Skip To ContentSkip To Content

    Roosevelt High School Athletic Field Lighting
    DRAFT SEPA Checklist

    The comment period is open from Monday, September 11, 2017 to Thursday, September 28, 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. A public meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 20, 2017, from 6:00-7:30pm at Roosevelt High School to present the project and answer questions.

    The attachments to this checklist or a full .pdf copy of the document can be requested by e-mailing They include:

    1. Figures
    2. Appendix A: Noise Technical Memorandum    
    3. Appendix B: Light and Glare Report
    4. Appendix C: Traffic Impact Analysis

    A hard copy of the full document is also available for $13.00 by calling 206-252-0990.

    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


    A. Background

    1. Name of Proposed Project:

    Roosevelt High School Athletic Field Lighting Project

    2. Name of Applicant:

    Seattle School District No. 1 (Seattle Public Schools)

    3. Address and Phone Number of Applicant and Contact Person:

    Richard Best
    Director, Capital Projects
    Seattle Public Schools
    2445 – 3rd Ave. S.
    Seattle, WA 98124-1165

    4. Date Checklist Prepared

    August 2017

    5. Agency Requesting Checklist

    Seattle School District No. 1
    2445 – 3rd Ave. S.
    MS 22-332, P.O. Box 34165
    Seattle, WA 98124-1165

    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. Lighting would be available for use starting fall 2018.

    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 Roosevelt 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.

    Noise Technical Memo, ESA, July 2017

    SEPA Environmental Checklist, Page 4 August 2017

    Transportation Technical Report, Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2017.

    Installing lighting at SPS athletic fields was evaluated generally 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.

    No applications are currently pending.

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

    Master Use Permit City of Seattle

    Building Permit City of Seattle

    Electrical 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 Roosevelt High School, in the Seattle School District (District), under the Buildings, Technology and Academics/Athletics IV Program (BTA IV) 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 changes 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 and be dismissed at 3:35 or 3:45. The later dismissal times 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 (EIS) (SPS, 2015).

    The proposed lighting at Roosevelt High School would allow SPS and Parks to schedule events later in the evening than currently possible. The lighted fields would assist in relieving the demand for all-season, multi-use, lighted fields in the City.

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

    Home field for Roosevelt High School football, soccer, lacrosse, and ultimate Frisbee practice and games

    Parks community recreational events including youth soccer and adult soccer, lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee, flag football, and other events.

    The Roosevelt High School fields accommodate football, soccer, lacrosse and ultimate. A track surrounds the field. Lights would be installed around the perimeter of the soccer/football field. Four poles would be installed at the athletic field (two on the north side and two on the south side). The two lights on the north side of the field would be installed outside the track, while the two on the south side would be installed inside the track. Pole locations are illustrated on Figure 2.

    The proposed lighting system at the athletic field would consist of 32-1,150-watt shielded LED floodlights on galvanized steel poles surrounding field. The proposed lights on the north side of the field would be installed on poles 70 feet tall. The poles on the south side of the field would be 90 and 100 feet tall to account for elevation change at the SW corner of the field. 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, 2001). SPS and Parks propose to light the fields from dusk until 11 p.m. The fields may also be lit in the morning hours of winter to allow high school practice. Events would be scheduled to end at 10:45 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 Athletic Facilities, which became effective on July 1, 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 10:00 p.m. Unless security lighting is available, lights at all fields would 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). Residences directly adjoin the Roosevelt field only on the south side. Residences to the west, north, and east are separated from the field by arterials and those to the northeast and east are further separated by the school building. Therefore, events at this field would be scheduled until 10:45 p.m.

    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 1410 NE 66th St, Seattle, WA 98115. The school is bounded by NW 68th St to the north, NE 66th St to the south, 15th Ave NE to the east, and 12th Avenue NE to the west.

    The site is located in the southeast quarter of Section 5, Township 25, Range 4. The site is made up of three parcels (parcels 3658700820, 3658700915 and 8826900005) with the following legal description:




    Figure 1 shows the project vicinity.

    Back to Top               

    B. Environmental Elements                           

    1. Earth

    A geotechnical investigation was performed at the project site by Krazan & Associates, Inc. Information from this report is summarized in this section and incorporated throughout the SEPA Checklist as appropriate.

    a. General description of the site:

    The athletic field slopes gently to moderately from the north down to the south. It appears that the northern portion of the field area was cut down, whereas the southern portion of the field was filled to construct a level area. A retaining wall is located above the field along the northern cut area and is approximately 10 feet high. Retaining walls are located below the field along the south and southwest portions of the field and are approximately 4 to 12 feet high. Because the project would not include construction of new buildings and would 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. Typically, such analyses are required if structures are planned adjacent to slopes, or if substantial cuts or fills are proposed that could affect slope stability (Krazan & Associates, Inc., 2017).

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

    No slopes meeting the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) definition of steeps slopes are mapped on the Roosevelt High School property (SMC 25.09.020). As described above, retaining walls are located on the north, south and southwest sides of the athletic field. No steep slopes are located where construction would occur. Light poles would be installed on flat surfaces and would not affect the retaining walls. The two poles on the north side of the field and the southeast pole would be placed outside the track. The southwest pole would be placed below the retaining wall on the south.

    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.

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

    According to the Krazan and Associates, Inc. report, the existing loose to medium dense fill presents some risk of greater than normal postconstruction settlement.

    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. No excavation would occur to install the light standards. Pole foundations will be installed in existing drilled shafts.

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

    No erosion would occur because there would be no excavation.

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

    No buildings would be constructed and no new impervious surfaces would be added to the project site. The light poles would be installed on existing impervious surfaces.

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

    No erosion is anticipated from installation of the lighting standards. Standard erosion control measures will be taken to minimize erosion potential.

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

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

    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.

    According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Insurance Maps, the site 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.

    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 does not involve withdrawal of ground water or discharge of water to ground water. No excavation would occur, so there is no risk of encountering groundwater during construction.

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

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

    c. Water Runoff (including stormwater)

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

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

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

    No excavation would occur, so no waste materials would be generated that could leave the site.

    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 excavation would occur to cause runoff, so no mitigation is required.

    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




    ____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 is limited to landscaping around the athletic field and school site.

    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.

    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 known to be on or near the site or are shown on the King County iMap database (King County, 2017).

    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.

    Examples include:

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

    Fish: not applicable

    Amphibians: none known

    Reptiles: none known

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

    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.

    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 area is not a quality habitat area for wildlife, and wildlife would generally 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.

    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.

    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 will 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 allow the fields to be lighted independently and to automatically turn off after play is completed. This feature ensures 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.

    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. Installation of the light poles would require 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, the Roosevelt High School site is not known to be contaminated (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 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.

     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; however, SPS and Parks would provide and schedule all necessary staffing, including security, for all SPS and Parks’ facilities (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; Appendix A). Information from the technical report is summarized in this section.

    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. Roosevelt High School is surrounded by single-family residences, commercial sites, playfields and major transit streets which generate background traffic noise.

    Existing noise levels were measured at Roosevelt High School on January 24, 2017 between 7:00 pm and 11:00 pm, which generally reflected existing evening/early nighttime noise conditions which are quiet and influenced by activities surrounding residential land uses near the school. The existing evening and early nighttime noise environment at Roosevelt High School is generally in the range of 54.5 to 61.4 Leq (dBA). These noise levels are consistent with evening and nighttime hours within urban environments, especially for areas primarily supporting residential and commercial uses and adjacent to school facilities. More details can be found in Appendix A.

    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). From one property to another when both properties within a residential district, the maximum allowable noise 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 within residential districts is reduced to 45 Leq (dBA). Roosevelt 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 10 dBA above the continuous limit for up to 5 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. Increased noise would occur from dusk to 11 p.m. every day during scheduled SPS and Parks activities.

    Potential noise impacts to residential properties surrounding the Roosevelt High School athletic field were predicted based on review of existing conditions and anticipated noise from proposed late evening athletic activities. The noise analysis used Ingraham High School to estimate future noise that would occur at Roosevelt High School with scheduled night-time events because it represents a similar neighborhood. Night-time athletic events at Ingraham High School are similar to those proposed at Roosevelt High School.

    Comparative noise measurements taken during evening athletic activity at Ingraham High School, indicate that environmental noise would increase at Roosevelt High School as a result of the proposed field lighting project. Based on this review, it is anticipated that the noise increase with the addition of field lighting would exceed the 55 Leq (dBA) limit at adjacent residences between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m., and also exceed the 45 Leq (dBA) limit between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. At the nearest residences, setback approximately 90 feet from the edge of the athletic field south of the retaining wall, noise levels during evening athletic activities are anticipated to be at or above the levels recorded at the Ingraham High School field, which ranged from 63.3 to 65.3 Leq (dBA). The predicted noise levels would be higher than existing noise levels (ranging from 54.5 to 61.4 Leq (dBA)).

    Environmental noise and shorter duration noises (whistles, loud yells) during athletic  activities would likely be perceptible at adjacent residential properties, especially those immediately to the south of the athletic field. These activities would all be of short duration (generally no more than a few seconds for any given event). Additionally, the field lighting project is expected to generate approximately 200 to 250 additional trips per day for part of the year (October to March). Although normal traffic noise is not regulated under the City’s code, noise generated from increased traffic and users entering or exiting vehicles would also contribute to the noise environment. Based on measurements at Ingraham athletic field during soccer games, the combination of discrete events from the field activities and the existing noise environment would exceed the 55 Leq dBA limit for 7a.m. to 10p.m. and would also exceed for approximately one hour the 45 Leq dBA limit for 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

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

    No public address system would be used at the athletic fields. Participants in community events may bring portable speakers. The use of these speakers would be limited by ending events at 10:45p.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.

    The site is used as a school and is comprised of one large L-shaped building, a parking lot and an athletic/track field.

    The school is located in a predominantly single-family residential neighborhood. The current zoning classification of the school site is lowrise. Areas to the north, south and east are zoned SF 5000 (residential single family 5,000). Areas to the west 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.

    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 only structures on the site are the large L-shaped school building adjacent to the athletic field and the bleachers at the athletic field.

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

    No structures would 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 is SF 5000.

    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, 2015).

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

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

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

    Review of the City of Seattle DCI GIS mapping database for environmental critical areas indicated areas of steep slopes present at the, northwest and southwest corners of the site. The lighting project would not impact these slopes.

    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 Roosevelt 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:

    The proposed height of the light poles is taller than permitted by Seattle Municipal Code in a single family residential area. The height limit for light poles in residential areas is 30 feet and the proposed poles would be 70 to 100 feet (SMC 23.76). SMC 23.51B.002(D)(6) permits light poles at public school athletic fields to exceed the maximum permitted height 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 extent practicable. Section 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 forested 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 tallest proposed structures are 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 north side of the field and 90 feet and 100 feet on the south side of the field. The poles would have one or two horizontal galvanized brackets to mount the floodlights at the top of each pole and one small bracket mounted at a height of 25 feet above field grade.

    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.

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

    The steel poles are designed to minimize size and bulk. The floodlights and brackets are designed to minimize quantity, size and bulk.

    Back to Top

    11. Light and Glare         

    The following is based on the “Roosevelt High School Football Field Lighting” by Stantec, dated May 15, 2017. See Appendix B for the full report.

    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 north side of the field would be 70 feet tall. The poles on the south side of the field would be 90 and 100 feet tall to account for elevation change at the southwest corner of the field. The poles would have one of the floodlights mounted 25 feet above grade and aimed above the field. One additional low wattage “full cutoff” area light would be mounted at a height of 30 feet above grade on each pole.

    The athletic 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 athletic field would be lighted to an average maintained lighting level of 29 foot-candles1 using a 0.95 Light Loss Factor.

    Current City of Seattle guidelines recommend that athletic field spill light not exceed 1.1 foot-candles initial 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 control system with remote operation. 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 new lighting system would increase the overall light and glare in the area during evening hours. The proposal would produce direct glare, reflected glare, spill light (light trespass) and sky glow. A definition of the terms used is as follows:

        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 would have a higher luminance than adjacent or nearby surfaces.

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

        1 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.

        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. Due to their higher elevation of the residences compared to the fields, properties to the west and north of the soccer/football field would have minimal exposure to direct glare. The residential properties located on the south side 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 residential properties that border the south side of the site. The spill light impacts would be minimal right at the residential property lines immediately adjacent to the fields. Spill light would be below 0.62 foot-candle maximum at the property line. The spill light would be reduced to 0.0 foot-candle within 40 feet of the property line. As shown on Sheets E-SPL1 and E-SPL2 in the attached lighting plan (Appendix B), the taller poles would result in less light spill on adjacent properties than 30-foot poles. On the south side of the field where adjacent properties are closest, spill light would be reduced to 0.0 to 0.2 foot-candle.

    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 illumination system would not pose a safety hazard or interfere with views from off-site locations.

    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 70-100 feet would reduce the maximum spill light at the residential property lines and meet recommended practice of maximum of 1.1 foot-candles set by the City of Seattle.

    Back to Top

    12. Recreation           

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

    Recreational opportunities on the Roosevelt High School site include an athletic field surrounded by a track.

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

    Cowen Park, located approximately 1,600 feet to the south of the project site at 5849 15th Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98105. Cowen Park features a softball field, picnic tables, barbecue pits, a playground, tennis courts, playground, grassy soccer field, sandbox, wading pool, and bathroom facilities.

    Ravenna Park, located approximately 1,300 feet south of the project site at 5520 Ravenna Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98105. Ravenna Park features hiking trails, jogging, picnicking, a playground, a wading pool, ballfields and tennis courts.

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

    The proposed project would not displace any existing recreational uses. City of Seattle Parks in the vicinity of the project site would not be impacted by the project.

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

    The proposed project would improve recreational opportunities by extending the hours and 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.

    Back to Top

    13. Historic and Cultural Preservation          

    A Cultural Resources Short Report for the Roosevelt High School site was developed by ESA (ESA, 2017). Information from the report is presented in this section.

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

    The project location consists of the athletic field; the study area consists of those parcels bordering the athletic field/project area. There are five aboveground historic properties that have been recorded in the study area. These properties are: Roosevelt High School and four residences.

    Roosevelt High School is a designated Seattle Landmark (Gordon, 2002). The four residences have each been Determined Eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). There are eight historic-aged structures 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. It is anticipated that there would be no impacts to the NRHP listings, historic-aged buildings or Roosevelt High School, properties in the study area as no buildings would be demolished or modified by the project.

    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.

    Except for the City of Seattle Landmark properties noted above, there are no additional City of Seattle Landmark properties, and no 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 surfaces that existed during the historic or pre-contact periods 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, and reviewed 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).

    Back to Top

    14. Transportation     

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

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

    Roosevelt High School is bounded on the east by 15th Avenue NE, on the south by NE 66th Street, on the north by NE 68th Street, and on the west by 12th Avenue NE. The school building occupies the southeastern portion of the site; the main surface parking lot is located on the northwestern portion of the site and is accessed from a driveway on 12th Avenue NE. The school’s existing outdoor athletic facilities (which include a football/soccer field with synthetic turf, a track that surrounds the football / soccer field, and a small section of bleacher seating) are located on the southwestern portion of the site. No changes to site access are proposed with the 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 currently provides bus service to the site with a stop located on 12th Avenue NE north of NE 65th Street (at the southwest corner of the site) that is served by Routes 66 and 67. There are also stops for several other transit routes located within one to three blocks of the site. Those are served by Metro Routes 48, 64, 71, 72, 73, 76, 83, and 373 and are located between 180 feet and 850 feet from the site on NE 65th Street and on 15th Avenue NE.

    Two park-and-ride lots are located about one half mile to the west of the site. Green Lake Park & Ride, located at NE 65th Street and 8th Avenue NE, has 411 parking spaces and 22 bicycle lockers. Cavalry Christian Assembly Church, located at NE 68th Street and Roosevelt Way NE, has 125 parking spaces.

    Sound Transit’s North Link project is a 4.3-mile extension of the light rail system, with new stations planned for the University District, Roosevelt, and Northgate areas. It was funded as part of the ST2 package of projects approved by voters in 2008. Sound Transit is currently constructing the Roosevelt Link Light Rail Station along the west side of 12th Avenue NE between NE 65th and NE 67th Streets (directly west of the field site). The underground station is planned to have two entrances: one at the intersection of NE 65th Street and 12th Avenue NE, and one at the intersection of NE 67th Street and 12th Avenue NE. Elevators, escalators and stairs will lead from the entrances to the platform, approximately 80 to 90 feet below ground level. The above-ground station buildings include ventilation shafts, bike storage, and emergency stairs. North Link is planned to begin operations in 2021.

    There is currently a transit stop on the east side of 12th Avenue NE just north of NE 65th Street, which will remain after completion of the light rail station. A new transit stop is proposed on the north side of NE 65th Street just west of 12th Avenue NE (likely to replace the existing stop currently located immediately east of 12th Avenue NE). Students who live beyond the walk limits for Roosevelt High School have the option to obtain an Orca Card, which can be used on King County Metro buses to return home after an athletic practice or event. Yellow bus service is only available immediately after school.

    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, freight rail, or air transportation. The project site is located two blocks east of Sound Transit's future Roosevelt Link Light Rail station and users of the lighted fields may use that station when it opens in 2021.

    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 outbound 55 trips) and the spectators and participants of a recreational game arrive (estimated at 25 in and 5 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. It is recommended that the District and Roosevelt High School ensure that the off-street parking lot is open and available for users during all times that the field is being used. No other mitigation would be required to accommodate the project.

    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.

    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.

    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

    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.

    The athletic lights would be powered by electricity provided by Seattle City Light. No utility work would be required as part of this project.

    Underground electrical conduits were installed as part of a previous project at the athletic field.

    Back to Top

    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:

    ESA. 2017a. Roosevelt High School, Cultural Resources Short Report. Prepared for Seattle

    Public Schools. April 2017.

    ESA. 2017b. Roosevelt High School, Noise Technical Memorandum. Prepared for Seattle Public

    Schools. July 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. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA

    Heffron Transportation, Inc. 2017. Draft Transportation Technical Report for Athletic Field

    Lighting at Ballard High School. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. July 6, 2017.

    King County. 2017. King County iMap. Available:

    Accessed August 4, 2017.

    Krazan & Associates, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for the Proposed Athletic

    Field Lighting, Roosevelt High School. Prepared for Seattle Public Schools. May 24,


    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. 2016. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for BTA IV

    Program, ESA, July 2016.

    Stantec. 2017. Roosevelt High School Football Field Lighting, Light and Glare Report. Prepared

    for Seattle Public Schools. May 15, 2017.

    SEPA Environmental Checklist

    Page 32 August 2017

    US 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

    ew. Accessed March 2017.

    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017. PHS on the Web. Accessed:

    March 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