SCHOOLS PUBLIC DATE: SEATTLE Recipients ofthe State ... · maximum 660-studentcapacity school will...

SEATTLEDATE: October 10, 2017 PUBLIC

SCHOOLSTO: Recipients of the State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-

Significance (SEPA DNS) for the Wing Luke School Project

FROM: Pegi McEvoy, SEPA Environmental Official

Seattle Public Schools (SPS) has identified that the SEPA Environmental Checklist dated

October, 2017, meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal to demolish the

existing Wing Luke building and construct a new Wing Luke Elementary School at the same

site. With funding from the Building Excellence Phase IV Capital Improvement Program, the

existing buildings will be demolished and a new school will be constructed in its place. A

maximum 660-student capacity school will house the Wing Luke Elementary School Program.

Construction for the proposed project is scheduled to begin in July 2018 with demolition and

abatement. The total construction period is expected to last for approximately 26 months,

completing in August 2020.

After conducting an independent review, SPS has determined that the project does not have

significant adverse impacts on the environment as documented with the enclosed Determination

of Non-Significance (DNS).

The SEPA Environmental Checklist, October, 2017, discusses the potential environmental

impacts that could result from the demolition, new construction and operation of two new

schools. A draft of the Checklist was released for public comment from July 24, 2017 throughAugust 9, 2017. Comments received during the comment period informed the information upon

which the DNS is based. The responses to written comments received are documented in the

SEPA Public Comments and SPS Responses summary, Attachment A to this letter. Actual

correspondence and other background information is available on our websites at:

http://sepa.www.seattleschools.org.

Thank you for your participation in the Seattle Public Schools Building Excellence IV Capital

Program. Your involvement has helped to make the new Wing Luke Elementary School a better

project.

Enclosures — Determination of Non-Significance and SEPA Environmental ChecklistAttachment A — Summary of Public Comments on SEPA Environmental Checklist

Pegi McEvoy, Assistant Superintendent, Operations, District SEPA Official

P0 Box 34165, MS 22-183, Seattle WA 98124 * (206) 252-0102

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

DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE

WING LUKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL REPLACEMENT

Proponent. Seattle Public Schools

Location of proposal, including street address, if any. Wing Luke Elementary School, 3701 SKenyon Street, Seattle, Washington.

Description of Proposal. Seattle Public Schools (SPS) is proposing to demolish the existingWing Luke Elementary School buildings and build a new multi-story building. The projectwould be funded by the BEX IV Capital Improvement Program, which was approved by voters inFebruary 2013. The purpose of the project is to address current and projected elementary growthin the District, to address size and maintenance issues with the current building, and to providean equitable facility in terms of teaching spaces, safety, and operational costs.

The new Wing Luke Elementary School would have a maximum capacity of 660 students. Theschool would be two stories and include 93,500 square feet of programmable spaces. The schoolwould include 35 classrooms, a gymnasium, cafeteria, music and art rooms, and a library. Theschool building would include a childcare center to replace the Tiny Tots Development Center.Play areas on the site would include a new soft surface play area, a hardscape play area, and afield.

The existing parking lot would be enlarged and reconfigured, increasing the parking from 36spaces to 50 spaces. Parent drop-off would continue to be in the parking lot accessed from SouthKenyon Street. Bus loading currently occurs off-site on 37th Avenue South, and would remainthere after the project is complete. During construction, the Old Van Asselt building would beused as an interim site for Wing Luke Elementary School.

The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significantadverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EI$) 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, 2445 ThirdAvenue South, Seattle (Attn: Mike Skutack, Phone: 206-252-0669) and on line athttp://www.seattleschools.org/sepa

El There is no comment period for this DNS.

C This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. 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 October 25, 2017 at 5:00pm (15 days from the date below plus allowance for the holiday).

This DN$ may be appealed by written notice setting forth specific factual objections received nolater than October 25, 2017 at 5:00pm (15 days plus allowance for the holiday), sent to:

SuperintendentSeattle Public SchoolsBox 34165, MS 32-15 1Seattle, WA 98124-1165

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

Address MS 22-183, P.O. Box 34165, Seattle, WA 98124-1165

Date /u /0 1 ?$ignature__________________

2

Wing Luke Elementary Replacement Project Final SEPA Checklist

Seattle Public Schools is committed to making its online information accessible and usable to all

people, regardless of ability or technology. Meeting web accessibility guidelines and standards is an

ongoing process that we are consistently working to improve.

While Seattle Public Schools endeavors to only post documents optimized for accessibility, due to

the nature and complexity of some documents, an accessible version of the document may not be

available. In these limited circumstances, the District will provide equally effective alternate access.

The new ADA-accessible SEPA documents procedure began with processes starting September 1,

2017. For those already underway, the final documents are being posted in the same manner as the

beginning of the process. If you have trouble reading this document, you may have those portions

read to you by contacting:

Archives Department

206-252-0797

This document is the final SEPA checklist. It includes the figures, traffic impact analysis, an earthwork

quantities update, and tree inventory and assessment that were part of the draft checklist. It also

contains all comments received during the comment period and the district response to each.

Wing Luke Elementary

School Replacement

SEPA Checklist

October 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

October 2017 Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS .............................................................................................. 4

1. Earth .................................................................................................................................... 4

2. Air ....................................................................................................................................... 7

3. Water ................................................................................................................................... 8

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 ......................................................................................................................... 22

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation .................................................................................... 23

14. Transportation ................................................................................................................... 25

15. Public Services .................................................................................................................. 30

16. Utilities ............................................................................................................................. 30

C. SIGNATURE ................................................................................................................................ 32

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 33

FIGURES ................................................................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS .................................................................................. 37

APPENDIX B: ADDENDUM FOR EARTHWORK QUANTITIES UPDATE ................................. 39

APPENDIX C: TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 41

APPENDIX D: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ................................................................................ 43

October 2017 Page 1

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

A. BACKGROUND

1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable:

Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement

2. Name of Applicant:

Seattle Public Schools (SPS)

3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:

Mike Skutack Seattle Public Schools 2445 3rd Ave S Seattle, WA 98134 206-252-0669

4. Date checklist prepared:

October 2017

5. Agency requesting checklist:

Seattle Public Schools (SPS)

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

Construction is scheduled to begin in July 2018 and last through June 2020.

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

No other future additions, expansions, or activities are connected with this proposal.

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

Addendum for Earthwork Quantities Update, Heffron Transportation Inc., September 2017

Arborist Report, Tree Solutions Inc., March 2017

October 2017

Building Excellence Phase IV Capital Improvement Program Environmental Impact Statement, ESA, July 2012

Cultural Resources Review Memo, ESA, May 2017

Good Faith Inspection, Novo Laboratory & Consulting Services, March 2017

Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., February 2017

Transportation Report, Heffron Transportation Inc., June 2017

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.

No applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property.

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

The City of Seattle Master Use Permit (MUP) application will be submitted in Summer 2017. Other permits and approvals evaluated under the MUP process include:

Demolition

Grading

Building/Mechanical

Stormwater Control

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 demolish the existing Wing Luke Elementary School buildings and build a new multi-story building. The project would be funded by the BEX IV Capital Improvement Program, which was approved by voters in February 2013. The proposed project was described in the BEX IV Final Programmatic EIS. This project level SEPA Checklist provides more detailed information on project design and impacts. The purpose of the project is to address current and projected elementary growth in the District, to address size and maintenance issues with the current building, and to provide an equitable facility in terms of teaching spaces, safety, and operational costs.

October 2017 Page 3

The existing Wing Luke Elementary School, built in 1972, and an addition constructed in 2005 would be demolished. The Tiny Tots Development Center in the southwest corner of the site would also be demolished.

The new Wing Luke Elementary School would have a capacity of 660 students. The school would be two stories and include 93,500 square feet of programmable spaces. The school would include 35 classrooms, a gymnasium, cafeteria, music and art rooms, and a library. The school building would include a childcare center to replace the Tiny Tots Development Center. Play areas on the site would include a new soft surface play area, a hardscape play area, and a field.

The existing parking lot on the north end of the site, accessed from South Kenyon Street, would be enlarged and reconfigured, increasing the parking from 36 spaces to 50 spaces. Parent drop-off would continue to be in the parking lot accessed from South Kenyon Street. Bus loading currently occurs off-site on 37th Avenue South, and would remain there after the project is complete. The project would include installation of a crosswalk across Kenyon Way South to connect the school to the Chief Sealth Trail.

The proposed project would include extension of utilities to a portion of the site (at the south end of the site, adjacent to South Rose Street) that could hold up to four portable classrooms in the future. However, installation of portables is not part of this proposed project.

An electronic reader board would be installed on the north side of the side between the entrance to the parking lot and 37th Avenue South. The nearest residence to the reader board would be approximately 80 feet from the sign. The reader board would be no larger than 4 feet high and 7 feet 4 inches wide and mounted on a base. The sign and base would be no taller than 6 feet. The sign would be turned on between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. daily.

During construction, the Old Van Asselt building would be used as an interim site for Wing Luke Elementary School. The Old Van Asselt building has been in use as a school and for school programs and no new impacts of using the site for Wing Luke Elementary are anticipated.

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 3701 S Kenyon Street, Seattle, Washington, 98118. The site is bounded by South Kenyon Street on the north, South Kenyon

October 2017

Way and 39th Avenue South on the east, South Rose Street (partially vacated) on the south, and 37th Avenue South on the west.

The site is located in the northwest quarter of Section 34, Township 25, Range 4 Willamette Meridian. The site is made up of two parcels with the following legal description: Tracts 31 & 32, Plat of Lake Dell, except W 30' thereof for 37th Ave S & except E 125' of tract 32.

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 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI), in February 2017 (AESI, 2017). The work included a review of selected available geologic literature, advancing 16 hollow-stem auger soil borings on the project site, installing three groundwater observation wells, and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution, and physical properties of the subsurface sediments and shallow groundwater. The results of the work performed by AESI and their project design recommendations are presented in this section and incorporated in this SEPA Checklist where appropriate.

a. General description of the site (underline):

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

The existing school is located on 6.85 acres that slopes down to the southeast, with a change of elevation of approximately 50 feet across the site.

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

The steepest slopes are at the southeast portion of the site, where slope gradients are greater than 40 percent (AESI, 2017). One area on the site meets the definitions of Steep Slope areas in accordance with Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 25.09.020.

October 2017 Page 5

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.

AESI performed field explorations and a literature review to determine subsurface conditions at the project site. The following is a summary of the soil types found on the project site.

Surficial Topsoil – Borings completed in unpaved areas generally encountered approximately 12 inches of topsoil and grass.

Fill – 13 of the exploration borings encountered existing fill ranging from a depth of approximately 1 foot to 11 feet in thickness. This fill density was observed to be ranging from very loose to stiff. The fill soils were thickest along the eastern side of the property and across the central portion of the site.

Vashon Advance Outwash – Four of the exploration borings encountered advance outwash sediments, which generally consisted of medium dense to very dense, fine- to medium-grained sand with highly variable amounts of silt and gravel. The advance outwash occasionally varied from fine to coarse sand and contained rare thin silt interbeds.

Vashon Lawton Clay – Several of the exploration borings encountered Vashon Lawton clay, which was very stiff to hard silt grading to clayey silt with trace to some amounts of fine sand and trace amounts of gravel and rare thin interbeds of medium dense, silty fine to medium sand. The eight boring that possibly had this clay was observed to have slightly softer density that was medium stiff to stiff.

Pre-Fraser Coarse-Grained Deposits – Seven of the exploration borings encountered Pre-Fraser Coarse-Grained Deposits, which ranged from dense to very dense, fine- to medium-grained and fine- to coarse-grained sand with highly variable amounts of silt and gravel, dense to very dense, sandy gravel with trace to some amounts of silt, and rare thin silt interbeds

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

The subsurface conditions encountered at the project site have a low potential for liquefaction due to stiff consistency, high silt and clay contents, and absence of significant groundwater within 5 feet of the existing ground surface (AESI, 2017). There are no potential slides, known slides, or liquefaction areas mapped by the City of Seattle on or near the project site.

October 2017

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

Earthwork for the proposed project would occur in two phases. Phase 1 of the earthwork effort is expected to consist of three primary components: 1) stripping topsoil estimated at 9,480 cubic yards (cy); 2) excavation (cut) for building footprint totaling about 18,090 cy; and 3) replacement fill for building footprint totaling about 23,880 cy. With maximum rebalancing on site, which is the preferred approach, an estimated 15,270 cy would require transport. With no rebalancing, this Phase 1 effort could require transport of up to 51,450 cy of material. This Phase 1 effort is expected to occur over about 5 months at the beginning of the construction period.

Phase 2 of the earthwork effort is expected to consist of two primary components: 1) site work excavation (cut) estimated at 6,290 cy; and 2) replacement site fill totaling about 7,580 cy. With maximum rebalancing on site, which is the preferred approach, an estimated 1,290 cy would require transport. With no rebalancing, this Phase 2 effort could require transport of up to 13,870 cy of material. This Phase 2 effort is expected to occur over about 4 months, later in the construction period.

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

According to the geotechnical report from AESI, the erosion potential of soils on the project site is high. In order to meet current Ecology Construction Storm Water General Permit requirements, a properly developed, constructed, and maintained erosion control plan consistent with City of Seattle standards (SMC 22.800), along with construction best management practices (BMPs), would be required to control erosion during construction of the proposed project.

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

Approximately 43 percent of the site is currently covered with impervious surfaces. After construction, approximately 50 percent would be covered with impervious surfaces.

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

October 2017 Page 7

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.

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.

October 2017

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.

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

October 2017 Page 9

to the site and project would be specified by SPS in the construction contract documents that the construction contractor would be required to implement.

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. Geotechnical investigations conducted for the project discovered shallow perched groundwater within several exploration borings ranging from a depth of 5.5 feet to 16 feet (AESI, 2017). This groundwater could be encountered during construction; however, extensive dewatering is not anticipated. Groundwater seepage would be intercepted from excavations and routed to a suitable discharge location. Additionally, two exploration borings encountered substantial groundwater within the advance outwash sediments and pre-Fraser coarse-grained sediments at approximately elevations 175 and 180 feet, which was assumed to be the regional water table (AESI, 2017). No water would be discharged to groundwater.

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.

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 stormwater drainage system.

October 2017

A comprehensive storm drainage system would be installed in accordance with the 2016 Volume 3 Stormwater Flow Control and Water Quality Treatment Technical Requirements Manual. Runoff would be mitigated by the use of rain gardens, biofiltration, and dispersion, if space allows.

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.

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

3. Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe.

The proposed project would not alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site.

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

October 2017 Page 11

__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 inventory and assessment by Tree Solutions Inc. (Appendix C) found 74 trees measuring 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height (DSH) on the school property (Tree Solutions Inc., 2017). This includes two trees that meet the City of Seattle’s definition of an Exceptional Tree based on size thresholds. According to the Department of Construction and Inspection Director’s Rule 16-2008, an Exceptional Tree is a tree that “1) is designated as a heritage tree by the City of Seattle or 2) is rare or exceptional by virtue of its size, species, condition, cultural/historic importance, age, and/or contribution as part of a grove of trees.” The Exceptional Trees include a dotted hawthorn (Crataegus punctuata) located along the northern border of the site and a western redcedar (Thuja placata) on the western border of the site. An additional Exceptional Tree, a bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), is located off site along the eastern border of the school property (Tree Solutions Inc., 2017). All of the Exceptional Trees would be retained and protected during construction.

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

Thirty-seven existing trees on site would be removed. An additional 13 trees would likely be heavily impacted by site work but could be retained. The exceptional trees on site and adjacent to the site would not be removed, though they would require tree protection measures during construction (Tree Solutions Inc., 2017). The Arborist Report (Appendix C) recommended that the parking lot be redesigned to retain more trees. SPS considered this recommendation and looked at options to reduce or redesign the parking lot and other site features to retain more trees. The driveway to the east was redesigned to retain the existing trees along the eastern property line. Additionally, the stormwater treatment areas on the south part of the site were redesigned to retain some existing trees along the south property line. In reviewing the configuration of the front parking lot, it was determined that the lot would need to be lengthened and the building moved south to save any additional trees. This move would also reduce the required student play area, increase onsite grading, and would not improve drop-off flow in the lot. Therefore, it was concluded

October 2017

that further changes to the front parking lot to save additional trees would not be practical. As many trees as possible will be retained.

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

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

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

Existing trees on the site that would be retained would be protected to the extent possible using tree protection measures including, but not limited to, use of tree protection fences. SPS would replace removed trees according to City requirements. New landscaping would be planted on site after construction of the new school. The landscaping plan would place an emphasis on native plants and drought-resistant ornamentals. The landscape would be designed to achieve low water use and low maintenance requirements.

e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.

No formal plant surveys were conducted for this Checklist. Based on site reconnaissance and the King County iMap, no noxious weeds or invasive species have been observed to be on or near the site (King County, 2017).

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 animals and birds.

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.

Mammals: Species adapted to urban areas such as Norway rat, raccoon, opossum, and other species may use the site.

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 (WDFW, 2017).


The WDFW Priority Habitat and Species program maps a biodiversity area and corridor approximately 1,250 feet to the west of the project site at the East Duwamish Greenbelt. This biodiversity area contains stands of deciduous and mixed conifer-deciduous trees with diameters ranging from 5 to 20 inches. Wetlands, seeps, snags, downed logs, talus, and shrubs are also present in the corridor, with osprey nests located near Martin Luther King Way.

Additionally, the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species program maps an area of freshwater forested/shrub wetland approximately 480 feet to the east of the project site, and two areas of freshwater emergent wetlands approximately 400 to 500 feet to the east of the project site. All three of these wetland areas are found on the Chief Sealth Trail area (WDFW, 2017).

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 likely return following construction because they are adapted to urban areas.

e. List all invasive species known to be on or near the site.

No formal animal surveys were conducted for this Checklist. Invasive animal species likely to be in the area include rats and opossums, typical of an urban area. SPS would hire a contractor to implement pest control measures prior to demolition of the existing school.

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. The new school would use a gas hot water system.

October 2017

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

The classrooms 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:

Funding for the proposed project would come from the BEX IV levy. In December 2011, the School Board adopted a policy for capital levy planning and the Guiding Principles for BEX IV. The planning policy states that the Board strives to reduce district operating costs and carbon emissions by using designs that create conservation opportunities and minimize negative impacts on the environment, while considering the life cycle costs of the projects. The BEX IV guiding principles state that the BEX IV program will “Reduce resource usage, increase conservation and minimize operational costs, using life cycle cost approaches.”

Under Executive Order 05-01, public school construction projects receiving state assistance must be built to the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol, or to LEED silver standards. The program requires a 10 percent reduction in energy use beyond what is required by the Washington State Energy Code (RCW 39.35D.040). Replacing the existing older school building with a new building is expected to greatly improve energy savings. The utility systems would comply with Executive Order 05-01.

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 Wing Luke Elementary site is not known to be contaminated (Ecology, 2017). There is an underground storage tank on the site which would be removed as part of the project.


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.

The existing Wing Luke Elementary School buildings would be demolished. An assessment by Novo Laboratory & Consulting Services, Inc. found asbestos-containing materials, lead-containing paint, and mercury-containing light tubes in the existing buildings (Novo, 2017).

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 elementary school, chemicals stored and used on site would be limited to cleaning supplies. These chemicals would be stored in safe locations.

4. Describe special emergency services that might be required.

No special emergency services would be required.

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, and mercury-containing light tubes, are present, demolition would comply with applicable regulations for removal and disposal.

October 2017

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.

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 Wing Luke Elementary 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 10:00 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 the two buildings that comprise the Wing Luke Elementary School and a third building that houses the Tiny Tots Development Center, located in the southwest corner of the site.

The school is located in a predominantly single-family residential neighborhood. The current zoning classification of the school site is single-family. Surrounding areas on all sides are zoned SF 5000 (residential single family 5,000). The Chief Sealth Trail runs to the east of the site.

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.

Typically, a school located in a single family zone is difficult to design in a way that meets single family land use code requirements for height, bulk, parking, and other provisions while still meeting educational program needs. 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 DCI for departures. The Wing Luke Elementary Modernization Project would require departures for building height, bus loading and drop-off, parking, and the reader board.

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?

Aerial imagery from 1936 shows that the Wing Luke Elementary School site was in use as farmland at that time (ESA, 2017). By 1962, the site was in use as a school; it is not clear at what point it was converted from farmland. The site is not currently used as working farmland. The

October 2017

proposed project would not convert any agricultural or forest land 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 three separate buildings – the original 1971 school structure, the 2005 addition, and a childcare facility (the Tiny Tots Development Center) on the southwest portion of the site. The site also features a portable classroom in the northwest portion of the site and a parking lot on the northern section of the site.

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

The portable classroom would be removed from the site. All other current structures on the site would be demolished.

e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?

The current zoning classification of the school site is single-family, SF 5000.

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

The City of Seattle comprehensive plan designation of the site is “Single Family Residential Area” (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.

Review of the City of Seattle DCI GIS mapping database for environmental critical areas indicated an area of steep slopes present at the


southeast corner of the site. The mapping database shows some wetlands located nearby in the Chief Sealth Trail area, approximately 400 to 500 feet east of the project site. There are also wetlands mapped to the west of Beacon Avenue South, passing through the East Duwamish Greenbelt. No wetlands are located on the project 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 have a capacity of 660 students with a staff of 96. This represents an increase of approximately 300 students and 31 staff.

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 would obtain a Master Use Permit (MUP) from DCI before construction. Permits and approvals evaluated under the MUP process include:

Demolition

Grading

Building/Mechanical

Stormwater Control

The project would also require departures for bus loading, building height, and a reader board (SMC 23.79). SPS would comply with the requirements of the MUP and results of the departure process.

The City of Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) permits electronic signs in single family zones with limitations. For schools, the following regulation applies:

For elementary or secondary schools, one electric or non-illuminated double-faced identifying sign, not to exceed 30 square feet of area per sign face on each street frontage, provided that the signs shall be located and landscaped so that light and glare impacts on surrounding properties are reduced, and so that any

October 2017

illumination is controlled by a timer set to turn off by 10 p.m. (SMC 23.55.020(d)(7)).

The proposed reader board would meet the sign face limitations and the height limitations. SPS intends to comply with the requirement that the sign be turned off by 10 p.m.

m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any:

The project would not affect 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 majority of the new elementary school building would be 38 feet high above the existing grade. A portion of the building that contains the mechanical equipment in a penthouse structure would be 48 feet above existing grade. The mechanical penthouses would be set back approximately 10 feet from the building perimeter that faces a property line, making the mechanical penthouse portion of the building approximately 35 feet from the nearest property line. The tallest portion of the existing building is approximately 36 feet 5 inches above existing grade.

The exterior building materials for the new structure would be masonry, metal siding, and cement board panels.


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

Views in the vicinity would not be altered or obstructed. The Wing Luke Elementary School site itself has an expansive view to the west and southwest. While the new school would be taller than the existing school, it would not obstruct views. Properties to the south and east of the school are at a lower elevation than the school property, obscuring views from the residences to the school site. Properties north of the school are visually separated by trees, fencing, and yards. The service yard would be screened so that it would not be visible from properties directly adjacent to the east side of the site.

The proposed reader board would be located on the north side of the school and would be visible from South Kenyon Street and from residences on the north side of South Kenyon Street.

The reader board sign would be designed to complement the overall campus design and lettering used throughout the school. The design and colors of the sign would blend with the new school building. The sign would be 6 feet high, which would be lower than the school building. The sign would not be illuminated internally (i.e., backlit) nor would it be lit from outside lighting, such as a ground-level spotlight. The reader board would use amber LED lights to display messages. The messages would consist of static rather than flashing messages of text and simple graphics. The messages would change at a specified frequency, such as every 10 seconds. The sign would be on during day and night time. The sign would be turned off by 10 p.m. each night per SMC 23.55.020(D)(7), and turned on again at 7 a.m.

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. Exterior lighting would be needed for personnel and building safety. Building-mounted lights would likely be utilized to illuminate the building entrances and parking areas. Pole-mounted luminaries would be utilized for walkway and parking areas.

The proposed reader board would not be illuminated internally (i.e., backlit) and would not be lit from outside lighting such as a ground-level

October 2017

spotlight shining onto the sign. The reader board would use LED lights to display static messages which could be seen in day or night time but would not provide measurable illumination to the surrounding area. The reader board would not be illuminated past 10 p.m. The display would not cast light onto the surrounding area and would not create any light or glare impacts.

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.

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. Safety lighting would be designed to minimize light spill over. 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?

Recreational opportunities on the Wing Luke Elementary site include a hard surface play area taking up much of the southwest portion of the site, a play structure along the west side of the hard surface play area, another play structure to the east of the school building in the north portion of the site, and a large play field in the southeast quadrant of the site. The playfield often cannot be used due to poor drainage causing the field to be mucky and limited visibility making it difficult to monitor the field for safety.

City of Seattle Parks in the vicinity of Wing Luke Elementary include:

Chief Sealth Trail, located approximately 60 feet to the east of the northeastern corner of the parcel, which is a multi-purpose trail that runs along the City Light utilities corridor and which features a trail connecting the Mountains-to-Sound Greenway trail extension on Beacon Hill and Sound Transit light rail stations along Martin Luther King Jr. Way.


East Duwamish Greenbelt, located approximately 1,200 feet west of the project site, which is a natural area that includes trails and wooded areas along the eastern edge of the I-5 corridor.

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

Construction of a new school building would require removal of the existing on-site play areas and a regrading of the play field. The current recreation features would be replaced with new and upgraded facilities.

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

The upgraded recreational facilities would include a gymnasium on the northeast side of the site, a covered play area, a large play field on the east and southeast corner of the parcel, and a soft surface play area next to the location of the portables. The play field, play equipment, and other open spaces on the site would be open to the public for recreational activities outside of school hours.

The current field is mostly unusable due to insufficient field drainage. The project would improve drainage of the field by improving the soil to a sandier mixture so water will drain through more easily and by installing perforated piping under the field to convey water more quickly to the stormwater drainage system. Therefore, the project would make the playfield a more usable recreational feature.

The play field would be regraded so that it is more easily accessible from the new school building. Also, the site would be reconfigured so that the field could be monitored more easily.

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation

A Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Wing Luke Elementary site was developed by ESA (ESA, 2017). Information from the technical memorandum is summarized 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.

Wing Luke Elementary School meets the minimum age threshold for consideration as a potential historic property. SPS nominated the building for review by the Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board in 2003 and the building was determined to not be eligible at that time.

October 2017

Twenty-nine properties adjacent to the school meet the City’s minimum-age threshold for a historic property (being 25 years old). Three adjacent residences have been determined Not Eligible for listing the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The remaining properties have not been evaluated for their potential listing in the NRHP or as a Seattle Landmark. The proposed project would not impact any of these properties.

The Wing Luke Elementary school opened in 1962 as the Van Asselt School Annex. In 1967 the school was renamed South Van Asselt School and then in 1969 renamed again as Wing Luke Elementary School. Wing Luke was a Chinese-American man, attorney, and active civic leader in the preservation of Seattle’s Pike Place Market and Pioneer Square. He served on the Seattle City Council from 1962 to 1965 and was the first person of Asian descent to hold public office in Washington State. He was involved in promoting open housing and many other political issues impacting Asian-American communities. (ESA, 2017).

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 in the project area. The nearest site is approximately half a mile west of the project site. The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) Statewide Predictive Model classifies the project area as Moderate to High Risk for containing subsurface precontact cultural resources. People may have visited the forested uplands of Seattle to collect resources resulting in loss or deposition of small numbers of artifacts, but it is unlikely that occupation resulting in archaeological deposits ever occurred. Moreover, the lack of natural deposition since the Pleistocene, combined with disturbances from historic farming and construction of the existing Wing Luke Elementary School further reduce the probability for any intact precontact resources. Ethnographic data does not indicate any Native American places were associated with this location, and geological records indicate significant land modification on the subject property. Therefore, ESA considers the project area to have a low sensitivity for intact, buried cultural resources and unidentified historic properties (ESA, 2017).

ESA also reviewed geotechnical logs for investigations completed on the subject property (AESI, 2017). The data demonstrated fill directly overlying glacial deposits at depths ranging between just below the current ground surface to 11 feet below the surface. Geological data and the geotechnical results indicate that the former ground surface that would date to the earliest known human occupation of the region has been


removed. Therefore, the probability of buried precontact resources is low (ESA, 2017).

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, 2017).

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.

No impacts to historic or cultural resources are anticipated. SPS will develop an inadvertent discovery plan (IDP). The IDP will set forth procedures and protocols to follow in the event of an archaeological resources discovery, including discovery of human remains. The IDP will include pre-construction briefings and on-call response if required. SPS would provide tribal representatives, including those of the Duwamish Tribe, with one-week advance notification of the project schedule and invite them to observe construction. No on-site archaeological monitoring is recommended during project construction.

14. Transportation

A Transportation Technical Report for the project was developed by Heffron Transportation, Inc. (Heffron, 2017a; Appendix A). An Addendum for Earthwork Quantities Update was also developed by Heffron Transportation, Inc. (Heffron, 2017b; Appendix B). Information from the technical report and the addendum is summarized 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 S Kenyon Street on the north, 37th Avenue S to the west, S Rose Street to the south, and S 39th Street (along the south

October 2017

half) and residential properties (along the northern half) to the east. The site has an on-site parking lot with 39 spaces; it is accessed from a single driveway on S Kenyon Street. There is also a driveway curb-cut on 39th Avenue S that provides access for maintenance and service vehicles, including garbage collection. Occasionally, some vehicles park in these areas during non-school hours.

Passenger-vehicle load/unload activities occur within the main parking lot accessed from S Kenyon Street as well as on-street on surrounding roadways. School-bus load/unload activities occur on-street along the east side of 37th Avenue S. The curbside frontage along the northern portion of 37th Avenue S is signed for “School Bus Only” from 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. and from 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. Staff and visitor parking occurs on-site in the parking lot and on-street on the roadways that surround the school site.

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 and Sound Transit provide bus and light-rail transit service near the Wing Luke Elementary School site. The closest bus stops are located on Beacon Avenue S at S Monroe Street about 475 feet to the west of the school site. Stops serving both northbound and southbound buses are located just south of S Monroe Street on the respective sides of the street. These stops are served by Metro Route 106. There are also transit stops and Link Light Rail stops about 1,200 feet east of the school site on Martin Luther King Jr Way S. The Metro stop serving southbound buses is located on the west side of the street, south of S Kenyon Street. The Metro stop serving northbound buses is located on the east side of the street, north of S Kenyon Street. Both stops are served by Metro Route 8. The nearest Link Light Rail stations are 0.8 miles north (Othello Station) or 1 mile south (Rainer Beach Station). The following describes the stops and service in the vicinity.

School bus transportation is made available to Wing Luke Elementary School students who qualify for transportation. Students whose transportation service addresses are within the attendance area boundaries and outside the designated walk boundaries are eligible for district arranged transportation. The existing school is currently served by two full-size (general education) buses and four smaller (Special Education or SPED) buses.

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 would replace and reconfigure parking on the site. The existing site has 39 parking spaces in the north parking lot. A second parking area with no striped spaces is located on the southwest side of the


school building and is primarily used by service vehicles, though some staff/visitors also park in the area. The proposed project would provide 45 parking spaces. With the load/unload spaces, the site would have 52 parking spaces that could be used during evening or weekend events.

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).

Frontage improvements would be constructed to City of Seattle requirements; no other off-site roadway or intersection improvements would be required.

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

The site is located within about 1,000 feet of the Sound Transit Link Light Rail line that operates within the Martin Luther King Jr. Way right-of-way to the east. Some staff or visitors could use Link to access the site vicinity. The project would not use or occur in the immediate vicinity of water 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?

The traffic analysis conducted for this SEPA Checklist reflected conditions with the replacement school operating at its proposed capacity of 660 students, an increase of 304 students compared to the existing school enrollment. Based on daily trip generation rates published for elementary schools by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and adjusted to reflect higher peak period rates observed at the site, the replacement Wing Luke Elementary School project is expected to generate a net increase of about 670 trips per day (335 in, 335 out). The peak traffic volumes are expected to occur in the morning just before classes begin (expected between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m.) and in the afternoon around dismissal (expected between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.).

The estimates described above include school-bus and delivery trips to the and from the site. Based on the current and expected number of buses planned to serve the site, the project could generate about 12 additional school-bus trips per day (3 in and 3 out in the morning and 3 in and 3 out in the afternoon). Other commercial vehicle trips would include

October 2017

occasional food and supply deliveries as well as trash and recycling pick-up that already occur at the site.

For more information about the anticipated school traffic generation, refer to Appendix A – Transportation Technical Report (Heffron Transportation, Inc., 2017).

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.

There are no agricultural or forest product uses in the immediate site vicinity and the project would not interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural or forest products.

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

Construction

Impacts associated with construction of the new school include truck traffic for earthwork (see Section B.1.e). The Draft SEPA Checklist included worst-case estimates of earthwork volume and durations for construction. Since the Draft Checklist was released, SPS and the design team have refined the site design and revised the approach to earthwork on the site. The prior analysis noted that construction would include earthwork that would remove up to 21,500 cubic yards (cy) of material from the site and fill up to 33,200 cy of material, resulting in between 585 and 2,735 truckloads over the duration of the project.

A more detailed construction phasing plan has been developed based on refined earthwork values provided by the civil engineer for the project. The transportation impacts associated with the revised estimates for earthwork were evaluated by Heffron Transportation, Inc. in an Addendum for Earthwork Quantities Update (Heffron, 2017b; Appendix B) and are summarized below.

The Phase 1 excavation and fill effort could generate between 765 and 2,575 truckloads over 5 months at the beginning of the construction period. This would correspond to between seven and 25 truckloads per day, and average of between one and three truckloads per hour (up to three trucks in and three trucks out) during a typical 8-hour construction work day. The Phase 2 excavation and fill effort could generate between 65 and 695 truckloads over 4 months, later in the construction period. This would correspond to between one and eight truckloads per day, and average of up to one truckload per hour (up to one truck in and one truck out) during a typical 8-hour construction work day. With the updated earthwork quantities and phasing plan, the estimated daily truck trips are expected to be fewer than those previously evaluated.


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. Some parking for construction personnel could be provided within the school site, but some construction workers could park on streets near the school.

Operations

The project includes several components which would improve traffic and pedestrian safety compared to current conditions, including frontage as required by SDOT such as new curb and sidewalk along S Kenyon Street.

Based on the above findings, the following measures are included as part of the proposal to reduce the traffic and parking impacts associated with the Wing Luke Elementary School expansion project.

A. SPS will require the selected contractor to develop a construction management plan (CMP) that addresses traffic and pedestrian control during school construction. It will 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 may 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 off-site. The CMP would identify parking locations for the construction staff; to the extent possible, construction employee parking should be contained on-site.

B. Prior to the school opening, SPS and school principal would establish a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to educate parents and students about the preferred access and circulation for the new school layout. The effort would encourage supervised walking (such as walking school buses), carpooling, and school bus ridership for those eligible. The plan would define clear procedures and travel routes and preferred load/unload locations.

C. SPS would work with SDOT to confirm the locations, extent, and signage of school-bus and passenger-vehicle load/unload zones adjacent to the school site.

October 2017

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

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

F. The alternative access to the service/loading dock proposed at the northeast corner of the site would remain closed with gates or bollards except for very infrequent use (once or twice per year) by large delivery trucks. During use of this access, a flagger should be present to control vehicular and pedestrian movements and assist with the movements into and out of this access.

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.

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. Circle utilities currently available at the site:

Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other

In addition to those utilities indicated above, cable and internet services are also available at the site.


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 utility service to the new school, 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.

October 2017

C. SIGNATURE

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

Signature:

Name of signee:

Position and Agency/Organization:

Date Submitted:



REFERENCES

Associated Earth Sciences Incorporated (AESI). 2017. Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. February 17, 2017.

City of Seattle. 2015. City of Seattle Comprehensive Plan. Draft November, 2015.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2017. Wing Luke Elementary School Project, Cultural Resources Assessment, Seattle, King County, WA. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. May 8, 2017.

Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2017a. Transportation Technical Report for Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. June 28, 2017.

Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2017b. Addendum for Earthwork Quantities Update. Prepared fo Seattle Public Schools. September 13, 2017.

King County. 2017. King County iMap. Available: https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/. Accessed: September 7, 2017.

Novo Laboratory & Consulting Services, Inc. (Novo). 2017. RE: Good Faith Inspection Letter – Wing Luke Elementary School. March 22, 2017.

Seattle Public Schools. 2012. Building Excellence Phase IV Capital Improvement Program Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by ESA. July 2012.

Tree Solutions Inc. 2017. Arborist Report. March 9, 2017; updated March 28, 2017.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017. PHS on the Web. Accessed: March 13, 2017. Available: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/.

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2017. Facility/Site Database. Accessed: May 8, 2017. Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/fs/.


September 2017 Page 35

FIGURES

Wing LukeElementary

School

Van AsseltElementary

School

East DuwamishGreenbelt

EastDuwamishGreenbelt

Chief Sealth Trail

South Rose Court

36th

A ven

ueS o

uth

34t h

Ave n

ueSo

uth

South Chicago Street

35th

A ve n

u eS o

ut h

33r d

Aven

u eSo

uth

South Bozeman Street

38th

Aven

u eSo

uth

South Monroe Street

South Austin Street

South Sullivan Street

40th

Aven

ueSo

u thSouth Rose Street

Rock

eryDr

iv eSo

uth

42nd

Ave n

ueS o

uth

ChicagoCourt S outh

South Holly Park Drive

44th

Aven

u eS o

u th

South Holden Street

South Portland Street

South Webster Street

South Kenyon Street

39t h

A ven

ueSo

uth

South Thistle Street

South Cloverdale Street

32nd

A ven

ueS o

uth

Holly

Park

Drive

South

43rdAvenue So uth

37th

Aven

ueSo

u th

Ren ton AvenueSouth

Beacon Ave nue South

Mar tin

Luth e

rKing

Junio

rWay

S outh

Path:

U:\G

IS\G

IS\Pr

ojects

\15xx

xx\D

1507

27.02

_SPS

_Wing

Luke

\03_M

XDs_

Proje

cts\V

icinity

Map.m

xd, a

naka

e 3/7

/2017

SOURCE: OpenStreetMap, 2016; ESA, 2017

0 500Feet

Figure 1SPS Wing Luke

Project Vicinity

N

ProjectVicinity

Seattle, WA

Tiny TotsDevelopment

Center

Chief Sealth Trail

Chief Sealth Trail

38t h

A ven

ueSo

uth

South Chicago Street

Kenyon Way South

South Rose Street

South Kenyon Street

39th

Aven

ueSo

uth

36th

Aven

ueSo

uth

37t h

A ven

ueSo

u th

Holly

Park

Driv

e Sou

th

Path:

U:\G

IS\G

IS\Pr

ojects

\15xx

xx\D

1507

27.02

_SPS

_Wing

Luke

\03_M

XDs_

Proje

cts\P

rojec

tArea

.mxd

, cstr

uthers

6/28

/2017

SOURCE: DigitalGlobe, 2016; ESA, 2017

0 100Feet

Figure 2SPS Wing Luke

Project Area

N

Wing Luke

Site Plan

SOURCE: NAC, 2017

Pat

h: G

:\15

xxxx

\D15

0727

.02

SP

S W

ing

Luke

Ele

men

tary

Rep

lace

men

t\05

_Fig

ures

_Pho

tos\

Gra

phi

cs \

Fig

03_S

iteP

lan.

ai J

AB

06/

28/1

7

Figure 3



APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

`

TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT

for

Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement

PREPARED FOR:

Seattle Public Schools

PREPARED BY:

6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 ph: (206) 523-3939 fx: (206) 523-4949

June 28, 2017

Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement Transportation Technical Report

- i - June 28, 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Roadway Network .................................................................................................................. 5 2.2. Traffic Volumes ..................................................................................................................... 7 2.3. Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 12 2.4. Parking ................................................................................................................................. 15 2.5. Traffic Safety ....................................................................................................................... 18 2.6. Transit Facilities and Service ............................................................................................... 19 2.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities ............................................................................. 19

3. PROJECT IMPACTS .................................................................................................................... 21 3.1. Roadway Network ................................................................................................................ 21 3.2. Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................................... 21 3.3. Traffic Operations ................................................................................................................ 26 3.4. Parking Demand and Supply ................................................................................................ 28 3.5. Traffic Safety ....................................................................................................................... 29 3.6. Transit .................................................................................................................................. 29 3.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities ............................................................................. 29 3.8. Short-term Impacts from Construction ................................................................................ 30

4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................. 31

APPENDIX A – LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS

APPENDIX B – PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY DATA


- ii - June 28, 2017

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location and Vicinity ...................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes – Morning Peak Hour ........................................................ 8 Figure 4. Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes – Afternoon Peak Hour ...................................................... 9 Figure 5. Forecast 2020 Without-Project Traffic Volumes – Morning Peak Hour .............................. 10 Figure 6. Forecast 2020 Without-Project Traffic Volumes – Afternoon Peak Hour ............................ 11 Figure 7. On-Street Parking Utilization Study Area and Block Faces ................................................. 16 Figure 8. Project Trip Distribution and Assignment – Morning and Afternoon Peak Hour ................ 23 Figure 9. Forecast (2020) With-Project Traffic Volumes – Morning Peak Hour................................. 24 Figure 10. Forecast (2020) With-Project Traffic Volumes – Afternoon Peak Hour ............................ 25

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Pipeline Development Projects Included in Traffic Forecasts ............................................... 12 Table 2. Level of Service Summary – Existing (2017) and 2020-Without-Project Conditions ........... 14 Table 3. Parking Demand Survey Results – April 2017 ....................................................................... 17 Table 4. Collision Summary (January 1, 2014 through February 28, 2017) ........................................ 18 Table 5. Wing Luke Elementary School Project – Trip Generation Estimates .................................... 22 Table 6. Level of Service Summary –2020-Without- and With-Project Conditions ............................ 27


- 1 - June 28, 2017

1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the transportation impact analyses for the Seattle Public Schools’ proposed replacement and expansion of Wing Luke Elementary School project. The scope of analysis and approach were based on extensive past experience performing transportation impact analyses for projects throughout the City of Seattle, including numerous analyses prepared for projects by Seattle Public Schools. These analyses were prepared to support the SEPA Checklist for this project. This report documents the existing conditions in the site vicinity, presents estimates of project-related traffic, and evaluates the anticipated impacts to the surrounding transportation system including transit, parking, safety, and non-motorized facilities.

1.1. Project Description

Seattle Public Schools plans to replace and expand the existing Wing Luke Elementary School, which is located at 3701 S Kenyon Street in Seattle. The following sections describe the existing school site and the proposed project to replace and expand the existing school.

1.1.1. Existing School

The existing school consists of two buildings totaling about 50,720 square feet (sf) with a main building (30,650 sf) and separate building (about 20,070 sf) containing additional classrooms, a gymnasium, and an auditorium.1 There is also a Tiny Tots Development Center located on the southwest corner of the site. In October 2016, enrollment at Wing Luke Elementary was reported at 356 students2 with 65 staff members serving kindergarten through fifth grade (K-5). The Tiny Tots Development Center is licensed for up to 30 students and has 3 staff.3 The school site is bounded by S Kenyon Street on the north, 37th Avenue S to the west, S Rose Street to the south, and S 39th Street (along the south half) and residential properties (along the northern half) to the east. The project site location and vicinity are shown in Figure 1. The Wing Luke Elementary School site is occupied by the existing school buildings, a hard-surface play area, and grass play area on the southeast corner, and open grass lawns on the northwest corner. The site has an on-site parking lot with 39 spaces; it is accessed from a single driveway on S Kenyon Street. There is also a driveway curb-cut on 39th Avenue S that provides access for maintenance and service vehicles, including garbage collection. Occasionally, some vehicles park in these areas during non-school hours. Passenger-vehicle load/unload activities occur within the main parking lot accessed from S Kenyon Street as well as on-street on surrounding roadways. School-bus load/unload activities occur on-street along the east side of 37th Avenue S. The curbside frontage along the northern portion of 37th Avenue S is signed for “School Bus Only” from 7:00 to 10:00 A.M. and from 1:00 to 4:00 P.M.; two full-size buses and four smaller buses/vans currently serve the school. Staff and visitor parking occurs on-site in the parking lot and on-street on the roadways that surround the school site.

1 King County Assessor, March 2017. 2 Seattle Public Schools P223 Enrollment Data, October 2016. 3 Email communication, S. Lund, SPS Project Manager, March 17, 2017.

OthelloPlayground

ProjectSite

Figure 1

Site Vicinity

Chief Sealth Trail

46th

Ave

S

S Kenyon St

S Thistle St

S Holden St

S Portland St

S Webster St

S Othello St

S Holly Park Dr

S Rose St

S Kenyon St

S Holden St

S Othello St

37th

Ave

S

39th

Ave

S

39th

Ave

S

46th

Ave

S

32nd

Ave

S

S Cloverdale St

d5

d5

Van AsseltElementary

Beacon A

ve S

Renton A

ve S

S Rose St

M L

Kin

g Jr

Wy

S

S Webster St

S Rose St

Military R

d S

04.29.17

WING LUKE ELEMENTARYReplacement Project


- 3 - June 28, 2017

According to information published in Building for Learning, Seattle Public Schools Histories, 1862-2000,4 the original school on the site opened as the Van Asselt School Annex in 1966 with nine portables serving grades K-6. It re-opened as an independent South Van Asselt school in 1967. The school was re-named after Wing Luke (Seattle’s first Asian-American city councilman) in 1969. The permanent Wing Luke School building was constructed and opened in 1971 with capacity for 400 students. It has had variable enrollments over the past fifteen years with a peak level of 365 students reported for the 2009-2010 school year. Wing Luke Elementary is designated a high poverty school, which allows for federal grant-funded and City levy-funded teaching positions in addition to the Seattle Public School funded positions. Wing Luke Elementary also has Special Education programs with high teacher-to-student ratios.

1.1.2. Proposed Site Changes

The purpose of the proposed project is to replace and expand the school and accommodate the increasing enrollment that is occurring District-wide. Once complete, the school would have an enrollment capacity of 660 students. In addition, the project would include a childcare center to replace the Tiny Tots Development Center. The childcare center would have capacity for 50 students consisting of 30 pre-K students (replacing the Tiny Tots pre-school capacity) before- and after-school care for 20 students that would attend Wing Luke Elementary. When complete and operating at its planned capacity of 660 students, the District estimates the school could have 93 employees (67 full-time, 26 part-time5); the childcare center is expected to have 3 staff. Construction of the replacement school is planned to occur from June 2018 to August 2020, with occupancy planned in September 2020. Therefore, all future analyses (without and with the proposed project) in this report reflect year 2020 conditions. During construction, students would be temporarily relocated to the Old Van Asselt School building, located about a mile northwest of the Wing Luke site at 7201 Beacon Avenue S in Seattle. The replacement Wing Luke Elementary School would have about 93,500 sf of building floor area including 35 classrooms, a gymnasium, cafeteria, music and art rooms, and a library. It would provide a childcare center to replace the existing Tiny Tots Development Center. The school site would provide a covered play area, outdoor playfield (at the southeast corner), and an interior courtyard. The northern parking lot would be reconfigured and expanded to provide 40 parking spaces and on-site passenger-vehicle load/unload area (with 7 load/unload spaces). The load/unload spaces could be used for parking during times other than peak arrival and dismissal periods. A service/loading dock area is proposed on the eastern side of the building where five additional staff parking spaces are planned. In total, the project proposes 45 on-site parking spaces available on school days. With the load/unload spaces, the site would have 52 parking spaces that could be used during evening or weekend events. The main parking lot, on-site passenger vehicle load/unload area, and the service/loading dock area would all be accessed from two driveways on S Kenyon Street—inbound at the western driveway and outbound at the eastern driveway. An alternative access to the service/loading dock is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. This access would remain closed with gates or bollards except for very infrequent use (once or twice per year) by large delivery trucks. The location of the designated school-bus load/unload zone is expected to remain in approximately its current location—along the east side of 37th Avenue S. Frontage improvements would be constructed to City of Seattle requirements. No other changes to the roadway network in the site vicinity are proposed as part of the project. The proposed site plan is depicted in Figure 2.

4 N. Thompson and C. Marr, 2002. 5 Email communication, K. Skutack, June 2017.


Figure 2

Proposed Site Plan

Source: NAC Architecture, June 22, 2017

S Kenyon Street

Kenyon W

ay S37

thA

ven

ue

S

39th

Ave

nu

e S

S Rose Street


- 5 - June 28, 2017

2. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS This section of the report presents the existing and future conditions without the proposed project. The impacts of the proposed project were evaluated against these base conditions. Year 2020 was selected as the future horizon year for the analyses, because this is the year the school is scheduled to be completed. For comparison, and to provide an analysis of potential new traffic and parking impacts, year 2020 without-project conditions assume the existing Wing Luke Elementary School would continue operating as is with its existing level of enrollment (356 students). The following sections describe the existing roadway network, traffic volumes, traffic operations (in terms of levels of service), traffic safety, transit facilities, non-motorized facilities, and parking. Study-area intersections were selected based on the travel routes used by family drivers, school buses, and staff to access and egress the site area. The following eight study area intersections, listed based on control type, were identified for analysis for both the morning arrival and afternoon dismissal peak hours. These are the time periods when the school would continue to generate its highest levels of traffic.

Signalized S Kenyon Street / M L King Jr Way S

Two-Way Stop-Sign Control S Kenyon Street / Beacon Avenue S S Rose Street / Beacon Avenue S S Kenyon Street / 39th Avenue S

Traffic Circle S Kenyon Street / 37th Avenue S

Uncontrolled Intersections S Rose Street / 37th Avenue S S Rose Street / 39th Avenue S Kenyon Way S/ 39th Avenue S

School access along S Kenyon Street was also evaluated.

2.1. Roadway Network

The following describes key roadways in the site vicinity. Roadway classifications are based on the City’s Street Classification Map.6 In September 2016, the Seattle City Council approved an ordinance7 to change Seattle’s default arterial speed limit from 30 to 25 miles per hour (unless otherwise posted), and the default non-arterial speed limit from 25 to 20 miles per hour. The change to the default speed limit initially affects arterials in and around downtown and took effect in November 2016. In 2017, the City plans to consider speed limit reductions for several “neighborhood arterials” beyond downtown. Martin Luther King Jr. Way S is a four-lane, north-south Principal Arterial that provides access between the Central Area and Rainier Valley neighborhoods of Seattle. Near the site, Link Light Rail operates in the center median (with northbound and southbound tracks). Its intersection with S Kenyon Street is signalized. There is curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the street. There are painted crosswalks and signalized pedestrian crossings in all directions. In the vicinity of the intersection, there are some intermittent segments with on-street parking in pull-out areas. Beacon Avenue S is a four-lane, north-south Collector Arterial that provide access between the Beacon Hill and Rainier Beach neighborhoods of Seattle. Near the project site, the northbound and southbound lanes are separated by a wide, landscaped median with a paved asphalt trail. Vehicles crossing Beacon Avenue S must yield in the median before turning or crossing. There is curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the street. The outside curb lane on both sides is dedicated to parking and transit stops. Bicycle

6 Seattle Department of Transportation, Street Classification Maps, accessed November 2016. 7 City of Seattle, Office of the City Clerk, Ordinance #125169 passed September 26, 2016.


- 6 - June 28, 2017

sharrows are painted on the roadway; a “sharrow” is a shared-lane pavement marking that is placed in the roadway lane to highlight the shared space. A 20 miles-per-hour (mph) school zone for southbound traffic exists adjacent to Van Asselt Elementary School and extends from S Chicago Street to south of S Thistle Street. Northbound, the 20-mph school zone extends from south of S Thistle Street to north of S Kenyon Street. There are school crossing signs and painted crosswalks at the intersections with S Kenyon Street (south legs), S Rose Street (south legs), and S Thistle Street (north legs). S Kenyon Street is a two-lane, east-west residential Access Street that connects key arterials at Beacon Avenue S on the west and Martin Luther King Jr. Way S on the east. Near the site, there is no curb or gutter on either side of the street. There is a sidewalk separated from the street by a landscape strip on the south side of the street. Parking occurs on both sides of the street. There are school crossing signs but no marked crosswalks at the intersection of S Kenyon Street with 37th Avenue S, and on the curve at the northeast corner of the site. Painted crosswalks previously existed at both locations, but appear to have been eliminated when S Kenyon Street was re-paved. S Rose Street is a discontinuous, two-lane, east-west residential Access Street. In the site vicinity, it provides access between 24th Avenue S on the west and 37th Avenue S on the east. There is a half-block gap in S Rose Street at the south edge of the Wing Luke Elementary site and a short segment that extends east to 39th Avenue S. There are no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks on either segment. West of 37th Avenue S, there is a sidewalk on the north side of the street. West of 36th Avenue S, pre-fabricated concrete curb segments delineate the north pavement edge. Its approaches to Beacon Avenue S are stop-sign controlled. There are painted crosswalks at the intersection with Beacon Avenue S (south and west legs). 37th Avenue S is a two-lane, north-south residential Access Street connecting S Austin Street on the north to S Cloverdale Street on the south. North of S Thistle Street, there is curb, gutter, and sidewalk on the east side of the street. North of S Rose Street, there is a curb pull-out area that allows for parallel parking on the east side of the street. A portion of this curb-side space adjacent to the site is restricted for school bus only from 7:00 to 10:00 A.M. and from 1:00 to 4:00 P.M. North of S Kenyon Street, there are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks. Its intersection with S Kenyon Street is controlled by a traffic circle. 39th Avenue S is a two-lane, north-south residential Access Street. North of S Kenyon Street, it connects north to S Othello Street; south of S Kenyon Street, it has a steep, narrow switchback curve where it intersects with S Kenyon Way and then extends south to S Cloverdale Street and on to Beacon Avenue S. The segment located adjacent to the site, is narrow with no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks. Due to its width, the travel way is effectively restricted to one lane for both directions of travel between S Kenyon Way and S Rose Street. There is a 20-mph school zone speed limit in effect beginning just south of S Rose Street. Several planning documents were reviewed to determine if any transportation improvements could affect the roadways and intersections near Wing Luke Elementary School by 2020. These documents are listed below with the review findings.

City of Seattle’s Adopted 2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program8 – No improvements identified in the site vicinity.

Adopted Seattle Bicycle Master Plan9 – Recommends off-street facilities along Beacon Avenue S and a protected bike lane on Martin Luther King Jr. Way S in the site vicinity. The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan – Implementation Plan 2016 – 202010 does not include any specific improvements within the study area between 2016 and 2020.

8 City of Seattle, 2017. 9. City of Seattle, March 2015. 10 SDOT, March 2016.


- 7 - June 28, 2017

Neighborhood Greenway Work Plan11 – This plan notes that a neighborhood greenway is currently scheduled to be built (planned for 2020) along 39th Avenue S, between S Myrtle Street and S Kenyon Street, northeast of the site.

Move Seattle – 10-Year Strategic Vision for Transportation12 – Identifies Beacon Avenue S as part of a north-south corridor to improve as a long-term project (completion after 2024). The improvements would include upgraded bicycles facilities and transit service as well as major maintenance to the roadway.

None of the projects listed above are expected to affect the roadway network operations or intersection capacity within the study area by 2020. Therefore, the existing roadway and intersection channelization and operating conditions were assumed to remain unchanged in year 2020 for this analysis.

2.2. Traffic Volumes

2.2.1. Existing Conditions

At the time of this analysis, the school day at Wing Luke Elementary School started at 7:55 A.M. and ended at 2:05 P.M. The school-day length and start and dismissal times will be adjusted for the 2017-2018 school year. The District has received funding from the City of Seattle to change from a three-tier schedule to a two-tier schedule for one year. Therefore, for the 2017-2018 school year, Wing Luke Elementary will begin at 7:55 A.M. and will be dismissed at 2:25 P.M. If ongoing funding for the two-tier schedule is not provided, school hours could return to the three-tier schedule, which could have Wing Luke Elementary starting at 7:45 A.M. and dismissing at 2:15 P.M. To capture the existing traffic conditions during the range of current and potential future arrival and dismissal peak periods, traffic counts were performed at study area intersection from 6:30 to 8:30 A.M. and from 1:00 to 3:00 P.M. on Tuesday March 21, 2017. During these periods, the highest existing hourly volumes in the morning occurred between 7:15 and 8:15 A.M.; in the afternoon, the highest hourly volumes occurred between 1:45 and 2:45 P.M. The morning and afternoon existing peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4, respectively.

2.2.2. Future Without-Project Conditions

Future traffic volume forecasts for 2020 conditions without the project were developed using a combination of a compound annual growth rate provided by City review staff and traffic estimates for five pipeline development projects that could generate traffic at one or more study-area intersections. New residential and commercial development has been somewhat limited in the immediate vicinity of the Wing Luke Elementary site in recent years due to the single-family residential zoning. Based on discussions with City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI) transportation review staff, a 1.0% compound annual growth rate was selected to account for potential new growth that may occur in the area.13 Additionally, project trips from the five potential development projects (referred to as pipeline projects) summarized in Table 1 were added. These project trips are only expected to affect the Kenyon Street S/Martin Luther King Jr Way S intersection. The 2020-without-project morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 5 and Figure 6, respectively.

11 http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/greenwaysworkplan.htm, April 2017. 12 SDOT, Spring 2015. 13 Personal communication, Michael Houston, SDCI, April 10, 2017.

PROJECT SITE

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

S Monroe St

34th

Ave

nue

S

Bea

con

Ave

nue

S

36th

Ave

nue

S

37th

Ave

nue

S

Kenyon Way S

ML

Kin

g Jr

Way

S

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

39th

Ave

S

Chief Sealth Trail

39th

Ave

S

59

0

11

4

0

4

3270

34

463

372

7

333

171118

1514

36

19

5320

3938

3348

5649 35

6

4945

6630

4

88

7 9

1101

513

100

25141

5

11 31 278

0

06

1

1

014

1531

1 1

7

08

767

3

00

0

8 2

48

1

1 20

13

18

25

37530

0

23921 7

18

8

1

6

5

16

Figure 3Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes

School Morning Peak Hour (7:15 to 8:15 AM)

2

0

0

0

04.29.17


PROJECT SITE

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

S Monroe St

34th

Ave

nue

S

Bea

con

Ave

nue

S

36th

Ave

nue

S

37th

Ave

nue

S

Kenyon Way S

ML

Kin

g Jr

Way

S

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

39th

Ave

S

Chief Sealth Trail

39th

Ave

S

22

0

11

2

0

0

2 264

35

152

250

6

272

2468

711

24

9

2418

14

4417

26

2730 12 2

3445

38

30

5

75

27

5

64

202

35

19209

11

9 18197

2

0

6

0

1

310

1927

0 1

11

0

123

313

00

0

12 4

2

4

1

2 1

1

27

24

20

31720

2

3451111

13

4

8

5

18

Figure 4Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes

School Afternoon Peak Hour (1:45 to 2:45 PM)

3

31

00

04.29.17


PROJECT SITE

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

S Monroe St

34th

Ave

nue

S

Bea

con

Ave

nue

S

36th

Ave

nue

S

37th

Ave

nue

S

Kenyon Way S

ML

Kin

g Jr

Way

S

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

39th

Ave

S

Chief Sealth Trail

39th

Ave

S

60

0

10

5

0

5

5280

35

505

385

5

355

201020

1515

35

20

5520

39

4033

48

5750 5

5045

7030

5

90

510

1

105

55

5

105

25145

5

35285

0

0

5

1

1

0

1530

1

5

0

1010

705

0

0

0

10 2

5

10

10

15

25

20

40642

0

25978 5

20

10

5

5

Figure 5Forecast 2020 Without-Project Traffic Volumes School Morning Peak Hour (7:15 to 8:15 AM)

2

45

150

1 2

15

1

10

0

1

04.29.17


PROJECT SITE

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

S Monroe St

34th

Ave

nue

S

Bea

con

Ave

nue

S

36th

Ave

nue

S

37th

Ave

nue

S

Kenyon Way S

ML

Kin

g Jr

Way

S

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

39th

Ave

S

Chief Sealth Trail

39th

Ave

S

25

0

10

2

35

0

2270

35

155

260

5

30

2

25510

510

25

10

2520

14

4517

26

2730 10 2

3545

40

30

5

75

25

5

65

205

45

20215

10

20205

5

0

5

0

1

5 10

11030

0 1

10

0

105

305

00

0

15 5

2

5

1

2

1

30

25

20

30797

2

35617

10

15

5

10

5

Figure 6Forecast 2020 Without-Project Traffic Volumes School Afternoon Peak Hour (1:45 to 2:45 PM)

5

30

0

20

10

1

0

04.29.17



- 12 - June 28, 2017

Table 1. Pipeline Development Projects Included in Traffic Forecasts

Permit # Project Address Program AM Trips PM Trips Trip Estimate Source

3024248 4357 – 43rd Ave S 100 apt. units, retail (unknown) 35 42 Estimated 1

3019543 7339 – 43rd Ave S 63 efficiency units, 22 apt units 30 35 Estimated 1

3027372 7301 ML King Jr. Wy S 498 apt. units, 34,000 sf retail 223 289 Transpo Group 2

3016131 4200 S Othello St 370 apt. units, 18,000 sf retail 125 174 Heffron Transp. 3

3018112 6940 ML King Jr. Wy S 108 apt. units, 7,500 sf comm. 41 52 Heffron Transp. 4 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., April 2017. 1. Traffic study not available, trips estimated by Heffron Transportation, Inc. based on available program data. 2. Othello Public Market Mixed-Use, Transpo Group, August 2015. 3. Othello Station North Mixed-Use Development, Heffron Transportation, Inc., February 27, 2009, and “Trip Generation and Assignment

Update”, April 13, 2009. 4. Mercy Othello Plaza: Trip Generation and Parking Demand Estimate, Heffron Transportation, Inc., February 23, 2015.

2.3. Traffic Operations

Traffic operations analyses were performed for the eight study-area intersections. Traffic operations are evaluated using level of service (LOS) with six letter designations, “A” through “F.” LOS A is the best and represents good traffic operations with little or no delay to motorists. LOS F is the worst and indicates poor traffic operations with long delays. The level of service definitions and thresholds are provided in Appendix A. The City has no adopted level of service standards for individual intersections; however, project-related intersection delay that causes a signalized intersection to operate at LOS E or F, or increases delay at a signalized intersection that is projected to operate at LOS E or F without the project, may be considered a significant adverse impact. The City may tolerate delays in the LOS E or F range for minor movements at unsignalized intersections where traffic control measures (such as conversion to all-way-stop-control or signalization) are not applicable or desirable. Levels of service were determined using procedures in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.14 Delay calculations rely on complex equations that consider a number of variables. For example, delay at signalized intersections is determined based on a complex combination of variables including: the quality of progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume-to-capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Delay at unsignalized intersections determined for vehicles that must stop or yield for oncoming traffic. That delay is related to the availability of gaps in the main street's traffic flow and the ability of a driver to enter or pass through those gaps. All level-of-service calculations were performed using the Synchro 9.1 traffic operations analysis software. Input data for this analysis, including geometric characteristics, signal timing, and signal phasing were collected during field observations. These conditions are expected to stay the same in the future. Results for unsignalized intersections were reported using the HCM 2010. Levels of service for the signalized intersection were reported using the Synchro module which refines Highway Capacity Manual methods to account for more detailed driving behavior and signal operations. Along Beacon Avenue S, vehicles either turning or crossing in the east-west direction must yield to the north-south traffic in the median. To model this two-step movement in Synchro, the east-west movements in the median are treated as stop controlled. In addition, three of the eight unsignalized study-area intersections are uncontrolled. At the S Rose Street intersections with 37th and 39th Avenues S, field observations indicated that the majority of drivers treat the east and west approaches as stop-controlled. At the Kenyon Way S/39th Avenue S intersection, the majority of drivers treat the north approach as stop-controlled. The intersections were evaluated as stop controlled based on these observations. 14 HCM 2010, Transportation Research Board, 2010.


- 13 - June 28, 2017

The Sound Transit Link Light Rail trains pass through the S Kenyon Street/Martin Luther King Jr Way S intersection. Each peak hour, approximately 20 trains (including both directions) utilize a dedicated right of way in the center of Martin Luther King Jr Way S. The traffic signal at this intersection is actuated, which means it can allocate green time to the various movements based on demand. When a train approaches the intersection, the traffic signal may reduce the amount of time allocated to movements that conflict with the trains. At this intersection, the northbound left-turn, westbound/eastbound through-and left-turn movements, and the east-west pedestrian crossings are the only movements that conflict with the Link trains. The traffic volumes and number of pedestrians utilizing these conflicting movements are very low when compared to the volumes utilizing the non-conflicting movements. Because of this imbalance, the traffic signal allocates substantially less green time to these conflicting movements. During a 30-minute observation of this intersection in the morning peak hour, the trains did not impact vehicle operations because the trains never approached the intersection when a conflicting movement was active. Although the trains had little observed impact on the signal timing, the models used to analyze traffic operations consider a situation where the signal may delay the start of a conflicting movement so a train can pass through the intersection without stopping. To account for this situation, an additional five seconds of maximum green time were added to the north-south movements after the signal timing and phase splits were optimized for vehicle operations." Table 2 summarizes existing (2017) and forecast 2020 levels of service without the proposed project for both the morning and afternoon peak hour conditions. As shown, all intersections operate overall at LOS A or better during both morning and afternoon peak hours. All movements at the uncontrolled and stop-controlled intersections currently operate at LOS C or better during the morning peak hour and LOS B or better during the afternoon peak hours. The assumed growth in background traffic would add small amounts of delay (2.0 seconds or less per vehicle) to the study-area intersections by 2020 without the project. However, the intersections are projected to continue operating overall at LOS A and all movements at the unsignalized intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better in 2020 without the Wing Luke Elementary School replacement project. It should be noted that, based on observations performed at the existing school during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal, parent-vehicles arrive from all directions and short-term parking for load/unload activities occurs primarily along both sides of S Kenyon Street in front of the school. Load/unload activities also occur along both sides of 37th Avenue S just north of S Rose Street. During these times, on-street parking and maneuvering into and out of the parking spaces does slow travel around the school, particularly along S Kenyon Street. This resulted in somewhat congested conditions for about 15 minutes in the morning (7:35 to 7:50 A.M.) and about 20 minutes in the afternoon (2:00 to 2:20 P.M.). Analyses of the existing site access driveway indicate it currently operates at LOS A overall and all movements operate at LOS B or better during morning and afternoon peak hours. It would continue to operate at these levels in 2020 without the Wing Luke Elementary School replacement project.


- 14 - June 28, 2017

Table 2. Level of Service Summary – Existing (2017) and 2020-Without-Project Conditions

Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour

Intersections Existing (2017) 2020 w/o project Existing (2017) 2020 w/o project

Signalized LOS 1 Delay 2 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

S Kenyon St / ML King Jr Wy S (overall) A 6.1 A 6.3 A 7.6 A 7.6

Traffic Circle LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

NW 68th St / 32nd Ave NW 3 A 4.5 A 4.6 A 4.0 A 4.0

Two-Way-Stop Controlled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

S Kenyon St / Beacon Ave S (NB) (overall) A 4.3 A 4.5 A 3.2 A 3.3 Northbound Left A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.3 A 7.3 Eastbound Movements C 17.9 C 19.1 B 12.5 B 12.9 Westbound Movements A 13.8 A 14.0 A 10.9 A 11.0

S Kenyon St / Beacon Ave S (SB) (overall) A 5.0 A 5.4 A 2.8 A 2.9 Southbound Left A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 Eastbound Movements B 11.8 B 12.1 B 10.7 B 10.5 Westbound Movements C 16.2 C 17.5 B 13.1 B 13.5

S Rose St / Beacon Ave S (NB) (overall) A 8.1 A 8.9 A 4.6 A 4.8 Northbound Left A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 Eastbound Movements C 21.3 C 23.2 B 12.1 B 12.5 Westbound Movements B 10.6 B 10.6 B 10.0 B 10.5

S Rose St / Beacon Ave S (SB) (overall) A 9.3 A 9.9 A 5.0 A 5.3 Southbound Left A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 Eastbound Movements C 15.2 C 16.0 B 12.1 B 12.3 Westbound Movements B 13.2 B 13.3 B 12.6 B 13.1

S Kenyon St / 39th Ave S (overall) A 4.3 A 4.3 A 3.3 A 3.3 Southbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.6 Westbound Movements B 10.3 B 10.3 A 9.9 A 9.9

Uncontrolled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

S Rose St / 37th Ave S (overall) 4 A 2.0 A 2.0 A 1.8 A 1.8 Northbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 Southbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.3 A 7.3 Eastbound Movements A 9.2 A 9.1 A 9.2 A 9.3 Westbound Movements A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0

S Rose St / 39th Ave S (overall) 4 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 1.7 A 2.0 Northbound Left Turn A 0.0 A 0.0 A 7.2 A 7.2 Eastbound Movements A 8.6 A 8.6 A 8.7 A 8.8

Kenyon Wy / 39th Ave S (overall) 5 A 0.8 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 0.6 Westbound Left A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 Northbound Movements A 9.6 A 9.5 A 9.3 A 9.4

Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., April 2017. 1. LOS = Level of service. 2. Delay = Average seconds of delay per vehicle. 3. Intersection is controlled by traffic circle; evaluated using HCM roundabout methodology. 4. Intersection is uncontrolled. Based on field observations, analysis assumes east-west direction treated as stop. 5. Intersection is uncontrolled. Based on field observation, analysis assumes vehicles on south leg typically stop.


- 15 - June 28, 2017

2.4. Parking

On-site and on-street parking surrounding the existing Wing Luke Elementary School was surveyed to determine the existing parking supply, parking demand, parking utilization and a parking rate for the existing schools. These are described in the following sections.

2.4.1. On-Street Parking

On-street parking occurs along a number of roadways within the study area. A detailed on-street parking utilization study was performed according to the methodology outlined in the City of Seattle’s TIP #117. The City recommends use of this methodology to document the number and type of on-street parking spaces that may exist within a defined study area. This analysis was completed to document the existing supply and how it is currently utilized. The data and analyses are also used to evaluate how parking demand and utilization could be affected by the proposed expansion of Wing Luke Elementary School. The study area for the on-street parking utilization analysis included all roadways within an 800-foot walking distance from the school site corners. The 800-foot walking distance results in a study area that extends to just west of Beacon Avenue S, north to S Holden Street, just south of S Thistle Street, and just east of 39th Avenue S. The land uses within the study area consists of single- and multi-family residences.

Existing On-Street Parking Supply

In the study area, parking is permitted along the roadways with curbs (unless signed for No Parking) including both sides of Beacon Avenue S, the east side of 37th Avenue S between S Kenyon Street and S Thistle Street, and both sides of S Kenyon Street east of 39th Avenue S. However, the majority of the streets do not have curbs. Many of these streets have grass/gravel shoulders varying in width from two feet to six feet. For these conditions, on-street parking capacity was determined based on the street width (e.g. if sufficient to accommodate parked vehicles on one side while maintaining a travel lane) and observed parking patterns. Along S Kenyon Street between Beacon Avenue S and 37th Avenue S, and S Rose Street between Beacon Avenue S and 36th Avenue S, pre-fabricated concrete wheel stops serve as a raised curb along road edge to provide separation between the sidewalk and vehicle travel way. This section of roadway was measured based on the same criteria for streets without curbs. The study area was separated into individual block faces. A block face consists of one side of a street between two cross-streets. For example, the north side of S Kenyon Street between Beacon Avenue S and 37th Avenue S is one block face (identified as block face ‘AO’). The study area and the designated block faces are shown on Figure 7. Each block face was measured and analyzed to determine the number of on-street parking spaces. First, common street features—such as driveways, fire hydrants, and special parking zones—were noted and certain distances adjacent to the street features were noted. No on-street parking capacity was assumed within 30 feet of a signalized or marked intersection, within 20 feet of an uncontrolled intersection, within 15 feet on either side of a fire hydrant, or within 5 feet on either side of a driveway or alley. The remaining unobstructed lengths of street between street features were converted to legal on-street parking spaces using values in the City’s TIP #117. The parking supply survey determined that there are 291 on-street parking spaces within the defined study area. The majority of these spaces (265) are parallel parking with no time restrictions. There are “School Bus Only” zones along the east side of 37th Avenue S adjacent to Wing Luke Elementary and along the south side of S Rose Street west of Beacon Avenue S adjacent to Van Asselt Elementary. The 25 parking spaces in these zones are restricted to school buses only from 7:00 to 10:00 A.M. and 1:00 to 4:00 P.M. There is one space on S Kenyon Street west of Martin Luther King Jr. Way S that is restricted to 3-minute passenger load only (7 A.M. to 6 P.M.). The restricted spaces can be used for general parking during other times.

N

02.28.17


PROJECT SITE

S Portland St

S Kenyon St

S Thistle St

S Rose St

34th

Ave

NW

37th

Ave

S

36th

Ave

S

39th

Ave

S

36th

Ave

S

39th

Ave

S

S Kenyon St

S Holden St

Beacon A

ve S

Mar

tin L

uthe

r K

ing

Jr W

y S

S Kenyon St

Kenyon W

y S

Figure 7Study Area for On-Street Parking

Utilization Surveys

CG

CH

BY

BV

BRBJ

BOBM

BN

AP

AM

AL

AC

AA

AD

AB

CJCI

AN

AI

AH

AO

AG

AX

AZ

AW

AJ

AK

AS

AT

AUAQ

AR

AV

BI

AYBA

BK

BCBBBD BE BH

BL

BZ

CA

CLCK

BG

BX

CECC

BS

BU

BT

CB

BW

BF

CD CF


- 17 - June 28, 2017

Existing On-Street Parking Demand

Existing parking demand counts within the study area were performed in March and April 2017 to document the use of the on-street parking supply. Demand counts were performed at two different times: midday (between 9:15 and 9:45 A.M.) to reflect conditions when typical school-related parking demand would occur and evenings (between 6:45 and 7:15 P.M.) to reflect conditions when school events could occur. The school day and evening counts were performed on two separate days each. The count results were compiled and averaged. Additionally, a midday demand count was conducted during Spring Break (April 13, 2017) to document conditions in the area when school was not in session. The results of the parking demand surveys are summarized in Table 3. Detailed summaries of the on-street parking demand for each block face for all counts are included in Appendix B. On-street parking utilization was calculated using the methodology described in TIP #117. Parking utilization is calculated as the number of vehicles parked on street divided by the number of legal on-street parking spaces within the study area or on a specific block face. The study area utilization totals are also summarized in Table 3. During midday on a school day, 128 to 133 vehicles parked on the area streets, utilizing 49% of the total parking spaces. This is 24 to 29 more vehicles than observed parking during Spring Break when school was not in session. Based on observations, it is estimated that 18 of the vehicles are related to Wing Luke Elementary school employees and/or family volunteers (the rest were related to the nearby Van Asselt Elementary). The highest demand during school days mainly occurred on the south side of S Kenyon Street and on both sides of 37th Avenue S.

Table 3. Parking Demand Survey Results – April 2017

Time Period Surveyed

Parking Supply a

Total Vehicles Parked

% Utilization

Spring Break – Mid Morning (9:15 to 9:45 A.M.)

Thursday, April 13, 2017 265 104 39%

School Days – Mid Morning (9:15 to 9:45 A.M.)

Thursday, April 20, 2017 265 133 50%

Thursday, April 27, 2017 265 128 48%

Average Mid-Morning 265 131 49%

Weekday Evenings (6:45 to 7:15 P.M.)

Thursday, March 23, 2017 291 100 34%

Thursday, March 30, 2017 291 104 36%

Average Evening 291 102 35% Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., April 2017. a. A total of 25 spaces in the study area are restricted for School Bus Only (7 to 10 A.M. and 1 to 4 P.M.); One space is restricted for 3-minute

Passenger Load Only (7 A.M. to 6 P.M.). These spaces were not available during the mid-morning counts.

2.4.2. On-Site Parking

There are two off-street parking areas on the school site. The primary lot, with 39 striped spaces, is located north of the school building. The second area (with no striped spaces) is located on the southwest side of the school building and is primarily used by service vehicles but some staff/visitors also park in this area. On-site school day parking demand counts were performed at the same days and times as described for the on-street parking. The counts found a peak of 51 vehicles parked on-site on April 20 between 9:15 and 9:45 (40 in the north lot, including 4 parked on the grass and 11 vehicles parked in the southwest area.


- 18 - June 28, 2017

2.4.3. Combined On-Site and On-Street School Demand Rate

Based on the parking demand counts performed within the on-site lots and the counts performed on-street on the block faces closest to the school during school-day and Spring-Break conditions, the existing school is estimated to generate total school-day parking demand of 69 vehicles (51 on site and an estimated 18 on-street). Based on the total existing employees (65 at Wing Luke Elementary and 3 at Tiny Tots), this corresponds to a parking demand rate of 1.0 vehicles per employee. This rate reflects that some of the part-time employees may not be on-site every day, but that some family volunteers may be on-site and would generate parking demand.

2.5. Traffic Safety Collision data for the intersections and roadways segments surrounding the project site were obtained from SDOT. The City of Seattle data reflecting the period between January 1, 2014 and February 28, 2017 are summarized in Table 4. The data were examined to determine if there are any unusual traffic safety conditions that could impact or be impacted by the proposed project. There were very few collisions reported in the study area during the 3.2 year period and none of the collisions involved fatalities. The highest number of collisions occurred at S Kenyon Street / Martin Luther King Jr Way S intersection. However, that location averaged fewer than three collisions per year. All of the remaining intersections had one or zero collisions reported. These data do not indicate any unusual traffic safety conditions at the intersections or along any of the roadway segments.

Table 4. Collision Summary (January 1, 2014 through February 28, 2017)

Intersection

Head-on

Rear- End

Side-Swipe

Left Turn

Right Angle

Ped / Cycle

Other a

Total for 3.2 Years

Average/ Year

S Kenyon St / Beacon Ave S 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3

S Kenyon St / 37th Ave S 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.3

S Kenyon St / Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kenyon Way S / 39th Ave S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

S Kenyon St / 39th Ave S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

S Kenyon St / ML King Jr Way S 0 0 0 2 2 0 3 7 2.2

S Rose St / 37th Ave S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

S Rose Street / Beacon Ave S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

S Rose St / 39th Ave S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Roadway Segment

Head-on

Rear- End

Side-Swipe

Left Turn

Right Angle

Ped / Cycle

Other

Total for 3.2 Years

Average/ Year

37th Ave S between S Kenyon St and S Rose St 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.3

39th Ave S between S Kenyon St and S Rose Street

1 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0.9

S Kenyon St between 39th Ave S and ML King Jr Way S

0 0 0 0 1 1 b 4 6 1.9

S Kenyon St between Beacon Ave S & Chief Sealth Trail

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.3

Source: City of Seattle Department of Transportation, Collision data for the period 01/01/2014 through 02/28/2017. a. Other collisions included vehicle collision with light rail train, vehicle struck object off roadway, vehicle struck parked vehicle, vehicles struck

object off roadway, object struck parked vehicle, or no collision diagram available. b. Collision involving a pedestrian occurred on Sunday, August 17, 2014 in daylight conditions.


- 19 - June 28, 2017

2.6. Transit Facilities and Service

King County Metro Transit and Sound Transit provide bus and light-rail transit service near the Wing Luke Elementary School site. The closest bus stops are located on Beacon Avenue S at S Monroe Street about 475 feet to the west of the school site. Stops serving both northbound and southbound buses are located just south of S Monroe Street on the respective sides of the street. These stops are served by Metro Route 106. There are also transit stops and Link Light Rail stops about 1,200 feet east of the school site on Martin Luther King Jr Way S. The Metro stop serving southbound buses is located on the west side of the street, south of S Kenyon Street. The Metro stop serving northbound buses is located on the east side of the street, north of S Kenyon Street. Both stops are served by Metro Route 8. The nearest Link Light Rail stations are 0.8 miles north (Othello Station) or 1 mile south (Rainer Beach Station). The following describes the stops and service in the vicinity.

Metro Route 106 –Route 106 provides all-day service seven days per week between the Renton Transit Center and Downtown Seattle through the Bryn Mawr, Rainier Beach, Sodo, and the International District neighborhoods. The route operates from about 5:00 A.M. to 12:30 A.M. with headways (time between consecutive buses) of 10 to 15 minutes during peak periods and 30 to 50 minutes during off-peak periods.

Metro Route 8 – Provides all-day service seven days per week between the Mount Baker Transit Center and Seattle Center through the Madison Valley, Capitol Hill, and Lower Queen Anne neighborhoods. The route operates from 5:00 A.M. through 1:00 A.M. with headways of 10 to 15 minutes during peak periods and 20 to 40 minutes during off-peak periods.

Link Light Rail – provides all-day service seven days per week between Angle Lake and the University of Washington through SeaTac, Tukwila, and through the Rainier Beach, Othello, Columbia City, Mount Baker, Beacon Hill, Downtown, Westlake, and Capitol Hill neighborhoods of Seattle. Link operates from about 4:45 A.M. to 1:15 A.M., Monday through Saturday, and 5:45 A.M. to 12:15 A.M. on Sundays. Headways are 6 to 10 minutes during peak periods and 10 to 15 minutes during off-peak periods.

School bus transportation is made available to Wing Luke Elementary School students who qualify for transportation. Students whose transportation service addresses are within the attendance area boundaries and outside the designated walk boundaries are eligible for district arranged transportation.15 The existing school is currently served by two full-size (general education) buses and four smaller (Special Education or SPED) buses.

2.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities

As described in the Roadway Network section, there is a sidewalk (at-grade with no curb) along the northern site frontage on the south side of S Kenyon Street. There is a raised curb and sidewalk along the western site frontage on the east side of 37th Avenue S. Beacon Avenue S has a sidewalk in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes throughout the study area. There are signed and marked crosswalks at the Beacon Avenue S intersections with S Rose Street (crossing the west and south legs) and S Kenyon Street intersection (crossing south legs only). Bicycle ‘sharrows’ are painted on the roadway on both sides of Beacon Avenue S. To the east, there are marked, signalized pedestrian crossings at the S Kenyon Street/Martin Luther King Jr Way S intersection on all legs.

15 Seattle Public Schools, Transportation Service Standards 2014-2015, Effective 9/1/2014.


- 20 - June 28, 2017

During the arrival and dismissal periods before and after school, crossing guards are positioned at the S Kenyon Street-Kenyon Way S crosswalk. These crossing guards include a combination of adults and students that assist pedestrians crossing in all directions using flags. As noted previously, the Adopted Seattle Bicycle Master Plan recommends off-street facilities along Beacon Avenue S and a protected bike lane on Martin Luther King Jr. Way S in the site vicinity. However, the Seattle Bicycle Master Plan – Implementation Plan 2016 – 2020 does not include any specific improvements within the study area between 2016 and 2020. The Neighborhood Greenway Work Plan notes that a neighborhood greenway is currently scheduled to be built (planned for 2020) along 39th Avenue S, between S Myrtle Street and S Kenyon Street, northeast of the site. The Move Seattle – 10-Year Strategic Vision for Transportation identifies Beacon Avenue S as part of a north-south corridor to improve as a long-term project (completion after 2024) to provide upgraded bicycles facilities and transit service as well as major maintenance to the roadway.


- 21 - June 28, 2017

3. PROJECT IMPACTS This section of the report describes the conditions that would exist with Wing Luke Elementary School replacement at its planned enrollment capacity of 660 students (plus replacement of the existing 30-student pre-school facility). Vehicle trip estimates associated with the larger school were added to the 2020-without-project traffic volume forecasts. Level of service analyses were performed to determine the proposed project’s impact on traffic operations in the study area. Parking demand and the potential change to on-street parking utilization was also estimated. The following sections describe the methodology used to determine the proposed project’s impacts.

3.1. Roadway Network The proposed school replacement project would reconfigure the northern school parking lot and modify vehicular site access as shown on Figure 2. The north lot and on-site passenger-vehicle load/unload zone would have two access driveways—inbound on the west and outbound on the east. The location of the eastern outbound driveway was selected to provide adequate stopping sight-distance to the east where S Kenyon Street curves south downhill. A third access is proposed at the northeast corner of the site and would remain closed (either with gates or bollards) except for very infrequent use (once or twice per year) for deliveries by large trucks. The two existing site access driveways located along 37th Avenue S would be eliminated. The project would make frontage improvements as required by SDOT. School buses would continue to use the designated load/unload zone that exists along the east side of 37th Avenue S (in the same location as currently designated). The District estimates the replacement school operating at its capacity could require two regular school buses plus up to seven small SPED buses (reflecting a potential increase of 3 SPED buses). It may be necessary to modify the length or location of the load/unload zone based on changes to the site access and curb-cuts and the number of school buses. No other changes to the off-site roadway network or intersections are proposed.

3.2. Traffic Volumes The proposed project is expected to result in additional vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle activity on the surrounding transportation network. The expanded school is expected to have an enrollment capacity of 660 students plus the pre-school/childcare facility, which would have before- and after-school care capacity for 20 Wing Luke Elementary students plus up to 30 pre-school-age children (as currently exists in the Tiny Tots program on site). The following describes the assumptions used to determine the traffic anticipated from the proposed project.

3.2.1. School Trip Generation

Trip generation estimates for school projects can be developed using one of two methods. For new schools, rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual16 are typically applied. For modernizations and/or expansions of existing schools, it is preferred to use counts of traffic at the existing school. This method works best for schools located in areas where school-related traffic can easily be isolated and identified, and traffic counts can be used to develop rates specifically for that school. The on-site load/unload facilities at Wing Luke Elementary are not easily accessible and many parents choose to park on-street to pick up/drop off students. To derive trip generation, trip estimates included driveway trips, field observations of on-street parking, and traffic counts performed at the intersections surrounding the site. The volumes observed during peak arrival and departure times were compared to volumes that occur during other periods when the school is not generating traffic to estimate the school-related traffic. The resulting estimates were compared to published trip generation rates.

16 ITE, 9th Edition, 2012.


- 22 - June 28, 2017

Table 5 summarizes the vehicle trips generated by the existing school. Based on the data collected, the school currently generates 295 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 185 vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour. These reflect a trip generation rate of 0.76 trips per student in the morning peak hour and 0.48 trips per student in the afternoon peak hour. These rates are higher than the average rates published for Elementary Schools (Land Use 520) in the Trip Generation Manual, which are 0.45 trips per student in the morning peak hour and 0.28 trips per student in the afternoon peak hour. As with many other schools in Seattle and throughout the region, more children are being dropped off or picked up by family members than in the past. In addition, this school serves special need students with two Autism classes and one Access class, and a higher percentage of those students may be driven to and from school. Since these rates were derived specifically for the existing school, they are most appropriate for use in evaluating future conditions with the replacement project. The rates derived specifically for Wing Luke Elementary were applied to the proposed new enrollment capacity. These rates include trips associated with the childcare facility, although many of those trips may occur outside of the peak hours for the school. Table 5 presents the resulting trip estimates. These estimates include school bus trips, employee trips, and family-vehicle trips.

Table 5. Wing Luke Elementary School Project – Trip Generation Estimates


Site Condition Enrollment In Out Total In Out Total

Proposed Wing Luke Elementary 690 students a 273 252 525 162 168 330

Existing Wing Luke Elementary 386 students b 153 142 295 91 94 185

Net Change 304 Students 120 110 230 71 74 145 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., April 2017. a. Planned enrollment capacity of 660 students at Wing Luke Elementary, and enrollment capacity of 30 pre-school students. b. Enrollment of the existing elementary school (356 students) and capacity of the existing Tiny Tots pre-school program (30).

3.2.2. Trip Distribution & Assignment

The traffic estimates presented in Table 5 were assigned to the local roadway network. The distribution patterns for morning and afternoon peak hour trips were estimated based on the current traffic patterns observed and adjusted to account for the increases in site traffic and planned changes in site access. Most of the morning and afternoon peak hour trips are expected to consist of passenger vehicles (for student drop off and pick up) and school buses. Some trips also would likely be generated by teachers or staff, although most teacher/staff trips occur before the morning peak arrival period and after the afternoon peak dismissal period. School buses are expected to approach the site using 37th Avenue S where the designated school bus load/unload zone is planned to remain on the east (northbound) side of the street. After unloading or loading, the buses would depart to the north toward S Kenyon Street. Since the school is centrally located within the school’s attendance area, drivers dropping off and picking up students are likely to continue arriving from all directions. Although the designated on-site passenger-vehicle load unload zone would be expanded in the parking lot, drivers are expected to continue using areas along S Kenyon Street and 37th Avenue S for load and unload activities during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods. The estimated project traffic distribution patterns and assignments of net new trips are shown on Figure 8 for both the morning and afternoon peak periods. The net new peak hour school trips were added to the forecast 2020 without-project traffic volumes to represent future conditions with the expanded school. The forecast 2020 with-project morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively.

PROJECT SITE

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

S Monroe St

34th

Ave

nue

S

Bea

con

Ave

nue

S

36th

Ave

nue

S

37th

Ave

nue

S

Kenyon Way S

ML

Kin

g Jr

Way

S

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

39th

Ave

S

Chief Sealth Trail

39th

Ave

S

Morning Peak Hour VolumeAfternoon Peak Hour Volume

XX(XX)

KEY

Inbound Trip DistributionMorning Peak (Afternoon Peak)

Outbound Trip DistributionMorning Peak (Afternoon Evening)

XX%(XX%)

XX%(XX%)

7%(6%)

0%(3%)

3%(3%)

(2%)3%

(14%)16%

14%(15%)(21%)

13%24%(15%)

(8%) 11%(12%)

(13%)15%

12%(15%)

26%(14%)

(20%)16%

3%(7%)

(6%)4%

6%(7%)(8%)4%

12%

Figure 8Project Trip Distribution and Assignment

Morning and Afternoon Peak Hours

6%(5%)

5%(6%)

31(14)

30 (16)

(19) 20

(6)14

12 (9)

4(4)

4 (5)

(15)16 26 (11)

18 (10)

51 (31)

4(1)

(37) 47

(2) 3

16(11)

31(26)

(10)19 32 (21)

7(6)

0 (2)

(5) 8

(9)18

(11) 13

(5) 4

4(1)

(2)3

31(14)

(10)18

4(4)

(5)4

60(35)

55 (32)

(39) 65

50(39)

60 (35)

04.29.17


PROJECT SITE

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

S Monroe St

34th

Ave

nue

S

Bea

con

Ave

nue

S

36th

Ave

nue

S

37th

Ave

nue

S

Kenyon Way S

ML

Kin

g Jr

Way

S

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

39th

Ave

S

Chief Sealth Trail

39th

Ave

S

86

0

14

5

0

5

5280

51

505

385

5

555

201034

1515

66

38

8532

104

41

112

14398

162

5

6676

10230

8

137

910

1

156

55

5

105

25149

5

10289

0

0

5

1

1

19

1848

2

5

0

1010

1015

00

0

10 2

5

14

10

19

28

38

58642

0

32978 5

20

10

5

5

15

Figure 9Forecast 2020 With-Project Traffic Volumes

School AM Peak Hour (7:15 to 8:15 AM)

2

64

00

0

2

930

35

41

04.29.17


PROJECT SITE

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

S Monroe St

34th

Ave

nue

S

Bea

con

Ave

nue

S

36th

Ave

nue

S

37th

Ave

nue

S

Kenyon Way S

ML

Kin

g Jr

Way

S

S Kenyon St

S Rose St

39th

Ave

S

Chief Sealth Trail

39th

Ave

S

36

0

15

2

0

0

2270

50

155

260

5

492

27516

510

39

20

4129

53

47

5265

59

89

10 2

4671

61

30

7

112

35

5

96

205

35

20220

10

20209

5

0

5

0

1

5 11

11240

0 1

10

0

105

445

00

0

15 5

2

9

11

35

30

31

39797

0

41617

10

15

5

10

5

Figure 10Forecast 2020 With-Project Traffic Volumes

School Afternoon Peak Hour (1:45 to 2:45 PM)

5

40

0

20

10

1

47

82

04.29.17



- 26 - June 28, 2017

3.3. Traffic Operations

Intersection levels of service for future with-project conditions were determined using the same methodology described previously. The school is expected to generate new pedestrian trips and could increase the number of pedestrian crossings at the nearby study intersections. The potential increases in pedestrian crossing activity as well as the added school bus trips and the peaking characteristics of school traffic (school drop-off and pick-up primarily occurs during about 15 to 25 minutes in the peak hour) have all been accounted for in the operations analyses of the study area intersections. Levels of service for the off-site study area intersections were calculated using the 2020-with-project traffic volumes. Table 6 shows the results of the analysis; levels of service for the 2020-without-project conditions are shown for comparison. As shown, the additional traffic and pedestrian activity that would be generated by the expanded school would add relatively small amounts of delay (less than 2.5 seconds) to several of the study area intersections and turning movements during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. All intersections are projected to continue operating at LOS A overall during morning and afternoon peak hours; all movements at unsignalized intersections are projected to continue operating at LOS C or better. Both site access driveways (the entry and exit) are projected to operate at LOS A overall and all movements are projected to operate at LOS B or better with the project during both morning and afternoon peak hours. The alternative access to the service/loading dock is proposed at the northeast corner of the site. Due to the limited sight distance to the east due to the horizontal and vertical curvature of S Kenyon Street, this access would remain closed with gates or bollards except for very infrequent use (once or twice per year) by large delivery trucks. During use of this access, a flagger should be present to control vehicular and pedestrian movements and assist with the movements into and out of this access. With the proposed expanded school, some congestion is expected during the peak arrival and dismissal periods similar to the existing conditions. Traffic volumes are expected to continue to be higher during the morning conditions, as students are dropped off and then buses and passenger vehicles leave the site area. In the afternoon, family drivers park and wait at or near the site for dismissal. With the increased enrollment, on-street parking near site, especially along 37th Avenue S and S Kenyon Street, are expected to remain highly utilized or full for the 20 to 25 minutes around school dismissal. The influence of this activity could extend to the south and west of the school as students (many with family members) would walk from and to waiting vehicles in these areas.


- 27 - June 28, 2017

Table 6. Level of Service Summary –2020-Without- and With-Project Conditions


Intersections 2020 w/o project 2020 with project 2020 w/o project 2020 with project

Signalized LOS 1 Delay 2 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

S Kenyon St / ML King Jr Wy S (overall) A 6.3 A 8.6 A 7.6 A 8.9

Roundabout LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

NW 68th St / 32nd Ave NW (overall) A 4.6 A 5.4 A 4.0 A 4.5

Two-Way-Stop Controlled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

S Kenyon St / Beacon Ave S (NB) (overall) A 4.5 A 5.8 A 3.3 A 4.1 Northbound Left A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.3 A 7.3 Eastbound Movements C 19.1 C 21.3 B 12.9 B 13.5 Westbound Movements B 14.0 C 15.3 A 11.0 A 11.4

S Kenyon St / Beacon Ave S (SB) (overall) A 5.4 A 6.2 A 2.9 A 3.4 Southbound Left A 7.3 A 7.4 A 7.3 A 7.4 Eastbound Movements B 12.1 B 12.4 B 10.5 B 10.8 Westbound Movements C 17.5 C 19.6 B 13.5 B 14.4

S Rose St / Beacon Ave S (NB) (overall) A 8.9 A 9.0 A 4.8 A 4.8 Northbound Left A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 Eastbound Movements C 23.2 C 23.6 B 12.5 B 12.6 Westbound Movements B 10.6 B 10.6 B 10.5 B 10.5

S Rose St / Beacon Ave S (SB) (overall) A 9.9 A 9.9 A 5.3 A 5.3 Southbound Left A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 A 7.3 Eastbound Movements C 16.0 C 16.2 B 12.3 B 12.4 Westbound Movements B 13.3 B 13.3 B 13.1 B 13.2

S Kenyon St / 39th Ave S (overall) A 4.3 A 4.4 A 3.3 A 3.2 Southbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.9 A 7.6 A 7.9 Westbound Movements B 10.3 B 11.6 A 9.9 B 10.8

Uncontrolled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

S Rose St / 37th Ave S (overall) 3 A 2.0 A 1.5 A 1.8 A 1.4 Northbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 Southbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 7.4 Eastbound Movements A 9.1 A 9.4 A 9.3 A 9.6 Westbound Movements A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0 A 0.0

S Rose St / 39th Ave S (overall) 4 A 0.7 A 0.5 A 2.0 A 1.9 Northbound Left Turn A 0.0 A 0.0 A 7.2 A 7.3 Eastbound Movements A 8.6 A 8.6 A 8.8 A 8.8

Kenyon Wy / 39th Ave S (overall) 5 A 0.7 A 0.6 A 0.6 A 0.5 Westbound Left A 7.5 A 7.7 A 7.5 A 7.7 Northbound Movements A 9.5 B 10.6 A 9.4 A 10.1

Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., April 2017. 1. LOS = Level of service. 2. Delay = Average seconds of delay per vehicle. 3. Intersection is controlled by traffic circle; evaluated using HCM roundabout methodology. 4. Intersection is uncontrolled. Based on field observations, analysis assumes east-west direction treated as stop. 5. Intersection is uncontrolled. Based on field observation, analysis assumes vehicles on south leg typically stop.


- 28 - June 28, 2017

3.4. Parking Demand and Supply

3.4.1. School Day Parking

Parking demand estimates for the expanded Wing Luke Elementary School were developed based on the rate derived specifically for the school and the projected staffing levels. As described previously, the District estimates that the school could have a total of 93 employees when it is operating at its proposed capacity of 660 students; the childcare facility would have an additional 3 staff. Based on the parking demand rate derived for the site and presented previously (1.0 vehicles per employee), the school could generate school-day parking demand of 96 vehicles. These estimates reflect that some of the part-time employees may not be on-site every day, but that there may also be some family volunteers on site that generate demand. The proposed project would provide a total of 45 parking spaces on site. Therefore, an estimated 51 vehicles could occur on-street, along roadways that surround the school. As detailed previously, on-street parking within the site vicinity is 49% utilized midday when school is in session (about 134 spaces are unused within 800 feet of the site). Therefore, the existing on-street supply can accommodate the excess midday demand generated by the additional staff and volunteers that may be added due to the school expansion. The increase in school-day demand would increase the total on-street parking utilization rate to about 70%. This rate would be below the level generally considered by the City to be effectively full (85%) and would not represent a significant impact. However, increase would be noticeable to residents living near the school. Midday on-street parking demand will likely continue to occur along block faces that are closest to the school buildings. With the project, block faces closer to the school are likely to have higher demand and utilization, while roadways further from the site may not experience noticeable increases in demand or utilization.

3.4.2. Evening Event Parking

The new Wing Luke Elementary School would have a gymnasium and commons/cafeteria/dining room that are expected to be used for occasional events. The existing school currently hosts about 15 larger events each year with attendance ranging from about 150 to 350 persons. These events are expected to continue with the new building, but the attendance may increase with the increase in enrollment. The school would also continue to host smaller events such as meetings (PTA, scouts, etc.). A summary of the types of events expected to continue at the site are listed below.

Larger School Events – Student music concerts, dance performances, and award assemblies (held biannually with attendance of about 150); guest events (such as plays, multi-media, speakers held quarterly with attendance of about 250); 5th-grade graduation (held annually with attendance of about 300); Academic Night (held annually with attendance of about 350); Multicultural Night (held annually with attendance of about 350); Family/School Potlucks (held quarterly with attendance of about 250); Jump Rope for Heart (held annually with attendance of about 150); and Fitness Night (held annually with attendance of about 350 attendees).

PTO Meetings – Generally occur once a month during the school year.

Community Meetings – The site may be scheduled for use by community groups (e.g. Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Brownies, etc.) for meetings that may occur in classrooms, the lunchroom, gymnasium, or other areas of the school. These typically have relatively small attendance 10 to 50, but may occur nightly.


- 29 - June 28, 2017

As noted above, the larger events at the existing school attracted between 150 and 350 attendees. If those large events increased in proportion to the enrollment increase, they could attract between 280 and 625 attendees. Typically for larger events, there are between 3.0 and 3.5 persons attending for each parked vehicle. This rate accounts for higher levels of carpooling (parents and children in a single vehicle) as well as drop-off activity that does not generate parked vehicles. At these rates and adjusting for potential increased attendance, the larger events could generate parking demand between 80 and 215 vehicles. About 52 vehicles could be accommodated on-site. The remaining demand (between about 30 and 165 vehicles) would occur on-street in the vicinity. Based on the on-street parking utilization analysis presented previously, there was an average of about 190 unused on-street spaces in the evenings when events could occur. With the larger school events, the on-street supply could accommodate the overflow demand within the 800-foot parking area evaluated. The parking overflow would increase utilization to about 92%; this would be noticeable and would likely be congested along the roadways closest to the school. However, due to the relative infrequency of larger evening events—once or twice per month during the school year—this impact would not be considered significant.

3.5. Traffic Safety

The collision data provided for the study area did not indicate any unusual collision patterns that would impact or be impacted by the proposed project. The school expansion is expected to increase traffic and pedestrian traffic activity around the school site. However, the existing measures implemented around the school, including school-zone speed limits and crossing guards, are expected to continue. These measures enhance safety during peak arrival and dismissal periods and the project is not expected to result in any adverse safety impacts.

3.6. Transit

A small number of transit trips may be generated by the teachers or staff at the site; however, the traffic estimates do not rely on reductions in auto trips to account for any staff transit usage. The closest bus stops are located on Beacon Avenue S at S Monroe Street about 475 feet to the west of the school site. The project is not expected to result in adverse impacts to transit facilities or service.

3.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities

The expanded Wing Luke Elementary School with increased enrollment capacity is expected to generate some additional pedestrian trips within the site vicinity. It is anticipated that the largest increases in pedestrian activity would occur at the S Kenyon Street/37th Avenue S intersection, along S Kenyon Street near the school, and at the S Kenyon Street-Kenyon Way S crosswalk located at the northeast corner of site. There may also be an increase in bicycle trips within the site vicinity due to the proposed project. The project would construct frontage improvements as required by SDOT, which are expected to enhance the pedestrian facilities surrounding the school site. No significant adverse impacts to non-motorized access or facilities is expected.


- 30 - June 28, 2017

3.8. Short-term Impacts from Construction

Construction of the new building is planned to start in July 2018. The expanded school is planned to be complete for occupancy by fall of 2020. The construction effort would include earthwork that would consist of excavation that could remove up to 21,500 (cy) of material from the site and fill of up to 33,200 cy of material. To the extent possible, the cut and fill effort would be rebalanced on-site; however, this would depend on the quality of the existing soils. With rebalancing, the earthwork would result in a net import of about 11,700 cy. If rebalancing is not possible, the total earthwork effort could result in transport of up to 54,700 cy. Assuming an average of 20-cubic yards per truck (truck/trailer combination), the excavation and fill could generate between 585 and 2,735 truckloads over the duration of the project. Earthwork is anticipated to be spread throughout much of the construction effort. As a worst case, if the high-end transport volume were consolidated to about three months, (60 working days), this would correspond to about 46 truckloads per day and an average of about six truckloads per hour (six trucks in and six trucks out) on a typical eight-hour construction work day. This volume of truck traffic would be noticeable to residents adjacent to the site, but is not expected to result in adverse impacts to traffic operations in the site vicinity. With site balancing of earthwork, the number truck trips would be much lower and work could be completed in fewer days. The construction of the project would also generate employee, equipment, and material delivery 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 is expected to occur along roadways adjacent to the site.


- 31 - June 28, 2017

4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarizes the findings of the analysis:

The expanded Wing Luke Elementary School is expected to accommodate a student capacity of 660 elementary school students plus up to 30 pre-school students. The District estimates that the site could have about 96 employees (93 at the elementary school and 3 at the childcare facility) when operating at its full capacity.

The increase in enrollment capacity at the school is estimated to result in net increases of 230 trips (120 in, 110 out) during the morning peak hour and 145 trips (71 in, 74 out) during the afternoon peak hour.

Traffic conditions will continue to be busy along the roadways that surround the site—S Kenyon Street, 37th Avenue S, and Kenyon Way S in the morning before school begins and in the afternoon when school is dismissed.

Added traffic generated by the larger school is expected to add relatively small amounts of delay (less than 2.5 seconds per vehicle) to the study-area intersections during the peak 15 to 25 minutes before and after school. All intersections would continue to operate overall at LOS A and all movements at the unsignalized intersections are forecast to operate at LOS C or better with the project, during morning and afternoon peak hours.

The larger school could generate school-day parking demand of 96 vehicles, and would provide a total of 45 parking spaces on site. Therefore, an estimated 51 vehicles could occur on-street, along roadways that surround the school.

The existing on-street supply can accommodate the excess midday demand generated by the additional staff and volunteers. On-street parking utilization on school days is projected to increase to about 70%—below the level generally considered by the City to be effectively full and would not represent a significant impact.

Occasional large events could generate increased parking demand with totals of between 80 and 215 vehicles. About 45 vehicles could be accommodated on-site within the north parking lot. The remaining demand (between 30 and 165 vehicles) would occur on-street in the vicinity.

The on-street supply could accommodate the overflow demand from the larger events within the 800-foot parking area evaluated. The parking overflow could increase utilization to about 92%. Due to the relative infrequency of larger evening events—once or twice per month during the school year—this impact would not be considered significant.


- 32 - June 28, 2017

Based on the above findings, the following measures are recommended to reduce the traffic and parking impacts associated with the Wing Luke Elementary School expansion project.

A. Prior to the school opening, the District and school principal should establish a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to educate parents and students about the preferred access and circulation for the new school layout. The effort should encourage supervised walking (such as walking school buses), carpooling, and school bus ridership for those eligible. The plan should define clear procedures and travel routes and preferred load/unload locations.

B. The District should work with SDOT to confirm the locations, extent, and signage of school-bus and passenger-vehicle load/unload zones adjacent to the school site.

C. The District should engage with the Seattle School Safety Committee (of which SDOT is a member) to review walk routes and determine if any changes should be made to crosswalk locations, signage, pavement markings, school zone speed limits, or crossing guard locations.

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

E. The alternative access to the service/loading dock proposed at the northeast corner of the site would remain closed with gates or bollards except for very infrequent use (once or twice per year) by large delivery trucks. During use of this access, a flagger should be present to control vehicular and pedestrian movements and assist with the movements into and out of this access.

F. The District should require the selected contractor to develop a construction management plan (CMP) that addresses traffic and pedestrian control during school construction. It should define truck routes, lane closures, walkway closures, and parking disruptions, as necessary. To the extent possible, the CMP should direct trucks along the shortest route to arterials and away from residential streets to avoid unnecessary conflicts with resident and pedestrian activity. The CMP may 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 off-site. The CMP should identify parking locations for the construction staff; to the extent possible, construction employee parking should be contained on-site.


APPENDIX A

Level of Service Definitions


A – 1

Levels of service (LOS) are qualitative descriptions of traffic operating conditions. These levels of service are designated with letters ranging from LOS A, which is indicative of good operating condi-tions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which is indicative of stop-and-go conditions with frequent and lengthy delays. Levels of service for this analysis were developed using procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010). Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. Delay can be a cause of driver discomfort, frustration, inefficient fuel consumption, and lost travel time. Specifically, level-of-service criteria are stated in terms of the average delay per vehicle in seconds. Delay is a complex measure and is dependent on a number of variables including: the quality of progression, cycle length, green ratio, and a volume-to-capacity ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Table A-1 shows the level of service criteria for signalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.

Table A-1. Level of Service for Signalized Intersections

Level of Service Average Delay Per Vehicle General Description

A Less than 10.0 Seconds Free flow

B 10.1 to 20.0 seconds Stable flow (slight delays)

C 20.1 to 35.0 seconds Stable flow (acceptable delays)

D 35.1 to 55.0 seconds Approaching unstable flow (tolerable delay—occasionally wait through more than one signal cycle before proceeding.

E 55.1 to 80.0 seconds Unstable flow (approaching capacity)

F Greater than 80.0 seconds Forced flow (jammed) Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is based on the average delay per vehicle for each turning movement. The level of service for a two-way, stop-controlled intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Delay is related to the availability of gaps in the main street's traffic flow, and the ability of a driver to enter or pass through those gaps. Table A-2 shows the level of service criteria for unsignalized intersections from the Highway Capacity Manual 2010.

Table A-2. Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections

Level of Service

Average Delay (seconds per vehicle)

A Less than 10.0

B 10.1 to 15.0

C 15.1 to 25.0

D 25.1 to 35.0

E 35.1 to 50.0

F Greater than 50.0 Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010.


APPENDIX B

Parking Utilization Study Data

Project Wing Luke Elementary Replacement

Parking Supply

Block Face ID Street Name Street Segment

Side of Street

AA 37th Avenue S 800' boundary and S Portland St W 0 0 0 0 0 0

AB 37th Avenue S 800' boundary and S Chicago St E 9 0 0 0 9 9

AC S Portland Street S Portland St and S Chicago St W 0 0 0 0 0 0

AD S Portland Street S Portland St and S Chicago St E 1 0 0 0 1 1

AG 37th Avenue S S Portland St and S Kenyon St W 0 0 0 0 0 0

AH S Chicago Street 37th Ave S and 800' boundary N 3 0 0 0 3 3

AI S Chicago Street 37th Ave S and 800' boundary S 1 0 0 0 1 1

AJ 37th Avenue S S Chicago St and S Kenyon St E 3 0 0 0 3 3

AK Beacon Avenue S 800' boundary and S Kenyon St W 2 0 0 0 2 2

AL Beacon Avenue S 800' boundary and S Kenyon St E 6 0 0 0 6 6

AM S Kenyon Street 800' boundary and Beacon Ave S N 3 0 0 0 3 3

AN S Kenyon Street 800' boundary and Beacon Ave S S 1 0 0 0 1 1

AO S Kenyon Street Beacon Ave S and 37th Ave S N 7 0 0 0 7 7

AP S Kenyon Street Beacon Ave S and 37th Ave S S 12 0 0 0 12 12

AQ S Kenyon Street 37th Ave S and Kenyon Wy S N 6 0 0 0 6 6

AR S Kenyon Street 37th Ave S and Kenyon Wy S S 14 0 0 0 14 14

AS Kenyon Way S S Kenyon St and 39th Ave S SW 0 0 0 0 0 0

AT Kenyon Way S S Kenyon St and 39th Ave S NE 0 0 0 0 0 0

AU 39th Avenue S Kenyon Wy S and 800 ' boundary N & W 11 0 0 0 11 11

AV 39th Avenue S Kenyon Wy S and S Kenyon St S 7 0 0 0 7 7

AW 39th Avenue S S Kenyon St and 800' boundary E 20 0 0 0 20 20

AX S Kenyon Street 39th Ave S and 800' boundary N 4 0 0 1 4 5

AY S Kenyon Street 39th Ave S and 800' boundary S 16 0 0 0 16 16

To

tal

Par

kin

g

Sp

aces

(E

ven

ing

)

Unr

estr

icte

d

Par

alle

l Par

king

Sch

ool B

us O

nly

7-

10am

, 1-4

pm

Sch

ool B

us O

nly

(Van

A

ssel

t Ele

men

tary

)

7-

10am

, 1-4

pm

Exc

ept S

at, S

un, H

ol

3-m

inut

e P

LZ

To

tal

Par

kin

g

Sp

aces

(M

orn

ing

)


Parking Supply


Side of Street T

ota

l P

arki

ng

S

pac

es (

Eve

nin

g)

Unr

estr

icte

d

Par

alle

l Par

king

Sch

ool B

us O

nly

7-

10am

, 1-4

pm

Sch

ool B

us O

nly

(Van

A

ssel

t Ele

men

tary

)

7-

10am

, 1-4

pm

Exc

ept S

at, S

un, H

ol

3-m

inut

e P

LZ

To

tal

Par

kin

g

Sp

aces

(M

orn

ing

)

AZ Beacon Avenue S S Kenyon St and 800' boundary W 5 0 0 0 5 5

BA Beacon Avenue S S Kenyon St and 800' boundary E 4 0 0 0 4 4

BB Beacon Avenue S 800' boundary and S Rose St W 6 0 0 0 6 6

BC Beacon Avenue S 800' boundary and S Rose St E 10 0 0 0 10 10

BD 36th Avenue S 800' boundary and S Rose St W 6 0 0 0 6 6

BE 36th Avenue S 800' boundary and S Rose St E 4 0 0 0 4 4

BF 37th Avenue S S Kenyon St and S Rose St W 17 0 0 0 17 17

BG 37th Avenue S S Kenyon St and S Rose St E 5 19 0 0 5 24

BH 39th Avenue S Kenyon Wy S and S Rose St W 0 0 0 0 0 0

BI 39th Avenue S Kenyon Wy S and S Thistle St E 3 0 0 0 3 3

BJ S Rose Street 800 ' boundary and Beacon Ave S N 6 0 0 0 6 6

BK S Rose Street 800 ' boundary and Beacon Ave S S 0 0 6 0 0 6

BL S Rose Street Beacon Ave S and 36th Ave S N 0 0 0 0 0 0

BM S Rose Street Beacon Ave S and 36th Ave S S 4 0 0 0 4 4

BN S Rose Street 36th Ave S and 37th Ave S N 2 0 0 0 2 2

BO S Rose Street 36th Ave S and 37th Ave S S 0 0 0 0 0 0

BR S Rose Street Dead End 39th Ave S N 0 0 0 0 0 0

BS S Rose Street Dead End 39th Ave S S 4 0 0 0 4 4

BT Beacon Avenue S S Rose St and 800' boundary W 6 0 0 0 6 6

BU Beacon Avenue S S Rose St and 800' boundary E 7 0 0 0 7 7

BV 36th Avenue S S Rose St and 800' boundary W 2 0 0 0 2 2

BW 36th Avenue S S Rose St and 800' boundary E 4 0 0 0 4 4

BX 37th Avenue S S Rose St and S Thistle St W 12 0 0 0 12 12


Parking Supply


Side of Street T

ota

l P

arki

ng

S

pac

es (

Eve

nin

g)

Unr

estr

icte

d

Par

alle

l Par

king

Sch

ool B

us O

nly

7-

10am

, 1-4

pm

Sch

ool B

us O

nly

(Van

A

ssel

t Ele

men

tary

)

7-

10am

, 1-4

pm

Exc

ept S

at, S

un, H

ol

3-m

inut

e P

LZ

To

tal

Par

kin

g

Sp

aces

(M

orn

ing

)

BY 37th Avenue S S Rose St and S Thistle St E 5 0 0 0 5 5

BZ 39th Avenue S S Rose St and S Thistle St W 4 0 0 0 4 4

CA S Thistle Street 36th Ave S and 37th Ave S N 0 0 0 0 0 0

CB S Thistle Street 36th Ave S and 37th Ave S S 5 0 0 0 5 5

CC S Thistle Street 37th Ave S and 38th Ave S N 0 0 0 0 0 0

CD S Thistle Street 38th Ave S and 39th Ave S S 4 0 0 0 4 4

CE S Thistle Street 37th Ave S and 39th Ave S N 2 0 0 0 2 2

CF S Thistle Street 39th Ave S and 800' boundary S 2 0 0 0 2 2

CG S Thistle Street 39th Ave S and 800' boundary N 0 0 0 0 0 0

CH 37th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary S 1 0 0 0 1 1

CI 37th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary W 1 0 0 0 1 1

CJ 39th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary E 1 0 0 0 1 1

CK 39th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary W 4 0 0 0 4 4

CL 39th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary E 3 0 0 0 3 3

TOTAL 265 19 6 1 265 291


Supply Parking Demand Parking Utilization

Morning MorningSpring Break No Event

Spring Break No Event

Block Face

ID Street Name Street SegmentSide of Street T

hurs

, 4/2

0/17

9:

15-9

:45

am

Thu

rs, 4

/27/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 am

Ave

rage

Thu

rs, 4

/13/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 A

M

Thu

rs, 3

/23/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Thu

rs, 3

/30/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Ave

rage

Thu

rs, 4

/20/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 am

Thu

rs, 4

/27/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 am

Ave

rage

Thu

rs, 4

/13/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 A

M

Thu

rs, 3

/23/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Thu

rs, 3

/30/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Ave

rage

AA 37th Avenue S 800' boundary and S Portland St W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

AB 37th Avenue S 800' boundary and S Chicago St E 9 9 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 11% 22% 22% 22% 11% 11% 11%

AC S Portland Street S Portland St and S Chicago St W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

AD S Portland Street S Portland St and S Chicago St E 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 0% 0% 0% 100% 200% 200% 200%

AG 37th Avenue S S Portland St and S Kenyon St W 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

AH S Chicago Street 37th Ave S and 800' boundary N 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

AI S Chicago Street 37th Ave S and 800' boundary S 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 100%

AJ 37th Avenue S S Chicago St and S Kenyon St E 3 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 33% 0% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0%

AK Beacon Avenue S 800' boundary and S Kenyon St W 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 50% 50% 50% 0% 0% 50% 50%

AL Beacon Avenue S 800' boundary and S Kenyon St E 6 6 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 17% 33% 33% 17% 17% 17% 17%

AM S Kenyon Street 800' boundary and Beacon Ave S N 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 100% 67% 100% 67% 67% 67% 67%

AN S Kenyon Street 800' boundary and Beacon Ave S S 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 200% 200% 200% 100% 100% 100% 100%

AO S Kenyon Street Beacon Ave S and 37th Ave S N 7 7 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 29% 14% 29% 14% 14% 29% 29%

AP S Kenyon Street Beacon Ave S and 37th Ave S S 12 12 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 8% 17%

AQ S Kenyon Street 37th Ave S and Kenyon Wy S N 6 6 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 67% 33% 50% 33% 33% 33% 33%

AR S Kenyon Street 37th Ave S and Kenyon Wy S S 14 14 13 7 10 4 0 0 0 93% 50% 71% 29% 0% 0% 0%

AS Kenyon Way S S Kenyon St and 39th Ave S SW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

AT Kenyon Way S S Kenyon St and 39th Ave S NE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

AU 39th Avenue S Kenyon Wy S and 800 ' boundary N&W 11 11 9 9 9 10 8 9 9 82% 82% 82% 91% 73% 82% 82%

AV 39th Avenue S Kenyon Wy S and S Kenyon St S 7 7 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 14% 29% 29% 14% 29% 0% 14%

AW 39th Avenue S S Kenyon St and 800' boundary E 20 20 13 13 13 12 19 18 19 65% 65% 65% 60% 95% 90% 95%

AX S Kenyon Street 39th Ave S and 800' boundary N 4 5 3 1 2 3 2 3 3 75% 25% 50% 75% 40% 60% 60%

AY S Kenyon Street 39th Ave S and 800' boundary S 16 16 11 12 12 10 14 12 13 69% 75% 75% 63% 88% 75% 81%

Evening Evening

School In-Session School In-Session

To

tal

Par

kin

g S

pac

es

(Mo

rnin

g)

To

tal

Par

kin

g S

pac

es

(Eve

nin

g)





Block Face


hurs

, 4/2

0/17

9:

15-9

:45

am

Thu

rs, 4

/27/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 am

Ave

rage

Thu

rs, 4

/13/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 A

M

Thu

rs, 3

/23/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Thu

rs, 3

/30/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Ave

rage

Thu

rs, 4

/20/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 am

Thu

rs, 4

/27/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 am

Ave

rage

Thu

rs, 4

/13/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 A

M

Thu

rs, 3

/23/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Thu

rs, 3

/30/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Ave

rage

Evening Evening


To

tal

Par

kin

g S

pac

es

(Mo

rnin

g)

To

tal

Par

kin

g S

pac

es

(Eve

nin

g)

AZ Beacon Avenue S S Kenyon St and 800' boundary W 5 5 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 0% 0% 0% 20% 40% 20% 40%

BA Beacon Avenue S S Kenyon St and 800' boundary E 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 75% 75% 75% 100% 75% 100% 100%

BB Beacon Avenue S 800' boundary and S Rose St W 6 6 5 7 6 5 1 2 2 83% 117% 100% 83% 17% 33% 33%

BC Beacon Avenue S 800' boundary and S Rose St E 10 10 2 4 3 4 1 2 2 20% 40% 30% 40% 10% 20% 20%

BD 36th Avenue S 800' boundary and S Rose St W 6 6 2 4 3 3 7 5 6 33% 67% 50% 50% 117% 83% 100%

BE 36th Avenue S 800' boundary and S Rose St E 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

BF 37th Avenue S S Kenyon St and S Rose St W 17 17 6 5 6 2 2 1 2 35% 29% 35% 12% 12% 6% 12%

BG 37th Avenue S S Kenyon St and S Rose St E 5 24 4 5 5 0 0 1 1 80% 100% 100% 0% 0% 4% 4%

BH 39th Avenue S Kenyon Wy S and S Rose St W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

BI 39th Avenue S Kenyon Wy S and S Thistle St E 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 67% 67% 67% 67% 33% 0% 33%

BJ S Rose Street 800 ' boundary and Beacon Ave S N 6 6 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 33% 0% 17% 0% 17% 17% 17%

BK S Rose Street 800 ' boundary and Beacon Ave S S 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS 0% 0% 0%

BL S Rose Street Beacon Ave S and 36th Ave S N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

BM S Rose Street Beacon Ave S and 36th Ave S S 4 4 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 50% 50% 50% 25% 25% 75% 50%

BN S Rose Street 36th Ave S and 37th Ave S N 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 100% 50% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

BO S Rose Street 36th Ave S and 37th Ave S S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

BR S Rose Street Dead End 39th Ave S N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

BS S Rose Street Dead End 39th Ave S S 4 4 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 50% 25% 50% 25% 0% 0% 0%

BT Beacon Avenue S S Rose St and 800' boundary W 6 6 5 6 6 1 0 1 1 83% 100% 100% 17% 0% 17% 17%

BU Beacon Avenue S S Rose St and 800' boundary E 7 7 3 5 4 2 0 0 0 43% 71% 57% 29% 0% 0% 0%

BV 36th Avenue S S Rose St and 800' boundary W 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 100% 50% 100% 50% 50% 50% 50%

BW 36th Avenue S S Rose St and 800' boundary E 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

BX 37th Avenue S S Rose St and S Thistle St W 12 12 3 5 4 4 2 3 3 25% 42% 33% 33% 17% 25% 25%





Block Face


hurs

, 4/2

0/17

9:

15-9

:45

am

Thu

rs, 4

/27/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 am

Ave

rage

Thu

rs, 4

/13/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 A

M

Thu

rs, 3

/23/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Thu

rs, 3

/30/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Ave

rage

Thu

rs, 4

/20/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 am

Thu

rs, 4

/27/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 am

Ave

rage

Thu

rs, 4

/13/

17

9:15

-9:4

5 A

M

Thu

rs, 3

/23/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Thu

rs, 3

/30/

17

6:45

-7:1

5 P

M

Ave

rage

Evening Evening


To

tal

Par

kin

g S

pac

es

(Mo

rnin

g)

To

tal

Par

kin

g S

pac

es

(Eve

nin

g)

BY 37th Avenue S S Rose St and S Thistle St E 5 5 3 2 3 3 6 5 6 60% 40% 60% 60% 120% 100% 120%

BZ 39th Avenue S S Rose St and S Thistle St W 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 6 5 75% 125% 100% 75% 75% 150% 125%

CA S Thistle Street 36th Ave S and 37th Ave S N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

CB S Thistle Street 36th Ave S and 37th Ave S S 5 5 7 5 6 6 4 7 6 140% 100% 120% 120% 80% 140% 120%

CC S Thistle Street 37th Ave S and 38th Ave S N 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

CD S Thistle Street 38th Ave S and 39th Ave S S 4 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 75% 75% 75% 50% 25% 25% 25%

CE S Thistle Street 37th Ave S and 39th Ave S N 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

CF S Thistle Street 39th Ave S and 800' boundary S 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 50% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0%

CG S Thistle Street 39th Ave S and 800' boundary N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS

CH 37th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary S 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0%

CI 37th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary W 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 200% 200%

CJ 39th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary E 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0% 100% 100% 200% 100% 100% 100%

CK 39th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary W 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

CL 39th Avenue S S Thistle St and 800' boundary E 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

TOTAL 265 291 133 128 131 104 100 104 102 50% 48% 49% 39% 34% 36% 35%



APPENDIX B: ADDENDUM FOR EARTHWORK QUANTITIES UPDATE

6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 523-3939 Fax: (206) 523-4949

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

Project: Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement

Subject: Addendum for Earthwork Quantities Update

Date: September 13, 2017

Author: Tod S. McBryan, P.E. This technical memorandum presents additional transportation analysis that reflects updates to the estimated earthwork quantities that have been refined since publication of the draft SEPA Checklist for the project. This addendum is intended to supplement the analysis presented in the Transportation Technical Report for Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement.1

1. Background

The District and design team has continued to refine the site design for the Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement project and as part of that effort, the approach to earthwork has evolved. The previous analysis reflected the best information available at that time and presented the worst-case estimates of earthwork volume and durations for those efforts.

2. Updated Earthwork Quantites and Durations

The prior analysis noted that the construction effort would include earthwork that would consist of excavation that could remove up to 21,500 cubic yards (cy) of material from the site, and fill of up to 33,200 cy of material. It noted that to the extent possible, the cut and fill effort would be rebalanced on-site; however, this would depend on the quality of the existing soils. With rebalancing, the earthwork was estimated to result in a net import of about 11,700 cy. Without rebalancing, the total earthwork effort was described as requiring transport of up to a total of 54,700 cy. Assuming an average of 20-cubic yards per truck (truck/trailer combination), and depending on the amount of rebalancing, the excavation and fill effort was described as possibly generating between 585 and 2,735 truckloads over the duration of the project. A more detailed construction phasing plan for the effort has now been developed and the following refined earthwork values were provided by the project team’s civil engineer (Couglin Porter Lundeen). Phase 1 of the earthwork effort is expected to consist of three primary components: 1) stripping topsoil estimated at 9,480 cy; 2) excavation (cut) for building footprint totaling about 18,090 cy; and 3) replacement fill for building footprint totaling about 23,880 cy. With maximum rebalancing on site, which is the preferred approach, an estimated 15,270 cy would require transport. With no rebalancing, this Phase 1 effort could require transport of up to 51,450 cy of material. This Phase 1 effort is expected to occur over about 5 months at the beginning of the construction period. Assuming an average of 20- 1 Heffron Transportation, Inc., June 28, 2017.

Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement Addendum for Earthwork Quantities Update

- 2 - September 13, 2017

cubic yards per truck (truck/trailer combination), and depending on the amount of rebalancing, the Phase 1 excavation and fill effort could generate between 765 and 2,575 truckloads over the five-month period. This would correspond to between 7 and 25 truckloads per day, and average of between 1 and 3 truckloads per hour (up to 3 trucks in and 3 trucks out) during a typical eight-hour construction work day. Phase 2 of the earthwork effort is expected to consist of two primary components: 1) site work excavation (cut) estimated at 6,290 cy; and 2) replacement site fill totaling about 7,580 cy. With maximum rebalancing on site, which is the preferred approach, an estimated 1,290 cy would require transport. With no rebalancing, this Phase 2 effort could require transport of up to 13,870 cy of material. This Phase 2 effort is expected to occur over about 4 months, later in the construction period. Assuming an average of 20-cubic yards per truck (truck/trailer combination), and depending on the amount of rebalancing, the Phase 2 excavation and fill effort could generate between 65 and 695 truckloads over the four-month period. This would correspond to between 1 and 8 truckloads per day, and average of up to 1 truckload per hour (up to 1 truck in and 1 truck out) during a typical eight-hour construction work day. With the updated earthwork quantities and phasing plan, the estimated daily truck loads and truck trips are expected to be fewer than those presented previously in the referenced transportation technical report. No changes to the conclusions or recommendations are required. SPS Wing Luke - Addendum for Earthwork Update-FINAL



APPENDIX C: TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT

2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 · w w w . t r e e s o l u t i o n s . n e t

Seattle · Portland · Bend

Project No. TS - 5795 Arborist Report

TO: Brian Love, NAC Architecture

SITE: Wing Luke Elementary School, 3701 S. Kenyon St., Seattle, WA 98118

RE: Site inventory

DATE: March 9, 2017; updated March 28, 2017

PROJECT ARBORIST: Scott Baker, Registered Consulting Arborist #414 ISA Certified Arborist #PN-0670B ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor

REVIEWED BY:Katherine Taylor ISA Certified Arborist #PN-8022A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor

J. Casey Clapp ISA Certified Arborist #PN-7475A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor

ATTACHED: Table of Trees Marked Up Survey

Summary There are seventy-four (74) trees over 6 inches in diameter at standard height (DSH) currently onsite, two (2) of which are exceptional. There are twenty-nine (29) trees that appear to be on adjacent properties with canopies overhanging the site. The property lines were not marked at the time of our site visit, so some trees are tagged while others are given letters. Most of the trees are in good condition but two trees (trees 851 and 63, both offsite) should be pruned for safety. We were provided with a survey including the proposed construction plans. Based on these plans, thirty-seven (37) trees will need to be removed and twenty-four (24) can retained with proper tree protection. An additional thirteen (13) are in close proximity of the proposed construction, but can be retained provided careful protection is established. Some minor alteration of the plans might help with successful tree retention. Assignment & Scope of Report This report outlines the site inspection by Scott Baker and Tim Coye, of Tree Solutions Inc, on February 21, 2017. We were asked to tag and evaluate the significant trees on site, and to produce an Arborist Report documenting our findings and recommendations. Specifics for each tree can be found in the attached table of trees. A marked up site map showing the locations of the trees can be found attached. Photographs are followed by a glossary and list of references. Limits of assignment can be found in Appendix A. Methods can be found in Appendix B. Additional assumptions and limiting conditions can be found in Appendix C.

Seattle Public Schools – Wing Luke Elementary March 9, 2017; updated March 29, 2017 page 2 of 11

2940 Westlake Ave. N #200 · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 w w w . t r e e s o l u t i o n s . n e t

Observations Site The 298,312 square foot (6.85 acre) sits on S Kenyon street between 37th Ave S and 39th Ave S in the Beacon Hill neighborhood of Seattle. Four school buildings, including one temporary modular building, currently exist on site. In addition, two playground areas exist on site, one fully paved and one grass lawn. The site mainly consists of mowed turf grass interspersed with concrete sidewalks and planted trees. It also has two paved asphalt areas, a parking lot and an activity area. It is mostly flat, though generally slopes to the south and east. The southeast corner is a play field that sits approximately ten feet lower than the surrounding property. Being on top of Beacon Hill, the site is exposed to the prevailing winds of the area. From our observations, the site appears to have good drainage. Trees Seattle Municipal Code (SMC Chapter 25.11) requires that all trees over six inches diameter at standard height (DSH) be measured and assessed on development sites. The Director’s Rule (16-2008) designates trees over a certain DSH to be exceptional according to species. Based on these definitions, 74 trees currently exist on site with a DSH of 6 inches or greater. Two of the existing site trees qualify as exceptional. The exceptional trees are tree 1, a dotted hawthorn (Crataegus punctata), and tree 866, a western redcedar (Thuja plicata). The majority of the trees on site have been planted and are in good condition. Several of trees that were assessed are adjacent to the site within the right-of-way (ROW) for 37th Ave S. These street trees are owned by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) but are maintained by the school. We identified 29 trees on adjacent properties that had canopies that overhung the subject site. Many of these offsite trees were tagged by Tree Solutions during our site visit as no survey or obvious site boundaries were present. For detailed information about individual trees see the attached Table of Trees. Discussion According to current site plans available to us, 24 of the existing trees can be retained on site. Thirty-seven trees will require removal as they will be too heavily impacted by site work, are located within the proposed building footprint, or are not suitable for retention. An additional 13 trees appear to be viable for retention, but are located close enough to proposed work that they will likely be heavily impacted by site work. As it appears now, no offsite trees will require removal if proper tree protection is installed. We observed a number of good quality trees (trees 852 through 865) in the northern portion of the site, and believe that these should be preserved if possible. The Norway maple (Acer platanoides), dotted hawthorn, and Japanese zelkova (Zelkova serrata) trees that line the walkways in this area are all good candidates for retention. We observed some minor issues with some of these trees such as girdling roots and wounds from broken limbs, but overall they appear to be in good condition.



The above-discussed trees (852 through 865) are located in the existing parking area. This parking area will be re-designed and will require that many of these trees be removed or heavily impacted during construction. These trees are good species for parking lot plantings due to their ability to tolerate the conditions. It is difficult to establish new trees in planting areas due to the adverse conditions, so retaining and protecting any of the existing trees as a part of the future design will be a benefit to the site. Closer to the existing school building are several dawn redwood (Metasequoia glyptostroboides) trees, numbers 868, 869 and 872. These are also good specimen trees and are particularly tolerant of urban conditions and disturbance. We recommend retention of these trees if possible, which would require adjusting the proposed building footprint to the south. The northern portion of the site near the proposed and existing parking areas would be heavily impacted by the proposed construction. Trees that would need to be removed in this area include 854 through 860, 862, 863, and 867 through 877. Trees that would be impacted but could be retained with careful protection include 852, 853, 861, 864 through 866, 878 through 880, and 1 through 3. As many of these are good specimen trees, we recommend retaining as many as is feasible. Many of the trees would be impacted by the new parking lot that is planned. If possible, we recommend designing the parking lot to preserve the existing trees. Also, it appears that the main entrance of the school has six new trees to be planted. While we don’t discourage new plantings, we would encourage retention of the existing trees in the vicinity and adding any new trees as supplemental plantings On the western side of the site trees 16, 17, and 18 may be able to be preserved, though they will need to have protection established due to their proximity to the construction. Depending on excavation and engineering requirements for this area, these trees may have to be removed. Further assessment should be done once plans are closer to being finalized. In the southwest corner of the property, around the pre-school play area, English oak (Quercus robur) and western redcedar trees, and one sequoia are planted along the border (trees 31 through 35, 36 and 37 through 43, respectively). These trees are in good condition; however, they have been planted too close to each other for their potential size. Several of these trees could eventually be removed to allow for the longevity of the row. The oaks will also need to be pruned for clearance above the alley to the south. We understand that this are may be used for a rain garden to help manage storm water these tree are located at the edge of the area and might be worked into the design if desired. We identified two exceptional trees on site. Tree 1 is a dotted hawthorn located along the northern border, and tree 866 is located along the western border. Both trees will have a significant amount of construction done near them and will require tree protection to be installed prior to any site work. Another exceptional tree, tree 58, is located off site along the southern end of the eastern border. This tree will also require protection if any work is proposed around it. If construction is performed near any retained tree, tree protection should be established before construction begins. A non-movable fence should be erected around the extent of the drip line area of the tree. No heavy equipment should be allowed to enter, and no materials should be stored in the tree protection area.



Two large black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) trees, 851 and 63, exist just off the property. This species is known for shedding large parts in their maturity and both of these trees have large parts that could cause significant damage or injury. We recommend reviewing potential impacts to these trees once plans are finalized and speaking with the adjacent site owners about management options. Tree 851, which is in the ROW for S Kenyon St and may be a SDOT street tree, poses a greater risk due to the parking and a sidewalk areas located underneath it. It has a large codominant leader that leans over the street and numerous existing branch failures are visible in the canopy (see photo 5). Although this tree could be pruned to reduce risk we recommend removal as the best option. This will require discussions with SDOT prior to doing any work on the tree. There are three trees on the property that do not pose risk, but are not good candidates for retention due to poor health or structural condition. These are trees 21, 22, and 26. See the attached table of trees for specifics on each tree. Recommendations

• Consider redesigning the parking lot area and the northern section of the site to retain more trees and reduce the amount of trees that will need to be replaced.

• Consider retaining the row of oaks (trees 31 through 35), and the sequoia (36) along the south alley.

• Consider removing, or performing crown reduction pruning on trees 851 and 63. Removal of tree 851 will likely require SDOT approval.

• Obtain any necessary permits before any trees are removed.



Site Map and Plans - See attached

Photographs

Photo 1: Trees in northern portion of property

Photo 2: Trees that may be on property or shared (inaccessible) shown in Table of Trees noted by letter.

Tree 866- redcedar



Photo 3: Oaks on southeast border, planted too closely together but in good condition.

Photo 4: Western redcedars planted too closely, possibly meant to be hedged. Also visible is a young redwood tree, noted with a star, that could be retained.



Photo 5: Tree 851 with large parts over road and parking area previously failed branches are visible and some are noted with arrows.

Photo 6: Tree 63 cottonwood with large parts in canopy that are likely to fail.



Glossary codominant stems: stems or branches of nearly equal diameter, often weakly attached (Matheny et al.

1998) crown/canopy: the aboveground portions of a tree (Lilly 2001) DSH: diameter at standard height; the diameter of the trunk measured 54 inches (4.5 feet) above grade

(Matheny et al. 1998) ISA: International Society of Arboriculture included bark: bark that becomes embedded in a crotch between branch and trunk or between

codominant stems and causes a weak structure (Lilly 2001) significant size: a tree measuring 6” DSH or greater structural defects: flaws, decay, or other faults in the trunk, branches, or root collar of a tree, which

may lead to failure (Lilly 2001)

References ANSI A300 (Part 1) – 2008 American National Standards Institute. American National Standard for Tree

Care Operations: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Maintenance: Standard Practices (Pruning). New York: Tree Care Industry Association, 2008.

Sugimura, D.W. “DPD Director’s Rule 16-2008”. Seattle, WA, 2009. Dunster & Associates Environmental Consultants Ltd. Assessing Trees in Urban Areas and the Urban-

Rural Interface, US Release 1.0. Silverton: Pacific Northwest Chapter ISA, 2006 Lilly, Sharon. Arborists’ Certification Study Guide. Champaign, IL: The International Society of

Arboriculture, 2001. Matheny, Nelda and James R. Clark. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees

During Land Development. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Mattheck, Claus and Helge Breloer, The Body Language of Trees.: A Handbook for Failure Analysis.

London: HMSO, 1994.



Appendix A - Limits of Assignment Unless stated otherwise: 1) information contained in this report covers only those trees that were examined and reflects the condition of those trees at the time of inspection; and 2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of the subject trees without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring unless explicitly specified. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the subject trees may not arise in the future. Tree Solutions did not review any reports or perform any tests related to the soil located on the subject property unless outlined in the scope of services. Tree Solutions staff are not and do not claim to be soils experts. An independent inventory and evaluation of the site’s soil should be obtained by a qualified professional if an additional understanding of the site’s characteristics is needed to make an informed decision.



Appendix B - Methods I evaluated tree health and structure utilizing visual tree assessment (VTA) methods. The basis behind VTA is the identification of symptoms, which the tree produces in reaction to a weak spot or area of mechanical stress. A tree reacts to mechanical and physiological stresses by growing more vigorously to reinforce weak areas, while depriving less stressed parts (Mattheck & Breloer 1994). An understanding of the uniform stress allows me to make informed judgments about the condition of a tree. I measured the diameter at standard height (DSH) of each tree, typically at 54 inches above grade. If a tree had multiple stems, I measured each stem individually at standard height and determined a single-stem equivalent diameter by taking the average of the stem diameters, as established by the RZC. Tree health considers crown indicators including foliar density, size, color, stem shoot extensions, decay, and damage. We have adapted our ratings based on the Purdue University Extension Formula Values for health condition. These values are a general representation used to assist in arborists in assigning ratings. Tree health needs to be evaluated on an individual basis and may not always fall entirely into a single category, however, I assigned a single condition rating for ease of clarity. Excellent Perfect specimen with excellent form and vigor, well-balanced crown. Normal to exceeding shoot length on new growth. Leaf size and color normal. Trunk is sound and solid. Root zone undisturbed. No apparent pest problems. Long safe useful life expectancy for the species. Good Imperfect canopy density in few parts of the tree, up to 10 percent of the canopy. Normal to less than ¾ of typical growth rate of shoots and minor deficiency in typical leaf development. Few pest issues or damage, and if they exist they are controllable or tree is reacting appropriately. Normal branch and stem development with healthy growth. Safe useful life expectancy typical for the species. Fair Crown decline and dieback up to 30 percent of the canopy. Leaf color is somewhat chlorotic/necrotic with smaller leaves and “off” coloration. Shoot extensions indicate some stunting and stressed growing conditions. Stress cone crop is clearly visible. Obvious signs of pest problems contributing to a lesser condition. Control might be possible. I found some decay areas in the main stem and branches. Below average safe useful life expectancy Poor Lacking full crown, more than 50 percent decline and dieback, especially affecting larger branches. Stunting of shoots is obvious with little evidence of growth on smaller stems. Leaf size and color reveals overall stress in the plant. Insect or disease infestation may be severe and uncontrollable. Extensive decay or hollows in branches and trunk. Short safe useful life expectancy. Tree health condition ratings have been adapted from the Purdue University Extension bulletin FNR-473-W - Tree Appraisal



Appendix C - Assumptions & Limiting Conditions

1. Consultant assumes that any legal description provided to Consultant is correct and that title to

property is good and marketable. Consultant assumes no responsibility for legal matters. Consultant assumes all property appraised or evaluated is free and clear, and is under responsible ownership and competent management.

2. Consultant assumes that the property and its use do not violate applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or regulations.

3. Although Consultant has taken care to obtain all information from reliable sources and to verify the data insofar as possible, Consultant does not guarantee and is not responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.

4. Client may not require Consultant to testify or attend court by reason of any report unless mutually satisfactory contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such Services as described in the Consulting Arborist Agreement.

5. Unless otherwise required by law, possession of this report does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior express written consent of the Consultant.

6. Unless otherwise required by law, no part of this report shall be conveyed by any person, including the Client, the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales or other media without the Consultant‘s prior express written consent.

7. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the Consultant, and the Consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specific value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event or upon any finding to be reported.

8. All photographs included in this report were taken by Tree Solutions Inc. during the documented site visit, unless otherwise noted.

9. Sketches, drawings and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of any information generated by architects, engineers or other consultants and any sketches, drawings or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of such information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Consultant as to the sufficiency or accuracy of the information.

10. Unless otherwise agreed, (1) information contained in this report covers only the items examined and reflects the condition of the those items at the time of inspection; and (2) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, climbing, or coring. Consultant makes no warranty or guarantee, express or implied, that the problems or deficiencies of the plans or property in question may not arise in the future.

11. Loss or alteration of any part of this agreement invalidates the entire report.

Table of Trees 3701 S., Kenyon St.Seattle, W

A 98118

Date of Inventory: 02.21.2017Table Prepared: 02.28.2017

Tree ID

Scientific Nam

eCom

mon N

ame

DSH

(inches)

Multistem

Health

ConditionStructural Condition

North

EastSouth

West

Exceptional Threshold

Exceptional (y/n)

Proposed Action

Notes

851Populus balsam

ifera / trichocarpa

Black cottonwood

64.0Good

Fair50

4045

50Not

Exceptional except in grove

No

Perform

reduction pruning on large parts

Shedding parts, large codom

inant stem over street,

surface roots to south, 120' high

852Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

11.5Good

Good

1515

1515

30No

Retain853

Acer platanoides Norw

ay maple

11.0Good

Good

1617

1417

30No

Retain854


ay maple

17.0Good

Good

1616

1617

30No

Retain855


ay maple

9.5Good

Good

1211

1313

30No

Retain856


ay maple

12.0Good

Good

1212

1312

30No

RetainGirdling root

858Crataegus punctuata

Dotted hawthorne

8.0Good

Good

66

108

12No

RetainBasal dam

age

859Quercus robur

English oak6.0

Good

Good

1010

1010

30No

Retain860

Crataegus punctuataDotted haw

thorne11.0

Good

Good

1111

1111

12No

RetainGirdling root

861Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

14.0Good

Good

1619

1714

30No

Retain862


ay maple

10.0Good

Good

611

1210

30No

Retain863

Zelkova serrataJapanese zelkova

10.0Good

Good

1515

1314

21No

RetainLarge tearout

864Zelkova serrata

Japanese zelkova10.0

Good

Good

1614

1615

21No

Retain865

Zelkova serrataJapanese zelkova

11.0Good

Good

1515

2218

21No

Retain866

Thuja plicataWestern redcedar

38.7Good

Good

1826

2326

30Yes

Retain867


thorne10.5

Good

Good

1212

148

12No

RetainSurface roots, stem

girdling roots

868Metasequoia

glyptostroboidesDaw

n redwood

8.5Good

Good

78

68

30No

RetainMinor basal dam

age

869Metasequoia

glyptostroboidesDaw

n redwood

15.5Good

Good

1112

912

30No

RetainStem

girdling root

872Metasequoia

glyptostroboidesDaw

n redwood

22.0Good

Good

1516

1113

30No

RetainSurface roots

870Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

15.5Good

Good

2218

1717

30No

RetainStem

girdling root871


15.5Good

Good

119

910

30No

Retain873


16.0Good

Good

168

516

30No

RetainCodom

inant stem rem

oved

874Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

17.0Good

Good

89

1112

30No

RetainCodom

inant stem rem

oved

875Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

12.0Good

Good

613

136

30No

RetainCodom

inant stem rem

oved

876Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

25.0Good

Good

1717

1214

30No

RetainCodom

inant stem rem

oved

877Pinus densiflora

Japanese red pine17.0

13, 11Fair

Good

1010

1313

20No

RetainTanyosho pine, som

e dieback from

previous neighbor tree

878Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

15.0Good

Good

1615

1714

30No

RetainSurface roots

Tree Solutions, Inc.2940 W

estlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, W

A 98109Page 1 of 7

www.treesolutions.net

206‐528‐4670


A 98118


Tree ID

Scientific Nam

eCom

mon N

ame

DSH

(inches)

Multistem

Health


North

EastSouth

West


Exceptional (y/n)

Proposed Action

Notes

879Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

9.0Good

Good

1512

148

30No

Retain880


ay maple

13.0Good

Good

1311

1412

30No

Retain1


thorne13.6

11, 8Fair

Fair14

107

1512

YesRetain

Codominant at base

2Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

14.0Good

Good

1618

1712

30No

RetainSurface roots

3Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

17.0Good

Good

1213

1513

30No

RetainTrunk w

ound on west, surface

roots, roots in parking lot

4Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

20.0Good

Good

2016

1516

30No

RetainSurface roots

5Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

17.5Good

Good

2019

1915

30No

RetainSurface roots

6Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

11.5Good

Good

119

1110

30No

RetainRoots in parking lot

7Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

9.5Good

Good

1110

1112

30No

Retain8


ay maple

9.0Good

Good

710

810

30No

RetainBasal dam

age9

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas‐fir25.5

Good

Good

1414

1717

30No

RetainPhototropic lean corrected, surface roots

10Pyrus calleryana

Callery pear9.5

Good

Good

88

1111

13No

Retain11

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas‐fir27.5

Good

Good

1217

1720

30No

RetainSurface roots

12Pseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas‐fir19.0

Good

Good

1214

1517

30No

RetainSurface roots

13Pseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas‐fir20.0

Good

Good

2118

1620

30No

RetainSurface roots

14Prunus serotina

Black cherry11.5

Good

Good

1410

1214

27No

RetainPruned for clrearance on w

est

15Cedrus deodara

Deodar cedar5.0

Good

Good

88

88

30No

Retain. Prune to raise canopy

Needs pruning for clearance

16Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

17.0Good

Good

1721

2515

30No

RetainUtility vault adjacent, surface

roots, utility pruned

17Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

17.5Good

Good

1319

1514

30No

Retain18


ay maple

23.0Good

Fair15

2020

1730

No

RetainSevere stem

girdling root, utility pruned

19Crataegus punctuata

Dotted hawthorne

8.0Good

Good

1111

1111

12No

Retain

20Acer platanoides

Norw

ay maple

21.5Good

Good

2119

1915

30No

RetainSurface roots

21Prunus sp. (serrula, serrulata, sargentii, subhirtella, yedoensis)

Cherry15.0

FairFair

1312

2011

23No

Codominant stem

removed at

base, surface and girdling roots



A 98109Page 2 of 7


206‐528‐4670


A 98118


Tree ID

Scientific Nam

eCom

mon N

ame

DSH

(inches)

Multistem

Health


North

EastSouth

West


Exceptional (y/n)

Proposed Action

Notes

22Castanea dentata

American chestnut

6.0Fair

Poor8

1012

930

No

Basal decay, codominant

23Castanea dentata

American chestnut

8.0Good

Fair10

1012

1030

No

Basal damage, possible stem

girdling root

24Quercus palustris

Pin oak8.0

Good

Good

99

99

30No

25Fraxinus sp.

Ash9.0

Good

Good

1111

1111

#N/A

No

26Fraxinus sp.

Ash8.0

Poor Poor

14#N

/ANo

Remove

Lean to northeast, large tearout

27Alnus rubra

Red alder21.6

15, 15, 4Good

Fair14

1417

14Not

Exceptional unless in grove

No

Utility pruned

28Alnus rubra

Red alder8.0

Good

Good

1210

128

Not


No

29Alnus rubra

Red alder8.0

Good

Good

1211

912

Not


No

30Alnus rubra

Red alder9.0

Good

Good

139

1410

Not


No

31Quercus robur

English oak11.0

Good

Good

99

99

30No

Retain, eventually rem

ove some

trees for future grow

th

Planted closely together, consider eventually rem

oving som

e trees in this row to

provide additional room for

growth

32Quercus robur

English oak9.5

Good

Good

99

99

30No


ove some


th


oving som



growth

33Quercus robur

English oak11.0

Good

Good

99

99

30No


ove some


th


oving som



growth



A 98109Page 3 of 7


206‐528‐4670


A 98118


Tree ID

Scientific Nam

eCom

mon N

ame

DSH

(inches)

Multistem

Health


North

EastSouth

West


Exceptional (y/n)

Proposed Action

Notes

34Quercus robur

English oak11.0

Good

Good

99

99

30No


ove some


th


oving som



growth

35Quercus robur

English oak9.0

Good

Good

99

99

30No


ove some


th


oving som



growth

36Sequoiadendron giganteum

Giant sequoia

18.0Good

Good

88

88

30No

Retain. Prune to raise canopy for clearance

100% live crow

n ratio,

37Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

9.96.5, 7.5

Good

Fair9

49

930

No


ove some


th

Planted as a hedge ‐ consider rem

oving some trees in future

to allow m

ore room for

growth

38Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

8.25,5, 4, 1

Good

Fair9

49

430

No


ove some


th



to allow m

ore room for

growth

39Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

8.77.5, 4.5

Good

Fair9

49

430

No


ove some


th



to allow m

ore room for

growth

40Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

7.54.5, 6

Good

Fair9

49

430

No


ove some


th



to allow m

ore room for

growth



A 98109Page 4 of 7


206‐528‐4670


A 98118


Tree ID

Scientific Nam

eCom

mon N

ame

DSH

(inches)

Multistem

Health


North

EastSouth

West


Exceptional (y/n)

Proposed Action

Notes

41Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

7.36,3,3

Good

Fair9

49

430

No


ove some


th



to allow m

ore room for

growth

42Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

9.26,6,2,2,2

Good

Fair9

49

430

No


ove some


th



to allow m

ore room for

growth

43Thuja plicata

Western redcedar

10.88, 6, 4

Good

Fair9

49

430

No


ove some


th



to allow m

ore room for

growth

44Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Now

eigian Sunset Maple

8.0Good

Fair15

1215

1530

No

Bad roots, wound on stem

45Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

7.0Good

Fair10

1010

1030

No

Bad roots, pavement lift

46Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

5.5Good

Good

99

99

30No

47Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

4.3Fair

Fair9

99

930

No

Bad roots

48Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

5.5Fair

Good

88

88

30No

49Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

6.5Good

Fair10

1010

1030

No

Stem girdling root

50Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

5.0Fair

Fair8

88

830

No

Bad roots

51Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

6.0Fair

Fair10

1010

1030

No

Stem girdling root, basal

wound

52Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

5.0Fair

Good

1010

1010

30No

53Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

6.0Fair

Good

1010

1010

30No

54Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

6.0Fair

Fair11

1111

1130

No

55Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

6.5Good

Fair11

1111

1130

No

Bad roots, pavement lift



A 98109Page 5 of 7


206‐528‐4670


A 98118


Tree ID

Scientific Nam

eCom

mon N

ame

DSH

(inches)

Multistem

Health


North

EastSouth

West


Exceptional (y/n)

Proposed Action

Notes

56Acer truncatum

x Acer platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

5.5Good

Fair10

1010

1030

No

Stem girdling root

57Acer truncatum

x Acer Platanoides

Norw

egian Sunset Maple

7.0Good

Fair10

1010

1030

No

Bad roots

58Acer m

acrophyllumBigleaf m

aple36.7

21.6, 22, 20Good

Good

2110

3133

30Yes

Codominant at base, on

hillside59

Acer macrophyllum

Bigleaf maple

15.710.5, 7.7, 8.8

Good

Good

1016

118

30No

Codominant at base, on

hillside, canopy over power

lines to east60

Alnus rubraRed alder

16.7Fair

Good

206

619

Not


No

Lean to west, dead top at 25

feet

61Alnus rubra

Red alder18.8

FairGood

614

1314

Not


No

Large tear out at base, lost codom

inant leader, signs of decay in upper trunk

62Alnus rubra

Red alder16.3

FairPoor

1413

1814

Not


No

Sprouts at base, lost top, basal decay, decay in upper trunk

63Populus balsam

ifera / trichocarpa

Black cottonwood

52.0Good

Good

5016

4042

Not

Exceptional except in grove

No

Perform

reduction pruning on large parts

Pruning in past, heavy sprouting at base, heavy ivy, large parts, pow

er lines possible target

64Robinia pseudoacacia

Black locust26.0

17, 18, 8Good

Fair17

1722

2030

No

Heavy blackberry at base

65Robinia pseudoacacia

Black locust12.0

Good

Good

154

1015

30No

3

aPinus sylvestris

Scots pine9.0

Good

Fair9

24No

Behind chain link, fence, inaccessible

bPseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas‐fir26

Good

Good

1717

1730

No

Behind chain link, fence, inaccessible

cPseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas‐fir8

FairFair

1013

1030

No

Behind chain link, fence, inaccessible, lost top in past

dThuja plicata

Western redcedar

11Fair

Fair8

88

830

No

Sparse foliage, codominant at

10 feete


15Good

Good

1030

No

On property line? Adjacent to

fence, growing on rockery

Total Exceptional Trees:Trees on adjacent property w

ith overhanding canopies



A 98109Page 6 of 7


206‐528‐4670


A 98118


Tree ID

Scientific Nam

eCom

mon N

ame

DSH

(inches)

Multistem

Health


North

EastSouth

West


Exceptional (y/n)

Proposed Action

Notes

fThuja plicata

Western redcedar

16Good

Good

1330

No

On property line? Adjacent to

fence, growing on rockery

gRobinia pseudoacacia

Black locust20.0

Good

Good

30No

Heavy ivy

hAcer m

acrophyllumBigleaf m

aple8.0

FairFair

1530

No

Blackberry in canopy, lost top

Additional notes: DSH (Diam

eter at Standard Height) is measured 4.5 feet above grade.

Multi‐stem

trees are noted, and a single stem equivalent is calculated using the m

ethod defined in the Director's Rule 16‐2008.Drip line is m

easured from the center of the tree to the outerm

ost extent of the canopy



A 98109Page 7 of 7


206‐528‐4670

CON20"

208.100

5092

CON20"

208.370

5093

CON24"

207.460

5094

DEC10"

209.140

5095

CON20"

207.510

5096

DEC12"

211.700

5313

DEC12"

211.870

5314

DEC12"

212.190

5315

DEC18"

208.220

5397

DEC22"

208.930

5398

DEC18"

212.560

5399

DEC16"

213.970

5400

DEC8"

215.220

5401

DEC12"

215.710

5402

DEC10"

216.260

5403

DEC16"

216.660

5404

CON8"

217.970

5439

DEC12"

216.390

5593

DEC12"

217.290

5594

DEC20"

217.800

5595

DEC12"

218.150

5596

DEC14"

217.920

5597

DEC8"

217.500

5598

DEC8"

217.740

5599

DEC10"

216.910

5600

DEC14"

217.100

5601

DEC10"

217.750

5602

DEC6"

217.450

5603

DEC14"

218.140

5606

DEC10"

217.620

5607

CON48"

217.310

5609

DEC20"

216.830

5610

DEC10"

215.340

5615

DEC8"

215.310

5616

DEC20"

213.990

5617

CON14"

213.300

5710

CON14"

214.100

5711CON16"

214.430

5712

CON20"

216.140

5713

CON16"

212.560

5714

DEC20"

207.700

5825

DEC20"

211.070

5826

DEC18"

212.180

5827

CON6"

212.920

5832

DEC8"

197.760

6123

DEC72"

217.590

1168

DEC6"

216.390

1183

DEC6"

218.090

1185

DEC6"

218.600

1186

DEC6"

219.110

1187

CON32"

221.330

1213

DEC40"

219.070

1262

DEC6"

214.650

1285

DEC6"

214.580

1286

DEC10"

214.540

1287

DEC6"

214.390

1288

DEC8"

214.260

1289

DEC12"

214.160

1290

DEC4"

215.450

1427

DEC6"

215.500

1428

CON24"

198.960

6455

CON8"

197.350

6456

CON16"

191.330

6686

CON20"

191.380

6687CON12"

193.210

6689

CON8"

187.460

6701

CON8"

187.950

6702

DEC8"

205.100

6913

CON8"

203.930

6914

CON8"

203.460

6915

CON10"

204.450

6916

CON8"

191.670

7246

CON6"

191.840

7247

CON6"

191.940

7248

CON6"

191.910

7249

CON8"

192.230

7250

CON6"

192.280

7251

CON8"

192.420

7252

CON20"

192.930

7253

DEC8"

192.730

7259

DEC8"

191.900

7294

DEC10"

190.850

7295

DEC10"

190.650

7296

DEC8"

190.520

7297

DEC10"

190.280

7298

DEC8"

189.500

7382

DEC10"

188.410

7383

DEC16"

188.050

7384

DEC8"

187.930

7385

DEC8"

188.460

7386

DEC10"

189.330

7387

DEC10"

191.570

7502

DEC8"

187.890

7782

DEC8"

190.200

7783

CON14"

195.150

7857

CON14"

195.480

7858

DEC12"

200.930

7867

DEC10"

203.470

7871

DEC10"

204.300

7872

DEC6"

203.420

7899

DEC8"

201.680

7900

DEC6"

199.190

7902

DEC6"

197.420

7904

DEC6"

193.450

7905

DEC36"

207.130

7976

DEC36"

206.600

7977

DEC24"

206.460

7978

DEC28"

207.640

7979

DEC30"

207.470

7980

DEC22"

208.600

7981

DEC22"

208.300

7982

DEC30"

208.960

7983

DEC30"

209.700

7984

DEC26"

210.190

7985

DEC30"

212.690

7986

DEC48"

213.930

7987

DEC4"

213.190

7999

DEC4"

211.360

8000

DEC4"

209.080

8001

DEC30"

184.730

8093

DEC10"

179.960

8094

DEC20"

180.230

8095

DEC24"

179.480

8096

DEC18"

166.820

8167

DEC48"

172.680

8338

DEC20"

169.010

8339

DEC10"

182.080

8425

DEC20"

185.870

8434DEC16"

187.350

8435

CON48"

191.790

8444

20"FIR

20"FIR

24"FIR

10"DEC

20"FIR

12"MAP

12"MAP

12"MAP

18"MAP

22"MAP

18"MAP

16"MAP

(2)8"DEC

12"MAP

10"MAP

16"MAP

8"PINE

12"MAP

12"MAP

14"DEC

20"MAP

12"DEC

8"DEC

14"MAP

10"DEC

10"DEC

14"DEC

48"CEDAR

20"MAP

10"DEC

20"DEC

8"DEC

6"DEC6"

DEC10"DEC6"DEC8"DEC12"DEC

20"MAP

18"MAP

20"MAP

8"DEC

6"SPRUCE

14"CED

16"CED

20"CED

6"DEC4"DEC

32"SPRUCE

32"

DEC

6"DEC

6"DEC

6"DEC

72"CW

6"DEC

8"DEC

6"DEC

24"FIR

8"FIR

12"CEDAR

20"CEDAR

16"CEDAR

8"PINE

8"PINE

8"DEC

10"PINE

8"PINE

8"PINE

8"DEC

(2)"&8"CED.

(2)6"

CED.

6"

CED.

(2)6"

CED.

8"

CED.

(3)6"

CED.

(2)8"

CED.

20"

R.W.

8"HOLLY

8"OAK

10"OAK

10"OAK

8"OAK

10"OAK

8"ALDER

8"ALDER

4"DEC

4"DEC

4"DEC

6"DEC

8"DEC

6"DEC

6"DEC

6"DEC

8"DEC

8"DEC

8"DEC

10"

DEC

(2)16"

AL.

10"ALDER

10"DEC

14"

FIR

14"

FI R

12"

DEC

10"

DEC

10"

DEC

24"MAP.

36"MAP.36"MAP.

28"MAP.

30"MAP.

22"MAP.

22"MAP.

30"MAP.

30"MAP.

26"MAP.

30"

MAP.

48"

MAP.

(3)30"

MAP.

(3)10"MAP.

20"ALDER

24"ALDER

HEDGE

18"

MAP.

20"

ALDER

48"ALDER

10"LOCUST

(2)20"LOCUST

16"LOCUST

48"REDWOOD

10"DEC

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

UP

1ST GRADE 1ST GRADE

1ST GRADE 1ST GRADE

1ST GRADE

1ST GRADE

ART

MUSIC

GYMNASIUM

ELEC

STAFFLOUNGE

PROJECTSTOR

KILN/STOR

KINDERGARTEN

K TOILET

KINDERGARTEN

K TOILET

KINDERGARTEN

K TOILET

SELF-CONTAINEDSPECIAL ED

K-2

KITCHEN

DRY STOR

TOILET

RECEIVING

MAINCUST

OFFICE

FURN / EQUIP /SCIENCE

STOR

GROUNDSSTORAGE

MECH

MUSICSTORAGE

WAITING

RECEPTIONPRINCIPALASSISTANTPRINCIPAL

NURSE

RECORDS

MDF

VOLUNTEERROOMSTAFF

CLINIC

CLINICTOILET

CUST

OTPT

SMALLGROUP

BOOK /TECH STOR

STOR

CONFERENCE

ADMIN WKRM

SHAREDGROUPOFFICE

MAILCOMPSTOR

PATROL

STAFF

SATELLITEWKRM

STAFF

ELEC

BREAK OUT

BREAK OUT

SLP OFFICE

CUST

COVEREDPLAY

FE

NC

E

FE

NC

E

EXCEPTION CEDAR TO BE PRESERVED

IDF

FENCE & GATE

FENCE & GATE

LIBRARY ABOVE

CLASSROOMS ABOVE

SLO

PE

2%

SOFT SURFACE PLAY

EMERGENCY VEHICLE TURNAROUND AND

FIELD ACCESS

SLOPE 2%

1':2

0'

1':2

0'

1:12

PORTABLE

ENTRY PLAZA AT 210'

LOADING DOCK LEVEL AT 204'

UPPER COURTYARD AT 208'

LANDING AT 206'4"

CHILDCARE PLAY KINDERGARTEN

CLASSROOM ABOVE

TOILET

ELEVATOR

TOILET

CHILDCARE ENTRY

MAIN ENTRY

PORTABLE

PORTABLE

PORTABLE

FE

NC

E &

GA

TE

FUTURE EXPANSION

MIDDLE TERRACE AT 200'LANDING AT 204' 5"

LOWER TERRACE AT 190'

SLOPE 2%

PLAY FIELD

PLANTED SLOPE

PLANTED SLOPE

AFTER HOURS PUBLIC ENTRY

GYM STOR /OFFICE

COMMUNITYPARTNER

GYMTOILET

tim

Callout

851

tim

Callout

852

tim

Callout

861

tim

Callout

853

tim

Callout

854

tim

Callout

855

tim

Callout

856

tim

Callout

877

tim

Callout

874

tim

Callout

875

tim

Callout

876

tim

Callout

873

tim

Callout

871

tim

Callout

862

tim

Callout

860

tim

Callout

858

tim

Callout

859

tim

Callout

864

tim

Callout

865

tim

Callout

57

tim

Callout

56

tim

Callout

55

tim

Callout

54

tim

Callout

866

tim

Callout

863

tim

Callout

870

tim

Callout

867

tim

Callout

868

tim

Callout

869

tim

Callout

878

tim

Callout

879

tim

Callout

880

tim

Callout

1

tim

Callout

2

tim

Callout

3

tim

Callout

4

tim

Callout

5

tim

Text Box

X

tim

Text Box

X

tim

Text Box

X

tim

Callout

A

tim

Callout

9

tim

Callout

6

tim

Callout

7

tim

Callout

8

tim

Callout

10

tim

Callout

11

tim

Callout

12

tim

Callout

13

tim

Callout

14

tim

Callout

B

tim

Callout

C

tim

Callout

D

tim

Callout

E

tim

Callout

F

tim

Text Box

X

tim

Text Box

X

tim

Callout

58

tim

Callout

59

tim

Callout

60

tim

Callout

61

tim

Callout

62

tim

Callout

63

tim

Callout

64

tim

Callout

65

tim

Text Box

X

tim

Oval

tim

Oval

tim

Oval

tim

Callout

G

tim

Callout

H

tim

Callout

36

tim

Callout

37

tim

Callout

38

tim

Callout

39

tim

Callout

40

tim

Callout

41

tim

Callout

42

tim

Callout

43

tim

Callout

35

tim

Callout

34

tim

Callout

33

tim

Callout

32

tim

Callout

31

tim

Callout

30

tim

Callout

29

tim

Callout

28

tim

Callout

27

tim

Callout

44

tim

Callout

26

tim

Callout

25

tim

Callout

45

tim

Callout

24

tim

Callout

46

tim

Callout

47

tim

Callout

48

tim

Callout

23

tim

Callout

49

tim

Callout

50

tim

Oval

tim

Callout

22

tim

Callout

18

tim

Callout

51

tim

Callout

17

tim

Oval

tim

Oval

tim

Callout

21

tim

Callout

20

tim

Oval

tim

Callout

19

tim

Callout

16

tim

Callout

52

tim

Callout

15

tim

Oval

tim

Callout

872

tim

Callout

53



APPENDIX D: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

of 17

Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement Project SEPA Public Comments and Seattle Public Schools Responses

SEPA regulations recommend that public comments on draft Checklists be considered and responded to, but provides flexibility in how the comments are presented. For efficiency, the comments have been summarized and similar comments have been grouped together and responded to in the following table. Any person interested in reading the individual comments may contact SPS for access to them. The comment period on the Draft SEPA Checklist was from July 24 to August 9, 2017. Seven individual comment letters and one telephone call were received.

Comment Number

Comment Summary Response SEPA Document Reference

1 Reproduce Public Comments. The Final Checklist should include copies of public comments received.

As stated above, SPS has summarized the comments for efficiency. Access to the individual public comments can be obtained by contacting SPS.

2 Determination of Significance. SPS should issue a Determination of

Significance (DS) for the project and provide further detailed environmental review through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

SPS should consider alternatives to the project, such as using current unused school buildings or repurchasing previously sold schools.

The SPS SEPA Responsible Official is reviewing the revised SEPA Checklist and taking all comments received on the Draft SEPA Checklist into consideration in making a determination of the significance of impacts from the Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement Project. Replacement of Wing Luke Elementary School was analyzed in the BEX IV Programmatic EIS (July 2012), which considered a range of alternatives. A SEPA Checklist does not require an analysis of alternatives.

of 17

Comment Number


3 Capacity. Doubling the capacity of the school is

not necessary and would create a “mega school.” Enrollment increases District-wide may not require capacity increases at Wing Luke Elementary.

The capacity would be increased in the future by adding portable classrooms.

The Old Van Asselt school should be used to meet capacity needs.

The Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement Project would increase capacity at the school from approximately 360 to 660. The Board of Directors for Seattle Public Schools, in conjunction with the Superintendent, makes decisions about issues such as school capacity. These decisions are not a SEPA issue. As described in Section A.11 of the Checklist, utilities for potential future portable classrooms would be installed as part of the Wing Luke Elementary School Replacement Project. However, installation of portables is not part of the current project. New portables would be reviewed separately in the future if they were to be added to the Wing Luke Elementary School site. The Old Van Asselt school is used by SPS as an interim site.

A.11

4 2005 Addition. Why is a 12-year-old building (the

2005 addition) being demolished? Demolishing the 2005 addition is

inconsistent with SPS’s goal to

Although this is not a SEPA issue, SPS Capital Department reviewed the feasibility of retaining the 2005 addition and concluded that the cost of updating the existing building to meet current building code and to address the building’s

of 17

Comment Number


“Enhance cost-effective use of capital resources.”

Demolishing the addition increases impacts on energy and landfills.

educational deficiencies made a complete replacement project a better value. The Capital Department’s review indicated that removing the structure was a better option because the structure:

did not meet the District’s current educational program specifications,

would need a costly modernization in order to meet current building code standards,

would negatively impact the designer’s ability to create strong educational space adjacencies, and

would potentially reduce the amount of the outdoor play area

State funding assistance was not used for the construction of the 2005 addition. The new Wing Luke Elementary School building would be more energy efficient than the 2005 addition.

5 Interim site impacts. The Checklist does not analyze impacts of using the Old Van Asselt site as an interim site.

The Old Van Asselt building has been in use as a school and for school programs and no new impacts of using the site for Wing Luke Elementary are anticipated. Clarification has been added to Section A.11 of the Checklist.

A.11

6 Drainage. Concern about drainage issues after removal of trees.

Stormwater is discussed in Section B.3.c of the Checklist. Stormwater runoff would be

B.3.c

of 17

Comment Number


handled on-site and would not drain off the Wing Luke Elementary School site. The stormwater system would be designed to handle all runoff on the site and would meet City of Seattle requirements.

7 Plants. There was inadequate analysis of impacts on plants because no plant surveys were conducted for the Checklist.

As is appropriate for SEPA environmental review, the analysis in the plants section relied on existing information about plant species other than trees and general information gathered during a site visit. No formal plant survey was conducted. The analysis included review of the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species database and King County’s noxious weed data.

B.4

8 Trees. 50% of surveyed trees on the site

would be removed. According to the Glossary of the

Arborist Report, these trees are “significant.”

The Arborist Report recommends redesigning the parking lot to retain more trees; the District rejected this recommendation.

Both the Arborist Report and the Checklist accurately describe the condition of trees on the site and the number that will be removed. Impacts of tree removal are discussed in Section B.4. The word “significant” is not used in the Checklist because of confusion surrounding the term. Some arborists use “significant” to refer to all trees with a DSH of 6 inches or greater, regardless of health and structural condition. However, the city of Seattle does not use or define the term “significant” in municipal code 25.11 – Tree Protection. The City of Seattle requires that all trees equal to or

B.4, Appendix B

of 17

Comment Number


greater than 6 inches be inventoried and assessed for development projects. As described in Section B.4.b of the Checklist, SPS considered the arborist’s recommendation and looked at options to reduce or redesign the parking lot and other site features to retain more trees. The driveway to the east was redesigned to retain the existing trees along the eastern property line. Additionally, the stormwater treatment areas on the south part of the site were redesigned to retain some existing trees along the south property line. In reviewing the configuration of the front parking lot, it was determined that the lot would need to be lengthened and the building moved south to save any additional trees. This move would also reduce the required student play area, increase onsite grading, and would not improve drop-off flow in the lot. Therefore, SPS concluded that further changes to the front parking lot to save additional trees would not be practical. As many trees as possible will be retained.

9 Trees. The cottonwood tree at the southeast corner of the field is dangerous, has lost large limbs in wind storms, releases huge

The black cottonwood tree is not on SPS property and is the responsibility of SDOT. The Arborist Report recommends

B.4, Appendix B

of 17

Comment Number


amounts of pollen, and obstructs visibility. It should be removed.

“reduction pruning” for the tree, rather than removal.

10 Animals. There was inadequate analysis of

impacts on animals because no animal surveys were conducted for the Checklist.

Rabbits have been observed on the site.

As is appropriate for SEPA environmental review, the analysis in the animal section relied on existing information about animals and general information gathered during a site visit. No formal animal survey was conducted. The Checklist indicates that other species may be present. The analysis included review of the WDFW Priority Habitat and Species database to identify priority species.

B.5

11 Noise. Construction truck trips are disruptive to residences. Noise and vibration from trucks at other SPS project sites have been audible and disruptive to neighbors. This is a significant adverse impact.

Section B.7.b of the Checklist acknowledges impacts from construction noise, including vehicle operation. No vibratory equipment (such as geothermal drills or pile drivers) would be used. Construction noise would comply with City of Seattle noise standards.

B.7.b

12 Land Use. Requiring departures means that the project would not meet city zoning code and would have adverse impacts.

Zoning and departures are discussed in Section B.8 of the SEPA Checklist. Unlike some cities, the City of Seattle does not have a specific zoning designation for public facilities such as schools. Therefore, most schools in Seattle are in areas zoned as residential. However, the zoning code acknowledges that schools have different requirements than residential buildings through the departures process. Because

B.8

of 17

Comment Number


the departures process is part of the zoning code, the project would meet the requirements of the zoning code. Requesting a departure does not mean the project has an adverse impact; departures are a way of minimizing the impact of public schools in residential neighborhoods.

13 Aesthetics. Maximum building height will

increase by 11 feet 7 inches. The Checklist states that “Properties

north of the school are visually separated by trees.” But SPS proposes to remove 50% of the trees from the site.

Section B.10 acknowledges the increase in the maximum height of the building. As described in Section B.10, the maximum height would only be reached by a mechanical penthouse set back 10 feet from the building perimeter and 35 feet from the nearest property line. As stated in Section B.8a, the building would require a departure for building height. SPS would comply with the results of the departure process, which typically includes setback requirements. While some trees would be removed, remaining trees would still provide visual separation for properties to the north of the school. The closest structure to the north property line would be set back 90 feet.

B.10 and B.8

14 Light and Glare. The Checklist should provide more detail on the reader board, including in the Light and Glare section.

Additional information on the reader board has been added to the project description in Section A.11. Information on the potential

A.11, B.8. B.10, B.11

of 17

Comment Number


impacts of the reader board has been added to Sections B.8, B.10, and B.11.

15 Recreation. The change in playground size was

omitted from the Checklist. Long-term loss of open space is a

significant impact. It is not clear that improving drainage

of the play field will mitigate loss of play area.

Will the courtyard be accessible to the public?

Impacts to recreation are acknowledged in Section B.12 of the Checklist. The amount of open space on the site would be reduced, but improvements to recreational facilities would provide more usable, accessible recreation facilities. Improving drainage for the play field is not intended as mitigation for loss of open space on the site, but as an improvement to recreation and creation of a substantial amount of newly usable open space. The courtyard would not be accessible to the public, but the play field, play equipment, and other open spaces on the site would be. The Checklist has been revised to clarify this.

B.12

16 Recreation. The existing playfield does not have proper drainage, making it mucky and unusable during the majority of the school year.

Poor drainage on the playfield is discussed in section B.12.a of the Checklist. As noted in section B.12.c of the Checklist, the project would improve drainage by improving the soil to a sandier mixture so water will drain through more easily and by installing perforated piping under the field to convey water more quickly to the stormwater drainage system. Therefore,

B.12

of 17

Comment Number


the project would make the playfield a more usable recreational feature.

17 Cultural Resources. The Duwamish Tribe should be notified in the event of an archaeological resource discovery.

The Checklist has been revised to note that affected tribes, including the Duwamish Tribe, would be notified of the project prior to construction. The Inadvertent Discovery Plan for the project will list the Duwamish Tribe as one of the Tribes to be contacted in the event of the discovery of archaeological resources.

B.13

18 Historic and Cultural Resources. The Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum and SEPA Checklist should describe that the school is named after Wing Luke. The omission indicates a lack of respect for the history of the building.

Information about Wing Luke and naming of the school is included in the Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum, but was inadvertently omitted from the Draft SEPA Checklist. That information has been added to Section B.13 of the revised SEPA Checklist. The name of the new building will not change. In addition, many of the features in the old buildings associated with Mr. Wing Luke will be incorporated into the new building, including a framed photo of Wing Luke when he was in office as a Seattle City Councilman, Wing Luke’s enlarged signature seal cast in brass, a commemorative plaque describing Wing Luke’s biography, a painting featuring a yin-yang symbol donated to the school by the Wing Luke family, a mosaic panel

B.13

of 17

Comment Number


featuring a dragon created by students and staff under the direction of local artist Mary Wightman Bryant, and three galvanized steel fence gates featuring astronomical symbols and the text “Courage,” “Joy,” and “Excellence”.

19 Historic and Cultural Resources. The Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum should be included in the Checklist, rather than only referenced. The Memorandum does not appear to be readily available to the public. SEPA regulations require that the Checklist documents be made available for public review. Given the unavailability of the Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum, the District should extend the comment period.

The Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum contains culturally sensitive material and is exempt from public distribution and disclosure under RCW 42.56.300. Therefore, SPS determined that the comment period should not be extended.

20 Historic and Cultural Resources. The Checklist should acknowledge that the School Board has requested that SPS should be exempt from City Landmarks regulations and that the District routinely argues for rejection of nominations of its schools for Landmark Status.

SPS’s request that it be exempt from City Landmarks regulations is unrelated to this project. SPS complies with City Landmarks regulations on all its projects. Although this is not a SEPA issue, SPS does not argue for rejection of nominations of its school for Landmark Status.

B.13

21 Historic and Cultural Resources. The Checklist should be more respectful of chances for Native subsurface precontact

The information in the SEPA Checklist is based on the Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum, which was prepared by

B.13

of 17

Comment Number


cultural resources. The District should consider on-site archaeological monitoring during project construction.

professional archaeologists using standard methods. The Memorandum did not recommend on-site archaeological monitoring during project construction. An August 11, 2017 letter from the Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation concurred with the determination that the probability for archaeological resources in the project area is low. An Inadvertent Discovery Plan will be developed that will set forth procedures and protocols to follow in the event of an archaeological resource discovery during construction. The IDP will include pre-construction briefings and on-call response if required.

22 Safety. The lack of sidewalks on Kenyon Street and 39th Ave S presents a danger to students and residents, especially given the projected increase in traffic.

In response to concerns about student safety when walking along the school’s frontage on 39th Avenue S or the segment of S Kenyon Street southeast of the school, the design team has planned a path through the site. The proposed path is planned in lieu of providing a partial segment of sidewalk along 39th Avenue S. Since SPS does not own the four parcels near the 39th Avenue S / Kenyon Way S intersection, adding a short segment of sidewalk along the 39th Avenue S school frontage would not

of 17

Comment Number


address the pedestrian access concern for students. In addition, steep slopes along the west side of 39th Avenue S constrain options for pathway connections from 39th Avenue S to the school’s playfield. Therefore, a planned path for students and pedestrians would be provided from the corner of the S Rose Street / 39th Avenue S intersection to the west end of the segment of S Rose Street along the school frontage. At the end of S Rose Street, a gate would be added through the school’s perimeter fence. Students may use this access to the school site including the play areas, courtyard, and building.

23 Construction Traffic. What will be the impacts of construction traffic on 39th Avenue S?

There will not be any vehicular site access from the school directly onto 39th Avenue S. Earthwork vehicles and major contractor activity are expected to access the site from 37th Avenue S or S Kenyon Street. Trucks transporting earthwork are expected to travel to and from the west on S Kenyon Street to Beacon Avenue and Interstate-5. The selection of haul routes for earthwork will be part of the required Construction Management Plan completed by the general contractor and approved by the City of Seattle.

B.14

of 17

Comment Number


24 Bus-Loading. SMC 23.51B.002.I.3 prohibits a departure for bus loading unless the departure would contribute to reduced demolition of residential structures.

SPS intends to continue use of the existing on-street school bus load/unload zone along 37th Avenue S. Due to the increase in school capacity proposed, SPS would request a departure for continued use of on-street bus load/unload. The need for a departure for on-street bus loading is noted in Section B.8.a of the SEPA Checklist. Departures are a separate process from SEPA. As noted in Section B.8.l of the SEPA Checklist, SPS would comply with the results of the departure process.

B.8.a, B.8.l

25 Parking. Parking impacts are greater than acknowledged, and would be significant.

As documented in the Transportation Technical Report, on-street parking within the site vicinity is 49% utilized midday when school is in session (about 134 spaces are unused within 800 feet of the site). Therefore, the existing on-street supply can accommodate the excess midday demand generated by the additional staff and volunteers that may be added due to the school expansion. The increase in school-day demand would increase the total on-street parking utilization rate to about 70%. This rate would be below the level generally considered by the City to be effectively full (85%) and would not represent a

B.14

of 17

Comment Number


significant impact. However, the increase would be noticeable to residents living near the school. The technical report also addressed potential impacts related to occasional events and noted that with the larger school events, the on-street supply could accommodate the overflow demand within the 800-foot parking area evaluated. The parking overflow could increase utilization to about 92%; this would be noticeable and would likely be congested along the roadways closest to the school. However, due to the relative infrequency of larger evening events—once or twice per month during the school year—this impact would not be considered significant.

26 Parking. The Checklist description of on-site parking is not accurate. Actual on-site parking would increase by only one space. The Checklist states that the existing site has 39 parking spaces in the north parking lot. The Traffic Report references two on-site parking areas, the north lot and a non-striped area on the southwest side of the school, with a peak current combined on-site parking of 51 vehicles.

As stated in the Transportation Technical Report, there are two off-street parking areas on the school site. The primary lot, with 39 striped spaces, is located north of the school building. The second area (with no striped spaces) is located on the southwest side of the school building and is primarily used by service vehicles but some staff/visitors also park in this area. The parking analysis presented in the Transportation Technical Report accounted

B.14

of 17

Comment Number


for all parking demand that occurred on site (whether in striped or unstriped areas) as well as estimated demand that occurred off-site along nearby roadways. The project proposes 45 striped on-site parking spaces available on school days. With the load/unload spaces, the site would have 52 parking spaces that could be used during evening or weekend events. The estimate of demand and possible overspill to on-street parking accounted for the proposed parking supply. The Checklist has been revised to clarify that there are currently two parking lots on site.

27 Parking. Enrollment is increasing by 85%, which will increase impacts from parking.

The parking demand rates and impacts analyses accounted for the anticipated increase in staffing and volunteers/visitors at the proposed enrollment levels.

B.14

28 Parking. Separate childcare enrollment will increase by 20 students at the childcare center, with new student capacity of 50. This will increase parking impacts.

There is no proposed change in the capacity of the on-site pre-school facility (the existing Tiny Tots program has capacity for 30 students and the proposed pre-school facility would have capacity for 30 students). The proposed childcare portion of the facility is to provide before-and-after-school care for 20 students that would attend Wing Luke Elementary and

B.14

of 17

Comment Number


are already part of the 660-student capacity of the proposed replacement school.

29 Parking. The Checklist does not account for significant parking impacts from events at the school, which would increase on-street parking utilization to 92%.

The City of Seattle generally considers parking utilization rates of 85% and higher as effectively full. As described in the Transportation Technical Report, adequate unrestricted on-street parking exists near the school to accommodate added school-related demand. The analysis of on-street parking in the vicinity indicated that demand from the larger events can be accommodated. Due to the relative infrequency of events, the event-related parking impacts would not be considered significant. As part of the Transportation Management Plan recommended for the site, an event-related component may be included to reduce the size of large events, such as Curriculum Night, by splitting the event in to two smaller events (K-2 on one night and 3-5 on another) as is practiced at some other Seattle elementary schools.

B.14

30 Parking. The analysis of parking availability discusses parking within 800 feet walking distance, but some residences would have to walk further.

The parking study area requirements for school projects have been defined by the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections. Those requirements are intended to document the amount of parking that exists and the utilization rates

B.14

of 17

Comment Number


of that parking within 800 feet walking distance from a subject development site. That distance has been determined by the City to be reasonable for drivers walking between parked vehicles and a destination such as, in this case, a school. It is noted that many of the residences located near the school (particularly those along the referenced block faces on 37th Avenue S, S Kenyon Street, and Kenyon Way S) have off-street parking in driveways, garages, or both. Many of those along 37th Avenue S also have frontage along 36th Avenue S.

31 Parking. On-site parking code requirements are likely larger than acknowledged. Why are zoning departures not referenced for parking at Wing Luke?

It has been determined that the project would require a departure for on-site parking. Section B.8 has been revised to acknowledge this.

B.8

32 Garbage and Recycling. The current school lacks any outside garbage and recycling cans, resulting in a playground and open field littered with refuse and broken glass. Students and community members should be encouraged to take care of the investment in the neighborhood.

The proposed school would have outside garbage and recycling cans next to the building. Students are encouraged not to litter.

SCHOOLS PUBLIC DATE: SEATTLE Recipients ofthe State ... · maximum 660-studentcapacity school will...

Documents

Transcript of SCHOOLS PUBLIC DATE: SEATTLE Recipients ofthe State ... · maximum 660-studentcapacity school will...