SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
DATE: October 6, 2017
TO: Recipients of the State Environmental Policy Act Determination of Non-Significance (SEPA DNS) for the Queen Anne Elementary School Addition Project FROM: Pegi McEvoy, SEPA Environmental Offic
Seattle Public Schools has identified that the SEPA Environmental Checklist dated October 2017, meets our environmental review needs for the current proposal to expand the Queen Anne Elementary School building using fundingJrom the Building Excellence TV(BEX TV)Capital Improvement Program, approved by voters in February 2013. Project construction is scheduled to begin June 2018 and will be targeted for completion in the fall of 2019
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 expansion of the school to add classrooms for a permanent capacity of 200 students, a new gymnasium, and expanded dining commons, and new administrative space. A draft of the Checklist was released for public comment from May 31, 2017 to June 26, 2017. Comments received informed revisions to the final SEPA Checklist on which the DNS is based. The responses to written comments received are documented in the summary table, Attachment A to this memo.
Thank you for your participation in the Seattle Public Schools Building Excellence IV Capital Levy Program. Your involvement has helped to make the addition at Queen Anne Elementary School a much better project.
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
QUEEN AN1’ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ADDITION
Proponent. Seattle Public Schools
Location of proposal, including street address, if any. Queen Anne Elementary School, 411 Boston Street, Seattle, Washington.
Description of Proposal. Seattle Public Schools (SPS) is proposing to expand the existing Queen Anne Elementary School. The project would be funded by the BEX IV Capital Improvement Program, approved by voters in February 2013. The project would add eight classrooms with permanent capacity of 200 seats and replace existing portable classrooms on site. The total capacity of the school would be raised from the current capacity of approximately 420 students to 500 students. The project would also include a new gymnasium and associated support spaces, an expanded dining commons, and new administrative office space. There would be approximately 19,850 square feet of new construction, and approximately 3,730 square feet of remodeled space. In addition, 3,000 square feet of covered outdoor play area would be provided. The parking lot would be relocated and 11 parking spaces would be added. An additional 27 spaces would be available for overflow parking. Other site improvements would include excavation and grading, stormwater improvements, tree planting, and landscaping. During construction, the John Marshall building in the Green Lake neighborhood, an existing interim school site, would be used to house Queen Anne Elementary School.
The Queen Anne Elementary School site consists of two separate primary buildings — a wood building originally opened in 1905 and a brick building originally opened in 1922. The buildings were operated as the John Hay School until 1988, when they were closed as an elementary school and a new John Hay Elementary School was opened nearby in the Queen Anne Neighborhood. The buildings were used as a temporary site and for alternative schools then modernized and reopened as Queen Anne Elementary in 2011. The project would not alter the 1905 building. A covered play area on the south side of the 1922 building would be renovated and converted to interior space to expand the current lunchroom.
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request at the following location: John Stanford Center, 2445 Third Avenue South, Seattle (Attn: Vince Gonzales, Phone: 206-252-0151) and on line at www.seattleschools.org/sepa
D There is no comment period for this DNS.
D This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355. There is no further comment period on the DNS.
This DNS is issued under WAC 197-11-340(2);the lead agency will not act on this proposal prior to October 23, 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 no later than October 23, 2017 (15 days plus allowance for the holiday), sent to:
Superintendent Seattle Public Schools Box 34165, MS 32-151 Seattle, 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.41 Seattle, WA 98124-1165
Date Signature______
2 SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Queen Anne Elementary School Addition 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-accessibleSEPAdocuments procedure began with processes starting September 1, 2017. Forthose already underway, the final documents are being posted in the same manner as the beginning of the process. Ifyou have trouble reading this document, you may have those portions read to you by contacting:
ArchivesDepartment 206-252-0797
Thisdocument is the final SEPAchecklist.It includes the figures, traffic impact analysis 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. Queen Anne Elementary School Addition 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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ...... 1 A. BACKGROUND ...... 1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS ...... 4 1. Earth ...... 4 2. Air ...... 6 3. Water ...... 7 4. Plants ...... 9 5. Animals ...... 12 6. Energy and Natural Resources ...... 13 7. Environmental Health ...... 14 8. Land and Shoreline Use ...... 16 9. Housing ...... 19 10. Aesthetics ...... 19 11. Light and Glare ...... 20 12. Recreation ...... 21 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation ...... 22 14. Transportation ...... 24 15. Public Services ...... 28 16. Utilities ...... 29 C. SIGNATURE ...... 30 REFERENCES ...... 31 FIGURES ...... 33 APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ...... 35 APPENDIX B: TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT ...... 37 APPENDIX C: COMMENT RESPONSES ...... 39
October 2017 Page i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable:
Queen Anne Elementary School Addition
2. Name of Applicant:
Seattle Public Schools (SPS)
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Vince Gonzales Seattle Public Schools 2445 3rd Ave S Seattle, WA 98134 206-252-0151 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 anticipated to begin June 2018 and end August 2019. The school will not remain open during construction; students and staff will attend John Marshall, in the Green Lake neighborhood, as the interim site for the 2018-2019 school year.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
SPS may consider additional work at Queen Anne Elementary School in the future to increase the enrollment capacity. Before pursuing a project to increase the enrollment capacity, the School Board would need to determine that the project should be included in a potential future capital projects levy. The capital projects levy would be subject to approval by a public vote. Future projects to increase enrollment capacity at Queen Anne Elementary School would undergo separate SEPA review prior to implementation.
October 2017 Page 1
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
Updated Arborist Report, Tree Solutions, Inc., August 2017
Building Excellence Phase IV Capital Improvement Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, ESA, July 2012
Cultural Resources Review, ESA, May 2017
Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure, Inc., May 2017
Updated Transportation Technical Report, Heffron Transportation, Inc., July 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: Permits and approvals required for the project would include: Demolition Grading Building/Mechanical Stormwater Control Departures for parking, lot coverage, and bus loading/unloading
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.
SPS is proposing to expand the existing Queen Anne Elementary School. The project would be funded by the BEX IV Capital Improvement Program, which was approved by voters in February 2013. The proposed project was evaluated 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 Queen Anne and downtown Seattle and to reduce overcrowding at elementary schools in the District.
Page 2 October 2017
The project would add eight classrooms with permanent capacity of 200 seats. The new classrooms would replace existing portable classrooms on site in addition to raising the capacity of the school. The total capacity of the school would be raised from the current capacity of approximately 420 students to 500 students. The project would also include a new gymnasium and associated support spaces, an expanded dining commons, and new administrative office space. There would be approximately 19,850 square feet of new construction, and approximately 3,730 square feet of remodeled space. In addition, 3,000 square feet of covered outdoor play area would be provided.
The Queen Anne Elementary School site consists of two separate primary buildings – a wood building originally opened in 1905 and a brick building originally opened in 1922. The buildings were operated as the John Hay School until 1988, when they were closed as an elementary school and a new John Hay Elementary School was opened nearby in the Queen Anne Neighborhood. The buildings were used as a temporary site and for alternative schools then modernized and reopened as Queen Anne Elementary in 2011. The project would not alter the 1905 building.
A covered play area on the south side of the 1922 building would be renovated and converted to interior space to expand the current lunchroom. A new adjoining building would be constructed immediately south of the existing 1922 building. The new construction would consist of:
a one-story gymnasium wing
a one-story classroom wing to the east of the gymnasium
an administration wing to the west of the gymnasium and
a covered play area to the southwest of the new building. The classroom wing and the administration wing would be connected to both the gymnasium and the existing 1922 building.
The new classroom wing would include seven classrooms. The current administration space located in the 1922 building would be converted to a classroom.
Four portable classrooms on the south side of the site and one portable classroom on the east side of the site would be demolished on-site and removed. One of the portables to be demolished is a portable gymnasium, which would be replaced by the new gymnasium. The parking lot currently located on the west side of the site would be relocated to the south end of the site, with new access from Newton Street. The new parking lot would have 32 spaces (including 5 ADA accessible stalls), compared to 21 spaces in the existing lot. In addition, there would be 27 spaces available for overflow parking. The assembly/event capacity of the new gymnasium would be approximately 800 people.
October 2017 Page 3
During construction, the John Marshall building in the Green Lake neighborhood would be used as an interim site for Queen Anne Elementary School. The John Marshall building has been in use as an interim school site and no new impacts of using the site for Queen Anne Elementary School 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 411 Boston Street, Seattle, Washington, 98109. The project site is bounded by Boston Street to the north, Bigelow Avenue N to the east, Newton Street to the south, and 4th Avenue N to the west.
The site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 19, Township 25 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian. The site is made up of four parcels with the following legal descriptions:
BIGELOWS ADD & VAC ST ADJ COLLINS ADD LESS ST & POR VAC ST ADJ ON S BIGELOWS ADD & VAC ST ADJ 5 COLLINS ADD LESS ST & POR VAC ST ADJ ON N 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 Amec Foster Wheeler in May 2017 (AMEC, 2017). The work included a review of existing subsurface information for the property as well as drilling six soil borings on the project site. Information from the report is summarized 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 site is generally flat and raised above the surrounding street grades by approximately 3 to 4 feet on the south and west sides and approximately 4 to 8 feet on the north and east sides.
Page 4 October 2017
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
The steepest slopes are at the northeast corner of the site and are roughly at a 40-degree slope. This slope is mapped as a Steep Slope area in accordance with Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 25.09.020. A retaining wall is structurally supporting the slope and playfield and no evidence of structural distress was observed (AMEC, 2017).
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 conditions in the site vicinity are characterized by Vashon Glacial Till, which is generally a mixture of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. Fill was encountered ranging from 4 to 11 feet, with the thickest fill located at the central portion of the site, which is representative of road backfill associated with the acquisition of a previous roadway that bisected the site east to west (AMEC, 2017).
d. Are there any surface indications or a history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
There are no potential slides, known slides, or liquefaction areas mapped by the City of Seattle on the project site. The East Queen Anne Greenbelt, located approximately 500 feet east of the project site, is mapped as a potential slide area. There is also a known slide area mapped approximately 600 feet to the northeast of the project site. The project would not affect these slide areas.
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 5,360 cubic yards of earth would be exported from the project site. Approximately 600 cubic yards of clean fill would be required for import 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.
Proposed construction activities could potentially cause temporary 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).
October 2017 Page 5
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 84 percent of the site is currently covered with impervious surfaces. The project would likely increase the amount of impervious surface, but would not likely exceed the amount of existing impervious surface by more than 3 percent, for a maximum total of 87 percent of the site 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 implemented 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.
Diesel fumes from idling buses are known to present a health hazard to students and nearby residents (EPA Region 8, 2017). Adopting anti-idling policies has been demonstrated to reduce those impacts (Ryan et al., 2013). SPS has an anti-idling policy for buses and will work with Queen Anne neighbors to ensure the policy is enforced. The project will result in an increase of up to two additional buses on the site. It is not anticipated that this small increase combined with increased enforcement of the anti- idling policy would result in major increases in emissions.
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.
Page 6 October 2017
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.
To reduce the impacts of idling buses, SPS will work with the neighbors to enforce its anti-idling policy. Neighbors who notice buses idling on-site can contact SPS Transportation at 206-252-0900.
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.
October 2017 Page 7
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.
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 subsurface exploration did not find groundwater on site during explorations (AMEC, 2017).
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.
Page 8 October 2017
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 existing site runoff is collected in an underground storm drain system and conveyed to the City's combined sewer system. Stormwater management for the proposed project would include detention facilities, compliant with the City of Seattle’s current stormwater code requirements, as well as the use of on-site stormwater management measures, such as bioretention.
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 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 so that sediment originating from disturbed soils would be retained within the limits of disturbance to the extent possible. 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 9
__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) Tree Solutions, Inc. inventoried and assessed 48 trees with a diameter at standard height (DSH) of 6 inches or greater on the Queen Anne Elementary School site (Tree Solutions, 2017, Appendix B). Of the trees inventoried, 17 are located on school property, 16 are located on Newton St and 4th Avenue in the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) right-of-way and 15 are located along Bigelow Avenue N on Seattle Department of Parks (Parks) property associated with Queen Anne Boulevard. The most common tree species on the site are Norway maple, sawleaf zelkova, little leaf linden, and bigleaf linden.
None of the surveyed trees meet the City of Seattle’s definition of an Exceptional Tree based on size thresholds. According to the Department of Construction and Inspection (DCI) 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.”
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
The Arborist Report concludes that eight trees with DSH of 6 inches or greater would be removed for the project. Seven of these trees are located in the existing courtyard between the 1922 building and the 1905 building. These trees include one English holly and six sawleaf zelkova (Tree Solutions, 2017). English holly is classified as a weed of concern in King County. The County, City, and Parks Department actively work to remove English holly trees in order to prevent their spread. The sawleaf zelkova trees are young, and replacement trees would quickly replace the value that these trees currently provide. One SDOT street tree on 4th Avenue North, a white basswood, would be removed due to the location of the new loading dock driveway. In addition, 10 trees with DSH of 6 inches or less on the project site would be removed. These trees are a combination of service berry and sawleaf zelkova, and replacement trees would quickly replace the value that these trees currently provide. Five trees on the site and two street trees may require removal to accommodate proposed improvements. These trees may be able to be retained with
Page 10 October 2017
careful protection (Tree Solutions, 2017). The tree protection recommendations would be applied to these trees where appropriate following a case-by-case evaluation by the project arborist. None of the trees that would be removed or impacted are Exceptional Trees. None of the trees located on Parks property on Bigelow Avenue N would be removed.
The community garden on the east side of the site would be removed and relocated. Vegetation associated with the community garden would be replanted.
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 such as tree protection fences. SPS is working with Tree Solutions, Inc. to develop measures to protect the trees that would remain on site during construction and to retain any trees that could be impacted by construction. The trees on Bigelow Avenue N would be protected during construction with tree protection measures that could include fencing and wood chip mulch.
SPS would replace removed trees according to City requirements. New landscaping would be installed on site after construction of the addition. Landscaping would include bioretention areas on the west and south sides of the site. Planting areas would also be included to the south and west of the parking area, to the north of the 1905 building, and directly south and west of the classroom wing of the addition.
e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site.
No plant surveys were conducted for this Checklist. No noxious weeds or invasive species are known to be on the site or are shown in the King County iMap database (King County, 2017). An English holly on the site would be removed as part of the project. English holly is listed as a weed of concern in King County.
October 2017 Page 11
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.
No animal surveys were conducted for the project. Animals likely to use the site are primarily restricted to those that are adapted to urban conditions. These include birds such as gulls, American crow, rock pigeon, black-capped chickadee, American robin and Stellar’s jay; and mammals such as rats, opossum, raccoon, and squirrels. Other species may use the site, including for nesting and migration. Fish: not applicable Amphibians: unknown Reptiles: unknown Birds: see above Mammals: species adapted to urban areas such as Norway rat, raccoon, opossum
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on near the site.
No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site according to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Priority Habitats and Species program. WDFW maps priority areas approximately 785 feet to the northwest and 1,100 feet to the southwest of the project site (WDFW, 2016). The proposed project would not affect 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. Large trees would remain on the site and the small trees that would be removed will be replaced with trees that would quickly replace the value of the trees removed.
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.
Page 12 October 2017
e. List all invasive animal species known to be on or near the site.
Invasive animal species likely to be in the area include rats and opossums, typical of an urban area. SPS would comply with its policy and hire a contractor to implement pest control measures prior to demolition of portables.
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 addition.
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:
The proposed addition is being designed to meet the requirements of the 2015 Seattle Energy Code. Specific energy conservation features at the addition would include the following:
Daylight controls that automatically dim electric lighting in areas adjacent to windows.
Lighting design that would exceed the energy code requirements by at least 10 percent for the lighting systems while meeting visibility requirements.
Plug load controllers that automatically switch off 50 percent of electrical outlets in classrooms and offices to reduce vampire loads from printers, monitors, and desk lamps during off hours.
Vestibules at all main entries to reduce heating and ventilation loads by creating an air lock.
Solar readiness for future installation of solar panels on 40 percent of the roof area of the addition.
October 2017 Page 13
High performing windows with low-e coatings.
Continuous air barrier and air leakage testing during construction to reduce infiltration and energy loss.
Continuous insulation on exterior of building to prevent energy loss.
Heat Recovery at the gymnasium’s air handling units.
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 Queen Anne Elementary 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.
There are no known hazardous chemicals or conditions that would affect the project. It is likely that the existing 1922 building contains materials, such as asbestos-containing materials, lead-containing paint/components, PCB light ballasts, and/or mercury-containing light tubes.
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.
Page 14 October 2017
During operation of the elementary school, chemicals stored and used on site would be limited to cleaning supplies.
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, 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.
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.
October 2017 Page 15
Though enrollment would only increase by about 80 students, the increased enrollment at Queen Anne 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 two buildings that comprise the Queen Anne Elementary School as well as a covered play area, five portable classrooms and a parking lot. The two separate buildings include a wood building originally opened in 1905 and a brick building originally opened in 1922. The buildings were operated as the John Hay School until 1988, when they were closed and a new John Hay Elementary School was opened nearby in the Queen Anne Neighborhood. The original buildings were used temporarily for alternative schools, and were modernized and reopened as Queen Anne Elementary in 2011.
The school is located in a predominantly single-family residential neighborhood. Properties to the north along Boston Street are multi- family residential and commercial.
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.
Page 16 October 2017
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 the Department of Construction and Inspections (DCI) for departures.
The Queen Anne Elementary Modernization Project would require departures for Lot Coverage (23.51B.00.C3), Parking Quantity (23.51B.002.G) and On-street Bus Loading and Unloading (23.51B.002.I).
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 two separate buildings – a wood building and a brick building. The site also features a parking lot on the west side of the site, four portable classrooms on the south side of the site, and one portable classroom on the east side of the site.
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
The covered play area on the south side of the 1922 building would be renovated and converted to interior space. A few sections of the retaining walls at the perimeter along portions of Newton Street and 4th Avenue would be removed. All existing portable classrooms would be demolished and removed from the site.
October 2017 Page 17
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
The school site and properties to the south and east are zoned SF 5000 (residential single family 5,000). Properties to the west of the school site are zoned SF 5000 south of Crockett Street and LR2 (low-rise) to the north of Crockett Street. Zoning to the north of the site along Boston Street is NC1-30 (neighborhood commercial).
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 northeast corner of the site. The project would not disturb this area.
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 500 students with a staff of around 60 (33 full time and 27 part time). This represents an increase of approximately 80 students and 10 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.
Page 18 October 2017
l. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
The project would obtain all applicable permits and approvals from the City of Seattle Department of Construction and Inspection (DCI). The project would require a departure for lot coverage, parking quantity and on-street bus loading and unloading. SPS would comply with the results of the departure process. 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 1922 brick building is 20 feet and 2.5 inches above grade on the street side. The tallest height of the new gymnasium structure would be 34 feet and 2 inches. The maximum height of the classroom and administration wing will match the height of the existing, brick building.
The exterior building materials include masonry, cement panels, metal panels, fiberglass windows, and aluminum storefront windows.
October 2017 Page 19
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
Residences facing the school on the east, west, and south sides of the site could have altered views if they face the new building addition. Views of the school site are partially disrupted by street trees and fencing. While some trees would be removed, all but one removed tree is internal to the site, so their removal would not alter views of the site. The Queen Anne Elementary School site is slightly elevated above surrounding properties. Therefore, despite part of the building addition being taller than the existing building, no views would be blocked.
c. Proposed measures to control or reduce aesthetic impacts, if any:
Based on input from community members during the design process, the project has been designed to preserve views through the site to the historic school buildings. Removal of portables and new landscaping would enhance views of the site.
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 the addition is being used during school hours. However, this would occur predominately during daylight hours. New site lighting would consist of full cut-off fixtures and would be located away from the property line, so new lighting would not impact 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.
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
Page 20 October 2017
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 Queen Anne Elementary site include hardtop play areas, the covered play area on the south side of the 1922 building, a wood chip play area, and a garden coordinated and maintained by the school Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA).
City of Seattle Parks in the vicinity of Queen Anne Elementary include:
East Queen Anne Playground, located approximately 1,350 feet west of the project site, featuring a playground, soccer field, sandbox, wading pool, and bathroom facilities.
Northeast Queen Anne Greenbelt, located approximately 480 feet east of the project site, featuring trail access, benches, and views of the Cascade Mountains and Lake Union.
Wolf Creek Ravine Natural Area, located approximately 675 feet northwest of the project site.
Trolley Hill Park, located approximately 490 feet southeast of the project site, featuring a play area, picnic tables, and a community P-Patch.
MacLean Park, located approximately 700 feet east of the project site, featuring a viewpoint overlooking Lake Union and the Cascade Mountains and a meadow area.
Bhy Kracke Park, located approximately 1,550 feet south of the project site, features views of downtown, Lake Union, and Capitol Hill, and a playground, benches, and bike rack.
Bigelow Avenue North, running adjacent to the school site to the east, is part of Queen Anne Boulevard, a 3.7-mile loop on Queen Anne hill managed by Seattle Parks and Recreation. Queen Anne Boulevard is a City of Seattle Landmark.
In addition, the Queen Anne P-Patch community garden is located approximately 650 feet to the northwest of the project site.
October 2017 Page 21
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe.
Recreation facilities on the site would be relocated and improved and new playground equipment would be installed. Existing play equipment on site would be removed during construction but would be relocated or replaced following construction. The existing unheated covered play area is currently used by the school for physical education and recreation during school hours. It would be converted to interior space consisting of educational break out spaces and an expanded dining commons. A new covered play area would be constructed on the southwest side of the 1922 building as part of the project. The portable gymnasium would be replaced with a new permanent gymnasium, which would be accessible to the public through the Joint Use Agreement with Seattle Parks.
The existing community garden would be removed, and replaced with a new garden elsewhere on the site. The new community garden would be designed to better support the educational curriculum.
The amount of open space on the site would be reduced, but the improvements to recreational facilities would provide more usable, accessible recreation facilities.
City of Seattle Parks in the vicinity of the project site would not be impacted by the project.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
As described above, play equipment, the covered play area, and the community garden would be replaced on site. The proposed recreation areas would be improved by relocating staff parking and the dumpster area, which are currently adjacent to recreation areas, from the center of the site to the perimeter of the site. The new gymnasium would improve recreation for students and the community.
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
A Cultural Resources Review for the Queen Anne Elementary site was developed by ESA (ESA, 2017). Information from the review 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.
Aboveground historic-aged properties in the project area include both the 1905 and 1922 buildings. The 1905 building is a Seattle City Landmark.
Page 22 October 2017
No direct impacts would occur to the 1905 building. While the 1992 building is not currently a designated landmark, SPS is working in cooperation with the Landmarks Preservation Board to address historic preservation issues associated with the project.
In addition to Queen Anne Elementary, one commercial and 23 residential buildings constructed over 45 years ago are located on parcels adjacent to the Project Area. These buildings meet the historic age threshold of 25 years as defined by Seattle Landmarks criteria (the applicable local preservation register for this project). No direct impacts to any of the adjacent buildings would occur as part of the proposed project.
For those historic-aged buildings on the west side of 4th Avenue N, the addition of a one-story building addition on the south side of the existing Queen Anne Elementary School could have a visual impact. However, these properties (2117, 2115, 2103, and 2021 4th Avenue N), appear protected from visual impacts by trees on the east side of 4th Avenue N, between the road corridor and the school property. Therefore, the addition of a one-story building would not impact these historic-aged properties.
Bigelow Avenue North is part of the larger Queen Anne Boulevard, a designated Seattle City Landmark. The boulevard was constructed in six phases between 1911 and 1916. The proposed project would not include any alterations to this Landmark.
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.
ESA conducted a records search of the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Protection’s (DAHP) online Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) on October 10, 2016. No cultural resources surveys have been conducted within the study area—seven cultural resources assessments have been conducted within a half mile of the project area. The DAHP Statewide Predictive Model describes the project area as “Moderate Risk” for precontact cultural resources. However, ESA’s research suggests the area is Low Risk for precontact resources. This is due to the underlying geology of the Project Area, as well as significant disturbance and alteration that occurred during historic and modern periods (ESA, 2017).
ESA reviewed geotechnical logs completed on the project parcel. This data demonstrated that sediments within the project area are Fill or Glacial till. This material may have been graded during the first construction on
October 2017 Page 23
the site (for dwellings), and then graded again and leveled for construction of the school. Based on this review, there is little likelihood for intact, buried precontact resources in the project area.
c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc.
ESA conducted a literature review of the project area. The study area examined for this review included the parcel containing the school and those immediately adjacent. Information reviewed included any previous archaeological survey reports, ethnographic studies, historic maps, government landowner records, aerial photographs, regional histories, geologic 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.
SPS is working in coordination with the Landmarks Preservation Board to address historic preservation issues associated with the 1922 building. SPS will develop an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) for use during the Project. The IDP will set forth the procedures and protocols to follow in the event of an archaeological resources discovery. 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. 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
An Updated Transportation Technical Report for the project was developed by Heffron Transportation, Inc. (Heffron, 2017; Appendix A). Information from the technical report is summarized in this section.
Page 24 October 2017
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 4th Avenue N to the west, Boston Street to the north, Newton Street to the south, and Bigelow Avenue N to the east. There is an on-site parking lot with 21 marked spaces in the west central part of the site, which is accessed from a driveway on 4th Avenue N. Currently, school-bus load/unload (eight buses) and some family-vehicle load/unload occurs along the west side of Bigelow Avenue N south of Boston Street. The remainder of family vehicle load/unload occurs in on- street parking areas in the surrounding residential neighborhood. District Transportation staff have indicated that the increase in capacity associated with the addition could result in one or two additional buses.
Site development would include on-site parking for up to 32 vehicles in a new parking lot located along the south portion of the site with access to and from Newton Street. The hard-surface play area is planned to be made available for overflow parking (providing room for about 27 additional vehicles) during large evening or weekend school events when the play area is not in use. A service vehicle access is planned to remain at approximately the same location as the existing driveway on 4th Avenue N; this access would be used for deliveries, trash, and maintenance vehicles. School bus load/unload is planned to continue along the west side of Bigelow Avenue N; however, during the site plan development, alternative locations were explored and an alternative location on 4th Avenue N was evaluated. To better accommodate the number of school buses that serve the site, the school-bus load/unload zone is planned to be extended south to Newton Street eliminating the passenger-vehicle load/unload segment south of Crockett Street. District Transportation staff have indicated that the increase in capacity associated with the addition could result in one or two additional buses.
The project proposes to replace the curb-side passenger-vehicle load/unload zone that would be eliminated from Bigelow Avenue N with a new valet-style zone located on the east side of 4th Avenue N adjacent to the site. The provision of this load/unload zone and the exact location and limits will require approval from the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT); however, initial discussions indicate a zone that extends from Newton Street to Crockett Street could be acceptable. Depending on approval by SDOT, this school load zone could also be made available for general on-street parking during other times, which could increase on- street parking capacity by about 11 vehicles. Family-vehicle load/unload is also expected to continue from on-street parking in the surrounding area with families walking to and from the school site.
October 2017 Page 25
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 (Metro) provides bus service directly to the Queen Anne Elementary School site. The closest bus stops are located on Boston Street with the eastbound stop adjacent to the site immediately west of Bigelow Avenue N and the westbound stop just west of 4th Avenue N. These stops are served by Metro Routes 3, 4, and 82. 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 relocate and increase parking on the site. The existing site has 21 parking spaces that would be removed and replaced by a lot with up to 32 spaces on the south side of the site. 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 may be required based on 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 project would not use or occur in the immediate vicinity of 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?
The traffic analysis conducted for this SEPA Checklist reflected conditions with the addition and the school operating at its proposed capacity of 500 students, an increase of about 80 students over 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 expanded Queen Anne Elementary School is expected to generate a net increase of about 160 trips per day (80 in, 80 out). The peak traffic volumes are expected to occur in the morning just before classes begin
Page 26 October 2017
(expected between 7:15 and 8:15 a.m.) and in the afternoon around dismissal (expected between about 1:45 and 2:45 p.m.).
The estimates described above include school-bus and delivery trips to and from the site. Based on the current and expected number of buses planned to serve the site, the project could generate up to 8 additional school-bus trips per day (2 in and 2 out in the morning and 2 in and 2 out in the afternoon). Other commercial vehicle trips would include 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 – Updated 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:
Impacts associated with construction of the new school include truck traffic for earthwork that would export about 5,360 (cy) of material from the site and import about 600 cy of material. Assuming an average of 20- cubic yards per truck (truck/trailer combination), the excavation and fill would generate about 300 truckloads (300 trucks in and 300 trucks out). The import and export of cut/fill material is likely to occur within the first six months, with some additional earthwork activities occurring through August 2019. Even if all earthwork and related transportation were consolidated to just two months, this would correspond to about 16 truck trips per day (8 in, 8 out) and about 2 truck trips per hour (1 in, 1 out) on a typical 8-hour construction work day. This volume of truck traffic may be noticeable to residents living adjacent to the site and access point, 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
October 2017 Page 27
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.
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 Queen Anne Elementary School addition project.
A. Prior to the school opening, SPS and the school principal would establish a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to educate families about the access patterns for the new site layout. The effort would encourage school bus ridership, carpooling, and supervised walking (such as walking school buses). The plan would define preferred travel routes for passenger vehicles and instruct staff and parents not to block or partially block any residential driveways with parked or stopped vehicles.
B. SPS would work with Seattle Parks and Recreation and SDOT to confirm the locations, extent, and signage of school-bus load/unload zones.
C. SPS would require the selected contractor to develop a construction management plan (CMP) that addresses traffic and pedestrian control during school construction. It 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 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 offsite. The CMP would identify parking locations for construction staff; to the extent possible, construction employee parking would be contained on-site.
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 increase attendance at the facility by approximately 80 students (or 20 percent). This small increase is not anticipated to require additional public services above those already needed for operation.
Page 28 October 2017
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 the extension of utilities to the new rooms and gymnasium, 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 Page 29 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: Vincent R. Gonzales
Position and PM, Capital Projects, SSD Agency/Organization:
Date Submitted:
Page 30 October 2017 SEPA Environmental Checklist
REFERENCES
Amec Foster Wheeler (AMEC). 2017. Preliminary Geotechnical Engineer Report. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. June 9, 2017. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8. Idle Free Schools. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/region8/idle-free-schools. Accessed August 8, 2017.
Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2017. Cultural Resources Review for Queen Anne Elementary School Addition Project, 411 Boston Street, Seattle. May 11, 2017. Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2017. Updated Transportation Technical Report for the Queen Anne Elementary School Addition. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. July 27, 2017. King County. 2017. King County iMap. Available: https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/. Accessed: May 10, 2017. Ryan, P.H., T. Reponen, M. Simmons, M. Yermakov, K Sharkey, D. Garland-Porter, C. Eghbalnia, and S.A. Grinshpun. 2013. The impact of an anti-idling campaign on outdoor air quality at four urban schools. Environmental Science Process Impacts. October 15, (11):2030-7. 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. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. June 17, 2016; updated August 14, 2017. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2016. PHS on the Web. Accessed: December 28, 2016. Available: http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/ Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2017. Facility/Site Database. Accessed: December 28. 2016. Available: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/fs/.
October 2017 Page 31
SEPA Environmental Checklist
FIGURES
October 2017 Page 33
e Driv nne n A Quee Halladay Street Project B
i r c Vicinity h
A W v
e e
n s 6 t u l th a e k A N e v Smith Street o e A r n v t h u e Wolf e n N u h e t o
r
r N M o t c h o N Creek G r t
e h ra w c
a
l Wheel P Ravine er Street la P c e ntz re o Natural L 8 t h Area A v e Seattle, WAn u McGraw Street e A N u o r t r h o D
r e
a x
t e
A r v A v
e e Ly W nn Street n n u a v e u e
N r e l y o
h r P t N D t
r h l e a o o x c
N t e e r
e t r N
u h W o
n r Bost a t on S e treet y h
v N A o
h r t t h h
t
4
r
o
N
e
u
n Queen Anne
e Crockett Street v
A
l
l i Elementary
H
b
o
h
N t
School r
o
N
e
u
n
Newton Street e
v
A
h
t
E. Queen h
r
t
o h
5 t r
N
o 7
e
1 Anne N
u 0
n e 2 /
e u 6 / v n
3 Playground e A
h Howe S v e t treet h
d
t r A a r
r k o
3
o a w
N n
N o
l a
e
e
e , u
g
u d
i n x
n
e
B
e m
v .
v p A
A a
d Trolley M n
n y
e t
2 i r T
n r i Blaine Stree t a
a c i Hill Park y
V l
W
\ o
s Northeast r t
c P e
j l a o r c Queen Anne
P e _ N
s o
D r
X
t h Greenbelt M
_ Hayes S 3 treet 0 \ e n n A n e e u Q _ S P S
_ Garfield Street 1 0
h .
t 4 r 0
o 3
N 0 5
e 1
u D \
n x
e x
v x x
A 5
r 1 \ Galer Street o l s
t h
y t c
r
a e j
o
T o r
N
P \
e S
c I
a
l G \
P S
I
e
G 0 500 \
g :
n U
a
: N
r h
t Feet
O a L P ee Street
SOURCE: OpenStreetMap, 2016; ESA, 2017 SPS Queen Anne
Figure 1 Project Vicinity I
Boston Street
1922 Building
Portables
Gardens
h
t
r
o
N Crockett Street
e
u
n
e
v
A
h
t 4 Queen Anne Boulevard 7 1
0 1905 Building 2 / 6 / 3
e a k a n a
, d x m . a e r A t c e j o r P \ s t c e j
o Portables r P _ s D X M _ 3 0 \ e n n
A Newton Street n e e u Q _ S P S _ 1 0 . 4 0 3 0 5 1 D \ x x x x 5 1 \ s t c e j o r P \ S I G \ S I
G 0 100 \ : U
: N h
t Feet a I P
SOURCE: NAIP, 2015; ESA, 2017 SPS Queen Anne
Figure 2 Project Area
N Path: G:\15xxxx\D150304.01 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition\05_Figures_Photos\Graphics\Fig03_SitePlan.ai \ Fig03_SitePlan.ai JAB 05/26/17 Path: G:\15xxxx\D150304.01 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition\05_Figures_Photos\Graphics\Fig03_SitePlan.ai
SOURCE: Mahlum, 2017. SPS Queen Anne Figure 3 Site Plan
SEPA Environmental Checklist
APPENDIX A: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
October 2017 Page 35
UPDATED TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
Queen Anne Elementary School Addition
PREPARED FOR: Seattle Public Schools
PREPARED BY:
6544 NE 61st Street, Seattle, WA 98115 ph: (206) 523-3939 fx: (206) 523-4949
July 27, 2017
Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
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 ...... 10 2.4. Parking ...... 12 2.5. Traffic Safety ...... 15 2.6. Transit Facilities and Service ...... 15 2.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities ...... 16 3. PROJECT IMPACTS ...... 17 3.1. Roadway Network ...... 17 3.2. Traffic Volumes ...... 18 3.3. Traffic Operations ...... 22 3.4. Parking Demand and Supply ...... 24 3.5. Traffic Safety ...... 25 3.6. Transit ...... 25 3.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities ...... 25 3.8. Short-term Impacts from Construction ...... 25 3.9. Impacts if School-Bus Load/Unload Relocated to 4th Avenue N ...... 26 4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 29 APPENDIX A – LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS APPENDIX B – PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY DATA
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Site Location and Vicinity ...... 2 Figure 2. Proposed Site Plan ...... 4 Figure 3. Existing (2016) Traffic Volumes – Morning & Afternoon Peak Hours ...... 8 Figure 4. Forecast 2019 Without-Project Traffic Volumes – Morning & Afternoon Peak Hours ...... 9 Figure 5. Study Area for On-Street Parking Utilization Surveys ...... 13 Figure 6. Net Project Trip Distribution & Assignment – Morning & Afternoon Peak Hours ...... 20 Figure 7. Forecast 2019 With-Project Traffic Volumes – Morning & Afternoon Peak Hours ...... 21
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Level of Service Summary – Existing and 2019-Without-Project Conditions ...... 11 Table 2. Parking Demand Survey Results – 2016 and 2017 ...... 15 Table 3. Queen Anne Elementary School Expansion Project – Trip Generation Estimates ...... 19 Table 4. Level of Service Summary – 2019-Without- and With-Project Conditions...... 23
- i - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the transportation impact analyses for the Seattle Public Schools’ proposed addition to Queen Anne Elementary School. 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 Seattle Public Schools projects, and based on comments and questions raised and submitted by community members.1 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. This report has been updated from a prior version (dated May 24, 2017) to reflect changes to the proposed site plan made in response to community comments and discussions with the Code Departure Committee.
1.1. Project Description Seattle Public Schools plans to construct an addition to the existing Queen Anne Elementary School, which is located at 411 Boston Street in the Queen Anne neighborhood of Seattle. The following sections describe the existing school site and the proposed project.
1.1.1. Existing School Site The school site is bounded by 4th Avenue N to the west, Boston Street to the north, Newton Street to the south, and Bigelow Avenue N to the east. The existing school site has two separate main buildings—a wood building (approximately 23,300 square feet (sf)2) originally opened in 1905 and a brick building (16,940 sf3) originally opened in 1922. There are also currently four portable classrooms on the south side of the site and one portable classroom on the east side of the site. There is an on-site parking lot with 21 marked spaces in the west central part of the site, which is accessed from a driveway on 4th Avenue N. There are also hard-surface play areas on the site. Currently, school-bus load/unload (eight buses) and some family-vehicle load/unload occurs along the west side of Bigelow Avenue N south of Boston Street. The remainder of family vehicle load/unload occurs with the use of on-street parking in the surrounding residential neighborhood. The project site location and vicinity are shown in Figure 1.
According to information published in Building for Learning, Seattle Public Schools Histories, 1862- 2000,4 the original school opened with 267 students in grades 1 to 6 and grades 7 and 8 were added the next year. The district expanded the building in 1914 and added four portables to accommodate new enrollment, which exceeded 500 in 1920. The brick building was opened in 1922 on property to the north of the original structure, which was planned to be torn down. By 1955, the school program was changed from a K–7 configuration to K–6. Seven portables were added in 1960 and enrollment in the early 1960s was around 600 students. Enrollment declined in the early 1970s and the program was changed again to a K–3 configuration. In 1981 the school became an Early Childhood Education Center and the District decided to construct a new replacement elementary on the site of Luther Playfield, the former track and field of Queen Anne High School to the south. The new John Hay Elementary school opened in January 1989, while the buildings on the original site were closed as an elementary school. The site was used as a temporary site for students from B.F. Day and New Option Middle School (NOMS) in the 1990s and a Bilingual Secondary Center beginning in 2000. The school buildings were modernized and reopened as Queen Anne Elementary in 2011. The enrollment at the time of this analysis was 418 students.5 The school has 50 employees (29 full-time and 21 part-time)
1 Community informational meeting held at Queen Anne Elementary, June 6, 2016. 2 King County Assessor, 2017. 3 Mahlum Architects, Inc., 2017. 4 N. Thompson and C. Marr, 2002. 5 Seattle Public Schools, P223 Enrollment Reports, April 1, 2016 & October 3, 2016.
- 1 - July 27, 2017 N
McGraw St
5th N Ave Lynn St 4th N Ave
Boston St
Project Site Crockett St
Newton St
Howe St
Taylor N Ave
Blaine St
Hayes St
3rd N Ave
4th N Ave
5th N Ave
Taylor N Ave
Bigelow N Ave
Nob Hill N Ave
Figure 1 QUEEN ANNE Site Location & Vicinity Elementary School Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
1.1.2. Proposed Site Changes
The proposed project would modify the existing brick building and construct a gymnasium and classroom and administration addition on the south part of that building and would renovate and enclose the existing covered play area for use as an extended-commons. No changes are proposed to the existing wood building on the southeast portion of the site. The project is funded by the BEX IV Capital Improvement Program approved by voters in February 2013 and is intended to address current and projected elementary growth in Queen Anne and downtown Seattle and to reduce overcrowding at elementary schools in the area.
The project would result in 23,580 sf of new building area (19,850 sf in the gymnasium / classroom addition and 3,730 sf in the extended commons converted from covered play area). With the removal of existing portables (totaling about 5,000 sf), the project would result in a net increase of about 18,580 sf. The new building addition would include eight classrooms of permanent capacity. With the removal of portable classrooms, the total capacity of the school would be increased to 500 students (a net increase in capacity of about 80 students more than currently enrolled).
Site development would include on-site parking for up to 32 vehicles in a new parking lot located along the south portion of the site with access to and from Newton Street. The hard-surface play area is planned to be made available for overflow parking (providing room for about 27 additional vehicles) during large evening or weekend school events when the play area is not in use. A service vehicle access is planned to remain at the existing driveway on 4th Avenue N; this access would be used for deliveries, trash, and maintenance vehicles. When operating at its planned new capacity, the school is expected to have about 60 employees (33 full-time and 27 part-time).
School bus load/unload is planned to continue along the west side of Bigelow Avenue N; however, during the site plan development, alternative locations were explored. To better accommodate the number of school buses that serve the site, the school-bus load/unload zone is planned to be extended south to Newton Street eliminating the passenger-vehicle load/unload segment south of Crockett Street. District Transportation staff have indicated that the increase in capacity associated with the addition could result in one or two additional buses. The project proposes to replace the curb-side passenger- vehicle load/unload zone that would be eliminated from Bigelow Avenue N with a new valet-style zone located on the east side of 4th Avenue N adjacent to the site. The provision of this load/unload zone and the exact location and limits will require approval from the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT); however, initial discussions indicate a zone that extends from Newton Street to Crockett Street could be acceptable. Depending on approval by SDOT, this school load zone could also be made available for general on-street parking during other times, which could increase on-street parking capacity by about 11 vehicles. Family-vehicle load/unload is also expected to continue from on-street parking in the surrounding area with families walking to and from the school site. The proposed site plan is depicted in Figure 2.
Construction is planned to begin in June 2018 with occupancy in fall 2019. During construction over the 2018-2019 school year, the students would be temporarily accommodated in the John Marshall School building located at 520 NE Ravenna Boulevard near Green Lake. Future analyses (without and with the project) in this report reflect year 2019 conditions.
- 3 - July 27, 2017 N
BOSTON STREET
CROCKETT STREET CROCKETT STREET
NEWTON STREET
Source: Mahlum Architects, July 26, 2017.
Figure 2 QUEEN ANNE Elementary School Proposed Site Plan Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
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 2019 was selected as the future horizon year for the analyses, because this is the year the school is scheduled to be re-opened after construction and could be occupied with up to 500 students. For comparison, and to provide an analysis of potential new traffic and parking impacts, year 2019 without-project conditions assume the existing Queen Anne Elementary School would operate at its current enrollment of about 420 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.
The selection of the study area intersections was developed based on the observed travel routes used by parents, buses, and staff to access and egress the site area. The following nine off-site intersections surrounding the school site were identified for analysis for both the morning and afternoon peak hours. All study area intersections are currently unsignalized.
Boston Street / 4th Avenue N Crockett Street / 5th Avenue N Boston Street / Bigelow Avenue N Newton Street / 4th Avenue N Boston Street / 5th Avenue N Newton Street / Bigelow Avenue N Crockett Street / 4th Avenue N Newton Street / 5th Avenue N Crockett Street / Bigelow Avenue N
2.1. Roadway Network As described previously, the school site is bounded by Boston Street on the north, Bigelow Avenue N on the east, 4th Avenue N on the west, and Newton Street on the south. The following provides descriptions of the key roadways near the site. At the time of this analysis, the speed limit on arterials within the City of Seattle was 30 miles per hour (mph), unless otherwise posted; the speed limit on other local access residential streets was 25 mph. However, on September 26, 2016, the Seattle City Council approved an ordinance6 that officially changes 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 will initially affect arterials in and around downtown, including Belltown, Uptown, South Lake Union, south Capitol Hill, First Hill and the Chinatown International District and took effect in November 2016. In 2017, the City plans to consider speed limit reductions for several “neighborhood arterials” beyond downtown. During the before- and after-school periods evaluated for this report, most of the streets in the area are already posted with a 20-mph speed limit when children are present or when flashing beacons are active.
Boston Street is a two-lane Minor Arterial7 that provides east-west access from Queen Anne Avenue N on the west to 5th Avenue N on the east. Near the school site, there are curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides of the street and parking is allowed on both sides. There is a marked and signed crosswalk with pedestrian-actuated rapid flashing beacons at the 4th Avenue N intersection. Its intersection with 5th Avenue N is all-way-stop controlled; the approaches of other intersecting streets are stop-sign controlled. Near the site, the roadway is marked with sharrows. A “sharrow” is a shared-lane pavement marking that is placed in the roadway lane to highlight the shared space; however, unlike a bicycle lane it does not delineate a particular part of the roadway that a bicyclist should uses. Further west (at 2nd Avenue N), it has bike lanes in both directions. The posted speed limit is 30 mph; however, there is a school zone speed limit of 20 mph adjacent to the site that is effective when beacons flash.
6 City of Seattle Office of the City Clerk, Council Bill No: CB-118815, Passed September, 26, 2016. 7 Seattle Department of Transportation, Street Classification Maps, http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/streetclassmaps.htm, accessed November 3, 2016.
- 5 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
5th Avenue N is a two-lane Minor Arterial8 that provides north-south access from Boston Street on the north to Mercer Street on the south. Near the school site, there are curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides of the street and parking is allowed on both sides. Its intersection with Boston Street is all-way- stop controlled; the approaches of other intersecting streets are stop-sign controlled. The roadway has intermittent segments with bike lanes (usually in the uphill direction) and marked sharrows. At the time of analysis, the roadway had a posted speed limit of 30 mph. Near the site, there is a school zone speed limit of 20 mph effective when children are present.
Bigelow Avenue N is a two-lane, north-south local access roadway that connects between Wheeler Street on the north and Prospect Street on the south. Bigelow Avenue N is part of the historic Queen Anne Boulevard that winds around the crest of Queen Anne Hill for about 3½ miles and is owned and maintained by the Seattle Parks and Recreation. The roadway has intermittent segments with concrete sidewalks, pathways, or no walkway on one or both sides. Some segments have curb and gutter. Adjacent to the school site, there are concrete sidewalks on both sides; the west side has a rolled concrete curb/gutter; the east side has a mix of curb and unimproved edges with a grass or gravel separating the paved roadway from the sidewalk. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street. There are school load/unload signs posted adjacent to the school site on the west side of the street. Its approaches to Boston Street and Newton Street are stop-sign-controlled.
4th Avenue N is a two-lane, north-south local access residential roadway that connects between Dexter Avenue N on the north and Galer Street on the south. The roadway has curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides of the street. Parking is generally permitted on both sides, except no parking is permitted on the east side of the segment adjacent to the school between Newton and Boston Streets. Due to its width, the segments where parking occurs on both sides can result in the travel way effectively restricted to one lane for both directions of travel. Its approaches to Boston Street are stop-sign controlled. Near the site, there is a school zone speed limit of 20 mph effective when children are present.
Crockett Street is a two-lane, east-west local access residential roadway that is interrupted by the school property between 4th Avenue N and Bigelow Avenue N. West of the school property, it provides access to 1st Avenue N and Queen Anne Avenue N. East of the school site, it connects Bigelow Avenue N to 5th Avenue N and ends one block east at Taylor Avenue N. Both segments have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and parking permitted on both sides of the street. Due to its width, when parking occurs on both sides, it can result in the travel way effectively restricted to one lane for both directions of travel. Its approach to 5th Avenue N is stop-sign controlled; its other intersections are uncontrolled.
Newton Street is a two-lane, east-west local access residential roadway located along the south side of the project site. It connects between 1st Avenue N on the west and Taylor Avenue N on the east. It has curbs, gutters, and sidewalks on both sides of the street. Parking is generally permitted on both sides, except no parking is permitted on the north side of the segment adjacent to the school between Bigelow and 4th Avenues N. Due to its width, the segments where parking occurs on both sides, the travel way is effectively restricted to one lane for both directions of travel. Its approaches to 4th and 5th Avenues N are stop-sign controlled.
The City of Seattle’s 2017-2022 Adopted Capital Improvement Program (CIP)9 was reviewed to determine if any transportation improvements might be made near the site by 2019 when the school addition is planned to be completed. However, the CIP does not include any specific improvements within the study area that would affect the existing roadway or intersection capacity; therefore, existing intersection channelization and operations were assumed to remain for 2019 conditions.
8 Seattle Department of Transportation, Street Classification Maps, http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/streetclassmaps.htm, accessed November 3, 2016. 9 City of Seattle. 2016.
- 6 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
2.2. Traffic Volumes
To evaluate the potential traffic conditions near the site during the morning arrival and afternoon dismissal times, new peak period turning movement traffic counts were performed at the identified study-area intersections using video camera equipment. Primary access routes to and from the proposed school by staff, parent vehicles, and school buses were observed at these locations and are expected to continue using these intersections when the school addition project is complete.
In spring 2016 when initial traffic data were collected for this analysis, Queen Anne Elementary School’s hours were 9:30 A.M. to 3:40 P.M. To capture the existing traffic conditions along the adjacent arterial roadways during the morning arrival and afternoon dismissal periods, traffic counts were performed at four intersections from 7:00 to 10:00 A.M. and from 1:30 to 4:30 P.M. on Tuesday, April 5, 2016. Counts at the remaining intersections were performed from 8:30 to 10:30 A.M. and from 3:00 to 4:30 P.M. to capture school-related traffic in the area. These count locations and time periods provided the best opportunity to identify school-related traffic generation. Based on review of the count results, the background commuter AM peak hour occurs from 7:30 to 8:30 A.M. while the morning peak hour for school traffic occurred from 8:45 to 9:45 A.M. The afternoon peak hour for the school occurred from 3:15 to 4:15 P.M. prior to the traditional commuter PM peak, which typically begins after 4:30 P.M.
Beginning in fall 2016, the school hours were changed to 7:55 A.M. to 2:05 P.M.; for the 2017-18 school year, the hours are planned to change again and would be 7:45 A.M. to 2:15 P.M. These recent changes introduced school arrival traffic into the traditional commuter AM peak hour and moved the school dismissal traffic further from the commuter PM peak hour. To account for the shift in school hours, school traffic generation estimates derived from the counts performed in spring 2016 were re-assigned to the earlier hours to reflect current conditions. The existing morning and afternoon peak hour volumes are shown on Figure 3.
To estimate year 2019 background traffic for the study area intersections, a compound annual growth rate was selected and applied to the existing background (non-school-related) traffic volumes. Review of historical traffic counts along Boston Street from 2011 to 2016 found that volumes have declined or remained relatively stable. For example, morning peak hour volumes declined by between 0.6% and 1.9% per year since 2011; afternoon peak hour volumes declined by between 0.4% and 1.2%. Although trends indicate stable or declining volumes, a 0.5% compound annual growth rate was applied to the existing traffic volumes to estimate 2019 traffic volumes without the project during the morning and afternoon peak periods. This growth rate is consistent with rates used for traffic analyses of other developments in the vicinity and throughout Seattle. The 2019-without-project morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 4.
- 7 - July 27, 2017 (8) (9) (43) 24 (13) (33) 7 (17) N (30) 22 (25) 6 42 137 (148) 45 138 (137) 30 7 3 (8) 1 (12) (0) (12) 0 (0) (6) 0 (33) 29 (38) 5 38 0 (0) 7 1 3 (164) 231 32 (126) 204 34 0 (0) 13 (10) 19 (5) (27) 23 (28) (30) (18) (18) 51 (7) (3) 3 0 (0) 0 17 143 (21) (0) (137) 208 (160) (1) (77) 5 63 1 (11) 0 (2)
Boston St 1 51 (2) (45) (7) (138) 3 (7) (4) 2 242 1 (0) 2 1 (1)
(4) 8 0 (0) 0 149 (59) 4 (0) (20) Crockett St (170) 53 Project Site (6) 11 (3) 10
(9) 4 (8) 2 48 4 (38) (6) Newton St
(11) (35) 23 (17) (21) 10 31 35 (17)
14 4th N Ave 8 (9) 5th N Ave
Taylor N Ave (2) 2 Bigelow Ave N 13 (15) 22 27 (14) 8 (25) (1) 1 (4) (8) (8) (2) (55) (40) 4 (3) (137) 0 (2) 16 (10) 28 (6) 2 81 18 21 (25) 247 1 (1) 2 (4) 40 5 5 (3) 6 (10) 4 (2)
(10) 11 (11) 9 3 6 1 52 (25) 30 40 (1) 0 144 (2) 5 (7) 25 (2) KEY (38) (27) (28) 55 (160) (5) 4 (8) (31) XX AM Peak Hour Trips (XX) PM Peak Hour Trips
Figure 3 QUEEN ANNE Existing (2016) Volumes Elementary School Morning & Afternoon Peak Hours (8) (9) (44) 24 (13) (33) 7 (17) N (30) 22 (25) 6 43 139 (150) 46 140 (139) 30 7 3 (8) 1 (12) (0) (12) 0 (0) (6) 0 (33) 29 (39) 5 39 0 (0) 7 1 3 (167) 234 33 (128) 207 35 0 (0) 13 (11) 19 (5) (27) 23 (28) (30) (18) (19) 51 (7) (3) 3 0 (0) 0 17 145 (21) (0) (139) 211 (162) (1) (78) 5 64 1 (11) 0 (2)
Boston St 1 52 (2) (46) (7) (140) 3 (7) (4) 2 246 1 (0) 2 1 (1)
(4) 8 0 (0) 0 151 (60) 4 (0) (20) Crockett St (172) 54 Project Site (6) 11 (3) 10
(9) 4 (8) 2 49 4 (39) (6) Newton St
(11) (36) 23 (17) (21) 10 32 36 (17)
14 4th N Ave 8 (9) 5th N Ave
Taylor N Ave (2) 2 Bigelow Ave N 13 (15) 22 28 (14) 8 (26) (1) 1 (4) (8) (8) (2) (56) (41) 4 (3) (139) 0 (2) 16 (10) 28 (6) 2 82 18 21 (25) 251 1 (1) 2 (4) 41 5 5 (3) 6 (10) 4 (2)
(10) 11 (11) 9 3 6 1 53 (25) 30 41 (1) 0 146 (2) 5 (7) 25 (2) KEY (38) (27) (28) 55 (162) (5) 4 (8) (31) XX AM Peak Hour Trips (XX) PM Peak Hour Trips
Figure 4 QUEEN ANNE Forecast 2019 Without-Project Traffic Volumes Elementary School Morning & Afternoon Peak Hours Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
2.3. Traffic Operations
Traffic operations analyses were performed for the nine 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 2010.10 Delay is calculated using complex equations that consider a number of variables. For example, at unsignalized intersections, delay is 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. The models reflect current intersection geometries and levels of service were reported using the HCM 2010 modules of the Synchro software.
Table 1 summarizes existing and forecast 2019 levels of service without the proposed project for both the morning and afternoon peak hour conditions. As shown, the one all-way-stop controlled Boston Street / 5th Avenue N intersection currently operates at LOS A during both morning and afternoon peak hours. This intersection is expected to continue operating at this level during both periods in 2019 without the project. All other study-area intersections operate at LOS A overall with all movements operating at LOS C or better. No changes in level of service are projected for year 2019 without the project. The two uncontrolled three-legged intersections along Crockett Street—at 4th Avenue N and Bigelow Avenue N—were evaluated as one-way-stop controlled intersections and were found to operate at LOS A with all movements operating at LOS B or better.
Based on field observations, the Newton Street/Bigelow Avenue N intersection has limited sightlines to the east and west due to vertical crest curves. The combination of limited sight lines and higher levels of pedestrian activity associated with both the school and the Parks’ resource, make the existing two-way stop control (with stop signs on the north-south Bigelow Avenue N approaches) awkward for drivers and pedestrians. Based on discussions with the Seattle Schools Safety Committee and its SDOT representative member,11 the intersection could be a candidate for conversion to all-way-stop control under the SDOT pilot review for non-principal arterial intersections.12 With this change, the intersection would still operate at LOS A.
10 HCM 2010, Transportation Research Board, 2010. 11 Seattle Schools Safety Committee Meeting held April 28, 2017 and personal communication, S. Lehman, Sr. Transportation Planner, SDOT, May 15, 2017. 12 SDOT, Decision Memo, July 18, 2016.
- 10 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
Table 1. Level of Service Summary – Existing and 2019-Without-Project Conditions
Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Intersections Existing 2019 w/o project Existing 2019 w/o project All-Way-Stop Controlled LOS 1 Delay 2 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Boston St / 5th Ave N A 9.2 A 9.2 A 9.2 A 9.2 Two-Way-Stop Controlled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Boston St / 4th Ave N A 4.8 A 4.8 A 5.0 A 5.0 Northbound Movements C 17.6 C 17.8 C 17.1 C 17.2 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.9 A 7.9 A 8.0 A 8.0 Westbound Left Turn A 8.2 A 8.2 A 8.1 A 8.1 Southbound Movements C 16.4 C 16.6 C 15.5 C 15.7 Boston St / Bigelow Ave N A 3.8 A 3.8 A 4.2 A 4.2 Northbound Movements C 15.7 C 15.8 C 15.7 C 15.8 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.7 A 7.7 A 8.0 A 8.0 Westbound Left Turn A 8.1 A 8.1 A 7.8 A 7.8 Southbound Movements B 14.6 B 14.8 B 14.2 B 14.3 Crockett St / 5th Ave N A 1.4 A 1.4 A 1.4 A 1.4 Northbound Left Turn A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.6 A 7.6 Eastbound Movements B 11.6 B 11.7 B 10.7 B 10.8 Westbound Movements B 10.7 B 10.7 A 9.6 A 9.6 Southbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 7.7 Newton St / 4th Ave N A 5.4 A 5.4 A 5.2 A 5.2 Northbound Left Turn A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 Eastbound Movements B 11.0 B 11.0 B 11.6 B 11.7 Westbound Movements B 10.7 B 10.8 B 11.5 B 11.6 Southbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 7.7 Newton St / Bigelow Ave N A 7.3 A 7.3 A 6.9 A 6.9 Northbound Movements B 10.4 B 10.4 B 10.4 B 10.4 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 Westbound Left Turn A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 7.3 Southbound Movements B 10.3 B 10.3 B 10.7 B 10.7 Newton St / 5th Ave N A 3.1 A 3.1 A 2.2 A 2.2 Northbound Left Turn A 8.1 A 8.1 A 7.7 A 7.7 Eastbound Movements B 12.1 B 12.2 B 10.6 B 10.6 Westbound Movements C 16.5 C 16.6 B 12.4 B 12.5 Southbound Left Turn A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 Uncontrolled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Crockett St / 4th Ave N 3 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 1.6 A 1.6 Northbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.9 A 7.9 Eastbound Movements A 9.8 A 9.9 B 10.3 B 10.3 Crockett St / Bigelow Ave N 3 A 1.4 A 1.3 A 1.5 A 1.5 Westbound Movements B 10.3 B 10.1 A 9.0 A 9.0 Southbound Left Turn A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.4 A 7.4 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., March 2017. 1. LOS = Level of service. 2. Delay = Average seconds of delay per vehicle. 3. Intersection is uncontrolled. Based on field observation, analysis assumes vehicles on the east/west legs typically stop.
- 11 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
2.4. Parking
On-street and off-street parking at and around the Queen Anne Elementary School site was surveyed to determine the existing parking supply and parking demand. The following sections describe the on- street and off-street parking supply as well as the current parking demand and utilization rates.
2.4.1. On-Street Parking Utilization
A detailed on-street parking study was performed per the methodology outlined in the City of Seattle’s TIP #117. The City requires use of this methodology to document the number and type of on-street parking spaces that are available to neighborhood residents or other users in the area. This analysis was completed to determine the existing parking supply and how much of that supply is currently utilized at different times of the day. This information was then used to estimate how parking utilization could be affected by new parking demand generated by the additions to Queen Anne Elementary School. It should be noted that many of the single-family residences within the study area have some off-street parking capacity such as driveways and/or garages. Many residents actively use these spaces for vehicle parking; however, some also use on-street parking. There are multi-family buildings in the site vicinity; residents living in these buildings may also rely on on-street parking. The commercial buildings located across Boston Street from the school at 4th Avenue N have some on-site parking, but employees and customers of this building also use on-street parking.
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 north of McGraw Street, east to Taylor Avenue N, just south of Blaine Street, and just west of 3rd Avenue N. Details about parking supply and demand are provided in the following sections.
Existing On-Street Parking Supply
Within the study area, most residential streets are approximately 25-feet wide with curb and gutter. Bigelow Avenue N is wider—31 to 32 feet wide. Along these streets, parking supply was considered to exist on both sides unless specifically prohibited. The two minor arterials, Boston Street and 5th Avenue N, have on-street parking on both sides of the roadways. 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 Boston Street between 4th Avenue N and Bigelow Avenue N is one block face (identified as block face ‘BQ’). The study area and the designated block faces are shown on Figure 5.
Each block face was measured and analyzed to determine the number of available 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.
- 12 - July 27, 2017 N
AC AD AA AB AE AG AI McGraw St AF AH AJ AK AL AM AN AO AP AY AZ
AQ AS AU AW
5th N Ave Lynn St 4th N Ave AR AT AV AX
BA BB BC BD BE BF BG BH BI BJ BK BM BO BQ BS BU Boston St BL BN BP BR BT BV
BW BX BY BZ CA Project CD CE CF Site CG CI CK CM CO Crockett St CB CC CH CJ CL CN CP
CQ CR CS CT CU CV CW CX CY CZ
DA DG DI Newton St DC DE DK DB DD DF DH DJ DL DXDW DM DN DO DP DQ DR DU DV DTDS DY Howe St EA EC EE
Taylor N Ave
DZ EB ED EF EI EHEG EJ EK
Blaine St EL EN
EM EO
EP EQ
Hayes St
3rd N Ave
4th N Ave
5th N Ave
Taylor N Ave
Bigelow N Ave
Nob Hill N Ave
Figure 5 QUEEN ANNE Study Area for On-Street Elementary School Parking Utilization Surveys Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
The parking supply survey determined that there are 711 on-street parking spaces within the defined study area for the Queen Anne Elementary School site. The majority of these spaces are available as parallel parking with no time restrictions. As described previously, there are signed school-bus load/unload zones and 5-minute load/unload zones along the west side of Bigelow Avenue N. In spring 2016, the curbside frontage along Bigelow Avenue N between Boston Street and Crockett Street was signed for “School Bus Only” between 8:00 and 10:00 A.M. and between 2:00 and 4:00 P.M. The curbside frontage along Bigelow Avenue N south of Crockett Street was signed “5-minute School Load Only” between 8:00 and 10:00 A.M. and between 2:00 and 4:00 P.M. Prior fall 2016, both sets of restrictions were changed to be in effect one hour earlier (7:00 to 10:00 A.M. and 1:00 to 4:00 P.M.) to account for the earlier school start time that began in September 2016. These curbside areas are available for parking during other times.
Existing On-Street Parking Demand
Existing parking demand counts within the study area were performed in April and October 2016 as well as May 2017. Weekday demand counts were performed early morning (about 7:30 A.M.) to reflect conditions prior to school when teachers and staff arrive; mid-morning (between 10:30 and 11:30 A.M.) to reflect conditions when school-related parking demand would occur; and weekday evenings (between 7:30 and 8:30 P.M.) to reflect conditions when occasional school events occur. The early morning count was performed on Friday, May 19, 2017; the mid-morning counts were performed on Wednesday, April 20th and Thursday April 21st, 2016; the evening counts were performed on Tuesday April 19th, Wednesday, April 20th, and Thursday April 21st, 2016. Two additional counts were performed to document the possible impacts of school-related traffic. A midday demand count was conducted during Spring Break to document conditions in the area when school was not in session. This count was performed on Tuesday, April 12th, 2016. To reflect a condition with a large school event, a count was performed on Curriculum Night on October 6, 2016. Curriculum Night is one of the most well-attended evening events at the school. The count results for times with multiple counts were compiled and averaged.
The results of the parking demand surveys are summarized in Table 2. 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 2. As shown, on-street parking in the study area during early morning was 66% utilized (471 vehicles parked in 711 spaces); during midday on weekdays it was 50% utilized (an average of 354 vehicles parked in 711 spaces). In the evening, the utilization averaged 56% (an average of 399 vehicles parked in 711 spaces). During Spring Break the utilization was 50% (355 vehicles parked in 711 spaces) and indicated that little of the surrounding on-street parking is affected by parking demand from school staff and and/or family-vehicles during mid-mornings on school days. On Curriculum Night, utilization was 84% (600 vehicles parked in 711 spaces). For reference, the City of Seattle generally considers parking utilization rates of 85% and higher as effectively full.
It should be noted that parking utilization over 100% may be shown for some individual block faces, and is possible when there are many small cars (which increases the number that can park on each block) or when drivers park closer together. Drivers may also park in spaces that are not considered legal or fully legal based on the defined supply. The curb-face values in TIP #117 reflect space lengths that range from about 18.5 feet to 26.5 feet per space. The increased popularity of smaller cars (such as smart cars) and the tendency for drivers to park closer together in areas with higher utilization can result in more available supply than would be suggested by the TIP #117 guidance.
- 14 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
Table 2. Parking Demand Survey Results – 2016 and 2017 With School in Session Spring Break Early (No School) Morning Mid-Mornings Evenings (7:00-7:45 P.M.) April 2016 April 2016 Curriculum Survey Element (10:30-11:15 A.M.) (7:30 A.M.) (10:30-11:15 A.M.) No Event Night Date of Counts April 12, 2016 5/19/2017 4/20 4/21 Avg. 4/19 4/20 4/21 Avg. 10/6 Demand 355 471 358 349 354 412 398 386 399 600 Supply 711 699 a 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 711 Utilization 50% 67% 50% 49% 50% 58% 56% 54% 56% 84% Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., April and October 2016; and May 2017. a. Parking supply during the early morning count reflects the restriction along Bigelow Avenue N for school buses only at that time (thus reduced by 12 spaces). Since the demand counts were performed during morning school arrival, they reflect some student drop-off activity within the 5-minute passenger vehicle load/unload zone on Bigelow Avenue N. Both the supply and demand along this segment were included.
2.4.2. On-Site Parking As described previously, there an existing off-street parking lot on the site with 21 spaces located on the west side of the school site. Parking demand counts in this lot were performed for the same dates and time periods as the on-street parking demand counts described in the previous section. The counts found an average of 25 vehicles in the lot during the midday when school was in session and 26 vehicles in the lot on Curriculum Night. During these times, it was observed that vehicles either double parked or parked in front of the dumpsters. During the time periods school was not in session or there were no evening events, there was very limited demand—there were four vehicles parked in the lot midday and one vehicle parked in the evening.
2.5. Traffic Safety Collision data for the study area intersections and roadway segments adjacent to the site were requested from the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) for the period between January 1, 2013 and August 31, 2016 (3.7 years) to determine if there are any unusual traffic safety conditions that could impact or be impacted by the proposed project. Unsignalized intersections with five or more collisions per year and signalized intersections with 10 or more collisions per year are considered high collision locations by the City. Based on the response from SDOT, there were no recorded collisions in the study area during the 3.7-year time period.
2.6. Transit Facilities and Service King County Metro Transit (Metro) provides bus service in the vicinity of the Queen Anne Elementary School site. The closest bus stops are located on Boston Street with the eastbound stop adjacent to the site immediately west of Bigelow Avenue N and the westbound stop just west of 4th Avenue N. These stops are served by Metro Routes 3, 4, and 82. Routes 3 and 4 provide all-day service seven days per week between the Queen Anne neighborhood, Downtown Seattle, Madrona and Judkins Park. The routes operate from about 5:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. with weekday headways (time between consecutive buses) of 5 to 15 minutes during most hours. Route 82 provides night-owl service with two trips between 2:00 and 4:00 A.M. between Downtown Seattle, Queen Anne, Green Lake and Greenwood.
- 15 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
2.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities
As described in the Roadway Network section, almost all roadways in the study area have sidewalks on both sides. There are segments of Bigelow Avenue N south of the site that have no sidewalks or walkways on one or both sides. There are marked and signed crosswalks on Boston Street at its intersections with 4th Avenue N. The crossing also has pedestrian actuated rapid flashing beacons for crossing Boston Street. There are also crosswalks on 4th Avenue N at Newton Street (crossing the south leg) and Newton Street at Bigelow Avenue N (crossing the west leg). There are sharrows and segments of bike lanes on Boston Street and 5th Avenue N near the school site.
The City’s Adopted Seattle Bicycle Master Plan13 (BMP) recommends three bicycle infrastructure improvements in the immediate site vicinity. It recommends new ‘neighborhood greenways’ along Bigelow Avenue N and segments of Newton Street (between Bigelow and 4th Avenues N) and 4th Avenue N (south of Newton Street) as part of the Citywide Network. It also recommends a local-connector segment of neighborhood greenway along 4th Avenue N from Newton Street north through Boston Street to Wheeler Street. Neighborhood greenways are generally non-arterial streets where signage, protected arterial crossings, and traffic calming measures are used to discourage vehicle through trips and to create a comfortable environment for bicycles and pedestrians to mix with local access traffic travelling at low speeds. The time frame for implementation of these improvements is not currently identified and these improvements are not included in the City’s 2016-2020 BMP Implementation Plan.14
13 Seattle Department of Transportation; Seattle Bicycle Master Plan; April 2014 14 Seattle Department of Transportation; Seattle Bicycle Master Plan 2016-2020 Implementation Plan; April 13, 2016
- 16 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
3. PROJECT IMPACTS
This section of the report describes the conditions that would exist with the Queen Anne Elementary School addition completed and the school operating at its planned enrollment capacity of 500 students. The vehicle trip estimates associated with the school were added to the 2019-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 project would construct additions to the existing Queen Anne Elementary School and reconfigure the site to relocate on-site parking. On-site parking would move to the south portion of the site, and be increased from 21 to up to 32 parking spaces. The on-site parking would be accessed from two new driveways (one enter-only, and one exit-only) located on Newton Street. Frontage improvements would be constructed as required by SDOT and or Seattle Parks and Recreation (for Bigelow Avenue N).
The segment of Bigelow Avenue N adjacent to the site is part of the historic Queen Anne Boulevard and is a resource of Seattle Parks and Recreation. Based on comments from both the community and Seattle Parks and Recreation, several options were explored as alternative locations for school-bus load/unload. Preliminary discussions occurred with King County Metro about possible relocation of the existing bus stop adjacent to site in order to provide additional site frontage for school buses. Metro indicated a reluctance to relocate this stop due to several factors. However, even with the stop relocated, the available frontage would still not accommodate the number of school buses that currently serve the site. The combination of short frontage and the planned new access driveways for on-site parking excludes Newton Street from consideration for school-bus load/unload. The frontage along 4th Avenue N has sufficient length to accommodate the buses. However, that roadway is 25 feet wide and would require buses approach the site using other 25-foot-wide residential access streets with parking on both sides. The wider Bigelow Avenue N (about 31 to 32 feet wide) can be accessed directly from an arterial (Boston Street) and buses can egress east to 5th Avenue N using the short (one-block) segments of Crockett or Newton Streets.
Based on observations of existing activities, school buses are stopped at the site for less than an hour each day (typically less than 15 minutes in the morning and up to 30 minutes in the afternoon), and only use the load zone on school days (180 days per year). During times when buses are not using the frontage, the curbside area is often unused or intermittently used for passenger-vehicle parking. If buses were relocated to 4th Avenue N, passenger vehicle load/unload and parking would occur along the Bigelow Avenue N frontage. This could result in more impact to the Parks’ resource since higher levels of passenger load/unload could occur and passenger car drivers may be more likely than professional bus drivers to stray past the rolled curb and damage the landscaped area along the roadway edge. Although it would be possible to have school bus load/unload on 4th Avenue N, school access/egress movements and two-way flow of non-school-related traffic can be better accommodated on Bigelow Avenue N. Therefore, it is recommended that school bus load/unload remain on Bigelow Avenue N. This recommendation is supported by the Seattle Schools Safety Committee including its SDOT representative member.15 Since this is a unique condition and there is no official process through which school-bus load/unload zones are established on Parks’ managed resources, the District is working with Seattle Parks and Recreation to request permission to continue using the Bigelow Avenue N frontage for school-bus load/unload zone and, if granted, would execute an agreement for this use.
15 Seattle Schools Safety Committee Meeting held April 28, 2017 and email communication from Serena Lehman, Sr. Transportation Planner, SDOT, May 3, 2017.
- 17 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
Since the school-bus load/unload zone on Bigelow Avenue N is planned to be extended south to Newton Street, it would eliminate the existing passenger-vehicle load/unload segment south of Crockett Street. The project proposes to replace that curb-side passenger-vehicle load/unload zone with a new zone located on the east side of 4th Avenue N adjacent to the site. As mentioned previously, provision of this load/unload zone and the exact location and limits will require approval from the SDOT; however, initial discussions indicate a zone extending from Newton Street to Crockett Street could be acceptable. This school load zone could also be made available for general on-street parking during other times, which could increase on-street parking capacity in the vicinity by about 11 vehicles. No other changes to the roadway network are proposed as part of the project.
3.2. Traffic Volumes The proposed project, which would increase school capacity by about 80 students (compared to enrollment at the time of analysis) is likely to generate some new vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle activity on the surrounding transportation network. The following describes the assumptions used to estimate project generated traffic.
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 replacements 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. For Queen Anne Elementary School, trip generation estimates were derived from the video traffic counts performed at the site driveway and at the intersections and roadways surrounding the school. The resulting estimates were compared to published trip generation rates.
Trip generation for the existing school is presented in Table 3. Based on the data collected, the existing Queen Anne Elementary School generates an estimated 0.67 morning peak hour trips per student and 0.64 afternoon peak hour trips per student. These rates are higher than the average rates published for Elementary Schools (Land Use 520) in the Trip Generation Manual, (0.45 trips per student in the morning peak hour and 0.28 trips per student in the afternoon peak hour). As an options school, Queen Anne Elementary School draws from a larger geographic area than a typical neighborhood elementary school, which likely increases the number of students transported in cars. Additionally, these rates fall within the range of results reported by ITE. Since these rates were derived specifically for the existing school, they are most appropriate for use in evaluating future conditions with the added enrollment capacity.
The rates derived specifically for Queen Anne Elementary were applied to the school with the proposed added enrollment capacity (up to 500 students). Table 3 presents the resulting trip estimates for the existing and proposed expanded school, along with the estimated net change expected due to the project. The trip generation estimates include school bus trips, employee trips, and parent-vehicle trips. The existing Queen Anne Elementary is served by eight buses (seven full-size and one smaller bus). District Transportation staff indicated that the expanded school could require one or two additional buses. Bus trips are included in the trip generation estimates. The project is expected to add 54 trips during the morning peak hour and 53 trips during the afternoon peak hour.
16 ITE, 9th Edition, 2012.
- 18 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
Table 3. Queen Anne Elementary School Expansion Project – Trip Generation Estimates Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour (7:15 to 8:15 A.M.) (1:45 to 2:45 P.M.) Site Condition Enrollment In Out Total In Out Total Proposed Queen Anne Elementary 500 students a 182 152 334 156 166 322 Existing Queen Anne Elementary 418 students b 154 126 280 131 138 269 Net Change 82 students 28 26 54 25 28 53 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., March 2017. a. Proposed future capacity of the school. b. Enrollment of the existing school at the time of analysis (June and October 2016).
3.2.2. Trip Distribution & Assignment The net change in trips presented in Table 3 were assigned to the local roadway network based on the existing access and circulation patterns observed during spring and fall 2016. Most of the morning and afternoon peak hour trips are expected to consist of parent vehicles (for student drop off and pick up) and school buses. Some trips may be generated by teachers or staff; however, most staff members arrive before the morning arrival period and do not leave until after the dismissal period.
With the school-bus load/unload zone remaining on the west side of Bigelow Avenue N, those buses would continue to approach the site from the Boston Street intersection and move southbound on Bigelow Avenue N. After unloading or loading at the bus zone, buses would depart to the south. Family vehicles dropping off and picking up students would continue to arrive from all directions and use the proposed new load zone on the east side of 4th Avenue N and available nearby curb-side parking areas— effectively the same patterns as currently exist. The passenger-vehicle load/unload activity that currently occurs on the west side of Bigelow Avenue N between Crockett and Newton Streets would be displaced to other locations in the surrounding area. The project traffic distribution patterns and net new trip assignments for the morning and afternoon peak hours are shown on Figure 6.
The net new peak hour school trips were added to the forecast 2019 without-project traffic volumes to represent future conditions with the expanded school. The forecast 2019 with-project morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are shown on Figure 7.
- 19 - July 27, 2017 (0) (0) (3) 0 (1) (0) 0 (0) N (0) 0 (1) 0 5 3 (4) 6 2 (4) 0 0 0 (1) 0 (0) (0) (0) 0 (0) (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 0 0 (0) 1 0 0 (4) 6 1 (3) 1 3 0 (0) 1 (1) 1 (0) (5) 2 (3) (3) (3) (2) 6 (1) (0) 0 0 (0) 0 0 18% 2 (0) (0) (3) 1 (12%) (4) (-1) 4% (10) -5 (18%) 12 -1 (-11) 21% 12% 15% 0 (-2) (4%) (11%) (25%) Boston St -1 4 (-2) (18) 29% (0) (3) 0 (0) (36%) (0) 0 1 0 (0) 0 0 (0) 12% (1) 1 (14%) 0 (0) 0 1 (4) 1 (0) (4) Crockett St (3) 10 Project Site (0) 1 (0) 2 4% (16%) (2) 1 (2) 0 2 1 (14) 27% (0) (7%) Newton St
0% (3) (0%) (2) 1 (13) (1) 8 7% 1 4 (1) (8%) 8%
1 4th N Ave 0 (0) (7%) 7% 18% 5th N Ave
4% (12%) (11%) Taylor N Ave Bigelow Ave N 14% (0) 0 (7%) (12%) 0 (0) 0 2 (1) 2 (1) (0) 0 (0) (1) (0) (0) (1) (0) 1 (1) (2) 0 (0) 2 (1) 4 (1) 0 10 2 2 (1) 2 0 (0) 0 (0) 4 0 1 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0)
KEY (2) 2 (2) 1 0 0 0 XX AM Peak Hour Trips 4 (2) 0 2 (0) 0 1 (XX) PM Peak Hour Trips (0) 0 (1) 3 (0) (4) (1) 0 (1) (1) 3 (1) XX% AM Distribution Percentages (1) (2) (XX%) PM Distribution Percentages
Figure 6 QUEEN ANNE Net Project Trip Distribution & Assignment Elementary School Morning & Afternoon Peak Hours (8) (9) (47) 24 (14) (33) 7 (17) N (30) 22 (26) 6 48 142 (154) 52 142 (143) 30 7 3 (9) 1 (12) (0) (12) 0 (0) (6) 0 (34) 29 (39) 5 39 0 (0) 8 1 3 (171) 240 34 (131) 208 38 0 (0) 14 (12) 20 (5) (32) 25 (31) (33) (21) (21) 57 (8) (3) 3 0 (0) 0 17 147 (21) (0) (142) 212 (166) (1) (88) 0 76 0 (0) 0 (0)
Boston St 0 56 (0) (64) (7) (143) 3 (7) (4) 2 247 1 (0) 2 1 (1)
(5) 9 0 (0) 0 152 (64) 5 (0) (24) Crockett St (175) 64 Project Site (6) 12 (3) 12
(11) 5 (10) 2 51 5 (53) (6) Newton St
(14) (38) 24 (30) (22) 18 33 40 (18)
15 4th N Ave 8 (9) 5th N Ave
Taylor N Ave (2) 2 Bigelow Ave N 13 (15) 22 30 (15) 10 (27) (1) 1 (4) (9) (8) (2) (57) (41) 5 (4) (141) 0 (2) 18 (11) 32 (7) 2 92 20 23 (26) 253 1 (1) 2 (4) 45 5 6 (3) 6 (11) 4 (2)
(12) 13 (13) 10 3 6 1 57 (27) 30 43 (1) 0 147 (2) 5 (8) 28 (2) KEY (42) (28) (29) 58 (163) (6) 4 (9) (33) XX AM Peak Hour Trips (XX) PM Peak Hour Trips
Figure 7 QUEEN ANNE Forecast 2019 With-Project Traffic Volumes Elementary School Morning & Afternoon Peak Hours Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
3.3. Traffic Operations
Intersection levels of service for future with-project conditions were determined using the same methodology described previously. The school addition may result in some 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 20 minutes in the peak hour) have all been accounted for in the operations analyses. Table 4 shows the results of the analysis; levels of service for the 2019-without-project conditions are shown for comparison.
As shown, the additional traffic that would be generated by the expansion project is expected to add some delay to several of the study area intersections and turning movements during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. However, the increases are all expected to be less than two seconds and all intersections and their individual movements are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. Based on these results, the project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to traffic operations.
If as suggested previously in this report, SDOT converts the Newton Street/Bigelow Avenue N intersec- tion to all-way-stop-control, it would operate at LOS A with the project during both peak hours.
The site vicinity is expected to continue to experience some morning and afternoon peak hour congestion. Traffic congestion near the school is generally more prevalent during the afternoon peak hour than the morning peak hour. Although school traffic volumes are higher during the morning peak hour, family drivers and school buses typically drop off students and then leave the vicinity. In the afternoon, family drivers and school buses park and wait for dismissal, which can fill nearby on-street parking spaces and result in congested conditions for about 15 minutes each afternoon. Since there would be little or no on-street space immediately adjacent to the site for passenger-vehicles, family drivers will continue to be parked for short periods in many areas near the site including along both sides of Bigelow Avenue N, 4th Avenue N, Boston Street, Crockett Street, Newton Street, and other nearby roadways.
The project team is working with the school principal to establish travel route patterns for family drivers to improve traffic operations. The proposed circulation patterns would encourage family drivers to only travel northbound on 4th Avenue N and westbound on Newton Street on the segments adjacent to the school. In addition, family drivers will be discouraged from using southbound Bigelow Avenue N adjacent to the site, in order to reduce the number of passenger cars that mingle with school buses along this segment. In addition, the project team is working with SPS Transportation staff to determine if the number of school buses that serve the site can be reduced or consolidated (based on actual ridership levels). In addition, extension of the curbside school bus load/unload zone south to Newton Street would allow all of the buses to be accommodated adjacent to the site. There are currently more buses than can be accommodated in the signed load/unload zone and they are often forced to park too close to the crosswalks and adjacent intersections. Extending the load zone would accommodate all the buses and allow them to stop with adequate distance from intersections and crosswalks. This would improve sightlines and safety for pedestrians and vehicles traveling around the site during peak arrival and dismissal periods.
Although not required to accommodate the proposed project, these travel route patterns and potential bus changes are expected to improve school-related load/unload conditions and reduce peak period congestion around the site.
- 22 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
Table 4. Level of Service Summary – 2019-Without- and With-Project Conditions Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Intersections 2019 w/o project 2019 w/ project 2019 w/o project 2019 w/ project All-Way-Stop Controlled LOS 1 Delay 2 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Boston St / 5th Ave N A 9.2 A 9.3 A 9.2 A 9.4 Two-Way-Stop Controlled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Boston St / 4th Ave N A 4.8 A 5.3 A 5.0 A 5.5 Northbound Movements C 17.8 C 19.2 C 17.2 C 18.8 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.9 A 7.9 A 8.0 A 8.0 Westbound Left Turn A 8.2 A 8.2 A 8.1 A 8.1 Southbound Movements C 16.6 C 18.0 C 15.7 C 16.8 Boston St / Bigelow Ave N A 3.8 A 4.2 A 4.2 A 4.4 Northbound Movements C 15.8 C 16.6 C 15.8 C 16.9 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.7 A 7.7 A 8.0 A 8.1 Westbound Left Turn A 8.1 A 8.2 A 7.8 A 7.9 Southbound Movements B 14.8 C 15.5 B 14.3 B 14.9 Crockett St / 5th Ave N A 1.4 A 1.5 A 1.4 A 1.4 Northbound Left Turn A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.7 A 7.6 Eastbound Movements B 11.7 B 11.8 B 10.8 B 11.1 Westbound Movements B 10.7 B 10.8 A 9.6 A 9.6 Southbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 7.7 Newton St / 4th Ave N A 5.4 A 5.8 A 5.2 A 5.8 Northbound Left Turn A 7.5 A 7.6 A 7.5 A 7.5 Eastbound Movements B 11.0 B 11.5 B 11.7 B 12.3 Westbound Movements B 10.8 B 11.4 B 11.6 B 12.3 Southbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.8 Newton St / Bigelow Ave N A 7.3 A 7.6 A 6.9 A 7.0 Northbound Movements B 10.4 B 10.7 B 10.4 B 10.8 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.5 Westbound Left Turn A 7.5 4 7.5 A 7.3 A 7.4 Southbound Movements B 10.3 B 10.6 B 10.7 B 11.0 Newton St / 5th Ave N A 3.1 A 3.3 A 2.2 A 2.3 Northbound Left Turn A 8.1 A 8.2 A 7.7 A 7.8 Eastbound Movements B 12.2 B 12.5 B 10.6 B 10.9 Westbound Movements C 16.6 C 17.3 B 12.5 B 12.7 Southbound Left Turn A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.8 Uncontrolled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Crockett St / 4th Ave N 3 A 0.7 A 0.7 A 1.6 A 1.6 Northbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.7 A 7.9 A 8.0 Eastbound Movements A 9.9 B 10.0 B 10.3 B 10.8 Crockett St / Bigelow Ave N 3 A 1.3 A 1.4 A 1.5 A 1.5 Westbound Movements B 10.1 B 10.7 A 9.0 A 9.1 Southbound Left Turn A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.4 A 7.4 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., March 2017. 1. LOS = Level of service. 2. Delay = Average seconds of delay per vehicle. 3. Intersection is uncontrolled. Based on field observation, analysis assumes vehicles on the east/west legs typically stop.
- 23 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
3.4. Parking Demand and Supply
3.4.1. School-Day Parking Demand
Parking demand estimates for the expanded Queen Anne Elementary School were developed based on counts and observations at the existing school. The observed school-day parking demand rate was about 0.9 vehicles per full-time employee and 0.52 when all employees are considered. It is likely that existing demand is higher when there are more part-time staff and family volunteers on site. At the observed demand rate, the expansion to 500 students and future staffing of 33 full-time and 27 part-time employees (an increase of 10 employees) could result in school-day demand of about 30 vehicles. The proposed on-site parking lot with up to 32 spaces is expected to accommodate most or all of the typical demand from full-time employees. Based on parking demand rates derived from counts at other Seattle Schools, additional demand from added employees and volunteers with the larger enrollment capacity is expected to be 12 or fewer vehicles. Based on the parking utilization study performed around the school, adequate unrestricted on-street parking exists near the school to accommodate this demand and the added school day demand would not represent a significant adverse impact.
3.4.2. Evening Event Parking
Queen Anne Elementary School would continue to host events periodically throughout the school year. The school currently hosts school-sponsored events, PTSA meetings, and PTSA Board meetings throughout the school year. School-sponsored events include the annual Open House, annual Curriculum Night, and various other types of meetings.
PTSA and PTSA Board meetings occur about three times per year typically in the school cafeteria from 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. Other events hosted by the PTSA including the Chili Cook-off and Game Night have been held off-site at the Queen Anne Community Center several blocks to the west. Some of the larger events that are currently held off-site could be held on-site after the gymnasium addition is complete. The largest attendance event—Curriculum Night—would continue to occur and could draw proportionately larger attendance.
Parking demand counts were performed during the school’s largest event—Curriculum Night—October 6, 2016. On-street parking demand counts performed on nights without and with the event (summarized in Table 2) indicated that it generated peak demand of about 227 vehicles and on-street parking within the study area was 84% utilized. The hard-surface play area is planned to be made available for overflow parking (providing room for about 27 additional vehicles) during large evening or weekend school events when the play area is not in use. Additional Curriculum Night demand due to the expanded school enrollment capacity could result in an estimated 20 to 30 more cars within the study area. However, with the proposed additional on-site parking supply (in the parking lot and the hard-surface play area), on- street parking utilization during this large event would remain at about 84% and below the level that the City of Seattle generally considers as effectively full. The other events that could be held on site are expected to have much lower attendance—some with as few as 15 or 20 persons. The analysis of on-street parking in the vicinity indicated that demand from the largest event can be accommodated and would occur very infrequently (once per year); parking conditions for most other events would not be affected. Due to the relative infrequency of events and the proportionally small project-related increase in demand, the event-related parking impacts would not be considered significant.
- 24 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
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. Provision of a longer school-bus load zone that could better accommodate the number of buses serving the site and separation from family vehicles, is expected to improve traffic safety conditions. Buses would no longer be forced to overhang crosswalks or extended across intersections. The school addition could result in some increase to traffic and pedestrian traffic activity around the school site; however, the proposal is not expected to result in any significant adverse safety impacts.
3.6. Transit
Some transit trips may be generated by the additional teachers or staff at the site. The site is directly served by transit with stops in front of the school on Boston Street just west of Bigelow Avenue N. School bus transportation will continue to be provide to Queen Anne Elementary School students who qualify for transportation. The project is not expected to adversely impact transit service or facilities.
3.7. Non-Motorized Transportation Facilities
The additional enrollment capacity at Queen Anne Elementary School may generate some additional pedestrian and bicycle trips within the site vicinity. However, the project is not expected to adversely impact non-motorized facilities in the vicinity. Provision of a longer school-bus load zone that could better accommodate the number of buses serving the site, is expected to improve pedestrian access conditions as buses would no longer be forced to overhang crosswalks.
3.8. Short-term Impacts from Construction
Construction is planned to begin in June 2018 with occupancy in fall 2019. During construction, the school would be closed and students would be temporarily accommodated in the John Marshall School building located at 520 NE Ravenna Boulevard near Green Lake. The construction effort would include some earthwork that would consist of excavation that would remove about 5,360 cubic yards (cy) of material from the site and import about 600 cy of fill to the site. Assuming an average of 20-cubic yards per truck (truck/trailer combination), the excavation and fill would generate about 300 truckloads (300 trucks in and 300 trucks out). The import and export of cut/fill material is likely to occur within the first six months, with some additional earthwork activities occurring through August 2019. Even if all earth- work and related transportation were consolidated to just two months, this would correspond to about 16 truck trips per day (8 in, 8 out) and about 2 truck trips per hour (1 in, 1 out) on a typical eight-hour con- struction work day. This volume of truck traffic may be noticeable residents living adjacent to the site and access point, but is not expected to result in significant impacts to traffic operations in the site vicinity.
The construction of the project 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 may be provided within the site, but some construction workers would park on-street along the site frontage.
- 25 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
3.9. Impacts if School-Bus Load/Unload Relocated to 4th Avenue N The segment of Bigelow Avenue N adjacent to the site is part of the historic Queen Anne Boulevard and is a resource of Seattle Parks and Recreation. Use of the Bigelow Avenue N frontage for school bus load/unload was not previously approved by Parks and was mistakenly signed as a load/unload zone by SDOT. SPS has now formally requested establishment of a school-bus load/unload zone on Bigelow Avenue N, as previously described. However, at the time of this analysis, Parks had not yet made a determination and a use agreement had not been established. Therefore, this section presents analysis of conditions assuming an agreement is not reached and Bigelow Avenue N cannot be used for school bus load/unload. In that case, SPS would request that the 4th Avenue N frontage be established as the school- bus load/unload zone. Under this scenario, it is expected that passenger vehicle load/unload would occur on Bigelow Avenue N (whether through a formally established zone through agreement with Parks or as a matter of practice in unrestricted parking areas). It is important to note that resolution of the issue of the approved location for school-bus load/unload is needed regardless of the proposed addition project evaluated in this report. Therefore, if SPS and Parks do not establish an agreement for use of Bigelow Avenue N, use of 4th Avenue N for bus load/unload is assumed to occur without or with the project.
3.9.1. Background Traffic Volumes To evaluate the potential morning and afternoon traffic conditions near the site with school-bus load/unload relocated to 4th Avenue N, the background traffic volume estimates presented previously were re-assigned. School buses that currently use the Bigelow Avenue N frontage were reassigned to the 4th Avenue N frontage based on travel route estimates provided by the District’s Transportation staff.17 Those estimates indicate buses would likely turn south from Boston Street at 2nd Avenue N and then use one of four streets (possibly Blaine, Howe, or Newton Street, but most likely Hayes Street) to access northbound 4th Avenue N and the load/unload zone adjacent to the site. They would depart northbound to Boston Street. A large portion of the automobile trips would be expected to relocate from 4th Avenue N to Bigelow Avenue N. Those trips were also re-assigned and adjusted based on the existing patterns.
3.9.2. Project Trip Distribution & Assignment For this analysis, the net change in trips presented in Table 3 were re-assigned to the local roadway network based on the expected access and circulation patterns for conditions with school-bus load/unload on 4th Avenue N and automobile load/unload on Bigelow Avenue N. The potential for two additional school buses was also accounted for in the assignments. The net new peak hour school trips were added to the forecast 2019 without-project traffic volumes described in the previous section to represent future conditions with the expanded school and the relocated school-bus load zone.
3.9.3. Traffic Operations Intersection levels of service for both of the above conditions were determined using the same methodology described previously. Table 5 shows the results of the analysis; levels of service for the 2019-without-project conditions are shown for comparison. As shown, the all-way-stop controlled Boston Street / 5th Avenue N intersection is expected to continue operating at LOS A in 2019 with the relocated school-bus load/unload scenario background conditions. All other study-area intersections are projected to operate at LOS A overall with all movements operating at LOS C or better. The additional traffic generated by the expansion project is estimated to add some delay to several of the study area intersections and turning movements during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. However, the increases are all expected to be less than two seconds and all intersections and their individual movements are projected to operate at LOS C or better during both peak hours. Based on these results, the project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to traffic operations, if school-bus load/unload is relocated to 4th Avenue N.
17 SPS, V. Gonzalez, May 19, 2017.
- 26 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
Table 5. Level of Service – 2019-Without- and With-Project Conditions with Buses Relocated Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Intersections 2019 w/o project 2019 w/ project 2019 w/o project 2019 w/ project All-Way-Stop Controlled LOS 1 Delay 2 LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Boston St / 5th Ave N A 9.2 A 9.2 A 9.2 A 9.3 Two-Way-Stop Controlled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Boston St / 4th Ave N A 4.7 A 5.0 A 5.0 A 5.1 Northbound Movements C 17.7 C 18.7 C 17.2 C 17.6 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.9 A 8.0 Westbound Left Turn A 8.1 A 8.2 A 8.0 A 8.1 Southbound Movements C 16.4 C 17.5 C 16.0 C 17.1 Boston St / Bigelow Ave N A 3.9 A 4.3 A 4.0 A 4.1 Northbound Movements C 16.1 C 17.1 C 16.0 C 17.1 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.7 A 7.7 A 8.0 A 8.0 Westbound Left Turn A 8.1 A 8.2 A 7.8 A 7.9 Southbound Movements C 15.3 C 16.2 B 14.6 C 15.3 Crockett St / 5th Ave N A 1.4 A 1.5 A 1.4 A 1.6 Northbound Left Turn A 7.9 A 7.9 A 7.6 A 7.6 Eastbound Movements B 11.3 B 11.5 B 10.1 B 10.9 Westbound Movements B 10.8 B 10.8 A 9.6 A 9.7 Southbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 7.7 Newton St / 4th Ave N A 5.8 A 6.2 A 5.3 A 6.2 Northbound Left Turn A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.5 Eastbound Movements B 10.8 B 11.3 B 11.3 B 11.9 Westbound Movements B 10.7 B 11.2 B 12.0 B 13.1 Southbound Left Turn A 7.6 A 7.6 A 7.7 A 7.8 Newton St / Bigelow Ave N A 7.6 A 8.0 A 7.5 A 7.8 Northbound Movements B 10.4 B 10.7 B 10.4 B 10.7 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.5 Westbound Left Turn A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 7.4 Southbound Movements B 10.4 B 10.9 B 10.8 B 11.2 Newton St / 5th Ave N A 3.3 A 3.5 A 2.3 A 2.4 Northbound Left Turn A 8.1 A 8.2 A 7.7 A 7.8 Eastbound Movements B 12.4 B 12.9 B 10.7 B 11.1 Westbound Movements C 16.8 C 17.6 B 12.5 B 12.8 Southbound Left Turn A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.7 A 7.8 Uncontrolled LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay Crockett St / 4th Ave N 3 A 0.5 A 0.5 A 1.9 A 2.1 Northbound Left Turn A 7.5 A 7.5 A 7.7 A 7.8 Eastbound Movements A 9.5 A 9.6 B 10.1 B 10.4 Crockett St / Bigelow Ave N 3 A 1.3 A 1.3 A 1.4 A 1.3 Westbound Movements B 10.3 B 11.0 A 9.0 A 9.2 Southbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 7.3 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., July 2017. 1. LOS = Level of service. 2. Delay = Average seconds of delay per vehicle. 3. Intersection is uncontrolled. Based on field observation, analysis assumes vehicles on the east/west legs typically stop.
- 27 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
3.9.4. Parking Demand and Supply SDOT has indicated that 4th Avenue N is a non-arterial emergency route and that if school-bus load/unload is relocated to this street, on-street parking on the west side of the block would likely be prohibited during the school bus load/unload times. Based on the field measurements of parking along the two potentially affected block faces (‘CA’ and ‘CU’), an estimated 16 spaces would be unavailable during times when school-bus load/unload would be permitted. Demand along those block faces ranged from 11 or 12 vehicles (on days without and with school) to a high of 21 vehicles (during morning arrival when excess parking occurred in areas that are not legal spaces). Since the school-related arrival demand would be expected to relocate to Bigelow Avenue N, the parking demand that would be displaced by the new restrictions is estimated at about 11 or 12.
The most proximate locations for the displaced parking demand would be the nearest block faces west and south of the school site including the single blocks west of 4th Avenue N on Boston, Crockett, and Newton Streets, as well as the block of 4th Avenue N south of Newton Street. The parking utilization counts found that there were about 17 unused spaces on these block faces, which could accommodate the displaced demand. In that case and accounting for the lost supply, overall utilization would remain at or below 70%. However, it is acknowledged that the displacement of this demand would be an inconvenience to those residents that rely on the affected on-street supply along the west side of 4th Avenue N between Newton and Crockett Streets. Since the issue of school-bus load/unload would need to be addressed without or with the project, these potential impacts of the load/zone relocation would also occur without or with the proposed addition.
3.9.5. Safety, Transit, and Non-Motorized Facilities With the relocation of school-bus load/unload from Bigelow Avenue N to 4th Avenue N, school-related passenger vehicle load/unload would be expected to relocate from 4th Avenue N to Bigelow Avenue N. Provision of a longer bus load zone and separation from automobile load/unload is expected to improve safety conditions similar to that of the proposed location on Bigelow Avenue N. The introduction of school-bus turn movements at the Boston Street / 4th Avenue N intersection is not preferred due to the higher levels of pedestrian and non-school background traffic. However, these conditions would exist without or with the project if bus load/unload is relocated to 4th Avenue N. No significant adverse impacts to safety, transit, or non-motorized facilities are expected due to the project with this scenario.
- 28 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The following summarizes the findings of the analysis:
The expanded Queen Anne Elementary School is expected to accommodate a student capacity of 500—an increase of about 80 compared to current enrollment. The expansion may result in 10 additional employees—up from 50 current employees.
The expansion project is estimated to generate net increases of 54 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 53 vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour.
Traffic conditions will continue to be busy along the roadways that surround the site—4th Avenue N, Bigelow Avenue N, Boston Street, Crockett Street, and Newton Street—in the morning before school begins and in the afternoon when school is dismissed.
Traffic generated by the school is expected to add some delay to the study-area intersections during the peak 20 minutes around arrival and dismissal. However, all study-area intersections are expected to continue operating at without-project levels during both morning and afternoon conditions. The project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to traffic operations.
The project would increase on-site parking from 21 to up to 32 spaces; the hard-surface play area would provide room for about 27 additional vehicles during large evening or weekend school events when the play area is not in use.
The project is estimated to increase midday parking demand by 12 or fewer vehicles. Some demand is expected to continue to occur on-street along roadways adjacent to or near the site. The area streets have adequate capacity to accommodate the parking demand.
During the evenings when large events are held at the school (typically once per month or once every other month), on-street parking demand surrounding the school is expected to continue to be well utilized. The added enrollment could increase the event-related demand; however, the additional demand could be accommodated by the additional on-site parking on the hard-surface play area and on-street spaces. Due to the relative infrequency of events and the proportionally small project-related increase in demand, the event-related parking impacts would not be considered significant.
Based on the above findings, the following measures are recommended to reduce the traffic and parking impacts associated with the Queen Anne Elementary School addition project, whether school-bus load/unload occurs on Bigelow Avenue N or 4th Avenue N.
A. Prior to the school opening, the District and school principal should establish a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to educate families about the access patterns for the new site layout. The effort should encourage school bus ridership, carpooling, and supervised walking (such as walking school buses). The plan should define preferred travel routes for passenger vehicles and instruct staff and parents not to block or partially block any residential driveways with parked or stopped vehicles.
B. The District should work with Seattle Parks and Recreation and SDOT to confirm the locations, extent, and signage of school-bus and passenger-vehicle load/unload zones.
- 29 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
C. 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 offsite. The CMP should identify parking locations for the construction staff; to the extent possible, construction employee parking should be contained on-site.
- 30 - July 27, 2017 Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
APPENDIX A Level of Service Definitions
Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
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).
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
Average Delay Level of Service (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
- A-1 - Queen Anne Elementary School Addition UPDATED Transportation Technical Report
APPENDIX B Parking Utilization Study Data
Project Queen Anne Elementary
Parking Supply Parking Demand Early Morning Mid-Morning Evening No w/ School School School in Session No Event Curriculum Night
Block Side of
Face ID Street Name Street Segment Street Parking Parallel Unrestricted Unrestricted Angle Parking 2 Hr Parking 7a-6p Hol + Sun exc 1-4p and 7-10a Only Buses exc, sat, sun, & hol 1-4p and 7-10a load min 5 exc sat, sun &hol Spaces Parking Total Friday Friday - 7:30 5/19/2017 AM 8:30 Tue 4/12/16 AM 10:30-11:10 4/20/16 Wed AM 10:30-11:10 4/21/16 Thur AM 10:30-11:10 Average 4/19/16 Tue PM 7:10-7:50 4/20/16 Wed PM 7:10-7:50 4/21/16 Thur PM 7:00-7:35 Average 10/6/16 Wed PM 7:00-7:45
AA 4th Avenue N 800 ' point and McGraw St W 4 00004 3 1 01111113
AB 4th Avenue N 800 ' point and McGraw St E 000000 0 0 00000000
AC Bigelow Ave N 800 ' point and McGraw St W 3 00003 1 3 11110113
AD Bigelow Ave N 800 ' point and McGraw St E 4 00004 1 1 13200000
AE McGraw Street 800 ' point and 4th Ave N N 3 00003 2 1 01113011
AF McGraw Street 800 ' point and 4th Ave N S 3 00003 2 0 11111110
AG McGraw Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N N 8 00008 4 7 24353344
AH McGraw Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N S 6 00006 6 4 54576775
AI McGraw Street Bigelow Ave N and 800 ' point N 3 00003 1 1 11111111
AJ McGraw Street Bigelow Ave N and 800 ' point S 3 00003 2 0 10110000
AK Nob Hill Avenue N 800 ' point and Lynn St W 5 00005 3 1 23321324
AL Nob Hill Avenue N 800 ' point and Lynn St E 5 00005 0 2 00001114
AM 4th Avenue N McGraw St and Lynn St W 9 00009 1 4 53411112
AN 4th Avenue N McGraw St and Lynn St E 000000 0 0 00000000
AO Bigelow Ave N McGraw St and Lynn St W 9 00009 3 3 22254247
AP Bigelow Ave N McGraw St and Lynn St E 7 00007 4 5 64544446
AQ Lynn Street 800 ' point and Nob Hill Ave N N 3 00003 4 4 32343543
AR Lynn Street 800 ' point and Nob Hill Ave N S 4 00004 3 2 43423221
AS Lynn Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 7 00007 1 2 12212221
AT Lynn Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 7 00007 5 4 55544545
AU Lynn Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N N 7 00007 4 2 21232334
AV Lynn Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N S 6 00006 2 4 32323224
AW Lynn Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 8 00008 1 6 31222220
AX Lynn Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 6 00006 2 1 10143235
AY 5th Avenue N 800 ' point and Lynn St W 5 00005 3 0 11120013
AZ 5th Avenue N 800 ' point and Lynn St E 000000 0 0 00000000
BA 3rd Avenue N 800' point and Boston St W 5 00005 3 1 33313433
BB 3rd Avenue N 800' point and Boston St E 000000 0 0 00000000
BC Nob Hill Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St W 6 00006 7 4 62474557
BD Nob Hill Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St E 6 00006 7 6 42375667
BE 4th Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St W 9 00009 4 7 97878579
BF 4th Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St E 000000 0 0 00000000 Project Queen Anne Elementary
Parking Supply Parking Demand Early Morning Mid-Morning Evening No w/ School School School in Session No Event Curriculum Night
Block Side of
Face ID Street Name Street Segment Street Parking Parallel Unrestricted Unrestricted Angle Parking 2 Hr Parking 7a-6p Hol + Sun exc 1-4p and 7-10a Only Buses exc, sat, sun, & hol 1-4p and 7-10a load min 5 exc sat, sun &hol Spaces Parking Total Friday Friday - 7:30 5/19/2017 AM 8:30 Tue 4/12/16 AM 10:30-11:10 4/20/16 Wed AM 10:30-11:10 4/21/16 Thur AM 10:30-11:10 Average 4/19/16 Tue PM 7:10-7:50 4/20/16 Wed PM 7:10-7:50 4/21/16 Thur PM 7:00-7:35 Average 10/6/16 Wed PM 7:00-7:45
BG Bigelow Ave N Lynn St and Boston St W 3 00003 6 6 63567566
BH Bigelow Ave N Lynn St and Boston St E 6 00006 7 6 74667468
BI 5th Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St W 6 00006 6 2 53454446
BJ 5th Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St E 10 000010 8 3 22254248
BK Boston Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N N 5 00005 4 5 33355455
BL Boston Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N S 6 00006 5 4 33343446
BM Boston Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N N 6 00006 4 3 65677674
BN Boston Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N S 8 00008 4 3 44455343
BO Boston Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 7 00007 5 5 36554554
BP Boston Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 9 00009 8 4 56676668
BQ Boston Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N N 4 0 4 008 2 3 65623339
BR Boston Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N S 6 00006 3 3 54510119
BS Boston Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 8 00008 1 4 47611113
BT Boston Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 6 00006 2 3 03203226
BU Boston Street 5th Ave N and 800 ' point N 000000 1 0 00000000
BV Boston Street 5th Ave N and 800 ' point S 4 00004 2 2 23333334
BW 3rd Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St W 6 00006 4 5 20141225
BX 3rd Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St E 8 00008 7 3 12234339
BY Nob Hill Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St W 5 00005 6 6 68784358
BZ Nob Hill Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St E 6 00006 3 6 15365667
CA 4th Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St W 6 00006 105 677978810
CB 4th Avenue N Boston St and Newton St E 000000 0 0 00000000
CC Bigelow Ave N Boston St and Newton St W 3 0012 8 23 1 1 122233325
CD Bigelow Ave N Boston St and Crockett St E 8 00008 4 7 597597710
CE 5th Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St W 8 00008 7 5 45568466
CF 5th Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St E 4 00004 5 1 11145443
CG Crockett Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N N 4 00004 3 3 43443543
CH Crockett Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N S 4 00004 2 3 33312323
CI Crockett Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N N 4 00004 4 1 23344345
CJ Crockett Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N S 9 00009 6 5 54555349
CK Crockett Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 9 00009 8 9 878946612
CL Crockett Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 7 00007 8 5 597786711 Project Queen Anne Elementary
Parking Supply Parking Demand Early Morning Mid-Morning Evening No w/ School School School in Session No Event Curriculum Night
Block Side of
Face ID Street Name Street Segment Street Parking Parallel Unrestricted Unrestricted Angle Parking 2 Hr Parking 7a-6p Hol + Sun exc 1-4p and 7-10a Only Buses exc, sat, sun, & hol 1-4p and 7-10a load min 5 exc sat, sun &hol Spaces Parking Total Friday Friday - 7:30 5/19/2017 AM 8:30 Tue 4/12/16 AM 10:30-11:10 4/20/16 Wed AM 10:30-11:10 4/21/16 Thur AM 10:30-11:10 Average 4/19/16 Tue PM 7:10-7:50 4/20/16 Wed PM 7:10-7:50 4/21/16 Thur PM 7:00-7:35 Average 10/6/16 Wed PM 7:00-7:45
CM Crockett Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 7 00007 5 1 10113228
CN Crockett Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 5 00005 5 3 45534446
CO Crockett Street 5th Ave N and Taylor Ave N N 7 00007 4 3 20120213
CP Crockett Street 5th Ave N and Taylor Ave N S 6 00006 3 0 20143131
CQ 3rd Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 8 00008 9 9 64546457
CR 3rd Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St E 7 00007 4 2 12211016
CS Nob Hill Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 9 00009 105 476676610
CT Nob Hill Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St E 000000 0 0 00000000
CU 4th Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 10 000010 116 645758711
CV Bigelow Ave N Crockett St and Newton St E 8 00008 7 4 55545449
CW 5th Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 8 00008 8 5 54543334
CX 5th Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St E 6 00006 2 2 23332331
CY Taylor Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 7 00007 0 0 00000000
CZ Taylor Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St E 8 00008 2 4 34433332
DA Newton Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N N 6 00006 0 2 11112114
DB Newton Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N S 5 00005 1 0 00000102
DC Newton Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N N 9 00009 3 6 85766669
DD Newton Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N S 4 00004 5 3 43442436
DE Newton Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 8 00008 6 4 666585610
DF Newton Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 5 00005 3 1 333241210
DG Newton Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N N 000000 0 0 00000000
DH Newton Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N S 6 00006 7 3 465353410
DI Newton Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 9 00009 8 4 65634337
DJ Newton Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 7 00007 4 3 55544238
DK Newton Street 5th Ave N and Taylor Ave N N 6 00006 7 6 22265766
DL Newton Street 5th Ave N and Taylor Ave N S 7 00007 7 4 44485876
DM 3rd Avenue N Newton St and 800 ' point W 5 00005 1 2 11122222
DN 3rd Avenue N Newton St and 800 ' point E 5 00005 2 2 32331222
DO Nob Hill Avenue N Newton St and Howe St W 10 000010 6 3 32335657
DP Nob Hill Avenue N Newton St and Howe St E 5 00005 2 3 32344443
DQ 4th Avenue N Newton St and Howe St W 4 00004 5 2 111532310
DR 4th Avenue N Newton St and Blaine St E 8 00008 2 2 21222229 Project Queen Anne Elementary
Parking Supply Parking Demand Early Morning Mid-Morning Evening No w/ School School School in Session No Event Curriculum Night
Block Side of
Face ID Street Name Street Segment Street Parking Parallel Unrestricted Unrestricted Angle Parking 2 Hr Parking 7a-6p Hol + Sun exc 1-4p and 7-10a Only Buses exc, sat, sun, & hol 1-4p and 7-10a load min 5 exc sat, sun &hol Spaces Parking Total Friday Friday - 7:30 5/19/2017 AM 8:30 Tue 4/12/16 AM 10:30-11:10 4/20/16 Wed AM 10:30-11:10 4/21/16 Thur AM 10:30-11:10 Average 4/19/16 Tue PM 7:10-7:50 4/20/16 Wed PM 7:10-7:50 4/21/16 Thur PM 7:00-7:35 Average 10/6/16 Wed PM 7:00-7:45
DS Bigelow Ave N Newton St and 800 ' point W 23 000023 229 1415151911181623
DT Bigelow Ave N Newton St and 800 ' point E 28 3 00031 23 16 19 12 16 19 20 24 21 20
DU 5th Avenue N Newton St and Howe St W 11 000011 7 8 35455555
DV 5th Avenue N Newton St and Howe St E 10 000010 8 2 49797788
DW Taylor Avenue N Newton St and 800 ' point W 2 00002 3 1 32333434
DX Taylor Avenue N Newton St and 800 ' point E 6 00006 6 4 33344446
DY Howe Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N N 6 00006 3 2 42355344
DZ Howe Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N S 5 00005 3 2 13235443
EA Howe Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 8 00008 1 0 10111215
EB Howe Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 4 00004 4 0 22212324
EC Howe Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 000000 0 0 00000000
ED Howe Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 000000 0 0 00000000
EE Howe Street 5th Ave N and 800 ' point N 6 00006 4 3 24344444
EF Howe Street 5th Ave N and 800 ' point S 000000 0 0 00000000
EG Nob Hill Avenue N Howe St and 800 ' point W 3 00003 2 2 12201213
EH Nob Hill Avenue N Howe St and 800 ' point E 5 00005 3 4 64557456
EI 4th Avenue N Howe St and Blaine St W 9 00009 6 5 34477467
EJ 5th Avenue N Blaine St and 800 ' point W 6 00006 3 1 11122433
EK 5th Avenue N Blaine St and 800 ' point E 2 00002 2 1 11112221
EL Blaine Street 800 ' point and 4th Ave N N 3 00003 1 2 11121114
EM Blaine Street 800 ' point and 4th Ave N S 2 00002 2 0 21201111
EN Blaine Street 4th Ave N and 800 ' point N 000000 0 0 00000000
EO Blaine Street 4th Ave N and 800 ' point S 000000 1 1 11111111
EP 4th Avenue N Blaine St and 800 ' point W 4 00004 3 1 22233332
EQ 4th Avenue N Blaine St and 800 ' point E 000000 0 0 00000000
TOTAL 684 3 4 12 8 711 471 355 358 349 354 412 398 386 399 600 Project Queen Anne Elementary
Supply Parking Utilization Early Morning Mid-Morning Evening
w/ School No School School in Session No Event Curriculum Night
Block Side of
Face ID Street Name Street Segment Street Spaces Parking Total Friday Friday - 7:30 5/19/2017 AM 8:30 Tue 4/12/16 AM 10:30-11:10 4/20/16 Wed AM 10:30-11:10 4/21/16 Thur AM 10:30-11:10 Average 4/19/16 Tue PM 7:10-7:50 4/20/16 Wed PM 7:10-7:50 4/21/16 Thur PM 7:00-7:35 Average 10/6/16 Wed PM 7:00-7:45
AA 4th Avenue N 800 ' point and McGraw St W 4 75% 25% 0% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 75%
AB 4th Avenue N 800 ' point and McGraw St E 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
AC Bigelow Ave N 800 ' point and McGraw St W 3 33% 100% 33% 33% 33% 33% 0% 33% 33% 100%
AD Bigelow Ave N 800 ' point and McGraw St E 4 25% 25% 25% 75% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AE McGraw Street 800 ' point and 4th Ave N N 3 67% 33% 0% 33% 33% 33% 100% 0% 33% 33%
AF McGraw Street 800 ' point and 4th Ave N S 3 67% 0% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 0%
AG McGraw Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N N 8 50% 88% 25% 50% 38% 63% 38% 38% 50% 50%
AH McGraw Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N S 6 100% 67% 83% 67% 83% 117% 100% 117% 117% 83%
AI McGraw Street Bigelow Ave N and 800 ' point N 3 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%
AJ McGraw Street Bigelow Ave N and 800 ' point S 3 67% 0% 33% 0% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0%
AK Nob Hill Avenue N 800 ' point and Lynn St W 5 60% 20% 40% 60% 60% 40% 20% 60% 40% 80%
AL Nob Hill Avenue N 800 ' point and Lynn St E 5 0% 40% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 20% 20% 80%
AM 4th Avenue N McGraw St and Lynn St W 9 11% 44% 56% 33% 44% 11% 11% 11% 11% 22%
AN 4th Avenue N McGraw St and Lynn St E 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
AO Bigelow Ave N McGraw St and Lynn St W 9 33% 33% 22% 22% 22% 56% 44% 22% 44% 78%
AP Bigelow Ave N McGraw St and Lynn St E 7 57% 71% 86% 57% 71% 57% 57% 57% 57% 86%
AQ Lynn Street 800 ' point and Nob Hill Ave N N 3 133% 133% 100% 67% 100% 133% 100% 167% 133% 100%
AR Lynn Street 800 ' point and Nob Hill Ave N S 4 75% 50% 100% 75% 100% 50% 75% 50% 50% 25%
AS Lynn Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 7 14% 29% 14% 29% 29% 14% 29% 29% 29% 14%
AT Lynn Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 7 71% 57% 71% 71% 71% 57% 57% 71% 57% 71%
AU Lynn Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N N 7 57% 29% 29% 14% 29% 43% 29% 43% 43% 57%
AV Lynn Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N S 6 33% 67% 50% 33% 50% 33% 50% 33% 33% 67%
AW Lynn Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 8 13% 75% 38% 13% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 0%
AX Lynn Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 6 33% 17% 17% 0% 17% 67% 50% 33% 50% 83%
AY 5th Avenue N 800 ' point and Lynn St W 5 60% 0% 20% 20% 20% 40% 0% 0% 20% 60%
AZ 5th Avenue N 800 ' point and Lynn St E 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
BA 3rd Avenue N 800' point and Boston St W 5 60% 20% 60% 60% 60% 20% 60% 80% 60% 60%
BB 3rd Avenue N 800' point and Boston St E 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
BC Nob Hill Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St W 6 117% 67% 100% 33% 67% 117% 67% 83% 83% 117%
BD Nob Hill Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St E 6 117% 100% 67% 33% 50% 117% 83% 100% 100% 117%
BE 4th Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St W 9 44% 78% 100% 78% 89% 78% 89% 56% 78% 100%
BF 4th Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St E 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS Project Queen Anne Elementary
Supply Parking Utilization Early Morning Mid-Morning Evening
w/ School No School School in Session No Event Curriculum Night
Block Side of
Face ID Street Name Street Segment Street Spaces Parking Total Friday Friday - 7:30 5/19/2017 AM 8:30 Tue 4/12/16 AM 10:30-11:10 4/20/16 Wed AM 10:30-11:10 4/21/16 Thur AM 10:30-11:10 Average 4/19/16 Tue PM 7:10-7:50 4/20/16 Wed PM 7:10-7:50 4/21/16 Thur PM 7:00-7:35 Average 10/6/16 Wed PM 7:00-7:45
BG Bigelow Ave N Lynn St and Boston St W 3 200% 200% 200% 100% 167% 200% 233% 167% 200% 200%
BH Bigelow Ave N Lynn St and Boston St E 6 117% 100% 117% 67% 100% 100% 117% 67% 100% 133%
BI 5th Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St W 6 100% 33% 83% 50% 67% 83% 67% 67% 67% 100%
BJ 5th Avenue N Lynn St and Boston St E 10 80% 30% 20% 20% 20% 50% 40% 20% 40% 80%
BK Boston Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N N 5 80% 100% 60% 60% 60% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100%
BL Boston Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N S 6 83% 67% 50% 50% 50% 67% 50% 67% 67% 100%
BM Boston Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N N 6 67% 50% 100% 83% 100% 117% 117% 100% 117% 67%
BN Boston Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N S 8 50% 38% 50% 50% 50% 63% 63% 38% 50% 38%
BO Boston Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 7 71% 71% 43% 86% 71% 71% 57% 71% 71% 57%
BP Boston Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 9 89% 44% 56% 67% 67% 78% 67% 67% 67% 89%
BQ Boston Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N N 8 25% 38% 75% 63% 75% 25% 38% 38% 38% 113%
BR Boston Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N S 6 50% 50% 83% 67% 83% 17% 0% 17% 17% 150%
BS Boston Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 8 13% 50% 50% 88% 75% 13% 13% 13% 13% 38%
BT Boston Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 6 33% 50% 0% 50% 33% 0% 50% 33% 33% 100%
BU Boston Street 5th Ave N and 800 ' point N 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
BV Boston Street 5th Ave N and 800 ' point S 4 50% 50% 50% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 100%
BW 3rd Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St W 6 67% 83% 33% 0% 17% 67% 17% 33% 33% 83%
BX 3rd Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St E 8 88% 38% 13% 25% 25% 38% 50% 38% 38% 113%
BY Nob Hill Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St W 5 120% 120% 120% 160% 140% 160% 80% 60% 100% 160%
BZ Nob Hill Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St E 6 50% 100% 17% 83% 50% 100% 83% 100% 100% 117%
CA 4th Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St W 6 167% 83% 100% 117% 117% 150% 117% 133% 133% 167%
CB 4th Avenue N Boston St and Newton St E 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
CC Bigelow Ave N Boston St and Newton St W 23 4% 4% 4% 9% 9% 9% 13% 13% 13% 109%
CD Bigelow Ave N Boston St and Crockett St E 8 50% 88% 63% 113% 88% 63% 113% 88% 88% 125%
CE 5th Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St W 8 88% 63% 50% 63% 63% 75% 100% 50% 75% 75%
CF 5th Avenue N Boston St and Crockett St E 4 125% 25% 25% 25% 25% 100% 125% 100% 100% 75%
CG Crockett Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N N 4 75% 75% 100% 75% 100% 100% 75% 125% 100% 75%
CH Crockett Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N S 4 50% 75% 75% 75% 75% 25% 50% 75% 50% 75%
CI Crockett Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N N 4 100% 25% 50% 75% 75% 100% 100% 75% 100% 125%
CJ Crockett Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N S 9 67% 56% 56% 44% 56% 56% 56% 33% 44% 100%
CK Crockett Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 9 89% 100% 89% 78% 89% 100% 44% 67% 67% 133%
CL Crockett Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 7 114% 71% 71% 129% 100% 100% 114% 86% 100% 157% Project Queen Anne Elementary
Supply Parking Utilization Early Morning Mid-Morning Evening
w/ School No School School in Session No Event Curriculum Night
Block Side of
Face ID Street Name Street Segment Street Spaces Parking Total Friday Friday - 7:30 5/19/2017 AM 8:30 Tue 4/12/16 AM 10:30-11:10 4/20/16 Wed AM 10:30-11:10 4/21/16 Thur AM 10:30-11:10 Average 4/19/16 Tue PM 7:10-7:50 4/20/16 Wed PM 7:10-7:50 4/21/16 Thur PM 7:00-7:35 Average 10/6/16 Wed PM 7:00-7:45
CM Crockett Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 7 71% 14% 14% 0% 14% 14% 43% 29% 29% 114%
CN Crockett Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 5 100% 60% 80% 100% 100% 60% 80% 80% 80% 120%
CO Crockett Street 5th Ave N and Taylor Ave N N 7 57% 43% 29% 0% 14% 29% 0% 29% 14% 43%
CP Crockett Street 5th Ave N and Taylor Ave N S 6 50% 0% 33% 0% 17% 67% 50% 17% 50% 17%
CQ 3rd Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 8 113% 113% 75% 50% 63% 50% 75% 50% 63% 88%
CR 3rd Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St E 7 57% 29% 14% 29% 29% 14% 14% 0% 14% 86%
CS Nob Hill Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 9 111% 56% 44% 78% 67% 67% 78% 67% 67% 111%
CT Nob Hill Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St E 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
CU 4th Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 10 110% 60% 60% 40% 50% 70% 50% 80% 70% 110%
CV Bigelow Ave N Crockett St and Newton St E 8 88% 50% 63% 63% 63% 50% 63% 50% 50% 113%
CW 5th Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 8 100% 63% 63% 50% 63% 50% 38% 38% 38% 50%
CX 5th Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St E 6 33% 33% 33% 50% 50% 50% 33% 50% 50% 17%
CY Taylor Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St W 7 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
CZ Taylor Avenue N Crockett St and Newton St E 8 25% 50% 38% 50% 50% 38% 38% 38% 38% 25%
DA Newton Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N N 6 0% 33% 17% 17% 17% 17% 33% 17% 17% 67%
DB Newton Street 800 ' point and 3rd Ave N S 5 20% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 20% 0% 40%
DC Newton Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N N 9 33% 67% 89% 56% 78% 67% 67% 67% 67% 100%
DD Newton Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N S 4 125% 75% 100% 75% 100% 100% 50% 100% 75% 150%
DE Newton Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 8 75% 50% 75% 75% 75% 63% 100% 63% 75% 125%
DF Newton Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 5 60% 20% 60% 60% 60% 40% 80% 20% 40% 200%
DG Newton Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N N 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
DH Newton Street 4th Ave N and Bigelow Ave N S 6 117% 50% 67% 100% 83% 50% 83% 50% 67% 167%
DI Newton Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 9 89% 44% 67% 56% 67% 33% 44% 33% 33% 78%
DJ Newton Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 7 57% 43% 71% 71% 71% 57% 57% 29% 43% 114%
DK Newton Street 5th Ave N and Taylor Ave N N 6 117% 100% 33% 33% 33% 100% 83% 117% 100% 100%
DL Newton Street 5th Ave N and Taylor Ave N S 7 100% 57% 57% 57% 57% 114% 71% 114% 100% 86%
DM 3rd Avenue N Newton St and 800 ' point W 5 20% 40% 20% 20% 20% 40% 40% 40% 40% 40%
DN 3rd Avenue N Newton St and 800 ' point E 5 40% 40% 60% 40% 60% 60% 20% 40% 40% 40%
DO Nob Hill Avenue N Newton St and Howe St W 10 60% 30% 30% 20% 30% 30% 50% 60% 50% 70%
DP Nob Hill Avenue N Newton St and Howe St E 5 40% 60% 60% 40% 60% 80% 80% 80% 80% 60%
DQ 4th Avenue N Newton St and Howe St W 4 125% 50% 25% 25% 25% 125% 75% 50% 75% 250%
DR 4th Avenue N Newton St and Blaine St E 8 25% 25% 25% 13% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 113% Project Queen Anne Elementary
Supply Parking Utilization Early Morning Mid-Morning Evening
w/ School No School School in Session No Event Curriculum Night
Block Side of
Face ID Street Name Street Segment Street Spaces Parking Total Friday Friday - 7:30 5/19/2017 AM 8:30 Tue 4/12/16 AM 10:30-11:10 4/20/16 Wed AM 10:30-11:10 4/21/16 Thur AM 10:30-11:10 Average 4/19/16 Tue PM 7:10-7:50 4/20/16 Wed PM 7:10-7:50 4/21/16 Thur PM 7:00-7:35 Average 10/6/16 Wed PM 7:00-7:45
DS Bigelow Ave N Newton St and 800 ' point W 23 96% 39% 61% 65% 65% 83% 48% 78% 70% 100%
DT Bigelow Ave N Newton St and 800 ' point E 31 74% 52% 61% 39% 52% 61% 65% 77% 68% 65%
DU 5th Avenue N Newton St and Howe St W 11 64% 73% 27% 45% 36% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45%
DV 5th Avenue N Newton St and Howe St E 10 80% 20% 40% 90% 70% 90% 70% 70% 80% 80%
DW Taylor Avenue N Newton St and 800 ' point W 2 150% 50% 150% 100% 150% 150% 150% 200% 150% 200%
DX Taylor Avenue N Newton St and 800 ' point E 6 100% 67% 50% 50% 50% 67% 67% 67% 67% 100%
DY Howe Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N N 6 50% 33% 67% 33% 50% 83% 83% 50% 67% 67%
DZ Howe Street 3rd Ave N and Nob Hill Ave N S 5 60% 40% 20% 60% 40% 60% 100% 80% 80% 60%
EA Howe Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N N 8 13% 0% 13% 0% 13% 13% 13% 25% 13% 63%
EB Howe Street Nob Hill Ave N and 4th Ave N S 4 100% 0% 50% 50% 50% 25% 50% 75% 50% 100%
EC Howe Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N N 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
ED Howe Street Bigelow Ave N and 5th Ave N S 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
EE Howe Street 5th Ave N and 800 ' point N 6 67% 50% 33% 67% 50% 67% 67% 67% 67% 67%
EF Howe Street 5th Ave N and 800 ' point S 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
EG Nob Hill Avenue N Howe St and 800 ' point W 3 67% 67% 33% 67% 67% 0% 33% 67% 33% 100%
EH Nob Hill Avenue N Howe St and 800 ' point E 5 60% 80% 120% 80% 100% 100% 140% 80% 100% 120%
EI 4th Avenue N Howe St and Blaine St W 9 67% 56% 33% 44% 44% 78% 78% 44% 67% 78%
EJ 5th Avenue N Blaine St and 800 ' point W 6 50% 17% 17% 17% 17% 33% 33% 67% 50% 50%
EK 5th Avenue N Blaine St and 800 ' point E 2 100% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 50%
EL Blaine Street 800 ' point and 4th Ave N N 3 33% 67% 33% 33% 33% 67% 33% 33% 33% 133%
EM Blaine Street 800 ' point and 4th Ave N S 2 100% 0% 100% 50% 100% 0% 50% 50% 50% 50%
EN Blaine Street 4th Ave N and 800 ' point N 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
EO Blaine Street 4th Ave N and 800 ' point S 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
EP 4th Avenue N Blaine St and 800 ' point W 4 75% 25% 50% 50% 50% 75% 75% 75% 75% 50%
EQ 4th Avenue N Blaine St and 800 ' point E 0 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
TOTAL 711 67% 50% 50% 49% 50% 58% 56% 54% 56% 84%
SEPA Environmental Checklist
APPENDIX B: TREE INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
October 2017 Page 37
Project No. TS - 5406 Arborist Report TO: Vincent Gonzales, Project Manager, Seattle School District No. 1 SITE: Queen Anne Elementary School – 411 Boston Ave, Seattle, WA 98109 RE: Tree Inventory & Assessment DATE: June 17, 2016 UPDATED: August 14, 2017 PROJECT ARBORIST: Katherine Taylor, ISA Certified Arborist PN-8022A ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
REVIEWED BY: Haley Galbraith, ISA Board Certified Master Arborist & Municipal Specialist PN-7512BM ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
ATTACHMENTS: Table of Trees Site Survey with Tree Numbers
Summary There are forty-eight (48) trees, with a diameter at standard height (DSH) of 6 inches and greater, on or overhanging the above addressed site. Seventeen (17) trees are located on the school property, sixteen (16) trees located on Newton St and 4th Ave N are on Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) property, fifteen (15) trees are located along Bigelow Ave N on a Seattle Parks Department – Queen Anne Boulevard property.
None of the trees on site qualify as Exceptional per Seattle Director’s Rule 16-2008.
All forty-eight (48) trees were tagged; locations and tree numbers are shown on the attached site survey. There are thirteen (13) small trees shown on the survey that were less than 6 inches DSH. Seattle Municipal Code 25.11 does not require that trees under 6 inches DSH be inventoried and assessed. Therefore these trees were not tagged and assessed, or numbered on the site map.
Based on proposed plans, eight (8) trees, seven (7) of which are site trees and one (1) of which is an SDOT tree, would require removal. Ten (10) of the small trees (under 6 inches DSH) on site would require removal. Five (5) site trees and two (2) SDOT trees may require removal to accommodate proposed improvements. The proposed plans show that eighteen (18) new trees will be planted.
Assignment & Scope of Report This report outlines the site inspection by Katherine Taylor and Jake Dancer, of Tree Solutions Inc, on June 2, 2016. Included are observations and data collected at the site located at Queen Anne
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 · www.treesolutions.net
Arborist Report: Queen Anne Elementary August 14, 2017 page 2 of 10
Elementary School. Vincent R. Gonzales of the Seattle School District No. 1, requested these services to acquire information for project planning.
We were asked to evaluate trees at the site and produce an arborist report with findings and recommendations. We were asked to update the report based on updated plans dated July 14, 2017.
Tree species, size, health, structural condition, additional notes and recommendations for each tree can be found in the attached Table of Trees. A site survey with tree locations is also attached. Photographs, Glossary, and References follow the text. 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. General tree protection specifications are provided in Appendix D.
Observations Site The 130,293.45 square-foot site fronts Boston Ave in the Queen Anne neighborhood of Seattle. Two school buildings and multiple portable structures currently exist on site.
Most of the property is roughly 6 feet above the surrounding street level, but is level overall. There is a concrete retaining wall on all sides of the property and in some areas the grade slopes down from the finished grade to the adjacent retaining wall. The majority of the school property surface is paved.
Trees There are 17 trees over 6 inches DSH on site. There are 16 trees growing on SDOT property and 15 trees growing along a Seattle Parks Department, Queen Anne Boulevard. The majority of tree species found on site include bigleaf linden (Tilia platyphyllos), littleleaf linden (Tilia cordata), white basswood (Tilia heterophylla), black locust (Robinea pseudoacacia), Norway maple (Acer platanoides), sawleaf zelkova (Zelkova serrata), and sycamore maple (Acer pseudoplatanus).
Trees 51 through 60, 88, 89, and 95 through 98 are growing on SDOT property in the parking strip along Newton St and 4th Avenue N. There are a few areas where the sidewalk is lifting, possibly a result of tree roots. Overall, tree health appears to be good. Past heavy pruning of trees 51 through 60 has led to some adventitious shoot and branch formation resulting in codominant unions with narrow attachments and included bark. As a result, the structural condition of the trees ranges from fair to good.
Nearly all of the parks department trees along the east side of the property have undergone pruning for clearance of above ground utility lines. Tree species that were affected include littleleaf linden, sycamore maple, and copper beech (Fagus sylvatica ‘Purpurea’). Past pruning has led to asymmetrical tree canopies and decay of upper branches around former pruning sites. In particular, trees 68 through 72 were in poor structural condition.
Discussion According to preliminary landscape plans, dated April 21, 2017, eight trees, seven of which are site trees and one of which is an SDOT tree would require removal to accommodate proposed construction. Ten of the 13 small trees growing on site would require removal to accommodate proposed site plans. Additionally, five site trees and two SDOT trees may also require removal to accommodate proposed construction. These trees may be able to be retained with careful protection.
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net
Arborist Report: Queen Anne Elementary August 14, 2017 page 3 of 10
Trees 72 and 73 are proposed for removal to accommodate an ADA compliant access ramp onto the school property. Tree 72 is a multi-stemmed sycamore maple in poor condition due to past pruning. In my opinion this tree has a limited safe and useful life expectancy. Tree 73 is a multi-stemmed English holly (Ilex aquifolium) with a single-stem equivalent DSH of 14 inches. English holly is classified as a weed of concern in King County, it is known to be invasive and damaging to plant and animal habitat and therefore not a good long term tree for this site.
There are five additional site trees numbered 74 through 78 and ten small trees that would require removal to accommodate proposed improvements. These trees are growing within the existing play area in the center of the property. Reasons for removal would be to accommodate the new structure or improvements such as new stairwells, access ramps, or play areas. Species include sawleaf zelkova and serviceberry (Amelanchier sp.). All of these trees are seven inches DSH or less and in my opinion, their value can quickly be replaced by new plantings.
A loading dock and a below grade transformer vault are proposed for the area where SDOT tree 60 is currently growing. This tree would require removal to accommodate these improvements.
Trees 89, 95 (SDOT trees), and 90 are in close proximity to a proposed new driveway entrance to a parking area. Depending on the extent of grade changes and trenching for any utilities in this area, these trees may need to be removed. If grade cuts are limited, they may be able to be retained with careful protection. There is an existing concrete stairwell between the trees which would likely limit disturbance to some extent.
Trees 91 to 94, are all black locust trees, growing at the top edge of a slope around the perimeter of the southeast property corner. The updated plans no longer show bioretention in this area. While the parking area mostly appears to remain outside the drip lines of these trees, grading required to accommodate the new parking area may negatively impact the trees. Retention of these trees should be evaluated at the time on construction based on the level of disturbance to the root structure.
The proposed plans show that 18 new trees would be planted.
Many of the SDOT trees and Queen Anne Boulevard Parks trees have been repeatedly pruned for utility clearance. Some of these trees had branches with narrow attachments and visible decay at the site of old pruning wounds. I recommend that these trees be assessed and pruned to improve structure as a part of the project. These trees should be pruned in accordance with ANSI A-300 standards.
Recommendations • Obtain all necessary permits prior to commencing any site work. • Install tree protection fencing and signage as detailed in Appendix D prior to the commencement of site work. • Consider pruning SDOT and Queen Anne Boulevard Parks trees to improve structure, following ANSI A-300 standards.
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net
Arborist Report: Queen Anne Elementary August 14, 2017 page 4 of 10
Photographs
Photo 1: Picture shows shoot reiteration in response to trimming of large branches.
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net
Arborist Report: Queen Anne Elementary August 14, 2017 page 5 of 10
Photo 2: Picture of trees along the eastern side of the property. Note the asymmetrical canopies as a result of pruning.
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net
Arborist Report: Queen Anne Elementary August 14, 2017 page 6 of 10
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 inches 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.
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net
Arborist Report: Queen Anne Elementary August 14, 2017 page 7 of 10
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 re-enforce 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 of each tree at 54 inches above grade, diameter at standard height (DSH). If a tree had multiple stems, I measured each stem individually at standard height and determined a single- stem equivalent diameter by using the method outlined in the City of Seattle Director’s Rule 16-2008. A tree is considered exceptional based on this single stem equivalent value.
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net
Arborist Report: Queen Anne Elementary August 14, 2017 page 8 of 10
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, a single condition rating must be assigned.
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% of the canopy. Normal to less than ¾ 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% 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 clearly visible. Obvious signs of pest problems contributing to lesser condition, control might be possible. Some decay areas found in main stem and branches. Below average safe useful life expectancy
Poor - Lacking full crown, more than 50% 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.
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net
Arborist Report: Queen Anne Elementary August 14, 2017 page 9 of 10
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.
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net
Arborist Report: Queen Anne Elementary August 14, 2017 page 10 of 10
Appendix D - Tree Protection Specifications
• Tree Protection Fencing: All trees planned for retention or on neighboring properties that overhang the site shall be protected for the entire duration of the construction project. Tree protection fencing shall consist of high visibility mesh or chain link fencing installed at the extent of the tree protection area. Where trees are being retained as a group the fencing should encompass the entire area. Signage must be affixed to the protection fencing showing the information found at the following link: Tree Protection Sign PDF.
• Soil Protection: No parking, materials storage, or dumping (including excavated soils) are allowed within the tree protection area. Any heavy machinery should remain outside of the protection area unless soils are protected from the load. Acceptable methods of soil protection include applying 1 inch plywood over 3 to 4 inches of wood chip mulch, or use of Alturna mats (or equivalent product).
• Excavation: Excavation done at or within the tree protection area (drip lines) should be carefully planned to minimize disturbance. Where feasible consider using alternative methods such as pneumatic excavation which uses pressurized air to blow soil away from the root system, directional drilling to bore utility lines, or hand excavation to expose roots. Excavation done with machinery (backhoe) in proximity of trees should be performed slowly with flat front buckets, removing small amounts of soil at a time with one person on the ground spotting for roots. When roots are encountered, excavation should stop and roots should be cleanly pruned as needed so they are not ripped or fractured.
• Root Pruning: Root pruning should be limited to the extent possible. All roots shall be pruned with a sharp saw making clean cuts. Avoid fracturing and breaking roots with excavation equipment. Root cuts shall be immediately covered with soil or mulch and kept moist.
• Duff/Mulch: Retain and protect as much of the existing duff and understory as possible. Retained trees in areas where there are exposed soils shall have 4 to 6 inches of wood chips applied to help prevent water evaporation and compaction. Keep mulch 1 foot away from the base of the tree.
• Irrigation: Retained trees may require supplemental water if construction occurs during summer drought periods.
• Pruning: Any pruning required for construction and safety clearance shall be done with a pruning specification provided by the project arborist in accordance with American National Standards Institute ANSI A300 Standard Practices for Pruning. Use of an arborist with an International Society of Arboriculture Certification to perform pruning is strongly advised.
2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) · Seattle, WA 98109 · Phone 206.528.4670 www.treesolutions.net
Table of Trees Date of Inventory: June 2, 2016 Queen Anne Elementary School Table Prepared: June 9, 2016 401 Boston Ave, Seattle WA Table Updated: August 11, 2017 Drip line Radius (feet) SDOT Exceptional Tree ID # / DSH Health Structural Threshold Exceptional Proposed ID Parks Scientific Name Common Name (inches) Condition Condition North East South West (inches) (y/n) Action Notes 51 33805 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 14.5 Good Good 15 15 18 20 SDOT No Retain Some included bark at unions, small amount of twig dieback. 52 33806 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 13.7 Good Good 14 13 14 15 SDOT No Retain Some twig dieback. 53 33807 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 12.4 Good Good 15 13 14 12 SDOT No Retain Roots lifting pavement. 54 33808 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 15.2 Good Good 16 16 17 17 SDOT No Retain Some branches from advetitious buds, roots starting to lift pavement. 55 33809 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 19.3 Good Good 18 15 20 22 SDOT No Retain Roots lifting pavement. 56 33810 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 20.8 Good Fair 17 17 18 22 SDOT No Retain Some mature branches from adventitios buds, sprouts, two codominant leaders with narrow attachment, roots lifting pavement. 57 33811 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 20.3 Good Fair 19 19 20 25 SDOT No Retain Some branches from advetitious buds, roots starting to lift pavement. 58 33812 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 18.6 Good Fair 25 19 19 22 SDOT No Retain Branches from sprouts, large codominant branch at 10 feet, previous reduction pruning, burls at base with sprouting. 59 33813 Tilia heterophylla White basswood 30.0 Good Fair 24 17 26 25 SDOT No Retain Leaf has white undersides, canopy previously reduced, large sprouts, appears to be lifting road.
60 33814 Tilia heterophylla White basswood 33.3 Good Fair 24 26 26 25 SDOT No Remove Leaf has white undersides, canopy previously reduced, large sprouts, appears to be lifting road, wounds on northwest side with good response growth. 61 Site Calocedrus decurrens Incense cedar 19.0 Good Good 5 6 7 6 30 No Retain 62 Site Pinus nigra Austrian black pine 15.3 Good Good 10 10 10 10 24 No Retain
63 Site Acer griseum Paperbark maple 6.8 Good Good 9 10 7 11 12 No Retain Wound at base from mowing equipment, some response growth, girdling root, papery bark only at base. 64 Site Prunus cerasifera Thundercloud 9.0 Good Fair 12 13 12 15 Retain Codominant leaders at 3 feet, measured at the "Thundercloud" flowering plum narrowest point below the union. 65 Site Prunus laurocerasus English laurel 16.4* Good Fair 20 18 10 3 21 No Retain Multistemmed ‐ 5.8, 7, 9.3, 8.2, 5.7. Some decay at base, phototropic form to north.
Tree Solutions, Inc. www.treesolutions.net 2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109 Page 1 of 4 206‐528‐4670 Table of Trees Date of Inventory: June 2, 2016 Queen Anne Elementary School Table Prepared: June 9, 2016 401 Boston Ave, Seattle WA Table Updated: August 11, 2017 Drip line Radius (feet) SDOT Exceptional Tree ID # / DSH Health Structural Threshold Exceptional Proposed ID Parks Scientific Name Common Name (inches) Condition Condition North East South West (inches) (y/n) Action Notes 66 Parks Acer platanoides Norway maple 17.0 Good Fair 27 21 13 23 Parks No Retain Has been pruned for utility clearance. 67 Parks Acer platanoides Norway maple 21.7 Good Fair 19 25 15 25 Parks No Retain Root damage from mowing equipment, girdling roots, has been pruned for utilitiy clearance. 68 Parks Acer platanoides Norway maple 22.7 Fair Poor 27 20 13 25 Parks No Retain Heavy pruning for utilities, visible decay in some branches, asymetrical crown, roots uplifting sidewalk. 69 Parks Acer platanoides Norway maple 28.4 Good Fair 19 28 26 26 Parks No Retain Surface roots at base, pruned for utilities, lifting sidewalk. 70 Parks Acer platanoides Norway maple 29.2 Fair Poor 19 27 22 26 Parks No Retain Decay in canopy at site of previous pruning cuts, large branch breackage with visible decay, surface roots at base, pruned for utilities, lifting sidewalk.
71 Parks Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore maple 20.6 Poor Poor 14 25 16 19 Parks No Retain Thin canopy, main leaders both topped, large diameter cuts with visible decay. 72 Site Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore maple 17.9* Poor Poor 17 24 18 18 24 No Remove Four stems from base ‐ 8.2, 7.9, 10.9, 8.4. All topped, leaf gall on foliage. 73 Site Ilex aquifolium English holly 14.1* Good Fair 15 15 15 15 19 No Remove Limbed up, gidling root at base. Four stems from base 6.3, 5.9, 6.8, 8.9. 74 Site Zelkova serrata Sawleaf zelkova 6.0 Good Good 12 12 12 12 21 No Remove 75 Site Zelkova serrata Sawleaf zelkova 6.6 Good Good 10 10 10 10 21 No Remove 76 Site Zelkova serrata Sawleaf zelkova 7.0 Good Good 11 11 11 11 21 No Remove 77 Site Zelkova serrata Sawleaf zelkova 6.3 Good Good 9 9 9 9 21 No Remove 78 Site Zelkova serrata Sawleaf zelkova 6.9 Good Good 12 12 12 12 21 No Remove 79 Parks Fagus sylvatica Purple beech 23.4 Good Fair 24 26 18 16 Parks No Retain Pruned for utility clearance. 'Purpurea' 80 Parks Tilia cordata Little leaf linden 19.8 Good Poor 20 20 16 15 Parks No Retain Pruned/topped for utility clearance, lifting sidewalk.
81 Parks Tilia cordata Little leaf linden 18.2 Good Poor 17 24 26 26 Parks No Retain Pruned/topped for utility clearance, lots of sprouts in canopy, lifting sidewalk. 82 Parks Tilia cordata Little leaf linden 15.8 Fair Poor 16 16 21 18 Parks No Retain Pruned/topped for utility clearance, lifting sidewalk.
83 Parks Tilia cordata Little leaf linden 17.4 Good Fair 21 19 25 20 Parks No Retain Pruned for utility clearance.
Tree Solutions, Inc. www.treesolutions.net 2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109 Page 2 of 4 206‐528‐4670 Table of Trees Date of Inventory: June 2, 2016 Queen Anne Elementary School Table Prepared: June 9, 2016 401 Boston Ave, Seattle WA Table Updated: August 11, 2017 Drip line Radius (feet) SDOT Exceptional Tree ID # / DSH Health Structural Threshold Exceptional Proposed ID Parks Scientific Name Common Name (inches) Condition Condition North East South West (inches) (y/n) Action Notes 84 Parks Tilia cordata Little leaf linden 17.5 Good Fair 19 20 19 22 Parks No Retain Pruned for utility clearance, some upright sprouting, lifting sidewalk. 85 Parks Tilia cordata Little leaf linden 18.5 Good Fair 24 18 19 20 Parks No Retain Needs more utility pruning, lifting sidewalk. 86 Parks Tilia cordata Little leaf linden 14.0 Good Fair 11 17 17 16 Parks No Retain Pruned for utilities, slightly lifting sidewalk. 87 Parks Tilia cordata Little leaf linden 15.1 Good Fair 18 24 21 19 Parks No Retain Pruned for utilities, lower branches may need to be pruned for street clearance. 88 33815 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 15.7 Good Fair 22 27 26 15 SDOT No Retain Pruned for utilities, branches are touching lower lines may need additional pruning for utilities.
89 33821 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 19.3 Good Good 20 23 29. 5 26 SDOT No May Appears to have been reduced in past. require removal 90 Site Robinea Black locust 27.9 Good Fair 25 12 25 24 30 No May Two stems from base, 19.3 and 20.2. pseudoacacia require removal 91 Site Robinea Black locust 17.5 Good Good 12 18 26 14 30 No May pseudoacacia require removal 92 Site Robinea Black locust 27.5 Good Fair 18 10 22 20 30 No May Codominant stems at 3 feet, measured at narrowest pseudoacacia require point below union, pruned for utility clearance on removal east side. 93 Site Robinea Black locust 25.5 Good Fair 16 16 18 26 30 No May pseudoacacia require removal 94 Site Robinea Black locust 14.5 Good Good 23 12 10 23 30 No May pseudoacacia require removal 95 33820 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 21.2 Good Fair 21 23 25 22 SDOT No May Previously reduced, upright branches/sprouts. require removal 96 33819 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 21.8 Good Fair 23 20 22 23 SDOT No Retain Appears to have been previously redued, most of canopy is mature upright with sprouts narrowly arranged, lifting sidewalk.
Tree Solutions, Inc. www.treesolutions.net 2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109 Page 3 of 4 206‐528‐4670 Table of Trees Date of Inventory: June 2, 2016 Queen Anne Elementary School Table Prepared: June 9, 2016 401 Boston Ave, Seattle WA Table Updated: August 11, 2017 Drip line Radius (feet) SDOT Exceptional Tree ID # / DSH Health Structural Threshold Exceptional Proposed ID Parks Scientific Name Common Name (inches) Condition Condition North East South West (inches) (y/n) Action Notes 97 33818 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 17.5 Good Fair 19 17 26 20 SDOT No Retain Previously reduced, many upright branches, lower branches require pruning for street clearance.
98 33817 Tilia platyphyllos Bigleaf linden 21.2 Good Good 19 19 21 26 SDOT No Retain Previously reduced, upright branching, better structure than adjacent trees. Additional Notes: DSH (Diameter at Standard Height) is measured 4.5 feet above grade. *Multi‐stem trees are Noted, and a single stem equivalent is calculated using the method defined in the Director's Rule 16‐2008. Drip line is measured from the center of the tree to the outermost extent of the canopy
Tree Solutions, Inc. www.treesolutions.net 2940 Westlake Ave. N (Suite #200) Seattle, WA 98109 Page 4 of 4 206‐528‐4670 QUEEN ANNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PO BOX 34165 SEATTLE, WA 98124-1165
VINCE GONZALES CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER
2150707.50
JANUARY 19, 2016
N
T GRAPHIC SCALE
0 10 20 40 FEET
1" = 20 FEET
TD DF T T 2 QUEEN ANNE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
T T
SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
PO BOX 34165 SEATTLE, WA 98124-1165
VINCE GONZALES CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MANAGER
2150707.50
N
JANUARY 19, 2016
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 10 20 40 FEET
1" = 20 FEET
T
T TD DF
3 SEPA Environmental Checklist
APPENDIX C: COMMENT RESPONSES
October 2017 Page 39
Queen Anne Elementary School Addition 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 May 31 to June 16, 2017. Thirty individual comment letters were received.
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference 1 Reproduce Public Comments. The Final As stated above, SPS has summarized the Checklist should include copies of public comments for efficiency. Access to the comments received. individual public comments can be obtained by contacting SPS. 2 Communication. The District has engaged the community SPS should convene community throughout the project. In December of meetings in order to discuss the Queen 2015 the District reached out to neighbors, Anne Elementary School Addition. teachers, parents and the Queen Anne Commenters should be added to the list Community Council to notify people of the of people to be notified about the status formation of the School Design Advisory of the environmental review of this Team (SDAT). The SDAT team was project. formed and included three community representatives. Nine SDAT meetings were held from February 2016 to May 2017. SPS also held a community conversation meeting in spring of 2016 at the school. Other project-related meetings with the community included Departures
Page 1 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference Meetings held on June 6 and July 20 and a meeting on the Draft SEPA Checklist on June 12.
All commenters have been added to the notification list for Queen Anne Elementary School Addition Project. 3 Determination of Significance. The SPS SEPA Responsible Official is SPS should issue a Determination of reviewing the revised SEPA Checklist and Significance (DS) for the project and taking all comments received on the Draft provide further detailed environmental SEPA Checklist into consideration in review through an Environmental Impact making a determination of the significance Statement (EIS). of impacts from the Queen Anne SPS should consider alternatives to the Elementary School Addition Project. project, such as using current unused school buildings or repurchasing An addition to Queen Anne Elementary previously sold schools. 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. 4 Project design. Community needs expressed The design of the project is determined by in the SDAT process were not addressed in SPS through the SDAT process and is not a the project design. SEPA issue. 5 Project design. Adding a new set of According to the project architect, there are classrooms on top of the brick building, significant structural challenges to such a supported by a new structure, would add proposal. Providing adequate support for more classroom space without reducing the structure and meeting code playground and parking areas. requirements for seismic, access, and safety would require major changes to the
Page 2 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference existing building. Constructing a new structure atop the existing building would impact the historic quality of the building. 6 Capacity. The project would create a The Board of Directors for Seattle Public A.7 “mega school” by increasing the capacity Schools, in conjunction with the from 420 to 500 students. Further future Superintendent, makes decisions about increases are being considered after this issues such as school capacity. These project. decisions are not a SEPA issue. SPS currently has no plans to further increase the capacity of Queen Anne Elementary School. Section A.7 of the SEPA Checklist describes the environmental review process if the Board decides to further increase capacity in the future. 7 Conversion to Neighborhood School. Converting Queen Anne Elementary Queen Anne Elementary School should be School into a neighborhood school is converted to a neighborhood school rather outside of the scope of this project and than an option school to reduce the need for would require a decision from the School busing. Board. The School Board is scheduled to discuss this issue in fall 2018.
The Checklist assumes that the school will remain an option school and has used that assumption in the transportation analysis. If the school is changed to a neighborhood school, an addendum to the transportation report will be prepared. 8 Departures – Opposition. The requested The SEPA checklist is independent of the departures for the project should not be City of Seattle’s Department of granted. Neighborhoods Land Use Departure
Page 3 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference process. Decisions to grant or deny departures for the project is administered by the City of Seattle. Contact Maureen Sheehan, Major Institution and School Coordinator at 206.684.0302. 9 Earth. The East Queen Anne Greenbelt is Section B.1.d has been revised to describe B.1.d located two blocks east of Queen Anne the potential slide area to the east of the Elementary. The slope is classified as City project site and the known slide area to the of Seattle Landside Prone Area. It is a 40% northeast of the project site. The project steep slope and has known slide events. would not affect these slide areas. 10 Bus Idling. Buses currently loading and SPS has an anti-idling policy for buses. B.2.a and B.2.d unloading along Bigelow Avenue North idle Based on community complaints about for long periods of time. The project would idling at Queen Anne Elementary, SPS has increase the number of buses loading and requested that First Student (the District’s unloading on Bigelow Avenue North, transportation provider) instruct Queen increasing the amount of idling. Anne drivers to eliminate all idling time on Bigelow Avenue North. If neighbors observe buses idling, they can contact SPS Transportation at 206-252-0900 and provide the Bus Asset Number which is listed on the back of the bus. SPS can communicate directly to drivers via radio and can follow up with First Student as necessary.
There are currently eight buses using Bigelow Avenue North for loading and unloading. With the project, the number of buses may increase to eight or ten. This small increase, combined with the
Page 4 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference increased enforcement of the anti-idling policy, is not expected to result in major increases in emissions. 11 Bus idling. Idling exposes residents, SPS acknowledges that idling of buses and B.2 students, and animals to diesel exhaust. the resulting diesel exhaust present health hazards to students and residents and has a policy that buses should not idle when parked at schools. Implementing anti-idling policies has been shown to reduce the air quality impacts of idling buses. See the response to Comment 10 regarding how neighbors can report idling buses and help SPS enforce the policy. 12 Bus idling. Idling impacts the Queen Anne See the responses to Comments 10 and 11 Avenue park. The engine noise, as well as regarding SPS’s anti-idling policy. The the smell and the taste of diesel fuel Queen Anne Boulevard park is also a precludes enjoyment of the Park. functioning street that is part of the Seattle street system and as such it is appropriate to for the street to be used by all vehicles, including buses. 13 Bus idling. Bus idling impacts the trees Vehicle emissions, including diesel along Bigelow Avenue North. exhaust, can affect the health of trees, although there is no evidence that the trees along Bigelow are being affected. The majority of health and structure problems for the trees along Bigelow Avenue North identified by the arborist are the result of repeated utility pruning, limited soil volume, and soil compaction. See the
Page 5 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference responses to previous comments about enforcing the anti-idling policy. 14 Stormwater. Thoughtful consideration of The project is not anticipated to have B.3.c stormwater drainage is needed. impacts to stormwater drainage. Stormwater is discussed in Section B.3.c of the Checklist. The project will comply with the City’s stormwater code and will use on- site stormwater retention measures. 15 Trees. Removal of trees will have adverse Impacts of tree removal are discussed in B.4, Appendix impacts, including impacts to the tree Section B.4. The Checklist has been B canopy. The trees are homes to many birds. updated to include additional information Trees on the southeast corner of the site add on tree removal. to the canopy over Queen Anne Boulevard, the Olmsted Park. Trees that would be removed include tree 72, tree 73, trees 74 through 78, and several small trees on the school property (Appendix B of the Checklist). Tree 72 is in poor condition due to basal form and a history of utility pruning. Tree 73 is an English holly classified as a weed of concern in King County. The County, City, and Parks Department actively work to remove English holly in order to prevent its spread.
Trees 74 through 78 are young sawleaf zelkova trees. Replacement trees or new plantings would quickly replace the value that these trees currently provide. The small trees on site are a combination of
Page 6 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference service berry and sawleaf zelkova. New trees would also quickly replace the value of these trees. 16 Trees – Protection Status. None of the trees that would be removed as B.4, Appendix The trees that would be removed are part of the proposed project are protected. B protected. None of the trees on Bigelow Avenue North would be removed. The trees on Bigelow Avenue North are park trees and not street trees and fit the Seattle Parks has determined that the trees description of an exceptional grove. along Bigelow Avenue North are street Although the trees on Bigelow Ave. N. trees and not Parks trees, and therefore do have not been classified as not meet the definition of Exceptional “Exceptional”, they have Trees. However, they are protected as part “cultural/historic importance, age, and/or of the Landmark status of Queen Anne contribution as part of a grove of trees.” Boulevard. These trees would not be The multiple Norway maples were removed as part of the project and would planted just after the turn of the century be protected during construction. (C.1910) and add to ambiance of the historic and Landmarked Queen Anne The word “significant” has been removed Boulevard. from the Arborist Report and is not used in The Checklist should describe the trees the Checklist because of confusion as “significant,” a term used in the surrounding the term. Some arborists use Arborist Report. “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 greater than 6 inches be inventoried and assessed
Page 7 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference for development projects. Both the Arborist Report and the Checklist accurately describe the condition of trees on the site and the number that will be removed. 17 Trees. Is there a liaison between SPS, The This is not a SEPA issue. There is no City of Seattle and Plant Amnesty liaison between SPS and Plant Amnesty. International? If not, there should be. The City of Seattle works with Plant Amnesty when heritage trees need to be relocated. The City does not normally work with Plant Amnesty for removal of street trees and trees on school property. The Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections website can be used to get into contact with the appropriate person to learn more about how the City works with Plant Amnesty. 18 Bioretention Pool. The bioretention pool previously proposed B.4 and B.3.c The bioretention pool should be moved at the southwest corner of the school to reduce the risk to trees. property has been relocated to the southern Would the bioretention pool impact boundary, in the required 5-foot landscape nearby steep slopes on Newton Street? buffer between the property line and parking lot. The existing trees on the southwest corner will no longer be impacted by the bioretention cell, but grading to accommodate the parking area may negatively impact the trees. Retention of these trees will be evaluated at the time of construction based on the level of disturbance to the root structure.
Page 8 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference
The bioretention cell, also called a raingarden, is designed to treat polluted stormwater runoff from adjacent impermeable surfaces. The bioretention cell would not impact nearby steep slopes. For the school property all bioretention facilities would be designed with a maximum ponding depth of 6-inches and is not intended to have any standing water within 48 hours following the storm event. The facilities would be designed based on geotechnical investigations to determine the feasibility of infiltration at the proposed location, including potential impacts to steep slopes. 19 Animals. Additional animals and birds have The Checklist has been revised to clarify B.5 been observed by residents near the school that no animal surveys were conducted and and should be noted in the Checklist. that other species may use the site. 20 Animals. Puget Sound and the surrounding The Checklist has been revised to B.5 area are located within the Pacific Flyway. acknowledge that migrating birds may use Trees surrounding the Queen Anne the Queen Anne site. Only one of the large Elementary site are heavily used by trees around the Queen Anne site would be migrating passerines during spring and fall removed as part of the project – the rest for feeding and resting. Therefore, it must be would remain and be protected during assumed that the project will affect their construction. Trees to be removed are pathways. smaller trees internal to the project site. The arborist anticipates that the replacement trees would quickly provide the same benefits as the removed trees.
Page 9 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference One of the trees to be removed is an English holly, an invasive species which does not provide good bird habitat. The trees that are removed would be replaced with native species. 21 Invasive Animals. What precautions will Section B.5.e of the Checklist has been B.5.e be taken to prevent the spread of invasive revised to clarify that SPS would hire a animals due to demolition of the portables? contractor to implement pest management activities prior to demolition of the portables. 22 Environmental Health. What tests were SPS conducts surveys of hazardous B.7 done to determine contamination? Has the materials prior to construction work for all site been tested for diesel exhaust residue? capital projects. 23 Noise. How will residents know if the Construction activities at Queen Anne B.7 construction noise has exceeded the would not include activities such as pile allowable level? Who will be testing and driving that typically exceed allowable who will be enforcing? Will there be a SPS noise levels. The contractor would be official capable of determining the noise required to monitor noise levels when levels on site at all times? construction activities are anticipated to approach allowable levels. There will be a contact number posted on the site during construction that can be called to report noise that exceeds allowable levels. 24 Departures – Impacts. Requiring Zoning and departures are discussed in B.8 departures means that the project would not Section B.8 of the SEPA Checklist. meet city zoning code and would have adverse impacts. Unlike some cities, the City of Seattle does not have a zoning designation for public facilities such as schools. Therefore, most schools in Seattle are in residential-zoned
Page 10 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference areas. However, the zoning code acknowledges that schools have different requirements than residential buildings through the departures process. Because 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. 25 Land Use. The school impacts neighboring The city zoning code allows schools in homes. The school moved into an existing residential areas. The site has been used as neighborhood which has had to adjust to a school since 1905. While it was not in accommodate it. A school should have been use as a school for several years, it was located downtown to meet capacity needs. owned by SPS during that time and was a potential site for interim or permanent schools.
There is a lack of available lots in Seattle for new schools. Due to costs and lack of availability of land, SPS utilizes its existing properties. 26 Aesthetics. The SEPA Checklist is unclear Section B.10 (Aesthetics) has been revised B.10 about potential aesthetic impacts of the to provide additional information about project and measures used to reduce measures taken to reduce potential visual aesthetic impacts. impacts. 27 Recreation. The change in playground size The existing site includes areas that are B.12 was omitted from the Checklist. It appears open space but not specifically developed
Page 11 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference that over 14% of playground space would be for recreation. Recreation facilities on the lost due to the project. The loss of site would be relocated and improved and playground site appears to be significant. new playground equipment would be installed. The portable gymnasium would be replaced with a new permanent gymnasium, which would be accessible to the public through the Joint Use Agreement with Seattle Parks. The community garden would be relocated so that it is better integrated into the site. The amount of open space on the site would be reduced, but improvements to recreational facilities would provide more usable, accessible recreation facilities. 28 Recreation – Queen Anne Boulevard. The There are currently eight buses serving B.12 project could impact the historic Queen the Queen Anne Elementary School Anne Boulevard park. site. After construction, there would be Air. There is no information on the eight or ten buses. Additional number of buses, how long they will be information on idling and air quality idling in the morning and afternoon, and impacts are included in the response to what the air quality (emissions and odor) Comments 10 to 13 above. impacts are from the buses. The southeast corner of the site is on Proposed Landscaping. Please clarify if school property. The bioretention pool the “southeast corner of the site adjacent originally proposed for the southeast to the parking lot” is on School District corner of the site has been moved. See property. the response to Comment 15. The parking strip on Bigelow is grass and ADA improvements would not be the impacts of the increased bus drop off made on Bigelow Avenue North and use should be addressed. Will ADA the parking strip would not be changed.
Page 12 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference improvements have to be made on Buses currently use Bigelow Avenue Bigelow, including the parking strip? North. The Queen Anne Boulevard is Aesthetics. The impacts of the bus a road and is therefore used by all types parking on the boulevard should be of vehicles. Vehicles currently park discussed. along both sides of the street. Historic and Cultural Preservation. There The 1979 Report on Designation for is no discussion of the impact of the the Landmarking of Queen Anne buses, impact of the signage, and Boulevard lists the following features potential impact to the parking strip on to be preserved: the continuity of the the historic character of Bigelow/Queen boulevard street system, existing street Anne Boulevard. trees, existing granite curbs and brick It isn’t clear how there can be parking on gutters, major structural elements both sides of Bigelow (including wider (street lights, bridges, walls), and buses on one side of the street) and still triangles. These elements would not be have two-way traffic on the 31 to 32-foot affected by the project. wide street. The roadway is 31 to 32 feet wide. Buses would displace recreational use. School buses are 8-feet wide; automobiles are generally about 6-feet wide. Some large SUVs may be wider and many modern cars in use are a bit narrower at less than 6 feet (e.g., the Toyota Prius is 5.8 feet wide)). Even assuming 8.5 feet for school buses parked on one side and 6.5 feet for autos parked on the other side, that leaves 16 to 17 feet for the two-way travel way, which is enough for two autos to pass. It is acknowledged that those movements are and should be made slowly, but that is preferred
Page 13 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference around a school, particularly during arrival and dismissal periods when the conditions are more common. Observations of Bigelow Avenue N by Heffron Transportation staff during school arrival and dismissal as well as many other times confirm the above traffic and width conditions. With implementation of the project and planned Transportation Management Plan, family drivers would be discouraged from using the same street that is used for school bus load/unload to help reduce conflicts and congestion. Recreational use would not be displaced by buses. Buses, like other vehicles, would use the street during limited periods of the day. 29 Historic and Cultural Resources. SPS’s request that it be exempt from City B.13 The Checklist should acknowledge that Landmarks regulations is unrelated to this the School Board has requested that SPS project. While the 1922 building is not should be exempt from City Landmarks currently a designated landmark, SPS is regulations. working in coordination with the The Checklist should specifically Landmarks Preservation Board to address reference notification of the Duwamish historic preservation issues associated with Tribe in the event of an archaeological the project. resource discovery. The Checklist has been revised to note that affected tribes, including the Duwamish Tribe, would be notified of the project
Page 14 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference 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. 30 Transportation. The school has a negative The traffic and parking conditions around B.14, impact on neighbors, who must time the site are typical of those at and around Appendix A comings and goings and routes around elementary schools throughout Seattle. As school-related traffic. The number of cars at described in the Transportation Technical pick-ups and drop-offs are already too Report, Bigelow Avenue N is wider than numerous for our narrow neighborhood the other local access streets that surround streets to accommodate. The huge buses the site and is better able to accommodate which line Bigelow create a safety hazard to school buses. However, narrower (25-foot driving down this street. School-related wide) local access streets are regularly traffic parks for long periods of time and used by school buses throughout the City sometimes blocks driveways. for access and load/unload activities. As described in the Technical Report, SPS and school administration would establish a Transportation Management Plan to educate parents and students about parking, pick up and drop off. If vehicles block your driveway, you have the right to have the vehicles towed. It is also permissible to paint the curb within 5-feet of your driveway with yellow highway paint (per Seattle Municipal Code 11.72.120) to highlight the driveway and no parking area. 31 Transportation. The increased traffic SPS will coordinate with SDOT to B.14, generated by school activity has created a determine if additional measures can be Appendix A
Page 15 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference visibility issue at the corner of 4th Ave N implemented to address this existing and Boston St. concern. 32 Transportation. The intersection at 4th and The Transportation Technical Report noted B.14, Newton is already very tight and that the Newton Street/Bigelow Avenue N Appendix A congested. When cars are parked all along intersection has limited sightlines to the 4th (as they are daily), it can be hard to see east and west due to vertical crest curves. around the corners. Increasing the burden of Based on discussions with the Seattle cars on this side of the school is a dangerous Schools Safety Committee and its SDOT idea, and beyond the scope of street representative member, the intersection dimensions and student crosswalking guards. could be a candidate for conversion to all- way-stop control. 33 Transportation. Currently, buses turn down As stated in the Transportation Technical B.14, Crockett and Newton streets, which are Report, there are currently more buses than Appendix A narrow streets. Buses have grazed side can be accommodated in the signed mirrors and often have trouble making tight load/unload zone and they are often forced turns. This can cause car damage, to park too close to the crosswalks and congestion, and safety issues. adjacent intersections. Extending the load zone would accommodate all the buses and allow them to stop with adequate distance from intersections and crosswalks. This would improve sightlines and safety for pedestrians and vehicles traveling around the site during peak arrival and dismissal periods. 34 Transportation. When buses can’t make the As stated in the Transportation Technical B.14, turn at Crockett Street, they back up into the Report, the preferred school-bus load / Appendix A intersection where children are crossing. unload zone is planned to be extended south to Newton Street to better accommodate the number of school buses that serve the site.
Page 16 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference 35 Transportation. Parents often drop their Dangerous and illegal behavior should be B.14, kids off in the middle of the street or park reported to school administrators so that Appendix A erratically. they can address such behavior. 36 Bus Loading. Currently there are 8 buses As stated in the Transportation Technical B.14, that serve only 60 students. This is Report, the project team is working with Appendix A significantly less than the capacity of the SPS Transportation staff to determine if the buses. number of school buses that serve the site can be reduced or consolidated (based on actual ridership levels). 37 Bus Loading. Additional buses will The operational analyses prepared for the B.14, contribute to more traffic congestion on the study-area intersections reflected the Appendix A hill. potential increase in buses and found all study area intersections would continue operating at acceptable levels. 38 Bus Loading. Bus loading should not be The preferred option for school-bus B.14, located on Bigelow Avenue North because it load/unload on Bigelow Avenue N is due Appendix A is a City of Seattle Landmark and a City of to several factors. One relates to the length Seattle Park. of travel routes using 25-foot wide streets with parking on both sides. For that factor, the primary difference between use of Bigelow Avenue N and 4th Avenue N is that buses arriving to the 4th Avenue N frontage would likely require more travel (several blocks) on the narrower roadways, while buses arriving and departing from Bigelow Avenue N could require travel on only one block with narrower roadways. As also stated, both scenarios could be accommodated, but the Bigelow Avenue N option is preferred.
Page 17 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference 39 Bus Loading. Bus loading on Bigelow No on-street parking spaces would be B.14, would reduce parking in the area. removed with the project, but some Appendix A changes to signed restrictions are proposed/requested. As outlined in the Transportation Technical Report, the preferred school-bus load/unload location is along Bigelow Avenue N. The proposal would retain the existing school-bus load zone and extend it south to Newton Street. This would convert an existing passenger vehicle load/unload zone (estimated to have 8 spaces) and a short segment of unrestricted curb space (estimated at 3 spaces) to a school-bus load zone. Those spaces would remain available for general purpose parking during times not restricted to school buses. 40 Bus Loading. Pick-up and drop-off should As described in the Transportation B.14, be on Bigelow Avenue North because it is Technical Report, retaining school-bus Appendix A wider and less used. 4th Ave N is a narrow load/unload on Bigelow Avenue N is the street. preferred option. However, if that is not approved by Seattle Parks and Recreation, it could alternatively occur on 4th Avenue N. 4th Avenue N is a 25-foot wide local access street similar to most other residential streets in Seattle. These roadways can and have been used for similar school load/unload activities. SDOT has indicated that 4th Avenue N is a non-arterial emergency route and that if
Page 18 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference school-bus load/unload is relocated to this street, on-street parking on the west side would likely be prohibited during the school bus load/unload times. As recommended, for either scenario, a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) would be prepared to educate families about the access patterns for the new site layout. This may consist of establishing a one-way circulation pattern for school- related traffic to ease flows at and around the school.
As noted in the Transportation Technical Report, school-bus load/unload (eight buses) and some family-vehicle load/unload occurs along the west side of Bigelow Avenue N south of Boston Street. The remainder of family vehicle load/unload occurs with the use of on- street parking in the surrounding residential neighborhood. The preferred access option would retain school-bus load/unload zone on the west side of Bigelow Avenue N and family vehicles dropping off and picking up students would continue to arrive from all directions and use the proposed new load zone on the east side of 4th Avenue N and available nearby curb-side parking areas—effectively the same patterns as
Page 19 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference currently exist. The passenger-vehicle load/unload activity that currently occurs on the west side of Bigelow Avenue N between Crockett and Newton Streets would be displaced to other locations in the surrounding area. 41 Bus Loading. Boston is a much wider street As also outlined in the Technical Report, B.14, which should be used for bus loading. even with removal of the adjacent Metro Appendix A Transit stop on Boston Street (which Metro has indicated it does not support), there would not be adequate curb-side space for the buses currently serving the school. 42 Bus Loading. SPS should apply pressure to SPS has coordinated with SDOT, Metro, B.14, Metro to move the bus stop on Boston and to and Seattle Parks & Recreation about a Appendix A SDOT to allow a curb cut in order to range of options, including the preferred improve conditions for the neighborhood. designations for use of street frontage surrounding the school site. Ultimately, those jurisdictions have authority to determine the use of those public resources. 43 Pick-up and Drop-off. The pick-up and 4th Avenue N is an Access Street that B.14, drop-off system proposed for 4th Avenue already provides access for a substantial Appendix A North would cause congestion and reduce portion of vehicular traffic destined to and access for emergency vehicles. from Queen Anne Elementary School. SPS would coordinate with SDOT to determine necessary restrictions for use to ensure emergency access is maintained. SDOT has indicated that 4th Avenue N is a non- arterial emergency route and that if school- bus load/unload is relocated to this street,
Page 20 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference on-street parking on the west side would likely be prohibited during the school bus load/unload times. There are many school sites in the city where bus loading occurs on similarly-narrow streets.
As described in the Technical Report, SPS and school administration would establish a Transportation Management Plan to educate parents and students about parking, pick up and drop off. For the 2017-18 school year, afternoon dismissal at Queen Anne Elementary is scheduled for 2:25 P.M. This is several hours before most residents working traditional weekday hours begin returning home from work. 44 Pick-up and Drop-off. Boston Street Comment noted. SPS will coordinate with B.14, should be used for drop-off and pick-up. SDOT and the Seattle School Safety Appendix A Committee to determine if curb-side space on Boston Street can and/or should be designated for load/unload activities. 45 Parking. Street parking around Queen Anne As noted in the Transportation Technical B.14, Elementary is very limited. Many of the Report, many of the single-family Appendix A houses in the area don't have garages or residences within the study area have some driveways for off-street parking. There are off-street parking capacity such as no other options for residents but to park on driveways and/or garages. Many residents the street. actively use these spaces for vehicle parking; however, some also use on-street parking. There are also multi-family buildings in the site vicinity; residents
Page 21 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference living in these buildings may also rely on on-street parking. The commercial buildings located across Boston Street from the school at 4th Avenue N have some on- site parking, but employees and customers of this building also use on-street parking. The parking analysis accounted for these conditions. 46 Parking. The Transportation Report is not The on-street parking analysis was B.14, accurate about parking availability. Many of prepared according to guidance and Appendix A the spots in the area are restricted. The requirements outlined by the City of Transportation Report makes it seem that Seattle. As can be seen in Appendix B of there is an abundance of parking at all times the Transportation Technical Report, a in the neighborhood, which is not correct. total of 24 out of 711 spaces (less than 4%) within the study area have some sort of time or use restrictions—most of those are adjacent to the school site. The remaining spaces (687 or nearly 97%) are unrestricted. The fact that some spaces have time or use restrictions during all or parts of the school day, does not change the accuracy of the analysis. On-street parking throughout the City has various limits or restrictions. Those restrictions are specifically intended to serve desired types of parking demand (often to avoid all day use of spaces). The fact that some parking and its restrictions may not work for all users at all times, does not mean that the parking does not exist or that it is not
Page 22 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference accurate to include it in a study of supply and utilization. 47 Parking. Part of the proposal involves The project does not propose any changes B.14, converting the street parking on the west or restrictions to on-street parking on the Appendix A side of 4th Avenue North to 2-hour only west side of 4th Avenue N. However, parking. This would be very limiting for SDOT has indicated that 4th Avenue N is a residents of 4th Avenue North. non-arterial emergency route and that if school-bus load/unload is relocated to this street, on-street parking on the west side would likely be prohibited during the school bus load/unload times.
The proposal does request establishment of a passenger vehicle load/unload zone on the east side of 4th Avenue N, between Crockett and Newton Streets. If approved by SDOT, this space could be made available for parking during midday, evenings, and weekends, which could increase overall supply and improve parking conditions for those on the west side of the street. 48 Parking. Why the proposed parking area The locations of the proposed on-site staff B.14, adjacent to Newton Street? parking lot and its access driveways were Appendix A selected to minimize conflicts with primary flows of pedestrian traffic and to address other programmatic and site design challenges. The lot is expected to be used by staff, whose trips generally occur before most students arrive in the morning and
Page 23 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference after most students leave the site in the afternoon. 49 Parking. The Checklist states that there will As stated in the Transportation Technical B.14, be 30 on-site parking spaces as compared to Report, there are currently 21 marked Appendix A 21 spaces currently, but the Traffic Study parking spaces on the site. Parking demand notes finding 26 vehicles currently parked counts found an average of 25 vehicles in on-site. the lot during the midday when school was in session and 26 vehicles in the lot on Curriculum Night. During these times, it was observed that vehicles either double parked or parked in front of the dumpsters. During the time periods school was not in session or there were no evening events, there was very limited demand—there were four vehicles parked in the lot midday and one vehicle parked in the evening. The project proposes to increase the on-site parking supply from 21 to 32 spaces. The hard-surface play area is planned to be made available for overflow parking (providing room for about 27 additional vehicles) during large evening or weekend school events when the play area is not in use. The parking demand analyses were based on rates derived from actual demand counts independent of striped supply. 51 Parking. The Checklist does not note that The City of Seattle generally considers B.14, the City of Seattle considers 85% as “full”. parking utilization rates of 85% and higher Appendix A The Traffic Study suggests no mitigation as effectively full. The mitigation based on the “relative infrequency” of such recommendations for the Lincoln High
Page 24 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference events; this won’t help neighbors and School project were included to address families looking for parking spaces. potential impacts that could occur on a daily basis and to address evening events depending on the frequency of the largest events. As described in the Updated Transportation Technical Report for the Queen Anne Elementary School project, adequate unrestricted on-street parking exists near the school to accommodate added school-relate demand and with the proposed on-site supply (32 spaces in the main lot and 27 additions spaces on the hard surface play area for large school events) on-street utilization would remain below 85%. The analysis of on-street parking in the vicinity indicated that demand from the largest event can be accommodated and would occur very infrequently (once per year); parking conditions for most other events would not be affected. Due to the relative infrequency of events and the proportionally small project-related increase in demand on event nights, the event-related parking impacts would not be considered significant. 52 Parking. Our streets are crowded with cars. As described in the Transportation B.14, Residents should be able to park in front of Technical Report, adequate unrestricted Appendix A our homes. on-street parking exists near the school to accommodate added school-day demand. As defined by the City of Seattle’s
Page 25 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference Department of Transportation (SDOT), “…curb space is part of the public street system, and as such it is a public good that is available for all people to use.” The City has established that parking within 800 feet of a destination is a reasonable walking distance for most users. 53 Parking. With the current school size, It should be noted that parking utilization B.14, finding a parking spot in the area is almost over 100% may be shown for some Appendix A impossible during the school day. individual block faces, and is possible People are parking in front of driveways or when there are many small cars (which in areas that are designated as no parking. increases the number that can park on each The departures being requested for the block) or when drivers park closer project will make the problem even worse. together. Drivers may also park in spaces Regulation 23.51B.002.G appears to be that are not considered legal or fully legal designed to prevent overcrowding of off-site based on the defined supply. The curb-face parking associated with large buildings. values in TIP #117 reflect space lengths Given the current overcrowding, and narrow that range from about 18.5 feet to 26.5 feet streets, granting this departure would be per space. The increased popularity of tantamount to saying that the specific smaller cars (such as smart cars) and the situation the rule is design to mitigate does tendency for drivers to park closer together not matter. in areas with higher utilization can result in more available supply than would be suggested by the TIP #117 guidance.
City code provisions outlined in SMC 23.51B.002.G refer to SMC 23.54 for parking requirements. Note 8 for Table C in that section refers to SMC 23.79, which states: “Development standard departures
Page 26 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference may be granted or required pursuant to the procedures and criteria set forth in Chapter 23.79 to reduce the required or permitted number of parking spaces.” SMC 23.79.002.A states that “The Seattle School District may apply for development standard departure for public school structures. Applications shall be made to the Director. 54 Parking. Could residential parking areas be The establishment, extents, and restrictions added within a one block vicinity of the on parking, such as Restricted Parking school to allow residents to park near where Zones (RPZs), are controlled by SDOT they live? based on requests from residents. The RPZ program is governed by the Seattle Municipal Code which specifies the threshold that must be met in order to establish an RPZ. Generally, 75% of on- street spaces must be occupied with at least 35% of those spaces used by non-local vehicles, all in an area of at least 10 contiguous blocks (or 20 block faces). 55 Parking. SPS needs to provide staff parking SPS balances a number of competing B.14, and a parent drop-off zone on campus. A issues when renovating existing school Appendix A larger playground that is used less than 6 sites. Space on the Queen Anne hours per day 176 days a year should not Elementary site is limited making it take priority over community needs. challenging to accommodate needed classroom space, playground space, and parking. The Seattle Municipal Code recognizes this challenge for public schools in residential zones and has established the
Page 27 of 28
Comment Comment Summary Response SEPA Number Document Reference departure review process (Section B.8.b of the Checklist). SPS will comply with the departure determination regarding parking.
56 Transportation Management Plan. A Comment noted. SPS agrees that B.14, Transportation Management Plan needs to enforcement of traffic and parking Appendix A be enforced to be effective. Over the last six regulations is a key component to safe and years, the school community has parked in effective access and egress around schools. front of or too close to our driveways, in front of or too close to fire hydrants, too If vehicles block your driveway, you have close to or in intersections, in the “Don’t the right to have the vehicles towed. It is Park Ever” space, in the reserved bus zone, also permissible to paint the curb within 5- and double-parked on Bigelow to deliver feet of your driveway with yellow highway students. With increased enrollment, the paint (per Seattle Municipal Code Seattle Police Department will be called 11.72.120) to highlight the driveway and more frequently to enforce parking laws. no parking area. 57 Illegal Activities. While this not a SEPA issue, neighbors can There has been a reoccurring problem contact SPS Security at 206-252-0707 to with illegal dumping of trash on the report illegal dumping, drinking, and drug school site. Will measures be taken to use on the school property. During ensure this doesn’t worsen during the construction, there will be a contact construction period? number for the contractor posted on the site Areas of the school that are tucked away which can also be called to report illegal and not visible from the street could be activities. used for underage drinking and drug use.
Page 28 of 28