ballard high school,athletic sepa checklist · 2018. 7. 24. · sps currently has no plans for...

Ballard High

School, Athletic

Field Lighting

FINAL

SEPA Checklist

January 2018

PREPARED FOR:

SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

2445 THIRD AVENUE SOUTH

SEATTLE, WA 98134

PREPARED BY:

ESA5309 SHILSHOLE AVENUE

NW, STE. 200SEATTLE, WA 98107

SEPA Environmental Checklist

January 2018 Page i

Table of Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Animals............................................................................................................................. 11

6. Energy and Natural Resources.......................................................................................... 12

7. Environmental Health ....................................................................................................... 13

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

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

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

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

12. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 24

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation.................................................................................... 25

14. Transportation................................................................................................................... 27

15. Public Services.................................................................................................................. 29

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

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 32

SEPA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ............................................................................................... 35

FIGURES................................................................................................................................................... 53

APPENDIX A: NOISE MEMORANDUM.............................................................................................. A

APPENDIX B: LIGHT & GLARE REPORT..........................................................................................B

APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS................................................................................... C

Figure 1: Project Vicinity

Figure 2: Location of proposed lighting poles


January 2018 Page 1

ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

A. BACKGROUND

1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable:

Ballard High School Athletic Field Lighting

2. Name of Applicant:

Seattle Public Schools (SPS)

3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:Richard BestSeattle Public Schools2445 3rd Ave SSeattle, WA 98134(206) 252-0644

4. Date checklist prepared:

January 2018

5. Agency requesting checklist:

Seattle Public Schools (SPS)

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

SPS plans to install the field lights in summer 2018. Installation of the lighting will take approximately four weeks.

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

SPS currently has no plans for future projects at Ballard High School.

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

Cultural Resources Short Report, ESA, March 2017

Geotechnical Engineering Report, Krazan & Associates, Inc., May 24, 2017

Geotechnical Engineering – Slope Assessment Letter, Krazan & Associates, Inc., December 4, 2017.


Page 2 January 2018

Noise Technical Memorandum, ESA, August 28, 2017

Transportation Technical Report, Heffron Transportation, Inc., September 11,2017

Light and Glare Report, Stantec, September 12, 2017

Installing lighting at SPS athletic fields was evaluated programmatically in the Building, Technology, and Academics/Athletics IV (BTA IV) Programmatic EIS (SPS, 2016). This SEPA Checklist adds project specific details and analysis.

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.

There are no other applications pending for the subject property.

10. List any governmental approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known:Master Use Permit City of SeattleBuilding Permit City of SeattleElectrical Permit City of Seattle

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

Seattle Public Schools (SPS) is proposing to install athletic field lighting at multiple school locations, including Ballard High School, in the Seattle School District (District), under the Buildings, Technology and Academics/Athletics IV (BTA IV) Program funding.

SPS and the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks) have been working together to develop plans for installing lights at athletic fields around the City. Lighting is being installed as mitigation for the impacts of SPS’s change in school start times. In fall 2016, SPS changed start times so that high school students start at 8:50 a.m. and are dismissed at 3:20 p.m., approximately 1 hour later than the previous schedule. Starting fall 2017, high schools will start at 8:45 or 8:55 a.m. and be dismissed at 3:35 or 3:45 p.m. The later dismissal time for high schools means that school athletic fields are used for school practice and games later in the day, reducing the time that unlighted fields are available for community use under the Joint Use Agreement with Parks. This was identified as a significant adverse impact in the Change in School Start Times Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPS, 2015).


January 2018 Page 3

Lighting of the Ballard High School athletic field would allow SPS and Parks to schedule events later in the evening than currently possible. The fields would assist in relieving the demand for all-season, multi-use, lighted fields in the City.

SPS proposes to light the athletic fields at Ballard High School to allow for both SPS use and community use. Anticipated uses of the fields include:

Ballard High School football, soccer, lacrosse, and ultimate frisbee practice and games (no varsity football games would be held at the school)

Parks recreational events, including youth and adult soccer, lacrosse, flag football and other events

The Ballard High School field accommodates football and soccer. A track surrounds the athletic field. Lights would be installed around the perimeter of the athletic field, outside of the track. The lights would be aimed at the athletic field and would not light the track. Four poles would be installed at the athletic field (two on the west side and two on the east side). Pole locations are illustrated onFigure 2. The project includes the installation of electrical conduits around the perimeter of the field to supply electricity to the lights.

The proposed lighting system at the athletic field will consist of 32 shielded LEDfloodlights (1,150 watts) on galvanized steel poles surrounding the athletic field. The proposed lights on the west will be installed on poles 70 feet tall and the poles on the eastern side will be 90 feet tall. The height of the poles has been proposed in order to minimize light spillage outside the athletic complex. The lights would comply with the guidelines established by Parks (Parks, 2002). SPSand Parks propose to schedule events at the lighted fields from dusk until 10 p.m. The lights would be designed to automatically shut off at an established time, typically 15 minutes after the end of scheduled play. In setting the cutoff time for lights, SPS considered the following:

Parks has adopted Policy # 060-P 7.1.1, Use and Scheduling of Outdoor AthleticFacilities, which became effective on July 1, 2002 (Parks, 2002). For lighted fields, Parks’ policy is to schedule play until 10:45 p.m., except on fields where residences adjoin the length of the field on two or more sides (unless arterials, significant topography, and/or other buffers are found between the field and adjacent residences on one or both sides). Fields that meet these criteria are scheduled until 9:45 p.m. with lights turned off at 10:00 p.m. Unless security lighting is available, lights at all fields will be turned off 15 minutes after the end of scheduled play to allow players to leave the site safely (Policy # 060-P 7.7.1, Section 4.3.3). Because residences adjoin the Ballard High School field on two sides, events at those fields would be scheduled until 9:45 p.m.

Although SPS has no current plans to do so, the field may also be lit in the morning hours to allow high school practice. If the lights are used for morning practices, they would only be required for a short period of time (approximately


Page 4 January 2018

one hour in the morning before school) and for a limited number of days during the year.

Fall sports practice ends around October 20 unless there are playoffs for girls soccer or boys football. Then practice would extend until about November 1 or December 1 respectively. There would be adequate natural light in the morning for practice until October 20. In Seattle, Civil Twilight starts at 7:06 a.m. or earlier until October 20. Civil Twilight1 is defined at the brightest form of twilight when there is enough natural light so that artificial lighting is not required to carry out outdoor activities. In the event of playoffs, artificial lighting could be required for practices for between 1 and 6 weeks. During this time, team members and coaching staff could arrive at the school during the AM peak hour. Traffic impacts are expected to be minor. Use of the lighted fields for morning practice, would cause a minor increase in noise in the morning. The increased noise would occur after 7 a.m. and would be within the City of Seattle’s regulations.

In the spring, sports practice begins about February 25 to March 3. At that time of year, Civil Twilight begins at 6:25 a.m. or earlier from February 25 to the end of the school year. So, field lighting would not be required for morning practices.

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 1418 NW 65th Street, Seattle, WA 98117. The project site is bounded by NW 67th St to the north, 12th Ave NW to the east, NW 65th St to the south, and 15th Avenue NW to the west.

The site is located in the southwest quarter of Section 1, Township 25, Range 3.The site is made up of one parcel (parcel 305070-0050) with the following legal description:

HAMBLETS ACRE GARDENS LOTS 1 THRU 7 BLK A PLAT OF HAMBLETS ACRE GARDENS LESS N 200 FT OF SD LOTS 1 & 2 TGW PORTION VACATED MARY AVE NW AS VACATED UNDER CITY OF SEATTLE ORD NO 104804 ADJOINING SD LOT 3 & TGW WEST HALF

1 Civil Twilight begins when the sun is less than 6 degrees below the horizon and ends at sunrise. It is used by several countries to make laws related to aviation, hunting, and usage of headlights and street lamps.


January 2018 Page 5

VACATED 14TH AVE NW AS VACATED UNDER ORD NO 76160 ADJOINING SD LOTS 5 & 6 TGW LOTS 1 THRU 30 BLK 1 & LOTS 1 THRU 15 BLK 2 H.D. MASTERSONS REPLAT OF BLK B HAMBLETS ACRE GARDENS TGW VACATED 13TH AVE NW ADJOINING SD BLKS 1 & 2 & ALLEY WITHIN SD BLK 1 AS VACATED BY CITY OF SEATTLE ORD NO 42777 & TGW EAST HALF VACATED 14TH AVE NW ADJOINING SD BLK 1 AS VACATED UNDER ORD NO 76160 TGW BLKS 1 & 2 REPLAT OF LOTS 8,9 & 10 BLK A HAMBLETS ACRE GARDENS LYING NLY NELY & ELY OF NW 65TH ST & 15 TH AVE NW AS ESTABLISHED BY CONDEMNATION ORDINANCES 24146 & 52039 TGW VAC MARY AVE NW AS VAC UNDER ORD NO 120426.

Figure 1 shows the project vicinity. Figure 2 shows the lighting pole locations.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS

1. Earth

A geotechnical investigation was performed at the project site by Krazan &Associates, Inc. (Krazan & Associates, Inc., 2017a). The work included a review of existing subsurface information for the property as well as drilling six soilborings on the project site. Krazan & Associates, Inc. prepared a slope assessment letter in December 2017 (Krazan & Associates, Inc., 2017b). Information from these reports is summarized in this section and incorporated in this SEPA Checklist as appropriate.

a. General description of the site (underline):

The subject site includes a gently north-facing slope. The athletic field is built on fill; it is higher than the surrounding residences and streets on the east and south side and lower than NW 67th Street on the north side. It is likely that earthwork grading occurred to level the playing field during the original construction decades ago. Because the project will not include construction of new buildings and will be limited to the installation of light poles for the existing athletic fields, a detailed analysis of the existing slopes around the perimeter of the project is not needed.

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

Most of the site is currently flat, including the track and field area. However, a concrete retaining wall up to about 10 feet in height is located along the north and northwest site boundaries, and a retaining wall of up to about 15 feet in height exists along the east site boundary. Shorter walls are located along the south and southwest portions of the site.

The northwest corner of the site includes a concrete retaining wall, with apaved vehicle ramp to the west and above the wall. Short slopes exist near


Page 6 January 2018

the south walls along the south portion of the athletic field area. The southern slopes have a gradient of approximately 25 to 40 percent or greater from horizontal. All construction will occur on the flat athletic field and no slopes will be affected by the project.

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.

The types of soils encountered during site exploration were generally medium dense weathered soils to very dense sand with some silt and gravel and fill.

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

There are no indications of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity. Although some of the underlying soil types could present a hazard for erosion, all excavation will occur in the area of the flat athletic field which has previously been excavated and leveled.

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

No filling or grading is proposed for the project. Excavation would occur to install the electrical conduits and place the poles. The electrical conduits will be installed in a trench that will be routed around the outside of the track. The trench will be 28 inches deep and 12 inches wide. Excavation for pole installation would be approximately 16 feet below the surface for the 90 foot poles and approximately 14 feet below the surface for the 70 foot poles; each at a 30-inch diameter.

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

The City of Seattle GIS Web Map shows the north and south boundaries of the High School athletic field with steep slopes with at least a 40 percent gradient, but does not indicate any known or potential slide areas on the site. Construction would occur on the flat athletic field, so the erosion potential is expected to be minimal.


January 2018 Page 7

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

No buildings would be constructed and no new impervious surfaces would be added to the project site. The light poles would be installed on the artificial surface of the existing athletic field and the trench for the electrical conduit would be installed on the outside edge of the track.

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

No significant erosion is anticipated from installation of the electrical conduits or lighting standards. Standard erosion control measures wouldbe taken to minimize erosion potential. These include implementing the recommendations for fill placement and light pole foundations in the Krazan & Associates, Inc. report.

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 lighting installation, there could be a small increase in exhaust emissions from construction vehicles and equipment and a temporary increase in fugitive dust. When the project is complete, the increased vehicular traffic accessing the athletic fields for events could cause a small increase in exhaust 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.

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

Contractors would use best management practices to minimize construction-related emissions. These emissions are expected to be minimal.


Page 8 January 2018

3. Water

a. Surface Water:

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

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

2. Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.

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

3. Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.

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

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

The project would not require surface water withdrawals or diversions.

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

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Maps, the site is not located within a 100-year floodplain.


January 2018 Page 9

6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of wastematerials 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.

b. Ground Water:

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.

The proposed project would not involve withdrawal of groundwater or discharge of water to ground water. The trench for the electrical conduits would be 28 inches deep. Installation of the poles would go below the surface approximately 14 feet for 70-foot poles and 16 feet for 90-foot poles. Installation of the poles would include a precast concrete foundation that would reach the groundwater table. A tremie concrete placement method would be used to place the pole. No significant dewatering is anticipated.

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 thefollowing chemicals. . . ; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.

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

c. Water Runoff (including stormwater)

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

The new lighting poles and associated equipment would not generate runoff.


Page 10 January 2018

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

It is unlikely that sediment generated during lighting installation could leave the site. Once the light poles are installed, the surrounding area would be restored.

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

The proposed project would not alter drainage patterns.

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

No impacts to surface or groundwater are expected, nor is runoff expected to increase. Therefore, no measures are proposed to reduce impacts.

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

____shrubs

__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

Vegetation on the site consists of landscaping. The athletic field has an existing artificial surface.

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

No vegetation would be removed or altered during installation of the poles. The athletic fields currently have artificial turf.


January 2018 Page 11

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 according to the Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) database (WNHP, 2013).

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

No landscaping is proposed as part of the lighting project. Existing landscaping would not be affected by the project.

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

No noxious weeds or invasive species are shown on the King County iMap database (King County, 2017). English ivy is growing along the fence and retaining wall on the east side of the field. The project wouldnot disturb this area.

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. Examples include:

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

Fish: not applicable

Amphibians: unknown

Reptiles: unknown

Birds: species adapted to urban areas such as gulls, American crow, rock pigeon, chickadee, robin, Steller’s jay, northern flicker. Other species likely use or fly through the area.

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

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

According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)Priority Habitats and Species program maps, no threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site (WDFW, 2017).



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.

In general, most literature regarding lighting effects on birds is concentrated on migrating birds and collisions with buildings and tall, lighted towers. There is evidence that migrating birds become disoriented by lighted towers and collide with the towers (Manville, 2005; Ogden, 1996). The literature does not report bird fatalities at lighted towers less than 200 feet tall, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service guidelines for siting towers do not address those less than 200 feet tall (USFWS, 2016).The proposed athletic field light towers are less than 100 feet tall. It is unlikely that the proposed athletic field light towers would present problems for migrating birds, since the average migration elevation is 1,000 to 2,000 feet (Alerstam, 1997). The literature also suggests that typical athletic field lighting is unlikely to negatively affect birds because the lights would be directed downward and the light source would be short wavelength (Gauthreaux and Belser, 2006).

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

The proposed project is not expected to result in any impacts to wildlife or wildlife habitat. The athletic field is located in a dense urban neighborhood and the area is not a quality habitat area for wildlife.Wildlife would likely avoid the area during athletic events. Light spill from the athletic fields would be reduced by the taller light poles, and would not shine on trees or shrubby areas at the edge of fields where wildlife might be located.

e. List any 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.

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.

The proposed athletic field lights would be powered by electricity.



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

The new lighting poles and associated equipment 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:

To conserve energy, the athletic field lights would use high efficiency LED floodlights. A total of approximately 32 1,150-watt lights would be installed at the athletic field. The LED floodlights would reduce the electrical energy load used for lighting by approximately 33 percent compared to standard lighting. The field would also be lighted to the recommended minimum Class IV lighting level for safe play per the Illuminating Engineering Society Recommended Practice for Athletic Fields RP-6.

A fully programmable control system with remote operation would be installed to allow the fields to be lighted independently and to automatically turn off after play is completed. This feature would ensure that lights would be on only during the hours that events are scheduled on each field. If necessary, the lights could also be operated manually through separate switches that would be installed. The lighting system would be operated through the SPS energy management system.

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. Installation of the electrical conduits and light poles would require limited excavation and few vehicles, so the potential for spills would be minimal. The contractor would develop a spill prevention and control plan 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, no known contaminated sites are located at the Ballard High School site (Ecology, 2017).



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 existing hazardous chemicals or conditions that would affect project development.

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 theoperating 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.

4. Describe special emergency services that might be required.

No special emergency services would be required. Extending the period of field use would require additional security. SPS would provide all necessary staffing, including security, to Ballard High School as described in the Joint Use Agreement (Parks and the Seattle School District No.1, 2016).

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.

b. Noise

A Noise Technical Memorandum for the project was developed by ESA (ESA, 2017). Information from the technical report is summarized in this section. The report is attached in Appendix A.

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. Ballard High School is surrounded by single-family residences, commercial properties, and arterial streets which generate background traffic noise.



Existing noise levels were measured at Ballard High School on January 24, 2017 between 7:00 pm and 11:00 pm, which generally reflected existing evening/early nighttime noise conditions.Evening/early nighttime noise conditions are typically quiet and influenced by activities from surrounding residential and commercial land uses near the school. The existing evening and early nighttime noise environment at Ballard High School is generally in the range of 43.9 to 50.24 Leq (dBA). More details can be found in the Ballard High School Noise Technical Memorandum (ESA, 2017).

There are no sources of noise in the area which would affect the proposed project.

The City of Seattle Noise Ordinance (SMC Chapter 25.08) regulates noise in the City. Noise is typically defined as an unwanted sound that can disrupt quality of life (EPA, 2016). Noise is typically measured in units called decibels (dB). For the purposes of environmental analysis noise is commonly quantified as “A weighted” decibels (dBA), which corresponds to the frequencies that are audible to the human ear. Use of the dBA frequency is consistent with SMC 25.08.090. Leq or the “equivalent sound level” is used to describe noise over a specified period of time in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq of a time-varying signal and that of a steady signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The Leq may also be referred to as the average sound level.

The City sets exterior sound level limits according to the land use of both the property generating the noise (the source) and the property receiving the noise (SMC Chapter 25.08.41). Within a residential district, the maximum allowable noise from one property to another during daytime and evening hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) is limited to 55 Leq (dBA).

The code further regulates noises considered “unreasonable” including "loud and raucous, and frequent repetitive or continuous sounds made by the amplified or unamplified human voice" between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. During these hours, maximum allowable noise from one property to another withinresidential districts is reduced to 45 Leq (dBA). Ballard High School, including the athletic field, and surrounding residences are all located within residential districts per City of Seattle Zoning.

For noise sources that are not continuous, higher levels are allowed for short durations. The code specifies that shorter duration noises are subject to the following limits:



Up to 5 dBA above the continuous limit for up to 15 minutes per hour


Up to 15 dBA above the continuous limit for up to 1.5 minutes per hour.

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.

Minor, short-term noise impacts could result from construction vehicles and equipment during daylight hours when lights are installed.

Long-term noise impacts would result from increased traffic associated with the athletic events at the fields. Increased noise, including cheering, whistles, and voices of the sports participants, would also occur during the extended hours of field use allowed by the lighting. Hours of increased noise would be from dusk to 10:00p.m. every day to accommodate both SPS and Parks activities.

Potential noise impacts to residential properties surrounding the Ballard High School athletic field were predicted based on review of existing conditions and anticipated noise from proposed lateevening athletic activities. The noise analysis used Jane Addams Middle School to estimate future noise that would occur at Ballard High School with scheduled night time events. Jane Addams Middle School was selected because surrounding land uses and traffic conditions are comparable to the Ballard High School neighborhood. Night-time athletic events at Jane Addams Middle School are similar to those proposed at Ballard High School.

Comparative noise measurements taken during evening athletic activity at Jane Addams indicate that environmental noise would increase at Ballard High School as a result of the proposed field lighting project. Based on the noise analysis, it is not anticipated that the noise increase would result in an exceedance of the 55 Leq (dBA) limit at adjacent residences. At the nearest residences, setback approximately 60 feet, noise levels during evening athletic activities are anticipated to be at or below the levels recordedduring a men’s adult soccer game at the Jane Addams Middle School field, ranging from 50.9 to 52.4 Leq (dBA).



While the character of environmental noise and specific events (whistles, loud yells) during athletic activities would likely be perceptible at adjacent residential properties, especially those immediately to the east and south of the athletic field, these noises would all be of short duration (generally no more than a few seconds for any given event). Based on measurements at Jane Addams and Ingraham High School athletic fields during soccer games, discrete noise events are not anticipated to exceed approximately 60 (dBA). These levels would be within the limits established by SMC 25.08.41.

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

SPS and Parks would schedule evening games to end by 9:45 p.m. to minimize noise impacts on the neighborhood. Security lighting would be provided for an additional 15 minutes to allow players to safely leave the field.

No public address system would be used at the athletic fields. SPSwould prohibit the use of portable speakers on the field.

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 is comprised of three inter-connected buildings, two free-standing buildings, a tennis court, an athletic/track field, and a parking lot.

The school is located in a predominantly single-family residential neighborhood. Adjacent properties are single family, commercial and multi-family.

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.



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. The original Ballard High School building at 1418 NW 65th Street was constructed in 1915, with a 4.96-acre athletic field added in 1921. Historical data does not indicate any residential or farming activities in the project area prior to the construction of the original Ballard High School.

1) 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.

The site is used as a school and is comprised of three inter-connected buildings, two free-standing buildings, a tennis court, an athletic/track field, and a parking lot.

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

No structures will be demolished as a part of the athletic field lighting project.

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

The current zoning classification of the school site and surrounding areas is lowrise (LR 1,2, and 3) and single family (SF 5000 (residential single family 5,000).

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

The City of Seattle comprehensive plan designation of the site as a “MultiFamily 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 the 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 Department of Construction and Inspections (DCI) GIS mapping database for environmental critical areas indicated no critical areas at the site.

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

The project is located on an athletic field where no people reside or work.The project would not change the number of students or staff at Ballard High School.

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

The completed project would not displace any people.

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

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

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

SMC 23.51B.002(D)(6) permits light poles at public school athletic fields to exceed the maximum permitted height (30 feet in residential zones) upto a maximum of 100 feet if the Director of DCI determines that the additional height is necessary to ensure adequate illumination and that light and glare are minimized to the extent practicable. Section B.11 of this Checklist describes how the taller poles reduce light and glare impacts.

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

The project is not located near any agricultural or forest lands, so no measures to ensure compatibility are required.



9. Housing

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

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

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

No housing units would be eliminated.

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

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

10. Aesthetics

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

The tallest proposed structures would be the light poles for the athletic fields. There are four poles proposed for the lighting system. These poles would be 70 feet high on the west side of the field and 90 feet high on the east side of the field. The poles would have one or two horizontal galvanized brackets at the top of each pole and one small bracket mounted at a height of 25 feet above field grade to mount one floodlight.

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

Views across the athletic fields would be altered by the new light poles,but the effects would be minor. The four poles will not block views across the field. At night residents will see a lighted field until 10 p.m., rather than the dark field without the lights. As described in Section B.11, the field lights will produce minimal light spill and glare.

The City of Seattle’s Public View Protection policy (SMC 25.05.675P) is part of its SEPA policies. It includes protection of public views of the downtown skyline from specified viewpoints, parks, scenic routes, and view corridors. Similarly, views of the Space Needle are protected from specific places listed in SMC 25.05.675P2c. Ballard High School is a protected viewpoint and has views of the Seattle skyline, the Space Needle and Mount Rainier from NW 67th Street south across the field.



The light poles are not likely to affect views of downtown Seattle or the Space Needle from the Ballard High School area. The limited number and bulk of the poles would not block views. The view of downtown Seattle and the Space Needle are from the north to the south across the field. The poles will be located on the east and west side of the field and will be on the periphery of views. They will not block or interfere with views of downtown Seattle.

At night, the lighted field will reduce views of the lighted downtown skyline from the north of the field. Street lights in the area currently affect views of the skyline at night. The design of the athletic field lighting will reduce the impact of the lights on night views. The lights will be turned off at 10 p.m., which will also reduce the impact on night views.

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

The steel poles would be designed to minimize size and bulk. The floodlights and brackets would be designed to minimize quantity, size and bulk. As described in Section B.11, the lights are designed to minimize light spill and glare.

11. Light and Glare

Information in this section is based on the Ballard High School Football Field Lighting Report (Stantec, 2017). The full report is attached in Appendix B.

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

The proposed lighting for the athletic field would include 32 1,150 watt shielded LED floodlights mounted on four galvanized steel poles surrounding the field (see Figure 2). The poles on the west side of the field would be 70 feet tall. The poles on the east side of the field would be located on the corner of the field to minimize impacts to homes located on the east side of the field. To account for the location in the corner of the field, the poles on the south side of the field would be 90 feet tall. Thepoles would have one or two horizontal brackets at the top of each pole to mount the floodlights and one small bracket at a height of 25 feet above field grade to mount one floodlight.

The football/soccer field lighting would be designed to a Class IV lighting level, as prescribed by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) standard Recommended Practice for Sports Lighting (RP)-8. The football/soccer field would be lighted to an average



maintained lighting level of 29 foot-candles2 using a 0.95 Light Loss Factor.

Current City of Seattle guidelines recommend that athletic field spill light not exceed 1.1 foot-candles at residential property lines. To comply with this requirement, an exemption to the height limit is required. This exemption would ensure adequate illumination for safe play and reduce the amount of impacts from light and glare into the neighborhood.

The lighting systems would operate from dusk to the pre-set curfew time. The lighting systems would be operated by a fully programmable controlsystem with remote operation at SPS’s energy management system located at the John Stanford Center. The system allows lights to be turned on and off at programmed times. To schedule a rental, Parks submits a request to the District. Most fields are fully scheduled, but if there is a cancellation or no rentals, SPS turns off the lights earlier than the normal shut off time.The area lights would be on a separate zone and would remain on for a short time after each event to provide ample light for egress from the site following the completion of scheduled field use each evening.

The proposal would produce direct glare, reflected glare, spill light (light trespass) and sky glow. Definitions of the terms used in this section are:

glare is the sensation produced by luminance within the visual field that is sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted to, causing annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.

direct glare describes when an observer can see directly into a luminaire’s light source, where the lamp or the reflector are visible.

foot candles a measurement of the light intensity, the illuminance being a one-square foot surface from a uniform source of light.

luminance refers to direct glare and reflected glare.

reflected glare describes when light reflected from a surface causes disability glare. It is assumed that the surface is not intentionally a light source. Surfaces attributable to reflected glare will have a higher luminance than adjacent or nearby surfaces.

2 A foot-candle is a standard unit of measurement for lighting levels and is equivalent to the illumination produced by one candle at a distance of one foot.



spill light is light from a source, which does not strike the area intended for illumination. Spill light can be characterized by foot-candles (fc) calculated or measured in a horizontal or vertical plane.

light trespass is when spill light extends beyond the property line of the owner of a light source, and onto or above another owner’s property.

sky glow is the haze or glow of light emitted above the lighting installation and reduces the ability to view the darkened night sky. This is a combination of light emitted directly from the light source, light reflected upward from the illuminated surface, and light reflected from airborne particles between the light source and the illuminated surface.

Depending on the viewpoint location, direct glare (and reflecting glare) would be visible from all directions overlooking the site. Properties to the west are buffered by Ballard High School buildings. The residential properties located on the north, south and east sides of the field are close to the fields with direct exposure to the light poles and floodlight assemblies. The direct glare visible at these residences would primarily be from light bouncing off the internal polished reflecting surface of the floodlights. Residential properties that do not border the site are located farther away from the field and would have minimal to no direct glare and reflected glare impacts.

The spill light impacts would occur at the back of residential properties along 12th Avenue NW that border the site to the east adjacent to the field/track and at residential properties on the north and south of the field.Spill light for the properties along 12th Avenue NW would be below 0.67foot-candle maximum at the property line. Spill light for properties to the north of the field would be 0.09 foot-candle maximum at the property line. Spill light for properties to the south of the field would be 0.11 foot-candle maximum at the property line. For comparison, the streetlights on NW 65th

Street measures 4.0 foot-candles and the street lights on 12th Avenue NW and NW 67th Street measure 1.8 and 1.7 foot-candles, respectively.

The athletic field lighting system would generate a minimal amount of “sky glow” at locations in close proximity to the fields. Sky glow would be very minor during heavy low overcast skies and small amounts of sky glow would be evident during conditions of low to heavy fog.

b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views?

The athletic field lights would not pose a safety hazard. The poles would be visible from residences to the north, east and south. However, only four



poles are being installed, so they are not expected to interfere with views from off-site locations. The lighted field would alter views from surrounding residences as described in Section B.10.b. As described in Section B.11.a, the lights would be designed to minimize light and glare impacts.

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:

The lighting systems selected for the proposed athletic fields are designed to minimize light and glare impacts. To reduce the amount of glare, spill light and sky glow that is visible off-site the floodlights would need to be mounted higher than the 30 feet permitted by City code (SMC 23.76). The increased mounting height of 70 and 90 feet would reduce the maximum spill light at the residential property lines and meet recommended practice of a maximum of 1.1 foot-candles set by the City of Seattle.

12. Recreation

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

The athletic field at Ballard High School provides recreational activities for school and Parks community activities. Use of the field includes football, soccer, track, lacrosse and similar events. When events are not scheduled, the field and track are used for informal recreational use.

City of Seattle Parks in the vicinity of Ballard High School include:

The Ballard Pool is located adjacent to Ballard High School at the corner of 15th Avenue NW and NW 67th Street. The pool offers a wide array of aquatics programs for all ages, including high school swim meets.

Ballard Corners Park, located approximately 1,500 feet to the southwest of the project site at 1702 NW 62nd St., Seattle, WA 98107. Ballard Corners Park is a small neighborhood park featuring a bike rack, walking path, bench, cement couches, ajungle-gym and an interpretive park entryway.

Kirke Park, located approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the project site at 7028 9th Ave NW, Seattle, WA 98117. Kirke Park



has historical church ruins incorporated into the gardens and play areas.

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

Lighting the field would allow events to be scheduled after dark, which would displace informal recreational use of the field, but use of the field after dark is currently limited for safety reasons. The lights would increase safety for anyone wanting to use the track after dark.

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 providedby the project or applicant, if any:

The proposed project would improve recreational opportunities by extending the opportunities for use. The proposed lighting project is intended to mitigate for the impacts of reduced Parks use of SPS athletic fields caused by the later start times of high schools (see Section A.11).No additional mitigation measures are required.

13. Historic and Cultural Preservation

The following is based on the Cultural Resources Short Report prepared by ESA (April 2017). Information from the report 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.

The project location consists of the athletic fields; the study area consists of those parcels bordering the athletic fields and project area. There are 25unevaluated historic-aged properties in the study area. The historic-aged properties are residences adjacent to the project area that meet the minimum-age threshold for an historic property (being 25 years old) based on the criteria of DCI and SMC 25.05.675H. None of the properties have been inventoried in the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation’s (DAHP) historic property inventory database. The properties south of the project area are separated from the field by anarterial street with light poles; those on the east side of the project area face away from the proposed project; and those on the north side are separated from the athletic field by a two-lane street with light poles. It is anticipated that there would be no direct or indirect impacts to the 25historic-aged properties in the study area as no buildings would be



demolished or modified by the project. Some of these buildings are being demolished as part of separate development projects.

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

There are no City of Seattle Landmark properties or evidence of Native American historic use or occupation on the site. No cultural materials or archaeological sites were identified. As a part of the geotechnical investigation, four borings were completed by Krazan & Associates, Inc. with ESA archaeologists on-site monitoring and observing the drill cuttings and recording the material. The sediments demonstrated that surfaces that existed during the pre-contact period had been removed and covered with fill.

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 and study area, andreviewed geotechnical data. Information reviewed included any previous archaeological survey reports, ethnographic studies, historic maps, government landowner records, aerial photographs, regional histories, geological maps, soil 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.

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.

The project area has been graded, filled and leveled and the probability of intact cultural resources to be impacted by the proposed project is low. Therefore, there are no recommendations for further cultural resources work within the project area. Additionally, no archaeological monitoring is recommended during project construction. However, in order to comply with RCW 27.44, RCW 27.53, and RCW 68.60, SPS has developed an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP).



The IDP sets forth procedures and protocols to follow in the event of an archaeological resources discovery. It includes 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.

14. Transportation

A Transportation Technical Report for the project was developed by Heffron Transportation, Inc. (Heffron, 2017). Information from the technical report is summarized in this section. The full report is attached as Appendix C.

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.

Ballard High School is on the block bounded on the south by NW 65th Street, on the north by NW 67th Street, on the west by 15th Avenue NW, and on the east by an unimproved alley (which connects between NW 65th and NW 67th Streets). The school building occupies the southwest portionof the site; the main surface parking lot with 123 parking spaces is located on the northwest portion of the site. A school-bus-only entrance to the surface lot is located on 15th Avenue NW. Passenger-vehicle access to the lot occurs from two driveways on NW 67th Street. A paved loading dock/service area is located immediately west of the athletic field with access provided by a third driveway on NW 67th Street opposite 14th Avenue NW. An on-site passenger load/unload loop and a parking lot for staff and visitors (15 spaces) is accessed from two, one-way driveways on NW 65th Street. No changes to site access are proposed with this field lighting project.

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

King County Metro Transit provides bus service directly to the Ballard High School site. In the site vicinity, 15th Avenue NW is considered a Principal Transit Street, and NW 65th Street is considered a Major Transit Street. Adjacent stops (one northbound and one southbound) are located on 15th Avenue NW just north of NW 65th Street. These stops are served by Metro’s Route 15 and its RapidRide D-Line service, which are described in more detail below.

Route 15 provides weekday peak-period, peak-direction service between Downtown Seattle, Ballard, Crown Hill, and Blue Ridge. It operates with nine trips into Downtown Seattle in the morning between about 7:00 and



9:00 a.m.; it operates with nine trips from Downtown Seattle in the afternoon between about 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. During these periods, the headways (time between consecutive buses) are between 10 and 30 minutes.

RapidRide D-Line operates between the Crown Hill, Ballard, Seattle Center, and Downtown Seattle seven days per week nearly 24-hours per day with headways of 5 to 15 minutes on weekdays.

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 not add or eliminate any parking spaces.

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

The project would not require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities.

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 field lighting project is expected to generate about 200 to 250 additional trips per day for part of the year—primarily from about October until early March. Peak volumes (estimated at about 85 trips per hour) associated with the field lights could occur in PM peak hour as a high school athletic practice or game ends (up to 55 outbound trips) and the spectators and participants of a recreational game arrive (estimated at 25 trip in and 5 trips out).



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

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

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

The proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to traffic or parking within the study area. To reduce potential impacts to on-street parking within the surrounding neighborhood, SPS would implement the following practices:

If a large event or combination of events scheduled at the school are expected to draw more than 450 attendees, SPS would restrict scheduling the Ballard High School athletic field for non-scholastic athletic uses (e.g., by Seattle Parks and Recreation) on those evenings.

SPS and Ballard High School ensure that the off-street parking lotsare open and available for users during all times that the field is being used.

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.

Scheduling night games could require additional police protection. SPS is responsible for providing all necessary staffing, including supervision and security, for all SPS-owned fields. Only athletic complexes require field attendants. If security staffing is needed above and beyond that normally provided by the owner agency, the user agency is responsible for providing the additional staffing (SPR and Seattle School District No.1,2016).

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

The Seattle Police Department would continue to be informed of all game dates and times.



16. Utilities

a. Underline utilities currently available at the site:

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

b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed.

Electrical conduit and wiring would be extended to the new light poles.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.


C. SIGNATURE

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

Signature:

___________________________________________

Name of signee: S. /11 vic

Position andAgency/Organization: k—i klCi Yd C 4tYSpLx&U Rit,ic<(-10ak

Date Submitted:

__________________________________________________

Jcznziwy 2018 Page 31



REFERENCES

Alerstam, T. 1997. Bird Migration. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge Press.

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

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

City of Seattle. 2017. Seattle Municipal Code (SMC). Accessed: March 2017. Available: https://www.municode.com/library/wa/seattle/codes/municipal_code

ESA. 2017. Ballard High School, Cultural Resources Short Report. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. April 2017.

ESA. 2017. Ballard High School, Noise Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. March 2017.

Gauthreaux S., Jr., and Belser C. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on migrating birds. Pages 67-93 in Rich C. and Longcore T. (eds.). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2017. Transportation Technical Report for Athletic Field Lighting at Ballard High School. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. August 15, 2017.

King County. 2017. King County iMap. Available: https://gismaps.kingcounty.gov/iMap/.Accessed August 23, 2017.

Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2017a. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Proposed Athletic Field Lighting, Ballard High School. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. May 24, 2017.

Krazan & Associates, Inc. 2017b. Geotechnical Engineering—Slope Assessment Letter for the proposed Athletic Field Lighting, Ballard High School. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. May 24, 2017.

Manville, A.M., II. 2005. Bird strikes and electrocutions at power lines, communication towers, and wind turbines: state of the art and state of the science – next steps toward mitigation. Bird Conservation Implementation in the Americas: Proceedings 3rd International Partners in Flight Conference 2002, C.J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, Editors. U.S.D.A. Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA: 1051-1064.

Ogden, L.J.E. 1996. Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP). Paper 3. September 2009.

Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks). 2002. Use and Scheduling of Outdoor Athletic Facilities. Policy # 060-P 7.1.1. July 1, 2002.

Seattle Public Schools (SPS). 2015. Change in School Start Times Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by ESA. November 2015.



Seattle Public Schools (SPS). 2016. Building, Technology, and Academics/Athletics IV ProgramProgrammatic Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared by ESA. July 2016.

Stantec. 2017. Ballard High School Football Field Lighting, Light and Glare Report. September 12, 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Recommended Best Practices for Communication Tower Design, Siting, Construction, Operation, Maintenance, and Decommissioning. August. 2016.

Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2017. Facility/Site Database Webmap. Available at:https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/facilitysite/MapData/MapSearch.aspx?RecordSearchMode=New. Accessed March 2017.

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

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



SEPA COMMENTS AND RESPONSES



Ballard High School Athletic Field Lighting Project

SEPA Public Comments and Seattle Public Schools Responses

State Environmental Policy Act (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 October 16 to November 3, 2017 and was extended to November 10, 2017. During this period, 37 individual comment letters and postcards were received. In addition, over 500 comments in support of athletic field lighting at Ballard High School were received.

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

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

2. Determination of Significance. SPS should issue a Determination of Significance (DS) for the project and provide further detailed environmental review through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The SPS SEPA Responsible Official is reviewing the revised SEPA Checklist and taking all comments received on the Draft SEPA Checklist into consideration in making a determination of the significance of impacts from the Ballard High School Athletic Field Lighting Project.

3. Permitting. A conditional use permit is required, which is an indication of expected adverse impacts from the project. Project appears to be a special exemption that is exempt from SEPA review.

The need for a conditional use permit does not indicate the project will have adverse impacts. SMC 23.51B.002 (D)(6) permits light poles at public school athletic fields to exceed the maximum permitted height (30 feet for residential areas) up to a maximum of 100 feet if the Director of the Department of Construction and Inspection (DCI) determines that the additional height is necessary to ensure adequate illumination and that light and glare are minimized to the largest extent practical. As described in Section B.11 of the Checklist, the taller poles do result in less light and glare than the shorter poles.

DCI does not require SEPA analysis as part of the permitting process for the taller poles. SPS is its own SEPA lead agency and has prepared this SEPA Checklist under its SEPA Policy (No. 6890). As noted above, the SPS SEPA Responsible Official will make a determination of significance on the project based on this



SEPA Checklist and the comments submitted on it. DCI will conduct substantivereview of the Final SEPA Checklist in its review for the Special Exemption MUP and will attach conditions to the building permit, if applicable.

SEPA Document Reference: B.8.1 and B.11.

4. Checklist does not meet requirements of City Code. Checklist does not meet the MUP requirements for parking, noise, and lighting impacts. SMC 25.05.330 Threshold determination. SMC 23.51B.002D6 Exception for light standards. SMC 25.08.410 Exterior sound levels.

The Checklist meets the requirements of both the State Environmental Policy Act requirements (RCW 197-11) and the Seattle Public School’s SEPA Policy No. 6890. SPS has prepared a lighting engineer’s report, noise analysis, and transportation study as part of the analysis or this SEPA Checklist. These reports have been submitted to DCI as part of the Master Use Permit application for this project.

5. Noise. Noise analysis is inconsistent with Roosevelt lighting project checklist which concludes that noise would exceed City noise limits. Residences at Ballard are closer than at Roosevelt. Noise study should have been done at Ballard.

Conclusions regarding noise impacts for the Ballard High School lighting project compared to the Roosevelt High School lighting project are different because of differences in existing environmental noise conditions at the two fields. The existing environment surrounding the Roosevelt High School athletic field is approximately 10 Leq (dBA) louder than at Ballard High School, primarily due to additional traffic noise and additional pedestrian activity. This existing condition results in the noise environment surrounding Roosevelt High School already being at or above the Exterior Sound Level Limits of 55 dBA established by SMC Chapter 25.08.

Comparatively, existing noise at residences closest to the field at Ballard is approximately 5 Leq (dBA) or more below the Exterior Sound Level Limit. For this reason, the expected relatively small increase in environmental noise surrounding Ballard High School from the lighting project is not expected to increase noise above the limit set by the City; whereas a relatively small increase at Roosevelt High School would result in a small additional increase above the limit set by the City.

The Noise Study predicted noise levels that would occur at residences adjacent to the athletic field. At the time of the noise study, the closest residents to the Roosevelt High School athletic field were south of the athletic field on Northeast 66th Street – setback approximately 90 feet. The closest residences at Ballard High School are on the alley east of the field – setback approximately 80 feet. As a rule, relative sound level (dBA) experienced at different setbacks decreases by 6 dB per doubling of distance. A noise source with a sound level of 55 dBA at 80 feet would have a sound level of 54 dBA at 90 feet. Evaluation of potential noise



impacts for the Ballard High School lighting project considered existing setbacks, and setbacks at fields used for comparison.

The noise study used measurements of existing conditions taken at Ballard High School. The Noise Study attempted to approximate the potential nighttime (between 7 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.) noise increase that could be associated with lighting at Ballard High School. Currently no events are scheduled at Ballard High School during that time period, so Jane Addams Middle School nighttime activities were used as a comparison. The types of evening events scheduled at Jane Addams are similar to those anticipated to be scheduled at Ballard High School when lights are installed.

6. Noise. Using Jane Addams versus using Ingraham as comparison. Jane Addams not a good comparison because there is more vegetation to absorb sound.

As noted in the SEPA Checklist and in the Noise Report, Jane Addams Middle School was selected as the point of comparison because local road conditions and the overall land use character of the area surrounding Jane Addams Middle School were more similar to Ballard High School than Ingraham High School. The proximity of the 4-lane arterial adjacent to Ingraham High School (immediately south) is far more influential to the surrounding noise environment compared to the influence of 15th Ave NW near Ballard High School (located approximately 700 feet to the west). The measurement location in the alley east of Ballard High School was selected to be representative of the majority of residences in closest proximity to the field. Taking measurements at the south end of the alley, adjacent to NW 65th Street, was determined challenging due the retaining wall between the field and the alley and NW 65th Street. It was felt that the retaining wall, which is above the level of the alley on the south end, would block some of the ambient noise.

Noise measurements at Jane Addams Middle School were taken on 34th Avenue NE, which does not appear to have much more vegetation than Ballard High School area. Based on our observations of landscaped areas surrounding both fields, vegetation surrounding both Ballard High School and Jane Addams Middle School does not provide a continuous or dense barrier between the fields and surrounding residential properties. A continuous and dense barrier is needed to provide much reduction in noise.

7. Noise. Adult soccer game was not reasonable comparison because other events such as football are louder. Other noise comparisons should be made unless soccer is the only anticipated event at night.

The noise study estimated the level of noise that would occur in the neighborhood as a result of athletic events scheduled later in the evening. It used an adult soccer game because it is the most likely event to occur later in the evening. School events on the field would end at approximately 6:45 p.m. Parks is most likely to schedule youth or adult soccer games on the field after that time.



No competitive football games would be held on the field. Practices would end by 6:45 p.m.

8. Noise. Increased noise will affect quality of life and sleep of young children.The City of Seattle further restricts environmental noise during the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) to acknowledge additional human sensitivity during these hours. Events on the lighted field would end by 9:45 p.m. with lights off at 10 p.m., to avoid nighttime hour impacts on adjacent receptors. While some additional environmental noise may occur in evening hours, it is anticipated to be within the City’s established noise limits.

9. Noise. Noise in neighborhood is already a problem. During certain weather events trains and fog horns can be heard. Streets in the area create corridors for noise to travel. Noise would travel and not be dissipated (sites hearing trains and fog horns during some weather events).

Existing noise conditions in the Ballard High School area were documented as part of the noise study. Those measurements indicated that evening noise levels (taken between 8 and 10 p.m.) were typical of those for urban neighborhoods and included traffic, noise of utilities, trash and recycle bin use, and an overhead airplane. The noise levels ranged from 43.9 to 50.2 dBA (Leq), with 65.3 dBA recorded as the maximum noise event (recycling being placed in outdoor bin at adjacent residence, occurring over a few seconds).

Some weather conditions, such as temperature gradients, humidity, and wind, affect how sound travels. In general, sound travels farther in humid air. This phenomenon affects sound propagation over distance and does not affect sound over short distances. In the Ballard neighborhood, trains, foghorns, and the Ballard Bridge horn can be heard further away during rainy or foggy conditions, but sounds from the athletic field would not be louder for immediately surrounding homes or travel further in the neighborhood.

While environmental noise from nearby arterials or other uses may be less dampened as it travels along right-of-way corridors (less dampening from intervening structures and vegetation), as a rule relative sound level (dBA) experienced at different setbacks decreases by 6 dB per doubling of distance. The field lighting project will not impact environmental noise from existing roadway traffic, or how it is experienced by adjacent receptors.

Construction activities on other vicinity projects also must comply with regulations in SMC Chapter 28.08. The lighting project is not related to other nearby construction activities.

10. Noise. Portable speakers should be prohibited as noise mitigation.SPS has decided to prohibit portable speakers at events on the Ballard High School athletic field.



11. Noise. The Ballard High School roofing project has created noise starting at 5 a.m.The roofing project is a separate project that is expected to be completed in January 2018. The roofing project also must comply with regulations in SMC Chapter 28.08.

12. Noise Report. Data sheets were missing from noise report.The reference to data sheets should not have been included in the noise report. All of the information from the data sheets is in included in Table 1. Reference to the data sheets has been removed from the final noise report.

13. Morning use of the field. Checklist project description says that fields may be lit in the morning hours but no analysis of morning use is included.

The project description discusses that the field lights could be used in the morning for high school practice. SPS currently has no plans to do this, but may do so in the future.

The impacts of lighting the fields in the morning are expected to be minimal because of the limited duration of the use of the lights, the limited number of days during the year that the lights would be needed in the morning, and the limited amount of traffic that would be generated during the morning peak hour. Additional information has been added to Section A.11 of the Checklist.

SEPA Document Reference: A.11.

14. Parking. Checklist did not appear to account for simultaneous large events and did not suggest restrictions on holding simultaneous large events.

Simultaneous activities, including field use, already occur at Ballard High School throughout the school year. The new activities that would be made possible by the field lighting project (primarily recreational adult and youth sports scheduled by Seattle Parks and Recreation) and some new scholastic activities (such as soccer, lacrosse, or ultimate games) do not draw large attendance and would not be considered large events.

To reduce potential impacts to on-street parking within the surrounding neighborhood, SOS would implement restrictions on simultaneous large events. If a large event or combination of events scheduled at the school are expected to draw more than 450 attendees, SPS would restrict scheduling the Ballard High School athletic field for non-scholastic athletic uses (e.g., by Seattle Parks and Recreation) on those evenings. This information has been added to Section 14.h of the SEPA Checklist.

SEPA Document Reference: 14.h



15. Parking. Checklist did not include weekend parking which was discussed in the traffic study. A utilization rate of 85.2% is considered “full” and would be a significant adverse impact.

As stated in the Transportation Technical Report, the on-site parking demand and utilization observations found between 144 and 155 unused spaces on weekend evenings, which would accommodate the demand from individual activities on the field and the peak overlap period. Some of the demand (estimated at 10 to 15 vehicles) may occur on-street. Demand counts found ranges of 16 to 18 unused spaces available adjacent to the site along NW 67th Street on weekend evenings.

16. Parking. On-street parking availability is too large because it considered too large a study area. Study should have included spaces with 800 feet of the athletic field, but not the school buildings.

The study area for the on-street parking analyses was based on direction from the City of Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspections (DCI). DCI has required on-street parking study areas to include all roadways within an 800-foot walking distance of a subject development site’s boundaries as a means to capturethe potential parking supply shed surrounding a site. That standard does not apply the distance to a specific use or building within the site. Since the primary purpose of the proposed improvements is for Ballard High School use, it is reasonable to expect Ballard High School students, staff, and family members who would use the field before and after school or on weekends would be expected to park on-site or on-street in areas surrounding the school as they already do on a daily basis. It is acknowledged that some school sites consist of large parcels (or collections of parcels) and that some parts of those sites or buildings on a site may be farther than 800 feet from areas within the defined parking analysis area.

17. Parking. Parking study was done at low impact time and day and not measured during peak events. Parking analysis assumed there would be no other uses of the parking lot after high school practices are over.

Existing on-street and on-site parking demand and utilization data collection and analyses were performed during the periods in which the project would typically generate additional parking demand. As described in the Transportation Technical Report, counts were conducted in the evening (between 5:45 and 6:45 p.m.) to reflect conditions when scholastic athletic-related parking demand may occur; and later evenings (between 8:15 and 9:15 p.m.) to reflect conditions when non-scholastic athletic-related parking demand could occur due to the proposed lights.

The analyses reflected the expected use of the lighted field for non-scholastic athletic activities after Ballard High School use of the field ends (typically by 6:45 p.m.).

The data and analyses presented in the Transportation Technical Report included observations in May 2017 when the field/track facility was used for Ballard High School Spring Soccer/Track Practice from 3:15 to 6:45 p.m. and for SYSA Soccer



(recreational youth soccer) practice from 6:45 to 8:45 p.m. These conditions reflect the typical levels of activity and parking demand that could be caused by the field lights during late fall, winter, and early spring when they are not currently possible due to natural lighting conditions.

18. Parking. Mitigation should include neighborhood parking permits and traffic calming measures.

The City of Seattle has a Restricted Parking Zone (RPZ) program through which residents can request review, establishment, and/or expansion of RPZ limits. The establishment, extents, and restrictions on parking are controlled by SDOT based on requests from residents and the results of SDOT parking utilization assessment. SPS would not object to residents’ efforts to establish a RPZ or other parking restrictions in the vicinity adjacent to residential or commercial properties.

SDOT provides information about Neighborhood Traffic Operations and Traffic Calming measures on its website (http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/ntcp_calming.htm). The site notes that, in 2015, SDOT piloted 20 mph zones in five areas city-wide and studied speeds in residential areas. The studies found that most people traveled under the speed limit on streets that were 25-feet wide with parking on both sides. Typically, SDOT focuses traffic calming funding on streets where speeds are highest, which often occurs where there are no curbs. For speeding concerns on arterial streets, neighbors are invited to participate in the Arterial Traffic Calming Program. SDOT prioritizes speeding concerns on arterial streets that come from residents on an annual basis and develops appropriate traffic calming measures for the streets that rank highly. Sometimes, the only feasible solution is enforcement. Neighbors are also invited to contact the Seattle Police Department directly if they desire additional enforcement. To request speed enforcement from the Seattle Police Department, call (206) 684-8757.

19. Parking. Parking is already a problem with all the townhouses and new construction in the neighborhood.

Comment noted. As documented in the Transportation Technical Report, the on-site parking lot is expected to accommodate the demand from individual activities on the field made possible by field lighting. During the short early-evening period between consecutive activities, some of the demand (estimated at 10 to 15 vehicles) may occur on-street. The on-street parking utilization surveys found between 14 and 18 unused spaces along NW 67th Street on weekday and weekend evenings.

20. Parking. Students park on the streets and park illegally, making driving through the area difficult.

Concerns related to illegal parking on City of Seattle streets can be addressed through a Parking Service Request: www.seattle.gov/police/need-help/parking-issues.



21. Traffic. Cut-through traffic on residential streets could be reduced by adjusting the timing of the signal at 15th Ave NW and NW 67th Street.

Signal timing for intersections within the City of Seattle are managed by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). Typically, phase timings are selected to minimize the total delay for all users of an intersection, which may result in timings that favor approaches with higher volumes of traffic. It is noted that some signal timing plans are also influenced by a jurisdiction’s desire to coordinate peak period traffic flow along an arterial or to ensure progression among several signals to maintain transit reliability.

22. Traffic. Speeding on area streets is a problem.Concerns related to speeding on neighborhood streets are addressed by the City of Seattle through its Neighborhood Traffic Operations group ((206) 684-0353; email: [email protected]).

23. Traffic. Lighting project will generate about 200 to 250 trips per day causing significant impacts.

The estimated increase in traffic associated with the field lighting project would only be new to the site and local roadways for part of the year, since natural lighting conditions allow for field use during part of the year without the need for field lights. As a result, these trips are already occurring or could occur without the project for part of the year, but would simply occur more frequently with the field lights. The analysis in the Transportation Technical Report evaluated the increases in traffic as if they would be new as a matter of disclosure and to reflect worst-case conditions.

24. Animals. Eagles, herons, and owls frequent the neighborhood and perch on branches of a tall tree. Wildlife avoiding the area during athletic events would be a negative impact.

Eagles, herons, and other birds fly over the neighborhood and occasionally perch in trees. The lighting project would not displace those perches. Daytime use of the area by birds would not be affected by the project because day time activities on the field would not change. Most birds would not be affected by nighttime lighting because they are active during the day. Any birds active during the night would avoid the field area, just as they do other lighted areas in the city. The only wildlife species likely to be in the area are adapted to urban conditions and are not likely to be negatively impacted by the project.

25. Plants. Checklist did not evaluate impacts of lights on health of trees in residents’ yards to the east of the field.

According to the Purdue University Extension Service, night lighting can affect the annual cycles of growth and reproduction of some trees by extending the day length (Purdue University, 2002, “Does Night Lighting Harm Trees?” available at: https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/fnr/fnr-faq-17.pdf. The effect depends on the type of light source used and the type of tree, among other factors. Incandescent lights and high pressure sodium lights have a high potential to affect



the growth of trees because they emit light in the high red and infrared spectrum. Continuous lighting has more effect on tree growth than lights that are turned off late in the evening.

It is unlikely that the proposed athletic field lights will affect tree growth in the area. The lights will be LED and will be aimed down toward the field, so little light will spill off onto the trees (see the response about spill light above). The lights would be turned off by 10 p.m. All of these things would reduce the impact of the proposed lights on neighboring trees.

26. Light Impacts. Light and glare from tall light poles will impact nearby neighbors. Lights will shine into nearby houses.

As demonstrated in Section B.11.a of the SEPA Checklist and in the Field Lighting, Light and Glare Report, minimal light will spill from the field lights onto adjacent properties. The spill light would be below 0.67 foot-candle at the property line of the properties along 12th Avenue NW and 0.09 foot-candle at the property line of properties to the north of the field. By comparison, street lights on NW 65th Street measures 4.0 foot-candles and the street lights on 12th Avenue NW and NW 67th Street measure 1.8 and 1.7 foot-candles respectively. Therefore, little light from the field would shine into nearby houses.

The SEPA Checklist and the Light and Glare Report document that the taller poles will result in less spill light than the shorter poles. The mounting height of 70 and 90 feet would result in a maximum light spill at the east property line of 0.67 foot-candles compared to 6.84 foot-candles with a 30-foot mounting height.

Floodlights will be directed down and be aimed onto the playing surface. They will not shine into nearby homes.

SEPA Document Reference: B.11.a and Field Light, Light and Glare Report.

27. Pole Location. Location of poles is incorrect in the Checklist.Location of poles has been corrected in the Checklist.

SEPA Document Reference: B.11.a.

28. Lighting Design. Lights are designed to 29 foot-candles while Seattle Parks design standard for Level IV playfields is 20 foot-candles.

The current lighting design standards for Seattle Parks Department is to light fields at a class IV lighting level. The class IV lighting level ranges from an average maintained lighting level of 20.0 foot-candles. The 20.0 foot-candle level is the minimum recommended for safe play. Since it is not recommended that the light levels fall below 20.0 foot-candles, the fields are lighted to a higher initial lighting level to account for depreciation of the lighting level over the life of the system. Included in the light loss factor (LLF) is lamp depreciation, dirt depreciation, voltage drop etc. Current fields operated by Seattle Parks and SPS at



a class IV lighting level are typically designed on the higher end of the range initially to ensure lighting levels do not drop below 20.0 foot-candles.

29. Lighting Design. Use conical lighting that points town and is top and top side shaded.The current technology for sports field floodlights designed to maximize spill and glare reduction is not “conical” in shape. The proposed floodlight is “full cutoff” style which is recognized as the most effective way to reduce glare impacts. It also uses an external shield that completely envelops the top and sides of the floodlight.

30. Lighting Design. Lights should be approved by the International Dark Sky Association.The International Dark Sky Association does not have a formal approval process, but the use of “full cutoff” style of lighting similar to that proposed for the Ballard High School lighting project is recognized by the association as “acceptable.”

31. Lighting Schedule. Does SPS commit to turning the lights off when there are no scheduled activities or is it just technically feasible to do so? Will there be a written policy to turn off the lights based on scheduled events rather than always being on until the maximum allowed time?

As described in Section B.11.a of the SEPA Checklist, the field lights will be operated by a fully programmable control system and will be programmed to automatically shut off at the curfew time (10 p.m.). Athletic field lights are operated by SPS’s energy management system located at the John Stanford Center. The system allows lights to be turned on and off at programmed times. To schedule a rental, Parks submits a request to the District. Most fields are fully scheduled, but if there is a cancellation or no rentals, SPS turns off the lights earlier than the normal shut off time.

SEPA Document Reference: B.11.a.

32. Safety and maintenance of the lighting system. How will poles be marked and protected to minimize collisions, damage, theft, and vandalism? Confirm that electrical conduits are below ground. How often will maintenance (cleaning, replacement repair) be required, at what cost, will that work be scheduled around use of the field? What is the expected service life of the lighting system?

The poles are located outside the track area and are set back a standard distance to avoid interference with users of the field and track. Poles will not be marked. The poles will be metal and are not likely to be damaged or stolen.

The electrical conduits will be installed below grade as described in Section B.1.e of the SEPA Checklist. They will only be routed above grade on an exterior wall at the school building.

Maintenance will be required when individual floodlight fail. The use of LED lights will substantially reduce required maintenance. It is expected that the



floodlights will need to be cleaned every 6 to 8 years. Expected service life of the lighting system is 50 years based on an annual usage of 1,000 hours.

33. Safety of the lighting system. Are lights susceptible to damage from collision with a drone?

Although someone could cause a drone to strike the floodlights, it is unlikely. There are no current reports of floodlights being damaged from collisions withdrones. SPS prohibits the recreational use of drones on its athletic fields, which would reduce the potential for damage to the lighting system from drone collisions.

34. Impacts on views. The tall poles will affect views similar to the impacts of Port ofSeattle poles and views from the West Seattle bridge.

The poles and lights that are proposed for Ballard High School are not the same as those used at the Port of Seattle. The Ballard project proposes only four poles. As described in Section B.10.c, the poles are designed to minimize size and bulk and would not substantially affect views.

35. Tall poles will affect views from residences to the east of the fields. Views of downtown Seattle from the field will be affected by the poles. Views of the Space Needle from parks are protected by the City of Seattle.

The effect of the tall poles on views from residences east of the field are expected to be minor. Views across the field from the east are already limited by fences, vegetation, the high school buildings to the west, and on the south by the retaining wall around the field. The four poles will not block views across the field. At night residents to the east of the field will see a lighted field until 10 p.m., rather than the dark field without the lights. As described in Section B.11 of the Checklist, the field lights will produce minimal light spill and glare.

The City of Seattle’s Public View Protection policy (SMC 25.05.675P) is part of its SEPA policies. It includes protection of public views of the downtown skyline from specified viewpoints, parks, scenic routes, and view corridors. Similarly, views of the Space Needle are protected from specific places listed in SMC 25.05.675P2c. Ballard High School is a protected viewpoint and has views of the Seattle skyline, the Space Needle and Mount Rainier from NW 67th Street south across the field.

The light poles are not likely to affect views of downtown Seattle or the Space Needle from the Ballard High School area. The limited number and bulk of the poles would not block views. The view of downtown Seattle and the Space Needle are from the north to the south across the field. The poles will be located on the east and west side of the field and will be on the periphery of views. They will not block or interfere with views of downtown Seattle.

At night, the lighted field will reduce views of the lighted downtown skyline from the north of the field. Street lights in the area currently affect views of the skyline



at night. The design of the athletic field lighting will reduce the impact of the lights on night views. The lights will be turned off at 10 p.m., which will also reduce the impact on night views.

Additional information about protected views has been added to Section B.10 of the Checklist.

SEPA Document Reference: B.10, B.11.

36. Land Use. Allowing exceptions for taller poles could lead to allowing exceptions for taller buildings. Lighting fields is a veiled change of land use since residents expected relief from school activity in the evening.

As described in Section B.8 of the SEPA Checklist, the taller poles are permitted under Seattle Municipal Code (SMC 23.51B.002(D)(6), which provides a special exception for light poles at public school athletic fields to exceed the permitted height.

The area around the school is zoned multi-family Lowrise. The maximum building height in these zones is 30 feet (40 feet for some apartments). Any increase in building height would require an amendment to the City zoning code and would undergo public process, including City Council approval.

Lighting the athletic fields is permitted by the Seattle Municipal Code. Lighting the fields is not a change in land use since the lights would not change uses of the field, but would extend the time that existing uses could occur. The Seattle Municipal Code does not restrict evening use of school facilities.

SEPA Document Reference: B.8.

37. Joint Use Agreement. The local community was not consulted about Joint Use Agreement.

SPS and Parks have cooperated since the 1920s in planning and jointly using their separately owned recreation facilities to benefit students and community members. The current Joint Use Agreement was approved in January 2017. The Joint Use Agreement was approved by the School Board who provided a two-week comment period. No public comments were received.

38. Use of the lighted fields. Using the lights beyond one hour per day is not essential for the goals of the project. Lights are being installed as mitigation for later start times for high school which is only one hour later. Extending use of the fields by more than one hour is a significant impact. Lighting the fields until 10 p.m. is too late, consider early times for shut off. Recommendations include 9 p.m. limit (games until 9:45), 8 p.m., and 7:30 p.m.

The Checklist states that lighting athletic fields is mitigation for the impact of the change in school start times on the availability of the fields for both SPS and Parks events. Section A.11 states that lighting the fields would allow SPS and



Parks to schedule events later in the evening than currently possible and that the lighted fields would help relieve the demand for all-season, multi-use, lighted fields in the City.

Installing the lights and using them for only one hour would not be cost-effective. One hour of field lighting would not allow adequate time for athletic practices or events.

Lighting the field until 10 p.m. is the recommended time in the Parks Department Policy #060-P 7.1.1 for athletic fields that have residences directly adjoining the field on two or more sides, such as Ballard High School.

39. Use of the lighted fields. How many hours would SPS have to use the field versus how many hours Parks would have?

SPS would schedule scholastic athletics on the field from the end of school (3:45 p.m.) until between 5:30 and 6:45 p.m., depending on the type of event. This would give SPS 1.75 to 3 hours use of the field Parks could use the field from 5:30 or 6:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. (3 to 4.25 hours). This is consistent with the provisions of the current Joint Use Agreement and is the standard for school athletic fields throughout the City at this time.


40. Notification of the Duwamish Tribe. Checklist should state that the Inadvertent Discovery Plan must include notification of the Duwamish Tribe.

The Checklist has been revised to clarify that the Inadvertent Discovery Plan includes notification to the Duwamish Tribe.

SEPA Document Reference: B.13.d.

41. Utilities. Parks has been eliminating pay phones at park facilities. This project should include a pay phone for users who do not have cell phones.

SPS is not responsible for determining where pay phones are located. Pay phones are provided by phone companies. Many are being removed because they are not profitable and are prone to vandalism.

42. Sanitation and Garbage. Infrastructure for bathrooms, refuse removal, grounds keeping and site policing should be provided for Seattle Parks events on the field. Use of fields will increase litter and garbage.

The Joint Use Agreement includes provisions for providing appropriate facilities on-site. For Parks events scheduled on SPS fields, the rental fee to SPS covers anSPS staff person to be on site to open gates and restroom doors, and to clean up the site. When the school is open, field users can access restroom in the building. When the school is closed, field users can pay an extra fee to have access to restrooms.



43. Recreation. Informal recreational use of the fields, such as running and dog walking, would be displaced and the displacement should be noted in the Checklist. Checklist does not include the Ballard Pool as a recreational facility in the vicinity.

Currently, informal use of the athletic field and track after dark is limited for safety reasons. Lighting the field would allow events to be scheduled on it after dark. The lights would also increase safety for anyone wanting to use the track after dark. To protect the fields, SPS does not permit dogs on any of its fields and the fields have signs posted saying that dogs are not allowed on the fields.

Information about informal recreational use of the athletic field and the adjacent Ballard Pool has been added to the Checklist. Use of the Ballard Pool was considered in the transportation analysis.

SEPA Document Reference: B.12.b.

44. Open Space. SPS has been removing outdoor field and playground space through construction at other schools. To mitigate SPS is scheduling more intensive use at existing open space which creates further impacts. An EIS should evaluate other alternatives such as retaining and acquiring more open space.

As stated in Section A.11, the lights are being installed in response to the change in school start times and the increased demand for lighted fields in the City. The more intensive use of the fields in the City is driven by the increased demand for recreational facilities, not by any decrease in outdoor fields or playground space at other schools.


45. Cumulative Impacts. Checklist did not include the roof replacement and resurfacing of the track as future projects.

The two projects are separate from the lighting project and are not future projects. Resurfacing of the track was completed in 2016. The roof replacement project is expected to be complete in January 2018. Both projects are regular maintenance and are not expected to contribute to cumulative impacts of the field lighting project.

46. Comment period was inadequate. The appendices to the Checklist were not posted to the website and were only available through purchase of a paper copy. A letter was submitted to SPS on October 16, 2017 request resolution of the availability of the documents and that the comment period be extended.

SPS is implementing a new policy to comply with a 2015 Consent Decree that requires SPS to make all documents posted to its website accessible to persons with visual impairments. The technical appendices prepared for this SEPA Checklist contain figures and other materials that are difficult to format to meet ADA accessibility requirements. As part of its policy, the SPS SEPA website provides contact information for obtaining the appendices in hard copy or electronic format.



SPS extended the comment period by seven days, provided copies of the appendices to people requesting them, and allowed those requesting the appendices extra time for commenting.

47. Cultural Resources Report. The cultural resources report was not provided as an appendix.

The Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum contains culturally sensitive material and is exempt from public distribution and disclosure under RCW 42.56.300. The technical memorandum was submitted to the State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation for review.

48. Inadequate Meeting Notice. Community learned of meeting only through community member distributing information the day before the meeting. Postcards not sent to houses on NW 70th Street and NW 13th Avenue. Only one person at the meeting had received the postcard.

SPS mailed postcards to all residences within a two-block radius of the school. This is the standard protocol for meeting notification. The cards were sent approximately two weeks prior to the meeting.

49. Landscaping could mitigate light and noise.The proposed lights would not spill over onto adjacent properties, so no mitigation is needed. In order to effectively reduce noise levels, a tree barrier would need to be at least 50 feet deep. There is no room on the school property for such a noise barrier.

50. Support for field lighting. SPS received over 500 comments in support of lighting the Ballard athletic field. Reasons for support included, lighting field at Ballard High School would be an affordable way to increase athletic play space for kids, the City needs more field capacity, lighting would improve safety for children, extended use of existing athletic fields would provide opportunities for practice and play, lighted fields would provide opportunities for recreation and a safer environment for the community.

SPS acknowledges the support for the lighting projects. The lights are being installed to provide many of the benefits cited in the comments.



FIGURES

Megan Vogel Drive Northwest

Mar

yA v

enu e

No r

thw

e st

Alo n

zoA v

enu e

Nor

thw

e st

13th

A ve n

ueN

o rth

wes

t

14th

Aven

ueN

ort h

wes

t

16th

Aven

ueN

orth

wes

t

12th

Aven

u eN

o rth

we s

t

11th

Aven

ueN

o rth

wes

t

Northwest 67th Street



Northwest 63rd Street


15th

Aven

ueN

orth

wes

t

Path

: U:\G

IS\G

IS\P

roje

cts\

16xx

xx\D

1608

00_0

0_S

PS

_Roo

seve

lt_B

alla

rd_L

ight

ing\

03_M

XD

s_P

roje

cts\

Vic

inity

_Bal

lard

.mxd

, cs

truth

ers

8/2

4/20

17

SOURCE: NAIP, 2015; OSM, 2016; King County, 2013

0 200

Feet

SPS Ballard Lighting

N

Figure 1Ballard High School Vicinity

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

F3

F2

F1

F4

Path

: U:\G

IS\G

IS\P

roje

cts\

16xx

xx\D

1608

00_0

0_S

PS

_Roo

seve

lt_B

alla

rd_L

ight

ing\

03_M

XD

s_P

roje

cts\

Bal

lard

_Lig

htin

g.m

xd,

cstru

ther

s 9

/7/2

017

SOURCE: NAIP, 2015; ESA, 2017

!! Light Location0 100

Feet

Figure 2SPS Ballard Lighting

Location of proposed lighting poles

N


January 2018 Appendix A

APPENDIX A: NOISE MEMORANDUM

5309 Shilshole Avenue NW

Suite 200

Seattle, WA 98107

206.789.9658 phone

206.789.9684 fax

www.esassoc.com

t echn i ca l memora ndum

date December 15, 2017

to David Standaart, Becky AsencioSeattle Public Schools

from Aaron Booy, Malia Bassett and Ann Root, ESA

subject Ballard High School Lighting Project – Existing Noise Conditions and Potential Post-Project Noise Conditions

Seattle Public Schools (SPS) is proposing to install athletic field lighting at multiple school locations in the Seattle School District (District) under the Buildings, Technology and Academics/Athletics IV Program (BTA IV) funding. The existing multipurpose athletic field at Ballard High School, located at 1418 NW 65th Street in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle, has been identified for field lighting under this funding program.

The proposed pole height is higher than what is allowed in residential zones under the City of Seattle’s zoning regulations (Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) 23.76). For athletic fields at public school sites, SMC 23.51B.002 allows pole height to exceed the maximum height if it is determined necessary to ensure adequate illumination and that light and glare are minimized to the greatest extent practical. When a lighting project associated with the exception for taller poles extends the duration of use of the athletic field, SPS must address and mitigation potential impacts, including increased duration of noise, traffic, and parking demand. This memorandum was prepared to document the existing evening noise conditions at Ballard High School and presents results of noise monitoring and technical analysis of environmental noise impacts that may result from implementation of the athletic field lighting project at Ballard High School. The memorandum also evaluates compliance with the environmental sound level limits established by SMC 25.08.410.

Methods

Methods for gathering information needed to support review of existing and potential post-project environmental noise included a field survey and analysis of measurement results. ESA’s noise specialists documented existing noise levels at Ballard High School, providing documentation of existing environmental noise conditions and the basis for analysis of potential project impacts. Noise levels at Ingraham High School and Jane Addams Middle School, existing SPS lighted facilities, were recorded during a scheduled athletic event to provide a point of comparison of the noise environment associated with a lighted athletic field facility.

Noise measurements were performed on January 24, 2017 at Ballard High School and on February 22, 2017 at Ingraham High School and Jane Addams High School. The areas immediately surrounding Ballard High School,Ingraham High School and Jane Addams High School athletic field facilities are characterized by single-family residential land uses. Ingraham High School and Jane Addams Middle School were used as points of comparison due to the consistency of surrounding land uses. In addition, evening athletic activities anticipated to occur at Ballard High School are similar to activities that currently occur at Ingraham High School and Jane Addams Middle School.

2

Measurement locations were chosen to record outdoor environmental sound levels near representative noise sensitive receivers (residential properties), in areas adjacent to the school athletic fields. Measurement locations were established within right-of-way areas approximating to the greatest extent possible the setback between therespective athletic fields and the nearest adjacent residential properties. The time period for measurements was also identified to be representative of existing conditions during evening and early nighttime hours, the period of time during which the noise environment surrounding the Ballard High School athletic field is anticipated to change due to the field lighting project. The short-term measurements were conducted between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. The results are intended to approximate the potential nighttime noise increase that could be associated with lighting of Ballard High School’s athletic fields.

A Metrosonics Model db308 sound level meter was used for the short-term noise level measurements. Figure 1shows the noise measurement location in the alley immediately east of the Ballard High School athletic field. The alley right-of-way separates the athletic field from residential properties along the east side of the alley. Noise measurement locations at comparison schools with existing field lighting were taken at 11020 34th Avenue NE immediately west of the Ingraham High School athletic field, and at 13111 Ashworth Avenue immediately east of the Jane Addams Middle School athletic field.

For all measurements, the noise meter was located approximately 5-feet above ground surface and the noise level was measured and recorded for a period of 10 minutes at each short-term survey location. The precision sound level meter was calibrated immediately prior to each measurement date to ensure accuracy. The meter wasprogrammed to record the maximum (Lmax), average (Leq), L10, and L90 noise levels over a 10-minute period,with two measurements completed adjacent to the Ballard High School athletic field, and adjacent to the existing lighted field at Ingraham High School and Jane Addams Middle School. Summarized results for each location are shown in Table 1 below.

Local weather conditions during the noise monitoring periods were normal for the winter season in Seattle; however, both noise measurement days were specifically chosen to avoid recent or active precipitation (rain and wet pavement increase environmental noise associated with vehicular traffic). Additionally, no significant noise generating activity or other atypical activities were occurring at Ballard High School, Ingraham High School, or surrounding uses during the monitoring periods.

Existing Noise Environment

The results of the short-term noise measurements at Ballard High School generally reflect existing evening / early nighttime noise conditions, which are quiet and influenced by activities surrounding residential land uses and roadways near the school field site. Residential land uses and two-lane roadways (NW 67th St, NW 65th St, and 12th Ave NW) primarily surround Ballard High School.

3

Table 1. Noise Measurements

Short-term Measurement Period

Leq, dBA Lmax, dBA L10 L90 Observations

Ballard High School Athletic Field

#1 – 7:55 – 8:05 p.m. 50.2 65.3 49.0 43.0

Traffic on 65th St, airplanes, operating noise of utilities, residence trash/recycle in bin nearby

#2: 9:57 – 10:07 p.m. 43.9 45.0 43.0 42.0Traffic on 65th St, airplanes, operating noise of utilities, car horns, motorcycle passing

Jane Addams Middle School Athletic Field (during adult soccer game)

#1 – 8:32 – 8:42 p.m. 50.9 55.1 53.0 48.0

Cars passing at 25 mph, yelling on field, whistling, cars honking on NE 110 St, another athletic field with practice games occurring across NE 110 St.

#2: 9:12 – 9:22 p.m. 52.4 56.4 54.0 49.0

Cars passing at 25 mph, yelling on field, whistling, ball hitting fence, airplane, cars honking on NE 110St, another athletic field with practice games occurring across NE 110 St

Ingraham High School Athletic Field (during adult soccer game)

#1 – 8:00 – 8:10 p.m. 65.3 70.5 69.0 54.0Cars passing at 30+ mph, yelling on field, ball kicking, whistling, traffic on 130th St and Ashworth Ave N.

#2: 8:57 – 9:07 p.m. 63.3 70.5 68.0 53.0

Cars passing at 30+ mph (with loud stereo), yelling on field, ball kicking, whistling, traffic on 130th

St and Ashworth Ave N., nearby resident calling for dog

Notes: Noise is typically measured in units called decibels (dB). For the purposes of environmental analysis noise is commonly quantified as “A weighted” decibels (dBA), which corresponds to the frequencies that are audible to the human ear. Use of the dBA frequency is consistent with SMC 25.08.090).Leq or the “equivalent sound level” is used to describe noise over a specified period of time in terms of a single numerical value. The Leq of a time-varying signal and that of a steady signal are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy over a given time. The Leq may also be referred to as the average sound level. Lmax is the instantaneous maximum noise level during a given period of time. L10 and L90 are standard measures that represent the noise levels that are equaled or exceeded 10 percent and 90 percent of a specified time period, respectively.

4

Based on observations and short-term noise measurements adjacent to the Ballard High School athletic field, the predominant existing noise source in the project area is vehicular traffic along adjacent roads surrounding the athletic field. Occasional domestic activity associated within adjacent residential properties was also noted, such as footsteps, doors closing, and taking trash and recycle out to outdoor bins, were also observed. Distant vehicular traffic on arterial roadways and overhead airplane travel were sources of background noise. The existing evening and early nighttime noise environment at Ballard High School is generally quiet, in the range of 44 to 50 Leq (dBA). These noise levels are consistent with evening and nighttime hours within urban environments, especially for areas primarily supporting residential uses and adjacent to school facilities.

The results of the short-term noise measurements at Ingraham High School generally reflect existing noise conditions, which are mostly quiet, but heavily influenced by roadways near the school field site and activities surrounding residential land uses. A notable difference at Ingraham High School is the roadway south of the field (North 130th Street), which is a four lane road, classified as a Principal Arterial (SDOT, 2003). Principal Arterials are major traffic generators, serving as a principal route, connecting Interstate Freeways to major activity centers and also minor and collector arterial streets to traffic destinations. The speed limit when passing Ingraham High school on N 130th Street is 20 miles per hour (mph) in the school zone, when children are present, and 30 mph when children are not present. However, field observations noted speeds much higher than 30 mph.

The results of the short-term noise measurements at Jane Addams Middle School were characterized by existing noise conditions, with most noise coming from nearby roadways and the Nathan Hale High School athletic field south of the Jane Addams Middle School Athletic Field, separated by NE 110th Street. NE 110th Street is a two-lane Collector Arterial with parking on the south side (SDOT, 2003). Collector Arterials serve local destinations: a small group of stores, schools, small apartment complexes, and residential land uses. The speed limit when passing Jane Addams Middle School is 20 MPH in the school zone, when children are present, and 30 mph when children are not present, which field observations confirmed were generally obeyed.

Anticipated Noise and Potential Effects

The City of Seattle Noise Ordinance (SMC Chapter 25.08) regulates noise in the City. Noise is typically defined as an unwanted sound that can disrupt quality of life (EPA, 2016). The City sets exterior sound level limits according to the land use of both the property generating the noise (the source) and the property receiving the noise (Table 2; SMC Chapter 25.08.41). From one property to another when both properties are within a residential district, the maximum allowable noise during daytime and evening hours (7:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.) is limited to 55 Leq (dBA). The code further regulates noises considered “unreasonable” including "loud and raucous, and frequent repetitive or continuous sounds made by the amplified or unamplified human voice" between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. During these nighttime hours, maximum allowable noise from one property to another within residential districts is reduced to 45 Leq (dBA). Ballard High School, including the athletic field and surrounding residences, are located within residential districts per City of Seattle Zoning.

Table 2. Exterior Sound Level Limits

District of Sound Source

Residential Receiving Property(Experiencing the Noise)

7a.m. – 10 p.m. Limit (Leq) 10 p.m.– 7a.m. Limit (Leq)

Residential 55 dBA 45 dBA

Commercial 57 dBA 47 dBA

5

Industrial 60 dBA 50 dBA

Source: SMC Chapter 25.08.41

For noise sources that are not continuous, higher levels are allowed for short durations. The code specifies that shorter duration noises are subject to the following limits:



Up to 15 dBA above the continuous limit for up to 1.5 minutes per hour.

Potential noise impacts to residential properties surrounding the Ballard High School athletic field were predicted based on review of existing conditions and anticipated noise from proposed late evening athletic activities. Based on comparison of the existing noise environments and traffic-generated noise on adjacent roadways, ESA determined that conditions surrounding the Jane Addams field are most useful for estimating future noise that should be expected surrounding Ballard High School. The roadways surrounding Jane Addams athletic field are neighborhood arterials, which are conducive to speeds that would be more similar to those observed at Ballard High School, allowing for a more representative noise measurement. Additionally, although single-family residences surround both Ingraham High School and Jane Addams Middle School, the overall land use character of the area surrounding Jane Addams was observed to be more similar to Ballard High School than Ingraham High School. From comparative measurements taken during evening athletic activity at Jane Addams, it is anticipated that environmental noise will increase as a result of the proposed field lighting project.

For purposes of this evaluation, a significant noise impact is identified where the anticipated noise with field lighting during late evening athletic events (with field lighting) would exceed the exterior sound level limits established by SMC 25.08.410. Based on this review, it is not anticipated that the noise increase with the addition of field lighting would result in an exceedance of the 55 Leq (dBA) limit at adjacent residences between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. At the nearest residences, setback approximately 80 feet from the edge of the athletic field up a hill to the west, noise levels during evening athletic activities are anticipated to be at or below the levels recorded at the Jane Addams Middle School field, ranging from 50.9 to 52.4 Leq (dBA). These measurements were completed at a similar setback between the field and adjacent residences during an adult soccer game, and included additional environmental noise from vehicular traffic along 34th Avenue NE and NE 110th Street. Changes in the noise environment for residences to the north of the athletic field (separated from the athletic field by more than 170feet, including by roadway right-of-ways of NW 67th Street and NW 65th Street) would be less noticeable.

While the character of environmental noise and specific events (whistles, loud yells) during athletic activities will likely be perceptible at adjacent residential properties –especially those immediately to the west of the athletic field – these activities will all be of short duration (generally no more than a few seconds for any given event). Based on measurements at Jane Addams and Ingraham athletic fields during soccer games, discrete events are not anticipated to exceed approximately 60 dB(A). These levels would be within the limits established by SMC 25.08.41.

Conclusions

Results of this assessment show that evening use of a lighted athletic field at Ballard High School would result in an Leq increase generally below 5 Leq (dBA), and that noise exposure at adjacent residential properties would remain below the 55 dB(A) (Leq) maximum daytime/evening noise level for all residential properties. While the increase in environmental noise, and the character of noise, is anticipated to be noticeable for residences to the east of the field, late evening athletic activities occurring before 10:00 p.m. are anticipated to be consistent with

6

environmental noise limits of the Seattle Noise Ordinance (SMC 5.08). For residences to the north and south of the athletic field (further separated from the athletic field by roadway right-of-ways of NW 67th Street and NW 65th Street), changes in the noise environment resulting from the project would be less noticeable.

7

FIGURE

!(Megan Vogel Drive Northwest

Mar

yA v

enu e

Nor

thw

est

Alo n

zoA v

enu e

No r

thw

e st

1 3th

Ave n

ueN

o rth

wes

t

14th

Ave n

ueN

ort h

wes

t

12th

Ave n

ueN

orth

wes

t 11th

Aven

ueN

orth

we s

t


16th

Aven

ueN

orth

wes

t


Northwest 63rd Street


Northwest 62nd Street

17th

Aven

ueN

ort h

wes

t


15th

Ave n

ueN

orth

wes

t

NoiseMonitoringLocation

Path

: U:\G

IS\G

IS\P

roje

cts\

16xx

xx\D

1608

00_0

0_S

PS

_Roo

seve

lt_Ba

llard

_Lig

htin

g\03

_MX

Ds_

Pro

ject

s\N

oise

Mon

itorin

g_B

alla

rd.m

xd,

anak

ae 3

/22/

2017

SOURCE: NAIP, 2015; OSM, 2016; King County, 2013

ZoningLowrise 1Lowrise 2Lowrise 3

Neighborhood Commercial 2Neighborhood Commercial 3Residential Single Family 5000

0 200

Feet

Figure 1

SPS Ballard Lighting

Ballard High SchoolNoise Monitoring Location

N

January 2018 Appendix B

APPENDIX B: LIGHT & GLARE REPORT

Ballard High SchoolFootball Field Lighting

Light and Glare ReportSeptember 12, 2017

Prepared for:

Seattle Public SchoolsCapital Projects

Seattle, Washington

Consultant:

Spill Light and Glare Analysis Page - 2

Proposal

The existing field located within the running track at Ballard High School is proposed to be lighted.

The design levels for the field lighting are proposed at a Class IV level of play. Class IV is the lowestrecommended level listed in RP-8 (Recommended Practice for Sports Lighting) by the illuminating EngineeringSociety of North America. The soccer\football field is designed to an average maintained lighting level of 29foot-candles. The lighting system is designed using a .95 design factor to achieve the initial lighting levels.

These lighting design levels meet current practices for both the City of Seattle and Seattle School District for thelighting of athletic fields. The proposed lighting levels will be consistent with recently lighted fields at JeffersonPlayfield and at Lower Woodland Park.

Existing Codes and Policies

Section 23.51B.002 (Public schools in residential zones) of the Seattle Municipal Code limits the height oflighting standards in Single Family and Lowrise zones. Section D-6-a permits light standards up to a maximumheight of 100 feet, “if the Director determines that the additional height is necessary to ensure adequateillumination and that impacts from light and glare are minimized to the greatest extent practicable”. In addition,Section 23.46.020 (Light and glare standards) paragraph A of the Seattle Municipal Code also requires that“Exterior lighting be shielded or directed away from adjacent uses”. Additional City of Seattle guidelinesrecommend that athletic field spill light not exceed 1.1 foot-candles initial at residential property lines.

To comply with existing codes an exemption to the height limit is requested. This exemption will ensureadequate illumination and reduce the amount of impacts from light and glare into the neighborhood.

Existing Conditions

A survey of the existing site was conducted on May 23rd, 2017. The school site is located within a residentialcommunity east of 15th Avenue NW and between NW 65th Street and NW 67th Street. The field is locatedadjacent to residential homes west of 12th Avenue NW with a narrow alley situated between the fields and thebackyards of the homes. The field is also located adjacent to residential homes across the right of way on NW65th Street to the south and NW 67th Street to the north.

The surrounding area generally slopes down from north to south. The homes located to the north of the schoolare at a higher elevation than the football field. The football field is at a higher elevation than the adjacenthomes to the south. There is minimal tree or vegetative screening immediately surrounding the fields except forsome trees located on the east side of the track.

Existing Homes North of Field Existing Homes North of Field


Existing Homes East of Field Existing Homes East of Field

Existing Homes South of Field Existing Alley East of Field

Existing Alley East of Field


Existing Light and Glare

A survey of the existing lighting in the area was conducted on May 23rd, 2017. Light readings were taken onsite and on several residential streets surrounding the field.

The existing light sources on the school site primarily consist of the site post top lights and main school buildingperimeter lighting.

Existing site lights at east entry Existing site lights at south entry

Existing east side building perimeter lights

The existing light sources surrounding the site are typical for an urban\suburban residential area. The primarycomponent of the lighting is associated with street lights surrounding the school. The streetlights along NW 65th

Street are LED cobra head style mounted to existing utility poles at an approximate height of 25’ above grade.The residential streetlights along 12th Avenue and NW 67th Street are LED cobra head style mounted to existingutility poles at an approximate height of 20’ above grade. The balance of the lighting immediately adjacent tothe site is associated with adjacent residential properties with porch\yard lights and interior lighting visiblethrough windows.

Additional lighting in the area is associated with the mixed use residential and commercial businesses located tothe west of the site along 15th Avenue NW. The lighting consists of streetlighting, parking lot lighting, businesslighting and residential unit lighting.


Existing Street Lighting NW 65th Street Existing Street Lighting NW 65th Street

Existing Street Lighting 12th Avenue NW Existing Street Lighting NW 67th Street

Existing Home NW 65th Street (At South End of Alley) Existing Lighting at (Intersection NW 65th Street\15th Ave NW)

Various measured lighting levels onsite and surrounding the site are as follows (Foot-Candles).

South Plaza Lighting 2.0 ft-c (Max Horizontal)Southeast Plaza Lighting 1.7 ft-c (Max Horizontal)Streetlight – NW 65th Street 4.0 ft-c (Max Horizontal)Streetlight – 12th Avenue NW 1.8 ft-c (Max Horizontal)Streetlight – NW 67th Street 1.7 ft-c (Max Horizontal)


Proposed Equipment

The proposed lighting for the football field consists of approximately 32-1150 watt shielded LED floodlights.The floodlights will be mounted on four galvanized steel poles surrounding the field. The poles on the west sideof the field will be 70’ tall. The poles on the south side of the field will be 90’ tall. The taller poles are requiredto account for locating these poles at the corners of the field to minimize impact to the homes located on the eastside of the field. The poles will have two additional lower wattage shielded floodlights mounted at a height of15’ - 20’above field grade and aimed above the field. One additional low wattage “full cutoff” area light will bemounted at a height of 30’ above grade on each pole.

Seattle Public Schools has proposed to use an athletic field lighting system designed to mitigate the negativeimpacts of light and glare. The proposed system consists of the latest technology available on the market forshielded LED floodlights designed for the lighting of athletic fields.

The use of high efficiency LED arrays provide more precise control of light to be delivered to the field. Thereflector and shielding design further reduces the amount of light transmitted off site and into the atmosphere.The floodlights utilize an additional external visor mounted to the floodlight that extends in front of thefloodlight. The floodlight design is similar to “full cutoff” style lights as they dramatically limit the amount oflight that is emitted above the plane of the floodlight. The use of LED technology also requires less light tomeet lighting levels as only 5% additional light is required as compared to 20% additional light required formetal halide floodlights. The proposed lighting system is similar to the first full sized athletic field lighted withLED floodlights in Seattle at Bishop Blanchet High School.

LED Floodlight used at Bishop Blanchet HS Football Field Shielded Metal Halide Floodlight

AnalysisThe proposed lighting system will increase the amount of light in the area during evening hours. The primaryimpacts of the lighting system are direct glare, reflected glare, spill light (light trespass), and “sky glow”.

Diagram illustrating Direct-Glare, Spill Light and Light Trespass


GLARE

The athletic field lighting system will generate visible glare. The primary sources of glare from the proposedlighting system consist of direct glare from the floodlights and reflected glare (luminance) off the poles,floodlights, and surfaces around the playing fields.

The amount of glare that is present correlates directly to how much of the floodlight lamp and reflector can beobserved. The intent of Seattle Municipal Code Section 23.24.020 is to have floodlight luminaires directed asfar down as possible to reduce the amount of glare that is visible from off-site locations.

To reduce the amount of glare that is visible off-site the floodlights will need to be mounted higher than 30 feet.At a height of 30 feet the visibility of the high wattage LED’s and reflectors from the adjacent residences isexcessive. With the increased mounting heights floodlights will have steeper aiming angles resulting in moreeffective use of the floodlight shields. A significantly smaller portion of the floodlight reflectors and LEDdiodes will be visible off site with the increased height.

Direct glare will be visible from all directions overlooking the site, depending on the distance of the observerfrom the field, orientation of the floodlights, distribution of intervening buildings, terrain or vegetation thatwould block the glare. The impacts of direct glare are extremely difficult to quantify, as varying conditions suchas existing ambient light levels and current atmospheric conditions will vary the impact. Elevation differencesbetween the level of the sports field lights and the viewpoint is a key determinant in the existence of glare at anygiven viewing location.

To maximize glare reduction, the owner is providing additional mitigation with the use of “full cutoff” styleLED floodlights that provide the most advanced light control and shielding currently available in the sportslighting industry. Additional reduction in direct glare is also provided by internal shielding of the LED diodes.The additional shielding nearly eliminates direct view of the very bright LED’s from off-site viewing locations.

Off-site exposure to low and moderate levels of direct glare is primarily to the residential properties located onthe east side of the field. These properties are close to the fields with direct exposure to the light poles andfloodlight assemblies. The direct glare visible at these residences is primarily from light bouncing off theinternal polished reflecting surface of the floodlights. The homes that have existing trees located between theproperty and the field will have some of the direct glare blocked depending on the time of year and location ofthe trees.

The adjacent residences to the south directly across from the field will also have exposure of low to moderatelevels of direct glare. This is due to the fact that these residences are at a slightly lower elevation to the field andwill have floodlights oriented in their direction.

The adjacent residences to the north directly across from the field will have exposure to low levels of directglare. The lower amounts of direct glare exposure result due to the fact that these residences are at a slightlyhigher elevation to the field. These areas have reduced direct views into the floodlights with more effective useof the external shields on the floodlights.

Residential properties that are not adjacent to the field and properties located farther away from the field willhave minimal to no direct glare impacts.

Reflected glare would be visible from all directions overlooking the site, depending direct views into the site,elevation\exposure in relation to the field and track surfaces, exposure to poles\floodlights, distribution ofintervening buildings, terrain or vegetation that would block the glare. Of the surfaces that are visible from offsite locations, the synthetic athletic field and rubberized track surfaces would be the greatest contributor toreflected glare. The reflected light off the floodlight housings, floodlight visors and poles would be a lessercontributor.


The residential properties that border the site on the east and north sides of the field have the greatest amount ofexposure to reflected glare. Reflected glare will be evident to these properties that have direct exposure to thefield\track surfaces, adjacent grass\pavement surfaces, light poles, and floodlight assemblies. The maincomponent of the impact is the light reflected off the synthetic turf field surface and rubberized track surface.

The residential properties that border the site on the east and south sides of the site that are at an elevation belowthe field will have low amounts of exposure to reflected glare. The main component of the impact is the lightreflected off the light poles and floodlight assemblies.

Residential properties that are located farther away from the field will have low to minimal reflected glareimpacts. These properties will have very limited to no direct views of the playing surface due to their locationaway from the fields. The reflected glare impact associated with the poles and floodlights is much less frommore remote viewing points, as the impact is reduced at greater distances. This is true even though reflectedglare from the floodlights and tops of the poles will be visible at greater distances due to their elevation abovethe field.

Glare from unshielded floodlights (Edmonds-Woodway HS) Direct glare reduction with use of similar LED floodlights

The increased mounting heights for the athletic field lighting poles will dramatically decrease the overallamount of glare visible from off-site locations as compared to using 30’ pole height. The use of the latestgeneration of shielded floodlights will dramatically reduce the amount of visible glare compared to standardshielded metal halide floodlighting systems. It is critical that taller poles are used to minimize glare as muchas practical. At 30 foot mounting heights the surrounding residences will be more fully exposed to excessivelevels of direct glare from the floodlights.

SPILL LIGHT

The athletic field lighting system will generate low amounts of spill light. The spill light impacts will be locatedat the back of the residential properties along 12th Avenue NW that border the site to the east adjacent to thefield\track. There will be minimal spill light impacts to the homes located immediately across the street fromthe field on the north and south sides of the site.

The increase in pole height from 30 feet to 70-90 feet above the playing field tall will dramatically reduce theamount of spill light generated by the lighting system. The higher pole heights allow the floodlights to be aimeddown to the athletic field and away from the adjacent properties. This height also provides for greatereffectiveness of the internal\external shielding on the floodlights to control the emitted light and prevent lightescaping beyond the site.


The increased mounting heights increase the angle of aiming below the horizontal level of the floodlights. At amounting height of 30 feet this project would require aiming angles of 7.1 degrees (worst case) and 20.6 degrees(best case) below the horizontal plane of the floodlight. The increased mounting height to 70-90 feet willprovide for aiming angles of 16.3 degrees (worst case) and 61.0 degrees (best case) below the horizontal planeof the floodlight.

The use of steeper aiming angles allows for less direct light to be delivered beyond the boundaries of the playingthe surface. The external shielding blocks more direct light and more light is delivered to the field with the useof increased mounting heights. The proposed taller mounting heights are typical for this application and similarto many existing installations throughout the City. The use of shorter mounting heights is typical to the lightingof driving ranges which requires that light is delivered over hundreds of feet down range to light the back of agolf ball to distances over 300 feet.

The vertical spill light from the field lighting has been calculated along the adjacent residential property lines onthe east side of the site. The values are calculated at a height of three feet above field grade and are calculated infoot-candles. The calculated light readings do not account for limited quantity of existing trees and vegetationon site and along the street that will provide some screening to reduce spill light at the property lines.

At the standard mounting height of 70-90 feet above the field the maximum amount of measurable lightdelivered along the east residential property line is 0.67 foot-candles. At the non-standard mounting height of30 feet above the field the maximum amount of measurable light delivered along the east property line is 6.84foot-candles.

At the standard mounting height of 70-90 feet above the field the maximum amount of measurable lightdelivered along the north residential property line is 0.09 foot-candles. At the non-standard mounting height of30 feet above the field the maximum amount of measurable light delivered along the north property line is 3.80foot-candles.

At the standard mounting height of 70-90 feet above the field the maximum amount of measurable lightdelivered along the south residential property line is 0.11 foot-candles. At the non-standard mounting height of30 feet above the field the maximum amount of measurable light delivered along the south property line is 3.99foot-candles.

The increased mounting height will dramatically reduce the maximum spill light at the residential propertylines as compared to using 30’ pole height. Increased mounting height also reduces spill light to meetrecommended practice of maximum of 1.1 foot-candles set by the City of Seattle.

SKY GLOW

The athletic field lighting system will generate a minimal amount of “sky glow”. The “sky glow” impacts willbe located at locations in close proximity to the fields.

The amount of “sky glow” that is visible from a lighting system is difficult to quantify. There is no currentmethod to calculate “sky glow” but it is recognized that there is a direct correlation to the amount of direct andreflected light that is emitted into the atmosphere. The amount of visible “sky glow” is dependent on amultitude of factors. Several factors include the amount of ambient light that exists, darkness of the night sky,amount of moonlight, atmospheric conditions, level of cloud ceiling, amount particulate matter, location of theobserver and age of the observer.


To reduce the amount of “sky glow” that is visible the floodlights will need to be mounted higher than 30 feet.At a height of 30 feet the amount of direct light emitted into the atmosphere is excessive. With the increasedmounting heights floodlights will have steeper aiming angles resulting in more effective use of the externalshields. The majority of the total light output will be directed down to the field with the increased mountingheight.

To maximize “sky glow” reduction the owner is providing additional mitigation with the use of “full cutoff”style LED floodlights that provide the most advanced light control and shielding currently available in the sportslighting industry. The use of this equipment will also block a significant amount of direct light that is emittedinto the atmosphere.

Based on the existing condition of “sky-glow” currently evident in the area and the limited impact expected forthe project, the impact of the project on “sky-glow” evident in the surrounding area will likely be small. “Theappearance of “sky-glow” will be very minor with heavy low overcast skies and be most prevalent duringconditions of dense fog.

Due to the dramatic reductions in the amount of up-light generated there will be a zone of darkness above thefield. This creates a safety hazard for football play to safely track balls kicked high into the air. This willrequire the use of up-lights for football use similar to the up lights used at the recently lighted football field atBishop Blanchet High School. Two lower wattage shielded floodlights will be mounted at a height of 15’ - 20’above the field on each pole and be aimed above the field. These will provide the minimal amount of lightnecessary for safe play.

The increased mounting heights for the athletic field lighting poles will decrease the overall amount of “sky-glow” visible as compared to using 30’ pole height. The use of the latest generation of shielded floodlightswill dramatically reduce the amount of direct light emitted into the atmosphere compared to the oldershielded floodlighting systems. It is critical that taller poles are used to minimize “sky-glow”. The amount of“sky-glow” visible will be localized to the area above the field and immediate vicinity. The amount of “sky-glow” generated will typical of recently lighted field using LED floodlights at Bishop Blanchet HS and will bemuch less as compared to the amount generated using 30’ poles and by the existing field lighting system.

Controls

The new athletic field lighting system will be connected to a fully programmable control system with remoteoperation. There will be separate switches installed to manually operate the lights at the site if necessary. Thefield lights will be on a separate lighting zone with a separate switch. This will allow the field lights to beturned off after play is completed. The area lights are on a separate zone and will remain on for a short timeafter each event to provide ample light for egress from the site.

BA

LLA

RD

HIG

H S

CH

OO

LA

THLE

TIC

FIE

LD L

IGH

TIN

G

4100

194

th S

treet

SW

Sui

te 4

00Ly

nnw

ood

Was

hing

ton

980

36-4

613

(206

) 677

-055

5 1601

5th

Ave

nue,

Sui

te 1

600

Seat

tle, W

A 98

101

206.

622.

5822

ww

w.k

pff

.com

SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS4100 194th Street SW Suite 400

Lynnwood Washington 98036-4613(206) 677-0555

BALLARD HIGH SCHOOL

E-0.

0

ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTINGCOVER SHEET



BALLARD HIGH SCHOOL

E-1.

0

ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTINGPRELIMINARY SITE PLAN



BALLARD HIGH SCHOOL

E-1.

1

ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTINGELECTRICAL SITE PLAN



BALLARD HIGH SCHOOL

E-2.

1

ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTINGDETAILS



BALLARD HIGH SCHOOL

E-SP

L1

ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTINGSPILL LIGHT PLAN



BALLARD HIGH SCHOOL

E-SP

L2

ATHLETIC FIELD LIGHTINGSPILL LIGHT PLAN 30' POLES


January 2018 Appendix C

APPENDIX C: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

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

Athletic Field Lighting at Ballard High School Transportation Technical Report

September 11, 2017

Transportation Technical ReportAthletic Field Lighting at Ballard High School

September 11, 2017

An Agreement for the Joint Use of Facilities between The Seattle School District No.1 and Seattle Parks and Recreation 2016 – 2019

N

BALLARD HIGH SCHOOLAthletic Field Lighting

Figure 1Proposed Site Plan


September 11, 2017

N

02.28.17


BallardHigh School

ProjectSite

NW 61st St

NW 67th St

NW 65th St

15th

Ave N

W

12th

Ave N

W

NW 70th St

NW 64th St

NW 63rd St

NW 62nd St

11th

Ave N

W

11th

Ave N

W

13th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

Alon

zoAv

e NW

Mary

Ave N

W

12th

Ave N

W

13th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

Alon

zoAv

e NW

Mary

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

NW 67th St

16th

Ave N

W

17th

Ave N

W

10th

Ave N

W

11th

Ave N

W

15th

Ave N

W

17th

Ave N

W

Figure 2Site Location and Vicinity

BallardPool


September 11, 2017

2017-2022 Capital Improvement Program

Levy to Move Seattle 5

Seattle Bicycle Master Plan

2016-2020 BMP Implementation Plan6 Neighborhood Greenways 2016 Workplan

Bike Master Plan Implementation Plan 2016-2020, March 2016


September 11, 2017

PM Peak Hour Volumes Average Weekday Daily Traffic (AWDT) Volumes

Source: SDOT Traffic Count Database, March 2017.

Source: Average weekday volumes from machine counts performed by SDOT on 15th Ave NW, south of NW 80th St, Dec. 15-21, 2016.


September 11, 2017

N

02.28.17


15th

Ave N

W

12th

Ave N

W

13th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

Alon

zoAv

e NW

Mary

Ave N

W

NW 67th St

NW 65th St

BallardHigh School

ProjectSite

North LargeParking Lot

SouthParking Lot

LoadingDocks &LimitedParking

(2)1

(0)1*

(0)3*

(47)63

(0)0

(15)43 (2)

0

(10)7

(2)0

(0)1*

(7)12

(132)159

(10)20

(16)19

(7)6(829)

903

(1000)1105

(930)1031

(34) 55(427) 477

(423) 464

(256) 268

(1) 8

(504) 630

(19) 21(88) 68

(15) 16

(0) 3(5) 9

(123) 158

(5) 25

(32) 56

4 (1)93 (80)

1 (0)

60 (60)

2 (1)7 (2)

67 (49)

0 (0)

50 (50)

34 (19)

44 (24)452 (383)

451 (390)

297 (267)

10 (5)

489 (408)

39(26)126

(137)

11(15)

9(1)

139(126)

4(2)

54(48)

35(19)1331

(1090)

1543(1250)

1489(1180)

(3)6

(4)2

(5)7

(9)5

(1)2

(0)0

(25) 40(25) 43 (43) 70(39) 62

(0) 1 (0) 0

(6) 6 (8) 7

23 (13) 16 (6) 2 (1)

14 (7) 6 (3)

97 (93) 60 (50) 80 (46)

23(26)

52(49)

3(4)

9(7)

29(23)

1(3)6

(3)0

(0)

1(0)

Figure 5Existing (2017) Traffic Volumes

PM Peak and Early Evening Hours

PM Peak Hour VolumesEarly Evening Hour Volumes

XX(XX)

KEY

* Existing turning movement counts include several vehiclesperforming illegal movements including turning left across a doubleyellow center line and traveling in the wrong direction when exiting the one-way south parking lot loop


September 11, 2017

Property & Building Activity

Highway Capacity Manual 2010.8

Synchro 9.1

N

02.28.17


15th

Ave N

W

12th

Ave N

W

13th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

Alon

zoAv

e NW

Mary

Ave N

W

NW 67th St

NW 65th St

BallardHigh School

ProjectSite


SouthParking Lot


(2)1

(0)1

(0)3

(48)64

(0)0

(15)44 (2)

0

(10)7

(2)0

(0)1

(7)12

(135)162

(10)20

(16)19

(7)6(846)

921

(1020)1127

(949)1052

(35) 56(436) 487

(431) 473

(261) 273

(1) 8

(514) 643

(19) 21(90) 69

(15) 16

(0) 3(5) 9

(125) 161

(5) 26

(33) 57

4 (1)95 (82)

1 (0)

61 (61)

2 (1)7 (2)

68 (50)

0 (0)

51 (51)

35 (19)

45 (24)461 (391)

460 (398)

303 (272)

10 (5)

499 (416)

40(27)129

(140)

11(15)

9(1)

142(129)

4(2)

55(49)

36(19)1358

(1112)

1574(1275)

1519(1204)

(3)6

(4)2

(5)7

(9)5

(1)2

(0)0

(26) 41(26) 44 (44) 71(39) 62

(0) 1 (0) 0

(6) 6 (8) 7

23 (13) 16 (6) 2 (1)

14 (7) 6 (3)

99 (95) 61 (51) 82 (47)

23(26)

52(49)

3(4)

9(7)

29(23)

1(3)6

(3)0

(0)

1(0)

Figure 6Forecast 201 ithout Project Traffic Volumes



XX(XX)

KEY


September 11, 2017

PM Peak Hour (various a) Early Evening Hour (6:00–7:00 P.M.)

Existing (2017) 2018 w/o Project Existing (2017) 2018 w/o Project

Signalized Intersection LOS b Delay c LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

15th Ave NW / NW 67th St A 5.9 A 6.0 A 5.5 A 6.0

15th Ave NW / NW 65th St D 47.3 D 48.9 D 47.2 D 48.9

Unsignalized Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

NW 67th St / 12th Ave NW (overall) d A 4.1 A 4.1 A 3.9 A 4.1

NW 67th St / 14th Ave NW / BHS Dwy e, f A 1.5 A 1.5 A 2.3 A 2.2 Northbound Movements B 10.0 B 10.0 A 9.3 A 9.4 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 Westbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.3 A 7.3 Southbound Movements A 9.2 A 9.2 A 9.1 A 9.1

NW 67th St / Alonzo Ave NW / BHS Dwy f A 4.9 A 4.8 A 4.9 A 4.9 Northbound Movements B 10.4 B 10.4 A 9.8 A 9.9 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 Westbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.3 A 7.3 Southbound Movements A 9.8 A 9.8 A 9.3 A 9.3

NW 65th St / 12th Ave NW (overall) f A 0.9 A 0.9 A 0.8 A 0.8 Eastbound Left Turn A 8.8 A 8.9 A 8.7 A 8.8 Southbound Movements C 19.1 C 19.6 C 18.7 C 19.2

Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2017. a. The PM peak hour for each individual intersection was evaluated. b. LOS = Level of service. c. Delay = Average seconds of delay per vehicle. d. Traffic-Circle Controlled e. BHS = Ballard High School f. Two-Way-Stop-Controlled intersection


September 11, 2017

walking

N

02.28.17


BallardHigh School

ProjectSite

NW 61st St

NW 67th St

NW 65th St

15th

Ave N

W

12th

Ave N

W

NW 70th St

NW 64th St

NW 63rd St

NW 62nd St

11th

Ave N

W

11th

Ave N

W

13th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

Alon

zoAv

e NW

Mary

Ave N

W

12th

Ave N

W

13th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

Alon

zoAv

e NW

Mary

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

NW 67th St

16th

Ave N

W

17th

Ave N

W

10th

Ave N

W

11th

Ave N

W

15th

Ave N

W

17th

Ave N

W

Figure 7Study Area for On Street Parking

tili ation Surveys

CP

EB

CLB

BBS

B

BOBM BN

AP

AM

AL

ACAA ADAB

AN

AI

C

AH

C

AO

AE

AG

AF

A AA

A

A

AS AT

A

A AR

AV

BI

A BA

B

BCBB BD

D

D

DDS DT DVD

CSCO

CM CN

CT

DI

C CV

C C

CDC

DA

C

DG DH

DRDN

DO

DPD

DM

DL

D

D

DDDB

DE DF

EEEC

BE

BH

BL

CA CB

BG

D

EA

BP B

B

CECD

CICH

BT

CR

C

BV

B

CC

B

CF CG

BR

BF

ED EF

EG

EH

EI

ey

Study Area lock Faces

lock Face


September 11, 2017

Early Evening (5:45 to 6:45 P.M.) Parking Supply Total Vehicles Parked % Utilization

Weekday Tuesday, February 28, 2017 758 545 72% Wednesday, March 8, 2017 758 571 75% Average 758 558 74%

Weekend Sunday, March 5, 2017 771 605 78% Sunday, April 2, 2017 771 618 80% Average 771 612 79%

Evening (8:15 to 9:15 P.M.) Parking Supply Total Vehicles Parked % Utilization

WeekdayWednesday, February 28, 2017 771 620 80% Wednesday, March 8, 2017 771 634 82% Average 771 627 81%

Weekend Sunday, March 5, 2017 771 647 84% Sunday, April 2, 2017 771 636 82% Average 771 642 83%

Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2017


September 11, 2017

Parking Lot Location

Early Evening (5:45 to 6:45 P.M.) Evening (8:15 to 9:15 P.M.)

Weekday Demand Weekend Demand Weekday Demand Weekend Demand

Supply 3/8 5/23 a Avg 3/5 4/2 Avg 2/28 3/8 Avg 3/5 4/2 Avg

North Lot b 145 31 59 45 16 13 15 24 9 17 12 5 9

South Lot 15 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

Total 160 32 59 46 16 13 15 25 9 18 12 5 9

Total Unused On-Site Spaces 128 101 114 144 147 145 135 151 142 148 155 151

Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2017 a. SPS / BHS scheduling data indicate the field/track facility was reserved for BHS Spring Soccer/Track Practice from 3:15 to 6:45 P.M.

and for SYSA Soccer (recreational) practice from 6:45 to 8:45 P.M.b. Supply and demand values include 22 spaces on west side designated for Ballard Pool.


September 11, 2017

Draft 2017 Candidate Locations for HCL Reviews

Intersection Rear-End

Side-Swipe

RightTurn

LeftTurn

RightAngle

Ped /Cycle Other a

Total for 4.5 Yrs

Average/Year

Signalized

NW 65th St / 15th Ave NW 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 1.1

NW 67th St / 15th Ave NW 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.2

Unsignalized

NW 65th St / 12th Ave NW 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0.4

NW 67th St / 12th Ave NW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

Roadway Segment Rear-End

Side-Swipe

RightTurn

LeftTurn

RightAngle

Ped /Cycle Other a

Total for 4.5 Yrs

Average/Year

15th Ave NW between NW 65th and NW 67th Sts 8 1 0 0 1 0 5 15 3.3

NW 65th St between15th and 12th Aves NW 5 0 0 0 0 3 8 1.8

NW 67th St between15th and 12th Ave NW 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 4 0.9

Source: City of Seattle Department of Transportation, August 2017. a. Other collision types include vehicle struck object, vehicle struck parked vehicle, object hit parked vehicle, or no diagram available.


September 11, 2017

Long Range Plan11

Roadway Network

Seattle Bicycle Master Plana shared street environment on streets with low speeds and

volumes of motorists….

Seattle Bicycle Master PlanLevy to Move Seattle

Long Range Plan


September 11, 2017

John F. Kennedy Catholic High School – Athletic Field Improvement Project: Traffic and Parking Analysis


September 11, 2017

Activity / Location / Opponent 1 Date/Time of Observation Participants 2 Spectators 3 Total

Varsity Baseball / Kennedy / Tyee April 6, 2015; 4:00-6:00 P.M. 38 55 to 69 93 to 107

Varsity Soccer / Starfire / Hazen April 6, 2015; 6:00 -7:00 P.M. 53 104 to 133 157 to 186

Varsity Soccer / Kennedy / Highline April 16, 2015; 4:30 -6:00 P.M. 49 75 to 125 124 to 174

Lacrosse / Kennedy / Seattle Academy April 25, 2015; 1:00-3:00 P.M. 57 78 to 80 135 to 137

Baseball C-Team / Kennedy / Nathan Hale April 25, 2015; 1:00-3:00 P.M. 43 33 to 38 76 to 81

Varsity Soccer / Starfire / Kennedy / Tyee April 28, 2015; 6:00-7:00 P.M. 49 74 to 75 123 to 124

Average of Observations 48 70 to 87 118 to 135 Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., April 2015. 1. All games involved Kennedy Catholic High School. 2. Participants include players, substitutes, coaches, support staff (e.g. trainers), referees, ticket staff, press-box personnel, and

concession staff. 3. Range of spectators observed during several counts during game.


September 11, 2017

Activity / Location / Teams Date/Time of Observation Participants Spectators Total

Ultimate Frisbee / Ingraham HS / Practice Jan 23, 2017; 6:45-7:30 P.M. 30 0 36

Soccer / Ingraham HS / SYSA Practice Jan 23, 2017; 6:45-7:30 P.M. 80 to 88 20 100 to 108

Soccer / Ingraham HS / GSSL Game Jan 23, 2017; 6:45–7:30 P.M. 22 to 27 0 22 to 27

Average of Observations 44 to 48 20 51 to 57Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., January 2017. 1. Participants include players, substitutes, coaches, support staff (e.g. trainers), referees, ticket staff, press-box personnel, and

concession staff. 2. Range of spectators observed during several counts during game.


September 11, 2017

PM Peak Hour Early Evening Hour (6:00 to 7:00 P.M.)

Field In Out Total In Out Total

Soccer/Football Field & Track 25 60 85 30 30 60

Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., January 2017.

N

02.28.17


15th

Ave N

W

12th

Ave N

W

13th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

Alon

zoAv

e NW

Mary

Ave N

W

NW 67th St

NW 65th St

BallardHigh School

ProjectSite


SouthParking Lot


(3)3

(3)6

(5)9

(4)9

(20)39

(7) 15(5) 4

9 (4)

39 (20)

6 (3)

2 (3)

9 (4)

9 (4)

2(3)

5(6)

15(18)

16(19)

15(18)

(8) 7(9) 11

(9) 14(14) 12

2 (3)18 (9) 2 (3)

27(14)

18(9)

2(1)

3(1)

Figure 8Project Tri Distri ution and Assignments



XX(XX)

KEY

(15)30

XX%

10%

65%

10%

15%

Pro ect rip istribution

N

02.28.17


15th

Ave N

W

12th

Ave N

W

13th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

14th

Ave N

W

Alon

zoAv

e NW

Mary

Ave N

W

NW 67th St

NW 65th St

BallardHigh School

ProjectSite


SouthParking Lot


(2)1

(0)1

(0)3

(48)64

(0)0

(18)47 (2)

0

(13)13

(2)0

(0)1

(7)12

(140)171

(10)20

(20)28

(7)6(861)

951

(1040)1166

(949)1052

(35) 56(436) 487

(431) 473

(261) 273

(1) 8

(514) 643

(26) 36(90) 69

(15) 16

(0) 3(5) 9

(130) 165

(5) 26

(33) 57

4 (1)104 (86)

1 (0)

100 (81)

2 (1)7 (2)

68 (50)

0 (0)

57 (54)

37 (22)

45 (24)470 (395)

469 (402)

303 (272)

10 (5)

499 (416)

42(30)129

(140)

11(15)

9(1)

142(129)

9(8)

70(67)

36(19)1374

(1131)

1589(1293)

1519(1204)

(3)6

(4)2

(5)7

(9)5

(1)2

(0)0

(34) 48(35) 55 (53) 85(53) 74

(0) 1 (0) 0

(6) 6 (8) 7

23 (13) 18 (9) 2 (1)

14 (7) 6 (3)

117 (104) 61 (51) 84 (50)

50(40)

70(58)

3(4)

11(8)

32(24)

1(3)6

(3)0

(0)

1(0)

Figure 9Forecast 201 ith Project Traffic Volumes



XX(XX)

KEY


September 11, 2017

PM Peak Hour (various a) Early Evening Hour (6:00–7:00 P.M.)

2018 w/o Project 2018 w/ Project 2018 w/ Project 2018 w/ Project

Signalized Intersection LOS b Delay c LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

15th Ave NW / NW 67th St A 6.0 A 8.0 A 6.0 A 6.7

15th Ave NW / NW 65th St D 48.9 D 49.3 D 48.9 D 49.1

Unsignalized Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay

NW 67th St / 12th Ave NW (overall) d A 4.1 A 4.2 A 3.9 A 3.9

NW 67th St / 14th Ave NW / BHS Dwy e, f A 1.5 A 1.4 A 2.2 A 2.1 Northbound Movements B 10.0 B 10.2 A 9.4 A 9.4 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 Westbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.5 A 7.3 A 7.3 Southbound Movements A 9.2 A 9.3 A 9.1 A 9.2

NW 67th St / Alonzo Ave NW / BHS Dwy f A 4.8 A 5.2 A 4.9 A 5.1 Northbound Movements B 10.4 B 10.9 A 9.9 B 10.2 Eastbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.4 Westbound Left Turn A 7.4 A 7.4 A 7.3 A 7.3 Southbound Movements A 9.8 A 9.9 A 9.3 A 9.4

NW 65th St / 12th Ave NW (overall) f A 0.9 A 1.3 A 0.8 A 1.0 Eastbound Left Turn A 8.9 A 8.9 A 8.8 A 8.8 Southbound Movements C 19.6 C 22.6 C 19.2 C 20.0

Source: Heffron Transportation, Inc., August 2017. a. The PM peak hour for each individual intersection was evaluated. b. LOS = Level of service. c. Delay = Average seconds of delay per vehicle. d. Traffic-Circle Controlled e. BHS = Ballard High School f. Two-Way-Stop-Controlled intersection


September 11, 2017

Athletic Field Lighting at Ballard High School Transportation Technical Report

September 11, 2017


September 11, 2017

Highway Capacity Manual .

Highway Capacity Manual 2010.

Level of Service Average Delay Per Vehicle General Description

A Less than 10.0 Seconds Free flow

B 10.1 to 20.0 seconds Stable flow (slight delays)

C 20.1 to 35.0 seconds Stable flow (acceptable delays)

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

E 55.1 to 80.0 seconds Unstable flow (approaching capacity)

F Greater than 80.0 seconds Forced flow (jammed) Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2010.

Highway Capacity Manual 2010

Level of Service Average Delay

(seconds per vehicle)

A Less than 10.0

B 10.1 to 15.0

C 15.1 to 25.0

D 25.1 to 35.0

E 35.1 to 50.0

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


September 11, 2017

ballard high school,athletic sepa checklist · 2018. 7. 24. · sps currently has no plans for...

Documents