-
WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS).
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL MODERNIZATION PROJECT
.
Proponent. Seattle Public SchoolsSEATTLE
Location of proposal, including street address, if any. Lincoln
High School, PUBLIC4400 Interlake Avenue North, Seattle,
Washington. SCHOOLS
Description of Proposal. Seattle Public Schools (SPS) is
proposing to modernize the existingLincoln High School building and
reopen it as a comprehensive high school. The project wouldbe
funded by the BEX IV Capital Improvement Program, which was
approved by voters inFebruary 2013. Some building infrastructure
improvements included in the project would befunded by the BTA IV
Program, which was approved by voters in February 2016.
Theenrollment capacity of the reopened Lincoln High School would be
1,600 students, includingstudents in the Skill Center for Health
Science and Medical Assisting.
Lincoln High School, located in the Wallingford neighborhood,
was originally constructed in1907 and was used as a high school
until 1981. The site was unused until 1997 when SPS startedusing
the building as an interim school and it has housed various SPS
schools including highschools, since then. The building is
currently home to Cascadia Elementary School, LictonSprings K-8
School, and a Skill Center for Health Sciences and Medical
Assisting. Permanentbuildings for Cascadia Elementary School and
Licton Springs K-8 School are currently underconstruction and the
programs will relocate to those buildings in fall 2017. The Skill
Centerwould continue to be housed in the Lincoln Building after it
is reopened as a high school.
Before reopening, the existing buildings would be renovated and
reconfigured. Most of themodernization consists of reconfiguring
interior spaces to accommodate classrooms, lab spaces,teacher and
student support spaces, a library, a performing arts space, and new
offices. A newADA-accessible entry would be constructed at the
north side of the central wing where itconnects to the north wing.
Aside from a service room addition between the central wing
andnorth wing, the existing building footprints would not be
expanded. Several small structureslocated between the wings of the
school and the exterior covered walkway canopies would bedemolished
to create an open space for student use. The north end parking area
would berepaved and reconfigured and parking spaces in the southern
lot would be retained to provide 162parking spaces plus a bus
load/unload area with room for five Special Education (SPED)
buses.Other site improvements would include excavation and grading,
stormwater improvements, treeplanting, and landscaping.
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does
not have a probable significantadverse impact on the environment.
An environmental impact statement (EIS) is notrequired under RCW
43.2 1C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a
completedenvironmental checklist and other information on file with
the lead agency. This informationis available to the public on
request at the following location: ). John Stanford Center,
2445Third Avenue South, Seattle (Attn: Steve Moore, Phone:
206-678-5981) and on line
athttps://www.seatleschools.org/cms/aspx?pageld 1d16889.
-
D There is no comment period for this DNS.
D This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC
197-11-3 55. There is nofurther comment period on the DNS.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will
not act on this proposalprior to January 30, 2017 (15 days from the
date below plus allowance for the holiday).
This DNS may be appealed by written notice setting forth
specific factual objections received nolater than January 30, 2017
(15 days plus allowance for the holiday), sent to:
SuperintendentSeattle Public SchoolsBox 34165, MS 32-15
1Seattle, WA 98124-1165SEPA.DNS.AppeaI(seattleschools.orgFax: (206)
252-0209
Name of agency making threshold determination. Seattle Public
Schools
Responsible official Pegi McEvoy, Assistant Superintendent for
Operations
Position/title Seattle Public Schools SEPA Official
Phone (206) 252-0102
Date / Signature
2
-
Lincoln High School
Modernization Project
SEPA Checklist
January 2017
PREPARED FOR:
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS 2445 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH
SEATTLE, WA 98134
PREPARED BY:
ESA 5309 SHILSHOLE AVENUE
NW, STE. 200 SEATTLE, WA 98107
-
SEPA Environmental Checklist
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
............................................................................................................................
i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
.........................................................................................................
1
A. BACKGROUND
............................................................................................................................
1
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
..............................................................................................
5
1. Earth
....................................................................................................................................
5
2. Air
.......................................................................................................................................
6
3. Water
...................................................................................................................................
7
4. Plants
.................................................................................................................................
10
5. Animals
.............................................................................................................................
12
6. Energy and Natural Resources
..........................................................................................
13
7. Environmental Health
.......................................................................................................
14
8. Land and Shoreline Use
....................................................................................................
17
9. Housing
.............................................................................................................................
20
10. Aesthetics
..........................................................................................................................
20
11. Light and Glare
.................................................................................................................
21
12. Recreation
.........................................................................................................................
21
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
....................................................................................
22
14. Transportation
...................................................................................................................
24
15. Public Services
..................................................................................................................
31
16.
Utilities..............................................................................................................................
32
C. SIGNATURE
................................................................................................................................
33
REFERENCES
..........................................................................................................................................
35
FIGURES
...................................................................................................................................................
37
APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
..................................................................................
39
APPENDIX B: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ADDENDUM FOR SITE PLAN
REVISIONS ... 41
APPENDIX C: TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
................................................................
43
APPENDIX D: COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
................................................................................
45
Figure 1: Project Vicinity Figure 2: Project Area and Existing
Facilities Figure 3: Site Plan
January 2017 Page i
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable:
Lincoln High School Modernization Project
2. Name of Applicant:
Seattle Public Schools (SPS)
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
Steve Moore Seattle Public Schools 2445 3rd Ave S Seattle, WA 98134
(206) 678-5981
4. Date checklist prepared:
January 2017
5. Agency requesting checklist:
Seattle Public Schools (SPS)
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if
applicable):
Construction is expected to begin in summer 2017 and to be
completed in August 2019.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or
further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If
yes, explain.
In addition to developing the Lincoln High School Modernization
Project described in this document, SPS has developed a master plan
for future upgrades at Lincoln High School. The master plan
projects have not been fully developed, are not scheduled or
funded, and are not evaluated in this SEPA Checklist. This work
would be undertaken with future capital levy funding and would
undergo SEPA review if the projects are carried forward.
The master plan includes replacement of the gymnasium and
auditorium/ performing arts buildings with a new building addition.
The master plan could also include replacement of a portion of the
parking lot at the north end of the site with an athletic practice
field.
January 2017 Page 1
-
8. List any environmental information you know about that has
been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this
proposal.
Building Excellence Phase IV (BEX IV) Capital Improvement
Program Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, ESA, July
2012
Buildings, Technology, Academics/Athletics Phase IV (BTA IV)
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, ESA, July 2016
Cultural Resources Review Memo, ESA, July 2016
Transportation Technical Report, Heffron Transportation, Inc.,
August 2016
Transportation Addendum for Site Plan Revisions, Heffron
Transportation, Inc., December 2016
Geotechnical Report: Interim Ballard High School at Lincoln High
School, Seattle, Washington, Shannon & Wilson, Inc., April
1997
Landmark Nomination Application, The Johnson Partnership,
October 2015
Preliminary Limited Hazardous Materials Survey Report, PBS
Engineering and Environmental, June 2016.
Tree Inventory and Assessment, Tree Solutions, Inc., November
2016
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental
approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property
covered by your proposal? If yes, explain.
SPS is currently negotiating with the Seattle Landmarks Board on
the Controls and Incentives Agreement for Lincoln High School. The
Agreement is scheduled to be completed by November 2017.
10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be
needed for your proposal, if known: The following permits would be
needed:
• Demolition
• Grading
• Building/Mechanical
• Stormwater Control
• A Certificate of Appropriateness from the City of Seattle
Landmarks Preservation Board
Page 2 January 2017
-
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including
the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are
several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe
certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those
answers on this page.
Seattle Public Schools (SPS) is proposing to modernize the
existing Lincoln High School building and reopen it as a
comprehensive high school. The project would be funded by the BEX
IV Capital Improvement Program, which was approved by voters in
February 2013. Some building infrastructure improvements included
in the project would be funded by the BTA IV Program, which was
approved by voters in February 2016. The enrollment capacity of the
reopened Lincoln High School would be 1,600 students, including
students in the Skill Center for Health Science and Medical
Assisting.
Lincoln High School, located in the Wallingford neighborhood
(Figure 1), was originally constructed in 1907 and was used as a
high school until 1981. The site was unused until 1997 when SPS
started using the building as an interim school. Since then the
site has temporarily housed various SPS schools, including
elementary, middle, and high schools. The building is currently
home to Cascadia Elementary School, Licton Springs K-8 School, and
a Skill Center for Health Sciences and Medical Assisting. Permanent
buildings for Cascadia Elementary School and Licton Springs K-8
School are currently under construction and the programs will
relocate to those buildings in fall 2017. The Skill Center would
continue to be housed in the Lincoln Building after it is reopened
as a high school.
The Lincoln High School campus includes five buildings built at
different times (Figure 2). Before reopening, the existing
buildings would be renovated and reconfigured. Aside from a service
room addition (described below), the existing building footprints
would not be expanded.
• The central wing (originally constructed in 1907) would be
renovated to add a new two-story common space, new offices,
classrooms, labs, and other student and teacher support space. A
new ADA-accessible entry would be constructed at the north side of
the central wing where it connects to the north wing.
• The north wing (originally constructed in 1914) would be
reconfigured to expand classroom space, add building support space,
and add a high school library, all within the existing
building.
• A north service wing addition would be constructed between the
central wing and north wing. The service wing would include a
loading dock, custodial space, electrical rooms, mechanical rooms,
and a boiler room.
• The south wing (originally constructed in 1931) would be
reconfigured to hold classroom and lab spaces.
• The gymnasium building (originally constructed in 1959) would
largely remain configured as it is currently. Several nonstructural
partitions in the gymnasium basement would be relocated to
accommodate program requirements.
January 2017 Page 3
-
• The auditorium/performing arts building (originally
constructed in 1959) would largely remain as is. The raked floor of
the small theater would be infilled to create a level floor and
allow the space to be used as a multi-purpose performing arts
support space.
Several small structures located between the wings of the school
would be demolished, including the 1986 steam boiler equipment
building, the 1997 hot water boiler equipment building, the 1911
brick boiler room and its decommissioned boiler equipment, the 1955
brick transformer vault, and the 1959 storage shed. Exterior
covered walkway canopies between the east and west buildings,
constructed in 1959, would also be demolished. The courtyard
between the east and west buildings would be regraded and
redeveloped as open space for student use.
The north parking lot would be reconfigured and some existing
parking for staff in the southern portion of the site would be
retained. In total, the site would have 210 parking spaces
available for regular school-day demand including: 185 in the
northern parking lot; three staff spaces in the delivery/loading
area; and 22 spaces in the southern lot. In addition, the proposal
includes an on-site load/unload zone for five 25-foot Special
Education (SPED) buses. That area would accommodate approximately
six additional parked cars for evening or weekend events. SPS plans
to renew a lease with the adjacent Solid Ground Building for the 48
parking spaces in the northeast corner of the site. With that
lease-renewal, the regular school-day supply of parking would be
162 spaces which is more than the City’s minimum code requirement
(161 spaces) determined by DCI in October 2016. Other site
improvements would include excavation and grading, stormwater
improvements, tree planting, and landscaping.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a
person to understand the precise location of your proposed project,
including a street address, if any, and section, township, and
range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area,
provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if
reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by
the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed
plans submitted with any permit applications related to this
checklist.
The proposed project is located at 4400 Interlake Avenue N,
Seattle, Washington, 98103. The project site is bounded by Woodlawn
Avenue N to the east, N 43rd Street to the south, Interlake Avenue
N to the west, and commercial structures to the north.
The site is located in the northeast quarter of Section 18,
Township 25 North, Range 4 East Willamette Meridian. The legal
description of the site is “SMITH & BURNS ADD ALL BLKS 8-9
& BLK 1 FERGUSONS ADD & LOTS 3 THRU 6 BLK 5 & ALL BLK 6
& VAC STS & POR VAC ST ADJ LAKE UNION ADD & LOTS 13
THRU 24 BLK 1 SMITH & BURNS ADD.”
Page 4 January 2017
-
Figure 1 shows the project vicinity. Figure 2 shows the project
area. Figure 3 shows the site plan.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
A geotechnical investigation was performed at the project site
by Shannon & Wilson Inc. in April 1997 (Shannon & Wilson,
1997). The work included a review of existing subsurface
information for the property as well as drilling four soil borings
on the project site. Information from this report is presented in
this section and incorporated throughout the SEPA Checklist.
a. General description of the site (underline):
Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other
___________
The site is generally flat, with approximately 20 feet of relief
across the site from the east to west.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent
slope)?
The steepest slopes are at the southwest corner of the site and
are roughly at a 35-degree slope. No slopes on the site meet
applicable definitions as Steep Slope areas in accordance with
Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 25.09.020. The nearest steep
slope area is located approximately 75 feet to the west of the
project site.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for
example clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the
classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any
agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether
the proposal results in removing any of these soils.
Soil borings in 1997 found that soils on the site were made up
of layers of manmade fill and sand deposits. Fill was encountered
up to 11.5 feet below ground surface and consisted of loose to
medium dense, slightly silty to silty fine to medium sand (Shannon
& Wilson, 1997).
d. Are there any surface indications or a history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
There are no potential slide, known slide, or liquefaction areas
mapped by the City of Seattle on or near the project site.
January 2017 Page 5
-
e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate
quantities of total affected area of any filling or grading
proposed. Indicate source of fill.
Approximately 2,500 cubic yards would be excavated.
Approximately 315 cubic yards of clean fill would be required from
a source approved by the City of Seattle.
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or
use? If so, generally describe.
Construction activities could cause erosion on the site. Erosion
potential would be reduced in compliance with current Ecology
Construction Storm Water General Permit requirements through an
erosion control plan consistent with City of Seattle standards (SMC
22.800) and implementation of best management practices (BMPs).
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction (for example,
asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 80 percent of the site is currently covered with
impervious surfaces. No new impervious surface would be added as
part of the project.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other
impacts to the earth, if any:
Temporary erosion and sedimentation control BMPs and
construction water quality treatment measures would be installed to
minimize erosion and to treat stormwater runoff during
construction. BMPs specific to the site and project would be
specified by SPS in the construction contract documents that the
construction contractor would be required to implement.
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the
proposal during construction, operation, and maintenance when the
project is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities if known.
During construction, there would be a small increase in exhaust
emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and a temporary
increase in fugitive dust due to earthwork for the project. The
most noticeable increase in emissions and fugitive dust would occur
during demolition and earthwork. Exhaust emissions would also be
generated from construction employee and equipment traffic to and
from the site.
Page 6 January 2017
-
The Skill Center for Health Sciences and Medical Assisting would
not be impacted by construction dust because it would be
temporarily relocated during construction.
Some food would be prepared in the on-site kitchen, while other
food production for the high school would be done at a central
kitchen and delivered to the site. Any odors from food production,
food warming, or other future kitchen uses would be controlled with
the use of exhaust hoods.
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may
affect your proposal? If so, generally describe.
There are no off-site sources of emissions or odors that would
affect the proposed project.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other
impacts to air, if any.
The contractor chosen for the proposed project would be required
to comply with applicable Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA)
regulations. Regulations that apply to the proposed project include
Regulation I, Section 9.11 prohibiting the emission of air
contaminants that would or could be injurious to human health,
plant or animal life, or property; and Regulation I, Section 9.15
prohibiting the emission of fugitive dust, unless reasonable
precautions are employed to minimize the emissions.
To reduce fugitive dust emissions from construction vehicles
leaving the site, the contractor would be required to establish
wheel-cleaning stations at the exits from the site if necessary.
Streets would be regularly swept to remove dust and debris from
construction vehicles.
3. Water
a. Surface Water:
1. Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate
vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams,
saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows
into.
There are no surface water bodies on or in the immediate
vicinity of the site.
January 2017 Page 7
-
2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to
(within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and
attach available plans.
The project would not require any work over, in, or adjacent to
any surface water bodies.
3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be
placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate
the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of
fill material.
The proposed project would not require any work in or near
surface water, and would not place any amount of fill or dredge
material in surface waters or associated wetlands.
4. Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or
diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities, if known.
The project would not require surface water withdrawals or
diversions.
5. Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so,
note location on the site plan.
The proposal is not located within a 100-year floodplain.
6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials
to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and
anticipated volume of discharge.
The project would not involve the discharge of waste materials
to any surface waters. All waste materials from the project,
including grading spoils and demolition debris, would be
transported off-site to an appropriate disposal facility. BMPs to
control runoff specific to the site and project would be specified
by SPS in the construction contract documents that the construction
contractor would be required to implement.
Page 8 January 2017
-
b. Groundwater:
1. Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water
or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well,
proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well.
Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description,
purpose, and approximate quantities if known.
No groundwater would be withdrawn as part of the project and no
water would be discharged to groundwater. The geotechnical
exploration borings described above in Section 1, which were
extended to depths of 21.5 or 31.5 feet, did not find groundwater
(Shannon & Wilson, 1997).
2. Describe waste material that will be discharged into the
ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example:
Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals. .
. ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system,
the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if
applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are
expected to serve.
No waste material would be discharged into the ground. The
project site would not utilize septic tanks.
c. Water Runoff (including stormwater)
1. Describe the source of runoff (including stormwater) and
method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if
known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other
waters? If so, describe.
The new building and adjacent surfaces would generate runoff.
The existing site runoff is collected in an underground storm drain
system and conveyed to the City's combined sewer overflow (CSO)
system. The stormwater requirements for discharging to the combined
sewer include flow control and on-site stormwater management. A
small stormwater detention area would be constructed under the
parking lot. Pervious pavement, bioswales, and rain gardens would
be constructed around the site to reduce runoff.
2. Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
During construction, contamination could enter surface waters.
Generally this is limited to sedimentation loading. Measures to
January 2017 Page 9
-
control contamination entering surface waters are discussed
below in Section 3.d.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and
runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any:
During construction, BMPs would be implemented to ensure that
sediment originating from disturbed soils would be retained within
the limits of disturbance. BMPs may include installation of a rock
construction entrance, catch basin filters, interceptor swales, hay
bales, sediment traps, and other appropriate cover measures. BMPs
specific to the site and project would be specified by SPS in the
construction contract documents that the construction contractor
would be required to implement.
4. Plants
a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site:
_X_deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
_X_evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
_ X _shrubs: ornamental
_ X _grass
____pasture
____crop or grain
____orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops
____wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk
cabbage, other
____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
____other types of vegetation (see below)
A tree survey, conducted by Tree Solutions Inc., inventoried 44
trees measuring 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height
on the school property (Tree Solutions, 2016; Appendix C). Tree
species on the site include European beech (Fagus sylvatic), deodar
cedar (Cedrus deodara), littleleaf linden (Tilia cordata), and
English yew (Taxus baccata). The trees are mostly in good health
and structural condition, though some trees have very restricted
growing spaces and some trees are covered by a significant amount
of invasive ivy. Fifteen of the 44 trees assessed qualify as
exceptional trees, per Seattle Director’s Rule 16‐2008. An
additional 23 trees were inventoried within the City of Seattle
road right-of-way (ROW) adjacent to the site.
Page 10 January 2017
-
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or
altered?
Up to 15 trees would be removed from the site, three of which
are exceptional trees. Two of the exceptional trees proposed for
removal are deodar cedars that flank the existing main entrance
(Photo 1). These trees are growing immediately adjacent to the
building and compromise the structure because they overlap the roof
and the roots cause damage to the building foundation. The two
cherry plum (Prunus cerasifera) trees in front of the entrance
would remain. One other exceptional tree, a beech, and one
non-exceptional tree, a horse chestnut tree (Aesculus
hippocastanum), would be removed to accommodate the ADA
entrance.
The other non-exceptional trees proposed for removal are located
around the property. Several are located too close to the existing
buildings and some are in declining health. Two trees on the east
side of the property would be removed to improve access to the
north parking lot.
Photo 1. Exceptional deodar cedar trees proposed for removal.
Photo by Tree Solutions, Inc. (2016).
January 2017 Page 11
-
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near
the site.
The project site, comprised almost entirely of school buildings
and asphalt, does not contain any documented threatened or
endangered plant species (WNHP, 2013).
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures
to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
Planting areas would be included on the west end of the site
near the new main entry and throughout the central courtyard.
Raingardens would be included in some areas. Drought tolerant
native and adapted species of plants would be used.
SPS will comply with Seattle’s tree protection ordinance for the
removal of exception trees. The ordinance requires the one-to-one
replacement of exceptional trees and replacement trees must be of a
similar type, approved by the Director of DCI, and must provide,
upon maturity, a canopy cover equal or greater to that prior to
tree removal (SMC 25.11.090). SPS will replace any non-exceptional
trees that are removed according to City requirements. The
landscaping and planting plans would be reviewed by DCI prior to
issuance of a master use permit.
Existing trees on the site would be protected to the extent
possible. SPS is working with Tree Solutions, Inc. to develop
measures to protect the trees that would remain on site both during
construction and after.
5. Animals
a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on
or near the site or are known to be on or near the site.
Animals observed on the site are restricted to typical urban
birds and animals.
Fish: not applicable
Amphibians: none observed
Reptiles: none observed
Birds: species adapted to urban areas such as gulls, American
crow, rock pigeon, chickadee, robin, Steller’s jay, northern
flicker, red-breasted nuthatch, and Bewick’s wren.
Mammals: species adapted to urban areas such as Norway rat,
raccoon, opossum
Page 12 January 2017
-
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on near
the site.
No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near
the site.
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority
Habitats and Species program has mapped two bald eagle breeding
area approximately 0.7 miles to the northwest in Woodland Park.
Bald eagles occasionally roost in tall trees on the school
property.
The WDFW Priority Habitats and Species program also maps a
waterfowl concentration area at Green Lake, approximately 0.8 miles
to the north of the project site (WDFW, 2016). The proposed project
would not affect any of these areas.
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
The Puget Sound area is located within the Pacific Flyway, which
is a flight corridor for migrating waterfowl and other avian fauna.
The Pacific Flyway extends south from Alaska to Mexico and South
America. No portion of the proposed project would interfere with or
alter the Pacific Flyway.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if
any.
The project is not expected to have any negative impacts on
animals within or near the project site; therefore, no mitigation
is required. Some birds and animals may be disturbed during
construction, but would return following construction. Most of the
construction for the modernization project would be interior work
which would reduce disturbance to birds and animals. While two
large trees near the entrance of the school would be removed, other
tall trees would remain on the site and be available for eagle
roosting.
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove,
solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs?
Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing,
etc.
Electricity and natural gas would be required to operate the
school’s new renovated rooms and offices.
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy
by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe.
The newly renovated rooms and offices would not block the use of
solar energy by adjacent properties. No other aspect of the project
would interfere with solar energy use by others.
January 2017 Page 13
-
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in
the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce
or control energy impacts, if any:
Energy conservation features would include those required to
meet or exceed the requirements of the Washington Sustainable
Schools Protocol, which is equivalent to LEED Silver or better, and
the Seattle Energy Code.
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including
exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or
hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If
so, describe.
Accidental spills of hazardous materials from equipment and
vehicles could occur during construction. However, a spill
prevention and control plan would be developed to prevent the
accidental release of contaminants into the environment.
1. Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from
present or past uses.
According to the Department of Ecology Facility/Site(s)
database, the Lincoln High School site is not known to be
contaminated (Ecology, 2016).
2. Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might
affect project development and design. This includes underground
hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the
project area and in the vicinity.
Several existing small structures would be demolished, including
a steam boiler equipment building, hot water boiler equipment
building, brick boiler room and equipment, and brick transformer
vault, all of which could potentially contain hazardous chemicals
or conditions.
The Hazardous Materials Survey Report developed by PBS
Engineering and Environmental found asbestos-containing materials,
lead-containing paint, and mercury-containing light tubes in the
existing buildings at Lincoln High School. No PCB light ballasts
were observed, but there is potential for a limited number of older
PCB light ballasts to exist in the school (PBS, 2016).
Page 14 January 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 high school, chemicals stored and used
on site would be limited to cleaning supplies and chemicals needed
for chemistry classes. These chemicals would be stored in safe
locations.
4. Describe special emergency services that might be
required.
No special emergency services would be required. The project
would widen an access lane between auditorium and south wing
buildings to 20 feet to meet fire access standards.
5. Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
Site-specific pollution prevention plans and spill prevention
and control plans would be developed to prevent or minimize impacts
from hazardous materials.
Where hazardous materials, such as asbestos-containing
materials, lead-containing paint/components, PCB light ballasts,
and mercury-containing light tubes, are present, construction would
comply with applicable regulations for removal and disposal.
b. Noise
1. What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your
project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
There are no existing sources of noise in the area that would
adversely affect the proposal. Lincoln High School is located less
than 150 feet from N 45th Street, a major arterial street which
generates traffic noise.
January 2017 Page 15
-
2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or
associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for
example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what
hours noise would come from the site.
Vehicle and equipment operation during construction could cause
noise impacts to nearby residents. Construction hours and noise
levels would comply with the City of Seattle noise standards.
Maximum permissible sound levels in residential communities are
not to exceed 55 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)s). However,
construction activities are permitted to exceed the established
maximum level by 25 dB(A) by the Seattle Noise Control Ordinance
(SMC 25.08.425). Maximum permissible sound levels established in
SMC 25.08.425 may be exceeded by construction activities between
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between the hours of 9:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends.
Expanded enrollment at Lincoln High School would cause an
increase in sound from human voices and from cars in the immediate
vicinity during daytime hours. If more evening events are held at
the school, they would generate some additional noise as people
arrive and depart the building. This increased noise is expected to
be minor and no events would be scheduled to end past 10 p.m.
Increases in noise would be short-term and would not violate noise
regulations.
3. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if
any:
Construction activities would be restricted to hours and levels
designated by SMC 25.08.425. Maximum permissible sound levels
established in SMC 25.08.425 may be exceeded by construction
activities between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and
between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekends. If
construction activities exceed permitted noise levels, SPS would
instruct the contractor to implement measures to reduce noise
impacts to comply with the Noise Control Ordinance, which could
include additional muffling of equipment. While construction noise
is permitted during evenings and weekends, construction would
generally occur between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Page 16 January 2017
-
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent
properties? If so, describe.
The site is used as a school and currently houses Cascadia
Elementary School, Licton Springs K-8 School, and the Skill Center
for Health Sciences and Medical Assisting. The building was
originally constructed as a high school in 1907 and the site was
used as a high school until 1981. The site was then unused until
1997 when SPS started using the site as an interim school. Since
then, the site has temporarily housed various SPS schools,
including elementary, middle, and high schools.
The school is located in a residential neighborhood. The current
zoning classification of the school site is low-rise. Areas to the
south and east are zoned SF 5000 (residential single family 5,000).
There are single-family and low-rise multi-family residences to the
west, east and south of the school. Commercial development is
located north of the project area along North 45th Street.
Wallingford Playfield is located one block to the southeast and
Hamilton International Middle Schools is located two blocks to the
southeast.
The project would not affect current land uses. The site has
been used as a school and would continue to be used as a
school.
The Seattle Municipal Code contains development standards for
public schools in residential zones in SMC 23.51B.002. The Seattle
Land Use Code (Chapter 23.79) includes a procedure by which
departures from the required development standards of the code can
be granted for public school structures. The departure process
requires SPS to apply to the Director of DPD for departures.
The Lincoln High School Modernization Project does not include
any actions that would require a departure from standards for lot
coverage, height, or bulk of the building.
Permanent buildings for Cascadia Elementary School and Licton
Springs K-8 School are currently under construction and the
programs will relocate to those buildings in fall 2017. The Skill
Center would continue to be housed in the Lincoln Building after it
is reopened as a high school.
January 2017 Page 17
-
b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or
working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or
forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted
to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource
lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or
forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest
use?
The site is not currently and has not been previously used for
working farmlands or working forest lands. No agricultural or
forest land would be converted to other uses.
1. Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm
or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize
equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and
harvesting? If so, how:
No working farm or forest lands are located near the proposed
project, so the project would not affect or be affected by farm or
forest land operations.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Structures on the project site include five buildings: the
central wing, north wing, south wing, gymnasium, and auditorium and
performing arts building (Figure 2). The site also features a
parking lot to the north of the gym and north wing buildings.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
The exterior covered walkway canopies between the east and west
buildings would be demolished. The 1986 steam boiler equipment
building, the 1997 hot water boiler equipment building, the 1911
brick boiler room and its decommissioned boiler equipment, the 1955
brick transformer vault, and two 1959 storage sheds would also be
demolished. The existing basement tunnels would also be
demolished.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the
site?
The City of Seattle comprehensive plan designation of the site
is residential urban village (City of Seattle, 2015)
Page 18 January 2017
-
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
The project site is not within a shoreline jurisdiction;
therefore, there is no applicable shoreline master plan
designation.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area
by the city or county? If so, specify.
No environmentally critical areas have been mapped on or
adjacent to the school site.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the
completed project?
No people would reside in the completed project. The completed
school would house 1,600 students (including those from the Skills
Center) with a staff of 120 to 130. This represents an increase of
approximately 715 students and 20 to 30 staff over the current
interim uses of the site. Historic enrollment at Lincoln High
School and the enrollment of various schools that have used the
site on an interim basis have varied, reaching a high of 2,800
students in 1959-60 (Thompson and Marr, 2002). From 1996 to 1998,
the Enrollment was approximately 1,000 when Ballard High School was
housed at the site and approximately 1,200 when Garfield and
Roosevelt high schools occupied the site.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
The completed project would not displace any people.
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if
any:
No displacement would occur; therefore, no mitigation measures
are needed.
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
The project is consistent with existing land use regulations and
plans. No departures from the land use code would be required.
m. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with
nearby agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial
significance, if any: The project is not located near any
agricultural or forest lands, so no measures to ensure
compatibility are required.
January 2017 Page 19
-
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
No housing units would be provided as part of the project.
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing.
No housing units would be eliminated.
c. Describe proposed measures to reduce or control housing
impacts, if any.
The project would not cause housing impacts; therefore,
mitigation measures to control housing impacts would not be
required.
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any of the proposed
structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal
exterior building material(s) proposed?
The central wing is the tallest structure on site, and is 64
feet and 8 inches above grade on the courtyard side. The height of
the new service addition would be no taller than the existing
central wing building.
The exterior building materials of the existing buildings would
not be changed. The new service addition would likely have a metal
wall panel exterior.
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
View from adjacent residences facing the current high school
would not be altered as the site building footprint and heights
would remain the same.
c. Proposed measures to control or reduce aesthetic impacts, if
any:
The project would not cause aesthetic impacts; therefore,
mitigation measures to control aesthetic impacts would not be
required.
Page 20 January 2017
-
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What
time of day would it mainly occur?
Lighting on the site would remain similar to present conditions.
There would be an increase in light when renovated rooms and
offices are being used during school hours. However, this would
occur predominately during daylight hours and would not generate
off-site light or glare. The number of evening events may increase
with use of the site as high school, resulting in building lights
being on later in the evening. Any exterior lights associated with
the renovated buildings or parking areas would be designed to
minimize spillover to adjacent properties.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety
hazard or interfere with views? Exterior building and property
lighting from the completed project would not be a safety hazard
and would not be expected to interfere with views.
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect
your proposal?
No off-site sources of light or glare would affect this
proposal. The site is located less than 150 feet from N 45th
Street, a major arterial site which generates ambient lighting in
the area.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare
impacts, if any:
It is anticipated that both exterior and interior lighting would
be on timers so that the site would be mostly dark at night.
Evening activities and events could cause increased light, but
impacts on adjacent structures are anticipated to be minor.
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are
in the immediate vicinity?
Lincoln High School is located within 150 feet of Wallingford
Playfield, which is a public park managed by the Seattle Parks and
Recreation Department. The school is located approximately 0.3
miles from Woodland Park, 0.8 miles from Green Lake, and 0.4 miles
from Meridian Playground.
Wallingford Playfield is 4.5 acres and includes tennis courts, a
wading pool, play equipment, and a grass play area (Seattle Parks
and Recreation, 2016a). Woodland Park is located south of Green
Lake and includes picnic areas, several lighted playfields and
tennis courts, skatepark, off-
January 2017 Page 21
-
leash dog area, walkway paths, and grassy areas (Seattle Parks
and Recreation, 2016b). Meridian Playground is 6.5 acres in size
and contains a large grass play area, gazebo, shelter, and play
equipment (Seattle Parks and Recreation, 2016b).
Additional recreation facilities on the Lincoln High School site
include a gymnasium.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational
uses? If so, describe.
Reopening the Lincoln site as a high school would likely
increase the use of Wallingford Playfield by students, especially
after school. The Playfield would not be used for Lincoln High
School athletic programs. Athletic programs at Lincoln High School
would be required to use off-site fields for practice and games.
Programs would likely use the fields at Woodland Park for practice
and games and Memorial Stadium for games. Use of public fields at
Woodland Park could displace recreational uses of the fields during
those times.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project
or applicant, if any:
Use of Seattle Parks and Recreation fields at Woodland Park or
other sites would be coordinated with Seattle Parks and Recreation
to minimize impacts to other users. SPS and Parks will develop a
Joint Use Agreement that address use of both Woodland Park
playfields and Wallingford Playfield by Lincoln High School
students.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
A Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Lincoln High
School site was developed by ESA (ESA, 2016). Information from the
technical memorandum is presented in this section.
a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or
near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for
listing in national, state, or local preservation registers located
on or near the site? If so, specifically describe.
Aboveground historic properties within the study area include
Lincoln High School itself, which is a designated Seattle Landmark
as well as listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) and Washington Heritage Register (WHR) (Abbott, 2001;
Johnson Partnership, 2015). Seven commercial and 22 residential
buildings constructed over 45 years ago are located in the Study
Areas. Although all of these meet the historic age threshold of 25
years as defined by Seattle Landmarks criteria (the
Page 22 January 2017
-
applicable local preservation register for this project), the
properties do not meet any of the other criteria for listing as
Seattle Landmarks.
Lincoln High School, comprised of five buildings, was built in
four phases. The original building was constructed in 1907 and
designed by architect James Stephen. Other buildings include a 1914
renovation and northern addition (designed by Edgar Blair), a 1930
annex building (designed by Floyd A. Naramore), and a 1959
gymnasium and auditorium (by architecture firm NBBJ) (Johnson
Partnership, 2015). The property has been designated a Seattle City
Landmark, though the designation ordinance has not yet been
completed. SPS is currently negotiating with the Seattle Landmarks
Board on the Controls and Incentives Agreement for Lincoln High
School. The Controls and Incentives Agreement will list the
features and characteristics of the Landmark that would or would
not necessitate a Certificate of Approval, should alterations or
significant changes to these elements be proposed.
Based on a review of geotechnical drilling, geological
information, and historic background, the area with the highest
probability of encountering buried cultural resources is the
existing parking lot, which is proposed to have a stormwater
detention vault installed beneath it. There may be buried evidence
of the residences that occupied that area north of former Allen
Street (outbuildings, foundations, etc.).
b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of
Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human
burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence,
artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site?
Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to
identify such resources.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the study
area. The study area is classified as “High Risk” for containing
subsurface archaeological deposits in DAHP’s Statewide Predictive
Model (DAHP, 2010). No previous cultural resources assessments have
been conducted in the study area.
Other than the parking lot area at the north end of the site
(discussed above under 13.a), areas of the property that are
proposed for ground-disturbance (a new entryway on the west
elevation of the Central Wing and those structures scheduled for
demolition) have undergone previous ground-disturbance, grading,
and/or filling. It is unlikely that buried precontact resources
exist in the project area.
January 2017 Page 23
-
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to
cultural and historic resources on or near the project site.
Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of
archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys,
historic maps, GIS data, etc.
ESA conducted a literature review of the Project Area. The study
area examined for this review included the parcel containing the
school and those immediately adjacent. Information reviewed
included any previous archaeological survey reports, ethnographic
studies, historic maps, government landowner records, aerial
photographs, regional histories, geological maps, soils surveys,
and environmental reports. These records were reviewed in order to
determine the presence of any potentially significant cultural
resources, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), within
the Project Area. Relevant documents were examined at DAHP, the
University of Washington Libraries, online, and within ESA’s
research library (ESA, 2016).
d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss,
changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for
the above and any permits that may be required.
SPS would conduct on-site archaeological monitoring during
construction for those excavations near the existing parking lot.
Because the area is classified as “High Risk,” SPS has developed an
Archaeological Resource Monitoring Plan and Inadvertent Discovery
Plan (ARMP/IDP) to outline protocols to be followed in the event
that cultural resources are observed during implementation of the
project. In the event that cultural resources were inadvertently
discovered during the project, construction would be temporarily
halted in the immediate vicinity of the identified resources and
the City, DAHP, and affected tribes would be notified. Mitigation
and/or avoidance measures would be coordinated with the City, DAHP,
and other stakeholders.
14. Transportation
A Transportation Technical Report for the project was developed
by Heffron Transportation, Inc. (Heffron, 2016a; Appendix A). An
addendum to the report was prepared in November 2016 to address
changes to the site plan (Heffron, 2016b; Appendix B). Information
from the technical report is presented in this section.
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or
affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
The school site is bounded by Interlake Avenue N to the west, N
43rd Street to the south, Woodlawn Avenue N to the east, and a
combination of
Page 24 January 2017
-
private commercial properties and a short, narrow, one-way
eastbound segment of Woodlawn Place N to the north.
The largest parking lot and access drive are accessed from two
driveways—one signed as “enter-only” on Interlake Avenue N opposite
N Allen Place and another signed as “exit only” on Woodlawn Avenue
N about 100 feet north of N 44th Street. There is a second parking
lot located at the northeast corner of the site that is separated
from the main lot by a fence. This lot is currently leased to
tenants in the Solid Ground Building across Woodlawn Place N and is
accessed from the one-way eastbound segment of Woodlawn Place
N.
As part of the project, the parking area at the north end of the
site would be reconfigured. The lot would retain the existing
access from the driveways on Interlake and Woodlawn Avenues N. The
access to the northeast corner lot from Woodlawn Place N would be
eliminated. The parking in the central and south portions of the
site would be removed; the existing access driveway on N 43rd
Street may be retained for emergency access.
b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by
public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
King County Metro Transit provides bus service very near the
Lincoln High School site. The closest bus stops are located on N
45th Street at Woodlawn Avenue N, less than 300 feet north of the
site. A stop serving westbound buses is located west of the
Woodlawn Avenue N (north leg) intersection; a stop serving
eastbound buses is located between Woodlawn Place N and Woodlawn
Avenue N (south leg). These stops are served by Metro Routes 44,
62, and 82, which are described below. Stops serving Routes 62 and
82 are also located on Stone Avenue N about 400 feet west of the
site. Within less than 0.4 mile to the west, there are stops on
Aurora Avenue N at N 46th Street that are served by Metro’s
RapidRide E-Line service. Some teachers or staff and a large
portion of the student population are likely to use Metro transit
to access the site.
Many high school students living within the future enrollment
area of Lincoln High School would require transportation on Metro
routes with or without the re-opening project. However, the
availability of a new high school located roughly between Ballard
High School and Roosevelt High school would mean that some students
that currently qualify for transportation would instead live within
walking or biking distance of the new school. As a result, the
increase in transit trips on Metro routes from overall increases in
high school student population may be off-set by reductions in the
students that qualify for Orca cards. It is likely that increases
in ridership would occur on the routes that serve the immediate
site vicinity, but may be reduced on other routes.
January 2017 Page 25
-
Based on the expected school schedule, the largest numbers of
high-school-related trips are anticipated to occur during the
shoulders of transit route peak periods (arrivals around 8:30 a.m.
and departures at about 3:30 p.m.), when other ridership levels are
generally lower than during peak hours. As a result, the existing
routes are anticipated to accommodate the added high school-related
trips. However, SPS should coordinate with Metro after the
enrollment area is determined and prior to school opening to allow
Metro to plan its coach needs to accommodate the increases in
school-related trips to and from the site vicinity.
c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed
project or non-project proposal have? How many would the project or
proposal eliminate?
The project includes reconfiguration of the north parking lot
and retention of some existing parking for staff in the southern
portion of the site. In total, the site would have 210 parking
spaces: 185 in the northern parking lot; three staff spaces in the
delivery/loading area; and 22 spaces in the southern lot. In
addition, the proposal includes an on-site load/unload zone for
five 25-foot Special Education (SPED) buses. That area would
accommodate approximately six additional parked cars for evening or
weekend events. SPS plans to renew its lease with the adjacent
Solid Ground building for 48 parking spaces in the northeast corner
of the site. This would result in a net availability of 162 spaces
during the regular school-day which is more than the City’s minimum
code requirement (161 spaces) determined by DCI in October
2016.
The re-opened Lincoln High School is not anticipated to utilize
on-street school bus load/unload zones. A Special Education (SPED)
bus load/unload area with room for five 25-foot buses would be
located on-site between the north parking lot and the building.
Therefore, the existing school-bus zone located along the north
side of N 43rd Street adjacent to the site would be eliminated.
Public comments related to the Neighborhood Greenway on this
segment indicate that an active automobile load zone is not
desired. An active automobile load zone will not be proposed by the
District
The 1,600-student high school could generate school-day demand
that ranges from 224 to 368 vehicles. Of those, 162 could be
contained on site, which could result in on-street demand ranging
from 62 to 206 vehicles. Along the roadways adjacent to the site,
there are approximately 110 unrestricted spaces that are likely to
be used for school-day parking; about 65 of those were observed to
be available on school-day mornings before students would typically
begin arriving. At the lower end of the demand range, all of the
overspill could be accommodated on-street and the overall
utilization of on-street parking within 800 feet of the site would
remain below the 85% threshold considered to be full by the City of
Seattle. If the school generates demand at the higher-end of the
range, that could
Page 26 January 2017
-
leave excess demand of about 140 vehicles beyond the adjacent
streets. If the school generates demand at any rate over about 0.20
vehicles per student, utilization could exceed 90%; with all
available unrestricted spaces taken by the excess
high-school-related demand, school-day parking utilization could
increase to over 95%. With the mitigation measures discussed below
under B.14.h, these impacts would not be considered significant.
New parking demand counts performed at and around Ingraham High
School in September 2016, which was found to have excess on-site
supply and substantial available on-street parking capacity,
indicate a school-day parking demand rate of 0.20 vehicles per
student. Therefore, achieving a rate at the lower end of the
observed range for the Lincoln High School site is reasonable.
The re-opened Lincoln High School is expected to host activities
and evening events regularly throughout the school year consisting
of meetings, club activities, or indoor sports practices (in the
gymnasium). These types of activities may occur daily and consist
of between 15 and 50 participants or spectators. The site would
also be expected to host three or four larger events (such as
Curriculum Night, dances, and talent shows) each month that may
draw higher levels of participation and/or spectators.
Parking demand generated by the smaller types of events and
activities could be accommodated by the on-site parking lot or
on-street parking adjacent to the site along Interlake Avenue N,
Woodlawn Avenue N, or N 43rd Street. A large event in the
auditorium could generate parking demand between 290 and 410
vehicles. A portion of this demand (up to 168 vehicles including
parking within the SPED-bus load zone) could be accommodated within
the on-site parking lot. The remaining demand would require
on-street parking.
Events with total attendance of between 675 and 950 would likely
cause on-street parking utilization to exceed the 85% threshold;
any event with more than about 1,000 attendees is estimated to
result in full parking conditions (100%) within 800 feet of the
site and could impact streets beyond 800 feet. The on-street supply
could accommodate the overflow demand of some of the larger events
likely to occur at the high school; however, for the largest
events, all on-street parking along the roadways surrounding the
school site could be at or above capacity. With the mitigation
measures discussed below under B.14.h, these impacts would not be
considered significant.
January 2017 Page 27
-
d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing
roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation
facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
The project would not require any new streets or improvements to
existing streets.
e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate
vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally
describe.
The project is not in the vicinity of, or proposes to use,
water, rail, or air transportation.
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the
completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes
would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such
as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or
transportation models were used to make these estimates?
At the proposed capacity and compared to the site’s current
school program uses, the re-opened high school is projected to
generate a net increase of 325 trips during the morning peak hour
(from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and a net reduction in trips during the
afternoon peak hour (from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m.). Afternoon trip
generation by high schools is typically spread out over several
hours as students and staff stay on campus for a variety of
activities, while afternoon primary school trips are largely
concentrated to the hour around dismissal. During the commuter PM
peak hour, the high school is expected to generate a relatively
small net increase of 65 trips.
Similar to existing conditions, traffic congestion is expected
during morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods along the
roadways that surround the site, especially Interlake Avenue N,
Woodlawn Avenue N, and N 43rd Street.
Some student-driver trips and parent-vehicle load/unload
activities are expected along many roadways that surround the site,
but would be concentrated along those closest to the site—Interlake
Avenue N, Woodlawn Avenue N, and N 43rd Street. Some activity may
also occur along the one-way segment of Woodlawn Place N at the
northeast corner of the site.
The current site plan includes a proposed change to the access
on Interlake Avenue N. The change would allow ingress and egress
(instead of ingress only) as suggested by community members. The
effects of these changes were evaluated in the Lincoln High School
Modernization Project –
Page 28 January 2017
-
Addendum for Site Plan Revisions (Heffron Transportation, Inc.,
December 30, 2016). As outlined in the addendum, additional traffic
and pedestrian activity generated by the re-opened Lincoln High
School is forecast to add some delay to several of the study area
intersections and turning movements during both the morning and
afternoon peak hours. All of the study area intersections would
continue to operate at LOS C or better overall. During both
periods, all movements except one would operate at LOS D or better.
One movement—southbound from Interlake Avenue N at N 45th
Street—would operate at LOS E with or without the project. With the
currently-proposed change in site access, the project is forecast
to add less than 5 seconds to the average delay to that movement.
Some congestion is expected during morning arrival and afternoon
dismissal, especially along Interlake and Woodlawn Avenues N, N
Allen Place, N 44th Street, N 43rd Street, and roadways that extend
south of the site.
g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by
the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or
streets in the area? If so, generally describe.
The proposal would not interfere with the movement of
agricultural or forest products on streets in the area because no
agricultural or working forest lands are located within the
vicinity of the project site.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation
impacts, if any:
Impacts associated with construction include truck traffic to
remove excavated material from the site and to import of fill and
construction materials to the site. Construction would require the
removal of approximately 2,500 cy of material and import of
approximately 315 cy to the site. Assuming an average of 20 cy per
truck (truck/trailer combination), the excavation and fill would
generate about 14 truckloads (14 trucks in and 14 trucks out). The
export and import would likely occur over about nine months and
would likely result in an average of only a few truckloads per day.
This volume of truck traffic may be noticeable to adjacent
residents, but is not expected to result in significant impacts to
traffic operations in the site vicinity.
Project construction would also generate employee and equipment
trips to and from the site. It is anticipated that construction
workers would arrive at the construction site before the AM peak
traffic period on local area streets and depart the site prior to
the PM peak period. Construction work shifts for schools are
usually from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. with workers arriving between
6:30 and 6:45 a.m. The number of workers at the project site at any
one time would vary depending upon the construction element being
implemented. Parking for construction personnel would be provided
within the site during most phases, but construction workers
are
January 2017 Page 29
-
likely to park along the site frontage, particularly during
construction activities associated with the north parking lot.
Measures to reduce construction traffic impacts would
include:
• SPS would require the selected contractor to develop a
construction management plan (CMP) that addresses traffic and
pedestrian control during school construction. The CMP would define
truck routes, lane closures, walkway closures, and parking
disruptions, as necessary. To the extent possible, the CMP would
direct trucks along the shortest route to arterials and away from
residential streets to avoid unnecessary conflicts with resident
and pedestrian activity. The CMP could also include measures to
keep adjacent streets clean on a daily basis at the truck exit
points (such as street sweeping or on-site truck wheel cleaning) to
reduce tracking dirt offsite. The CMP would identify parking
locations for construction staff. To the extent possible,
construction employee parking would be contained on-site.
SPS would implement the following measures to reduce the traffic
and parking impacts associated with the re-opening of Lincoln High
School:
• Transportation and Parking Management Plan: Prior to the
school’s re-opening, SPS and the school administration would
develop a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to minimize
automobile travel to and from the site and reduce parking demand
generated during school-day and event conditions. The plan would
educate parents and students about access and parking challenges
for the school. The plan would encourage Metro transit ridership,
carpooling, and walking/biking options. The plan would define clear
procedures for on-site student parking with incentives for
carpooling, when possible.
• Added Egress: To reduce project-related volume and delay for
northbound movements on Woodlawn Avenue N at N 45th Street, the
site access on Interlake Avenue N could be configured to allow
entry and exit.
• Load/Unload Zone: SPS would work with SDOT to determine if an
automobile load/unload zone is desired along the north side of N
43rd Street adjacent to the school site.
• Safety Committee Review: SPS would engage the Seattle School
Safety Committee (of which SDOT is a member) to review walk routes
and determine if any changes would be made to crosswalk locations,
signage, pavement markings, and school zone speed limits.
Page 30 January 2017
-
• Speed Enforcement: SPS would coordinate with SDOT and the
Seattle Police Department to enforce speed limits (including within
the school-zones) near the site.
• Event Calendar Coordination: The school event calendar would
be actively coordinated to ensure that only one large event (those
attracting 675 or more attendees) occurs on site at a time. In
addition, the calendar would be coordinated with the calendar for
nearby Hamilton International Middle School to ensure large events
are not held at both schools simultaneously.
• Neighborhood Communication Plan: SPS and the school
administration would develop and maintain a neighborhood
communication plan to inform nearby neighbors of events each year.
The plan would be updated annually (or as events are scheduled) and
would provide information about the dates, times, and rough
magnitude of attendance. The communication would be intended to
allow neighbors to plan for the increase in on-street parking
demand that would occur with large events.
• On-Street Parking Monitoring Program: SPS would implement an
annual on-street parking utilization monitoring program to document
school-day and event-related parking impacts surrounding the
school. The monitoring effort would occur annually for 5 years or
for at least 2 years after the school reaches at least 90% of its
enrollment capacity. The results of the monitoring studies would be
used to determine if parking management measures such as new or
expanded time restrictions, expansion of the Restricted Parking
Zone (RPZ), or other measures would be implemented. If additional
measures are identified to mitigate high-school related parking
impacts, SPS would coordinate with SDOT to implement those
measures.
• Metro Coordination: SPS would coordinate with Metro after the
enrollment area is determined and prior to school re-opening to
allow Metro to plan its coach needs to accommodate the increases in
school-related trips to and from the site vicinity.
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public
services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public
transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally
describe.
The proposed project would add attendance to the facility, but
is not anticipated to require additional public services above
those already needed for operation of interim schools at the
site.
January 2017 Page 31
-
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on
public services, if any.
Since an increased need for public services is not anticipated,
mitigation to reduce impacts to public services is not
proposed.
16. Utilities
a. Underline utilities currently available at the site:
Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone,
sanitary sewer, septic systems, other
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the
utility providing the service, and the general construction
activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be
needed.
Electricity, telephone, and natural gas would continue to be
provided to the school. SPS would work with Seattle City Light,
Puget Sound Energy, and its telephone provider to coordinate the
extension of utilities to the new rooms and offices, if needed.
The contractor would coordinate with utility purveyors to locate
all existing utilities prior to proceeding with construction
activity. Any active underground pipes encountered would be
protected. Should undocumented piping or other utilities be
encountered, the utility purveyor would be immediately contacted
prior to resuming construction activity near the utility. Storm
drains would be maintained and protected as catch basins.
Page 32 January 2017
-
SEPA Environmental Checklist
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my
knowledge. I understand thatthe lead agency is relying on them to
make its decision.
SignaturJaA
Name of signee:
Position andAgency/Organization:
___________________________________________________
Date Submitted:
‘1Pegi McEvoy
Assistant Superintendent for Operations Seattle PublicSchools
SEPA Official
/7/7
Page 30 March 2016January 2017 Page 33
-
SEPA Environmental Checklist
REFERENCES
Abbott, Martin. 2001. Historic Property Inventory Form: Historic
Lincoln High School, 4400 Interlake Avenue, Seattle, WA. On file,
DAHP, WA.
City of Seattle. 2014. City of Seattle Generalized Zoning Map.
August 2, 2014.
City of Seattle. 2015. Seattle 2035 Your City, Your Future 2035
Future Land Use Map. Draft July, 2015.
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP).
2010. Statewide Predictive Model. Last updated 2010. Electronic
document, http://www.dahp.wa.gov/, accessed June 3, 2016.
ESA. 2016. Lincoln High School Modernization Project Cultural
Resources Technical Memorandum. July 7, 2016.
Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2016. Draft Transportation
Technical Report for Lincoln High School Modernization Project.
Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. August 16, 2016.
Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2016. Addendum for Site Plan
Revisions, Lincoln High School Modernization Project. Prepared for
Seattle Public Schools. December 30, 2016.
Johnson Partnership. 2015. Lincoln High School: Landmark
Nomination Report, 4400 Interlake Avenue North, Seattle, WA.
Electronic resource:
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Neighborhoods/HistoricPreservation/Landmarks/CurrentNominations/LPBCurrentNom_LincolnHighSchoolNom.pdf.
PBS Engineering and Environmental. 2016. Preliminary Limited
Hazardous Materials Survey Report: Lincoln Building Renovation.
Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. June 17, 2016.
Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2016a. Wallingford Playfield.
Accessed May 2016. Available at:
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=449.
Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2016b. Woodland Park. Accessed May
2016. Available at:
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?id=292.
Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2016c. Meridian Playground.
Accessed May 2016. Available at:
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=1104.
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. 1997. Geotechnical Report, Interim
Ballard High School at Lincoln High School, Seattle, Washington.
April 1997.
Thompson, Nile and Carolyn J. Marr. 2002. Building for Learning:
Seattle Public School Histories, 1862-2000. Seattle Public
Schools.
Tree Solutions, Inc. 2016. Tree Inventory & Assessment.
November 1, 2016. Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2016.
Facility/Site Database Webmap.
Available at
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/facilitysite/MapData/MapSearch.aspx?RecordSearchMode=New.
Accessed May 2016.
January 2017 Page 35
http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=449http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?id=292http://www.seattle.gov/parks/park_detail.asp?ID=1104https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/facilitysite/MapData/MapSearch.aspx?RecordSearchMode=Newhttps://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/facilitysite/MapData/MapSearch.aspx?RecordSearchMode=New
-
SEPA Environmental Checklist
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2016. PHS on
the Web. Accessed: May 2016. Available:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/
Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage
Program (WNHP). 2013. Geographic information data set for rare
plant species and ecosystems. October 2013.
Page 36 January 2017
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/
-
SEPA Environmental Checklist
FIGURES
January 2017 Page 37
-
WallingfordPlayfield
HamiltonInternationalMiddleSchool
LincolnHighSchool
WallingfordPublicLibraryNorth Allen Place
Dens mo
re Av en
u eNo r
th
North 42nd Street
North 44th Street
Burk e A
v enu e
No rt h
A shw or
th Ave n
ue No rth
North 46th Street
North 41st Street
Wood la
w nA ve
nu eN or
t h
In terla k
e Ave n
ueNor
t h
W allin g
fo rdA ve
n ueN or
t h
North 45th Street
Lincoln HS Modernization . 150727Figure 1Vicinity
MapSOURCE:Boundary - King County Parcels; Basemaps- OSM, ESRI
Site Boundary 0 200Feet
Seattle, WA
ProjectVicinity
-
North Wing GymBuilding
CentralWing AuditoriumBuilding
South WingPerformingArtsBuilding
North 44th Street
Ashw or
t h Av en
ue Nor th
North Allen Place
Woo dla
wnAv e
n ueNo r
th
I nt erlak
e Av en
u eNo r
thWoodlawn Place North
Lincoln HS Modernization . 150727Figure 2Project
SiteSOURCE:Boundary - King County Parcels; Basemaps- NAIP, 2013
Site Boundary 0 100Feet
-
Lincoln HS Modernization . 150727
Figure 3Site Plan
SOURCE: Bassetti Architects
-
SEPA Environmental Checklist
APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
January 2017 Appendix A
-
TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT
for
Lincoln High School Modernization Project
PREPARED FOR:
Seattle Public Schools
PREPARED BY:
August 22, 2016
-
Lincoln High School Modernization Project Transportation
Technical Report
- i - August 22, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
...........................................................................................................................
1 1.1. Project Description
.................................................................................................................
1
2. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
....................................................................................................
6 2.1. Roadway Network
..................................................................................................................
6 2.2. Traffic Volumes
.....................................................................................................................
8 2.3. Traffic Operations
................................................................................................................
11 2.4. Site Access
...........................................................................................................................
17 2.5. Parking
.................................................................................................................................
17 2.6. Traffic Safety
.......................................................................................................................
21 2.7. Transit Facilities and Service
...............................................................................................
22 2.8. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities
.............................................................................
23
3. PROJECT IMPACTS
....................................................................................................................
24 3.1. Roadway Network
................................................................................................................
24 3.2. Traffic Volumes
...................................................................................................................
24 3.3. Traffic Operations
................................................................................................................
31 3.4. Site Access
.................................................................................