 square -feet of assembly area, however, this ratio does not fit a museum such as the Museum of Flight with displays of large aircraft both within the buildings and at the airpark. This results in a very large floor area relative to the quantity of items in its collection. 2. A parking determination in 2011, when the Museum constructed the Space Gallery, required the Museum to provide a minimum of 610 parking stalls on the Museum campus with access to an additional 1100-1500 spaces on surrounding properties. 3. Annual attendance at the Museum of Flight has increased 37% since 2011 due to the addition of the Space Gallery. However, this increase is lower than had been predicted (a 53% increase had been predicted), likely as a result of the Museum receiving a Space Shuttle trainer rather than a Space Shuttle orbiter. Average weekday PM peak hour trip generation is expected to remain below the level evaluated for the Space Gallery under L10-059. 4. The area to be used to display aircraft outside the main Museum building will be enlarged when the covered airpark is constructed. The expansion will occur on a site currently used for parking reducing the number of unrestricted parking spaces available to Museum visitors by 61. This loss could affect parking conditions on four or fewer days per year. 5. The number of volunteers and peak weekday parking demand at the Museum campus may increase by 6-10 vehicles as a result of the covered airpark project. The existing Museum owned lots can accommodate this small increase in demand. 6. The Museum will have unrestricted access to 568 parking spaces once the covered airpark is completed (389 on main the Museum campus, 67 at Space Gallery, 89 at the Covered Airpark, 23 at the High School). Based on the 2014 Parking and Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc., this parking supply meets the Museum's demand for parking on all but four or fewer days per year. An additional 150 parking stalls are available at the High School evenings, weekends and during the summer months. 7. The Museum has a shared parking agreement with Boeing for the use of two parking lots, which provide an additional 486 parking stalls on evenings and weekends. Seventy-six parking stalls are available on a fast come -first served basis at the King County International Airport (KCIA) lot just north of the main Museum building on the east side of East Marginal Way South. Two other Boeing lots, further away from the Museum campus, are also available, which provide 1,095 additional parking spaces. On the days when parking demand exceeds the supply of the CL Page 6of7 0150/2015 9:16 AM H:\\L14-0080 MOF Peking Determination\Staff Rpt C\ L14-0080, Museum of Flight Covered Airpark Parking Determination January 28, 2015 unrestricted parking stalls available on the Museum campus, the Boeing and the KCIA parking areas will meet the parking demand. This totals 1,657 parking spaces available evenings and weekends for Museum use. RECOMMENDATION Revise the minimum number of unrestricted parking spaces the Museum of Flight should provide to 568 on the Museum campus with the following condition: 1. Maintain the parking agreements with Boeing and King County International Airport for the use of 1100-1500 parking spaces during peak -season weekends and evenings as specified in parking determination L10-059. CL Page 7 of 7 O1/30/2015 9:16 AM H:\\LI4-0080 MOF Parking Detennination`Staff Rpt hefiron transportation inc. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: Museum of Flight — Covered Airpark Project Subject: Parking and Trip Generation Analysis Date: September 3, 2014 Author: Tod S. McBryan, P Attachment A RECEIVED DEC 16 2014 COMrMur'u i r DEVELOPMENT This memorandum describes the parking and trip generation analysis prepared for the proposed Covered Airpark project at the existing Museum of Flight in Tukwila, Washington. These analyses reflect data and analysis typically required by the City of Tukwila. 1. Museum of Flight — Location, Function, and Staffing The Museum of Flight is located on the west side of Boeing Field / King County Airport at 9404 East Marginal Way S. The museum site is located within the City of Tukwila's permitting jurisdiction. It is an educational air and space museum that is dedicated to the acquisition, preservation, and exhibition of historically -significant air and space artifacts. It also serves as a foundation for research and education by providing tours, aviation -related special events, lectures, and publications. The museum is open daily 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. every day except Thanksgiving and Christmas Day. The Airpark is an outdoor display component of the museum on the west side of East Marginal Way S. The main parking lot for visitors to the museum is located east of the museum building and immediately north of Museum of Flight Place S. Access to the parking lot occurs from the signalized Museum of Flight Place S/96's Place S/East Marginal Way S intersection (a secondary access direct from East Marginal Way S is located north of the museum). Museum of Flight Place S provides access to the museum parking lot as well as a large Boeing parking lot on the south side of Museum of Flight Place S. The Museum of Flight currently has 128 full-time, 44 part-time, and 51 seasonal staff members who work at the Museum on an average weekday during the peak summer season. In addition, between 26 and 31 individuals volunteer at the museum on weekdays and weekends. 2. Project Description The Museum of Flight is proposing a Covered Airpark, which would be a 140,000-square foot (sf) structure, to exhibit and protect the Museum's large aircraft on its west campus. Construction is planned to begin in 2015 and to be completed in the spring of 2016. The Covered Airpark will be used to exhibit more than 20 airplanes including very large aircraft such as the Boeing 747, the Boeing 787, and the Concorde, as well as historic aircraft such as the Boeing B-17 and B-29. The project will include a roof that spans the area between the Charles Simonyi Space Gallery (CSSG) and the Raisbeck Aviation High School (RAHS) encompassing the existing Airpark and gravel overflow parking lot to the north. The Covered Airpark will also be used as supplemental space for museum assembly events and as a learning space for museum visitors as well as RAHS students. Visitor access to the Covered Airpark will be through the CSSG. RSdd NF R1ct Stnaat SaatNa WA QR115 Phnna• /70R1523.1a139 Far 19t1R159I4Q&Q Museum of Flight — Covered Airpark Project Parking and Trip Generation Analysis heffron trans )ortation, Inc. The north half of the Covered Airpark's footprint will displace overflow parking capacity in the existing gravel parking lot. The gravel lot was marked in 2013 for 120 parking spaces; however, the lot can accommodate 150 cars by parking 30 cars around the perimeter of the lot. The project would construct 89 new parking spaces along with fire lane access and a vehicular loop road connecting the RAHS entry and S 9441 Place. As a result, the project would decrease the amount of available overflow parking by approximately 60 spaces. The existing museum location, proposed project location, and site vicinity are shown in Figure 1(attached). In a future phase of construction, the Covered Airpark is planned to be transformed to an "Air Transport Gallery" by adding exterior walls and doors similar to the CSSG. The Air Transport Gallery would be permitted separately and would likely be completed sometime after 2020. 3. Museum Trip Generation The City of Tukwila charges traffic impact fees for new developments that add traffic to the City's roadway network during the commuter PM peak hour. Typically, traffic estimates for new developments can be determined using published rates or equations in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation.' However, this publication does not include any rates or equations for a museum. Therefore, trip generation estimates for the Museum of Flight were determined based on visitor data, traffic counts, and attendance projections for the museum. The following sections describe the methodology used to estimate the potential increase in average weekday PM peak hour trip generation for the museum as a result of the Covered Airpark project. These estimates are intended for use by the City of Tukwila in determining an appropriate traffic impact fee for the proposed project. 3.1. Methodology Museum traffic generation is comprised of two primary components —visitor trips and employee / volunteer trips. These two types of trips have different trip -making characteristics and will be affected differently by the planned Covered Airpark project. Museum building size is not an appropriate basis on which to estimate trip generation for two reasons: 1) due to the size of many of the museum's artifacts, the building area needed to house them would not correlate directly with the visitor demand, and 2) the artifacts that would be protected by the Covered Airpark are already displayed outside of the museum's buildings. Instead of building size, the museum's attendance and staffing estimates, which provide the best correlation to vehicle use, will be used to estimate trip generation and parking demand. 3.2. Forecast Visitor Attendance and Seasonal Fluctuation A previous analysis prepared for the Museum of Flight for its Space Gallery Addition in 20112 presented detailed visitor data and analysis of the annual seasonal fluctuation in attendance. For the analysis to support the Covered Airpark project, the Museum provided additional visitor attendance data covering the period from 2010 through 2013. Figure 2 shows how monthly attendance has fluctuated over the past three years. As shown, during the museum's peak season —the three-month period that includes June, July and August —the number of monthly visitors is nearly 50% higher than the monthly average. ITE, 8d' Edition, 2008. 2 Museum of Flight — Space Gallery Addition: UPDATED PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates, Heffron Transportation, Inc., January 5, 2011 l \ Museum of Flight— Covered Airpark Project Parking and Trip Generation Analysis heLron trans o r t a t i o n, Figure 2. Museum of Flight Visitor Data (January 2010 thru December 2013) 70,000 60,000 50,000 g 40,000 y 30,000 5 20,000 10,000 0 Average Peak Season Visitors per Month = 47,330 (Jun. - Aug.) Average Visitors per Month = 31,870 Tl r T T O O O CD O O N N N N N C) c') c) C+) C) C' a s — !93 z 43"in z -' z g cO7n z Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., using data provided by Museum of Flight, July 2014. During the period between 2009 and 2014, when the Space Gallery was added, annual visitor attendance increased by about 37%—roughly 6.5% per year. This increase is less than was projected for the Space Gallery analysis; the Museum had forecast an increase of 53% or 8.8% per year. The lower growth is likely a result of the museum receiving a Space Shuttle trainer rather than a Space Shuttle orbiter for the Space Gallery. As a result, the museum's annual attendance in 2014 is well below the level used to evaluate traffic and parking impacts associated with the Space Gallery. That analysis for year 2015 was based on annual visitor projections that were over 35% higher than the current forecasts for year 2020. The Museum expects that the Covered Airpark would not contribute noticeably to increases in visitor attendance, since attendance growth is driven by new airplanes or new major artifacts (such as the Space Shuttle trainer), special exhibits, and supporting advertising and promotions. The Covered Airpark would simply provide protection for the Museum's existing artifacts and is anticipated to only increase visitor attendance by a fraction of a percent. Such a small increase in annual visitor attendance is unlikely to change the visitor -related weekday PM peak hour trip generation of the overall museum. Average weekday PM peak hour trip generation is expected to remain below the level already evaluated for the Space Gallery. 3.3. Demand from Employees and Volunteers The number of employees and volunteers on site are not directly related to the number of daily visitors. The Museum of Flight indicated that, in 2016 when the Covered Airpark opens, it will add between 6 and 10 volunteers to support tours and interpretation of Air Force One, Concorde, 787, and 747. No other changes to employees are anticipated. It is possible that these new volunteers could depart the site during the commuter peak hour. Therefore, it is assumed that the Covered Airpark project could result in a net increase of 6 to 10 volunteer -related weekday PM peak hour trips. Museum of Flight — Covered Airpark Project Parking and Trip Generation Analysis 3.4. Traffic from Private Events at the Museum heffr 011 trans )ortation, Inc. The Museum of Flight regularly hosts private events on weekdays, weekday evenings, and weekends. Some of these events generate traffic during the weekday PM peak hour. As described previously, the proposed Covered Airpark would not be fully enclosed. Therefore, the space would be used to support events that would occur at the site with or without the project, but would not result in new or larger events. No increase to event -related weekday PM peak hour trips is anticipated. 3.5. Total Trip Generation Estimate and Impact Fee No changes in visitor -related or event -related PM peak hour trips are expected on an average weekday as a result of the Covered Airpark project. A small increase in the number of volunteers at the site is expected in order to support tours of the aircraft in the Covered Airpark. Based on these analyses, the additional volunteers could generate an increase of up to 10 weekday PM peak hour trips on an average weekday. The City of Tukwila's impact fee rate for Zone 4 (the zone in which the museum is located) is $819.38 per net new PM peak hour trip. Therefore, the total impact fee for the Covered Airpark project would be (10 trips x $819.38/trip) $8,193.80. 4. Museum Parking Demand & Supply 4.1. Existing Parking Supply The Museum of Flight owns three paved parking lots and one large gravel parcel that is used for overflow parking. As shown in Figure 1 (attached), the main museum parking lot is located east of the main museum building and has 389 parking spaces. This main lot is accessed from East Marginal Way S at Museum of Flight Place S (opposite S 96th Place); a secondary access driveway is located on the north side of the museum on East Marginal Way S. The museum also owns the Space Gallery parking lot (67 spaces) and owns the site on which Raisbeck Aviation High School (RAHS) is located. The Ground Lease between the Museum of Flight Foundation and Highline School District No. 401 states that "Tenant (Highline School District/RAHS) has a nonexclusive license to use up to 150 parking spaces." RAHS has the right to use the parking Monday through Friday, from September 1 until June 30 during the hours from 7:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. The school's officers, staff, and employees (but not students) also have the right to use up to 20 parking spaces between August 15 and August 31 each year. The museum has the right to use the on -site parking at other times including during peak summer months when the school is not in session. Both the Space Gallery lot and the RAHS parking areas are located on the west side of East Marginal Way S north of S 94th Place. As described previously, the North Gravel Lot was marked in 2013 for 120 parking spaces; but can accommodate 150 cars. It is located north of the existing Airpark on the west side of East Marginal Way S with access at S 92°a Place (access shared with RAHS). The Museum of Flight also has arrangements to share nearby parking capacity in several lots owned by Boeing. The Boeing South Lot with 189 spaces is located immediately south of the museum on the southeast comer of East Marginal Way S and S 96th Place. The Boeing West Lot with 297 spaces is\ located immediately west of the museum on the west side of East Marginal Way S north of S 96th Place. The Boeing South lot is available for overflow museum demand at all times, but is typically . 75% filled by Boeing employees Monday through Friday. However, the Boeing South Lot is not available during the week of the annual Blue Angels airshow (typically one week in early August during Seafair). The Boeing West lot is available for Museum overflow parking on weekend days and Li2 to Museum of Flight— Covered Airpark Project Parking and Trip Generation Analysis heh'r 011 trans 3ortation, Inc. holidays. The King County International Airport owns the T-Hangar parking lot (76 spaces) located immediately north of the museum on the east side of East Marginal Way S. This lot is available to the public and some museum parking occurs here periodically. In addition to owned and shared parking that surrounds the site, the Museum has an agreement with Boeing to use two lots for peak overflow parking. The lots are the Boeing Truck Inspection Lot (with 895 spaces) and the Boeing Oxbow Lot (with 200 spaces), which are both located about 3/, mile southwest of the Museum on the west side of the Duwamish River and have access via the S 102°d Street bridge. The Boeing Truck Inspection Lot is available only on weekends; the Boeing Oxbow lot is available anytime upon request. The Museum has used the Boeing Truck Inspection Lot during Seafair weekend for visitor parking; visitors walked to the Museum. The museum has used the Oxbow Lot only for parking buses and other large vehicles. According to museum staff, parking demand on most days is limited to the museum -owned lots with most occurring in the main east lot or Space Gallery lot. However, during some peak season days and during special events, museum parking demand occurs in the North Gravel lot, the RAHS lot, and the shared Boeing South and Boeing West lots. On these days, the museum uses temporary signage (A - frames) to direct visitors to parking areas other than the primary east parking lot. Signs are placed on museum property and along East Marginal Way S to direct traffic on weekends, holidays and for special events. During the annual Blue Angels airshow week, the museum hires an off -duty Tukwila police officer to assist with traffic control at the entry to the museum. In total, the Museum has 629 spaces that are owned and available for its exclusive use anytime. During evenings and weekends, the parking spaces at RAHS are available for overflow museum parking. When considering the spaces in the Boeing lots, an estimated 520 additional spaces adjacent to the museum are available for weekend and/or evening use through shared -use arrangements. An additional 1,095 spaces in two remote lots are also available for weekends as overflow parking. A total of 2,244 spaces can be available for peak season weekend days when the museum has its highest visitor attendance and its largest events. 4.2. Parking Demand Counts New parking demand counts were performed in the lots surrounding the site shown in Figure 1. The parking demand counts 'were performed on two Saturdays and two weekdays. The Saturday counts were performed on May 24 and May 31, 2014 (May 24 was part of the Memorial Day weekend). Weekday counts were performed on Tuesday, June 3 and Thursday, June 5, 2014. On Thursday, June 5, the museum was open until 9:00 P.M. and was free to all visitors after 5:00 P.M. as part of the "First Thursday Evening" program. These counts were performed at the beginning of the museum's "peak season." The counts on Tuesday, June 3, 2014 reflect conditions with events during the day as well as a large evening event. Parking demand counts were performed in all lots every 30 minutes beginning at 10 A.M. and ending at 5:00 P.M. The parking demand counts were compiled to determine museum -related demand. The resulting museum parking demand determined from the counts is presented in Figure 3 (weekend -day results) and Figure 4 (weekday results). As shown, the peak demand on both weekends and weekdays typically occurred midday between 12:00 and 2:00 P.M. At 5:00 P.M. on Thursday, June 5, the "First Thursday" demand increased to match the midday peak demand after 5:00 P.M. The largest midday demand (407 vehicles) occurred on Thursday, June 5 at 1 P.M. Museum of Flight— Covered Airpark Project Parking and Trip Generation Analysis 300 250 m 200 v c 115° 50 0 450 400 350 m c 300 250 0 200 n 150 co t° 100 50 0 heffr 011 trans )ortation, Inc. Figure 3. Weekend Day Parking Demand Count Results Peak demand = 274 vehicles at 12:00 p.m. Peak demand = 248 vehicles at 1:30 p.m. \ -Saturday, May 24, 2014 Weekend) (Holiday ....... Saturday, May 31, 2014 a a. co M O M O • 6i lV 2 a M Time of Day a M 0. a Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc. from counts performed by Idax Data Solutions, May 2014. Figure 4. Weekday Parking Demand Count Results r= a 0 a 8 M) Peak midday demand = 407 vehicles at 1:00 p.m. / ••,% / -► / N Peak demand = 349 vehicles at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 3, 2014 o Thursday, June 5, 2010 (Free After 5:00 p.m.) Q < Q Q 8 8 8 a O m a O cn a 0 O 3- a 0 Time of Day a 0 N a a0i nl a 0 a 0 c7 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc. from counts performed by Idax Data Solutions, June 2014. a 0 a a 8 0 Q m Z Museum of Flight — Covered Airpark Project Parking and Trip Generation Analysis heron trans,)ortation, Inc. The parking demand counts presented above demonstrate that the museum -owned lots accommodate the peak weekday and weekend parking demand even as the peak season visitor attendance begins its annual increase and as the museum hosts special events during the day and in the evening. There were over 350 spaces available in the museum -owned lots at the peak times on the two weekend days counted; there were over 220 spaces available at the peak times on both weekdays counted. 4.3. Future Museum Parking Demand Estimates As described previously, no changes in visitor -related or event -related trips are expected on an average weekday as a result of the Covered Airpark project. Therefore, no increases in visitor- or event -related peak weekday parking demand are expected. The museum is expecting to increase the number of volunteers at the site in order to support tours of the aircraft in the Covered Airpark. The additional 6 to 10 volunteers would also likely generate an increase in peak weekday parking demand of 6 to 10 vehicles. Based on the parking demand counts performed in late May and early June 2014, the existing museum -owned lots can accommodate this small increase in demand. 4.4. Loss of Museum Parking Supply The north half of the Covered Airpark's footprint will displace overflow parking capacity in the existing gravel parking lot. The gravel lot, which can accommodate 150 cars, would be eliminated while a new surface lot with 89 parking spaces would be constructed. As a result, the project would decrease the amount of available overflow parking by approximately 60 spaces. Based on the parking demand counts performed and presented previously, the loss of these overflow spaces would not affect the peak parking demand on most days. The existing gravel lot is primarily used for overflow parking on days when attendance is very high and the existing main paved parking lots cannot accommodate all of the museum demand. As presented in the Museum of Flight's Space Gallery — Parking Demand and Supply Analysis,3 the museum -owned supply (which includes the gravel lot) was expected to meet the museum's parking demand for all attendance scenarios but those larger than the 98th percentile —likely only about two peak -season, weekend days per year. With the Covered Airpark project, the total paved museum -owned parking supply would be 568aces during off-peak season weekdays (including 389 in the east lot, 67 in the Space Gallery lot, ana-23 in 1 RAHS lot, and 89 in the new Covered Airpark lot). During evenings, weekends, and peak -season weekdays, the museum -controlled paved parking capacity would be increased to 718 spaces as the-150- space RAHS lot is available at those times. As documented in the prior analysis for the Space Gallery; parking demand greater than about 635 vehicles is only expected to occur on about four peak -season weekend days per year. Therefore, the loss of approximately 60 overflow spaces could affect parking conditions on four or fewer days per year. On those days, the overflow parking is expected to occur at the Boeing lots for which the museum has a shared parking agreement. The combination of Museum - owned and shared parking is expected to meet museum demand on those days. 3 Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 27, 2010. Museum of Flight — Covered Airpark Project Parking and Trip Generation Analysis 5. Findings and Conclusions heffr 011 trans )ortation, inc. The following summarizes the key fmdings and conclusions of the analysis: • The Covered Airpark is not expected to contribute noticeably to increases in visitor attendance —any increase is likely to be a fraction of a percent. • The small increase in annual visitor attendance is unlikely to change the visitor -related weekday PM peak hour trip generation of the overall museum. • No increase to event -related weekday PM peak hour trips is anticipated. • Annual attendance at the Museum of Flight has increased by about 37% since 2011 due to the addition of the Space Gallery. However, this is lower than had been predicted (53%), likely as a result of the museum receiving a Space Shuttle trainer rather than a Space Shuttle orbiter. Average weekday PM peak hour trip generation is expected to remain below the level already evaluated for the Space Gallery. • The Covered Airpark project could result in a net increase of 6 to 10 volunteer -related weekday PM peak hour trips. • The total impact fee for the Covered Airpark project would be (10 trips x $819.38/trip) $8,193.80. • Parking demand counts demonstrates that the museum -owned lots accommodate the peak weekday and weekend parking demand even as the peak season visitor attendance begins its annual increase and as the museum hosts special events during the day and in the evening. • There were over 350 spaces available in the museum -owned lots at the peak times on the two weekend days counted; there were over 220 spaces available at the peak times on both weekdays counted. • The number of volunteers and peak weekday parking demand at the site may increase by 6 to 10 vehicles as a result of the project. Based on the parking demand counts performed in late May and early June 2014, the existing museum -owned lots can accommodate this small increase in demand. • The loss of approximately 60 overflow spaces as a result of the Covered Airpark project could affect parking conditions on four or fewer days per year. On those days, the overflow parking is expected to occur at the Boeing lots for which the museum has a shared parking agreement. • The combination of Museum -owned and shared parking is expected to meet museum demand on those days. • It is recommended that the museum continue to maintain the shared parking arrangements with Boeing for the additional spaces during peak -season weekends and evenings. This would provide additional, conveniently located parking near the main museum entrances, for the few days per year when attendance exceeds the 98th percentile, and/or when an event requires additional parking. Attachment: Figure 1— Project Location, Site Vicinity & Existing Parking Locations TSM/tsm MOP Covered Airpark Parking and Trip Gen Analysis - FINALdou Raisb Aviation High School Lot = 173 spaces Proposed Covered Airpark MUSEUM of FLIGHT Covered Airpark Figure 1 Project Location, Site Vicinity & Existing Parking Locations hef fron 12.06.13 'l Attachment 8 Carol Lumb From: Laura Lohman <Iaural@senecagroup.com> Sent Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:33 AM To: Caroline Schuman; Carol Lumb Cc Tod McBryan (tod@hefftrans.com); Laura Lohman Subject: RE: MOF Covered Airpark I Parking Determination Carol and Caroline, Here is a table that I pulled together comparing: (1) the supply from Heffron's prior analysis in 2010 when the space gallery was being permitted, (2) the required supply from the City's subsequent Notice of Decision in 2011/2012, and (3) the future supply was anticipate (post construction of the Covered Airpark now being permitted). The 568 stalls of permanent parking that would be available after the CA is complete were the basis for Heffron's most recent traffic analysis. We are requesting that the City make a new determination with this assumption. MOF PARKING SUPPLY Location Heffron Analysis 2010 Supply COT 2011 NOD Heffron Analysis 2016 Supply East Lot 389 287* 389 Space Gallery 67 nic 67 RAHS 23** 173 _ 23** North Gravel Lot 150 150 0 Covered Airpark n/a n/a 89 TOTAL 629 610 568 * this was refered to as 'on site' parking in the City's Decision **stalls available for 'exclusive use' by MOF at RAHS Hopefully, this helps clarify where we are. I know I needed to build the table to keep my head straight about it all! Tod can also help with specific questions the City might have about the analysis Heffron most recently completed, suggesting that the 568 stalls were adequate to meet the Museum's demand. Thanks very much for the help, Laura Laura Haley Lohman Principal SENECA GROUP 1191 Second Ave., Suite 1500 I Seattle, WA 98101 0 206-628-3150 J D 206-808-7877 I M 206-355-2261 www.senecagroup.com 1 From: Caroline Schuman Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 8:34 AM To: Carol Lumb Cc: Laura Lohman Subject: MOF Covered Airpark I Parking Determination Hi Carol, Below is an email from Tod, that I'm hoping reconciles the parking stall counts. Would you please read his email below, with any additional comments? Thanks! -Caroline. Caroline Schuman SENECA GROUP D 206-808-0373 I M 206-954-0576 From: Tod McBryan (mailto:tod@hefftrans.comj Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 8:31 AM To: Caroline Schuman Cc: Laura Lohman Subject: RE: Parking Determination Hi Caroline, I think I can help clear these questions up. The first question seems to be related to the current (existing) supply number and I have the following. The total number of existing spaces that are owned and available for exclusive use by the Museum are: • East Lot — 389 spaces • Space Gallery Lot — 67 spaces • RAHS — 23 spaces (although the RAHS has a total of 173 spaces which are all owned by the Museum, only 23 are exclusively available for Museum use at any time.) • N Gravel —150 spaces The above totals to 629 spaces for existing conditions. With the proposed project, the 150 spaces in the gravel lot are replaced by 89 paved spaces, so the total available after the project is 568 spaces (389 + 67 + 23 + 89 = 568). It looks like the difference in Carol's math is due to her not including the 23 spaces in the RAHS lot that are always available to the Museum. I am not clear on the bit below about a parking determination from 2012 referring to 610 spaces. Our prior work for the Space Gallery was in 2010 and we estimated at that time that the Museum would own 614 spaces after the Space Gallery was complete. It looks like we were very close on that since the Museum now has 629 spaces (see above). Our prior parking analysis concluded that peak season weekday demand would be 332 vehicles. Not sure where the 610 came from; however, I think you would need a new determination (for 568 spaces), if 610 has been established as the minimum. For nights and weekends, the remainder of the RAHS parking spaces are available for Museum use. Recall that there are 173 total spaces in the RAHS lot, 23 of which are always available and 150 are available during nights, weekends, and during summer peak season for the Museum when school is out. In terms of the question about available spaces in lots with shared parking, we were only counting the spaces that we observed to actually be empty (rather than the total number of spaces in the lot), since some demand by others in the shared lots is expected. We have the following from our counts in 2014: 2 / • Boeing South Lot had 172 spaces available out of 189 total (there was some parking demand in the lot that was assumed to be Boeing -related) • Boeing West Lot had 287 spaces available out of 297 total (again there was some parking demand in the lot that was assumed to be Boeing -related) • KCIA Lot had 59 spaces available out of 76 total (some parking demand in the lot assumed to be KCIA generated). The above totals to 518 available spaces (which we rounded to about 520). The text in the memo should probably have read When considering the spaces in the Boeing lots and KCIA lot, an estimated 520 additional spaces adjacent to the museum are available for weekend and/or evening use through shared -use arrangements. The memo should have also added in the 150 spaces at RAHS that become available in the evenings and/or on weekends to bring the total to 670 additional spaces (520 + 150 = 670). Hopefully, this helps. Tod Tod S. McBryan, PE Heffron Transportation, Inc. I www.hefftrans.com Phone: 206.527.8410 I email: todOhefftrans.com Original message From: Carol Lumb Date:01/11/2015 3:40 PM (GMT-08:00) To: Caroline Schuman Subject: Parking Determination Hi Caroline, I am still working on the staff report for the museum parking. I have been using the Heffron analysis submitted with the 2014 parking determination request as well as referring to the 2012 report prepared by Heffron. When I add up the number of parking stalls that the Museum will own after the covered airpark is constructed, come up with 545 (MOF east parking lot, space gallery, 89 new stalls replacing those currently available in gravel lot), while the Heffron analysis says there are 629 spaces owned and available. Math is not always my strong suit, so I'm hoping you can help me figure out where the 629 spaces are located. The parking determination issued in 2012 says that the Museum should provide a minimum of 610 parking stalls on the Museum campus, so I am trying to find where those spaces are located so my staff report can show the Museum is still in compliance with that number (unless the Museum is requesting a new determination of overall parking required for its use??). Another of my confusions comes from Figure 1, which shows 173 spaces at the high school, while the body of the Heffron analysis talks about 150 spaces at the high school (which are the subject of a nonexclusive license between the high school and the Museum). I also don't get the same number of parking spaces that are available nights and weekends — my addition comes up with 552, while the Heffron report says there are 520 spaces. Thanks for any clarification you can provide. If you prefer to go through this in a phone call, give me a call. Hope you had a great weekend. Carol Carol Lumb, Senior Planner Department of Community Development City of Tukwila 6300Sout center Blvd., Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 206-431-3661 3 CarolLumb@TukrvilaWa.gov Wa.gov Tukwila, the City of opportunity, the community of choice. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4257/8910 - Release Date: 01/11/15 / 't 2 City of Tukwila Attachment C Jim Haggerton, Mayor Department of Community Development Jack Pace, Director NOTICE OF DECISION Special Permission Director, Parking Determination TO: Laura Lohman, Applicant The Seneca Group 1191 Second Ave, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98101 January 7, 2011 King County Museum of Flight, Owner 9404 E Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98188 Washington State Department of Ecology King County Assessor, Accounting Division This letter serves as a notice of decision and is issued pursuant to TMC 18.104.170. This notice is approved subject to the decision criteria and conclusions that follow. L PROJECT INFORMATION Project File Number: L10-059 Associated File Numbers: PL10-046, L10-054, L10-060, E10-014, PRE10-011, D10-220, D10-221, D10-222, PW10-106 Applicant: Laura Lohman, Principal at The Seneca Group Type of Permit Applied for: Special Permission Director, Parking Determination for a use not specified Project Description: Request to establish the minimum quantity of parking stalls for the Museum of Flight use. Location: 9305 East Marginal Way South, tax parcel number 562420103409 Comprehensive Plan Designation/ Zoning District: MIC/H IL DECISION SEPA Determination: The City SEPA Responsible Official has previously determined that this application does not require a SEPA threshold determination because it is categorically exempt. Decision on application: The Community Development Director has determined that Museum of Flight requires 287 improved, on -site parking stalls at the build -out the Space Shuttle Gallery; 173 improved parking stalls on the Aviation High School site for use outside of high school operating times, 150 overflow spaces on a gravel portion of the high school site, and access to 975- 1425 stalls on Boeing and King County International Airport subject to the following conditions set forth in the Decision: 1. The museum shall pursue a Master Sign Program Permit to allow special event signage. SM Page 1 of 3 H.\A Moff Space Shutde Ga11cL10-059 SP Pmtiog NOD.doc 01/072011 6300 Southcenter Boulevard Suite #100 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 2. The museum will provide a copy of the shared parking agreements with Boeing for additional spaces during the weekend and evenings. 3. A binding site plan addressing parking or a shared parking agreement for the benefit of the museum shall be executed and recorded against the title of the high school parcel. Review by the City for code compliance is .required per TMC 18.56.070 B 1. The City does not desire to be party to this agreement. Access and directional signage to the gravel lot through the completed high school lot shall be reviewed in the binding site plan or agreement. 4. Signage and/or traffic control will be utilized to direct visitors to improved (paved) parking surfaces in advance of parking on the gravel lot. 5. Any changes in the function or development of the site may require approval from the City and may require a new parking determination, which shall identify additional parking mitigation measures. 6. The City may require the Museum to conduct future parking demand and supply studies to verify that adequate parking is available and parking on the gravel lot is within the anticipated demand. If future parking on the gravel lot exceeds acceptable levels, the City may, at that time, require paving and surface water treatment. III. YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS The Decision on this Permit Application is a Type 2 decision pursuant to Tukwila Municipal Code § 18.104.010. Other land use applications related to this project may still be pending. No administrative appeal of a DNS or an EIS is permitted. One administrative appeal to the Hearing Examiner of the Decision on the Permit itself is permitted. A party who is not satisfied with the outcome of the administrative appeal process may file an appeal in King County Superior Court from the Hearing Examiner's decision. IV. PROCEDURES AND TIME FOR APPEALING In order to appeal the Community Development Director's decision on the Permit Application, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Department of Community Development within 14 days of the issuance of this Decision, which is by January 24, 2010. The requirements for such appeals are set forth in Tukwila Municipal Code 18.116. All appeal materials shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Appeal materials MUST include: 1. The name of the appealing party. 2. The address and phone number of the appealing party; and if the appealing party is a corporation, association or other group, the address and phone number of a contact person authorized to receive notices on the appealing party's behalf. 3. A statement identifying the decision being appealed and the alleged errors in the decision. 4. The Notice of Appeal shall identify (a) the specific errors of fact or errors in application of the law in the decision being appealed; (b) the harm suffered or anticipated by the appellant, and (c) the relief sought. The scope of an appeal shall be limited to matters or issues raised in the Notice of Appeal. 5. Appeal fee of $515 retainer (plus hourly fee). V. APPEAL HEARINGS PROCESS Any administrative appeal regarding the permit shall be conducted as an open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at the open record hearing. The Hearing Examiner's decision on the appeal is the City's final decision. SM Page2of3 HAAMofF Space Shuttle Gallery L10-059 SP PattingNOD.doc o1ro7,2o11 / 1 Any party wishing to challenge the Director's decision on this application must file an appeal pursuant a procedures and time limitations set forth in RCW 36.70C. lino appeal of the decision is properly filed within such time limit, the Decision on this permit will be final. VL INSPECTION OF INFORMATION ON THE APPLICATION 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 Blvd., Suite 100, Tukwila, Washington 98188 from Monday through Friday between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 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. Contact the King County Assessor's Office for further information regarding property tax valuation changes. Department of Communi City of Tukwila Development SM Page 3 of 3 H:W MofF Space Shuttle Gallery\L10-059 SP Parking NOD.doc 01/07/2011 City of Tukwila Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR January 7, 2011 Project File Number: L10-059 Jim Haggerton, Mayor Jack Pace, Director Associated File Numbers: PL10-046,110-054, L10-060, E10-014, PRE10-011, D10-220, D10-221, D10-222, PW10-106 Applicant: Laura Lohman, Principal at The Seneca Group Type of Permit Applied for: Parking Determination for a use not specified in the Tukwila Municipal Code Request: Request to establish the minimum quantity of parking stalls for the Museum of Flight use. Location: 9404 and 9305 East Marginal Way South, tax parcel numbers 562420103409, 5422600020, 3324049019 Comprehensive Plan/Zoning District: MIC/H Recommendation: Approve parking determination with conditions Staff: Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner Attachments: A. Parking Demand and Supply Analysis prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. dated August 27, 2010. B. Letter from King County International Airport allowing non -preferential use of their 75 parking stalls. C. Response to Questions from City of Tukwila letter prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc and dated November 15, 2010. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This application is for a parking determination for the Museum of Flight campus. Parking for a museum is a use not specified in the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). According to TMC 18.56.100, when a use is not specified, the requirements for off-street parking shall be determined by the Director. The determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable use specified in the code. The addition of the Space Gallery and subsequent loss of parking triggers the need for a parking determination. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT The Museum of Flight is located on a multi -parcel campus bisected by East Marginal Way South. The campus consists of 3 parcels. The 285,000 square•foot main museum building and the "Red Bam" (Boeing's original factory) are on the east side of the street on one parcel and the 33,000 square foot 9-04 archives and lbrary building, the proposed 15,000 square foot Space Gallery, the airpark and the planned 86,000 square foot Raisbeck Aviation High School are located on the west side of the street on two parcels. A Binding Site Plan has been recorded for the parcel containing the 9-04 building, SM Page 1 of 6 01/07/2011 H:A Moff Space Shuttle Gallay\L10.059 SP Patkmg.SR.doc 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 001 • Tukwila, Washington 98188 • Phone 206-431-3670 • Fax: 206-431-3665 airpark, and the proposed Space Gallery. The main museum building is located at 9404 East Marginal Way South. A map showing the parcels is included as Attachment A, page 2. SURROUNDING LAND USES The Museum of Flight is located on both sides of East Marginal Way South. King County International Airport is located to the north and east of the site. The adjacent parcels to the south and west are owned by the Boeing Corporation. A vacant lot owned by Container Properties is adjacent to the high school parcel. North of the high school is an auto auction site. A series of airplane hangers and public parking is located directly north of the main museum building. The Duwamish River is over 800 feet to the west; slip 6 is perpendicular to the river and within twenty feet of the northwest parcel and 250 feet of the southwest parcel. No development is proposed within the 200 foot shoreline zone. BACKGROUND The museum submitted an application to add approximately 15,000 square feet for a Space Gallery on the north side of the 9-04 Building. Approved plans for the development of the gallery include reconfiguring the parking on the site from 160 stalls to 66 stalls. A parking study was submitted with the application. According to the study, peak demand forecast in 2015 will average 259 stalls during the weekdays, 382 stalls during the weekends and 464 stalls during peak season weekend days. This equates to one stall for every 718 square feet of building space. The museum expanded in 2002 with the addition of the Personal Courage Wing. A traffic and parking analysis was submitted with the 2002 application. The application was for 348,000 square feet of expansion in four phases; to date approximately 92,000 square feet have been constructed. The parking study submitted with that application suggests that 660 on -site stalls would be needed after the expansion to meet demand during the peak summer months provided additional overflow lots owned by Boeing and King County are made available during peak summer demand and special events. For comparison purposes, this equates to one stall for every 958 square feet of building space. In addition to the peak demand parking needs, special events also occur at the Museum. Sea -Fair week attracts a much higher attendance that is associated with the presence of the Blue Angels. This annual event requires special traffic control by the Museum and police officers are used to direct traffic on an "as -needed" basis. The museum campus currently has 389 parking spaces on their east lot; 5 employee spaces are located at the L&A employee lot to the south of the 9-04 building the airpark will be reconfigured for the Space Gallery, approved plans show 66 stalls at the Gallery for a total of 460 stalls on the Museum property. The museum projects that the undeveloped portion of the high school property could provide additional capacity for about 150 vehicles. This lot is gravel and would need to be developed with paving and storm water management if it is to be parked regularly per City code. Parking for the high school, opening fall of 2011, will be fully contained within the northwest parcel where the high school will be located. The museum has a shared parking agreement with the high school allowing use of the high school parking lot during non -school times. These 173 stalls will be available at the times (evenings, weekends and summer months) that represent the museums peak demand times. The museum has an agreement with Boeing to utilize two lots (Boeing South lot and Boeing West lot) that provide 482 spaces. The museum is also working with Boeing to formalize an agreement allowing the museum to utilize two additional Boeing lots (adjacent to the airpark and the Oxbow lot). These four Boeing lots could provide the museum with 900-1350 overflow parking stalls on weekends and weekday evenings. The King County International Airport provides 75 non -preferential, parking stalls to the museum on a "first come, first served" basis. Additional, the Boeing MFC lot provides parking for buses (motorcoach) which bring visitors to the museum during special events. The museum, therefore, has potential for 610 permanent parking stalls and access to 1148-1598 additional parking stalls on surrounding properties. The applicant provided additional detail on the frequency of use on the gravel lot According to the letter from Heffron Transportation, Inc dated November 15, 2010, the Museum's exclusive supply of paved parking on the site would accommodate demand on all but one weekday each year and on all but 17 weekend days per year. Parking could then overflow onto the Aviation High School lot and would be accommodated onsite on all but four weekend days per year. The museum expects visitors would use the paved Boeing lots before parking on the gravel lot but recognize that the SM Page2of6 H:1A Moff Space ShuKle Gallery\ 10-059 SP Puking SR.doc 01/07/2011 .1 proximity of the gravel lot to the Space Shuttle Gallery could be perceived as more convenient than other paved lots and parking could occur more frequently on the gravel lot. The museum is working with the high school to design access to the gravel lot during construction and once the high school is complete. DECISION CRITERIA - PARKING DETERMINATION Off -Street Parking and Loading Regulations are found in Chapter 18.56 of the Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC). The chapter includes a table that lists the required number of parking spaces for automobiles and bicycles (Table 18-7). The table provides specific parking requirements for a number of common land uses. For example, fast food restaurants are required to have one parking stall for every 50 square feet of usable floor area; bulk retail stalls require 2.5 sales for every 1,000 square feet of usable floor area; and warehouses requires one parking stall for every 2,000 square feet of usable floor area. The required number of parking stalls for a museum is not specified under the City's parking regulations. Under TMC 18.56.100 "Uses Not Specified" the Director shall determine the required number of parking stalls for uses not specified in the City's parking regulations. The Director's determination shall be based upon the requirements for the most comparable uses specified in the Parking chapter. Comparable Uses The following uses listed in table 18-7 of TMC 18.56 are comparable to a museum: 1. Places of public assembly, including auditoriums, exhibition halls, community clubs, community centers, and private clubs are listed in table 18-7, but no specific parking ratio is provided. Instead, that the Director shall determine the minimum number of parking stalls, however in no case shall the minimum number be less than one stall for every 100 square feet of assembly area. The Director may require that a parking study be provided in order to determine the minimum parking requirements. hnthe code, parking is typically related to useable floor area or area of assembly. The displays of large aircraft both within lihe buildings and -at the airpark result in very large floor area relative to the quantity of items in their collection. Using either useable floor area or assembly area is not applicable for this reason. The two parking studies submitted for the museum (in 2002 and 2010) indicate the need for a parking at a ratio of somewhere between 1 per 718 to 1 per 958 square feet of floor area. The following uses listed in table 18-7 of TMC 18.56 all are determined by the Planning Commission and do not require a minimum number of stalls for every 100 square feet of assembly area. 1. Colleges, Universities, Vocational Schools and other post -secondary institutions 2. Outdoor sports areas or parks 3. Public facilities, including libraries, police and fire stations. PARIONNG DEMAND The City has been working with the applicant through the Personal Courage Wing expansion, the Raisbeck Aviation High School, and now with the Shuttle Gallery to determine adequate parking for the Museum. There is no history of complaints or code violations regarding parking at the Museum. Parking Demand Analysis According to the Parking Demand study, the peak parking demand will range from 259 stalls during the off-peak weekdays to 464 stalls during peak season weekends. The study assumes that the Museum will have control over 611 stalls during off-season weekdays and 788 stalls during all other times (see Attachment B, page 8, Table 3). Permits have been approved for the high school and shuttle gallery parking lots and these numbers should be adjusted to 610 and 783 parking stalls respectively. This number includes providing 150 unpaved stalls on the undeveloped portion of the Aviation High School lot. The report states that the 611/788 stalls controlled by the museum will accommodate their parking needs SM Page 3 of 6 H:1A MotF Space Shuttle Gallery4L10-059 SP Parking SRdoc 01/07/2011 on more than 98% of the days. The report concludes that the additional stalls available at the public airport lot (75 stalls) and Boeing (850-1300 stalls) will meet the parking demand during peak times and special events. A site plan has not been submitted for parking on the undeveloped portion of the high school lot. Tukwila Municipal Code requires parking spaces to meet dimensions provided in the code and shall be paved with asphalt, concrete or other similar approved material. Surface water drainage shall be addressed for any newly created parking areas. However, if the Museum directs visitors to park at paved stalls first, their report indicates that the gavel lot is expected to be needed on as few as four days per year. The Museum does not propose to pave the gravel lot. The parking and access to the parking on the high school site will need to consider the high school use, planned traffic control management and life safety strategies already designed to accommodate the high school use and high school drivers. The high school site provides parking for its use and was not included in the Binding Site Plan executed for the Gallery and 9-04 Building. A bindingsite plan describing the shared parking arrangement or a parking use agreement recorded on the title of the high school parcel for the benefit of the museum will need to be executed to allow the shared parking to count towards the museum's needs. POTENTIAL IMPACTS Most often, the negative impact associated with providing too little parking to meet demand is spill -over to nearby residents and businesses. There are no surrounding residential uses and, aside from the 75 public parking stalls at the airport, the parking in the area is private and generally secured behind fences. There is potential for off -site spillover parking at the high school if visitors to the museum park in stalls created for the high school during school hours. There are also negative impacts associated with providing too much parking for a given use. Surface parking areas with substantial unused portions may take up land better suited to a more productive or aesthetically pleasing use. Empty parking lots may feel unsafe or serve as attractors of illicit activity. A graveled parking lot is not designed to manage impacts of surface water pollutants created by regular vehicle use. If parking occurs regularly on the gravel lot, vehicle discharge and compaction of soil could result in surface water contaminants leaving the site without adequate water quality control standards in place. Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC) requires paved parking to address this issue. A main impact of inadequate parking on this site is that visitors may spend significant time circling for parking. With parking divided across multiple locations and bisected by a principal arterial, internal accessibility from one lot to another is impossible. Public or private streets will have to be accessed if one lot is full and another is sought. However, access to all of the parking areas from East Marginal Way South are at signalized intersections. A signage program to manage parking during peak demands may lesson this impact. A pedestrian bridge, installed and maintained by the museum, connects the east and west sides of the East Marginal Way South and the parking areas increasing safety to pedestrians and drivers. If parking is not available, the principal impact will likely be to the museum with potential visitors leaving if parking is perceived as inadequate. Proposed Mitigation under the Project Proposal As part of the applicant's Traffic Analysis the following migration measures were proposed by the applicant: 1. The museum will formalize and continue to maintain the shared parking agreements with Boeing for additional spaces during the weekend and evenings. 2. The museum will continue to utilize special event signage and traffic control to direct traffic during large events. 3. The museum will work with private event organizers to arrange for adequate parking supply, bus transportation, or other arrangements. 4. Applications for the Space Gallery and high school include a mixed -use trail (shared use 14' wide separated sidewalk) along the front of the two new buildings. A widened sidewalk across the entire front of the western parcels will be completed in the future when the airpark redevelops. SM Page 4 of 6 NM Moff Space Shuttle Ga11uy1L10-059 SP Parking SRdoc 0 U07/2011 4 CONCLUSIONS 1. Tukwila Municipal Code (TMC 18.56.100) requires that the Planning Director determine adequate parking based on a list of comparable uses. Given the type of use, there are no comparable uses under TMC 18.56.100 that include a parking ratio. The comparable uses most similar to the museum uses include Places of public assembly, including auditoriums, exhibition halls, community clubs, community centers and private clubs; Outdoor sports areas or parks; Pubic facilities, including libraries, police and fire stations; and Colleges, Universities, Vocational Schools and other post -secondary institutions. 2. The parking supply proposed is assumed to meet annual visitor attendance through 2015 and include completion of the Space Gallery and Aviation High School. No further building or use additions are included in this parking supply determination. 3. The museum campus has permits for or prior development of 389 stalls on the east parking lot, 5 stalls by the 9-04 building, 66 stalls at the shuttle gallery and 173 stalls at Aviation High School for a total of 634 stalls controlled by the museum (with limitations on the use of the high school stalls during the school day). 4. An assumption is made that space is available for 150 stalls on the undeveloped gravel portion of the Aviation High School lot. Parking is not allowed on gravel lots in the TMC. However, if visitors are directed to paved surfaces first, parking on the gravel lot is expected to be utilized on as few as four days per year which would be allowed by the City and would balance the positive and negatives associated with (underutilized) paved parking. Signage could direct visitors to other lots. 5. - Spillover onto the public lot at the airport or onto the high school property could occur. 6. Circling and extra exiting/entering movements could occur if the parking lots are full. yffi � #, 7. •King County Metro maintains 5 bus stops within a half a mile of the museum include one stop directly in front of the museum. Three bus routes serve these stops with bus service between 15 minutes and 2 hours between routes. RECOMMENDATIONS The Museum of Flight should provide a minimum of 610 parking spaces on the Museum campus with an access to an additional 1100-1500 spaces on surrounding properties during peak event times. The project should be conditioned in order to 1) ensure adequate parking is provided for day-to-day use and special events, 2) traffic control as it relates to locating parking is adequate to minimize parking impacts to public streets and to minimi7p impacts of parking on unimproved surfaces, and 3) City codes are met specifically in regards to parking stall dimensions and adequate access to parking areas. In order to meet these goals, the following conditions are recommended: Conditions 1. The museum shall pursue a Master Sign Program Permit to allow special event signage. 2. The museum will provide a copy of the shared parking agreements with Boeing for additional spaces during the weekend and evenings. 3. A binding site plan addressing parking or a shared parking agreement for the benefit of the museum shall be executed and recorded against the title of the high school parcel. Review by the City for code compliance is required per TMC 18.56.070 B 1. The City does not desire to be party to this agreement. Access and directional signage to the gravel lot through the completed high school lot shall be reviewed in the binding site plan or agreement. 4. Signage and/or traffic control will be utilized to direct visitors to improved (paved) parking surfaces in advance of parking on the gravel lot. SM Page 5of6 H:\A Moff Space Shuttle Gallery\L10-059 SP Parking SRdoc 01/072011 5. Any changes in the function or development of the site may require approval from the City and may require a new parking determination, which shall identify additional parking mitigation measures. 6. The City may require the Museum to conduct future parking demand and supply studies to verify that adequate parking is available and parking on the gravel lot is within the anticipated demand. If future parking on the gravel lot exceeds acceptable levels, the City may, at that time, require paving and surface water treatment. SM Page 6 of 6 HAA Moff Space Shuttle Ganery\L10-059 SP Policing SR.doc 01/07/2011 • \ l hSiron TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: Museum of Flight's Space Gallery Subject: Parking Demand and Supply Analysis Date: August 27, 2010 Authors: Tod S. McBryan, P.E., Princ' trans ortation inc. Attachment D RECEIVED AUG 2 '7 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT This memorandum presents detailed parking analysis fo the Museum of Flight's proposed Space Gallery project. The City of Tukwila has requested a new parking demand and supply study for the museum as part of the permitting process. This memorandum presents the analysis, which was based on new parking demand data collected in May and June 2010. The analysis evaluates the potential parking demand for weekday and weekend. days during both off-peak and peak -season conditions. It also evaluates the potential increase in parking demand that could occur as a result of the Space Gallery addition. The analysis presents information about existing and future parking supply controlled by the museum as well as parking supply available for museum use through shared parking arrangements This memorandum also addresses special events at the museum. Please contact Tod McBryan at (206) 527-8410 with any questions about this analysis. 1. Project Description The Museum of Flight's Space Gallery is planned as a museum expansion that would be housed in a new building (about 15,000-square feet) and located on the west side of East Marginal Way S just north of S 94th Street. The museum intends to compete for and obtain one of the retired space shuttles for display within the building. The Space Gallery is planned to be complete and open for visitors in August 2011. 2. Museum of Flight — Location, Function, and Staffing The Museum of Flight is located at the south end of Boeing Field / King County Airport at 9404 East Marginal Way S. The museum site is located within the City of Tukwila's permitting jurisdiction. It is an educational air and space museum that is dedicated to the acquisition, preservation, and exhibition of historically significant air and space artifacts. It also serves as a foundation for research and education by providing tours, aviation -related special events, lectures, and publications. The museum is open daily 10 A.M. to 5 P.M.; the Airpark (outdoor display area on the west side of East Marginal Way S) is open daily from 11 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. The museum participates in the "Free First Thursday Evenings" program whereby museum admission is free of charge on the first Thursday evening of every month from 5:00 to 9:00 P.M. (the Airpark is open until 8:30 P.M. on first Thursday evenings). The museum is closed on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. The Museum of Flight currently has 105 full-time and 32 part-time staff members that work on weekdays. In addition, between 25 and 28 individuals volunteer at the museum on weekdays. During peak season (defined by the museum as June through August), the museum typically has another 32 educational and sales staff on weekdays. Weekend staffing is typically lower with 32 full-time staffand about 16 volunteers during peak season; there are typically 26 full-time staff and 14 volunteers during off-peak season weekend days. Museum of Flights Space Gallery Parking Demand and Supply Analysis 3. Existing Parking Supply hehron trans )ortation, inc. The Museum of Flight owns three paved parking lots and one large gravel parcel that is used for parking during special events. The main museum parking lot is located east of the main museum building and has 389 parking spaces. This main lot is accessed from East Marginal Way S at S 96th Place. The museum also owns the Airpark parking lot (160 spaces) and the Library and Archives lot (5 spaces), which are both located on the west side of East Marginal Way S north of S 94th Place. The large gravel lot is referred to as the "New Property" and is located north of the Airpark on the west side of East Marginal Way S with access at S 92° Place. The Museum of Flight currently has arrangements to share nearby parking capacity in two lots owned by Boeing. The Boeing South Lot with 185 spaces is located immediately south of the museum on the southeast comer of East Marginal Way S and S 96th Place. The Boeing West Lot with 297 spaces is located immediately west of the museum on the west side of East Marginal Way S north of S 96th Place. Both Boeing lots are available to the museum weekday evenings, weekends, and holidays. However, the Boeing South Lot is not available during the week of the annual Blue Angels airsnow (typically one week in early August during Seafair). Finally, the King County International Airport owns the T-Hangar parking lot (76 spaces) located immediately north of the museum on the east side of East Marginal Way S. This lot is available to the public and some museum parking occurs here periodically. Figure 1 shows the four museum -owned lots, the two Boeing lots, and the 'T-Hangar lot. Figure 1. Museum of Flight Existing Parking Locations Museum of Right Parking Capacity Owned by Museum of Flight Owned by Boeing; available through shared parking arrangement with restrictions Owned by King County: available to public. Source: Museum of Flight May 12, 2010 East Lbf< Tt 389 Spaces - __. Boeinn S. Lot 18,5 Spaces /L&A Employee — 6-Spaces Boeing West Lot 297.,Spaces According to museum staff, parking demand on most days is limited to the museum -owned lots with most occurring in the main east lot. However, during some peak season days and during special events, Museum of Flight's Space Gallery Parking Demand and Supply Analysis hefiron trans )ortation, inc. museum parking demand occurs in the shared Boeing lots. On these days, the museum uses temporary signage (A -frames) to direct visitors to parking areas other than the primary east parking lot. Signs are placed on museum property and along East Marginal Way S to direct traffic on weekends, holidays and for special events. During the annual Blue Angels airshow week, the museum hires a police officer to assist with traffic control at the entry to the museum on East Marginal Way S and volunteers patrol the parking lots and support traffic -related operations. 4. Parking Demand Counts New parking demand counts were performed in the lots described in the previous section. The parking demand counts were performed on two Saturdays and two weekdays. The Saturday counts were performed on May 22 and May 29, 2010 (May 29th was part of the Memorial Day weekend). Weekday counts were performed on Tuesday, May 25 and Wednesday, June 2, 2010. On Wednesday, June 2, the museum was open until 9:00 P.M. and was free to all visitors after 5:00 P.M. (The museum was booked for a private event on Thursday, June 31.(1, so the "First Thursday Evening" program was shifted to Wednesday this month.) For three of the survey days, parking demand counts were performed in all lots every 30 minutes beginning at 10 A.M. and ending at 5 P.M. On Wednesday, June 2, the counts were performed every 30 minutes from 10 A.M. until 9 P.M. to capture demand during the free -admission period after 5 P.M. The parking demand counts were compiled to determine museum -related demand in the museum -owned lots as well as the shared Boeing lots. The resulting museum parking demand determined from the counts is presented in Figure 2 (weekend -day results) and Figure 3 (weekday results). e 600 500 400 300 2 100 0 Figure 2. Weekend Day Parking Demand Count Results Peak demand = 552 vehicles at 2:00 p.m� / ' `' 000 / / L/ ` 1 Peak demand = 246 vehicles at 1:00 p.m. mil^ Saturday, May 22, 20110 Saturday, May 29, 20110 (Holiday Weekend) 8 8 c o Source: Helfron Transportation, Inc. from counts performed by All Traffic Data, Inc. May2010. 8 • . ^l.f *loll A Museum of Flight's Space Gallery Parking Demand and Supply Analysis 1 t 250 200 150 100 50 hefiron trans 3ortation Inc. Figure 3. Weekday Parking Demand Count Results Peak demand = 199 vehicles from 1:30 to 2:00 p.m. / ` I � / / ` Peak demand = 176 vehicles at 12:30 p.m. i / ` ` Tuesday, May 25, 2010 Wednesday. June 2, 2010 (Free After 5:00 p.m.) 8 s 8 8 s ii $ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 €3 8 a a — 6i lV fV lV fQ lh 4 Y N N 1D id 1: d0 id di Time of Day Source: Hellron Transportation, Inc. from counts performed by All Traffic Data, Inc May2010. As shown, the peak demand on all four days, whether a weekday or a weekend day, occurred midday between 12:30 and 2:00 P.M. The largest demand (552 vehicles) occurred on Saturday, May 29 at 2 P.M. This was the Saturday of the Memorial Day holiday weekend. It should be noted that Saturday, May 29th had very higti attendance-3,031 visitors. For comparison, only ten days over the past three years had visitor attendance over 3,000. Of those, six were "First Thursdays" when the museum was open four additional hours (5 to 9 P.M.) and admission was free after 5 P.M.; the remaining four days were peak season weekend days. 5. Museum Visitor Parking Demand Rates Employee and visitor data were obtained from the Museum of Flight for the specific days over which parking demand counts were performed. The number of employees and volunteers that were on -site during the midday peak periods were subtracted from the demand counts to isolate the parking demand associated with visitors. Then, peak visitor parking demand rates were calculated based on the total daily visitors. Separate rates were determined for weekend and weekday conditions. A summary of the existing peak parking demand rate analysis is presented in Table 1. As shown, the peak parking demand rate during an average weekend day is 0.15 vehicles per daily visitor. The average weekday visitor peak parking demand rate is 0.10 vehicles per daily visitor. The museum also provided transaction and total visitor data by hour. These data were used to estimate the number of visitors per transaction and approximate the average vehicle occupancy for visitor groups. On weekdays, the approximate number of visitors per transaction was about 2.25; on the weekend days, the rate was higher —over 3.0 visitors per transaction. i \ Museum of Flight's Space Gallery Parking Demand and Supply Analysis hehron trans lortation, inc, Table 1. Museum of Flight — Visitor Parking Demand Rate Analysis Summary Demand Component Saturday Weekday May 22 May 29 Average May 25 June 2 Average Total Daily Visitors 1,453 3,031 2,242 493 4671 480 Total Peak Demand 246 552 399 175 199 187 EmployeeNolunteer Peak Demand 62 72 67 131 148 140 Visitor Peak Demand 184 480 332 44 51 47 Visitor Parking Demand Rate (veh/daily visitor) 2 0.13 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.11 0.10 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., June 2010. 1. Since peak demand occtared midday, the total daily visitors used for the parking demand rate calculation were those paid visitors before 5:00 P.M. 2. Visitor Parking Demand Rate is the parking demand in vehicles per daily visitor. 6. Peak Season Attendance Adjustments Visitor attendance at the Museum of Flight is heavily seasonal. As mentioned previously, the peak season for the museum begins in June (or sometimes the last weekend in May) and continues through August. Average visitor attendance on weekdays and weekend days during the peak season can be much higher than during off-peak periods. To account for the seasonality of museum attendance and parking demand, the last three full years of museum attendance data were evaluated. Daily visitor counts from 2007, 2008, and 2009 were examined and compiled to determine peak season adjustment factors. Peak season factors for weekday and weekend days were determined separately. During the three-year period, the average weekday attendance was 680 visitors per day, and the average peak season (June through August) weekday attendance was 1,103 visitors per day. Therefore, a peak season factor of 1.62 is appropriate to adjust average annual weekday daily attendance to reflect peak season weekday conditions. On weekends during the three-year period, the average attendance was 1,354 visitors per weekend day. This increased to an average of 1,697 visitors per day during peak season weekends (June through August) Therefore, a peak season factor of 1.25 is appropriate to adjust average annual weekend daily attendance to reflect peak season weekend day conditions. It is logical that the weekend peak season adjustment factor would be higher for weekdays than weekends since the peak season occurs when children are out of school and are available for weekday tours, while they are not during the off-peak season. 7. Future Museum Parking Demand Estimates 7.1. Demand from Visitor Attendance The Museum of Flight has developed attendance forecasts for future years with the Space Gallery. For the purposes of this parking analysis, year 2015 was selected for review of potential future parking demand associated with the project. This analysis year allows for visitor attendance to stability- after sharper increases during the first two years with the new building and display. Based on the forecasts provided by museum staff, annual attendance is forecast to increase by about 53% by year 2015 compared to year 2010 attendance figures. Within this forecast growth is typical annual growth that would be expected regardless of the planned Space Gallery. Historical attendance data prior to the economic difficulties — between 2001 and 2007—show that the museum was experiencing growth of about 4.3% annually; 19 1A7A Museum of Flight's Space Gallery Parking Demand and Supply Analysis hehron trans Dortation overall from 2001 to 2010 it experienced growth of about 1.9%. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume an average of these conditions, or a base rate of 3% annual growth without the Space Gallery. With the Space Gallery, the forecast growth reflects a compound annual rate of 8.9%. These two rates were used to estimate future weekday and weekend day attendance and parking demand without and with the Space Gallery, respectively. 7.2. Demand from Employees and Volunteers The number of employees and volunteers on site are not directly related to the number of daily visitors. Therefore, the museum provided estimates of future employees for conditions with the Space Gallery. The museum estimates that with the Space Gallery, it would require eight additional full-time employees and eight additional part-time employees. This would reflect a 12% increase over existing conditions. Therefore, this rate was applied to estimate the future employee parking demand with the Space Gallery. No increase in employees was assumed for future conditions without the Space Gallery. 7.3. Total Parking Demand Estimates Future weekday and weekend day parking demand estimates were prepared for conditions without and with the proposed Space Gallery for average and peak -season conditions. The estimates relied on the visitor parking demand rates, the peak season factors, the forecast attendance growth rates, and the forecast employee growth rate. Table 2 presents a summary of the forecast parking demand. As shown, peak season weekend days are expected to have peak parking demand of 464 vehicles with the Space Gallery. The Space Gallery is estimated to generate about 100 vehicles of this demand. Peak season weekdays are forecast to have peak parking demand of 332 vehicles; about 57 vehicles are attributable to the Space Gallery. Table 2. Forecast 2015 Museum Parking Demand Summary Demand Component Weekend Days Weekdays Without Project With Space Gallery Without Project With Space Gallery Peak Average Season Peak Average Season Peak Average Season Peak Average Season Forecast Daily Attendance Peak Visitor Parking Demand Peak Employee Parking Demand 1,570 232 67 1,970 291 72 2,070 307 75 2,600 384 80 790 78 140 1,280 127 148 1,040 103 156 1,690 167 165 Total Peak Parking Demand 299 363 382 464 217 275 259 332 Source: Hel/ron Transportation, Inc., June 2010. 8. Future Museum Parking Supply 8.1. Museum -Owned Parking Supply Future parking supply is expected to continue to consist of museum -owned lots with supplemental supply provided in lots owned by Boeing through shared use arrangements and/or public spaces owned by King County at the T-Hangar. Museum of Flight's Space Gallery Parking Demand and Supply Analysis l \ hefron trans ortation i c. The museum -owned parking supply would be reduced as a result of two planned projects. The planned Space Gallery would be constructed on land currently occupied by the Airpark parking lot. This is expected to reduce the parking supply in this lot from 160 spaces to 67 spaces. The Highline School District is currently working to construct its new Aviation High School on the northern "New Property," which was described previously as a gravel parking area with capacity for about 500 vehicles. The new Aviation High School project will construct 177 parking spaces. Since the school will be constructed on museum property, the museum and District have entered into a shared parking arrangement that would make the on -site parking at Aviation High School available for museum use with some restrictions. The parking would be available at all times of the day during peak season when school is out for summer, on weekends year round, and on off -peak -season weekdays after 5 P.M. After Aviation High School is constructed, it is anticipated that the remaining portion of "New Property" would continue to serve as a gravel parking lot with capacity for about 150 vehicles. The parking supply analysis determined that the museum would have a total of 611 owned spaces available during off-peak season weekdays and 788 owned spaces during all weekday evenings and weekends. These figures reflect a reduction from existing conditions of 1,054 owned spaces. A summary of the parking supply is presented in Table 3. 8.2. Shared Parking Supply Owned by Others The Museum of Flight and Boeing are currently working to complete a formal license agreement that would allow museum visitor use of up to four Boeing lots: the Boeing South and West lots (described previously); a new lot west of the Airpark (adjacent to Boeing's Military Flight Center (MFC)), and the Oxbow lot (on the west side of the Duwamish River at S 102nd Street). It is anticipated that the T-Hangar Lot would continue to be available for public parking. The total number of spaces in each of these lots (Boeing West Lot, Boeing South Lot, and T-Hangar Lot) is not expected to change. However, the number of spaces that could be available to the museum would depend on the utilization of these lots by Boeing employees and visitors to the King County T-Hangar. During the parking demand counts performed for this analysis, it was determined that a portion of the spaces in the Boeing South and West lots are occupied during evenings and weekends (presumably by Boeing employees) and would not be available to museum visitors. Therefore, this analysis assumed that only the empty spaces in these lots would be available for museum use.. Based on the actual utilization counts, the number of empty spaces in these Boeing lots fluctuated on weekends and weeknights. Table 3 presents a summary of the range of parking spaces in the Boeing and T-Hangar lots that could be available to museum visitors on weekdays, weekday evenings, and weekends. As shown, the shared parking opportunities could provide substantial numbers of additional spaces on weekdays and weekends (900 to 1,375 spaces). ._._.._.,7 ,A fA Museum of Flight's Space Gallery Parking Demand and Supply Analysis hehron Table 3. Future Museum of Flight Parking Supply Summary trans 3ortation inc. _Lot Name Off -Peak Season (September thru May) Peak Season (June thru August) Weekdays (9 A.M. to 5 P.M.) Weekday Evenings Weekends Weekdays (9 A.M. to 5 P.M.) Weekday Evenings Weekends Museum Owned East Lot 389 389 389 389 389 389 Airpark Lot 67 67 67 67 67 67 L&A Lot 5 5 5 5 5 5 Aviation HS Lot 0 177 177 177 177 177 New Property (gravel) 150 150 150 150 150 150 Total Owned Spaces 611 788 788 788 788 788 Shared Lots r Boeing South Lot 50-110 110 -160 125 -175 50- 110 110-160 125-175 Boeing West Lot 0 0 -325 0 0 -325 Boeing MFC Lot Buses only Buses only Buses only Buses only Buses only Buses only Boeing Oxbow Lot 800+/- 800+/- 800+/- 800+/- 800+/- 800+/- KCIA T-Hangar Lot 50 - 60 60 - 75 60 - 75 50 - 60 60 - 75 60 - 75 Total Shared Spaces 900 - 970 970 -1,035 1,310 -1,375 900 - 970 970 -1,035 1,310 -1,375 Total Parking ! 1,514 -1,584 1,761-1,826 2,101- 2,166 1,691-1,761 1,761-1,826 2,101- 2,166 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., June 2010 using data provided by Museum of Flight. 1. The numbers of potential shared parking spaces were estimated from aerials included in the draft license agreement and considered existing Boeing use of the South and West lots. 9316 _it, Based on the supply analysis presented above, the year 2015 museum parking demand with the Space Gallery (presented previously in section 7.3) would be accommodated for more than 98% of all days by supply owned by the museum. It is possible that during the peak few days of the year (with attendance in the 98th percentile or higher) some additional shared parking capacity would be needed. These are likely to occur on weekend days during the peak season. On those days, the combination of Museum -owned and shared parking is expected to meet museum demand. 9. Event Conditions The museum allows private use of the facility for events and banquets such as business meetings, dinners, weddings, reunions and luncheons. The museum has meeting rooms and galleries that can accommodate a wide range of event sizes. According to museum staff, the busiest months for private events are March, April, May, October, November and December. Most daytime events are held in the View Lounge and the Skyline Room. For reception events View Lounge can accommodate 200 and the Skyline Room can accommodate 272. Daytime events can begin around 8:00 A.M. and end around 5:00 P.M. Large events occur at night when the need for general visitor parking is not applicable. The Museum can accommodate up to 3,500 visitors for an evening reception. Often for these larger events, the guests arrive by motor coach (bus) as well as private automobile. Evening events typically begin around 6:30 P.M. and must end by midnight. Although private events are an important part of the museum's annual attendance, these events do not generally affect the peak parking conditions described previously. In addition, since private events are l Museum of Flight's Space Gallery Parking Demand and Supply Analysis l \ hefron trans ortation Inc. planned well in advance, accommodations for transportation and parking can be planned prior to the event. The museum can work with private event organizers to arrange for adequate parking supply, bus transportation, or other arrangements. 10. Findings and Conclusions The following summarizes the key fmdings and conclusions of the analysis: • The Museum of Flight has existing visitor parking demand rates of 0.10 vehicles per daily visitor on weekdays and 0.15 vehicles per daily visitor on weekends. • Peak season at the museum occurs from June through August and average visitor attendance increases by a factor of 1.62 on weekdays and by a factor of 1.25 on weekend days. • The proposed Space Gallery is expected to increase annual visitor attendance by 8.9% annually to year 2015. Without the Space Gallery, attendance would be expected to grow at about 3% per year annually. • With the Space Gallery, the Museum would likely increase the number of employees by about 12% (adding 8 full-time and 8 part-time employees). • In year 2015 with the Space Gallery, peak season weekend days are expected to have peak parking demand of 464 vehicles. The Space Gallery is estimated to generate about 100 vehicles of this demand. • In year 2015 with the Space Gallery, peak season weekdays are forecast to have peak parking demand of 332 vehicles; about 57 vehicles are attributable to the Space Gallery. $s • The museum is expected to have a total ofspaces during off-peak season weekdays andpr spaces during all weekday evenings and weekends. • The planned parking supply is expected to be adequate to meet the forecast 2015 parking demand levels with the Space Gallery for all conditions except for a few peak days of the year. These days would likely occur on weekends during the peak season. • During the few peak days of the year, the museum would likely require some additional supply to accommodate the peak demand. • The proposed Space Gallery would not require any new parking supply be constructed to meet average or peak season weekday or weekend day parking demand. The museum -owned supply is also expected to meet the museums parking demand for all attendance scenarios but those larger than the 98th percentile. • It is recommended that the museum continue to maintain the shared parking arrangements with Boeing for the additional spaces during weekends and evenings. This would provide additional, conveniently located parking near the main museum entrances, for the few days per year when attendance exceeds the 98th percentile, and/or when an event requires additional parking. TSM/tsm MOF Space Gallery Parking Analysis -FINAL o 1^7 111111 King Ihtern4tioriaf Airport Boeing Field Department of Transportation 7277 Perimeter Road S., Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98108-3844 206-296-7380, Fax: 206-296-0190 TTY Relay: 711 w ww . ki naco u ntv. a ov/a i roo rt October 11, 2010 Laurie B. Haag Vice President, Chief Operating Officer The Museum of Flight 9404 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98108-5737 Dear Ms. Haag, The King County International Airport/Boeing Field (KBFI) supports the museum's endeavor to acquire the space shuttle for display in Seattle. We understand that part of the permitting process involves additional space for vehicle parking. In an effort to assist the museum, KBFI can commit to the following: The vehicle parking spaces located adjacent to the Southwest T-Hangar complex between E. Marginal Way South and the airport property boundary have a capacity for 75 vehicles. The museum may use these parking spaces for employees and visitors on a non -preferential "first come, first served" basis. KBFI users and tenants shall have priority and not be precluded from parking in this area. The future development plans for the Southwest T-Hangars have not been specified at this time and KBFI reserves the right to re -develop this area as it sees fit, which may not be consistent with "public" use of the parking spaces. KBFI will notify the museum of any change is the use of the vehicle parking area that would preclude the museum's access to the spaces. Should you have any questions, please contact Mike Colmant at 206.296.7380. Sincerely, Roberti. Burke, AAE, Airport Director King County International Airport cc: Tom Paine, King County Property Manager t i A Existing gravel lot Figure: Museum of Flight Gravel Parking Lot Location Portion of lot to remain after Aviation High School construction heffr 011 trans ortation inc. TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Project: Museum of Flight -- Space Gallery Subject: Response to Questions from City of Tukwila Date: November 15, 2010 Author: Tod S. McBryan, P.E In an email to Laura Lohman on November 5, 2010, Stacy MacGregor, Assistant Planner at the City of Tukwila requested additional information related to parking and access in order to complete the parking determination for the Museum of Flight's proposed Space Gallery addition. This memorandum provides the additional information requested. Question: The report from Heffron states that the Museum expects its supply ofparking stalls (including 150 stalls on the gravel area between the airpark and the high school) to meet the demand 98% of the time. What is the frequency that you anticipate using the gravel lot for parking? To complete my determination I need to understand the frequency and duration of use of this lot, limits to the parking area, and access points for the gravel lot. Response: For long-term conditions, the gravel lot is primarily planned to be used for overflow parking on days when attendance is very high and the existing main paved parking lots cannot accommodate all of the museum demand. As mentioned in the Museum of Flight's Space Gallery — Parking Demand and Supply Analysis (Hei:fron Transportation, Inc., August 27, 2010), the museum - owned supply (which includes the gravel lot) is expected to meet the museum's parking demand for all attendance scenarios but those larger than the 98th percentile —likely only about two peak -season, weekend days per year. :147 The total paved museum -owned parking su ply would be 638 spaces (including 389 in the east lot, 47 in the airpark lot, 5 in the library lot, and L7/ in the future Aviation High School lot). Parking demand greater than 638 vehicles is only expected to occur on about speak -season weekend days per year. Even if the Aviation High School lot is excluded, all museum demand is expected to be accommodated in the 461 spaces in the main East lot, the Air Park lot, and the library lot on all but one weekday each year and on all but 17 weekend days each year. The museum has a shared parking agreement with Boeing for adjacenffots. Therefore, on those few days each year when demand exceeds 461 vehicles, it is expected that museum visitors would use the Boeing lots before overflowing to the gravel lot. The Boeing South and West lots that are part of the shared parking agreement are both paved and are likely to be perceived as more convenient and/or more proximate than the gravel lot. It is expected that most museum visitors will arrive at the museum's main entrance, will park in the main (east) lot, and will visit the existing museum in addition to the Space Gallery. However, it should be noted that some museum visitors that are destined only to the Space Gallery, could choose to park in lots on the west side of East Marginal Way S (including the gravel lot) for convenience on 6544 NE 61 st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206) 523-4949 Museum of Flight- Space Gallery Response to Questions from City of Tukwila heffron trans ortation, i nc days when there is still excess supply available in other paved lots. In particular, this is likely during the initial months after the Space Gallery opens and when the Space Shuttle is first available for viewing. The convenience of this lot will depend on the configuration and location of the Space Gallery entrance, ticketing, and point of sale. These operational considerations are still being evaluated by the museum. However, it is anticipated that most museum visitors will prefer to park in the formal paved parking areas closest to the main museum entrances. Based on the parking accumulation data presented in the parking analysis memorandum referred to previously, peak parking demand occurs between about 12:00 noon and 2:00 P.M. Therefore, the most likely duration for use of the gravel lot would be three to four hours between 11:00 A.M. and 3:00 P.M. There could also be conditions for large evening events when the lot is used between 6:00 and 11:00 P.M. As shown on the attached figure, the gravel parking area is located immediately west of East Marginal Way S and adjacent to the north side of the current Airpark outdoor display area for the Concorde, Air Force One, and other exhibits. Access to the gravel parking area is currently provided from S 92nd Place. Drivers enter and exit using the signalized intersection of S 92nd Place and East Marginal Way S. No changes to this access are currently planned. However, it is recognized that the proposed Aviation High School project will be located on the north portion of the gravel lot. The museum intends to work with the Highline School District to maintain access to the lot during construction and once the high school project is complete. Attachment: Figure: Museum of Flight - Gravel Parking Lot Location TSMltsm - 2 - November 15, 2010 MEMORANDUM Date: December 17, 2015 To: Brenda Holt, Permit Coordinator Department of Community Development City of Tukwila From: Laurie Haag, VP and COO Museum of Flight Subject: Museum of Flight B-52 Memorial Park Project 9404 East Marginal Way South Parking Determination for Aviation Pavilion and B-52 Memorial Park (h AVIATION PAVIUON PARKING DETERMINATION v .! Community Development On January 30, 2015, The City of Tukwila issued a Notice of Decision supporting the parking supply planned for the Museum of Flight campus at the time the Aviation Pavilion (formerly known as Covered Airpark) is complete in early 2016, see attached Project File Number L14-0080. The parking supply includes: 389 parking spaces on the main, east Museum campus, and 179 parking spaces on the Museum's west campus: 67 spaces at the Space Gallery 89 spaces at the Aviation Pavilion 23 spaces at Raisbeck Aviation High School 179 Total Spaces In total, to meet normal demand, the Museum must provide 568 parking spaces. The Notice of Decision was based on the attached 2014 Parking and Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Heffron Transportation, Inc. which determined that this parking supply meets the Museum's parking demand on all but four or fewer days per year. To meet the increased parking demand on the highest demand days the Museum has shared parking agreements in -place with The Boeing Company, Raisbeck Aviation High School and King County International Airport which provide an additional 1,100-1,500 parking spaces. AVIATION PAVILION AND CHANGE IN LOCATION FOR DISPLAY OF BOEING B-52 The Aviation Pavilion is planned to include approximately 21 aircraft that span the last century of flight and served military, government and commercial aviation purposes with great success. The Pavilion will include many of the most iconic aircraft in the Museum's collection including the Boeing B-17, Concorde, Air Force One, and the Boeing 787. The Boeing B-52 fuselage was planned lo be displayed in the Aviation Pavilion and its presence and appeal were factored into the 2014 Parking and Trip Generation Analysis which reviewed attendance projections and trip generation for the project. 9404 East Marginal Way South Seattle, Washington 98108-4097 museumofflight.org 2 In spring 2015, the Museum of Flight conducted a feasibility study to determine if the Boeing B-52 aircraft could be displayed as a whole airplane, outside, on the Museum site west of the Aviation Pavilion. It was determined that the airplane will fit in this location and that the display and interpretation opportunities offered by the B-52 Memorial Park are superior to the plan to display the B- 52 fuselage only in the Aviation Pavilion. In addition, the B-52 Memorial Park is bordered on two sides by parking lots so vehicle access to the site is available and convenient. AVAILABLE PARKING IN EXCESS OF PARKING DETERMINATION MINIMUMS Upon construction of the Aviation Pavilion the Museum's total parking capacity will reach 589 vehicles. The addition of 21 "surplus" parking spaces was created by paving and striping to the west of the Aviation Pavilion. Total parking at the Museum's west campus will reach 200 spaces: 67 spaces at the Space Gallery 110 spaces at the Aviation Pavilion 23 spaces at Raisbeck Aviation High School 200 Total Spaces Phase I of the B-52 Memorial Park involves a reconfiguration of parking adjacent to both the Aviation Pavilion and the Raisbeck Aviation High School. Minor asphalt additions and subtractions will allow the restriping of this area to eliminate dead-end parking aisles installed during construction of the Raisbeck Aviation High School. In the Phase I interim condition, no parking spaces will be lost. When the B-52 aircraft is placed on the site for completion of the B-52 Memorial Park in a future Phase II of construction, up to 10 parking spaces will be eliminated because of siting constraints and the exhibit's size. This will bring the Museum's total parking capacity to 579, with 190 parking spaces on the west campus, still exceeding the Parking Determination's recommendation. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO PARKING FOR B-52 MEMORIAL PARK The Boeing B-52 Memorial Park is not expected to generate additional parking demand beyond that which was calculated in the 2014 Parking and Trip Generation Analysis upon which the Aviation Pavilion Parking Determination was based. Since the 2015 Notice of Decision, the Museum has been able to provide parking spaces above these requirements. Through and after completion of the B-52 Memorial Park, the Museum will operate with a surplus of more than 10 parking spaces on its west side. It is recommended that the City of Tukwila approve the Boeing B-52 Memorial Park project under the Parking Determination and Notice of Decision issued for the Aviation Pavilion Project on January 30, 2015, Project File Number L14-0080. The Museum of Flight will continue to maintain shared parking arrangements with The Boeing Company, Raisbeck Aviation High School and King County International Airport for the additional spaces required to meet peak -season parking demands. cc: Nathan Messmer, SRG Partnership, Inc. Natalie Ross, Site Workshop Rita Greene, Magnussen Klemencic Associates Clark Miller, Museum of Flight Chris Mailander, Museum of Flight City,. o( Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist City of Tukwila Endangered Species Act Screening Checklist Date: 12/02/2015 The Museum of Flight Applicant Name: Street Address: 9404 East Marginal Way South City, State, Zip: Seattle, WA 98108 Telephone: 206-764-5720 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 2, read each question carefully, mark the appropriate "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. \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011_docx Page 1 City. of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part A: Please review and answer each q, ,,tion carefully. Consider all phases of � r 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 mark the 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 mark the 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 mark the 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 mark the 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 mark the appropriate response. ✓ NO - Continue to Question 6-0 YES - Continue to Question 6-0 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 mark the appropriate response. NO — Checklist Complete ✓ YES — Checklist Complete \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 2 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist 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 mark the 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 1-3 YES - 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) 1 YES - Continue to Question 1-4 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) 1 YES - Continue to Question 2-0 (Page 2) \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 l.docx Page 3 City of Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part C: Please review each questio. ,elow for projects that include clearing. view 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 mark the 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 2-3 1 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 mark the appropriate response. If 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) ✓ YES - Continue to Question 3-0 (Page 2) \\deptstore\City Common \ Teri \KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 4 City_ Qs( Tukwila ESA Screening Checklist Part D: Please review each questic, Below for projects that include work bei, ;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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-2 not applicable 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-3 not applicable 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-4 not applicable 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-5 not applicable 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-6 not applicable YES - Continue to Question 3-6 \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 5 Part D (continued) N City o '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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-7 not applicable 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 3-8 not applicable 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 mark the appropriate response. NO - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) not applicable YES - Continue to Question 4-0 (Page 2) \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 6 SEPA CHECKLIST 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: B-52 Memorial Park 2. Name of Applicant: The Museum of Flight 3. Date checklist prepared: December 2, 2015 4. Agency requesting checklist: City of Tukwila 5. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Phase I (grass, parking) constructed in winter/spring of 2016, project completion by 2018. 6. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No. 7. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. See "Geotechnical Engineering Services, February 5, 2016" by GeoEngineers, summarizing shallow subsurface explorations and soil conditions. 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. None known. Agency Comments \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\K1RBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 1.docx Page 1 SEPA Checklist 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. City of Tukwila: Public Works Permit (phase I), Parking Determination Memo (phase 1), Building Permit (phase II), Shoreline Tree Removal and Vegetation Clearing Permit (phase II). 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. Create a landscaped area of plantings, pathways, and plaza (approximately 41,500sf) to exhibit a restored B-52 aircraft west of the Raisbeck Aviation High School. The goal is for a parklike setting with memorial components. Fully built project will include footings to distribute the weight of aircraft, reconfigured adjacent parking (demolish —2,800sf of existing asphalt and install—1,000sf of new asphalt), irrigation system, lighting, etc. Initial construction (Phase I) will include plantings, paving and irrigation only. The restored aircraft (185' wide, 161' long and 41' tall at the tail) will be installed upon completion. 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. West of Raisbeck Aviation High School (9229 E Marginal Way S) in southwestmost portion of Parcel Number: 572980-0010 Legal: MUSEUM OF FLIGHT BSIP LOT A TUKWILA BLA #L15-003 REC#20150403900012 SD BLA DAF- LOT 1 MUSEUM OF FLIGHT - SPACE SHUTT BSIP TGW LOT 1 MUSEUM OF FLIGHT BSIP (See attached Public Works Permit drawings for vicinity maps, complete legal description, survey, and plans) 12. Does the proposal lie within an area designated on the City's Comprehensive Land Use Policy Plan Map as environmentally sensitive? No. The site is partially located within the Shoreline Jurisdiction. \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 1.docx Page 2 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necat rs SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth Community Development a. General description of the site (circle one): 4Iroiling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other: The site is relatively flat, with surface elevation of about 18.50 feet. b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? Approximately 1.0 percent within the project boundary. 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. The top 12 inches of soil, likely fill, is a silty loam comprised of 92-97% sand, 12-18% loam and traces of clay. No agricultural soil classifications apply. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No surface indications or history of unstable soils. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. In Phase I, approximately 2,100 cubic yards of bioretention mix soil will be placed on top of existing soils to support the planned planting of a native meadow hydroseed grass mix. This will be sourced to ensure the exclusion of heavy metals or contaminants. In Phase II, additional fill may be required to create slight landforms and/or support aircraft foundations. In all phases, retaining excavated soil for backfill and/or use on -site is prioritized. Agency Comments \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 1.docx Page 3 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. ` J Applicant Responses: Agency Comments f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. There is a potential for erosion related to removal of existing pavements for new pavements and utilities. Measures to mitigate erosion will be implemented. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? Within the approximately 43,000sf area to be disturbed, 2.5% will be impervious. h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: Temporary erosion control best management practices will be implemented during construction. Permanent landscaping and vegetative cover will be installed to control post construction erosion. 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, exhaust odors will be emitted into the air from equipment. If earthwork is done during dry conditions, dust may become transported aerially. Upon completion of the project, emissions from the project may include automobile exhaust from vehicles used by visitors to the Museum. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known. \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 4 l Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: The contractor will be required to comply with the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations. Regulations that apply to the proposed project include Regulation 1, Section 9.11 prohibiting the emission of air contaminants that would or could be injurious to human health, plant or animal life or property; and Regulation 1, Section 9.15 prohibiting the emission of fugitive dust, unless reasonable precautions are employed to minimize emissions. 3. Water a. Surface: l . Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. The site is located between 25' and 300' from the Duwamish River, Slip No. 6 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. The project will require landscaping (pathways, plantings, irrigation, lighting), footings to support the B-52 aircraft, and the placement of the Boeing B-52 aircraft itself within 200 feet of Slip No. 6. Please see attached, color rendered conceptual plans for the completed project. 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. Not applicable. \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 5 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. 5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. No. 6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. No. b. Ground: 1. Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known. No. \\deptstore\City Common \ Teri \KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 I .docx Page 6 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist 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: Not applicable. 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. Runoff source is from rainwater. There will be a net decrease in the peak runoff flow rate from the project site of approximately 0.2 cubic feet per second (25-year return frequency) associated with a reduction in impervious area. All impervious area runoff is collected in catch basins, which are connected to an underground conveyance system that discharges to an existing outfall at Slip 6 on the Duwamish River. Runoff from pervious areas is overland flow to Slip 6 on the Duwamish River. 2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: There is a net decrease in the impervious area within the project boundary of approximately 0.2 cubic feet per second for the 25-year return frequency storm. In addition the project is within the "no detention" zone of the City of Tukwila. Therefore no measures proposed. \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 7 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 4. Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: — ✓ Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ✓ Shrubs _ ✓ Grass _ Pasture Crop or grain Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk Cabbage, other Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other Other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? All groundcover and shrubs will be removed. All trees above 2" caliper will be protected in place. c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Native meadow hydrosee mix includes 40% Carex densa, 30% Carex tumulicola, 10% Sisyrichium bellum, 5% Allium cernuum, 5% Clarkia amoena, 5% Dodecatheon pulchellum, 5% Aquilegia formosa. \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011_docx Page 8 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 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 aw heron, eagle, songbird other: Mammals Deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: Fish Bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Other b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Not applicable. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Not applicable. 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. Electrical: primarily lighting, convenience outlets and security cameras. \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 1.docx Page 9 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. No impact. 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: Lighting control: timer. 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. Not applicable. 2. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: Not applicable. \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 10 f \ l Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments b. Noise . 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 aircraft taking off and landing at King County International Airport (KCIA) with additional noise from aircraft flying to and from SeaTac International 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). 3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: If construction activities exceed permitted noise levels, the contractor would 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 primarily vacant and unimproved, with portions currently used for parking and storage of miscellaneous Museum of Flight equipment (including a 747 and 737 aircraft during the construction of the Covered Airpark). Boeing industrial use is adjacent to the south and Container Properties LLC stores automobiles on the property adjacent to the west. b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. No. \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 1.docx Page 11 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Describe any structures on the site. Temporary structures include storage containers and a trailer with HAM radio equipment. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so., what? No. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? MIC/H - Manufacturing/Industrial Center, Heavy f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? MIC/H - Manufacturing/Industrial Center, Heavy g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? The site contains portions of High Intensity - 100' Buffer and High Intensity - Outside Buffer. \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 12 i Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. No. The site is partially located within the Shoreline Jurisdiction. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? All use would be transient, including Museum visitors and maintenance and security personnel. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: Not applicable. 1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project currently meets land uses and plans. \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 13 1 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: - Agency Comments 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing? Not applicable. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Not applicable. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: Not applicable. 10. Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? The tail of the B-52 aircraft exhibit stands approximately 41' tall. Concrete foundation structures will be at or near grade. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None. \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 14 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: No impact. 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Lighting will be provided at paths for safety and to illuminate the aircraft and interpretive displays when the facility is open during non -daylight hours (early morning and late evening during the winter). b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? None known. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: Full cutoff fixtures and careful aiming will be used to ensure that light does not trespass outside of the project boundary and especially towards Slip No. 6. \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 15 SEPA Checklist Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 12. Recreation a. What designed and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? None known. 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: Not applicable. 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. Not applicable. \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 16 \ r� Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: Not applicable. 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 is served by East Marginal Way South. The closest access is through the entry to the Raisbeck Aviation High School (900 feet north of South 94th Place), though visitors will arrive by foot from the main Museum of Flight Campus at East Marginal Way South and South 96th Place, or from parking accessed via South 94th Place. (See attached Public Works Permit drawings for vicinity maps, survey, and plans) b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is approximately 1/4 mile from King County Metro Transit bus stops at East Marginal Way South and South 94th Place serving routes 124 and 154. c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? Please see attached Parking Memorandum dated December 17, 2015, and Parking Determination and Notice of Decision, Project File Number L14-0080, describing comprehensive parking for the Museum of Flight and Raisbeck Aviation High School. The completed project may eliminate up to 10 parking spaces, though the Museum's total capacity will exceeding the Parking Determination's recommendation. In both phases of the project Raisbeck Aviation High School parking is maintained. 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. \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 1.docx Page 17 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. It is not expected that the project will use water, rail or air transportation. The transportation of the B-52 aircraft for exhibit from Paine Field in Everett has not been finalized, though it is expected to use road transportation. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. No additional trip generation is anticipated, Please see attached 2014 Parking and Trip Generation Analysis prepared by Heffron Tranportation, Inc. and basis of Parking Determination and Notice of Decision, Project File Number L14-0080. The Boeing B-52 was planned for exhibition in the Aviation Pavilion project, and its presence and appeal were factored into the 2014 Parking and Trip Generation Analysis. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Per Parking Determination and Notice of Decision, Project File Number L14-0080, The Museum of Flight has entered into a shared -parking agreement that will allow use of nearby Boeing lots to accommodate occasional overflow Museum parking demand during special events. No other measures would be required or are proposed. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Not applicable. \\deptstore\City Common \Teri\K RBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 1.docx Page 18 f 1 f 1 Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: (Flectricjnatural gasCwatejefuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system other: b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. The only new utility proposed for the site is a water service for irrigation that will connect to the 10" water line (fire loop) installed for the Covered Airpark project. \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 19 SEPA Checklist (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. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. Applicant Responses: Agency Comments l . How would the proposals be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan201 I.docx Page 20 f1 f \ Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitats, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 21 l l Please respond to all questions. Use separate sheets as necessary. SEPA Checklist Applicant Responses: Agency Comments Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public service and utilities? Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with Local, State, or Federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. 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. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: z / / 2010 \deptstore\City Common \Teri\KIRBY - DECEMBER\SEPA Planned Action-Jan2011.docx Page 22 SRG SRG ARCHITECTURE, INC 621 SW MORRISON, SUITE 200 PORTLAND, OREGON 97205 503 222 1917 110 UNION, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101 206 973 1700 SRG PARTNERSHIP.COM February 9, 2016 Departments of Community Development and Public Works Permit Center City of Tukwila 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100 Tukwila, WA 98188 Subject: Museum of Flight B-52 Memorial Park SEPA Planned Action and Public Works Submittals Dear Departments of Development and Public Works, RECEIVED Ft:3 0 9 2013 Community Development We are excited to submit SEPA Planned Action and Public Works Permit applications for the Museum of Flight's B-52 Memorial Park. With City approval of these'two items, the Museum of Flight will begin work on what we anticipate to be a transformative development on a currently underused portion of the Museum's property. The Museum intends to create a park -like memorial adjacent to the Duwamish River's Slip No. 6 for the exhibit of a restored Boeing B-52 aircraft. As discussed at a Pre - Application meeting on November 5th, 2015, we are submitting the Public Works Permit for Phase I of construction as the underlying permit application triggering the SEPA Planned Action submittal. Phase 1 of construction will leverage currently available resources (including a mobilized construction team) to make utility, parking, planting, and irrigation improvements in preparation for the future placement of the B-52 aircraft once it has been restored. The future, Phase II construction will build off of Phase I work and conceptual plans to provide supportive exhibit and memorial infrastructure (footings, paths, lighting, interpretation, plantings, etc) when the B-52 arrives. Materials submitted with the SEPA Planned Action application include: • Vicinity map with site location. • Parking Memorandum dated December 17, 2015, referencing previous Parking Determination and Notice of Decision L14-0080. Sheet A100 also includes information on impacted and total available parking in this area. • Geotechnical Report (Geotechnical Engineering Services, Museum of Flight B-52 Foundation, February 5, 2016). • Conceptual rendered plans and images for eventual project completion, describing inspiration for the site plan and project elements. Additional materials submitted with the Public Works Permit application include: • Drawings and specifications for the construction of Phase I. • A construction estimate for Phase I, prepared as a Change Order Request by Sellen Construction. • A Technical Information Report for storm drainage of Phase I. We are grateful for the City's continued support of the Museum's mission. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Nathan Messmer, AIA Architect v NOtthlend DELRIDGE # %asp at ti I t I ; vvt I ' It SW Handsaw St 3 IN i i I t 1 I V _thetietyeSt White Center switaxeutest i . I t 1 1 t ; ; ; 1 a t. • I 2 I . • , r S W ; r. 1 SW 108th St- V 0 t i i g i I I 5# s. SW 116th St 1 1 1 5ve116th St 1 • s SW 1111th St 4r Project Site: P‘ 9229 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA 98108 4 t. 44, sow-- GEORGETOWN 944)1.1.4, S96thst S 96th St NIGHLINE ; 10 $ION, St S101viSt S 102nd St S 104th SI — S 112th SC S 1 15th St S I 160, anisorrniv. ant n F1/I an Commurjty Dev;,,,dopment, A S Eddy St t t1. S Graham SI . I ..0.,:'s , .. .i, f i; S Graham SI 1 I , 1 t g 5...0.0..,s, 2 $.00, el .. . -71 ' 1 , . . s 4- S Myrtle St it . S, Othello St 1 III% s;/,',•,• f!tAlt4IER VALLEY I i S Austin St ,, 1Y4 1 1 1 1 to I ; 41 1, " qo c. ' 1 S Kenyon St co I I • ! i S Thistle St '41k i$ Headman SI 14. 5 OLINLAP a rn 5 S Florbury St , 4\ ft !WIER BEACH !..,1 S Bangor St S Leo SI S Avon SI \ 14.0 4,41 M SE 74.1S1 SE 72nd SI S Ryon St S Bangor St ,t)• LAIR90000 Pant r SUN.& N 4), '6th 4,1 SlItOnSt ss, S 1 1 CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 SEPA PLANNED ACTION RECEIVED _, 09 201Z) APPLICATION FOR STAFF USE ONLY Permits Plus Type: P-PACT Planner: File Number: 016. — 000 f Application Complete Date: Project File Number: p i C� ,Oezp2. Application Incomplete Date: MIC Planned Action EIS File Number: Other File Numbers: Tw /(D — 6OL „ NAME OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Museum of Flight: B-52 Memorial Park BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SCOPE OF WORK Create a landscaped area of plantings, pathways and plaza to exhibit a restored B-52 Aircraft. Project will include footings to distribute weight of aircraft, reconfigured adjacent parking, irrigation system, lighting, etc. LOCATION OF PROJECT/DEVELOPMENT: Give street address or, if vacant, indicate lot(s), block and subdivision, access street, and nearest intersection. West of Raisbeck Aviation High School (9229 E Marginal Way S, Tukwila, WA 98108), north of S 94th Place. In southwestern -most portion of Parcel Number: 572980-0010 LIST ALL TAX LOT NUMBERS (this information may be found on your tax statement 5729800010 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: Nathan Messmer Address: 110 Union Street, Suite 300; Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 973-1695 FAX: (206) 973-1701 E-mail: i,� ,� , /_o Signature: Q�" Date: 2// i�i CITY OF TUKWILA Department of Community Development 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: (206) 431-3670 AFFIDAVIT OF OWNERSHIP AND HOLD HARMLESS PERMISSION TO ENTER PROPERTY STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF KING The undersigned being duly sworn 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. 4. Owner grants the City, its employees, agents, engineers, contractors or other representatives the right to enter upon Owner's real property, located at Y22 9 E. ilichy m/ ty5. %f ,/a h%,. 9 '/, ' for the purpose of application review, for the limited time necessary to comple a 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, unless the loss or damage is the result of the sole negligence of the City. 6. Non -responsiveness to a City information request for ninety (90) or more days, shall be cause to cancel the application(s) without refund of fees. ``��''����__ ,, , EXECUTED atQct 7c., (city), Y U a2 (state), on5v4 , 20 / ou w . CEO ED —� Rr1a� t.i<-J 0 0 Community Development (Print ame)�n 9 �/09 tc a d �lGw5, (Address) Goy fo,k ho e Numb ) \\ (Signatur On this day personally appeared before me Jra 1/CIJ i�.1,17 to me known to be the individual who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowle ged that he/she signedCtfle saine as his/her voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes mentioned therein. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS Notary Public State of Washington VICTORIA A JOHNSON My Appointment Expires Feb 10. 2019 Commission expires on \\deptstore\City Common\Teri\Revisions In Progress\Reasonable Use Exception-Jan2011.docx PLANNE I,ikCTION CRITERIA Ci:CKLIST 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 plannedaction process. 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. RECEIVED 1'L) 0 9 s �u Community Development 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. • COMPLETE APPLICATION CHKLIST 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 APPLICATION MATERIALS: ✓ 1. Application Checklist (1 copy) indicating items submitted with application. ✓ 2. Completed ESA Screening Checklist and Planned Action Criteria Checklist. ✓ 3. One set of all drawings submitted with the Planned Action reduced to 8 1/2" x 11" or 11" x 17". ✓ 4. Application Fee: See Land Use Fee Schedule. ✓ 5. Underlying permit application that triggers SEPA Review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS: ✓ 6. Vicinity Map with site location. ✓ 7. Provide two copies of sensitive area studies such as wetland or geotechnical reports if needed per Tukwila's Sensitive Areas Ordinance (TMC 18.45). See Geotechnical Report Guidelines and Sensitive Area Special Study Guidelines for additional information. ✓ 8. Provide four (4) copies of any drawings needed to describe the proposal other than those submitted with the underlying permit. Maximum size 24" x 36". RECEIVED FL' 09 ._ •; r l3 Commi,n,;v SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC 110 UNION, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM SRG B-52 Memorial Park - Ph The Museum of Flight 9404 E Marginal Way S, 98108 Public Works Permit 2016-02-09 215013 PROJECT INFORMATION Narrative Description This project is the first phase of a development that will transform the westemmost comer of the Museum of Flights property (west of Raisbeck Aviation High School in the Duwamish River buffer zone) into a park -like memorial and exhibit space. The ultimate objective is to exhibit a restored Boeing B-52 aircraft. Phase I of the project consists of: grading the site, creating a water connection to an existing fire loop, installing irrigation and planting, modifing parking, and providing a small picnic area for use by Raisbeck Aviation High School students. The general effort is intended to beautify the site and lay the groundwork for a future phase. The future Phase II will include the placement of the restored Boeing B-52 aircraft and other interpretive and landscape elements, pursued under separate permit. This work will occur when aircraft restoration and funding for the additional development is complete after 2016. Schedule Feb.'16 - Mar.'16 Permitting Mar. '16 - May'16 Construction of Site Improvements TBD Future, Phase II improvement (under separate permit) Code 2012 International Building Code with Washington State Amendments For Geotechnical Report Geotechnlcal Engineering Services Museum of Flight B-52 Foundation Tukwila, Washington for Museum of Flight February 5, 2016 GeoEngineers 8410 154th Avenue NE Redmond, WA 98052 425.861.6000 CE VED Community Development LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL NUMBER 5729800010 (BSIP L11-019) LOT 2, CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NUMBER L05-057, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20070228900007, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON. TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND; THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY LYING SOUTHERLY OF THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 2 OF CITY OF TUKWILA SHORT PLAT NUMBER L05-057, RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 20070228900007, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON: A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN TRACTS 1 AND 2, THE MEADOWS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, BEING A PART OF FRANCIS MCNATT DONATION LAND CLAIM NO. 38 IN SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 24 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, IN KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 2 WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF PRIMARY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 1 (EAST MARGINAL WAY) WHICH POINT IS 648.77 FEET DISTANT SOUTHEASTERLY, MEASURED ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, FROM THE NORTH LINE OF SAID FRANCIS MCNATT DONATION LAND CLAIM; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 715.4 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A STRAIGHT LINE WHICH FORMS AN ANGLE OF 8°01' FROM NORTHWEST TO WEST WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 122 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT 17 FEET DISTANT SOUTHWESTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE WESTERLY LINE OF HIGHWAY; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A STRAIGHT LINE PARALLEL WITH SAID WESTERLY LINE OF HIGHWAYA DISTANCE OF 603 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 2; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 18.5 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2, SHORT PLAT NUMBER L05- 057; THENCE SOUTH 22°31'52" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SHORT PLAT NUMBER L05-057, A DISTANCE OF 20.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 30°51'51" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 28.79 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING OF EXCEPTION; THENCE SOUTH 01°09'08" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 76.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22°17'19" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 22.70 TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 32°44'34" WEST AND IS 303.35 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2, SHORT PLAT NUMBER L05-057; THENCE NORTH 88°50'53° WEST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SHORT PLAT NUMBER L05-057, A DISTANCE OF 435.82 FEET TO A POINT WHICH BEARS NORTH 42°47'07" EAST AND IS 350.67 FEET DISTANT FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2, SHORT PLAT NUMBER L05-057; THENCE NORTH 01 °09'07" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 99.50 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS 41.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SHORT PLAT NUMBER L05- 057 WHEN MEASURED AT A RIGHT ANGLE; THENCE SOUTH 88°50'53" EAST AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2, SHORT PLAT NUMBER L05-057, A DISTANCE OF 300.68 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTH AND A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 2.75 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 22.06 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88°50'53" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 72.98 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 72.58 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE A DISTANCE OF 29.76 FEET; THENCE NORTH 67°28'08" EAST A DISTANCE OF 2.15 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING EASEMENTS; ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 20100927002030 AND RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENT RECORDED UNDER KING COUNTY RECORDING NO. 20100927002029. ALSO KNOWN AS: LOT 1 OF CITY OF TUKWILA BINDING SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN NO. L11-019, RECORDED IN KING COUNTY UNDER RECORDING NO. 20110504001579, WASHINGTON. PROJECT DIRECTORY Owner The Museum of Flight 9404 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98108 v: (206) 764-5720 f: (206) 764-5707 Contacts: Laurie Haag lhaag@museumofflight.org Chris Mailander cmailander@museumofflight.org Architect SRG Partnership, Inc. 110 Union Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98101 v: (206) 973-1700 f: (206) 973-1701 Contacts: Nathan Messmer nmessmer@srgpartnersh ip.com Elias Gardner egard ner@srgpartne rsh ip. com Civil Engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 v: (206) 292-1200 f: (206) 292-1201 Contacts: Rita Greene rgreene@mka.com Landscape Architect Site Workshop 222 Etruria Street Seattle, WA 98109 v: (206) 285-3026 f: (206) 285-3629 Contacts: Natalie Ross nataller@siteworkshop.com Pieter Van Remoortere pieter@siteworkshop.com Contractor Sellen Construction 227 Westlake Avenue North Seattle, WA 98109 v: (206) 682-7770 f: (206) 623-5206 Contacts: Bret Downing bret.downing@sellen.com Bret Peterson bret.peterson@sellen.com Structural Engineer Magnusson Klemencic Associates 1301 First Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 v: (206) 292-1200 f: (206) 292-1201 Contacts: Derek Beaman dbeaman@mka.com Geotechnical Engineer GeoEngineers 600 Stewart Street, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 v: (206) 728-2674 f: (206) 728-2732 Contacts: Nancy Tochko ntochko@geoengineers.com Dave Cook dcook@geoengineers.com VICINITY MAP * Project Site: 9229 East Marginal Way South Tukwila, WA98108 MASTER DRAWING INDEX GENERAL G001 PROJECT TEAM, VICINITY MAP, OVERAI L DRAWING INDEX SURVEY TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ARCHITECTURAL A100 I SITE PLAN CIVIL C001 GENERL NOTES, LEGEND, ABBREVIATIONS, AND DRAWING LIST C002 :NOTES C003 NOTES L. I U I 1 CMr'URMR T CNUJI YIN, JCU IMCIN 1 UUN I RV L ANU 01 1 C DEMOLITION PLAN C201 SITE, PAVING AND GRADING PLAN C301 UTILITY PLAN C401 SECTIONS AND DETAILS C402 SECTIONS AND DETAILS LANDSCAPE L1.00 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN L4.00 IRRIGATION PLAN [L4.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS (J, SRG PARINHtSHP, INC 110 UNION, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM B-52 Memorial Park - Ph 1 3146 I 1REGISTERED ARCHITECT DENNIS C. FORSYTH 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON Public Wwke Permit Drawing Title PROJECT TEAM, VICINITY MAP, OVERALL DRAWING INDEX Drawing scales indicated apply to 22' x 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate If drawing plots are less than this size. Revisions Number Mvription Date Drawn by NJM Checked by NJM Date 2016-02-09 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No G001 22"x34" 1/22/2016 U: \C3D\2014\2014048\SURVEYING\DWG\XS-SUR-05.DWG .SPH 0 CO 9)7 ,1910 79. col / .18.52 FILTER VAULT / 1093 S8850'56-E 101.95` --. - - ;- -0F;-_ \--�_ %\ \�;� , \ \ \1 \ \ \ 2(7 T� \ \\ \�s�y,—�--\- \-4 - - 4 \ \ 1 \ \\ \ \V \\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ /\ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \t , TBM "8" \ SET CHISELED SOUARE ON 5W END OF CC \ \ APPROx. ,42'S OF NW CORNER OF PARKING LOT (RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL) \\ i ELEVAE6N - 20.09' ASPH ,11 GRAVEL o ,11 7-0,86 ASPH PARKING A PH PA KING 1.057 RAVEL CB 47 1111 ECd(P) .18.57 10' ACCESS AND u-nuTy EASEMENT 8.02 ASPH PARKING .1747 ce / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT REC. NO. 9509180955 IE(SW)=5.71 36"CONC WATER LEVEL-9.46 TOP OF BANK WATER MARK SLIP NO. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY B-52 EXHIBIT - MUSEUM OF FLIGHT E MARGINAL WAY TUKWILA KING WASHINGTON REM 0 -CB RIM=16.65 WOOD PALLET 3.TALL EXTRUDING CONDUIT (1) 2-1/4" PVC DATE SPEED LIMIT 10 CRAvEL 16' TALL METAL RADIO TOWER PSD `PIPE .17 El rs CB RIM=16.97 ,,,,., '54,-8 SD / 35' INGRESS, EGRESS & UTILITY EASEMENT / / / / / 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 67 ELECTRICAL BREAKER 80x ELECTRICAL BREAKER BOX CRW / SET CHISELED SQUARE ON SWiy / CORNER OF CONC PAD FOR WV (RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL. - CB TILE -WALLED ENCLOSURE CB SHORELINE SETBACK CB IgNW)=14.67 8-ADS OF-. LAND SURVEYORS & CIVIL ENGINEERS 2009 MINOR AVE. EAST SEATTLE, Washington 98102-3513 (206) 323-4144 1-800-935-0508 FAX# (206) 323-7135 BUILDING COR. AND TEMP ONSTRUCTION FENCE 17.38 DOWNSPOUT ASPH PARKING TI ban rri rri D C B A 2/8/2016 4:13:40 PM ARCHITECTURAL ABBREVIATIONS AB AD ADJ ALT ALUM APPROX BD BLDG BM BO CFCI CIP CJ CL CLR CMU COL CONC CONT CONTR CS DF DIA DIM DIM PT DN DS DTL DWG (E) EA EJ EL ELEC EQ EP EPT EQUIP ES EXIST EXP EXT FB FE FEC FOB FOC FOF FOS FRP FRT FTG FV Fv'C GA GALV GL HB HC HD HDWD HORIZ HR HSS ID sr LF Anchor Bolt Access Door Adjacent Alternate Aluminum Approximate Board Building Beam Bottom Of Contractor Fumish Contractor Installed Cast in place Control pint Chain link Clear Concrete Masonry Unit Column Concrete (CONC-1) Continuous Contractor Cementitious Surface Material (CS-1) Drinking fountain Diameter Dimension Dimension Point Down Downspout Detail Drawing Existing Each Expansion joint Elevation Electrical Equal Electrical Panel Epoxy Paint (EP-1) Equipment Exposed Structure Existing Expansion Exterior Flat Bar Fire Extinguisher (FE-1) Fire Extinguisher Cabinet (FEC-1) Face of Brick/Block Face of Concrete Face of Finish Face of Structure Fiber Reinforced Plastic Fire Retardant Treated Footing Field Verify Fire Vaive Cabinet Gage Galvanized Glass/ Glazing Hose Bibb Hollow Core Head Hard Wood Horizontal Hour Hollow Structural Shape Inside Diameter Joint Lineal Feat / Linear Foot MAX MDO MECH MEMB MFR MIN MISC MO MPS MR MTG MTL (NA NIC NO NOM NTS OA OC OD OFCI OFOI OPP P PERIM PR PT PWD RAD RBR REF REIN READ RO SAM SECT SHT SHTG SIM SP SPEC SQ SST STD STL SVM TD THK TO TR TRS TS TYP UNO VBX VERT W/ W/O WD WR WT WWF EC WED 09 20113 Community Development Maximum Medium Denby Overlay Mechanical Membrane Manufacturer Minimum Miscellaneous Masonry Opening Manual Pull Station Moisture Resistant Mounting Metal New Not Applicable Not in Contract Number Nominal Not to Scale Overall On Center Outside Diameter Owner Furnished Contractor Installed Owner Furnished Owner Installed Opposite Paint (P-1) Perimeter Pair Pressure Treated Plywood Radius Rubber Reference Reinforced Required Rough Opening Self Adhered Membrane Section Sheet Sheathing Similar Stand Pipe Specification Square Stainless Steel Standard Steel Symmetrical Trench Drain Thick Top of Transparent Traffic Surface Tube Steel Typical Unless Noted Otherwise View Box Vertical With Without Wood (WD-1) Waste Receptacle Weight Welded Wire Fabric • • • • •4 • • • • 1 • • • 1 • • • 1 • • • • • • SITE PLAN • i Vr/),P' g •r •am • • • GM • • • — • • • GM • •. • — • • •% • • • — 100' From Duwamish OHWM •'-- King County storm drain easerment rec. no. 9509180955 Exlating manhole cover — Area of monitoring welts, blosparglrg and vents to remain undisturbed, s Survey : " I ,^ E Edspng fire rant �/ / ,., / stall Existing Eddieacces seal iblest van eaerted 0 00rhieds \ _ _-, , i Install double headed, Uthonia D-Series, Size 1, LED Tight pole, 2' above grade `� Remove existing light pole and bollards rMgrallgeltiMMIS•• MIS • 0, lb MR • • to renal`'"\ Picnic table,typ (OFOI) Future Boeing 8-52 - sircreft (not in Ph i project),.. _-- ► . Future slab foundation (not in Ph I project) \. 200' From Duwamish OHWM "J Storage trailers / equipment to bo" removed, typ - Fence at property^ ilea to remain, typ Tram to remain for Ph i project, tylr MUSEUM DEDICATED WEST SIDE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED Total: 179 min 200 201 Compact 53 max 34 39 ADA: 7 min a 9 Bicycle: 4 min 9 9 (Bicycle parking located at Space Gallery) RAISBECK AVIATION HIGH SCHOOL PARKING SPACES Maintained (See submitted Parking Memorandum, dated 12/172015) Ptopedy line, lyp • • • — • • • Limits of • PARKING SPACES w/in B-52 PROJECT AREA DOSING PROPOSED Total: Compact ADA: Bicycle: 30 13 0 0 31 17 0 \ka: AA Otl . s • • ta New ore waysio ��� �,,, � • striping, see Civil I • KEY: Existing striping, typ. ew striping, typ. Pervious gravel paving, typ. (see Landscape) 1 Hydroseed grass, typ. (see Landscape) • 1, New asphalt paving extents, typ. \a„, 0 ., 1E] Demolished paving extents, typ \ InExisting building, typ, infrastructure end connection to \`ss Fire lane, typ 40 A100 / 1" = 20'-0" 110 UNION, SUITE 300 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM B-52 Memorial Park - Ph 3146 110 EC LTE o CD CD REGISTERED ARCHITECT DENNIS C. FORSYTH STATE OF WASHINGTON Public Works Permit Drawing Title SITE PLAN Drawing scaies Indicated apply to 22' x 34' drawing sheets, Scale may not be accurate if drawing plots are le. than this size Revistons Number Description Date Drawn by NJM Checked by NJM Date 201502-09 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No 2 3 J \MOF-B-52SitePrepCiv\Sheets\C001.dwq LEGEND D DESCRIPTION LIMITS OF WORK PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT LINE CATCH BASIN INSERT SEDIMENT CATCHMENT AREA STONE / SAND BAG ROCK CHECK DAM STRAW BALE FILTER FABRIC FENCE CENTERLINE OF SWALE TOP OF SLOPE SLOPE TOE OF SLOPE SEDIMENTATION BARRIER C CENTERLINE FACE OF STRUCTURE ABOVE GRADE GRADE BREAK MAJOR CONTOUR MINOR CONTOUR PERFORATED STORM DRAIN STORM DRAIN FOUNDATION DRAIN PERFORATED FOUNDATION DRAIN DROP CONNECTION AREA DRAIN CAPPED END B CLEANOUT MANHOLE SYMBOL GB — 49 8" SD 8" SD 6" FD 6" PERF FD DEMOLITION LEGEND DESCRIPTION ITEM TO BE REMOVED ITEM TO REMAIN CAP UTILITY, SEE SITE DEMOLITION REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE WALK SYMBOL (' a�'p tt• �,: p C"a L br it lima Community Development DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SANITARY SEWER 8" SS LINE WATER LINE 8 W FIRE HYDRANT —0 GATE VALVE POST INDICATOR VALVE REDUCER COORDINATE POINT SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION SPOT ELEVATION WITH COORDINATE CONCRETE APRON / WALK ASPHALT PAVEMENT 1V N 1,433,544.34 X� E 2,454,789.02 1,546.00 (1,546.00) N 1,433,544.34 E 2,454,789.02 EL = 544.25 ABBREVIATIONS 0 4 0 n AASHTO ABAN AC ACI AD ADDL ADJ AGGR ALT ANSI APPD APPROX APWA ARCH ASPH ASSY ASTM ATB AWWA BLDG BLK BM BOL BOT BOW BRG BSMT BTWN C&G CANT CB CC CDF CFR CFS CI CIP CJ CL CLR CMP CNR CO COL COMB COMM CONC COND CONN CONST CONT CONTR COORD CORP COT CTB CTR CU CULV CV DEG DEMO DEPT DET DETN DI DIA DIAG DICA DIM DIR DR DS DWG DWL DW AND AT DEFLECTION ANGLE DEGREE DIAMETER NUMBER AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF STATE HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS ABANDON (-ED) ASBESTOS CEMENT, ASPHALT CONCRETE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE AREA DRAIN ADDITIONAL ADJACENT, ADJUST (-ED, -MENT, -ABLE) AGGREGATE ALTERNATE, ALTERNATIVE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE APPROVED APPROXIMATE (-LY) AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION ARCHITECT (-URAL) ASPHALT ASSEMBLY AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR TESTING AND MATERIALS ASPHALT TREATED BASE AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION BUILDING BLOCKING BEAM, BENCH MARK BOLLARD BOTTOM BOTTOM OF WALL BEARING BASEMENT BETWEEN CURB AND GUTTER CANTILEVER CATCH BASIN CENTER TO CENTER CONTROLLED DENSITY FILL CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS CUBIC FEET PER SECOND CAST IRON CAST -IN -PLACE CONSTRUCTION JOINT CENTERLINE CLEAR (-ANCE) CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CORNER CLEAN OUT COLUMN COMBINATION COMMUNICATION CONCRETE CONDUIT, CONDITION CONNECT (-ION) CONSTRUCTION CONTINUATION, CONTINUE, CONTINUOUS CONTRACTOR COORDINATE, COORDINATION CORPORATION CITY OF TUKWILA CEMENT TREATED BASE CENTER CUBIC CULVERT CHECK VALVE DEGREE DEMOLISH, DEMOLITION DEPARTMENT DETAIL DETENTION DUCTILE IRON DIAMETER DIAGONAL DRILLED -IN CONCRETE ANCHOR DIMENSION DIRECTION DIRECTOR'S RULE DOWNSPOUT DRAWING DOWEL DRIVEWAY E EA EG EJ EL ELEC EMBED ENGR ES EQ EQUIP EW EXIST EXP EXT F FD FDC FDN FG FH FIN FL FM FT FTG G GA GAL GALV GB GEN GPM GV H HDPE HGL HH HORIZ HP HT HTB HYD ID IE INCL INFO INT INV IRR JT LARCH LAT L8 LF LOC LP LT MATL MAX MECH MFR MH MIC MIN MISC MJ ML MON MSE MUTCD N NE NIC NO. NOM NTS NW OC OD OPNG OPP OPT ORIG OWS EAST, ELECTRICAL EACH EXISTING GRADE, EXISTING GROUND EXPANSION JOINT ELEVATION ELECTRICAL EMBED (-DED, -MENT) ENGINEER EACH SIDE EQUAL EQUIPMENT EACH WAY EXISTING EXPANSION EXTERIOR FIRE FLOOR DRAIN, FOUNDATION DRAIN FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FOUNDATION FINISHED GRADE, FINISHED GROUND FIRE HYDRANT FINISH (-ED) FLANGE, FLOOR, FLOWLINE FORCE MAIN FOOT, FEET FOOTING GAS, GUTTER GAGE, GAUGE GALLON GALVANIZE (-D) GRADE BREAK GENERAL GALLONS PER MINUTE GATE VALVE HORIZONTAL HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE HANDHOLD HORIZONTAL HIGH POINT HEIGHT HORIZONTAL THRUST BLOCK HYDRANT NSIDE DIAMETER NVERT ELEVATION NCLUDE (-D), INCLUDING NFORMATION NTERIOR, INTERSECTION, NTERMITTENT NVERT RRIGATION JOINT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT (-URAL) LATERAL POUND LINEAL FEET LOCATE (-D), LOCATION LOW POINT LEFT MATERIAL MAXIMUM MECHANICAL MANUFACTURER MANHOLE MONUMENT IN CASE MINIMUM MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL JOINT MATCHLINE MONUMENT MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES NORTH NORTHEAST NOT IN CONTRACT NUMBER NOMINAL NOT TO SCALE NORTHWEST ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER OPENING OPPOSITE (HAND) OPTION (-AL) ORIGINAL OIL/WATER SEPARATOR PC PCC PED PERF PERP PI PIV PL PLC PLUMB PPM PRC PROP PSF PSI PT PVC PVMT R RCMD RD RCP RED REF REINF REQD RET REV RIM RJ ROW RT RW S SCHED SCL SD SDMH SE SECT SED SF SHT SIM SOG SPC SPEC SS SSMH ST STA STD STL STRUC SW SYM T TB TC TD TE TEL TEMP TESC TOC TOF TOW TRANS TYP UD UNO UTIL UV V VAC VC VDM VERT VOL W W/ WAC WP WPJ WS WSDOT WT WWF YR POINT OF CURVATURE POINT OF COMPOUND CURVATURE PEDESTRIAN PERFORATED PERPENDICULAR POINT OF INTERSECTION POST INDICATOR VALVE PROPERTY LINE PLACE PLUMBING PARTS PER MILLION POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE PROPERTY POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH POINT OF TANGENCY POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PAVEMENT RADIUS RECOMMEND (-ED) ROOF DRAIN REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE REDUCER REFER (-ENCE) REINFORCE (-D, -MENT), REINFORCING REQUIRED RETAINING REVISION RIM ELEVATION RESTRAINED JOINT RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT RETAINING WALL SLOPE, SOUTH SCHEDULE SEATTLE CITY LIGHT STORM DRAIN STORM DRAIN MANHOLE SOUTHEAST SECTION SEDIMENTATION SOUARE FEET SHEET SIMILAR SLAB ON GRADE SPACE SPECIFICATION SANITARY SEWER SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STREET STATION STANDARD STEEL STRUCTURAL, STRUCTURE SOUTHWEST SYMMETRICAL TANGENT THRUST BLOCK TOP OF CURB TRENCH DRAIN TOP ELEVATION, TRASH ENCLOSURE TELEPHONE TEMPORARY TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL TOP OF CONCRETE TOP OF FOOTING TOP OF WALL TRANSFORMER TYPICAL UNDER DRAIN UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE UTILITY ULTRAVIOLET VERTICAL VACUUM VERTICAL CURVE VERTICAL DRAINAGE MATERIAL VERTICAL VOLUME WATER, WEST WITH WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WORK POINT WEAKENED PLANE JOINT WATER SUFRACE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WEIGHT WELDED WIRE FABRIC YEAR DRAWING LIST C001 GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND, ABBREVIATIONS AND DRAWING LIST C002 NOTES C003 NOTES C101 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND SITE DEMOLITION PLAN C201 SITE, PAVING AND GRADING PLAN C301 UTILITY PLAN C401 SECTIONS AND DETAILS C402 SECTIONS AND DETAILS GENERAL NOTES 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS INFORMATION IS FROM A SURVEY BY BUSH, ROED AND HITCHINGS, TITLED "TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, 8-52 EXHIBIT - MUSEUM OF FLIGHT", DATED 1/22/16. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 2. THE HORIZONTAL DATUM IS NAD 27. 3. THE VERTICAL DATUM IS NAVD 88. 4. 5. 6. THE LIMITS OF WORK INDICATED ON THE CIVIL DRAWINGS APPLY TO THE SITE AND UTILITY WORK AS SHOWN ON THE CIVIL DRAWINGS. THERE MAY BE WORK OUTSIDE OF THE LIMITS OF WORK INDICATED BY OTHER DISCIPLINES OR TRADES. NO WORK SHALL BE DONE OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK UNLESS INDICATED, WITHOUT THE ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL. ANY WORK DONE IN AREA ADJACENT TO THE LIMITS OF WORK SHALL BE CARRIED OUT ON THE PROJECT SIDE ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT THE UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO EXCAVATING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL UNDERGROUND UTILITY LOCATION SERVICE TO LOCATE AND MAINTAIN MARKINGS THAT INDICATE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION AREA. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE THE PERMIT(S) AND CONDITIONS, THE APPROVED PLANS, AND A CURRENT COPY OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AVAILABLE AT JOB SITE. 8. EARTHWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT TITLED "GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, MUSEUM OF FLIGHT B-52 FOUNDATION", DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2016 BY GEOENGINEERS, 8410 154TH AVENUE NE, REDMOND, WA, (425) 861-6000. 9. THE SITE MAY CONTAIN SOIL WITH LOW LEVEL CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS (BELOW STATE CLEANUP LEVELS) FROM HISTORIC INDUSTRIAL SITE USE. EXCAVATED SOIL SHALL BE USED AS TRENCH BACKFILL WHERE POSSIBLE. CONTRACTOR TO DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCAVATION, BACKFILLING AND/OR SOIL EXPORT AND DISPOSAL WITH GEOENGINEERS PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY WORK. c.D ci) SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC 110 UNION. SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM MONO /� i MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES B-52 Memorial Park - Public Works Pennk Drawing Title GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND, ABBREVIATIONS AND DRAWING LIST Drawing scales indicated apply to 22" x 34" drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate ti drawing plots are less than this size. Revisions Number Desatption Date Drawn by Checked by Date 2016-02-09 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No C001 J D C B r a an 3 N 0 yU ri CO 0 a -A 0_ rZ 0 0 CO 7 TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES 1. THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (TESC) PLAN SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED PRIOR TO ANY LAND-DISTUKBING ACTIVITY UN THE UUNSIKUGIIUN 51 t. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVAL OF DIRT FROM ALL VEHICLES LEAVING THE SITE. ACTIONS MUST BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF MUD AND SOIL FROM CONSTRUCTION AREAS ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING ADJACENT ROADWAYS FREE OF DIRT. SOIL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY SHALL BE REMOVED DAILY. 3. ANY SOIL STOCKPILES SHALL BE LOCATED AWAY FROM SWALES AND CATCH BASINS. STOCKPILES SHALL BE MULCHED, AND ADEQUATELY CONTAINED THROUGH THE USE OF COMPOST FILTER SOCKS. 4. SEDIMENT -LADEN GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED DURING TRENCHING, BORING, DRILLING OR OTHER EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PUMPED TO A SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE PRIOR TO BEING DISCHARGED INTO A SWALE OR CATCH BASIN. 5. MITIGATION MEASURES SUCH AS DUST SUPPRESSION TECHNIQUES SHOULD BE IN PLACE DURING DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION EVENTS TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING AND BROADCASTING OF FUGITIVE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS ONTO PUBLIC ROADWAYS AND ACROSS PROPERTY LINES. 6. AT THE CONTRACTOR'S OPTION ALTERNATE METHODS OF TREATMENT OF CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER RUNOFF MAY BE PROPOSED FOR USE FOR TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION. THE PROPOSED ALTERNATE METHODS MUST MEET THE EFFLUENTQUALITY REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE ALTERNATE METHODS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. SEE NOTE 19. 7. ALL DISCHARGES FROM ANY ACTIVE DEWATERING SYSTEM SHALL BE TREATED PRIOR TO LEAVING THE PROJECT SITE BY DIRECTING WATER TO THE SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICES AND MEET THE EFFLUENT QUALITY REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS. SEE NOTE 19. 8. AS CONSTRUCTION PROGRESSES AND SEASONAL CONDITIONS DICTATE, THE EROSION CONTROL FACILIITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND/OR ALTERED AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE CONTINUING EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL. 9. THE IMPLEMENTATION, MAINTENANCE, REPLACEMENT AND ADDITIONS TO THE EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. ANY DOWNSTREAM DAMAGE DUE TO THE FAILURE BY THE CONTRACTOR TO FULFILL THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY. 10. THE TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL SYSTEMS DEPICTED ON THESE DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED TO BE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL FACILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED AS NECESSARY AND MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO PREVENT SEDIMENTATION OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK. 11. THE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A SATISFACTORY CONDITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT OR UNTIL DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND ADJACENT AREAS CLEAN AT ALL TIMES BY SWEEPING. WASHDOWN WITH WATER WILL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL. 13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE CATCH BASIN INSERTS AT ALL CATCH BASINS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WORK, INLCUDING THOSE SCHEDULED FOR DEMOLITION PRIOR TO THEIR REMOVAL. CATCH BASIN INSERTS SHALL ALSO BE PLACED WHERE SPECIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 015713. THERE MAY BE CATCH BASIN INSERTS REQUIRED OUTSIDE OF LIMITS OF WORK INDICATED. CATCH BASIN INSERTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH�i� C002 C401 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL UTILITY ACCESS POINTS THAT DO NOT RECEIVE CATCH BASIN INSERTS SUCH AS MANHOLE COVERS, VAULT COVERS AND GRATES FROM COLLECTING ANY STORMWATER DURING CONSTRUCTION. PLACE IMPERVIOUS SHEETING AROUND ACCESS POINTS TO PREVENT STORMWATER COLLECTION. 15. EXCAVATION FOR REMOVAL OF EXISTING STRUCTURES AND INSTALLATION OF NEW STRUCTURES, UTILITIES AND EMBANKMENTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY GEOENGINEERS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPES AND SHALL NOT EXCEED THOSE SLOPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 16. ALL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPES GREATER THAT 21 AND GREATER THAN 4 FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE COVERED WITH POLYETHYLENE SHEETING. 17. NO EXISTING ROOF DRAINS OR DOWNSPOUTS SHALL DISCHARGE DIRECTLY TO THE GROUND SURFACE. BOTH TEMPORARY AND PERMENANT ROOF DRAINS AND DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE TIGHTLINED TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM AT ALL TIMES. 18. STABILIZE ALL SOILS, INCLUDING STOCKPILES THAT ARE TEMPORARILY EXPOSED.FROM OCTOBER 1 TO APRIL 30 NO SOILS SHALL REMAIN UNSTABILIZED FOR MORETHAN TWO DAYS. FROM MAY 1 TO SEPTEMBER 30 NO SOILS SHALL REMAIN UNSTABILIZED FOR MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS. 19. ALL CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER DISCHARGE FROM THE SITE SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SURFACE WATERS (CHAPTER 173-201A WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE) FOR TURBIDITY, pH AND PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER DISCHARGE TURBIDITY FROM THE SITE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 NEPHLOMETRIC TURBIDITY UNITS (NTU) OVER BACKGROUND TURBIDITY WHEN THE BACKGROUND TURBIDITY IS 50 NTU OR LESS, OR HAVE MORE THAN A 10 PERCENT INCREASE IN TURBIDITY WHEN THE BACKGROUND TURBIDITY IS MORE THAN 50 NTU. THE pH OF THE CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER DISCHARGE SHALL BE WITHIN THE RANGE OF 6.5 TO 8.5 WITH A HUMAN -CAUSED VARIATION WITHIN A RANGE OF LESS THAN 0.2 UNITS. CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER DISCHARGES SHALL BE PROHIBITED IF THERE IS A VISIBLE SHEEN FROM PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. SITE DEMOLITION NOTES 1. EXCAVATION FOR REMOVAL OF UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY GEOENGINEERS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SLOPES AND SHALL NOT EXCEED THOSE SLOPES WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT ALL TELEPHONE AND COMMUNICATIONS WIRES AND CONDUCTORS HAVE BEEN DECOMMISSIONED PRIOR TO REMOVAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND TELEPHONE DUCTBANK CONDUIT AND VAULTS. DEMOLITION FOR SPECIFIC COMMUNITCATONS ITEMS INDICATED ON THE SITE DEMOLITION PLANS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS DEMOLITION PLANS. REMOVAL OF COMMUNICATIONS DUCTBANK, CONDUITS AND VAULTS SHALL FOLLOW PULLING OF CABLE AND CONDUCTORS AS SHOWN ON THE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE, ERECT AND MAINTAIN ALL TEMPORARY BARRIERS, BARRICADES AND SECURITY DEVICES AS REQUIRED FOR THE PROTECTION OF PEDESTRIANS AND VEHICLES. 4. DEMOLITION ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRICAL LINES AND APPURTENANCES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. DEMOLITION FOR SPECIFIC ELECTRICAL ITEMS INDICATED ON THE SITE DEMOLITION PLANS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE ELECTRICAL DEMOLITION PLANS AND NOT BE CARRIED OUT UNTIL POWER SOURCES TO THE ITEMS INDICATED FOR REMOVAL HAVE BEEN MADE SAFE. REMOVAL OF ELECTRICAL DUCTBANK, CONDUITS AND VAULTS SHALL FOLLOW PULLING OF CABLE AND CONDUCTORS AS SHOWN ON THE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. 5. REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE WALK, PAVEMENT OR PAD TO FULL DEPTH. 6. REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT TO FULL DEPTH. 7. WHERE MULTIPLE RECORD UTILITIES ARE INDICATED, ONLY ONE LOCATION HAS BEEN NOTED FOR DEMOLITION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE RECORD UTILITY PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION. 8. PROTECT ALL EXISTING UTILITIES INDICATED TO REMAIN FROM DAMAGE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TEMPORARY SHORING AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF UTILITIES TO REMAIN AND THEIR APPURTENANCES. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION OPERATIONS AND NOTIFY THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 9. PROTECT ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES AND FOUNDATIONS TO REMAIN WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WORK DURING CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SHORING AS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO NOT IMPACT EXISTING STRUCTURES, FOUNDATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS. 10. ABANDONMENT OF UTILITY PIPELINES 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND LARGER SHALL BE BY CAPPING OR PLUGGING THE PIPE ENDS AND PUMPING GROUT FILL MATERIAL INTO THE INTERIOR OF THE PIPELINE USING EQUIPMENT AND MONITORING DEVICES SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE GROUTING OPERATION AND TO ENSURE THAT THE PIPELINE IS COMPLETELY FILLED WITH THE GROUT MATERIAL. THE UTILITY TO BE ABANDONED SHALL FIRST BE CLEARED OF DEBRIS AND DEWATERED TO ENSURE PROPER SETTING OF THE GROUT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ESTABLISH AND SUBMIT FOR REVIEW THE GROUT MIXES, EQUIPMENT AND METHODS PROPOSED TO BE USED FOR PLACEMENT OF THE GROUT AND MONITORING OF THE GROUTING OPERATION. GROUT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 100 PSI. 11. ABANDONMENT OF UTILITY PIPING SMALLER THAN 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER SHALL REQUIRE CAPPING OR PLUGGING OF THE PIPE ENDS ONLY, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SITE AND PAVING NOTES 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR BUILDING GRADE BEAM/SLAB EDGE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. APPLY A BITUMINOUS TACK COAT AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE ASPHALT PAVEMENT ABUTS ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE, UTILITY APPURTENANCE OR OTHER PAVEMENT TYPE. 3. CONCRETE FOR EXTERIOR SITE FACILITIES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CURBS, SIDEWALKS, PADS, THRUST BLOCKING, FENCE POST AND BOLLARD FOUNDATIONS, RAMPS, AND UTILITY STRUCTURES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATION SECTION 033000,"CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE" AND SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. MAXIMUM WATER/CEMENT RATIO SHALL BE 0.45 AND CONCRETE SHALL HAVE 5 PLUS OR MINUS 0.5 PERCENT AIR ENTRAINMENT. SEE STRUCTURAL GENERAL NOTES ON SHEETS S-003, S-004 AND S-005 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. GRADING NOTES 1. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE TO TOP OF PAVEMENT, GUTTER ELEVATION OR FINISH GRADE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. ALL NEWLY PAVED PARKING AREAS SHALL BE GRADED TO DRAIN TO EXISTING PAVEMENT AREAS. WATER NOTES 1. ALL WATER LINES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 36 INCHES OF COVER OVER THE TOP OF PIPE. 2. HORIZONTAL THRUST BLOCKING SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD DETAIL WS-12A OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. 3. VERTICAL THRUST BLOCKING SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD DETAIL WS-12B OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS FOR WATER LINE TRENCHING, BEDDING AND BACKFILL SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD DETAIL WS-18 OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. SEE SPECIFICATION SECTION 310000 FOR BEDDING AND BACKFILL MATERIAL. 5. 6. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING PIPE BENDS FITTINGS PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. ADJUST THRUST BLOCKING AS REQUIRED BEAR AGAINST STRUCTURAL GRADE BEAM. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES CLEAR AT CROSSINGS WITH UTILITIES OTHER THAN SANITARY SEWER LINES. WATER LINE SHALL PASS UNDER THE OTHER UTILITY IF THE MINIMUM SPECIFIED COVER CANNOT BE OBTAINED. MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES CLEAR BETWEEN CROSSINGS OF WATER LINE AND SANITARY SEWER LINES. WATER LINES SHALL CROSS ABOVE SANITARY SEWER LINES. 7. PROVIDE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL BENDS WHERE INDICATED. WHERE A POINT OF INTERSECTION (HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL) IS SHOWN AND THE DEFLECTION ANGLE IS MORE OR LESS THAN A STANDARD BEND, USE A COMBINATION OF THE STANDARD BEND AND JOINT DEFLECTION OF THE PIPE TO MEET THE ALIGNMENT SHOWN. MAXIMUM JOINT DEFLECTION IS 3 DEGREES OR THE MAXIMUM THAT IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PIPE MANUFACTURER, WHICHEVER IS SMALLER. 8. ALL WATER LINE 4 INCH AND LARGER SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON. 9. PROVIDE VALVE BOXES FOR ALL NEW GATE VALVES. PROVIDE OPERATING NUT EXTENSIONSWHEN THE VALVE NUT IS MORE THAN 5 FEET BELOW FINISHED GRADE. OPERATING NUTEXTENSIONS SHALL CONFORM TO STANDARD DETAIL WS-06 OF THE CITY OF TUKWILA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. 10. ALL HYDRANT ASSEMBLY PIPING AND VALVES SHALL BE 8 INCH DIAMETER. HYDRANT SHALL BE CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARD. PROVIDE REDUCER ADJACENT TO HYDRANT SHOE. 11. ALL PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ON WATER PIPING ARE FROM CENTER OF STRUCTURE, FITTING, OR POINT OF INTERSECTION AND ARE SHOWN TO ASSIST FOR PERMIT REVIEW PROCESS. ALL PIPING SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE LOCATIONS INDICATED ON THE PLANS BY COORDINATES. (J) SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC 110 UNION. SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM la� MAGNUSSON O K.LEMENCIC ASSOCIATES B-52 Memorial Park Public Works Penult Drawing Title NOTES Drawing scales indicated apply to 22' x 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate if drawing plots are less than this size. Revisions Number Description Date Drawn by Checked by Date 2016-02-09 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No C002 J 1 I D C B r 0 0 ri 0 aA 0 0 csi CITY OF TUKWILA NOTES 1. PRIOR TO STARTING CONSTRUCTION, CONTACT ONE -CALL (1-800-424-5555) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. CONTACTS 1. PROJECT MANAGER SENECA GROUP, 206-628-3150. 2. DESIGN ENGINEER, MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES, 206-292-1200 3. OWNER MUSEUM OF FLIGHT, 206-764-5720. GENERAL 1. AT LEAST ONE WEEK BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, CONTACT PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES INSPECTOR AND SCHEDULE A PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. 2. NOTIFY THE UTILITIES INSPECTOR AT 206-433-0179 AT LEAST 48 HOURS (2 WORKING DAYS) BEFORE STARTING PROJECT SITE WORK. 3. REQUEST A PUBLIC WORKS UTILITY INSPECTION AT LEAST 24 HOURS (1 WORKING DAY) IN 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 CONDITIONS, THE APPROVED PLANS, AND 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 DRAWINGS. ANY CHANGES FROM THE APPROVED PLANS REQUIRE PRE -APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER, THE ENGINEER, AND THE CITY OF TUKWILA. 7. ALL METHODS AND MATERIALS SHALL MEET CITY OF TUKWILA DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. 8. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A CURRENT SET OF RECORD DRAWINGS ON -SITE. 9. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE RECORD DRAWINGS PRIOR TO PROJECT FINAL APPROVAL. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND STREET MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR PUBLIC WORKS APPROVAL BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION. 11. ALL SURVEYING FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A WASHINGTON LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. VERTICAL DATUM SHALL BE NAVD 1988. FOR PROJECTS WITHIN A FLOOD CONTROL ZONE, THE PERMITTEE SHALL PROVIDE CONVERSION CALCULATIONS TO NGVD 1929. HORIZONTAL DATUM SHALL BE STATE PLANE COORDINATES. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE, OR RELOCATE ALL SIGNS DAMAGED OR REMOVED DUE TO CONSTRUCTION. Community Development GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. THE EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL (ESC) MEASURES ON THE APPROVED PLANS ARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 2. BEFORE BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ESTABLISH THE CLEARING LIMITS AND INSTALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND INSTALL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES. 3. BEFORE ANY GROUND DISTURBANCE OCCURS ALL DOWNSTREAM EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES (ESC) MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AND IN OPERATION. INSTALL AND MAINTAIN ALL ESC MEASURES ACCORDING TO THE ESC PLAN. 4. ESC MEASURES, INCLUDING ALL PERIMETER CONTROLS, SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FINAL SITE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED AND PERMANENT STABILIZATION IS 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. 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. A. PROTECT STOCKPILES AND STEEP CUT AND FILL SLOPES IF UNWORKED FOR MORE THAN 12 HOURS. B. STOCKPILE, ON SITE, ENOUGH COVER MATERIALS TO COVER ALL DISTURBED AREAS. 7. BY OCTOBER 8, SEED ALL AREAS THAT WILL REMAIN UNWORKED DURING THE WET SEASON (OCTOBER 1 THROUGH APRIL 30). MULCH ALL SEEDED AREAS. UTILITY NOTES 1. ALL TRENCH EXCAVATION OPERATIONS SHALL MEET OR EXCEED ALL APPLICABLE SHORING LAWS FOR TRENCHES. ALL TRENCH SAFETY SYSTEMS SHALL MEET WISHA REQUIREMENTS. 2. PLACE POWER, CABLE, FIBER OPTICS, AND TELEPHONE LINES S IN A TRENCH WITH A 5'NUNIMUM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION FROM OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 3. ADJUST ALL MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS, AND VALVES IN PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY OR EASEMENTS AFTER ASPHALT PAVING. WATER SUPPLY NOTES 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CORPORATE STOPS, WATER SERVICE LINES, 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, TEES, AND OTHER DIRECTION CHANGES. 5. ALL WATER MAINS SHALL HAVE A BLOW -OFF ASSEMBLY AT LOW POINT AND AN AIR VACUUM RELIEF VALVE AT HIGH POINT 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 OF AT LEAST 36° AND THE PUMPER PORT SHALL FACE STREET OR FIRE ACCESS. 7. THE INSTALLER OF A FIRE LINE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE INSTALLED OUTSIDE THE BUILDING AND UNDERGROUND, SHALL HAVE A LEVEL III CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY OR A LEVEL U CONTRACTORS CERTIFICATE OF COMPETENCY. IF THE INSTALLER IS DIFFERENT FROM THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DESIGNER, THE INSTALLER MUST STAMP, SIGN, AND DATE THE PLANS, IN ADDITION TO THE DESIGNER'S STAMP, SIGNATURE, AND DATE. 8. INSTALL WATER MAINS CROSSING SEWER LINES SO THAT THE BOTTOM OF THE WATER MAIN IS AT LEAST 18 INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE SEWER. LOCATE FULL SECTION OF WATER PIPE SO THAT ITS MIDPOINT IS ABOVE THE SEWER PIPE AT THE CROSSING. THIS INSTALLATION MAY REQUIRE SPECIAL STRUCTURAL SUPPORT FOR THE WATER AND SEWER PIPE. 9. INSTALL WATER SUPPLY LINES AT LEAST 10 FEET HORIZONTALLY, MEASURED EDGE TO EDGE, FROM ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED SEWER AND AT LEAST 18 INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF A SEWER. SRG PARTNERSHIP. INC 110 UNION, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM IC MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES B-52 Memorial Park - Public Works Permit Drawing Title NOTES Drawing scales indicated apply to 22" x 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate if drawing plots are less than this size. Revisions Number Description Date Drawn by Checked by Date 2016-02.09 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No (Tuner Project No Drawing No C003 J D C B 0 3 0 \MOF-B-52SitePrepC rr 0 o_ O PL, TYP LIMITS OF WORK, TYP COMPOST FILTER SOCK, TYP C101IC401 CB INSERT, TYP C101 C401 j SITE DEMOLITION LEGEND ITEMS TO BE REMOVED 0 REMOVE EXISTING TRAILERS. 02 REMOVE EXISTING POWER CONDUIT AND BREAKER BOX. @ REMOVE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION FENCE. 04 REMOVE EXISTING LUMINAIRE, POLE AND FOUNDATION. REMOVE EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS - STALL 0 PAINT STRIPING, CROSSWALKS, AND ARROWS. SEE NOTE 5. L ITEMS TO REMAIN <> EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN. • EXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPING AND CATCH BASIN TO O3 EXISTING WATER LINE TO REMAIN. O4 EXISTING POWER CONDUIT TO REMAIN. SEE NOTE 4. O5 EXISTING GENERATOR AND PAD TO REMAIN. NOTES. 1. SEE SHEET C001 FOR GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND, AND ABBREVIATIONS. 2. SEE SHEET C002 FOR TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES. 3. SEE SHEET C002 FOR SITE DEMOLITION NOTES. 4. COORDINATE POWER SERVICE TO NEW SITE LIGHTING WITH ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 5. LIMITS OF PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS. SEE SHEET C201 FOR PROPOSED PAVEMENT MARKINGS. ALL EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WORK SHALL REMAIN UNLESS NOTED FOR REMOVAL. 6. EXISTING PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE REMOVED BY WATER BLASTING, SAND BLASTING OR GRINDING. N /1/4ly1—`d. • rr,c 1 20 10 0 20 40 scale 1 = 20 ' feet (J, SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC 110 UNION, SUITE 300 SEATTLE. WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM .0 MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSC..IA-ES B-52 Memorial Park - . 11) rm Wm to 0 E 9) 3 � 4% 3 3 W 2 I A I— ▪ 3 Public Works Permit Drawing Title TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL AND SITE DEMOLITION PLAN Drawing scales indicated apph to 22" x 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be acarate ifdrawing plots are less than tits size. Revisions Number Description Date Drawn by Checked by Date 2015-0249 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No clol 2 3 J D C B 3 0 d \MOF-B-52SitePre rrLEJ PL, TYP 727 r'•^� ar7 rb :/ L. •n Community Development 0 0 = �1 PRECAST CONC WHEELSTOP, TYP LIMITS OF WORK, TYP 1 C2011C401 PRECAST CONC WHEELSTOP CENTERED ON STALL, TYP PI PVMT MARKING N 193,311.33 E 1,277,684.53 P1 PVMT MARKING N 193,306.69 E 1,277,667.78 PI PVMT MARKING N 193,306.7± E 1,277,663.2± INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY, SEE NOTE 4 CL SIGN N 193,285.83 E 1,277,653.76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2' TYP FRONT OF WHEELSTOP TO BACK OF STALL PVM T N 193,287.46 E 1,277,625.79 PI PVMT N 193,286.86 E 1,277,652.19 ADA PARKING SIGN C2011C401 PI PVMT MARKING N 193,278.72 E 1,277,656.40 P1 PVMT MARKING N 193,289.29 E 1,277,676.80 PI PVMT MARKING N 193,297.08 E 1,277,691.91 L PI PVMT MARKING N 193,310.20 E 1,277,740.50 PI PVMT MARKING N 193,305.83 E 1,277,708.80 ASPH CONC PVMT, TYP C2011C401 4" WIDE SOLID WHITE PAINT STRIPE, TYP 20 10 0 20 40 stole 1" = 20' feet 2' PI PVMT N 193,153.52 E 1,277,721.25 PI PVMT N 193,161.30 E 1,277,736.28 PI PVMT MARKING N 193,185.41 E 1,277,752.36 NOTES, 1. SEE SHEET C001 FOR GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND, AND ABBREVIATIONS. 2. SEE SHEET C002 FOR SITE AND PAVING NOTES. 3. SEE SHEET C002 FOR GRADING NOTES. 4. PAINT INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY WHERE INDICATED. SYMBOL SIZE AND COLOR SHALL BE PER THE MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SECTION 3B-19. PI PVMT MARKING N 193,307.5± E 1,277,741.8± PI PVMT N 193,156.92 E 1,277,763.29 PI PVMT N 193,153.72 E 1,277,764.95 PI PVMT MARKING N 193,193.05 E 1,277,745.45 0 \ k 0\ W \ D\\ PI PVMT MARKING \ \ N 193,201.94 E 1,277,762.61 PI PVMT N 193,156.02 E 1,277,769.39 PVMT PATCH * \•, PI PVMT MARKING 16,;'• N 193,202.6± E 1,277,785.5± \. 02 CROSSWALK, MATCH EXISTING CROSSWALK SIZE AND SPACING, TYP ALIGN STRIPING HATCH ANGLE AND SPACING WITH ADJACENT STRIPING HATCH, TYP �tS 3v ;-v=-ieT - cr SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC 110 UNION. SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM MAGNUSSON elm KLEMENCIC ASSCCIA'ES B-52 Memorial Park - Public Works Permit Dewing Title SITE, PAVING AND GRADING PLAN 9404 E Marginal Way S, 98108 Drawing scales indicated apply to 22' x 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate if drawing plots are less than this size. Revisions Number Description Date Drawn by Checked by Date 2018-02-09 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No C201 J D C B LAYOUT - 0 NU 0 07 O 0 op PL, TYP LIMITS OF WORK, TYP V .-- L-- ✓/—_—..��---- I NOTES 1. SEE SHEET C001 FOR GENERAL NOTES, LEGEND, AND ABBREVIATIONS. 2. SEE SHEET C002 FOR WATER NOTES. 3. METER BOX SHALL BE FOGTITE INC. NO. 3 METER BOX WITH CONCRETE LID AND DROP -IN INSPECTION PLATE. L -\ Jr 20 10 0 20 40 scale 1" = 20' feet \\ is \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ CONN TO EXIST 10" W \ 91. N 193,162.8± \ ° E 1,277,776.9± \ °i (1) 10"x3" SERVICE SADDLE \\ 442, {1) 3° CORP STOP \ (1) 3" GV W/ VALVE BOX \ N 193,157.12 \\ \ E 1,277,743.33 \ ' (1) 3"x2Y2" TEE \—"', `ri, .\--' (1) 2.) " GV W/ VALVE BOX „�-' Zo. (1) 3" CAP �'' TS \ \ FUTURE DOMESTIC WATER SERVICE AND BACKFLOW PREVENTER CONN TO IRRIGATION SERVICE. SEE IRRIGATION DWGS FOR CONT CL 2" WATER METER AND METER BOX N 193,155.88 E 1,277,750.94 WATER SERVICE COT SHT NO. W5-03 SEE NOTE 3 3 PI WATER • N 193,154.36 \ E 1,277,760.30 (1) 22X° & 11.25° BEND \ (1) 3"x2° REDUCER \ SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC 110 UNION, SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIA'ES B-52 Memorial Park - Public Works Permit Drawing The UTILITY PLAN Drawing scales indicated apply to 22" x 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate 9 drawing plots are less than thls size. Revlslons Number Description Date Drawn by Checked by Date 2016424)9 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No C301 D C EXIST FRAME AND GRATE RETRIEVAL STRAP CL EXIST CB FRAME & GRATE OVERFLOW PROTECTION EXIST GRADE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION 2"x2"x36" WOOD STAKE a8'MAX OC BLOWN/PLACED / ,- CONTINUOUS 12" DIA FILTER MEDIA _ COMPOST FILTER SOCK FLOW o IN SOIL FLOW GRAVEL INFILL CONTINUOUS 12" DIA COMPOST FILTER SOCK EXIST PVMT CMU ANCHOR BLOCKS ALT SIDES AT 10'-0" OC ON PAVEMENT NOTES NOTES 1. CATCH BASIN INSERTS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE CATCH BASINS NOTED ON PLAN. CATCH BASIN INSERT NTS C002, C101 Community g Development 0 >- 3 0 co CO 0 A 3 CC 0 N CO 6" i� WHEEL STOP ANCHOR SLEEVE - CL 6" SECTION FINISH GRADE PER PLAN WO ANCHOR HOLE, TYP CL PARKING STALL C401 6" �-i ICI i 12" 12" 24" 6'-0" 12" 'II III I 1' CENTER WHEEL STOPS IN PARKING STALL PRECAST CONCRETE WHEELSTOP NTS 0201 C401 1. COMPOST FILTER SOCK SHALL NOT BE USED FOR MORE THAN 3 MONTHS. REPLACE AS REQUIRED. COMPOST FILTER SOCK NTS 12'X18' MIN SIGN IDENTIFYING ACCESSIBILE PARKING SPACE SEE NOTE 1. SIGN AT SIM, SEE NOTE 2 NOTES. C101 C401 STD 2 ye. 0.D. STEEL POST WITH TOP CAP 5/8" THRU BOLT, NUT & WASHER (2 PER SIGN, TYP) DIM POINT, SEE PLAN 7 16" DIA CONC FINISH GRADE POST FOUNDATION 1. SIGNS INDENTIFYING ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. CHAPTER 51-20, FOR WASHINGTON BARRIER FREE DESIGN REGULATIONS, THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AND THE UNIFORM FEDERAL ACCESSABILITY STANDARDS FOR PAINTED AND SIGN LETTERING, SYMBOLS, SIZE LOCATIONS, GRAPHIC AND TEXT. 2. SIGN TEXT SHALL BE "PREFERRED PARKING FOR LOW -EMITTING AND FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLES: ZERO EMITTING VEHICLES PER CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD" OR "MINIMUM GREEN SCORE OF 40 PER AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR AN ENERGY EFFECIENT ECONOMY". ADA PARKING SIGN NTS C201 C401 FINISH GRADE ELEV SHOWN ON PLAN ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT NOTES: 1. SEE COMPACTED BASE COURSE COMPACTED SUBGRADE. NATIVE MATERIAL OR STRUCTURAL FILL FOR ASPHALT PAVEMENT JOINT DETAIL. C401 C402 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 3 NTS C201, C402 C401 cr SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC 110 UNION. SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM EC MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIATES B-52 Memorial Park - Public Works Permit Drawing The SECTIONS AND DETAILS Drawing scales indicated apply to 22' x 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate d drawing plots are less than this size. Revisions Number Desodption Date Drawn by Checked by Date 2016-02-09 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No C401 D C B 0 2/8/2016 4 23 PM DIM POINT ON PLAN NEW ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT - NEW COMPACTED AGGREGATE BASE COURSE SAWCUT FULL DEPTH BITUMINOUS TACK COAT EXIST ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT EXISTING AGGREGATE BASE COURSE OR CONCRETE BASE TO BE PROTECTED & REMAIN UNDISTURBED TO PREVENT LOSS OF DENSITY & SUPPORT UNDER EXISTING ASPHALT ASPHALT PAVEMENT JOINT DETAIL NTS C401, C402 C402 NEW ASPHALT CONC PVMT & BASE COURSE PER/ ' ' SIM OR MATCH EXIST C402 C401 THICKNESS, WHICHEVER IS THICKER EXIST PVMT-, TRENCH WIDTH 12" ASPHALT PVMT JOINT, TYP, C4021C402 E Z'M' IYjTe• is r..x . r PAVEMENT PATCH 2 NTS C201 C402 C.) cr SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC 110 UNION. SUITE 300 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 SRGPARTNERSHIP.COM MAGNUSSON KLEMENCIC ASSOCIA'ES B-52 Memorial Park - Public Works Permit Drawing Title SECTIONS AND DETAILS Drawing scales indicated apply to 22" z 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate if drawing plots are less than this size. Revisions Number Description Date Drawn by Checked by Date 2010.0249 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No C402 J D C E E 0 LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN "= 20' TREE PROTECTION NOTES: _ 1. CONTRACTOR TO RETAIN A PROFESSIONAL ARBORIST (PROJECT ARBORIST) TO PREPARE TREE, VEGETATION, AND SOIL PROTECTION PLAN (TVSPP) AND DIRECT ON PRUNING BRANCHES AND ROOTS, FERTILIZING AND WATERING. A rG 0) 2. CONTRACTOR TVSPP AND STAGING PLAN SHALL INCORPORATE CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL STORAGE PROHIBITION WITHIN THE DRIPLINE OF EXISTING TREES SHOWN TO REMAIN. DO NOT STACK OR STORE ANY EQUIPMENT, DISPOSE OF ANY MATERIALS, SUPPLIES OR FLUIDS WITHIN DRIPLINE. 3. INSTALL 3" DEPTH BARK MULCH ACROSS ENTIRE DRIPLINE AREA (ZONE B) PRIOR TO INSTALLING PROTECTION FENCING. TREE PROTECTION \DURING CONSTRUCTION 01-03 I z a. -.PEQ EQ,� PLAN z 0 b i 01-03I ) PICNIC TABLE, TYP. OWNER FURNISHED, OWNER INSTALLED EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. PROTECT IN PLACE. SEE 2/L1.00 PROTECTION FENCING 6' HT. CHAIN LINK FENCING TO BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED AT DRIPLINE OF EACH TREE OR AT PERIMETER OF A STAND OF TREES. PROJECT ARBORIST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR USE/ACCESS WITHIN ZONE B. PERMISSION FOR USE/ACCESS REQUIRES SURFACE PROTECTION FOR ALL UNFENCED, UNPAVED SURFACES WITHIN ZONE B. SURFACE PROTECTION MEASURES AS DIRECTED BY PROJECT ARBORIST. TRENCHING/EXCAVATION ZONE A (CRITICAL ROOT ZONE) 1. NO DISTURBANCE ALLOWED WITHOUT SITE —SPECIFIC INSPECTION BY PROJECT ARBORIST AND APPROVAL OF METHODS TO MINIMIZE ROOT DAMAGE. 2. SEVERANCE OF ROOTS LARGER THAN 2" DIA. REQUIRES PROJECT ARBORIST APPROVAL. ZONE B (DRIPLINE) 1. TRENCHING ALLOWED AS FOLLOWS: — EXCAVATION BY HAND OR WITH HAND —DRIVEN TRENCHER. — LIMIT TRENCH WIDTH. DO NOT DISTURB ZONE A. MAINTAIN 2/3 OR MORE OF ZONE B IN UNDISTURBED CONDITION. --T 20 40 60 80 FT GENERAL SCHEDULE SYMBOL 101-a2 101-031 n1 CCNCR0I DESCRIPTION PAVED AREA TO BE TRUEGRID "LIGHT LOAD" PERMEABLE PAVING ASSEMBLY. FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR MATERIALS AND INSTALLATION. ENSURE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS ON ADA COMPLIANCE ARE ADHERED TO. FINISHED TOP OF PERMEABLE PAVING GRADES TO MEET AND MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT PAVING. FINISHED TOP OF SOIL GRADES TO MEET AND MATCH ALL FINISHED TOP OF PAVING ELEVATIONS, BOTH EXISTING AND PROPOSED. AT EXISTING PAVING EDGES EXCAVATE AND DISPOSE# OF EXISTING SITE SOILS TO ALLOW FOR 12" MINIMIUM IMPORT SOIL DEPTHS. TRANSITION EXCAVATION FROM PAVING EDGE AT A 1:12 MAXIMUM SLOPE UP TO EXISTING GRADES. CONTINUE 12" DEPTH IMPORT TOPSOIL OVER PREPARED EXISTING GRADES. SCARIFY SUBGRADES OF ALL PLANTING AREAS 8" MIN. PRIOR TO TOPSOIL INCORPORATION. INSTALL 12" IMPORTED TOPSOIL IN ALL AREAS TO RECEIVE PLANTING. REFER TO SPEC SECTION 219100 PLANTING SOIL. 'SITE MIGHT CONTAIN SOIL WITH LOW LEVEL CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS (BELOW STATE CLEANUP LEVELS) FROM HISTORIC INDUSTRIAL SITE USE. EXCAVATED SOIL TO BE USED AS BACKFILL OR TO LEVEL OUT EXISTING GRADE WHERE POSSIBLE. CONTRACTOR TO DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCAVATION, BACKFILLING, AND/OR SOIL EXPORT AND DISPOSAL WITH GEOENGINEERS PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE LEGEND NATIVE AND ADAPTIVE SEED MIX 40% Carex densa 30% Carex tumulicola 10% Sisyrichium bellum 5% Allium cernuum 5% Clarkia amoena 5% Dodecatheon pulchellum 5% Aquilegia Formosa 1000 Camassia quamash 1000 Camassia leichtlinii subsp. sukdorf( 00 O EXST. TREE — PROTECTED IN PLACE • EXST. TREE — TO BE REMOVED TREE PROTECTION FENCING TREE# O TREE DRIPLINE TYP. TREE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE TREE PROTECTION NOTES * Contractor to engage certified arborist before beginning any work within tree driplines. 36,337 sf SRC PARTNERSHIP, INC LION, SUITE 300 "TLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 1RTNERSHIP.COM B-52 Memorial Park - Ph Public Works Permit Drawing Tile LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN Drawing scales indicated apply to 22" x 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate if drawing plots are less than this size. Revisions Number Description Date Drawn by Pv Checked by MB Date 2018-02-09 Project No 216013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No L1.00 NOT TO SCALE 1 2 3 4 D C B 08 08 IRRIGATION PLAN 112" 4D Y4 1-106 b 2" 103 08 /- PICNIC TABLE, TYP. OWNER FURNISHED, OWNER INSTALLED 14" 2" 08 I-104 2" 1" 1 ®ES 2 39 3 1 39. 212 2.. 2Vt"IRE 2Ve" ; 1 V 6 2" 2 14 114" 2" gill 2", 7 1" 39. 1"=20' IRRIGATION SCHEDULE SYMBOL 10 SYMBOL L1V MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION Hunter I-40-06-SS Turf Rotor, 6.0" Pop -Up. Adjustable to Full Circle. Drain Check Valve, Stainless Steel Riser, 1" Female NPT Inlet Threads, Standard Nozzle. Hunter I-40-04-SS (2) Turf Rotor, 4.0" Pop -Up. Adjustable to Full Circle. Drain Check Valve, Stainless Steel Riser, 1" Female NPT Inlet Threads, Standard Nozzle. MANUFACTURER/MODEUDESCRIPTION Rain Bird PEB 1", 1-1/2", 2" Plastic Industrial Valves. Low Flow Operating Capability, Globe Configuration. Rain Bird 44-LRC 1" Brass Quick -Coupling Valve, with Corrosion -Resistant Stainless Steel Spring, Locking Thermoplastic Rubber Cover, and 2-Piece Body. Buckner -Superior 3100-PRS 2" Normally Open Brass Master Valve that Provides Dirty Water Protection. Available in 1", 1-1/4", 1-1/2", 2", 2-1/2" and 3". Pressure Regulation Feature. Febco 825Y 2" Reduced Pressure Backflow Preventer PSI GPM RADIUS 80 13.0 51' 40 7.60 44' SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEUDESCRIPTION Rain Bird ESP8LXMEF-LXMM-LXMMPED 8 Station Capable Commercial Controller. Mounted on a Powder -Coated Metal Pedestal. Flow Sensing and Water Management Capabilities. Flow sensing. Rain Bird FS-200-P 2" Flow Sensor for use with Rain Bird Maxicom, SiteControl, and ESP-LXD Central Control Systems. Plastic (PVC) Model. Suggested Operating Range of 10.0 GPM to 200.0 GPM. Sensors should be sized for flow rather than pipe size. DM Deduct Meter Irrigation Lateral Line: Blu-Lock and PVC Class 200 Blu-Lock pipe, as manufactured by Hydro Rain, 1/2" to 1", then PVC Class 200 for 1-1/4" and larger. Only lateral transition pipe sizes 1" and above are indicated on the plan, with all others being 3/4" in size. - - - - Irrigation Mainline: PVC Schedule 40 Valve Calked Valve Number Valve Dow Vance s:e 55- 5 212' 2' 212" 2" 08 IRRIGATION SCHEDULE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION II-1011 11-1021 II-1031 II-1041 II-1051 11-106] 2Vi" CD CD El MICE 20 40 60 80 FT VALVE SCHEDULE CONNECT TO NEW WATER METER. REF. CIVIL IRRIGATION VALVES TO BE PLACED IN PLANTING AREA TYP. VALVES SHOWN ARE FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLY. ALL LATERAL LINES TO BE BURIED MIN. 12" BELOW SURFACE IRRIGATION LATERALS SHALL BE PLACED IN PLANTING AREAS ON PROJECT PROPERTY, TYP. LATERAL LINE SHOWN IN PAVED AREAS ARE FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY ONLY. GROUP LATERALS IN COMMON TRENCH WHEN POSSIBLE 1-1/2" DEDUCT METER. CITY OF TUKWILA STANDARD WS-03 PROTECT EXISTING TREES IN PLACE. MINIMIZE IRRIGATION TRENCHING W/ IN ROOT ZONE AS DEPICTED IN DIAGRAM NUMBER MODEL SIZE TYPE WIRE PSI 1 Rain Bird PEB 1" Turf Rotor 119.5 59.02 2 Rain Bird PEB 1" Turf Rotor 112.3 95.36 3 Rain Bird PEB 1" Turf Rotor 107.6 95.59 4 Rain Bird PEB 1" Turf Rotor 100.4 97.12 5 Rain Bird PEB 1" Turf Rotor 93.2 94.56 6 Rain Bird PEB 1" Turf Rotor 86.3 91.59 7 Rain Bird PEB 1" Turf Rotor 80.1 95.63 109.56 Common Wire 120.7 PSI @ POC 76.12 109.45 109.66 GPM HEAD ELEV VALVE ELEV PRECIP 59.60 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 1.48 in/h 39.00 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 1.57 in/h 39.00 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.58 in/h 33.60 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 1.09 in/h 39.00 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 0.50 in/h 20.60 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 1.37 in/h 39.00 0.00 ft 0.00 ft 1.52 in/h QTY DETAIL cr SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC JION, SUITE 300 "TLE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 1RTNERSHIP.COM B-52 Memorial Park - Ph Public Works Permit Drawing Title IRRIGATION PLAN Drawing scales indicated apply to 22" x 34' drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate if drawing plots am lass than this size. Revisions Number Description Date Drawn by Pv Checked by MB Date 2016-02-09 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Protect No Drawing No L4.00 D C B DIRECTION OF FLOW EXISTING POTABLE WATER SUPPLY LINE. VERIFY LINE SIZE IN FIELD \off O �JF, \- cy- JG. Q2 F \<k- OP& ��G S d NOTES: 1. ALL PIPING TO BE 2.5" PVC UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. MINIMUM LENGTH OF STRAIGHT PIPE WITH NO FITTINGS ON EACH SIDE OF FLOW SENSOR - UPSTREAM: 10 PIPE DIAMETERS. DOWNSTREAM: 5 PIPE DIAMETERS. POINT OF CONNECTION ASSEMBLY DIAGRAM SCALE: NTS • / / / NOTE: USE TEFLON TAPE ON ALL THREADED FITTINGS QUICK COUPLER VALVE FINISH GRADE 10" DIA. VALVE BOX WITH LOCKING LID 1" BRASS QUICK COUPLER VALVE BACKFILL WITH SELECT MATERIAL FILTER FABRIC (TYP.) 3" OF PEA GRAVEL COMPACTED BACKFILL MATERIAL 1" SCH 40 GALVANIZED TRIPLE SWING JOINT ASSEMBLY (TYP.) SCH 80 PVC THREADED FITTING (TYP.) SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" V. L4.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS.DWG DE ;�i>//JU B�O VALVEBOX ` W/ LOCKING LID \/ EXTENSIONS (AS REQ'D) .WATERTIGHT WIRE SPLICES (TYP) \, 1141011111.01110 , I\ hilt SCH 80 PVC THREADED FITTINGS & ADAPTERS CONTROL WIRES (BUNDLED UNDER MAINLINE) MAINLINE CUT NOTCHES IN BOX FOR PIPE AS REO'D AT EACH END UNION (2 PLACES) AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVE 3" OF PEA GRAVEL NOTE: CUT "U" SHAPED NOTCHES IN BOTH SIDES OF VALVE BOX THAT ALLOW 2" MIN. CLEARANCE FROM TOP OF PIPE TO TOP OF CUT-OUT. USE TEFLON TAPE ON ALL THREADED FITTINGS. AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVE SCAI.F: 1" = 1'-0" 1_4.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS.DWG z a NOTE: SITE MIGHT CONTAIN SOIL WITH LOW LEVEL CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS (BELOW STATE CLEANUP LEVELS) FROM HISTORIC INDUSTRIAL SITE USE. EXCAVATED SOIL TO BE USED AS TRENCH BACKFILL WHERE POSSIBLE. CONTRACTOR TO DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCAVATION, BACKFILLING AND/OR SOIL EXPORT AND DISPOSAL WITH GEOENGINEERS PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK. I LH 1 1=1 III III=1 I-111-11 I - ATTACH IRRIGATION WIRE TO MAINLINE AT INTERVALS OF 15'-0" IRRIGATION TRENCH SCALE: 1" = 1-0" INSTALL EXTENSIONS UNDER BOX SPARE WIRE UNION GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TOP OF SOIL COVER CLEAN AND LIGHTLY COMPACTED BACKFILL TRACKING TAPE 6" ABOVE PIPE LATERAL LINE MAINLINE L4.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS.DWG k`/ VALVE BOX W/ LOCKING LID, TYP 3MM OR EQUAL WATERTIGHT SPLICES MASTER VALVE VALVE BOX EXTENSIONS TYP. 3" OF 1 4" WASHED ROCK / SCH 40 FITTINGS & ADAPTORS (TYP) UNDER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MASTER VALVE & FLOW SENSOR NOT TO SCALE 6"MAX w ASPHALT, CONCRETE, MASONRY OR CRUSHED ROCK SURFACE 10 X PIPE I . MIN FROM FITTING TO FLOW SENSOR SCH 40 PVC GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 3" OF 1 Z" WASHED ROCK UNDER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PLASTIC SPRAY NOZZLE (SEE IRRIGATION SCHEDULE) FINISH GRADE POP UP SPRAY HEAD SWING JOINT ASSEMBLY DETECT -A -TAPE IN TRENCH (BLUE) SCH 80 PVC TEE, FITTINGS, & ADAPTORS (AS REQUIRED) PVC CLASS 200 LATERAL NOTE: USE TEFLON TAPE ON ALL THREADED FITTINGS POP UP SPRAY HEAD SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" L4.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS.DWG ALL FITTINGS BRASS PVC MALE ADAPTER MAINLINE COUPLER F.G. UTILITY VAULT MODEL #25TA OR EQUAL APPROVED RPBP BRASS UNION 4/'\\ 2//V/% '// ALL PVC FITTINGS SHALL BE SCH 40 NOTE: SIZE ALL PIPE AND FITTINGS TO DESIGN SPECS -SEAL INLET AND OUTLET OF VAULT WITH CONCRETE. BRASS ALL BRASS TO METER ADAPTER PVC ALL BRASS FITTINGS AND PIPE SHALL BE DOMESTIC MANUFACTURED REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEBMLY (RPBP) NOT TO SCALE L4.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS.DWG 5 X PIPE I . MIN FROM FLOW SENSOR TO FIRST FITTING /,.// SUPER SERVICESEAL SPLICE KIT (SEE SPECS) FLOW SENSOR PE-89 SHEILDED COMMUNICATION CABLE (MAXI WIRE) TO CONTROLLER FIRST ELBOW, JOINT OR FITTING (CL. 200 PVC BEYOND) NOTE: USE TEFLON TAPE ON ALL THREADED FITTINGS. L4.10 IRRIGATION DETAILS.DWG SRG PARTNERSHIP, INC 8ON, SUITE 300 7-LE, WA 98101 206 973 1700 >RTNERSHIP.COM IIIIIIIIII� B-52 Memorial Park - Ph Public Works Permit Drawing Title IRRIGATION DETAILS Drawing scales indicated apply to 22' x 34" drawing sheets. Scale may not be accurate if drawing plots are less than this size. Revisions Number Description Date Drawn by Pv Checked by MS Date 2016-02-09 Project No 215013 Consultant Project No Owner Project No Drawing No L4.10 0 SITE PLAN ImE2411100. Ort re , VetioVIA TO° '0 • V)00 Existing B.E.A.R.S, Trailers <•(` • • • 0 0 Proposed Transformer Decomposed Granite and Concrete Beach Pebble Edge Condition Grass Mound for Play/ Seating Mound w/ Pathway and Destination Peeled Logs Wood and Steel Bench Pole Tight and Security Camera Wood and Steel Picnic Table Rain Garden - Perenial and Grass mix r'+{ - • - i ` • �_ jai ;. y. Ti-Ys • If • t r r� Meadow - NW Native Seed Mix Vertical Elements - Field it I mie r tlim Wall with Engraving Plaque Plinth