Skip To ContentSkip To Content

    Webster School Renovation and Addition DRAFT SEPA Checklist

    UPDATE: The comment period for the Webster School Renovation and Addition draft SEPA checklist has been extended to Thursday, September 21, 2017, at 5:00pm. A copy of the draft SEPA checklist is also available for review at the Ballard Library.

    The comment period is open from Monday, August 21, 2017 to Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. Comments can be e-mailed to or mailed to Pegi McEvoy, SEPA Responsible Official, Seattle Public Schools, PO Box 34165, MS 22-183, Seattle WA 98124-1165.

    The [3] attachments to this checklist (Figures, Appendix A: Traffic Impact Analysis, and Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Assessment) or a full .pdf copy of the document can be requested by e-mailing A hard copy of the full document is also available for $13.00 by calling 206-252-0990.

    (The Webster School Renovation and Addition FINAL SEPA Checklist and Determination will be linked here when available.)

    Draft Checklist Table of Contents

    Environmental Checklist

    1. Background
    2. Environmental Elements
    1. Earth
    2. Air
    3. Water
    4. Plants
    5. Animals
    6. Energy and Natural Resources
    7. Environmental Health
    8. Land and Shoreline Use
    9. Housing
    10. Aesthetics
    11. Light and Glare
    12. Recreation
    13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
    14. Transportation
    15. Public Services
    16. Utilities




    1. Name of the proposed project, if applicable:

      Webster School

    2. Name of Applicant:
      Seattle Public Schools (SPS)

    3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
      Connie Myers
      Seattle Public Schools
      2445 3rd Ave S, MS 22-331
      Seattle, WA 98124

    4. Date checklist prepared:

    August 2017

    5. Agency requesting checklist:

    Seattle Public Schools (SPS)

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

    The project is anticipated to begin construction in December 2018, be completed by June 2020 and open for the new school year starting in September 2020.

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

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

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

    Building, Technology, and Academics/Athletics IV (BTA IV) Program Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. July 2016.

    Geotechnical Engineering Report, Associated Earth Sciences, March 2017

    Arborist Report, Tree Solutions, Inc., July 2017

    Cultural Resources Assessment, ESA, April 2017

    Transportation Technical Report, Heffron Transportation, Inc., August, 2017

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

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

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

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

    • Demolition

    • Tree and Vegetation Removal

    • Grading
    • Building/Mechanical
    • Stormwater Control
    • Notice of Intent to Remove Asbestos and Demolition, Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and State of Washington Department of Labor and Industries
    • A Certificate of Approval from the City of Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board

    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.

    Webster School was constructed in 1908 and an addition was constructed in 1930. The school closed in 1979 and then it was leased to the Pacific Nordic Council. Since 1980, the building has housed the Nordic Heritage Museum. A new Nordic Heritage Museum building is being constructed on Market Street in Ballard. The Museum plans to vacate the Webster School building in early 2018.

    SPS evaluated the reopening of Webster School in the Building, Technology, and Academics/Athletics IV Program Final SEPA Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SPS, July 2016) (PEIS). This SEPA checklist evaluates the site-specific project details that were not developed at the time of the PEIS. As noted in the PEIS, SPS proposes to reopen the school with a capacity of up to 450 students. SPS would update the building and retrofit the interior. SPS would also construct a building addition to house a new gymnasium.

    The existing site consists of the main brick building and a brick and concrete addition totaling approximately 49,769 square feet. The Webster School is located on a site area of 67,500 square feet.

    The project will include:

    • Modernization and re-configuration to provide classroom space for up to 450 students.

    • Seismic improvement to the original unreinforced masonry 1908 building;
    • An addition of 7,700 square feet on the west side of the property housing a new gymnasium and covered play area;
    • Structural, mechanical, electrical, data/telecom, modernization/upgrades; and
    • Life safety and sustainability upgrades.
    • Portions of the building’s exterior and interior were designated as a Seattle Landmark by the City of Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board in June 2015. Features to be preserved include the site, the exteriors of the 1908 building and 1930 addition, the 1930 meeting room/auditorium, the 1930 library reading rooms, and the halls and stairs of the second and third floors in the 1908 building.

    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 3014 NW 67th Street, Seattle, WA, 98117. The project site is bounded by 68th Street to the north, 30th Avenue to the east, 67th Street to the south, and Webster Park/32nd Avenue to the west.

    The site is listed as Parcel Number 369390-1110, and is located in the SW quarter of Section 2, Township 25, Range 3. The 1.55 acre site is made up of 14 lots and has the following legal description: Lot 4, Block 25, Lots 1 through 8, inclusive, Block 26, Lots 1 through 3, inclusive, and Lots 7 and 8, Block 27, Jenning’s Ballard Addition, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 6 of Plats, page 10 in King County, Washington.

    Figures illustrating the project vicinity, project area, and site plan are available from SPS on request.

    (Back to top)


    1. Earth

      A geotechnical investigation was performed at the project site by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) in March 2017 (AESI, 2017). The work included a review of selected available geologic literature and advancing eight hollow-stem auger soil borings. Information from this report is summarized in this section.

      a. General description of the site (underline):

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

      The existing building is located on an approximately 1.5 acre site that is relatively flat.

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

      The site is generally flat, with the exception of the landscaped slopes along the southern and eastern portion of the site where there are retaining walls located between the sidewalk and the school site that rise from a height of 0 feet up to 6 feet on the east side and approximately 6 feet tall on the south side. These slopes are approximately 9 to 40 percent. No slopes on the site meet the definition of Steep Slope areas as defined by Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 25.09.020.

      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 following soils are found on the site:

      Surficial Topsoil – Borings completed in unpaved areas generally encountered approximately 6 to 8 inches of topsoil and grass.

      Fill – Seven of the exploration borings encountered existing fill ranging from a depth of approximately 2 to 9 feet in thickness. This fill density was observed to be ranging from very loose to medium dense.

      Vashon Ice-Contact Deposits – Six of the exploration borings encountered ice-contact deposits to the depth explored. The other two exploration borings encountered ice-contact deposits at depths of 17 and 20 feet. These deposits ranged from medium dense to very dense, moist to wet, silty sands with varying amounts of gravel.

      Pre-Fraser Fine-Grained – Two of the exploration borings encountered pre-Fraser, fine-grained glacial deposits that generally consisted of very dense and very stiff, moist to wet, silty fine sands and sandy silt.

      The site was developed as a school in 1908 and has not been used for agricultural purposes.

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

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

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

      Approximately 1,900 cubic yards of soil would be excavated for footings, stripping, grading, excavating for a detention and utility vaults. Approximately 500 cubic yards of clean fill would be required. All materials required for the site would be from an approved source and all materials removed from the site would be disposed of at an approved disposal site.

      Proposed filling, excavation and grading activities are anticipated to occur throughout the site, with the majority of activity located at the proposed gym addition location.

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

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

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

      Approximately 79 percent of the site is currently covered with impervious surfaces. After construction, approximately 76 percent would be covered with impervious surfaces. The impervious surface area on the site will remain similar to current conditions. The gymnasium addition would be constructed where the parking lot is currently, and therefore would not result in an increase in impervious surface area on the property.

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

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

    2. Air

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

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

      When the project is complete, the increased vehicular traffic accessing the site during a standard school day or special event may 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.

      The contractor chosen for the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) regulations. Regulations that apply to the proposed project include Regulation I, Section 9.11 prohibiting the emission of air contaminants that would or could be injurious to human health, plant or animal life, or property; and Regulation I, Section 9.15 prohibiting the emission of fugitive dust, unless reasonable precautions are employed to minimize the emissions.

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

      3. Water

      a. Surface Water:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The project would not require surface water withdrawals or diversions.

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

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

      6. Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.

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

      b. Groundwater:

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

      No groundwater would be withdrawn as part of the project and no water would be discharged to groundwater. The geotechnical subsurface exploration described above encountered groundwater seepage in four borings, ranging in depths from 5 to 25 feet. The shallower groundwater was assumed to be perched groundwater. One boring was completed as a groundwater monitoring well. Measurements taken from this well showed that the groundwater was approximately 8 feet below existing ground surface (AESI, 2017). Site construction could encounter groundwater; however, extensive dewatering is not anticipated. Groundwater seepage would be intercepted from excavations and routed to a suitable discharge location. All dewatering would be conducted consistent with Washington Department of Ecology requirements, as applicable.

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

      No waste material would be discharged into the ground.

      c. Water Runoff (including stormwater)

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

      The site is largely developed. The existing building, new gymnasium addition, and adjacent paved surfaces would generate stormwater runoff.

      The existing stormwater from the site currently discharges to an 8-inch combined sewer main in NW 67th Street. The site is within the City’s combined sewer overflow (CSO) system. It is anticipated the project will connect to the existing storm system in NW 67th Street. Stormwater management for the project would comply with the City of Seattle’s current stormwater code requirements. On-site stormwater management would apply for the project which would be required to evaluate and provide, to the maximum extent feasible, BMPs for all new and replaced impervious surfaces from the project. A detention system or flow control will likely be required since the new impervious surface combined with the replaced impervious surface are anticipated to be greater than 10,000 square feet. Water quality treatment will not be required since the project discharges to a combined sewer system.

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

    3. During construction, contamination could enter surface waters. Generally this is limited to sedimentation loading. Measures to control contamination entering surface waters are discussed below in Section 3.d.

    4. 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:

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

    (Back to top)

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

    __X_ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other

    __X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other

    __X_ shrubs: ornamental

    __X_ grass

    ____ pasture

    ____ crop or grain

    ____ orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops.

    ____ wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other

    ____water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other

    ____other types of vegetation (see below)


    The majority of the vegetation on the Webster School site consists of landscaping with no native vegetation remaining. Plantings include grass, shrubs, and native and non-native trees.

    A tree inventory and assessment by Tree Solutions found 26 trees measuring 6 inches or greater in diameter at standard height (DSH) on the school property, and 11 trees in the right-of-way adjacent to the property (Tree Solutions, 2017). This includes two trees that meet the City of Seattle’s definition of an exceptional tree based on size thresholds. According to the Department of Construction and Inspection (DCI) Director’s Rule 16-2008, an Exceptional Tree is a tree that “1) is designated as a heritage tree by the City of Seattle or 2) is rare or exceptional by virtue of its size, species, condition, cultural/historic importance, age, and/or contribution as part of a grove of trees.” The trees determined to be exceptional are a Pacific dogwood, located near the southwestern corner of the existing building, and a Chinese photinia, located next to the southeastern corner of the existing building.

    The Arborist Report refers to “significant” trees. This is a term used by some arborists to describe trees with a DSH of 6 inches or greater. The City of Seattle does not have regulations protecting trees that meet this definition unless they also meet the definition of an exceptional tree. The Arborist Report is available from SPS on request.

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

    Removal of existing vegetation will be limited to the minimum necessary to construct the proposed school improvements.

    Eighteen of the trees identified in the tree inventory and assessment by Tree Solutions are recommended for removal due to either proximity concerns or condition. Thirteen of these trees would be removed because of proximity to the building, the new addition, or sewer lines. Two trees would be removed for a combination of concerns about proximity to structures and condition of the trees. One tree would be removed due to condition alone.

    One exceptional tree, the Chinese photinia located near the southeastern corner of the existing building, may need to be removed due to close quarters and limited access for site workers. Due to the size, condition, and species of this tree, transplanting may be an option (Tree Solutions, 2017).

    Exceptional trees are protected and cannot be removed unless permission is granted by the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (DCI) and the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) includes provisions to protect the root zones of the trees by limiting development in those areas. SMC 25.11.050.B provides a limited allowance for development to encroach into the outer half of the drip line area of an exceptional tree, but in no case is disturbance allowed in the inner half of the drip line. Development in the outer half of the drip line must not exceed one-third of this area and must be accompanied by an analysis conducted by an arborist demonstrating that the encroachment would not impact the survival of the tree. The Director of DCI must approve this encroachment. A portion of the existing ornamental shrub vegetation is to be removed and, where appropriate, replaced with a combination of new shrub/groundcover vegetation and new turf (as described in more detail in item B.4.d.)

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

    The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database lists all known occurrences of threatened or endangered species and critical habitat. The database showed no threatened or endangered plant species or critical habitat to be on or near the site (WNHP, 2017).

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

    Existing trees on the site that would be retained would be protected to the extent possible using tree protection measures including, but not limited to, use of tree protection fences. SPS is working with Tree Solutions to develop measures to protect the trees that would remain on site both during construction and after. New landscaping would be planted on site after construction. The landscaping plan would place an emphasis on native plants and drought-resistant ornamentals. The landscape would be designed to achieve low water use and low maintenance requirements.

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

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

    Based on site reconnaissance and the King County iMAP, no noxious weeds or invasive species have been observed to be on or near the site (King County 2017). One noxious weed species, garlic mustard, was identified on the neighboring parcel in Webster Park.

    (Back to top)

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

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

    Fish: not applicable

    Amphibians: unknown

    Reptiles: unknown

    Birds: species adapted to urban areas such as gulls, American crow, rock pigeon, chickadee, robin, and Steller’s jay.

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

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

    No threatened or endangered species are known to be on or near the site (WDFW, 2017). The WDFW Priority Habitat and Species program maps two biodiversity areas in Golden Gardens Park approximately 1,700 and 1,800 feet northwest of the project site at Golden Gardens Park. The proposed project would not affect these areas.

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

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

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

    The project is not expected to have any negative impacts on animals within or near the project site; therefore, no mitigation is required. Some birds and animals may be disturbed during construction, but would likely return following construction because they are adapted to urban areas.

    e. List 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.

    (Back to top)

    6. Energy and Natural Resources

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

    Electricity and natural gas would be required to operate the school’s classrooms and offices.

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

    The existing building and gymnasium addition would not block the use of solar energy by adjacent properties. No other aspect of the project would interfere with solar energy use by others.

    c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:

    Energy conservation features would include those required to meet or exceed the requirements of the Washington Sustainable Schools Protocol, which is equivalent to LEED Silver or better, and the Seattle Energy Code. Additionally, roof supports and empty conduit to the electrical room will be provided for future photovoltaics.

    (Back to top)

    7. Environmental Health

    a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.

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

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

    According to the Department of Ecology Facility/Site(s) database, the Webster School site is not known to be contaminated (Ecology, 2017). SPS conducted environmental sampling at the site and tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons (AESI, 2017b). No detectable concentrations of diesel-range contaminants were found in the soil samples collected (AESI, 2017b).

    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.

    Due to the age of the buildings, it is likely that hazardous materials, such as asbestos-containing materials, lead-containing paint/components, PCB light ballasts, and mercury-containing light tubes, are present.

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

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

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

    4. Describe special emergency services that might be required.

    No special emergency services would be required.

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

    Site-specific pollution prevention plans and spill preventionandcontrol plans would be developed to prevent or minimize impacts from hazardousmaterials.

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

    b. Noise

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

    There are no existing sources of noise in the area that would adversely affect the proposal. Webster School is located on NW 67th Street, a residential access street which generates traffic noise. The project is sited near 32nd Avenue NW, which is categorized as a collector arterial street and which also generates traffic noise. Existing noise levels are consistent with an urban residential neighborhood, with occasional train noise, overhead planes, and the sounds generated by the residents.

    2. What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short-term or long-term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site.

    Vehicle and equipment operation during construction could cause noise impacts to nearby residents. Earthwork associated with construction would generate about 95 truckloads of materials. At a worst-case this would average about 9 or 10 truckloads per day or about one truck load per hour (see B.14.h for more information). Noise associated with construction and truck trips would be noticeable to adjacent residents, but would be short duration and would occur during typical construction hours (generally between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m.). Construction hours and noise levels would comply with the City of Seattle noise standards.

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

    Reopening the Webster building as a school would change the noise in the neighborhood. The building has been used as the Nordic Heritage Museum for 15 years and reopening the school would represent a new noise source for the neighborhood. Operations at the schools would be audible to neighbors. Noise sources from schools typically include student voices, school bells, regular vehicular traffic, and building mechanical equipment. Noise generally occurs during normal school operation hours (approximately 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.).

    The Nordic Heritage Museum has been open to visitors between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday, and noon to 4:00 p.m. on Sunday (Nordic Heritage Museum, 2016). The reopened Webster School would likely start at 8:00 or 9:00 a.m., one to two hours earlier than the museum, so neighbors would experience noise earlier. The reopened school would generate more noise than the museum, but would generally be limited to typical school noises (human voices, bells, and cars) during daytime hours. The Nordic Heritage Museum also regularly holds special events many of which start after 6 p.m.

    As discussed in Section B.14 below, reopening the school would add about 295 trips for the morning arrival peak hour and 210 trips during the afternoon dismissal peak hour. This additional traffic would cause additional noise around the school. Noise associated with student pickup and dropoff would occur within regular daytime hours. This increased noise is expected to be minor and would not violate City noise regulations. Some evening events would be held at the school which would also generate additional noise in the evening hours. It is likely that community events would be regularly scheduled in the evening at the new gymnasium. Events would typically end before 10:00 p.m. Increases in noise would be short-term and would not violate noise regulations. The evening events associated with reopening Webster School would be smaller in scale than the current evening events scheduled by the Nordic Heritage Museum.

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

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

    Evening events at the school would be scheduled to end by 10:00 p.m.

    (Back to top)

    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.

    Webster School was originally constructed in 1908 and an addition was constructed in 1930. The school was closed in 1979 and then it was leased to the Pacific Nordic Council. Since 1980, the building has housed the Nordic Heritage Museum. The project will not negatively affect adjacent land uses because it has been used as a school previously, and most recently as a museum. Some change in site use is expected when the building is used as a school again.

    The Seattle Municipal Code contains development standards for public schools in residential zones in SMC 23.51.002. The Seattle Land Use Code (Chapter 23.79) includes a procedure by which departures from the required development standards of the code can be granted for public school structures. The departure process requires SPS to apply to the Director of DCI for departures.

    The Webster School project would require departures for lot coverage, building height for the mechanical units and elevator penthouse (see Section B.10.a), and set-back for the covered play area. Departures would also be required for parking and bus drop-off location along NW 68th Street (see Section B.14).

    The height departure is required to accommodate the mechanical units and elevator penthouse. The existing building has a central boiler located on the lowest floor which does not meet current energy codes. SPS is proposing to locate the mechanical equipment on the roof. An elevator is required for access to the second floor and roof of the 1930 building. The mechanical units would be 49 feet 6 inches high and the elevator penthouse would be 57 feet 8 inches high. Both would exceed the allowable height for public schools in a Single Family Residential Zone and require a height departure.

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

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

    1. 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 currently has the original three level brick elementary school (built in 1908) and an L-shape brick addition built in 1930 on the north and east sides of the original building.

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

    The playcourts on the north side of the 1930 building addition will be demolished and an area rebuilt for a loading/ unloading area and garbage/recycling dumpster placement.

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

    The current zoning classification of the site is SF 5000 (Residential, Single-family, with a minimum of 5,000 square feet per detached structure).

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

    The City of Seattle comprehensive plan designation of the site as a “Single Family Residential Area” (City of Seattle, 2016).

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

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

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

    Review of the City of Seattle DCI GIS mapping database for environmental critical areas shows no critical areas on the project site.

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

    No people would reside in the completed project. The completed school would accommodate up to 450 students with a staff of 45 to 55.

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

    The completed project would not displace any people. The Nordic Heritage Museum is relocating to a new location prior to conversion of the site back to school use.

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

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

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

    The project is consistent with existing land use regulations and plans. As permitted under the Seattle Municipal Code (Chapter 23.79), the project will require departures for lot coverage, setbacks, building height, parking and bus loading as described in Section B.8.a. SPS will comply with the results of the departure process.

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

    The project would not affect any agricultural or forest lands, so no measures to ensure compatibility are required.

    (Back to top)

    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.

    (Back to top)

    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 brick building is the tallest structure on site, and is 42 feet and 3 inches above grade on the street side. The existing chimney is 56 feet high. Both of these exceed the allowable height. The mechanical units and elevator penthouse would 52 feet and 56 feet 8 inches high, respectively and would require a departure for building height (See Section 8.a).

    The exterior building materials for any additions will either be masonry or metal panel and will be subject to review and approval by the Landmarks Preservation Board
    b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?

    In general, views from adjacent residences would remain similar to the existing views and would reflect a larger school with the additions to the building and associated facilities (parking areas, hard surface play areas, etc.). The nature of views from publicly accessible spaces in the area would not change substantially from the existing facility.

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

    The project would not cause aesthetic impacts; therefore, mitigation measures to control aesthetic impacts would not be required. The addition will go through the Landmarks approval process and will be compatible with the original site, building layout, and architecture while addressing the current and future programmatic needs of the school.

    (Back to top)

    11. Light and Glare

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

    Lighting on the site would remain similar to present conditions. The new addition would be equipped with exterior safety lighting designed to minimize light spill over. The gymnasium would be regularly used for evening events and would be lit during those events. The gymnasium would be located on the west side of the existing building and would likely be visible from the north and south. Webster Park to the west would shield the gymnasium from residences to the west. The new lighting would be visible to residences, but would not cause light trespass onto adjacent properties.

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

    Exterior building and property lighting from the completed project would not be a safety hazard and would not be expected to interfere with views.

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

    No off-site sources of light or glare would affect this proposal. The site is located on NW 67th Street, a residential access road which generates ambient lighting in the area through street lighting. The project is sited near 32nd Avenue NW, which is categorized as a collector arterial street and which also generates a light source.

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

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

    (Back to top)

    12. Recreation

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

    City of Seattle Parks in the vicinity of Webster School include:

    • Webster Park is located in the parcel directly to the west of the Webster School site. In 1997, Seattle Parks and Recreation opened Webster Park on the western portion of the Webster School site, which it leased from SPS. In 2009, SPS sold that portion of the property to Parks and Recreation. Webster Park offers a playground with slides and climbing features, one full-court and one half-court basketball courts, and a lawn area.
    • Ballard Playground, approximately 1,800 feet southeast of Webster School, adjacent to the Ballard Community Center and Adams Elementary school, is a multi-purpose playfield features a children’s play area and a soccer/baseball/softball field

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

    The improvements at the Webster School site would not displace existing recreational uses. Webster Park will remain open during construction. Under the parameters of the Joint Use Agreement, SPS plans to work with Parks to schedule use of the park during the school day to support recess and physical education programs. The new gymnasium will be available for community use under the Joint Use Agreement with Parks.
    c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreational opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:

    The upgraded recreation activity areas will include a gymnasium addition on the west side of the site, a covered play area west of the gymnasium addition, a fenced asphalt playground on the southwestern edge of the parcel. SPS would coordinate with Parks on use of Webster Park for recess and physical education.

    (Back to top)

    13. Historic and Cultural Preservation

    A Cultural Resources Assessment for the Webster School site was developed by ESA (ESA, 2017). Information from the technical memorandum is summarized in this section.

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

    Webster School (currently the Nordic Heritage Museum) was designed by Frederick Sexton and built in 1908. The 1908 building was a two-story (with basement), 14-room brick school. An addition, designed by renowned local architect Floyd A. Naramore, was added in 1930 and provided additional classrooms, an auditorium, a gymnasium, and a playcourt. There are two recorded historic-aged properties in the Study Area: Webster School and the residence at 3014 NW 68th Street. Webster School is a Seattle City Landmark—it has not been evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The residence was nominated as part of the requirements for purchase with Housing and Urban Development money and determined Not Eligible for listing in the NRHP on March 8, 2017.

    The Webster School building was listed as a City of Seattle Landmark in 2015. Features to be preserved include the site, the exteriors of the 1908 building and 1930 addition, the 1930 meeting room/auditorium, the 1930 library reading rooms; and the halls and stair of the first and second floors (actual second and third floors) in the 1908 building.

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

    ESA conducted a records search of DAHP’s online Washington Information System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD) on April 13, 2017. No site-specific cultural resources surveys have been conducted within the study area—one cultural resources assessment has been conducted within a half mile of the school site.

    Based on this review there is little likelihood for intact, buried precontact resources in the project area. ESA considers the project area to have a low sensitivity for intact, buried cultural resources, and unidentified historic properties. This is based on ethnographic data, which does not indicate any Native American places associated with this location, and geological records that indicate significant land modification on the site during construction of the school and athletic field. Historical data also does not indicate any past residential or farming activities in the Project Area.

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

    ESA conducted a literature review of the area which included the parcel containing the school and those immediately adjacent. Information reviewed included any previous archaeological survey reports, ethnographic studies, historic maps, government landowner records, aerial photographs, regional histories, geological maps, soils surveys, and environmental reports. These records were reviewed in order to determine the presence of any potentially significant cultural resources, including Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs), within the Project Area. Relevant documents were examined at DAHP, Seattle Landmarks and Preservation Board’s Map of Designated Landmarks, historical maps and aerial photographs, published ethnographic studies, and published histories of the Seattle School District (ESA, 2017).

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

    Seattle Public Schools is pursuing a Certificate of Approval for proposed project elements on the Landmarked School building, which is required when modifying landmarked buildings.

    While a cultural resource discovery is not anticipated, SPS will develop an Inadvertent Discovery Plan (IDP) for use during the Project. The IDP will set forth the procedures and protocols to follow in the event of an archaeological resources discovery. The IDP will include pre-construction briefings and on-call response if required. SPS would provide tribal representatives, including those of the Duwamish Tribe, with one-week advance notification, of the project schedule and invite them to observe construction. In the event that cultural resources were inadvertently discovered during the project, construction would be temporarily halted in the immediate vicinity of the identified resources and the City, DAHP, and affected tribes, would be notified. Mitigation and/or avoidance measures would be coordinated with the City, DAHP, and other stakeholders.

    (Back to top)

    14. Transportation

    A Transportation Technical Report for the project was developed by Heffron Transportation, Inc. Information from the technical report is summarized in this section. The report is available from SPS on request.

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

    The school site is bounded by NW 68th Street to the north, 30th Avenue NW to the east, NW 67th Street to the south, and Webster Park to the west. The project would modernize and reconfigure the building to provide classroom space for up to 450 students. The proposed school site would have five on-site parking stalls (four restricted to vehicles with disabled parking permits and one unrestricted space) that would be located in the northwest corner of the site and would be accessed from the existing driveway on NW 68th Street.

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

    King County Metro Transit (Metro) provides bus service in the vicinity of the Webster School site. The closest bus stops are located between 400 and 500 feet west on 32nd Avenue NW at the NW 67th Street intersection (west leg); the northbound stop is located just south of the intersection and the southbound stop is located just north of the intersection. These stops are served by Metro Route 17 which provides weekday, peak-period express service between the Sunset Hill neighborhood and Downtown Seattle.

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

    The completed project would have five parking spaces and would eliminate up to 62 spaces from the existing on-site parking lot used by the Nordic Heritage Museum.


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

    Frontage improvements may be required based on City of Seattle requirements; ADA ramps for sidewalks at intersections of 30th Avenue NW and NW 68th and 67th Streets may also be required.

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

    The project would not use or occur in the immediate vicinity of water, rail, or air transportation.

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

    The traffic analysis conducted for this SEPA checklist reflected conditions with the re-opened school operating at its proposed capacity of 450 students. Based on daily trip generation rates published for elementary schools by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and adjusted to reflect higher peak period rates observed at other Seattle elementary schools, the Webster School is expected to generate a net increase of about 900 trips per day (450 in, 450 out). The peak traffic volumes are expected to occur in the morning just before classes begin and in the afternoon around dismissal.

    The estimates described above include school-bus and delivery trips to the and from the site. Based on the current and expected number of buses planned to serve the site, the project could generate 24 school-bus trips per day (6 in and 6 out in the morning and 6 in and 6 out in the afternoon). Other commercial vehicle trips would include occasional food and supply deliveries as well as trash and recycling pick-up that likely already occur at the site.

    For more information about the anticipated school traffic generation, refer to the Transportation Technical Report (Heffron Transportation, Inc., 2017) available from SPS on request.

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

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

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

    Construction at the site is planned to start in December 2018 and be complete by June 2020; the school is planned to be ready for occupancy by fall of 2020. The construction effort would include some earthwork that would consist of excavation needed for the new loading dock, gymnasium, plaza, and footing spoils, which will total approximately 1,900 cubic yards (cy) of export material. Assuming an average of 20-cubic yards per truck (truck/trailer combination), the excavation and fill would generate about 95 truckloads (95 trucks in and 95 trucks out). This earthwork and transport is likely to occur sometime between February and April 2019. If all export activity were consolidated to just two weeks, it would result in an average of about 9 or 10 truckloads per day and about one truck load (two truck trips) per hour on an average eight-hour day. This volume of truck traffic may be noticeable to residents living adjacent to the site and access point, but is not expected to result in significant impacts to traffic operations in the site vicinity.

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

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

    1. Prior to the school opening, SPS and school principal would establish a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to educate parents and students about the access load/unload procedures for the site layout. The effort would encourage school bus ridership, carpooling, and supervised walking (such as “walking school buses”). The plan would define clear procedures and travel routes for parent vehicles and instruct staff and parents not to block or partially block any residential driveways with parked or stopped vehicles.


    2. SPS would work with SDOT to confirm the locations, extent, and signage of school-bus and passenger-vehicle school load/unload zones along the south side NW 68th Street and the north side of NW 67th Street.


    3. SPS would engage the Seattle School Safety Committee (of which SDOT is a member) to review walk routes and determine if any changes would be made to crosswalk locations, signage, or pavement markings. It would also ensure that school zone speed limits are established and enforced, and determine crossing guard locations.


    4. In order to preserve some parking capacity for visitors to the adjacent Webster Park on school days, SPS would work with SDOT to designate two to four on-street spaces adjacent to the park on the south side of NW 68th Street for short-term parking (such as a two-hour limit).
    5. SPS and school administration would develop a neighborhood communication plan to inform nearby neighbors of events each year. The plan would be updated annually (or as events are scheduled) and would provide information about the dates, times, and rough magnitude of attendance. The communication would be intended to allow neighbors to plan for the occasional increase in on-street parking demand that would occur with large events.
    6. SPS would require the selected contractor to develop a construction management plan (CMP) that addresses traffic and pedestrian control during school construction. It would define truck routes, lane closures, walkway closures, and parking disruptions, as necessary. To the extent possible, the CMP would direct trucks along the shortest route to arterials and away from residential streets to avoid unnecessary conflicts with resident and pedestrian activity. The CMP may also include measures to keep adjacent streets clean on a daily basis at the truck exit points (such as street sweeping or on-site truck wheel cleaning) to reduce tracking dirt offsite. The CMP would identify parking locations for the construction staff; to the extent possible, construction employee parking would be contained on-site.

    (Back to top)

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

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

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

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

    (Back to top)

    16. Utilities

    a. Underline utilities currently available at the site:

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

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

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

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

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

    (Back to top)


    Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) 2017a. Subsurface Exploration, Geologic Hazards, and Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Report, Webster School, Seattle, WA. March 17, 2017.

    Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) 2017b. Environmental Testing and Results Webster Elementary School, Seattle, WA. February 23, 2017.

    City of Seattle. 2017. Seattle Municipal Code. Current through May 3, 2017. Accessed from

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

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

    Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2017. Webster School, Cultural Resources Assessment, Seattle, WA. April 27, 2017.

    Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2017. Transportation Technical Report for Webster School Modernization & Addition. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. August 9, 2017.

    King County. 2017. iMap. Accessed: May 8, 2017. Available at

    Nordic Heritage Museum. 2017. Plan Your Visit: Hours & Admissions. Available at Accessed May 2017.

    Seattle Parks and Recreation. 2017. Webster Park. Accessed: May 8, 2017. Available at:

    TCF Architecture. 2015. Project Summary for City of Seattle Landmarks Preservation Board. April 3, 2017.

    Tree Solutions, Inc. 2017. Arborist Report. July 17, 2017.

    Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). 2015. Washington Information System for Architecture and Archaeological Records Data (WISAARD). Accessed: 9/14/2015. Available:

    Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2017. Facility/Site Database Webmap. Available at Accessed on May 8, 2017.

    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2015. PHS on the Web. Accessed: May 8, 2017. Available:

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

    (Back to top)

    The [3] attachments to this checklist (Figures, Transportation Impact Analysis, and Tree Inventory and Assessment)or a full .pdf copy of the document can be requested by e-mailing A hard copy of the full document is also available for $13.00 by calling 206-252-0990.