Lincoln High School, 4400 Interlake Avenue North, Seattle ...€¦ · Lincoln High School, PUBLIC...

WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS).

DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE

LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL MODERNIZATION PROJECT

.

Proponent. Seattle Public SchoolsSEATTLE

Location of proposal, including street address, if any. Lincoln High School, PUBLIC4400 Interlake Avenue North, Seattle, Washington. SCHOOLS

Description of Proposal. Seattle Public Schools (SPS) is proposing to modernize the existingLincoln High School building and reopen it as a comprehensive high school. The project wouldbe funded by the BEX IV Capital Improvement Program, which was approved by voters inFebruary 2013. Some building infrastructure improvements included in the project would befunded by the BTA IV Program, which was approved by voters in February 2016. Theenrollment capacity of the reopened Lincoln High School would be 1,600 students, includingstudents in the Skill Center for Health Science and Medical Assisting.

Lincoln High School, located in the Wallingford neighborhood, was originally constructed in1907 and was used as a high school until 1981. The site was unused until 1997 when SPS startedusing the building as an interim school and it has housed various SPS schools including highschools, since then. The building is currently home to Cascadia Elementary School, LictonSprings K-8 School, and a Skill Center for Health Sciences and Medical Assisting. Permanentbuildings for Cascadia Elementary School and Licton Springs K-8 School are currently underconstruction and the programs will relocate to those buildings in fall 2017. The Skill Centerwould continue to be housed in the Lincoln Building after it is reopened as a high school.

Before reopening, the existing buildings would be renovated and reconfigured. Most of themodernization consists of reconfiguring interior spaces to accommodate classrooms, lab spaces,teacher and student support spaces, a library, a performing arts space, and new offices. A newADA-accessible entry would be constructed at the north side of the central wing where itconnects to the north wing. Aside from a service room addition between the central wing andnorth wing, the existing building footprints would not be expanded. Several small structureslocated between the wings of the school and the exterior covered walkway canopies would bedemolished to create an open space for student use. The north end parking area would berepaved and reconfigured and parking spaces in the southern lot would be retained to provide 162parking spaces plus a bus load/unload area with room for five Special Education (SPED) buses.Other site improvements would include excavation and grading, stormwater improvements, treeplanting, and landscaping.

The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significantadverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is notrequired under RCW 43.2 1C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completedenvironmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This informationis available to the public on request at the following location: ). John Stanford Center, 2445Third Avenue South, Seattle (Attn: Steve Moore, Phone: 206-678-5981) and on line athttps://www.seatleschools.org/cms/aspx?pageld 1d16889.

D There is no comment period for this DNS.

D This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-3 55. There is nofurther comment period on the DNS.

This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposalprior to January 30, 2017 (15 days from the date below plus allowance for the holiday).

This DNS may be appealed by written notice setting forth specific factual objections received nolater than January 30, 2017 (15 days plus allowance for the holiday), sent to:

SuperintendentSeattle Public SchoolsBox 34165, MS 32-15 1Seattle, WA 98124-1165SEPA.DNS.AppeaI(seattleschools.orgFax: (206) 252-0209

Name of agency making threshold determination. Seattle Public Schools

Responsible official Pegi McEvoy, Assistant Superintendent for Operations

Position/title Seattle Public Schools SEPA Official

Phone (206) 252-0102

Date / Signature

2

Lincoln High School

Modernization Project

SEPA Checklist

January 2017

PREPARED FOR:

SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2445 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH

SEATTLE, WA 98134

PREPARED BY:

ESA 5309 SHILSHOLE AVENUE

NW, STE. 200 SEATTLE, WA 98107

SEPA Environmental Checklist

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................ i

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ......................................................................................................... 1

A. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS .............................................................................................. 5

1. Earth .................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Air ....................................................................................................................................... 6

3. Water ................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Plants ................................................................................................................................. 10

5. Animals ............................................................................................................................. 12

6. Energy and Natural Resources .......................................................................................... 13

7. Environmental Health ....................................................................................................... 14

8. Land and Shoreline Use .................................................................................................... 17

9. Housing ............................................................................................................................. 20

10. Aesthetics .......................................................................................................................... 20

11. Light and Glare ................................................................................................................. 21

12. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 21

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation .................................................................................... 22

14. Transportation ................................................................................................................... 24

15. Public Services .................................................................................................................. 31

16. Utilities.............................................................................................................................. 32

C. SIGNATURE ................................................................................................................................ 33

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 35

FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 39

APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ADDENDUM FOR SITE PLAN REVISIONS ... 41

APPENDIX C: TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 43

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................................................................ 45

Figure 1: Project Vicinity Figure 2: Project Area and Existing Facilities Figure 3: Site Plan

January 2017 Page i

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

A. BACKGROUND

1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable:

Lincoln High School Modernization Project

2. Name of Applicant:

Seattle Public Schools (SPS)

3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Steve Moore Seattle Public Schools 2445 3rd Ave S Seattle, WA 98134 (206) 678-5981

4. Date checklist prepared:

January 2017

5. Agency requesting checklist:

Seattle Public Schools (SPS)

6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):

Construction is expected to begin in summer 2017 and to be completed in August 2019.

7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.

In addition to developing the Lincoln High School Modernization Project described in this document, SPS has developed a master plan for future upgrades at Lincoln High School. The master plan projects have not been fully developed, are not scheduled or funded, and are not evaluated in this SEPA Checklist. This work would be undertaken with future capital levy funding and would undergo SEPA review if the projects are carried forward.

The master plan includes replacement of the gymnasium and auditorium/ performing arts buildings with a new building addition. The master plan could also include replacement of a portion of the parking lot at the north end of the site with an athletic practice field.

January 2017 Page 1

8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.

Building Excellence Phase IV (BEX IV) Capital Improvement Program Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, ESA, July 2012

Buildings, Technology, Academics/Athletics Phase IV (BTA IV) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, ESA, July 2016

Cultural Resources Review Memo, ESA, July 2016

Transportation Technical Report, Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2016

Transportation Addendum for Site Plan Revisions, Heffron Transportation, Inc., December 2016

Geotechnical Report: Interim Ballard High School at Lincoln High School, Seattle, Washington, Shannon & Wilson, Inc., April 1997

Landmark Nomination Application, The Johnson Partnership, October 2015

Preliminary Limited Hazardous Materials Survey Report, PBS Engineering and Environmental, June 2016.

Tree Inventory and Assessment, Tree Solutions, Inc., November 2016

9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.

SPS is currently negotiating with the Seattle Landmarks Board on the Controls and Incentives Agreement for Lincoln High School. The Agreement is scheduled to be completed by November 2017.

10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known: The following permits would be needed:

• Demolition

• Grading

• Building/Mechanical

• Stormwater Control

• A Certificate of Appropriateness from the City of Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board

Page 2 January 2017

11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page.

Seattle Public Schools (SPS) is proposing to modernize the existing Lincoln High School building and reopen it as a comprehensive high school. The project would be funded by the BEX IV Capital Improvement Program, which was approved by voters in February 2013. Some building infrastructure improvements included in the project would be funded by the BTA IV Program, which was approved by voters in February 2016. The enrollment capacity of the reopened Lincoln High School would be 1,600 students, including students in the Skill Center for Health Science and Medical Assisting.

Lincoln High School, located in the Wallingford neighborhood (Figure 1), was originally constructed in 1907 and was used as a high school until 1981. The site was unused until 1997 when SPS started using the building as an interim school. Since then the site has temporarily housed various SPS schools, including elementary, middle, and high schools. The building is currently home to Cascadia Elementary School, Licton Springs K-8 School, and a Skill Center for Health Sciences and Medical Assisting. Permanent buildings for Cascadia Elementary School and Licton Springs K-8 School are currently under construction and the programs will relocate to those buildings in fall 2017. The Skill Center would continue to be housed in the Lincoln Building after it is reopened as a high school.

The Lincoln High School campus includes five buildings built at different times (Figure 2). Before reopening, the existing buildings would be renovated and reconfigured. Aside from a service room addition (described below), the existing building footprints would not be expanded.

• The central wing (originally constructed in 1907) would be renovated to add a new two-story common space, new offices, classrooms, labs, and other student and teacher support space. A new ADA-accessible entry would be constructed at the north side of the central wing where it connects to the north wing.

• The north wing (originally constructed in 1914) would be reconfigured to expand classroom space, add building support space, and add a high school library, all within the existing building.

• A north service wing addition would be constructed between the central wing and north wing. The service wing would include a loading dock, custodial space, electrical rooms, mechanical rooms, and a boiler room.

• The south wing (originally constructed in 1931) would be reconfigured to hold classroom and lab spaces.

• The gymnasium building (originally constructed in 1959) would largely remain configured as it is currently. Several nonstructural partitions in the gymnasium basement would be relocated to accommodate program requirements.

January 2017 Page 3

• The auditorium/performing arts building (originally constructed in 1959) would largely remain as is. The raked floor of the small theater would be infilled to create a level floor and allow the space to be used as a multi-purpose performing arts support space.

Several small structures located between the wings of the school would be demolished, including the 1986 steam boiler equipment building, the 1997 hot water boiler equipment building, the 1911 brick boiler room and its decommissioned boiler equipment, the 1955 brick transformer vault, and the 1959 storage shed. Exterior covered walkway canopies between the east and west buildings, constructed in 1959, would also be demolished. The courtyard between the east and west buildings would be regraded and redeveloped as open space for student use.

The north parking lot would be reconfigured and some existing parking for staff in the southern portion of the site would be retained. In total, the site would have 210 parking spaces available for regular school-day demand including: 185 in the northern parking lot; three staff spaces in the delivery/loading area; and 22 spaces in the southern lot. In addition, the proposal includes an on-site load/unload zone for five 25-foot Special Education (SPED) buses. That area would accommodate approximately six additional parked cars for evening or weekend events. SPS plans to renew a lease with the adjacent Solid Ground Building for the 48 parking spaces in the northeast corner of the site. With that lease-renewal, the regular school-day supply of parking would be 162 spaces which is more than the City’s minimum code requirement (161 spaces) determined by DCI in October 2016. Other site improvements would include excavation and grading, stormwater improvements, tree planting, and landscaping.

12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist.

The proposed project is located at 4400 Interlake Avenue N, Seattle, Washington, 98103. The project site is bounded by Woodlawn Avenue N to the east, N 43rd Street to the south, Interlake Avenue N to the west, and commercial structures to the north.

The site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 18, Township 25 North, Range 4 East Willamette Meridian. The legal description of the site is “SMITH & BURNS ADD ALL BLKS 8-9 & BLK 1 FERGUSONS ADD & LOTS 3 THRU 6 BLK 5 & ALL BLK 6 & VAC STS & POR VAC ST ADJ LAKE UNION ADD & LOTS 13 THRU 24 BLK 1 SMITH & BURNS ADD.”

Page 4 January 2017

Figure 1 shows the project vicinity. Figure 2 shows the project area. Figure 3 shows the site plan.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS

1. Earth

A geotechnical investigation was performed at the project site by Shannon & Wilson Inc. in April 1997 (Shannon & Wilson, 1997). The work included a review of existing subsurface information for the property as well as drilling four soil borings on the project site. Information from this report is presented in this section and incorporated throughout the SEPA Checklist.

a. General description of the site (underline):

Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other ___________

The site is generally flat, with approximately 20 feet of relief across the site from the east to west.

b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?

The steepest slopes are at the southwest corner of the site and are roughly at a 35-degree slope. No slopes on the site meet applicable definitions as Steep Slope areas in accordance with Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 25.09.020. The nearest steep slope area is located approximately 75 feet to the west of the project site.

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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils.

Soil borings in 1997 found that soils on the site were made up of layers of manmade fill and sand deposits. Fill was encountered up to 11.5 feet below ground surface and consisted of loose to medium dense, slightly silty to silty fine to medium sand (Shannon & Wilson, 1997).

d. Are there any surface indications or a history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.

There are no potential slide, known slide, or liquefaction areas mapped by the City of Seattle on or near the project site.

January 2017 Page 5

e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities of total affected area of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.

Approximately 2,500 cubic yards would be excavated. Approximately 315 cubic yards of clean fill would be required from a source approved by the City of Seattle.

f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe.

Construction activities could cause erosion on the site. Erosion potential would be reduced in compliance with current Ecology Construction Storm Water General Permit requirements through an erosion control plan consistent with City of Seattle standards (SMC 22.800) and implementation of best management practices (BMPs).

g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?

Approximately 80 percent of the site is currently covered with impervious surfaces. No new impervious surface would be added as part of the project.

h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any:

Temporary erosion and sedimentation control BMPs and construction water quality treatment measures would be installed to minimize erosion and to treat stormwater runoff during construction. BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified by SPS in the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to implement.

2. Air

a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known.

During construction, there would be a small increase in exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and a temporary increase in fugitive dust due to earthwork for the project. The most noticeable increase in emissions and fugitive dust would occur during demolition and earthwork. Exhaust emissions would also be generated from construction employee and equipment traffic to and from the site.

Page 6 January 2017

The Skill Center for Health Sciences and Medical Assisting would not be impacted by construction dust because it would be temporarily relocated during construction.

Some food would be prepared in the on-site kitchen, while other food production for the high school would be done at a central kitchen and delivered to the site. Any odors from food production, food warming, or other future kitchen uses would be controlled with the use of exhaust hoods.

b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.

There are no off-site sources of emissions or odors that would affect the proposed project.

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any.

The contractor chosen for the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations. Regulations that apply to the proposed project include Regulation I, 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 I, Section 9.15 prohibiting the emission of fugitive dust, unless reasonable precautions are employed to minimize the emissions.

To reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction vehicles leaving the site, the contractor would be required to establish wheel-cleaning stations at the exits from the site if necessary. Streets would be regularly swept to remove dust and debris from construction vehicles.

3. Water

a. Surface Water:

1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into.

There are no surface water bodies on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.

January 2017 Page 7

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 would not require any work over, in, or adjacent to any surface water bodies.

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.

The proposed project would not require any work in or near surface water, and would not place any amount of fill or dredge material in surface waters or associated wetlands.

4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if known.

The project would not require surface water withdrawals or diversions.

5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan.

The proposal is not located within a 100-year floodplain.

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.

The project would not involve the discharge of waste materials to any surface waters. All waste materials from the project, including grading spoils and demolition debris, would be transported off-site to an appropriate disposal facility. BMPs to control runoff specific to the site and project would be specified by SPS in the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to implement.

Page 8 January 2017

b. Groundwater:

1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known.

No groundwater would be withdrawn as part of the project and no water would be discharged to groundwater. The geotechnical exploration borings described above in Section 1, which were extended to depths of 21.5 or 31.5 feet, did not find groundwater (Shannon & Wilson, 1997).

2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.

No waste material would be discharged into the ground. The project site would not utilize septic tanks.

c. Water Runoff (including stormwater)

1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.

The new building and adjacent surfaces would generate runoff. The existing site runoff is collected in an underground storm drain system and conveyed to the City's combined sewer overflow (CSO) system. The stormwater requirements for discharging to the combined sewer include flow control and on-site stormwater management. A small stormwater detention area would be constructed under the parking lot. Pervious pavement, bioswales, and rain gardens would be constructed around the site to reduce runoff.

2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe.

During construction, contamination could enter surface waters. Generally this is limited to sedimentation loading. Measures to

January 2017 Page 9

control contamination entering surface waters are discussed below in Section 3.d.

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any:

During construction, BMPs would be implemented to ensure that sediment originating from disturbed soils would be retained within the limits of disturbance. BMPs may include installation of a rock construction entrance, catch basin filters, interceptor swales, hay bales, sediment traps, and other appropriate cover measures. BMPs specific to the site and project would be specified by SPS in the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to implement.

4. Plants

a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:

_X_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other

_X_evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other

_ X _shrubs: ornamental

_ X _grass

____pasture

____crop or grain

____orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops

____wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other

____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other

____other types of vegetation (see below)

A tree survey, conducted by Tree Solutions Inc., inventoried 44 trees measuring 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height on the school property (Tree Solutions, 2016; Appendix C). Tree species on the site include European beech (Fagus sylvatic), deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), littleleaf linden (Tilia cordata), and English yew (Taxus baccata). The trees are mostly in good health and structural condition, though some trees have very restricted growing spaces and some trees are covered by a significant amount of invasive ivy. Fifteen of the 44 trees assessed qualify as exceptional trees, per Seattle Director’s Rule 16‐2008. An additional 23 trees were inventoried within the City of Seattle road right-of-way (ROW) adjacent to the site.

Page 10 January 2017

b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?

Up to 15 trees would be removed from the site, three of which are exceptional trees. Two of the exceptional trees proposed for removal are deodar cedars that flank the existing main entrance (Photo 1). These trees are growing immediately adjacent to the building and compromise the structure because they overlap the roof and the roots cause damage to the building foundation. The two cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera) trees in front of the entrance would remain. One other exceptional tree, a beech, and one non-exceptional tree, a horse chestnut tree (Aesculus hippocastanum), would be removed to accommodate the ADA entrance.

The other non-exceptional trees proposed for removal are located around the property. Several are located too close to the existing buildings and some are in declining health. Two trees on the east side of the property would be removed to improve access to the north parking lot.

Photo 1. Exceptional deodar cedar trees proposed for removal. Photo by Tree Solutions, Inc. (2016).

January 2017 Page 11

c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.

The project site, comprised almost entirely of school buildings and asphalt, does not contain any documented threatened or endangered plant species (WNHP, 2013).

d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:

Planting areas would be included on the west end of the site near the new main entry and throughout the central courtyard. Raingardens would be included in some areas. Drought tolerant native and adapted species of plants would be used.

SPS will comply with Seattle’s tree protection ordinance for the removal of exception trees. The ordinance requires the one-to-one replacement of exceptional trees and replacement trees must be of a similar type, approved by the Director of DCI, and must provide, upon maturity, a canopy cover equal or greater to that prior to tree removal (SMC 25.11.090). SPS will replace any non-exceptional trees that are removed according to City requirements. The landscaping and planting plans would be reviewed by DCI prior to issuance of a master use permit.

Existing trees on the site would be protected to the extent possible. SPS is working with Tree Solutions, Inc. to develop measures to protect the trees that would remain on site both during construction and after.

5. Animals

a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site.

Animals observed on the site are restricted to typical urban birds and animals.

Fish: not applicable

Amphibians: none observed

Reptiles: none observed

Birds: species adapted to urban areas such as gulls, American crow, rock pigeon, chickadee, robin, Steller’s jay, northern flicker, red-breasted nuthatch, and Bewick’s wren.

Mammals: species adapted to urban areas such as Norway rat, raccoon, opossum


b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on near the site.

No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species program has mapped two bald eagle breeding area approximately 0.7 miles to the northwest in Woodland Park. Bald eagles occasionally roost in tall trees on the school property.

The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species program also maps a waterfowl concentration area at Green Lake, approximately 0.8 miles to the north of the project site (WDFW, 2016). The proposed project would not affect any of these areas.

c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.

The Puget Sound area is located within the Pacific Flyway, which is a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other avian fauna. The Pacific Flyway extends south from Alaska to Mexico and South America. No portion of the proposed project would interfere with or alter the Pacific Flyway.

d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any.

The project is not expected to have any negative impacts on animals within or near the project site; therefore, no mitigation is required. Some birds and animals may be disturbed during construction, but would return following construction. Most of the construction for the modernization project would be interior work which would reduce disturbance to birds and animals. While two large trees near the entrance of the school would be removed, other tall trees would remain on the site and be available for eagle roosting.

6. Energy and Natural Resources

a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.

Electricity and natural gas would be required to operate the school’s new renovated rooms and offices.

b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.

The newly renovated rooms and offices would not block the use of solar energy by adjacent properties. No other aspect of the project would interfere with solar energy use by others.


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:

Energy conservation features would include those required to meet or exceed the requirements of the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol, which is equivalent to LEED Silver or better, and the Seattle Energy Code.

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.

Accidental spills of hazardous materials from equipment and vehicles could occur during construction. However, a spill prevention and control plan would be developed to prevent the accidental release of contaminants into the environment.

1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses.

According to the Department of Ecology Facility/Site(s) database, the Lincoln High School site is not known to be contaminated (Ecology, 2016).

2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity.

Several existing small structures would be demolished, including a steam boiler equipment building, hot water boiler equipment building, brick boiler room and equipment, and brick transformer vault, all of which could potentially contain hazardous chemicals or conditions.

The Hazardous Materials Survey Report developed by PBS Engineering and Environmental found asbestos-containing materials, lead-containing paint, and mercury-containing light tubes in the existing buildings at Lincoln High School. No PCB light ballasts were observed, but there is potential for a limited number of older PCB light ballasts to exist in the school (PBS, 2016).


3. Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project.

Chemicals stored and used during construction would be limited to gasoline and other petroleum based products required for maintenance and operation of construction equipment and vehicles.

During operation of the high school, chemicals stored and used on site would be limited to cleaning supplies and chemicals needed for chemistry classes. These chemicals would be stored in safe locations.

4. Describe special emergency services that might be required.

No special emergency services would be required. The project would widen an access lane between auditorium and south wing buildings to 20 feet to meet fire access standards.

5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any:

Site-specific pollution prevention plans and spill prevention and control plans would be developed to prevent or minimize impacts from hazardous materials.

Where hazardous materials, such as asbestos-containing materials, lead-containing paint/components, PCB light ballasts, and mercury-containing light tubes, are present, construction would comply with applicable regulations for removal and disposal.

b. Noise

1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?

There are no existing sources of noise in the area that would adversely affect the proposal. Lincoln High School is located less than 150 feet from N 45th Street, a major arterial street which generates traffic noise.


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.

Vehicle and equipment operation during construction could cause noise impacts to nearby residents. Construction hours and noise levels would comply with the City of Seattle noise standards.

Maximum permissible sound levels in residential communities are not to exceed 55 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)s). However, construction activities are permitted to exceed the established maximum level by 25 dB(A) by the Seattle Noise Control Ordinance (SMC 25.08.425). Maximum permissible sound levels established in SMC 25.08.425 may be exceeded by construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends.

Expanded enrollment at Lincoln High School would cause an increase in sound from human voices and from cars in the immediate vicinity during daytime hours. If more evening events are held at the school, they would generate some additional noise as people arrive and depart the building. This increased noise is expected to be minor and no events would be scheduled to end past 10 p.m. Increases in noise would be short-term and would not violate noise regulations.

3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:

Construction activities would be restricted to hours and levels designated by SMC 25.08.425. Maximum permissible sound levels established in SMC 25.08.425 may be exceeded by construction activities between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends. If construction activities exceed permitted noise levels, SPS would instruct the contractor to implement measures to reduce noise impacts to comply with the Noise Control Ordinance, which could include additional muffling of equipment. While construction noise is permitted during evenings and weekends, construction would generally occur between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.


8. Land and Shoreline Use

a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe.

The site is used as a school and currently houses Cascadia Elementary School, Licton Springs K-8 School, and the Skill Center for Health Sciences and Medical Assisting. The building was originally constructed as a high school in 1907 and the site was used as a high school until 1981. The site was then unused until 1997 when SPS started using the site as an interim school. Since then, the site has temporarily housed various SPS schools, including elementary, middle, and high schools.

The school is located in a residential neighborhood. The current zoning classification of the school site is low-rise. Areas to the south and east are zoned SF 5000 (residential single family 5,000). There are single-family and low-rise multi-family residences to the west, east and south of the school. Commercial development is located north of the project area along North 45th Street. Wallingford Playfield is located one block to the southeast and Hamilton International Middle Schools is located two blocks to the southeast.

The project would not affect current land uses. The site has been used as a school and would continue to be used as a school.

The Seattle Municipal Code contains development standards for public schools in residential zones in SMC 23.51B.002. The Seattle Land Use Code (Chapter 23.79) includes a procedure by which departures from the required development standards of the code can be granted for public school structures. The departure process requires SPS to apply to the Director of DPD for departures.

The Lincoln High School Modernization Project does not include any actions that would require a departure from standards for lot coverage, height, or bulk of the building.

Permanent buildings for Cascadia Elementary School and Licton Springs K-8 School are currently under construction and the programs will relocate to those buildings in fall 2017. The Skill Center would continue to be housed in the Lincoln Building after it is reopened as a high school.


b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use?

The site is not currently and has not been previously used for working farmlands or working forest lands. No agricultural or forest land would be converted to other uses.

1. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how:

No working farm or forest lands are located near the proposed project, so the project would not affect or be affected by farm or forest land operations.

c. Describe any structures on the site.

Structures on the project site include five buildings: the central wing, north wing, south wing, gymnasium, and auditorium and performing arts building (Figure 2). The site also features a parking lot to the north of the gym and north wing buildings.

d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?

The exterior covered walkway canopies between the east and west buildings would be demolished. The 1986 steam boiler equipment building, the 1997 hot water boiler equipment building, the 1911 brick boiler room and its decommissioned boiler equipment, the 1955 brick transformer vault, and two 1959 storage sheds would also be demolished. The existing basement tunnels would also be demolished.

f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?

The City of Seattle comprehensive plan designation of the site is residential urban village (City of Seattle, 2015)


g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?

The project site is not within a shoreline jurisdiction; therefore, there is no applicable shoreline master plan designation.

h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify.

No environmentally critical areas have been mapped on or adjacent to the school site.

i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?

No people would reside in the completed project. The completed school would house 1,600 students (including those from the Skills Center) with a staff of 120 to 130. This represents an increase of approximately 715 students and 20 to 30 staff over the current interim uses of the site. Historic enrollment at Lincoln High School and the enrollment of various schools that have used the site on an interim basis have varied, reaching a high of 2,800 students in 1959-60 (Thompson and Marr, 2002). From 1996 to 1998, the Enrollment was approximately 1,000 when Ballard High School was housed at the site and approximately 1,200 when Garfield and Roosevelt high schools occupied the site.

j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?

The completed project would not displace any people.

k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:

No displacement would occur; therefore, no mitigation measures are needed.

l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:

The project is consistent with existing land use regulations and plans. No departures from the land use code would be required.

m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: The project is not located near any agricultural or forest lands, so no measures to ensure compatibility are required.


9. Housing

a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.

No housing units would be provided as part of the project.

b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.

No housing units would be eliminated.

c. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any.

The project would not cause housing impacts; therefore, mitigation measures to control housing impacts would not be required.

10. Aesthetics

a. What is the tallest height of any of the proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?

The central wing is the tallest structure on site, and is 64 feet and 8 inches above grade on the courtyard side. The height of the new service addition would be no taller than the existing central wing building.

The exterior building materials of the existing buildings would not be changed. The new service addition would likely have a metal wall panel exterior.

b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?

View from adjacent residences facing the current high school would not be altered as the site building footprint and heights would remain the same.

c. Proposed measures to control or reduce aesthetic impacts, if any:

The project would not cause aesthetic impacts; therefore, mitigation measures to control aesthetic impacts would not be required.


11. Light and Glare

a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur?

Lighting on the site would remain similar to present conditions. There would be an increase in light when renovated rooms and offices are being used during school hours. However, this would occur predominately during daylight hours and would not generate off-site light or glare. The number of evening events may increase with use of the site as high school, resulting in building lights being on later in the evening. Any exterior lights associated with the renovated buildings or parking areas would be designed to minimize spillover to adjacent properties.

b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? Exterior building and property lighting from the completed project would not be a safety hazard and would not be expected to interfere with views.

c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?

No off-site sources of light or glare would affect this proposal. The site is located less than 150 feet from N 45th Street, a major arterial site which generates ambient lighting in the area.

d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:

It is anticipated that both exterior and interior lighting would be on timers so that the site would be mostly dark at night. Evening activities and events could cause increased light, but impacts on adjacent structures are anticipated to be minor.

12. Recreation

a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?

Lincoln High School is located within 150 feet of Wallingford Playfield, which is a public park managed by the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department. The school is located approximately 0.3 miles from Woodland Park, 0.8 miles from Green Lake, and 0.4 miles from Meridian Playground.

Wallingford Playfield is 4.5 acres and includes tennis courts, a wading pool, play equipment, and a grass play area (Seattle Parks and Recreation, 2016a). Woodland Park is located south of Green Lake and includes picnic areas, several lighted playfields and tennis courts, skatepark, off-


leash dog area, walkway paths, and grassy areas (Seattle Parks and Recreation, 2016b). Meridian Playground is 6.5 acres in size and contains a large grass play area, gazebo, shelter, and play equipment (Seattle Parks and Recreation, 2016b).

Additional recreation facilities on the Lincoln High School site include a gymnasium.

b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.

Reopening the Lincoln site as a high school would likely increase the use of Wallingford Playfield by students, especially after school. The Playfield would not be used for Lincoln High School athletic programs. Athletic programs at Lincoln High School would be required to use off-site fields for practice and games. Programs would likely use the fields at Woodland Park for practice and games and Memorial Stadium for games. Use of public fields at Woodland Park could displace recreational uses of the fields during those times.

c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:

Use of Seattle Parks and Recreation fields at Woodland Park or other sites would be coordinated with Seattle Parks and Recreation to minimize impacts to other users. SPS and Parks will develop a Joint Use Agreement that address use of both Woodland Park playfields and Wallingford Playfield by Lincoln High School students.

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation

A Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lincoln High School site was developed by ESA (ESA, 2016). Information from the technical memorandum is presented in this section.

a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located on or near the site? If so, specifically describe.

Aboveground historic properties within the study area include Lincoln High School itself, which is a designated Seattle Landmark as well as listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and Washington Heritage Register (WHR) (Abbott, 2001; Johnson Partnership, 2015). Seven commercial and 22 residential buildings constructed over 45 years ago are located in the Study Areas. Although all of these meet the historic age threshold of 25 years as defined by Seattle Landmarks criteria (the


applicable local preservation register for this project), the properties do not meet any of the other criteria for listing as Seattle Landmarks.

Lincoln High School, comprised of five buildings, was built in four phases. The original building was constructed in 1907 and designed by architect James Stephen. Other buildings include a 1914 renovation and northern addition (designed by Edgar Blair), a 1930 annex building (designed by Floyd A. Naramore), and a 1959 gymnasium and auditorium (by architecture firm NBBJ) (Johnson Partnership, 2015). The property has been designated a Seattle City Landmark, though the designation ordinance has not yet been completed. SPS is currently negotiating with the Seattle Landmarks Board on the Controls and Incentives Agreement for Lincoln High School. The Controls and Incentives Agreement will list the features and characteristics of the Landmark that would or would not necessitate a Certificate of Approval, should alterations or significant changes to these elements be proposed.

Based on a review of geotechnical drilling, geological information, and historic background, the area with the highest probability of encountering buried cultural resources is the existing parking lot, which is proposed to have a stormwater detention vault installed beneath it. There may be buried evidence of the residences that occupied that area north of former Allen Street (outbuildings, foundations, etc.).

b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources.

There are no recorded archaeological sites within the study area. The study area is classified as “High Risk” for containing subsurface archaeological deposits in DAHP’s Statewide Predictive Model (DAHP, 2010). No previous cultural resources assessments have been conducted in the study area.

Other than the parking lot area at the north end of the site (discussed above under 13.a), areas of the property that are proposed for ground-disturbance (a new entryway on the west elevation of the Central Wing and those structures scheduled for demolition) have undergone previous ground-disturbance, grading, and/or filling. It is unlikely that buried precontact resources exist in the project area.


c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.

ESA conducted a literature review of the Project Area. The study area examined for this review included the parcel containing the school and those immediately adjacent. Information reviewed included any previous archaeological survey reports, ethnographic studies, historic maps, government landowner records, aerial photographs, regional histories, geological maps, soils surveys, and environmental reports. These records were reviewed in order to determine the presence of any potentially significant cultural resources, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), within the Project Area. Relevant documents were examined at DAHP, the University of Washington Libraries, online, and within ESA’s research library (ESA, 2016).

d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required.

SPS would conduct on-site archaeological monitoring during construction for those excavations near the existing parking lot. Because the area is classified as “High Risk,” SPS has developed an Archaeological Resource Monitoring Plan and Inadvertent Discovery Plan (ARMP/IDP) to outline protocols to be followed in the event that cultural resources are observed during implementation of the project. In the event that cultural resources were inadvertently discovered during the project, construction would be temporarily halted in the immediate vicinity of the identified resources and the City, DAHP, and affected tribes would be notified. Mitigation and/or avoidance measures would be coordinated with the City, DAHP, and other stakeholders.

14. Transportation

A Transportation Technical Report for the project was developed by Heffron Transportation, Inc. (Heffron, 2016a; Appendix A). An addendum to the report was prepared in November 2016 to address changes to the site plan (Heffron, 2016b; Appendix B). Information from the technical report is presented in this section.

a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.

The school site is bounded by Interlake Avenue N to the west, N 43rd Street to the south, Woodlawn Avenue N to the east, and a combination of


private commercial properties and a short, narrow, one-way eastbound segment of Woodlawn Place N to the north.

The largest parking lot and access drive are accessed from two driveways—one signed as “enter-only” on Interlake Avenue N opposite N Allen Place and another signed as “exit only” on Woodlawn Avenue N about 100 feet north of N 44th Street. There is a second parking lot located at the northeast corner of the site that is separated from the main lot by a fence. This lot is currently leased to tenants in the Solid Ground Building across Woodlawn Place N and is accessed from the one-way eastbound segment of Woodlawn Place N.

As part of the project, the parking area at the north end of the site would be reconfigured. The lot would retain the existing access from the driveways on Interlake and Woodlawn Avenues N. The access to the northeast corner lot from Woodlawn Place N would be eliminated. The parking in the central and south portions of the site would be removed; the existing access driveway on N 43rd Street may be retained for emergency access.

b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?

King County Metro Transit provides bus service very near the Lincoln High School site. The closest bus stops are located on N 45th Street at Woodlawn Avenue N, less than 300 feet north of the site. A stop serving westbound buses is located west of the Woodlawn Avenue N (north leg) intersection; a stop serving eastbound buses is located between Woodlawn Place N and Woodlawn Avenue N (south leg). These stops are served by Metro Routes 44, 62, and 82, which are described below. Stops serving Routes 62 and 82 are also located on Stone Avenue N about 400 feet west of the site. Within less than 0.4 mile to the west, there are stops on Aurora Avenue N at N 46th Street that are served by Metro’s RapidRide E-Line service. Some teachers or staff and a large portion of the student population are likely to use Metro transit to access the site.

Many high school students living within the future enrollment area of Lincoln High School would require transportation on Metro routes with or without the re-opening project. However, the availability of a new high school located roughly between Ballard High School and Roosevelt High school would mean that some students that currently qualify for transportation would instead live within walking or biking distance of the new school. As a result, the increase in transit trips on Metro routes from overall increases in high school student population may be off-set by reductions in the students that qualify for Orca cards. It is likely that increases in ridership would occur on the routes that serve the immediate site vicinity, but may be reduced on other routes.


Based on the expected school schedule, the largest numbers of high-school-related trips are anticipated to occur during the shoulders of transit route peak periods (arrivals around 8:30 a.m. and departures at about 3:30 p.m.), when other ridership levels are generally lower than during peak hours. As a result, the existing routes are anticipated to accommodate the added high school-related trips. However, SPS should coordinate with Metro after the enrollment area is determined and prior to school opening to allow Metro to plan its coach needs to accommodate the increases in school-related trips to and from the site vicinity.

c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate?

The project includes reconfiguration of the north parking lot and retention of some existing parking for staff in the southern portion of the site. In total, the site would have 210 parking spaces: 185 in the northern parking lot; three staff spaces in the delivery/loading area; and 22 spaces in the southern lot. In addition, the proposal includes an on-site load/unload zone for five 25-foot Special Education (SPED) buses. That area would accommodate approximately six additional parked cars for evening or weekend events. SPS plans to renew its lease with the adjacent Solid Ground building for 48 parking spaces in the northeast corner of the site. This would result in a net availability of 162 spaces during the regular school-day which is more than the City’s minimum code requirement (161 spaces) determined by DCI in October 2016.

The re-opened Lincoln High School is not anticipated to utilize on-street school bus load/unload zones. A Special Education (SPED) bus load/unload area with room for five 25-foot buses would be located on-site between the north parking lot and the building. Therefore, the existing school-bus zone located along the north side of N 43rd Street adjacent to the site would be eliminated. Public comments related to the Neighborhood Greenway on this segment indicate that an active automobile load zone is not desired. An active automobile load zone will not be proposed by the District

The 1,600-student high school could generate school-day demand that ranges from 224 to 368 vehicles. Of those, 162 could be contained on site, which could result in on-street demand ranging from 62 to 206 vehicles. Along the roadways adjacent to the site, there are approximately 110 unrestricted spaces that are likely to be used for school-day parking; about 65 of those were observed to be available on school-day mornings before students would typically begin arriving. At the lower end of the demand range, all of the overspill could be accommodated on-street and the overall utilization of on-street parking within 800 feet of the site would remain below the 85% threshold considered to be full by the City of Seattle. If the school generates demand at the higher-end of the range, that could


leave excess demand of about 140 vehicles beyond the adjacent streets. If the school generates demand at any rate over about 0.20 vehicles per student, utilization could exceed 90%; with all available unrestricted spaces taken by the excess high-school-related demand, school-day parking utilization could increase to over 95%. With the mitigation measures discussed below under B.14.h, these impacts would not be considered significant. New parking demand counts performed at and around Ingraham High School in September 2016, which was found to have excess on-site supply and substantial available on-street parking capacity, indicate a school-day parking demand rate of 0.20 vehicles per student. Therefore, achieving a rate at the lower end of the observed range for the Lincoln High School site is reasonable.

The re-opened Lincoln High School is expected to host activities and evening events regularly throughout the school year consisting of meetings, club activities, or indoor sports practices (in the gymnasium). These types of activities may occur daily and consist of between 15 and 50 participants or spectators. The site would also be expected to host three or four larger events (such as Curriculum Night, dances, and talent shows) each month that may draw higher levels of participation and/or spectators.

Parking demand generated by the smaller types of events and activities could be accommodated by the on-site parking lot or on-street parking adjacent to the site along Interlake Avenue N, Woodlawn Avenue N, or N 43rd Street. A large event in the auditorium could generate parking demand between 290 and 410 vehicles. A portion of this demand (up to 168 vehicles including parking within the SPED-bus load zone) could be accommodated within the on-site parking lot. The remaining demand would require on-street parking.

Events with total attendance of between 675 and 950 would likely cause on-street parking utilization to exceed the 85% threshold; any event with more than about 1,000 attendees is estimated to result in full parking conditions (100%) within 800 feet of the site and could impact streets beyond 800 feet. The on-street supply could accommodate the overflow demand of some of the larger events likely to occur at the high school; however, for the largest events, all on-street parking along the roadways surrounding the school site could be at or above capacity. With the mitigation measures discussed below under B.14.h, these impacts would not be considered significant.


d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private).

The project would not require any new streets or improvements to existing streets.

e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe.

The project is not in the vicinity of, or proposes to use, water, rail, or air transportation.

f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates?

At the proposed capacity and compared to the site’s current school program uses, the re-opened high school is projected to generate a net increase of 325 trips during the morning peak hour (from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and a net reduction in trips during the afternoon peak hour (from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m.). Afternoon trip generation by high schools is typically spread out over several hours as students and staff stay on campus for a variety of activities, while afternoon primary school trips are largely concentrated to the hour around dismissal. During the commuter PM peak hour, the high school is expected to generate a relatively small net increase of 65 trips.

Similar to existing conditions, traffic congestion is expected during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods along the roadways that surround the site, especially Interlake Avenue N, Woodlawn Avenue N, and N 43rd Street.

Some student-driver trips and parent-vehicle load/unload activities are expected along many roadways that surround the site, but would be concentrated along those closest to the site—Interlake Avenue N, Woodlawn Avenue N, and N 43rd Street. Some activity may also occur along the one-way segment of Woodlawn Place N at the northeast corner of the site.

The current site plan includes a proposed change to the access on Interlake Avenue N. The change would allow ingress and egress (instead of ingress only) as suggested by community members. The effects of these changes were evaluated in the Lincoln High School Modernization Project –


Addendum for Site Plan Revisions (Heffron Transportation, Inc., December 30, 2016). As outlined in the addendum, additional traffic and pedestrian activity generated by the re-opened Lincoln High School is forecast to add some delay to several of the study area intersections and turning movements during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. All of the study area intersections would continue to operate at LOS C or better overall. During both periods, all movements except one would operate at LOS D or better. One movement—southbound from Interlake Avenue N at N 45th Street—would operate at LOS E with or without the project. With the currently-proposed change in site access, the project is forecast to add less than 5 seconds to the average delay to that movement. Some congestion is expected during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal, especially along Interlake and Woodlawn Avenues N, N Allen Place, N 44th Street, N 43rd Street, and roadways that extend south of the site.

g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe.

The proposal would not interfere with the movement of agricultural or forest products on streets in the area because no agricultural or working forest lands are located within the vicinity of the project site.

h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:

Impacts associated with construction include truck traffic to remove excavated material from the site and to import of fill and construction materials to the site. Construction would require the removal of approximately 2,500 cy of material and import of approximately 315 cy to the site. Assuming an average of 20 cy per truck (truck/trailer combination), the excavation and fill would generate about 14 truckloads (14 trucks in and 14 trucks out). The export and import would likely occur over about nine months and would likely result in an average of only a few truckloads per day. This volume of truck traffic may be noticeable to adjacent residents, but is not expected to result in significant impacts to traffic operations in the site vicinity.

Project construction would also generate employee and equipment trips to and from the site. It is anticipated that construction workers would arrive at the construction site before the AM peak traffic period on local area streets and depart the site prior to the PM peak period. Construction work shifts for schools are usually from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with workers arriving between 6:30 and 6:45 a.m. The number of workers at the project site at any one time would vary depending upon the construction element being implemented. Parking for construction personnel would be provided within the site during most phases, but construction workers are


likely to park along the site frontage, particularly during construction activities associated with the north parking lot.

Measures to reduce construction traffic impacts would include:

• SPS would require the selected contractor to develop a construction management plan (CMP) that addresses traffic and pedestrian control during school construction. The CMP would define truck routes, lane closures, walkway closures, and parking disruptions, as necessary. To the extent possible, the CMP would direct trucks along the shortest route to arterials and away from residential streets to avoid unnecessary conflicts with resident and pedestrian activity. The CMP could also include measures to keep adjacent streets clean on a daily basis at the truck exit points (such as street sweeping or on-site truck wheel cleaning) to reduce tracking dirt offsite. The CMP would identify parking locations for construction staff. To the extent possible, construction employee parking would be contained on-site.

SPS would implement the following measures to reduce the traffic and parking impacts associated with the re-opening of Lincoln High School:

• Transportation and Parking Management Plan: Prior to the school’s re-opening, SPS and the school administration would develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to minimize automobile travel to and from the site and reduce parking demand generated during school-day and event conditions. The plan would educate parents and students about access and parking challenges for the school. The plan would encourage Metro transit ridership, carpooling, and walking/biking options. The plan would define clear procedures for on-site student parking with incentives for carpooling, when possible.

• Added Egress: To reduce project-related volume and delay for northbound movements on Woodlawn Avenue N at N 45th Street, the site access on Interlake Avenue N could be configured to allow entry and exit.

• Load/Unload Zone: SPS would work with SDOT to determine if an automobile load/unload zone is desired along the north side of N 43rd Street adjacent to the school site.

• Safety Committee Review: SPS would engage the Seattle School Safety Committee (of which SDOT is a member) to review walk routes and determine if any changes would be made to crosswalk locations, signage, pavement markings, and school zone speed limits.


• Speed Enforcement: SPS would coordinate with SDOT and the Seattle Police Department to enforce speed limits (including within the school-zones) near the site.

• Event Calendar Coordination: The school event calendar would be actively coordinated to ensure that only one large event (those attracting 675 or more attendees) occurs on site at a time. In addition, the calendar would be coordinated with the calendar for nearby Hamilton International Middle School to ensure large events are not held at both schools simultaneously.

• Neighborhood Communication Plan: SPS and the school administration would develop and maintain a neighborhood communication plan to inform nearby neighbors of events each year. The plan would be updated annually (or as events are scheduled) and would provide information about the dates, times, and rough magnitude of attendance. The communication would be intended to allow neighbors to plan for the increase in on-street parking demand that would occur with large events.

• On-Street Parking Monitoring Program: SPS would implement an annual on-street parking utilization monitoring program to document school-day and event-related parking impacts surrounding the school. The monitoring effort would occur annually for 5 years or for at least 2 years after the school reaches at least 90% of its enrollment capacity. The results of the monitoring studies would be used to determine if parking management measures such as new or expanded time restrictions, expansion of the Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ), or other measures would be implemented. If additional measures are identified to mitigate high-school related parking impacts, SPS would coordinate with SDOT to implement those measures.

• Metro Coordination: SPS would coordinate with Metro after the enrollment area is determined and prior to school re-opening to allow Metro to plan its coach needs to accommodate the increases in school-related trips to and from the site vicinity.

15. Public Services

a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe.

The proposed project would add attendance to the facility, but is not anticipated to require additional public services above those already needed for operation of interim schools at the site.


b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any.

Since an increased need for public services is not anticipated, mitigation to reduce impacts to public services is not proposed.

16. Utilities

a. Underline utilities currently available at the site:

Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic systems, 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.

Electricity, telephone, and natural gas would continue to be provided to the school. SPS would work with Seattle City Light, Puget Sound Energy, and its telephone provider to coordinate the extension of utilities to the new rooms and offices, if needed.

The contractor would coordinate with utility purveyors to locate all existing utilities prior to proceeding with construction activity. Any active underground pipes encountered would be protected. Should undocumented piping or other utilities be encountered, the utility purveyor would be immediately contacted prior to resuming construction activity near the utility. Storm drains would be maintained and protected as catch basins.



C. SIGNATURE

The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand thatthe lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.

SignaturJaA

Name of signee:

Position andAgency/Organization:

___________________________________________________

Date Submitted:

‘1Pegi McEvoy

Assistant Superintendent for Operations Seattle PublicSchools SEPA Official

/7/7

Page 30 March 2016January 2017 Page 33


REFERENCES

Abbott, Martin. 2001. Historic Property Inventory Form: Historic Lincoln High School, 4400 Interlake Avenue, Seattle, WA. On file, DAHP, WA.

City of Seattle. 2014. City of Seattle Generalized Zoning Map. August 2, 2014.

City of Seattle. 2015. Seattle 2035 Your City, Your Future 2035 Future Land Use Map. Draft July, 2015.

Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). 2010. Statewide Predictive Model. Last updated 2010. Electronic document, http://www.dahp.wa.gov/, accessed June 3, 2016.

ESA. 2016. Lincoln High School Modernization Project Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum. July 7, 2016.

Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2016. Draft Transportation Technical Report for Lincoln High School Modernization Project. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. August 16, 2016.

Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2016. Addendum for Site Plan Revisions, Lincoln High School Modernization Project. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. December 30, 2016.

Johnson Partnership. 2015. Lincoln High School: Landmark Nomination Report, 4400 Interlake Avenue North, Seattle, WA. Electronic resource: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Neighborhoods/HistoricPreservation/Landmarks/CurrentNominations/LPBCurrentNom_LincolnHighSchoolNom.pdf.

PBS Engineering and Environmental. 2016. Preliminary Limited Hazardous Materials Survey Report: Lincoln Building Renovation. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. June 17, 2016.

Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2016a. Wallingford Playfield. Accessed May 2016. Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=449.

Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2016b. Woodland Park. Accessed May 2016. Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?id=292.

Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2016c. Meridian Playground. Accessed May 2016. Available at: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=1104.

Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1997. Geotechnical Report, Interim Ballard High School at Lincoln High School, Seattle, Washington. April 1997.

Thompson, Nile and Carolyn J. Marr. 2002. Building for Learning: Seattle Public School Histories, 1862-2000. Seattle Public Schools.

Tree Solutions, Inc. 2016. Tree Inventory & Assessment. November 1, 2016. Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2016. Facility/Site Database Webmap.

Available at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/facilitysite/MapData/MapSearch.aspx?RecordSearchMode=New. Accessed May 2016.


http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=449http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?id=292http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=1104https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/facilitysite/MapData/MapSearch.aspx?RecordSearchMode=Newhttps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/facilitysite/MapData/MapSearch.aspx?RecordSearchMode=New


Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2016. PHS on the Web. Accessed: May 2016. Available: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/

Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). 2013. Geographic information data set for rare plant species and ecosystems. October 2013.


http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/


FIGURES


WallingfordPlayfield

HamiltonInternationalMiddleSchool

LincolnHighSchool

WallingfordPublicLibraryNorth Allen Place

Dens mo

re Av en

u eNo r

th

North 42nd Street

North 44th Street

Burk e A

v enu e

No rt h

A shw or

th Ave n

ue No rth

North 46th Street

North 41st Street

Wood la

w nA ve

nu eN or

t h

In terla k

e Ave n

ueNor

t h

W allin g

fo rdA ve

n ueN or

t h

North 45th Street

Lincoln HS Modernization . 150727Figure 1Vicinity MapSOURCE:Boundary - King County Parcels; Basemaps- OSM, ESRI

Site Boundary 0 200Feet

Seattle, WA

ProjectVicinity

North Wing GymBuilding

CentralWing AuditoriumBuilding

South WingPerformingArtsBuilding

North 44th Street

Ashw or

t h Av en

ue Nor th

North Allen Place

Woo dla

wnAv e

n ueNo r

th

I nt erlak

e Av en

u eNo r

thWoodlawn Place North

Lincoln HS Modernization . 150727Figure 2Project SiteSOURCE:Boundary - King County Parcels; Basemaps- NAIP, 2013

Site Boundary 0 100Feet

Lincoln HS Modernization . 150727

Figure 3Site Plan

SOURCE: Bassetti Architects


APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

January 2017 Appendix A

TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT

for

Lincoln High School Modernization Project

PREPARED FOR:

Seattle Public Schools

PREPARED BY:

August 22, 2016

Lincoln High School Modernization Project Transportation Technical Report

- i - August 22, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Project Description ................................................................................................................. 1

2. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 6 2.1. Roadway Network .................................................................................................................. 6 2.2. Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.3. Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 11 2.4. Site Access ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.5. Parking ................................................................................................................................. 17 2.6. Traffic Safety ....................................................................................................................... 21 2.7. Transit Facilities and Service ............................................................................................... 22 2.8. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities ............................................................................. 23

3. PROJECT IMPACTS .................................................................................................................... 24 3.1. Roadway Network ................................................................................................................ 24 3.2. Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................... 24 3.3. Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 31 3.4. Site Access .................................................................................

Lincoln High School, 4400 Interlake Avenue North, Seattle ...€¦ · Lincoln High School, PUBLIC...

Documents

Transcript of Lincoln High School, 4400 Interlake Avenue North, Seattle ...€¦ · Lincoln High School, PUBLIC...